More trolling as you now invoke an alleged, ''rest of us'' to back what i suppose you think is an argument. You Didnt reference anything but one page where you asked me how somethingsomeone else said was debunked. Then you say I am inconstistant due to 'baseless charges' but then you say I have yet to show any honesty or logic. If this was correct how is it inconsistant. If i have done nothing but submiited baseless charges then I have been pretty consistant i would say.
I don't normally write my posts with the assumption that you personally will be able to understand it. In fact, I have come to the realization that most of this is beyond your capabilities, but I do press on and make an effort regardless. What you have failed to comprehend as to this, is that I live In the US and I assumed that the other member does as well (or at least resides in a modern Democracy). The fact that slavery is illegal here tends to hurt his argument. You missed this in your haste.
Well, that might not be the sort of consistency most of us here would strive for. You might want to aim a little higher...... just sayin'. Typically, when one makes a charge or accusation against another, and then is unable to support that charge with evidence to support it, as you yourself were unable to, then that person's argument can be said to be inconsistent in that he made assertions that in the end are not true or valid. It is simply a kind way to say that this particular person is not being honest, for those of you that need to be hit on the head with more direct and blunt words.
It does not hurt the posters argument at all. I havent missed anything. I also assumed that you lived in the U.S danct, i thought the flag was a pretty good indicator. Slavery still exists, you are simply locked into the, ''U.S is the only Country that matters'' paradigm. There have been slaves outside of the U.S, and (surprise) guns too.
I came to this thread a bit later than most other posters therefore it makes little sense to address specific posts. Instead, I will address certain unfounded statements. 1. Gun culture is the product of BIG & POWERFUL corporations that manufacture guns. What an ignorant statement. Let's look at the biggest gun manufacturer, please refer to Smith&Wesson Annual Report (just google Smith&Wesson Annual Report). It states "Net loss was $82.8 million, or $1.37 per diluted share, compared with net income of $32.5 million, or $0.53 per diluted share, a year ago." Are you trying to convince me that a corporation with such modest financials has any real power? Get real. 2. Guns have nothing to do with freedom. What people tend to forget is that if an individual is a victim of violent crime, the denial of adequate self defense tools is the denial of his right to personal safety, health and the life itself. Are you trying to convince me that a man is free if he is denied such fundamental rights?
Several people here have misinterpreted the simple OP (not saying you have with your frank proposal) to mean that if one does not own a gun one must be a slave. The OP never said that, but one most certainly should have a choice in the matter. I myself may never legally own a firearm however I would not want others to endure this restriction less they commit crimes of a certain degree, or other unwarranted behaviour.
Again, the fact that slavery is illegal here tends to hurt his argument. You missed this in your haste, and are still missing this.
Then can we assume by your inability to post any substantiations for your baseless accusations, that they are, in fact untrue?
To deny that the gun industry has an advocate and mouthpiece in the NRA, one of the most powerful lobbies in our government, is to deny an important reality as to this. Certainly this is not your intention? "All too often men are betrayed by the word freedom. And as freedom is counted among the most sublime feelings, so the corresponding disillusionment can be also sublime." - Franz Kafka I believe this speaks to this quite well.
Sure danct, then we can logically assume the same of your above post telling me I missed something in my haste but without an explaination substantiating why slavery being outlawed in the U.S hurts the earlier posters argument.
That's not entirely true. Slavery is illegal in the sense that private individuals cannot claim to own other individuals, but the state asserts jurisdiction over peaceful people and their bodies in myriad ways. This is a form of slavery as it is interference with self-ownership. It is argued that the state finds it much easier to aggress against self-ownership when individuals do not have access to the means to defend themselves against that aggression. That, to me, is the meaning of the OP. Chattel slavery may be long gone, but slavery to the state is on the rise.
Poor analogy considering I have given you multiple opportunities to support YOUR accusations. This is the first time that you have asked me for a clarification on this, and I will gladly oblige by the way. Unlike yourself, I have no problem supporting my arguments. The other member's argument was this:"I don't think one is necessarily a slave if they don't own a gun as long as they have a trusted ally with one. However, the POTENTIAL to BECOME a slave is greater for the unarmed." The fact that slavery is illegal in this country shows us that his argument is flawed. I assumed this to be obvious to others, but let me explain it to you. There are approximately 200 million adults in this country of which some 25%, or approximately 50 million gun owners. If his argument were true then there would be some 150 million slaves in this country. Even if you adjust for his claim of a "trusted ally", there would still be many millions of slaves here which is beyond the pale of reality. OK? Now then, you can still man-up and support YOUR baseless accusations here. Out of fairness, you should have one last opportunity to come clean. I recall that you have made many false accusations here that have gone unsubstantiated, but what especially comes to mind was when you claimed that you had "debunked" another poster when in fact you had done no such thing. I recall that you tried to argue against something that he didn't even say! I pointed this out here saying:"Incredible! You have now used THIS as the basis for your rebuttal even though he NEVER actually says this in the post in question. You know,..... the post that you still claim to have "debunked"??? What a load of contrived nonsense! After you erroneously stated:"The poster called freedom an invention, like its a lightbulb, or an iron, I pointed this out. The comment was ridiculous. Most people probably realized this and didnt even bother responding to such nonsense. However, by pointing this out, pointing out this vacuitous nonsensical bilge, I feel, is worthy of being debunked." He never claimed that freedom was an invention and your whole argument was contrived and dishonest. You really should be more careful throwing stones from your glass house, friend.
A stretch by any measure. Slavery is a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune. While the duty of government will inevitably cause limitations on ones liberties, it is still a far cry from absolute servitude. To use the term "slavery" in a discussion about gun ownership is simply hyperbole, pure and simple. It has no other purpose, and I appreciate your attempt to rehabilitate the concept, but frankly, its lipstick on a pig. I doubt that argument could be made for our country of the US, or even any other democracy for that matter. This is the flaw in that argument. Your argument only works for the extremes, when you have despots and dictatorships. Even then we see effective alternative recourse to those citizens that gives them enhanced freedoms. I don't see this, can you be more specific?
What in your mind is this "duty of government"? What happens when people without guns rise up against people with guns? Every form of government eventually deteriorates into a dictatorship of one form or another. It is why the quote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." rings so true. Examples of State slavery? Its monopoly over the money supply.
Money is a medium of exchange and a store of value. It can be created by anyone (as long as others see those objectives as being met). Your ideology makes you make ridiculous statement; on a par with "we didnt go to the moon you know". On the positive side, you're making the NRA lot look better read. There's always a gain!
There is only 1 accepted medium of exchange in the United States....the US dollar. Of which the government has a monopoly on. Your pompus attitude only makes it that much more hilarious when the enormity of your idiocy shows itself.
And that is a democratic decision. Your attempt to suggest otherwise only shows your disregard for individualism. Your attempt to call it "slavery" is a disgrace. I bother to talk "with sense" and I don't take emotive language to peddle an inane ideology. You won't like that
Relevance please? Focus now. Your remark does not address my argument. Once again you seem to have trouble with relevance. Your statement only confirms my own argument, that an effective Democracy is an effective insulator against slavery. The means to an effective Democracy does NOT hinge on an armed populous. Japan does quite well without guns, and Egypt is well on their way to an effective Democracy without the use of guns. Imagine that! Relevance, friend. I didn't ask for "Examples of State slavery". Your response to that would have been incorrect, but it's irrelevant anyways. The other member had said: "slavery to the state is on the rise." I asked him for an explanation of this which you must have missed. In the end, I'm sure it's valiant of you to try to answer for the other member, but I'm afraid he might well have done better without your help.
You mentioned the "duty of government" and how it will cause limitations on liberties. I am curious as to what duties you feel are neccessary when it comes to imposing these limitations. Establishing your feelings on what is or is not a neccessary limitation on liberty will help the discussion greatly. You were making the implication that in a democracy slavery cannot happen. I was asking what you think would happen when people without guns go up against those with them even in a democracy. Its entirely relevant, unless your reading comprehension skills are lacking...which is entirely possible. My point is that there is no such thing as an effective democracy. They all deteriorate into tyranny. It's human nature. Given that they all deteriorate into tyranny, it is neccessary to have an armed populace in the eventuality that your government needs to be overthrown. Japan is a very oppressive place.
Being a democratic decision does not make it correct. "Democracy is 51% of the population taking away the rights of the other 49%." There is not a post of yours I have seen to date that I would consider sensible. I am not alone in this feeling either.
