Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"

Have the American people come to the point where people cannot be trusted to defend themselves?

Has our paranoia overpowered our thirst for liberty?

Are we mere children, forbidden from leaving the playpen of government supervision?

It's much more than a matter of right, it's a matter of trust. Can you trust your fellow man? More importantly, can you trust yourself?

[britboy]

LostSoul3412 wrote: "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"

Have the American people come to the point where people cannot be trusted to defend themselves?

Has our paranoia overpowered our thirst for liberty?

Are we mere children, forbidden from leaving the playpen of government supervision?

It's much more than a matter of right, it's a matter of trust. Can you trust your fellow man? More importantly, can you trust yourself?

This guy died in 1799!

Besides, the obvious answer is 'If given firearms, some people can be trusted to defend themselves, some can't'.

I have trusted my fellow man not to kill me, and my government to protect me, for my entire life. So has my entire family, er, forever. No-one has ever needed to defend themselves. Not ever. Repeat, not ever. So carrying a firearm, with all the training, expense, risk etc. would have been a complete bloody waste of time and money! Simple as that!

'My lords, ladies and gentlemen, is it not the responsibility to aim for a society where it's members need not defend themselves? Is this not 100-fold more desireable than churning out more and more arms, and upping the stakes between criminals and law-abiders time and time again. Or are we really doomed to an eternity of all exercising extreme paranoia against each other? For I know which country I would rather be a part of'. Britters. 2006.

[airo]

britboy wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"

Have the American people come to the point where people cannot be trusted to defend themselves?

Has our paranoia overpowered our thirst for liberty?

Are we mere children, forbidden from leaving the playpen of government supervision?

It's much more than a matter of right, it's a matter of trust. Can you trust your fellow man? More importantly, can you trust yourself?

This guy died in 1799!

Besides, the obvious answer is 'If given firearms, some people can be trusted to defend themselves, some can't'.

I have trusted my fellow man not to kill me, and my government to protect me, for my entire life. So has my entire family, er, forever. No-one has ever needed to defend themselves. Not ever. Repeat, not ever. So carrying a firearm, with all the training, expense, risk etc. would have been a complete bloody waste of time and money! Simple as that!

'My lords, ladies and gentlemen, is it not the responsibility to aim for a society where it's members need not defend themselves? Is this not 100-fold more desireable than churning out more and more arms, and upping the stakes between criminals and law-abiders time and time again. Or are we really doomed to an eternity of all exercising extreme paranoia against each other? For I know which country I would rather be a part of'. Britters. 2006.

Britboy, the thing you don't realize is... it only takes once.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: 'My lords, ladies and gentlemen, is it not the responsibility to aim for a society where it's members need not defend themselves?

How are you going to do that?

[sailorman126]

brit boy
no one has ever needed to defend themselves?
how about he store owners that where attacked inteh la riots?
they didnt need to defend themsleves?
how about the women that fight off rapisets they dont have to defend themsleves?
how about the old lady tht stoped a mugger?
or the one that stoped a person when they attacked her in her hhouse?
i guess they should not defend themsleves.
so if attacked your idea is let them beat you rape you then attack and rape your family. and you will just let them do it becasue it is wrong to defend yourself.

[wyldejackyl]

He lives in a utopia where criminal desires are somehow purged from society and these things "just dont' happen."

You can trust the government if you want. One day they'll decide there's other things that they don't want you to have. The freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble, and the freedom to practice your religion. Maybe they won't like your brown hair anymore next, or your blue eyes? Hitler kept his society safe from those awful Jews just like yours is trying to keep you safe from those awful criminals. In your eyes though, anyone with a gun is a criminal. Crime is in the eye of the enforcer, or the legal body making the laws. If people have no control over that..than what have they?

You can trust others with your life, I will not. Would you take your clothes off in front of the world, just because? If you trust your fellow man/woman you would. Or how about flaunting your credit card number or other identity papers? No need for paper shredders. Everyone's honest, right?

[micfranklin]

Some people can be trusted with weapons, some can't, like crazy people. In any given society, it is important for people to be able to defend themselves, 'nuff said.

[britboy]

micfranklin wrote: Some people can be trusted with weapons, some can't, like crazy people. In any given society, it is important for people to be able to defend themselves, 'nuff said.
What, even in the Vatican? Just in case some crazed 79 year old priest thats spent his whole life dedicated to god suddenly decides he's gonna throw a Papel document at you violently?

:roll:

[micfranklin]

britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: Some people can be trusted with weapons, some can't, like crazy people. In any given society, it is important for people to be able to defend themselves, 'nuff said.
What, even in the Vatican? Just in case some crazed 79 year old priest thats spent his whole life dedicated to god suddenly decides he's gonna throw a Papel document at you violently?

:roll:

Would you prefer it if he just shot you and you didn't even try to save yourself?

[britboy]

micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: Some people can be trusted with weapons, some can't, like crazy people. In any given society, it is important for people to be able to defend themselves, 'nuff said.
What, even in the Vatican? Just in case some crazed 79 year old priest thats spent his whole life dedicated to god suddenly decides he's gonna throw a Papel document at you violently?

:roll:

Would you prefer it if he just shot you and you didn't even try to save yourself?

Shot me? With what? The priests in the Vatican don't carry arms. No-one does. There are armed police on the gates, that arn't allowed in. That arn't part of that given society.

You've been getting your information from dodgy sources:

like here! :)

[perdidochas]

britboy wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"

Have the American people come to the point where people cannot be trusted to defend themselves?

Has our paranoia overpowered our thirst for liberty?

Are we mere children, forbidden from leaving the playpen of government supervision?

It's much more than a matter of right, it's a matter of trust. Can you trust your fellow man? More importantly, can you trust yourself?

This guy died in 1799!

Besides, the obvious answer is 'If given firearms, some people can be trusted to defend themselves, some can't'.

I have trusted my fellow man not to kill me, and my government to protect me, for my entire life. So has my entire family, er, forever. No-one has ever needed to defend themselves. Not ever. Repeat, not ever. So carrying a firearm, with all the training, expense, risk etc. would have been a complete bloody waste of time and money! Simple as that!

I guess then all the First Aid courses, Dive rescue courses, and CPR courses have been a "complete bloody waste of time and money" since I've never had to use the knowledge in those courses in my life. All of those batteries I've changed in smoke detectors has been useless. Those life preservers for my boat useless. I guess then, I also wasted money
when I stocked up for hurricane season. As I've said, my defensive gun has cost me about $300 for the past 19 yrs. That's about the same as the money I have spent on first aid and CPR courses in that same time. I don't feel either money was wasted (although I do need to get recertified for CPR).

britboy wrote:
'My lords, ladies and gentlemen, is it not the responsibility to aim for a society where it's members need not defend themselves? Is this not 100-fold more desireable than churning out more and more arms, and upping the stakes between criminals and law-abiders time and time again. Or are we really doomed to an eternity of all exercising extreme paranoia against each other? For I know which country I would rather be a part of'. Britters. 2006.

I agree, idealistically. It would be nice if we didnt' have to worry about evil people trying to take advantage of others by force. However, that is impossible. Human nature includes a predatory nature. Humans will always be stealing, raping, and killing each other. I choose to trust myself and other good people to prevent this, as well as the police. As the last policeman I had a gun control conversation with told me, "I want all the good guys armed. Then we have the bad guys outnumbered." Then he discusses a gun that we have both owned, and recommended a self-defense load for it. You seem to have it in mind that there is some kind of paranoid arms race between citizens and criminals. There's not. Most of us gun owners have our preferred self defense gun, and unless we want another gun for less practical purposes (i.e. for fun), we stick with it. Honestly, except when things go bump in the night (i.e. I hear unfamiliar noises at night) or after a hurricane, self defense is the last thing on my mind. In fact, I think about it more due to discussions like this, than I ever do in "real life." My self defense gun is like a fire extinguisher, with the added advantage that it is fun to shoot tin cans with.

[perdidochas]

britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: Some people can be trusted with weapons, some can't, like crazy people. In any given society, it is important for people to be able to defend themselves, 'nuff said.
What, even in the Vatican? Just in case some crazed 79 year old priest thats spent his whole life dedicated to god suddenly decides he's gonna throw a Papel document at you violently?

:roll:

Would you prefer it if he just shot you and you didn't even try to save yourself?

Shot me? With what? The priests in the Vatican don't carry arms. No-one does. There are armed police on the gates, that arn't allowed in. That arn't part of that given society.

You've been getting your information from dodgy sources:

like here! :)

The whole Vatican argument is silly. The Vatican is not a society, it is a religious compound that has no children, no real population, etc. It is not a good example of anything.

Also, the Vatican guards are armed. They have either the traditional halberds or swords, and there are also members of the Swiss Guard armed with pistols and submachine guns.

Quote: After the May 13, 1981 assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II by Mehmet Ali Agca, a much stronger emphasis has been made of the Swiss Guards' functional, non-ceremonial roles. This has included extended training in unarmed combat and with issue SIG P 75 pistols (a.k.a. P220) and Heckler & Koch submachine-guns.



www.answers.com/topic/swiss-guard

[jimmyz]

britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: Some people can be trusted with weapons, some can't, like crazy people. In any given society, it is important for people to be able to defend themselves, 'nuff said.
What, even in the Vatican? Just in case some crazed 79 year old priest thats spent his whole life dedicated to god suddenly decides he's gonna throw a Papel document at you violently?

:roll:

Would you prefer it if he just shot you and you didn't even try to save yourself?

Shot me? With what? The priests in the Vatican don't carry arms. No-one does. There are armed police on the gates, that arn't allowed in. That arn't part of that given society.

You've been getting your information from dodgy sources:

like here! :)

The bungling Turkish assassin Aga had a gun "at the Vatican".Would I have received my sainthood if I pulled my .45 and shot that scum down before he pumped a couple shots into John Paul II?

My point is that you are safe some places some of the time.But you are never safe everywhere all of the time.

I love the opening you gave me mentioning the Vatican and gun control.I waited a very long time for one of your type to bring it there.

[britboy]

perdidochas wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: Some people can be trusted with weapons, some can't, like crazy people. In any given society, it is important for people to be able to defend themselves, 'nuff said.
What, even in the Vatican? Just in case some crazed 79 year old priest thats spent his whole life dedicated to god suddenly decides he's gonna throw a Papel document at you violently?

:roll:

Would you prefer it if he just shot you and you didn't even try to save yourself?

Shot me? With what? The priests in the Vatican don't carry arms. No-one does. There are armed police on the gates, that arn't allowed in. That arn't part of that given society.

You've been getting your information from dodgy sources:

like here! :)

The whole Vatican argument is silly. The Vatican is not a society, it is a religious compound that has no children, no real population, etc. It is not a good example of anything.



This is all semantics nowadays. OK, for the last time, I'll play along.

You said about the Vatican:

'It is not a good example of anything'

I believe

'It is! For example it is a good example of a religeous compound that has no children, no real population etc'.

!! I'm sorry we disagree on this one!

Anyway thats the last semantics I do for a while .. we've had basically 'the word freedom doesn't actually mean freedom' and 'the Vatican is not a good example of anything'. Enough already.

[perdidochas]

britboy wrote: perdidochas wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: Some people can be trusted with weapons, some can't, like crazy people. In any given society, it is important for people to be able to defend themselves, 'nuff said.
What, even in the Vatican? Just in case some crazed 79 year old priest thats spent his whole life dedicated to god suddenly decides he's gonna throw a Papel document at you violently?

:roll:

Would you prefer it if he just shot you and you didn't even try to save yourself?

Shot me? With what? The priests in the Vatican don't carry arms. No-one does. There are armed police on the gates, that arn't allowed in. That arn't part of that given society.

You've been getting your information from dodgy sources:

like here! :)

The whole Vatican argument is silly. The Vatican is not a society, it is a religious compound that has no children, no real population, etc. It is not a good example of anything.



This is all semantics nowadays. OK, for the last time, I'll play along.

You said about the Vatican:

'It is not a good example of anything'

I believe

'It is! For example it is a good example of a religeous compound that has no children, no real population etc'.

!! I'm sorry we disagree on this one!

Anyway thats the last semantics I do for a while .. we've had basically 'the word freedom doesn't actually mean freedom' and 'the Vatican is not a good example of anything'. Enough already.


I love the way you dodge the main issue. You contended that nobody in the Vatican was armed. I showed you this was wrong. Then you go off on the semantics of the Vatican being an example. Well, the Vatican is unique. It is a good example of nothing else. Name anything else in the world that is liek the Vatican: 1) It is a country with police officers, etc. 2) it is mainly inhabited by celibate men (and a few celibate women); and 3) there are no natives of the Vatican.

Also, freedom is the freedom to choose. It does not imply freedom from natural consequences. That is impossible. Anything you chose to do has responsibilities associated with it. Sometimes the responsibility is minor, sometimes major. Freedom doesn't mean that you can willy nilly do anything. Freedom doesn't mean that I can interfere with other people's freedom. Most of the "lost" freedom due to guns, is the responsibility that gun owners have to not interfere with other's freedoms. Again, using the example, my freedom to swing my fist around ends just before your nose. The only "freedom" gun owners lose is the freedom to injure others (which I would argue is not freedom at all).

[britboy]

perdidochas wrote: britboy wrote: perdidochas wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: Some people can be trusted with weapons, some can't, like crazy people. In any given society, it is important for people to be able to defend themselves, 'nuff said.
What, even in the Vatican? Just in case some crazed 79 year old priest thats spent his whole life dedicated to god suddenly decides he's gonna throw a Papel document at you violently?

:roll:

Would you prefer it if he just shot you and you didn't even try to save yourself?

