Guns and the Controlling of Them

[Col. Hstar]

[THEWULFMAN]

Totally random and semi-related fun fact: The border between the United States and Canada is the longest undefended border between two countries in history. By defended, I mean having soldiers positioned there to protect against an invasion. Most countries defend all of their borders. Not us. We don't need to because Canada is one of our closest allies, not just geographically.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

I was having a discussion about the ridiculousness of this upcoming Total Recall remake with my boyfriend when the conversation inevitably turned to Batman, and before long, some interview he saw with that Micheal Moore about how it relates to gun control. I mentioned that this thread existed and my various rationales for staying out of it (as described above), including the fact that I expected it to be positively dripping with enough patriotism to warrant needing wet floor signage. My boyfriend then proceeded to argue this fact with me, going so far as to say that I would only find a reasonable and responsible debate about gun control, and that nobody would be offended if I expressed this point of view.
...

In the end, however, my original sentiment still stands; I really detest these type of threads, because nobody wins, and someone, somewhere, gets butt-hurt. And this discussion doesn't actually mean enough to me personally to justify wanting to publicly argue / defend it on the Internet. Because let's be honest, now, what bearing does it really have on my life? And even if I am right, so what? Who cares?

So now that I've won my $10 and hopefully explained this in a way that makes sense, I will again resume my avoidance. Hate me, don't hate me, insult me, dissect my post, whatever floats your boat. If you wants to reasonably discuss this with me, you know where to find me. Otherwise, have fun in here, and don't shoot each other.

Actually, Shalandail you really should be ridiculed and derided. New courtesy rules be damned (sorry, MC)

The right to own and use a gun and the protection society offers the individual from another’s use of a gun is a complex and difficult topic. It needs and deserves the consideration and conversation of EVERYONE affected. While thread topics like these are contentious and often even acrimonious, they serve a higher purpose. They motivate and activate the otherwise lethargic and apathetic in addition to energizing the concerned and informed into sharing their knowledge and sometimes wisdom. They are divisive and shrill, but sometimes the eloquent and well thought out sneaks its way into the mix. It IS worth it if only for that ONE salient thought or idea that otherwise never would have been voiced.

What needs to be fought and eradicated are those who would make being unengaged and unaffected a zen like quality. Those "too cool for school" personalities who think its sheik to not care and not participate are the death of a democratic society which starves for an educated and informed electorate. They are the enablers of the panderers and the demigogs. Their pathetic misguided cries, of "who cares!", "it doesn't affect me!" and "why should I, what's in it for me?" are the truest heralds of a diminishing, crumbling and decaying democracy.

The spread of these people and their ass-backwards socialist ideals and agendas threatens our country more and more each day. Shout them down I say. Expose them for the frauds they are and the fraud they wish to perpetrate and banish them from the light of the body politic lest it be irrevocably infected. Keep the flame of discussion and debate burning and the light from that fire shining bright. Spurn those who would squelch that fire and cast us into ignorant darkness for their enjoyment. For we of the land of the free and home of the brave understand the need for individualism, the right to practice it and the nearly divine way our founding fathers framed the declaration of our rights and freedom.

We know that a small group of thoughtful, dedicated citizens can change the world...because it's the only thing that ever has.

[NiteRunner81]

Dread,

Bravo!!! I love every word you had to say there. Sitting around going "this stuff sucks" and sulking in a corner is not the way to bring about change.

[Toxin]

I was having a discussion about the ridiculousness of this upcoming Total Recall remake with my boyfriend when the conversation inevitably turned to Batman, and before long, some interview he saw with that Micheal Moore about how it relates to gun control. I mentioned that this thread existed and my various rationales for staying out of it (as described above), including the fact that I expected it to be positively dripping with enough patriotism to warrant needing wet floor signage. My boyfriend then proceeded to argue this fact with me, going so far as to say that I would only find a reasonable and responsible debate about gun control, and that nobody would be offended if I expressed this point of view.
...

In the end, however, my original sentiment still stands; I really detest these type of threads, because nobody wins, and someone, somewhere, gets butt-hurt. And this discussion doesn't actually mean enough to me personally to justify wanting to publicly argue / defend it on the Internet. Because let's be honest, now, what bearing does it really have on my life? And even if I am right, so what? Who cares?

So now that I've won my $10 and hopefully explained this in a way that makes sense, I will again resume my avoidance. Hate me, don't hate me, insult me, dissect my post, whatever floats your boat. If you wants to reasonably discuss this with me, you know where to find me. Otherwise, have fun in here, and don't shoot each other.

Actually, Shalandail you really should be ridiculed and derided. New courtesy rules be damned (sorry, MC)

The right to own and use a gun and the protection society offers the individual from another’s use of a gun is a complex and difficult topic. It needs and deserves the consideration and conversation of EVERYONE affected. While thread topics like these are contentious and often even acrimonious, they serve a higher purpose. They motivate and activate the otherwise lethargic and apathetic in addition to energizing the concerned and informed into sharing their knowledge and sometimes wisdom. They are divisive and shrill, but sometimes the eloquent and well thought out sneaks its way into the mix. It IS worth it if only for that ONE salient thought or idea that otherwise never would have been voiced.

What needs to be fought and eradicated are those who would make being unengaged and unaffected a zen like quality. Those "too cool for school" personalities who think its sheik to not care and not participate are the death of a democratic society which starves for an educated and informed electorate. They are the enablers of the panderers and the demigogs. Their pathetic misguided cries, of "who cares!", "it doesn't affect me!" and "why should I, what's in it for me?" are the truest heralds of a diminishing, crumbling and decaying democracy.

The spread of these people and their ass-backwards socialist ideals and agendas threatens our country more and more each day. Shout them down I say. Expose them for the frauds they are and the fraud they wish to perpetrate and banish them from the light of the body politic lest it be irrevocably infected. Keep the flame of discussion and debate burning and the light from that fire shining bright. Spurn those who would squelch that fire and cast us into ignorant darkness for their enjoyment. For we of the land of the free and home of the brave understand the need for individualism, the right to practice it and the nearly divine way our founding fathers framed the declaration of our rights and freedom.

We know that a small group of thoughtful, dedicated citizens can change the world...because it's the only thing that ever has.

I think i lost a chromosome reading that

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

Dread with the John Galt post. Well done Dread, well done.

[THEWULFMAN]

I think i lost a chromosome reading that

Who the hell are you?

Welcome to SWGO I guess...

[[m'kay]]

I was having a discussion about the ridiculousness of this upcoming Total Recall remake with my boyfriend when the conversation inevitably turned to Batman, and before long, some interview he saw with that Micheal Moore about how it relates to gun control. I mentioned that this thread existed and my various rationales for staying out of it (as described above), including the fact that I expected it to be positively dripping with enough patriotism to warrant needing wet floor signage. My boyfriend then proceeded to argue this fact with me, going so far as to say that I would only find a reasonable and responsible debate about gun control, and that nobody would be offended if I expressed this point of view.
...

In the end, however, my original sentiment still stands; I really detest these type of threads, because nobody wins, and someone, somewhere, gets butt-hurt. And this discussion doesn't actually mean enough to me personally to justify wanting to publicly argue / defend it on the Internet. Because let's be honest, now, what bearing does it really have on my life? And even if I am right, so what? Who cares?

So now that I've won my $10 and hopefully explained this in a way that makes sense, I will again resume my avoidance. Hate me, don't hate me, insult me, dissect my post, whatever floats your boat. If you wants to reasonably discuss this with me, you know where to find me. Otherwise, have fun in here, and don't shoot each other.

Actually, Shalandail you really should be ridiculed and derided. New courtesy rules be damned (sorry, MC)

The right to own and use a gun and the protection society offers the individual from another’s use of a gun is a complex and difficult topic. It needs and deserves the consideration and conversation of EVERYONE affected. While thread topics like these are contentious and often even acrimonious, they serve a higher purpose. They motivate and activate the otherwise lethargic and apathetic in addition to energizing the concerned and informed into sharing their knowledge and sometimes wisdom. They are divisive and shrill, but sometimes the eloquent and well thought out sneaks its way into the mix. It IS worth it if only for that ONE salient thought or idea that otherwise never would have been voiced.

What needs to be fought and eradicated are those who would make being unengaged and unaffected a zen like quality. Those "too cool for school" personalities who think its sheik to not care and not participate are the death of a democratic society which starves for an educated and informed electorate. They are the enablers of the panderers and the demigogs. Their pathetic misguided cries, of "who cares!", "it doesn't affect me!" and "why should I, what's in it for me?" are the truest heralds of a diminishing, crumbling and decaying democracy.

The spread of these people and their ass-backwards socialist ideals and agendas threatens our country more and more each day. Shout them down I say. Expose them for the frauds they are and the fraud they wish to perpetrate and banish them from the light of the body politic lest it be irrevocably infected. Keep the flame of discussion and debate burning and the light from that fire shining bright. Spurn those who would squelch that fire and cast us into ignorant darkness for their enjoyment. For we of the land of the free and home of the brave understand the need for individualism, the right to practice it and the nearly divine way our founding fathers framed the declaration of our rights and freedom.

We know that a small group of thoughtful, dedicated citizens can change the world...because it's the only thing that ever has.

If you're going to use big words, spell them correctly please. Demigogs? Demagogues. Sheik? Are you [m'kay] kidding me? It's chic, Dread. Also, for someone who's apparently against demagogues, your little speech there seems to speak to emotion and "[m'kay] yeah ayn rand" more than i'd expect, but of course that's without speaking of the blatant ego-stroking with them big words you're so proud of. When you speak of "we of the land of the free and home of the brave", that is clearly an attempt to spark patriotic fervor, which is a common tactic of the demagogue. Making a group of people believe they're the only hope of society? Well [poo], that also sounds pretty familiar. If you're going to stand against something, at least do yourself the courtesy of not using the tactics common to that which you stand against blah blah blah I could say it in a million words like you, but you get my bloody point I think.

Also, way to go with the ridiculous amounts of metaphor on your speech there. Yes, we get it, flames = good and prosperous, those who are trying to "squelch the conflagration that is the lifeblood of truth" are dirty commie bastards. Seriously, if you're going to present an argument, try not to do it behind layers of metaphor. That always ruins the argument by making the opposition tackle the metaphor instead of the argument itself, which I guess is a good way to win if you don't feel you can back up your side.

Anyway, now that John Galt has finally finished his speech, I think that in a perfect world we'd be able to employ people who are allowed to use guns to protect places while leaving the majority of the populace unarmed, but since we kinda suck at that whole "not murdering" thing, that's a complete nogo. In that case, i'd say looser gun control would probably be better than strict gun control, because at least if everyone has a gun people might be more understanding of just what it means to use one.

also phalluses lol

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

If you're going to use big words, spell them correctly please. Demigogs? Demagogues. Sheik? Are you [m'kay] kidding me? It's chic, Dread. Also, for someone who's apparently against demagogues, your little speech there seems to speak to emotion and "[m'kay] yeah ayn rand" more than i'd expect, but of course that's without speaking of the blatant ego-stroking with them big words you're so proud of. When you speak of "we of the land of the free and home of the brave", that is clearly an attempt to spark patriotic fervor, which is a common tactic of the demagogue. Making a group of people believe they're the only hope of society? Well [poo], that also sounds pretty familiar. If you're going to stand against something, at least do yourself the courtesy of not using the tactics common to that which you stand against blah blah blah I could say it in a million words like you, but you get my bloody point I think.

Also, way to go with the ridiculous amounts of metaphor on your speech there. Yes, we get it, flames = good and prosperous, those who are trying to "squelch the conflagration that is the lifeblood of truth" are dirty commie bastards. Seriously, if you're going to present an argument, try not to do it behind layers of metaphor. That always ruins the argument by making the opposition tackle the metaphor instead of the argument itself, which I guess is a good way to win if you don't feel you can back up your side.

Anyway, now that John Galt has finally finished his speech, I think that in a perfect world we'd be able to employ people who are allowed to use guns to protect places while leaving the majority of the populace unarmed, but since we kinda suck at that whole "not murdering" thing, that's a complete nogo. In that case, i'd say looser gun control would probably be better than strict gun control, because at least if everyone has a gun people might be more understanding of just what it means to use one.

also phalluses lol

Sorry, my nemesis, IE phails with no built in spell check. I'm on the road in nowheresville (outside of Des Moines) using a fresh install PC in the Business center of a hotel next to the bar with copious amounts of adult beverage to fortify my writing. I felt you were INCREDIBLY slow in attacking this young lady proudly waving the flag of a foreign nation and disdaining the one that provides the blanket of freedom under which she rests her head at night. I felt compelled to chastise this twit in the only fashion my dignity would allow. Diatribe.

I appreciate you recognizing that my style of flame uses irony and the need for an education (or at least a reading level) beyond the seventh grade. Of course the theme was Ayn Rand (Anthem, not Atlas Shrugged). A very populist message of individuality; and even the author herself extends the irony in the metaphor. A former Soviet female citizen who comes to the U.S. to write about individualism and the oppresion of the "we" society. The complete opposite of the litle girl with activism hangups.

In the future, if trolls like you or your fledgling wannabees would more quickly step to the task of the moment, it wouldn't be necessary for me or anyone else to engage in verbal reparte. Shorter posts would abound and the censor would have much more to do!
m'kay

[[m'kay]]

If you're going to use big words, spell them correctly please. Demigogs? Demagogues. Sheik? Are you [m'kay] kidding me? It's chic, Dread. Also, for someone who's apparently against demagogues, your little speech there seems to speak to emotion and "[m'kay] yeah ayn rand" more than i'd expect, but of course that's without speaking of the blatant ego-stroking with them big words you're so proud of. When you speak of "we of the land of the free and home of the brave", that is clearly an attempt to spark patriotic fervor, which is a common tactic of the demagogue. Making a group of people believe they're the only hope of society? Well [poo], that also sounds pretty familiar. If you're going to stand against something, at least do yourself the courtesy of not using the tactics common to that which you stand against blah blah blah I could say it in a million words like you, but you get my bloody point I think.

Also, way to go with the ridiculous amounts of metaphor on your speech there. Yes, we get it, flames = good and prosperous, those who are trying to "squelch the conflagration that is the lifeblood of truth" are dirty commie bastards. Seriously, if you're going to present an argument, try not to do it behind layers of metaphor. That always ruins the argument by making the opposition tackle the metaphor instead of the argument itself, which I guess is a good way to win if you don't feel you can back up your side.

Anyway, now that John Galt has finally finished his speech, I think that in a perfect world we'd be able to employ people who are allowed to use guns to protect places while leaving the majority of the populace unarmed, but since we kinda suck at that whole "not murdering" thing, that's a complete nogo. In that case, i'd say looser gun control would probably be better than strict gun control, because at least if everyone has a gun people might be more understanding of just what it means to use one.

also phalluses lol

Sorry, my nemesis, IE phails with no built in spell check. I'm on the road in nowheresville (outside of Des Moines) using a fresh install PC in the Business center of a hotel next to the bar with copious amounts of adult beverage to fortify my writing. I felt you were INCREDIBLY slow in attacking this young lady proudly waving the flag of a foreign nation and disdaining the one that provides the blanket of freedom under which she rests her head at night. I felt compelled to chastise this twit in the only fashion my dignity would allow. Diatribe.

I appreciate you recognizing that my style of flame uses irony and the need for an education (or at least a reading level) beyond the seventh grade. Of course the theme was Ayn Rand (Anthem, not Atlas Shrugged). A very populist message of individuality; and even the author herself extends the irony in the metaphor. A former Soviet female citizen who comes to the U.S. to write about individualism and the oppresion of the "we" society. The complete opposite of the litle girl with activism hangups.

In the future, if trolls like you or your fledgling wannabees would more quickly step to the task of the moment, it wouldn't be necessary for me or anyone else to engage in verbal reparte. Shorter posts would abound and the censor would have much more to do!
m'kay

Oh my god Dread, you honestly have no idea how long i've waited for this moment. Instead of typing up a dozen paragraph essay on how i'm stupid and dumb, you provided a clear and concise message that addressed the points I made without wasting everyone's time with flowery language. I know I probably sound like i'm joking around here, but seriously when I saw your response I got the biggest goddamn smile on my face. Thank you Dread, for finally getting it.

Anyway, to be honest here all I see is that you use Internet Explorer, you grew a vagina at some point between this and our last communication, and that you think anyone learns anything in middle school. Also that you could probably go ahead and help MC out with his activism stuff provided you got absolutely trashed beforehand and shoved onstage. And i'm sorry, but really as soon as you started talking about Ayn Rand's writing all I could see was the word "DUUUUUUMMMMMMMB" plastered across all the billboards of Wall Street, and all the fatcats in their glass houses grinning down at the seething masses. Also something about how Ayn Rand never got laid, a fact which i'm sure has nothing to do with her as a person, but everything to do with how dull and unsatisfying her books are.

Then again, maybe my opinion is in the minority considering how many people got a raging boner from reading her power fantasies and ridiculous philosophy. If a philosophy relies on a human overcoming their own humanity, it stands to reason that the only humans capable of fulfilling it to it's fullest would be hated by everyone and not even give a [poo] about the rest of humanity. ...Which, now that I think about it, is kind of the end goal of Objectivism so yeah i'm pretty sure i'm just missing the point of it.