Pages

2/18/11

The guns vs. butter debate has long been a favorite of production possibility frontier chartists. This elderly economic theorem is said to not correlate well to free market economies...

Perhaps that is why I find it more and more relative to these modern day United States.

Why Guns are a BETTER Investment than Gold



With gold still a good ways away from early 1980's inflation adjusted highs, being a bull is not something I would look down upon. That having been said, what goes... must eventually come down.

On the other side of the pond, however, an interesting mini bubble seems to be puffing up. After all, when geriatric shotguns sell for the price of a new Aston Martin, the industrious investors should go and have a look.

Even though it is easy to make the argument that antiques always sell well. A steady 3-5% annual valuation increase is a pretty respectable number.

I think these numbers ring volumes at a time when the U.S. dollar is propped up by little less than the collective of American military arms pointed at the competing world.

Naturally, most of us do not have six-figures to drop on a sidearm of any functional quality. As far as I know, there's yet to be a pure gun ETF formed and you already know of my affections for the Vice Fund.

With more than a few bills circulating the underbelly of Washington attempting to choke down 2nd Amendment rights...the notion of investing in guns should not (and IMHO will not) be limited to rare collector's items.

We find ourselves living in an extremely strange time filled with vastly divergent views about how the world should proceed.

I am by no means trying to arouse panic. Just thoughtful discussion.

But being honest with you guys as I always try to be...

You should learn to shoot and you should invest in a firearm...or ten.

Who knows what the payout will be?

Comments (290)

2/18/11

Interesting thoughts Midas, but if you are intent on firearms investing in NYC or Chicago, the local police department might not be very happy about that.

In any case, the second amendment is settled law. The real question is on assault rifles which did not exist at the time the second amendment was created.

2/18/11
IlliniProgrammer:

Interesting thoughts Midas, but if you are intent on firearms investing in NYC or Chicago, the local police department might not be very happy about that.

In any case, the second amendment is settled law. The real question is on assault rifles which did not exist at the time the second amendment was created.

I think we should have access to the average rifle accessible to the average infantryman. Just in case the King of England tries to get in our face again.

2/18/11
IlliniProgrammer:

Interesting thoughts Midas, but if you are intent on firearms investing in NYC or Chicago, the local police department might not be very happy about that.

In any case, the second amendment is settled law. The real question is on assault rifles which did not exist at the time the second amendment was created.

The Chicago police department can use all the help they can get. Poor bastards have to drive around in their own vehicles for traffic duty...without mileage reimbursement.

Besides, a loaded pistol on Michigan Avenue is your only remaining hedge against local authorities pissing away billion dollars of revenue through parking meter privatization and passing the losses on to you.

Don't let me get started on NYC. Conceal and carry for crack dealers only. Remain calm citizen, all is well.

2/18/11
Midas Mulligan Magoo:

Besides, a loaded pistol on Michigan Avenue is your only remaining hedge against local authorities pissing away billion dollars of revenue through parking meter privatization and passing the losses on to you.

Which is why, IMHO, the City of Chicago needs to impose rent control on city parking. Limit parking meters to $0.50/hour. Perfectly legal and constitutional.

2/18/11
IlliniProgrammer:
Midas Mulligan Magoo:

Besides, a loaded pistol on Michigan Avenue is your only remaining hedge against local authorities pissing away billion dollars of revenue through parking meter privatization and passing the losses on to you.

Which is why, IMHO, the City of Chicago needs to impose rent control on city parking. Limit parking meters to $0.50/hour. Perfectly legal and constitutional.

Didn't Chicago sell its parking meter income for the next 75 years to some Arab investment group? I think Chicago needs to compensate them for lost income from street closures now. Also, no more meter holidays on Xmas, etc.

2/18/11
IlliniProgrammer:
Midas Mulligan Magoo:

Besides, a loaded pistol on Michigan Avenue is your only remaining hedge against local authorities pissing away billion dollars of revenue through parking meter privatization and passing the losses on to you.

Which is why, IMHO, the City of Chicago needs to impose rent control on city parking. Limit parking meters to $0.50/hour. Perfectly legal and constitutional.

Lol. I don't think you'd ever get that passed without a large assortment of weaponry pointed at City Hall. I'm just curious how it works out for them to take credit card payments of $0.25?

2/18/11

Just wondering but what holds the gun's value so high? I mean, is it just a collectible/antique/whatever?

It's what you put into it

2/18/11

I could see that getting passed because it would generate votes while screwing over the investors that bought the parking meters. As for the CC payments, they probably have some bulk arrangement with the CC companies based on a percentage of total revenue.

2/18/11

I'm already ahead of the curve, I own many guns. Even some of those evil assault rifles.

2/18/11

Guns are the ultimate investment. Once you have a gun, the amount of cash you can extract from the asset is really only limited by your human capital (how many holdups you can execute per accounting period) and externalities (police intervention/armed convenience store clerks).

There have been many great comebacks throughout history. Jesus was dead but then came back as an all-powerful God-Zombie.

2/18/11
Kenny_Powers_CFA:

Guns are the ultimate investment. Once you have a gun, the amount of cash you can extract from the asset is really only limited by your human capital (how many holdups you can execute per accounting period) and externalities (police intervention/armed convenience store clerks).

LOL

2/18/11

not to mention...stupidest amendment of the constitution.

2/18/11
coach.captain:

not to mention...stupidest amendment of the constitution.

Wait, what's the stupidest amendment?

2/18/11
coach.captain:

not to mention...stupidest amendment of the constitution.

Good use of your first post- a real gem.

Who needs those dumb freedoms anyways- let's just get rid of all of the amendments. Then we can go back to being rules AND be able to do nothing about it.

2/18/11

Nah not all of them, just the second one.

2/18/11
coach.captain:

Nah not all of them, just the second one.

You're an idiot. The second amendment, at the time it was written, was done so for very obvious reasons. Read a book.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/18/11
coach.captain:

Nah not all of them, just the second one.

What an idiotic thing to say.

2/18/11

Oops- duplicate post.

2/19/11
Tar Heel Blue:
coach.captain:

not to mention...stupidest amendment of the constitution.

Good use of your first post- a real gem.

Who needs those dumb freedoms anyways- let's just get rid of all of the amendments. Then we can go back to being rules AND be able to do nothing about it.

Sigh... I'm so sick of these kinds of comments. Like giving up the right to own and walk around with a gun in your pants is going to make your country the "socialist nightmare" that so many of you seem to be so freakin afraid of. It is absolutely pathetic that you are defending your "sacred" amendment when it is so obviously one of the things that is screwing up your country.

Here is some basic logic for you: More guns to the people --> More crime, death and misery.
Have you ever wondered why the U.S. homocide/capita figures are among the highest in the industrialized world?? But then again that's what I would expect from any avid Glenn Beck fan. You know, all those guns aren't gonna be much good in the post-nuclear holocaust environment without GB's very own food insurance. You are an idiot!

2/19/11
ck123321:
Tar Heel Blue:
coach.captain:

not to mention...stupidest amendment of the constitution.

Good use of your first post- a real gem.

Who needs those dumb freedoms anyways- let's just get rid of all of the amendments. Then we can go back to being rules AND be able to do nothing about it.

Sigh... I'm so sick of these kinds of comments. Like giving up the right to own and walk around with a gun in your pants is going to make your country the "socialist nightmare" that so many of you seem to be so freakin afraid of. It is absolutely pathetic that you are defending your "sacred" amendment when it is so obviously one of the things that is screwing up your country.

Here is some basic logic for you: More guns to the people --> More crime, death and misery.
Have you ever wondered why the U.S. homocide/capita figures are among the highest in the industrialized world?? But then again that's what I would expect from any avid Glenn Beck fan. You know, all those guns aren't gonna be much good in the post-nuclear holocaust environment without GB's very own food insurance. You are an idiot!

No, you're an idiot. Go check out Kennesaw Georgia. Mandatory gun ownership and almost zero crime. Or look at one of the other multiple examples people give in this instance.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

3/28/11
ck123321:

Here is some basic logic for you: More guns to the people --> More crime, death and misery.
Have you ever wondered why the U.S. homocide/capita figures are among the highest in the industrialized world?? But then again that's what I would expect from any avid Glenn Beck fan.

No.

"Why Switzerland has the Lowest Crime Rate in the World"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g

"The key to freedom is the ability to be able to defend yourself...if you dont have the tools to do that, then you are at the mercy of whoever wants to put you away. The tools for us are guns."

3/28/11
touchdown227:
ck123321:

Here is some basic logic for you: More guns to the people --> More crime, death and misery.
Have you ever wondered why the U.S. homocide/capita figures are among the highest in the industrialized world?? But then again that's what I would expect from any avid Glenn Beck fan.

No.

"Why Switzerland has the Lowest Crime Rate in the World"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g

"The key to freedom is the ability to be able to defend yourself...if you dont have the tools to do that, then you are at the mercy of whoever wants to put you away. The tools for us are guns."

That or you will not attempt to commit crime against someone you know is armed

The answer to your question is 1) network 2) get involved 3) beef up your resume 4) repeat -happypantsmcgee

WSO is not your personal search function.

3/28/11
blackfinancier:
touchdown227:
ck123321:

Here is some basic logic for you: More guns to the people --> More crime, death and misery.
Have you ever wondered why the U.S. homocide/capita figures are among the highest in the industrialized world?? But then again that's what I would expect from any avid Glenn Beck fan.

No.

"Why Switzerland has the Lowest Crime Rate in the World"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g

"The key to freedom is the ability to be able to defend yourself...if you dont have the tools to do that, then you are at the mercy of whoever wants to put you away. The tools for us are guns."

That or you will not attempt to commit crime against someone you know is armed

Exactly.

Switzerland has a population of about 6,000,000 and there are at least 2,000,000 publicly-owned firearms, over a quarter of which are evil "assault rifles." In fact, it can be argued that strict gun-control law can have the opposite effect and lead to crime on a more massive scale, such as allowing unpopular regimes to retain power (see the situation in the Middle East). Could Saddam/Mubarak/Gaddafi have retained power for so many decades if their people had been able to defend their freedoms using the very same tools used by those taking their freedoms away?

It is easy to do whatever you please to a population that has no means of defending itself through physical means, despite how many laws and regulations are made to prevent such abuse. Freedom MUST have a basis in tangible & physical security.

Nobody knows if a situation like the one in Libya could possibly occur in a more civilized nation, but as a firearm-owning American, I am lucky to never have to find out thanks to the exceptional foresight of this nation's Founding Fathers.

3/28/11
touchdown227:
ck123321:

Here is some basic logic for you: More guns to the people --> More crime, death and misery.
Have you ever wondered why the U.S. homocide/capita figures are among the highest in the industrialized world?? But then again that's what I would expect from any avid Glenn Beck fan.

No.

"Why Switzerland has the Lowest Crime Rate in the World"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g

"The key to freedom is the ability to be able to defend yourself...if you dont have the tools to do that, then you are at the mercy of whoever wants to put you away. The tools for us are guns."

Factor in the fact that Switzerland has no black on black crime, no third world immigration, and the entire male population is an acting militia with mandatory military service your argument becomes complete bull shit.

3/28/11
awm55:
touchdown227:
ck123321:

Here is some basic logic for you: More guns to the people --> More crime, death and misery.
Have you ever wondered why the U.S. homocide/capita figures are among the highest in the industrialized world?? But then again that's what I would expect from any avid Glenn Beck fan.

No.

"Why Switzerland has the Lowest Crime Rate in the World"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g

"The key to freedom is the ability to be able to defend yourself...if you dont have the tools to do that, then you are at the mercy of whoever wants to put you away. The tools for us are guns."

Factor in the fact that Switzerland has no black on black crime, no third world immigration, and the entire male population is an acting militia with mandatory military service your argument becomes complete bull shit.

I was merely showing that increased crime is NOT a direct function of increased gun ownership alone, which is what the poster who I was replying to directly suggested. To your credit, the problem lies within the American population itself due to a host of social and economic issues. Still, it can be seen that the mere fact that firearms are available to the public DOES NOT lead to increased crime in and of itself.

3/28/11
touchdown227:
awm55:
touchdown227:
ck123321:

Here is some basic logic for you: More guns to the people --> More crime, death and misery.
Have you ever wondered why the U.S. homocide/capita figures are among the highest in the industrialized world?? But then again that's what I would expect from any avid Glenn Beck fan.

No.

"Why Switzerland has the Lowest Crime Rate in the World"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g

"The key to freedom is the ability to be able to defend yourself...if you dont have the tools to do that, then you are at the mercy of whoever wants to put you away. The tools for us are guns."

Factor in the fact that Switzerland has no black on black crime, no third world immigration, and the entire male population is an acting militia with mandatory military service your argument becomes complete bull shit.

I was merely showing that increased crime is NOT a direct function of increased gun ownership alone, which is what the poster who I was replying to directly suggested. To your credit, the problem lies within the American population itself due to a host of social and economic issues. Still, it can be seen that the mere fact that firearms are available to the public DOES NOT lead to increased crime in and of itself.

This is not true, the states with the highest gun ownerships in the US have considerably higher crime rates and considerably higher homicide rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_U...

2/18/11

You do realize that you're on a forum full of traders and businesspeople. Most of us are gung-ho libertarians. Not all of us are affected by gun rights, but when you stand up for somebody else's second-amendment rights, they tend to stand up for your right to conduct business without generating negative externalities.

Having gone from being a Democrat under Bush to a moderate Libertarian under Obama, I've realized that all of the civil liberties are linked. And when you see liberals standing up for gun rights, you start to see conservatives standing up for the fourth amendment.

Once you get that- that the only way you get rights is because other people stand up for them- you start standing up for the stuff that you initially don't agree with. I've fired rifles but wouldn't keep one in my home and would feel moderately uncomfortable if I had kids and my next door neighbors kept one. But if I respect my neighbor's rights to keep a gun in his home, maybe he'll respect my right to put up signs saying "IMPEACH BUSH" on my lawn.

The thing nobody realizes is that freedom isn't actually an individual thing. Even if it's god-given, it's something that you have to support for other people when you disagree with them, and that they have to support for you when they disagree with something you're doing.

2/19/11
IlliniProgrammer:

You do realize that you're on a forum full of traders and businesspeople. Most of us are gung-ho libertarians. Not all of us are affected by gun rights, but when you stand up for somebody else's second-amendment rights, they tend to stand up for your right to conduct business without generating negative externalities.

Having gone from being a Democrat under Bush to a moderate Libertarian under Obama, I've realized that all of the civil liberties are linked. And when you see liberals standing up for gun rights, you start to see conservatives standing up for the fourth amendment.

Once you get that- that the only way you get rights is because other people stand up for them- you start standing up for the stuff that you initially don't agree with. I've fired rifles but wouldn't keep one in my home and would feel moderately uncomfortable if I had kids and my next door neighbors kept one. But if I respect my neighbor's rights to keep a gun in his home, maybe he'll respect my right to put up signs saying "IMPEACH BUSH" on my lawn.

The thing nobody realizes is that freedom isn't actually an individual thing. Even if it's god-given, it's something that you have to support for other people when you disagree with them, and that they have to support for you when they disagree with something you're doing.

Great post. People who are against rights are generally very selfish and haven't moved past the egocentric juvenile phase.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

2/18/11

Guys, there's something called the first amendment and coach.captain has the right to say crazy things that we disagree with.

2/18/11

And I have the right to call him an idiot. There, settled?

2/18/11

Haha, fair enough. :)

2/18/11

LOL bunch of far right wingers on here. Let me guess 'txjustin'...you're a Glenn Beck fanboy. Lets talk about the "new world order" and the coming of the Antichrist next, ok?

2/18/11
coach.captain:

LOL bunch of far right wingers on here. Let me guess 'txjustin'...you're a Glenn Beck fanboy. Lets talk about the "new world order" and the coming of the Antichrist next, ok?

Don't trip when you leave the drum circle to pack another bowl.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/18/11
coach.captain:

LOL bunch of far right wingers on here. Let me guess 'txjustin'...you're a Glenn Beck fanboy. Lets talk about the "new world order" and the coming of the Antichrist next, ok?

No, actually I think Glenn Beck is an overdramatic cry baby.

2/18/11
txjustin:
coach.captain:

LOL bunch of far right wingers on here. Let me guess 'txjustin'...you're a Glenn Beck fanboy. Lets talk about the "new world order" and the coming of the Antichrist next, ok?

No, actually I think Glenn Beck is an overdramatic cry baby.

But you still think what he says is pretty much aligned to what you think?

2/18/11
coach.captain:
txjustin:
coach.captain:

LOL bunch of far right wingers on here. Let me guess 'txjustin'...you're a Glenn Beck fanboy. Lets talk about the "new world order" and the coming of the Antichrist next, ok?

No, actually I think Glenn Beck is an overdramatic cry baby.

But you still think what he says is pretty much aligned to what you think?

I'm guessing not, since he just called him an overdramatic cry baby. Though you're right, he probably does agree on this issue. What a radical- believing in the Constitution.

2/18/11
coach.captain:
txjustin:
coach.captain:

LOL bunch of far right wingers on here. Let me guess 'txjustin'...you're a Glenn Beck fanboy. Lets talk about the "new world order" and the coming of the Antichrist next, ok?

No, actually I think Glenn Beck is an overdramatic cry baby.

But you still think what he says is pretty much aligned to what you think?

A lot of his beliefs are a stretch for me. I am pretty far to the right fiscally though.

2/18/11
txjustin:
coach.captain:

LOL bunch of far right wingers on here. Let me guess 'txjustin'...you're a Glenn Beck fanboy. Lets talk about the "new world order" and the coming of the Antichrist next, ok?

No, actually I think Glenn Beck is an overdramatic cry baby.

.....the left has conspiracy hacks too, look at LaRouche. He spouts the same conspiracy crap, but with a leftist flavor.

Gun control? FUCK THAT, I like guns

Get busy living

2/18/11
UFOinsider:

Gun control? FUCK THAT, I like guns[/quote]

What a great argument. Well done.

2/18/11

"Gun control? FUCK THAT, I like guns"

What a great argument. Well done.

2/18/11
coach.captain:

"Gun control? FUCK THAT, I like guns"

What a great argument. Well done.

What is your argument? That guns are sooooo scaryyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!

---------------------
"Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America."

2/18/11

Oooh, we've whipped out the ad-hominems and stereotypes. I might as well join in.

I think the cap'n is nervous about guns because he might start shooting at the pirate ships on his next trip. ;-)

2/18/11
IlliniProgrammer:

Oooh, we've whipped out the ad-hominems and stereotypes. I might as well join in.

I think the cap'n is nervous about guns because he might start shooting at the pirate ships on his next trip. ;-)

IP, you're a smart guy and a ton of your stuff adds tremendous value but reading your insults reminds me of an episode of the Wiggles.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/18/11
HPM:
IlliniProgrammer:

Oooh, we've whipped out the ad-hominems and stereotypes. I might as well join in.

I think the cap'n is nervous about guns because he might start shooting at the pirate ships on his next trip. ;-)

IP, you're a smart guy and a ton of your stuff adds tremendous value but reading your insults reminds me of an episode of the Wiggles.

....just fell out of my chair laughing

Get busy living

2/18/11
IlliniProgrammer:

Oooh, we've whipped out the ad-hominems and stereotypes. I might as well join in.

I think the cap'n is nervous about guns because he might start shooting at the pirate ships on his next trip. ;-)

Yeah that was really soft :)

2/18/11
coach.captain:
IlliniProgrammer:

Oooh, we've whipped out the ad-hominems and stereotypes. I might as well join in.

I think the cap'n is nervous about guns because he might start shooting at the pirate ships on his next trip. ;-)

Yeah that was really soft :)

Is that what she said to you the other night?

Most people do things to add days to their life. I do things to add life to my days.

Browse my blog as a WSO contributing author

2/18/11

Wiggles? I don't want to ask.

I was debating between pirate ships and zombies, but figured that would go better with captain.

2/18/11

The Wiggles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBWQCHb95rg

Don't worry its safe for work

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/18/11
HPM:

The Wiggles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBWQCHb95rg

Don't worry its safe for work

Our firewall disagrees.

2/18/11

Yeah, just stay away from the LSD.

2/18/11

Don't worry, just like the smell of coke, I would never do hard drugs

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/18/11

I prefer buying GUN, the ETF on margin. It is a more efficient instrument.

2/18/11

I feel bad for you New Yorkers. In PA, the laws are very gun friendly and it's very to obtain a LTF. Not to mention all the privileges that come with it.

2/18/11

"Auctioneers say the BOOM was TRIGGERED by the September 2008 collapse of investment bank Lehman Brothers, during the Great Recession."

No pun intended, I am sure.

2/19/11

^^^You are an idiot. Please don't comment on a freedom you don't have, or any freedom for that matter since I'm sure your government has you and it's citizens by their balls.

Best Response
2/19/11
txjustin:

^^^You are an idiot. Please don't comment on a freedom you don't have, or any freedom for that matter since I'm sure your government has you and it's citizens by their balls.

classic misinformed american. do you know anything about the world outside of the U.S.? I think not.
You come off as very narrow-minded.
Everything but absolute capitalism = socialism
Regulation on guns = socialism
Free healthcare = socialism

So, just cus I can't walk into Wal-mart and come out with a loaded 12 gauge shotgun, I am now living in a socialist economy where citizens are constantly supressed by the big-brother government.

In reality, I am living in a very much free market economy that is doing a whole lot better than the U.S's right now. I am the proud owner of a 12 gauge shotgun and a high-calibre rifle. The difference is that, to get hold of these, I had to pass a standard background-check, some pretty basic shooting tests and a theoretical exam that was largely about gun safety. It was not very hard and it is part of the reason that you are six times more likely to get shot and killed.

Is my country's procedure really too much to ask of someone who wants to walk around town with a loaded shotgun?

2/19/11
ck123321:
txjustin:

^^^You are an idiot. Please don't comment on a freedom you don't have, or any freedom for that matter since I'm sure your government has you and it's citizens by their balls.

classic misinformed american. do you know anything about the world outside of the U.S.? I think not.
You come off as very narrow-minded.
Everything but absolute capitalism = socialism
Regulation on guns = socialism
Free healthcare = socialism

So, just cus I can't walk into Wal-mart and come out with a loaded 12 gauge shotgun, I am now living in a socialist economy where citizens are constantly supressed by the big-brother government.

In reality, I am living in a very much free market economy that is doing a whole lot better than the U.S's right now. I am the proud owner of a 12 gauge shotgun and a high-calibre rifle. The difference is that, to get hold of these, I had to pass a standard background-check, some pretty basic shooting tests and a theoretical exam that was largely about gun safety. It was not very hard and it is part of the reason that you are six times more likely to get shot and killed.

Is my country's procedure really too much to ask of someone who wants to walk around town with a loaded shotgun?

Where did I say the above you quoted in the 1st paragraph. Yes, FREE healthcare is socialism because it's not FREE!!

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but in Texas you can't just go in and buy a gun. You pass a background scan/check.

2/19/11
ck123321:
txjustin:

^^^You are an idiot. Please don't comment on a freedom you don't have, or any freedom for that matter since I'm sure your government has you and it's citizens by their balls.

classic misinformed american. do you know anything about the world outside of the U.S.? I think not.
You come off as very narrow-minded.
Everything but absolute capitalism = socialism
Regulation on guns = socialism
Free healthcare = socialism

So, just cus I can't walk into Wal-mart and come out with a loaded 12 gauge shotgun, I am now living in a socialist economy where citizens are constantly supressed by the big-brother government.

In reality, I am living in a very much free market economy that is doing a whole lot better than the U.S's right now. I am the proud owner of a 12 gauge shotgun and a high-calibre rifle. The difference is that, to get hold of these, I had to pass a standard background-check, some pretty basic shooting tests and a theoretical exam that was largely about gun safety. It was not very hard and it is part of the reason that you are six times more likely to get shot and killed.

Is my country's procedure really too much to ask of someone who wants to walk around town with a loaded shotgun?

Welcome to my world. I would not bring up the fact that there is a big world outside the USA, it does not matter to them too much. I don't think anyone can say anything other than a hyper reactionary fringe-right response on this forum without getting flamed on.

It is hard to take someone seriously when they think that the rest of the world lives in tyranny because they cannot go shopping with a loaded gun in their bag. When confronted with the facts, that the USA has the highest violent crime rate in the developed world, they don't care. The funny thing is the intentional homicide rate in the states where there is loose gun regulation is the highest in the USA. But again, they don't care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_U...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/politics/27gu...

2/19/11
awm55:
ck123321:
txjustin:

^^^You are an idiot. Please don't comment on a freedom you don't have, or any freedom for that matter since I'm sure your government has you and it's citizens by their balls.

classic misinformed american. do you know anything about the world outside of the U.S.? I think not.
You come off as very narrow-minded.
Everything but absolute capitalism = socialism
Regulation on guns = socialism
Free healthcare = socialism

So, just cus I can't walk into Wal-mart and come out with a loaded 12 gauge shotgun, I am now living in a socialist economy where citizens are constantly supressed by the big-brother government.

In reality, I am living in a very much free market economy that is doing a whole lot better than the U.S's right now. I am the proud owner of a 12 gauge shotgun and a high-calibre rifle. The difference is that, to get hold of these, I had to pass a standard background-check, some pretty basic shooting tests and a theoretical exam that was largely about gun safety. It was not very hard and it is part of the reason that you are six times more likely to get shot and killed.

Is my country's procedure really too much to ask of someone who wants to walk around town with a loaded shotgun?

Welcome to my world. I would not bring up the fact that there is a big world outside the USA, it does not matter to them too much. I don't think anyone can say anything other than a hyper reactionary fringe-right response on this forum without getting flamed on.

It is hard to take someone seriously when they think that the rest of the world lives in tyranny because they cannot go shopping with a loaded gun in their bag. When confronted with the facts, that the USA has the highest violent crime rate in the developed world, they don't care. The funny thing is the intentional homicide rate in the states where there is loose gun regulation is the highest in the USA. But again, they don't care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_U...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/politics/27gu...

Why don't you go back to the thread where you said you would love to argue anybody that said the South was holding the rest of the US back and debate the points I presented. You are the typical liberal ducking out when shit gets tough. I will agree with you on one thing, I don't care how any other nation governs. I care about my country and it's forward progress.

2/19/11
txjustin:
awm55:
ck123321:
txjustin:

^^^You are an idiot. Please don't comment on a freedom you don't have, or any freedom for that matter since I'm sure your government has you and it's citizens by their balls.

classic misinformed american. do you know anything about the world outside of the U.S.? I think not.
You come off as very narrow-minded.
Everything but absolute capitalism = socialism
Regulation on guns = socialism
Free healthcare = socialism

So, just cus I can't walk into Wal-mart and come out with a loaded 12 gauge shotgun, I am now living in a socialist economy where citizens are constantly supressed by the big-brother government.

In reality, I am living in a very much free market economy that is doing a whole lot better than the U.S's right now. I am the proud owner of a 12 gauge shotgun and a high-calibre rifle. The difference is that, to get hold of these, I had to pass a standard background-check, some pretty basic shooting tests and a theoretical exam that was largely about gun safety. It was not very hard and it is part of the reason that you are six times more likely to get shot and killed.

Is my country's procedure really too much to ask of someone who wants to walk around town with a loaded shotgun?

Welcome to my world. I would not bring up the fact that there is a big world outside the USA, it does not matter to them too much. I don't think anyone can say anything other than a hyper reactionary fringe-right response on this forum without getting flamed on.

It is hard to take someone seriously when they think that the rest of the world lives in tyranny because they cannot go shopping with a loaded gun in their bag. When confronted with the facts, that the USA has the highest violent crime rate in the developed world, they don't care. The funny thing is the intentional homicide rate in the states where there is loose gun regulation is the highest in the USA. But again, they don't care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_U...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/politics/27gu...

Why don't you go back to the thread where you said you would love to argue anybody that said the South was holding the rest of the US back and debate the points I presented. You are the typical liberal ducking out when shit gets tough. I will agree with you on one thing, I don't care how any other nation governs. I care about my country and it's forward progress.

Dude, with regards to social issues the south is holding us back. I am not going to sit here and argue with you or call you names. This is so freakin obvious that its not even worth discussing.

2/19/11

There was a great illustration of this debate about a decade ago on the now defunct Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher.

The discussion was between this tiny little blond lately (can't remember her celebrity status or name) from Texas and Jamal "Shyne" Barrow, the young Brooklyn rapper who had a voice similar to the late Notorious B.I.G.

The "little lady" in question said the following.

People are polite in Texas, because we are all aware that our neighbors are armed and the person walking down the street next to us may be armed. I learned to shoot as a little girl and that is why I don't have any issues with my femininity. I can be a girly girl and still demand my respect. I don't need positive discrimination or a government to stick up for me and coddle me with their rules. Being trained with a firearm makes me more secure than any man, any government or any law can make me.

Shyne's retort was oddly liberal leaning (for a gangster rapper glorifying guns in his music). Shyne blamed guns for the plight of the black man in America and for the situations guns themselves created. Not more than a few months later, Shyne shot up a NYC nightclub and was subsequently convicted to a 10 year term in prison.

I know my retelling of the tale doesn't do it justice, but it was a great demonstration of the difference between views on the subject.

2/19/11

I have a 10kT implosion trigger plutonium core thermonuclear warhead. My granpappy gave it to me to go squirrel hunting.

I say: if you outlaw 10kT implosion trigger plutonium core thermonuclear warheads, only outlaws will have 10kT implosion trigger plutonium core thermonuclear warheads.

2/19/11

I didn't mean that as a quote, that's just me reading into your statement about how my government has me by my balls just cus I think the second amendment is utter crap. It is not a quote, but I feel pretty confident that you would cry "socialism!" if the government did take away the second amendment or gave your free healthcare.

And while free healthcare might be built on socialist principles, it does in no way mean that the country/economy/government is socialist. In terms of global competitiveness, my country is ranked higher than the U.S. despite having free healthcare and free education.

So, you see, a few socialist ideas built on a capitalistic foundation might very well work in the favor of the U.S. like it has in my country's case. For this reason, you shouldn't be so quick to shout and scream as soon as someone suggests something built on a few socialist principles. All countries use socialist principles to some extent, even the U.S. And this is the point I wanted to make, and this is the reason I was so annoyed by the comment I initially quoted.

2/19/11

You keep saying free this and free that. Let me tell you a little secret, SOMEBODY'S paying for that. I refuse to live in a system that takes away or gives away to make citizens equal. I don't want my money taken away so it can subsidize someone who does not have something. I worked my ass off to get to the point I am in my life. Nothing was given to me, I earned what I have.

I never advocated repealing away the 2nd amendment as socialism. It is more of a communistic approach at controlling people if it was repealed, in my opinion.

It seems to me you are trying to make this a your country versus US kind of debate. Don't do that, please. At least divulge what country you are in.

It all comes down to I WILL NOT accept someone else, much less the government, dictating my life. It seems to me you were born in a country where the government leads you to "water", I found the "water" on my own.

We have little creed in the USA: "For the People, By the People". I live by that.

2/19/11

While I disagree that more legal guns = more death and crime, it is besides the point. If someone told me that in order to have the 2nd amendment you had to accept a higher death rate I would be perfectly fine with that. Freedom isn't free. Freedom of speech has a lot of bad things also. Jury trials are also unfair in certain circumstances.

You know what is more unfair and leads to more death and misery than all of these "freedoms"? Someone making decisions for someone else because they think it is best.

2/19/11

awm55, you are absolutely right. txjustin and ANT are just proving your points. They are living in their properly fucked up US universes and there is not a single thing that we can say that is going to make them change their minds.

ANT:

Trust me, no one gives a shit about European nanny state behavior

yea, no one in Texas cares, and maybe that's your problem. You just don't give a fuck what is happening outside of the US because the US is the greatest country in the world.

As for txjustin, it's more like. I've worked hard as hell all my life and have now also found the water, but out of solidarity (a word that you should try to remember) I am giving some of the water to my fellow citizens who are not as fortunate as me, so that they can also live an allright life.

And there is no country where "the government leads all its citizens to the water". I'm not surprised that you would think that, but it's just not true and again proves the point that awm55 was making.

2/19/11
ck123321:

awm55, you are absolutely right. txjustin and ANT are just proving your points. They are living in their properly fucked up US universes and there is not a single thing that we can say that is going to make them change their minds.

ANT:

Trust me, no one gives a shit about European nanny state behavior

yea, no one in Texas cares, and maybe that's your problem. You just don't give a fuck what is happening outside of the US because the US is the greatest country in the world.

As for txjustin, it's more like. I've worked hard as hell all my life and have now also found the water, but out of solidarity (a word that you should try to remember) I am giving some of the water to my fellow citizens who are not as fortunate as me, so that they can also live an allright life.

And there is no country where "the government leads all its citizens to the water". I'm not surprised that you would think that, but it's just not true and again proves the point that awm55 was making.

So, are you assuming I don't "give back"? If that's what you are assuming, you better think again. I volunteer at a women's shelter that specializes in the rehabilitation of battered women. I also donate annually to many charities. I simply don't want to be forcefully taxed (aka robbed) to support someone else, plain and simple. If you feel the need to, write a check big guy.

I will agree with you on one point, The United States of America IS the greatest country in the world.

2/19/11

Should I repeat myself? Sweden. Mandatory gun ownership. Zero gun-crime violence rate. Take that and shove it in your precious European-above-all pseudo-socialist mentality.
http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

Read this article beginning to end. I'm not an American nutcase screaming for gun rights a la carte. I'm saying it's a right people should have and (in an ideal world) exercise willingly. Wanna know why? This is different than abstract theory for me. I grew up in the wrong part of Philly. I can say bluntly from experience, there's a lot that people would and wouldn't do if they knew someone on the other side of the car door they're about to jack or the house door they're about to kick in to rob possessed and was trained to use firearms.

When regulated *properly*, gun ownership is one of the single most effective deterrents to crime. I'm sorry, human nature is such that you cannot remove ALL weaponry from an equation and expect an abstract discourse of morality to act as barrier enough to prevent the deviants from wreaking harm. I consider myself a moral person. I realize that not everyone else will abide by some higher code that I ascribe to. Therefore, apart from keeping my physical condition at the level where I'm absolutely willing to defend myself in any reasonable situation (as I have done and will continue in the future), I believe it's not only wise but necessary to take appropriate measures to guarantee my safety.

I'm not gonna bust caps for fun. Enough of that, I'm glad to be *from* Philly. Were I allowed in NYC to keep a semi in a wall safe, would I? Doubtlessly. As for the 'do you care what happens outside your little "fucked up US universe," yeah actually I do. I believe in the concept of global citizenship where I pledge allegiance to my country, my city, my birthplace, and the world I live in, all in that order. And consequently it really irks me to see meathead Americans giving the country I love an awful rep by perpetuating the inane stereotype we have across the world, and it also aggravates that people outside America take that as license to act even worse in return. Brilliant idea, eliminate vitriol by escalating your own. Seriously?

Most people do things to add days to their life. I do things to add life to my days.

Browse my blog as a WSO contributing author

2/20/11
A Posse Ad Esse:

Should I repeat myself? Sweden. Mandatory gun ownership. Zero gun-crime violence rate. Take that and shove it in your precious European-above-all pseudo-socialist mentality.
http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

Read this article beginning to end. I'm not an American nutcase screaming for gun rights a la carte. I'm saying it's a right people should have and (in an ideal world) exercise willingly. Wanna know why? This is different than abstract theory for me. I grew up in the wrong part of Philly. I can say bluntly from experience, there's a lot that people would and wouldn't do if they knew someone on the other side of the car door they're about to jack or the house door they're about to kick in to rob possessed and was trained to use firearms.

When regulated *properly*, gun ownership is one of the single most effective deterrents to crime. I'm sorry, human nature is such that you cannot remove ALL weaponry from an equation and expect an abstract discourse of morality to act as barrier enough to prevent the deviants from wreaking harm. I consider myself a moral person. I realize that not everyone else will abide by some higher code that I ascribe to. Therefore, apart from keeping my physical condition at the level where I'm absolutely willing to defend myself in any reasonable situation (as I have done and will continue in the future), I believe it's not only wise but necessary to take appropriate measures to guarantee my safety.

I'm not gonna bust caps for fun. Enough of that, I'm glad to be *from* Philly. Were I allowed in NYC to keep a semi in a wall safe, would I? Doubtlessly. As for the 'do you care what happens outside your little "fucked up US universe," yeah actually I do. I believe in the concept of global citizenship where I pledge allegiance to my country, my city, my birthplace, and the world I live in, all in that order. And consequently it really irks me to see meathead Americans giving the country I love an awful rep by perpetuating the inane stereotype we have across the world, and it also aggravates that people outside America take that as license to act even worse in return. Brilliant idea, eliminate vitriol by escalating your own. Seriously?

You have no idea what you are talking about. Sweden and Switzerland both have extremely high rates of gun ownership. They also have mandatory military service where you are taught to own and operate a gun. It is not uncommon for people in Switzerland to carry what we would refer to as assault rifles in open view on the street. To be honest, if every US citizen had military training then I would not be against gun ownership at all.

I also think you should know I was born and raised in the USA and have lived abroad for a few years. In my limited wisdom, I think the USA provides the best quality of life for the most people of any country I have lived in. But there are also alot of things that the USA does that I disagree with. This does not make me an anti-american nazi socialist liberal. It just means I think about the issues before making my mind up about them. If you have never lived abroad and have no means of comparison then of course what I am saying will appear extreme.

2/20/11
awm55:
A Posse Ad Esse:

Should I repeat myself? Sweden. Mandatory gun ownership. Zero gun-crime violence rate. Take that and shove it in your precious European-above-all pseudo-socialist mentality.
http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

Read this article beginning to end. I'm not an American nutcase screaming for gun rights a la carte. I'm saying it's a right people should have and (in an ideal world) exercise willingly. Wanna know why? This is different than abstract theory for me. I grew up in the wrong part of Philly. I can say bluntly from experience, there's a lot that people would and wouldn't do if they knew someone on the other side of the car door they're about to jack or the house door they're about to kick in to rob possessed and was trained to use firearms.

When regulated *properly*, gun ownership is one of the single most effective deterrents to crime. I'm sorry, human nature is such that you cannot remove ALL weaponry from an equation and expect an abstract discourse of morality to act as barrier enough to prevent the deviants from wreaking harm. I consider myself a moral person. I realize that not everyone else will abide by some higher code that I ascribe to. Therefore, apart from keeping my physical condition at the level where I'm absolutely willing to defend myself in any reasonable situation (as I have done and will continue in the future), I believe it's not only wise but necessary to take appropriate measures to guarantee my safety.

I'm not gonna bust caps for fun. Enough of that, I'm glad to be *from* Philly. Were I allowed in NYC to keep a semi in a wall safe, would I? Doubtlessly. As for the 'do you care what happens outside your little "fucked up US universe," yeah actually I do. I believe in the concept of global citizenship where I pledge allegiance to my country, my city, my birthplace, and the world I live in, all in that order. And consequently it really irks me to see meathead Americans giving the country I love an awful rep by perpetuating the inane stereotype we have across the world, and it also aggravates that people outside America take that as license to act even worse in return. Brilliant idea, eliminate vitriol by escalating your own. Seriously?

You have no idea what you are talking about. Sweden and Switzerland both have extremely high rates of gun ownership. They also have mandatory military service where you are taught to own and operate a gun. It is not uncommon for people in Switzerland to carry what we would refer to as assault rifles in open view on the street. To be honest, if every US citizen had military training then I would not be against gun ownership at all.

I also think you should know I was born and raised in the USA and have lived abroad for a few years. In my limited wisdom, I think the USA provides the best quality of life for the most people of any country I have lived in. But there are also alot of things that the USA does that I disagree with. This does not make me an anti-american nazi socialist liberal. It just means I think about the issues before making my mind up about them. If you have never lived abroad and have no means of comparison then of course what I am saying will appear extreme.

Bro. You realize we're agreeing here? Reread it. I said they have near-mandatory gun ownership + sky-high levels of training --> minimal gun-related crime. That's it.

And please don't talk to me about experience, if you couldn't catch the drift of my last paragraph, I'll make it simpler. I'm not in America right now. I firmly believe everyone has the duty to participate in the world they live in, and you can't do that with the prototypical American die-50-miles-from-where-you-were-born trend. I'm in Europe. I'm speaking from experience myself.

As for the shitstorm the rest of this thread turned into, I won't get involved.

Most people do things to add days to their life. I do things to add life to my days.

Browse my blog as a WSO contributing author

2/20/11
A Posse Ad Esse:
awm55:
A Posse Ad Esse:

Should I repeat myself? Sweden. Mandatory gun ownership. Zero gun-crime violence rate. Take that and shove it in your precious European-above-all pseudo-socialist mentality.
http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

Read this article beginning to end. I'm not an American nutcase screaming for gun rights a la carte. I'm saying it's a right people should have and (in an ideal world) exercise willingly. Wanna know why? This is different than abstract theory for me. I grew up in the wrong part of Philly. I can say bluntly from experience, there's a lot that people would and wouldn't do if they knew someone on the other side of the car door they're about to jack or the house door they're about to kick in to rob possessed and was trained to use firearms.

When regulated *properly*, gun ownership is one of the single most effective deterrents to crime. I'm sorry, human nature is such that you cannot remove ALL weaponry from an equation and expect an abstract discourse of morality to act as barrier enough to prevent the deviants from wreaking harm. I consider myself a moral person. I realize that not everyone else will abide by some higher code that I ascribe to. Therefore, apart from keeping my physical condition at the level where I'm absolutely willing to defend myself in any reasonable situation (as I have done and will continue in the future), I believe it's not only wise but necessary to take appropriate measures to guarantee my safety.

I'm not gonna bust caps for fun. Enough of that, I'm glad to be *from* Philly. Were I allowed in NYC to keep a semi in a wall safe, would I? Doubtlessly. As for the 'do you care what happens outside your little "fucked up US universe," yeah actually I do. I believe in the concept of global citizenship where I pledge allegiance to my country, my city, my birthplace, and the world I live in, all in that order. And consequently it really irks me to see meathead Americans giving the country I love an awful rep by perpetuating the inane stereotype we have across the world, and it also aggravates that people outside America take that as license to act even worse in return. Brilliant idea, eliminate vitriol by escalating your own. Seriously?

You have no idea what you are talking about. Sweden and Switzerland both have extremely high rates of gun ownership. They also have mandatory military service where you are taught to own and operate a gun. It is not uncommon for people in Switzerland to carry what we would refer to as assault rifles in open view on the street. To be honest, if every US citizen had military training then I would not be against gun ownership at all.

I also think you should know I was born and raised in the USA and have lived abroad for a few years. In my limited wisdom, I think the USA provides the best quality of life for the most people of any country I have lived in. But there are also alot of things that the USA does that I disagree with. This does not make me an anti-american nazi socialist liberal. It just means I think about the issues before making my mind up about them. If you have never lived abroad and have no means of comparison then of course what I am saying will appear extreme.

Bro. You realize we're agreeing here? Reread it. I said they have near-mandatory gun ownership + sky-high levels of training --> minimal gun-related crime. That's it.

And please don't talk to me about experience, if you couldn't catch the drift of my last paragraph, I'll make it simpler. I'm not in America right now. I firmly believe everyone has the duty to participate in the world they live in, and you can't do that with the prototypical American die-50-miles-from-where-you-were-born trend. I'm in Europe. I'm speaking from experience myself.

As for the shitstorm the rest of this thread turned into, I won't get involved.

Yeah, if all Americans had military level training with firearms then I would be for wider gun ownership. But they don't...

And that argument does not really hold up that well when applied to other countries. Canada and Germany have basically no gun crime as well, how do you explain that? Low gun crime rates have little to do with more people owning guns, and far more to do with a lack of black on black crime in inner cities and conscription.

And I posted previously that in the US the states with the highest gun ownership have the highest amount of gun violence. Can you explain this? By your logic this is because there are not enough guns, and frankly I don't buy this argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_U...

2/20/11

So your issue with gun ownership is that people are not trained and therefore are prone to accidental discharge?

Listen, the majority of gun crime and gun inflicted homicide is committed by blacks and is black on black crime. I brought this up the last time we had a gun debate. If you exclude inner city gun crime (very poor, black neighborhoods), the USA looks a lot less scary.

What does this mean? It means that the USA needs to do whatever is necessary to end the cycle of poverty and crime in the black community. I would support automatic college scholarships to students at certain schools. Maybe we need to increase the police presence in certain areas. Maybe we need to decriminalize drugs and thereby end the incentive to commit drug related crime. Maybe we need a concerted effort to make education obtainable and desired by young black males. Maybe all of these need to be done.

What doesn't need to be done is restricting freedom and access to guns, a very important constitutional right.

If you look at the people who advocate gun safety, they make no sense. On one hand they want to reduce gun crime so they want a law to mandate gun safety training. The only thing gun safety training will do is reduce accidental discharges.

The real reason for this push is to little by little, chew away at owning guns. If you add hurdle after hurdle, eventually it will be too bothersome to purchase a gun. Kind of like taxing bullets to the point that it makes no sense to own the gun in the first place.

