By Entropy [887804]
If guns are for sport shooting, this should be in the sports sub.
If guns are for protection, this should be in politics and law. If guns are to overthrow corrupt governments, you should be in jail.
yes, because the government should NEVER be scared of the people whose life it has complete control over right? The government should be allowed to do what ever it likes when ever and how ever it likes, there should be no way to keep it in check. Spoken like a true idiot, thanks.
no, im not saying the U.S. government is at that point yet, but i do acknowledge one day it will be, just like the founding fathers did, and i would like to keep the civil war II to be kept with in the U.S. and not have another country come in and help so then we be in debt to them for ever or to have them force anything onto us. (which would cause more problems)
i said i was done here, but thats just too stupid to by pass.....coming from a guy who wants to talk about logic sure as hell doesn't have much himself.....
If you dont like how your government operates, step up and serve your country by representing the people better. Democracy requires effort, not vigilante's.
And you call me stupid.
lol, i would never make it into politics. Once a government reaches the point i stated nobody would be able to run for government, the people at the top would just hand pick them....so yes i do indeed call you stupid.
Entropy is not stupid. At all. He is one of the fairest, and most level minded people in Torn in my opinion, but he is completely wrong about the necessity of citizens to be armed, but we should not blame him. He is a product of his environment, and he has had a lifetime of indoctrination and ideology against private gun ownership, thus he and most others in the UK and Europe believe that it is best to trust in their governments to always lookout for their best interest, whereas we in the USA have had a different kind of indoctrination and ideology presented to us (well, at least until recently).
I am willing to allow those of different beliefs to have their way, so long as they do not infringe on my beliefs and ways, and that is basically the core idea of the USA's Second Amendment.
Dude, are you hitting on me?
I dont believe that citizens should be allowed to own neutron blasters or low yield hand held atomic devices either, whenever they get invented, no matter how much fun they are. If there are no neutron blasters in the country, you dont need one to protect yourself from one. QED.
There is, in my opinion, and that of most of the UK, no justifiable reason for private ownership of lethal weapons, with very rare and tightly controlled exceptions.
Those are my opinions. So shoot me
Edit: I'd also make the point again, that a government is "of the people". We each have the capability to get involved and change whatever aspect of it we dont like. Trusting the government to always do the right thing is unrealistic, however knowing that I can organise a grass roots political movement, get elected and change whatever it is that the government is forcing upon us wrongly... well, I'd put my faith in that over a hand gun any day of the week.
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." ~ Samuel Adams
I respect you far to much to hit on you, Entropy, lol.
But, for the life of me I don't understand why people outside the USA are concerning themselves with the gun laws in the USA... other than to work ourselves into a lather it serves no purpose. The USA hasn't invaded and taken control permanently any country in Europe, since the administration of post WW II Germany, so why all the fuss?
Guns are nothing more than a tool. A warning. A symbol... a way to say to whomever is contemplating force against others... hey, you might want to think twice. Simply put, and I have already said this, guns are nothing more than the great equalizer.
I am not one of those people who has a collection of guns. Nor do I sleep with a gun next to me, but I am one of those people who sees no reasonable need to give up even one single bit more of my personal freedom, just because some people are scared of an inanimate object in the hands of an idiot.
Take away the guns from honest people, and the criminals ALWAYS find a way to get them... ALWAYS!
By Swag [929733]
So which countries would be talking about in this here history lesson would we be talking about Neil? Im pretty sure that none of them are democratic countries where there soldiers are gathered by volunteering only. Enlighten me good sir.
Well, one of them would be America. Look up the Whiskey Rebellion. There are dozens of rebellions and insurrections every year that are brutally put down by their respective governments - take a look at the Arab Spring for a start. You'd be labelled as terrorists the moment a shot was fired in anger, and you would be put down mercilessly.
Claiming the right to own guns to keep the government afraid of you is a nonsense. They'd crush you in a heartbeat.
For one, the Arab spring is nothing close to what we are talking about. First, those people werent volunteers, they were probably told your in MY military, (notice i didnt say the COUNRY'S military), or you die. These people are fighting for freedom, which is something we've had for him 200+ years. Theres a big difference in militarys when it comes to a country's and a militia that belongs to some dictator.
