Be Honest: There is only one real reason to need to carry a gun.

[Oddball]

To Dr. Gimp "growing up" means sitting down, shutting the hell up and taking what the politburo gives you, like a good little prole.

 

[Ringel05]

Do you guys ever get sick of your OTT ramblings about 'freedom' and 'liberty', as if totalitarianism is just around the corner for you guys? What a load of shit. Seriously. Grow the fuck up...

Tell ya what, I'll be short and simple with my second reply in this thread. Do you always practice fake dichotomy in all your arguments?

Tell ya what. How about not answering at all if you're going to be deliberately obtuse? Take up the 'fake' dichotomy with g5000. It borders on tin-foil hat territory....

Obtuse and deflection seem to be another two of your stocks in trade. Nice try attempting to pass the buck though, I'll give you points for that. Now would you like to have a real discussion with everyone or do you wish to continue in your simplistic stereotypical cultural arguments that have little basis in fact?

 

[Dr Grump]

Your labeling me as an anti- [insert anything here] is your simple minded cognitive hallucination....I'm in favor of the greatest amount of individual freedom possible, which necessarily puts me at odds with arrogant, do-gooder, know-it-all nannies like you about 99% of the time....But that doesn't automatically make me the anarchist that intellectually arrested demagogues like to portray people like myself.

My current position with the forum is entirely irrelevant to any of that....But I guess whatever you need to tell yourself of be convinced of your moral piety is just jake.

Grow the fuck up.

I know what you are in favour of, and that is just a populist tenet that can never be converted to reality. You have yet to name one society that has been like that, and has managed to exist.

You might live in your little fantasy world of what life SHOULD be like. We can all do that. That's easy. But the reality is a whole lot different...

I don't think you are an Anarchist - yet- but you are certainly intellectually dishonest...

Of course your position is relevent. It points you out as a hypocrite of the first order.

I have been described as many things in my life. Pious ain't one of them.

You are trying to live a life of total freedom - free from any constraints other than those that you decide to impose on yourself - and you're telling me to grow the fuck up? Rich....

 

[Dr Grump]

I am a grown up. That's why I don't demand the State do something every time a problem is encountered.

The vast majority - left, right and in between - feel the same way....

 

[Dr Grump]

To Dr. Gimp "growing up" means sitting down, shutting the hell up and taking what the politburo gives you, like a good little prole.

If that's all you've gotten out of this thread from me, then maybe you better enrol in that remedial reading class you were going for...

 

[Dr Grump]

]Totalitarianism is not just around the corner BY DESIGN.

Si, the chances of the US ever becoming a truly totalitarian state is so remote you have more chance of flying to the moon without oxygen. It's just another red herring spouted by the rabid right so they can keep their peashooters without any blow back..

 

[Si modo]

]Totalitarianism is not just around the corner BY DESIGN.

Si, the chances of the US ever becoming a truly totalitarian state is so remote you have more chance of flying to the moon without oxygen. It's just another red herring spouted by the rabid right so they can keep their peashooters without any blow back..

It pretty much IS remote...and that is by design. That is the fundamental reason behind the 2nd.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Of course it is...That's why you don't take him seriously, just sit back and enjoy the LULZ.

And you think you're taken seriously? You would be close to, if not the, biggest hypocrite on this board. And that's saying something...

Izzatso?

At least I'm not so much of a dullard that I can't understand that gubmint is, as a matter of course, a legal monopoly on the proactive use of -deadly if need be- force.

actually, the "gubmit" can't legally proactively use deadly force either. I mean they do it, but it is illegal as hell when they do.

You've been watching too many movies on the NetFlix .

 

[Dr Grump]

Tell ya what, I'll be short and simple with my second reply in this thread. Do you always practice fake dichotomy in all your arguments?

Tell ya what. How about not answering at all if you're going to be deliberately obtuse? Take up the 'fake' dichotomy with g5000. It borders on tin-foil hat territory....

Obtuse and deflection seem to be another two of your stocks in trade. Nice try attempting to pass the buck though, I'll give you points for that. Now would you like to have a real discussion with everyone or do you wish to continue in your simplistic stereotypical cultural arguments that have little basis in fact?

Ring, if you're gonna come on this thread, drop one liners and say that my posts are nothing but me being 'obtuse' and 'deflection', please feel free not to interact. Because if you think that is all I have done - oh, and passing the buck - then you obviously haven't read all the posts.

What parts aren't fact, and what are facts? A stereotype isn't wrong if it is true...

 

[Oddball]

To Dr. Gimp "growing up" means sitting down, shutting the hell up and taking what the politburo gives you, like a good little prole.

If that's all you've gotten out of this thread from me, then maybe you better enrol in that remedial reading class you were going for...

