Freedom
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Not at all. I just have a logical response to the way that gun nuts have twisted the constitution beyond a form that would be recognisable by the founding fathers. And I've read a lot of US history, from which to make that statement.
There you go with you lies and twisted logic. The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, plain and simple. The militia is the citizens.
Christian Graus wrote:
As usual, I write detailed responses to you and you don't answer anything I say. Above, you didn't even reply to my post.
You write a bunch of brainwashed bullshit. You can try to construct something elaborate, tie things together nicely, invoke strong emotions and then twist them, add some tedium and fluff to bog down readers, create thought loops and "spaghetti code" type logic, but it doesn't work on me. I know what the constitution says, I know what my rights are. You don't like that, that is too fucking bad. About half of all Americans have at least one gun, most of them would send you on your way if you told them they didn't have the right. If you have a problem with it than stay the hell out of my country you socialist piece of trash.
"The task of saving the earth's environment must and will become the central organizing principle of the post-Cold War world." Senator Al Gore Putting People First 1992 ------ "The sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species." Adolph Hitler Mein Kampf 1923 ------ If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." O'Brien to Winston George Orwell 1984 1949
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There you go with you lies and twisted logic. The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, plain and simple. The militia is the citizens.
There's a lot wrong with this. The main thing would be that the US actually has an army now, and has no need of a militia. The other thing is that your gun ownership is the norm, and your government is not scared of you. So, all it does, is increase the murder rate.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You write a bunch of brainwashed bullsh*t.
So, respond and explain why that is the case. You can't. Well, at least, you certainly never try.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You can try to construct something elaborate, tie things together nicely, invoke strong emotions and then twist them, add some tedium and fluff to bog down readers, create thought loops and "spaghetti code" type logic, but it doesn't work on me.
I loved below where someone else jumped in to let you know that what I'm saying is perfectly logical. Now, I may still be wrong, but you need to respond logically and in a way that shows you understand my points, before rejecting them. What you do instead, just shows a lack of intellectual ability.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I know what the constitution says, I know what my rights are.
No, you know how the gun lobby has taught you to interpret the constitution. I asked you to tell me one more freedom you have that I do not. I see you can't do that. Do you even know anything else the constitution says, apart from the precious right to kill each other ? Do you know how it was written, and in what circumstances ? What do you REALLY know about it ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You don't like that, that is too f***ing bad
I could care less if you carry a gun. Really. I do note that again I asked a lot of questions and you have ignored them. You called me a lot of things and accused me of various positions I have never taken. Now you change the subject when I ask you to tell me where I said those things. Doesn't that tell you something ?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
About half of all Americans have at least one gun, most of them would send you on your way if you told them they didn't have the right.
-
Question - if one person has a gun, and is poor, dependant on welfare and limited in choices by not having money, and another does not have a gun, but has adequate personal wealth to be able to live their life exactly as they choose, who is more free ? Question - if one person lives in a society where almost all criminals are armed, and they own a gun, and another person lives in a place where only the worst criminals carry a gun, and does not own a gun, which of those people is better able to defend themself if attacked ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Question - if one person has a gun, and is poor, dependant on welfare and limited in choices by not having money, and another does not have a gun, but has adequate personal wealth to be able to live their life exactly as they choose, who is more free ? Question - if one person lives in a society where almost all criminals are armed, and they own a gun, and another person lives in a place where only the worst criminals carry a gun, and does not own a gun, which of those people is better able to defend themself if attacked ?
You don't really understand "freedom," do you? Nor do you seem to have a firm grasp on "criminality."
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Question - if one person has a gun, and is poor, dependant on welfare and limited in choices by not having money, and another does not have a gun, but has adequate personal wealth to be able to live their life exactly as they choose, who is more free ? Question - if one person lives in a society where almost all criminals are armed, and they own a gun, and another person lives in a place where only the worst criminals carry a gun, and does not own a gun, which of those people is better able to defend themself if attacked ?
You don't really understand "freedom," do you? Nor do you seem to have a firm grasp on "criminality."
Ilíon wrote:
You don't really understand "freedom," do you?
What leads you to that false conclusion ? How do you define freedom ?
Ilíon wrote:
Nor do you seem to have a firm grasp on "criminality."
How do you figure ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ilíon wrote:
You don't really understand "freedom," do you?
What leads you to that false conclusion ? How do you define freedom ?
Ilíon wrote:
Nor do you seem to have a firm grasp on "criminality."
How do you figure ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
It would seem that thier definition of freedom is quite simple THE RIGHT TO ARM BEARS opps sorry meant the right to bare arms (wait a minute the first one actually makes more sense) this seems to be thier defining argument guns = free / no guns = slave all else seems irrelivent to them. the fact that ciminals will allways be more prone to the use of guns than civilians seems to be overlooked as is the fact than in any group of people there will be a large proportion with personaility issues, and to provide ufettered access to firearms for these people is the sign of stupidity, and this is what they are proposing, the right for everyone to carry whatever gun(s) they please, wether these people are "normal" or insane, sucicidal or homicidal, stable or sufering depression. and even the normal ones may have a bad day at work or broken up with the misses or any one of a thousdand reasons why they suddenly snap and go postal what a lovely world that would be
-
It would seem that thier definition of freedom is quite simple THE RIGHT TO ARM BEARS opps sorry meant the right to bare arms (wait a minute the first one actually makes more sense) this seems to be thier defining argument guns = free / no guns = slave all else seems irrelivent to them. the fact that ciminals will allways be more prone to the use of guns than civilians seems to be overlooked as is the fact than in any group of people there will be a large proportion with personaility issues, and to provide ufettered access to firearms for these people is the sign of stupidity, and this is what they are proposing, the right for everyone to carry whatever gun(s) they please, wether these people are "normal" or insane, sucicidal or homicidal, stable or sufering depression. and even the normal ones may have a bad day at work or broken up with the misses or any one of a thousdand reasons why they suddenly snap and go postal what a lovely world that would be
Alex hogarth wrote:
reasons why they suddenly snap and go postal what a lovely world that would be
Well, you're describing America. It is a nice place, but it's obviously less safe for the free access to guns that they tend to have there.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.