Time to Take Motor Vehicles Away From the American Public!

Originally posted by User8911

Originally posted by PROT3CTOR
DO all the "gun haters" see and understand yet?? Or are you insanely blind and wish to stay that way?? Make sure your "argument follows" when you present it.....and if you dont know what it means for an "argument to follow", google "word logic". YOU CANNOT STOP PEOPLE FROM KILLING OTHER PEOPLE, IF PEOPLE WANT TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE!! Take their guns, they'll use knives or homemade explosives....take those theyll use sticks and bricks......WAKE THE FUDGE UP !!

I'm not exactly a gun hater but I can easily say that guns are the most dangerous types of weapons. I know stupid people will always want to kill other people but at least, if they don't have guns, they can't really kill many or even one. You see, a kid with a gun could kill a trained soldier. It's not guns that kill people, but people that kill people but guns are the most dangerous of all weapons available to the public.

So lets say we take out all guns and people still kill each other with knives, it's still sounds like a win situation IMO for most of the populations safety against non-organized killers.

Wholeheartedly I disagree. A longbow, a throwing knife, a sling, or slingshot can be just as effective as a weapon as a gun. English armor was discontinued as a result of the longbow, not gunpowder. The only thing guns (rifles) have on any other weapon is distance.
I can just as easily kill with an atlatl and dart combo as I can with a sniper rifle. It just depends on the situation.
Honestly in a SHTF scenario, I'd rather have the "primitive" weapons that I can fashion myself than those that are supported by mass production.
Although I would use a vehicle in said situation as long as I can.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


If you disagree to everyone being unable to own ANY weapon then your logic stupid.

Its funny watching you talk yourself in that circle and come out of it flying the same direction without even noticing. Have you ever been robbed?

I got another solution, all cars equipped with giant rubber bumpers and rubber pads to protect from crashes!

Yes I know it takes away the freedom of looking cool,
so I guess some of you will protest against the evil people that conspire about taking away freedoms just for the sake of power, control and dominance.

Nothing to do with thinking towards an evolution of society, all control.

Originally posted by lldd182
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

you are a troll, plain and simple. illogical argument. why does anyone click this and why is it one of the top links on the page. ATS has fallen off because they don't delete posts from government shills, though for all i know this website is run by shills

You amuse me.

It should be obvious to the most casual observer that JPZ is not the troll here, I am - and there's only enough room for one troll under this bridge. The rest of the space is currently occupied by fuzzy bunnies, which I'm cleaning and oiling so they will be ready to fire if need be,

just to be serious for a moment - if I may be so out of character momentarily - do you have any sort of response to the points in the OP, or is your game merely one of drive-by name calling and attempted character assassination? For example, if you think his argument is illogical, do you have a rational reason for that thought, or is it just an emotional response to statements you have no logical response to?

I'm absolutely certain that you have proof positive that JPZ is a "government shill", since you made the accusation right out in the open. It would be... well, speaking plainly, it would be foolish to make such an accusation with no proof. I, for one, would like to see that proof - or a retraction for a rash and baseless accusation.

Which is it? Do you have proof, or was the accusation rash and baseless?

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
Wholeheartedly I disagree. A longbow, a throwing knife, a sling, or slingshot can be just as effective as a weapon as a gun. English armor was discontinued as a result of the longbow, not gunpowder. The only thing guns (rifles) have on any other weapon is distance.

All other weapons compared to guns are much more complicated to use, only has one projectile at a time and are slower to reload. A bow is also much bigger.

On the other hand, guns usually make much more noise.

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
Honestly in a SHTF scenario, I'd rather have the "primitive" weapons that I can fashion myself than those that are supported by mass production.

I would use anything seriously. ^^

Originally posted by User8911

I'm not exactly a gun hater but I can easily say that guns are the most dangerous types of weapons. I know stupid people will always want to kill other people but at least, if they don't have guns, they can't really kill many or even one. You see, a kid with a gun could kill a trained soldier. It's not guns that kill people, but people that kill people but guns are the most dangerous of all weapons available to the public.

So lets say we take out all guns and people still kill each other with knives, it's still sounds like a win situation IMO for most of the populations safety against non-organized killers.

I can make and deliver enough botulium toxin to kill an entire company of trained soldiers for between 5 and 10 dollars, all by my loner lonesome.

How is that less dangerous than a gun?

reply to post by User8911


I disagree to your first point but agree with your last point.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

If you disagree to everyone being unable to own ANY weapon then your logic stupid.

That's awkward and difficult to follow - can you clarify? Are you saying that if if he thinks any person should be allowed a weapon, then his "logic is stupid"? Do you include ball peen hammers, axes, ink pens, forks, and sharp sticks in the "weapons" category?

I've never heard of "stupid logic". If it's stupid, is it really logic?

Originally posted by User8911
I got another solution, all cars equipped with giant rubber bumpers and rubber pads to protect from crashes!

Yes I know it takes away the freedom of looking cool,
so I guess some of you will protest against the evil people that conspire about taking away freedoms just for the sake of power, control and dominance.

Nothing to do with thinking towards an evolution of society, all control.

Hey, I rode one of those once - at a carnival! Contrary to popular thought, they really are sort of "cool"!

Helluva lotta fun, too!

reply to post by nenothtu


In my driver's training I learned about "water bumpers." Better than rubber, better than metal. What happened to that tech?
www.automotive-fleet.com...

reply to post by nenothtu


I ment to say that by disqualifying any weapon you would basicly be back to where we started... with the policies we have.

Civilians do not get to own a B.F.G..

People are starting to talk about sugar being a problem. There are tons of articles out lately, maybe that should be banned or regulated as well! Here's one

Isnt this just the same argument as the gun?

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

If you disagree to everyone being unable to own ANY weapon then your logic stupid.

Its funny watching you talk yourself in that circle and come out of it flying the same direction without even noticing. Have you ever been robbed?

Okay. You asked about nuclear weapons. I answered that I believed that such a weapon of mass destruction as well as biological weapons of mass destruction were not a right. Now you want to translate this into me arguing that I am against people owning ANY weapon, and apparently just so you can pat yourself on the back and declare I am talking in circles.

What does owning a nuclear weapon have to do with being robbed? Are you under the impression that the best way to deal with a robber is to detonate a nuclear bomb? Maybe release the Ebola virus? Boy, that will put an end to robbery in your town, no?

reply to post by milkyway12


ok ok I see.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I ment to say that by disqualifying any weapon you would basicly be back to where we started... with the policies we have.

Civilians do not get to own a B.F.G..

We are all ready at a place in time where "civilians" are denied access to and ownership of nuclear weapons. The United States holds the largest nuclear weapon cache in the world and has most recently banging the war drums insisting we must go to war with Iran in order to keep them from having nuclear weapons.

I am, frankly, using the same logic I used with stop signs and driving drunk. While I maintain that driving is a right, this does not prevent any city, town, or county from placing stop signs at strategic places and does not give people the right to disregard this measure of control, to do so would be reckless and show a profound disregard for other people's rights. The same holds true for drunk driving, in that it is reckless and a profound disregard for the rights of others. This is the "stupid logic" I am using with nuclear weapons.

Further, you seem to be coming from a point of view that people own arms because governments let them. I am coming from the point of view that governments exist because people let them. Before these people let that government exist, these people all ready had their rights and certainly did not create a government just so they could have rights. Such a thing would be...well, "stupid logic".

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

And you never answered my question about age of rights...if we dont need a license, is my 10 year old free to drive, if I feel that he is responsible? Or if the decision is not up to me, then to whom? do we defer the government "allowing" us to have rights at 18 (or whatever appointed age)?

If a ten year old is perfectly capable of demonstrating that they can handle driving a vehicle in a responsible way, would you have a problem with them driving? Of course, you as a parent have the right to deny your ten year old any driving privileges of your car, but you do not have the right to prevent your neighbor from allowing his ten year old from driving as long as that driving is not reckless. That's the answer to your hypothetical. I am not aware of many ten year old's that are capable of driving in a responsible way, but perhaps that is because some arbitrary act of legislation has declared ten year old's less deserving of rights than older people.

Great to see you post this. Now I know exactly where you stand. You hate being told what to do so much, you would rather endanger everyone else in the world than have to follow a rule.

10 year olds should be able to drive! Why cant we have JPZs freedom from the evil governments stopping our children from driving? No point in further discussion.

I don't compromise

Ah! The mark of a truly educated man!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Further, you seem to be coming from a point of view that people own arms because governments let them. I am coming from the point of view that governments exist because people let them. Before these people let that government exist, these people all ready had their rights and certainly did not create a government just so they could have rights. Such a thing would be...well, "stupid logic".

At what point in human history do you feel that there was no government where people could do as they wished? The Romans? The Sumerians? There were even rules at the birth of our mighty republic,no? You are arguing from a fallacious point.

reply to post by aching_knuckles

Great to see you post this. Now I know exactly where you stand. You hate being told what to do so much, you would rather endanger everyone else in the world than have to follow a rule.

I don't know why you believe a reliance on logical fallacies is the mark of an educated man, but to each their own. Your strawman reads as desperation.

10 year olds should be able to drive! Why cant we have JPZs freedom from the evil governments stopping our children from driving? No point in further discussion.

Oddly, you post below this one with an obvious desire to further the discussion.

Ah! The mark of a truly educated man!

Sure. The "three-fifths" compromise within the Constitution was wonderful! How nice these educated men thought it prudent to diminish certain People (slaves) in order to appease slaveholders. What a great mark of education this compromise is!

Compromise is a lose-lose scenario. No party in a compromise get what they want and all settle for less for no better reason than to appease each other. Win-win scenarios are not Utopian ideals. They exist and are very real, but win-win's do not come through compromise. I suppose many an "educated" person believes that remarks such as "we'll just have to agree to disagree" are intelligent. Dumb old me continues to believe it is better to agree to agree. It certainly takes more effort to do so, but it also gets one closer to a win-win, rather than a lose-lose, but that's just me coming from my uneducated mind.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Further, you seem to be coming from a point of view that people own arms because governments let them. I am coming from the point of view that governments exist because people let them. Before these people let that government exist, these people all ready had their rights and certainly did not create a government just so they could have rights. Such a thing would be...well, "stupid logic".

At what point in human history do you feel that there was no government where people could do as they wished? The Romans? The Sumerians? There were even rules at the birth of our mighty republic,no? You are arguing from a fallacious point.

The U.S. federal government was created in 1789 by The Constitution for the United States of America. Prior to that, there was a national government under the Articles of Confederation of Perpetual Union, which was ratified in 1777. Before this, there were states, such as Virginia, that had their own Constitution, which was created in 1776.

Article I of that Virginia constitution is their Declaration of Rights, which begins:

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the good people of Virginia in the exercise of their sovereign powers, which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.

Oh my! Look at that! The good people of Virginia getting all "fallacious" and then codifying their fallacy.

Their Declaration of Rights continue:

Section 1. Equality and rights of men.

That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their post erity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Dear Lord! Those Virginians are the masters of "fallacy".

Section 2. People the source of power.

That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

\

Somebody stop the "fallacious" madness!

Section 3. Government instituted for common benefit.

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Oh my God! Will the "fallacy's" never stop?

Even before these state constitutions that predate national or federal constitutions, the People of the 13 colonies kept and bore arms, this is how they were able to fight the Revolution of Independence in 1776. I suppose you might call this a "fallacious" historical fact.