Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

At what point would you fight back?

40 posts in this topic

Posted

What if we ban cars that can go above the speed limit? Alcohol? Cigarettes? Unapproved foods? Defective people? Unauthorized thought or speech? Unapproved sexual behaviors, divorce, religious gatherings, and on and on.

All of these things are better off gone in the minds of many. There's a reason why Patrick Henry preferred liberty to life. There's a reason why so many before sought the same.

The american dream is long dead (if it ever actually lived). People will talk freedom all day but do nothing to actually obtain and maintain it. We simply have a mass of Reich-mongers seeking to put like-minded people in charge and then rail when the "wrong people" get in power.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I would think long and hard about defending my freedom.

Slowly but surely this country is stripping it's citizens of liberty. I am starting to get really fed up with it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Awesome hypothetical/troll!

Hey guise, if the Chinese Army invades, would you take up arms against them or just hand over your firearms and allow them to rape your wife/girlfriend/daughter? (Gee, I wonder what the answer is...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't think you even know what trolling is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't think you even know what trolling is

OP is nothing but calling out a hypothetical scenario that's rehashed thousands of times on gun boards with the same response. Of course gun owners aren't going to want to give up their guns, just as smokers don't want to give up their cigarettes, drinkers their beer, drivers their car, etc... It's intentionally evoking an emotional response, ie; "trolling"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The original idea was that 'the people' could, if necessary, resist tyrannous governments by forming militia to fight against the state. That is what the ammendment was for. That provision has absolutely no relevance to the modern world and now the second ammendment prevents law and order, rather than protects it. (For example, The Waco Siege.)

The 2nd ammendment is the excuse behind which emotionally inadequate gun-freaks can lovingly fondle their shiny phallic substitutes. Guns have no place in a civilised society. All the arguments put forward by the KKK... sorry, I mean NRA, are irrelevant, because they avoid the real issue; guns give people feelings of ultimate physical and social power, and some people lust after that feeling. The very popular pro-gun phrase, 'you can have my gun when you prise it from my cold dead fingers' tells you all you need to know about the emotionally unintelligent and aggresive mindset of the hardcore pro-gun supporter.

The Second Ammendment is cleary out-dated and should be repealed. What militia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

OP is nothing but calling out a hypothetical scenario that's rehashed thousands of times on gun boards with the same response. Of course gun owners aren't going to want to give up their guns, just as smokers don't want to give up their cigarettes, drinkers their beer, drivers their car, etc... It's intentionally evoking an emotional response, ie; "trolling"

It's clear the politics forum isn't for you then. There's going to be debates in which there are differing opinions that evoke emotional responses. That applies to every thread in the tinderbox.

The argument of fighting back against tyranny in government is very common when debating the second ammendment, wouldn't you agree? Asking at what point would it be okay to exercise that right isn't trolling.

"Would you let the communists rape your daughters" on the other hand, is trolling. Next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The argument of fighting back against tyranny in government is very common when debating the second ammendment, wouldn't you agree? Asking at what point would it be okay to exercise that right isn't trolling.

I do agree, this question has been asked hundreds (or more) of times, over and over, yet the response is always the same. Add a new aspect or angle to the issue, and it's an interesting topic. As it is, it's a rabble-rousing "would you kill a cop for something that a cop would do illegally?" thread, is absurdly obvious trolling. As you stated, there are differing opinions in this forum (and as such, I don't belong), but I would argue that I belong here as much as you because my opinion differs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's never been asked here. No one else thinks I'm trolling but you it seems. Posters are quite candid about the issue.

Whatever though. Cry moar. Not reading it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Slowly but surely this country is stripping it's citizens of liberty. I am starting to get really fed up with it.

this is why things are so complicated to me. on the one hand, you're right, there are liberties being stripped, and that's something that's fundamentally a problem, right?

and yet you see people uttering these very words when legislation is passed that, say, mandates wearing helmets while riding bicycles after some kid hit a tree and died, or mandating wearing seatbelts after some guy flew out the windshield of his car and died.

is it your right to do whatever the hell you want if it ultimately affects someone else? sure, maybe it's your right to not wear a seatbelt and go sailing through your windshield if it damn well pleases you, but what happens when your sailing body hits an innocent bystander and kills them?

how do we determine the fine line between individual liberties and collective decisions made for the good of the group as a whole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

this is why things are so complicated to me. on the one hand, you're right, there are liberties being stripped, and that's something that's fundamentally a problem, right?

and yet you see people uttering these very words when legislation is passed that, say, mandates wearing helmets while riding bicycles after some kid hit a tree and died, or mandating wearing seatbelts after some guy flew out the windshield of his car and died.

is it your right to do whatever the hell you want if it ultimately affects someone else? sure, maybe it's your right to not wear a seatbelt and go sailing through your windshield if it damn well pleases you, but what happens when your sailing body hits an innocent bystander and kills them?

how do we determine the fine line between individual liberties and collective decisions made for the good of the group as a whole?

for what purpose can you think of did people form societies, or even before that tribes? in my opinion: sharing our successes and distributing our burdens to lessen them on the individual. pooled food to get through winter, etc. and i think part of that is paying for the risks and failures of other people. if that means paying enough taxes for guards for schools, i'll do it; if that means welfare, i'll do it. you don't have to be perfect, we set up a society so that we can fug up and usually will still have a scaffolding to be able to live. another main goal of the collective is to ensure freedom. even when there are negative side effects of freedom: free speech has Westboro Baptist, guns have Sandy Hook, etc. the collective has to understand that they take on the burdens, that's what being a society of people is. we can't be too quick to say "some of this burden is being distributed, we have to shut it down." no, we have to deal with it as the collective. minimize it and try to fix it, but not by losing the purpose we set up. build more scaffolding, don't knock the building down.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What is freedom?

To reside in a cave, feed off the land, club your rivals to death, steal their women and only have to take a bath whenever it rains? Who among us, would want to "live" under those conditions today?

Advancement of mankind throughout the eons has always required trade offs that present new opportunities while eliminating previously acceptable behaviors.

Does anyone doubt for a minute their was once a time when intransigent men were bitchin' about their "lost rights/freedoms" to forcibly rape their mates and slaughter their sexual rivals?

"But my freedoms!" cries the Neanderthal!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites