Mike Moore- Messiah of Documentaries

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

No, he said why he thought he should be respected.

H8sMikeMoore

It's not about whether you, subjectively respect him, it's about whether, objectively, he deserves respect.

you must think someone deserves respect before you give them any.

theres no "factual" way to make someone respected. :|

It's not about whether you respect him, it's about whether he deserves respect.

and he does deserve respect.

How old are you? Why are you so in to this political crap? Do you plan to go into this political crap when you get older? ( assuming if your young)

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

why? he defended a freedom. which is good. besides washington dc proves gun control hurts more people than gun rights. Gun rights dont leave room open for murder and getting away with it. they track bullets.

Funky_Llama

Freedom has to end somewhere. ;)

;););)

AND WHERE ARE YOU GONNA TELL ME WHERE MY FREEDOM ENDS?

yeah, no it dosent.

everyone has individual rights. YOU arent that important, so you dont get to say we dont.

supporting gun control means youd rather see a bunch of defenseless people die than have guns on the market. which dosent make sense.

also, I bet you think if the government becomes corrupt that you can just VOTE them away right? thats IF you would ever even get to that, you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric.

Freedom is choice and I have choice. I have my property which might include guns. so ill do what I want in my own life with my own things. and if you think that means i can go around hurting other people well then YOU got VERY confused.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

No, he said why he thought he should be respected.

H8sMikeMoore

It's not about whether you, subjectively respect him, it's about whether, objectively, he deserves respect.

you must think someone deserves respect before you give them any.

theres no "factual" way to make someone respected. :|

It's not about whether you respect him, it's about whether he deserves respect.

and he does deserve respect.

:roll: I think we're going round in circles.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

No, he said why he thought he should be respected.

kurama2002

It's not about whether you, subjectively respect him, it's about whether, objectively, he deserves respect.

you must think someone deserves respect before you give them any.

theres no "factual" way to make someone respected. :|

It's not about whether you respect him, it's about whether he deserves respect.

and he does deserve respect.

How old are you? Why are you so in to this political crap? Do you plan to go into this political crap when you get older? ( assuming if your young)

im 22 and im not into politics. im into economics. I think theres a serious problem with socialism in the USA. so anywhere I see it I make sure the person realizes what it is theyre talking about.

I plan on working with computers. not politics or anything

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

No, he said why he thought he should be respected.

Funky_Llama

It's not about whether you, subjectively respect him, it's about whether, objectively, he deserves respect.

you must think someone deserves respect before you give them any.

theres no "factual" way to make someone respected. :|

It's not about whether you respect him, it's about whether he deserves respect.

and he does deserve respect.

:roll: I think we're going round in circles.

well if you're implying he dosent deserve respect technically its your turn and you need to say why he dosent. I already said why he does.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

why? he defended a freedom. which is good. besides washington dc proves gun control hurts more people than gun rights. Gun rights dont leave room open for murder and getting away with it. they track bullets.

H8sMikeMoore

Freedom has to end somewhere. ;)

;););)

AND WHERE ARE YOU GONNA TELL ME WHERE MY FREEDOM ENDS?

yeah, no it dosent.

everyone has individual rights. YOU arent that important, so you dont get to say we dont.

supporting gun control means youd rather see a bunch of defenseless people die than have guns on the market. which dosent make sense.

also, I bet you think if the government becomes corrupt that you can just VOTE them away right? thats IF you would ever even get to that, you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric.

Freedom is choice and I have choice. I have my property which might include guns. so ill do what I want in my own life with my own things. and if you think that means i can go around hurting other people well then YOU got VERY confused.

Ah yes, the old "Who are you to say..." argument... the bottom line is, some level of ego is required to have any opinion, given that you are guaranteed to be disagreeing with millions of people.

Freedom shouldn't end anywhere? So, you should be an anarchist then. And what about the freedom to murder someone? I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't support that freedom...

:lol: You like those straw man arguments, don't you? Yeah, I'd love to see a load of defenceless people die. :roll:

:lol: And yet another straw man argument... apparently I oppose democracy now. News to me.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

No, he said why he thought he should be respected.

H8sMikeMoore

It's not about whether you, subjectively respect him, it's about whether, objectively, he deserves respect.

you must think someone deserves respect before you give them any.

theres no "factual" way to make someone respected. :|

It's not about whether you respect him, it's about whether he deserves respect.

and he does deserve respect.

:roll: I think we're going round in circles.

well if you're implying he dosent deserve respect technically its your turn and you need to say why he dosent. I already said why he does.

Firstly, you're shifting the burden of proof; it's on you.

And secondly, all you did was spout some vague crap about protest.

From here on, I think H8sMikeMoore is going to be on my list of favorite users.

And as a little side note, what's with the Coulter hate? I can understand a dislike, but hate? You seem to think that's she means exactly what she writes. She doesn't. She writes satire, for ****s sake. Thinking she's all about nuking every non-Christian and homosexual in the world is like thinking that Jonathan Swift was a cannibal; not so, my good man, but nice try. I understand disliking her, as I'm not a fan of hers at all, but hate?

Michael Moore, however, tries to pass of what he presents as pure truth, which it is not.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

why? he defended a freedom. which is good. besides washington dc proves gun control hurts more people than gun rights. Gun rights dont leave room open for murder and getting away with it. they track bullets.

Funky_Llama

Freedom has to end somewhere. ;)

;););)

AND WHERE ARE YOU GONNA TELL ME WHERE MY FREEDOM ENDS?

yeah, no it dosent.

everyone has individual rights. YOU arent that important, so you dont get to say we dont.

supporting gun control means youd rather see a bunch of defenseless people die than have guns on the market. which dosent make sense.

also, I bet you think if the government becomes corrupt that you can just VOTE them away right? thats IF you would ever even get to that, you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric.

Freedom is choice and I have choice. I have my property which might include guns. so ill do what I want in my own life with my own things. and if you think that means i can go around hurting other people well then YOU got VERY confused.

Ah yes, the old "Who are you to say..." argument... the bottom line is, some level of ego is required to have any opinion, given that you are guaranteed to be disagreeing with millions of people.

Freedom shouldn't end anywhere? So, you should be an anarchist then. And what about the freedom to murder someone? I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't support that freedom...

:lol: You like those straw man arguments, don't you? Yeah, I'd love to see a load of defenceless people die. :roll:

:lol: And yet another straw man argument... apparently I oppose democracy now. News to me.

individual rights = freedom. i have a right and a choice what to do with my own property. if i choose to try and violate someone else rights by harming them i will deal with consequence. thats freedom and theres choices there. So no, theres no freedom to murder someone

Thats not a strawman argument. in washington dc the murder rate sky rocketed when guns were banned (more specifically hand guns)

Democracy sucks. the majority rule syndrome needs to stop, everyone has the right to live their own life. and its not up to society to tell me where to draw the line with my own things and my personal life. do you even know what a strawman argument is? its not something you just throw around because youve heard people use the word..

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

No, he said why he thought he should be respected.

Funky_Llama

It's not about whether you, subjectively respect him, it's about whether, objectively, he deserves respect.

you must think someone deserves respect before you give them any.

theres no "factual" way to make someone respected. :|

It's not about whether you respect him, it's about whether he deserves respect.

and he does deserve respect.

:roll: I think we're going round in circles.

well if you're implying he dosent deserve respect technically its your turn and you need to say why he dosent. I already said why he does.

Firstly, you're shifting the burden of proof; it's on you.

And secondly, all you did was spout some vague crap about protest.

i already said why i think he deserves respect. I mean if you dont think he was part of the NRA and fought for gun rights then I dont know what to tell you, a simple wikipedia search will tell you he did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Heston#Political_activism

no, I wasnt being vague at all with anything I said. You're just not bringing anything to the table.

Again, i went twice. Now you're turn.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

why? he defended a freedom. which is good. besides washington dc proves gun control hurts more people than gun rights. Gun rights dont leave room open for murder and getting away with it. they track bullets.

H8sMikeMoore

Freedom has to end somewhere. ;)

;););)

AND WHERE ARE YOU GONNA TELL ME WHERE MY FREEDOM ENDS?

yeah, no it dosent.

everyone has individual rights. YOU arent that important, so you dont get to say we dont.

supporting gun control means youd rather see a bunch of defenseless people die than have guns on the market. which dosent make sense.

also, I bet you think if the government becomes corrupt that you can just VOTE them away right? thats IF you would ever even get to that, you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric.

Freedom is choice and I have choice. I have my property which might include guns. so ill do what I want in my own life with my own things. and if you think that means i can go around hurting other people well then YOU got VERY confused.

Ah yes, the old "Who are you to say..." argument... the bottom line is, some level of ego is required to have any opinion, given that you are guaranteed to be disagreeing with millions of people.

Freedom shouldn't end anywhere? So, you should be an anarchist then. And what about the freedom to murder someone? I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't support that freedom...

:lol: You like those straw man arguments, don't you? Yeah, I'd love to see a load of defenceless people die. :roll:

:lol: And yet another straw man argument... apparently I oppose democracy now. News to me.

individual rights = freedom. i have a right and a choice what to do with my own property. if i choose to try and violate someone else rights by harming them i will deal with consequence. thats freedom and theres choices there. So no, theres no freedom to murder someone

Thats not a strawman argument. in washington dc the murder rate sky rocketed when guns were banned (more specifically hand guns)

Democracy sucks. the majority rule syndrome needs to stop, everyone has the right to live their own life. and its not up to society to tell me where to draw the line with my own things and my personal life. do you even know what a strawman argument is? its not something you just throw around because youve heard people use the word..

Regardless, freedom must end somewhere; if it didn't, we'd have anarchism.

It is a straw man argument; you stated that by supporting gun control, I would want to see a bunch of helpless people die.

:lol: I can assure you I do... your response was a stunningly childish misrepresentation of my position as anti-democratic. Not once have I ever opposed democracy, and yet you claimed that I do, and thus it was a straw man argument. By the way, without democracy, you get exacly the opposite of personal freedom; you end up with totalitarianism. With democracy, the people and the goverment are answerable to each other, and that, by and large, works pretty well.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

No, he said why he thought he should be respected.

H8sMikeMoore

It's not about whether you, subjectively respect him, it's about whether, objectively, he deserves respect.

you must think someone deserves respect before you give them any.

theres no "factual" way to make someone respected. :|

It's not about whether you respect him, it's about whether he deserves respect.

and he does deserve respect.

:roll: I think we're going round in circles.

well if you're implying he dosent deserve respect technically its your turn and you need to say why he dosent. I already said why he does.

Firstly, you're shifting the burden of proof; it's on you.

And secondly, all you did was spout some vague crap about protest.

i already said why i think he deserves respect. I mean if you dont think he was part of the NRA and fought for gun rights then I dont know what to tell you, a simple wikipedia search will tell you he did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Heston#Political_activism

no, I wasnt being vague at all with anything I said. You're just not bringing anything to the table.

Again, i went twice. Now you're turn.

Oh? At what point did I deny that he fought for gun rights? Your arguments are as bad as your grammar.
I don't see why he deserves respect for fighting for gun rights.

As I said, the burden of proof is on you. ;)

Regardless, freedom must end somewhere; if it didn't, we'd have anarchism.

It is a straw man argument; you stated that by supporting gun control, I would want to see a bunch of helpless people die.

:lol: I can assure you I do... your response was a stunningly childish misrepresentation of my position as anti-democratic. Not once have I ever opposed democracy, and yet you claimed that I do, and thus it was a straw man argument. By the way, without democracy, you get exacly the opposite of personal freedom; you end up with totalitarianism. With democracy, the people and the goverment are answerable to each other, and that, by and large, works pretty well.

Funky_Llama

It's easy to tell where freedom ends; your property. You can do whatever you want to your property (which includes your body), but anyone else's is off limits.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

why? he defended a freedom. which is good. besides washington dc proves gun control hurts more people than gun rights. Gun rights dont leave room open for murder and getting away with it. they track bullets.

Funky_Llama

Freedom has to end somewhere. ;)

;););)

AND WHERE ARE YOU GONNA TELL ME WHERE MY FREEDOM ENDS?

yeah, no it dosent.

everyone has individual rights. YOU arent that important, so you dont get to say we dont.

supporting gun control means youd rather see a bunch of defenseless people die than have guns on the market. which dosent make sense.

also, I bet you think if the government becomes corrupt that you can just VOTE them away right? thats IF you would ever even get to that, you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric.

Freedom is choice and I have choice. I have my property which might include guns. so ill do what I want in my own life with my own things. and if you think that means i can go around hurting other people well then YOU got VERY confused.

Ah yes, the old "Who are you to say..." argument... the bottom line is, some level of ego is required to have any opinion, given that you are guaranteed to be disagreeing with millions of people.

Freedom shouldn't end anywhere? So, you should be an anarchist then. And what about the freedom to murder someone? I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't support that freedom...

:lol: You like those straw man arguments, don't you? Yeah, I'd love to see a load of defenceless people die. :roll:

:lol: And yet another straw man argument... apparently I oppose democracy now. News to me.

individual rights = freedom. i have a right and a choice what to do with my own property. if i choose to try and violate someone else rights by harming them i will deal with consequence. thats freedom and theres choices there. So no, theres no freedom to murder someone

Thats not a strawman argument. in washington dc the murder rate sky rocketed when guns were banned (more specifically hand guns)

Democracy sucks. the majority rule syndrome needs to stop, everyone has the right to live their own life. and its not up to society to tell me where to draw the line with my own things and my personal life. do you even know what a strawman argument is? its not something you just throw around because youve heard people use the word..

Regardless, freedom must end somewhere; if it didn't, we'd have anarchism.

It is a straw man argument; you stated that by supporting gun control, I would want to see a bunch of helpless people die.

:lol: I can assure you I do... your response was a stunningly childish misrepresentation of my position as anti-democratic. Not once have I ever opposed democracy, and yet you claimed that I do, and thus it was a straw man argument. By the way, without democracy, you get exacly the opposite of personal freedom; you end up with totalitarianism. With democracy, the people and the goverment are answerable to each other, and that, by and large, works pretty well.

"It is a straw man argument; you stated that by supporting gun control, I would want to see a bunch of helpless people die."

DID YOU SEE WHERE I REFRENCED WASHINGTON DC?!???????? Jesus, if you're going to try and debate me (which, you arent doing a very good job) YOU NEED TO READ WHAT I SAY.

You need a lot of work bud.

1. Do you even know what democracy is? Do you think it means freeodm? It certainly dosent. Its just as easily totalitarianism as anything is. thats why i support the idea of a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. The united States has NEVER been a democracy.

2.I never said you were anti-democratic, if anything you are democratic. READ WORDS!

3. Democracy is the rule of the majority. Which in turn, usually leads to tyranny of the majority. I certainly dont want a bunch of christians (the majority of the country) telling me I have to BE a christian. Thats the massive flaw in democracy.

4. If you keep the government small and have a free market based upon individual rights the government wont have much power and the businessess will answer to the people and be destroyed by the people as they wish. Thats the only system that proves to work

Again, im going to hammer this into your brain: I refrenced Washington DC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.#Gun-restriction_laws

As you can see it was ineffective. Some said it was people buying from neighboring states. Well, if thats true then if guns were banned throughout the entire country then criminals will get guns from south america... oh wait they already do that. damn one step ahead of us.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Regardless, freedom must end somewhere; if it didn't, we'd have anarchism.

It is a straw man argument; you stated that by supporting gun control, I would want to see a bunch of helpless people die.

:lol: I can assure you I do... your response was a stunningly childish misrepresentation of my position as anti-democratic. Not once have I ever opposed democracy, and yet you claimed that I do, and thus it was a straw man argument. By the way, without democracy, you get exacly the opposite of personal freedom; you end up with totalitarianism. With democracy, the people and the goverment are answerable to each other, and that, by and large, works pretty well.

Rhazakna

It's easy to tell where freedom ends; your property. You can do whatever you want to your property (which includes your body), but anyone else's is off limits.

I don't think it's as simple as that... by that logic, a cop shouldn't be allowed to arrest anyone.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

No, he said why he thought he should be respected.

Funky_Llama

It's not about whether you, subjectively respect him, it's about whether, objectively, he deserves respect.

you must think someone deserves respect before you give them any.

theres no "factual" way to make someone respected. :|

Need more proof? Fine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

It's not about whether you respect him, it's about whether he deserves respect.

and he does deserve respect.

:roll: I think we're going round in circles.

well if you're implying he dosent deserve respect technically its your turn and you need to say why he dosent. I already said why he does.

Firstly, you're shifting the burden of proof; it's on you.

And secondly, all you did was spout some vague crap about protest.

i already said why i think he deserves respect. I mean if you dont think he was part of the NRA and fought for gun rights then I dont know what to tell you, a simple wikipedia search will tell you he did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Heston#Political_activism

no, I wasnt being vague at all with anything I said. You're just not bringing anything to the table.

Again, i went twice. Now you're turn.

Oh? At what point did I deny that he fought for gun rights? Your arguments are as bad as your grammar.
I don't see why he deserves respect for fighting for gun rights.

As I said, the burden of proof is on you. ;)

Edit Again. Hopefully it works this time:

You need more proof? Fine. Here you go. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOU8GIRUd_g

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Regardless, freedom must end somewhere; if it didn't, we'd have anarchism.

It is a straw man argument; you stated that by supporting gun control, I would want to see a bunch of helpless people die.

:lol: I can assure you I do... your response was a stunningly childish misrepresentation of my position as anti-democratic. Not once have I ever opposed democracy, and yet you claimed that I do, and thus it was a straw man argument. By the way, without democracy, you get exacly the opposite of personal freedom; you end up with totalitarianism. With democracy, the people and the goverment are answerable to each other, and that, by and large, works pretty well.

Funky_Llama

It's easy to tell where freedom ends; your property. You can do whatever you want to your property (which includes your body), but anyone else's is off limits.

I don't think it's as simple as that... by that logic, a cop shouldn't be allowed to arrest anyone.

How does that follow? If someone else's rights were violated, there would be a perfectly valid reason to arrest them. Most justice should be restitutionary anyway.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

No, he said why he thought he should be respected.

Funky_Llama

It's not about whether you, subjectively respect him, it's about whether, objectively, he deserves respect.

you must think someone deserves respect before you give them any.

theres no "factual" way to make someone respected. :|

It's not about whether you respect him, it's about whether he deserves respect.

and he does deserve respect.

:roll: I think we're going round in circles.

well if you're implying he dosent deserve respect technically its your turn and you need to say why he dosent. I already said why he does.

Firstly, you're shifting the burden of proof; it's on you.

And secondly, all you did was spout some vague crap about protest.

i already said why i think he deserves respect. I mean if you dont think he was part of the NRA and fought for gun rights then I dont know what to tell you, a simple wikipedia search will tell you he did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Heston#Political_activism

no, I wasnt being vague at all with anything I said. You're just not bringing anything to the table.

Again, i went twice. Now you're turn.

Oh? At what point did I deny that he fought for gun rights? Your arguments are as bad as your grammar.
I don't see why he deserves respect for fighting for gun rights.

As I said, the burden of proof is on you. ;)

Well you're the one being vague you're just simply denying what I said without giving reason.

My grammar is bad. and ill never care, so get over it.

I already said (and actually other people in this thread pointed it out to you too but you just dont seem to get it) hes respected (and deserves it) for fighting for his freedom and others.

YOU CANT PROVE A REASON FOR RESPECT AS IT IS RELATIVE.

Honestly now, this is pathetic on your behalf. it isnt even a challenge as I just have to say the same things over and over.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

why? he defended a freedom. which is good. besides washington dc proves gun control hurts more people than gun rights. Gun rights dont leave room open for murder and getting away with it. they track bullets.

H8sMikeMoore

Freedom has to end somewhere. ;)

;););)

AND WHERE ARE YOU GONNA TELL ME WHERE MY FREEDOM ENDS?

yeah, no it dosent.

everyone has individual rights. YOU arent that important, so you dont get to say we dont.

supporting gun control means youd rather see a bunch of defenseless people die than have guns on the market. which dosent make sense.

also, I bet you think if the government becomes corrupt that you can just VOTE them away right? thats IF you would ever even get to that, you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric.

Freedom is choice and I have choice. I have my property which might include guns. so ill do what I want in my own life with my own things. and if you think that means i can go around hurting other people well then YOU got VERY confused.

Ah yes, the old "Who are you to say..." argument... the bottom line is, some level of ego is required to have any opinion, given that you are guaranteed to be disagreeing with millions of people.

Freedom shouldn't end anywhere? So, you should be an anarchist then. And what about the freedom to murder someone? I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't support that freedom...

:lol: You like those straw man arguments, don't you? Yeah, I'd love to see a load of defenceless people die. :roll:

:lol: And yet another straw man argument... apparently I oppose democracy now. News to me.

individual rights = freedom. i have a right and a choice what to do with my own property. if i choose to try and violate someone else rights by harming them i will deal with consequence. thats freedom and theres choices there. So no, theres no freedom to murder someone

Thats not a strawman argument. in washington dc the murder rate sky rocketed when guns were banned (more specifically hand guns)

Democracy sucks. the majority rule syndrome needs to stop, everyone has the right to live their own life. and its not up to society to tell me where to draw the line with my own things and my personal life. do you even know what a strawman argument is? its not something you just throw around because youve heard people use the word..

Regardless, freedom must end somewhere; if it didn't, we'd have anarchism.

It is a straw man argument; you stated that by supporting gun control, I would want to see a bunch of helpless people die.

:lol: I can assure you I do... your response was a stunningly childish misrepresentation of my position as anti-democratic. Not once have I ever opposed democracy, and yet you claimed that I do, and thus it was a straw man argument. By the way, without democracy, you get exacly the opposite of personal freedom; you end up with totalitarianism. With democracy, the people and the goverment are answerable to each other, and that, by and large, works pretty well.

"It is a straw man argument; you stated that by supporting gun control, I would want to see a bunch of helpless people die."

DID YOU SEE WHERE I REFRENCED WASHINGTON DC?!???????? Jesus, if you're going to try and debate me (which, you arent doing a very good job) YOU NEED TO READ WHAT I SAY.

You need a lot of work bud.

1. Do you even know what democracy is? Do you think it means freeodm? It certainly dosent. Its just as easily totalitarianism as anything is. thats why i support the idea of a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. The united States has NEVER been a democracy.

2.I never said you were anti-democratic, if anything you are democratic. READ WORDS!

3. Democracy is the rule of the majority. Which in turn, usually leads to tyranny of the majority. I certainly dont want a bunch of christians (the majority of the country) telling me I have to BE a christian. Thats the massive flaw in democracy.

4. If you keep the government small and have a free market based upon individual rights the government wont have much power and the businessess will answer to the people and be destroyed by the people as they wish. Thats the only system that proves to work

Again, im going to hammer this into your brain: I refrenced Washington DC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.#Gun-restriction_laws

As you can see it was ineffective. Some said it was people buying from neighboring states. Well, if thats true then if guns were banned throughout the entire country then criminals will get guns from south america... oh wait they already do that. damn one step ahead of us.

:lol: Oh, I see, so the statement, "Gun control leads to more homicide" means that "All gun supporters want to see innocents die". Heh... logic isn't your strong point, I see.

1. Stop arguing semantics. The USA is a democracy, simple as.

2. "you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric" suggests otherwise. ;)

3. Except that you don't have to be Christian. :|

4. :roll: Big business cannot be trusted. Corporations will try to, and with the kind of Lassaiz-fair approach you're advocating, will, do anything they can to gain profits, regardless of morality.

Getting guns from neighbouring countries is rather more difficult than getting them from neighbouring states. ;)

Bottomline, America is patheticDrCoCoPiMp

Yes, which is why we are the most powerful nation in the world ;).

And in other news still related to this topic, I just got finished watching Bowling for columbine today and it was fantastic. Micheal Moore is a genius, and I look forward to whatever documentary he does next. Too bad though everybody outside the US tries to us these films as hate propaganda.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Regardless, freedom must end somewhere; if it didn't, we'd have anarchism.

It is a straw man argument; you stated that by supporting gun control, I would want to see a bunch of helpless people die.

:lol: I can assure you I do... your response was a stunningly childish misrepresentation of my position as anti-democratic. Not once have I ever opposed democracy, and yet you claimed that I do, and thus it was a straw man argument. By the way, without democracy, you get exacly the opposite of personal freedom; you end up with totalitarianism. With democracy, the people and the goverment are answerable to each other, and that, by and large, works pretty well.