It's all I've ever gotten from any post you've ever posted.

You're a good and happy little servile tool of the state....Everyone needs their station in life....But there are a lot more people in the world who'd rather die on their feet than live on their knees than you've led yourself to believe.

 

[Dr Grump]

It pretty much IS remote...and that is by design. That is the fundamental reason behind the 2nd.

Yeah, but even without the second it would never happen.

A huge - if not the majority - of former and current service men and women are conservatives. By and large, do cons believe in the second?If you answer that question in the affirmative, then the very people who embrace the second whole heartedly would be the same people who would have the ability to impose totalitarianism on you.

 

[Dr Grump]

To Dr. Gimp "growing up" means sitting down, shutting the hell up and taking what the politburo gives you, like a good little prole.

If that's all you've gotten out of this thread from me, then maybe you better enrol in that remedial reading class you were going for...

It's all I've ever gotten from any post you've ever posted.

You're a good and happy little servile tool of the state....Everyone needs their station in life....But there are a lot more people in the world who'd rather die on their feet than live on their knees than you've led yourself to believe.

You're starting to border on the pathetic now....

 

[Zoom-boing]

FEAR

Seriously. Think about it. If there was no FEAR of being robbed and/or assaulted there is no reason to carry a gun, right?

We buy auto insurance and wear seat belts because we FEAR that at some point in time we may be involved in an accident. (Ok, and in most cases the law requires it and we fear getting a ticket too.)

Hey!! I'm not knocking it. Illinois will soon finally join everyone else in passing a CC law. When we do that I will get one so I can carry it in any areas known for high crime rates. But since I don't FEAR being robbed and/or assaulted in my small hometown I don't feel the need to carry it around.

Now I also realize that there are those who simply want to carry one around like a playtoy. But I suspect that they are simply making up for other "shortcomings".

So if anyone disagrees that FEAR is the primary motivation to carry a gun please explain why it's not.

.

I suppose you could look at it that way.

When you lock your car, do you FEAR someone is going to steal it and.or it's contents? Or is it simply a rational precaution...better safe than sorry?

I carry my gun like I carry a spare tire...I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

 

[JustTheFacts]

]Totalitarianism is not just around the corner BY DESIGN.

Si, the chances of the US ever becoming a truly totalitarian state is so remote you have more chance of flying to the moon without oxygen. It's just another red herring spouted by the rabid right so they can keep their peashooters without any blow back..

It pretty much IS remote...and that is by design. That is the fundamental reason behind the 2nd.

Let''s call a spade a spade.

The Second was written at a time when if a man were rich enough he could buy a military bigger than the one the US had. In fact those times didn't really change until WWII . Prior the US military was a fairly small group.

Ever hear of the Pinkertons? At one time they had more men and more guns than the entire US military.

In THOSE times, yes conceivably a man could have hired them and taken over the nation.

Today the standing US military would not tolerate that and they simply would not follow any order to stop elections or keep a guy in office or anything of the sort. They simply wouldn't.

And that is even assuming that someone would try, which they wouldn't . Not out of fear of you and your AR15. Out of fear of the US military who would pound the shit out of them.

That doesn't negate that we have a right to own guns, but it does negate the silly notion that we should all own an AR15 in case the government decides to take over.

Not to mention the obvious fact that there are other ways to take over besides guns, and that's already been done. War lost.

 

[Si modo]

It pretty much IS remote...and that is by design. That is the fundamental reason behind the 2nd.

Yeah, but even without the second it would never happen.

A huge - if not the majority - of former and current service men and women are conservatives. By and large, do cons believe in the second?If you answer that question in the affirmative, then the very people who embrace the second whole heartedly would be the same people who would impose totalitarianism on you.

It is impossible to know that.

The Second is DESIGNED to prevent totalitarianism. We have no control to show that the 2nd has been the cause that we don't have totalitarianism, like most things outside of a lab have no control, but I am happy with the results...so far.

It's part of our Bill of Rights...they seem to work so far quite well.




And, to comment earlier on a post of yours to Oddball about asking him for proof of any libertarian system that has worked, obviously we have none because we have never seen a libertarian system. The USA approaches one, but is still pretty far off and gets farther off the mark. So, other than the USA (and less than a handful of others), there is NO governmental system that hasn't failed.

 

[Valerie]

Your labeling me as an anti- [insert anything here] is your simple minded cognitive hallucination....I'm in favor of the greatest amount of individual freedom possible, which necessarily puts me at odds with arrogant, do-gooder, know-it-all nannies like you about 99% of the time....But that doesn't automatically make me the anarchist that intellectually arrested demagogues like to portray people like myself.

My current position with the forum is entirely irrelevant to any of that....But I guess whatever you need to tell yourself of be convinced of your moral piety is just jake.

Grow the fuck up.

I know what you are in favour of, and that is just a populist tenet that can never be converted to reality. You have yet to name one society that has been like that, and has managed to exist.

You might live in your little fantasy world of what life SHOULD be like. We can all do that. That's easy. But the reality is a whole lot different...

I don't think you are an Anarchist - yet- but you are certainly intellectually dishonest...

Of course your position is relevent. It points you out as a hypocrite of the first order.

I have been described as many things in my life. Pious ain't one of them.

You are trying to live a life of total freedom - free from any constraints other than those that you decide to impose on yourself - and you're telling me to grow the fuck up? Rich....

Exactly...

 

[Si modo]

Si, the chances of the US ever becoming a truly totalitarian state is so remote you have more chance of flying to the moon without oxygen. It's just another red herring spouted by the rabid right so they can keep their peashooters without any blow back..

It pretty much IS remote...and that is by design. That is the fundamental reason behind the 2nd.

Let''s call a spade a spade.

The Second was written at a time when if a man were rich enough he could buy a military bigger than the one the US had. In fact those times didn't really change until WWII . Prior the US military was a fairly small group.

Ever hear of the Pinkertons? At one time they had more men and more guns than the entire US military.

In THOSE times, yes conceivably a man could have hired them and taken over the nation.

Today the standing US military would not tolerate that and they simply would not follow any order to stop elections or keep a guy in office or anything of the sort. They simply wouldn't.

And that is even assuming that someone would try, which they wouldn't . Not out of fear of you and your AR15. Out of fear of the US military who would pound the shit out of them.

That doesn't negate that we have a right to own guns, but it does negate the silly notion that we should all own an AR15 in case the government decides to take over.

Not to mention the obvious fact that there are other ways to take over besides guns, and that's already been done. War lost.

Do you contradict yourself and talk to straw regularly, or just now?

 

[JustTheFacts]

It pretty much IS remote...and that is by design. That is the fundamental reason behind the 2nd.

Let''s call a spade a spade.

The Second was written at a time when if a man were rich enough he could buy a military bigger than the one the US had. In fact those times didn't really change until WWII . Prior the US military was a fairly small group.

Ever hear of the Pinkertons? At one time they had more men and more guns than the entire US military.

In THOSE times, yes conceivably a man could have hired them and taken over the nation.

Today the standing US military would not tolerate that and they simply would not follow any order to stop elections or keep a guy in office or anything of the sort. They simply wouldn't.

And that is even assuming that someone would try, which they wouldn't . Not out of fear of you and your AR15. Out of fear of the US military who would pound the shit out of them.

That doesn't negate that we have a right to own guns, but it does negate the silly notion that we should all own an AR15 in case the government decides to take over.

Not to mention the obvious fact that there are other ways to take over besides guns, and that's already been done. War lost.

Do you contradict yourself and talk to straw regularly, or just now?

Where did I contradict myself? Merely saying I did so does not make it so.

 

[Dr Grump]

It's part of our Bill of Rights...they seem to work so far quite well.

And, to comment earlier on a post of yours to Oddball about asking him for proof of any libertarian system that has worked, obviously we have none because we have never seen a libertarian system. The USA approaches one, but is still pretty far off and gets farther off the mark. So, other than the USA (and less than a handful of others), there is NO governmental system that hasn't failed.

Yeah, it 's ok on the most part.

I see the US as one of the most restrictive democracies out there (and yes guys, I know you're a Constitutional Republic, am using the word 'democracy' in the wider vernacular). If you mean by handful - half a dozen or so - you'd be wrong. There are at least 21 nations - off the top of head - that meet the criteria of being democracies....

 

[Si modo]

Let''s call a spade a spade.

The Second was written at a time when if a man were rich enough he could buy a military bigger than the one the US had. In fact those times didn't really change until WWII . Prior the US military was a fairly small group.

Ever hear of the Pinkertons? At one time they had more men and more guns than the entire US military.

In THOSE times, yes conceivably a man could have hired them and taken over the nation.

Today the standing US military would not tolerate that and they simply would not follow any order to stop elections or keep a guy in office or anything of the sort. They simply wouldn't.

And that is even assuming that someone would try, which they wouldn't . Not out of fear of you and your AR15. Out of fear of the US military who would pound the shit out of them.

That doesn't negate that we have a right to own guns, but it does negate the silly notion that we should all own an AR15 in case the government decides to take over.

Not to mention the obvious fact that there are other ways to take over besides guns, and that's already been done. War lost.

Do you contradict yourself and talk to straw regularly, or just now?

Where did I contradict myself? Merely saying I did so does not make it so.

I'm here to debate those who have a brain. Those who don't, I mock, and thoroughly enjoy doing so.

I've seen little evidence of the former with you.