Legitimate Arguments Against the 2nd Amendment

[fredtoast]

(02-23-2016, 01:33 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That doesn't exist.  

SN is dreaming of the "safe place" where only white people live.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-23-2016, 01:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why though?

You said it is arbitrary.  Yet you continue not to do it as if it were wrong somehow.

Interesting. 

It is arbitrary.

Drugs are destructive to a person.  So a smart person would stay away them.

A dumb person would embrace them.  I don't care if dumb people embrace drugs.

Same thing with giving alcohol to minors. 

I wouldn't give a 6 pack to a group of teenagers. 

However, I wouldn't say anything is wrong with someone else doing it.

Interesting indeed.  I love how you only get involved when a person has 3 people or more to reply back too.  Almost as if you enjoy ganging up on people.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-23-2016, 01:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: SN is dreaming of the "safe place" where only white people live.

Used to be Norwood, but I'll be damned if once I moved there they didn't start  letting those others in.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-23-2016, 01:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But you are still not seeing your mistake.
Your anecdotal evidence proves nothing.  It is completely worthless.  It is a waste of time arguing based on worthless information.
And, if fact, you anecdotal evidence did not even prove what you claim it proved.

I haven't made one. 

My evidence was based off of my opinion.  You asked for my opinion.  I gave it.

The laws don't stop the madness that you wish to prevent.

[fredtoast]

(02-23-2016, 01:40 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I haven't made one. 

My evidence was based off of my opinion.  You asked for my opinion.  I gave it.

The laws don't stop the madness that you wish to prevent.

I know it was your opinion.  All I was doing was pointing out the major fault in the basis for your opinion.

How many times do I need to repeat this before you understand.

[GMDino]

(02-23-2016, 01:38 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: It is arbitrary.

Drugs are destructive to a person.  So a smart person would stay away them.

A dumb person would embrace them.  I don't care if dumb people embrace drugs.

Same thing with giving alcohol to minors. 

I wouldn't give a 6 pack to a group of teenagers. 

However, I wouldn't say anything is wrong with someone else doing it.

So you don't do it because it is wrong but you think it would be OK if someone else did it and so there should not be a law against it.

(02-23-2016, 01:38 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Interesting indeed.  I love how you only get involved when a person has 3 people or more to reply back too.  Almost as if you enjoy ganging up on people.

Awww...too hard to keep up with your "thoughts" all at once?

Maybe you need to be more "self reliant"?



There's no law against it....is there?

[BengalHawk62]

Quit attacking SN.  He doesn't have his all powerful friends here to help. 

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-23-2016, 01:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Anarchy is a fun think to think of.  I read a ton of books that take place from 600-1300 England and Europe because there is an appealing nature.   The thing is, a lot of people die.  And are raped.  And are enslaved.  And starve when people take all they have.  

I said I have anarchist tendencies.  Not that I am an Anarchist.  You are reading books from a time where they didn't have guns that made all men equal.

God made Man - Sam Colt made man equal.

An armed 80 year old woman stands just as much of a chance in a duel as Burfict does.  During your time that you are envisioning, she wouldn't.  Now if she had a .22 and Burfict has a .22, and they were at a distance.  Burfict doesn't have the same advantage that he would in the past.

(02-23-2016, 01:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not SN though.

He's "pretty self reliant".

Ahh I get it.  Mock someone when you can't emulated them.  Weak people do that.

(02-23-2016, 01:15 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No you need the laws because of people like me.

Well if you are unwilling to see that drinking and driving is dangerous, then, yes we would need to have laws because of people like you.  If you can't control your temper, then we would need laws because of people like you.

(02-23-2016, 01:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Right up until the bigger guy decides he wants his stuff.  We all think of ourselves as the winners during anarchy, but very few are.  

Bigger guys aren't necessarily the tougher guys.  Not only that, but technology also allows for guys like me to be able to stand my ground against bigger guys.  See Burfict, he can't hurt me if he isn't close to me.  Even without firearms, there are plenty of long range weapons that would remove his size advantage, if someone were competent in their use.

(02-23-2016, 01:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: even if you can control yourself you need the protection from other people.  That is what we all need.

You know, like when you were begging for a safe place for white people to live.

Where did I say we couldn't work together?  Anarchy doesn't say that "Everyone is for themselves".  It is about voluntary exchange.  I have seen some models of anarchy where the police force is privatized and not government regulated.

As to your 2nd part.  I was not begging for a safe place for white people.  Just equality for white people.  If colleges create safe places for nonwhites, then they should do the same for whites.  Of course I also think white people should be free to associate with whoever they please.

For instance:  Estonia doesn't want black NATO troops.  The black troops are complaining about racism.  My solution, would be remove the black NATO soldiers (yes even the American ones) and replacing them with white soldiers.  Instead of FORCING both parties into being uncomfortable, why not respect the wishes of the Estonian people and not put Black Soldiers in places that they will feel unwelcome in.

Instead we have childish people like you, that think the best solution is to FORCE black soldiers into Estonia.  You think this automatically will solve the Estonians wish to not have black soldiers in their country and that blacks will start feeling welcomed there.

(02-23-2016, 01:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What you need to do is learn a little history.

In every case in every nation on earth people were much crueler to each other when there was little or no legitimate authority or laws.  They took what they wanted.  They killed who they wanted.  They did not live together in peace and respect each other.

I am well aware of the history.  I have anarchist tendencies, don't misread that as me being full on anarchist.  Our society is evolving.  People evolve.  Again your argument is that "I'm scared, so I need someone to protect me". 

Fine, get someone to protect you.  However you need to provide something of value to that person. 

(02-23-2016, 01:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That's how you think it works?

That is how it works.  Just think about the internet.  People have the security of knowing that the person they are insulting is miles away.  Can't find them and can't hurt them.  If you were to take away that security, people on the internet would be more civil to each other.

(02-23-2016, 01:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Totally false.

People who make claims like this are just uneducated and completely ignorant of all history.

A highly armed society is always more violent.  Always has been throughout history.

If we lived in the Dark Ages then you would be correct.  Are we living in the Dark Ages Fred?  I could have sworn that we are far more enlightened now.

(02-23-2016, 01:33 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That doesn't exist.  

Really?  You think the only reason my neighbors and friends haven't killed me, is because the law stops them?  It already exist.

(02-23-2016, 01:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes, everyone would rather live in make believe land.

But most of us understand reality.

You don't show that you understand much of anything.  So I can't blame you for not understanding reality.  You think that the laws are what is keeping you safe.  Criminals still exist even with those laws and you could still be killed by a criminal.

(02-23-2016, 01:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you grew up with out a father figure?

That explains a lot more.

Only that your father was a bad one that didn't teach you about analyzing the situation without jumping into.

(02-23-2016, 01:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: SN is dreaming of the "safe place" where only white people live.

You say this like it is a bad thing Fred.  Why should it be a bad thing that white people have a place that they can go to and be with other white people?

It wouldn't be a safe place exactly, but a place where white men and white women can raise their white children.  Tell me how that is a bad thing?

(02-23-2016, 01:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Used to be Norwood, but I'll be damned if once I moved there they didn't start  letting those others in.

We called it Nerdwood.

Wasn't a bad place either.  How is it now?

I take it you think that all white communities and nations are a bad thing?

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-23-2016, 01:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you don't do it because it is wrong but you think it would be OK if someone else did it and so there should not be a law against it.




Awww...too hard to keep up with your "thoughts" all at once?  

Maybe you need to be more "self reliant"?



There's no law against it....is there?

Exactly.

Not my job to parent other peoples kids.  So if a group of teenagers wanted a 6 pack, I wouldn't give it to them, but if they can find someone who will, then good for them.

Well, shows how you can't handle direct confrontation, so you rely on the multiple people asking different questions all at once.  Just so you can think you are somehow winning. 

No law against it.  Just an observation.  I have learned a lot about your character.  

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-23-2016, 02:11 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Quit attacking SN.  He doesn't have his all powerful friends here to help. 

No need.

If they want to come all at once, they can.

It is a tactic they liked to do on the other boards as well.

Have 3 or more asked questions and make post rapid fire.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-23-2016, 01:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I know it was your opinion.  All I was doing was pointing out the major fault in the basis for your opinion.

How many times do I need to repeat this before you understand.

There are no faults in someone's opinion.

How do you not know this?

[Sovereign Nation]

:fencing:

That was enjoyable.  Got things to do though.

Enjoy.

[*michaelsean*]

Quote:Really? You think the only reason my neighbors and friends haven't killed me, is because the law stops them? It already exist.

Again look at history.

Quote:Bigger guys aren't necessarily the tougher guys. Not only that, but technology also allows for guys like me to be able to stand my ground against bigger guys. See Burfict, he can't hurt me if he isn't close to me. Even without firearms, there are plenty of long range weapons that would remove his size advantage, if someone were competent in their use.

Until 20 people decide to take your stuff. Or just shoot you in the back of the head and take your stuff.

Quote:Well if you are unwilling to see that drinking and driving is dangerous, then, yes we would need to have laws because of people like you. If you can't control your temper, then we would need laws because of people like you.

Well there you go.

[GMDino]

(02-23-2016, 02:18 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Exactly.

Not my job to parent other peoples kids.  So if a group of teenagers wanted a 6 pack, I wouldn't give it to them, but if they can find someone who will, then good for them.

Well, shows how you can't handle direct confrontation, so you rely on the multiple people asking different questions all at once.  Just so you can think you are somehow winning. 

No law against it.  Just an observation.  I have learned a lot about your character.  

So it is wrong.  So wrong that you are strong enough to resist the urge to contribute to the delinquency of a minor while still calling such a law "arbitrary".  But NOT SO WRONG that you think there SHOULD be a law against it because "good for them" if they can do something you think is so wrong you wouldn't do it.



As to multiple asking you questions:  This doesn't reflect on ME at all.  As I have been quite capable of responding directly to you.  If somehow this is stretching your self reliance perhaps you need to up your "Internet Tough Guy Pills"™ ?

MY observation would be I have shown (repeatedly) that your own words come back to haunt you over and over and you simply deny and charge others with "ganging up on you".

Poor baby.

Someone as "pretty self reliant" as you should not stoop to petty pseudo psychology when they have no other answers.  

[*michaelsean*]

(02-23-2016, 02:20 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: No need.

If they want to come all at once, they can.

It is a tactic they liked to do on the other boards as well.

Have 3 or more asked questions and make post rapid fire.

Yeah me and Fred and Dino all got together.  Like we usually do.  Who is that guy we are ganging up on in the SC thread?

[fredtoast]

(02-23-2016, 02:21 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: There are no faults in someone's opinion.

How do you not know this?

Yes there are faults with opinions when they are based on faulty logic or information.

You just seem to think for some reason that it is impossible for you to ever be wrong about anything.  you bbelieve that as long as you think it is so then it is true and no one has any right to disagree.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-23-2016, 02:28 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Again look at history.  


Until 20 people decide to take your stuff.  Or just shoot you in the back of the head and take your stuff.  


Well there you go.

So by your logic.  20 people can't come together to defend and to the right thing.

BUT

20 people can come together to gang up on me and shoot me in the back of the head.

seems legit.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-23-2016, 02:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes there are faults with opinions when they are based on faulty logic or information.

You just seem to think for some reason that it is impossible for you to ever be wrong about anything.  you bbelieve that as long as you think it is so then it is true and no one has any right to disagree.

Fred are you looking in a mirror again?

You claim I think I can ever be wrong, yet it is you who is always right?

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-23-2016, 02:30 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah me and Fred and Dino all got together.  Like we usually do.  Who is that guy we are ganging up on in the SC thread?

There is a group here.  Are you a member of that group?  I don't know.

BUT

You do side with the group more than you do with others.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-23-2016, 02:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: So it is wrong.  So wrong that you are strong enough to resist the urge to contribute to the delinquency of a minor while still calling such a law "arbitrary".  But NOT SO WRONG that you think there SHOULD be a law against it because "good for them" if they can do something you think is so wrong you wouldn't do it.



As to multiple asking you questions:  This doesn't reflect on ME at all.  As I have been quite capable of responding directly to you.  If somehow this is stretching your self reliance perhaps you need to up your "Internet Tough Guy Pills"™ ?

MY observation would be I have shown (repeatedly) that your own words come back to haunt you over and over and you simply deny and charge others with "ganging up on you".

Poor baby.

Someone as "pretty self reliant" as you should not stoop to petty pseudo psychology when they have no other answers.  

You keep going on about the Internet tough guy.  Is that jealousy?

I am pointing out that in this thread for a moment, I have had 3 people all post rapid fire responses.

I am just pointing out, that it is what you are good at doing.  When it is one on one, you usually just stick to memes.