Like i said, ive had the conversation before and the general consensus is "f**k that, if that happened the military would no longer pull rank."
George Washington himself put down a rebellion against a federal whiskey tax.
By PopadaPill [900338]
when i talk about it im kinda talking about if your were to start afresh,no one or a very small percentage of ppl had guns,same with gun crime...would you still want to own one,have laws where any tom dick or harry could have one if he ''looked'' normal.I think USA as had it now with guns,may as well stay as you are..nothing will change,your flooded with guns.
Ban/strictly control the sale or manufacture of ammunition. Maintain a watch at your borders to limit smuggling. The problem will dry up eventually. Have gun amnesties prior to and after making private possession illegal without a stringently controlled license like they did here. Thats off the top of my head... I'm sure there are far better methods of removing them from circulation. It certainly wouldnt be easy, but its not unachievable either.
[b][/b]
Like the War on Drugs has limited drug smuggling from Mexico into the US. Or prohibition limited alchohol smuggling from Canada. Not going to work real well.
By Entropy [887804]
If guns are for sport shooting, this should be in the sports sub.
If guns are for protection, this should be in politics and law. If guns are to overthrow corrupt governments, you should be in jail.
yes, because the government should NEVER be scared of the people whose life it has complete control over right? The government should be allowed to do what ever it likes when ever and how ever it likes, there should be no way to keep it in check. Spoken like a true idiot, thanks.
no, im not saying the U.S. government is at that point yet, but i do acknowledge one day it will be, just like the founding fathers did, and i would like to keep the civil war II to be kept with in the U.S. and not have another country come in and help so then we be in debt to them for ever or to have them force anything onto us. (which would cause more problems)
i said i was done here, but thats just too stupid to by pass.....coming from a guy who wants to talk about logic sure as hell doesn't have much himself.....
If you dont like how your government operates, step up and serve your country by representing the people better. Democracy requires effort, not vigilante's.
And you call me stupid.
lol, i would never make it into politics. Once a government reaches the point i stated nobody would be able to run for government, the people at the top would just hand pick them....so yes i do indeed call you stupid.
Entropy is not stupid. At all. He is one of the fairest, and most level minded people in Torn in my opinion, but he is completely wrong about the necessity of citizens to be armed, but we should not blame him. He is a product of his environment, and he has had a lifetime of indoctrination and ideology against private gun ownership, thus he and most others in the UK and Europe believe that it is best to trust in their governments to always lookout for their best interest, whereas we in the USA have had a different kind of indoctrination and ideology presented to us (well, at least until recently).
I am willing to allow those of different beliefs to have their way, so long as they do not infringe on my beliefs and ways, and that is basically the core idea of the USA's Second Amendment.
Dude, are you hitting on me?
I dont believe that citizens should be allowed to own neutron blasters or low yield hand held atomic devices either, whenever they get invented, no matter how much fun they are. If there are no neutron blasters in the country, you dont need one to protect yourself from one. QED.
There is, in my opinion, and that of most of the UK, no justifiable reason for private ownership of lethal weapons, with very rare and tightly controlled exceptions.
Those are my opinions. So shoot me
Edit: I'd also make the point again, that a government is "of the people". We each have the capability to get involved and change whatever aspect of it we dont like. Trusting the government to always do the right thing is unrealistic, however knowing that I can organise a grass roots political movement, get elected and change whatever it is that the government is forcing upon us wrongly... well, I'd put my faith in that over a hand gun any day of the week.
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." ~ Samuel Adams
I respect you far to much to hit on you, Entropy, lol.
But, for the life of me I don't understand why people outside the USA are concerning themselves with the gun laws in the USA... other than to work ourselves into a lather it serves no purpose. The USA hasn't invaded and taken control permanently any country in Europe, since the administration of post WW II Germany, so why all the fuss?
Well, dont forget about how extensive the cultural influence of America is. We all feel like we own a part of the US (and in the case of the UK, we do, and we'd like it back please).
