Firearms and Freedom
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
you mean sad really. good it was meant to be offensive. i'm tired of pro gun peoples bully, threats, and general asshattery.
once again cute you think a statirist's opinion on a formal science means it should be ignored. why does it not surprise me someone arguing right wing ideas is anti intllectual
Do the Secret Service agents who guard Hillary or Obama carry guns? Would either Obama or Hillary lead by example and demand their guards not to carry guns, since guns are bad and have a mind of their own? Or is no gun, just for the common class, but not the ruling class and other elites?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Officials in protective and law enforcement capacities should carry guns. It's part of their job. Citizens otoh have no business carrying guns in public. It's an explosive situation waiting to happen. Just yesterday here in Portland a man in a car shot at another man in his yard for shouting to him to slow down. People will use guns if they have them available. It's all about power.
Last edited:
does your job as fry cook at wendy's make you a target for assassination?
Exchemist said:
In truth, that doesn't surprise me:
Uh ... one context?
That, I admit, is a bit more mysterious. "It" refers to a notion of basic differences. We might speculate that after a generation of caricaturizing the other side, conservatives have started believing their caricature and attempting their own version of it in a twisted version of "when in Rome". To wit, civil rights because liberals say so. Or human rights because women say so. And then one day people start arguing as if that's actually the way it is instead of a caricature. To wit, Kim Davis, fighting for her equally protected right to religious supremacy. One would expect conservatives to be able to tell the difference between inclusion and exclusion, equality and supremacy, caricature and reality; apparently, however, this is asking too much.
Aye.
Yes, the context describing application of principle in living function. Such as Kim Davis. It's one thing to say one is "defending liberty", or appeal to "equal protection", but to do so by requiring others to forfeit their own is one of those important functional differences.
Or, in this case:
I can follow your ill-written point, but that path follows one of those fake conservative cries of self-censorship and intolerance we hear when one laments that science is bigoted against Creationism, or how those nasty liberals are wrecking academia by rejecting supremacism and fake history.
Or, more directly, you seem to be describing one of those disgruntled conservatives who doesn't understand why Harvard won't hire him to teach his personal theory of why the Pope is the Devil.
And if that's not what you mean―
―you might wish to attend your own advice.
That is, as I said―
Funny, I read that and assumed it was a commentary on the self-censorship and intolerance of so many US university campuses nowadays.
―I'm sure that makes sense in its own context.
But as it is, the one [context] that stands out, by which your point begins to make any sense at all, is according to that pathetic conservative lament reminding that they can't distinguish basic differences between disparate ideas.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
I once had an installation, and noticed that the men and women present were all wearing poorly concealed weapons.
One of them noticed that I had noticed and said : "don't worry, we're all cops".
Why any sane person(aside from cops and security guards) would feel the need to carry a concealed weapon is beyond my comprehension.
This ain't a combat zone.
Or,
is it?
Or will it be soon?
One of them noticed that I had noticed and said : "don't worry, we're all cops".
Why any sane person(aside from cops and security guards) would feel the need to carry a concealed weapon is beyond my comprehension.
This ain't a combat zone.
Or,
is it?
Or will it be soon?
Ad hominem and offensive.
By better management of the existing laws regarding background checks? Failing that, take away everyone's lathes, milling machines, rubber bands and phosphate detergent. Good job at diverting the topic.
It is, some places. Not where you live, yet. Not where I live, yet, but where it is is growing. Watch your Constitution.
Dr Toad said:
Getting back to the topic, what do we do about the tyranny of "freedom"?
One way to look at it is the state monopoly on coercive force. In the U.S., we inherently grant some of that to the People in the form of the Second Amendment; these days, it's half an Amendment, since the parts of the Constitution that tell us what it's for are the only parts that aren't binding.
No, really, think about it. Ask people about the Second Amendment, they usually only recite half of it. As to the Constitution itself, the part that tells us why it is established and what it does is the one part we are supposed to ignore.
But with open carry, we saw the predictable mess, a bunch of empowered gun owners strapping on and then using their armed force to demand to see one another's permits.
If we follow the NRA's logic through to its conclusion, they truly are an industry lobby; in their ideal world, we're all buying guns because civilization only arrives when we're all too frightened of one another to speak up.
