Raid

[odeon]

OK, I'll start a monologue then.

I thought you started it months ago?!

[TheoK]

If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.

It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".

It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.

Not only that, but he was shot in the back by a total coward. Any real man with a claim against another would face off and if necessary, as in the case of challenging a pacifist, bring a gun for the challengee to use against him to make it a fair duel.

Idiot. Not that I support the murder of John Lennon for a second, but if you objectively have a good reason for killing someone, he must already have done a very great unjust to you. Why on Earth would you give him a "fair chance" of killing you on top of what he has already done to you? It's not the moral superior who wins but the best shot.

And I assume that you're not consistent enough to think that the pigs should give an unarmed  burglar or robber a gun to give him a "fair chance".

By the way, the brave and competent Swedish police shot a 16 yo kid in the leg yesterday. He was "threatening" them with a soft air gun. The pigs really show over and over again that they can handle guns much more responsibly than "average people".

Take your fucking meds already. You don't make any sense.

Read about what Rosseau or Schopenhauer thought about duels and being "fair" to your enemies, then you might understand why you don't owe anything to a deadly enemy.

[odeon]

If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.

It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".

It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.

Not only that, but he was shot in the back by a total coward. Any real man with a claim against another would face off and if necessary, as in the case of challenging a pacifist, bring a gun for the challengee to use against him to make it a fair duel.

Idiot. Not that I support the murder of John Lennon for a second, but if you objectively have a good reason for killing someone, he must already have done a very great unjust to you. Why on Earth would you give him a "fair chance" of killing you on top of what he has already done to you? It's not the moral superior who wins but the best shot.

And I assume that you're not consistent enough to think that the pigs should give an unarmed  burglar or robber a gun to give him a "fair chance".

By the way, the brave and competent Swedish police shot a 16 yo kid in the leg yesterday. He was "threatening" them with a soft air gun. The pigs really show over and over again that they can handle guns much more responsibly than "average people".

Take your fucking meds already. You don't make any sense.

Read about what Rosseau or Schopenhauer thought about duels and being "fair" to your enemies, then you might understand why you don't owe anything to a deadly enemy.

The way Lennon was Mark Chapman's "deadly enemy"?

[TheoK]

If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.

It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".

It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.

Not only that, but he was shot in the back by a total coward. Any real man with a claim against another would face off and if necessary, as in the case of challenging a pacifist, bring a gun for the challengee to use against him to make it a fair duel.

Idiot. Not that I support the murder of John Lennon for a second, but if you objectively have a good reason for killing someone, he must already have done a very great unjust to you. Why on Earth would you give him a "fair chance" of killing you on top of what he has already done to you? It's not the moral superior who wins but the best shot.

And I assume that you're not consistent enough to think that the pigs should give an unarmed  burglar or robber a gun to give him a "fair chance".

By the way, the brave and competent Swedish police shot a 16 yo kid in the leg yesterday. He was "threatening" them with a soft air gun. The pigs really show over and over again that they can handle guns much more responsibly than "average people".

Take your fucking meds already. You don't make any sense.

Read about what Rosseau or Schopenhauer thought about duels and being "fair" to your enemies, then you might understand why you don't owe anything to a deadly enemy.

The way Lennon was Mark Chapman's "deadly enemy"?

Do you also suffer from dementia or dyslexia? I said that the murder of Lennon was not justified IMHO. I talk about when you hold real grudges against someone.

[DirtDawg]

If he hadn't been a pacifist but wearing a gun himself, he could have defended himself.

It proves that unarmed people are helpless against armed people, and only idiots think that cops are but henchmen for the criminal organisation calling itself "society".

It proves that it's too easy for a nutter like Chapman to buy a gun. It also proves that you are clueless, but then, we already knew that.

Not only that, but he was shot in the back by a total coward. Any real man with a claim against another would face off and if necessary, as in the case of challenging a pacifist, bring a gun for the challengee to use against him to make it a fair duel.

Idiot. Not that I support the murder of John Lennon for a second, but if you objectively have a good reason for killing someone, he must already have done a very great unjust to you. Why on Earth would you give him a "fair chance" of killing you on top of what he has already done to you? It's not the moral superior who wins but the best shot.