Guns are nothing more than a tool. A warning. A symbol... a way to say to whomever is contemplating force against others... hey, you might want to think twice. Simply put, and I have already said this, guns are nothing more than the great equalizer.
Guns have one purpose, and one purpose only - to inflict bodily harm on an opponent. All other uses are entirely secondary. I see no reason for private ownership of a lethal weapon in a civilised and democratic society.
I am not one of those people who has a collection of guns. Nor do I sleep with a gun next to me, but I am one of those people who sees no reasonable need to give up even one single bit more of my personal freedom, just because some people are scared of an inanimate object in the hands of an idiot.
Take away the guns from honest people, and the criminals ALWAYS find a way to get them... ALWAYS!
Maybe so, but if there were very few guns in the country, the amount that they would find a way to get would be proportionally lower.
Answer me this: If ownership of a lethal weapon is right and proper, why is your government going to such great lengths to stop nuclear proliferation? If a gun is the great equaliser for civilians, then surely a nuke or two would be the great equaliser for countries? Wouldnt that lead to the same levels of safety that everyone over there currently enjoys thanks to their guns? Shouldnt the government be encouraging every country to have nukes, in the name of global security?
Of course not. It would lead to nuclear war, as some loony would inevitably decide to use them, just as loonies all over the states decide to use their guns (legal and illegal) and kill people for no good reason. Guns dont kill people - on their own. Guns + people kill people, and therein lies the rub.
Will it stop murder? No. Will it reduce the amount of people who get drunk, fly into a rage and then murder someone in blind fury? Yes, as its far easier to kill someone with a gun lying around than it is with any other common weapon.
The real question is, why do Americans hold onto their weapons so tight, yet are so casual with their other rights?
Well folks, thats it, I've left the game. To those of you who think of me as a friend, I thank you and wish you all the best. Enjoy the game, and take care.
Entropy, comparing a gun to a nuclear bomb is... to put it nicely, a stretch. Guns and nuclear weapons really shouldn't be used in the same sentence, ever.
And also, Americans are not very casual with our rights. Have you not ever heard of the ACLU or other various prominent watch dog groups for the First Amendment? Have you seen the lengthy legal battles that take place whenever a state/county attempts to pass legislation stating citizens must produce an ID o vote? Westboro Baptist Church: enough said really.
Also, you have to keep this in mind: the VAST majority of gun homicides are committed by people who know each other or people that are all associated with gangs. Of course, there are people who get shot at convenience stores/gas stations during robberies, but as I said.. THOSE guns are not typically registered legal guns, so that isn't the same. And in fact, store owners typically own guns themselves, legally, to protect against those illegal guns.
Of course when there is a horrible tragic story where someone innocent is killed point blank by a gun, such as a case this past weekend in Chicago where a 7 year old girl was shot (not killed though) by a stray bullet in Chicago, those are what make headlines. The vast majority of gun crimes are not like this though, they are between friends/family members that get in heated arguments that escalate, and would escalate if they didn't have guns, or they are gang on gang violence.
tl;dr version: The vast majority of these homicides are carried out with illegal firearms that would still be available to criminals in a black market whether or not gun laws were strict or non-existent. Realistically, so many other things we do and take for granted each day pose a much greater risk than allowing law abiding citizens to own guns.
By Swag [929733]
Im not sure where the socialism thing came from nor does it have anything to do with being a gun enthusiast. If youve asked me before now i must have missed it. Ill play your game though, here we go :
First, the definition of socialism.
Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Second, why obama is a socialist.
Look at what parts of the private sector that the government has taken over or gained some sort of ownership since obama has taken office.
The auto industry
The mortgage industry
The healthcare industry to some extent
The banking industry
The student lending industry (the government totally pushed out all private lenders)
Then we get to the redistribution of wealth. No one can deny he wants this. Since Obama has become president, payments such as welfare, social security, and unemployment benefits have been approximately half of the growth in personal income. This comes on top of raising taxes on anyone who makes over 250k a year. That is redistribution of wealth.
Next, he is very fond of his fathers ideologies. His father was a confirmed socialist and even wrote a paper titled "Problems with our socialism."
Both of his brothers are marxist, of which one he said is the person who made him the proudest.
Bill Ayers. Enough said.
There are many more reasons i believe he is, but i dont feel like going through it all.
By DieselMack [470785]
Why the hell would you feel the need to carry a gun? No doubt the OP is an American?
This thread is messed up as is your head if you think its clever to advertise such a sick demented subject.
If you think its normal then I suggest you get the hell out of your country and move to somewhere more humane!
If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.
In my opinion, carrying guns is worse than selling your child for sex.
Im sure there are many people that will look down on you for posting such rubbish.
You are not clever and not wise.
R- Pathetic
DieselMack, for as long as I have been around and seen your post I have to say this is one of the most judgmental of all I have seen.
First Americans with a Legal Right to carry a weapon must have so many hours of gun training and safety lessons before they are even issued a permit. In my state they do not just hand out guns. Nor do they in any other state that I am aware of. There is at least a 7 day waiting period before you can take a gun from the shop to your home. This is to do background checks to make sure you are not forgive me for using this term loosely Legally Sane ,Make sure you are up to date on your training and to make sure you have not committed a crime with any weapon!
As for you saying carrying a gun worse then selling a child for sex! That is the most disgusting asinine thing I have ever seen in my life! Selling guns for sex or drugs is more likely to happen then selling your children! And it is our right in the United states to carry a weapon to protect our self, Guy comes up behind me with a gun you better believe your balls I want a way to protect myself!
And for the greater understanding I am not for nor ageist carrying a weapon. I have seen both ends of what it can do. I personally would not own one,I do believe however if it comes between that crack addict trying to get into my house or him being shot...Well shoot the son of a *****
There's better way than guns, try traps, dig some hole, put alarms, flamethrower also...
By Swag [929733]
Im not sure where the socialism thing came from nor does it have anything to do with being a gun enthusiast. If youve asked me before now i must have missed it. Ill play your game though, here we go :
First, the definition of socialism.
Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Second, why obama is a socialist.
Look at what parts of the private sector that the government has taken over or gained some sort of ownership since obama has taken office.
The auto industry
The mortgage industry
The healthcare industry to some extent
The banking industry
The student lending industry (the government totally pushed out all private lenders)
Then we get to the redistribution of wealth. No one can deny he wants this. Since Obama has become president, payments such as welfare, social security, and unemployment benefits have been approximately half of the growth in personal income. This comes on top of raising taxes on anyone who makes over 250k a year. That is redistribution of wealth.
Next, he is very fond of his fathers ideologies. His father was a confirmed socialist and even wrote a paper titled "Problems with our socialism."
Both of his brothers are marxist, of which one he said is the person who made him the proudest.
Bill Ayers. Enough said.
There are many more reasons i believe he is, but i dont feel like going through it all.
Here's the maccarthist definition of communism...
Like i said funny guy, learn how to spell. *McCarthist, McCarthyism*
Yesterday Obama gave the highest civilian honor our country has, the presidential medal of freedom, to Delores Huerta. Shes an Honorary chair of the the Democratic Socialists of America. How convenient.
By bosox [278767]
Entropy, comparing a gun to a nuclear bomb is... to put it nicely, a stretch. Guns and nuclear weapons really shouldn't be used in the same sentence, ever.
On the contrary, I think gun - citizen equates very well with nuke - country. I am not comparing them directly. I am not saying that owning a gun is tantamount to owning a nuke. I am saying that for their equivalent scales, they are the same or similar in terms of intention, and am using that to show the incongruence between attitudes to each one. I'm sure the likes of Pakistan and Iran would agree with my assessment of them as "the great equaliser", just as guns have been called in this thread. To embrace one, and look in horror at the other when the only difference between them is one of scale is the stretch.
And also, Americans are not very casual with our rights. Have you not ever heard of the ACLU or other various prominent watch dog groups for the First Amendment? Have you seen the lengthy legal battles that take place whenever a state/county attempts to pass legislation stating citizens must produce an ID o vote? Westboro Baptist Church: enough said really.
Oh come on now. It was only earlier this week that NDAA was finally blocked, and then only for US citizens (I could still be whisked off and held indefinitely with no charge, but you no longer could). This went all through the entire legal process and was signed into law by the President (who at least had the decency to say that he was uncomfortable with it, even if he lacked the cohonas to actually veto it). Look also at the TSA, who are now legally entitled to grope your genitals. Then look at all the laws that are being pushed through removing your rights to privacy, free speech and free assembly online. Look at the legality of having spy drones flying over US airspace. I could go on and on. There are more rights than the first amendment, and you seem to be losing them rapidly.
What makes the Second Amendment so precious?
Also, you have to keep this in mind: the VAST majority of gun homicides are committed by people who know each other or people that are all associated with gangs. Of course, there are people who get shot at convenience stores/gas stations during robberies, but as I said.. THOSE guns are not typically registered legal guns, so that isn't the same. And in fact, store owners typically own guns themselves, legally, to protect against those illegal guns.
Those people who know each other are probably the ones I mentioned, the ones that do it while drunk, in a blind rage, and grab a conveniently placed gun and shoot the other person dead. If that gun werent there, a large proportion of those would be beatings.
I also struggle to see how you can fail to see the link between availability of legal guns and the proliferation of illegal ones.
Of course when there is a horrible tragic story where someone innocent is killed point blank by a gun, such as a case this past weekend in Chicago where a 7 year old girl was shot (not killed though) by a stray bullet in Chicago, those are what make headlines. The vast majority of gun crimes are not like this though, they are between friends/family members that get in heated arguments that escalate, and would escalate if they didn't have guns, or they are gang on gang violence.
tl;dr version: The vast majority of these homicides are carried out with illegal firearms that would still be available to criminals in a black market whether or not gun laws were strict or non-existent. Realistically, so many other things we do and take for granted each day pose a much greater risk than allowing law abiding citizens to own guns.
Like I said, they would escalate into beatings in most cases, not murders. Compare US murder rates with countries with strict gun control. There is at the very least a correlation between murder rates and gun ownership. Gang violence is always likely to happen while there is such social injustice, but again it would be much less violent with fewer guns involved. To reduce the amount of illegal guns in circulation, you first have to stop their supply, and making gun ownership illegal would go a very long way towards that.
The one thing standing in the way is the US's sense of entitlement - and that is unlikely to change even if the laws did.
Well folks, thats it, I've left the game. To those of you who think of me as a friend, I thank you and wish you all the best. Enjoy the game, and take care.
By Swag [929733]
Im not sure where the socialism thing came from nor does it have anything to do with being a gun enthusiast. If youve asked me before now i must have missed it. Ill play your game though, here we go :
First, the definition of socialism.
Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Second, why obama is a socialist.
Look at what parts of the private sector that the government has taken over or gained some sort of ownership since obama has taken office.
The auto industry
The mortgage industry
The healthcare industry to some extent
The banking industry
The student lending industry (the government totally pushed out all private lenders)
Then we get to the redistribution of wealth. No one can deny he wants this. Since Obama has become president, payments such as welfare, social security, and unemployment benefits have been approximately half of the growth in personal income. This comes on top of raising taxes on anyone who makes over 250k a year. That is redistribution of wealth.
Next, he is very fond of his fathers ideologies. His father was a confirmed socialist and even wrote a paper titled "Problems with our socialism."
Both of his brothers are marxist, of which one he said is the person who made him the proudest.
Bill Ayers. Enough said.
There are many more reasons i believe he is, but i dont feel like going through it all.
Here's the maccarthist definition of communism...
Like i said funny guy, learn how to spell. *McCarthist, McCarthyism*
Yesterday Obama gave the highest civilian honor our country has, the presidential medal of freedom, to Delores Huerta. Shes an Honorary chair of the the Democratic Socialists of America. How convenient.
U should read about socialism rather than ask me to read about how many jailed immigrants there is in your country.
I have often said we are wasting our time trying to prevent other countries from having nukes. We can't put the genie back in the bottle, but we (politicians) run around wringing our hands, firing off platitudes, and wasting precious resources trying... it is all part of the game I guess. Entropy, you will call me crazy, but personally I think we should give each and every country on earth a nuke, and tell them that if they use it, they will be nuked back into the stone age. For some of those countries that won't be much of a change, but for others it might make a difference. Of course, I say all that tongue in cheek, but there is a part of me that believes it might work.
You asked about why we hold so strongly to our guns (some of us, the tide is turning against us as time goes on), which really means why do we hold so strongly to the Second Amendment, and the answer is simple. The Second Amendment provides the glue that holds the rest of the document together... it is the secret sauce so to speak. Words without a means to back them up are simply words.
I am a libertarian, Entropy, which means that I want as small a government, and as little government as is possible, and I am not in favor of any piece of law that restricts, controls, contains, or whittles away at my natural rights.
I understand your position on guns. I get it. I don't agree, but I understand. But, I am also a student of history, and I know for fact that overtime governments will and do become unwieldy and abusive, and if the people do not have a means to address that, then government usually turns its people into slaves in the end.
By Entropy [887804]Well, dont forget about how extensive the cultural influence of America is. We all feel like we own a part of the US (and in the case of the UK, we do, and we'd like it back please).
while you're at it, don't forget to return Gibraltar to Spain too, they'd like it back as well.
By Entropy [887804]Maybe so, but if there were very few guns in the country, the amount that they would find a way to get would be proportionally lower.
(...)
Will it stop murder? No. Will it reduce the amount of people who get drunk, fly into a rage and then murder someone in blind fury? Yes, as its far easier to kill someone with a gun lying around than it is with any other common weapon.
The real question is, why do Americans hold onto their weapons so tight, yet are so casual with their other rights?
and don't forget about how easy and cheap it is to get ammo. it's not just the machine but also the cheap "fuel"
By bosox [278767] tl;dr version: The vast majority of these homicides are carried out with illegal firearms that would still be available to criminals in a black market whether or not gun laws were strict or non-existent. Realistically, so many other things we do and take for granted each day pose a much greater risk than allowing law abiding citizens to own guns.
By robocop [24729]
Here's the maccarthist definition of communism...
Like i said funny guy, learn how to spell. *McCarthist, McCarthyism*
Yesterday Obama gave the highest civilian honor our country has, the presidential medal of freedom, to Delores Huerta. Shes an Honorary chair of the the Democratic Socialists of America. How convenient.
I believe maccarthist was a reference to McDonald's, nicknamed "Macca's" in Australia and New Zealand.
Dolores Huerta also got the United States Presidential Eleanor Roosevelt Award for Human Rights in 1998, from Bill Clinton I believe.
"In September 1988, in front of the Sir Francis Drake Hotel in union Square, Huerta was severely beaten by San Francisco Police officers during a peaceful and lawful protest of the policies/platform of then-candidate for president George H.W. Bush."
Keep in mind the meaning of honorary btw. But even if she was an active Democrat, I'd still see no problem there. I don't know about you, but I'd also have some aversion to Republicans if I was her.
By robocop [24729]
Here's the maccarthist definition of communism...
Like i said funny guy, learn how to spell. *McCarthist, McCarthyism*
Yesterday Obama gave the highest civilian honor our country has, the presidential medal of freedom, to Delores Huerta. Shes an Honorary chair of the the Democratic Socialists of America. How convenient.
I believe maccarthist was a reference to McDonald's, nicknamed "Macca's" in Australia and New Zealand.
Dolores Huerta also got the United States Presidential Eleanor Roosevelt Award for Human Rights in 1998, from Bill Clinton I believe.
"In September 1988, in front of the Sir Francis Drake Hotel in union Square, Huerta was severely beaten by San Francisco Police officers during a peaceful and lawful protest of the policies/platform of then-candidate for president George H.W. Bush."
Keep in mind the meaning of honorary btw. But even if she was an active Democrat, I'd still see no problem there. I don't know about you, but I'd also have some aversion to Republicans if I was her.
Look up McCarthyism and you'll see exactly what he meant.
I dont care what the award was for, shes still socialist and further proves my point.
By Entropy [887804]Well, dont forget about how extensive the cultural influence of America is. We all feel like we own a part of the US (and in the case of the UK, we do, and we'd like it back please).
while you're at it, don't forget to return Gibraltar to Spain too, they'd like it back as well.
Never! We're pushing for a law that will allow us to plant trees across the entire island that spell out "U MAD BRO?".
Edit: BTW, you can keep Australia. Too many spiders
Last Edited: Wed May 30, 2012 14:09:07
Well folks, thats it, I've left the game. To those of you who think of me as a friend, I thank you and wish you all the best. Enjoy the game, and take care.
Well folks, thats it, I've left the game. To those of you who think of me as a friend, I thank you and wish you all the best. Enjoy the game, and take care.
I have often said we are wasting our time trying to prevent other countries from having nukes. We can't put the genie back in the bottle, but we (politicians) run around wringing our hands, firing off platitudes, and wasting precious resources trying... it is all part of the game I guess. Entropy, you will call me crazy, but personally I think we should give each and every country on earth a nuke, and tell them that if they use it, they will be nuked back into the stone age. For some of those countries that won't be much of a change, but for others it might make a difference. Of course, I say all that tongue in cheek, but there is a part of me that believes it might work.
You asked about why we hold so strongly to our guns (some of us, the tide is turning against us as time goes on), which really means why do we hold so strongly to the Second Amendment, and the answer is simple. The Second Amendment provides the glue that holds the rest of the document together... it is the secret sauce so to speak. Words without a means to back them up are simply words.
I am a libertarian, Entropy, which means that I want as small a government, and as little government as is possible, and I am not in favor of any piece of law that restricts, controls, contains, or whittles away at my natural rights.
I understand your position on guns. I get it. I don't agree, but I understand. But, I am also a student of history, and I know for fact that overtime governments will and do become unwieldy and abusive, and if the people do not have a means to address that, then government usually turns its people into slaves in the end.
You're crazy
I guess we will always differ over whether it is better to bear arms to stop an abusive government by force or to vote in candidates that we want, who will stop it from becoming abusive in the first place. A properly functioning democracy requires participation from its citizenship, not intimidation.
Well folks, thats it, I've left the game. To those of you who think of me as a friend, I thank you and wish you all the best. Enjoy the game, and take care.
By Swag [929733]
I dont care what the award was for, shes still socialist and further proves my point.
how ignorant is that statement?
- if you don't care, then you can't use that to "prove" any point.
- if you want to use it, you have to care. and if you care you'll realize 12 other people got that very same award:
Nobel Prize-winning writer Toni Morrison
Singer-songwriter Bob Dylan
Madeleine Albright, the first female secretary of State
John Paul Stevens, the third-longest-serving justice on the Supreme Court, nominated by Richard Nixon
William Foege, a physician who led the charge to eradicate smallpox during the 1970s
John Glenn, the first American astronaut to orbit the Earth
Attorney John Doar
Pat Summitt, the Tennessee women's basketball coach
Israeli President Shimon Peres
Gordon Hirabayashi, who defied the U.S. internment of Japanese-American citizens
Jan Karski of Poland, who delivered one of the first eyewitness accounts of the Nazi Holocaust against Jews
Juliette Gordon Low, who founded the Girl Scouts
last 3 posthumous.
so I guess to further "prove your point", all these must be socialists
By Entropy [887804]Well, dont forget about how extensive the cultural influence of America is. We all feel like we own a part of the US (and in the case of the UK, we do, and we'd like it back please).
while you're at it, don't forget to return Gibraltar to Spain too, they'd like it back as well.
Never! We're pushing for a law that will allow us to plant trees across the entire island that spell out "U MAD BRO?".
By Entropy [887804]Well, dont forget about how extensive the cultural influence of America is. We all feel like we own a part of the US (and in the case of the UK, we do, and we'd like it back please).
while you're at it, don't forget to return Gibraltar to Spain too, they'd like it back as well.
Never! We're pushing for a law that will allow us to plant trees across the entire island that spell out "U MAD BRO?".
Gibraltar, now an island
Huh. Whaddaya know. I always thought it was an island. Oh well, today I learned...
Well folks, thats it, I've left the game. To those of you who think of me as a friend, I thank you and wish you all the best. Enjoy the game, and take care.
By Entropy [887804]Well, dont forget about how extensive the cultural influence of America is. We all feel like we own a part of the US (and in the case of the UK, we do, and we'd like it back please).
while you're at it, don't forget to return Gibraltar to Spain too, they'd like it back as well.
Never! We're pushing for a law that will allow us to plant trees across the entire island that spell out "U MAD BRO?".
Gibraltar, now an island
Huh. Whaddaya know. I always thought it was an island. Oh well, today I learned...
Now you can be happy that you signed up to Torn! If anyone asks "Why do you play that game?" You can say: "If I didn't I'd still think that Gibraltar was an Island. In yo face!!"
By Swag [929733]
Yesterday Obama gave the highest civilian honor our country has, the presidential medal of freedom, to Delores Huerta. Shes an Honorary chair of the the Democratic Socialists of America. How convenient.
By Swag [929733]
I dont care what the award was for, shes still socialist and further proves my point.
how ignorant is that statement?
- if you don't care, then you can't use that to "prove" any point.
- if you want to use it, you have to care. and if you care you'll realize 12 other people got that very same award:
Nobel Prize-winning writer Toni Morrison
Singer-songwriter Bob Dylan
Madeleine Albright, the first female secretary of State
John Paul Stevens, the third-longest-serving justice on the Supreme Court, nominated by Richard Nixon
William Foege, a physician who led the charge to eradicate smallpox during the 1970s
John Glenn, the first American astronaut to orbit the Earth
Attorney John Doar
Pat Summitt, the Tennessee women's basketball coach
Israeli President Shimon Peres
Gordon Hirabayashi, who defied the U.S. internment of Japanese-American citizens
Jan Karski of Poland, who delivered one of the first eyewitness accounts of the Nazi Holocaust against Jews
Juliette Gordon Low, who founded the Girl Scouts
last 3 posthumous.
so I guess to further "prove your point", all these must be socialists
She is an Honorary chair of the democratic Socialists of America. Thats what makes her socialist. She adores Hugo Chavez and has said we should strive to be more like him. That my friend is evidence of socialism.
Also my "poor definition" of socialism came straight from the dictionary so i dont see your point, although trolling would be my guess. Sounds like something you need to take up with Meriam Webster or something.
You're right, anyone who is for workers rights should be hated. We should strive to be more like Mitt Romney and hate the average worker and try to give as much as we can to the rich so they can better our lives for us...
Atleast he has had a normal job. Obama has never had a private sector job. Thats like me trying to fix the biochemistry community when ive never done anything anywhere close to biochemistry.
![MachineGunSteve [184119]](http://awardimages.torn.com/184119-21906-large.png "MachineGunSteve [184119]")
![TedThomas [887131]](http://awardimages.torn.com/887131-65195-large.png "TedThomas [887131]")
![JimboJones [337620]](http://awardimages.torn.com/337620-22940-large.png "JimboJones [337620]")
![Entropy [887804]](http://awardimages.torn.com/887804-61357-large.png "Entropy [887804]")
![bosox [278767]](http://awardimages.torn.com/278767-86027-large.png "bosox [278767]")
![robocop [24729]](http://awardimages.torn.com/24729-92404-large.png "robocop [24729]")
![HacktherippeR [554984]](http://awardimages.torn.com/554984-24183-large.png "HacktherippeR [554984]")
![Swag [929733]](http://awardimages.torn.com/929733-83272-large.png "Swag [929733]")
![Spurtung [96875]](http://awardimages.torn.com/96875-74581-large.png "Spurtung [96875]")
![228375 [228375]](http://awardimages.torn.com/228375-28190-large.png "228375 [228375]")
Follow @TornRPG