Shprocket 1's Comments
Tim Giachetti:
Ad hominem attacks are a retarded way to convince someone that your argument is valid, and are also evidence that you don't really have an argument at all, just an emotion. Ad hominem attacks that call the opposition retarded are themselves severely retarded.
Would you like cake now?
Ad hominem attacks are a retarded way to convince someone that your argument is valid, and are also evidence that you don't really have an argument at all, just an emotion. Ad hominem attacks that call the opposition retarded are themselves severely retarded.
Would you like cake now?
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Ak:
First of all, gun rights in America aren't just a matter of culture, they're a matter of our most fundamental laws, which are spelled out in the Constitution.
As for what good it does to kill someone, it certainly acts as a deterrent to them as individuals. If you kill the guy who broke into your house, he definitely won't be breaking into your (or anyone's) house ever again. Hopefully other like-minded individuals will hear about his death, and will think twice before breaking into ANYONE'S house.
No, criminals don't have a database of houses that are safe or unsafe to rob... but the more freedom we have to defend ourselves from robbery, the more criminals will be shot while committing their crimes. This both reduces the sheer number of robbers, and makes robbery in general a less attractive career choice. Your hypothetical database-checking robbers would be more likely to simply decide to do something less risky than breaking into a home if they lived in a world where the shooting of robbers by homeowners was more common.
Note that I still don't support shooting people in the back as they run away from you, but I personally would have no problem shooting to disable rather than kill in the same situation. Letting the robbers go means someone else may get robbed tomorrow, and the robbers might take more than property next time. Like your database of gun owners, the database of houses where nobody is home is also mythical. Burglars break into houses prepared to do SOMETHING if someone turns out to be home, so burglary is quite a bit scarier than a simple matter of someone running off with your stuff.
First of all, gun rights in America aren't just a matter of culture, they're a matter of our most fundamental laws, which are spelled out in the Constitution.
As for what good it does to kill someone, it certainly acts as a deterrent to them as individuals. If you kill the guy who broke into your house, he definitely won't be breaking into your (or anyone's) house ever again. Hopefully other like-minded individuals will hear about his death, and will think twice before breaking into ANYONE'S house.
No, criminals don't have a database of houses that are safe or unsafe to rob... but the more freedom we have to defend ourselves from robbery, the more criminals will be shot while committing their crimes. This both reduces the sheer number of robbers, and makes robbery in general a less attractive career choice. Your hypothetical database-checking robbers would be more likely to simply decide to do something less risky than breaking into a home if they lived in a world where the shooting of robbers by homeowners was more common.
Note that I still don't support shooting people in the back as they run away from you, but I personally would have no problem shooting to disable rather than kill in the same situation. Letting the robbers go means someone else may get robbed tomorrow, and the robbers might take more than property next time. Like your database of gun owners, the database of houses where nobody is home is also mythical. Burglars break into houses prepared to do SOMETHING if someone turns out to be home, so burglary is quite a bit scarier than a simple matter of someone running off with your stuff.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Terry, I forgot to say: your comment about the man's looks is really out of line. I'm referring to this:
"Also, what an ugly looking man. He’s photo radiates psycho-christian-redneck culture. YUK!"
I fail to see the difference between your statement and some psycho-Christian redneck looking at a photo of a black guy and saying "Look how ugly he is! His photo radiates nigger-rapist-looter-gangster culture. YUK!"
Judging people by their skin color is just one form of judging people by the way they look.
"Also, what an ugly looking man. He’s photo radiates psycho-christian-redneck culture. YUK!"
I fail to see the difference between your statement and some psycho-Christian redneck looking at a photo of a black guy and saying "Look how ugly he is! His photo radiates nigger-rapist-looter-gangster culture. YUK!"
Judging people by their skin color is just one form of judging people by the way they look.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Terry, "all property is theft" isn't some trendy catchphrase made up by someone in your social circle, and in fact it was from something written by Ralph Waldo Emerson ("In the final analysis, all property is theft"), who was -- surprise! -- an American.
(Note that Emerson may have come up with this on his own, and may have been paraphrasing from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who simply said "Property is theft.")
It's all very nice to have ideals and take the high moral ground on such issues, but it's also a mark of immaturity and naivety. Someday you'll be older and wiser, and you'll realize that Communist and Anarchist ideals are exactly that and nothing more: ideals. Unfortunately, such ideals do not work well in the real world with real humans and their very real failure to adhere to the assumptions made by people like Karl Marx. Give us an Anarchist or Communist revolution today, and we will have a strongman as dictator tomorrow. Anarchy fails because human nature abhors a power vacuum... Communism fails because people who have power do not simply give it up for the greater good, no matter what Marx had to say about it.
