CDZ What was the world like when guns did not exist?

[alang1216]

Consent does not apply in suicide. Anything one chooses to do to himself is by definition consented to by him.
Consent applies when you want to act in any way upon another you know like forcing people to wear seat belts or forcing people not to eat Twinkies because you believe it costs you money if they do.

So if your toddler wants to sit in an open, 10th story window you would let him?
If your drunken friend asks you to find his car keys you would help him?
If your sister is dumped by her boyfriend and asks for a gun you would give her one?

Neither a toddler or a drunk can give consent, they have diminished capacity. What's your point?

Consent does apply in suicide.

 

[alang1216]

Every constitutional right you have is regulated by the government voted in by my neighbors.

OMG ^^^^^^^ please be so kind to explain this

Seems self-explanatory to me. Can you name a right that isn't regulated by the government?

Starting with breathing?

Where does the Constitution mention breathing?

 

[evenflow1969]

Now you are looking even more loony. You do realize that wars were fought before the invention of the gun, right?

What are you? 12?

If you studied your history you know that in 1861 the gun was already invented and many were owned by the gov't. If there were no guns in private hands that would constitute a monopoly and huge advantage in favor of the gov't.

Another huge deflection. You said if there were no guns the civil war would not have happened. I called you on it because you obviously don't know shit. Wars were fought looooonnnnnggggggg before the invention of the gun and you have no evidence that they would not have continued.

Pop23, creating trolls on a daily basis.

Do you really think the South would have openly rebelled if only the North had guns? They would have never stood a chance so they would have used other methods besides open warfare.

Why the constant deflection? And what would have happened if only the South had guns?

Good God, pick an argument and stick with it.

The point is if either side did not have guns they would have been slaughtered. If you want to be live stalk headed to the slaughter be my guest! I will keep my guns and my say in my own destiny!

 

[evenflow1969]

Every constitutional right you have is regulated by the government voted in by my neighbors.

OMG ^^^^^^^ please be so kind to explain this

Seems self-explanatory to me. Can you name a right that isn't regulated by the government?

With out a government the only rights you have are the ones you take!

 

[Pop23]

Every constitutional right you have is regulated by the government voted in by my neighbors.

OMG ^^^^^^^ please be so kind to explain this

Seems self-explanatory to me. Can you name a right that isn't regulated by the government?

Starting with breathing?

Where does the Constitution mention breathing?

You didn't ask for a Constitutional right.

 

[Pop23]

Now you are looking even more loony. You do realize that wars were fought before the invention of the gun, right?

What are you? 12?

If you studied your history you know that in 1861 the gun was already invented and many were owned by the gov't. If there were no guns in private hands that would constitute a monopoly and huge advantage in favor of the gov't.

Another huge deflection. You said if there were no guns the civil war would not have happened. I called you on it because you obviously don't know shit. Wars were fought looooonnnnnggggggg before the invention of the gun and you have no evidence that they would not have continued.

Pop23, creating trolls on a daily basis.

Do you really think the South would have openly rebelled if only the North had guns? They would have never stood a chance so they would have used other methods besides open warfare.

Why the constant deflection? And what would have happened if only the South had guns?

Good God, pick an argument and stick with it.

The point is if either side did not have guns they would have been slaughtered. If you want to be live stalk headed to the slaughter be my guest! I will keep my guns and my say in my own destiny!

You changed the goal post. You said IF NO GUNS. That implies neither side has them, and yes they would slaughter the other without any. So you want a rogue government to slaughter you? Murderers and rapists appreciate your support.

 

[Pop23]

Consent does not apply in suicide. Anything one chooses to do to himself is by definition consented to by him.
Consent applies when you want to act in any way upon another you know like forcing people to wear seat belts or forcing people not to eat Twinkies because you believe it costs you money if they do.

So if your toddler wants to sit in an open, 10th story window you would let him?
If your drunken friend asks you to find his car keys you would help him?
If your sister is dumped by her boyfriend and asks for a gun you would give her one?

Neither a toddler or a drunk can give consent, they have diminished capacity. What's your point?

Consent does apply in suicide.

How so?

 

[alang1216]

When it comes to matters of suicide or even nonlethal self harm ( cutting) the legal concept of consent is completely irrelevant because by choosing to do anything to yourself you are consenting by default

If you kill yourself while drunk have you consented?
If you kill yourself while on LSD have you consented?
If you kill yourself while in a schizophrenic episode have you consented?

 

[evenflow1969]

If you studied your history you know that in 1861 the gun was already invented and many were owned by the gov't. If there were no guns in private hands that would constitute a monopoly and huge advantage in favor of the gov't.

Another huge deflection. You said if there were no guns the civil war would not have happened. I called you on it because you obviously don't know shit. Wars were fought looooonnnnnggggggg before the invention of the gun and you have no evidence that they would not have continued.

Pop23, creating trolls on a daily basis.

Do you really think the South would have openly rebelled if only the North had guns? They would have never stood a chance so they would have used other methods besides open warfare.

Why the constant deflection? And what would have happened if only the South had guns?

Good God, pick an argument and stick with it.

The point is if either side did not have guns they would have been slaughtered. If you want to be live stalk headed to the slaughter be my guest! I will keep my guns and my say in my own destiny!

You changed the goal post. You said IF NO GUNS. That implies neither side has them, and yes they would slaughter the other without any. So you want a rogue government to slaughter you? Murderers and rapists appreciate your support.

No I do not! My guns are going to make it at least some what difficult for them! My neighbors with guns are going to make it difficult! There will be no such thing as no guns on either side the cat is out of the bag! We know how to make them! Some one will always have guns, I plan to remain one of those people and will always have some say in my destiny! No goal post change!

 

[alang1216]

How so?

You're exhausting. Either you're too stupid to follow an argument or you're just playing around. Either way I'm done, you'll have to figure it out for yourself.

 

[Pop23]

How so?

You're exhausting. Either you're too stupid to follow an argument or you're just playing around. Either way I'm done, you'll have to figure it out for yourself.

Once you figure out what the hell you want to discuss, get back to me.

 

[Muhammed]

I think it is fairly obvious that at one point in human history, guns did not exist anywhere on the planet....and according to anti gun extremists, this led to a world that was full of peace, and joy and harmony.

I disagree.....

 

[Pop23]

Another huge deflection. You said if there were no guns the civil war would not have happened. I called you on it because you obviously don't know shit. Wars were fought looooonnnnnggggggg before the invention of the gun and you have no evidence that they would not have continued.

Pop23, creating trolls on a daily basis.

Do you really think the South would have openly rebelled if only the North had guns? They would have never stood a chance so they would have used other methods besides open warfare.

Why the constant deflection? And what would have happened if only the South had guns?

Good God, pick an argument and stick with it.

The point is if either side did not have guns they would have been slaughtered. If you want to be live stalk headed to the slaughter be my guest! I will keep my guns and my say in my own destiny!

You changed the goal post. You said IF NO GUNS. That implies neither side has them, and yes they would slaughter the other without any. So you want a rogue government to slaughter you? Murderers and rapists appreciate your support.

No I do not! My guns are going to make it at least some what difficult for them! My neighbors with guns are going to make it difficult! There will be no such thing as no guns on either side the cat is out of the bag! We know how to make them! Some one will always have guns, I plan to remain one of those people and will always have some say in my destiny! No goal post change!

I think I answered the wrong poster. If so, my apologies.

 

[evenflow1969]

Do you really think the South would have openly rebelled if only the North had guns? They would have never stood a chance so they would have used other methods besides open warfare.

Why the constant deflection? And what would have happened if only the South had guns?

Good God, pick an argument and stick with it.

The point is if either side did not have guns they would have been slaughtered. If you want to be live stalk headed to the slaughter be my guest! I will keep my guns and my say in my own destiny!

You changed the goal post. You said IF NO GUNS. That implies neither side has them, and yes they would slaughter the other without any. So you want a rogue government to slaughter you? Murderers and rapists appreciate your support.

No I do not! My guns are going to make it at least some what difficult for them! My neighbors with guns are going to make it difficult! There will be no such thing as no guns on either side the cat is out of the bag! We know how to make them! Some one will always have guns, I plan to remain one of those people and will always have some say in my destiny! No goal post change!

I think I answered the wrong poster. If so, my apologies.

No,prob!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Consent does not apply in suicide. Anything one chooses to do to himself is by definition consented to by him.
Consent applies when you want to act in any way upon another you know like forcing people to wear seat belts or forcing people not to eat Twinkies because you believe it costs you money if they do.

So if your toddler wants to sit in an open, 10th story window you would let him?
If your drunken friend asks you to find his car keys you would help him?
If your sister is dumped by her boyfriend and asks for a gun you would give her one?

Neither a toddler or a drunk can give consent, they have diminished capacity. What's your point?

Consent does apply in suicide.

Who is the person committing suicide consenting to?

 

[Skull Pilot]

When it comes to matters of suicide or even nonlethal self harm ( cutting) the legal concept of consent is completely irrelevant because by choosing to do anything to yourself you are consenting by default

If you kill yourself while drunk have you consented?
If you kill yourself while on LSD have you consented?
If you kill yourself while in a schizophrenic episode have you consented?

Yes.You chose to drink therefore you consented to drink and to accept all the consequences of drinking
Yes. you chose to take LSD therefore you consented to take the drug and to accept the consequences of drug use

and the last answer is it depends

Did the person choose to stop taking his medications while he was lucid?
If he did then he consented to all the consequences of stopping the medication including suicide

 

[eflatminor]

Human beings are the most violent animal ever to walk the earth.
Anyone who denies this is too stupid to bother with.

Way to keep an open mind...

At least he doesn't have his head shoved up his ass like you do pal.
An "open mind" sees reality for what it is.
If every gun on the planet disappeared today by tomorrow the strongest humans would be enslaving the weak. At least the 'weak' can level the playing field when they have a gun to defend themselves.

Just to be clear, you'll find no greater supporter of the right to self defense than I. Arm up.

 

[Bush92]

I think it is fairly obvious that at one point in human history, guns did not exist anywhere on the planet....and according to anti gun extremists, this led to a world that was full of peace, and joy and harmony.

I disagree......I think if you actually look at history, when guns did not exist, the strong raped, robbed, murdered and enslaved the weak...who pretty much had to take it......that professional sword swingers controlled the world....owned the slaves and pretty much ruled by the Might Makes Right rule....

I think that guns were a gift.....that they have allowed freedom to spread across the world, and have allowed normal, good people, to devote their lives to their own pursuits, while allowing them the ability to protect themselves without having to devote their lives to martial skills.....


So....was history before guns existed peace, joy and harmony...... or was it more brutal than it is today...?

It was a brutal world based on man’s base instinct for war and violence.

 

[Pellinore]

I think it is fairly obvious that at one point in human history, guns did not exist anywhere on the planet....and according to anti gun extremists, this led to a world that was full of peace, and joy and harmony.

I disagree......I think if you actually look at history, when guns did not exist, the strong raped, robbed, murdered and enslaved the weak...who pretty much had to take it......that professional sword swingers controlled the world....owned the slaves and pretty much ruled by the Might Makes Right rule....

I think that guns were a gift.....that they have allowed freedom to spread across the world, and have allowed normal, good people, to devote their lives to their own pursuits, while allowing them the ability to protect themselves without having to devote their lives to martial skills.....


So....was history before guns existed peace, joy and harmony...... or was it more brutal than it is today...?

People didn't need to devote their lives to martial skills in ancient and medieval times, either - that was taken care of about 15,000 years ago. when humans settled down from hunter-gatherer tribes to form cities, grow food, and feed a warrior class. There was a certain amount of might makes right in ancient and medieval times, sure, but most people lived most of their lives in fairly boring peace, working their fields or making their crafts as they mostly did.

Firearms went a long way to equalize the physically strong from the physically not-so-much, but they didn't change human nature, nor are they necessarily responsible for any changes between their society and ours. People then had varying levels of anxiety over bandits, raiders, or invading barbarians, of course, but also of famine, plague, accidents, or the vengeance of an angry God. Also, people now are largely free from those worries even in places like Iceland, which has very little crime and no standing army but still is pretty well safe from having invasion forces suddenly appearing on their beaches. Plus, old-timey serfs and peasants never had to concern themselves with modern-day nightmares like surprise! terrorist bombings, drink drivers, or a nuclear inferno.

Brutal? Maybe. These days we like our threats relatively impersonal and distant is all, and the changes we've made as a species are at most only partially because of the firearms. We're still the same flawed humans.