Firearms and Freedom

except that THAT is NOT TRUE
it isn't the subject that you are referring to any more than it is the subject that i specifically replied to in your post...
My very first post on this thread was to point out the logical fallacy of... (wait for it!) your intentional redefinition of the term responsible gun owners !!
i even quoted it!

to which you then justified your use of the redefinition by proving, via strawman argument, that you were pissed off at the court system for not actually enforcing the law!

I even tried to get you to go back to the topic...

but you would have none of that, because you had to prove that all gun owners will eventually be irresponsible and kill off thousands of innocent victims [hyperbole - but seems to be more accurate than not]

so you took up the mantle of what appears to be a fanatic and decided you had to bash it into my head that you can be the only one right in this regard!

i don't care what you believe in... really. i don't.
but you can't say that your actions are in any way logical in the posts you and i are having...

every single one of my posts to you have been trying to get you to see the strawman and logical fallacy you've created. period.
that is just one reason i used the analogy i did... because it is not only relevant, but actually right on the mark. you are blaming the actions of a few idiots on the whole... while ignoring the inconsistencies in your own argument that demonstrate a fanatical religious approach to the argument moreso than a logical one.

if you had been logical from the start ... if you had not posted a blatant misrepresentation of facts (as well as strawman) i would not have replied to you at all!
problem is: this is a hot-button topic and you came into it scrapping for a fight... so it actually wouldn't matter what i said or how OT i was, if i agreed with you, i am right... but since i don't agree with what you said, i am "changing the subject", or using an unstuffed strawman, or...
I mean, isn't that the whole reason you will NOT address the strawman and redefinition you actually started this with?
because you want to change the topic from your intentional strawman and misrepresentation... so you instead use this tactic... here:

now, considering i am STILL trying to get you to address the original argument that i made to you when i responded to your post (in my very first post here)...

WHO is really the one trying to change the subject?????

considering i actually never changed the argument and that i am addressing a legitimate complaint regarding your intentional misrepresentation, strawan and delusion that i addressed IN MY FIRST POST..... and that this is a forum for actually discussing stuff just like that... how, i mean, really... HOW can i get back on topic when you will not even consider addressing the challenges to your own fallacies that you yourself posted and i addressed so that everyone can be on the same page?

makes it hard...


(going to diner - Bback l8er)

EDIT:

there are NO false accusations there that i saw
as a matter of fact, it actually is a factual representation of what you are attempting to do... distract from your own attempted strawman and intentional misrepresentation of facts

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Stump is no fool. Are you practicing your lines in front of the mirror, while you waste your own time fomenting paranoid delusions?

Get a grip on something, besides your own insecurities. I'd suggest some range time, just to calm you down.

If that doesn't work, try Xanax.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@iceaura: This is more fun, and possibly more meaningful.

Stay tuned! I'm almost positive the folks who'd rather discuss the issues with the thug or housebreaker will still be here with us to whine about bad old guns...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why am I insecure? I complacently go out to stores and movie theaters and restaurants with the full assurance I will not be gunned down. I live in a world that is relatively peaceful and without the constant threat of mass shooters. How is this insecure? The only insecurity I see are insecure men trying to live out some heroic shootem up fantasy which they anticipate will happen wherever they go. What's wrong with that picture?

 

I'm glad you live in the world of fat, dumb and happy. Good luck with that.

Like I said, you're plonked for trolling, ignorance and mendacity. Good luck with that, too.

 

" Guns don't kill people
it's those pesky little bullets
that leave all of the holes
out of which the blood flows"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How you go from―

No, really. Imagine that. Legislature passes law to allow guns in classrooms. Professors worry about safety. Advice is given to just do nothing to upset the people with guns.

Once again, we see just how gun-loving patriots protect our freedom.

One need not postulate conspiracy theories; this manner of isn't-that-convenient is a properly American habit―file under, "Don't Pretend We Couldn't See That One Coming".

Once upon a time I could be seen using the phrase, "conceptual integrity"; the basic idea is that one's argument should remain consistent enough throughout so as not to defeat itself.

So much for the Second Amendment protecting the rest of our rights.

(Tiassa↑)​

―to―

now - because the few don't properly care for their car and take responsibility, will you also advocate for the removal of all cars?

(Truck Captain Stumpy↑)​

―is your own problem, and you probably shouldn't try to make it other people's. Like I said, if you spend that much time building a straw man, eventually you need to stuff it.

Meanwhile, thank you for destroying another piece of firearm-cult catechism, the "good guy with a gun" argument↑. I actually hadn't seen that one coming. You know, since it wasn't part of the thread subject. Then again, these random excursions in trolling do occasionally discover gems, or, at the very least, semi-precious stones.

 

Why didn't you just let the thread sink to the bottom, then? Why troll it for stones?

Wow.

 

So let me get this straight:

→ Try to have a discussion.

→ Trolls want to disrupt the discussion.

