It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michael Moore - People own guns because they're fearful racists.

page: 17
25
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I wouldn't call them racist Fearful yes, most definitely. Fear whether real or fancied is what propels everything. Racism is merely a symptom of the underlying cause.

Believe it or not, Fear is the number one method of control over a human being that is used. Some say they have no fear but it is not true.

First step of recovery from fear is admitting you have it.




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Because I wanted to, and you were willing to comply. You let me take lead in this dance. I'll back down from it now...


Comply is such a poor word choice but I am sure I get your point.


Actually, the composition does sort of matter, since the question under discussion is the rationale for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", rather than "the right of the government of Nazi Germany to keep and bear arms"


I understand that, I really do. It was my mistake for assuming that specifically pointing to WWII and not the NAZI take over was enough but I see it. Then again, there is also the fact that I was asking someone else to explain something about what they said and did not expect to be drilled by 3 other posters over it.



That should be as self-evident as the fact of having apples doesn't make me an apple pie, either. It's what you do with what you have that makes the difference. Fact is, I'm not a threat to the government presently, armed or not, because the government is not yet a credible threat to ME. Oh, they've passed legislation to try to take away my freedoms, but as yet have been supremely unsuccessful at that endeavor. Therefore, they are not a threat yet, either - at least no more so than I and my arms.


So perhaps you can understand why I might have been asking that particular poster the question about what they posted then?


Actually, that "well armed military" you speak of was a threat to the US government - otherwise, there would have been no need for a fight. Do you know other folks who go around fighting non-threats? I submit that they may not be the most stable of individuals if you do, and perhaps should seek some sort of counselling.


Semantic nitpicking and you know it.



I apologize to you for my poor choice of words. I was out of line.


I think this would have all gone a lot better had everyone just let that poster I asked a question to answer me. I understand what you and Centurion read in my post and take responsibility for not making it far more clear.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I will admit to whatever it is that is truthful.

I am not making up the age of 18 arbitrarily. I am depending on the legal defintion of an adult. If a child has a gun, their parents are responsible. Age of consent. I would suppose it is up to each state to decide what is best in that state.

If you want to be honest here, I personally do not care. Gun laws do not prevent anything, people who want something bad enough will get it regardless of law. The laws are often just silly inconveniences to the willful. So make all the laws you want, and see how ineffective it will be. You can even ban the manufacture...i can make a pretty deadly weapon using a can of hairspray, some pvc, a potato, and an ignitor from an old lighter. I could construct it in about 15 minutes, and shoot out a car window. We made one once that shot a bowling ball from a cast iron pipe using nitro as the propellant. We fired it from across the yard, behind the shed. Collapsed the side of a Pinto when we finally got the aim down. Oh, the young and the stupid.

Are you being obtuse on purpose? And do you think making a law about something makes any difference to anyone but the docile sheep of society?


Odd, I was going to ask the same thing. I simply stated that you were all for gun control on some level. You apparently wanted to try to find a way to agree with that statement while not actually openly agreeing with it. It does not seem to have worked. You are for gun control. As I said above, everyone that claims to be against all gun control seems to have "exceptions." You have yours. I am not sure what case you are putting forward here. I will just go back to my statement that you are all for gun control, just different levels of control. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


If that is what you take from what i have said, I am good.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by nenothtu

Because I wanted to, and you were willing to comply. You let me take lead in this dance. I'll back down from it now...


Comply is such a poor word choice but I am sure I get your point.


I seem to have a knack for choosing words poorly, don't I?





That should be as self-evident as the fact of having apples doesn't make me an apple pie, either. It's what you do with what you have that makes the difference. Fact is, I'm not a threat to the government presently, armed or not, because the government is not yet a credible threat to ME. Oh, they've passed legislation to try to take away my freedoms, but as yet have been supremely unsuccessful at that endeavor. Therefore, they are not a threat yet, either - at least no more so than I and my arms.


So perhaps you can understand why I might have been asking that particular poster the question about what they posted then?


Yup, I understand that altogether now. My mistake for shooting from the lip without being caught up on the conversation.




Actually, that "well armed military" you speak of was a threat to the US government - otherwise, there would have been no need for a fight. Do you know other folks who go around fighting non-threats? I submit that they may not be the most stable of individuals if you do, and perhaps should seek some sort of counselling.


Semantic nitpicking and you know it.


To my mind, there is a real difference, rather than just a semantic one, between a "threat" and a "non-threat".



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
I simply stated that you were all for gun control on some level. You apparently wanted to try to find a way to agree with that statement while not actually openly agreeing with it. It does not seem to have worked. You are for gun control. As I said above, everyone that claims to be against all gun control seems to have "exceptions." You have yours. I am not sure what case you are putting forward here. I will just go back to my statement that you are all for gun control, just different levels of control. Thanks.


Actually, I'm not - I think. That conversation is being held right now in another thread - the "ATS Street View" thread on Gun Control - and I don't care to open it on another front here, other than to say that I'm not for any sort of gun control that I can think of, but am willing to acquiesce to localized municipalities dealing with their own problems internally, and not foisting their regulations on the nation at large.

I refer you to this post for my stance on those issues. The ensuing discussion clarifies that stance somewhat, but that post contains the basic bullets of it.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I like MM very much !! really, he is an artist filmmaker like we like them in Europe ... I can understand you up there in USA, some of you, do not like cultural/artistic expression anyway .....
poor US .... what a pitty ..... you ( some of you, ok ... ) are armed with guns everywhere, under your arms, under your balls, everywhere you have guns to defend yourself ..... from what ??? from Afgans ? from Iraqis ? from the poors all over ??? from the black people ??? better defend yourself from the neo-cons/neo-capitalists/Cheeney/Bush/Karl Rove/etc... taking away all your liberties since 9/11
( since Reagan to be clear )

I'll pray for you up there you know, because maybe you have a lot of arms under your ass but no political insight into neo-conservativ/capitalist politics .....
Michael is an artist, artists also are FREE to talk/do/etc. what they like : FREEDOM you know, so what ....
let him be free to say what he likes, you are free to think/say what you like .... but if you are free, he is also !!!!
have a beer ! Just be carefull with your very macho big gun, you never know you kill a innocent fellow human being for what he/she is thinking .... ( remember someone ?? )
edit on 21-1-2011 by Sunlionspirit because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2011 by Sunlionspirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunlionspirit
I like MM very much !! really, he is an artist filmmaker like we like them in Europe ... I can understand you up there in USA, some of you, do not like cultural/artistic expression anyway .....
poor US .... what a pitty ..... you ( some of you, ok ... ) are armed with guns everywhere, under your arms, under your balls, everywhere you have guns to defend yourself ..... from what ??? from Afgans ? from Iraqis ? from the poors all over ??? from the black people ??? better defend yourself from the neo-cons/neo-capitalists/Cheeney/Bush/Karl Rove/etc... taking away all your liberties since 9/11 ( since Reagan to be clear )

I'll pray for you up there you know, because maybe you have a lot of arms under your ass but no political insight into neo-conservativ/capitalist politics .....
Michael is an artist, artists also are FREE to talk/do/etc. what they like : FREEDOM you know, so what ....
let him be free to say what he likes, you are free to think what you like .... but if you are free, he is also !!!!
have a beer !


What a fine display of ignorance.

There is help, though...read the thread. It can cure you (at least in this one narrow instance).



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I think you summed it up appropriately for me. Like i said, "When men require laws, they are no longer fit for freedom"



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 

dear mister bigfat, I would like to know what you think about neo-con / neo-capitalist crap ....
kind of Monsanto stuff, Karl Rove or Cheeney stuff, 9/11 stuff , BP oil spill stuff ....
let us talk about that, your arms all over your body will not protect you from BP or Monsanto poisoning ...
what do you think ?
maybe you think you are bigfat boy ..... ok, let's drink a beer on our BOSSHOSS bike, talking about how stupid this world is, but I just like cultural people, I just think you do not like them ....



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


why ignorance ??
I can accept people do have arms at home, I really can accept that ...
but people wearing arms in the streets ???
what for ??
I just tell you : you better be afraid of neo-cons / neo-capitalists destroying your life and that of your family !!
with or without arms man, they kill (y)our society !!!
so why do you wear arms in the streets ? because you are fundamentally AFRAID of everybody ... you better be afraid of I told you first !!!
ANYWAY NO HOPE LEFT ANY MORE I THINK ..... WE ALL WILL BE SCREWED BY NEO-CAPITALISM !

edit on 21-1-2011 by Sunlionspirit because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2011 by Sunlionspirit because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2011 by Sunlionspirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by macman
He is still a person who benefits from the things he deems as evil. That in itself is a lie.


Capitalism is not evil. Capitalism is fuel to stimulate industry

Corporatism is not capitalism...well, it is actually a mutated trait.

Capitalism. Chain stores, downtown districts, etc.
Corporatism: walmart, empty downtown districts, funneled resources to the very few.

I am pro capitalism and anti-corporatism.

The hayday of America was when capitalism ruled and corporatism was not very big...now capitalism is almost dead. we got too big to fail industries (baking, auto, etc). These mega corps own the politicians, have the size to where they can soak the initial cost of import/export to send all manufacturing and technocal jobs overseas for cheap labor, outsourcing, etc. Corporatism is a destroyer of capitalism.

He is benefitting from a capitalist society and his big beef is railing against corporatism. This is like a person using their freedom to speak out against anarchy. I see no hypocracy..I see a person screaming against a system being corrupted.


capitalism is passé, neo-capitalism is the now !!!
read about this if you want : NEO-CONS and NEO-CAPITALISM !!! ( google for professor Ernest Mandel - éminence grise ! )
much more dangerous than stupid capitalism !!!!! really really to be afraid of !!! with your guns you even cann't defend yourself totally because they kill more than your body : they kill even your soul, your brain ( schizo - depression - stress - drugs ... ). Have a beer and keep cool : they are NOT AT ALL afraid of your arms !! they are just afraid of your consciousness !!! your knowing their tactics !!



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunlionspirit
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 

dear mister bigfat, I would like to know what you think about neo-con / neo-capitalist crap ....
kind of Monsanto stuff, Karl Rove or Cheeney stuff, 9/11 stuff , BP oil spill stuff ....
let us talk about that, your arms all over your body will not protect you from BP or Monsanto poisoning ...
what do you think ?
maybe you think you are bigfat boy ..... ok, let's drink a beer on our BOSSHOSS bike, talking about how stupid this world is, but I just like cultural people, I just think you do not like them ....


For what its worth, i do not drink. Nor do i ride a motorcycle (haven't been on one since i was 6, although i have family in the Cossacks and spend time around those guys).

You base your thoughts on a broad generalization based on a stereotype of an American. I fit very few stereotypes. America is like any other nation: we have some of all types. Trust me, intellectualism is not dead in the US.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I think you summed it up appropriately for me. Like i said, "When men require laws, they are no longer fit for freedom"


Conversely, a free man will NOT be ruled by laws, but by his own conscience. They've yet to pass a law, in my estimation, that can even touch objective "freedom". They can try, all day long, but will never succeed until a free man acquiesces and give it up of his own volition.

Now, if his conscience tells him the same as the laws do, all is well. If not, there's bound to be some friction while it gets sorted out.

One can NEVER legislate a free man. The most they can do is kill him. They can take his life, but to me that means that he remains undefeated forevermore. They never touched his freedom.

It probably helps in that outlook that I believe death to be a transitory thing, just the passage from one state of being to another. That is of course a personal belief, not a "fact", and is in no way provable.

The Aztecs used to say "Death is but the waking from a dream of having lived".



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunlionspirit
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


why ignorance ??
I can accept people do have arms at home, I really can accept that ...
but people wearing arms in the streets ???
what for ??
I just tell you : you better be afraid of neo-cons / neo-capitalists destroying your life and that of your family !!
with or without arms man, they kill (y)our society !!!
so why do you wear arms in the streets ? because you are fundamentally AFRAID of everybody ... you better be afraid of I told you first !!!
ANYWAY NO HOPE LEFT ANY MORE I THINK ..... WE ALL WILL BE SCREWED BY NEO-CAPITALISM !

edit on 21-1-2011 by Sunlionspirit because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2011 by Sunlionspirit because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2011 by Sunlionspirit because: (no reason given)


Ignorance because you equate gun ownership with "redneck". It has been displayed in this thread why and how that is untrue. Since you ignored those explanations, it is defined as "ignorance". No insult intended, although a "rough reminder" was intended.

If by "neo-capitalism" you mean "corporatism", then you are almost right. It has already screwed us. In the future the screwing will be a continuation of what is already happening.

Why not wear arms in the streets? If it is my right, then i can exercise that right whenever and however i feel fit. Is there a time and place you would rather me exercise my rights? You know, to make things more sightly and convenient? I think you misunderstand the definition of "rights".



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


And this is my point about laws. That men, unless wussified and timid, will ignore laws that are inconvenient so that they may conduct themselves freely. Drugs are illegal, yet there is no difference. People STILL do them without regard for the law.

People will do what they will do. "An harm ye none, do what ye will" should be a mantra in our legal system. It is the perfect summary of natural law. The ignorance of it is leading us into those "calm waters of despotism".



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Yes, the "Rede" is a good summation of natural law, probably because it grew out of nature, and recognizes inherent nature. It's also self-enforcing. When you step across the line and start harming others, sooner or later you will run into the wrong one, and retribution will be at hand.

People seeking after direction form "higher", yet still corporeal, powers to lead them to "the promised land" will definitely be led into despotism - every single time. When they give their own self-determination into the hands of another, and agree to abide by those rules promulgated by that "other", they have forfeited acting on their own inherent freedom, and have thus negated it - although even THEY can never "give it up".

They effectively volunteer for slavery, forge their own chains, and Americans are doing it in droves these days. Never forget, though, that just because the rest of "them" have volunteered for slavery, they can never volunteer YOU for slavery. Every individual must make that agreement for themselves.




edit on 2011/1/21 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
As the old saying goes. I'd rather have a gun and not need than need a gun and not have it.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I did say that I understand and accept totally the fact that you can have arms at home to defend your family or your business. What I discuss here is the fact lots of people WALK around with arms, good people yes, but also dangerous criminals ok, but it must be the good people are very afraid of something otherwise they wouldn't walk around with guns no ???
That is why we have to look into society and ask : where does that fear come from ? we do not live any longer with dangerous animals around, with cowboys and indians so what are we afraid of ? the powers in place are doing everything to push fear in society and in the people on the highest level possible, the fear for extremists
( 9/11 ), the fear for police force and brutallity, the fear for " the other " , fear for bombs and etc etc ...
Here in Europ we may have guns at home with autorisation, but no guns at all in the streets.
Really, we feel better up here.
People with fear can easily be manipulated by the powers, lots of people with fundamental fear will in the end also need pills to mask their fear ..
life is a risk, you cannot eliminate all risks, but fear is the danger : look at Tunesia, the revolt up there happens and what do the people in the streets tell us : " now we have no more fear, not at all, we fight for democracy without fear at all " - fear is gone, real life can begin !!!



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 

yes big corporatism is one of the results of neo-capitalist policy.
I understand you tell me it is about your constitutional " right " " your freedom " to wear guns and that you really do not like to give up that right !
but it is not at all a obligation to wear guns in the streets, you MAY do that ok but if you don't then your right is still garanteed no ??
so why do you wear guns then ?? just because you MAY do that ?
there must be something else no ?
it is not because I may drink lots of alcohol at home and become a alcoholic ( I have that right no ? ) that I will do that.
Fear and $$greed are the human society killers !
I am convinced no guns in the streets = less fear in population because otherwise you will end up like in Mexico, in the end all travelling around in armored vehicles ?

What about other ATS thread : you see what happens all the time up there at yours ? www.abovetopsecret.com...
guns are a right ok, but a pitty one .....




edit on 22-1-2011 by Sunlionspirit because: other thread mentionned



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join