We need no more gun laws. We need the laws on the books to be enforced.

2/20/11

Let me also bring one more thing up. In Europe, the state has basically taken away your right to defend yourself and as an exchange, they have increase their protection for you.

I mean that makes sense, right. You can protect yourself and your house or we can protect you and your house.

What does this mean? Well in order to protect the citizens, you need to be able to watch over them. This means cameras. Cameras all over the place.

This also means more police and more monitoring. That means more taxes.

No free lunch boys. Europe plays mommy and daddy, but their form of parenting is not cheap. Better bend over and grab your ankles.

2/20/11

So let me get this straight. You are against someones right to wear what they want. You also are against someone voting based on their religious beliefs. Am I about right?

Jesus kid. You need to learn how to tolerate others differences.

Who gives a fuck about what you hear on the news. End of the day, people protested and the mosque moved forward. Countries in Europe have banned the building of mosques. I would rather hear arguments in the news and rights upheld than nicey nice in the news and restrictions.

2/20/11
ANT:

So let me get this straight. You are against someones right to wear what they want. You also are against someone voting based on their religious beliefs. Am I about right?

Jesus kid. You need to learn how to tolerate others differences.

Who gives a fuck about what you hear on the news. End of the day, people protested and the mosque moved forward. Countries in Europe have banned the building of mosques. I would rather hear arguments in the news and rights upheld than nicey nice in the news and restrictions.

Yes, I am against people voting based on their religious beliefs if that means laws are going to be imposed that then impose their religious beliefs on me. See what I did there? That is not the governments job.

2/20/11
awm55:

Yes, I am against people voting based on their religious beliefs if that means laws are going to be imposed that then impose their religious beliefs on me. See what I did there? That is not the governments job.

So tell me which horrible conservative laws are bothering you, kid? Because I get the feeling that your religious belief, that being absolute hatred for all things libertarian or American, is causing you to wish to impose your beliefs on me. So have at it, what are the specific beliefs and laws that are getting to you?

2/20/11

Also, let me clarify something.

"I don't think anyone should be able to live in a western country that does not have sharia law and be able to wear religious garb that prevents them from assimiliating into wider society."

I DONT THINK

Who gives a fuck what you think? I didn't realize your thoughts mean you can dictate to other people what to do.

2/20/11
ANT:

Also, let me clarify something.

"I don't think anyone should be able to live in a western country that does not have sharia law and be able to wear religious garb that prevents them from assimiliating into wider society."

I DONT THINK

Who gives a fuck what you think? I didn't realize your thoughts mean you can dictate to other people what to do.

I have never not once seen a muslim woman wearing a niqab in any job or interacting with anyone who was not wearing a niqab themselves. I do not think that a person should be able to immigrate into a country and not at least try to assimimilate. You think western society is going to accept people with open arms if we cannot see your face? Don't think so. Again, this is just common sense.

And who cares what I think? This is an oppinion based forum, who the hell cares what YOU think. Without oppinion it would not exist. That is the point.

2/20/11

It seems to me you are against a lot of freedoms. I advise you to look at permanently moving to Europe.

2/20/11
txjustin:

It seems to me you are against a lot of freedoms. I advise you to look at permanently moving to Europe.

That's the great thing about living in a free country, you're free to reject that freedom and either partner with somebody who you can pool your money with or move somewhere else where you can sacrifice your freedom and have the government take care of you. But that's not good enough for leftists, they are not satisfied until they've stamped out every last element of individual liberty that exists in this entire world. Just look at what some of our contemporaries from the UK post on this board.

2/20/11
rebelcross:
txjustin:

It seems to me you are against a lot of freedoms. I advise you to look at permanently moving to Europe.

That's the great thing about living in a free country, you're free to reject that freedom and either partner with somebody who you can pool your money with or move somewhere else where you can sacrifice your freedom and have the government take care of you. But that's not good enough for leftists, they are not satisfied until they've stamped out every last element of individual liberty that exists in this entire world. Just look at what some of our contemporaries from the UK post on this board.

Have you ever left this country? Ever? You sound like a fucking nutcase.

2/20/11
awm55:
rebelcross:
txjustin:

It seems to me you are against a lot of freedoms. I advise you to look at permanently moving to Europe.

That's the great thing about living in a free country, you're free to reject that freedom and either partner with somebody who you can pool your money with or move somewhere else where you can sacrifice your freedom and have the government take care of you. But that's not good enough for leftists, they are not satisfied until they've stamped out every last element of individual liberty that exists in this entire world. Just look at what some of our contemporaries from the UK post on this board.

Have you ever left this country? Ever? You sound like a fucking nutcase.

LOL this is all you have left is "he's a nutcase" "he's Hannity" "the South is evil." What did I say that was so nuts? That you're free to leave the country or that I don't like that you are trying to eliminate the freedoms in this country when everything you desire in a country is easily accessible in Canada, England, France, Germany...etc. For those of us that love freedom, we only have this one place...I guess we're all nutcases, huh? But, please, elaborate...you're doing well

2/20/11
rebelcross:
awm55:
rebelcross:
txjustin:

It seems to me you are against a lot of freedoms. I advise you to look at permanently moving to Europe.

That's the great thing about living in a free country, you're free to reject that freedom and either partner with somebody who you can pool your money with or move somewhere else where you can sacrifice your freedom and have the government take care of you. But that's not good enough for leftists, they are not satisfied until they've stamped out every last element of individual liberty that exists in this entire world. Just look at what some of our contemporaries from the UK post on this board.

Have you ever left this country? Ever? You sound like a fucking nutcase.

LOL this is all you have left is "he's a nutcase" "he's Hannity" "the South is evil." What did I say that was so nuts? That you're free to leave the country or that I don't like that you are trying to eliminate the freedoms in this country when everything you desire in a country is easily accessible in Canada, England, France, Germany...etc. For those of us that love freedom, we only have this one place...I guess we're all nutcases, huh? But, please, elaborate...you're doing well

Dude, seriously? Because I disagree with you I hate freedom and America. Well done, nice argument. You sound like 10 year old. The Hannity comment was in relation to the fact that anyone who disgarees with him is of course anti american and anti freedom. It is the most pathetic weakest respone to an argument i have ever heard.

2/20/11
awm55:
rebelcross:
awm55:
rebelcross:
txjustin:

It seems to me you are against a lot of freedoms. I advise you to look at permanently moving to Europe.

That's the great thing about living in a free country, you're free to reject that freedom and either partner with somebody who you can pool your money with or move somewhere else where you can sacrifice your freedom and have the government take care of you. But that's not good enough for leftists, they are not satisfied until they've stamped out every last element of individual liberty that exists in this entire world. Just look at what some of our contemporaries from the UK post on this board.

Have you ever left this country? Ever? You sound like a fucking nutcase.

LOL this is all you have left is "he's a nutcase" "he's Hannity" "the South is evil." What did I say that was so nuts? That you're free to leave the country or that I don't like that you are trying to eliminate the freedoms in this country when everything you desire in a country is easily accessible in Canada, England, France, Germany...etc. For those of us that love freedom, we only have this one place...I guess we're all nutcases, huh? But, please, elaborate...you're doing well

Dude, seriously? Because I disagree with you I hate freedom and America. Well done, nice argument. You sound like 10 year old. The Hannity comment was in relation to the fact that anyone who disgarees with him is of course anti american and anti freedom. It is the most pathetic weakest respone to an argument i have ever heard.

Not quite because you disagreed with me. More like your posts over the past three days have been extremely anti-freedom (guns and now Muslims) and very anti-American in nature. It's not about me, but thanks for trying to make it about me, I appreciate the extra attention.

Your final statement about Hannity was unintelligible. Your comment calling Txjustin Hannity came before anybody said anything about disagreement. More like Txjustin agreed with me and you called him Hannity. So..umm..yeah...you kind of lost me there. Speaking to the "most pathetic and weakest (sic) reponse (sic)" you've "ever heard", I'm still not quite sure what that argument is because that argument didn't exist at the time of your Hannity post.

2/20/11
rebelcross:
awm55:
rebelcross:
awm55:
rebelcross:
txjustin:

It seems to me you are against a lot of freedoms. I advise you to look at permanently moving to Europe.

That's the great thing about living in a free country, you're free to reject that freedom and either partner with somebody who you can pool your money with or move somewhere else where you can sacrifice your freedom and have the government take care of you. But that's not good enough for leftists, they are not satisfied until they've stamped out every last element of individual liberty that exists in this entire world. Just look at what some of our contemporaries from the UK post on this board.

Have you ever left this country? Ever? You sound like a fucking nutcase.

LOL this is all you have left is "he's a nutcase" "he's Hannity" "the South is evil." What did I say that was so nuts? That you're free to leave the country or that I don't like that you are trying to eliminate the freedoms in this country when everything you desire in a country is easily accessible in Canada, England, France, Germany...etc. For those of us that love freedom, we only have this one place...I guess we're all nutcases, huh? But, please, elaborate...you're doing well

Dude, seriously? Because I disagree with you I hate freedom and America. Well done, nice argument. You sound like 10 year old. The Hannity comment was in relation to the fact that anyone who disgarees with him is of course anti american and anti freedom. It is the most pathetic weakest respone to an argument i have ever heard.

Not quite because you disagreed with me. More like your posts over the past three days have been extremely anti-freedom (guns and now Muslims) and very anti-American in nature. It's not about me, but thanks for trying to make it about me, I appreciate the extra attention.

Your final statement about Hannity was unintelligible. Your comment calling Txjustin Hannity came before anybody said anything about disagreement. More like Txjustin agreed with me and you called him Hannity. So..umm..yeah...you kind of lost me there. Speaking to the "most pathetic and weakest (sic) reponse (sic)" you've "ever heard", I'm still not quite sure what that argument is because that argument didn't exist at the time of your Hannity post.

Nothing I have said is anti-freedom. I have never once said that anyone should be prevented from practicing a religion. I just don't think people should be able to impose their religious beliefs on me, that is the most american concept I can think of.

I also think that anyone living in a western society should at least of the courtosy to wear clothing that lets other people see their face. How on earth do you expect anyone to integrate in society if you are speaking to a black piece of fabric? Again, I support the Abaya, just not the Niqab.

2/20/11
awm55:

Nothing I have said is anti-freedom.

Do you or do you not believe that people of a certain religion (Islam) should be limited in their clothing choices? Would that then be one less freedom that they would have?

Do you or do you not believe in limiting gun ownership? Would disallowing people the right to bear arms be one less freedom that people have?

I don't give a shit if you love freedom or hate freedom, but at least be honest that you wish to limit freedom in certain ways (hence anti-freedom, "anti" meaning "counter to" or "against".)

2/20/11
rebelcross:
awm55:

Nothing I have said is anti-freedom.

Do you or do you not believe that people of a certain religion (Islam) should be limited in their clothing choices? Would that then be one less freedom that they would have?

Do you or do you not believe in limiting gun ownership? Would disallowing people the right to bear arms be one less freedom that people have?

I don't give a shit if you love freedom or hate freedom, but at least be honest that you wish to limit freedom in certain ways (hence anti-freedom, "anti" meaning "counter to" or "against".)

This has nothing to do with Islam. No one should be able to wear clothes that completely cover their face. This just happens to apply to some very conservative muslims.

You make it sound like there are some things that should never be limited for the greater good of society.

2/20/11

Yeah, I see what you did there. Confirmed your intolerance. As long as those laws do not violate the bill or rights and the constitution, people are free to vote and pass laws as they feel fit.

Please tell me what religious beliefs were imposed on you? What laws did the south have that forced you to do something? Last time I checked, the south didn't have any laws that forced you to be a Christian, forced you to read the bible, forced you to go to church.

Yawn, more anti religious, anti conservative bullshit. How about allowing people to think and believe what they want.

God forbid that happened.

2/20/11
ANT:

Yeah, I see what you did there. Confirmed your intolerance. As long as those laws do not violate the bill or rights and the constitution, people are free to vote and pass laws as they feel fit.

Please tell me what religious beliefs were imposed on you? What laws did the south have that forced you to do something? Last time I checked, the south didn't have any laws that forced you to be a Christian, forced you to read the bible, forced you to go to church.

Yawn, more anti religious, anti conservative bullshit. How about allowing people to think and believe what they want.

God forbid that happened.

I'm intolerant. Are you kidding me? I get fucking called a nazi on this forum because I state opinions that you do not agree with. You calling someone else intolerant is a joke.

2/20/11

Accept them now. Wow. Maybe they should wear gold stars on their chest or pink triangles.

Maybe they just want to be respected and left alone. Man oh man, what else should we ban to please you? Lets rattle off the list of things you think are stupid.

2/20/11
ANT:

Accept them now. Wow. Maybe they should wear gold stars on their chest or pink triangles.

Maybe they just want to be respected and left alone. Man oh man, what else should we ban to please you? Lets rattle off the list of things you think are stupid.

Funny how he claims Fox News is the worst thing on Earth because they're so biased against Muslims (even though I guarantee he's never watched more than 20 minutes of Fox News), yet he's spewing some of the most anti-Muslim rhetoric I've ever heard.

2/20/11
rebelcross:
ANT:

Accept them now. Wow. Maybe they should wear gold stars on their chest or pink triangles.

Maybe they just want to be respected and left alone. Man oh man, what else should we ban to please you? Lets rattle off the list of things you think are stupid.

Funny how he claims Fox News is the worst thing on Earth because they're so biased against Muslims (even though I guarantee he's never watched more than 20 minutes of Fox News), yet he's spewing some of the most anti-Muslim rhetoric I've ever heard.

I am not anti-muslim. I think they should be able to build mosques wherever they want. Last time I checked it was the far right (you guys) protesting the mosque by ground zero.

I just don't support the right for ANYONE to walk down the street with their face covered. It does not allow you to participate in society.

2/20/11

^^Great post and observation rebel. This kid obviously hates America, so he's free to move.

2/20/11
txjustin:

^^Great post and observation rebel. This kid obviously hates America, so he's free to move.

Thanks you Sean Hannity. Next...

2/20/11
awm55:
txjustin:

^^Great post and observation rebel. This kid obviously hates America, so he's free to move.

Thanks you Sean Hannity. Next...

lol what does Sean Hannity have to do with anything, how did anything he say resemble anything Sean Hannity says? What does this have to do with Hannity's political philosophy?

Oh, I love the assumption of a negative connotation for Hannity...not that I even like Hannity, but like somehow I'm supposed to believe that you even know anything Hannity's ever said or believes in...

2/20/11

You are a Nazi. You want to limit people's religious beliefs. You want to take away the right to bear arms. How is that not a Nazi?

I don't know dude. Limiting people's religion and right to bear arms is pretty much text book fascism.

Also, it is comical that you call me intolerant even though I continually affirm my belief that everyones freedom and opinion should be listen to and heard.

I embrace American freedom. I am completely tolerant. You on the other hand are not.

2/20/11
ANT:

You are a Nazi. You want to limit people's religious beliefs. You want to take away the right to bear arms. How is that not a Nazi?

I don't know dude. Limiting people's religion and right to bear arms is pretty much text book fascism.

Also, it is comical that you call me intolerant even though I continually affirm my belief that everyones freedom and opinion should be listen to and heard.

I embrace American freedom. I am completely tolerant. You on the other hand are not.