And I assume that you're not consistent enough to think that the pigs should give an unarmed  burglar or robber a gun to give him a "fair chance".

By the way, the brave and competent Swedish police shot a 16 yo kid in the leg yesterday. He was "threatening" them with a soft air gun. The pigs really show over and over again that they can handle guns much more responsibly than "average people".

Take your fucking meds already. You don't make any sense.

Read about what Rosseau or Schopenhauer thought about duels and being "fair" to your enemies, then you might understand why you don't owe anything to a deadly enemy.

The way Lennon was Mark Chapman's "deadly enemy"?

Isn't it amazing how some of these guys think that they can win some argument by identifying some source that they have often grossly misinterpreted. They seem to think that if only we knew what they had read that we would be as smart as they are, while all the time, what we have read from the same sources took us to opposing conclusions from the very beginning.
It's that "fractally wrong" thing popping up again, isn't it?

[TheoK]

So if Rosseau says that you should kill your enemies in an ambush if possible, you would interpret it as?

[odeon]

Judging from the way you rant on about guns, it was all Lennon's fault.

Know this: I consider your opinions utterly worthless at best, and actively harmful and dangerous at worst. The only reason why I'm engaging in these conversations is boredom. Well, and smacking you on the head with your own delusions, every now and then. You're like the traffic accident people must slow down to have a look at, even though they know that there's nothing they can do. They know that they'd probably help the human cause more by simply moving on and letting the paramedics deal with the dying corpses. But still they stop to see the burning flesh.

I think that tells us something about me, unfortunately.

[TheoK]

Oh, it's OK, it'd be an insult getting sympathy from you. Hadron, Zer0 and many other people like me. 

[odeon]

Hadron is young. I haven't given up on him yet.

[TheoK]

There are many many more people who share my views, just for you information.

If Schopenhauer says: "Only clowns duel. If you actually hold a deadly grudge against someone, why would you give him the opportunity to take your life, which he grossly has violated before?"

How could you interpret that as anything else than that if you think you're justified to kill someone, you shall not do it in a duel?

[odeon]

There are many many more people who share my views, just for you information.

There are a few, yes. Something in the water, probably.

[TheoK]

More from the Swedish forum:

You seriously don't listen to what I say. I can't, in any way, whatever you argue that I am wrong, come up with something that would justify that everyone should have the right to bear arms in the city. To be a police is  a profession, which in some cases means to prevent crime. Crimes require criminal, some criminals do crimes where the criminals carry weapons, then of course the police must be armed.

But then one might ask the question: "Why just people who call themselves 'the police'?"

But based on your rape reasoning where you seriously mean that you see all police people as criminals. Well, then I assume that you are a tiny anarchist shit who think they know everything and thus do not need any laws and rules and think the world would function fine without them. Consequently, I have no reason to sit and jaw with you, because you still do not come with any relevant counter-arguments. To pour water on a goose gets you much more than to argue with you ...

The truth might not be what you thought it were.

But have a nice life, I can comfort myself with that this country will never allow that liberal weapons laws, so you will not legally be able to walk around with your long-awaited penis-extender you so clearly need, so I can continue to go around in town and feel safe.

You are afraid of people carrying guns but you feel secure with people carrying guns? It sounds a bit like a contradiction.

The same "arguments" from the law-abiding jerks everywhere. Just ad hominem and ostrich behaviour. Becuase the truth, namely that the state is but an enormous criminal organisation is simply too unpleasant.

"Litengris" means "little pig", btw, which probably refers to the pigs in blue uniforms. 

[odeon]

A delusional fuckwit quoting other delusional fuckwits. Definitely something in the water.

[TheoK]

I still haven't got an answer to this: When did a majority of the people give up their rights to a minority of 10-20 persons? Can you give me a date?

Because any relation that isn't totally voluntarily from all parties involved is of course nothing but a might-is-right "relation".

And then I still (just for the argumentation) accept "democracy" which also is a simplification; only individuals can make agreements, so democracy is in fact the terror of the majority against everybody else. That's why anarchy is the only acceptable.

[odeon]

What makes you think that anyone cares here? We're not THAT kind of support forum.

Sorry, did I interrupt something? Do go on.