Joined: Sun 08-20-2006 5:50PM Posts: 711 Location: the darkest pits of hell
Source: TJ South
Kingkoopa wrote:
I'm not leftist or rightist or w/e the fuck you want you call it. I am whatever I feel like doing at the time. I make my decisions on how I feel about that single issue, not how my 'party' would feel about it.
+1.
This 'left-right' bullshit nonsense is a presumptuous and baseless classification of people. Are we just assuming now that everyone who has ever voted for a Democrat wants to come steal your guns? Sure, some people have tendencies (though rarely do they perfectly align with our preconceived notions of liberal or conservative... words which have been perverted a thousand times over in American politics). Don't sit there and pretend that everyone who listens to NPR and drinks lattes is going to disarm you.
But I understand, it's what Rush told ya to think
_________________ "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."
I think we all know that Limbaugh is for the Right what Jessie Jackson is for the Left - someone who everybody on both sides of the isle wishes would just STFU and stop making their arguments look bad.
But agreed on governments staying the fuck out of my business.
_________________
BigPeeOn wrote:
Here's the deal: chemistry is the devil. Anything beyond balancing an chemical equation is black magic.
Libertarians are for "individual rights", and against "force" and "fraud" - just as THEY define it. Their use of these words, however, when examined in detail, is not likely to accord with the common meanings of these terms. What person would proclaim themselves in favor of "force and fraud"? One of the little tricks Libertarians use in debate is to confuse the ordinary sense of these words with the meaning as "terms of art" in Libertarian axioms. They try to set up a situation where if you say you're against "force and fraud", then obviously you must agree with Libertarian ideology, since those are the definitions. If you are in favor of "force and fraud", well, isn't that highly immoral? So you're either one of them, or some sort of degenerate (note the cultish aspect again), one who doesn't think "force and fraud must be banished from human relationships
Libertarianism is an attractive vantage for educated people who weren't quite in touch with the real world, but had an idealized version of it.
Joined: Sun 08-15-2004 9:36PM Posts: 4957 Location: ~~~~\o/~~~~~
Source: Off Campus
its not like they are the sith?
I dont understand people that think that once you choose a name to describe your political thoughts that you will soon conform to that party's stereotype. Any intelligent person asked what their political views are, will say the party BUT and declare other topics that they are a different viewpoint. That type of person I can respect, and even if you are completely one direction show some kind of intelligence and not that you are just following the rest of your party.
Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM Posts: 1652 Location: down the hill
Source: Fidelity
That's a bit of a disingenuous argument. Most people are in favor of force - all laws are some form of force. Laws against murder and robbery are just uses of force - against someone who has immorally initiated force. Laws against possession of things like marijuana, or against behaviors that only hurt yourself like not wearing a motorcycle helmet, are also the use of force - against someone who has done nothing immoral. Just because you're paying someone else to use force (a police officer), doesn't mean that you aren't in favor of using force.
And for the record, I've never heard the argument for libertarianism that the linked guy "refutes." That's known as a "straw man" argument.
_________________ heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!
Joined: Mon 02-12-2007 11:53PM Posts: 481 Location: Taking over the Universe
Source: TJ South
Goran wrote:
Libertarians are for "individual rights", and against "force" and "fraud" - just as THEY define it. Their use of these words, however, when examined in detail, is not likely to accord with the common meanings of these terms. What person would proclaim themselves in favor of "force and fraud"? One of the little tricks Libertarians use in debate is to confuse the ordinary sense of these words with the meaning as "terms of art" in Libertarian axioms. They try to set up a situation where if you say you're against "force and fraud", then obviously you must agree with Libertarian ideology, since those are the definitions. If you are in favor of "force and fraud", well, isn't that highly immoral? So you're either one of them, or some sort of degenerate (note the cultish aspect again), one who doesn't think "force and fraud must be banished from human relationships
Libertarianism is an attractive vantage for educated people who weren't quite in touch with the real world, but had an idealized version of it.
umad?
