Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'GMD Social Forum' started by Ender Rises, May 19, 2007.
Why the Gun IS Civilization
ocool a generic article featuring points that have been made for centuries about this very same thing. Retreading 2nd amendment rights bullshit aside, these few choice lines made me laugh:
Wow, I read a few pages of this and it's really quite a ridiculous thread. Overwatch, you're crazy as fuck if you really believe the shit that you say.
Been to AZ once when I was young and the most memorable thing was how bad the water was. Like drinking lead. Easy to breathe tho.
I've been to arizona once and other than the canyons i thought the landscape was the bleakest / most depressing i'd ever seen.
Clearly you've never seen western Nebraska.
On guns: penises are just as dangerous, but we're not trying to regulate them/ban large ones, are we?
Juggalos don't like Charlie Sheen
Best youtube comment: "trash throwing trash at trash"
Yeah the water is pretty bad. RO systems make a fortune here. The desert is definitely an acquired taste, coming from back east. I thought the same thing when I first got here. It's like extreme vocals. Initially harsh, eventually loved. I'm going to miss the landscape.
Oh look, a generic poster wants to make a drive by ad hom. /yawn
When Juggalos throw trash at you, what actual conclusion can be made? Don't they throw trash at anyone/everything?
Explain the problem with the first quote.
My initial reaction is that the author makes the error of believing that "reason" will be the same for both parties of a disagreement; as though there's an objective well of reason that both can tap and derive some platonic ideal of their situation.
If reason were exactly the same for both parties in a discussion or disagreement, well...there wouldn't be a disagreement.
I wonder what the right wingers make of this
Exactly. The author oversimplifies the situation.
I find it pretty clear that the author recognizes this, and also recognizes that where persuasion/seeing eye to eye does not occur, the next step in achieving ones ends, if a person is insistent, is coercion. Hence, the necessity for a means of protection.
Dakryn can you respond to the article I linked please?
I thought you wanted the response of right-wingers? I am an anarchist.
What about situations where the person in possession of the firearm isn't the one in the right? This author seems to take the position that being in possession of a firearm constitutes superior "reason."
The Daily Show: Ron Paul is the 13th Floor
If "right" is subjective, the question is not about means of coercion, but the coercion itself. The means are irrelevant.