So this bit at University of Houston, while not the biggest deal in the world, is pretty much an encapsulation of the problem. Functionally: We use our Second Amendment freedom to preserve all our other freedoms by making one another too afraid to enact our freedom.
It should be enough to say it's problematic. But what's that old saying? I used to think it was Noah Webster, but apparently it's not: Too much liberty is tyranny.
It's an age-old lesson. Like the bit about Thelema and the Rede. The latter is more specific, because apparently Thelemites weren't smart enough to figure that one cannot do what one will if one is dead. Do what thou wilt is not a call to anarchy. It is easy enough to prefer the inconveniences of too much liberty, but civilization itself is not a suicide pact.
Ah. Plato.
What the hell was the Webster quote in my high school history book, then?
Er ... right. Never mind.
I need to give you an honest and thoughtful reply. I can't right now, 'cause the beer just caught up with me. But allow me a screw-up:
Open carry in Texas is a joke. The farcical videos, the outraged "news" bits notwithstanding, a reasonable person doesn't bruit it about that he or she is armed, nor do they instigate a gunfight.
Those are my remaining coherent thoughts before I shoot the dog and my ex-wife.
Open carry in Texas is a joke. The farcical videos, the outraged "news" bits notwithstanding, a reasonable person doesn't bruit it about that he or she is armed, nor do they instigate a gunfight.
Those are my remaining coherent thoughts before I shoot the dog and my ex-wife.
you know... we've been down this road before and repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true the more you say it, T
your problem is with the irresponsible gun owners, not the responsible ones
of course, this logic can swing both ways
i also don't see you rushing to distance yourself from Zephir or JVK, so does that mean, by your actions, you support them?
don't make trouble where none exists... you don't like irresponsible gun owners. I don't either. they make the rest of us look bad.
so... take it out on them, not us
and stop thinking that because i want to keep my constitutional rights that it is wrong ... it isn't wrong any more than it is wrong for a woman to have the right to an abortion
it's all about perspective,
if you want to talk logic WRT certain gun control issues... then fine
that is different
but slinging mud that is factually incorrect will NOT win any points from anyone but the fanatical who don't care about reality anyway
the statistics of crime speak differently
Plus, as noted by Toad... and this is true of every one of the people i know who carry as well as everyone in our class for CC... the reason to carry isn't about "using" said weapon... it's about having it there in case it is "needed"
so... you're saying you don't have the fundamental right to self preservation?
interesting... because that is one of the few "rights" that are given in all of nature... you see it in every living creature. the overwhelming desire to protect oneself from death or predation.
Now, problem is: predation doesn't just mean "eating"... it is common for the criminal mind to intentionally harm another
so... considering the average response time of a cop... the ONLY safe thing is to carry (or carry a cop...which is still carrying a weapon, really... just heavier and more powdered sugar)
1- stupid is as stupid does
2- blaming the whole for the actions of a single idiot is like saying : all Oregon residents are pedophiles because there was a rapist molesting a girl down the road and he was from Oregon
i've had to draw my gun to protect my family ... never fired a shot.
So, it isn't about "power" or "i used it because i had it available"... the person in question tried to kill me with a machete and rifle.
Now, had i been the psychotic raving looney you claim us gun nuts are, i would have emptied the .357 and then got my .45 and emptied that too... then maybe, just for good measure, used my rifles and hunted down the family!
so... your logic is flawed. fatally flawed.
Responsible Until Otherwise
Revy: What's a little stylish intimidation among friends?
Neither does your opinion make for any fact, other than the fact of your opinion.
Uh-huh. The "responsible gun owner" who shot someone in a movie theater last year? Or how about the one who shot someone in a movie theater this year↱?
There was the "responsible gun owner" who killed his seven year-old son while illegally carrying a handgun he apparently thought was unloaded but didn't check.
Or the sheriff's deputy who left a gun for his three year-old to find and kill himself with?
What I'm after is that every "responsible gun owner" is a "responsible gun owner" until one day they suddenly aren't.