People are free to practice any religion they want as long they don't impose their religious beliefs on me. Period.

Moderating gun ownership does not make me a nazi. Have you or anyone you have ever met needed a gun to protect themselves...ever?

2/20/11
awm55:
ANT:

You are a Nazi. You want to limit people's religious beliefs. You want to take away the right to bear arms. How is that not a Nazi?

I don't know dude. Limiting people's religion and right to bear arms is pretty much text book fascism.

Also, it is comical that you call me intolerant even though I continually affirm my belief that everyones freedom and opinion should be listen to and heard.

I embrace American freedom. I am completely tolerant. You on the other hand are not.

People are free to practice any religion they want as long they don't impose their religious beliefs on me. Period.

Moderating gun ownership does not make me a nazi. Have you or anyone you have ever met needed a gun to protect themselves...ever?

Have you or anyone you met ever really needed balloons at a party ever? Have you ever really needed to use butter on your toast instead of margarine? Sometimes freedom is a little bit more than necessity. Look into it.

2/20/11
awm55:

Have you or anyone you have ever met needed a gun to protect themselves...ever?

Yes.

---------------------
"Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America."

2/20/11
ANT:

You are a Nazi. You want to limit people's religious beliefs. You want to take away the right to bear arms. How is that not a Nazi?

I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to limit people's religious beliefs or make it illegal to bear arms, but even if he did, he wouldn't be a nazi, look it up. Are you trying to provocate or are you actually that narrow-minded? You shouldn't believe everything Glenn says.

But yes, voting according to religious beliefs is crazy and even though I suspect it is the most widespread in the U.S. it occurs elsewhere as well.

rebelcross, Anti-freedom? Why do you have to make everything so black and white, there is such a thing as a greyscale. Would you like to live in a darwin-style environment where everyone battles for food each day? You do realize that there are restrictions to freedom also in the U.S.?

ANT even though your post about nazism and european control made me giggle, your comments about Europe are far from the reality.

2/20/11
ck123321:

rebelcross, Anti-freedom? Why do you have to make everything so black and white, there is such a thing as a greyscale. Would you like to live in a darwin-style environment where everyone battles for food each day? You do realize that there are restrictions to freedom also in the U.S.?

This is kindergarten shit, I can't believe I have to explain this to you, let's break it down:

(A) Freedom is an absolute state. There are no degrees to freedom much like there are no degrees to "infinity." Once a liberty has been taken away, even the smallest liberty, freedom is ended as the person is no longer free (they are not free to utilize the liberty taken away.)

(B) We already know that absolute freedom is impossible in the context of human society, this is kindergarten shit. Nobody is suggesting people can run around and kill people (a freedom that people don't have.) Hence, the idea of absolute freedom in the most absolute sense is dead.

(C) America is built on the next best thing: the maximum amount of freedom possible within the context of a functioning society. Hence, the survival of a functioning state and society at their minimum is made possible by the limitation of freedoms which threaten those things. Therefore, freedoms like the right to rape, kidnap, embezzle, etc. are not granted to people. Anything beyond the minimum amount of liberties taken away to ensure survival of the society is an illegitimate limitation on freedom as it is simply tantamount to one man's opinion and way of life being forced upon another man. Ethically incorrect and against everything America stands for. America has not reached this ideal yet, but it is the foundation that America is built upon and it is something that freedom loving people strive for.

If liberty scares you, then you are perfectly free to go to a less libertarian place in the world. However, people that yearn for liberty have nowhere else to go, so why must you take it away from them? Because you are Nazis at heart, plain and simple. You hold no regard for another man's liberty, only your concept of what life should be.

2/20/11
rebelcross:
ck123321:

rebelcross, Anti-freedom? Why do you have to make everything so black and white, there is such a thing as a greyscale. Would you like to live in a darwin-style environment where everyone battles for food each day? You do realize that there are restrictions to freedom also in the U.S.?

This is kindergarten shit, I can't believe I have to explain this to you, let's break it down:

(A) Freedom is an absolute state. There are no degrees to freedom much like there are no degrees to "infinity." Once a liberty has been taken away, even the smallest liberty, freedom is ended as the person is no longer free (they are not free to utilize the liberty taken away.)

(B) We already know that absolute freedom is impossible in the context of human society, this is kindergarten shit. Nobody is suggesting people can run around and kill people (a freedom that people don't have.) Hence, the idea of absolute freedom in the most absolute sense is dead.

(C) America is built on the next best thing: the maximum amount of freedom possible within the context of a functioning society. Hence, the survival of a functioning state and society at their minimum is made possible by the limitation of freedoms which threaten those things. Therefore, freedoms like the right to rape, kidnap, embezzle, etc. are not granted to people. Anything beyond the minimum amount of liberties taken away to ensure survival of the society is an illegitimate limitation on freedom as it is simply tantamount to one man's opinion and way of life being forced upon another man. Ethically incorrect and against everything America stands for. America has not reached this ideal yet, but it is the foundation that America is built upon and it is something that freedom loving people strive for.

If liberty scares you, then you are perfectly free to go to a less libertarian place in the world. However, people that yearn for liberty have nowhere else to go, so why must you take it away from them? Because you are Nazis at heart, plain and simple. You hold no regard for another man's liberty, only your concept of what life should be.

Dude, seriously? You can make this argument as text book and academic as you want but in the context of the real world you have to look at things with a bit more objectivity.

And your argument is just historically wrong. The USA was behind many other countries with regards to the freedoms you hold so dear. If you were a wealthy white land owner then yeah you had it great, if you were black or a woman not so much. This is just historical fact, you can twist it anyway you want but you cannot change our history.

The fact that you make lax gun laws the be all and end all of freedom is just insane.

2/20/11
awm55:
rebelcross:
ck123321:

rebelcross, Anti-freedom? Why do you have to make everything so black and white, there is such a thing as a greyscale. Would you like to live in a darwin-style environment where everyone battles for food each day? You do realize that there are restrictions to freedom also in the U.S.?

This is kindergarten shit, I can't believe I have to explain this to you, let's break it down:

(A) Freedom is an absolute state. There are no degrees to freedom much like there are no degrees to "infinity." Once a liberty has been taken away, even the smallest liberty, freedom is ended as the person is no longer free (they are not free to utilize the liberty taken away.)

(B) We already know that absolute freedom is impossible in the context of human society, this is kindergarten shit. Nobody is suggesting people can run around and kill people (a freedom that people don't have.) Hence, the idea of absolute freedom in the most absolute sense is dead.

(C) America is built on the next best thing: the maximum amount of freedom possible within the context of a functioning society. Hence, the survival of a functioning state and society at their minimum is made possible by the limitation of freedoms which threaten those things. Therefore, freedoms like the right to rape, kidnap, embezzle, etc. are not granted to people. Anything beyond the minimum amount of liberties taken away to ensure survival of the society is an illegitimate limitation on freedom as it is simply tantamount to one man's opinion and way of life being forced upon another man. Ethically incorrect and against everything America stands for. America has not reached this ideal yet, but it is the foundation that America is built upon and it is something that freedom loving people strive for.

If liberty scares you, then you are perfectly free to go to a less libertarian place in the world. However, people that yearn for liberty have nowhere else to go, so why must you take it away from them? Because you are Nazis at heart, plain and simple. You hold no regard for another man's liberty, only your concept of what life should be.

Dude, seriously? You can make this argument as text book and academic as you want but in the context of the real world you have to look at things with a bit more objectivity.

And your argument is just historically wrong. The USA was behind many other countries with regards to the freedoms you hold so dear. If you were a wealthy white land owner then yeah you had it great, if you were black or a woman not so much. This is just historical fact, you can twist it anyway you want but you cannot change our history.

The fact that you make lax gun laws the be all and end all of freedom is just insane.

What you aren't grasping in what we are saying is it really isn't the gun laws, it's if you let ANY government take away a right/freedom, they won't stop! Why do you think we want small government? You really, really need to take an hour or so and read The Constitution of the United States of America. There is a meaning behind the words, they're not just words.

2/20/11
txjustin:
awm55:
rebelcross:
ck123321:

rebelcross, Anti-freedom? Why do you have to make everything so black and white, there is such a thing as a greyscale. Would you like to live in a darwin-style environment where everyone battles for food each day? You do realize that there are restrictions to freedom also in the U.S.?

This is kindergarten shit, I can't believe I have to explain this to you, let's break it down:

(A) Freedom is an absolute state. There are no degrees to freedom much like there are no degrees to "infinity." Once a liberty has been taken away, even the smallest liberty, freedom is ended as the person is no longer free (they are not free to utilize the liberty taken away.)

(B) We already know that absolute freedom is impossible in the context of human society, this is kindergarten shit. Nobody is suggesting people can run around and kill people (a freedom that people don't have.) Hence, the idea of absolute freedom in the most absolute sense is dead.

(C) America is built on the next best thing: the maximum amount of freedom possible within the context of a functioning society. Hence, the survival of a functioning state and society at their minimum is made possible by the limitation of freedoms which threaten those things. Therefore, freedoms like the right to rape, kidnap, embezzle, etc. are not granted to people. Anything beyond the minimum amount of liberties taken away to ensure survival of the society is an illegitimate limitation on freedom as it is simply tantamount to one man's opinion and way of life being forced upon another man. Ethically incorrect and against everything America stands for. America has not reached this ideal yet, but it is the foundation that America is built upon and it is something that freedom loving people strive for.

If liberty scares you, then you are perfectly free to go to a less libertarian place in the world. However, people that yearn for liberty have nowhere else to go, so why must you take it away from them? Because you are Nazis at heart, plain and simple. You hold no regard for another man's liberty, only your concept of what life should be.

Dude, seriously? You can make this argument as text book and academic as you want but in the context of the real world you have to look at things with a bit more objectivity.

And your argument is just historically wrong. The USA was behind many other countries with regards to the freedoms you hold so dear. If you were a wealthy white land owner then yeah you had it great, if you were black or a woman not so much. This is just historical fact, you can twist it anyway you want but you cannot change our history.

The fact that you make lax gun laws the be all and end all of freedom is just insane.

What you aren't grasping in what we are saying is it really isn't the gun laws, it's if you let ANY government take away a right/freedom, they won't stop! Why do you think we want small government? You really, really need to take an hour or so and read The Constitution of the United States of America. There is a meaning behind the words, they're not just words.

You are living in a fantasy world.

The USA was historically not the utopian dream you think it was with regards to rights and freedoms. As I said before, we lagged behind many other countries on freedoms for anyone who was not a white wealthy land owner. If you were black, female, gay, etc etc it took us a bit longer to get them on the same playing field.

This is not anti-american, this is historical fact.

And you have to realize I do want small government. But this paranoia about the cascade of tyranny that would occur if people had a basic level of health insurance and strict gun laws is just insane. Its not based on facts, just on some fringe ideological belief that does not hold up in reality.

2/20/11

Lol. No problem Nancy Pelosi

2/20/11

Hahaha

This kid talks about restricting religion, stopping women from wearing a burqua if they want and taking away peoples right to own guns and he calls other people intolerant.

Also, the whole Fox News thing is so old. Fox is right leaning. CNN is left leaning.

How about addressing my statement above about gun violence. I see a lot of glossing over. Calling people names is rank also. I know TX and he is a great guy, very smart.

Also, stop throwing around "leaving this country" as if going overseas is some game changer. I have gone overseas, does that make anything I say any more right or wrong. Big fucking deal dude.

2/20/11

Wow, he is now an expert on societal integration. I see women wearing a burqua all the time and it is fine by me. They talk on the phone, carry their kids, buy stuff. I've never had an issue with them or accepting them into society.

How is it only the "right" that was against this. New Yorkers protested this (not dumb southerners). I am sure plenty of Obama Democrats protested. Could you please link me to a demographic study of who protested.

AWM, are you now against protesting? I suppose you would support protesting for things that YOU THINK are appropriate.

People are free to protest in America. If something is constitutionally protected then all the protesting in the world wont stop it.

2/20/11
ANT:

Wow, he is now an expert on societal integration. I see women wearing a burqua all the time and it is fine by me. They talk on the phone, carry their kids, buy stuff. I've never had an issue with them or accepting them into society.

How is it only the "right" that was against this. New Yorkers protested this (not dumb southerners). I am sure plenty of Obama Democrats protested. Could you please link me to a demographic study of who protested.

AWM, are you now against protesting? I suppose you would support protesting for things that YOU THINK are appropriate.

People are free to protest in America. If something is constitutionally protected then all the protesting in the world wont stop it.

The niqab does not bother me or make me uncomfortable due to religious connotations. I have a problem with ANYONE wearing clothes that completely cover their face. It has nothing to do with religion. Maybe I should walk down the street with a balaclava on, would that be ok with you?

2/20/11

I carry a gun almost daily. I'd much rather not need it and havei it than need it and not have it. Just to let you know in case you don't, to get a concealed carry license in Texas you have to take a course that includes classroom work and actual shooting to qualify. On top of that they do a full FBI background check. Another thing, speaking from a Texas perspective, in order to buy ANY gun you are run through a database and they do a background check based on your name. It isn't instantaneous either. Usually takes 30 minutes to an hour.

2/20/11

I have actually met a couple people who have needed a gun for protection. This doesn't make my point anymore valid and it isn't a valid tool to win an argument either.

Please tell me how the south imposed their religion on anyone.

2/20/11

AWM, it's been a pleasure. I concede until the morrow. Gotta turn in.

2/20/11

Yeah, perfectly fine with me. I don't tell other people how to dress. I've worn that shit on occasion.

2/20/11

Ok, well we are making progress. You are clarifying your points which help.

2/20/11

^^^That has nothing to do with what I just said or whether or not you are opposed to freedoms.

2/20/11

AWM, shut the fuck up with this overseas shit. You make it sound like you know everything because you spent some time outside of the USA. I've spent time overseas, Rebelcross has (I know him), my girlfriend has spent way more fucking time overseas than you, on and on. You act like the second you get your passport stamped you become a genius.

We have the right to bear arms. Some people don't like it. Oh fucking well. European nations were not formed on the same principals as we were. This country was created specifically to be the opposite of Europe. I have no issue with Europe doing what they like and I do not think they have any right to tell us what to do.

Also, I have mentioned before that the fact is, gun violence is heavily weighted in certain areas. No one addresses this because it clearly puts a huge as kink in the whole "lets limit gun freedom and murder rates will drop" theory. Freedoms are not free. The right to bear arms has a cost. Deal with it.

CK, limiting someones religious freedoms, right to bear arms and trying to force your opinion on other people is pretty much hallmark fascism and national socialism (Nazi).

Also, please tell me what is so wrong about my statements on Europe?

Also, voting is a personal decision. Some people are religious. Some people vote on economic principals. Some are racist. Some don't vote at all. I don't make it my business to care about the reason people vote, only that they vote.

You should take note of that.

2/20/11
ANT:

AWM, shut the fuck up with this overseas shit. You make it sound like you know everything because you spent some time outside of the USA. I've spent time overseas, Rebelcross has (I know him), my girlfriend has spent way more fucking time overseas than you, on and on. You act like the second you get your passport stamped you become a genius.

We have the right to bear arms. Some people don't like it. Oh fucking well. European nations were not formed on the same principals as we were. This country was created specifically to be the opposite of Europe. I have no issue with Europe doing what they like and I do not think they have any right to tell us what to do.

Also, I have mentioned before that the fact is, gun violence is heavily weighted in certain areas. No one addresses this because it clearly puts a huge as kink in the whole "lets limit gun freedom and murder rates will drop" theory. Freedoms are not free. The right to bear arms has a cost. Deal with it.

CK, limiting someones religious freedoms, right to bear arms and trying to force your opinion on other people is pretty much hallmark fascism and national socialism (Nazi).

Also, please tell me what is so wrong about my statements on Europe?

Also, voting is a personal decision. Some people are religious. Some people vote on economic principals. Some are racist. Some don't vote at all. I don't make it my business to care about the reason people vote, only that they vote.

You should take note of that.

This makes no sense. Everyone tries to force their opinion on other people. Its called having the right to vote.

2/20/11
awm55:

This makes no sense. Everyone tries to force their opinion on other people. Its called having the right to vote.

LOL wow...

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/20/11
HPM:
awm55:

This makes no sense. Everyone tries to force their opinion on other people. Its called having the right to vote.

LOL wow...

What? Prove me wrong. How is voting based upon religious beliefs not de facto imposing your beliefs on other people?

2/20/11
awm55:
HPM:
awm55:

This makes no sense. Everyone tries to force their opinion on other people. Its called having the right to vote.

LOL wow...

What? Prove me wrong. How is voting based upon religious beliefs not de facto imposing your beliefs on other people?

That's what is great about the FREEDOM to vote. EVeryone votes on whatever they believe in. What is their to prove in that? I'm not sure where you've been in the "South", but where I am in Texas I've never once had anybody shoving religion down my throat.

2/20/11

Why is it that whenever people bust out their liberal beliefs it is always marked with a disdain for anything and anyone religious. Always strikes me as the most ignorant thing in the world. Religion might have negatives, along with everything else, but blindly believing in the superiority of mans intellect is a receipt for failure.

2/20/11
ANT:

Why is it that whenever people bust out their liberal beliefs it is always marked with a disdain for anything and anyone religious. Always strikes me as the most ignorant thing in the world. Religion might have negatives, along with everything else, but blindly believing in the superiority of mans intellect is a receipt for failure.

I was raised Roman Catholic, but don't protest in the streets against gay marriage and shove my religion down other peoples throats. That is what I have a problem with.

The fact you guys make issues so black and white is incredible.

2/20/11

Wow. See guys, fascism in action.

Please tell me what opinions and religious laws that have been forced on you by religious individuals.

2/20/11

^^^Once agan you are wrong, America was far more free than anywhere else in the world in the past. The problem is that there was time when certain people were not counted as "people." Which was perverse reasoning, but those people that were citizens of America were extremely free. The argument you made is simply nonsense, there's a clear gap between your reasoning and what you are trying to say.

And I am not talking in historicals either, I am talking in philosophy. It's a state that America was founded to hopefully achieve. Again you are missing the fucking point. You want to have gun laws. Some people like guns. The existence of guns in society is not fundamental to the survival of the society of a whole (hence it is not a freedom you can choose to limit.) What makes your anti-gun opnion more valuable than a pro-gun opnion? You are human, people who are pro-gun are human? But in your sick mind, you would wish to live in a society where you can dictate your version of what rights people should have and what life should be like upon other people who havve an equally valuable opinion. That's the definition of totalitarianism. That is not a free country. That is your sick dream.

2/20/11
rebelcross:

^^^Once agan you are wrong, America was far more free than anywhere else in the world in the past. The problem is that there was time when certain people were not counted as "people." Which was perverse reasoning, but those people that were citizens of America were extremely free. The argument you made is simply nonsense, there's a clear gap between your reasoning and what you are trying to say.

And I am not talking in historicals either, I am talking in philosophy. It's a state that America was founded to hopefully achieve. Again you are missing the fucking point. You want to have gun laws. Some people like guns. The existence of guns in society is not fundamental to the survival of the society of a whole (hence it is not a freedom you can choose to limit.) What makes your anti-gun opnion more valuable than a pro-gun opnion? You are human, people who are pro-gun are human? But in your sick mind, you would wish to live in a society where you can dictate your version of what rights people should have and what life should be like upon other people who havve an equally valuable opinion. That's the definition of totalitarianism. That is not a free country. That is your sick dream.

Its not nonsense. It is factual. We were (relatively) slow at adopting full woman's suffrage into law and it wasn't unitl 1965 that a Black person could not be prevented from voting in the south. And what about Jim Crow laws?

Are you saying blacks and woman were not regarded as "people" until the 20'th century?

If you were a wealthy white land owner the USA was great. And as much as you deny it, this is our history. There are a shit ton of things in our history to be proud of, but to falsely claim the USA was always this bastion of freedom for everyone that led the world in the fight for rights and equality is just not true. Alot of other countries beat us to it. I think its insulting to make up American history to fit your ideology.

And don't you get how hypocritical you sound?

I agree my opinion is not more valuable than a pro-gun opinion, but you dictating to me that I have to live in a society where someone can carry a loaded firearm into a super market is not different than me telling you that I don't think that that should be allowed. But I guess that makes me a sick totalitarian...

What are your views on smokers rights? Do you think they should be able to smoke anywhere they want?

2/20/11
awm55:

Its not nonsense. It is factual. We were (relatively) slow at adopting full woman's suffrage into law and it wasn't unitl 1965 that a Black person could not be prevented from voting in the south. And what about Jim Crow laws?

Are you saying blacks and woman were not regarded as "people" until the 20'th century?

Yes, they were not regarded as full citizens until the 20th century. The problem wasn't the ideology of the society itself. So...yeah...

This is among the many stupid arguments liberals try to make against American idealism. There was sexism and racism in America at one time at a very high level...that's where the problem was. Not rocket science. If they were to be treated like full citizens and given the rights of everybody else, everything would have been fine. Hence, the rights themselves are not the problem. But you don't see that, you don't see the disconnect in what you are saying...you are using bias within the society to argue against the liberties of that society.

awm55:

I think its insulting to make up American history to fit your ideology.

And don't you get how hypocritical you sound?

Funny, I was thinking the same about you.

awm55:

I agree my opinion is not more valuable than a pro-gun opinion, but you dictating to me that I have to live in a society where someone can carry a loaded firearm into a super market is not different than me telling you that I don't think that that should be allowed.

And, this, ladies and gentlemen, is easily the stupidest argument of the day and shows what we are dealing with here is not a person capable of sound logical thought, but instead a clusterfuck of nonsensical musings that comes together to form the above. I don't even know how to explain to you that what you have just described is logically backwards. Based on your argument I can say that it is not fair that you are forcing me to live in a society where other people wear clothes when I don't believe in wearing clothes...please reread what you just wrote, I don't even have the patience to break it down for you.

And NOBODY is forcing a "society" upon you, when you can choose to leave that society (which I really hope you do.) It is the freedom lovers who have nowhere else to go. But you are not happy until they are forced to live life by your whims. You really are a sick and twisted fuck.

2/20/11
rebelcross:
awm55:

Its not nonsense. It is factual. We were (relatively) slow at adopting full woman's suffrage into law and it wasn't unitl 1965 that a Black person could not be prevented from voting in the south. And what about Jim Crow laws?

Are you saying blacks and woman were not regarded as "people" until the 20'th century?

Yes, they were not regarded as full citizens until the 20th century. The problem wasn't the ideology of the society itself. So...yeah...

This is among the many stupid arguments liberals try to make against American idealism. There was sexism and racism in America at one time at a very high level...that's where the problem was. Not rocket science. If they were to be treated like full citizens and given the rights of everybody else, everything would have been fine. Hence, the rights themselves are not the problem. But you don't see that, you don't see the disconnect in what you are saying...you are using bias within the society to argue against the liberties of that society.

awm55:

I think its insulting to make up American history to fit your ideology.

And don't you get how hypocritical you sound?

Funny, I was thinking the same about you.

awm55:

I agree my opinion is not more valuable than a pro-gun opinion, but you dictating to me that I have to live in a society where someone can carry a loaded firearm into a super market is not different than me telling you that I don't think that that should be allowed.

And, this, ladies and gentlemen, is easily the stupidest argument of the day and shows what we are dealing with here is not a person capable of sound logical thought, but instead a clusterfuck of nonsensical musings that comes together to form the above. I don't even know how to explain to you that what you have just described is logically backwards. Based on your argument I can say that it is not fair that you are forcing me to live in a society where other people wear clothes when I don't believe in wearing clothes...please reread what you just wrote, I don't even have the patience to break it down for you.

And NOBODY is forcing a "society" upon you, when you can choose to leave that society (which I really hope you do.) It is the freedom lovers who have nowhere else to go. But you are not happy until they are forced to live life by your whims. You really are a sick and twisted fuck.

But its not logically backward. I have provided evidence that shows that states in the USA with higher rates of gun ownership have considerably higher rates of gun crime and homicide. Thus you telling me to live in a society that is more dangerous just because you want the freedom to own a gun doesn't seem too fair now does it. Someone wearing clothes has no negative externalities, owning a gun clearly does.

2/20/11
awm55:

But its not logically backward. I have provided evidence that shows that states in the USA with higher rates of gun ownership have considerably higher rates of gun crime and homicide. Thus you telling me to live in a society that is more dangerous just because you want the freedom to own a gun doesn't seem too fair now does it. Someone wearing clothes has no negative externalities, owning a gun clearly does.

^^^First of all your facts are shit, people have posted numerous facts counter to that. Second of all, you KEEP MISSING THE FUCKING POINT. It's not about a safer or less safe society. It's about FREEDOM. I would rather live 10 free years than 90 unfree years. That's why we oppose socialized medicine, that's why we oppose your nanny state, and that's why we support liberties to do what we want and own what we want like GUNS. Safety is not an adequate return for the sacrifice of freedom. There is no adequate return for sacrificing freedom. I could name a million things that make society more "dangerous." Doens't mean you can just go limiting things. That's the sacrifice for freedom. We would rather die on our feet than live on our knees. And guess what jackass, for the 400th time I'm telling you: if you don't like freedom, if it scares you because it creates "more danger" get the FUCK OUT. You are free to go and live in a "safe" nanny state where only daddy government is allowed to have guns. There are a zillion nations in this world without guns. We only have this one nation that guarantees this many freedoms. So, until you address this problem, you are just wasting your time.

2/20/11
rebelcross:
awm55:

But its not logically backward. I have provided evidence that shows that states in the USA with higher rates of gun ownership have considerably higher rates of gun crime and homicide. Thus you telling me to live in a society that is more dangerous just because you want the freedom to own a gun doesn't seem too fair now does it. Someone wearing clothes has no negative externalities, owning a gun clearly does.

^^^First of all your facts are shit, people have posted numerous facts counter to that. Second of all, you KEEP MISSING THE FUCKING POINT. It's not about a safer or less safe society. It's about FREEDOM. I would rather live 10 free years than 90 unfree years. That's why we oppose socialized medicine, that's why we oppose your nanny state, and that's why we support liberties to do what we want and own what we want like GUNS. Safety is not an adequate return for the sacrifice of freedom. There is no adequate return for sacrificing freedom. I could name a million things that make society more "dangerous." Doens't mean you can just go limiting things. That's the sacrifice for freedom. We would rather die on our feet than live on our knees. And guess what jackass, for the 400th time I'm telling you: if you don't like freedom, if it scares you because it creates "more danger" get the FUCK OUT. You are free to go and live in a "safe" nanny state where only daddy government is allowed to have guns. There are a zillion nations in this world without guns. We only have this one nation that guarantees this many freedoms. So, until you address this problem, you are just wasting your time.

That is a nice academic argument. You should write a book.

2/20/11
awm55:
rebelcross:
awm55:

But its not logically backward. I have provided evidence that shows that states in the USA with higher rates of gun ownership have considerably higher rates of gun crime and homicide. Thus you telling me to live in a society that is more dangerous just because you want the freedom to own a gun doesn't seem too fair now does it. Someone wearing clothes has no negative externalities, owning a gun clearly does.

^^^First of all your facts are shit, people have posted numerous facts counter to that. Second of all, you KEEP MISSING THE FUCKING POINT. It's not about a safer or less safe society. It's about FREEDOM. I would rather live 10 free years than 90 unfree years. That's why we oppose socialized medicine, that's why we oppose your nanny state, and that's why we support liberties to do what we want and own what we want like GUNS. Safety is not an adequate return for the sacrifice of freedom. There is no adequate return for sacrificing freedom. I could name a million things that make society more "dangerous." Doens't mean you can just go limiting things. That's the sacrifice for freedom. We would rather die on our feet than live on our knees. And guess what jackass, for the 400th time I'm telling you: if you don't like freedom, if it scares you because it creates "more danger" get the FUCK OUT. You are free to go and live in a "safe" nanny state where only daddy government is allowed to have guns. There are a zillion nations in this world without guns. We only have this one nation that guarantees this many freedoms. So, until you address this problem, you are just wasting your time.

That is a nice academic argument. You should write a book.

rebelcross wins for freedom!

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/20/11
HPM:
awm55:
rebelcross:
awm55:

But its not logically backward. I have provided evidence that shows that states in the USA with higher rates of gun ownership have considerably higher rates of gun crime and homicide. Thus you telling me to live in a society that is more dangerous just because you want the freedom to own a gun doesn't seem too fair now does it. Someone wearing clothes has no negative externalities, owning a gun clearly does.

^^^First of all your facts are shit, people have posted numerous facts counter to that. Second of all, you KEEP MISSING THE FUCKING POINT. It's not about a safer or less safe society. It's about FREEDOM. I would rather live 10 free years than 90 unfree years. That's why we oppose socialized medicine, that's why we oppose your nanny state, and that's why we support liberties to do what we want and own what we want like GUNS. Safety is not an adequate return for the sacrifice of freedom. There is no adequate return for sacrificing freedom. I could name a million things that make society more "dangerous." Doens't mean you can just go limiting things. That's the sacrifice for freedom. We would rather die on our feet than live on our knees. And guess what jackass, for the 400th time I'm telling you: if you don't like freedom, if it scares you because it creates "more danger" get the FUCK OUT. You are free to go and live in a "safe" nanny state where only daddy government is allowed to have guns. There are a zillion nations in this world without guns. We only have this one nation that guarantees this many freedoms. So, until you address this problem, you are just wasting your time.

That is a nice academic argument. You should write a book.

rebelcross wins for freedom!

And Happy wins a banana!

2/20/11

And I say yet again, if you don't value liberty you can leave, for those that do value liberty, they have nowhere to go. So...what justification do you have for forcing your way of life upon people who have nowhere else to experience their way of life?

2/20/11

Smoking directly effects you. The sight of a gun doesn't cause cancer. Your confusing topics. We are not discussing the right to open carry everywhere and anywhere.

2/20/11

Rebel holding it down as usual. Thanks friend!

2/20/11

AWM, I want to just jump back to your idea that "no one should have anything covering their face in society". What brought that idea to your attention? I'm Catholic as well, so I don't wear these things. And normally in Catholicism, individuals aren't seen with this shit. Catholicism and Christian ideals have taken over a lot of Western Society, which is why wearing burquas isn't as popular in places such as LA or Houston, even western europe.

I bet if you were born into a Muslim family, this would be different for you. No matter how "free" you thought, or how much of an individual you may be, the society puts shit in place because of past religious experiences and rules. If any type of face cover led to an economy or society that wouldn't work at ALL, how can there be ANY middle eastern nations, including those that are successful that don't have turmoil because of their beliefs, not because of their face covers.

You are just as ignorant as you claim others to be. Take the rod out of your ass and realize that you're wrong. You just hate America, maybe the hot ex you had that dumped you was American. It sucks to suck. As ignorant as that sounds, I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine.

2/20/11
LA_Duc:

It sucks to suck.

I love this statement. I'm stealing it for future use, is that ok?

2/20/11
LA_Duc:

AWM, I want to just jump back to your idea that "no one should have anything covering their face in society". What brought that idea to your attention? I'm Catholic as well, so I don't wear these things. And normally in Catholicism, individuals aren't seen with this shit. Catholicism and Christian ideals have taken over a lot of Western Society, which is why wearing burquas isn't as popular in places such as LA or Houston, even western europe.

I bet if you were born into a Muslim family, this would be different for you. No matter how "free" you thought, or how much of an individual you may be, the society puts shit in place because of past religious experiences and rules. If any type of face cover led to an economy or society that wouldn't work at ALL, how can there be ANY middle eastern nations, including those that are successful that don't have turmoil because of their beliefs, not because of their face covers.

You are just as ignorant as you claim others to be. Take the rod out of your ass and realize that you're wrong. You just hate America, maybe the hot ex you had that dumped you was American. It sucks to suck. As ignorant as that sounds, I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine.

Woman are not a true part of society in many middle eastern countries. I don't think being integrated into society means getting beaten by a cleric with a stick if you go outside without a man.

2/20/11

You truly contradict yourself. Saying other's beliefs shouldn't control your day to day life, when you are saying that people shouldn't wear certain things. You are trying to control them wth your beliefs. Whether they are religious or not, beliefs are beliefs. You fucking lose, go cry to your government, and have them pay for your box of tissues while you're at it.

2/20/11
LA_Duc:

You truly contradict yourself. Saying other's beliefs shouldn't control your day to day life, when you are saying that people shouldn't wear certain things. You are trying to control them wth your beliefs. Whether they are religious or not, beliefs are beliefs. You fucking lose, go cry to your government, and have them pay for your box of tissues while you're at it.

For as pro-america as so many people on this forum seem to be its pretty sad when you think its ok for immigrants to come into this country (or any country) and choose not to assimilate into broader society, not get a job, not learn the language, etc.

The fact of the matter is I have never seen an islamic woman wearing the full niqab conversing with anyone western in either Europe or the USA. I have never seen them doing any sort of job either. That is just as insulting as westerners going to Saudi Arabia and screwing on the beach.

Again, the ONLY thing i disagree with is a full facial covering, so in reality this has little to do with religion. I have never said I was anti-religion and I have never said I was anti-muslim,

2/20/11

I don't think beating someone with a stick makes you a legitimate cleric either but, for the first time, I agree with awm. Beating women with sticks is wrong.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/20/11

Wow, AWM is now a middle Eastern, women rights and cultural expert.

Fuck, maybe we ought to let this guy run things. I've never met an expert in this many fields. Impressed.

2/20/11
ANT:

Wow, AWM is now a middle Eastern, women rights and cultural expert.

Fuck, maybe we ought to let this guy run things. I've never met an expert in this many fields. Impressed.

You don't know any better. And again, alot of this stuff is common fucking sense.

2/20/11
awm55:

And you have to realize I do want small government. But this paranoia about the cascade of tyranny that would occur if people had a basic level of health insurance and strict gun laws is just insane. Its not based on facts, just on some fringe ideological belief that does not hold up in reality.

Agree to 100 %, sums my view up pretty nicely.

txjustin:

if you let ANY government take away a right/freedom, they won't stop!

Common man, this is just bullshit. Are you saying that once a government takes one freedom away, it will start taking more away just cus...? Then why haven't all non-absolute-freedom governments turned 100 % socialistic, that does seem like the long-term equilibrium of your statement, but I fail to see the logic and/or theoretical/empirical backing.

Rebelcross,
(A) Yes, that is kindergarten shit. But, there are a great number of freedoms out there and by taking away some and not all of them, a government can give its citizens a degree of freedom in the sense that they have some of the rights but not all of them.
(B) Obviously I wasn't serious with the Darwin-example. It was simply a way of articulating your seemingly black-white view of the debate and again highlighting the degrees of freedom that I explained in (A) and which you seem to not understand.
(C) I know what America stands for, yet you admit that it has not yet reached this ideal. It is a safe bet that America would be worse off if more of these freedoms were added (think Wild West). So, how do you know that your current level of freedom is the equilibrium of societal happiness/success/welfare? How can you be so sure that giving healthcare to all Americans would make things that much worse?
I assure you, I am no Nazi, and I do take offense. It is not a term that should be thrown around lightly. I am certainly not scared of liberty and I am not trying to enforce my opinions on you (how could I even do that?), we are merely having a discussion thus fulfilling the purpose of the forum (true or false?)
Thumbs up tho for structure, makes it easy to debate.

2/20/11
ck123321:
txjustin:

if you let ANY government take away a right/freedom, they won't stop!

Common man, this is just bullshit. Are you saying that once a government takes one freedom away, it will start taking more away just cus...? Then why haven't all non-absolute-freedom governments turned 100 % socialistic, that does seem like the long-term equilibrium of your statement, but I fail to see the logic and/or theoretical/empirical backing.

Rebelcross,
(A) Yes, that is kindergarten shit. But, there are a great number of freedoms out there and by taking away some and not all of them, a government can give its citizens a degree of freedom in the sense that they have some of the rights but not all of them.
(B) Obviously I wasn't serious with the Darwin-example. It was simply a way of articulating your seemingly black-white view of the debate and again highlighting the degrees of freedom that I explained in (A) and which you seem to not understand.
(C) I know what America stands for, yet you admit that it has not yet reached this ideal. It is a safe bet that America would be worse off if more of these freedoms were added (think Wild West). So, how do you know that your current level of freedom is the equilibrium of societal happiness/success/welfare? How can you be so sure that giving healthcare to all Americans would make things that much worse?
I assure you, I am no Nazi, and I do take offense. It is not a term that should be thrown around lightly. I am certainly not scared of liberty and I am not trying to enforce my opinions on you (how could I even do that?), we are merely having a discussion thus fulfilling the purpose of the forum (true or false?)
Thumbs up tho for structure, makes it easy to debate.

No, you absolutely are a Nazi at heart and should be not be offended, but should, instead, be honest with your sick desire to have the state (which is made up of a group of people in the society) have greater control over the lives of those who are not in the state (the other group of people in the society.)

You are, without a doubt, trying to enforce your opinions on others and enforce your lifestyle upon others, lest you would not be having this "constructive debate" as you put it. Everything you stand for in its anti-freedom is, as I stately so simply, is a method of one group in society forcing the other group to live by their own opinions of society. In a free nation, there is no room for that and no opnion is forced upon anybody as people are free to choose their level of involvement in the society or, even, their own private societies based upon their own belief within the greater free society that gives them that choice. However, you are very much against choice, only your choice to limit freedoms for certain "benefits" as you say (which is a contradiction, because the greatest benefit in, and of, itself is freedom within life.) However, let's clarify this by addressing what you've attempted to say:

(A) OK, I think you get it, but somehow I think you're missing something. Not quite following what you are hinting at here.

(B) Cool story, bro.

(C) Here we go, finally something worth talking about. First of all let me start with a big FUCK YOU for having the audacity to say "it's a safe bet to think America would be worse off if more of these freedoms are added (think Wild West)." You are wrong on two fronts.

First of all, your concept of "worse off" is screwed. I don't know what you are referring to, is it the danger of the Wild West or the lack of infrastructure that the Wild West had at the time? Worse off in what way? I'm going to assume you mean "more dangerous," which is fucking ridiculous. There is no circumstancial evidence to suggest that, I don't even know even know which freedoms you are referring that would make things more dangerous. I have no idea where you get this from, it's as empty as a statement as there could be possibly be. The "Wild West" is an awful example here and just has nothing to do with where society is today. In some ways the Wild West was far more free and it some ways it was far more totalitarian than the rest of the nation. In some ways life was much better in the Wild West at the individual level and in some ways it was far worse. This is a ridiculous statement, and I have a feeling you have no real grasp of the actual "Wild West." Awful awful argument.

But, like all National Socialists on the left, you have missed the bigger picture which I have already pointed out numerous times in arguments now. You fail to address it because there is no logical way to overcome it. It is the idea of no benefit being worthy of a sacrifice of freedom; the idea of 10 free years being more valuable than 90 years of a life limited to the choices allowed to me by others in the society. I will not repeat the argument here, i will simply refer you to my post above which lays this philosophy out plainly for you to see, and makes any arguments regarding "well-being" irrelevant. My well-being and quality of life is at it's highest when I have the highest level of self-determination. End of story. Don't like the liberty, want a place that will take better care of you? You have your choices of socialist tyranny all over the globe. Have fun, not a lifestyle for those among us that seek something more. Those among us that, as Reagan said, "dare to dream." And not dream the dreams that you like, but dream the dreams that come to us.

And regarding your response to TXjustin. Obviously 100% socialism is impossible. However, if you don't see a very clear trend in every nation in the world of moving towards more government control of everyday lives over time (and then a revolution to reset things or a big change) followed by a society with limited controls on the populace which again gradually moves towards more control, then you are very very lost. Not that this is even relevant to the debate. Government not taking more control over time is no justification for government taking controls beyond that which they need.

2/20/11

AWM, You are right. I don't know any better. I realize this. That is why I don't think my opinions and ideas should be forced on other people. You are ignorant, but you think you are not. That is a dangerous combination.

Please tell me, AWM, what gives you the right to dictate to me what I should legally own and do? Real simple question.

Under what authority do you have the right to limit my freedom? Tell me this?

2/20/11

Oh, and we are discussing the 2nd amendment here. Don't bring your liberal, socialistic health care bullshit into this topic.

I love how these liberals want to make us just like Europe, even though Europe is basically bankrupt and at risk of breaking apart. Laughable.

2/20/11

Oh, how are we going to pay for this national, government run healthcare?

Please tell me and everyone else how you propose to raise the funds for this?

2/20/11
ANT:

Oh, how are we going to pay for this national, government run healthcare?

Please tell me and everyone else how you propose to raise the funds for this?

Haha, keep drinking the cool aide. The non partisan congressional budget office predicted Obama care was going to reduce the deficit by almost 150 billion over ten years.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements...

He exaggerated in this statement, but the facts are there as well.

2/20/11

it aint over 'til the fat lady sings. sure, some european countries are in the shit, but there is also an increasing worry about america and the new budget, but this is not the time nor place for that kind of discussion.

There are however a number of european (and EU) countries that are doing well, the nordics, germany etc. Besides, I don't think it was our stricter gun laws that got us into this mess.

And why do you keep assuming that awm wants to dictate your life, this is a forum man. of course he has no authority to do that and you are just ridiculing yourself with those comments.

2/20/11
ck123321:

it aint over 'til the fat lady sings. sure, some european countries are in the shit, but there is also an increasing worry about america and the new budget, but this is not the time nor place for that kind of discussion.

There are however a number of european (and EU) countries that are doing well, the nordics, germany etc. Besides, I don't think it was our stricter gun laws that got us into this mess.

And why do you keep assuming that awm wants to dictate your life, this is a forum man. of course he has no authority to do that and you are just ridiculing yourself with those comments.

No fucking shit he cannot do anything. It is thinking like his which is embodied in every restriction and regulation. I hope you can see the relationship.

Duh.

2/20/11

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA the non partisan congressional budget office?! You seriously need to fucking read a book dumbass. The way the CBO calculates things is more flawed than your understanding of Semi-Automatic.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/20/11

Read the article dude. You know where the money is going to come from? By mandating that people get healthcare, AKA taxing people.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/cb...

Wow, the GBO made a little mistake. Get real. This will cost a shit load and this $150 Billion in "savings" is simply increased fees, aka taxes, on the American people.

AWM, gotta love how you support forcing free people to do things that you THINK are appropriate.

How about you focus on yourself and stop trying to act like my mom and dad.

Also, I went to the GBO site and read their actual material. Do some real homework.

2/20/11
ANT:

Read the article dude. You know where the money is going to come from? By mandating that people get healthcare, AKA taxing people.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/cb...

Wow, the GBO made a little mistake. Get real. This will cost a shit load and this $150 Billion in "savings" is simply increased fees, aka taxes, on the American people.

AWM, gotta love how you support forcing free people to do things that you THINK are appropriate.

How about you focus on yourself and stop trying to act like my mom and dad.

Also, I went to the GBO site and read their actual material. Do some real homework.

What is your solution to the problem then? You do realize that every time a person without health insurance goes into the ER that you are basically paying for it right? So do you want these people to be turned away?

Please enlighten us.

And the CBO is the main body both the Republicans and Democrats use to assess future budget issues, there really is not a better source.

2/20/11
awm55:
ANT:

Read the article dude. You know where the money is going to come from? By mandating that people get healthcare, AKA taxing people.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/cb...

Wow, the GBO made a little mistake. Get real. This will cost a shit load and this $150 Billion in "savings" is simply increased fees, aka taxes, on the American people.

AWM, gotta love how you support forcing free people to do things that you THINK are appropriate.

How about you focus on yourself and stop trying to act like my mom and dad.

Also, I went to the GBO site and read their actual material. Do some real homework.

What is your solution to the problem then? You do realize that every time a person without health insurance goes into the ER that you are basically paying for it right? So do you want these people to be turned away?

Please enlighten us.

And the CBO is the main body both the Republicans and Democrats use to assess future budget issues, there really is not a better source.

We already have health insurance for the very poor.
http://www.speaker.gov/UploadedFiles/Summary_of_Re...

I actually think this is a good start. The very very very last resort should be government intervention. I think there is plenty of room for the free market to adjust things. I also think individuals should be given an incentive to price shop and save money. I would like to see a law passed that says all medical services should have transparent pricing.

Not saying this is going to solve everything, but I support reform, not forcing people to buy insurance while not fundamentally fixing everything.

Think of it like this. If we brought in 100MM new workers, Social Security would be flush. The system wouldn't be fixed, we would simply be pushing the pain out into the future. Same thing with this.

2/20/11
ANT:
awm55:
ANT:

Read the article dude. You know where the money is going to come from? By mandating that people get healthcare, AKA taxing people.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/cb...

Wow, the GBO made a little mistake. Get real. This will cost a shit load and this $150 Billion in "savings" is simply increased fees, aka taxes, on the American people.

AWM, gotta love how you support forcing free people to do things that you THINK are appropriate.

How about you focus on yourself and stop trying to act like my mom and dad.

Also, I went to the GBO site and read their actual material. Do some real homework.

What is your solution to the problem then? You do realize that every time a person without health insurance goes into the ER that you are basically paying for it right? So do you want these people to be turned away?

Please enlighten us.

