Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

dude... forget all that about bifurcation fallacy.

Its a simple question, if the goverment detained you for a reason that either doesnt really exist, or you dont agree with,
What would you do?

If a man came up on you and a friend with a gun, and you knew your friend had a gun(this would be during a time in which guns are prohibited) would you be happy at the fact he illegal used a gun and shot the guy trying to kill you? Or would you be vehemently upset that he has violated a government law, thusfully, you'd have rather died by the gunman than use an illegal gun to save yourself and your friend?

Sure there are probably other ways, i.e, maybe you had a knife on you or something, but really, suppose he was 5 meters away? im sure he has the reaction time to shoot you before you cover the distance.

The point is, using that illegal gun your friend has, is probably the only way you will survive.

To me, this is why guns should not be prohibited, i would like to see some stricter laws enforced, making ti harder for those that would use the gun for illegal purposes to get there hands on them.

The argument of its a right or a privledge is irrelevant. Sure, its a good one to bring up in the court if your defending guns, but really, i could care less if its a right or a privledge to me, i will defend myself regardless, im not willing to die because someone sees it as a privledge to be taken a way, or a right that we shouldnt have.

I live in a bad area, ive dealth with this, ive been robbed, shot at, broken into, and all of the sorts. I really didnt do anything to start those situations other than move in. there are neighborhoods like this everywhere, and i feel much more at east knowing that when they stick there heads at my back door peeking in, i can take my bolt shotgun, and part the blinds with it.

To compare europe, it's crime violence, and it's gun laws, to the violence and laws of the united states is to compare apples and oranges, you need to look within a country and examine it's own history of gun violence to try and make a case for or against gun control.

Two major factors effect the crime rate of europe first is it's relatively homogeneous society (I'm not a racist, but homogeneity has proven in case after case to reduce violence) And general 'social interaction' The united states has been a nation where new immigrants are constantly heading in, much of the violence is a result of large numbers of poor people in a given area at the same time combined with drug laws.

Now consider this... The united states has much safer cars (I'm not necessarily sure if the road regulations are stricter), let's face it, if a european and american car collide head on, the European car will be decimated and the american car wouldn't get a dent. It's not necesarilly better for this reason, but i digress.

Since the government is more active in making sure cars are safer in this country, we would assume that America would have least number of car related deaths per Given number of people. (I.E. adjusted for population)

of course this isn't the case.

Here's another example of what i mean when i say that most 'law and order' is kept by general social interaction.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12 /traffic.html

I don't want to make any broad, sweeping statements, but my impression of Europeans is they take alot of pride in their laws, as being the cause for their solidarity... i would veiw the laws more or less as the product rather than the cause. to imply that if those 'laws' were removed, some of them atleast, europe would descent into Americanistic hedonism and anarchy is absurd.

One reasons the founding fathers actually made the second amendment is because they figured that if the government is indeed to powerful and oppressive, the civilians should have a chance at an armed rebellion, like the patriots did against the British when they did not want to be oppressed. Another reason is for self defence. If a criminal wants to commit a crime, and guns are illegal, what is going to stop him from illegally getting one? It will only stop the citizen to protect himself and his family from the criminal with the gun.

At 5/23/09 12:36 AM, Xemras wrote:

At 5/22/09 09:00 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

At 5/22/09 03:39 AM, Xemras wrote: There are no "rights", only priviledges - these can be taken away just as easily as they were given.

Think like a slave, live like a slave.

Prove me wrong then.

There is nothing to prove wrong. You are not presenting an argument, but a flawed premise. If you claimed you could fly, and then challenged me to prove you wrong, you would recieve the same response from me. You claim that cognitive mind holds no rights, that all rights come from the gracings of institutional power. You claim this, forgetting that institutional power is a byproduct of cognitive mind. You claim this forgetting the fact that the constitution was written - and thus America was formed - on the idea that free men weren't dogs of a republic, or an empire. You claim this forgetting that the constitution was the instrument by which the American people granted, or delegated, certain specific powers to the federal government - and not the other way around.

The ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The tenth: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The ninth means that the constitution is not meant to list every single right we could possibly think of. The ninth was written to say that our list of state powers and rights is not complete, because common sense encompasses a lot of things. The tenth, on the other hand, is a list of 'delegated' powers. The tenth says that the list of federal powers is complete, and listed in the constitution already.

So I can't prove you wrong. I can't weigh and insane notion of chosen-slavery and anti-constitutional thinking against logic without giggling, my friend. Our founding fathers wrote a document that said, in plain english, that our rights as a people were enumerated and unlistable. In the same document, they listed the far and few powers of the federal government had - and called the list absolutely complete.

How's that, Toby?

At 5/23/09 06:11 PM, darkangelrayne wrote: dude... forget all that about bifurcation fallacy.

Its a simple question,

Maybe to a simpleton such as yourself.

if the goverment detained you for a reason that either doesnt really exist, or you dont agree with,
What would you do?

What could I do? Fight back and get killed or not fight and eventually be killed anyway? Catch-22, motherfucker. You might as well ask me what I would do in a situation whereas I was trapped in a room with absolutely no way out, with nothing to defend myself, and a hungry tiger were in the room with me.

I live in a bad area, ive dealth with this, ive been robbed, shot at, broken into, and all of the sorts. I really didnt do anything to start those situations other than move in. there are neighborhoods like this everywhere, and i feel much more at east knowing that when they stick there heads at my back door peeking in, i can take my bolt shotgun, and part the blinds with it.

We're only as "free" as we make ourselves to be, and the only true "right" is might. Law of the jungle; survival of the fittest; lex talionis.

At 5/24/09 05:33 PM, dudewithashotgun29 wrote: One reasons the founding fathers actually made the second amendment is because they figured that if the government is indeed to powerful and oppressive, the civilians should have a chance at an armed rebellion, like the patriots did against the British when they did not want to be oppressed.

Times have changed, and so has the technology. I wonder how adamant ol' Ben Frankin would be in his "trading freedom for security" bullshit were he to witness the devastation and aftermath of a nuclear explosion.

Another reason is for self defence. If a criminal wants to commit a crime, and guns are illegal, what is going to stop him from illegally getting one? It will only stop the citizen to protect himself and his family from the criminal with the gun.

At least this reason is legitimate.

At 5/24/09 06:28 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: So I can't prove you wrong. I can't weigh and insane notion of chosen-slavery and anti-constitutional thinking against logic without giggling, my friend. Our founding fathers wrote a document that said, in plain english, that our rights as a people were enumerated and unlistable. In the same document, they listed the far and few powers of the federal government had - and called the list absolutely complete.

How's that, Toby?

Your faith in a 200+ year document is as laughable as a Christian's faith in the Bible or a Muslim's faith in the Quran. You know what else is funny? The fact that this country - which was supposedly a beacon of freedom, democracy, and "inalienable rights" in the world - was founded by a bunch of unelected, slave-owning, white males.

Also in the future, might I suggest you (or anybody else for that matter) refrain from using the concept of "inalienable rights" with me? You would have a better chance of convincing an atheist of the existence of god.

A hunting rifle or a handgun for protection (not recommenced) is ok. But owning your own AK47 is just ridiculous

At 5/25/09 03:23 AM, MrFlopz wrote: A hunting rifle or a handgun for protection (not recommenced) is ok. But owning your own AK47 is just ridiculous

How so to my understanding they make fair hunting rifles?

At 5/25/09 03:23 AM, MrFlopz wrote: A hunting rifle or a handgun for protection (not recommenced) is ok. But owning your own AK47 is just ridiculous

1) Why is it not recommended to own a handgun for protection?
2) Why is it rediculous to own an AK-47?

What are your reasons? What is your support for your argument/claims?

At 5/25/09 03:15 AM, Xemras wrote:

At 5/24/09 06:28 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: So I can't prove you wrong. I can't weigh and insane notion of chosen-slavery and anti-constitutional thinking against logic without giggling, my friend. Our founding fathers wrote a document that said, in plain english, that our rights as a people were enumerated and unlistable. In the same document, they listed the far and few powers of the federal government had - and called the list absolutely complete.

Your faith in a 200+ year document is as laughable as a Christian's faith in the Bible or a Muslim's faith in the Quran.

So you cannot refute the point, only dismiss it? Prove to me that we don't have unalienable rights. Prove to me, in text, that power is granted to an institution by free men, and not the other way around. Or just drop it, slave.

Guns protect you against tyrants. The Pentagon has talked about putting 20,000 troops on the streets. Just look at your average third-world country: the people are disarmed and ruled by a military dictatorship (cough Zimbabwe).

You need guns to protect yourself. It's all about personal liberty. What is so hard about that to understand? Nothing.

At 5/26/09 01:53 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

So you cannot refute the point, only dismiss it?

There was no point to refute in the first place.

Prove to me that we don't have unalienable rights. Prove to me, in text, that power is granted to an institution by free men, and not the other way around.

Burden of proof lies on the believer. You believe we have inalienable rights while I do not. Therefore, it is up to you to prove to me beyond any and all doubt that we do have rights that are not subject to laws and regulations.

Or just drop it, slave.

"No one is more a slave that the one who thinks he is free without being free." - Goethe

At 5/27/09 12:55 AM, Xemras wrote:

At 5/26/09 01:53 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

So you cannot refute the point, only dismiss it?

There was no point to refute in the first place.

His point was that the cognitive mind did not descend from institutional power.

Unless you're a strict creationist, you'd be forced to agree... or in your case, forced to blither and blather and wallow in your own shit opinion. Enjoy, #34826.

Prove to me that we don't have unalienable rights. Prove to me, in text, that power is granted to an institution by free men, and not the other way around.

Burden of proof lies on the believer.

You believe that rights are privileges. Not through some complex theory, but a simple assertion in the face of 200+ years of opposing evidence. Good job, #34826.

You believe we have inalienable rights while I do not. Therefore, it is up to you to prove to me beyond any and all doubt that we do have rights that are not subject to laws and regulations.

Okay, we found the problem! You believe that since there are a plethora of seperate countries and rules of law there does not exist inalienable rights. This is flawed thinking. While you may be able to stone your wife for looking at another man in Iran, her right to life and liberty is denied by your (institutionally authorized) rock throwing.

YOU took her rights away, in violation of the Constitution, under the guise of an institutionalized allowance. The corrective measures taken to preserve your wife's rights will be to penalize YOURS. Incarceration, fines and even death may be RIGHTFULLY and lawfully administered. If you think the administration of these punishments violates your own rights to life and liberty, you sacrificed them when you cast the first stone.

You had a right, but chose to sacrifice it by depriving another of theirs.

Got it now, #34826?

Or just drop it, slave.

"No one is more a slave that the one who thinks he is free without being free." - Goethe

Slavery is all in your head.

At 5/27/09 12:37 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: His point was that the cognitive mind did not descend from institutional power.

Your point?

Unless you're a strict creationist, you'd be forced to agree... or in your case, forced to blither and blather and wallow in your own shit opinion.

I'm not the one ranting over some romanticized and otherwise naive ideology.

Enjoy, #34826.

Insult is the final refuge of the out-argued.

You believe that rights are privileges.

I don't have beLIEfs, I have knowledge. A right is something we possess indefinitely regardless of who and/or what says otherwise; it is not subjective in any way. A privilege is something granted to us by As far as we know, empircal evidence tends more towards the existence of the latter.

Not through some complex theory, but a simple assertion in the face of 200+ years of opposing evidence. Good job, #34826.

This nation was founded just like any other nation: through tenacity and bloodshed. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys", only winners and losers.

You had a right, but chose to sacrifice it by depriving another of theirs.

The only true "right" (for lack of better words) is might: what we are able to create, maintain, and keep for ourselves. One person says he has the "right to smoke" while another says he has the "right to breathe clean(er) air". Of these two, which one is "right"? Where does one draw the line?

Got it now, #34826?

Insult is the final refuge of the out-argued.

Slavery is all in your head.

Sure, and those whips and shackles that the African men, women, and children during the pre-Civil War South were forced under were all illusory as well. You are as inconsiderate as you are self-righteous.

At 5/28/09 12:48 AM, Xemras wrote: Your point?