And virtually every person I've known who has actually spoken that phrase to my face has a wonderful story about their own irresponsibility. There's the hunting story, that somehow ends up with a teenager beating a deer to death with a .44 revolver. Or the one about going shooting drunk in an orchard; no, really, you look at someone like that and say, "Responsible?" and they answer, "It's not like we shot someone."
And out of all of them, there are only two I know who would accept my simple proposition: Have all the guns and bullets you want; you're accountable under law for every one of them.
In the end, what the "responsible gun owners" seem to want is great license to be irresponsible.
You know, like "responsible gun owners" head on down to the range and someone ends up shooting a child↱. "Obviously, something went wrong", is a bit of an understatement.
That "responsible gun owner" should never handle a firearm again. If there was any real accountability, that's what would happen. But we can't punish "responsible gun owners" for being irresponsible, can we? It's un-American.
Every "responsible gun owner" is a "responsible gun owner" until he or she isn't.
Hey, I got one for you: Does the "responsible gun owner" have an obligation to make sure nobody is on the target range before shooting?
Why do I ask?
No reason↱. After all, they're "responsible gun owners". And then one day one of them wasn't.
____________________
Notes:
Quitugua, Eric. "'Obviously Something Went Wrong,' Volunteer Says After Rupert Gun Range Accidental Shooting". The Times-News. 25 February 2016. MagicValley.com. 25 February 2016. http://bit.ly/1THXZWG
Revy: What's a little stylish intimidation among friends?
Truck Captain Stumpy said:
Neither does your opinion make for any fact, other than the fact of your opinion.
Uh-huh. The "responsible gun owner" who shot someone in a movie theater last year? Or how about the one who shot someone in a movie theater this year↱?
There was the "responsible gun owner" who killed his seven year-old son while illegally carrying a handgun he apparently thought was unloaded but didn't check.
Or the sheriff's deputy who left a gun for his three year-old to find and kill himself with?
What I'm after is that every "responsible gun owner" is a "responsible gun owner" until one day they suddenly aren't.
And virtually every person I've known who has actually spoken that phrase to my face has a wonderful story about their own irresponsibility. There's the hunting story, that somehow ends up with a teenager beating a deer to death with a .44 revolver. Or the one about going shooting drunk in an orchard; no, really, you look at someone like that and say, "Responsible?" and they answer, "It's not like we shot someone."
And out of all of them, there are only two I know who would accept my simple proposition: Have all the guns and bullets you want; you're accountable under law for every one of them.
In the end, what the "responsible gun owners" seem to want is great license to be irresponsible.
You know, like "responsible gun owners" head on down to the range and someone ends up shooting a child↱. "Obviously, something went wrong", is a bit of an understatement.
That "responsible gun owner" should never handle a firearm again. If there was any real accountability, that's what would happen. But we can't punish "responsible gun owners" for being irresponsible, can we? It's un-American.
Every "responsible gun owner" is a "responsible gun owner" until he or she isn't.
Hey, I got one for you: Does the "responsible gun owner" have an obligation to make sure nobody is on the target range before shooting?
Why do I ask?
No reason↱. After all, they're "responsible gun owners". And then one day one of them wasn't.
____________________
Notes:
Quitugua, Eric. "'Obviously Something Went Wrong,' Volunteer Says After Rupert Gun Range Accidental Shooting". The Times-News. 25 February 2016. MagicValley.com. 25 February 2016. http://bit.ly/1THXZWG
One thing that is not discussed is, people who are afraid of guns, will see guns differently than someone who is not afraid. If you compared a good swimmer to someone who is totally afraid the water, which of the two will see the need to post signs and places fences near any water hole? People will project their insecurities, often assume everyone sees it the same way, so they feel a need to help others. This is not rational and should not be how culture makes decisions. One cannot depend on the irrational to see what is best for all.
Sex Education is taught in school so the children can be more objective to the pro's and con's of sex. What would happen is children were given gun education, so they can see the reality guns, and not guns in terms of irrational insecurities and propaganda? Why is one allowed and the other not, if the goal are smart children who can make good decisions?
I am not a hunter, nor do I own guns, not do I collect guns. However, I have, over the years, held and fired guns ranging from handguns, to hunting rifles to shot guns. Over the years I took advantage of the opportunity to play with guns, to touch reality, like a scientist, and not just live in communal fantasy. It was a little scary, the first time, due to preconceived expectations from propaganda and from irrational people. I learned that guns are not alive, but need a human to fire them. Much of my early fear was the gun just going off without me, which is not all that likely. It was not alive.
