Judge says that citizens should be armed. by Wulfenstar

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Judge says that citizens should be armed.

POSTED BY: WULFENSTAR
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 09:28
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3086
PAGE 2 of 2

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 7:59 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

NOT trying to start a flame war.

I want an honest, fair, argument against it.

Why?

Because I want to understand the opposing side of an argument.

So far, noone has done so.

WHICH leads me to believe that I am right. 100% correct. If that is the case, then I need to act upon that belief and work to change things towards my way of thought.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 8:02 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Agent, with that said...

Yes, history and current situation does play a key role. But it has been my experience, that "current situation" can change in the blink of an eye.

Remember, the dregs of society do not just stay in their little self-made hell holes. They do wash up on the shores of "nice" communities.

Luckily, most are so far removed from intelligence that they announce their presence as a threat from far off. Clothing, hair, speech, are all dead giveaways. (Before you get on me about this one, I mean it to apply to all races, creeds, colors, religions, and sexuality. And anything/anyone else I missed.)

That being said, I have yet to hear a valid reason as to why everyone (ESPECIALLY women) in our nation should NOT be armed at all times.

I mean, you want to make everyone equal? Cut down crime, make people feel and be more safe? Then everyone should be armed.

It should be as natural as taking your wallet and keys with you.

I thought you wanted to understand some motivations of anti-gun people?

The point that current life situations can change is kind of irrelevant for those whose current situation IS their current situation. They have not experienced that change, which is the entire reason they have a hard time understanding how it can and does in other places.

Sneering at that is pretty much zero productive.

No one is going to change their mind because you tell then they are being irrational and how it "should" be. They might change their mind if yu calmly explain WHY their thinking is irrational and WHY your idea would work better for them. Without an impatient tone to your words.

This seems more like you're looking for arguments to shoot down and feel better about yourself. Especially since you keep posting the same question over again, which seems really pushy and I'm getting the same impression that I got earlier: you're looking for a fight, not actual understanding. Why?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 8:03 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
NOT trying to start a flame war.

I want an honest, fair, argument against it.

Why?

Because I want to understand the opposing side of an argument.

So far, noone has done so.

WHICH leads me to believe that I am right. 100% correct. If that is the case, then I need to act upon that belief and work to change things towards my way of thought.

Are you really trying to convince anyone that you weren't already certain that you're 100% right? Because it's not working.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 8:08 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Again..

Im throwing down the gauntlet, so to speak.

Explain, why we should all be unarmed.

Explain your reasoning, your motivation, and the intended consequences of such an idea.

I have done my best to explain my P.O.V. I'd like the same.

I will NOT attack any argument. I really want to understand, and don't intend to berate someone for having a different viewpoint.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 8:22 AM

CHRISISALL

*In many situations where anger is involved, the addition of a gun would add a deadly element to what might otherwise be a simple bloody nose on one side or the other.

*If guns weren't available, criminals could not acquire them.

*Many kids hurt or kill themselves each decade with guns that were not properly stored or supervised.

These are the standard ones I hear.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 8:24 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Are you really trying to convince anyone that you weren't already certain that you're 100% right?

LOL, naw, I conjure he was lookin' to tussle.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 8:25 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Quote:
Because I want to understand the opposing side of an argument.

Well it's probably the same as your argument - that theyr'e afraid of being attacked.

Quote:
WHICH leads me to believe that I am right. 100% correct. If that is the case, then I need to act upon that belief and work to change things towards my way of thought.

Honestly if you do believe that, then yes do something about it. Nothing worng in that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 8:36 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Again..

Im throwing down the gauntlet, so to speak.

Explain, why we should all be unarmed.

Explain your reasoning, your motivation, and the intended consequences of such an idea.

I have done my best to explain my P.O.V. I'd like the same.

I will NOT attack any argument. I really want to understand, and don't intend to berate someone for having a different viewpoint.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt...

Maybe you should start a new thread for this, with clearer title. Because right now it seems like no one in this thread actually IS anti-gun, which is why you're not getting any genuine responses, you know?

And definitely be prepared to respect arguments that will seem irrational to you. In the interest of furthering understanding it might be helpful to not point out what you see as irrational but to ask further questions that will help you try the mindset on like a different coat.

For example, try to view a gun as a symbol of violence, a threat, an entirely negative thing that people who have a macho complex want to wave around to feel strong. Because no one you know (i.e., the sane, normal people) owns a gun or wants a gun or needs a gun. The only guns you see ARE on tv, used by crazy criminals or trigger-happy macho heroes or the police. What you hear about guns on the news is generally about irresponsible handling, or people who are defensive about their gun rights (Why so aggressive? How suspicious!) and so on. Guns are things that kill easily, without effort and at a distance, making them SEEM much more threatening that knives.

Try to really understand that it is a different experience of the world. It's not a rational argument based on all the information, and it is certainly not based on the reality of responsible, everyday gun owners, because many have not met them and heard very little of them. It is one based on one-sided information and the general wish to see this apparently threatening object removed from circulation. They are good people. Just with different information and conclusions than you have.

Respect that this is their reality and do not assign malicious intent in your mind. Be an ambassador.

Asking for a big plan how removing guns will make the world safer is not going to work because I don't think that's the basis for most anti-gun sentiment in the average person. I think it's mostly based on a learned instinct to distrust guns and their owners. It will only make you seem pushy and aggressive, like you're poised to take apart this non-existing plan and then gloat.

Maybe asking "Why are you afraid of wide-spread gun ownership" would actually be more helpful, come to think of it. Then you could enter a line of productive communication about pro's and con's.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 8:52 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
So Kwicko d'you watch F1 when you can?

No. I watch it when it's on. Seems like a subtle difference, but it's not. Watching when I can means if there's nothing else on, and I'm around the TV, I might give a look. No, I'm not like that at all. I get up at 5:00am on Sunday so I can watch it live on Speed Channel. When they go to Malaysia, China, Japan, Australia? I get up at whatever ungodly hour they're showing it live here in the U.S.

To be honest, my schedule gets somewhat screwed up then they're racing in the Western Hemisphere (Canada, Brazil, Indy, etc.) - I don't know how to act if I get to watch the race in the afternoon!

So... yeah, I'm a bit of an F1 junkie. LeMans, too - when Speed did flag-to-flag 24-hour coverage of the event, I stayed with them the entire race.

My heart's a little broken with F1 this year, since Honda have pulled out, Super Aguri ("Super Best Friends" as the commentators dubbed them) is gone, I heard rumors that Toyota was bowing out. Seems it'll be just another Ferrari-v-Mercedes year again. And the odds always seem to fall on Ferrari's side.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:10 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Still waiting for a reasonable argument for being disarmed....

That's a bit unfair, I'm not sure you've made a reasonable argument for everyone being armed yet.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:17 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
everyone being armed

Hmmm. I find THAT somewhat unsettling.

"Richard! Take that gun out of your brother's face & put the safety back on this INSTANT, young man!!!"

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:28 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:
No. I watch it when it's on. Seems like a subtle difference, but it's not. Watching when I can means if there's nothing else on, and I'm around the TV, I might give a look. No, I'm not like that at all. I get up at 5:00am on Sunday so I can watch it live on Speed Channel. When they go to Malaysia, China, Japan, Australia? I get up at whatever ungodly hour they're showing it live here in the U.S.

I didn't know what kind of covourage you have for it out there. Good to see it's broadcast live then.

Quote:
To be honest, my schedule gets somewhat screwed up then they're racing in the Western Hemisphere (Canada, Brazil, Indy, etc.) - I don't know how to act if I get to watch the race in the afternoon!

I always enjoy the ones when I have to stay up for them or wake up especially early. The event seems all the greater for it.

Quote:
So... yeah, I'm a bit of an F1 junkie. LeMans, too - when Speed did flag-to-flag 24-hour coverage of the event, I stayed with them the entire race.

Woah! That is a junkie :D I couldn't do the 24hours straight. That's impressive...But used to be I didn't miss an F1 race and in fact would pretty much write the weekend off because of it. I'd have a bunch of friends round and we'd just dedicate the weekend to it. In between we'd talk f1 and play it on playstation...

Quote:
My heart's a little broken with F1 this year, since Honda have pulled out, Super Aguri ("Super Best Friends" as the commentators dubbed them) is gone, I heard rumors that Toyota was bowing out. Seems it'll be just another Ferrari-v-Mercedes year again. And the odds always seem to fall on Ferrari's side.

I hear you. After Spa I decided that I'd see out the rest of the 2008 season and after that I'm basically done with it. I really just wanted to see Lewis Hamilton stick it to Ferrari. And he did that. As I'm shortly moving to Melbourne, I figure I'd go to that event with my girlfriends brother and that would essentially be it. I just became too dismayed at what happend in 2008.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE