Free men own guns, slaves dont.

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Felix (R), Aug 2, 2011.

  1. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    This is the first line of a post which consists of nothing more than you saying "it 'aint so" over and over again. No argument. When challenged, what do conservatives do? Run away and refuse to enagge. I explained in detail why I agreed with the Founders. You respond with "it 'aint so, it 'aint so, it 'aint so". Tell me, is it a complete waste of time debating with you?

    Where did I ever say this? is this debate simply too difficult for you to understand? you can't answer thearguments made so you just make some up that you think you are capable of handling. I have mentioned in my posts that there are examples where governments may need to be "altered or abolished" (terrible language). It seems that nuance is not something you care to deal with.

    So which is it? Is this you simply not being able or bothered to udnerstand the arguments that are made? Or are you just maliciously misrepresenting everything that I have argued. I never once suggested that I trusted the government. Quite the opposite. I argued that I trusted democracy in most circumstances. Totally different.

    I don't know if you are being ironic or not, this being so poorly expressed. the last sentence would seem to suggest you mean this. What a complete waste of time trying to debate with someone who has no interest in debating.

    It seems that you rpefer to come on here to furiously agree with likeminded people. Eching hatred of liberals across the forum is some sort of sport. When someone actually comes to challenge your ideas or debate, you aren't very interested.

    Because - and you make this clear - American conservatives are sworn enemies of democracy. They are the new Amercian Tories looking for an absolutist certainty. Their world will be one where debating ideas is frowned upon and bigotry and prejudice dictates all policy. Everything is about abuse (the little jerk circles you guys enjoy on here talking about how vile liberals are) and power (ideas don't matter, you just assert what is right and people just have to accept it).

    I continue in my search for intelligent debate with American conservatives. So far it is like looking for a rocking horse turd.
     
  2. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The OP does say "free men own guns, slaves dont". It also says a government which does not trust its citizens with guns is a government which should not be trusted.


    This does not mean if you do not own a gun you are a slave. Nobody who has read and responded to the OP other than you has interpreted it this way. Following the OP, the ensuing discussion has mainly been centered on government and the right for private citizens to bear arms. Noone has called you a slave, but have you ever heard of a slave that was allowed to own a firearm? Free men own lots of things that I do not have, but it doesnt necessarily follow that I am a slave because of this.
     
  3. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was taken from the FF in one of their most well known documents, for as much as you mention them its surprising you could not make this simple connection and subsequently label it terrible. You are a bit out of line with their thinking, it is now clear to anyone.
     
  4. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Drivel. You have no argument.

    The language was poor because you misquoted the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers knew well the meaning of the English language and the difference between abolishing a form of government - the original text - and abolishing government itself - your malicious twisting and mangling of the Declaration of Independence.

    The language in the Declaration is beautiful. Your post is garbled drivel.

    It's not surprising to see what you did though as today's new Right wing Tories do want to abolish government itself, in complete contrast to the Founding Fathers who wanted the people to determine which form of government they would keep and which they would abolish.

    Should you apologize for your malicious and nasty slur that I have misread the Founding Fathers - something which anyone with the slightest knowledge of English grammar will confirm, I will of course accept your apology. I won't hold my breath though.


    You just assert your opinion over and over again with nothing to back it up. All the vacuous right-wingers around you just nod their empty heads. When it comes to you analyzing what I said about the principles if the American Revolution, and what you disagree with about my commentary thereof, we get nothing. Just "it 'ain't so, it 'ain't so, it 'ain't so" over and over again. Pathetic, but not surprising.
     
  5. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not an argument, it's a comment or perhaps a complaint. You really ought to learn to tell the difference.

    If you are going to complain about me moving the goalposts, perhaps you ought to avoid doing the same. Now it's the rule of law that has protected the people of the US, not just the bill of rights. It's still a post hoc fallacy. The fact that the rule of law is respected does not necessarily have anything to do with the bill of rights. Many nations have or have had constitutions with protections similar to those in the the US Constitution BOR and have not respected them or the rule of law.

    Now you're begging the question.

    If there is any petty and false indignation, it's eminating from you as you get angry for being called out on your multitude of fallacies.

    When you subscribe to a system of argumentation that requires calling out the character of your opponents as you perceive them as if that is real argument, then call it what you will, but I call it fallacious and lacking in valid argument.