My current attitude toward guns is these inanimate objects can be dangerous, if one is not aware of how they work. A machine that stamps metal parts can be very dangerous, if you are afraid of it, and don't want to know how it works.. My suggestion is to be a scientist and touch hard reality. Then you compare this data to your learned expectations to get a more objective picture. Then will all the data in tow, you decide the path for you.
Liberalism appears to teach reverse cause and affect. They assume the killer with the gun is being led by the gun. If we get rid of the guns the killer can't be lead astray. If this was true, everyone would be afraid of a gun, since a gun might start to bully you, like the Serpent in the tree, and force you to do things you never thought about.
This type of collective fantasy is why you need to go near an unloaded gun, lift it up, to see it is not alive. Guns need humans to make all the choices for the gun. Guns are a means to end, not the master mind. The master mind begins in humans and often comes from the same place insecurities dwell.
Sex Education is taught in school so the children can be more objective to the pro's and con's of sex. What would happen is children were given gun education, so they can see the reality guns, and not guns in terms of irrational insecurities and propaganda? Why is one allowed and the other not, if the goal are smart children who can make good decisions?
I am not a hunter, nor do I own guns, not do I collect guns. However, I have, over the years, held and fired guns ranging from handguns, to hunting rifles to shot guns. Over the years I took advantage of the opportunity to play with guns, to touch reality, like a scientist, and not just live in communal fantasy. It was a little scary, the first time, due to preconceived expectations from propaganda and from irrational people. I learned that guns are not alive, but need a human to fire them. Much of my early fear was the gun just going off without me, which is not all that likely. It was not alive.
My current attitude toward guns is these inanimate objects can be dangerous, if one is not aware of how they work. A machine that stamps metal parts can be very dangerous, if you are afraid of it, and don't want to know how it works.. My suggestion is to be a scientist and touch hard reality. Then you compare this data to your learned expectations to get a more objective picture. Then will all the data in tow, you decide the path for you.
Liberalism appears to teach reverse cause and affect. They assume the killer with the gun is being led by the gun. If we get rid of the guns the killer can't be lead astray. If this was true, everyone would be afraid of a gun, since a gun might start to bully you, like the Serpent in the tree, and force you to do things you never thought about.
This type of collective fantasy is why you need to go near an unloaded gun, lift it up, to see it is not alive. Guns need humans to make all the choices for the gun. Guns are a means to end, not the master mind. The master mind begins in humans and often comes from the same place insecurities dwell.
Wellwisher said:
One thing that needs to be discussed is why firearms advocates always want to change the subject.
Then again, changing the subject is pretty much all you do, Wellwisher, so I'll remind my afraid-of-the-world "responsible gun owner" neighbors that I don't hold you against them.
The bottom line is that your delusional ranting isn't helpful to anyone except, maybe you. That is to say, perhaps it makes you feel better about whatever else is troubling you. But no, it's not useful to anyone else.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!
Not even a little bit!
Personally, the only time I carry a pistol is that rare occasion when a deer doesn't fall where I shot it.
I grab the revolver and loose the dog, and we find out if the pistol was necessary. It was, once in over 40 kills and 3 carries. After which, I invested some time and 3 bullets to re zeroed the scope to the rifle.
"carry it in case you need it".
Here, in Iowa a concealed carry permit can be had for the asking.
While I see no current need, I would not be in favor of limiting that right or freedom.
......................
If your government turned to tyranny, would you fight for freedom?
Or.............................?
Not even a little bit!
Personally, the only time I carry a pistol is that rare occasion when a deer doesn't fall where I shot it.
I grab the revolver and loose the dog, and we find out if the pistol was necessary. It was, once in over 40 kills and 3 carries. After which, I invested some time and 3 bullets to re zeroed the scope to the rifle.
"carry it in case you need it".
Here, in Iowa a concealed carry permit can be had for the asking.
While I see no current need, I would not be in favor of limiting that right or freedom.
......................
If your government turned to tyranny, would you fight for freedom?
Or.............................?