Sarah Palin

[Bowfinger]

So can I add bowfinger to the list of people against personal freedom?

So far I have:

manimal
shira
bowfinger

You can if you're a reading-impaired moron. I'll give you the personal freedom to figure that out for yourself.

 

[nick1985]

You can if you're a reading-impaired moron. I'll give you the personal freedom to figure that out for yourself.

You are against me freedom to carry a firearm, and also the freedom to include toys with meals.

Yes or no?

 

[PJABBER]

The great thing about Class III, other than the obvious shit eating grin they bring to your face when you get to use them, is they are a good investment. The prices have remained pretty stable for the last thirty, or so, years. Collectibles such as Thompsons, Stoners, Vietnam era M16's have gone up, some tremendously. The further it gets from what? 86? the more expensive some become. I think it's outrageous that the same AK I have in auto sells for $20,000, but hey, whatever floats their boat.

I am not a collector and have no safe queens. Anything I buy had better be for at least a once or twice a month use. My wife, on the other hand, sometimes gets hooked on more exotic (meaning expensive) stuff, though she has always wanted to buy only stuff that works and works well. One of our biggest argument was on caliber choice.

Though I grew up with and love .45, I like the economy of sticking with and standardizing on 9mm, and .556 for long gunning. She, on the other hand, much prefers the "push" of a .45 and not the "snap" of 9mm. And she grew up on a variety of 7.XXmm and .3XX caliber rifle rounds so her tastes can be expensive to indulge regularly.

I ran marksmanship training and was a division range officer for a while, so I have had more than enough opportunity to shoot off case after case of "extra" ammo that we did not want to re-inventory.

I don't have the time to hand load. I've lately budgeted only about couple of hundred a month on ammo, though I have spent more in the past when the kids were more into it. I figure I would have to triple that if I bought a full auto weapon and regularly used it for either burst or spray and pray. It adds up.

But, yeah, once in a while I get the urge to try out a friend's special toy and I put up with their bragging rights so long as they don't mind me burning up some ammo just for kicks. Share and share alike!

 

[DominionSeraph]

Therein lies the problem. You penalize the majority, you abrogate their rights, their hopes and their dreams in the name of controlling the actions of those who cannot be controlled, just penalized.

Freedom means not having an external control. It does not mean a total lack of control, just that the control is that of the individual and not that of some arbiter. If the expression of that freedom intrudes unduly on the freedom of someone else, then address that, but do not impose a standard that only makes sense as a means of exerting arbitrary control in the vain hope of achieving some kind of arbitrary nirvana.

Consider the right to own an automatic weapon. If you are not a felon and if you live in a jurisdiction that does not proscribe them, pay your federal tax and state tax and go get yourself one. And get yourself a sound suppressor while you are at it so you don't wake up the neighbors.

They are an expensive toy, but if you are not going to commit a crime with it you should be free to burn through your savings by going full auto.

I knew someone who used to own a 90mm recoilless rifle. He lived in a wilderness area and used it primarily to avoid avalanches. In the summer we would use it to blow stuff up. I loved visiting him and his family! So far as I know, he never used it irresponsibly to take out a light armored vehicle that did not need to be taken out.

Ahhh... like it should be your choice whether to build nuclear weapons?
If we remove all DOE restrictions, you could get into the lucrative uranium enrichment business (what right is it of anybody's to stop you), with a market in the Middle East just dying to get their hands on it (and even more happy to die after they get their hands on it.) With that market making the start-up costs worthwhile, the cost of enriched uranium would come down to the price where anyone could afford it!
No regulation on any of the parts, with 70 years of data on exactly how to make one freely available to anyone who wants one. If somebody has an 'accident' in their basement shop we can just prosecute... their remains; right?

There's reasons we have front-end controls for these things. As (1) the cost of irresponsibility increases, (2) the likelihood of responsibility decreases, and, (3) the value of responsible use decreases, the less weight there is for, "freedom."
The few can do without for the good of the many.

90mm recoiless has a use in the mountains. Even if used casually, little damage is likely, due to the sparse inhabitation.
Not so much in New York City, where the only responsible use is not to use it. At which point it can't really be said that you own it. So if the only true owners would be the irresponsible... why would it be legal to own?

If I want to buy a kid's meal that happens to have a toy that makes my kid happy,

Then buy a Happy Meal and buy a Happy Meal toy, retard.

Goddamn Republicans can't figure out anything for themselves. They're the reason Jiffy Lube exists: Oil filters come packaged separate from cars and they're too stupid to figure out how to put the two together.

 

[Bowfinger]

You are against me freedom to carry a firearm, and also the freedom to include toys with meals.

Yes or no?

First of all, I'm not limited by such a simple mind that everything has to set into simple black and white questions. That's not the way the real world works.

That said, would you kindly show me where I've ever suggested people can't carry or own firearms? Pack a lunch because you'll be searching a long, long time. I think it's reasonable to require a permit, training, and "good" criminal record for concealed carry. Beyond that, I have no problems with it. Guns aren't evil. Idiots and criminals who misuse them are.

Re. the SF Happy Meal absurdity, I already explained my position. Get someone to read it to you since it apparently had too many words for your binary brain. Have them look particularly for the phrase "unreasonably intrusive."

Of course I then turned your teabagger rhetoric against you by grabbing one of your catchphrases, "will of the people." Do you believe in the will of the people or not? If so, it seems the people of San Francisco should have the democratic right to decide for themselves how much government control they accept. You agree with that, right? Will of the people? Right? Bueller?

(If you weren't one of the nutters spouting the tea party propaganda points, my apologies. I seem to remember your name popping up regularly, but I don't keep lists.)

 

[Corn]

You are against me freedom to carry a firearm, and also the freedom to include toys with meals.

Yes or no?

Heaven forbid I be labled as a Bowfinger apologist (or even worse, a lefty by association), but I don't see Bowfinger as an advocate for baning toys from happy meals. On the contrary, his exact words regarding banning the toys are "unreasonably intrusive".

His additional commentary regarding democracy in action is merely noted for his amusement.

[edit] Looks like Bowfinger beat me to the punch.

 

[manimal]

I don't what what you mean by this. If you think those in favor of free market capitalism don't approve of government legislating and prosecuting cases of fraud, then you don't know much about free market capitalism. When fraud exists, transactions cease to be voluntary.

What I meant was that you are essentially agreeing with my points. I am a firm believer in free markets. Oversight is not a 4 letter word...... we at least agree that some oversight is beneficial..


I have tried to find common ground as of late in these forums to better help the discourse....sadly with people like nick if you dont agree 100 percent you are wrong...


hey nick want to add me to another list?


how about making a list of people who are different then you?


when your done let me see it..


wait better yet make a list of people who you think are evil because they disagree with you...

that one should be good..

 

[Amused]

Re. the SF Happy Meal absurdity, I already explained my position. Get someone to read it to you since it apparently had too many words for your binary brain. Have them look particularly for the phrase "unreasonably intrusive."

Translation: "It's not my bull being gored, so fuck it."

You are so full of shit.

I'm surprised you don't drown in rain storms with how high you hold your nose in the air.

 

[nick1985]

What I meant was that you are essentially agreeing with my points. I am a firm believer in free markets. Oversight is not a 4 letter word...... we at least agree that some oversight is beneficial..


I have tried to find common ground as of late in these forums to better help the discourse....sadly with people like nick if you dont agree 100 percent you are wrong...


hey nick want to add me to another list?


how about making a list of people who are different then you?


when your done let me see it..


wait better yet make a list of people who you think are evil because they disagree with you...

that one should be good..

I didnt say you were wrong, I just think its funny you claim to be all for personal freedoms, but are against many personal freedoms...

 

[nick1985]

First of all, I'm not limited by such a simple mind that everything has to set into simple black and white questions. That's not the way the real world works.

That said, would you kindly show me where I've ever suggested people can't carry or own firearms? Pack a lunch because you'll be searching a long, long time. I think it's reasonable to require a permit, training, and "good" criminal record for concealed carry. Beyond that, I have no problems with it. Guns aren't evil. Idiots and criminals who misuse them are.

Re. the SF Happy Meal absurdity, I already explained my position. Get someone to read it to you since it apparently had too many words for your binary brain. Have them look particularly for the phrase "unreasonably intrusive."

Of course I then turned your teabagger rhetoric against you by grabbing one of your catchphrases, "will of the people." Do you believe in the will of the people or not? If so, it seems the people of San Francisco should have the democratic right to decide for themselves how much government control they accept. You agree with that, right? Will of the people? Right? Bueller?

(If you weren't one of the nutters spouting the tea party propaganda points, my apologies. I seem to remember your name popping up regularly, but I don't keep lists.)

I misread your position. I dont think I ever said will of the people. SF can govern themselves as they see it, as long as the abide by state and federal laws they can be as fucking crazy as they want.

That should just about clear up everything

 

[PJABBER]

Ahhh... like it should be your choice whether to build nuclear weapons?
If we remove all DOE restrictions, you could get into the lucrative uranium enrichment business (what right is it of anybody's to stop you), with a market in the Middle East just dying to get their hands on it (and even more happy to die after they get their hands on it.) With that market making the start-up costs worthwhile, the cost of enriched uranium would come down to the price where anyone could afford it!
No regulation on any of the parts, with 70 years of data on exactly how to make one freely available to anyone who wants one. If somebody has an 'accident' in their basement shop we can just prosecute... their remains; right?

Strawmen don't win arguments.

There's reasons we have front-end controls for these things. As (1) the cost of irresponsibility increases, (2) the likelihood of responsibility decreases, and, (3) the value of responsible use decreases, the less weight there is for, "freedom."
The few can do without for the good of the many.

The burden should be a heavy one to prove that the greater good of any type overwhelms the individual right.

90mm recoiless has a use in the mountains. Even if used casually, little damage is likely, due to the sparse inhabitation.

Not much of a problem in the winter with heavy snow cover, but our biggest concern beyond the likely hearing loss we laughed off was the possibility of setting off a fire that we couldn't control. Hence, we almost always played only after a shower or rainstorm. See, we did consider more than just the fun of blowing up a pile of rocks or an extra big tree stump. Then there was that buck.

Not so much in New York City, where the only responsible use is not to use it. At which point it can't really be said that you own it. So if the only true owners would be the irresponsible... at which point why would it be legal to own?

A 90mm recoilless has quite a sound signature, the back blast is intense, you need an appropriate range for standoff, so yeah, I would not advocate casually USING it in NYC. On the other hand, why wouldn't you have a right to OWN one, if you were responsible in storing it and the ammo it uses?

But most people don't want a specialized toy like that. They want a concealable firearm for self-protection against predators. Why should the good citizens of NY, DC, Chicago not be allowed to protect themselves and their loved ones, while people who live elsewhere have that right? Why don't the citizens of NYC have the right to carry an equalizer when criminals hold to no such restriction?

 

[bamacre]

What I meant was that you are essentially agreeing with my points. I am a firm believer in free markets. Oversight is not a 4 letter word...... we at least agree that some oversight is beneficial.

To an extent, sure. I'm not an anarchist. Government is necessary for capitalism to work. I just wanted to make it crystal clear that I wasn't breaking from ideology, no need to.

 

[Amused]

To an extent, sure. I'm not an anarchist. Government is necessary for capitalism to work. I just wanted to make it crystal clear that I wasn't breaking from ideology, no need to.

Yep.

What the collectivists here do not understand, is that liberty means a strong federal government to protect the rights and freedoms of INDIVIDUALS.

They have no concept of that and equate liberty with anarchy. Probably because they have so little regard for their fellow man's ability to control his own life, money and property. In fact, it often seems they have no concept of personal responsibility, which is why they tend to want to stack new laws upon existing laws whenever a law is broken. They have this delusion that if enough laws are passed, and enough freedom is limited, no more laws will be broken. They actually think it is possible to "make it harder" to break laws.

And nothing beats the school teacher mentality they have of treating citizens. If one citizen is caught chewing gum in class, they think it best just to ban gum altogether.

Which all ties into the elitist mentality. They know best what we need, and will use authoritarian laws to make us conform for our own good and the good of the collective.

They see the public as nothing more than stupid, irresponsible animals who need to be controlled in every aspect of their life (except sex, reproduction and maybe drugs).

 

[IBMer]

They see the public as nothing more than stupid, irresponsible animals who need to be controlled in every aspect of their life (except sex, reproduction and maybe drugs).

Really, how many dry states are there still? This meaning states that still ban the sale of Alcohol on Sunday? Don't try to pin governance on just Liberals, the Religious Right would like to add a whole BUNCH of laws to govern peoples behaviors.

 

[PJABBER]

Then buy a Happy Meal and buy a Happy Meal toy, retard.