    As for me, I have not provided my definition of what constitutes tyranny (except to Heroclitus in this thread) but I am always consistent in that definition. It is you show seems to believe that there must be undesirable characteristics in your opponents that ought to be called out rather than simply sticking to the discussion at hand.

    If, perhaps, you refer to me as a cynic because I challenge commonly held views, then it's yet another fallacy on your part - an appeal to the bandwagon.


    Uh, no, that is not the logical answer. I don't even know why you think it is consistent with logic. Now, perhaps it may be *fair* that the burden of proof be put back on me to back up my statements. I'd only point out that I cannot prove a negative. I would, however, point out that there is no democracy which has universally respected the liberty of any individual to do with his life and property as he pleases so long as it is peaceful. I do not believe that anyone can prove that it is because of democracy that much of the western world enjoyed a greater degree of freedom and prosperity than almost any other peoples have in the history of humanity. I would agree on the matter of the rule of law, but that was you moving the goalpost since democracy is rule by majority, where as the rule of law in the US is protected by the republican form of government.

    On the other hand, you never did ask me to prove my statement, or even back it up with any sort of evidence. You simply responded with your own assertions, and when called up on those, replied with a host of fallacies. Trying to put the burden on me to prove my comments does not undo what you have already done.

    Again, I can't prove a negative. Second, if it's logical, as you claim, that I must provide the burden of proof for my earlier assertions, then I assert that it's not logical to require that I show more "preferable methods" of defense against tyranny. That's you changing the goalposts, or the scope.

    I can 't help myself, however, so I'd point out that a republic, for one, seems to be a more preferable method of defense against tyranny. Even the founder of the United States recognized that, considering their disdain for democracy.

    You never asked me to defend it, and now you take umbrage that I didn't do so. Perhaps you expect me to be a mind reader. In order for there to have been a slight I would have had to feel slighted. I merely pointed out your fallacies.
     
  6. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "The governement", as quoted here references their system of checks and balances which they viewed as an experiment which could easily regress back into oppression. It was speaking about their current situation yes, but it was also to be a testament to adhere to in the future as well. Am I wrong here?
     
  7. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You quoted the DOI as saying the FF wanted people the right to abolish government, when in fact the DOI talks about forms of government.

    I pointed out that this was terrible English on your part because I assumed you made a mistake here and had omitted the essential "form of" from your paraphrasing.

    You then accused me of a lack of familiarity with the DOI, when it was clearly you who had mangled the DOI in your language.

    The fact that I now have to painstakingly explain this to you and you cannot see how unfounded your slur was, just demonstrates what a pointless waste of time debating with you on this subject is.
     
  8. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0



    I think you hit the nail right on the head here.

    My $00.02
     
  9. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0





    Wow. I certainly didn't see that bit of pedanticalness coming. I can only take that nitpicking verbosity as an attempt to avoid your own argument. It really shouldn't be THAT difficult for you to defend with logic and reason your OWN words.

    Once again, YOU said:
    "Democracy has never been a defense against tyranny. The bill of rights is paper, it has no authority."

    You have made clever claims that you "can't prove a negative" as if we won't notice that you can't support your own views. You fully know that any argument can be expressed in its negative form. Whether an argument is phrased as a positive or negative can be arbitrary. It is YOUR argument and if it is valid, then you CAN defend it.

    You have even resorted to a distinction as to the differences of a Republic and a Democracy when the original post that you replied to (and to which you made your quoted claim that I am addressing) was about THIS country and OUR system of government however you might wish to define it. The other member had stated: "Today, the defences against state tyranny are the institutions of democracy, the law and a bill of rights". Your counterargument was that Democracy and the Bill of Rights are no defense against tyranny. This stand was, of course was not accompanied by any reasoning behind it and thus the reason for my response.

    So, to be clear, and to be free from any pedantical retorts on your part, allow me to ask you this: if you cannot support your own argument ("Democracy has never been a defense against tyranny. The bill of rights is paper, it has no authority"), then at least provide a valid counterargument to the other member's argument that "Today, the defences against state tyranny are the institutions of democracy, the law and a bill of rights".

    Clear enough?
     