And the CBO is the main body both the Republicans and Democrats use to assess future budget issues, there really is not a better source.

We already have health insurance for the very poor.
http://www.speaker.gov/UploadedFiles/Summary_of_Re...

I actually think this is a good start. The very very very last resort should be government intervention. I think there is plenty of room for the free market to adjust things. I also think individuals should be given an incentive to price shop and save money. I would like to see a law passed that says all medical services should have transparent pricing.

Not saying this is going to solve everything, but I support reform, not forcing people to buy insurance while not fundamentally fixing everything.

Think of it like this. If we brought in 100MM new workers, Social Security would be flush. The system wouldn't be fixed, we would simply be pushing the pain out into the future. Same thing with this.

This bill was not for the poor. There were so many other provisions in the bill that were 100% neccessary to make sure people got the coverage they need.

This includes allowing young adults out of college to remain on their parents health insurance until the age of 25 if they want, making insurance companies submit proposals for any increase in insurance premiums over 10%, and making sure people are not turned down due to pre-existing conditions.

All of this stuff is common fucking sense. You think a cancer patient who loses her job and insurance coverage should be turned down for furthur insurance because she has cancer?

2/20/11

LOL.

Yeah, for all the lurkers on this post, do remember that AWM didn't even know what a semi automatic rifle was the last time this topic was discussed.

Hahahahahhaha

2/20/11

I'm about to head down to Wal-Mart to pick up a machine gun, a rocket launcher, and some fully-automatic weapons. Maybe stop by the local tank dealership on the way home.

Anyone want to join? awm? Apparently anyone can go into a store and purchase those items

---------------------
"Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America."

2/20/11

Yes, that is exactly how it works. Good work Eric. You have figured out gun laws....you fucking idiot.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/20/11
HPM:

Yes, that is exactly how it works. Good work Eric. You have figured out gun laws....you fucking idiot.

I was mocking awm who thought an AR-15 was an automatic weapon and said "anyone can purchase machine guns" or something along those lines. Thought the tank dealership bit might have sounded the sarcasm bell.

I suggest getting your sarcasm meter checked (you fucking idiot).

---------------------
"Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America."

2/20/11

AWM doesn't realize the shear amount of gun laws we already have in existence. If the ones we had on the books we enforced there wouldn't be an issue.

Also, he fails to address what I have said more than once now. Most of our gun violence is committed by inner city, black males.

Here are stats from the Brady website. They are remarkably anti gun so I hope the source is expectable to AWM.

In one year, 31,224 people died from gun violence and 66,769 people survived gun injuries (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC)). That includes:

Ok, 31,224 people dead from guns in 2010.

17,352 people who killed themselves and 3,031 people who survived a suicide attempt with a gun.

13,872 when you subtract suicide. People who want to kill themselves will do so with other means.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/Facts/U.S._Fir...

Now these is not perfect since it is 2008 numbers and the top numbers are 2010, but lets assume they are sort of close (which they look to be).

13,872 Pure Deaths (Homicide)

- 6,867 committed by blacks (18% of all homicides)

7,005 deaths when you exclude this.
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/flu/deaths.htm

More people die from the flu. More people die from a million other inconsequential things.

---------

When you actually look at the data, it isn't as bad as one thinks. 13K lives for a basic freedom is chump change. Think of how many men died on the shores of Normandy protecting these rights we want to throw away.

Talk about spitting in the face of great men.

2/20/11
ANT:

AWM doesn't realize the shear amount of gun laws we already have in existence. If the ones we had on the books we enforced there wouldn't be an issue.

Also, he fails to address what I have said more than once now. Most of our gun violence is committed by inner city, black males.

Here are stats from the Brady website. They are remarkably anti gun so I hope the source is expectable to AWM.

In one year, 31,224 people died from gun violence and 66,769 people survived gun injuries (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC)). That includes:

Ok, 31,224 people dead from guns in 2010.

17,352 people who killed themselves and 3,031 people who survived a suicide attempt with a gun.

13,872 when you subtract suicide. People who want to kill themselves will do so with other means.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/Facts/U.S._Fir...

Now these is not perfect since it is 2008 numbers and the top numbers are 2010, but lets assume they are sort of close (which they look to be).

13,872 Pure Deaths (Homicide)

- 6,867 committed by blacks (18% of all homicides)

7,005 deaths when you exclude this.
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/flu/deaths.htm

More people die from the flu. More people die from a million other inconsequential things.

---------

When you actually look at the data, it isn't as bad as one thinks. 13K lives for a basic freedom is chump change. Think of how many men died on the shores of Normandy protecting these rights we want to throw away.

Talk about spitting in the face of great men.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/politics/27gu...

Dude, you need to grow up. You act as if we are on the cusp of some great libertarian battle where the militia is going to rise up and take back the country from some oppressive regime. You seriously sound a little mentally unstable.

If you look at various freedom rankings there are several "socialist" (though it is clear at this point you have no idea what that means)countries that are more free than the USA, this includes Canada with their "communist" healthcare system. There are so many issues that are of a far greater importance than whether some idiot wants to carry a loaded handgun while they go food shopping.

2/20/11

yes, I need my sarcasm meter checked....you are clearly the enlightened one as I couldn't read the sarcasm in your post after reading 4 pages of posts by a guy that thought, almost verbatim, exactly what you just said. We'll just agree that we're both fucking idiots and move on.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/20/11

The Federal actuaries determined that it would be a HUGE cost to the taxpayers.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/20/11

I'll re-ask the question you ducked from Ant: Who is paying for this Obamacare and that payment is being collected how?

I'll also go ahead and add in, healthcare is not a fucking right.

2/20/11
txjustin:

I'll re-ask the question you ducked from Ant: Who is paying for this Obamacare and that payment is being collected how?

I'll also go ahead and add in, healthcare is not a fucking right.

The idea is that you slay the health care inflation dragon by eliminating the uncompensated care (ie emergency room visits) that gets shifted onto paying customers. You can find the CBO analysis here:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/AmendRec...

2/20/11
awm55:
txjustin:

I'll re-ask the question you ducked from Ant: Who is paying for this Obamacare and that payment is being collected how?

I'll also go ahead and add in, healthcare is not a fucking right.

The idea is that you slay the health care inflation dragon by eliminating the uncompensated care (ie emergency room visits) that gets shifted onto paying customers. You can find the CBO analysis here:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/AmendRec...

For God's sake man, answer the questions.

2/20/11
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:

I'll re-ask the question you ducked from Ant: Who is paying for this Obamacare and that payment is being collected how?

I'll also go ahead and add in, healthcare is not a fucking right.

The idea is that you slay the health care inflation dragon by eliminating the uncompensated care (ie emergency room visits) that gets shifted onto paying customers. You can find the CBO analysis here:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/AmendRec...

For God's sake man, answer the questions.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0321/He...

2/20/11

I love how we are debating gun rights and AWM chimes in that there are more important things. LOL

Dude, gun rights cost nothing. It is our RIGHT. Go stay in Europe. We don't want you back in the USA.

Also, learn how to argue. You suck at it.

If someone has cancer, they will keep their insurance under the Republican plan. I do not support denying pre-existing illnesses.

You also do not realize this simple fact. The fine for not having health insurance is only 700 bucks. I am perfectly healthy and pay more than 700 bucks a year for my health insurance. I will happily just take the fine and then when I need it sign up.

Its called gaming the system and millions will do it. God you are dumb.

2/20/11

TX, don't bother asking AWM questions. I clearly laid out the gun death stats, from an anti gun website and he doesn't respond. This is the 3rd time I have mentioned the skew in gun violence and how it is not some wide spread issue. He doesn't answer these questions.

Denying rights in the face of logic and reason. Sounds like fascism to me.

Hey AWM, I think you should wear pink Monday and not eat meat. I also think you should become a protestant because Catholics molest kids.

I THINK, therefore you should obey.

How do you like my thoughts and opinions influencing and controlling your life? Isn't so cool when the shoe is on the other foot.

2/20/11

Lets make everyone pay into a broken system. Will fix it in the short term, but it will fail in the long term. Just like Social Security. You need to fix the fundamental problems first.

2/20/11

No one cares about the CBO dude that has been proven wrong and misguided many times over.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/20/11

LOL

Bro, come to the dark side. Admit that you are wrong and you can be part of the crew.

Comeeeeeee to the dark sideeeeeeeee

2/20/11

It's more fun over here check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJBoHa3GArA

You know you'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/20/11

C'mon awm, I'll take ya to the gun range and maybe even buy you your 1st semi-automatic .22 caliber. It's not one of those fully automatic assault rifles, but I'll teach you the difference.

2/20/11

Wait, we are not debating the healthcare bill. We are talking about guns. Are you going to address my stats and statements or what?

2/20/11
ANT:

Wait, we are not debating the healthcare bill. We are talking about guns. Are you going to address my stats and statements or what?

Yeah, so we had 13,000 people die from guns last year. That was a crap load more than every other developed country...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

2/20/11
awm55:
ANT:

Wait, we are not debating the healthcare bill. We are talking about guns. Are you going to address my stats and statements or what?

Yeah, so we had 13,000 people die from guns last year. That was a crap load more than every other developed country...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

Found this little tidbit in this link:

"The figures are based mainly on surveys and reports by government agencies and subject to their reliability. In addition, the figures may vary significantly over the years due to changes in crime rate trend. The death rate is also sensitive to fluctuation if the absolute number of incidents is small and for countries with relatively small population such as Mauritius and Singapore."

2/20/11
awm55:
ANT:

Wait, we are not debating the healthcare bill. We are talking about guns. Are you going to address my stats and statements or what?

Yeah, so we had 13,000 people die from guns last year. That was a crap load more than every other developed country...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

We have 7 deaths per 100,000. These stats are old and I think they have come down, but you are essentially correct. Our raw death figures are higher than Europe, in general.

Are you planning on addressing my statement that a majority of our gun deaths are from inner city, blacks? Brady verified this, as well as the FBI crime stats.

If you adjust for that, our numbers are not that far from Europe. Any premium we might have, once the adjustment is made, is called the price for freedom.

2/20/11
awm55:
ANT:

Wait, we are not debating the healthcare bill. We are talking about guns. Are you going to address my stats and statements or what?

Yeah, so we had 13,000 people die from guns last year. That was a crap load more than every other developed country...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

Even though your stats are shit and don't do anything for your argument, you kind of forgot to address the whole crux of the argument, the whole "freedom is a little more important than safety" thing.

Yeah, you're not going to address that are you? You don't really have much else to say do you? In light of the fact that you really have no reasoning or arguments left (now on multiple issues), do you even know why you believe in the things that you believe in? Like how do you even agree with yourself at this point?

2/20/11

I think you've officially beaten him into submission.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/20/11

Wow, thanks for linking to that article AWM. I see a lot of taxes and fees. Isn't this what I said in the beginning? Government will simply tax more, that is how this thing will save money.

No tort reform

No real cost cutting

No real change in over billing

No fraud reduction

Just tax more.

2/20/11

"Certain people with religious objections would not have to get health insurance. Nor would American Indians, illegal immigrants, or people in prison."

Sweet. I will simply convert to whatever religion allows me a pass. Get nothing and as soon as I am sick, sign up for government health care.

Thanks Obama!

2/20/11

Ant, don't forget about the cuts and reductions in Medicaire for people that are already covered to "spread healthcare" to others who don't have it. Disclaimer: I'm not really a medicaire fan, but wanted to bring up that point.

2/20/11

But Ant, I'm sure majority of these gun deaths is from a law abiding citizen who purchased the guns legally....

2/20/11
txjustin:

But Ant, I'm sure majority of these gun deaths are from a law abiding citizens who purchased the guns legally....

2/20/11

Clearly people who murder wouldn't break the law in order to get a gun illegally

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/20/11

AWM why do you fucking care. You don't live here. Keep to your shit and get a life.

2/20/11
LA_Duc:

AWM why do you fucking care. You don't live here. Keep to your shit and get a life.

I do live here, but I have lived in Europe as well.

The thing that I don't understand is that the people on this forum just don't seem to understand that the USA does not do everything the best. But when confronted with an alternative or another option, perhaps one using a European system as a model, its automatically socialism or tyranny. Its so pathetic.

Where is the outrage when corporate lobbyists have the power to get legislation passed in their interests because they help fund the campaign of politicians? Doesn't this mean our political process has been compromised? Isn't this more dangerous and just as much of a reason to go apeshit as healthcare reform or gun control?

2/20/11
awm55:

The thing that I don't understand is that the people on this forum just don't seem to understand that the USA does not do everything the best. But when confronted with an alternative or another option, perhaps one using a European system as a model, its automatically socialism or tyranny. Its so pathetic.

The thing that I don't understand is that the people on the left (you) just don't seem to understand that Europe does not do everything the best [sic]. But when confronted with the prospect of individual liberty or self-determinism, perhaps one using American idealism as a model, its [sic] automatically wrong or dangerous. Its [sic] so pathetic.

2/20/11
awm55:
LA_Duc:

AWM why do you fucking care. You don't live here. Keep to your shit and get a life.

I do live here, but I have lived in Europe as well.

The thing that I don't understand is that the people on this forum just don't seem to understand that the USA does not do everything the best. But when confronted with an alternative or another option, perhaps one using a European system as a model, its automatically socialism or tyranny. Its so pathetic.

Where is the outrage when corporate lobbyists have the power to get legislation passed in their interests because they help fund the campaign of politicians? Doesn't this mean our political process has been compromised? Isn't this more dangerous and just as much of a reason to go apeshit as healthcare reform or gun control?

Maybe you missed the austerity measures a lot of the EU is having to impose because of their socialistic ways?

2/20/11

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19...

Page 44 of this.

In 2007, there were 12.6K homicides involving guns. Of this, 6.9K involved African Americans (55%). When you consider the % of the population made up by blacks, you can see how disproportionate this figure is.

If we could fix the inner city issue, the USA could drastically reduce gun death rates.

2/20/11

Now you're talking about campaign finance? The fuck is going on over there dude?

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/20/11

We allow freedom. Sometimes that means mote deaths. Sometimes that means westboro idiots. Sometimes that means all kinds of wacked out shit. I would rather have some downside risk with a lot of upside vs the other way around.

2/20/11

11th longest thread in WSO history!

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/20/11
HPM:

11th longest thread in WSO history!

Wow,unfortunate the all time thread list had to be contaminated by this mountain of shit here.

2/21/11

Yeah, this thread was good for a while. Not anymore.

I am still waiting on my points to be addressed.

2/21/11

thread is dead I think, time to move on. it has been somewhat of an eyeopener.

2/21/11

I would really appreciate it if awm would answer some of the questions posed to him.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/21/11

By eye opener, I hope you mean me completely showing you how silly your anti freedom, pro control argument is.

If you want to reduce gun violence, let's start lifting people out of poverty and stop the war on drugs. Restricting freedom ain't gonna do it.

2/21/11
ANT:

By eye opener, I hope you mean me completely showing you how silly your anti freedom, pro control argument is.

no, not quite that kind of an eye opener. out of curiosity, whereabouts in the US are you from ANT? how about you rebelcross? Does anybody have a good feel for the geodemographics on the forum? Is it spread all over the country, mostly east coast? mostly south? I'm just curious.

Thanks

2/21/11