Grow up a bit and I will buy you a Happy Meal with a toy, too. :awe:

Goddamn Republicans can't figure out anything for themselves. They're the reason Jiffy Lube exists: Oil filters come packaged separate from cars and they're too stupid to figure out how to put the two together.

Jiffy Lube and Happy Meals with toys exist for the same reasons - they are convenient, they save time and time is money. Moms love them! Many Dads do, too!

Now if only Jiffy Lube would offer a junky toy along with the candy bowl and stale coffee, and McDonald's an oil change while you wait for your Happy Meal with toy, everyone would be extra special happy!

 

[Amused]

Really, how many dry states are there still? This meaning states that still ban the sale of Alcohol on Sunday? Don't try to pin governance on just Liberals, the Religious Right would like to add a whole BUNCH of laws to govern peoples behaviors.

I never insinuated that the religious right was any better. However, as I have explained before, while the RR is basically dead in the water with their agenda and has, at best, kept the status quo in some local areas, the "progressive" authoritarian left has been wildly successful with their agenda on both a local and national level.

 

[Bowfinger]

I misread your position. I dont think I ever said will of the people. SF can govern themselves as they see it, as long as the abide by state and federal laws they can be as fucking crazy as they want.

That should just about clear up everything

Fair enough. SF is definitely a world of its own. I like the city, great fun to visit, but not somewhere I'd care to live.

 

[Bowfinger]

Translation: "It's not my bull being gored, so fuck it."

You are so full of shit.

I'm surprised you don't drown in rain storms with how high you hold your nose in the air.

I'll let you know when I care what you think. For now I'll merely note that your translation skills are quite impaired, likely by your poor reading comprehension, or maybe just because it's hard to see the screen with your head wedged so firmly between your cheeks. Toodles.

 

[Bowfinger]

Heaven forbid I be labled as a Bowfinger apologist (or even worse, a lefty by association) ....

Shhh. Your secret's safe with me. 😀


Watch yourself Corn. Thanksgiving's coming, don't want you to wind up as an entree.

 

[Amused]

I'll let you know when I care what you think. For now I'll merely note that your translation skills are quite impaired, likely by your poor reading comprehension, or maybe just because it's hard to see the screen with your head wedged so firmly between your cheeks. Toodles.

Nice attempt at denial.

But... fail. That is EXACTLY what you mean.

 

[Bowfinger]

Nice attempt at denial.

But... fail. That is EXACTLY what you mean.

What part of "unreasonably intrusive" is too hard for your addled little brain to comprehend? I'm guessing those "dumb people" you see are in your mirror.

 

[Amused]

What part of "unreasonably intrusive" is too hard for your addled little brain to comprehend? I'm guessing those "dumb people" you see are in your mirror.

What you fail to see is that "reasonable" is purely subjective. And what is reasonable to you is, first and foremost, what doesn't gore your bull.

That you think it is "reasonable" to tell a business that they can't put a toy in their children's meals only shows that you are not that business and it doesn't affect you. Your opinion would be vastly different if it was your business being affected.

Frankly, your inability to see this is almost as astounding as your smugness.

 

[Bowfinger]

What you fail to see is that "reasonable" is purely subjective. And what is reasonable to you is, first and foremost, what doesn't gore your bull.

That you think it is "reasonable" to tell a business that they can't put a toy in their children's meals only shows that you are not that business and it doesn't affect you. Your opinion would be vastly different if it was your business being affected.

Frankly, your inability to see this is almost as astounding as your smugness.

Hey stupid: "... it seems like an UNreasonably intrusive approach to the problem."

UNreasonably
UNreasonably
UN UN UN reasonably

You have had this pointed out like four times now. Is any of it sinking in yet? L2read idiot.

 

[manimal]

To an extent, sure. I'm not an anarchist. Government is necessary for capitalism to work. I just wanted to make it crystal clear that I wasn't breaking from ideology, no need to.

heavens forbid we break from ideology...


^^


the point that is lost in this thread is we can believe through the sum of our experiences what is right and what is wrong, in the case of the happy meal I consider it the same as advertising cigarettes to children...

Does that position jibe with my ideological beliefs...in a way yes..in a way no....funny how complex people can be..


the dismissive nature of the rhetoric is getting tiresome...

 

[bamacre]

heavens forbid we break from ideology...

Sigh. I was responding to your implying that gov't had zero role in free market capitalism, that things such as fraud were considered legal. I wasn't attempting to defend myself, just correct your statement.