The problem with conservatism.

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: seriousbro

wow Corn was Owned like da a Biznitch he is Fa shizzle dawg LOL LOL LOL

Who let the "n0ob dawgs" in? roof roof roof.

 

[seriousbro]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: seriousbro

wow Corn was Owned like da a Biznitch he is Fa shizzle dawg LOL LOL LOL

Who let the "n0ob dawgs" in? roof roof roof.

I believe I have hurt your guys feelings I am so sorry

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: seriousbro

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: seriousbro

wow Corn was Owned like da a Biznitch he is Fa shizzle dawg LOL LOL LOL

Who let the "n0ob dawgs" in? roof roof roof.

I believe I have hurt your guys feelings I am so sorry

No, bro, you haven't....you've just exposed your mirror for all of us to see...

 

[seriousbro]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: seriousbro

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: seriousbro

wow Corn was Owned like da a Biznitch he is Fa shizzle dawg LOL LOL LOL

Who let the "n0ob dawgs" in? roof roof roof.

I believe I have hurt your guys feelings I am so sorry

No, bro, you haven't....you've just exposed your mirror for all of us to see...

I've exposed my mirror, wtf are you talking about.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: seriousbro

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: seriousbro

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Corn

Absolutely we differ, to a degree I think you'd find hard to imagine. An apology from you would mean nothing to me anyway. This isn't THAT sort of discussion. And just for the record, I'm not at all frustrated by your views on self-defense. I'm contemptuos of them, and it has NOTHING to do with your obvious religious leanings. Something else for you to consider: When you vote for someone who wants to make me helpless in the face of barbarity, you're voting for someone who wants to disarm my wife as well. At that point you move past being "rude" and firmly place yourself in the mortal enemy category. And there are millions of people who feel just as I do. Think about that in between sermons, sir.

My god, and some people here think I'm a pompus ass..........

I don't know what kind of danger you face in the world on a daily basis HW, but rest assured I have relied on my CCW to keep me safe. While I may roll my eyes occasionally at the suggestion that removing guns from society will cause criminals to love instead of hate, by no means do I consider those who hold those opinions to be "mortal enemies".

I may disagree with you politically but I like you, you don't take crap from some of these people who call themselves Cons when in reality they are a bunch of nimrods who would better be described as dixiecrats not true blue cons.

Your behavior merely gives creedence to the "gun nut" stereotype. I certainly don't need you arguing for my right to possess my firearms thank you very much.

And they're right, you are a pompous ass of galactic proportions. You prove it every time you pretend to understand EVERY aspect of life, Corny. You say you don't know what my situation is. That's right, you have no focking idea. That's why you should shut up about it until such as time that you do if ever. Besides, you just have you ass on your shoulders because I'm godless, right? Arguing for your rights? Dude, I couldn't care less what happens to you.

wow Corn was Owned like da a Biznitch he is Fa shizzle dawg LOL LOL LOL

But HE started it, as usual.

I like you man you don't take crap

Then you're as much of a rarity here as I am. Most of these guys pick at each other likes there's no tommorow, but then jump feminine when someone doesn't follow some non-extant "rule."

 

[Corn]

And they're right, you are a pompous ass of galactic proportions.

Of course they're right LimpMoron, it took a lot of work to develop my reputation in these parts.

You prove it every time you pretend to understand EVERY aspect of life, Corny.

LOL, the things that some people say sometimes. You've been here what, a week? Sh1t, I haven't yet begun to preach to you about life......*seguay*

You say you don't know what my situation is. That's right, you have no focking idea. That's why you should shut up about it until such as time that you do if ever.

Interesting reply indeed! Especially since yes, I did say I don't know your situation and as such I didn't say anything about it. But that fact, of course, doesn't mean that I don't already have an idea or two about your "situation" given the clues you've dropped in both word and behavior:

You've got quite the temper there LimpMoron. In what, the week since you've joined our little slice of paradise you've threatend to kick the ass of one of our members. Then in this thread you've ridiculed someone because of their religious beliefs while calling him a "mortal enemy". You don't appear to be all that stable of a personality. I think that I might understand why. When you say things like:

Besides, you just have you ass on your shoulders because I'm godless, right?

You are obviously frustrated in life. Frustrated because you can't understand, frustrated because you can't compete, frustrated because you are no one.I have no choice but to believe that either you are functionally illiterate or simply have the attention span similar to that of my cat, otherwise you would understand how utterly ridiculous this asertion of yours is, LOL! I'm not going to even bother explaining why.

Instead of forcing your wife to rely on a gun for her safety, try being a man, getting a job, and moving yourselves out of the ghetto. And don't be cruel, take your pet, JokerBro, with you.

This much I do know, someone as mentally unstable as you has no business owning a fire arm. You're a tragedy waiting to happen, and it's people like you who endanger my right to carry a firearm, far moreso than the gun grabbers--you're the morons giving them their ammunition.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: seriousbro

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: seriousbro

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: seriousbro

wow Corn was Owned like da a Biznitch he is Fa shizzle dawg LOL LOL LOL

Who let the "n0ob dawgs" in? roof roof roof.

I believe I have hurt your guys feelings I am so sorry

No, bro, you haven't....you've just exposed your mirror for all of us to see...

I've exposed my mirror, wtf are you talking about.

Sooner or later you'll understand the mirror.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Absolutely we differ, to a degree I think you'd find hard to imagine. An apology from you would mean nothing to me anyway. This isn't THAT sort of discussion. And just for the record, I'm not at all frustrated by your views on self-defense. I'm contemptuos of them, and it has NOTHING to do with your obvious religious leanings. Something else for you to consider: When you vote for someone who wants to make me helpless in the face of barbarity, you're voting for someone who wants to disarm my wife as well. At that point you move past being "rude" and firmly place yourself in the mortal enemy category. And there are millions of people who feel just as I do. Think about that in between sermons, sir.

Indeed. If you believed what I believed - that there is someone out there who loves you and those you love in a perfect way, more perfect that you could possibly love, your heart will be filled with joy and warmth and you will no longer feel the need to be vigilant.

But I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Vigilance isn't a curse, holy man, it's part of the game. Your "joy and warmth" is a self-fommented illusion that can be shattered forever by a chance encounter. I've seen it happen more than once. When people are forced to choose between piety and survival the latter almost always wins.

Indeed.

Your last statement may be true, but you never admit to over-dramatizing things to make this point over and over. What a cursed life you must live to feel constantly in need of defending yourself.

While we all feel obliged to defend our families (as much as you'd like to think you're unique in that respect) we don't all feel constantly threatened by people and that our liberties are taken away when we're not allowed to carry weapons on the streets.

You're right - we can be mortal enemies. Because your freedom to carry weapons end where they infringe upon mine - that is to have the peace of mind where I can walk the streets and not have to worry about a gunfight breaking out. If someone was out to get you, most people including myself would have no chance with or without a gun.

What an ego trip.

Don't you dare accuse me of undo drama, at least not while you claim to have a deep and fulfilling PERSONAL relationship with something that doesn't exist.

"Obliged?" More weasel-speech from a pompous knowitall. It's my >responsibilty< to keep my family as safe as humanly possible, because NO ONE else will. You really need to spend some time pointing your nose AWAY from the bible. You seem to have no IDEA how dangerous the "streets" can be depending on locale. EDUCATE yourself before you start spewing religion-scented air all over a place like this. BTW, I can't think of ONE thing about YOU I want changed at the point of a "good" government gun. Why can't you find the will to do the same for me in all that love and peace you SAY you believe in? Also, I never SAID I was unique in any way, pansy. Control yourself.

Yup, in the political arena of "anti self-defense" we ARE mortal enemies, and you're well on your way to loosing. More than 3/4 of the states have CCW in some form or another, and more WILL follow, whether it chaffs your pompous hide or not. Aw here we go now, Handgun control pap 101. "A gun can't help you!" You're joking right? Do you have any idea how persuasive a gun can be? If they're useless then why do the high priests of your order (people like Sarah Brady) surround themselves with ARMED guards, holy man?

Indeed I do have an ego, Mr. Pious. But the difference between yours and mine is that mine is based on REALITY, not regular doses of cosmic thumb-sucking. "God, please keep me safe and warm!!!"

/me rescinds offer of malted beverage. Looks like you've had enough already. We still agree(overall) on the gun issue though.

CkG

Yet you still feel the need to focus your treacly nonsense on me as if I care. I'm curious what don't we agree on in terms of the 2a? Do you have a problem with unrestricted carry?

We probably do agree - like I said I just disagree with your approach. However, bashing someone for their Christian beliefs doesn't sit well with me.

CkG

 

[Corn]

Sooner or later you'll understand the mirror.

Moonie can help him out with that.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Corn

Instead of forcing your wife to rely on a gun for her safety, try being a man, getting a job, and moving yourselves out of the ghetto. And don't be cruel, take your pet, JokerBro, with you.

You crossed the generally accepted line with this sh1t, boy.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Absolutely we differ, to a degree I think you'd find hard to imagine. An apology from you would mean nothing to me anyway. This isn't THAT sort of discussion. And just for the record, I'm not at all frustrated by your views on self-defense. I'm contemptuos of them, and it has NOTHING to do with your obvious religious leanings. Something else for you to consider: When you vote for someone who wants to make me helpless in the face of barbarity, you're voting for someone who wants to disarm my wife as well. At that point you move past being "rude" and firmly place yourself in the mortal enemy category. And there are millions of people who feel just as I do. Think about that in between sermons, sir.

Indeed. If you believed what I believed - that there is someone out there who loves you and those you love in a perfect way, more perfect that you could possibly love, your heart will be filled with joy and warmth and you will no longer feel the need to be vigilant.

But I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Vigilance isn't a curse, holy man, it's part of the game. Your "joy and warmth" is a self-fommented illusion that can be shattered forever by a chance encounter. I've seen it happen more than once. When people are forced to choose between piety and survival the latter almost always wins.

Indeed.

Your last statement may be true, but you never admit to over-dramatizing things to make this point over and over. What a cursed life you must live to feel constantly in need of defending yourself.

While we all feel obliged to defend our families (as much as you'd like to think you're unique in that respect) we don't all feel constantly threatened by people and that our liberties are taken away when we're not allowed to carry weapons on the streets.

You're right - we can be mortal enemies. Because your freedom to carry weapons end where they infringe upon mine - that is to have the peace of mind where I can walk the streets and not have to worry about a gunfight breaking out. If someone was out to get you, most people including myself would have no chance with or without a gun.

What an ego trip.

Don't you dare accuse me of undo drama, at least not while you claim to have a deep and fulfilling PERSONAL relationship with something that doesn't exist.

"Obliged?" More weasel-speech from a pompous knowitall. It's my >responsibilty< to keep my family as safe as humanly possible, because NO ONE else will. You really need to spend some time pointing your nose AWAY from the bible. You seem to have no IDEA how dangerous the "streets" can be depending on locale. EDUCATE yourself before you start spewing religion-scented air all over a place like this. BTW, I can't think of ONE thing about YOU I want changed at the point of a "good" government gun. Why can't you find the will to do the same for me in all that love and peace you SAY you believe in? Also, I never SAID I was unique in any way, pansy. Control yourself.

Yup, in the political arena of "anti self-defense" we ARE mortal enemies, and you're well on your way to loosing. More than 3/4 of the states have CCW in some form or another, and more WILL follow, whether it chaffs your pompous hide or not. Aw here we go now, Handgun control pap 101. "A gun can't help you!" You're joking right? Do you have any idea how persuasive a gun can be? If they're useless then why do the high priests of your order (people like Sarah Brady) surround themselves with ARMED guards, holy man?

Indeed I do have an ego, Mr. Pious. But the difference between yours and mine is that mine is based on REALITY, not regular doses of cosmic thumb-sucking. "God, please keep me safe and warm!!!"

/me rescinds offer of malted beverage. Looks like you've had enough already. We still agree(overall) on the gun issue though.

CkG

Yet you still feel the need to focus your treacly nonsense on me as if I care. I'm curious what don't we agree on in terms of the 2a? Do you have a problem with unrestricted carry?

We probably do agree - like I said I just disagree with your approach. However, bashing someone for their Christian beliefs doesn't sit well with me.

CkG

Nor does does superciliousness sit well with me, no matter what the source. READ what he said to me CAD, and don't be so quick to judge.

"Your last statement may be true, but you never admit to over-dramatizing things to make this point over and over. What a cursed life you must live to feel constantly in need of defending yourself."

I guess I should have blown him a kiss after him trying to superimpose his views over mine. And when that was over, spent all night trying to explain my life-story so he would understand why I feel the way I do about self-defense.

"You're right - we can be mortal enemies. Because your freedom to carry weapons end where they infringe upon mine - that is to have the peace of mind where I can walk the streets and not have to worry about a gunfight breaking out. If someone was out to get you, most people including myself would have no chance with or without a gun."

If you know anything about the gun debate in this country CAD, you should have been just as aggressive in your response to this drivel.

I don't understand you man. When Witling felt it would be useful to tell me "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen", you roared your approval. I said right at first that I didn't want to spend my time here thinking up insults. This was taken to mean that I was a pansy or something. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can play just as rough as any of you (though I do have limits, as indicated by my reply to Corny's racist crap). And now that I've "gotten with the program", you tell me not to be so mean?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Absolutely we differ, to a degree I think you'd find hard to imagine. An apology from you would mean nothing to me anyway. This isn't THAT sort of discussion. And just for the record, I'm not at all frustrated by your views on self-defense. I'm contemptuos of them, and it has NOTHING to do with your obvious religious leanings. Something else for you to consider: When you vote for someone who wants to make me helpless in the face of barbarity, you're voting for someone who wants to disarm my wife as well. At that point you move past being "rude" and firmly place yourself in the mortal enemy category. And there are millions of people who feel just as I do. Think about that in between sermons, sir.

Indeed. If you believed what I believed - that there is someone out there who loves you and those you love in a perfect way, more perfect that you could possibly love, your heart will be filled with joy and warmth and you will no longer feel the need to be vigilant.

But I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Vigilance isn't a curse, holy man, it's part of the game. Your "joy and warmth" is a self-fommented illusion that can be shattered forever by a chance encounter. I've seen it happen more than once. When people are forced to choose between piety and survival the latter almost always wins.

Indeed.

Your last statement may be true, but you never admit to over-dramatizing things to make this point over and over. What a cursed life you must live to feel constantly in need of defending yourself.

While we all feel obliged to defend our families (as much as you'd like to think you're unique in that respect) we don't all feel constantly threatened by people and that our liberties are taken away when we're not allowed to carry weapons on the streets.

You're right - we can be mortal enemies. Because your freedom to carry weapons end where they infringe upon mine - that is to have the peace of mind where I can walk the streets and not have to worry about a gunfight breaking out. If someone was out to get you, most people including myself would have no chance with or without a gun.

What an ego trip.

Don't you dare accuse me of undo drama, at least not while you claim to have a deep and fulfilling PERSONAL relationship with something that doesn't exist.

"Obliged?" More weasel-speech from a pompous knowitall. It's my >responsibilty< to keep my family as safe as humanly possible, because NO ONE else will. You really need to spend some time pointing your nose AWAY from the bible. You seem to have no IDEA how dangerous the "streets" can be depending on locale. EDUCATE yourself before you start spewing religion-scented air all over a place like this. BTW, I can't think of ONE thing about YOU I want changed at the point of a "good" government gun. Why can't you find the will to do the same for me in all that love and peace you SAY you believe in? Also, I never SAID I was unique in any way, pansy. Control yourself.

Yup, in the political arena of "anti self-defense" we ARE mortal enemies, and you're well on your way to loosing. More than 3/4 of the states have CCW in some form or another, and more WILL follow, whether it chaffs your pompous hide or not. Aw here we go now, Handgun control pap 101. "A gun can't help you!" You're joking right? Do you have any idea how persuasive a gun can be? If they're useless then why do the high priests of your order (people like Sarah Brady) surround themselves with ARMED guards, holy man?

Indeed I do have an ego, Mr. Pious. But the difference between yours and mine is that mine is based on REALITY, not regular doses of cosmic thumb-sucking. "God, please keep me safe and warm!!!"

/me rescinds offer of malted beverage. Looks like you've had enough already. We still agree(overall) on the gun issue though.

CkG

Yet you still feel the need to focus your treacly nonsense on me as if I care. I'm curious what don't we agree on in terms of the 2a? Do you have a problem with unrestricted carry?

We probably do agree - like I said I just disagree with your approach. However, bashing someone for their Christian beliefs doesn't sit well with me.

CkG

Nor does does superciliousness sit well with me, no matter what the source. READ what he said to me CAD, and don't be so quick to judge.

"Your last statement may be true, but you never admit to over-dramatizing things to make this point over and over. What a cursed life you must live to feel constantly in need of defending yourself."

I guess I should have blown him a kiss after him trying to superimpose his views over mine. And when that was over, spent all night trying to explain my life-story so he would understand why I feel the way I do about self-defense.

"You're right - we can be mortal enemies. Because your freedom to carry weapons end where they infringe upon mine - that is to have the peace of mind where I can walk the streets and not have to worry about a gunfight breaking out. If someone was out to get you, most people including myself would have no chance with or without a gun."

If you know anything about the gun debate in this country CAD, you should have been just as aggressive in your response to this drivel.

I don't understand you man. When Witling felt it would be useful to tell me "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen", you roared your approval. I said right at first that I didn't want to spend my time here thinking up insults. This was taken to mean that I was a pansy or something. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can play just as rough as any of you (though I do have limits, as indicated by my reply to Corny's racist crap). And now that I've "gotten with the program", you tell me not to be so mean?

No, I don't care what you think he said to you or about you. What I take issue with is the bashing of Christianity. I strongly support the right to carry guns and I do know quite a bit about the debate. You seem more than able to debate the gun issue and I would chime in if I felt you needed some support on the issue. But again -that isn't what I take issue with and actually I agree with you on that part. I don't however think that trying to trash Christianity is a way to debate things.
I never told you to not be so mean - I just don't approve of the Christian bashing. Berate him all you want on the gun issue but stooping to Christian bashing is repulsive and I don't approve. THAT(incase I haven't stated it clearly enough already) is what I take issue with.

CkG

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Absolutely we differ, to a degree I think you'd find hard to imagine. An apology from you would mean nothing to me anyway. This isn't THAT sort of discussion. And just for the record, I'm not at all frustrated by your views on self-defense. I'm contemptuos of them, and it has NOTHING to do with your obvious religious leanings. Something else for you to consider: When you vote for someone who wants to make me helpless in the face of barbarity, you're voting for someone who wants to disarm my wife as well. At that point you move past being "rude" and firmly place yourself in the mortal enemy category. And there are millions of people who feel just as I do. Think about that in between sermons, sir.

Indeed. If you believed what I believed - that there is someone out there who loves you and those you love in a perfect way, more perfect that you could possibly love, your heart will be filled with joy and warmth and you will no longer feel the need to be vigilant.

But I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Vigilance isn't a curse, holy man, it's part of the game. Your "joy and warmth" is a self-fommented illusion that can be shattered forever by a chance encounter. I've seen it happen more than once. When people are forced to choose between piety and survival the latter almost always wins.

Indeed.

Your last statement may be true, but you never admit to over-dramatizing things to make this point over and over. What a cursed life you must live to feel constantly in need of defending yourself.

While we all feel obliged to defend our families (as much as you'd like to think you're unique in that respect) we don't all feel constantly threatened by people and that our liberties are taken away when we're not allowed to carry weapons on the streets.

You're right - we can be mortal enemies. Because your freedom to carry weapons end where they infringe upon mine - that is to have the peace of mind where I can walk the streets and not have to worry about a gunfight breaking out. If someone was out to get you, most people including myself would have no chance with or without a gun.

What an ego trip.

Don't you dare accuse me of undo drama, at least not while you claim to have a deep and fulfilling PERSONAL relationship with something that doesn't exist.

Please explain how that is drama when I believe it wholeheartedly. This thread will naturally not sit well with you as a nonChristian and apologies if this was not explained to you at the beginning. It's sad however, that you have this illusion of being in control of things by virtue of the hardware you carry.

"Obliged?" More weasel-speech from a pompous knowitall. It's my >responsibilty< to keep my family as safe as humanly possible, because NO ONE else will. You really need to spend some time pointing your nose AWAY from the bible. You seem to have no IDEA how dangerous the "streets" can be depending on locale. EDUCATE yourself before you start spewing religion-scented air all over a place like this. BTW, I can't think of ONE thing about YOU I want changed at the point of a "good" government gun. Why can't you find the will to do the same for me in all that love and peace you SAY you believe in? Also, I never SAID I was unique in any way, pansy. Control yourself.

Weasel speech? LOL. They're call synonyms.

Your arrogant and obnoxious attitude hardly covers your lack of reasoning. Please tell me how I claim to "know it all". The difference again between the two of us is that you believe in your own abilities, and I don't. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I can possibly be in control. It doesn't mean I won't try my best to do the same thing you do, though I'm sure to make your point it'll sound better to say that as Christians we believe in lying down instead. It just means that I trust in an authority you don't believe in. I'm sure you'll have something vitriolic to add to that however.

Yup, in the political arena of "anti self-defense" we ARE mortal enemies, and you're well on your way to loosing. More than 3/4 of the states have CCW in some form or another, and more WILL follow, whether it chaffs your pompous hide or not. Aw here we go now, Handgun control pap 101. "A gun can't help you!" You're joking right? Do you have any idea how persuasive a gun can be? If they're useless then why do the high priests of your order (people like Sarah Brady) surround themselves with ARMED guards, holy man?

Indeed I do have an ego, Mr. Pious. But the difference between yours and mine is that mine is based on REALITY, not regular doses of cosmic thumb-sucking. "God, please keep me safe and warm!!!"

I do not belong to an order, and my denomination doesn't have priests. The truth is, I do not belong to the religious right, and I don't agree with a lot of the things they do. As for you, your attacks against my faith do not offend me - they are only testament to your outer ego and inner insecurity.

HW, we cannot continue this debate without venturing further into my defending my faith and you attacking it, because it is the basis for my beliefs and yours for your disbelief - this was not the intention of my thread. If you wish to attack it further I politely request that you start a new one.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Absolutely we differ, to a degree I think you'd find hard to imagine. An apology from you would mean nothing to me anyway. This isn't THAT sort of discussion. And just for the record, I'm not at all frustrated by your views on self-defense. I'm contemptuos of them, and it has NOTHING to do with your obvious religious leanings. Something else for you to consider: When you vote for someone who wants to make me helpless in the face of barbarity, you're voting for someone who wants to disarm my wife as well. At that point you move past being "rude" and firmly place yourself in the mortal enemy category. And there are millions of people who feel just as I do. Think about that in between sermons, sir.

Indeed. If you believed what I believed - that there is someone out there who loves you and those you love in a perfect way, more perfect that you could possibly love, your heart will be filled with joy and warmth and you will no longer feel the need to be vigilant.

But I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Vigilance isn't a curse, holy man, it's part of the game. Your "joy and warmth" is a self-fommented illusion that can be shattered forever by a chance encounter. I've seen it happen more than once. When people are forced to choose between piety and survival the latter almost always wins.

Indeed.

Your last statement may be true, but you never admit to over-dramatizing things to make this point over and over. What a cursed life you must live to feel constantly in need of defending yourself.

While we all feel obliged to defend our families (as much as you'd like to think you're unique in that respect) we don't all feel constantly threatened by people and that our liberties are taken away when we're not allowed to carry weapons on the streets.

You're right - we can be mortal enemies. Because your freedom to carry weapons end where they infringe upon mine - that is to have the peace of mind where I can walk the streets and not have to worry about a gunfight breaking out. If someone was out to get you, most people including myself would have no chance with or without a gun.

What an ego trip.

Don't you dare accuse me of undo drama, at least not while you claim to have a deep and fulfilling PERSONAL relationship with something that doesn't exist.

"Obliged?" More weasel-speech from a pompous knowitall. It's my >responsibilty< to keep my family as safe as humanly possible, because NO ONE else will. You really need to spend some time pointing your nose AWAY from the bible. You seem to have no IDEA how dangerous the "streets" can be depending on locale. EDUCATE yourself before you start spewing religion-scented air all over a place like this. BTW, I can't think of ONE thing about YOU I want changed at the point of a "good" government gun. Why can't you find the will to do the same for me in all that love and peace you SAY you believe in? Also, I never SAID I was unique in any way, pansy. Control yourself.

Yup, in the political arena of "anti self-defense" we ARE mortal enemies, and you're well on your way to loosing. More than 3/4 of the states have CCW in some form or another, and more WILL follow, whether it chaffs your pompous hide or not. Aw here we go now, Handgun control pap 101. "A gun can't help you!" You're joking right? Do you have any idea how persuasive a gun can be? If they're useless then why do the high priests of your order (people like Sarah Brady) surround themselves with ARMED guards, holy man?

Indeed I do have an ego, Mr. Pious. But the difference between yours and mine is that mine is based on REALITY, not regular doses of cosmic thumb-sucking. "God, please keep me safe and warm!!!"

/me rescinds offer of malted beverage. Looks like you've had enough already. We still agree(overall) on the gun issue though.

CkG

Yet you still feel the need to focus your treacly nonsense on me as if I care. I'm curious what don't we agree on in terms of the 2a? Do you have a problem with unrestricted carry?

We probably do agree - like I said I just disagree with your approach. However, bashing someone for their Christian beliefs doesn't sit well with me.

CkG

Nor does does superciliousness sit well with me, no matter what the source. READ what he said to me CAD, and don't be so quick to judge.

"Your last statement may be true, but you never admit to over-dramatizing things to make this point over and over. What a cursed life you must live to feel constantly in need of defending yourself."

I guess I should have blown him a kiss after him trying to superimpose his views over mine. And when that was over, spent all night trying to explain my life-story so he would understand why I feel the way I do about self-defense.

"You're right - we can be mortal enemies. Because your freedom to carry weapons end where they infringe upon mine - that is to have the peace of mind where I can walk the streets and not have to worry about a gunfight breaking out. If someone was out to get you, most people including myself would have no chance with or without a gun."

If you know anything about the gun debate in this country CAD, you should have been just as aggressive in your response to this drivel.

I don't understand you man. When Witling felt it would be useful to tell me "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen", you roared your approval. I said right at first that I didn't want to spend my time here thinking up insults. This was taken to mean that I was a pansy or something. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can play just as rough as any of you (though I do have limits, as indicated by my reply to Corny's racist crap). And now that I've "gotten with the program", you tell me not to be so mean?

No, I don't care what you think he said to you or about you. What I take issue with is the bashing of Christianity. I strongly support the right to carry guns and I do know quite a bit about the debate. You seem more than able to debate the gun issue and I would chime in if I felt you needed some support on the issue. But again -that isn't what I take issue with and actually I agree with you on that part. I don't however think that trying to trash Christianity is a way to debate things.
I never told you to not be so mean - I just don't approve of the Christian bashing. Berate him all you want on the gun issue but stooping to Christian bashing is repulsive and I don't approve. THAT(incase I haven't stated it clearly enough already) is what I take issue with.

CkG

Of course you don't care, I don't expect you to. That's my job. Are you really so blind that you think I don't support his RIGHT to seek solace in ANY manner he chooses? Of all you pseudo-intellectual, high-post count "elites" and general forum goers, I SEEM to be the only constitutionalist. As such I'd risk my life to protect his freedom of worship. But I won't tolerate him extending his choices to include me. Especially if he tries to justify voting away MY rights with warmed over HCI propaganda. One last thing on this subject: Please stop trying to dangle your approval in front of me as some sort of prize, CAD. I neither seek nor require it in order to freely express my opinions.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarriorHW, we cannot continue this debate without venturing further into my defending my faith and you attacking it, because it is the basis for my beliefs and yours for your disbelief - this was not the intention of my thread. If you wish to attack it further I politely request that you start a new one.

You don't need to defend anything to me, just like I shouldn't have to tell you why I believe so strongly in my right to defend myself. But, I'd be glad to put away my sword, if you'll do the same. The issue of gun-control isn't a simple as you seem to think. Self-defense cuts to the heart of what we are as human beings, just as much as religion does. As far as me attacking your beliefs: You did a fair job of attacking mine by saying that the simple act of carrying a means of self-defense turns otherwise peaceful citizens into trigger-happy fools, just itching to START a gun fight. By proxy you included me, personally, in this scenario (I carry a very powerful handgun most days, for about 15-years). If I were in your shoes, I would have expected retaliation. I used what I thought would damage you most, and I regret that. Now, if you're willing, I'd be more that glad to impart a perspective on self-defense that it doesn't seem you've heard before. We can do it privately, in a new thread or not at all. The choice is yours.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarriorHW, we cannot continue this debate without venturing further into my defending my faith and you attacking it, because it is the basis for my beliefs and yours for your disbelief - this was not the intention of my thread. If you wish to attack it further I politely request that you start a new one.

You don't need to defend anything to me, just like I shouldn't have to tell you why I believe so strongly in my right to defend myself. But, I'd be glad to put away my sword, if you'll do the same. The issue of gun-control isn't a simple as you seem to think. Self-defense cuts to the heart of what we are as human beings, just as much as religion does. As far as me attacking your beliefs: You did a fair job of attacking mine by saying that the simple act of carrying a means of self-defense turns otherwise peaceful citizens into trigger-happy fools, just itching to START a gun fight. By proxy you included me, personally, in this scenario (I carry a very powerful handgun most days, for about 15-years). If I were in your shoes, I would have expected retaliation. I used what I thought would damage you most, and I regret that. Now, if you're willing, I'd be more that glad to impart a perspective on self-defense that it doesn't seem you've heard before. We can do it privately, in a new thread or not at all. The choice is yours.

First of all, thanks for calming down. I did mention at some point that there is room for debate as far as Biblical doctrine is concerned, and it was only my opinion that at most a simple handgun should be allowed - and in the home. As I had mentioned I can understand why the threat of disarming would be so offensive to you, especially if you've carried one for 15 yrs.

My comment however, was nowhere near as personal as yours, proxy or no proxy. And though I believe most citizens are peaceful and well-mannered, it only takes one person with access to weapons and in a fit of rage to make things messy. I did not mean to imply to any extent that guns turn people into "trigger-happy fools." Whatever reduces that likelihood I'm for.

Please continue with your perspective, I'm open to it, though I may not have a reply till Sat afternoon.

 

[Drphibes]

It only takes one person equally equipped to stop him also. Where as if it was illegal to have weapons at all nobody would be able to defend themselves. Weve had a war on drugs for a very long time now and i havent seen it even quelling the avalibility of them, do you think we can have a war on guns and eliminate them from the face of the earth. Do you know how easy it is to make a gun. Hypothetically, say we rid the world of guns so instead of using a gun our one person uses a bow and arrow or a sword dose that reduce the ammount of bloodshed and make it ok because its Not a gun thank goodness. So now we go to the extrem measure and make any projectile devices and cutting devices illegal well i can look around and get a pretty hefty rock thatd make short work of a person maybe we should all be put in straight jackets and locked in individual cells in convens to reprogram our sinful minds. A gun is just a tool the operator decides its use.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarriorHW, we cannot continue this debate without venturing further into my defending my faith and you attacking it, because it is the basis for my beliefs and yours for your disbelief - this was not the intention of my thread. If you wish to attack it further I politely request that you start a new one.

You don't need to defend anything to me, just like I shouldn't have to tell you why I believe so strongly in my right to defend myself. But, I'd be glad to put away my sword, if you'll do the same. The issue of gun-control isn't a simple as you seem to think. Self-defense cuts to the heart of what we are as human beings, just as much as religion does. As far as me attacking your beliefs: You did a fair job of attacking mine by saying that the simple act of carrying a means of self-defense turns otherwise peaceful citizens into trigger-happy fools, just itching to START a gun fight. By proxy you included me, personally, in this scenario (I carry a very powerful handgun most days, for about 15-years). If I were in your shoes, I would have expected retaliation. I used what I thought would damage you most, and I regret that. Now, if you're willing, I'd be more that glad to impart a perspective on self-defense that it doesn't seem you've heard before. We can do it privately, in a new thread or not at all. The choice is yours.

First of all, thanks for calming down. I did mention at some point that there is room for debate as far as Biblical doctrine is concerned, and it was only my opinion that at most a simple handgun should be allowed - and in the home. As I had mentioned I can understand why the threat of disarming would be so offensive to you, especially if you've carried one for 15 yrs.

My comment however, was nowhere near as personal as yours, proxy or no proxy. And though I believe most citizens are peaceful and well-mannered, it only takes one person with access to weapons and in a fit of rage to make things messy. I did not mean to imply to any extent that guns turn people into "trigger-happy fools." Whatever reduces that likelihood I'm for.

Please continue with your perspective, I'm open to it, though I may not have a reply till Sat afternoon.

Here, in words far more elloquent than anything I can offer:

A Nation of Cowards

Preface:
I have obtained reprint permission for the Internet for Jeffrey Snyder's "A
Nation of Cowards". It may be reproduced freely, including forwarding copies to
politicians, provided that it is not distributed for profit and subscription
information is included.

I especially encourage you to copy and pass on this strong statement about
firearms ownership to friends, colleagues, undecideds, and other firearms rights
supporters. Your grassroots pamphleteering can counter the propaganda blitz now
going on by introducing some reason to the debate. This essay is one of our best
weapons.

To get plaintext: ftp ftp.rkba.org, get /public_html/comment/cowards.txt The WWW
URL is: http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.txt
Jeff Chan

"A Nation of Cowards" was published in the Fall, '93 issue of The Public
Interest, a quarterly journal of opinion published by National Affairs, Inc.
Single copies of The Public Interest are available for $6. Annual subscription
rate is $21 ($24 US, for Canadian and foreign subscriptions). Single copies of
this or other issues, and subscriptions, can be obtained from:
The Public Interest
1112 16th St., NW, Suite 530
Washington, DC 20036
(C) 1993 by The Public Interest.

A NATION OF COWARDS
Jeffrey R. Snyder
OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for
individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture -- from
fashion magazines to the cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the
individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment,
and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion
that helping someone entails increasing that person's "self-esteem"; that if a
person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and,
in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.

And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and
incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment
continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence,
we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime
under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and
the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to
minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she
may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really
sends shivers down a rapist's spine, the portable cellular phone.

Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept
the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence
of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible
deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity
and poise, simply hand over the goods?

The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to
resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the
notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property
is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that
a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has
instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me
what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is
not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently,
someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that
kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.

Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a
commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity
lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will,
in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity.
It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may
not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting
for, it can hardly be said to exist.

The Gift of Life
Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely believed that
life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when offered violence was
to hold God's gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one's duty to one's
community. A sermon given in Philadelphia in 1747 unequivocally equated the
failure to defend oneself with suicide:
He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority
for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of
self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life,
and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself.

"Cowardice" and "self-respect" have largely disappeared from public discourse.
In their place we are offered "self-esteem" as the bellwether of success and a
proxy for dignity. "Self-respect" implies that one recognizes standards, and
judges oneself worthy by the degree to which one lives up to them. "Self-esteem"
simply means that one feels good about oneself. "Dignity" used to refer to the
self-mastery and fortitude with which a person conducted himself in the face of
life's vicissitudes and the boorish behavior of others. Now, judging by campus
speech codes, dignity requires that we never encounter a discouraging word and
that others be coerced into acting respectfully, evidently on the assumption
that we are powerless to prevent our degradation if exposed to the demeaning
behavior of others. These are signposts proclaiming the insubstantiality of our
character, the hollowness of our souls.

It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about
the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the
law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We
permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and
there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough
prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are
hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We
are a nation of cowards and shirkers.

Do You Feel Lucky?
In 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh released the FBI's annual
crime statistics, he noted that it is now more likely that a person will be the
victim of a violent crime than that he will be in an auto accident. Despite
this, most people readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them
of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves. The police,
however, are not personal bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to
crime, both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. As
numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect anyone in
particular. You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you from being the victim
of a crime.

Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good.
Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them.
Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you
are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.
Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a robbery, or a rape, you will find
it very difficult to call the police while the act is in progress, even if you
are carrying a portable cellular phone. Nevertheless, you might be interested to
know how long it takes them to show up. Department of Justice statistics for
1991 show that, for all crimes of violence, only 28 percent of calls are
responded to within five minutes. The idea that protection is a service people
can call to have delivered and expect to receive in a timely fashion is often
mocked by gun owners, who love to recite the challenge, "Call for a cop, call
for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first."

Many people deal with the problem of crime by convincing themselves that they
live, work, and travel only in special "crime-free" zones. Invariably, they
react with shock and hurt surprise when they discover that criminals do not play
by the rules and do not respect these imaginary boundaries. If, however, you
understand that crime can occur anywhere at anytime, and if you understand that
you can be maimed or mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider
whether you are willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life
in the hands of others.

Power And Responsibility
Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it?
If you believe that it is the police's, not only are you wrong -- since the
courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so -- but you
face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human
being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility
yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is
of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If
you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force
to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?
Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are
better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but
you're a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only
concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play
sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police
and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?

One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family
and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will
retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved
one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to
think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and
taking measures of avoidance. Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be
trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal
violence.

Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that can be
wielded effectively by almost anyone -- the handgun. Small and light enough to
be carried habitually, lethal, but unlike the knife or sword, not demanding
great skill or strength, it truly is the "great equalizer." Requiring only
hand-eye coordination and a modicum of ability to remain cool under pressure, it
can be used effectively by the old and the weak against the young and the
strong, by the one against the many.

The handgun is the only weapon that would give a lone female jogger a chance of
prevailing against a gang of thugs intent on rape, a teacher a chance of
protecting
children at recess from a madman intent on massacring them, a family
of tourists waiting at a mid-town subway station the means to protect themselves
from a gang of teens armed with razors and knives.

But since we live in a society that by and large outlaws the carrying of arms,
we are brought into the fray of the Great American Gun War. Gun control is one
of the most prominent battlegrounds in our current culture wars. Yet it is
unique in the half-heartedness with which our conservative leaders and pundits
-- our "conservative elite" -- do battle, and have conceded the moral high
ground to liberal gun control proponents. It is not a topic often written about,
or written about with any great fervor, by William F. Buckley or Patrick
Buchanan. As drug czar, William Bennett advised President Bush to ban "assault
weapons." George Will is on record as recommending the repeal of the Second
Amendment, and Jack Kemp is on record as favoring a ban on the possession of
semiautomatic "assault weapons." The battle for gun rights is one fought
predominantly by the common man. The beliefs of both our liberal and
conservative elites are in fact abetting the criminal rampage through our
society.

Selling Crime Prevention
By any rational measure, nearly all gun control proposals are hokum. The Brady
Bill, for example, would not have prevented John Hinckley from obtaining a gun
to shoot President Reagan; Hinckley purchased his weapon five months before the
attack, and his medical records could not have served as a basis to deny his
purchase of a gun, since medical records are not public documents filed with the
police. Similarly, California's waiting period and background check did not stop
Patrick Purdy from purchasing the "assault rifle" and handguns he used to
massacre children during recess in a Stockton schoolyard; the felony conviction
that would have provided the basis for stopping the sales did not exist, because
Mr. Purdy's previous weapons violations were plea-bargained down from felonies
to misdemeanors.

In the mid-sixties there was a public service advertising campaign targeted at
car owners about the prevention of car theft. The purpose of the ad was to urge
car owners not to leave their keys in their cars. The message was, "Don't help a
good boy go bad." The implication was that, by leaving his keys in his car, the
normal, law-abiding car owner was contributing to the delinquency of minors who,
if they just weren't tempted beyond their limits, would be "good." Now, in those
days people still had a fair sense of just who was responsible for whose
behavior. The ad succeeded in enraging a goodly portion of the populace, and was
soon dropped.

Nearly all of the gun control measures offered by Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI)
and its ilk embody the same philosophy. They are founded on the belief that
America's law-abiding gun owners are the source of the problem. With their
unholy desire for firearms, they are creating a society awash in a sea of guns,
thereby helping good boys go bad, and helping bad boys be badder. This laying of
moral blame for violent crime at the feet of the law-abiding, and the implicit
absolution of violent criminals for their misdeeds, naturally infuriates honest
gun owners.

The files of HCI and other gun control organizations are filled with proposals
to limit the availability of semiautomatic and other firearms to law-abiding
citizens, and barren of proposals for apprehending and punishing violent
criminals. It is ludicrous to expect that the proposals of HCI, or any gun
control laws, will significantly curb crime. According to Department of Justice
and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) statistics, fully 90 percent
of violent crimes are committed without a handgun, and 93 percent of the guns
obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through the lawful purchase and
sale transactions that are the object of most gun control legislation.
Furthermore, the number of violent criminals is minute in comparison to the
number of firearms in America -- estimated by the ATF at about 200 million,
approximately one-third of which are handguns. With so abundant a supply, there
will always be enough guns available for those who wish to use them for
nefarious ends, no matter how complete the legal prohibitions against them, or
how draconian the punishment for their acquisition or use. No, the gun control
proposals of HCI and other organizations are not seriously intended as crime
control. Something else is at work here.

The Tyranny of the Elite
Gun control is a moral crusade against a benighted, barbaric citizenry. This is
demonstrated not only by the ineffectualness of gun control in preventing crime,
and by the fact that it focuses on restricting the behavior of the law-abiding
rather than apprehending and punishing the guilty, but also by the execration
that gun control proponents heap on gun owners and their evil instrumentality,
the NRA. Gun owners are routinely portrayed as uneducated, paranoid rednecks
fascinated by and prone to violence, i.e., exactly the type of person who
opposes the liberal agenda and whose moral and social "re-education" is the
object of liberal social policies. Typical of such bigotry is New York Gov.
Mario Cuomo's famous characterization of gun-owners as "hunters who drink beer,
don't vote, and lie to their wives about where they were all weekend." Similar
vituperation is rained upon the NRA, characterized by Sen. Edward Kennedy as the
"pusher's best friend," lampooned in political cartoons as standing for the
right of children to carry firearms to school and, in general, portrayed as
standing for an individual's God-given right to blow people away at will.

The stereotype is, of course, false. As criminologist and constitutional lawyer
Don B. Kates, Jr. and former HCI contributor Dr. Patricia Harris have pointed
out, "tudies consistently show that, on the average, gun owners are better
educated and have more prestigious jobs than non-owners.... Later studies show
that gun owners are less likely than non-owners to approve of police brutality,
violence against dissenters, etc."

Conservatives must understand that the antipathy many liberals have for gun
owners arises in good measure from their statist utopianism. This habit of mind
has nowhere been better explored than in The Republic. There, Plato argues that
the perfectly just society is one in which an unarmed people exhibit virtue by
minding their own business in the performance of their assigned functions, while
the government of philosopher-kings, above the law and protected by armed
guardians unquestioning in their loyalty to the state, engineers, implements,
and fine-tunes the creation of that society, aided and abetted by myths that
both hide and justify their totalitarian manipulation.

The Unarmed Life
When columnist Carl Rowan preaches gun control and uses a gun to defend his
home, when Maryland Gov. William Donald Schaefer seeks legislation year after
year to ban semiautomatic "assault weapons" whose only purpose, we are told, is
to kill people, while he is at the same time escorted by state police armed with
large-capacity 9mm semiautomatic pistols, it is not simple hypocrisy. It is the
workings of that habit of mind possessed by all superior beings who have taken
upon themselves the terrible burden of civilizing the masses and who understand,
like our Congress, that laws are for other people.

The liberal elite know that they are philosopher-kings. They know that the
people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair
self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist,
sexist, homophobic, and inequitable -- and the liberal elite know how to fix
things. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have
to lie to us and force us to do it. And they detest those who stand in their
way.

The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this utopian zeal. To own
firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state. It
is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom
and liberty, to stand ready to defend that freedom with more than mere words,
and to stand outside the state's totalitarian reach.

The Florida Experience
The elitist distrust of the people underlying the gun control movement is
illustrated beautifully in HCI's campaign against a new concealed-carry law in
Florida. Prior to 1987, the Florida law permitting the issuance of
concealed-carry permits was administered at the county level. The law was vague,
and, as a result, was subject to conflicting interpretation and political
manipulation. Permits were issued principally to security personnel and the
privileged few with political connections. Permits were valid only within the
county of issuance.

In 1987, however, Florida enacted a uniform concealed-carry law which mandates
that county authorities issue a permit to anyone who satisfies certain objective
criteria. The law requires that a permit be issued to any applicant who is a
resident, at least twenty-one years of age, has no criminal record, no record of
alcohol or drug abuse, no history of mental illness, and provides evidence of
having satisfactorily completed a firearms safety course offered by the NRA or
other competent instructor. The applicant must provide a set of fingerprints,
after which the authorities make a background check. The permit must be issued
or denied within ninety days, is valid throughout the state, and must be renewed
every three years, which provides authorities a regular means of reevaluating
whether the permit holder still qualifies.

Passage of this legislation was vehemently opposed by HCI and the media. The
law, they said, would lead to citizens shooting each other over everyday
disputes involving fender benders, impolite behavior, and other slights to their
dignity. Terms like "Florida, the Gunshine State" and "Dodge City East" were
coined to suggest that the state, and those seeking passage of the law, were
encouraging individuals to act as judge, jury, and executioner in a "Death Wish"
society.

No HCI campaign more clearly demonstrates the elitist beliefs underlying the
campaign to eradicate gun ownership. Given the qualifications required of permit
holders, HCI and the media can only believe that common, law-abiding citizens
are seething cauldrons of homicidal rage, ready to kill to avenge any slight to
their dignity, eager to seek out and summarily execute the lawless. Only lack of
immediate access to a gun restrains them and prevents the blood from flowing in
the streets. They are so mentally and morally deficient that they would mistake
a permit to carry a weapon in self-defense as a state-sanctioned license to kill
at will.

Did the dire predictions come true? Despite the fact that Miami and Dade County
have severe problems with the drug trade, the homicide rate fell in Florida
following enactment of this law, as it did in Oregon following enactment of
similar legislation there. There are, in addition, several documented cases of
new permit holders successfully using their weapons to defend themselves.
Information from the Florida Department of State shows that, from the beginning
of the program in 1987 through June 1993, 160,823 permits have been issued, and
only 530, or about 0.33 percent of the applicants, have been denied a permit for
failure to satisfy the criteria, indicating that the law is benefitting those
whom it was intended to benefit -- the law-abiding. Only 16 permits, less than
1/100th of 1 percent, have been revoked due to the post-issuance commission of a
crime involving a firearm.

The Florida legislation has been used as a model for legislation adopted by
Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Mississippi. There are, in addition, seven other
states (Maine, North and South Dakota, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and,
with the exception of cities with a population in excess of 1 million,
Pennsylvania) which provide that concealed-carry permits must be issued to
law-abiding citizens who satisfy various objective criteria. Finally, no permit
is required at all in Vermont. Altogether, then, there are thirteen states in
which law-abiding citizens who wish to carry arms to defend themselves may do
so. While no one appears to have compiled the statistics from all of these
jurisdictions, there is certainly an ample data base for those seeking the truth
about the trustworthiness of law-abiding citizens who carry firearms.

Other evidence also suggests that armed citizens are very responsible in using
guns to defend themselves. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck,
using surveys and other data, has determined that armed citizens defend their
lives or property with firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times
a year. In 98 percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the
weapon or fires a warning shot. Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens
actually shoot their assailants. In defending themselves with their firearms,
armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three times the number
killed by the police. A nationwide study by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and
criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an
innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the
police, however, was 11 percent, over five times as high.

It is simply not possible to square the numbers above and the experience of
Florida with the notions that honest, law-abiding gun owners are borderline
psychopaths itching for an excuse to shoot someone, vigilantes eager to seek out
and summarily execute the lawless, or incompetent fools incapable of determining
when it is proper to use lethal force in defense of their lives. Nor upon
reflection should these results seem surprising. Rape, robbery, and attempted
murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring
special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man
pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a
crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance
that she is going to shoot the wrong person. It is the police, because they are
rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs, who are more likely to find
themselves in circumstances where guilt and innocence are not so clear-cut, and
in which the probability for mistakes is higher.

Arms and Liberty
Classical republican philosophy has long recognized the critical relationship
between personal liberty and the possession of arms by a people ready and
willing to use them. Political theorists as dissimilar as Niccolo Machiavelli,
Sir Thomas More, James Harrington, Algernon Sidney, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques
Rousseau all shared the view that the possession of arms is vital for resisting
tyranny, and that to be disarmed by one's government is tantamount to being
enslaved by it. The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant
that government governs only with the consent of the governed. As Kates has
shown, the Second Amendment is as much a product of this political philosophy as
it is of the American experience in the Revolutionary War. Yet our conservative
elite has abandoned this aspect of republican theory. Although our conservative
pundits recognize and embrace gun owners as allies in other arenas, their battle
for gun rights is desultory. The problem here is not a statist utopianism,
although goodness knows that liberals are not alone in the confidence they have
in the state's ability to solve society's problems. Rather, the problem seems to
lie in certain cultural traits shared by our conservative and liberal elites.

One such trait is an abounding faith in the power of the word. The failure of
our conservative elite to defend the Second Amendment stems in great measure
from an overestimation of the power of the rights set forth in the First
Amendment, and a general undervaluation of action. Implicit in calls for the
repeal of the Second Amendment is the assumption that our First Amendment rights
are sufficient to preserve our liberty. The belief is that liberty can be
preserved as long as men freely speak their minds; that there is no tyranny or
abuse that can survive being exposed in the press; and that the truth need only
be disclosed for the culprits to be shamed. The people will act, and the truth
shall set us, and keep us, free.

History is not kind to this belief, tending rather to support the view of
Hobbes, Machiavelli, and other republican theorists that only people willing and
able to defend themselves can preserve their liberties. While it may be tempting
and comforting to believe that the existence of mass electronic communication
has forever altered the balance of power between the state and its subjects, the
belief has certainly not been tested by time, and what little history there is
in the age of mass communication is not especially encouraging. The camera,
radio, and press are mere tools and, like guns, can be used for good or ill.
Hitler, after all, was a masterful orator, used radio to very good effect, and
is well known to have pioneered and exploited the propaganda opportunities
afforded by film. And then, of course, there were the Brownshirts, who knew very
well how to quell dissent among intellectuals.

Polite Society
In addition to being enamored of the power of words, our conservative elite
shares with liberals the notion that an armed society is just not civilized or
progressive, that massive gun ownership is a blot on our civilization. This
association of personal disarmament with civilized behavior is one of the great
unexamined beliefs of our time.

Should you read English literature from the sixteenth through nineteenth
centuries, you will discover numerous references to the fact that a gentleman,
especially when out at night or traveling, armed himself with a sword or a
pistol against the chance of encountering a highwayman or other such predator.
This does not appear to have shocked the ladies accompanying him. True, for the
most part there were no police in those days, but we have already addressed the
notion that the presence of the police absolves people of the responsibility to
look after their safety, and in any event the existence of the police cannot be
said to have reduced crime to negligible levels.

It is by no means obvious why it is "civilized" to permit oneself to fall easy
prey to criminal violence, and to permit criminals to continue unobstructed in
their evil ways. While it may be that a society in which crime is so rare that
no one ever needs to carry a weapon is "civilized," a society that stigmatizes
the carrying of weapons by the law-abiding -- because it distrusts its citizens
more than it fears rapists, robbers, and murderers -- certainly cannot claim
this distinction. Perhaps the notion that defending oneself with lethal force is
not "civilized" arises from the view that violence is always wrong, or the view
that each human being is of such intrinsic worth that it is wrong to kill anyone
under any circumstances. The necessary implication of these propositions,
however, is that life is not worth defending. Far from being "civilized," the
beliefs that counterviolence and killing are always wrong are an invitation to
the spread of barbarism. Such beliefs announce loudly and clearly that those who
do not respect the lives and property of others will rule over those who do.

In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal violence
shows contempt of God's gift of life (or, in modern parlance, does not properly
value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities to his family and
community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally deficient, because he does
not trust himself to behave responsibly. In truth, a state that deprives its
law-abiding citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not
civilized but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs
and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the
disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are
men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly.
While gun control proponents and other advocates of a kinder, gentler society
incessantly decry our "armed society," in truth we do not live in an armed
society. We live in a society in which violent criminals and agents of the state
habitually carry weapons, and in which many law-abiding citizens own firearms
but do not go about armed. Department of Justice statistics indicate that 87
percent of all violent crimes occur outside the home. Essentially, although tens
of millions own firearms, we are an unarmed society.

Take Back the Night
Clearly the police and the courts are not providing a significant brake on
criminal activity. While liberals call for more poverty, education, and drug
treatment programs, conservatives take a more direct tack. George Will advocates
a massive increase in the number of police and a shift toward "community-based
policing." Meanwhile, the NRA and many conservative leaders call for laws that
would require violent criminals serve at least 85 percent of their sentences and
would place repeat offenders permanently behind bars.

Our society suffers greatly from the beliefs that only official action is
legitimate and that the state is the source of our earthly salvation. Both
liberal and conservative prescriptions for violent crime suffer from the "not in
my job description" school of thought regarding the responsibilities of the
law-abiding citizen, and from an overestimation of the ability of the state to
provide society's moral moorings. As long as law-abiding citizens assume no
personal responsibility for combatting crime, liberal and conservative programs
will fail to contain it.

Judging by the numerous articles about concealed-carry in gun magazines, the
growing number of products advertised for such purpose, and the increase in the
number of concealed-carry applications in states with mandatory-issuance laws,
more and more people, including growing numbers of women, are carrying firearms
for self-defense. Since there are still many states in which the issuance of
permits is discretionary and in which law enforcement officials routinely deny
applications, many people have been put to the hard choice between protecting
their lives or respecting the law. Some of these people have learned the hard
way, by being the victim of a crime, or by seeing a friend or loved one raped,
robbed, or murdered, that violent crime can happen to anyone, anywhere at
anytime, and that crime is not about sex or property but life, liberty, and
dignity.

The laws proscribing concealed-carry of firearms by honest, law-abiding citizens
breed nothing but disrespect for the law. As the Founding Fathers knew well, a
government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with
the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest
citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the
people. A federal law along the lines of the Florida statute -- overriding all
contradictory state and local laws and acknowledging that the carrying of
firearms by law-abiding citizens is a privilege and immunity of citizenship --
is needed to correct the outrageous conduct of state and local officials
operating under discretionary licensing systems.

What we certainly do not need is more gun control. Those who call for the repeal
of the Second Amendment so that we can really begin controlling firearms betray
a serious misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not
grant rights to the people, such that its repeal would legitimately confer upon
government the powers otherwise proscribed. The Bill of Rights is the list of
the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that define
what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights which must exist
to ensure that government governs only with the consent of the people.
At one time this was even understood by the Supreme Court. In United States v.
Cruikshank (1876), the first case in which the Court had an opportunity to
interpret the Second Amendment, it stated that the right confirmed by the Second
Amendment "is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any
manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The repeal of the
Second Amendment would no more render the outlawing of firearms legitimate than
the repeal of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would authorize the
government to imprison and kill people at will. A government that abrogates any
of the Bill of Rights, with or without majoritarian approval, forever acts
illegitimately, becomes tyrannical, and loses the moral right to govern.

This is the uncompromising understanding reflected in the warning that America's
gun owners will not go gently into that good, utopian night: "You can have my
gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." While liberals take this
statement as evidence of the retrograde, violent nature of gun owners, we gun
owners hope that liberals hold equally strong sentiments about their printing
presses, word processors, and television cameras. The republic depends upon
fervent devotion to all our fundamental rights.

World-Wide-Web html format by
Scott Ostrander: scotto@cica.indiana.edu-nospam

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Lately, I've been trying to convince not only other people, but myself, that I am indeed a conservative thinker.

If you were a true "conservative thinker," you wouldn't feel a need to convince others. Why do you feel a need to convince others regarding the way you think?

That's easy. Because it's become fashionable and we're being told that it's important to do so. We hack at each other over silly sh1t while government types of all stripes rob us blind and treat us like retarded children.

You are being told to do so, not me...and we all know which side likes to be "fashionable.'

What ever lets you sleep at night.

Keep thinking that, if it makes you happy.

 

[Drphibes]

pheww that was a long post hard. The main reason gun controll has progressed so far is the belief that removing guns will eliminate violence however all one has to do to rebuke this is look to the history books. People were killing each other long before the gun was invented, for you biblest types kane comes to mind.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Drphibes
pheww that was a long post hard. The main reason gun controll has progressed so far is the belief that removing guns will eliminate violence however all one has to do to rebuke this is look to the history books. People were killing each other long before the gun was invented, for you biblest types kane comes to mind.

Yeah, it's an eyefull for sure. But its changed more minds than any other single piece of pro gun text. If anyone wants more, MUCH more, it can be found here.

 

[Siddhartha]

The interpretation of the Christian bible has changed over time.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
The interpretation of the Christian bible has changed over time.

Yup, but its practitioners still expect blanket amnesty for anything they do or say.

 

[Corn]

You crossed the generally accepted line with this sh1t, boy.

So does that mean that I can assume you want to kick my ass too? Sweet! Just PM me with a time and place you chickenshit punk, lets go.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Absolutely we differ, to a degree I think you'd find hard to imagine. An apology from you would mean nothing to me anyway. This isn't THAT sort of discussion. And just for the record, I'm not at all frustrated by your views on self-defense. I'm contemptuos of them, and it has NOTHING to do with your obvious religious leanings. Something else for you to consider: When you vote for someone who wants to make me helpless in the face of barbarity, you're voting for someone who wants to disarm my wife as well. At that point you move past being "rude" and firmly place yourself in the mortal enemy category. And there are millions of people who feel just as I do. Think about that in between sermons, sir.

Indeed. If you believed what I believed - that there is someone out there who loves you and those you love in a perfect way, more perfect that you could possibly love, your heart will be filled with joy and warmth and you will no longer feel the need to be vigilant.

But I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Vigilance isn't a curse, holy man, it's part of the game. Your "joy and warmth" is a self-fommented illusion that can be shattered forever by a chance encounter. I've seen it happen more than once. When people are forced to choose between piety and survival the latter almost always wins.

Indeed.

Your last statement may be true, but you never admit to over-dramatizing things to make this point over and over. What a cursed life you must live to feel constantly in need of defending yourself.

While we all feel obliged to defend our families (as much as you'd like to think you're unique in that respect) we don't all feel constantly threatened by people and that our liberties are taken away when we're not allowed to carry weapons on the streets.

You're right - we can be mortal enemies. Because your freedom to carry weapons end where they infringe upon mine - that is to have the peace of mind where I can walk the streets and not have to worry about a gunfight breaking out. If someone was out to get you, most people including myself would have no chance with or without a gun.

What an ego trip.

Don't you dare accuse me of undo drama, at least not while you claim to have a deep and fulfilling PERSONAL relationship with something that doesn't exist.

"Obliged?" More weasel-speech from a pompous knowitall. It's my >responsibilty< to keep my family as safe as humanly possible, because NO ONE else will. You really need to spend some time pointing your nose AWAY from the bible. You seem to have no IDEA how dangerous the "streets" can be depending on locale. EDUCATE yourself before you start spewing religion-scented air all over a place like this. BTW, I can't think of ONE thing about YOU I want changed at the point of a "good" government gun. Why can't you find the will to do the same for me in all that love and peace you SAY you believe in? Also, I never SAID I was unique in any way, pansy. Control yourself.

Yup, in the political arena of "anti self-defense" we ARE mortal enemies, and you're well on your way to loosing. More than 3/4 of the states have CCW in some form or another, and more WILL follow, whether it chaffs your pompous hide or not. Aw here we go now, Handgun control pap 101. "A gun can't help you!" You're joking right? Do you have any idea how persuasive a gun can be? If they're useless then why do the high priests of your order (people like Sarah Brady) surround themselves with ARMED guards, holy man?

Indeed I do have an ego, Mr. Pious. But the difference between yours and mine is that mine is based on REALITY, not regular doses of cosmic thumb-sucking. "God, please keep me safe and warm!!!"

/me rescinds offer of malted beverage. Looks like you've had enough already. We still agree(overall) on the gun issue though.

CkG

Yet you still feel the need to focus your treacly nonsense on me as if I care. I'm curious what don't we agree on in terms of the 2a? Do you have a problem with unrestricted carry?

We probably do agree - like I said I just disagree with your approach. However, bashing someone for their Christian beliefs doesn't sit well with me.

CkG

Nor does does superciliousness sit well with me, no matter what the source. READ what he said to me CAD, and don't be so quick to judge.

"Your last statement may be true, but you never admit to over-dramatizing things to make this point over and over. What a cursed life you must live to feel constantly in need of defending yourself."

I guess I should have blown him a kiss after him trying to superimpose his views over mine. And when that was over, spent all night trying to explain my life-story so he would understand why I feel the way I do about self-defense.

"You're right - we can be mortal enemies. Because your freedom to carry weapons end where they infringe upon mine - that is to have the peace of mind where I can walk the streets and not have to worry about a gunfight breaking out. If someone was out to get you, most people including myself would have no chance with or without a gun."

If you know anything about the gun debate in this country CAD, you should have been just as aggressive in your response to this drivel.

I don't understand you man. When Witling felt it would be useful to tell me "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen", you roared your approval. I said right at first that I didn't want to spend my time here thinking up insults. This was taken to mean that I was a pansy or something. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can play just as rough as any of you (though I do have limits, as indicated by my reply to Corny's racist crap). And now that I've "gotten with the program", you tell me not to be so mean?

No, I don't care what you think he said to you or about you. What I take issue with is the bashing of Christianity. I strongly support the right to carry guns and I do know quite a bit about the debate. You seem more than able to debate the gun issue and I would chime in if I felt you needed some support on the issue. But again -that isn't what I take issue with and actually I agree with you on that part. I don't however think that trying to trash Christianity is a way to debate things.
I never told you to not be so mean - I just don't approve of the Christian bashing. Berate him all you want on the gun issue but stooping to Christian bashing is repulsive and I don't approve. THAT(incase I haven't stated it clearly enough already) is what I take issue with.

CkG

Of course you don't care, I don't expect you to. That's my job. Are you really so blind that you think I don't support his RIGHT to seek solace in ANY manner he chooses? Of all you pseudo-intellectual, high-post count "elites" and general forum goers, I SEEM to be the only constitutionalist. As such I'd risk my life to protect his freedom of worship. But I won't tolerate him extending his choices to include me. Especially if he tries to justify voting away MY rights with warmed over HCI propaganda. One last thing on this subject: Please stop trying to dangle your approval in front of me as some sort of prize, CAD. I neither seek nor require it in order to freely express my opinions.

Buahahaha

Someone has to try pretty hard to not understand what I'm saying about this. I agree with your comments on the gun issue. However, I think making comments like -

not regular doses of cosmic thumb-sucking. "God, please keep me safe and warm!!!"

you claim to have a deep and fulfilling PERSONAL relationship with something that doesn't exist.

and the other snide comments about Christianity.

Someday I hope someone will have the patience and fortitude to help you in ways that are near impossible over the intarweb.
That is all.

CkG