Iowa FTW

[TheoK]

Sorry but what is that in response to?

I said I was glad that my neighbours don't have rocket propelled grenades.

I didn't say the military has never fired on its own people.

The military has shot on the people, and you don't understand why the people should be able to defend itself?

Of course most people could afford grenades. In this ridiculous little anarchist society you seem to want, do you really think YOU would be able to buy these weapons though? You, the autistic guy who doesn't have any money except what the (presumably now long-dead) government gave you?

You are the one who thinks that you will ever get a fair system by voting.

You don't have to buy grenades. This also shows how little you know about most things.

You really think everyone would club together to share their millions-of-pounds-worth of weapons with you?

In an anarchy people would understand that they should cooperate so that no one could ever get a monopoly on violence again.

[RageBeoulve]

You are being extremely close-minded, Adam. Its like arguing with a religious zealot. Did you know that knives and pointy shaped things WERE originally designed to kill things? They have since become tools to be used for safety and utility.

A better example there would be swords. The kind of knife you'd cut your dinner with isn't primarily a weapon.

And as for being closed-minded and zealous, I would say definitely No more than you are.

Adam doesn't have the right spirit!

I'm starting to think he actually doesn't understand these concepts, Lit. I've seen that the guy is pretty into activism, and seems to really care about humanity. Seems like the right "spirit" to me. Maybe he -really- doesn't get it. 

You're right. I don't "get it"

That's not to say you're correct though. That's just to say I can't get my head round your way of thinking here.

How does more guns = better for humanitY?

How do less guns = better for humanity?

More guns means more people responsible for their own safety and less responsibility for their governments. This is better for humanity. I don't know how I could be any more specific.

[/quote]

A better example there would be swords. The kind of knife you'd cut your dinner with isn't primarily a weapon.

Absolutey wrong. The first "tools" were mostly pointy sticks and chipped rocks. Cavemen used these to kill each other and animals. Your precious guns aren't tools argument is not going to hold up, Adam. You're not getting away with it here.

And as for being closed-minded and zealous, I would say definitely No more than you are.

Is that so? Definition of "close minded":

Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.

Now.. who is trying to ban everything? Certainly not me. I'm actually trying to analyze the problems we face today and suggest real solutions. Your crowd seems content with throwing everything they don't like in jail and never talking about it again.

Like the church used to do.

[TheoK]

Why is that the case?

It's a natural right to defend yourself. In the US it is also a right by the constitution.

The main purpose of a screwdriver is not to be used as a weapon. Of course, it CAN be. But so can anything. a gun is PRIMARILY a weapon though. A gun is designed to kill. Bad comparison.

So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them? 

Right to defend yourself yes. With a gun? Why not right to defend yourself with any kind of weapon, no matter how destructive/dangerous? Why specifically a gun?

You should of course have the right to defend yourself with any means necessary.

[TheoK]

They have in Europe too. Yet Adam doesn't want that in his comfortable zone.

Yeah, sure. Because obviously what I'm saying is that everything in Europe is GREAT AND PERFECT...

Yet you think that you can vote away the wrongs...

[bodie]

So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them? 

I think killing a burglar is wrong.   The death penalty for a burglar?  Is that really fair?  I suppose you will say he forfeited his right to life by stepping on my property!  Where do you draw the line,  someone touches your car or steels your wheel trims?   It just seems dodgy ground. 

[RageBeoulve]

It doesn't seem to work that way in the US

HAH! GOTCHA. I have some bad news, adam. Countless studies conclude that in areas where it is legal to have concealed carry and such and there aren't any militant anti gun policies result in violent crime almost disappearing. Need I show you? Do we really need to rub this in?

[TheoK]

So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them? 

I think killing a burglar is wrong.   The death penalty for a burglar?  Is that really fair?  I suppose you will say he forfeited his right to life by stepping on my property!  Where do you draw the line,  someone touches your car or steels your wheel trims?   It just seems dodgy ground. 

You don't have to kill a burglar, but if you do, it was to 99.99% his own fault. What did he have to do in your home in the first place?

[RageBeoulve]

So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them? 

I think killing a burglar is wrong.   The death penalty for a burglar?  Is that really fair?  I suppose you will say he forfeited his right to life by stepping on my property!  Where do you draw the line,  someone touches your car or steels your wheel trims?   It just seems dodgy ground. 

There would be less professional criminals...

[TheoK]

So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them? 

I think killing a burglar is wrong.   The death penalty for a burglar?  Is that really fair?  I suppose you will say he forfeited his right to life by stepping on my property!  Where do you draw the line,  someone touches your car or steels your wheel trims?   It just seems dodgy ground. 

There would be less professional criminals...

I know one Swedish guy who says that if a criminal attacks you, he has decided that one of you should have a bad day. Tough luck if it happens to be the criminal.

[odeon]

And you think you could overthrow the government with your rifles?

When they have the military at their disposal? Get fucking real.

 

Read what I wrote: "You can't defeat the US military directly, so the alternative is to go for the government directly."

Read what Adam wrote. "Overthrow."

If they are killed I'd say that they are overthrown.

Governments are only rarely about one person.

[TheoK]

And you think you could overthrow the government with your rifles?

When they have the military at their disposal? Get fucking real.

 

Read what I wrote: "You can't defeat the US military directly, so the alternative is to go for the government directly."

Read what Adam wrote. "Overthrow."

If they are killed I'd say that they are overthrown.

Governments are only rarely about one person.

I know. But if ten are shot maybe the rest will get a little nervous.

[TheoK]

And you don't even have to be an anarchist to have these views. What happens in Syria right now? What happened in Yugoslavia just a few years ago? It is unbelievably stupid to think that it's impossible that things like these will happen again in western Europe or America. Incredibly naïve.

[Semicolon]

So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them? 

I think killing a burglar is wrong.   The death penalty for a burglar?  Is that really fair?  I suppose you will say he forfeited his right to life by stepping on my property!  Where do you draw the line,  someone touches your car or steels your wheel trims?   It just seems dodgy ground. 

There's a difference between the death penalty and killing in self-defense. How do you know if a trespasser is a burglar or a murderer?

As far as I know, self-defense can only be invoked if the person doing the killing is in danger of losing his/her life or suffering serious injury. You can't just shoot people.

[bodie]

So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them? 

I think killing a burglar is wrong.   The death penalty for a burglar?  Is that really fair?  I suppose you will say he forfeited his right to life by stepping on my property!  Where do you draw the line,  someone touches your car or steels your wheel trims?   It just seems dodgy ground. 

You don't have to kill a burglar, but if you do, it was to 99.99% his own fault. What did he have to do in your home in the first place?

Maybe he was cold and hungry because he no longer gets his benefit cheque from the government you just overthrown?

Or maybe he been porkin your missus because you been too preoccupied polishing your shooter ?

Either way I don't think he should be killed.  Seems harsh.

[TheoK]

So killing is always wrong? Would it be wrong for Syrian civilians to kill the ones raping, torturing and murdering them? 

I think killing a burglar is wrong.   The death penalty for a burglar?  Is that really fair?  I suppose you will say he forfeited his right to life by stepping on my property!  Where do you draw the line,  someone touches your car or steels your wheel trims?   It just seems dodgy ground. 

There's a difference between the death penalty and killing in self-defense. How do you know if a trespasser is a burglar or a murderer?

As far as I know, self-defense can only be invoked if the person doing the killing is in danger of losing his/her life or suffering serious injury. You can't just shoot people.

I don't think you should just shoot them either. But in my country or in the UK you can't even threaten a burglar with violence in your own home without the risk that you will be punished. In your own home.