Hmmm. It seems that Xemras has been able to hijack another thread. Funny thing about how he does it; throws up a non sequiter. When called out on it he throws out an irrelevent conclusion at which point (if his tactic is successful) the posts become about the Descartesian nature of right and slavery (cogito ergo sum) rather than the reasons why or why not gun control is good public policy.

Bravo Xemras.

At 5/28/09 12:48 AM, Xemras wrote:

At 5/27/09 12:37 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: His point was that the cognitive mind did not descend from institutional power.

Your point?

He's right.

Unless you're a strict creationist, you'd be forced to agree... or in your case, forced to blither and blather and wallow in your own shit opinion.

I'm not the one ranting over some romanticized and otherwise naive ideology.

No, you're trying to orate on the tendency of life to die, ergo life is rented, ergo unowned, a privilege to be taken away without recourse. That's a wrongheaded opinion, just so ya know.

Enjoy, #34826.

Insult is the final refuge of the out-argued.

Acknowledgement of your own self-proclaimed slavery is no insult, it's a fact of life. Don't you have a social security number? Man, you're dense (that's an insult).

You believe that rights are privileges.

I don't have beLIEfs, I have knowledge.

Which is subjective, hence, a belief. Next.

A right is something we possess indefinitely regardless of who and/or what says otherwise; it is not subjective in any way.

For instance?

A privilege is something granted to us by As far as we know, empircal evidence tends more towards the existence of the latter.

Are you saying you can't have one and the other simultaneously? That rights are immutable and unsacrificable? That if a privilege exists, no rights to that privilege can be gleaned?

Sounds like you've just been confused over a few simple definitions.

Not through some complex theory, but a simple assertion in the face of 200+ years of opposing evidence. Good job, #34826.

This nation was founded just like any other nation: through tenacity and bloodshed. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys", only winners and losers.

And your claim is that everyone loses because a right is really just a privilege in your unflawed eyes?

You had a right, but chose to sacrifice it by depriving another of theirs.

The only true "right" (for lack of better words) is might: what we are able to create, maintain, and keep for ourselves.

Like a system of beliefs, laws and customs?

One person says he has the "right to smoke" while another says he has the "right to breathe clean(er) air". Of these two, which one is "right"? Where does one draw the line?

A right to breathe clean(er) air? This so-called right is a misnomer. I already told you where the line was drawn, but if you didn't understand, I'll sit here and discuss the merits of either side. The smoker, whose inhalation of toxic matter is perfectly okay as long as it takes place on his own property. (Property is also a right, recognized as the tangible "pursuit of happiness" described in the Preamble.)

To smoke elsewhere invites the risk of destroying others' rights to not be subjected to your toxic breath. To force one to be subjected unwillingly to smoke is not a right you possess, though smoking may be.

Is this too complicated for you?

Got it now, #34826?

Insult is the final refuge of the out-argued.

Ignorance is bliss, ain't it #34826?

Slavery is all in your head.

Sure, and those whips and shackles that the African men, women, and children during the pre-Civil War South were forced under were all illusory as well.

I'm sorry, you're a 197 year old shackled African forced into the pre-civil war South? Kinda old for your tag ID, no?

You are as inconsiderate as you are self-righteous.

It's my right, fuckhead :P

At 5/28/09 04:41 AM, TheMason wrote: Bravo Xemras.

That's my style. I tell it like it is.

At 5/28/09 11:50 AM, Xemras wrote:

At 5/28/09 04:41 AM, TheMason wrote: Bravo Xemras.

That's my style. I tell it like it is.

First of all you do not tell it like it is. If you did then you would not have changed my quote from calling you out...to giving you a platitude. Wow...at first I thought you were just a bumbling (albeit sometimes amusing) hypocrite...now I see that you are just a manipulator of fact.

No. What you do is throw up some argument that makes you sound stoned. Then when people call you on ducking the question you throw up the tired: "You just don't get it man."

But as for your style...

It is amusing that you throw up all these 'fallacy' arguments when in fact you are making a logical fallacy by making irrelevent conclusions to draw the conversation away from the original question/point/whatever. Up until know you've been fairly good at it.

<sarcasm>Bravo Xemras! Bravissimo!</sarcasm>