Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Guns part 2

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
just starting it on a new thread, they tend to bog down after 5 pages
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yep, new thread's got my vote.

    Doubro, how did you get the dash-height dot? The one you used to separate the syllables in your little definitions section? (ASCII, I presume. Which number?)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by MacKenZie:
    Yep, new thread's got my vote.

    Doubro, how did you get the dash-height dot? The one you used to separate the syllables in your little definitions section? (ASCII, I presume. Which number?)

    I simply cut and paste it. From Miraim Websters online.

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1479000/1479852.stm

    Just an interesting little article I thought might be relavant to the discussion on freedom to protect ones self.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Doubro:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1479000/1479852.stm

    Just an interesting little article I thought might be relavant to the discussion on freedom to protect ones self.

    Cool story, how on earth did you dig that up?

    It really sums up local govt too. No contact becuase everyone is on holiday or the phone doesn't work - my arse - more like no-one wants to take any responsibility.

    As for having to take it down on safety grounds - well that dumb. The only person who could get injured is someone doing something stupid.

    Slightly different to guns - this is static and you don't get may maniacs wielding barbed wire fences around, but I get your point.

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The sad thing isnt that she was ordered to take it down but the fact that the poor woman would have had her arse sued off if a burglar/rapist/killer happened to cut himself on the wire..

    Of course the council is probably too bust tearing down those vicious conker trees <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif"&gt;
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent:
    Cool story, how on earth did you dig that up?

    My freinds site which will only be up until the end of August... "Geekswithguns.com"

    It's an American Progun site, and the one's who told all the gun nuts like me that this discussion group existed. See, It's really angatonistic towards the Brits, for obvious reasons, but it's an interesting and fun site to read.

    <Slightly different to guns - this is static and you don't get may maniacs wielding barbed wire fences around, but I get your point.>

    Actually, my point was that crime exists in England, and the Police are not always there to protect people... so much so that this woman, who was ROBBED THRICE, actually only felt safer with barbed wire around her.

    Whose to say that she couldn't have been killed during a burglary attempt? Why not allow barbed wire? Because the criminals might get hurt, right? Well, isn't that the exact same weak ass argument that the Brits use to deny guns to law abiding citizens?

    "Oh, what if you shoot a criminal?!!"

    Well, what if a criminal kills that old lady?

    She's already shown she wants to protect herself... Why not give Grandma that Smith and Wesson 38 Special to keep in her bedroom?

    Too senile? Well then, I suggest not breaking into her house to find out if she's actually competant or not...


    In the U.S., just recently there was 90 year old women in upstate New York, who actually used a Shotgun for self protection, and she felt safe with their doors unlocked.


  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, at the risk of 'speaking for all Britons,' I think the reasoning behind denying guns to "law-abiding citizens" is that a more heavily-armed citizenry leads to a more heavily-armed criminal sector, in a vicous circle.

    Gun ownership is probably necessary in the USA, and disarmament would be stupid. In the UK it just isn't like that. Both are stable-ish ways of doing things.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A bit closer to you english, the Swiss, are at least as heavily armed as US...and it would appear that it is for the better...I don't know what their crime rate is like but am inclined to doubt that they have many armed roberies.

    Diesel

    88888888
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Diesel:
    A bit closer to you english, the Swiss, are at least as heavily armed as US...and it would appear that it is for the better...I don't know what their crime rate is like but am inclined to doubt that they have many armed roberies.

    Diesel

    88888888

    Lowest violent crime rate in the world is in Switzerland. England and Australia are MUCH higher. Guess Heinlein had it right about an armed society, didn't he? LMFAO!

    Actually... the number of guns per capita is HIGHER in Switzerland than in the US, and the Swiss have full automatic weapons, not the semi-auto that MOST of the US citizens deal with. Guess the number of guns per capita has SOMETHING to do with being a citizen rather than a "subject". <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif"&gt; Subjects are dependent upon "Big Brother", and citizens take care of the problem themselves...

    EVERY state in the US that has instituted concealed weapons permits has seen a drop in the violent crime rate. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif"&gt; Proliferation of guns brings a DROP in violence: who woulda thunk it? <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif"&gt;



    [This message has been edited by thanatos (edited 17-08-2001).]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is much about the Swiss which I respect and admire...being a skiier there is the attraction of their alps as well...when I was there in 59 on my way elsewhere...I had occasion to visit a biernhaus...in the basement was a British Centurion tank...ask about it I did...seems Fritz and his sons were the crew and part of their military commitment was to store it, armed and with shells, and keep it maintained, in the event of hostilities they had orders to take it to an explicit grouping area and await further orders. A full loaded tank, any tank, in my basement...I'd find room...would beyond just too kuel!

    For whatever else I may disparage about the english...the Centurion tank is kuel...King Tiger was kuler but they don't make them any more...he, he, he...just had to add the jab since I consider our Abrams such a POS!

    Diesel

    88888888
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Swiss certainly have a good thing going but I do wonder how their crime rate is so low...

    They may all be issued with a FA rifle of whatever type but they certainly arent allowed to carry them around the streets...Does anyone know if they have any kind of carry licence or rights? I find it strange that assloads of guns in their homes reduce the crime on the streets...If I mug someone, i dont give a crap if they have a sig in the house just so long as they aint carrying one.

    It would be interesting to find out.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I understand that things have only changed a little over the years...but a SIG in the pocket is certainly likely...and silencers are a cash and cary item...the Swiss have set the example if the english are not too mule headed to follow! Clearly, what you are doing doesn't and will never work.

    Diesel

    88888888
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you rob someone on the street, isn't it likely to be in front of a house with a gun in it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Diesel:
    Clearly, what you are doing doesn't and will never work.

    Diesel

    88888888

    Ooh, inductive comments about the indefinite future - my favourite.

    e.g.

    Man is heavier than air, therefore man will never fly.

    OR

    Since every plane that has tried to break the sound barrier has failed so far, the sound barrier will never be broken.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ...man doesn't fly...man builds machines that fly and then rides them...tad different.

    Not only does what you are doing not work but things are infinately worse than when you began...and you will keep at it until your folly destroys you...never mind the weapons...you are disposessing yourself in your own land...such folly!

    Diesel

    88888888
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    good point about the planes: man cant fly himself, so he works around it. now, apply the same thing to arms control. man wants to reduce crime, so he builds a responsible society that will do it for him . he does not walk around with a gun to do it himself.

    so far as i'm concerned, i'm not 'disposessed' in the least bit. more sensible than letting my neighbour (who might just get angry at my choice of music) have a gun, which he might turn on me.

    the thing is, if citizens are armed, the chances are they will use their weapons against one another. just the same as if states are armed, they will use their weapons against one another. where the 'control' element enters in, is that if states are responsible and accountable (to their electorate, to the ICJ) they will not use their weapins against one another, except in the pursuit of justice (macedonia being a good example). however, citizens can only be held accountable AFTER they use their weapons (or try to use them), therefore the cycle breaks down. far better to have the state in control of the justice system, than masses of armed vigilantes. therefore, let the state look after you, and if you dont like it, they can be held accountable. but, if you let your fellow citizens control justice, where is the accountability? you gonna shoot 'em back, if they try and shoot you? great idea.

    humanity forms itself in to administrative units for the benefit of everyone. just like man builds planes to let himself fly. so, trust the pilots, rather than trying to fly the goddam plane yourself.

    Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Gun Control does not work here in the UK, NO handguns legally held here BUT crimes committed with them is on the increase same with Full Auto wpns.

    Criminals don't obey any laws let alone gun laws.

    The gun does not kill it's the person using it.

    Slug
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Slug, you made my point(s). In US 'criminals' can't be required to register their weapons because it would violate their 5th Amendment rights which basically say that you can't be required to testify against yourself...which you would be doing.

    In US cities where citizens have the easiest access to rifles, pistols, machine guns, collectables, etc., and either the automatic right to carry concealed or easy to get CCW permits, you have the least crime and violence and a more polite society.

    I will not disparage any of your idealism for the 'perfect' society...we must all dream and as humans it is important to us...no matter naieve. england will fall because of its own folly and not from any invader or other than internal force. If everyone is disarmed it is a knockover.

    As for the Balkans and Mascedonia...really, neither of US or england have a dog in that fight...and quoteing an NCO in Serbia several years ago when the fighting first started; "...what is everyone so mad at us for, we're only driving the moslems the rest of the way out of Europe?" (with offense to none intended) It is merely the continuation of an ancient war and disarming either side will merely lead to further atrocities...ancient conversion by the sword worked so well!

    Good morning to you...probably evening there...see you later.

    Diesel

    88888888
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I WANT MY GUNS BACK

    Slug

    When in trouble or in doubt,
    Run in circles scream and shout.........

    and do it loud
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by dazed_dan:


    so far as i'm concerned, i'm not 'disposessed' in the least bit. more sensible than letting my neighbour (who might just get angry at my choice of music) have a gun, which he might turn on me.


    You live in fear, are motivated by fear. Free men live by their accord. SAME reason that some stayed in Europe, and some ventured into the "New" World". They were NOT shackled by their cowardice...

    ... therefore, let the state look after you, and if you dont like it, they can be held accountable. but, if you let your fellow citizens control justice, where is the accountability? you gonna shoot 'em back, if they try and shoot you? great idea.

    "Massah... I be's GOOD little slave (subject). You takes good care o' dis lil slave, Massuh? PUL-LEEZE???"

    just like man builds planes to let himself fly. so, trust the pilots, rather than trying to fly the goddam plane yourself.


    There are SOME who are not so possessed by their individual cowardice as to choose to NOT be the chattel of another. You lock yourself into a cage, pathetically hoping that the evil horrors will stay on the OUTSIDE of the cage. What you cannot get into your miniscule little mind is that the cage you have locked yourself within IS the instrument of your slavery. Freedom of the mind is OUTSIDE of your little box.

    SOME desire to live by their own devices... THAT IS WHAT FREEDOM IS ABOUT, SLAVE!!!



    [This message has been edited by thanatos (edited 19-08-2001).]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tj, in ancient Rome the rulere would not allow all the slaves to be dressed the same for fear that they would realize what power they really have.

    We, US, being armed realize that power and except for the self declared fools and tories are armed with the government fearful of US...I like it that way...snipe as they will the citizens constantly build new and improved weaponry...and collectors gather the old stuff into personal 'arsenals' for their own pleasure.

    Diesel

    88888888
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are the criminals in the UK turning in their weapons? Are they leaving them at home while crushing others lives?
    Are the Queens subjects willing to rely on the Police for instant defense?
    Willing to trust your life and your families lives? Are they willing to risk their necks and their kids necks until the vicious circle is no more?
    How long will that be?

    There is always free cheese in a mouse trap
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by dazed_dan:
    good point about the planes: man cant fly himself, so he works around it. now, apply the same thing to arms control. man wants to reduce crime, so he builds a responsible society that will do it for him . he does not walk around with a gun to do it himself.

    so far as i'm concerned, i'm not 'disposessed' in the least bit. more sensible than letting my neighbour (who might just get angry at my choice of music) have a gun, which he might turn on me.

    the thing is, if citizens are armed, the chances are they will use their weapons against one another. just the same as if states are armed, they will use their weapons against one another. where the 'control' element enters in, is that if states are responsible and accountable (to their electorate, to the ICJ) they will not use their weapins against one another, except in the pursuit of justice (macedonia being a good example). however, citizens can only be held accountable AFTER they use their weapons (or try to use them), therefore the cycle breaks down. far better to have the state in control of the justice system, than masses of armed vigilantes. therefore, let the state look after you, and if you dont like it, they can be held accountable. but, if you let your fellow citizens control justice, where is the accountability? you gonna shoot 'em back, if they try and shoot you? great idea.

    humanity forms itself in to administrative units for the benefit of everyone. just like man builds planes to let himself fly. so, trust the pilots, rather than trying to fly the goddam plane yourself.

    Alright, all I'm going to say is YOU JUST PROVED THAT YOU ARE NOT FREE AND THAT YOU ARE A SUBJECT. WOW AND WE HAD TO HAVE A WHOLE DEBATE ABOUT THIS AND IN THE END YOU ADMIT IT WITHOUT PROMPTING.

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    IN ANSWER:
    Are the criminals in the UK turning in their weapons? Are they leaving them at home while crushing others lives? No
    Are the Queens subjects willing to rely on the Police for instant defense? This one isn't
    Willing to trust your life and your families lives? Are they willing to risk their necks and their kids necks until the vicious circle is no more? the Police are not very good at defending themselves let alone anyone else


    Slug


    When in trouble or in doubt,
    Run in circles scream and shout.........

    and do it loud
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Okay, a few points.

    Anyone read Adam Smith? You know, the whole "division of labour" thing? Society gets more productive as people specialise and become more interdependent. Why (and this is purely for argument's sake) should the industry of government be any different? Anyone can decide to be a politician, just like being a blacksmith. If you think you can do the job better, try it. Otherwise, you let the other people get on with making nails / horseshoes / computers.

    Second, the whole "Britan will fall" thing. Well, I've got a revelation for you folks: "THE USA IS GOING TO FALL, TOO!"

    No empire, state or country lasts for ever. Some rot from within, others are crushed from without. But no-one escapes the press of time. The days of the USA are numbered just as surely as the 'archaic feudal society' of Britain is. Think of that the next time you seek to use the inevitability of our fall as an indication of comparative weakness.

    And as for the nature of freedom. Put it this way, "Dogs and proles are free." If you want to be free from all obligations to everyone else, go strip naked, find a bit of forest, and start from scratch with your bare bloody hands.

    In order to be free to explore himself and his desires man MUST form societies in which there MUST be order. Anything else is daydreaming, pure and simple.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by MacKenZie:
    Well, at the risk of 'speaking for all Britons,' I think the reasoning behind denying guns to "law-abiding citizens" is that a more heavily-armed citizenry leads to a more heavily-armed criminal sector, in a vicous circle.>

    That's an assumption with little evidence to back it up. The fact is that... by definition... criminal transfer of illegal weapons are commited by criminals.

    What you are saying is that you fear people will overwhelmingly become criminals if given the freedom to own weapons. Such a notion is not merely ridiculous on it's face, but is insulting to basically everyone.

    You simply don't trust your fellow countrymen, and would like to hold them responsible for the criminal actions of a very few number of amoral people. You don't care about their rights, or the people who might save themselves with a gun...since you're biased against believing that any good result can come from a gun.

    <Gun ownership is probably necessary in the USA, and disarmament would be stupid. In the UK it just isn't like that. Both are stable-ish ways of doing things.>

    "Probably"? Hitler's Germany was "Stable" too. He made the trains run on time. The question is whether or not you are free.

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru


    <Anyone read Adam Smith? You know, the whole "division of labour" thing? Society gets more productive as people specialise and become more interdependent.>

    There you go again, looking at the world through the eyes of a bean counter.

    <Why (and this is purely for argument's sake) should the industry of government be any different?>

    Because your life, and your individual rights can NOT be protected by any organization, ministry or buracracy without you having to give up all autonomy of movement... take for example the previous scenario brought up about the POTUS having constant armed guards... Bush's giving up his life, and his freedom to become President... If plain old social order was adequate to protect him, or your own Royalty, or your PM, then these proffesionals wouldn't be deemed neccessay.

    Of course, most elitists who decry the legal use of guns often realize the inadeqacy of the general Social Order to protect them from danger... yet don't care that normal people can neither afford body guards, or really want to lose their freedoms to be safe.


    <Anyone can decide to be a politician, just like being a blacksmith. If you think you can do the job better, try it. Otherwise, you let the other people get on with making nails / horseshoes / computers.>

    As of late, a Polititian "job" is simply to be a reflection of the Popular will. There is nothing to it. they're often simply a weather vane ...with no leadership neccessary or even really wanted. Of course someone with principles and real convictions could contribute something important, change people's minds...but only if they had something NEW to say.

    <Second, the whole "Britan will fall" thing. Well, I've got a revelation for you folks: "THE USA IS GOING TO FALL, TOO!">

    Sure, the Mexicans are going to eat us.

    <No empire, state or country lasts for ever.>

    What about the "Empire State"? I LOVE NEW YORK...

    <Some rot from within, others are crushed from without. But no-one escapes the press of time. The days of the USA are numbered just as surely as the 'archaic feudal society' of Britain is. Think of that the next time you seek to use the inevitability of our fall as an indication of comparative weakness.>

    I have news... Barring a natural disaster of global proportions, neither the USA or England are going anywhere anytime soon. The establishment in both countries are insittutionalized in a way that NO OTHER Empire or State has ever been. Even if the Latinos or Asians come in to take over, they will be "Americanized" in short order. This is the one thing about freedom... no one will ever give up a country that gives them such power to determine the course of their own lives. This is what is unique about the U.S. ... It's America's saving grace and why it will NEVER fall by man's hand.

    <And as for the nature of freedom. Put it this way, "Dogs and proles are free." If you want to be free from all obligations to everyone else, go strip naked, find a bit of forest, and start from scratch with your bare bloody hands.>

    The Freedom we hold so dear in this country is not freedom from all responsibility, it's freedom from an overbearing government made of elitist bureaucrats telling us that we can't "Fly the Plane" for ourselves...
    I say that it's the ONLY WAY TO FLY. At least, I don't mind particulary if there are a few other passengers on the plane that can land it in case of an emergency... "Anyone know how to Fly this thing... the Pilot's passed out behind the wheel..etc"

    <In order to be free to explore himself and his desires man MUST form societies in which there MUST be order. Anything else is daydreaming, pure and simple.[/B][/QUOTE]>


    There is no desire for Anarchy here. What we have been saying is that PART of the natural order MUST BE an equality of access to real power as well as justice. Real power is the ability to ward off a threat of violence with an effective threat of defense.

    recourse to a "Justice" system after being denied access to real defensive power, is no justice at all.