j/k ron paul 2012
As I said before, I don't take one parties side. Go ahead and call me a Libertarian. I don't really care. Just don't ask me my opinion on something and disagree just because your party says you should disagree. I'm not against 'force and fraud' as you stated. I believe there are laws for a reason and I follow most every one. I'm just saying that on the single subject of C&C, I think we shouldn't put extreme limits and/or make it illegal to carry. The cops aren't around me 24/7 and even when they are nearby, they are delayed still from the time it takes me or someone to call the cops and then have dispatch dispatch the officer to my area. That takes time that the assailant is going to use to try and kill me. If I can, I would rather be able to pull out a pistol and take him down myself to protect myself and my family/friends. Saying that doesn't mean that I feel speed limits should be taken out(example) because I'm an anarchist or something. I decide what I feel about on the specific issue. I think 'parties' are probably the stupidest thing ever. and I also do not respect people who believe and argue about something just cause their party says they should.
Joined: Sun 11-19-2006 9:39PM Posts: 275 Location: 20,000 feet and 800 knots
Source: Fidelity
C&C will protect us from the crazy guy behind the mine that likes to shoot at the explosives van. Might cause more random ass stray bullets through fraternity windows though
Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM Posts: 1652 Location: down the hill
Source: Somewhere On Campus
Duke of URL wrote:
C&C will protect us from the crazy guy behind the mine that likes to shoot at the explosives van. Might cause more random ass stray bullets through fraternity windows though
You think the people with a CCW license are going to go around randomly shooting fraternities?
The same people who passed extensive FBI, State, and local background checks with no felonies (like negligent discharge of a firearm, discharge of firearm into a residence, etc. - a felony bans you from ever touching a firearm, much less carrying one, for the rest of your life) or violent misdemeanors, who submitted fingerprints to the local sheriff and the FBI?
The same people who carry a gun everywhere BUT campus already? As in, they carry a gun while shopping, while driving around Rolla, and yes, even on the roads in front of and possibly even on the property of fraternities (which are off campus)?
You really think these people are going to commit a felony off campus (where they are already allowed to carry a gun) because they are allowed to carry a gun in one more place than they already can?
I thought you were going to college?
_________________ heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!
Joined: Mon 02-12-2007 11:53PM Posts: 481 Location: Taking over the Universe
Source: TJ South
Quote:
You think the people with a CCW license are going to go around randomly shooting fraternities?
The same people who passed extensive FBI, State, and local background checks with no felonies (like negligent discharge of a firearm, discharge of firearm into a residence, etc. - a felony bans you from ever touching a firearm, much less carrying one, for the rest of your life) or violent misdemeanors, who submitted fingerprints to the local sheriff and the FBI?
The same people who carry a gun everywhere BUT campus already? As in, they carry a gun while shopping, while driving around Rolla, and yes, even on the roads in front of and possibly even on the property of fraternities (which are off campus)?
You really think these people are going to commit a felony off campus (where they are already allowed to carry a gun) because they are allowed to carry a gun in one more place than they already can?
Joined: Sun 11-19-2006 9:39PM Posts: 275 Location: 20,000 feet and 800 knots
Source: Fidelity
it was a joke, lighten up, eh?
If I remember right, something happened last year or in a previous year where a random ass stray bullet went through a bedroom window of a fraternity, but the room wasn't being used by anyone. Weird stuff happens here.
Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM Posts: 1652 Location: down the hill
Source: Somewhere On Campus
Duke of URL wrote:
it was a joke, lighten up, eh?
If I remember right, something happened last year or in a previous year where a random ass stray bullet went through a bedroom window of a fraternity, but the room wasn't being used by anyone. Weird stuff happens here.
I figured it probably was a joke, but you know there are people who think that for real...
I remember the story about the stray bullet. It was a rifle bullet, and was slowed down enough by passing through two layers of drywall that it bounced off the next layer of drywall and ended up in the guy's pillow or something. It had to have come from a mile away to be going that slow.
_________________ heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum