RE: britain wants guns back (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


variation30 -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:35:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard

Self defence isn't classed as a pre-emptive strike by many sane people. If you are attacked you can defend yourself but fear of attack isn't being attacked. You feeling threatened isn't a good enough reason, we all feel threatened from time to time. If a group of teenagers walks towards you you'll feel threatened; should you be able to kill them before they’ve actually done anything to you though?


um...all actions are executed on imperfect knowledge. let's look at tresspassing first. am I suffering from a fear of attack or an actual attack if someone has broken in and entered my home? I would suggest that them trespassing on your property is in itself an attack.

and yes, I agree. there are instances to where you may make a wrong decision. if I hear a woman screaming, run into an alley, see him raping her with a knife to her throat, and shoot him. I am running the risk that they are actually a couple into exhibitionism and rapeplay and I just committed murder. in the end, I alone am morally responsible for my actions. you assess the risk and the benefit and you act. if someone breaks onto my property or my woman's property...I will assess this as a threat and they'll get shot. that's all there is to it.

quote:


Some people especially forensic science types have this thing known as professional credibility. You also seem to assume that they are all part of the same department and so share the gossip of the ins and outs of a case rather than just the evidence as it's observed. Any police officer no matter how corrupt would have to be quite a character to be able to convince everyone involved in the investigation to turn a blind eye because the guy was bad and got what he deserved.


I'm not assuming anything. there may be someone who tells the truth and she gets busted (good thing to, we can't have those 35 year old women running around shooting people who are trying to break into their houses and rape them). and I don't like to think of this officer as a corrupt officer. he had my mothers safety in mind and realized that beauracracies stood in the way of her safety.

quote:


Once again you have to realise the difference between historic accuracy and getting across an idea of something. It doesn't matter who has or doesn't have a government. The image I want to convey is: chaos due to there being virtually every man for himself type of law. You can quibble over historic facts but they are not the point.


I"m sorry for thinking you were serious in what you typed. I know the image you want to convey is that lawlessness equates to chaos. so you used the wild west. unforutnately for you, the lawlessness in the wild west didn't equate to chaos and you had to change your 'metaphor' I understand completely.

quote:


Out of interest though on this subject are you suggesting Iraq would be better without a Government?


yes. but making iraq better than it is now is setting the bar quite low.

quote:

Unless they 'feel threatened by the postman who is really an agent of the government on their land, to plant misinformation in their head.


as I said...you are morally responsible for your actions. if you invite people over to your house and kill them, there will probably be repercussions.

quote:

I've seen too many criminals turn their life around to believe a dead petty thieve is a good outcome. As to your 'people should have what they want and can afford argument' this would mean you'd legalise all highly addictive drugs without thinking why drug addicts become thieves and prostitutes? You’re not really thinking what your hands off approach would really lead to are you? Your world sounds hypocritical, I'd rather live in a world where people were protected from exploitation. Not all criminals are fundamentally bad people some are just in a dire situation due to a path they once took or someone lead them down. If you've lived a life and never been touched by any of those problems then lucky you but some people are not as lucky or clever but they don’t deserve to die. If you have the gun they don’t need to die.


a murderer can turn his life around to. that doesn't legitimize his previous actions. and yes, I would legalize all 'highly addictive drugs'. people don't become thieves because they are addicted to a drug. sorry, but that's not a causal relationship.




variation30 -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:41:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

Sodomy is not illegal in Alabama or any other state.  The Supreme Court invalidated all sodomy laws in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas.


would you prefer that I use marijuana or a 20 year old drinking? would you be able to understand my argument then?

quote:

Are you going to set up a toll booth on your private road, or post sentries on your parking lot?  How exactly do people go from one place to another if there is no public thoroughfares?


yeah. I'm going to put up a toll booth and post sentries. is that a problem?

quote:

WE in effect have, because WE voted those legislators into office.  If your particular candidate lost, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.


mhm. if 100% of the population voted for that legislator and he did exactly what they all thought he would do...you'd have a point. but that's not the case, and we is still an inaccurate word.

quote:

You'd choose to have all these things unregulated, huh?  You wouldn't care if your neighbor set up a meth lab next door.  How about your neighbor burning a huge pile of tires next door?  No regulations on booze huh?  You ever smelled a still before?  I assure you that you wouldn't want someone setting up a huge still next door to you.  You're just being ridiculous.  Anarchy does not work.  If you want the closest example of it, look no further than Somalia.


meth lab, tire fires, stills, etc. are these things harming my property in any way? if so, then we'll have a problem. if not, then there is nothing I can say.

anarchy works every day.

for instance: http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer187.html




kdsub -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:45:00 PM)

To me anti-gun advocates are really saying that we humans are a murderous lot so taking away …”ONE”… means of killing because it is more efficient than others is somehow noble. …bullshit.

To them this shows one nation with liberal gun laws is somehow less civilized than one with strict gun control….bullshit

Perhaps we should not spend so much time regulating by what means someone is murdered and spend more time stopping the murders.

Butch

Not in reply to slaveboyforyou sorry




variation30 -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:47:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

No you won't. We have a long history of this sort of thing and the result was always people being deprived necessary resources. Look into range wars of the 19th century.

So without public property you would be at the mercy of others.


we have a long history of government grantin monopolies to ceratin corporations and them abusing that power. you're right.

what's wrong with the range wars? people were stealing cattle and they got shot?




kdsub -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:51:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

There is a subtle difference between you and I, Butch: you care about what people think of the United States; I really do not care what you think of England.



I'm afraid it points out not how we are different but are alike.... scary don't you think..[image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m9.gif[/image]




Raechard -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:57:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30
I'm not assuming anything. there may be someone who tells the truth and she gets busted (good thing to, we can't have those 35 year old women running around shooting people who are trying to break into their houses and rape them). and I don't like to think of this officer as a corrupt officer. he had my mothers safety in mind and realized that beauracracies stood in the way of her safety.

They should be a paragon of truth, they stand up in court and we trust their evidence without question. If they are not truthful they are corrupt, your squeamishness in thinking that is irrelevant. He is not the jury or the judge, he enforces the law. If he wants to give advice it should be limited to methods to help secure your home so that the police can turn up before the assailant breaks in.
quote:


I"m sorry for thinking you were serious in what you typed. I know the image you want to convey is that lawlessness equates to chaos. so you used the wild west. unforutnately for you, the lawlessness in the wild west didn't equate to chaos and you had to change your 'metaphor' I understand completely.


It's not important what the wild west was it's only important what image it conjures up, how more simply can I state this for you to understand it?
quote:


yes. but making iraq better than it is now is setting the bar quite low.

There are plenty of places around the world without government, as mentioned they are not usually the best places.
quote:


a murderer can turn his life around to. that doesn't legitimize his previous actions. and yes, I would legalize all 'highly addictive drugs'. people don't become thieves because they are addicted to a drug. sorry, but that's not a causal relationship.

You've not seen the abundant drug related crime statistics and simplify the problem as good and bad people, that's just ignorant of the truth or unwillingness to see it. I expect you think most criminals get addicted to drugs in prison right because that is where all the drug addicts are? Have you got one of those white picket fences that shields you from the reality of life and the suffering of those less well off?
 




blacksword404 -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 5:58:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30
I'm not saying this has anything to do with being a good guy or being a bad guy. all it has to do with is this: they are on my property, I sense a threat.


Not good enough reason.


Good enough for the police to blow holes in you.




Raechard -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 6:02:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404
Good enough for the police to blow holes in you.

Is it? Not where I live. Even where you live I assume they have to identify themselves prior to just shooting. I'm no expert on your police though are you saying you've had firsthand experience of breaking into someone’s house and being shot by the police?




RCdc -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 6:02:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30
no...they would not have to organize themselves into a goernment. do you know the difference between a government and a business? I shouldn't have asked that as I know you don't...


Ignoring that poor attempt.  If you wish to conduct a reasonable discussion, at least have the decency to rise above personal insults.  Otherwise I will have no use for your time.

quote:

a business and a government both provide services. they both require compensation for those services. the difference is that a business relies upon volunatry transactions whereas a government forces its citizens to pay for its services through taxes.


And again, here is your flaw as you have already stated -

quote:

Are you going to set up a toll booth on your private road, or post sentries on your parking lot?  How exactly do people go from one place to another if there is no public thoroughfares?

quote:

yeah. I'm going to put up a toll booth and post sentries. is that a problem?

 
What is so voluntary about that?  It's not, it is coercion.  Exactly as the governments you despise already do.  Forcing someone to pay for something they need to use(by your own example).  Your model is not an example of business at all, it is one of government and one that is unjust at that.  And bouregois.  You are content only with the class that you decree has the right to exist.  Your premise is flawed and ridiculous in it's application.
 
the.dark.




blacksword404 -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 6:02:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
Come to think of it... are there even gun stores in Britain? I don't think I've ever even seen one.

There used to be a gun store down the road from me it had this spinning sign on one side it said 'guns' in red lettering and on the other 'guns' in green lettering. Quite a small outlet, never noticed anyone go in. I'm thinking back to the early nineties. Even air rifles make me nervous they always seem to be in the hands of the most sadistic people i.e. yoof.



If you're nervous, grow balls. That should help.




Raechard -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 6:04:58 PM)

I'm not the one who needs a gun for my protection. Who needs the balls?




slaveboyforyou -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 6:05:22 PM)

quote:

would you prefer that I use marijuana or a 20 year old drinking? would you be able to understand my argument then?


[:D]  You inserted a false premise into your argument, not me.  I notice you can't seem to admit being wrong.  I understand your argument perfectly well; it's an argument rooted in naivety. 

quote:

yeah. I'm going to put up a toll booth and post sentries. is that a problem?


Well in your dream world with no government, it would eventually become a problem for you. 

quote:

mhm. if 100% of the population voted for that legislator and he did exactly what they all thought he would do...you'd have a point. but that's not the case, and we is still an inaccurate word.


What system would allow 100% of the population to get what they wanted all the time?  If you say one with no government, you're wrong.  When you have no authority, someone will step in place and assume it. 

quote:

meth lab, tire fires, stills, etc. are these things harming my property in any way? if so, then we'll have a problem. if not, then there is nothing I can say.   


I realize that you're only 23, but you can't possibly be this naive.  You don't think meth labs, tire fires, and stills (which produce combustible liquids) harm other people's property.  Do you live underneath a dome or something? 

quote:

anarchy works every day.


What does this little article have to do with anarchy? 






RCdc -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 6:06:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard

I'm not the one who needs a gun for my protection. Who needs the balls?


Small balls?  People with air rifles.[:D]
 
the.dark.




missturbation -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 6:07:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard

I'm not the one who needs a gun for my protection. Who needs the balls?


Bravo [sm=applause.gif]




blacksword404 -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 6:08:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404
Good enough for the police to blow holes in you.

Is it? Not where I live. Even where you live I assume they have to identify themselves prior to just shooting. I'm no expert on your police though are you saying you've had firsthand experience of breaking into someone’s house and being shot by the police?



No I don't. I am saying police have shot unarmed people because they perceived a threat to their life.




blacksword404 -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 6:11:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard

I'm not the one who needs a gun for my protection. Who needs the balls?


The gun is to protect my family. I am to protect me. Balls are needed.




Raechard -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 6:13:54 PM)

Oh so it's a family owned and operated gun because if you are to protect you, you can also protect your family when you are there.




blacksword404 -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 6:17:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard

Oh so it's a family owned and operated gun because if you are to protect you, you can also protect your family when you are there.


I own the gun. I don't see the point you are making.




Raechard -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 6:21:19 PM)

The point I am making is you own the gun to protect your family but also have said you don't need a gun to protect yourself therefore I assume you don't need one to protect your family? Unless you are saying it's easier to protect yourself than to protect your family because a gun is required for the latter?




Irishknight -> RE: britain wants guns back (1/23/2009 6:26:59 PM)

Just for the record, it still takes balls to pull the trigger in self defense.  Taking a human life is not as easy as many "arm chair warriors" make it out to be.  Most who claim that they don't need anything but their bare hands for defense woulld be bent and anally abused before they could do anything.
Criminals are not interested in how many belts you have or how many trophies.  They are interested in taking what is yours up to and including your life and that of your family.  Unless you've ever taken a life in defense of yours or someone else's your bragging is empty air.




Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875