Iowa FTW

[RageBeoulve]

I will make one more jab, here. It is ridiculous to first come in and make claims, then act the victim when those claims are challenged. It is ridiculous to act as if it is a personal insult when the challenges of these claims hold weight. THIS is the main problem I have with the crowd that usually tends to be anti-gun, feminist, "atheist", etc. These people call themselves "progressive" usually and go through the motions of activism, but only because it is trending. I think the majority of you people care about appearances, and your heart is completely empty. I think you have been robbed of most of your humanity.

I didn't start this giant argument, Adam did. But i'll damn sure finish it. I'll finish the FUCK out of it.

This makes no sense to me, Rage.

When addressing a claim, attack the claim, not the person who made it. Why do you imply that opposing guns is not progressive? Why do you imply that the people opposing guns have empty hearts?

Because they are willing to "experiment" with peoples lives in order to see if their "good ideas" will work. Namely, introduce boycotting methods instead of conducting research into the causes of the violence they oppose and using that knowledge to actually try and fix the problem.

That's empty hearted.

[TheoK]

It's also not intellectual, since gun ownership is a natural right 

[RageBeoulve]

No, he didn't. Adam commented on an existing mess. You opposed his views.

Did he now?

So, what, Obama is pro-gun laws because he's scared of people like you guys and your guns?

lol

ok

you try taking on the US government with your rifles

  If you think this isn't blatantly challenging and disrespectful, then take your cultural bias and shove it up your ass.  Moving on.

The Oldowan tools are among the oldest known. It is not clear what their primary use was or why they happened in the first place.

Oldest tools known. Exactly. So common sense tells you that those tools are all they had to kill each other and their food with. They didn't have plasma rifles, or orbital ion cannons. Or GUNS. Yes the made them to murder each other and animals with, not to clip their toenails or play the violin with.

No, you are not. Why would you think you are? I mean, objectively?

Because he has no counter. This means his argument didn't hold up. HUUUUR. 

It's such a relief that accidental shootings do not dominate the statistics.

But incidentally, where did I claim they did?

You did not claim they dominate the statistics, no. But you did claim:

Innocent, like a teenager returning home late. Accidents involving guns in the home are quite common.

Quite common? No they aren't. Its obvious you are not familiar with the numbers regarding this, but fortunately I am. Would you like some help?

Then why are you bringing it up in a thread discussing questionable ideas in Iowa?

I didn't. Adam did. See above, and and realize that you are condemning the backlash of someone saying stupid shit. Of course people would find it offensive and misguided of him to say something like that. Problem?

The only reason this whole overthrowing the government idiocy came up is because 'mericans will always bring up the 2d amendment if somebody questions the "right" to carry a gun.

Er, yeah. That's why it was put there. It doesn't matter if you approve of that or not, its in the American constitution and was put there for very good reasons.

It amuses me that carrying a gun should be regarded as a right when equal health care to all is not

It amuses me that you think any bank interest driven government will solve that for you. It amuses me that you would throw away the last thing actually protecting you with both hands.

Didn't there use to be text in your constitution about people held for labour in one state not be allowed to be freed by the laws of another? You overcame that little problem in the constitution, eventually. Gives me some hope that you might eventually see that carrying a weapon should not be a right, no matter what.

That law was taken out of context even back then. Can't say I blame you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, Rage?  Put the above in context and explain to me what you didn't understand. If you catch me in the right mood I may attempt to rephrase for your benefit.

No need to get snippy with me, sir. I have not done so with you. And yes, I put it in context and it doesn't hold up.

[Adam]

Hahaha! omfg

Rage did you seriously just call me a fanatic becuase I am in favour of gun control?

So the vast majority of people in this country are fanatics?  lol

and odeon, yeah, why is Rage so sure he's right? maybe it's cos he's a fanatic

[Adam]

A kitchen knife is not the only knife

Yes

Ok

And?

I can't even remember where you were going with this tbh

anyway, a knife is VERY different to a gun. I'd rather take my chances against someone armed with a knife than someone armed with a gun

[Adam]

Also Rage, I think it's kinda funny that you think you can educate me and odeon on history by posting links to 5 minutes youtube videos

I read books, and if I recall correctly, so does odeon

Get off your high horse, mate

[Adam]

btw, I think you'll find my comment here:

So, what, Obama is pro-gun laws because he's scared of people like you guys and your guns?

lol

ok

you try taking on the US government with your rifles

was in response to this:

The 2nd Amendment was for defending you against people like Obama. Just sayin'.

Obvious to anyone with any kind of common sense. Trouble is, my country is filled to the brim with a bunch of dumbasses who aren't even able to think.

[odeon]

Seems? Does it or doesn't it?

it does...

If you write 'seems like' people might do research.

Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation.  Now convicted felons can buy guns.

There should of course be no gun control at all. The founders of the US never intended any limits on gun ownership.

Aside from that owning guns is a natural right. You simply have the moral right to own a gun, period.

Moral
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

Er, no.

Read what Spooner says about natural law. I posted a link.

Although Spooner says that you shouldn't give a weapon to a madman, he also says that all legislation is a crime. Ergo it is criminal to deny anyone the mere possession of anything. Morally criminal, of course.

You have the moral right to do anything that isn't malum in se. Yet most of the state's laws are about things that are only malum prohibitum. This is because the state's laws have nothing to do with moral justice but on the contrary are there to deny you your natural rights to keep its own power.

IF Spooner is right.

Which he isn't. Next.

[odeon]

On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.

Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws.  Volunteerism....what could go wrong?

How could it possibly go more wrong than it is today?

It is incredible that most people don't understand that 99% of the things that are wrong on this planet is because of the state. They think that this is bad but that it would be 1000 times worse without a government. But anarchy works perfectly if the society is just small enough.

Comprising one person, maybe.

Last I checked, the population was more than one.

Modern Times

I have posted this before. Why do you keep denying it? When Brentwood was Modern Times, they had no cops, no courts and no crimes. Everyone signed a social contract, a real one on paper, not a false imaginary one. Everyone followed the rules voluntarily.

Initially, no system of authority existed in the colony; there were no courts, jails or police. This appears to have given some credence to Warren's theories that the most significant cause of violence in society was most attributable to policies and law which did not allow complete individuality in person and property. However, the modest population of the colony might be considered a factor in this characteristic.

We have been through this before, Lit. It doesn't work.

It does, if the society is small enough. Every nation state should be split up to about parish level. With a population of just a few hundred or at most a few thousand people it would work.

History disagrees with you.

And how would you go about to split up the nations?

"History" said for many thousands of years that there was no way to get rid of racism, slavery, marital rape, homophobia etc. Most people in charge were actually for those things.

The nations would be split up be people refusing to obey all laws, refusing to pay tax, refusing to obey authorities etc. The nations only exist because people obey.

The thing is that 99.99% of all people today are brainwashed idiots. They don't even use the legal system as they could. I have calculated that you could even stop the Swedish courts from functioning if everyone who got a speed ticket denied to accept it but took it to court instead. But do they do it? No.

"History" might prove me wrong, of course, but I seriously doubt it.

[odeon]

I will make one more jab, here. It is ridiculous to first come in and make claims, then act the victim when those claims are challenged. It is ridiculous to act as if it is a personal insult when the challenges of these claims hold weight. THIS is the main problem I have with the crowd that usually tends to be anti-gun, feminist, "atheist", etc. These people call themselves "progressive" usually and go through the motions of activism, but only because it is trending. I think the majority of you people care about appearances, and your heart is completely empty. I think you have been robbed of most of your humanity.

I didn't start this giant argument, Adam did. But i'll damn sure finish it. I'll finish the FUCK out of it.

This makes no sense to me, Rage.

When addressing a claim, attack the claim, not the person who made it. Why do you imply that opposing guns is not progressive? Why do you imply that the people opposing guns have empty hearts?

Because they are willing to "experiment" with peoples lives in order to see if their "good ideas" will work. Namely, introduce boycotting methods instead of conducting research into the causes of the violence they oppose and using that knowledge to actually try and fix the problem.

That's empty hearted.

Tell me you're fucking joking with me. The people *opposing* guns are willing to experiment with people's lives while those in favour are not? That's a stretch, even by your logic.

Should I remind you that the NRA has effectively been able to block a lot of research into gun-related violence?

[odeon]

No, he didn't. Adam commented on an existing mess. You opposed his views.

Did he now?

So, what, Obama is pro-gun laws because he's scared of people like you guys and your guns?

lol

ok

you try taking on the US government with your rifles

  If you think this isn't blatantly challenging and disrespectful, then take your cultural bias and shove it up your ass.  Moving on.

He very clearly commented on an existing mess. Next.

The Oldowan tools are among the oldest known. It is not clear what their primary use was or why they happened in the first place.

Oldest tools known. Exactly. So common sense tells you that those tools are all they had to kill each other and their food with. They didn't have plasma rifles, or orbital ion cannons. Or GUNS. Yes the made them to murder each other and animals with, not to clip their toenails or play the violin with.

You are implying that your common sense knows something about why these tools were created that the researches do not? Right.

Next.

No, you are not. Why would you think you are? I mean, objectively?

Because he has no counter. This means his argument didn't hold up. HUUUUR. 

Logic fail. You are not the one to decide. Next.

It's such a relief that accidental shootings do not dominate the statistics.

But incidentally, where did I claim they did?

You did not claim they dominate the statistics, no. But you did claim:

Innocent, like a teenager returning home late. Accidents involving guns in the home are quite common.

Quite common? No they aren't. Its obvious you are not familiar with the numbers regarding this, but fortunately I am. Would you like some help?

Here's an example of a study Of the 626 shootings in or around the home, 54 were unintentional.

How would you label those 54? Collateral damage?

Next.

Then why are you bringing it up in a thread discussing questionable ideas in Iowa?

I didn't. Adam did. See above, and and realize that you are condemning the backlash of someone saying stupid shit. Of course people would find it offensive and misguided of him to say something like that. Problem?

Debatable but I can see your point. You make it sound like Adam changed the subject but your earlier quote suggests to me that he didn't. Next.

The only reason this whole overthrowing the government idiocy came up is because 'mericans will always bring up the 2d amendment if somebody questions the "right" to carry a gun.

Er, yeah. That's why it was put there. It doesn't matter if you approve of that or not, its in the American constitution and was put there for very good reasons.

Because it is in there, it is there for a good reason? Logic fail. Next.

It amuses me that carrying a gun should be regarded as a right when equal health care to all is not

It amuses me that you think any bank interest driven government will solve that for you. It amuses me that you would throw away the last thing actually protecting you with both hands.

Who is changing the subject now? "Bank interest driven government"? Subtle. I'm still interested in why you don't seem to think that equal health care should not be a right when gun ownership is.

Didn't there use to be text in your constitution about people held for labour in one state not be allowed to be freed by the laws of another? You overcame that little problem in the constitution, eventually. Gives me some hope that you might eventually see that carrying a weapon should not be a right, no matter what.

That law was taken out of context even back then. Can't say I blame you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

Gee, I wonder why the 13th amendment was deemed necessary and fought so bitterly?

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, Rage?  Put the above in context and explain to me what you didn't understand. If you catch me in the right mood I may attempt to rephrase for your benefit.

No need to get snippy with me, sir. I have not done so with you. And yes, I put it in context and it doesn't hold up.

It's OK for you to say that people who do not agree with you are empty-hearted, but not OK for me to question your reading comprehension?

You set the stage, now live with it.

[odeon]

Hahaha! omfg

Rage did you seriously just call me a fanatic becuase I am in favour of gun control?

So the vast majority of people in this country are fanatics?  lol

and odeon, yeah, why is Rage so sure he's right? maybe it's cos he's a fanatic

Fanatics are rarely fanatics in their own minds.

[odeon]

Also Rage, I think it's kinda funny that you think you can educate me and odeon on history by posting links to 5 minutes youtube videos

I read books, and if I recall correctly, so does odeon

Get off your high horse, mate

It is amusing, yes.

As for horses...

[TheoK]

A kitchen knife is not the only knife

Yes

Ok

And?

I can't even remember where you were going with this tbh

anyway, a knife is VERY different to a gun. I'd rather take my chances against someone armed with a knife than someone armed with a gun

You don't have a chance against a guy with a knife either, unless you have a knife yourself. You must be a karate expert or similar to defend yourself without any kind of weapon against a knifeman. But that's the kind of situation you want, obviously, since you are not for the right to carry weapons.

[TheoK]

Seems? Does it or doesn't it?

it does...

If you write 'seems like' people might do research.

Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation.  Now convicted felons can buy guns.

There should of course be no gun control at all. The founders of the US never intended any limits on gun ownership.

Aside from that owning guns is a natural right. You simply have the moral right to own a gun, period.

Moral
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

Er, no.

Read what Spooner says about natural law. I posted a link.

Although Spooner says that you shouldn't give a weapon to a madman, he also says that all legislation is a crime. Ergo it is criminal to deny anyone the mere possession of anything. Morally criminal, of course.

You have the moral right to do anything that isn't malum in se. Yet most of the state's laws are about things that are only malum prohibitum. This is because the state's laws have nothing to do with moral justice but on the contrary are there to deny you your natural rights to keep its own power.

IF Spooner is right.

Which he isn't. Next.

Of course you read the link and studied his arguments