Obviously you CARE, or you wouldn't even be interested in ideas like "all property is theft." The thing is, your efforts are needed -- everyone's efforts are needed -- in fighting the good fight realistically and effectively. You're not going to bring about Communism or Anarchism any more than Christianity is ever going to make its adherents behave in a Christ-like way. Give it up. Grow up. Put your effort into fighting a fight you can win. Fight within the limits of the system we have; forget your childish 2-dimensional pipe dreams about everyone sharing everything equally, and get busy doing what you can to defend the Constitution against the Fascist neocon pigs who are so busy dismantling it. For an American citizen, anything less is dereliction of duty.
(Note that Emerson may have come up with this on his own, and may have been paraphrasing from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who simply said "Property is theft.")
It's all very nice to have ideals and take the high moral ground on such issues, but it's also a mark of immaturity and naivety. Someday you'll be older and wiser, and you'll realize that Communist and Anarchist ideals are exactly that and nothing more: ideals. Unfortunately, such ideals do not work well in the real world with real humans and their very real failure to adhere to the assumptions made by people like Karl Marx. Give us an Anarchist or Communist revolution today, and we will have a strongman as dictator tomorrow. Anarchy fails because human nature abhors a power vacuum... Communism fails because people who have power do not simply give it up for the greater good, no matter what Marx had to say about it.
Obviously you CARE, or you wouldn't even be interested in ideas like "all property is theft." The thing is, your efforts are needed -- everyone's efforts are needed -- in fighting the good fight realistically and effectively. You're not going to bring about Communism or Anarchism any more than Christianity is ever going to make its adherents behave in a Christ-like way. Give it up. Grow up. Put your effort into fighting a fight you can win. Fight within the limits of the system we have; forget your childish 2-dimensional pipe dreams about everyone sharing everything equally, and get busy doing what you can to defend the Constitution against the Fascist neocon pigs who are so busy dismantling it. For an American citizen, anything less is dereliction of duty.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Tim Giachetti, could I have your address please? I could really use some new furniture and stuff. Well, new to me, anyway.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
If someone is robbing my neighbor's house, then my neighbor could very well be in danger of losing his life... and the same robbers could easily be coming to my house next to rob, rape, kill, or whatever. I have to question Horne's judgment in shooting to kill at someone who was apparently running away from him, but in the same position I would definitely pick up my gun and go over to the neighbor's place to stop what was going on and hopefully detain the perpetrators for the police.
Depending on the police to protect us is foolish, as witness the Virginia Tech shootings recently. How many people would have been killed that day if citizens were encouraged to defend themselves, and allowed to carry the weapons necessary to do so?
The demonization of guns is ridiculous and goes counter to all statistics on the subject, which show time after time after time that violent crime goes UP when you take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Hand-wringing, "thinking of the children" and other forms of decision-making that rely on emotions rather than intellect are erosive of freedom. Today's anti-gun movement is a perfect example of what Benjamin Franklin was talking about when he said that those who would sacrifice liberty for security don't deserve either and will get neither.
However, what's also ridiculous is the pigheadedness of organizations like the NRA, who insist on rights without responsibilities. I'm all for virtually eliminating gun control, as long as buying a gun means you are obligated to (1) get some training to go with it; and (2) use a trigger lock or a gun safe.
Both sides of the gun control debate in America have their heads up their asses, but if I have to take sides I'll side with the pro-gun lobby. Their position is incomplete, since it ignores personal responsibility for gun owners, but at least in supporting their position they aren't just MAKING SHIT UP out of pure overwrought emotion.
Depending on the police to protect us is foolish, as witness the Virginia Tech shootings recently. How many people would have been killed that day if citizens were encouraged to defend themselves, and allowed to carry the weapons necessary to do so?
The demonization of guns is ridiculous and goes counter to all statistics on the subject, which show time after time after time that violent crime goes UP when you take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Hand-wringing, "thinking of the children" and other forms of decision-making that rely on emotions rather than intellect are erosive of freedom. Today's anti-gun movement is a perfect example of what Benjamin Franklin was talking about when he said that those who would sacrifice liberty for security don't deserve either and will get neither.
However, what's also ridiculous is the pigheadedness of organizations like the NRA, who insist on rights without responsibilities. I'm all for virtually eliminating gun control, as long as buying a gun means you are obligated to (1) get some training to go with it; and (2) use a trigger lock or a gun safe.
Both sides of the gun control debate in America have their heads up their asses, but if I have to take sides I'll side with the pro-gun lobby. Their position is incomplete, since it ignores personal responsibility for gun owners, but at least in supporting their position they aren't just MAKING SHIT UP out of pure overwrought emotion.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Actually, this woman is not as outrageously wrong as she appears to be at first glance. The iPhone should cater in particular to the diverse needs of women, since only a total woman would want an iPhone in the first place.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
"I can’t wait for the time when all robbers will be killed so there are only robber-killers left, life will be so much better."
I can't wait for the time when all homes will be burgled by robbers who have no fear of anything but the police. Life will be so much better when only criminals have any property, and the rest of us live in empty houses.