John Green, Father of the Little Girl Killed in Tuscon, is my New Hero

[Nechochwen]

Why don't you move to a place in anarchy (eg Mogadishu)? I'm honestly just curious.

I'm just guessing here, could be totally wrong, but perhaps because no one has stated they wanted anarchy, they want the right to be able to protect and defend themselves. Not that they don't want a government, just that they would like a government that allows them to protect themselves and those around them.

 

[Romy]

I'm just guessing here, could be totally wrong, but perhaps because no one has stated they wanted anarchy, they want the right to be able to protect and defend themselves. Not that they don't want a government, just that they would like a government that allows them to protect themselves and those around them.

This. For me anyway.

Our law enforcement system isn't set up to prevent crime. It's set up to catch and prosecute criminals after they have committed a crime. It's not realistic to expect the police to protect you from muggers, burglars, murderers, and rapists. I just want to protect my loved ones and self so we don't have to be the victims.

 

[Xandra]

I'm just guessing here, could be totally wrong, but perhaps because no one has stated they wanted anarchy, they want the right to be able to protect and defend themselves. Not that they don't want a government, just that they would like a government that allows them to protect themselves and those around them.

oh, I don't think anyone has in this thread. Buckshot has posted in favor of anarchy in other threads and I remember wondering what he thought of moving to Mogadishu a while ago but there was no good thread to ask him in at the time I thought of it, and it seemed like kind of a stupid thing to PM him about. Mogadishu came up in the thread, and Buckshot posted something in it, so I seized the opportunity. lol

It was a pretty OT question.

 

[Buckshot]

I have stated that I am in favor of anarchy, to me it is the transition from an oppressive government to a free one. It is a very hard word to define. I don't think it can exist. The first things kids do when they make a club is make rules, it’s how we are wired.

I don't think when we declared our independence from England we had murders in the streets, at least I have never found any record of that. Mogadishu does have a government, so does the Crips, Bloods, MS13 and the Hells Angels who are here in this country. I am in favor of the people having the right to take arms against these thugs. I am in favor of small bands of people governing themselves. I like the idea of the states having the right to form their own governments as it was early on in our history. That way you could move to a state that offered no income taxes OR if you prefer a state that allows you no income. As it is now the states are almost all the same with a huge central government that can force states to follow the lead of the majority.

Anarchy to me means having the freedom to do what is right and live without having to worry about someone wanting to violate me. No government can tax my earnings, no thug can attack the people close to me without fear of my retaliation. I would be allowed to control my money for what I see as the greater good, not what some dipshit 2000 miles away thinks is a good cause. I won’t have to chip in to pay for wars I don't believe in that are started by proven scoundrels. I won’t have to pay to feed and entertain the worthless who are willing to take my forced charity without so much as a thank you. I won’t have to feed the very people who exist on the destruction of my country, like the IRS, BATF, NSA and any of the organizations who allow their thugs to violate us by the will of the majority.

The majority in just about any society is made up of cowards, thieves, liars, people who want to steal their living from the labor of others and people who want the power to control. This forum is a classic example of the majority. I have much more fear of the majority than I do street thugs. Street thugs could stab me and leave me bleeding in the street but the majority would have me locked in a cage for 20 years if I shot the thug. Thugs don't fear my guns, they respect them and they respect me. The majority is scared to death of me and my guns and can just vote that a better man than themselves will come and take them.

The majority in its great wisdom wishes to take all the power from people who respect the law. They are oblivious to the fact that law breakers don't care about breaking the law. They don't want the few people who have the ability to pose a deterrent to thugs to have the right to do so. They want everyone to be an equal victim. They have the herd mentality of blending in so that we all look the same, that way they may not be singled out by a predator. If you doubt that theory post a sign in your yard saying -NO GUNS HERE!.

Majorities are oblivious to the facts that restrictions cause more problems than they solve. They don’t care that while drug abuse is a problem, their laws don’t solve it. We went from a society with a lot of drug users to a society with a lot of people willing to kill for the money these drugs can now generate, and a lot more people are using drugs. The war on booze did the same thing. Just wait till the war on guns, this will be a real peach. Lots of people who have created no victims jailed, turf wars, more rights of the law respecting people destroyed in the name of making the country better and safer. So YES, I prefer no laws at all over being in the control of cowards. I would really have no fear of the cowards if it was just them. It is the people on the fence who give them power. The people who take a soft stand, who allow our rights to decay at a slower rate so that it is less noticeable are the ones who I fear. They think the line that they draw in the sand is where it will end. They fail to realize that the next generation sees that line as the hard line so they can compromise it back a little further yet and so on and so on.

 

[motherofmany]

"I do think it's important to watch our rhetoric. I think it's a worthwhile goal not to conflate our political opponents with enemies if for no other reason than to draw a better distinction between the manifestos of paranoid madmen and what passes for acceptable political and pundit speak. It would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn't in any way resemble how we actually talk to each other on teevee."

John Stewart

I would add, in light of Buckshot's post, how we talk to each other on internet forums too.

The majority in just about any society is made up of cowards, thieves, liars, people who want to steal their living from the labor of others and people who want the power to control. This forum is a classic example of the majority.

Why are you here then?

When comedians are the voice of reason in a society, we have a serious problem.

I refuse to give in to that feeling of despair. There's light in this situation. I urge everyone: Read up about those who were hurt and or killed in this shooting. You will be comforted by just how much anonymous goodness there really is in the world. You read about these people and you realize that people that you don't even know, that you have never met, are leading lives of real dignity and goodness. And you hear about crazy, but it's rarer than you think. I think you'll find yourself even more impressed with Congresswoman Giffords and amazed about how much living the deceased packed into lives cut way too short. And if there is real solace in this, I think it's that for all the hyperbole and the vitriol that's become a part of our political process, when the reality of that rhetoric, when actions match the disturbing nature of words we haven't lost our capacity to be horrified. Please let us hope we never do. Let us hope we never become numb to what real horror, what the real blood of patriots looks like when it's spilled.

Stewart again.

Guns have F-all to do with this as this young man was obviously disturbed. I will not be at all surprised if he is diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. Gun laws, beyond common sense restrictions already in place, won't fix what was broken in this case. Because what was broken was the community that was unable to respond when faced with a mentally ill person. And what is broken in the greater community, if you will, is our political discourse. I don't blame pundits for the killing anymore than I blame this kid's parents. But. And this is a big but. When the political discourse becomes inflamed with violent rhetoric and people think that is okay? Hello? Time to take a deep look at how we speak. How we treat others. Time to reconnect and stop seeng people that disagree as enemies and see them as neighbors, friends, relatives that we just have a difference of opinion with.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

So while I applaud John Green for not giving in to hatred in the face of his tremendous loss, I do NOT think that losing his little girl was a reasonable price to pay for a free and open society. The killing of innocents should never be part of any sane and sensible society. Period.

 

[Buckshot]

Why are you here then?.

Because there are a few people here who I consider brave, responsible and deserving of freedom. I don't know if gun forums can actually boast as high of a percentage of feedom lovers as this forum. Even though freedom lovers are a real minority I feel very at home in a place with 20K+ members and it has a dozen people who value their freedom.

 

[Jules]

Cell phones work well too. I broke up a scuffle once. Not a rape but a group of young (late teens early 20s) people beating on a girl. I was walking to my car. They ignored me when I yelled 'hey!), till one noticed I was calling someone on my cell phone, then they all fled.

Exactly. It is not that I want to take guns from everyone... I, as in me personally, just don't understand the want and need for it. And like I said, it is a cultural thing. I grew up in a different culture and guns just scare me. Yes, I do have a can of mace in my purse. And I bet, if I had to defend myself that would give me ample of time to disable whoever is attacking me to get away. Unless they shot me from far away- but then again, a gun would be just as useless.

The argument of needing a gun to defend yourself against the "bad people" reminds me of the cold war era. Everyone is loading up on weapons because the other party has them. I just think it is sad, that's all.

I
The majority in just about any society is made up of cowards, thieves, liars, people who want to steal their living from the labor of others and people who want the power to control. This forum is a classic example of the majority.

Well, isn't it comforting that we can still manage to sneak in in insults when we have discussions and people dare to voice a different opinion.

 

[Buckshot]

Well, isn't it comforting that we can still manage to sneak in in insults when we have discussions and people dare to voice a different opinion.

I take it you fall in with the majority.

 

[motherofmany]

Because there are a few people here who I consider brave, responsible and deserving of freedom. I don't know if gun forums can actually boast as high of a percentage of feedom lovers as this forum. Even though freedom lovers are a real minority I feel very at home in a place with 20K+ members and it has a dozen people who value their freedom.

You complain about your "lack of freedom" but then deign to determine who is "brave" enough and "responsible" enough to "deserve" freedom? What makes you any different from the government you so obviously despise?

 

[Lilavati]

W

It is so true what someone else mentioned way back in the thread...if they take away guns because "guns" kill, then they should take away cars because by that "logic," cars kill. And they should, by that same "logic," take away balloons because balloons kill. Will they then take away hammers, chain saws, wine, you name it because all those things kill? (by the same "logic") It's not really logic but whatever you might call it.

Dober, I support gun rights, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. The purpose of a car is not to kill, it is to provide transportation. The purpose of a balloon is to amuse, a hammer to drive nails, and a chainsaw to cut wood. All those things can be used to kill (or can kill by accident), but it is the purpose of none of them.

Although there are guns that are not used for killing, and a few not even intended for it (specialized target weapons), the fundamental purpose of a gun is to kill. Even if you argue it is for defense, it is its ability to kill that makes it an effective deterrent. If you argue it is for food gathering, that's also true, but it is the guns ability to kill animals that makes it useful for that purpose.

To own a gun is to have the power to kill with an item that is perfectly designed for that purpose (and whose other purposes are directly related to its original lethal purpose). And it is a reasonable assumption that the owner of a gun is at least willing (if not desiring) to kill something (human or animal) under some set of circumstances.

To own a car is to own a method of transportation that can be dangerous and lethal, but is not intended to be. It is a reasonable assumption that a car owner wants to have a ready method of transport, not that they intend (or would be anything other than horrified) to kill something.

 

[Buckshot]

You complain about your "lack of freedom" but then deign to determine who is "brave" enough and "responsible" enough to "deserve" freedom? What makes you any different from the government you so obviously despise?

I am different because I dont want any control over you what so ever. I don't want anyone to get your earnings other than people you want to have them. I don't want you to be restricted from doing anything you please with your life as long as you aren't creating a victim. I don't care who you marry, I don't care what you smoke. I trust you to be responsible with your earnings, your guns and your choices.
If you don't want freedom and you think that the world is a better place with you being held on puppet strings then by all means you should be. I see a few on this forum who are brave enough to allow me to live without being in their control. They are responsible enough to earn for themselves and have no desire for my earnings.
I am nothing like this government or better yet the majority who makes up this government, I could go on for volumes.

 

[motherofmany]

I am different because .....

Because you think you are different. The tyranny of the minority is as destructive as the tyranny of the majority.

You can try to cloak the underlying hypocrisy by claiming you don't seek to control others, but by determining that there are people who "deserve" freedom and people who don't? You place yourself squarely in the camp of dicators.

The insulting rhetoric you engage in here is discourteous at the very least, destructive for the community as well. I do not appreciate being called a liar, thief, and coward because I have different political views than you.

 

[motherofmany]

Dober, I support gun rights, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. The purpose of a car is not to kill, it is to provide transportation. The purpose of a balloon is to amuse, a hammer to drive nails, and a chainsaw to cut wood. All those things can be used to kill (or can kill by accident), but it is the purpose of none of them.

Although there are guns that are not used for killing, and a few not even intended for it (specialized target weapons), the fundamental purpose of a gun is to kill. Even if you argue it is for defense, it is its ability to kill that makes it an effective deterrent. If you argue it is for food gathering, that's also true, but it is the guns ability to kill animals that makes it useful for that purpose.

To own a gun is to have the power to kill with an item that is perfectly designed for that purpose (and whose other purposes are directly related to its original lethal purpose). And it is a reasonable assumption that the owner of a gun is at least willing (if not desiring) to kill something (human or animal) under some set of circumstances.

To own a car is to own a method of transportation that can be dangerous and lethal, but is not intended to be. It is a reasonable assumption that a car owner wants to have a ready method of transport, not that they intend (or would be anything other than horrified) to kill something.

:hail:

 

[Buckshot]

Because you think you are different. The tyranny of the minority is as destructive as the tyranny of the majority.

You can try to cloak the underlying hypocrisy by claiming you don't seek to control others, but by determining that there are people who "deserve" freedom and people who don't? You place yourself squarely in the camp of dicators.

The insulting rhetoric you engage in here is discourteous at the very least, destructive for the community as well. I do not appreciate being called a liar, thief, and coward because I have different political views than you.

I want people to live as they want to, how is that being a dictator? What tyranny am I imposing? Is it the threat of me not allowing your control? People who I feel deserve freedom are the people who want freedom, those who do not want it or don’t want it for others in my opinion do not deserve it.
I didn't call anybody a liar a thief or a coward it is a group you put yourself into as will many others. The diiference in our views is that you want control over my life and I dont want control over yours. You call what I said discourteous rhetoric yet I am highly insulted by the people getting on here saying that I should not have freedoms, insinuate that I am crazy because I value freedom or that my earnings should go to places that I don't think they should. To me that is beyond insulting it is spitting in the face of every dead soldier who has put their life on the line for freedom in any nation.

 

[Dagny]

Because you think you are different. The tyranny of the minority is as destructive as the tyranny of the majority.

You can try to cloak the underlying hypocrisy by claiming you don't seek to control others, but by determining that there are people who "deserve" freedom and people who don't? You place yourself squarely in the camp of dicators.

The insulting rhetoric you engage in here is discourteous at the very least, destructive for the community as well. I do not appreciate being called a liar, thief, and coward because I have different political views than you.

So supporting freedom for all is tyranny? Odd. Being forced to live your life only as you see fit? How horrible!

The people who deserve freedom are those that are willing to fully engage in it. It's not like an exclusive club.

 

[Doberluv]

Dober, I support gun rights, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. The purpose of a car is not to kill, it is to provide transportation. The purpose of a balloon is to amuse, a hammer to drive nails, and a chainsaw to cut wood. All those things can be used to kill (or can kill by accident), but it is the purpose of none of them.

Although there are guns that are not used for killing, and a few not even intended for it (specialized target weapons), the fundamental purpose of a gun is to kill. Even if you argue it is for defense, it is its ability to kill that makes it an effective deterrent. If you argue it is for food gathering, that's also true, but it is the guns ability to kill animals that makes it useful for that purpose.

To own a gun is to have the power to kill with an item that is perfectly designed for that purpose (and whose other purposes are directly related to its original lethal purpose). And it is a reasonable assumption that the owner of a gun is at least willing (if not desiring) to kill something (human or animal) under some set of circumstances.

To own a car is to own a method of transportation that can be dangerous and lethal, but is not intended to be. It is a reasonable assumption that a car owner wants to have a ready method of transport, not that they intend (or would be anything other than horrified) to kill something.

That's just what "they" want you to believe. LOL. It isn't the point what the designed "intent" of a tool is. It is the result that matters....Is a carving knife designed to stab and kill a hunted animal or to murder a person? Or is it designed to slice up a Thanksgiving turkey? Does it matter? Either way, it slices and dices. It can be a weapon or it can be a tool. A gun is designed to shoot a bullet out the end of a barrel. It is a weapon, designed to kill. But it does not kill if it is not shot. It is the human on the other end who determines the result. A car is designed for transportation. But it can and does kill, by accident or on purpose. The result is what's relevant, not the intent. The intent doesn't do the killing.

 

[motherofmany]

I want people to live as they want to, how is that being a dictator? What tyranny am I imposing? Is it the threat of me not allowing your control? People who I feel deserve freedom are the people who want freedom, those who do not want it or don’t want it for others in my opinion do not deserve it.
I didn't call anybody a liar a thief or a coward it is a group you put yourself into as will many others. The diiference in our views is that you want control over my life and I dont want control over yours. You call what I said discourteous rhetoric yet I am highly insulted by the people getting on here saying that I should not have freedoms, insinuate that I am crazy because I value freedom or that my earnings should go to places that I don't think they should. To me that is beyond insulting it is spitting in the face of every dead soldier who has put their life on the line for freedom in any nation.

You said that the majority here are cowards, thieves and liars. Your words. I haven't seen where I wanted control over your life. Go find it. Challenge number 1.

Deciding who "deserves" freedom and who doesn't is the act of a dicatator. Look it up. Challeneg #2

As for spitting in the face of soldiers, you spit in mine just now. And my son's. Where and when did you serve? Challenge #3

 

[motherofmany]

So supporting freedom for all is tyranny? Odd. Being forced to live your life only as you see fit? How horrible!

The people who deserve freedom are those that are willing to fully engage in it. It's not like an exclusive club.

No, saying that only *some* people "deserve" freedom is. You just did it too :lol-sign:

 

[Dagny]

No, saying that only *some* people "deserve" freedom is. You just did it too :lol-sign:

Nope. People who deserve freedom are those who want freedom. People who don't want freedom are STILL free to get exactly what they get.

 

[Renee750il]

I can answer the only one of those challenges that merits any: Buckshot served in the Army in central Europe during Clinton's Folly.

EDIT: It was during Reagan's Folly.

My take on the issue is pretty well summed up in my sig in blue.

Well, in sepia and grey also.

After that it's really not worth bickering over with the other side. Once someone's decided that their rights include confiscating mine to suit themselves it's not really an argument anymore -- it's essentially escalated far beyond that and words aren't likely to matter.