A Truly New Approach to Gun Rights: Including the Opposition.

I so desperately wish that my right wing friends would extend olive branches to my left wing friends. I so desperately want my left wing friends to realize that they too need AR15s and 30 round mags. Because tyranny is not just a left wing thing. Sometimes its crazy right wingers that take over and kill people they disagree with.

I so desperately wish my socialist friends, whom I vehemently disagree with, realize that you can have a civilized society that is socialist AND armed to the teeth.

I so desperately wish that anyone who advocates for a particular system, including my beloved free market capitalist system, that tyranny and oppression can occur especially when the people have no chance to fight back.

I would almost be happy in a communist society if I could keep my freedom of speech, and my AR15s so that way I and my neighbors could ensure that the workers rights were enforced, if nothing else than by the threat of an armed uprising.

I do not believe that there is a system on Earth that is perfect. But I do believe that any system, in order to be righteous MUST relinquish the right of arms to individuals.

If the people, the individual, the family, is truly the focus of a nation then it must be protected. Both by a national army and by a militia of the people. This militia should be made up of free individuals who are free to arm themselves as they see fit.

All of us benefit from the fruits of the second amendment. All of us, regardless of politics.

reply to post by projectvxn

All of us benefit from the fruits of the second amendment. All of us, regardless of politics.

Well all of us benefit from it, who don't get shot because of it

Though, I am interested, what is your reason for why you think we need guns?

reply to post by Twix404


I have more than made my case over the years and have alluded to those reasons here.

If you don't agree that is fine.

Originally posted by Twix404
reply to post by projectvxn

 

All of us benefit from the fruits of the second amendment. All of us, regardless of politics.

Well all of us benefit from it, who don't get shot because of it

Though, I am interested, what is your reason for why you think we [color=gold] need guns?

Need ?!?

need ?

Need ....



It's a friggin civic duty .... (string of profanities redacted) ...

There used to be Boxing and Riflery classes in the schools,
but the dep of Ed took them out.
Reason given: we don't want all that violence near our children.

Funny thing, no one was shooting up schools when they had their own rifle teams,
and no one was being bullied in the halls when you could "Take it to the ring".





The matrix has you Neo.
You are a slave.


Mike Grouchy





...and speaking of taking programs out of the schools when they nationalized them in this country.
Where did the money go. Cause we sure as hell didn't get a refund.

Originally posted by Twix404
Though, I am interested, what is your reason for why you think we need guns?

Perhaps you aren't aware that 262 million people have been murdered by their own governments in the last 100 years. That is SIX TIMES the dead of all the wars of the 20th century combined.

Disarming a population and monopolizing use of force is the first step down the usual road to slavery and genocide.

reply to post by projectvxn

I really respect what you're doing here OP. It's been months but I've tossed a few very sincere Olive Branches of intellectual middle ground out too. Mine weren't specific to this topic...and mine all seemed to end up in the proverbial campfire, burning to a crispy stick. I hope people on both sides read your words and consider fully what you mean and what you're saying.

Imagine, for those you're referring to, if Bush had stolen the election again in 2012 for Jeb this time .. or maybe they'd throw a filler to the Bush line and hold the place with someone else. Not Romney, he was literally a friend to Kennedy..he was no Bush extender, just a big headache of a different flavor. The point you're making is valid tho. We're split as a nation... 50% is always unhappy these days and that absolutely can flip on an election as to which 50% is in the losing side, from their own perspective.

It is in all our interests...and then some...to take a page from our Founding Father's logic about 'hanging united'. They were words of wisdom then and I believe they very much still are. United, we do stand....if we can just meet somewhere off the far sides.

Wrabbit,

You and vxn are gonna wind up on everyone's watch-list
if you keep making sense and building consensus.

I'm willing to be hung with both of ya.


Mike Grouchy

reply to post by projectvxn


Well, I actually do not disagree. I think you are... basically correct. Really it is this sentence that is why we agree:

I so desperately wish that anyone who advocates for a particular system, including my beloved free market capitalist system, that tyranny and oppression can occur especially when the people have no chance to fight back.

Though I hope that if you had no guns you would still think that perhaps there was a chance to fight back. Guns are a great tool for security, but not the only means of it. I believe the government is trying to get rid of guns, simply to cripple society through demoralization.

Let us hope they do not take away our guns, but if they try to-- dare I say let them succeed-- let us not think there is no hope to win in a fight against them.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


You sure are quick to throw accusations at me, my my. In fact, people like you--so ready to jump to conclusions-- is what the matrix loves to find. Remember, the media controls not our thoughts, but our emotions. You can't let them win through that method, you are far more currupt by mainstream thoughts than I if you are to act like that. I am an advocate of the second ammendment, I merely wished to see OPs backing motives is all. Some people abuse second amendment rights, I support the Constitution but I am still a strong advocate of properly using it as well. Lunies don't belong beside guns, it is not a fault of mine that I wish to see someone's motives before I support them.

So my answer was acceptable,
just not the emotionality around the delivery.

Understood.


Mike Grouchy

reply to post by METACOMET


Perhaps you are not aware that is the sole reason to why I support the second amendment...

Who would have known I would have encountered such a presumptuous group. Talk about "jumping the gun much". All I said was that not everyone benefits, as it is a fact that people killed from guns cannot be benefitted from the second amendment. Also, as I stated in a different reply, some people abuse politics and the powers politics grant them. There cannot be gain from those people. I merely was pointing out a flaw in how not what the OP said what they said.

Originally posted by Twix404
reply to post by projectvxn

 

All of us benefit from the fruits of the second amendment. All of us, regardless of politics.

Well all of us benefit from it, who don't get shot because of it

Though, I am interested, what is your reason for why you think we need guns?

The act of shooting someone is already illegal. Even in cases of self-defense, the shooter is charged with a crime and it is by the determination of investigation and trial that the shooter is ruled to have acted in self-defense, whereby the state chooses not to prosecute or the shooter is found to commited no crimes.

The anti-gun propagandists, continual use of fallacious arguments is dually noted. Appeal to Emotion is a logical fallacy, pure and simple. Safety and utility is all you have . . . however, neither stack up to the test of logic or reason . . . and that is what should be applied in a matter of such importance.

Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument. Also, this kind of thinking may be evident in one who lets emotions and/or other subjective considerations influence one's reasoning process. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including:

No weapon out there infringes on the rights of anyone . . . it is the act of shooting that infringes.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


Just saying we need to be careful. The media loves it when people like Alex Jones get p***ed off about guns and blurs fact with mis-placed emotion. People correlate anger with crime, so if people with guns are mostly angry then people will correlate guns with crime--let's try to move away from that misinterpretation the media feeds to people.

But yeah, I think we agree just fine.


Friends?

Yes!

Friends.

But not angry, the name is Grouchy.

reply to post by solomons path

Your, and the anti-gun propagandists, continual use of fallacious arguments is dually noted. Appeal to Emotion is a logical fallacy, pure and simple. Safety and utility is all you have . . . however, neither stack up to the test of logic or reason . . . and that is what should be applied in a matter of such importance.

huh? Wait, what? No, you are jumping to conclusions (like everyone else in this thread apparently). Try reading the other posts in this thread. Your argument is based off of poor assumptions and things that never happened. THAT is what doesn't stack up to either reason, OR logic, so try again.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


Hahahahaha!

Very well then.

reply to post by projectvxn


Unfortunately, this will never work . . . I agree they should feel that way, but I think far too many people are blinded by their "group". Therefore, if there group says they are right and the other is wrong . . . they simply go along. That's why the anti-gun agenda uses words like "crazy" and "extremists" when portraying gun owners.

What member will turn on their "group" to join "crazy extremists". It's all about creating public opinion through outgrouping. It is also why all they need to do is appeal to emotion . . . people (as a whole) are sheep and want to be accepted as part of the "good" group.

Originally posted by Twix404
reply to post by solomons path

 

Your, and the anti-gun propagandists, continual use of fallacious arguments is dually noted. Appeal to Emotion is a logical fallacy, pure and simple. Safety and utility is all you have . . . however, neither stack up to the test of logic or reason . . . and that is what should be applied in a matter of such importance.

huh? Wait, what? No, you are jumping to conclusions (like everyone else in this thread apparently). Try reading the other posts in this thread. Your argument is based off of poor assumptions and things that never happened. THAT is what doesn't stack up to either reason, OR logic, so try again.

I was typing as you were responding . . . I did assume you were making the same emotional plea that the anti-gun people do . . . I edited when I saw your other posts, but I guess you were responding to me, while I was editing . . .

My apologies.

reply to post by solomons path


Meh actually, I initially thought it was gross that people jumped to conclusions but... It did bring several people to put forth rather good, (logical even) arguments pro 2nd amendment, so my post didn't do all bad.

AND the OP wanted to bring people together a little and I think succeeded. Actually, I think we all agree in this thread so far, if I am correct. So... there is some togetherness. Hm.

reply to post by Twix404


Well . . . sometimes playing devil's advocate is the best way to an argument moving!

Hell, I used to make it my job . . . In college, my friends all called me "the instigator", although it seemed to only happen at bars!