*Are Guns Bad?*

[Soggy in NOLA]

Sorry bout that,






6. Maybe its time to start carrying a peace eh folks?



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

LOVE this typo. Irony is overflowing. You're quickly becoming my new favorite poster on this site.

Nice catch! I saw it too and thought someone's Freudian slip was showing.

I found the premise of the Marine's argument for guns was fatally flawed.

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it."

Written by someone lacking in the virtues of humanity. Obviously, this jarhead does not believe in the common good.

Really? How so?

As to common good most of us don't accept nor want the left's vision of the common good.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

When necessary force is required? Not at all. Gun's are not good or evil of themselves. Self Defense, Preservation, Force of Law, Hunting, Play. What can be Evil is intention.

And with all due respect to Old Rocks' point of view, what gun can not be used for purposes other than killing people? Most of our cowboys out here in the wild west have a rifle on their saddle or a revolver on their hip. Not one expects to point at or threaten another human being with such weapons but will have them handy to put a sick cow or wounded deer out of its misery, eliminate a rattlesnake threatening the calves.

And, if needed for self defense against evil intent by another human, how is that less noble than doing anything else we need to do to insure our own life, safety, and well being?

Not that this refers specifically to anyone here...

Its my belief that some, perhaps many, memebers of the anti-gun crowd recognize that they do not possess the mental, emotional or physical capacities necesary to protect themselves from those who would cause them harm, and so seek the protection of the state. They then see that some people - like many gun owners - DO have those capacities. This creates a sense of inferiority which must be dealt with NOT by increasing their own capacities, but by reducing those of others, so that they too must seek protection from the state.

Oh, it's all-about "barrel"-envy, huh????

You make too-many assumptions.....like most people.

Despite your preference for rhetoric, there is no anti-gun crowd.....only an anti-every-nutjob-who-shouldn't-OWN-a-gun crowd.

You think someone (who's shop is the trunk-o'-his-car) should be considered a legitimate gun-dealer???​

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh, it's all-about "barrel"-envy, huh????
​

Stop wasting my time.
Oh wait! -I- have control over that.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Guns shouldnt be a political issue.

Then.....neither should national-security (to be consistent), right??​

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What is "the common good" and who gets to define it?

I submit that what may be good for you may not be good for me and vice versa.

It figures something as elemental to the race as 'the common good' would require a definition for Conservatives.

Put out the fire, cure the disease, drain the swap, pave the road, teach the children, feed the hungry.

These actions are for the common good and society thinks so.

Do you need a gun to convince someone to do these things? If reason fails (and a quick glance toward the Tea Party types shows that reason fails) do we need to enforce these things by the barrel of a gun?

Thank you for clearly illustrating that you aren't here to actually discuss the subject, but rather engage is shallow - and rather unimaginative - partisan bigotry.

Please let us know when you have something worthwhile to add to the topic.[/QUOTE]

Backatcha. I don't think anyone disagrees with the above, in principal. Problem - teach the children morphs into teach the children what we want them to know and dictating what they eat and drink and what to read what they hear. Drain the swap - not sure on this one. Pave the road. ok. Feed the hungry - morphs into free Internet and cell phones.

 

[Gadawg73]

My weapons are neither liberal or conservative.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Guns shouldnt be a political issue.

Then.....neither should national-security (to be consistent), right??​

Just went we thought you couldn't post anything more stupid... and here it comes, right on queue.

 

[Nosmo King]

What is "the common good" and who gets to define it?

I submit that what may be good for you may not be good for me and vice versa.

It figures something as elemental to the race as 'the common good' would require a definition for Conservatives.

Put out the fire, cure the disease, drain the swap, pave the road, teach the children, feed the hungry.

These actions are for the common good and society thinks so.

Do you need a gun to convince someone to do these things? If reason fails (and a quick glance toward the Tea Party types shows that reason fails) do we need to enforce these things by the barrel of a gun?

Thank you for clearly illustrating that you aren't here to actually discuss the subject, but rather engage is shallow - and rather unimaginative - partisan bigotry.

Please let us know when you have something worthwhile to add to the topic.[/QUOTE]The argument for guns is: as humans will not co-operate with my will, I either must reason with them or force them by gunpoint.

There are times when reason fails. Since we purport to be freedom loving people, we abhor the use of deadly force to bend our will to yours. Therefore, guns aren't used to settle every argument. And when those refusing to bend their will to mine, they suffer the consequences. They are not cured because they refused treatment. They live in a cesspool because they refused to abide by zoning codes. Their children go ignorant because they refused to educate them. They are not serviced by passable roads because they refused to see the obvious benefit.

And yet these things for the common good are done without coercion.

Arguing guns are necessary for civilization is absurd considering how many times in your life or mine we have been forced by gunpoint to do anything.

The argument is a thin veneer of rationalization for those incapable of settling disputes any other way, including by the power of their own limited wits.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Backatcha. I don't think anyone disagrees with the above, in principal.

Really? You think everyone agrees that:

- something as elemental to the race as 'the common good' would require a definition for Conservatives.

- a quick glance toward the Tea Party types shows that reason fails)

Whatever merit the post may have had - and is a point completely off-topic - is lost in the partisan inanity in which it was presented.

 

[Gadawg73]

What is "the common good" and who gets to define it?

I submit that what may be good for you may not be good for me and vice versa.

It figures something as elemental to the race as 'the common good' would require a definition for Conservatives.

Put out the fire, cure the disease, drain the swap, pave the road, teach the children, feed the hungry.

These actions are for the common good and society thinks so.

Do you need a gun to convince someone to do these things? If reason fails (and a quick glance toward the Tea Party types shows that reason fails) do we need to enforce these things by the barrel of a gun?

Thank you for clearly illustrating that you aren't here to actually discuss the subject, but rather engage is shallow - and rather unimaginative - partisan bigotry.

Please let us know when you have something worthwhile to add to the topic.

Backatcha. I don't think anyone disagrees with the above, in principal. Problem - teach the children morphs into teach the children what we want them to know and dictating what they eat and drink and what to read what they hear. Drain the swap - not sure on this one. Pave the road. ok. Feed the hungry - morphs into free Internet and cell phones.[/QUOTE]

The government takes your earned money at the point of a gun and redistributes it.
You need to fear that a hell of a lot more than me and my guns.

 

[Foxfyre]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I'm still thinkin'.....the fact, we now have a standing-Army, makes this Amendment a mere antiquity.​

Nope. The Army and Militia are different things and for different purposes.

Here's a news item from the editor of The Tribune, a weekly published in North Carolina.

The World's Largest Army. American Hunters?

The state of Wisconsin has gone an entire deer hunting season without someone getting killed. That's great. There were over 600,000 hunters. Allow me to restate that number. Over the last two months, the eighth largest army in the world -- more men under arms than Iran ; more than France and Germany combined -- deployed to the woods of a single American state to help keep the deer menace at bay. But that pales in comparison to the 750,000 who are in the woods of Pennsylvania this week. Michigan 's 700,000 hunters have now returned home. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it is literally the case that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. America will forever be safe from foreign invasion of troops with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting - it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security!

 

[Gadawg73]

What is "the common good" and who gets to define it?

I submit that what may be good for you may not be good for me and vice versa.

It figures something as elemental to the race as 'the common good' would require a definition for Conservatives.

Put out the fire, cure the disease, drain the swap, pave the road, teach the children, feed the hungry.

These actions are for the common good and society thinks so.

Do you need a gun to convince someone to do these things? If reason fails (and a quick glance toward the Tea Party types shows that reason fails) do we need to enforce these things by the barrel of a gun?

Thank you for clearly illustrating that you aren't here to actually discuss the subject, but rather engage is shallow - and rather unimaginative - partisan bigotry.

Please let us know when you have something worthwhile to add to the topic.

The argument for guns is: as humans will not co-operate with my will, I either must reason with them or force them by gunpoint.

There are times when reason fails. Since we purport to be freedom loving people, we abhor the use of deadly force to bend our will to yours. Therefore, guns aren't used to settle every argument. And when those refusing to bend their will to mine, they suffer the consequences. They are not cured because they refused treatment. They live in a cesspool because they refused to abide by zoning codes. Their children go ignorant because they refused to educate them. They are not serviced by passable roads because they refused to see the obvious benefit.

And yet these things for the common good are done without coercion.

Arguing guns are necessary for civilization is absurd considering how many times in your life or mine we have been forced by gunpoint to do anything.

The argument is a thin veneer of rationalization for those incapable of settling disputes any other way, including by the power of their own limited wits.[/QUOTE]

The govermment takes your earned money at the point of a gun and redistributes it.
You need to fear them more than me and my guns.

 

[Nosmo King]

It figures something as elemental to the race as 'the common good' would require a definition for Conservatives.

Put out the fire, cure the disease, drain the swap, pave the road, teach the children, feed the hungry.

These actions are for the common good and society thinks so.

Do you need a gun to convince someone to do these things? If reason fails (and a quick glance toward the Tea Party types shows that reason fails) do we need to enforce these things by the barrel of a gun?

Thank you for clearly illustrating that you aren't here to actually discuss the subject, but rather engage is shallow - and rather unimaginative - partisan bigotry.

Please let us know when you have something worthwhile to add to the topic.

Backatcha. I don't think anyone disagrees with the above, in principal. Problem - teach the children morphs into teach the children what we want them to know and dictating what they eat and drink and what to read what they hear. Drain the swap - not sure on this one. Pave the road. ok. Feed the hungry - morphs into free Internet and cell phones.

The government takes your earned money at the point of a gun and redistributes it.
You need to fear that a hell of a lot more than me and my guns.[/QUOTE]Have you actually had that Lucca Brazzi moment when filing your taxes? A gun literally at your head?

And what do you think Grumman or Lockheed or Boeing thinks when your confiscated at the point of a gun money lands on their bottom lines? Maybe you don't mind paying off the military industrial complex. It's just food on the school lunch table that makes you see red.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The argument for guns is: as humans will not co-operate with my will, I either must reason with them or force them by gunpoint.

False premise. "Your Will" is not the issue.
The -actual- argument for guns is that sometimes people need access to deadly force in order to protect their rights and the rights of others.

There are times when reason fails. Since we purport to be freedom loving people, we abhor the use of deadly force to bend our will to yours.

This is based on your false premise and as such means nothing.

Therefore, guns aren't used to settle every argument

Strawman - no one has claimed this to be the case.

Arguing guns are necessary for civilization is absurd ...

Strawman - no one has claimed this to be the case.

You still have failed to address the actual point, that when faced with people who do not want to do something, you have two choices:
Change their mind thru reason or force them to do it.

 

[daveman]

It figures something as elemental to the race as 'the common good' would require a definition for Conservatives.

Put out the fire, cure the disease, drain the swap, pave the road, teach the children, feed the hungry.

These actions are for the common good and society thinks so.

Do you need a gun to convince someone to do these things? If reason fails (and a quick glance toward the Tea Party types shows that reason fails) do we need to enforce these things by the barrel of a gun?

Your failure is where you think "common good" is self-evident.

 

[Nosmo King]

The argument for guns is: as humans will not co-operate with my will, I either must reason with them or force them by gunpoint.

False premise. "Your Will" is not the issue.
The argument for guns is that sometimes people need access to deadly force in order to protect their rights and the rights others.

There are times when reason fails. Since we purport to be freedom loving people, we abhor the use of deadly force to bend our will to yours.

This is based on your false premise and as such means nothing.

Therefore, guns aren't used to settle every argument

Strawman - no one has claimed this to be the case.

Arguing guns are necessary for civilization is absurd ...

Strawman - no one has claimed this to be the case.

You still have failed to address the actual point, that when faced with people who do not want to do something, you have two choices:
Change their mind thru reason or force them to do it.

Now you're talking about my will. Which is it?

"Your Will" is not the issue.

And are you arguing for a better operating society by placing as many guns in as many hands as possible? Whose will be done then, sheriff?

 

[daveman]

And what do you think Grumman or Lockheed or Boeing thinks when your confiscated at the point of a gun money lands on their bottom lines? Maybe you don't mind paying off the military industrial complex. It's just food on the school lunch table that makes you see red.

And apparently it's military expenditures that make you see red.

Obviously, a military force is part of the "common good". You seem to disagree.

 

[Nosmo King]

It figures something as elemental to the race as 'the common good' would require a definition for Conservatives.

Put out the fire, cure the disease, drain the swamp, pave the road, teach the children, feed the hungry.

These actions are for the common good and society thinks so.

Do you need a gun to convince someone to do these things? If reason fails (and a quick glance toward the Tea Party types shows that reason fails) do we need to enforce these things by the barrel of a gun?

Your failure is where you think "common good" is self-evident.

Put out the fire, cure the disease, drain the swamp, pave the road, teach the children, feed the hungry. Aren't these things obviously for the common good?

 

[Missourian]

All of you, go back and edit those quotes. This thread is unreadable.

 

[Nosmo King]

And what do you think Grumman or Lockheed or Boeing thinks when your confiscated at the point of a gun money lands on their bottom lines? Maybe you don't mind paying off the military industrial complex. It's just food on the school lunch table that makes you see red.

And apparently it's military expenditures that make you see red.

Obviously, a military force is part of the "common good". You seem to disagree.

No, I'm for defense spending. But I think defense spending is bloated, full of corruption and incompetence and should be as vulnerable to cuts as spending for hungry children and unpaved roads.

I don't think many Conservatives agree with me on that. They tell me so everyday.