Shot me? With what? The priests in the Vatican don't carry arms. No-one does. There are armed police on the gates, that arn't allowed in. That arn't part of that given society.

You've been getting your information from dodgy sources:

like here! :)

The whole Vatican argument is silly. The Vatican is not a society, it is a religious compound that has no children, no real population, etc. It is not a good example of anything.



This is all semantics nowadays. OK, for the last time, I'll play along.

You said about the Vatican:

'It is not a good example of anything'

I believe

'It is! For example it is a good example of a religeous compound that has no children, no real population etc'.

!! I'm sorry we disagree on this one!

Anyway thats the last semantics I do for a while .. we've had basically 'the word freedom doesn't actually mean freedom' and 'the Vatican is not a good example of anything'. Enough already.


I love the way you dodge the main issue. You contended that nobody in the Vatican was armed. I showed you this was wrong. Then you go off on the semantics of the Vatican being an example. Well, the Vatican is unique. It is a good example of nothing else. Name anything else in the world that is liek the Vatican: 1) It is a country with police officers, etc. 2) it is mainly inhabited by celibate men (and a few celibate women); and 3) there are no natives of the Vatican.

Also, freedom is the freedom to choose. It does not imply freedom from natural consequences. That is impossible. Anything you chose to do has responsibilities associated with it. Sometimes the responsibility is minor, sometimes major. Freedom doesn't mean that you can willy nilly do anything. Freedom doesn't mean that I can interfere with other people's freedom. Most of the "lost" freedom due to guns, is the responsibility that gun owners have to not interfere with other's freedoms. Again, using the example, my freedom to swing my fist around ends just before your nose. The only "freedom" gun owners lose is the freedom to injure others (which I would argue is not freedom at all).

Okay, so what you're saying is if someone chooses to bring something into their lives (like guns or cars) which gives them a load more restraints in their life, that does not affect their freedom at all. Okay dokey .. Right....

If someone chooses to bring a child into this world that does not affect their freedom to get a good night's sleep then? If someone chooses to get their partner to tie him up that does not affect their freedom to move around? If someone chooses to buy a gun that does not affect their freedom to avoid learning how to use it? If someone chooses to boycott Macdonalds that does not affect their freedom to go and have a Bigmac? Of course it does. Their freedom has been affected. Obvious.

Sorry, if you remember back this was the argument about whether having a gun affected your freedoms AT ALL or not. You and Sixgun stated it did not affect any part of your freedom whatsoever in any way. Of course it does. You know it, I know it, anyone reading this thread knows it, it was a badly thought out OP by Sixgun and I don't know why you're madly squirming around trying to defend it -- it just makes you seem totally unprepared to compromise no matter how obvious a statement is. I feel if Sixgun posted 'We all actually live on the moon' would you reply 'I agree, some Brazilian tribes call Earth 'T'Moone' which sounds like the moon a bit so Sixgun is absolutely right?'

Naah -- you're just backing him up because he's pro-gun and we both know it. Commendable I guess, until obvious logic gets thrown out of the window!!

[wyldejackyl]

Please show me the obvious logic. The freedoms lost you describe are all self-implemented. You having a kid doesn't affect my freedom. Me having a gun in my possession doesn't affect your freedom either. Why take from others what doesn't affect you?

[britboy]

wyldejackyl wrote: Please show me the obvious logic. The freedoms lost you describe are all self-implemented. You having a kid doesn't affect my freedom. Me having a gun in my possession doesn't affect your freedom either. Why take from others what doesn't affect you?

Sixgun Symphony stated 'Me having a gun does not affect my freedoms whatsoever'.

I thought it was an incorrect thing for him to say, for the reasons above.

All the pro-gunners seem to step in line behind him but it just seems like comradary above sense to me. Guys have started contorting and distorting and trying to add complexity to support an original inane statement, which is unfortunate.

I've noticed before pro-gunners politely ignoring or even trying to back up when one of them says something silly -- as I said -- team-play above logical, reasonable debate, which isn't really the right way to proceed is it?


Some others simply write posts like

'Yea I agree :tu: ' to other pro-gunners. I mean -- come one people ..!

[wyldejackyl]

You're doing the same thing by criticizing their criticism. What's your point again?

The reason people carry guns is because they have a right to defend themselves. Them carrying does not affect you in any way, therefore your point is moot. I'm not going to criticize how you wipe your ass (hygiene), what kind of locks you use (home safety), or what kind of food you eat (nutrition) - all things that can affect your life and are personal freedoms you enjoy. Please don't encroach on my freedom to survive.

[perdidochas]

britboy wrote: perdidochas wrote: britboy wrote: perdidochas wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: Some people can be trusted with weapons, some can't, like crazy people. In any given society, it is important for people to be able to defend themselves, 'nuff said.
What, even in the Vatican? Just in case some crazed 79 year old priest thats spent his whole life dedicated to god suddenly decides he's gonna throw a Papel document at you violently?

:roll:

Would you prefer it if he just shot you and you didn't even try to save yourself?

Shot me? With what? The priests in the Vatican don't carry arms. No-one does. There are armed police on the gates, that arn't allowed in. That arn't part of that given society.

You've been getting your information from dodgy sources:

like here! :)

The whole Vatican argument is silly. The Vatican is not a society, it is a religious compound that has no children, no real population, etc. It is not a good example of anything.



This is all semantics nowadays. OK, for the last time, I'll play along.

You said about the Vatican:

'It is not a good example of anything'

I believe

'It is! For example it is a good example of a religeous compound that has no children, no real population etc'.

!! I'm sorry we disagree on this one!

Anyway thats the last semantics I do for a while .. we've had basically 'the word freedom doesn't actually mean freedom' and 'the Vatican is not a good example of anything'. Enough already.


I love the way you dodge the main issue. You contended that nobody in the Vatican was armed. I showed you this was wrong. Then you go off on the semantics of the Vatican being an example. Well, the Vatican is unique. It is a good example of nothing else. Name anything else in the world that is liek the Vatican: 1) It is a country with police officers, etc. 2) it is mainly inhabited by celibate men (and a few celibate women); and 3) there are no natives of the Vatican.

Also, freedom is the freedom to choose. It does not imply freedom from natural consequences. That is impossible. Anything you chose to do has responsibilities associated with it. Sometimes the responsibility is minor, sometimes major. Freedom doesn't mean that you can willy nilly do anything. Freedom doesn't mean that I can interfere with other people's freedom. Most of the "lost" freedom due to guns, is the responsibility that gun owners have to not interfere with other's freedoms. Again, using the example, my freedom to swing my fist around ends just before your nose. The only "freedom" gun owners lose is the freedom to injure others (which I would argue is not freedom at all).

Okay, so what you're saying is if someone chooses to bring something into their lives (like guns or cars) which gives them a load more restraints in their life, that does not affect their freedom at all. Okay dokey .. Right....

Because I can give up the gun or take it back up when I want to. That's freedom. The ability to choose. You advocate no choice in the matter.

britboy wrote:
If someone chooses to bring a child into this world that does not affect their freedom to get a good night's sleep then?

Their ability to sleep, not their freedom. I have kids. If I take a sleeping pill, I could have gotten a full night's sleep even when they were babies (I'm a light sleeper). I never lost that freedom. Heck, there were several times I did that (my wife took care of the kids (I did the same for her at other times)). You are again mistaking natural consequences/responsibility as a lack of freedom. Freedom has to do with choices.


britboy wrote: If someone chooses to get their partner to tie him up that does not affect their freedom to move around? If someone chooses to buy a gun that does not affect their freedom to avoid learning how to use it? If someone chooses to boycott Macdonalds that does not affect their freedom to go and have a Bigmac? Of course it does. Their freedom has been affected. Obvious.

You have freedom confused. Freedom is an ability to choose. If I choose to get my partner to tie me up, I have lost no freedom. I have lost the ability to move, but that was my choice. If I CHOSE to boycott McDonald's, I have lost no freedom. Why? I CHOSE to do so. Freedom is about choices not lack of restraints (except government restraints).



britboy wrote: Sorry, if you remember back this was the argument about whether having a gun affected your freedoms AT ALL or not. You and Sixgun stated it did not affect any part of your freedom whatsoever in any way. Of course it does.

Not with a real definition of freedom.


britboy wrote: You know it, I know it, anyone reading this thread knows it, it was a badly thought out OP by Sixgun and I don't know why you're madly squirming around trying to defend it -- it just makes you seem totally unprepared to compromise no matter how obvious a statement is. I feel if Sixgun posted 'We all actually live on the moon' would you reply 'I agree, some Brazilian tribes call Earth 'T'Moone' which sounds like the moon a bit so Sixgun is absolutely right?'

Actually, I have disagreed with pro-gunners, and I have agreed with anti-gunners. The difference here is a matter of definition. I think the freedom=lack of restraint to be an immature, lacking definition of freedom.

britboy wrote: Naah -- you're just backing him up because he's pro-gun and we both know it. Commendable I guess, until obvious logic gets thrown out of the window!!

Read what you are saying. You are saying that you are more free in England than I am in America because you can't own a gun and I can. How much more illogical can you get?