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Adam Smith is an interesting take, however, there is a flaw to applying it to government. In capitilism, the point to Adam Smith's material, there is an advantage gained in efficiency, profit. In government, the opposite is true, and efficiency is the enemy. Inefficiency provides job security. Or does anyone out there really believe that government is efficient?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wow, what a response! I bring up Adam Smith, and I get responses from two people. One goes for the emotional attack, one actually reads what I said and gives a far shorter and better reasoned response. Unfortunately, it's the former that I now have to respond to. :: Tips hat to Sean regardless. ::

    That's an assumption with little evidence to back it up. The fact is that... by definition... criminal transfer of illegal weapons are commited by criminals.

    I've given my reasoning before and I don't feel the need to repeat it. If you want experimental evidence, check out the past few million years of evolution on Earth. It's a nice little planet, blue and green mostly... And mostly harmless.

    What you are saying is that you fear people will overwhelmingly become criminals if given the freedom to own weapons. Such a notion is not merely ridiculous on it's face, but is insulting to basically everyone.

    Now there's a well and truly utterly wrong inference if ever I saw one! I said that gun ownership would increase in both the 'good' and 'bad' sectors. I said nothing about the relative size of each group. Yes, such a notion is probably quite ridiculous. But then, you said it, not me. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif"&gt;

    You simply don't trust your fellow countrymen

    Trust me, if you lived in Hull, you wouldn't either. I would not feel at all assured of a fair trial by a jury taken from the local population around here. Half of them wouldn't be able to read the written evidence, for one thing.

    You don't care about their rights

    Damn right! I think we've already established that I care more about what is right than rights themselves. "Rights" are just like laws in that they are fundamentally inflexible. They can conflict with what is right: in fact, they frequently do.

    since you're biased against believing that any good result can come from a gun

    Wrong. I think my support for the bombing of Hiroshima throws that out of the window at 30,000 feet for a squishy landing on the hard ground below. If not, this will: I would have supported Goering being shot (yes, with a gun!) rather than being slipped cyanide.

    There you go again, looking at the world through the eyes of a bean counter.

    I have many eyes. You, it seems, have but one. The moment choose to see things in a different way to the way you want me to see them, your hackles rise. Besides, all I was doing was asking a question. It seems that you don't get on too well with the scientific method of tossing a theory around and seeing how it does. Any theory that doesn't revere humans as being ultimately worthy in the eyes of some self-conscious omnipotent entity seems to become an instant target for a volley of whithering invective from you.

    I've got to say that your faith in the USA's near-invincibility is heartening. I'm sure Varus thought the same just before he marched his three legions into the forest. Or Honorius before the Goths came over the hill. Hitler thought the Third Reich was invincible (for a thousand years, at least). The Ottoman Empire looked utterly invulnerable, too. The Moors' hold on Spain seemed unbreakable.

    Wake up. All things come to an end. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But your days are numbered as much as everyone else's. And after the dust settles, who's to say that your precious ideals will be held in any greater regard than the disgust with which we look at Rome, Khan, Hitler, Stalin or the rest?

    History is written by the victors, but victory is just a temporary avoidance of defeat.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    <I've given my reasoning before and I don't feel the need to repeat it. If you want experimental evidence, check out the past few million years of evolution on Earth. It's a nice little planet, blue and green mostly... And mostly harmless.>

    Your attempted inference here is completely vague.

    (Previously posted by doubro)
    "What you are saying is that you fear people will overwhelmingly become criminals if given the freedom to own weapons. Such a notion is not merely ridiculous on it's face, but is insulting to basically everyone."

    <Now there's a well and truly utterly wrong inference if ever I saw one!>

    No, that's exactly what you are saying, as evidenced by your later comments that you were scared to be judged by your own hometown folks.

    <I said that gun ownership would increase in both the 'good' and 'bad' sectors. I said nothing about the relative size of each group.> Your clear message is that violence would increase, neccessarily meaning that the "Bad Sector" would increase. But I know it's too much to ask for you to be consistent...

    <Yes, such a notion is probably quite ridiculous. But then, you said it, not me.>

    I said that's how you belive things to be. Which is really ridiculous.

    (Orig posted by Doubro)
    You simply don't trust your fellow countrymen

    <Trust me, if you lived in Hull, you wouldn't either. I would not feel at all assured of a fair trial by a jury taken from the local population around here. Half of them wouldn't be able to read the written evidence, for one thing.>


    Right! So lets then do away with the legal system, because all your fellow countrymen are totally incompetant and need to be kept far away from any postition of authority. The "Great Unwashed" are simply a bunch of dangerous illiterates who need the "Nanny State" to take care of them... Oh, Mackenzie...how could I ever think you were being insulting to anyone...? It's clear you're faith in mankind is truly overwhelming.

    (Doubro says)
    You don't care about their rights

    <Damn right! I think we've already established that I care more about what is right than rights themselves. "Rights" are just like laws in that they are fundamentally inflexible.>

    You mean like Truth?

    < They can conflict with what is right: in fact, they frequently do.>

    No, they don't. Maintaining the Rights of the innocent is always moral. If you think for a second that someone trying to kill me has any rights left, you'd be wrong. People maintain their rights by maintaining their respect for others rights. Once there is an attack, the victims rights immediately take precedence...hence, no conflict.

    (Doubro said)
    since you're biased against believing that any good result can come from a gun

    <Wrong. I think my support for the bombing of Hiroshima throws that out of the window at 30,000 feet for a squishy landing on the hard ground below.>

    why? You can be pro-A bomb, (which is a collective action) and simultaneously be anti-(civil)gun ownership (generally an individual phenomenon).

    <If not, this will: I would have supported Goering being shot (yes, with a gun!) rather than being slipped cyanide.>

    I'm not saying you're anti-"gun" per se, but Anti-civil gun ownership. Of course you are pro-state violence...you are A STATIST...guns are OK with you, as long as the STATE uses it against all non- establishment entities. If a normal person has one...WELL then of course there's a problem in your mind...

    (Doubro said)
    There you go again, looking at the world through the eyes of a bean counter.

    I have many eyes. You, it seems, have but one.>

    What are you a Potato(e) Bush spelling?
    We both have two. Mine tend to be open a bit wider than yours though.

    <The moment (I?) choose to see things in a different way to the way you want me to see them, your hackles rise. Besides, all I was doing was asking a question.>

    Now, be honest... were you asking a question or were you choosing to see things a "certain way" and only claiming to ask a question?

    <It seems that you don't get on too well with the scientific method of tossing a theory around and seeing how it does.>

    That doesn't sound like any Scientific method I'm aware of. There is an Hypothesis, and there is methodological testing... not "tossing out"...or is that "tossing off"?

    <Any theory that doesn't revere humans as being ultimately worthy in the eyes of some self-conscious omnipotent entity seems to become an instant target for a volley of whithering invective from you.>

    Any theory that places men in a position of subjectivity to other men draws my invective.

    <I've got to say that your faith in the USA's near-invincibility is heartening. I'm sure Varus thought the same just before he marched his three legions into the forest.>

    Um, I've seen you guys fight... and the only British invasion I'm worried about would be another horrible Spice Girls alblum.

    <Or Honorius before the Goths came over the hill. Hitler thought the Third Reich was invincible (for a thousand years, at least).>

    So he was an Optimist?...well he damn near took over all of Europe, so I'd say he had a pretty good chance of being right.

    <The Ottoman Empire looked utterly invulnerable, too. The Moors' hold on Spain seemed unbreakable.>

    And the "Sun never set on the British Empire"

    <Wake up. All things come to an end. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But your days are numbered as much as everyone else's. And after the dust settles, who's to say that your precious ideals will be held in any greater regard than the disgust with which we look at Rome, Khan, Hitler, Stalin or the rest?>


    Yea, I know... but were here to stand up for and say what we can about our belief in FREEDOM before we are submerged in the coming Globalsim.

    <History is written by the victors, but victory is just a temporary avoidance of defeat.[/B][/QUOTE]>

    Really... then why not blow up the whole planet? we'll eventually be engulfed in the sun anyway...wont we? So what's the Point?

    Nihlism isn't dead, it's just English...admitedly, it's hard to tell the difference...but...




    [This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 22-08-2001).]

    [This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 22-08-2001).]

    [This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 22-08-2001).]
Sign In or Register to comment.