∴ The obvious, sensible thing to do is abandon the discussion per the trolls' wishes.​

Yeah, that sounds just about what we ought to have expected: Let the people with the guns defend liberty by suppressing speech.

Hey, you brought us back to topic, Dr Toad.

Thank you.

 

The topic is firearms and freedom. What does freedom mean? Freedom requires more personal responsibility, than does lack of freedom.

If you are in a prison and have zero freedom, someone else does everything for you. The prisoner is not allowed to do anything, off the routine that is created by the system. If you have full freedom; free man/woman you need to do all those things for yourself, in one way or another. Freedom is harder than lack of freedom, which is why many people want no part of freedom. It is easier, for many, to be in the low security prison of big government, then on the other side of the prison fence, looking for food.

Firearms are dangerous, and are better handled by people who are used to personality responsibility and freedom. If someone is not free, but needs/wants others to do everything for you, you may need them to hold the gun for you. You are not allowed to play with the gun, all by yourself therefore, a fear can perpetuate.

Freedom and lack of freedom explains the dividing line between liberals and conservative with respect to guns. Liberals prefer lack of freedom; socialism, where they are taken care of by big government. This will take away many choices, you have to make. Guns are dangerous and require personal responsibly, with liberals tending let government have guns.

They are taught to dwell on what happens when a person, enslaved; inner compulsions, has a gun; mass shooting. The Conservatives looks through the eyes of personal responsibility and freedom, and don't see the gun as any different from driving a car, which can also kill if careless.

In fact, there are more death from cars than guns. Although the car is more statistically dangerous, the difference is most people do not mind the responsibly of driving a car, therefore this statistic is not seen in quite the same way. They don't see a car driving itself, due to the personal freedom that builds a grasp of reality.

Say you are teaching a child how to drive a car. At first, the parent needs to be present to help think for the child, while their learn. The child has limited freedom to drive. As theirs skills get better, eventually they get to drive alone; full freedom. Freedom is more advanced than dependency since it requires more personal responsibility.

Say the parent never allows the child to drive, alone, but they always need to be present. That child will have more fear of the car, because the need to have the parent present will undermine their self reliance. They will not be allowed to think, so there is gaps in self reliances filled in by the parents. These gaps are where the bogey men, can appear and spook them. The self reliant has already looked at these gaps, due to nobody to help. They are less spooked by tend to be more realistic. It is not a good idea to have dependent children make social policies.

 

Now we're back on topic. Thanks, wellwisher.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Government is supposed to promote the general welfare and to ensure domestic tranquility. This is one of its constitutionally enshrined reasons for existing. Without govt you would have no army to defend your nation, no highways to drive your car on, no air traffic control, no mail, no law enforcement, no social security, no legal protection of civil rights, no environmental protection, no preserved forests or wildernesses, no inspection of drugs and foods, no enforcement of safety in the work space, no funding of space or science programs, no monetary system, no regulation of banks and corporations, no agricultural resources, etc. As part of this good faith in our elected govt, we grant them the power of massive weaponry--far more than just guns. We rely on our leaders to take care of us. We do not expect farmer Billy Bob and his 8 cousins to jump in and protect us from bad guys. This is not a lack of freedom at all, but part and parcel of freedom in that we can live securely and without fear for our well being. The alternative is regression to some sort of barbaric tribalism of yokels fighting each other over common resources.

 

Gun nuts . . . have no nuts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But they have big guns.

 

Of course they do. They need to compensate for their very tiny and ineffective penuses.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think why gun owners are so opposed to "Gun Control"is that they see it as a tool for the government to slowly compromising the Second Amendment. It would be as though speech or religion were regulated by government decree, which would be in violation of the First Amendment.

 

Mod Hat ― Obvious points

We have, of course, reached that vital threshold―

―at which someone's feelings are hurt.

And while it is true that we all ought to know better, so also is it puzzling: After all the open disrespect show along the way, it's an obvious, nearly inevitable line that finally does it.

While this irony elicits exactly no sympathy, we need bear two specific points in mind: (1) Only one side of this dispute gets to be deliberately disrespectful. (2) That customary stupidity aside, it is a penis joke, and that's really, really blatant.

Penis jokes are inappropriate. Persistent disrespect demonstrated through insistently changing the subject and inventing straw men to denigrate other straw men in lieu of actually discussing a subject rationally is much more in tune with community standards.

Bottom line: Stop with the deliberate disrespect. And, firearms advocates, despite my sarcasm, that means you, too.

Look, it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye. And with a penis joke you've just got to be more careful about when and where you whip it out.

Members are reminded: Not everyone can deal with it. Please go out of your way to take it easy on those; it is our human duty unto our community.

 

A penis joke provoked some sort of complaint? It's a stereotypical remark from those on the outer reaches of gun control. Was anyone really surprised? Really?

 

I'm surprised that my post was reported. The two sides are often in blatant name-calling "discussions". They sure are sensitive about some things.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

. . . .