  10. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Considering anarchy in its purest is but a transitional state which eventually will shift into a form of governace, I do not think I mangled anything. I do understand what you are saying, although you mention your experience as "painstaking", if a few paragraphs is that exhausting for you I cannot imagine how you have made it in life. I will apalologize for omitting the word "form", although as I stated above that would essentially be absurd anyway. Aboloshing the government would only be abolishing a form anyway no matter the wording. Anyway I am still patiently waiting for a response to an earlier post, I can only surmise that in all your hostility and disdain for me you must have somehow missed it.
     
  11. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I have responed to you. In detail. Tell me what you are waiting for? I think you are just losing the argument so you make this up about waiting fior a response so you don't have to reply. Bizarre.

    You accused me of being unfamiliar with the DOI and yet you quoted it in a way that completely misrepresented it and changed its meaning. The word "form" totally transforms the meaning of the DOI. It is not a quote from the DOI without those two words.

    Abolishing a form of government (ie "monarchy" being the form of government the FF's had in mind and an abolition of a form of government which they then carried out) is totally different to abolishing government itself (which they didn't do, at all, in case you didn't notice, spending considerable energy in creating a new form of government). Government was not abolished. At all. Government continued. A form of government was abolished. This is simple, basic English. There is a massive difference between abolishing a form of government and abolishing government itself.

    The DOI does not call for the abolition of government as you allege. Me not recognizing that as the DOI was correct on my part. Your accusation that I did not understand American political thinking on the back of this deceit was a preposterous and pathetic slur.

    You should be apologizing for using the DOI in a deceptive and false way and of accusing me of unfamiliarity with something that was not in the DOI.

    It is clearly you who do not understand the DOI and you should think about this and apologize for your unsubstantiated slur on my understanding.
     
  12. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    As a freeman, I dont have a gun and I dont trust the government. I dont want things to change and that is how I like it.
     
  13. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I responded to your interpretation to the OP. If accusations are so horrible to you and you adhere to your own professed standards, you should apologize for this accusation that I am making this post up. Also, being apologies are so important to you, why not apologize for all this hostility. You speak of serious discussion as something of merit, but then seem incapable of conducting yourself as an adult. No offense intended, but I can only surmise that this is a result of a lack of attention from the opposite sex, or that you have been suppressing homosexuality for quite some time.
    I have offered an apology and also submitted a reasonable argument in defense of the notion of actually attempting to abolish government. You mention me losing an argument, my goal here isnt really 'victory' as so many of you
    Would label it. I have been wrong on these forums and admitted it when someone has been able to lay out there points effectively and not isolate quotes while ignoring other important points. And acting as a respectful adult always makes discourse much more enjoyable.
     
  14. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Just admit that "abolishing government" is not part of the DOI and we'll leave it at that.

    It very clearly is not part of the DOI so that should be easy.

    I didn't notice you apologizing for that but if you did then kudos to you for doing so.
     
  15. Tribearer_Eko

    Tribearer_Eko New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2011
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    as Machiavelli said "a ruler that disarms his people arms them with hate. a ruler that gives his people weapons makes those arms theirs"
     
  16. robertm

    robertm New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2011
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Indeed we really need freedom to keep and bear arms for self protection.
     
  17. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,593
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No. You've said plenty. It's embarrassing but you said it.
     
  18. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Certainly not applicable to this country (USA). We have all the guns we could ever need.
     
  19. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I suppose you deem this a sufficient rebuttle? Your argumentative discourse is equate to that of the annoying poster Danct, who seems to still be shouting little bits of nothing on this very thread.
     
  20. thebrucebeat

    thebrucebeat Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    10,807
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is questioning an opponents sexuality for no apparent reason the way you display your respectful adulthood?
    Your credibility went in the toilet with this post.
     
  21. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was a logical deduction good fellow. Your alleged, ''no apparent reason'' has been in the toilet.
     
  22. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0



    Still smarting from being shown your inconsistencies, eh? You made baseless accusations and you, as yet still have not substantiated and now appear to blame ME for your flawed posts. No, I'm posting logic and reason while you appear to be the only one "shouting" here.

    Your choice.
     
  23. thebrucebeat

    thebrucebeat Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    10,807
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No sir. It was childish ploy and revealed you as less than a credible adult. Your comment would be found very comfortably at recess.
     
  24. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Incorrect. No ploy intended, it would have been suggested by many pyschologists.
     
  25. Felix (R)

    Felix (R) New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What inconsistencies danct? Just saying things that sound good to you and possibly other malcontents do not count.
     

Share This Page