Rhazakna

It's easy to tell where freedom ends; your property. You can do whatever you want to your property (which includes your body), but anyone else's is off limits.

I don't think it's as simple as that... by that logic, a cop shouldn't be allowed to arrest anyone.

How does that follow? If someone else's rights were violated, there would be a perfectly valid reason to arrest them. Most justice should be restitutionary anyway.

Except that people can be arrested merely on suspicious of a crime.

:lol: Oh, I see, so the statement, "Gun control leads to more homicide" means that "All gun supporters want to see innocents die". Heh... logic isn't your strong point, I see.

1. Stop arguing semantics. The USA is a democracy, simple as.

2. "you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric" suggests otherwise. ;)

3. Except that you don't have to be Christian. :|

4. :roll: Big business cannot be trusted. Corporations will try to, and with the kind of Lassaiz-fair approach you're advocating, will, do anything they can to gain profits, regardless of morality.

Getting guns from neighbouring countries is rather more difficult than getting them from neighbouring states. ;)

Funky_Llama

Actually, the US is not a democracy, nor was it intended to be. The US is a republic. A democratic country, but not a democracy.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Regardless, freedom must end somewhere; if it didn't, we'd have anarchism.

It is a straw man argument; you stated that by supporting gun control, I would want to see a bunch of helpless people die.

:lol: I can assure you I do... your response was a stunningly childish misrepresentation of my position as anti-democratic. Not once have I ever opposed democracy, and yet you claimed that I do, and thus it was a straw man argument. By the way, without democracy, you get exacly the opposite of personal freedom; you end up with totalitarianism. With democracy, the people and the goverment are answerable to each other, and that, by and large, works pretty well.

Funky_Llama

It's easy to tell where freedom ends; your property. You can do whatever you want to your property (which includes your body), but anyone else's is off limits.

I don't think it's as simple as that... by that logic, a cop shouldn't be allowed to arrest anyone.

How does that follow? If someone else's rights were violated, there would be a perfectly valid reason to arrest them. Most justice should be restitutionary anyway.

Except that people can be arrested merely on suspicious of a crime.

There needs to be just cause to suspect someone of a crime. If there was evidence of a crime, there would be no problem. If there was no evidence, the person shouldn't be arrested.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

:lol: Oh, I see, so the statement, "Gun control leads to more homicide" means that "All gun supporters want to see innocents die". Heh... logic isn't your strong point, I see.

1. Stop arguing semantics. The USA is a democracy, simple as.

2. "you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric" suggests otherwise. ;)

3. Except that you don't have to be Christian. :|

4. :roll: Big business cannot be trusted. Corporations will try to, and with the kind of Lassaiz-fair approach you're advocating, will, do anything they can to gain profits, regardless of morality.

Getting guns from neighbouring countries is rather more difficult than getting them from neighbouring states. ;)

Rhazakna

Actually, the US is not a democracy, nor was it intended to be. The US is a republic. A democratic country, but not a democracy.

Exactly. And your sig is fantastic.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

:lol: Oh, I see, so the statement, "Gun control leads to more homicide" means that "All gun supporters want to see innocents die". Heh... logic isn't your strong point, I see.

1. Stop arguing semantics. The USA is a democracy, simple as.

2. "you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric" suggests otherwise. ;)

3. Except that you don't have to be Christian. :|

4. :roll: Big business cannot be trusted. Corporations will try to, and with the kind of Lassaiz-fair approach you're advocating, will, do anything they can to gain profits, regardless of morality.

Getting guns from neighbouring countries is rather more difficult than getting them from neighbouring states. ;)

Rhazakna

Actually, the US is not a democracy, nor was it intended to be. The US is a republic. A democratic country, but not a democracy.

What's the distinction between a democratic country and a democracy? :|

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

why? he defended a freedom. which is good. besides washington dc proves gun control hurts more people than gun rights. Gun rights dont leave room open for murder and getting away with it. they track bullets.

Funky_Llama

Freedom has to end somewhere. ;)

;););)

AND WHERE ARE YOU GONNA TELL ME WHERE MY FREEDOM ENDS?

yeah, no it dosent.

everyone has individual rights. YOU arent that important, so you dont get to say we dont.

supporting gun control means youd rather see a bunch of defenseless people die than have guns on the market. which dosent make sense.

also, I bet you think if the government becomes corrupt that you can just VOTE them away right? thats IF you would ever even get to that, you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric.

Freedom is choice and I have choice. I have my property which might include guns. so ill do what I want in my own life with my own things. and if you think that means i can go around hurting other people well then YOU got VERY confused.

Ah yes, the old "Who are you to say..." argument... the bottom line is, some level of ego is required to have any opinion, given that you are guaranteed to be disagreeing with millions of people.

Freedom shouldn't end anywhere? So, you should be an anarchist then. And what about the freedom to murder someone? I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't support that freedom...

:lol: You like those straw man arguments, don't you? Yeah, I'd love to see a load of defenceless people die. :roll:

:lol: And yet another straw man argument... apparently I oppose democracy now. News to me.

individual rights = freedom. i have a right and a choice what to do with my own property. if i choose to try and violate someone else rights by harming them i will deal with consequence. thats freedom and theres choices there. So no, theres no freedom to murder someone

Thats not a strawman argument. in washington dc the murder rate sky rocketed when guns were banned (more specifically hand guns)

Democracy sucks. the majority rule syndrome needs to stop, everyone has the right to live their own life. and its not up to society to tell me where to draw the line with my own things and my personal life. do you even know what a strawman argument is? its not something you just throw around because youve heard people use the word..

Regardless, freedom must end somewhere; if it didn't, we'd have anarchism.

It is a straw man argument; you stated that by supporting gun control, I would want to see a bunch of helpless people die.

:lol: I can assure you I do... your response was a stunningly childish misrepresentation of my position as anti-democratic. Not once have I ever opposed democracy, and yet you claimed that I do, and thus it was a straw man argument. By the way, without democracy, you get exacly the opposite of personal freedom; you end up with totalitarianism. With democracy, the people and the goverment are answerable to each other, and that, by and large, works pretty well.

"It is a straw man argument; you stated that by supporting gun control, I would want to see a bunch of helpless people die."

DID YOU SEE WHERE I REFRENCED WASHINGTON DC?!???????? Jesus, if you're going to try and debate me (which, you arent doing a very good job) YOU NEED TO READ WHAT I SAY.

You need a lot of work bud.

1. Do you even know what democracy is? Do you think it means freeodm? It certainly dosent. Its just as easily totalitarianism as anything is. thats why i support the idea of a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. The united States has NEVER been a democracy.

2.I never said you were anti-democratic, if anything you are democratic. READ WORDS!

3. Democracy is the rule of the majority. Which in turn, usually leads to tyranny of the majority. I certainly dont want a bunch of christians (the majority of the country) telling me I have to BE a christian. Thats the massive flaw in democracy.

4. If you keep the government small and have a free market based upon individual rights the government wont have much power and the businessess will answer to the people and be destroyed by the people as they wish. Thats the only system that proves to work

Again, im going to hammer this into your brain: I refrenced Washington DC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.#Gun-restriction_laws

As you can see it was ineffective. Some said it was people buying from neighboring states. Well, if thats true then if guns were banned throughout the entire country then criminals will get guns from south america... oh wait they already do that. damn one step ahead of us.

:lol: Oh, I see, so the statement, "Gun control leads to more homicide" means that "All gun supporters want to see innocents die". Heh... logic isn't your strong point, I see.

1. Stop arguing semantics. The USA is a democracy, simple as.

2. "you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric" suggests otherwise. ;)

3. Except that you don't have to be Christian. :|

4. :roll: Big business cannot be trusted. Corporations will try to, and with the kind of Lassaiz-fair approach you're advocating, will, do anything they can to gain profits, regardless of morality.

Getting guns from neighbouring countries is rather more difficult than getting them from neighbouring states. ;)

you've got to be kidding me.

1. If people cant defend themselves, theyre more likely to get hurt. Washington DC proves this. This is logic.

2. uh no?

3.You dont seem to know what im trying to say. In a DEMOCRACY THE MAJORITY RULES.

The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

4. The USA is not a democracy, never has been and hpefully will never become one. Simple as, "The United States of America is one of the oldest constitutional republics in the world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic

5. You cant trust anyone. Big business included. At the very least big business falls by the almight dollar. You cant boycott governments, well you can but its usually pretty bloody.

6. its not that difficult when were talking about mexico. most illegal guns are acquired through mexico and other countries in south america. they are smuggled into this country,

How can you say he's not affiliated with any party when the final chapter of "Dude... where's my country" is basically a cheerleading session for the democrat party?Ninja-Hippo

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

:lol: Oh, I see, so the statement, "Gun control leads to more homicide" means that "All gun supporters want to see innocents die". Heh... logic isn't your strong point, I see.

1. Stop arguing semantics. The USA is a democracy, simple as.

2. "you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric" suggests otherwise. ;)

3. Except that you don't have to be Christian. :|

4. :roll: Big business cannot be trusted. Corporations will try to, and with the kind of Lassaiz-fair approach you're advocating, will, do anything they can to gain profits, regardless of morality.

Getting guns from neighbouring countries is rather more difficult than getting them from neighbouring states. ;)

Zentrenius

Actually, the US is not a democracy, nor was it intended to be. The US is a republic. A democratic country, but not a democracy.

Exactly. And your sig is fantastic.

Isn't he the guy off Curb Your Enthusian?

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

:lol: Oh, I see, so the statement, "Gun control leads to more homicide" means that "All gun supporters want to see innocents die". Heh... logic isn't your strong point, I see.

1. Stop arguing semantics. The USA is a democracy, simple as.

2. "you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric" suggests otherwise. ;)

3. Except that you don't have to be Christian. :|

4. :roll: Big business cannot be trusted. Corporations will try to, and with the kind of Lassaiz-fair approach you're advocating, will, do anything they can to gain profits, regardless of morality.

Getting guns from neighbouring countries is rather more difficult than getting them from neighbouring states. ;)

Funky_Llama

Actually, the US is not a democracy, nor was it intended to be. The US is a republic. A democratic country, but not a democracy.

What's the distinction between a democratic country and a democracy? :|

America.

Not America.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

why? he defended a freedom. which is good. besides washington dc proves gun control hurts more people than gun rights. Gun rights dont leave room open for murder and getting away with it. they track bullets.

H8sMikeMoore

Freedom has to end somewhere. ;)

;););)

AND WHERE ARE YOU GONNA TELL ME WHERE MY FREEDOM ENDS?

yeah, no it dosent.

everyone has individual rights. YOU arent that important, so you dont get to say we dont.

supporting gun control means youd rather see a bunch of defenseless people die than have guns on the market. which dosent make sense.

also, I bet you think if the government becomes corrupt that you can just VOTE them away right? thats IF you would ever even get to that, you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric.

Freedom is choice and I have choice. I have my property which might include guns. so ill do what I want in my own life with my own things. and if you think that means i can go around hurting other people well then YOU got VERY confused.

I dont buy into the idea that having no guns = defenseless people are going to die at the hands of criminals. Is it not common sense that the people who carry guns are the ones who end up getting shot?

The fact is that gun owners who end up shooting a person in their lifetime are not doing so in defense against a gun-toting criminal most of the time. If that were the case, there'd be no call for gun control.

Give the police guns. Give SWAT teams guns. Give security guards and the army guns. But some random guy who wants to use the excuse of "self defense" to keep a shotgun next to his bed? No thanks.

who is the best person to care about you? me or you?

the government has always failed people. at least corporations have something they want from you.

the thing is, I completely understand your point of view. But heres another thing. I think its bull****. The only way everyone will be healthy and happy is if theyre in control of their lives. If people want to help out thats fine. But keep the government's tyranical hands out of it.

Everyone... EVERYONE has the right to contribute to what they want and the right to NOT contribute. If I see some sick kid laying on the side of the street and I decide to help him I will. I garuntee that will be better than a government who really dosent care anyway. Individualism is the only way.

This dog eat dog mentallity makes life better for everyone. Everyone is trying to one up each other, and it gives a purpose to life. It celebrates the right to choose (which IS freedom) and it brings people prosperity.

Theres no good ideas in socialism, and theres no logic behind it. Period.

H8sMikeMoore

Watch the quotes please, guys. There's no need to quote people from pages ago. It just makes it hard to scroll.

Thank you. :)

\

I dont buy into the idea that having no guns = defenseless people are going to die at the hands of criminals. Is it not common sense that the people who carry guns are the ones who end up getting shot?

The fact is that gun owners who end up shooting a person in their lifetime are not doing so in defense against a gun-toting criminal most of the time. If that were the case, there'd be no call for gun control.

Give the police guns. Give SWAT teams guns. Give security guards and the army guns. But some random guy who wants to use the excuse of "self defense" to keep a shotgun next to his bed? No thanks.

Ninja-Hippo

People shouldn't be able to defend themselves the way they see fit because you say "no thanks". Authoritarianism is so common place these days.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

who is the best person to care about you? me or you?

the government has always failed people. at least corporations have something they want from you.

the thing is, I completely understand your point of view. But heres another thing. I think its bull****. The only way everyone will be healthy and happy is if theyre in control of their lives. If people want to help out thats fine. But keep the government's tyranical hands out of it.

Everyone... EVERYONE has the right to contribute to what they want and the right to NOT contribute. If I see some sick kid laying on the side of the street and I decide to help him I will. I garuntee that will be better than a government who really dosent care anyway. Individualism is the only way.

This dog eat dog mentallity makes life better for everyone. Everyone is trying to one up each other, and it gives a purpose to life. It celebrates the right to choose (which IS freedom) and it brings people prosperity.

Theres no good ideas in socialism, and theres no logic behind it. Period.

Mr_Sesshomaru

If the market was free, medical help would be much cheaper. There would be more jobs as well as anyone could simply start a business without letting big brother know.

[QUOTE="Zentrenius"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

:lol: Oh, I see, so the statement, "Gun control leads to more homicide" means that "All gun supporters want to see innocents die". Heh... logic isn't your strong point, I see.

1. Stop arguing semantics. The USA is a democracy, simple as.

2. "you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric" suggests otherwise. ;)

3. Except that you don't have to be Christian. :|

4. :roll: Big business cannot be trusted. Corporations will try to, and with the kind of Lassaiz-fair approach you're advocating, will, do anything they can to gain profits, regardless of morality.

Getting guns from neighbouring countries is rather more difficult than getting them from neighbouring states. ;)

Funky_Llama

Actually, the US is not a democracy, nor was it intended to be. The US is a republic. A democratic country, but not a democracy.

Exactly. And your sig is fantastic.

Isn't he the guy off Curb Your Enthusian?

Yes. And he is that powerful.

you've got to be kidding me.

1. If people cant defend themselves, theyre more likely to get hurt. Washington DC proves this. This is logic.

2. uh no?

3.You dont seem to know what im trying to say. In a DEMOCRACY THE MAJORITY RULES.

The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

4. The USA is not a democracy, never has been and hpefully will never become one. Simple as, "The United States of America is one of the oldest constitutional republics in the world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic

5. You cant trust anyone. Big business included. At the very least big business falls by the almight dollar. You cant boycott governments, well you can but its usually pretty bloody.

6. its not that difficult when were talking about mexico. most illegal guns are acquired through mexico and other countries in south america. they are smuggled into this country,

H8sMikeMoore

1. Your numbering scheme confuses me... anyway... no, it is not logic. "Gun control leads to more homicide" does not mean that "All gun supporters want to see innocents die".

2. A devastating effective refutation there. :roll:

3. I never said democracy was perfect; I'm aware it's flawed. But it's still the best method of government.

4. False dichotomy; a republic can be democratic.

5. You can, however, vote governments out. There's no such power with big business; thus they need to be regulated.

6. Your point?

If the market was free, medical help would be much cheaper. There would be more jobs as well as anyone could simply start a business without letting big brother know.

H8sMikeMoore

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

who is the best person to care about you? me or you?

the government has always failed people. at least corporations have something they want from you.

the thing is, I completely understand your point of view. But heres another thing. I think its bull****. The only way everyone will be healthy and happy is if theyre in control of their lives. If people want to help out thats fine. But keep the government's tyranical hands out of it.

Everyone... EVERYONE has the right to contribute to what they want and the right to NOT contribute. If I see some sick kid laying on the side of the street and I decide to help him I will. I garuntee that will be better than a government who really dosent care anyway. Individualism is the only way.

This dog eat dog mentallity makes life better for everyone. Everyone is trying to one up each other, and it gives a purpose to life. It celebrates the right to choose (which IS freedom) and it brings people prosperity.

Theres no good ideas in socialism, and theres no logic behind it. Period.

Mr_Sesshomaru

You'll find that it's always the middle/upper-class, successful families with no need for support who are so against socialism. Without any form of socialim their tax bills would be smaller, so they'd be able to afford a third TV and a second PS3 because sharing is for communists.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

why? he defended a freedom. which is good. besides washington dc proves gun control hurts more people than gun rights. Gun rights dont leave room open for murder and getting away with it. they track bullets.

Ninja-Hippo

Freedom has to end somewhere. ;)

;););)

AND WHERE ARE YOU GONNA TELL ME WHERE MY FREEDOM ENDS?

yeah, no it dosent.

everyone has individual rights. YOU arent that important, so you dont get to say we dont.

supporting gun control means youd rather see a bunch of defenseless people die than have guns on the market. which dosent make sense.

also, I bet you think if the government becomes corrupt that you can just VOTE them away right? thats IF you would ever even get to that, you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric.

Freedom is choice and I have choice. I have my property which might include guns. so ill do what I want in my own life with my own things. and if you think that means i can go around hurting other people well then YOU got VERY confused.

I dont buy into the idea that having no guns = defenseless people are going to die at the hands of criminals. Is it not common sense that the people who carry guns are the ones who end up getting shot?

The fact is that gun owners who end up shooting a person in their lifetime are not doing so in defense against a gun-toting criminal most of the time. If that were the case, there'd be no call for gun control.

Give the police guns. Give SWAT teams guns. Give security guards and the army guns. But some random guy who wants to use the excuse of "self defense" to keep a shotgun next to his bed? No thanks.

Like ive said several times, most gun crime usually have smuggled weapons in there.

I dont trust the police, especially american police. Everything youre saying implies that I trust the government. Which I dont.

Everyone has rights to their own property. owning a gun dosent mean youll kill someone. Most people who own guns dont kill people. So, ill take an armed country any day.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

:lol: Oh, I see, so the statement, "Gun control leads to more homicide" means that "All gun supporters want to see innocents die". Heh... logic isn't your strong point, I see.

1. Stop arguing semantics. The USA is a democracy, simple as.

2. "you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric" suggests otherwise. ;)

3. Except that you don't have to be Christian. :|

4. :roll: Big business cannot be trusted. Corporations will try to, and with the kind of Lassaiz-fair approach you're advocating, will, do anything they can to gain profits, regardless of morality.

Getting guns from neighbouring countries is rather more difficult than getting them from neighbouring states. ;)

Rhazakna

Actually, the US is not a democracy, nor was it intended to be. The US is a republic. A democratic country, but not a democracy.

What's the distinction between a democratic country and a democracy? :|

America.

Not America.

Representative democracy is also a type of democracy.

I never claimed that the USA is a pure democracy.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]\

I dont buy into the idea that having no guns = defenseless people are going to die at the hands of criminals. Is it not common sense that the people who carry guns are the ones who end up getting shot?

The fact is that gun owners who end up shooting a person in their lifetime are not doing so in defense against a gun-toting criminal most of the time. If that were the case, there'd be no call for gun control.

Give the police guns. Give SWAT teams guns. Give security guards and the army guns. But some random guy who wants to use the excuse of "self defense" to keep a shotgun next to his bed? No thanks.

Rhazakna

People shouldn't be able to defend themselves the way they see fit because you say "no thanks". Authoritarianism is so common place these days.

I'm opposed to letting anyone have a gun, so i'm in favour of authoritarianism. Also, the other guy says anyone in favour of gun control is pro having innocents die.

Are you making points here or just jumping to as many rediculous extremes as possible?

[QUOTE="Mr_Sesshomaru"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

who is the best person to care about you? me or you?

the government has always failed people. at least corporations have something they want from you.

the thing is, I completely understand your point of view. But heres another thing. I think its bull****. The only way everyone will be healthy and happy is if theyre in control of their lives. If people want to help out thats fine. But keep the government's tyranical hands out of it.

Everyone... EVERYONE has the right to contribute to what they want and the right to NOT contribute. If I see some sick kid laying on the side of the street and I decide to help him I will. I garuntee that will be better than a government who really dosent care anyway. Individualism is the only way.

This dog eat dog mentallity makes life better for everyone. Everyone is trying to one up each other, and it gives a purpose to life. It celebrates the right to choose (which IS freedom) and it brings people prosperity.

Theres no good ideas in socialism, and theres no logic behind it. Period.

Ninja-Hippo

You'll find that it's always the middle/upper-class, successful families with no need for support who are so against socialism. Without any form of socialim their tax bills would be smaller, so they'd be able to afford a third TV and a second PS3 because sharing is for communists.

that and because they see that the free market works (even though our market isnt that free anymore)

I was poor. I lived in section 8 for a bit, hell I grew up in a trailer park. Whats so hard about saving money? I had two sisters as well. So I dont see any excuses.

Sharing is okay and completely acceptable, but it should be voluntary. I mean there used to be hospitals that would just take you in even if you couldnt pay (ron paul used to work in them) and that was with a free market.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

why? he defended a freedom. which is good. besides washington dc proves gun control hurts more people than gun rights. Gun rights dont leave room open for murder and getting away with it. they track bullets.

Ninja-Hippo

Freedom has to end somewhere. ;)

;););)

AND WHERE ARE YOU GONNA TELL ME WHERE MY FREEDOM ENDS?

yeah, no it dosent.

everyone has individual rights. YOU arent that important, so you dont get to say we dont.

supporting gun control means youd rather see a bunch of defenseless people die than have guns on the market. which dosent make sense.

also, I bet you think if the government becomes corrupt that you can just VOTE them away right? thats IF you would ever even get to that, you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric.

Freedom is choice and I have choice. I have my property which might include guns. so ill do what I want in my own life with my own things. and if you think that means i can go around hurting other people well then YOU got VERY confused.

I dont buy into the idea that having no guns = defenseless people are going to die at the hands of criminals. Is it not common sense that the people who carry guns are the ones who end up getting shot?

The fact is that gun owners who end up shooting a person in their lifetime are not doing so in defense against a gun-toting criminal most of the time. If that were the case, there'd be no call for gun control.

Give the police guns. Give SWAT teams guns. Give security guards and the army guns. But some random guy who wants to use the excuse of "self defense" to keep a shotgun next to his bed? No thanks.

links for every "fact"

i suppose you believe that guy with the shotgun is going to kill you, right?

Like ive said several times, most gun crime usually have smuggled weapons in there.

I dont trust the police, especially american police. Everything youre saying implies that I trust the government. Which I dont.

Everyone has rights to their own property. owning a gun dosent mean youll kill someone. Most people who own guns dont kill people. So, ill take an armed country any day.

H8sMikeMoore

Criminals do indeed buy guns illegally. I dont think anyone is in favour of gun control to stop criminals. It's to stop murder, to stop petty crimes being met by gun-toting vigilantes, and to get guns off the streets. The guardian concluded long ago that the rate of gun-crime is nearly directly proportional to the number of guns in circulation in a given state.

Get guns off the streets and out of homes and the number of people falling victim to gun crime will fall.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

:lol: Oh, I see, so the statement, "Gun control leads to more homicide" means that "All gun supporters want to see innocents die". Heh... logic isn't your strong point, I see.

1. Stop arguing semantics. The USA is a democracy, simple as.

2. "you would probably allow the government to do anything it wanted to you with that rhetoric" suggests otherwise. ;)

3. Except that you don't have to be Christian. :|

4. :roll: Big business cannot be trusted. Corporations will try to, and with the kind of Lassaiz-fair approach you're advocating, will, do anything they can to gain profits, regardless of morality.

Getting guns from neighbouring countries is rather more difficult than getting them from neighbouring states. ;)

Funky_Llama

Actually, the US is not a democracy, nor was it intended to be. The US is a republic. A democratic country, but not a democracy.

What's the distinction between a democratic country and a democracy? :|

America.

Not America.

Representative democracy is also a type of democracy.

I never claimed that the USA is a pure democracy.

The US elects representatives who are limited by the constitution. That's a constitutional republic which--though democratic--is considered different than a democracy.