Happy Atheist Forum

Has the recent virus and mad dash for supplies got anyone reconsidering their position on guns?

If you are in one of those countries who do not allow personal firearms, does it make you wish you could own your own gun?

what would it take to change your mind?

Most gun owners here in merica have an understanding that having a firearm is needed for the coming zombie apocalypse.  Zombie being a metaphor for any social disaster that has the general population out of civil control.

Just think our situation now, and a power grid failure. among no comforts like interwebs AC and phones. it means no perishable foods. all meat dairy and veg gone. which means a run on dry goods even more so then than now.

Which means if my neighbor is stocked up and my family is starving and i don't think it is fair he wont share, but i have a ball bat, then i will be stocked up. and so it goes like a plague through a population.

This is something we are a computer virus away from. still think AR-15s are a bad idea?

The manifest relish with which many preppers anticipate their "need" for a firearm is an indication of motivations other than mere survival.

You're doing journeyman work reinforcing stereotypes here, Drich. Boring.

Quote from: Drich on April 02, 2020, 09:24:35 PM
Has the recent virus and mad dash for supplies got anyone reconsidering their position on guns?

If you are in one of those countries who do not allow personal firearms, does it make you wish you could own your own gun?

what would it take to change your mind?

Most gun owners here in merica have an understanding that having a firearm is needed for the coming zombie apocalypse.  Zombie being a metaphor for any social disaster that has the general population out of civil control.

Just think our situation now, and a power grid failure. among no comforts like interwebs AC and phones. it means no perishable foods. all meat dairy and veg gone. which means a run on dry goods even more so then than now.

Which means if my neighbor is stocked up and my family is starving and i don't think it is fair he wont share, but i have a ball bat, then i will be stocked up. and so it goes like a plague through a population.

This is something we are a computer virus away from. still think AR-15s are a bad idea?

Having a hard time calming those amygdalae, aren't you, Drich? ::)

I come from a country that, with a few exceptions, does not allow personal firearms, certainly nothing even remotely like in the USA and never for "personal protection".  The personal protection shibboleth is really an oxymoron, statistics show that owning a firearm, particularly a pistol, for personal protection dramatically increases your risk of being killed or injured, usually and ironically by your own firearm.  To answer your question, there is nothing about the Covid-19 situations with its isolation requirements and all, that has done the slightest bit to change my attitude to owning a fire arm.  What would change my opinion?  If I were to move out of the city I might invest in a long arm or two to shoot rabbits or deer for the table, but I just don't feel the need to have a firearm for security reasons.  We gain far more personal protection by acting collectively for the mutual good.  Stay the f***k at home!

I agree with Bluenose here. I never understood the absurd gun loving culture in the USA. Not that I'm against gun ownership itself (as long as they don't fall in the hands of morons, the mentally sick and criminals), but I find the immense love for guns pretty outrageous and dangerous.

Quote from: Tom62 on April 03, 2020, 11:54:04 AM
I agree with Bluenose here. I never understood the absurd gun loving culture in the USA. Not that I'm against gun ownership itself (as long as they don't fall in the hands of morons, the mentally sick and criminals), but I find the immense love for guns pretty outrageous and dangerous.

I agree.

Also, the way I see it, people who buy guns 'for personal protection' are a fearful bunch, and I don't trust fearful people to act rationally especially if they aren't trained for highly stressful situations, such as law enforcers, soldiers, etc. Put your average person with a gun in a situation that requires a slightly more complex decision-making process and the potential for disaster is high. There are just too many trigger-happy people out there for me personally to think owning guns is a good idea. Besides the other factor that Bluenose pointed out:

Quote...statistics show that owning a firearm, particularly a pistol, for personal protection dramatically increases your risk of being killed or injured, usually and ironically by your own firearm.

ah well, perhapz i have a different point of view?

my cousin waz murdered in a mass shooting in a university conference room. during a thesis defense. three dead

i used to drive tbrough a garlic festival where a mass shooting occured last year. four people were killed

i once lived in a city where a mass shooting occured on a street i frequented, last year. eight people died

dangerous situations can occur withou you being an instigator. i've had guns in my house most of my life. i'm licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and i do.

i dont plan on killing someone, but i live in a society where i would rather choose not to use the gun i carry rather than be unable to use the one i dont. i dont see this as dangerous.

quite the contrary, i consider it reasonable and prudent

The problem with guns boils down to stupid humans and their massive talent of deliberately demonstrating said stupidity.

Quote from: billy rubin on April 03, 2020, 01:47:41 PM
ah well, perhapz i have a different point of view?

my cousin waz murdered in a mass shooting in a university conference room. during a thesis defense. three dead

i used to drive tbrough a garlic festival where a mass shooting occured last year. four people were killed

i once lived in a city where a mass shooting occured on a street i frequented, last year. eight people died

dangerous situations can occur withou you being an instigator. i've had guns in my house most of my life. i'm licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and i do.

i dont plan on killing someone, but i live in a society where i would rather choose not to use the gun i carry rather than be unable to use the one i dont. i dont see this as dangerous.

quite the contrary, i consider it reasonable and prudent

Sorry to hear about your cousin, it's horrible that mass shootings seem to be common in some parts of the world. :( However, I wonder if weapons weren't so widespread and easy to access by the general population in the US then there would be a whole lot less mass shootings.   

i thi k that you re correct. most of the world doesnt see the need for a gun culture.. if it were a different world, my life would be different too. but it is what it is.

i know several people who carry gunz that i dont think have the correct mindset to be doing so. i dont have an answer, but i do have a wife and five kids i want to keep safe.

so im just careful and ztay alert

Quote from: Recusant on April 02, 2020, 09:39:01 PM
The manifest relish with which many preppers anticipate their "need" for a firearm is an indication of motivations other than mere survival.

what happens to you and or your family if you happen to live in a no go zone?

Quote
You're doing journeyman work reinforcing stereotypes here, Drich. Boring.

actually that work is only happening in your mind, as i have not advocated the ownership of guns. I am just asking the question does the light of recent event coupled with another catastrophe make you reconsider.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 02, 2020, 10:06:36 PM

Quote from: Drich on April 02, 2020, 09:24:35 PM
Has the recent virus and mad dash for supplies got anyone reconsidering their position on guns?

If you are in one of those countries who do not allow personal firearms, does it make you wish you could own your own gun?

what would it take to change your mind?

Most gun owners here in merica have an understanding that having a firearm is needed for the coming zombie apocalypse.  Zombie being a metaphor for any social disaster that has the general population out of civil control.

Just think our situation now, and a power grid failure. among no comforts like interwebs AC and phones. it means no perishable foods. all meat dairy and veg gone. which means a run on dry goods even more so then than now.

Which means if my neighbor is stocked up and my family is starving and i don't think it is fair he wont share, but i have a ball bat, then i will be stocked up. and so it goes like a plague through a population.

This is something we are a computer virus away from. still think AR-15s are a bad idea?

Having a hard time calming those amygdalae, aren't you, Drich? ::)

me no i have no run on emotions. just wanted to see how you all fare when the frame work most of you think will always be there and will protect you crumbles and falls when there is no AC and no toilet paper. Do you convictions run out when the meat truck stops delivering?

This is less about guns and more about how deep your faith in society is and do you have a plan b?

Quote from: Bluenose on April 03, 2020, 02:16:15 AM
I come from a country that, with a few exceptions, does not allow personal firearms, certainly nothing even remotely like in the USA and never for "personal protection".  The personal protection shibboleth is really an oxymoron, statistics show that owning a firearm, particularly a pistol, for personal protection dramatically increases your risk of being killed or injured, usually and ironically by your own firearm.

and people who own knives or bees are far more likly to be cut or stung than people who don't own them. In fact i got my first hive last year and was stung more in that year than i have the previous 40 years combined. However since i learned how to work with bees i do not even need a bee suit. the same is true for owning knives.. or hammers nails or any other tool. you are far more likely to be injured by something you are in close proximity to/own than something you do not own/have not been exposed to.

Quote
To answer your question, there is nothing about the Covid-19 situations with its isolation requirements and all, that has done the slightest bit to change my attitude to owning a fire arm.  What would change my opinion?  If I were to move out of the city I might invest in a long arm or two to shoot rabbits or deer for the table, but I just don't feel the need to have a firearm for security reasons.  We gain far more personal protection by acting collectively for the mutual good.  Stay the f***k at home!

Now if you considered my OP properly i changed your social structure and dynamic completely. This wasn't just about the virus. I said with the virus and a power grid shut down... which stops all perishable food stores and deliveries, city water supplies internet phones the whole lot.  Then i introduced my baseball bat, with the collapsed society, who would naturally have very limited access to police or medical. If I am 6'8" tall 275 lbs of angry hungry man with again a ball bat with no food. and you have a store of food, but no way to call for help. Would you want a way to defend yourself that did not need you to be athletic or to be skilled in any martial art form, or would you just hand over your supplies? or do i beat you to death or near death and take all you have?

Quote from: Tom62 on April 03, 2020, 11:54:04 AM
I agree with Bluenose here. I never understood the absurd gun loving culture in the USA. Not that I'm against gun ownership itself (as long as they don't fall in the hands of morons, the mentally sick and criminals), but I find the immense love for guns pretty outrageous and dangerous.

Ok now take your belief and filter it through my scenario

Drich, I live in the United States, and I have a plan B: ubuntu, a word in the Xhosa language spoken in South Africa. The way I've heard it defined is, "we can only be human together." In other words, I am betting on people being good rather than being bad. In times of disaster, overwhelmingly people act with generosity, compassion, and mercy. That's not my opinion; that's documented. There was an article in a local newspaper about this very thing today:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/03/opinion/were-not-contagion-disasters-like-coronavirus-bring-out-best-people/ (https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/03/opinion/were-not-contagion-disasters-like-coronavirus-bring-out-best-people/)

No one wants to think about food shortages, social breakdown, or rioting. Could it happen? Yes. Will it? I find it unlikely. I place a high value on civilization, and I will continue to act civilized with the hope, and the belief, that others will as well.

But Drich: I do own guns. If it all goes south, I'm not going to shoot my neighbor who is asking me to help her. I'm going to shoot the person who is trying to hurt her.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 03, 2020, 12:27:30 PM

Quote from: Tom62 on April 03, 2020, 11:54:04 AM
I agree with Bluenose here. I never understood the absurd gun loving culture in the USA. Not that I'm against gun ownership itself (as long as they don't fall in the hands of morons, the mentally sick and criminals), but I find the immense love for guns pretty outrageous and dangerous.

I agree.

Also, the way I see it, people who buy guns 'for personal protection' are a fearful bunch, and I don't trust fearful people to act rationally especially if they aren't trained for highly stressful situations, such as law enforcers, soldiers, etc. Put your average person with a gun in a situation that requires a slightly more complex decision-making process and the potential for disaster is high. There are just too many trigger-happy people out there for me personally to think owning guns is a good idea. Besides the other factor that Bluenose pointed out:

Quote...statistics show that owning a firearm, particularly a pistol, for personal protection dramatically increases your risk of being killed or injured, usually and ironically by your own firearm.

Well one, your idea of an average person has never held a gun, however the average gun owner trains with a gun. so 1/2 your argument is gone.

The other 1/2 like the poster before you do not answer the op in any meaningful way. i intentionally took away you structured and peaceful society, your police your military. then took away the countries ability to sustain itself through consumerism.

Then i asked your to frame yourself in a potentially threatening situation. Something the average person doesn't have to deal with but is a breath away from today.

Quote from: billy rubin on April 03, 2020, 01:47:41 PM
ah well, perhapz i have a different point of view?

my cousin waz murdered in a mass shooting in a university conference room. during a thesis defense. three dead

i used to drive tbrough a garlic festival where a mass shooting occured last year. four people were killed

i once lived in a city where a mass shooting occured on a street i frequented, last year. eight people died

dangerous situations can occur withou you being an instigator. i've had guns in my house most of my life. i'm licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and i do.

i dont plan on killing someone, but i live in a society where i would rather choose not to use the gun i carry rather than be unable to use the one i dont. i dont see this as dangerous.

quite the contrary, i consider it reasonable and prudent

8)

Quote from: No one on April 03, 2020, 01:55:41 PM
The problem with guns boils down to stupid humans and their massive talent of deliberately demonstrating said stupidity.

wanna address the op?

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 03, 2020, 02:07:15 PM

Quote from: billy rubin on April 03, 2020, 01:47:41 PM
ah well, perhapz i have a different point of view?

my cousin waz murdered in a mass shooting in a university conference room. during a thesis defense. three dead

i used to drive tbrough a garlic festival where a mass shooting occured last year. four people were killed

i once lived in a city where a mass shooting occured on a street i frequented, last year. eight people died

dangerous situations can occur withou you being an instigator. i've had guns in my house most of my life. i'm licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and i do.

i dont plan on killing someone, but i live in a society where i would rather choose not to use the gun i carry rather than be unable to use the one i dont. i dont see this as dangerous.

quite the contrary, i consider it reasonable and prudent

Sorry to hear about your cousin, it's horrible that mass shootings seem to be common in some parts of the world. :( However, I wonder if weapons weren't so widespread and easy to access by the general population in the US then there would be a whole lot less mass shootings.

shooting yes, deaths and injury no.
you know you can make a kettle bomb from fertilizer diesel and a few other common ingredients.. Same kinda thing they used in the boston marathon bombing.. Uhaul trucks and a densely populated festival seems to be far more effective than a gun.

If a man's intent is to kill he will see it done.

Quote from: Michael Reilly on April 03, 2020, 04:26:49 PM
Drich, I live in the United States, and I have a plan B: ubuntu, a word in the Xhosa language spoken in South Africa. The way I've heard it defined is, "we can only be human together." In other words, I am betting on people being good rather than being bad. In times of disaster, overwhelmingly people act with generosity, compassion, and mercy. That's not my opinion; that's documented. There was an article in a local newspaper about this very thing today:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/03/opinion/were-not-contagion-disasters-like-coronavirus-bring-out-best-people/ (https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/03/opinion/were-not-contagion-disasters-like-coronavirus-bring-out-best-people/)

No one wants to think about food shortages, social breakdown, or rioting. Could it happen? Yes. Will it? I find it unlikely. I place a high value on civilization, and I will continue to act civilized with the hope, and the belief, that others will as well.

But Drich: I do own guns. If it all goes south, I'm not going to shoot my neighbor who is asking me to help her. I'm going to shoot the person who is trying to hurt her.

I do not understand you guys.
Either you ignore the OP completely or you twist it into a straw man that makes me the bad guy. Why not simply answer what is asked.

I picked the power grid scenario because that really happened about 10 years ago and it was almost 3 months. before things got back to normal. And our grid infrastructure has only gotten older since then. yes some improvements have been made but it is still subject to complete long term shut down. if i remember right most all of new england and parts of canada were affected. old people were dying in their homes with no ac, and food was scarce. and yes people did come out and help each other. the only reason this did not go full zombie apocalypse was because people came out and neighboring states shipped in food and line men.

my scenario takes that help away. we can't come out because of social distancing, and there are no neighboring states with power.

Yes time and again we have stood tall in the face on one national disaster which effects a central population which was felt and the blow absorbed by the physically affected rest of the nation.

I am simply adding two disasters to the list one that keeps is from supporting one another and the other puts a strain on our ability to self sustain.

Again we are going through one world wide event. say a super solar flare hits the earth and we are not prepared, they say we are one of these super flares away from total grid destruction. We know this has happened before on the other side of the sun. if we facing it our power and comms would take months if not years to rebuild. How many years can we hold out without grocery stores?/dry goods only

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/how-we-ll-safeguard-earth-solar-storm-catastrophe-n760021

Now i did get you said you owned a gun now, and you would help your neighbor with it.. good.

Let's take that a step further. should you be obligated to help those in your neighborhood, should you become a make shift cop or become part of a militia IF no police support is available? or should the government mandate everyone defend themselves, and hand out guns??

i know people who used to make fertilizer bombs to remove stumpz, but a bucket of fertilizer is harder to carry than a handgun.


althiugh they hold tbe drama, mass zhootings account for lots fewer deaths than ordinary citizen mayhem. and in texas, for example, traffic fatalitiez accou t for lots more deaths than firearms. at least those were the numbers last time i checked.

im sitti g at an injection well in ohio and somebody iz shooting a rifle over the hill from me as i write. pretty large calibere, judgong by the sound

regarding killing people, back when i was a theizt i mai tained a pacifist philozophy, and wouldnt defend myself. i dont have tbe same moral imperitivez any more, so killing someone if there is a good reason to do so iz quite acceptable to me

Well, I find this fall of civilisation scenario very unlikely to happen, especially here in Western Europe. Power grids will not fail and no one is buying guns to fight viruses or nasty neighbours who want to steal toilet paper. That kind of mindset is so alien to us, that we can't believe that (some paranoid) people in America think otherwise. Reminds me a bit about that silly Y2K scare in the late nineties.

Drich, here is what you asked:

QuoteHas the recent virus and mad dash for supplies got anyone reconsidering their position on guns?

If you are in one of those countries who do not allow personal firearms, does it make you wish you could own your own gun?

what would it take to change your mind?

Something about AR-15s

1. No.
2. Not applicable
3. Nothing.
4. No.

How's that, buddy?
No one wants the Mad Max scenario. No one sane, I mean.
So be kind, be altruistic, and protect those you can.

Also, Drich, if I remember correctly from a few years back, many people on this forum are European. In general, there is no tradition there of owning firearms for personal use. It's sort of a moot point, right? You and I live in a country where gun shops have been determined to be 'essential services' during the current crisis. Very different cultures in that regard.

I live in Texas and don't own a gun.  I wouldn't mind having one, but my wife would freak, and that would cause more immediate danger to me than not having a gun.  Right now, I live in a nice neighborhood, and in the 22 years I've been here there hasn't been a hint of trouble.  If someone broke into my house at night, I probably wouldn't have time to get my gun and do anything, anyway.  So, our plan is for me to confront the intruder, and my wife will exit out the back door of our bedroom and call 911 or awaken the neighbors.  Then they can call EMS to take care of the bleeding intruder.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on April 03, 2020, 09:02:23 PM
I live in Texas and don't own a gun.

how is that even possible?

Quote from: Drich on April 03, 2020, 04:00:45 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 02, 2020, 09:39:01 PM
The manifest relish with which many preppers anticipate their "need" for a firearm is an indication of motivations other than mere survival.

what happens to you and or your family if you happen to live in a no go zone?

Define "no go zone." If society breaks down, I expect I'll have plenty to worry about regardless of what guns I might have on hand.

Quote from: Drich on April 03, 2020, 04:00:45 PM

Quote
You're doing journeyman work reinforcing stereotypes here, Drich. Boring.

actually that work is only happening in your mind, as i have not advocated the ownership of guns. I am just asking the question does the light of recent event coupled with another catastrophe make you reconsider.

Your disingenuous claim to be "just asking" questions is transparent and laughable.

Quote from: Drich on April 03, 2020, 05:06:25 PMWell one, your idea of an average person has never held a gun, however the average gun owner trains with a gun. so 1/2 your argument is gone.

While the "average" gun owner in the US might have received some training in how to handle their weapon, literally millions of gun owners in the US have not.

"One in Four Americans Receive Formal Firearm Trainings; Fewer Learn About Suicide Prevention" | University of Washington Department of Epidemiology (https://epi.washington.edu/news/one-four-americans-receive-formal-firearm-trainings-fewer-learn-about-suicide-prevention)

QuoteThe United States does not have a national standard or requirement for firearm safety training prior to purchasing a gun, putting the responsibility on gun owners and those who live with them to find ways to learn firearm safety. Only about three in five U.S. firearm owners have received any formal gun training, according to a new study from the University of Washington.

.

Quote from: billy rubin on April 03, 2020, 09:42:13 PM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on April 03, 2020, 09:02:23 PM
I live in Texas and don't own a gun.

how is that even possible?

Neither do I own boots, a Stetson, or a horse.  I kill my enemies the old-fashioned way; I infect them with a virus.

You're a witch doctor?

Quote from: Recusant on April 03, 2020, 10:15:13 PM

Quote from: Drich on April 03, 2020, 05:06:25 PMWell one, your idea of an average person has never held a gun, however the average gun owner trains with a gun. so 1/2 your argument is gone.

While the "average" gun owner in the US might have received some training in how to handle their weapon, literally millions of gun owners in the US have not.

"One in Four Americans Receive Formal Firearm Trainings; Fewer Learn About Suicide Prevention" | University of Washington Department of Epidemiology (https://epi.washington.edu/news/one-four-americans-receive-formal-firearm-trainings-fewer-learn-about-suicide-prevention)

QuoteThe United States does not have a national standard or requirement for firearm safety training prior to purchasing a gun, putting the responsibility on gun owners and those who live with them to find ways to learn firearm safety. Only about three in five U.S. firearm owners have received any formal gun training, according to a new study from the University of Washington.

Here in California, one is required to take and pass a proctored Firearms Safety Course in order to purchase a firearm. The seller is also required to demonstrate how your new gun operates (without shooting it) and you have to sign a statement affirming this training was received. Not every state does that, to my knowledge. I believe that it was legislated into law in 2014. So, anyone who purchased a firearm prior to '14 possibly received no training. They'd be pretty stupid to not get training, but it happens. I can train people how to use firearms and coach them to shoot for marksmanship. I'd certified for that.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on April 03, 2020, 10:57:30 PM

Quote from: billy rubin on April 03, 2020, 09:42:13 PM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on April 03, 2020, 09:02:23 PM
I live in Texas and don't own a gun.

how is that even possible?

Neither do I own boots, a Stetson, or a horse.  I kill my enemies the old-fashioned way; I infect them with a virus.

Is there a Texvirus we should be worried about?  :chin:

Quote from: Recusant on April 03, 2020, 10:15:13 PM
While the "average" gun owner in the US might have received some training in how to handle their weapon, literally millions of gun owners in the US have not.
...

Quote from: Magdalena on April 04, 2020, 12:54:11 AM

Quote from: Recusant on April 03, 2020, 10:15:13 PM
While the "average" gun owner in the US might have received some training in how to handle their weapon, literally millions of gun owners in the US have not.
...

:lol: That was the cringiest video I've seen in a while.

"I just fucking shot myself!" :picard facepalm:

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 04, 2020, 12:59:32 AM

Quote from: Magdalena on April 04, 2020, 12:54:11 AM

Quote from: Recusant on April 03, 2020, 10:15:13 PM
While the "average" gun owner in the US might have received some training in how to handle their weapon, literally millions of gun owners in the US have not.
...

:lol: That was the cringiest video I've seen in a while.

"I just fucking shot myself!" :picard facepalm:

:lol:
"Dude, my mom's gonna kill me!"

--You think!? Maybe with the same gun. :watching:

Quote from: No one on April 03, 2020, 11:05:26 PM
You're a witch doctor?

Infectious Disease doc.... same thing.

Not really, I'm a lawyer

I was talking about this today. That total societal breakdown that is distinctly possible if the stars align just right. She framed the topic in terms of survival of the fittest. I don't believe that's an accurate description - we are taking about the survival of the survivors.

Today owning firearms is largely a luxury. So is owning a large bank account. Either one affords a certain amount of security in certain circumstances but it's unclear when or if those circumstances will occur. In either case it is foolish to not be flexible enough in your thinking to change your mind.

Right now having some money in the bank is worth a lot. You can deal with whatever expenses arise and hope to ride this plague out. Tomorrow could be a very different story and you might have to actually fight someone for the food in your pantry.

The truth is that none of us know how we would react, this is a scenario that none of us have seen before. I suspect that a lot of the preppers would shrink from real conflict and that lots of suburbanites would answer violence with violence if it came to that, in whatever way they could. The opposite is also true. People will be people and survivors will survive.

I do hope it doesn't come to that. 

Quote from: billy rubin on April 03, 2020, 09:42:13 PM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on April 03, 2020, 09:02:23 PM
I live in Texas and don't own a gun.

how is that even possible?

I have to say that the same thought crossed my mind. But I have an excuse, I don't live in the USA. All we get here is a continuous diet of mass shooting reports and media reports on how lawless the USA is.

That said my son knows better as he has spent a lot more time in the USA than I have. He has an American wife and emigrated to Orange County 10 days ago. I'll ask his opinion.

texas is special.

a friend of mine from hico up in northeast texas bought a used car. when cleaning it he discovered it came with a little .25 semi auto under the front sear

Quote from: jumbojak on April 04, 2020, 03:44:05 AM
I was talking about this today. That total societal breakdown that is distinctly possible if the stars align just right. She framed the topic in terms of survival of the fittest. I don't believe that's an accurate description - we are taking about the survival of the survivors.

Today owning firearms is largely a luxury. So is owning a large bank account. Either one affords a certain amount of security in certain circumstances but it's unclear when or if those circumstances will occur. In either case it is foolish to not be flexible enough in your thinking to change your mind.

Right now having some money in the bank is worth a lot. You can deal with whatever expenses arise and hope to ride this plague out. Tomorrow could be a very different story and you might have to actually fight someone for the food in your pantry.

The truth is that none of us know how we would react, this is a scenario that none of us have seen before. I suspect that a lot of the preppers would shrink from real conflict and that lots of suburbanites would answer violence with violence if it came to that, in whatever way they could. The opposite is also true. People will be people and survivors will survive.

I do hope it doesn't come to that.

I think one thing most people get wrong when it comes to saying stuff like 'survival of the fittest' is they think of the fittest as being the strongest, most ruthless or antisocial or those with enough smarts to be an evil genius. I think most dystopian media push this idea as well...a nice guys finish last scenario during a major socioeconomic crisis. 

I don't think this scenario necessarily applies to human beings because we are and evolved to be a highly social species, even if there are the odd antisocial or asocial ones among us. I'm assuming most humans want to preserve order and the societal structure while obviously trying to survive at the same time.

I think it's very likely that cooperation is what made us so successful as a species and not antisocial behaviours during conflict. I also think that while this coronavirus crisis will bring out the worst in some it will also bring out the best in others, and good will prevail. For instance, I'm seeing a lot of interesting things happening in Brazil. While the president is clearly a psychopathic creature who wants to misuse power to create chaos for some purpose, most of his former allies are abandoning him and shutting down his every attempted move. Most people in society are not listening to him. While people are panic buying, supermarkets are limiting the amounts people can buy so that others can also get theirs. People are donating materials to hospitals and food to the poor.

I don't know. Could be a very naive point of view, but I don't believe this will play out like a dystopian movie. 

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 04, 2020, 02:48:21 PM
I don't know. Could be a very naive point of view, but I don't believe this will play out like a dystopian movie.

I seem to remember a book that came out a few years ago that defined survival of the fittest as being survival of the most cooperative, at least among primates.  Does anybody else remember such a book?

Quote from: Sandra Craft on April 04, 2020, 03:22:54 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 04, 2020, 02:48:21 PM
I don't know. Could be a very naive point of view, but I don't believe this will play out like a dystopian movie.

I seem to remember a book that came out a few years ago that defined survival of the fittest as being survival of the most cooperative, at least among primates.  Does anybody else remember such a book?

The theme rings a bell, though we might be talking about different books. Do you remember the title or author's name?

Nature has it that all have a right of self defense. However, nature also gives the right of attack. We can know this because cattle have horns. Nature gave the right to use those horns as needed. Horns allow one being attacked to have the means to defend.  Horns also provide the for a means to dominate. Horns also provide a means to defend. Nature created the predator as well as the prey. Nature also created the will to dominate whether one be predator or prey. As long as there is a natural will to dominate then the prey also must have the will and means to defend. A single young cow with horns easily dominates an entire herd that is without horns.

   The first prime-moving force in an animal society is survival. The 2nd is to dominate. In a society of intellectual beings that allows contemplation of the natural processes one can choose and plan, the most dangerous being has come into existence.
What does history prove?

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 04, 2020, 03:46:51 PM

Quote from: Sandra Craft on April 04, 2020, 03:22:54 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 04, 2020, 02:48:21 PM
I don't know. Could be a very naive point of view, but I don't believe this will play out like a dystopian movie.

I seem to remember a book that came out a few years ago that defined survival of the fittest as being survival of the most cooperative, at least among primates.  Does anybody else remember such a book?

The theme rings a bell, though we might be talking about different books. Do you remember the title or author's name?

Sadly, no.  I think the author was a woman but I'm not all that sure.

Quote from: Old Seer on April 04, 2020, 04:14:00 PM
Nature has it that all have a right of self defense. However, nature also gives the right of attack. We can know this because cattle have horns. Nature gave the right to use those horns as needed.

what is a "right?"

if i live alone on a desert island, do i have rights?

Would this be an island without any other beings. Without other beings you don't need rights. What rights would you have on Kodiak is land. Rights only exist between beings.  :)

yez. completely alone.

youre saying rights only exist between beings. that makes sense to me.

so what are they? where do they come from?

everything that exizts comes from somewhere, i would think

The mind of Minolta.

see, that's what i mean.

if i didn't have google to explain it to me, i would be utterly clueless about the stuff you say.

Quote from: billy rubin on April 04, 2020, 05:41:32 PM
yez. completely alone.

youre saying rights only exist between beings. that makes sense to me.

so what are they? where do they come from?

everything that exizts comes from somewhere, i would think

Nature doesn't have a somewhere or a nowhere. Somewheres and nowheres are merely items for our own referential  perspectives and useful in one objects relation to another. One material object in the universe is nowhere, two material objects creates a somewhere relative to each.   

    The origin of rights is yourself because you have a right to be. We know this because you exist. (you are being) We know that there must "be" two in order for there to be rights. We know this because there must be another with the ability to impede the rights of the other, or, each other. Without rights there can be no impedance of an other's rights.   Without the ability to impede another there also can be no rights. Two existing without rights have no ability to impede the rights of each other. If, rights can be impeded by whatever forces automatically proves there,s rights. Material things can impede your rights, such as, a large rock in your path of travel. The rock impedes your right to travel in a straight line. However, we are into rights that interact between beings.
   All beings have the same rights, and it's a matter of "someone" willing to impede those rights and why, which is the item in question.  We know from history that if one acquires the right to impede the rights of other they will do so. The one(s) applying the impedance must have something to gain by doing so.

   Rights are not given by nature, they are nature. Once one understands their nature they also gain understanding of their own person, AND, everyone else's. Then, no one can hide from anyone, and all will know it.

There is not such thing as a right other than what human beings say it is. "Nature" does not provide us with a right to self-defense. Nature is indifferent to human beings. Living together in groups, we made decisions about what is, and is not, acceptable. But this whole 'natural rights' thing is--at the bottom--just people agreeing to certain propositions. There is no supernatural origin.

Quote from: Old Seer on April 04, 2020, 08:46:05 PM
]Nature doesn't have a somewhere or a nowhere. Somewheres and nowheres are merely items for our own referential  perspectives and useful in one objects relation to another. One material object in the universe is nowhere, two material objects creates a somewhere relative to each.   

so rights come from nature.

you said this earlier:

QuoteHowever, nature also gives the right of attack. We can know this because cattle have horns . . . Nature created the predator as well as the prey. Nature also created the will to dominate whether one be predator or prey.

nature gave me two hands. are there natural limits to whether i can strangle other people with them?

what are those limits, if any?

Quote from: Michael Reilly on April 04, 2020, 08:50:13 PM
There is not such thing as a right other than what human beings say it is. "Nature" does not provide us with a right to self-defense. Nature is indifferent to human beings. Living together in groups, we made decisions about what is, and is not, acceptable. But this whole 'natural rights' thing is--at the bottom--just people agreeing to certain propositions. There is no supernatural origin.

if they come from nature, then they aren't supernatural, by definition.

but in my own opinion, i agree with you that rights (as i think of them) are human constructs linkd to an idea of right and wrong.

a "right" is something that it would be "wrong" to deny.

so its culture-specific and human, from the start.

Yeah...this whole 'natural rights' idea reminds me of those people on the fringe saying even the pathogens have a right to exist because they do in fact exist.  ::)

It makes no sense to me. Even the thought of human beings having an objective, natural right to life doesn't really make sense. In fact, I think human rights are just one of those things people in more civilised societies take for granted. 

Quote from: billy rubin on April 04, 2020, 08:56:33 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 04, 2020, 08:46:05 PM
]Nature doesn't have a somewhere or a nowhere. Somewheres and nowheres are merely items for our own referential  perspectives and useful in one objects relation to another. One material object in the universe is nowhere, two material objects creates a somewhere relative to each.   

so rights come from nature.

you said this earlier:

QuoteHowever, nature also gives the right of attack. We can know this because cattle have horns . . . Nature created the predator as well as the prey. Nature also created the will to dominate whether one be predator or prey.

nature gave me two hands. are there natural limits to whether i can strangle other people with them?

what are those limits, if any?

No, :-) I did not say rights come from nature. I said, rights are nature. Rights are something you have automatically, they "are" you. Rights are elements of one's person, part of one's psychological makeup. If you don't agree that rights are a part of your nature then next time a book falls off the top shelf don't put your hands up to ward off the consequences. Just let them hit you on the head. If you, without thought or contemplation took action to avoid harm then you have a natural right of self defense.  Without that natural right you have no incentive to live. Having the incentive without intent proves the right to self defense. Without the right of natural self defense no one would be alive today. Without the right of self preservation you would fall off a cliff and do nothing to avoid it. Without the right of defense you're giving all other beings the right to offense. You're dead.

    The universe did not create right and wrong. It only created good and evil, there is a difference. Good and evil are consequences of being in the universe. Right and wrong are concepts of people control for reasons. Right and wrong can develop into good and evil, but right and wrong are mere concepts of inventing one's own idea of good and evil, either to cause it or to avoid it. It depends upon the intent of the developer(s) of the concept. If there were no beings in the universe there couldn't be right or wrong, good or evil, because there's no persons to right for wrong to be (on account of) Notice that right and wrong only applies if there are beings to create it. The universe cannot be right or wrong, good or evil to itself.
A rock rolling down hill harms a person, that is an evil brought about by the natural course of universal law. If the rock is rolled down the hill with "intent" by a person to do harm it is also just as evil, and can only be right or wrong if someone makes it that way. A hill nor gravity can be right or wrong. If gravity were wrong one could get rid of it. That can't be done. Right or wrong is relegated to whether something can be done to make change. However, gravity does cause evil.

  There is nothing in the universe that is supernatural. The universe has no need or ability to outdo itself. This is where Atheism comes into importance, but that's another subject. No man made government can declare the universe wrong and have an effect, but it can declare people wrong. So, right and wrong did not exist until there were beings.  If right and wrong were eliminated the universe would still contain good and evil.

Quote from: Michael Reilly on April 04, 2020, 08:50:13 PM
There is not such thing as a right other than what human beings say it is. "Nature" does not provide us with a right to self-defense. Nature is indifferent to human beings. Living together in groups, we made decisions about what is, and is not, acceptable. But this whole 'natural rights' thing is--at the bottom--just people agreeing to certain propositions. There is no supernatural origin.

Human is also a matter of nature. Seers see human nature differently than the world. Human nature to us is a person adherent to specific standards of "being" or personality. If one has no right of defense then one cannot avoid a car crash as there would be no recognition of harm/danger. One doesn't need permission from a higher authority to avoid harm.

Quote from: Old Seer on April 04, 2020, 10:34:14 PM

Quote from: billy rubin on April 04, 2020, 08:56:33 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 04, 2020, 08:46:05 PM
]Nature doesn't have a somewhere or a nowhere. Somewheres and nowheres are merely items for our own referential  perspectives and useful in one objects relation to another. One material object in the universe is nowhere, two material objects creates a somewhere relative to each.   

so rights come from nature.

you said this earlier:

QuoteHowever, nature also gives the right of attack. We can know this because cattle have horns . . . Nature created the predator as well as the prey. Nature also created the will to dominate whether one be predator or prey.

nature gave me two hands. are there natural limits to whether i can strangle other people with them?

what are those limits, if any?

No, :-) I did not say rights come from nature. I said, rights are nature. Rights are something you have automatically, they "are" you. Rights are elements of one's person, part of one's psychological makeup. If you don't agree that rights are a part of your nature then next time a book falls off the top shelf don't put your hands up to ward off the consequences. Just let them hit you on the head. If you, without thought or contemplation took action to avoid harm then you have a natural right of self defense.  Without that natural right you have no incentive to live. Having the incentive without intent proves the right to self defense. Without the right of natural self defense no one would be alive today. Without the right of self preservation you would fall off a cliff and do nothing to avoid it. Without the right of defense you're giving all other beings the right to offense. You're dead.

    The universe did not create right and wrong. It only created good and evil, there is a difference. Good and evil are consequences of being in the universe. Right and wrong are concepts of people control for reasons. Right and wrong can develop into good and evil, but right and wrong are mere concepts of inventing one's own idea of good and evil, either to cause it or to avoid it. It depends upon the intent of the developer(s) of the concept. If there were no beings in the universe there couldn't be right or wrong, good or evil, because there's no persons to right for wrong to be (on account of) Notice that right and wrong only applies if there are beings to create it. The universe cannot be right or wrong, good or evil to itself.
A rock rolling down hill harms a person, that is an evil brought about by the natural course of universal law. If the rock is rolled down the hill with "intent" by a person to do harm it is also just as evil, and can only be right or wrong if someone makes it that way. A hill nor gravity can be right or wrong. If gravity were wrong one could get rid of it. That can't be done. Right or wrong is relegated to whether something can be done to make change. However, gravity does cause evil.

  There is nothing in the universe that is supernatural. The universe has no need or ability to outdo itself. This is where Atheism comes into importance, but that's another subject. No man made government can declare the universe wrong and have an effect, but it can declare people wrong. So, right and wrong did not exist until there were beings.  If right and wrong were eliminated the universe would still contain good and evil.

i agree with you regarding good, evil, right, wrong. i use the words differently but i understand your point.

with respect to rights, i think we re far apart. your useage of tbe term seems indisyinguishable from "inclination" or "drive." an evolved response, even a reflex, would zeem to fit your definition.

im talking about something closer to "entitlements" when i use the word. something which is owed, consciously

a book falling on my head incurs no conscious intrusion. i ward it off because i have an inclination to do so, but were i to have an entitlement, a right to self prezervation, then that is not something that an inanimate object could infringe.

you would call the harm from the book an evil. i would use the term misadventure.

i do not think rights can be asserted autonomously. ithink if they exist, they must be granted. this implies the prezence of a superior frame of reference, one which can justly enforce compliance with rights upon those who do not respect them.

how does this fit with your understanding?

Quote from: billy rubin on April 05, 2020, 12:16:02 AM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 04, 2020, 10:34:14 PM

Quote from: billy rubin on April 04, 2020, 08:56:33 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 04, 2020, 08:46:05 PM
]Nature doesn't have a somewhere or a nowhere. Somewheres and nowheres are merely items for our own referential  perspectives and useful in one objects relation to another. One material object in the universe is nowhere, two material objects creates a somewhere relative to each.   

so rights come from nature.

you said this earlier:

QuoteHowever, nature also gives the right of attack. We can know this because cattle have horns . . . Nature created the predator as well as the prey. Nature also created the will to dominate whether one be predator or prey.

nature gave me two hands. are there natural limits to whether i can strangle other people with them?

what are those limits, if any?

No, :-) I did not say rights come from nature. I said, rights are nature. Rights are something you have automatically, they "are" you. Rights are elements of one's person, part of one's psychological makeup. If you don't agree that rights are a part of your nature then next time a book falls off the top shelf don't put your hands up to ward off the consequences. Just let them hit you on the head. If you, without thought or contemplation took action to avoid harm then you have a natural right of self defense.  Without that natural right you have no incentive to live. Having the incentive without intent proves the right to self defense. Without the right of natural self defense no one would be alive today. Without the right of self preservation you would fall off a cliff and do nothing to avoid it. Without the right of defense you're giving all other beings the right to offense. You're dead.

    The universe did not create right and wrong. It only created good and evil, there is a difference. Good and evil are consequences of being in the universe. Right and wrong are concepts of people control for reasons. Right and wrong can develop into good and evil, but right and wrong are mere concepts of inventing one's own idea of good and evil, either to cause it or to avoid it. It depends upon the intent of the developer(s) of the concept. If there were no beings in the universe there couldn't be right or wrong, good or evil, because there's no persons to right for wrong to be (on account of) Notice that right and wrong only applies if there are beings to create it. The universe cannot be right or wrong, good or evil to itself.
A rock rolling down hill harms a person, that is an evil brought about by the natural course of universal law. If the rock is rolled down the hill with "intent" by a person to do harm it is also just as evil, and can only be right or wrong if someone makes it that way. A hill nor gravity can be right or wrong. If gravity were wrong one could get rid of it. That can't be done. Right or wrong is relegated to whether something can be done to make change. However, gravity does cause evil.

  There is nothing in the universe that is supernatural. The universe has no need or ability to outdo itself. This is where Atheism comes into importance, but that's another subject. No man made government can declare the universe wrong and have an effect, but it can declare people wrong. So, right and wrong did not exist until there were beings.  If right and wrong were eliminated the universe would still contain good and evil.

i agree with you regarding good, evil, right, wrong. i use the words differently but i understand your point.

with respect to rights, i think we re far apart. your useage of tbe term seems indisyinguishable from "inclination" or "drive." an evolved response, even a reflex, would zeem to fit your definition.

im talking about something closer to "entitlements" when i use the word. something which is owed, consciously

a book falling on my head incurs no conscious intrusion. i ward it off because i have an inclination to do so, but were i to have an entitlement, a right to self prezervation, then that is not something that an inanimate object could infringe.

you would call the harm from the book an evil. i would use the term misadventure.

i do not think rights can be asserted autonomously. ithink if they exist, they must be granted. this implies the prezence of a superior frame of reference, one which can justly enforce compliance with rights upon those who do not respect them.

how does this fit with your understanding?

in·cli·na·tion
/ˌinkləˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: inclination; plural noun: inclinations

    1.
    a person's natural tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way; a disposition or propensity.
    "John was a scientist by training and inclination"
    h
    Similar:
    tendency

propensity
proclivity
leaning
predisposition
disposition
predilection
weakness
proneness
desire
wish
readiness
impulse
bent
list
humor
velleity
h

2.
a slope or slant.
"changes in inclination of the line on the graph"

    the action of inclining the body or head.
    "the questioner's inclination of his head"

Quote from: Drich on April 03, 2020, 04:21:42 PM

Quote from: Bluenose on April 03, 2020, 02:16:15 AM
I come from a country that, with a few exceptions, does not allow personal firearms, certainly nothing even remotely like in the USA and never for "personal protection".  The personal protection shibboleth is really an oxymoron, statistics show that owning a firearm, particularly a pistol, for personal protection dramatically increases your risk of being killed or injured, usually and ironically by your own firearm.

and people who own knives or bees are far more likly to be cut or stung than people who don't own them. In fact i got my first hive last year and was stung more in that year than i have the previous 40 years combined. However since i learned how to work with bees i do not even need a bee suit. the same is true for owning knives.. or hammers nails or any other tool. you are far more likely to be injured by something you are in close proximity to/own than something you do not own/have not been exposed to.

Quote
To answer your question, there is nothing about the Covid-19 situations with its isolation requirements and all, that has done the slightest bit to change my attitude to owning a fire arm.  What would change my opinion?  If I were to move out of the city I might invest in a long arm or two to shoot rabbits or deer for the table, but I just don't feel the need to have a firearm for security reasons.  We gain far more personal protection by acting collectively for the mutual good.  Stay the f***k at home!

Now if you considered my OP properly i changed your social structure and dynamic completely. This wasn't just about the virus. I said with the virus and a power grid shut down... which stops all perishable food stores and deliveries, city water supplies internet phones the whole lot.  Then i introduced my baseball bat, with the collapsed society, who would naturally have very limited access to police or medical. If I am 6'8" tall 275 lbs of angry hungry man with again a ball bat with no food. and you have a store of food, but no way to call for help. Would you want a way to defend yourself that did not need you to be athletic or to be skilled in any martial art form, or would you just hand over your supplies? or do i beat you to death or near death and take all you have?

Well, back in late 2019 and early 2020 my country experienced severe fires that did in fact destroy pretty much all infrastructure in many areas and people were left without power, communications, fresh water or, in many cases, even a house to live in (and of course, regrettably some lost even their lives, but that's not the point here.)  What did they do in these areas?  Did they start preying on each other, the strongest taking the lion's share of available resources?  No.  People banded together and did what they could to help each other.  They pooled their resources and made the best of what they had.  That is what people do. Disaster tends to bring communities together.  Even in wartime that's what happens - think of the Blitz in London during WWII.  The more the Germans bombed London the more the Londoners came together.  The same happened in Germany when Bomber Harris insisted the RAF bomb civilian areas in Germany.  Look at what happens in many war torn areas around the world, the actions of the warring parties only makes the ordinary people do more to help each other.  It's what people do.  I think your apocalyptic vision, while it make a fun book, and I've read my fair share of those, does not reflect reality.  Of course there will always be outliers, but the overwhelming majority of people try to be decent.

Quote from: Bluenose on April 05, 2020, 12:48:00 PM

Quote from: Drich on April 03, 2020, 04:21:42 PM

Quote from: Bluenose on April 03, 2020, 02:16:15 AM
I come from a country that, with a few exceptions, does not allow personal firearms, certainly nothing even remotely like in the USA and never for "personal protection".  The personal protection shibboleth is really an oxymoron, statistics show that owning a firearm, particularly a pistol, for personal protection dramatically increases your risk of being killed or injured, usually and ironically by your own firearm.

and people who own knives or bees are far more likly to be cut or stung than people who don't own them. In fact i got my first hive last year and was stung more in that year than i have the previous 40 years combined. However since i learned how to work with bees i do not even need a bee suit. the same is true for owning knives.. or hammers nails or any other tool. you are far more likely to be injured by something you are in close proximity to/own than something you do not own/have not been exposed to.

Quote
To answer your question, there is nothing about the Covid-19 situations with its isolation requirements and all, that has done the slightest bit to change my attitude to owning a fire arm.  What would change my opinion?  If I were to move out of the city I might invest in a long arm or two to shoot rabbits or deer for the table, but I just don't feel the need to have a firearm for security reasons.  We gain far more personal protection by acting collectively for the mutual good.  Stay the f***k at home!

Now if you considered my OP properly i changed your social structure and dynamic completely. This wasn't just about the virus. I said with the virus and a power grid shut down... which stops all perishable food stores and deliveries, city water supplies internet phones the whole lot.  Then i introduced my baseball bat, with the collapsed society, who would naturally have very limited access to police or medical. If I am 6'8" tall 275 lbs of angry hungry man with again a ball bat with no food. and you have a store of food, but no way to call for help. Would you want a way to defend yourself that did not need you to be athletic or to be skilled in any martial art form, or would you just hand over your supplies? or do i beat you to death or near death and take all you have?

Well, back in late 2019 and early 2020 my country experienced severe fires that did in fact destroy pretty much all infrastructure in many areas and people were left without power, communications, fresh water or, in many cases, even a house to live in (and of course, regrettably some lost even their lives, but that's not the point here.)  What did they do in these areas?  Did they start preying on each other, the strongest taking the lion's share of available resources?  No.  People banded together and did what they could to help each other.  They pooled their resources and made the best of what they had.  That is what people do. Disaster tends to bring communities together.  Even in wartime that's what happens - think of the Blitz in London during WWII.  The more the Germans bombed London the more the Londoners came together.  The same happened in Germany when Bomber Harris insisted the RAF bomb civilian areas in Germany.  Look at what happens in many war torn areas around the world, the actions of the warring parties only makes the ordinary people do more to help each other.  It's what people do.  I think your apocalyptic vision, while it make a fun book, and I've read my fair share of those, does not reflect reality.  Of course there will always be outliers, but the overwhelming majority of people try to be decent.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 04, 2020, 09:07:37 PM
Yeah...this whole 'natural rights' idea reminds me of those people on the fringe saying even the pathogens have a right to exist because they do in fact exist.  ::)

It makes no sense to me. Even the thought of human beings having an objective, natural right to life doesn't really make sense. In fact, I think human rights are just one of those things people in more civilised societies take for granted.

OK, what about this? Would you run away from a lion attacking you.

or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

Quote from: Michael Reilly on April 04, 2020, 08:50:13 PM
There is not such thing as a right other than what human beings say it is. "Nature" does not provide us with a right to self-defense. Nature is indifferent to human beings. Living together in groups, we made decisions about what is, and is not, acceptable. But this whole 'natural rights' thing is--at the bottom--just people agreeing to certain propositions. There is no supernatural origin.

To understand-- reduce this to a simpler form. If there's only two persons on the planet which one gives rights to the other. The only way they can co-exist is if they recognize the existence of the other. If you're the one that determined that the other has rights, how would you determine that, you would need evidence, the evidence would be yourself. OK so, how could you determine that the other has rights if rights didn't already exist.  Where did you get the right to decide the other has or hasn't rights, and that could only be if you already had the right to make the decision.
  Civilized peoples are mentally trained to be subject to a small cadre of persons who they relegate their rights to. This creates a mental block to see things from a basis of nature. They got that authority from you. You entrust them to regulate your rights, and  those rights are observable. Your rights are understood to be inalienable because they are observable as naturally existing. The small cadre cannot remove your rights, they can only regulate the use of rights.

Quote from: Old Seer on April 05, 2020, 03:51:05 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 04, 2020, 09:07:37 PM
Yeah...this whole 'natural rights' idea reminds me of those people on the fringe saying even the pathogens have a right to exist because they do in fact exist.  ::)

It makes no sense to me. Even the thought of human beings having an objective, natural right to life doesn't really make sense. In fact, I think human rights are just one of those things people in more civilised societies take for granted.

OK, what about this? Would you run away from a lion attacking you.

I would not. Two reasons:

a) Running from a cat triggers their high prey drive and they will run after you;

b) Between the lion and me, the lion is obviously faster.

But I get what you're asking. In order to try and defend myself and survive, I would try and throw things at it instead, I figure that would be my best chance. Of course I will try to survive an attack.

Quote from: billy rubin on April 05, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

I'm not sure if that question was for me but I'll answer anyway.  :P

I don't think I would, though to be honest I don't know. I've never been in that situation to find out.

I don't think moral decision-making is a unitary process in the brain/mind. There is a difference between reacting to an attack in order to avoid harm and actively attacking someone else (supposedly innocent) in order to survive. In the second, you have to make a decision, unconsciously or consciously.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 05, 2020, 06:41:19 PM

Quote from: billy rubin on April 05, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

I'm not sure if that question was for me but I'll answer anyway.  :P

I don't think I would, though to be honest I don't know. I've never been in that situation to find out.

I don't think moral decision-making is a unitary process in the brain/mind. There is a difference between reacting to an attack in order to avoid harm and actively attacking someone else (supposedly innocent) in order to survive. In the second, you have to make a decision, unconsciously or consciously.

i'm just curious about who has the right to the food, under old seer's system of rights.

the person who naturally had it first, or the person who had the natural wherewithal to take it away?

Humans are supposed to be intelligent, cooperating and exploring measures to share and survive together. However, they purposely elect not to.

Humans are a deplorable, selfish, and vile species. Not sure if I ever mentioned it, but I hate them.

Quote from: No one on April 05, 2020, 10:46:30 PM
Humans are supposed to be intelligent, cooperating and exploring measures to share and survive together. However, they purposely elect not to.

Humans are a deplorable, selfish, and vile species. Not sure if I ever mentioned it, but I hate them.

A little from column A, a little from column B.

Quote from: No one on April 05, 2020, 10:46:30 PM
Humans are supposed to be intelligent, cooperating and exploring measures to share and survive together. However, they purposely elect not to.

Humans are a deplorable, selfish, and vile species. Not sure if I ever mentioned it, but I hate them.

This sounds like something a god would say about us.  :reading:

we are what we are.

we behave exactly as other organisms do, especially primates. our difference is that we are intelligent enough to make up philosophy, and so we ascribe complicated and fanciful motivations to whatwe do.

turn the sound off and watch.

Quote from: billy rubin on April 06, 2020, 12:11:30 AM
we are what we are.

we behave exactly as other organisms do, especially primates. our difference is that we are intelligent enough to make up philosophy, and so we ascribe complicated and fanciful motivations to whatwe do.

turn the sound off and watch.

Yes.
I see it.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3ViDyv13D9HQQ/giphy.gif)

Quote from: No one on April 05, 2020, 10:46:30 PM
Humans are supposed to be intelligent, cooperating and exploring measures to share and survive together. However, they purposely elect not to.

Humans are a deplorable, selfish, and vile species. Not sure if I ever mentioned it, but I hate them.

What you're saying here is, Humans aren't human. No intent to be negative, but in the world of the Seers that's how we would see your statement.  :)

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 05, 2020, 06:26:04 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 05, 2020, 03:51:05 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 04, 2020, 09:07:37 PM
Yeah...this whole 'natural rights' idea reminds me of those people on the fringe saying even the pathogens have a right to exist because they do in fact exist.  ::)

It makes no sense to me. Even the thought of human beings having an objective, natural right to life doesn't really make sense. In fact, I think human rights are just one of those things people in more civilised societies take for granted.

OK, what about this? Would you run away from a lion attacking you.

I would not. Two reasons:

a) Running from a cat triggers their high prey drive and they will run after you;

b) Between the lion and me, the lion is obviously faster.

But I get what you're asking. In order to try and defend myself and survive, I would try and throw things at it instead, I figure that would be my best chance. Of course I will try to survive an attack.

You prefer to exercise your right to remain  alive. The Lion is also exercising it's right to live. To the Lion, you're a meal. What this is---two beings with the same rights. Without the rights neither can remain alive. Nature established (if that wording be correct) both on an even Steven basis. While you have the same rights there is not equal physical ability. Now what.

Quote from: billy rubin on April 05, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

Quote from: billy rubin on April 06, 2020, 12:11:30 AM
we are what we are.

we behave exactly as other organisms do, especially primates. our difference is that we are intelligent enough to make up philosophy, and so we ascribe complicated and fanciful motivations to whatwe do.

turn the sound off and watch.

We had a saying originally- intelligence is people's enemy, since then we've changed it. What intelligence is applied to is the enemy.

seer, youre uzing rightz in terms of natural law, i believe

natural law applies to organizms living in their natural state

the natural state of humanz is to live in societies

in societiez humans grant each other rights, some of which supercede others.

the freedom from stealing is one such right, by implication there iz no right to steal, under normal circumstancez.

are human societies consiztent with the natural perspective?

Quote from: Recusant on April 03, 2020, 09:53:12 PM

Quote from: Drich on April 03, 2020, 04:00:45 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 02, 2020, 09:39:01 PM
The manifest relish with which many preppers anticipate their "need" for a firearm is an indication of motivations other than mere survival.

what happens to you and or your family if you happen to live in a no go zone?

Define "no go zone." If society breaks down, I expect I'll have plenty to worry about regardless of what guns I might have on hand.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/story-series/death-by-instagram/2018/04/27/detroit-gang-wars-residents-want-better-communitiy/556655002/
https://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Crimes-Map/dfnk-7re6
or red zones places where police officers are openly targeted on site and shot at. or extremely unsafe neighborhoods. lots of gang activity in normal times.

Quote from: Drich on April 03, 2020, 04:00:45 PM

Quote
You're doing journeyman work reinforcing stereotypes here, Drich. Boring.

actually that work is only happening in your mind, as i have not advocated the ownership of guns. I am just asking the question does the light of recent event coupled with another catastrophe make you reconsider.

Your disingenuous claim to be "just asking" questions is transparent and laughable.
[/quote] don't be obtuse.
have i propagated anything? Have i extolled the need for guns? have i challenged any of your answers?

I just asked a question to see what type of people are here. We are two pages in at this point so if i had an agenda it would be known by now. Calm down dial the hate back a few notches and just read and respond to what is on page. no need to try and jump a head especially if there isnt anything to jump to.

I'm asking because my brother in law is a douche bag much like most of you who tends to lean towards the left. thought my dad and i were milisha/crazy people. someone broke into his shop, they stole 75K in tools and equipment, now the virus has got some people going into frenzy mode in the down town area he works in.

His value system much like most of yours are based on the idea of a utopian society. I find those who live in a less culturally diverse countries (all/most white) can hold out or play pretend society will never fail. but when reminded his value system is no longer at the top of the societal food chain, he like every other red blooded american (douchebaggery not withstanding) is not looking to be subjected by, or taken advantage of by people foreign or domestic who will force their will onto him.

I guess those such as yourself who live in a less culturally diverse part of the world can pretty much know that everyone who looks like you will think like you and there is no need to defend yourself because you all have agreed not to hurt one another.

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 05:22:49 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 03, 2020, 09:53:12 PM
Define "no go zone." If society breaks down, I expect I'll have plenty to worry about regardless of what guns I might have on hand.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/story-series/death-by-instagram/2018/04/27/detroit-gang-wars-residents-want-better-communitiy/556655002/

https://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Crimes-Map/dfnk-7re6
or red zones places where police officers are openly targeted on site and shot at. or extremely unsafe neighborhoods. lots of gang activity in normal times.

How would possessing a gun help me or my family be safer if I were living in "'The Red Zone' — gang turf for the Seven Mile Bloods", or in any other neighborhood plagued by violence?

Quote from: Drich on April 03, 2020, 04:00:45 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 03, 2020, 09:53:12 PM
You're doing journeyman work reinforcing stereotypes here, Drich. Boring.

actually that work is only happening in your mind, as i have not advocated the ownership of guns. I am just asking the question does the light of recent event coupled with another catastrophe make you reconsider.

Quote from: Recusant on April 03, 2020, 09:53:12 PMYour disingenuous claim to be "just asking" questions is transparent and laughable.

don't be obtuse.
have i propagated anything? Have i extolled the need for guns? have i challenged any of your answers?

I just asked a question to see what type of people are here. We are two pages in at this point so if i had an agenda it would be known by now. Calm down dial the hate back a few notches and just read and respond to what is on page. no need to try and jump a head especially if there isnt anything to jump to.

I'm asking because my brother in law is a douche bag much like most of you who tends to lean towards the left. thought my dad and i were milisha/crazy people. someone broke into his shop, they stole 75K in tools and equipment, now the virus has got some people going into frenzy mode in the down town area he works in.

His value system much like most of yours are based on the idea of a utopian society. I find those who live in a less culturally diverse countries (all/most white) can hold out or play pretend society will never fail. but when reminded his value system is no longer at the top of the societal food chain, he like every other red blooded american (douchebaggery not withstanding) is not looking to be subjected by, or taken advantage of by people foreign or domestic who will force their will onto him.

I guess those such as yourself who live in a less culturally diverse part of the world can pretty much know that everyone who looks like you will think like you and there is no need to defend yourself because you all have agreed not to hurt one another.

You don't know anything about where I live, or where I've lived in the past. You need to read the rules of this site: Calling the general membership (except for a few it seems you think you might approve of) is not on. This is a friendly reminder. You've done OK up to now keeping within the rules, but I can tell you that you're not doing yourself any favors by relying on insults, and there won't be any more friendly reminders.

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 05:39:50 AM

Quote from: billy rubin on April 05, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

and this is why i have my guns.. to not have to suffer fools who think, PUT INTO PRACTICE and teach people who think stealing is not a thing and it is not wrong.  How wrong it actually is. That they are not a fox or bear, nor am i. Not only that but in fact it may cost one their life (how ever they trans species identify) if you steal from me on my property or from it. so as to be an example to anyone else you/they may have infected with the idea there is no such thing as stealing.


Now.. compartmentalize all of that above.

lets say we are neighbors and the above is what you think i think, and you know i have guns.

You are your family are starving. You look over my house and i have 30 chickens. you want one to eat and ask. i say no because they produce more food laying 20-30 eggs aday. So bottom line here I have the guns, i have the food/chickens, my pov on stealing in enforced because my might/guns makes right.

Now tell me if you were the one who had a gun, and your strong philosophy on stealing entitled you to one of my chickens, you can't tell me you would sit and starve wanting one of my chickens. If your world view entitled you to my chicken and you have the might to force your version of right and wrong, how long would you wait before you got your chickens? What if we started eating them one every day because reasons and we still would not give you one?

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 05:09:20 AM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 05, 2020, 06:26:04 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 05, 2020, 03:51:05 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 04, 2020, 09:07:37 PM
Yeah...this whole 'natural rights' idea reminds me of those people on the fringe saying even the pathogens have a right to exist because they do in fact exist.  ::)

It makes no sense to me. Even the thought of human beings having an objective, natural right to life doesn't really make sense. In fact, I think human rights are just one of those things people in more civilised societies take for granted.

OK, what about this? Would you run away from a lion attacking you.

I would not. Two reasons:

a) Running from a cat triggers their high prey drive and they will run after you;

b) Between the lion and me, the lion is obviously faster.

But I get what you're asking. In order to try and defend myself and survive, I would try and throw things at it instead, I figure that would be my best chance. Of course I will try to survive an attack.

You prefer to exercise your right to remain  alive. The Lion is also exercising it's right to live. To the Lion, you're a meal. What this is---two beings with the same rights. Without the rights neither can remain alive. Nature established (if that wording be correct) both on an even Steven basis. While you have the same rights there is not equal physical ability. Now what.

That's the thing, I don't think there is a 'right' to life. I exist, I am, but whatever 'right' I have to continue living is more legal than natural. Do I infringe upon the right of the ants who I accidentally step on while I walk?

Pro-lifers like to say that the undeveloped fetus has a right to life, even if it doesn't even remotely resemble a human yet. Does it? 

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 05:22:49 PM
don't be obtuse.
have i propagated anything? Have i extolled the need for guns? have i challenged any of your answers?

I just asked a question to see what type of people are here. We are two pages in at this point so if i had an agenda it would be known by now. Calm down dial the hate back a few notches and just read and respond to what is on page. no need to try and jump a head especially if there isnt anything to jump to.

I'm asking because my brother in law is a douche bag much like most of you who tends to lean towards the left. thought my dad and i were milisha/crazy people. someone broke into his shop, they stole 75K in tools and equipment, now the virus has got some people going into frenzy mode in the down town area he works in.

His value system much like most of yours are based on the idea of a utopian society. I find those who live in a less culturally diverse countries (all/most white) can hold out or play pretend society will never fail. but when reminded his value system is no longer at the top of the societal food chain, he like every other red blooded american (douchebaggery not withstanding) is not looking to be subjected by, or taken advantage of by people foreign or domestic who will force their will onto him.

I guess those such as yourself who live in a less culturally diverse part of the world can pretty much know that everyone who looks like you will think like you and there is no need to defend yourself because you all have agreed not to hurt one another.

Go ahead and call us communists or whatever other inane insult people like you like to throw around. 

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2020, 05:52:36 PMGo ahead and call us communists or whatever other inane insult people like you like to throw around. 

:evilgrin:  Yes, perhaps that would be best for all concerned.  ;)

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 05:39:57 PM
How would possessing a gun help me or my family be safer if I were living in "'The Red Zone' — gang turf for the Seven Mile Bloods", or in any other neighborhood plagued by violence?

when city wide looting and the burning of homes and business start, you take out your ar's your hunting rfles hi-cap handguns and you defend yourself. and you shoot and kill anyone trying to start an occupied apartment building on fire, or burn down a strip mall or bust into a neighbors cell phone story or beauty parlor.. This very thing happened to a predominantly korean neighborhood in a red zone as most of the koreans owned stores that serviced the black community and during oj's or the trial of rodney kings cops trial was over. after that LA burned for days. days of no police or army, for days as the cops refused to go there. where this korean community was held not burned or looted because the men there bann together and fought off the 'zombies.'
https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/us/la-riots-korean-americans/index.html

story buried because black people where oppressive majority oppressing and signaling out a specific minority.

Quote from: Drich on April 03, 2020, 04:00:45 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 03, 2020, 09:53:12 PM
You're doing journeyman work reinforcing stereotypes here, Drich. Boring.

what's boring is how you dismiss topic either you can not discuss or are ill equipped to discuss. If you want people to play nice with you don't pretend you are not passively aggressively antagonizing them. you are not fooling anyone here. either address the question or statement or don't. either way don't pretend you are above a discussion and then threaten someone's membership when they call you out for playing games.

Quote
You don't know anything about where I live, or where I've lived in the past. You need to read the rules of this site: Calling the general membership (except for a few it seems you think you might approve of) is not on. This is a friendly reminder. You've done OK up to now keeping within the rules, but I can tell you that you're not doing yourself any favors by relying on insults, and there won't be any more friendly reminders.

this is exactly what i meant. I even called this behavior in the last paragraph!

I just re read the rules for the 7th time and no where in it is there a section or subsection referred  to as "Calling the general membership."

If you are going to cite the rule please give me clear indication of the written rule and a summary of how i broken.

I appreciate a warning verses an infraction, but in this case i do not see any rules broken. Other than the big unwritten rule of all atheist websites (Christian's must loose all arguments. )

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2020, 05:44:24 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 05:09:20 AM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 05, 2020, 06:26:04 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 05, 2020, 03:51:05 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 04, 2020, 09:07:37 PM
Yeah...this whole 'natural rights' idea reminds me of those people on the fringe saying even the pathogens have a right to exist because they do in fact exist.  ::)

It makes no sense to me. Even the thought of human beings having an objective, natural right to life doesn't really make sense. In fact, I think human rights are just one of those things people in more civilised societies take for granted.

OK, what about this? Would you run away from a lion attacking you.

I would not. Two reasons:

a) Running from a cat triggers their high prey drive and they will run after you;

b) Between the lion and me, the lion is obviously faster.

But I get what you're asking. In order to try and defend myself and survive, I would try and throw things at it instead, I figure that would be my best chance. Of course I will try to survive an attack.

You prefer to exercise your right to remain  alive. The Lion is also exercising it's right to live. To the Lion, you're a meal. What this is---two beings with the same rights. Without the rights neither can remain alive. Nature established (if that wording be correct) both on an even Steven basis. While you have the same rights there is not equal physical ability. Now what.

That's the thing, I don't think there is a 'right' to life. I exist, I am, but whatever 'right' I have to continue living is more legal than natural. Do I infringe upon the right of the ants who I accidentally step on while I walk?

Pro-lifers like to say that the undeveloped fetus has a right to life, even if it doesn't even remotely resemble a human yet. Does it?

actually you do but your rights supersede their because we/you have the greater might.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2020, 05:52:36 PM

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 05:22:49 PM
don't be obtuse.
have i propagated anything? Have i extolled the need for guns? have i challenged any of your answers?

I just asked a question to see what type of people are here. We are two pages in at this point so if i had an agenda it would be known by now. Calm down dial the hate back a few notches and just read and respond to what is on page. no need to try and jump a head especially if there isnt anything to jump to.

I'm asking because my brother in law is a douche bag much like most of you who tends to lean towards the left. thought my dad and i were milisha/crazy people. someone broke into his shop, they stole 75K in tools and equipment, now the virus has got some people going into frenzy mode in the down town area he works in.

His value system much like most of yours are based on the idea of a utopian society. I find those who live in a less culturally diverse countries (all/most white) can hold out or play pretend society will never fail. but when reminded his value system is no longer at the top of the societal food chain, he like every other red blooded american (douchebaggery not withstanding) is not looking to be subjected by, or taken advantage of by people foreign or domestic who will force their will onto him.

I guess those such as yourself who live in a less culturally diverse part of the world can pretty much know that everyone who looks like you will think like you and there is no need to defend yourself because you all have agreed not to hurt one another.

Go ahead and call us communists or whatever other inane insult people like you like to throw around.

A rose by any other name would still the same. ;)

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 06:08:10 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2020, 05:52:36 PMGo ahead and call us communists or whatever other inane insult people like you like to throw around. 

:evilgrin:  Yes, perhaps that would be best for all concerned.  ;)

what would help would be an exact rule number in question or a written interpretation of said rule if it is not apparent.

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 06:13:32 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2020, 05:52:36 PM

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 05:22:49 PM
don't be obtuse.
have i propagated anything? Have i extolled the need for guns? have i challenged any of your answers?

I just asked a question to see what type of people are here. We are two pages in at this point so if i had an agenda it would be known by now. Calm down dial the hate back a few notches and just read and respond to what is on page. no need to try and jump a head especially if there isnt anything to jump to.

I'm asking because my brother in law is a douche bag much like most of you who tends to lean towards the left. thought my dad and i were milisha/crazy people. someone broke into his shop, they stole 75K in tools and equipment, now the virus has got some people going into frenzy mode in the down town area he works in.

His value system much like most of yours are based on the idea of a utopian society. I find those who live in a less culturally diverse countries (all/most white) can hold out or play pretend society will never fail. but when reminded his value system is no longer at the top of the societal food chain, he like every other red blooded american (douchebaggery not withstanding) is not looking to be subjected by, or taken advantage of by people foreign or domestic who will force their will onto him.

I guess those such as yourself who live in a less culturally diverse part of the world can pretty much know that everyone who looks like you will think like you and there is no need to defend yourself because you all have agreed not to hurt one another.

Go ahead and call us communists or whatever other inane insult people like you like to throw around.

A rose by any other name would still the same. ;)

Go on. You know you want to. All those inane insults in your head. Let them all out and feel better about yourself.

Drich, please learn how to use the quote function properly, if you have the time.  :lol:

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 06:09:41 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 05:39:57 PM
How would possessing a gun help me or my family be safer if I were living in "'The Red Zone' — gang turf for the Seven Mile Bloods", or in any other neighborhood plagued by violence?

when city wide looting and the burning of homes and business start, you take out your ar's your hunting rfles hi-cap handguns and you defend yourself. and you shoot and kill anyone trying to start an occupied apartment building on fire, or burn down a strip mall or bust into a neighbors cell phone story or beauty parlor.. This very thing happened to a predominantly korean neighborhood in a red zone as most of the koreans owned stores that serviced the black community and during oj's or the trial of rodney kings cops trial was over. after that LA burned for days. days of no police or army, for days as the cops refused to go there. where this korean community was held not burned or looted because the men there bann together and fought off the 'zombies.'
https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/us/la-riots-korean-americans/index.html

story buried because black people where oppressive majority oppressing and signaling out a specific minority.

You're not presenting a coherent argument, and you failed to answer the question.

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 06:09:41 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 03, 2020, 09:53:12 PM
You're doing journeyman work reinforcing stereotypes here, Drich. Boring.

what's boring is how you dismiss topic either you can not discuss or are ill equipped to discuss. If you want people to play nice with you don't pretend you are not passively aggressively antagonizing them. you are not fooling anyone here. either address the question or statement or don't. either way don't pretend you are above a discussion and then threaten someone's membership when they call you out for playing games.

Personally, I wouldn't mind trading insults with you, but that's not how things work here. You haven't presented a genuine argument, you've thrown around scare scenarios and claimed they demonstrate something that they do not. You want some response beyond bland dismissal, you do the work.

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 06:09:41 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 05:39:57 PMYou don't know anything about where I live, or where I've lived in the past. You need to read the rules of this site: Calling the general membership (except for a few it seems you think you might approve of) is not on. This is a friendly reminder. You've done OK up to now keeping within the rules, but I can tell you that you're not doing yourself any favors by relying on insults, and there won't be any more friendly reminders.

this is exactly what i meant. I even called this behavior in the last paragraph!

I just re read the rules for the 7th time and no where in it is there a section or subsection referred  to as "Calling the general membership."

If you are going to cite the rule please give me clear indication of the written rule and a summary of how i broken.

I appreciate a warning verses an infraction, but in this case i do not see any rules broken. Other than the big unwritten rule of all atheist websites (Christian's must loose all arguments. )

Ah, so you fancy yourself something of a rules lawyer. If so you already know that doesn't work. Here's something to take on board, which as a rules lawyer, you shouldn't have missed: You haven't got a warning from me, you've got a reminder. You may not get any warnings at all. There is a rules enforcement process, but it's not a straitjacket. Staff can and will do what is deemed salutary for the site by skipping steps in that process.

I'm afraid you're not a very impressive rules lawyer. After seven readings you've failed to note that the first rule of this site is for members to "remember the importance of civility."

From reading the first post, it seems like wanting guns are like a blanky to help hide insecurities that would be better addressed with proper counselling.

The desire expressed is short sighted and counter productive to long term survival. It's also why a lot of post-apocalyptic "societies" in fiction make me cringe a lot.

Also, preppers always imagine themselves like vikings, going from village to village taking what they want. Unfortunately for most of them, by the time they make it to the next village they'll be too exhausted and weak to actually do anything.

Anyway, my position of guns has not changed with recent events because nothing in the recent events is different enough from past events.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2020, 06:22:23 PM

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 06:13:32 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2020, 05:52:36 PM

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 05:22:49 PM
don't be obtuse.
have i propagated anything? Have i extolled the need for guns? have i challenged any of your answers?

I just asked a question to see what type of people are here. We are two pages in at this point so if i had an agenda it would be known by now. Calm down dial the hate back a few notches and just read and respond to what is on page. no need to try and jump a head especially if there isnt anything to jump to.

I'm asking because my brother in law is a douche bag much like most of you who tends to lean towards the left. thought my dad and i were milisha/crazy people. someone broke into his shop, they stole 75K in tools and equipment, now the virus has got some people going into frenzy mode in the down town area he works in.

His value system much like most of yours are based on the idea of a utopian society. I find those who live in a less culturally diverse countries (all/most white) can hold out or play pretend society will never fail. but when reminded his value system is no longer at the top of the societal food chain, he like every other red blooded american (douchebaggery not withstanding) is not looking to be subjected by, or taken advantage of by people foreign or domestic who will force their will onto him.

I guess those such as yourself who live in a less culturally diverse part of the world can pretty much know that everyone who looks like you will think like you and there is no need to defend yourself because you all have agreed not to hurt one another.

Go ahead and call us communists or whatever other inane insult people like you like to throw around.

A rose by any other name would still the same. ;)

Go on. You know you want to. All those inane insults in your head. Let them all out and feel better about yourself.

meh, I've got venues to bash you guys on.. this is a nice practice in playing nice.

The OP invites a discussion that isn't particularly interesting. It's been chewed on so extensively in the US that it's nothing but a heap of saliva-soaked rawhide at this point. The rest of the world (outside places like Somalia) has long since left it behind, and mostly just watches the gory circus in the US in horrified bemusement.

It did however inspire a discussion that  appears to have some interest for members here. Drich may get around to participating in that discussion, and I'd be interested in what he might contribute to it.

Remains to be seen whether he's here exclusively to push an agenda while indulging his rancor, or is willing to engage in civil discourse. There's a notable trend to one and a sad absence of the other, though.

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 06:30:35 PM
Drich, please learn how to use the quote function properly, if you have the time.  :lol:

my way is a little more efficient so say to go line by line giving you specific answers to individual queries.

Quote
You're not presenting a coherent argument, and you failed to answer the question.

if an arguement seem incohearant to you perhapse it is not always best to assume the person you are speaking with does not know what he is talking about, rather you simply do not understand the specifics on a subject you clearly have no mastery in.
IE you asked: how would a gun help you if you lived ina red zone.

The article i presented showed in a time of major civil unrest there was no police responses available to the korean community in LA riots of the 1990s. all the business owners of a given block of korean own businesses in la ba together and with their guns defended against men who wished to loot their businesses and destroy or burn down their homes and shops. so for 3 days and night these citizens fended off one mob after the other while all of the other businesses (90% of the total destruction done in the LA riots were to korean own businesses)  So again IF you were living in a red zone in an emergency situation where the police stopped protecting people in those neighborhoods you could ban together and defend your home and family just as these korean americans did.

Quote
Personally, I wouldn't mind trading insults with you, but that's not how things work here. You haven't presented a genuine argument, you've thrown around scare scenarios and claimed they demonstrate something that they do not. You want some response beyond bland dismissal, you do the work.

again i have presented scenario after scenario based on events that have happened all with in the last 25 years. My only question is what happens to your gun stance when one or more of these events happens at the same time. where is your conviction when it has been a month since the police have been by and they are burning people out of their homes?

Or I even left the dooms day event up to you in asking what would it take for you to change your gun stance.

then i pointed out that since most of you live within social and economic structures similar to yours, you typically do not see a threat. which i get. but what of those who live in more diverse populations?

Quote
Ah, so you fancy yourself something of a rules lawyer.

this is a bi polar mess.. Glob help me.. You tell me as a friendly reminder to READ THE RULES!!!  so I read them and did not see my supposed infraction, then i read them again and again... then added up my first few read throughs as this was a mandate for posting and presented you with a number.... Now you are persecuting me for doing what you have instructed.

PICK A DIRECTION. Are you so intimidated by me you have to just offer a counter to everything i say no matter if it has you even contradicting yourself?!?!? Do you want me to read and follow the rules or not? if yes then stop being pissy/threatening for me having done what you asked!

Quote
If so you already know that doesn't work. Here's something to take on board, which as a rules lawyer, you shouldn't have missed: You haven't got a warning from me, you've got a reminder. You may not get any warnings at all. There is a rules enforcement process, but it's not a straitjacket. Staff can and will do what is deemed salutary for the site by skipping steps in that process.

which is fine, as i know you can't have a christian among you who does not know his place. but if you are going to pretend to violate me on rules i simply ask that it be an actually written rule you can point to when i asked for said rule violation.

This being the third time i've asked for that rule i supposedly violated.

Quote
I'm afraid you're not a very impressive rules lawyer. After seven readings you've failed to note that the first rule of this site is for members to "remember the importance of civility."

not a rule lawyer that is the limitation of your vocabulary. not mine. I simply wish to know is this a fair place to post or not. is this a rules be damned i as an atheist should always have the last word, or is there freedom of thought and speech if presented with is a structured rule set. The way you like to throw clout around i doubt the later.

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 07:11:23 PM
The OP invites a discussion that isn't particularly interesting. It's been chewed on so extensively in the US that it's nothing but a heap of saliva-soaked rawhide at this point. The rest of the world (outside places like Somalia) has long since left it behind, and mostly just watches the gory circus in the US in horrified bemusement.

It did however inspire a discussion that  appears to have some interest for members here. Drich may get around to participating in that discussion, and I'd be interested in what he might contribute to it.

Remains to be seen whether he's here exclusively to push an agenda while indulging his rancor, or is willing to engage in civil discourse. There's a notable trend to one and a sad absence of the other, though.

I'm leaning towards agenda since they cower away from any and all opposition through various dishonest tactics and logical fallacies. It's weird how many people with an agenda come here thinking they're offering something new while being no different from what we've seen hundreds of times.

Anyway, I agree with you,  I found most of the responses to Drich and the conversations that sprouted up away from the boring introduction to be interesting.

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 07:08:56 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2020, 06:22:23 PM

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 06:13:32 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2020, 05:52:36 PM

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 05:22:49 PM
don't be obtuse.
have i propagated anything? Have i extolled the need for guns? have i challenged any of your answers?

I just asked a question to see what type of people are here. We are two pages in at this point so if i had an agenda it would be known by now. Calm down dial the hate back a few notches and just read and respond to what is on page. no need to try and jump a head especially if there isnt anything to jump to.

I'm asking because my brother in law is a douche bag much like most of you who tends to lean towards the left. thought my dad and i were milisha/crazy people. someone broke into his shop, they stole 75K in tools and equipment, now the virus has got some people going into frenzy mode in the down town area he works in.

His value system much like most of yours are based on the idea of a utopian society. I find those who live in a less culturally diverse countries (all/most white) can hold out or play pretend society will never fail. but when reminded his value system is no longer at the top of the societal food chain, he like every other red blooded american (douchebaggery not withstanding) is not looking to be subjected by, or taken advantage of by people foreign or domestic who will force their will onto him.

I guess those such as yourself who live in a less culturally diverse part of the world can pretty much know that everyone who looks like you will think like you and there is no need to defend yourself because you all have agreed not to hurt one another.

Go ahead and call us communists or whatever other inane insult people like you like to throw around.

A rose by any other name would still the same. ;)

Go on. You know you want to. All those inane insults in your head. Let them all out and feel better about yourself.

meh, I've got venues to bash you guys on.. this is a nice practice in playing nice.

Suit yourself...more will come out eventually.

Based on your first posts in this forum, you seem to be more of a 'reacter' than a cool-headed thinker, Drich. Do they test people's impulse control in the US before allowing any nut to own a gun?

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 05:39:50 AM

Quote from: billy rubin on April 05, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

Quote from: Davin on April 06, 2020, 10:20:53 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 05:39:50 AM

Quote from: billy rubin on April 05, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

Have already done so.  :)

Quote from: billy rubin on April 06, 2020, 10:53:52 AM
seer, youre uzing rightz in terms of natural law, i believe

natural law applies to organizms living in their natural state

the natural state of humanz is to live in societies

in societiez humans grant each other rights, some of which supercede others.

the freedom from stealing is one such right, by implication there iz no right to steal, under normal circumstancez.

are human societies consiztent with the natural perspective?

Not all beings have a tendency to herd, flock and gather to their own kind. But, do those that do participate in a society. Question: Is a cow herd a society. I personally don't think so and if one were to say they are I couldn't dispute it.  Society, it seems develops a - culture. Do cows have or develop a culture, I can't say. It seems a culture has to be developed from a cognizant effort, but cows aren't cognizant enough to reason out a culture. (I say) What I suspect is the natural gathering tendency lays the ground work for a culture or civilization to develop or be developed via reason.  One can then reason that there wasn't civilization until someone invented it and, until a cognizant entity came into "being".
   What became obvious to us is civilization was invented to take advantage of the many for the purposes of a few. Over time it became modified (many times)so the dominated could get a larger share of their labor, which this process still goes on today.  It also became understood that civilization was instituted by deception when a few gained control of the land, and in order for the others to be on it had to become subject to the few owners or owner.

  At the time civilization came into existence The inhabitants had to give up their natural rights 9existence)in exchange for man made rights, that is, living by the mandates of the land (societies) owners. The owner(s) of the land demand a fee from the inhabitants for living in the territory which today is represented by taxes. This is still an active process today. There are other things  to consider but it's to long of an explanation to undertake.
Civilizations fail and it will always be so because it's foundation is still rooted in and from the natural. In essence nature says, your not getting away with his buster and is continuously working against the artificial, and civilization say I'm eventfully going to beat you. True nature always wins because it always true and civilization is a lie. Nature will always be working against untruth because nature cannot lie, people can. Nature will overtake the lie because it is always present and active. A lie, an invention, and not natural has a life span and nature does not. Logic dictates that a lie cannot outlast nature.
The main answer to your post. One cannot create their own world, the way has to be found to live within the one that always is.

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 07:32:22 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 06:30:35 PM
Drich, please learn how to use the quote function properly, if you have the time.  :lol:

my way is a little more efficient so say to go line by line giving you specific answers to individual queries.

You can fisk away to your heart's content. I'm talking about bungling your placement of quote tags, requiring your correspondent to repair the mistakes, else compound them. You did it twice in succession in your replies to me.

I repaired the first (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=16506.msg399047#msg399047) (note the misplaced quote tag just before you said I was being obtuse) without comment. Then in your next reply (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=16506.msg399054#msg399054) to me, you added a superfluous quote tag that made it appear as if you were quoting yourself when you asserted that I'm either incapable or ill equipped to discuss the topic. Again, to produce a correct response I had to repair your error, which is why I commented on what was beginning to look like a trend. Trying to have a discussion with you would be a bit less unpleasant if you took the time to at least use the quote function in a competent manner.

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 07:32:22 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 06:30:35 PMYou're not presenting a coherent argument, and you failed to answer the question.

if an arguement seem incohearant to you perhapse it is not always best to assume the person you are speaking with does not know what he is talking about, rather you simply do not understand the specifics on a subject you clearly have no mastery in.
IE you asked: how would a gun help you if you lived ina red zone.

You presented a specific scenario, which I quoted (living in "'The Red Zone' — gang turf for the Seven Mile Bloods") in my question. I asked you how possessing a gun in such a situation would help me or my family be safer. Your response had nothing to do with that scenario. Instead you went off on a rant about "city wide looting and the burning of homes and business" which clearly does not answer my question.

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 07:32:22 PMThe article i presented showed in a time of major civil unrest there was no police responses available to the korean community in LA riots of the 1990s. all the business owners of a given block of korean own businesses in la ba together and with their guns defended against men who wished to loot their businesses and destroy or burn down their homes and shops. so for 3 days and night these citizens fended off one mob after the other while all of the other businesses (90% of the total destruction done in the LA riots were to korean own businesses)  So again IF you were living in a red zone in an emergency situation where the police stopped protecting people in those neighborhoods you could ban together and defend your home and family just as these korean americans did.

Still doesn't answer my question. You're attempting to conflate a violent riot with a neighborhood in which violence is common. Whether you recognize it or not, those are two different situations.

Engaging in an armed standoff with roving mobs for days on end may seem like an admirable approach to you but I don't concur. Those people could very well have got themselves (and any family members with them) maimed or killed. I think that my life and the the lives of my family are infinitely more valuable than any and all material possessions.

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 07:32:22 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 06:30:35 PMPersonally, I wouldn't mind trading insults with you, but that's not how things work here. You haven't presented a genuine argument, you've thrown around scare scenarios and claimed they demonstrate something that they do not. You want some response beyond bland dismissal, you do the work.

again i have presented scenario after scenario based on events that have happened all with in the last 25 years. My only question is what happens to your gun stance when one or more of these events happens at the same time. where is your conviction when it has been a month since the police have been by and they are burning people out of their homes?

Having a gun may prove useful in such an anarchic situation, or it may get me into a lethal confrontation that I might have avoided if I weren't depending on having a gun to get me out of trouble. Life is rarely as clear-cut as the fantasies of those who are militantly pro-gun.

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 07:32:22 PMOr I even left the dooms day event up to you in asking what would it take for you to change your gun stance.

It's clear you're not really interested in my position on guns in the US. Instead, you've made assumptions based on my comments. I'll spell it out for you. In my opinion, guns have their uses, but they are rarely the answer when it comes to interactions with other people.

We'll leave aside those who've adopted a violent criminal lifestyle--nobody here is advocating that. Some gun owners in the US have worked themselves into a position of fetishizing their guns. Some of them dream of the day when they think they'll be justified in shooting somebody. To me that mindset is corrosive and unhealthy.

There are far too many irresponsible gun owners in the US, and that has resulted in a disgusting and shameful level of needless, pointless bloodshed and death. Until there are better gun laws, that bloodshed and death will not decrease.

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 07:32:22 PMthen i pointed out that since most of you live within social and economic structures similar to yours, you typically do not see a threat. which i get. but what of those who live in more diverse populations?

You know practically nothing about the people here you've been ranting at. Instead of engaging in a genuine discussion you're making a lot of ridiculous assumptions.

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 07:32:22 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 06:30:35 PMAh, so you fancy yourself something of a rules lawyer.

this is a bi polar mess.. Glob help me.. You tell me as a friendly reminder to READ THE RULES!!!  so I read them and did not see my supposed infraction, then i read them again and again... then added up my first few read throughs as this was a mandate for posting and presented you with a number.... Now you are persecuting me for doing what you have instructed.

:snicker: The rules of this site are clear. They do however assume that a person who joins this site will have the ability to think and to comprehend something so basic as civility.

I made a mistake earlier. I intended to copy and paste your insult, but failed to do so. I wrote: "Calling the general membership (except for a few it seems you think you might approve of) is not on." I meant to write Calling the general membership douche bags (except for a few it seems you think you might approve of) is not on.

I'm not worried about your feelings of persecution, and I'm not somebody you need to worry about either, as long as you respect the rules of this site.

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 07:32:22 PMPICK A DIRECTION. Are you so intimidated by me you have to just offer a counter to everything i say no matter if it has you even contradicting yourself?!?!? Do you want me to read and follow the rules or not? if yes then stop being pissy/threatening for me having done what you asked!

As a member of staff, it falls upon me to help maintain this site, and help keep the discussions here civil. I don't need to threaten you to do that, and I haven't. What I've done is pointed out the facts as they pertain to your behavior on the site. You've been a rather unpleasant guest here up to this point, and if you don't follow the rules you'll get the ban you appear to be striving for, which honestly wouldn't bother me. You seem to have come here with a rotten chip on your shoulder. I don't think you have any intention of being a long-term member of this site, but are merely looking for affirmation of some prejudices you've saddled yourself with.

You said you wanted to answer questions about Christianity. I have a couple of questions for you.

1. Do you consider yourself a good representative of Christianity?

2. Do you think any sensible person would want to learn about Christianity from a person who behaved as you've done on this site?

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 07:32:22 PM. . .  i know you can't have a christian among you who does not know his place. but if you are going to pretend to violate me on rules i simply ask that it be an actually written rule you can point to when i asked for said rule violation.

I hope that at this point you have a better understanding of the rules here. Maintain a civil approach to discussion and as far as I'm concerned you're OK.

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 07:32:22 PMnot a rule lawyer that is the limitation of your vocabulary. not mine. I simply wish to know is this a fair place to post or not. is this a rules be damned i as an atheist should always have the last word, or is there freedom of thought and speech if presented with is a structured rule set. The way you like to throw clout around i doubt the later.

It seems probable that if you manage to stick around, you'll be the one to get the last word in discussion with me. There is nothing novel in your chest-thumping and vitriol, and your aggressive Christianity is of no interest to me.

Quote from: Old Seer on April 07, 2020, 01:39:48 AM
Not all beings have a tendency to herd, flock and gather to their own kind. But, do those that do participate in a society. Question: Is a cow herd a society. I personally don't think so and if one were to say they are I couldn't dispute it.  Society, it seems develops a - culture. Do cows have or develop a culture, I can't say. It seems a culture has to be developed from a cognizant effort, but cows aren't cognizant enough to reason out a culture. (I say) What I suspect is the natural gathering tendency lays the ground work for a culture or civilization to develop or be developed via reason.  One can then reason that there wasn't civilization until someone invented it and, until a cognizant entity came into "being".
   What became obvious to us is civilization was invented to take advantage of the many for the purposes of a few. Over time it became modified (many times)so the dominated could get a larger share of their labor, which this process still goes on today.  It also became understood that civilization was instituted by deception when a few gained control of the land, and in order for the others to be on it had to become subject to the few owners or owner.

  At the time civilization came into existence The inhabitants had to give up their natural rights 9existence)in exchange for man made rights, that is, living by the mandates of the land (societies) owners. The owner(s) of the land demand a fee from the inhabitants for living in the territory which today is represented by taxes. This is still an active process today. There are other things  to consider but it's to long of an explanation to undertake.
Civilizations fail and it will always be so because it's foundation is still rooted in and from the natural. In essence nature says, your not getting away with his buster and is continuously working against the artificial, and civilization say I'm eventfully going to beat you. True nature always wins because it always true and civilization is a lie. Nature will always be working against untruth because nature cannot lie, people can. Nature will overtake the lie because it is always present and active. A lie, an invention, and not natural has a life span and nature does not. Logic dictates that a lie cannot outlast nature.
The main answer to your post. One cannot create their own world, the way has to be found to live within the one that always is.

your logic is consistent regarding natural law and rights.

i would disagree about culture. i don't see a difference between a chimpanzee constructing a nest in a tree for the night and an architct building a colesseum. to me they are intrinsically identical, and differ only because one species has more brains and inclination to build bigly than the other.

a biologist i once knew told me that a duck exhibits culture every time it quacks.

thjis seems innconsistent:

QuoteWhat I suspect is the natural gathering tendency lays the ground work for a culture or civilization to develop or be developed via reason.  One can then reason that there wasn't civilization until someone invented it and, until a cognizant entity came into "being" . . .   At the time civilization came into existence The inhabitants had to give up their natural rights 9existence)in exchange for man made rights, that is, living by the mandates of the land (societies) owners. 

if gathering is natural, hen society is natural, and if  civilization is inevitable.then civilization as we see it is natural too.

but you seem to disagree.

what is the natural state of humans, if gathering =====> society =====> civilization is not?

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 11:57:22 PM

Quote from: Davin on April 06, 2020, 10:20:53 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 05:39:50 AM

Quote from: billy rubin on April 05, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

Have already done so.  :)

So you disagree with it?

Quote from: Davin on April 06, 2020, 06:54:12 PM
From reading the first post, it seems like wanting guns are like a blanky to help hide insecurities that would be better addressed with proper counselling.

i guess you can also tell you therapists about how helpless you were went two guys armed with a baseball bat work you and your family over as they looted your house, oh but you can't as between a viral outbreak shutdown and no power you therapist won't be able to take your secular confession for failing our house hold.

Quote
The desire expressed is short sighted and counter productive to long term survival.

how many times has your home nation been invaded? ironically my countries invasion stopped when just about every man was armed with a cartridge firing gun. so again how is this not a long term solution? in the op outline there is no authorities or help coming. which is a real thing that has already happened several times in the last 20 or so years. the only thing that differs is in my scenario two catastrophes happen at the same time. setting up a 6 month or more scenario without the protections of our current society. I am simply asking you all to look at that situation, but you all keep changing it to fit your anti gun narrative. why can't you be honest with the op? don't like the answer you will give? don't like the idea of having to die for your principles?

Quote
It's also why a lot of post-apocalyptic "societies" in fiction make me cringe a lot.

so again if faced with what you do not like. do you roll over and die? do you succumb to the new post apocalyptic society do you fight to maintain your current way of life/world views?

Quote
Also, preppers always imagine themselves like vikings, going from village to village taking what they want. Unfortunately for most of them, by the time they make it to the next village they'll be too exhausted and weak to actually do anything.

have you never ridden  in a bus or car? do you know old diesel trucks can run off anything that burns? like old school busses who can carry 60 to 80 'invaders from village to village without them having to expend much effort.

Quote
Anyway, my position of guns has not changed with recent events because nothing in the recent events is different enough from past events.

this is the dishonest answer i was talking about. My OP question did not ask what is your current position on guns given the situation. I created a situation and asked the question. a question you went a long way round to avoid just to answer your own strawman.

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 07:08:56 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2020, 06:22:23 PM

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 06:13:32 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2020, 05:52:36 PM

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 05:22:49 PM
don't be obtuse.
have i propagated anything? Have i extolled the need for guns? have i challenged any of your answers?

I just asked a question to see what type of people are here. We are two pages in at this point so if i had an agenda it would be known by now. Calm down dial the hate back a few notches and just read and respond to what is on page. no need to try and jump a head especially if there isnt anything to jump to.

I'm asking because my brother in law is a douche bag much like most of you who tends to lean towards the left. thought my dad and i were milisha/crazy people. someone broke into his shop, they stole 75K in tools and equipment, now the virus has got some people going into frenzy mode in the down town area he works in.

His value system much like most of yours are based on the idea of a utopian society. I find those who live in a less culturally diverse countries (all/most white) can hold out or play pretend society will never fail. but when reminded his value system is no longer at the top of the societal food chain, he like every other red blooded american (douchebaggery not withstanding) is not looking to be subjected by, or taken advantage of by people foreign or domestic who will force their will onto him.

I guess those such as yourself who live in a less culturally diverse part of the world can pretty much know that everyone who looks like you will think like you and there is no need to defend yourself because you all have agreed not to hurt one another.

Go ahead and call us communists or whatever other inane insult people like you like to throw around.

A rose by any other name would still the same. ;)

Go on. You know you want to. All those inane insults in your head. Let them all out and feel better about yourself.

meh, I've got venues to bash you guys on.. this is a nice practice in playing nice.

then maybe we can take this discussion where freedom of speech is not something frown upon. there are other forums who all christians and atheist equal say. (I can get away with breaking you guys enmass and the admins allow it.)

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 07:11:23 PM
The OP invites a discussion that isn't particularly interesting.

it must been hard growing up for you. As you Never have anything nice to say and everything you do say is super critical often stabbing at self worth. that is an absorbed character flaw old sport. your dependance on it make you look sad and weak. (did you see what i did there  ;D)
if this were true then why are there 7+ pages of comments in what 3 days of active responses?
not to poop on this web site but truthfully just in the political forum there is one other subject that comes close.

1. who do you think you are fooling?
2. where do you get your delusional insults?
3. do you think it helps you by starting of negatively?

Quote
It's been chewed on so extensively in the US that it's nothing but a heap of saliva-soaked rawhide at this point.

that is until most moderates and slight left citizens gave up on the BS most of you can still hold on to, and started buying guns enmass. to the point where we have never had such guns and ammo shortages here. which is why i decided to ask you guys if it would change your mind.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52189349

Quote
The rest of the world (outside places like Somalia) has long since left it behind, and mostly just watches the gory circus in the US in horrified bemusement.

and how many first generation or illegal somalis do you have in your neighborhood? Again it is easy to preach social collectives whe you all share the same pigment and back story.

Quote
It did however inspire a discussion that  appears to have some interest for members here. Drich may get around to participating in that discussion, and I'd be interested in what he might contribute to it.

Remains to be seen whether he's here exclusively to push an agenda while indulging his rancor, or is willing to engage in civil discourse. There's a notable trend to one and a sad absence of the other, though.

i have no idea what you are on about here. Essentially if i am reading this right. you have hijacked my thread/changed the subject. and are baiting me in another thread to break the rules, now you are calling me out for not allowing your attempt to hijack this thread and allow you to change the nature of the OP i started?

Fine your web site what is the new topic?

Quote from: Drich on April 07, 2020, 04:56:06 PM

Quote from: Davin on April 06, 2020, 06:54:12 PM
From reading the first post, it seems like wanting guns are like a blanky to help hide insecurities that would be better addressed with proper counselling.

i guess you can also tell you therapists about how helpless you were went two guys armed with a baseball bat work you and your family over as they looted your house, oh but you can't as between a viral outbreak shutdown and no power you therapist won't be able to take your secular confession for failing our house hold.

I really wish I could understand what you're trying to say here.

Quote from: Drich

Quote
The desire expressed is short sighted and counter productive to long term survival.

how many times has your home nation been invaded? ironically my countries invasion stopped when just about every man was armed with a cartridge firing gun. so again how is this not a long term solution? in the op outline there is no authorities or help coming. which is a real thing that has already happened several times in the last 20 or so years. the only thing that differs is in my scenario two catastrophes happen at the same time. setting up a 6 month or more scenario without the protections of our current society. I am simply asking you all to look at that situation, but you all keep changing it to fit your anti gun narrative. why can't you be honest with the op? don't like the answer you will give? don't like the idea of having to die for your principles?

That's not the desire expressed in the OP, this is something new. It's a better strategy to face opposition head on than trying to avoid it with dishonest argument tactics like this. And you have no idea what my stance on guns is, but you just went ahead and assumed incorrectly anyway. That's not honest.

People short sighted like that always forget the long supply chain required to keep the basic necessities they depend on. They go off for a week in the wilderness and come back thinking they would be able to survive without technology. It's actually kind of adorable.

Quote from: Drich

Quote
It's also why a lot of post-apocalyptic "societies" in fiction make me cringe a lot.

so again if faced with what you do not like. do you roll over and die? do you succumb to the new post apocalyptic society do you fight to maintain your current way of life/world views?

You're way off in the weeds here. If you want to make me look foolish, then you're going to have to address what I'm saying and not what you're irrationally assuming.

Quote from: Drich

Quote
Also, preppers always imagine themselves like vikings, going from village to village taking what they want. Unfortunately for most of them, by the time they make it to the next village they'll be too exhausted and weak to actually do anything.

have you never ridden  in a bus or car? do you know old diesel trucks can run off anything that burns? like old school busses who can carry 60 to 80 'invaders from village to village without them having to expend much effort.

Still, judging by the health state of most preppers, there isn't much to worry about from them.

Quote from: Drich

Quote
Anyway, my position of guns has not changed with recent events because nothing in the recent events is different enough from past events.

this is the dishonest answer i was talking about. My OP question did not ask what is your current position on guns given the situation. I created a situation and asked the question. a question you went a long way round to avoid just to answer your own strawman.

You asked what it would take to change my mind then presented stale fictional scenarios and alluded to recent events. I'm sorry if such a weak post is not enough to sway me, I have high standards.

Quote from: Old Seer on April 07, 2020, 01:39:48 AM

Quote from: billy rubin on April 06, 2020, 10:53:52 AM
seer, youre uzing rightz in terms of natural law, i believe

natural law applies to organizms living in their natural state

the natural state of humanz is to live in societies

in societiez humans grant each other rights, some of which supercede others.

the freedom from stealing is one such right, by implication there iz no right to steal, under normal circumstancez.

are human societies consiztent with the natural perspective?

Not all beings have a tendency to herd, flock and gather to their own kind. But, do those that do participate in a society. Question: Is a cow herd a society. I personally don't think so and if one were to say they are I couldn't dispute it.  Society, it seems develops a - culture. Do cows have or develop a culture, I can't say. It seems a culture has to be developed from a cognizant effort, but cows aren't cognizant enough to reason out a culture. (I say) What I suspect is the natural gathering tendency lays the ground work for a culture or civilization to develop or be developed via reason.  One can then reason that there wasn't civilization until someone invented it and, until a cognizant entity came into "being".
   What became obvious to us is civilization was invented to take advantage of the many for the purposes of a few. Over time it became modified (many times)so the dominated could get a larger share of their labor, which this process still goes on today.  It also became understood that civilization was instituted by deception when a few gained control of the land, and in order for the others to be on it had to become subject to the few owners or owner.

  At the time civilization came into existence The inhabitants had to give up their natural rights 9existence)in exchange for man made rights, that is, living by the mandates of the land (societies) owners. The owner(s) of the land demand a fee from the inhabitants for living in the territory which today is represented by taxes. This is still an active process today. There are other things  to consider but it's to long of an explanation to undertake.
Civilizations fail and it will always be so because it's foundation is still rooted in and from the natural. In essence nature says, your not getting away with his buster and is continuously working against the artificial, and civilization say I'm eventfully going to beat you. True nature always wins because it always true and civilization is a lie. Nature will always be working against untruth because nature cannot lie, people can. Nature will overtake the lie because it is always present and active. A lie, an invention, and not natural has a life span and nature does not. Logic dictates that a lie cannot outlast nature.
The main answer to your post. One cannot create their own world, the way has to be found to live within the one that always is.

maybe if you are a dirt foot hippy pacifist. I am of industry. i do forge and in my own way beat back the natural world to provide apart of the infrastructure needed to create the world i want to live in. F your "nature." I do, and people like me create and provide what you see as the unseen hand of provenance. the invisible support that allows you to live a modern life style. a life completely unaware of what it takes to survive and live. you see the structure of society as a point of happenstance i see it in whatever governmental form it takes as a purposed built frame work made to support man's societal existence.

i specialize in my field and other's including you in their own fields. so we all don't have to all have the same survival tools. So long as we live in sustainable numbers mother nature will not only remain beaten but like a plague or virus man kind will eventually break the back of nature is it hasn't already. That is the real danger, not the resurgence of nature. we will though our various societies deplete this planet long before something in the cosmos claims us.

you also seem to have left out the landowners end of the societal deal. protection. anyone could grab land at one point or another. it was the one with the most and proficient weapons who took land and secured it. vassels paid tax to be protected from others

Quote from: Drich on April 07, 2020, 04:58:53 PM

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 07:08:56 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2020, 06:22:23 PM

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 06:13:32 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 06, 2020, 05:52:36 PM

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 05:22:49 PM
don't be obtuse.
have i propagated anything? Have i extolled the need for guns? have i challenged any of your answers?

I just asked a question to see what type of people are here. We are two pages in at this point so if i had an agenda it would be known by now. Calm down dial the hate back a few notches and just read and respond to what is on page. no need to try and jump a head especially if there isnt anything to jump to.

I'm asking because my brother in law is a douche bag much like most of you who tends to lean towards the left. thought my dad and i were milisha/crazy people. someone broke into his shop, they stole 75K in tools and equipment, now the virus has got some people going into frenzy mode in the down town area he works in.

His value system much like most of yours are based on the idea of a utopian society. I find those who live in a less culturally diverse countries (all/most white) can hold out or play pretend society will never fail. but when reminded his value system is no longer at the top of the societal food chain, he like every other red blooded american (douchebaggery not withstanding) is not looking to be subjected by, or taken advantage of by people foreign or domestic who will force their will onto him.

I guess those such as yourself who live in a less culturally diverse part of the world can pretty much know that everyone who looks like you will think like you and there is no need to defend yourself because you all have agreed not to hurt one another.

Go ahead and call us communists or whatever other inane insult people like you like to throw around.

A rose by any other name would still the same. ;)

Go on. You know you want to. All those inane insults in your head. Let them all out and feel better about yourself.

meh, I've got venues to bash you guys on.. this is a nice practice in playing nice.

then maybe we can take this discussion where freedom of speech is not something frown upon. there are other forums who all christians and atheist equal say. (I can get away with breaking you guys enmass and the admins allow it.)

I don't care to know what you do in your free time and the kinds of sites you visit. I really don't.

I do think it's sad that you spend time bashing entire demographics though. And before you say it, no, that's not what we do here. Very, very little of HAF is Christian-bashing.

You on the other hand, barge in here and expect to convert people. And when that doesn't go your way, you take to insulting people here. You honestly expect to feel welcome?

If you're what Christianity is, it's yet another reason not to be Christian. ::)

Quote from: Davin on April 07, 2020, 03:24:41 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 11:57:22 PM

Quote from: Davin on April 06, 2020, 10:20:53 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 05:39:50 AM

Quote from: billy rubin on April 05, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

Have already done so.  :)

So you disagree with it?

Some things yes, other things no.

Quote from: Old Seer on April 07, 2020, 06:14:45 PM

Quote from: Davin on April 07, 2020, 03:24:41 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 11:57:22 PM

Quote from: Davin on April 06, 2020, 10:20:53 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 05:39:50 AM

Quote from: billy rubin on April 05, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

Have already done so.  :)

So you disagree with it?

Some things yes, other things no.

But specifically here, you disagree with the many examples of animals expressing behaviors that indicate that stealing is a thing in the natural world.

Quote from: Recusant on April 07, 2020, 07:16:18 AM
You can fisk away to your heart's content. I'm talking about bungling your placement of quote tags, requiring your correspondent to repair the mistakes, else compound them. You did it twice in succession in your replies to me.

thanks for the correction


You presented a specific scenario, which I quoted (living in "'The Red Zone' — gang turf for the Seven Mile Bloods") in my question. I asked you how possessing a gun in such a situation would help me or my family be safer. Your response had nothing to do with that scenario. Instead you went off on a rant about "city wide looting and the burning of homes and business" which clearly does not answer my question.

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 07:32:22 PMThe article i presented showed in a time of major civil unrest there was no police responses available to the korean community in LA riots of the 1990s. all the business owners of a given block of korean own businesses in la ba together and with their guns defended against men who wished to loot their businesses and destroy or burn down their homes and shops. so for 3 days and night these citizens fended off one mob after the other while all of the other businesses (90% of the total destruction done in the LA riots were to korean own businesses) So again IF you were living in a red zone in an emergency situation where the police stopped protecting people in those neighborhoods you could ban together and defend your home and family just as these korean americans did.

Quote
Still doesn't answer my question. You're attempting to conflate a violent riot with a neighborhood in which violence is common. Whether you recognize it or not, those are two different situations.

your question is in red my answer in black. The black answers the red by saying a gun would allow you to form a protective shield to you your family and your neighbors living in a red zone!!! how does this not answer your question??
?

Quote
Engaging in an armed standoff with roving mobs for days on end may seem like an admirable approach to you but I don't concur. Those people could very well have got themselves (and any family members with them) maimed or killed. I think that my life and the the lives of my family are infinitely more valuable than any and all material possessions.

where would you go if everything you had was there, and you were literally being hunted/targeted? again no police. but here are 30 high armed men of your same back grough neighbors family and friends. You would leave them because of principles concerning the use of a gun? if this is how most of you think you do not deserve the country you live in. if you will not fight for what is yours then please to not call us next time to fight for you.

Quote
Having a gun may prove useful in such an anarchic situation, or it may get me into a lethal confrontation that I might have avoided if I weren't depending on having a gun to get me out of trouble. Life is rarely as clear-cut as the fantasies of those who are militantly pro-gun.

says a man who has never carried a fire arm in public. how can you possible speak in good conscious what you mind set is or the mind set of others is when armed?
When armed the weight and responsibility is burdensome and overwhelming. most owners take super great care to stay out of trouble, and are constantly ensuring that we are within our rights and the law. to the point where i selectively carry now. so as to not be burdened with total situational awareness all the time.

Quote
It's clear you're not really interested in my position on guns in the US. Instead, you've made assumptions based on my comments. I'll spell it out for you. In my opinion, guns have their uses, but they are rarely the answer when it comes to interactions with other people.

ever been to a flea market with a gun?
always best prices very little haggling. ;D intruth guns are not an interaction tool, they are a get out of personal harm or death tool. for that purpose they are the best option. as no one has to train very much to become lethal.

Quote
We'll leave aside those who've adopted a violent criminal lifestyle--nobody here is advocating that. Some gun owners in the US have worked themselves into a position of fetishizing their guns.

guns are super expensive. it would reason if you have more than one or two it then becomes a hobby, as you are not restoring a 67 mustang and buying all the kit needed to trick out your Ar.

Quote
Some of them dream of the day when they think they'll be justified in shooting somebody.

says the movies as judgy self righteous people who know nothing of the people or culture. These judgy self righteous types are the people who demand all have the same pov and value system they have. they will not tolerate independance or out of line thinking and behavior. Thankfully they are all brainwashed to hate guns. On the other hand the real progressives the ultra right who like and tolerate gun ownership do so as a means to defend their right to think say and do whatever they want, which includes those b-holes on the ultra left who hate independent thought. The ironic thing is the ultra left would censor gun ownership and the right to talk about it and the gun owners would use their guns to protect their rights to bash them.

Quote
To me that mindset is corrosive and unhealthy.

because like i said you guys do not allow or like unpopular speech.

Quote
There are far too many irresponsible gun owners in the US,

do you even check the numbers before you speak or do you just normally toe the line?
just under 40,000 gun deaths total. out of 340,000,000 people that 12.2 out of every 100K people.
More people are slated to die from this virus in fact more people almost doubled died from simple poisoning. that same year. mind you this number also includes all police activity as well. meaning 1/3 if not more of this number were shooting deaths by police officers defending themselves.

The media is the last place sensible people look for the truth. the media is nothing more than a propaganda machine. go to the source:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Quote
and that has resulted in a disgusting and shameful level of needless, pointless bloodshed and death. Until there are better gun laws, that bloodshed and death will not decrease.

what are you talking about? from 1990 to 2013 gun related deaths were cut in half and the trend continues downward will ownership soars.
Your statement is a perfect example of someone being programed to think a certain way. you have little to no personal knowledge nor even exposure to fact outside of a tertiary source material in the way of government ran news.
https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/gun-violence-research/

Quote
You know practically nothing about the people here you've been ranting at. Instead of engaging in a genuine discussion you're making a lot of ridiculous assumptions.

so? how does this differ from your own assumptions on gun ownership? I also know i am a mixed race individuals and all per race people tend to put a certain foot forward when unchallenged and speaking of society. whites with general speak inclusivly black people tend to want to make it known, people who speak another primary language are pretty easy to identify. non westerners have a different value set and approach. westerners all think they are individuals and each one unique. I've been on the outside observing all 'you people' as i was never apart of a given group. can be wrong but not often.

Quote from: Drich on April 06, 2020, 07:32:22 PMPICK A DIRECTION. Are you so intimidated by me you have to just offer a counter to everything i say no matter if it has you even contradicting yourself?!?!? Do you want me to read and follow the rules or not? if yes then stop being pissy/threatening for me having done what you asked!

As a member of staff, it falls upon me to help maintain this site, and help keep the discussions here civil. I don't need to threaten you to do that, and I haven't. What I've done is pointed out the facts as they pertain to your behavior on the site. You've been a rather unpleasant guest here up to this point, and if you don't follow the rules you'll get the ban you appear to be striving for, which honestly wouldn't bother me. You seem to have come here with a rotten chip on your shoulder. I don't think you have any intention of being a long-term member of this site, but are merely looking for affirmation of some prejudices you've saddled yourself with.

You said you wanted to answer questions about Christianity. I have a couple of questions for you.

1. Do you consider yourself a good representative of Christianity? [/quote] the religion or the tradition no. But the christianity Jesus himself modeled the christianity in the bible??? absolutely.
Christianity is not about pretending to be someone you are not but rather finding redemption or atonement for what or who you are.
most of you would not known biblical christianity if i kicked your teeth in with it. Because most are unfamiliar with the bible, and only know of the christian tradition set forth by the church of the dark ages. this stoic and falsely humble vision was highly shat on by god he hated the overly pious and self righteous. to the point that the most religious men of his day had him killed because he single hangly was undermining everything these men knew to be holy.

Then look at how christ saw the gentiles/unbelievers. again not a huge fan. did not move to help them very much.

So that said my model here is of a man being shot at from all sides defending my word thoughts and principles from everyone else here. then when i press one of you as i have been pressed, my very nature is challenged.

Quote
2. Do you think any sensible person would want to learn about Christianity from a person who behaved as you've done on this site?

any self respecting person would because again sport, i get to be me. I don't have to filter my word thought or belief through some numb doctrine who makes me pretend to be something i am not. How stoo-ped do you think God is? do you think he can't see through a christian facade? if I came here pretending to be nice and rolled over and let you guy kick at what i believed and did not push back, but was steep in anger and vitriol, but because i played the part i was found righteous?

I am found righteous before God despite my works not because of them. salvation is a gift from God that no man can boast of it. good deeds or bad.

My only rules are to Love God with all my being and my neighbor as my self. I'm not being paid to do this. i have been doing this a long time, and do not need the practice. i am here to simply give you the truth so you can make your own decisions.

Quote
It seems probable that if you manage to stick around, you'll be the one to get the last word in discussion with me. There is nothing novel in your chest-thumping and vitriol, and your aggressive Christianity is of no interest to me.

this... this thread is not christianity. this thread is nothing more than a litmus test.

Who i am speaking with and how people here think given most of you are not mericans.

Quote from: Drich on April 07, 2020, 05:16:47 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 07:11:23 PM
The OP invites a discussion that isn't particularly interesting.

it must been hard growing up for you. As you Never have anything nice to say and everything you do say is super critical often stabbing at self worth.

The comment was about the topic, not about you, Drich. The rest of your projection and snivelling about your supposed poor treatment is irrelevant.

Quote from: Drich on April 07, 2020, 05:16:47 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 07:11:23 PMIt's been chewed on so extensively in the US that it's nothing but a heap of saliva-soaked rawhide at this point.

that is until most moderates and slight left citizens gave up on the BS most of you can still hold on to, and started buying guns enmass. to the point where we have never had such guns and ammo shortages here. which is why i decided to ask you guys if it would change your mind.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52189349

I read your source. It looks like the basis of your claim that the spike in gun sales seen in the US is due to "moderates and slight left citizens" going out to buy guns "enmass" is one sentence:

Quote"And a gun is cheap insurance against that," says the man, who grew up in Berkeley, California and now lives in Chicago.

Is it necessary to explain to you why that does not even begin to qualify as evidence? I don't know who the people are who've been buying guns and ammunition in the US, and I don't think you do, either. Perhaps they are moderates and slight left, or perhaps they're just the usual regular customers, who've spiked the sale of guns and ammunition in the past.

Quote from: Drich on April 07, 2020, 05:16:47 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 07:11:23 PMThe rest of the world (outside places like Somalia) has long since left it behind, and mostly just watches the gory circus in the US in horrified bemusement.

and how many first generation or illegal somalis do you have in your neighborhood? Again it is easy to preach social collectives whe you all share the same pigment and back story.

I don't know, and I don't care. I don't keep track of who lives near me who is also an immigrant. Let me explain something about myself: I've lived the majority of my adult life in what in the past were described as ghettos--high crime areas where I as a white person was definitely in the minority. I grew up in a rural area and my family owns and uses guns. I own a couple myself, but never felt the need to own one for personal protection because I know that while in some rare cases they might prove useful for that, they're largely irrelevant.

I've listened to gun fetishists yapping about their fetish for far too long to find it interesting.

Quote from: Drich on April 07, 2020, 05:16:47 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 07:11:23 PMIt did however inspire a discussion that  appears to have some interest for members here. Drich may get around to participating in that discussion, and I'd be interested in what he might contribute to it.

Remains to be seen whether he's here exclusively to push an agenda while indulging his rancor, or is willing to engage in civil discourse. There's a notable trend to one and a sad absence of the other, though.

i have no idea what you are on about here. Essentially if i am reading this right. you have hijacked my thread/changed the subject. and are baiting me in another thread to break the rules, now you are calling me out for not allowing your attempt to hijack this thread and allow you to change the nature of the OP i started?

Fine your web site what is the new topic?

I didn't hijack this thread, the members who contributed to it found other things more interesting than the OP to talk about.

You've made a false inference when you assert that I'm baiting you to break the rules.

It's not up to you to "allow" something or other in this thread or elsewhere on this site. There is a long tradition here of letting threads take whatever course interests the membership, and we're not about to change that to please you. If you're not interested in other avenues of discussion that have opened in this thread you're welcome to continue to focus on guns.

Quote from: Davin on April 07, 2020, 06:48:05 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 07, 2020, 06:14:45 PM

Quote from: Davin on April 07, 2020, 03:24:41 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 11:57:22 PM

Quote from: Davin on April 06, 2020, 10:20:53 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 05:39:50 AM

Quote from: billy rubin on April 05, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

Have already done so.  :)

So you disagree with it?

Some things yes, other things no.

But specifically here, you disagree with the many examples of animals expressing behaviors that indicate that stealing is a thing in the natural world.

There's a difference between ownership and possession. Neither fox nor bear is aware that there is anything such as stealing. Stealing belongs with civil law. One cannot impose civil law on the fox or the bear. Stealing is an invented term used to describe an unauthorized change of possession. The unauthorized removal is designated a wrong. The fox and bear have no concept of right and wrong.
At a time past beings designated people today were no different then the fox and bear. In order to maintain possession of something they cognitively came up with a way to maintain possession by making it wrong to  intrude on a designated ownership. Possession then changes to ownership by decree. You're having a problem (which is common) understanding the difference civil and natural. Civilization is a regulation of animal behavior. Nature does no have a designated decree. Once a decree is made you step out of the natural and invent something that did not exist previous. What you brought into existence is considered artificial, or, that which wasn't in nature. See Blacks law book [natural man and artificial man]
  The bear inadvertently lost the whereabouts of a piece of the kill. The fox made a change of possession not a steal because stealing hasn't been designated for the fox. The bear did not "own" the kill but was in possession of it. Ownership is a maintained possession so the bear would have to take the kill where ever it goes to own it. For you (civilized) to maintain ownership by decree of your possessions, you must keep possession under your control. You loose your wallet and someone else found it. They are in possession of it. By civil standards you lost possession of it but by law you retain ownership of it. IF, the person finding it abides by civil standards it get turned over to the police and they take possession of it. After 30 days if not claimed possession and ownership are transferred to the finder. Neither fox nor bear come under such a process. If the fox sneaks over and yanks the kill out of the bear's mouth and makes off with it, the bear lost possession and ownership because there's' no civil law governing fox and bear. Notice the difference.  The bear losses both possession and ownership if it walks away from the kill. You loose your wallet, maintain ownership but loose possession, There is no such arrangement for the fox and bear.  Stealing is nowhere in the nature of bear and fox.
  By the way. I'm trying to get back to the OP. I took a long way around to establish reasons why one needs firearms. But it went to long so--- we do not live in a world that can give up fire arms. There's are to many foxes and bears around identifying as people, and smarter then the natural foxes and bears.  :)

i am neither a bear nor a fox.

the world nature providez me iz not a bear world nor a fox world.

i dont see why what is cuztomary for a bear or a fox should be customary for me, any more than all of uz together should attempt toive according to the world nature provided the tapeworm.

if nature is the meazure of absolutes, then the first abzolute must be that nature is different for every organism, and rules or even drivez are not interchangeable.

the nature of a bear world or a fox world is i terezting in the abstract, but it appearz irrelevant to me in my interactions with human beings.


just sayin

Quote from: Old Seer on April 07, 2020, 08:27:17 PM

Quote from: Davin on April 07, 2020, 06:48:05 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 07, 2020, 06:14:45 PM

Quote from: Davin on April 07, 2020, 03:24:41 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 11:57:22 PM

Quote from: Davin on April 06, 2020, 10:20:53 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 05:39:50 AM

Quote from: billy rubin on April 05, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

Have already done so.  :)

So you disagree with it?

Some things yes, other things no.

But specifically here, you disagree with the many examples of animals expressing behaviors that indicate that stealing is a thing in the natural world.

There's a difference between ownership and possession.

Yep.

Quote from: Old Seer
Neither fox nor bear is aware that there is anything such as stealing.[...]

Maybe not the same exact concept, but then not even all us humans agree on concepts the exact same way, so I don't think that this distinction is important. The modern (later than the 1950s), research into animal behavior shows that many animals do not like things being stolen from them and tend to protect things from being stolen from others in the same species as well as from other species. There are examples of animals taking something and putting in a safe place, and then looking for it if it's taken. There are many examples of stealing in the animal kingdom.

It's true they don't have courts or police officers, but I don't think that the concept of stealing requires those things to exist.

We evolved from common ancestors, it's only natural to find traits and behaviors that we share with other animals.

From Blacks Law Dictionary.

What is NATURAL PERSON
A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.

What is ARTIFICIAL PERSONS?
Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. 1 HI. Comm. 123. Chapman v. Brewer, 43 Neb. 800, 02 N. W. 320, 47 Am. St. Rep. 770 ; Smith v. Trust Co., 4 Ala. 508.

I don't agree with term "Human" as it is used here. I would replace human with person.
[Everyone is naturally born.]

Quote from: Old Seer on April 07, 2020, 06:14:45 PM

Quote from: Davin on April 07, 2020, 03:24:41 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 11:57:22 PM

Quote from: Davin on April 06, 2020, 10:20:53 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 05:39:50 AM

Quote from: billy rubin on April 05, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

Have already done so.  :)

So you disagree with it?

Some things yes, other things no.

What do you call this?

Quote from: Old Seer on April 08, 2020, 12:51:09 AM
From Blacks Law Dictionary.

What is NATURAL PERSON
A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.

What is ARTIFICIAL PERSONS?
Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. 1 HI. Comm. 123. Chapman v. Brewer, 43 Neb. 800, 02 N. W. 320, 47 Am. St. Rep. 770 ; Smith v. Trust Co., 4 Ala. 508.

I don't agree with term "Human" as it is used here. I would replace human with person.
[Everyone is naturally born.]

is ^^^this relevant to the discussion of natural law?

it appears to be a definition of a person according to society, which by definition (so far) does not conform to natural law.

but perhaps this discussion is over my head.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 08, 2020, 01:03:37 AM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 07, 2020, 06:14:45 PM

Quote from: Davin on April 07, 2020, 03:24:41 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 11:57:22 PM

Quote from: Davin on April 06, 2020, 10:20:53 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 06, 2020, 05:39:50 AM

Quote from: billy rubin on April 05, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
or, would you steal food from a weaker person?

In the realm of nature there's no such thing as stealing. Stealing  is a concept of civilization, without civilization there is no man made law. The fox takes a piece from the bears kill. The fox has the right to eat. The bear nor the fox are aware of any laws, they only exist within the laws of nature which is natural law. There is no natural law that denotes stealing. It's the Bears right to defend it's kill, and if not successful, oh well, that's life and the bear has to accept it, and it does.  Stealing is a punishable act only in civil law and can only be applicable to a sapient being that can comprehend punishment via reason. Being the Fox and the Bear exist within natural law, there is no one to create law for either.

I think you might find modern research into animal behavior to be both enlightening and interesting.

Have already done so.  :)

So you disagree with it?

Some things yes, other things no.

What do you call this?

A changing of possession.

Quote from: Old Seer on April 08, 2020, 02:50:24 AM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 08, 2020, 01:03:37 AM
What do you call this?

A changing of possession.

'A changing of possession' is a bit broad, don't you think? Stealing could also be defined as a changing of possession.

Donations are also a changing of possession, though voluntary. Unlike stealing, in which something is taken by force. In the lion versus hyenas scenario it was definitely not voluntary. The carcass was taken by force, very much like stealing.

:doh: Oh no, I hope this doesn't become an argument over definitions!

Quote from: Old Seer on April 08, 2020, 12:51:09 AM
From Blacks Law Dictionary.

What is NATURAL PERSON
A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.

What is ARTIFICIAL PERSONS?
Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. 1 HI. Comm. 123. Chapman v. Brewer, 43 Neb. 800, 02 N. W. 320, 47 Am. St. Rep. 770 ; Smith v. Trust Co., 4 Ala. 508.

I don't agree with term "Human" as it is used here. I would replace human with person.
[Everyone is naturally born.]

I don't really agree with any of that and don't get the relevance to any of the discussions on hand.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 08, 2020, 12:56:57 PM
:doh: Oh no, I hope this doesn't become an argument over definitions!

Definitions?? There's are no such thing as "definitions." I think you mean descriptions of what words or terms mean!

Quote from: Davin on April 08, 2020, 03:16:14 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 08, 2020, 12:56:57 PM
:doh: Oh no, I hope this doesn't become an argument over definitions!

Definitions?? There's are no such thing as "definitions." I think you mean descriptions of what words or terms mean!

Heehee 1

Civil law can only be applied to cognitive beings. Lion's have no concept of stealing, only possession. That's why zoos need cages and farmers need fences in place of law. It's not against any law for a lion to force possession. Lions and cows cannot commit a crime. Cows have no property line, people do. It is a not a crime for a cow to get out of a fence. It can be a crime for you to cross a property line. It can be your crime if your cow crosses a property line if a law says so. You have an invisible line because you can understand the law. If you are granted legal possession of the the cow you can be fined for it crossing a property line, not the cow. The natural world has no crime, only the man made world does. Crime comes into existence when a cognizant being transgresses a law. That's why laws don't cover cows, but rather the owner. If a cow cannot commit a crime by crossing someone else's property line a lion cannot steal. Stealing denotes a crime because you designated it as such.  If forced possession is a crime, lions cannot commit crimes. You're applying your invented standards to a lion to no effect. Civilizations end because nature catches up to them and forces getting to getting back to it. Civilized peoples have lost the understanding of nature, and in doing so try another civilization that is based on the concepts of the last failure, with no knowledge of the flaws in existence civilizations create, operating in a circular process of re institution of failure. Nature wins.

Quote from: Old Seer on April 08, 2020, 05:25:54 PM
Civil law can only be applied to cognitive beings. Lion's have no concept of stealing, only possession. That's why zoos need cages and farmers need fences in place of law. It's not against any law for a lion to force possession. Lions and cows cannot commit a crime. Cows have no property line, people do. It is a not a crime for a cow to get out of a fence. It can be a crime for you to cross a property line. It can be your crime if your cow crosses a property line if a law says so. You have an invisible line because you can understand the law. If you are granted legal possession of the the cow you can be fined for it crossing a property line, not the cow. The natural world has no crime, only the man made world does. Crime comes into existence when a cognizant being transgresses a law. That's why laws don't cover cows, but rather the owner. If a cow cannot commit a crime by crossing someone else's property line a lion cannot steal. Stealing denotes a crime because you designated it as such.  If forced possession is a crime, lions cannot commit crimes. You're applying your invented standards to a lion to no effect. Civilizations end because nature catches up to them and forces getting to getting back to it. Civilized peoples have lost the understanding of nature, and in doing so try another civilization that is based on the concepts of the last failure, with no knowledge of the flaws in existence civilizations create, operating in a circular process of re institution of failure. Nature wins.

It seems like you're stuck on only one specific version of stealing and will not accept that any other exists. This seems to the crux of the disagreement: I don't think stealing is necessarily a crime, and you think it is. Instead of repeating ourselves and speaking past each other, let's discuss this directly.

It also seems like you're denying any possibility for animals to be able to hold any concepts. Which I find odd for someone who accepts evolution. Humans didn't develop physically, behaviorally, cognitively, or any other way spontaneously from nothing. We all evolved from common ancestors so we share common traits.

Modern science on the mind doesn't see consciousness as a switch, but a continuum where on one side there are conscious beings and the other side they are not conscious at all. While I agree that humans have consciousness, I can't accept that other animals do not. I can accept that humans are better equipped for it, but not that it doesn't exist at all in other animals. You appear to be heavily biased against other animals.

I understand your concept of "stealing". If I didn't I wouldn't be able to post on the subject. In order to understand your concept I need to know the difference between natural person and artificial person, I do. Blacks Law Dictionary is about your law, if you say it's wrong, you're saying Blacks are wrong. Blacks law people understand civil law compared to natural law.  In order for law to be effective there must be a distinction between natural and man made (contrived). Without that distinction a law system would break down.  Civil law still allows you to be like the lion mentally, but not do as the lion does in all respects physically. 

Addition. The civil overseers of the system doesn't want you to know about natural law.

Quote from: Old Seer on April 08, 2020, 07:24:25 PM
I understand your concept of "stealing". If I didn't I wouldn't be able to post on the subject. In order to understand your concept I need to know the difference between natural person and artificial person, I do. Blacks Law Dictionary is about your law, if you say it's wrong, you're saying Blacks are wrong. Blacks law people understand civil law compared to natural law.  In order for law to be effective there must be a distinction between natural and man made (contrived). Without that distinction a law system would break down.  Civil law still allows you to be like the lion mentally, but not do as the lion does in all respects physically. 

Addition. The civil overseers of the system doesn't want you to know about natural law.

If you think you need to understand the difference between a natural person and an artificial person, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing. If you keep bringing a separate concept like laws into it, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing. If you think "my" concept of stealing requires civil overseers, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing.

Furthermore, Black's Law Dictionary is simply a reference, it's like an old version of wikipedia. It's OK as a starting point, but don't use it as a primary source. And certainly don't act like its definitions are definitive,

Blacks dictionary and others are used by lawyers, courts and judicial systems. The dictionaries are put together by lawyers and legal beagles.( Those considered experts) You're not telling me I'm wrong,  you're telling me they're wrong. This isn't a matter of me not understanding you, it's matter of you not understanding them. I'm not liable for their determinations. :)

Quote from: Old Seer on April 08, 2020, 09:51:24 PM
Blacks dictionary and others are used by lawyers, courts and judicial systems. The dictionaries are put together by lawyers and legal beagles.( Those considered experts)

Aye, no disagreement there. What I said about it still holds.

Quote from: Old Seer
You're not telling me I'm wrong[...]

Yes I am. You're wrong. This is me telling you that you're wrong. I'm telling you, that you are wrong. You are wrong. I mean you're doing a lot wrong here. What you posted is wrong. You don't understand "my" definition of stealing. I pointed that out and you ignored it and chose to continue being wrong and doing wrong things. You, Old Seer, are wrong. I'm telling you, Old Seer, that you are wrong. You are wrong, Old Seer. You claimed to understand "my" definition of stealing, and then said things that demonstrate that you don't. So you are wrong. You, Old Seer, are wrong. You're wrong when you say I'm not telling you that you are wrong, because I am telling you that you are wrong. For clarity: You are wrong.

Quote from: Old Seer
[...]you're telling me they're wrong.

It's unreasonable to expect me to track down some people that compiled definitions in a book. We are having a conversation here are we not? You brought it into the discussion in defense of your position, presumably because you agree with what it said. I mean, it would be stupid to cite a definition in support of your defense that you did not agree with.

Quote from: Old Seer
This isn't a matter of me not understanding you[...]

This is a matter of you not understanding me. Refer to my previous post where I detailed all the parts where you, Old Seer, went wrong.

Quote from: Old Seer
[...]it's matter of you not understanding them.

I do understand them. I also disagree with what you referenced here. I also find it irrelevant to the conversation.

Quote from: Old Seer
I'm not liable for their determinations. :)

You are liable for the references you bring to the conversation because I'm not having a conversation with them, I'm having a conversation with you, and you, Old Seer, cited them.

Imagine if I simply cited someone else and told you take it up your disagreement with them. That would be extremely stupid.

So you want to apply a civil determination to a fox, so do, I don't care if your right or wrong. I look at the world of the fox and that of people. It's apparent to me that the fox knows nothing about stealing. A fox may detect consequences for taking a chicken but the fox must have determined that from experience with other foxes from lessons learned. The fox may also be aware that it's in a dangerous environment being in close proximity to the farmer. When a mother Fox brings a kill to the cubs and they fight over it, are they stealing from each other. I leave that to determine for yourself. What I'm referring to is , states of mind.  Can a fox be aware that it's stealing. It can seem like it, or is it being cautious from experience that another fox or being will try to take it away. Civilization creates a state of mind over that of the natural. One can apply those differences to entities that can't comprehend them. I'm not implying that Blacks law or others are right or wrong, I'm transferring to you what they determined as they are the ones in charge of your society.   If you say they're wrong then to you they're wrong. I didn't consider them right or wrong. I don't create right or wrong for others. I may unintentionally do so but what's right or wrong I normally leave for each to decide.   An interjection of right or wrong into a conversation can be an attempt to control another's thinking. I prefer each do your own.  :)

Quote from: Old Seer on April 08, 2020, 05:25:54 PM
Civil law can only be applied to cognitive beings. Lion's have no concept of stealing, only possession. That's why zoos need cages and farmers need fences in place of law. It's not against any law for a lion to force possession. Lions and cows cannot commit a crime. Cows have no property line, people do. It is a not a crime for a cow to get out of a fence. It can be a crime for you to cross a property line. It can be your crime if your cow crosses a property line if a law says so. You have an invisible line because you can understand the law. If you are granted legal possession of the the cow you can be fined for it crossing a property line, not the cow. The natural world has no crime, only the man made world does. Crime comes into existence when a cognizant being transgresses a law. That's why laws don't cover cows, but rather the owner. If a cow cannot commit a crime by crossing someone else's property line a lion cannot steal. Stealing denotes a crime because you designated it as such.  If forced possession is a crime, lions cannot commit crimes. You're applying your invented standards to a lion to no effect. Civilizations end because nature catches up to them and forces getting to getting back to it. Civilized peoples have lost the understanding of nature, and in doing so try another civilization that is based on the concepts of the last failure, with no knowledge of the flaws in existence civilizations create, operating in a circular process of re institution of failure. Nature wins.

Now I'm confused. You say non-human animals cannot commit crimes. OK. But then how could a non-human have the right to life as well?  :no idea:

To me rights such as the right to life are legal concepts that can evolve with society, not something that is or always was inherent to life itself. I doubt you could say in ancient times people had a right to life as it when it was not yet a crime to murder.   

You would have to discuss this with the one's making up the tenants of your society. I'm sure they would concur with you that a fox can steal. Civil law when applied to a fox is useless and no effect. The person known as saint francis preached to the fish in a pond. Civilized people do senseless things at times. The fish very likely gathered  to his presence because they became trained to gather to a person's presence because of being tossed something to eat. The church considers it a miracle that the fish gathers to hear him preach. What sense does it make to preach to fish. The religion in question dictates fish cannot go to heaven. So how is this relative. What good does it do to extend or apply civil mentality to a fox. Francis is applying his civil or religious (same thing)mentality to fish, which is no different then preaching to a fox.

  The system designated natural from artificial for purpose for controlling people not foxes. The system decides artificial from natural by whether its man made or not. IE- a house is an artificial structure because it's man made, nature doesn't build houses. They don't apply it to houses but that's the theory. In the super market you may have purchased  something with the "real" sign on the label. Nothing in the container has been manipulated or modified, it was only put onto the container as is by nature.. If you add or subtract anything---it's artificial by designation of whether its all natural ingredients or not.
You are designated artificial person because you've been manipulated by civil law. Nature did not make you as you are, you've been modified and added to for effect. If anyone wants to conclude that a fox steals so do. Be aware that (as you probably are) that law does not manipulate or change the fox. +If you have any complaint, well, you have to take that up with the one's that maintain the devising of your system.  :)

Quote from: Old Seer on April 09, 2020, 12:33:38 AM
So you want to apply a civil determination to a fox[...]

No. You've already gone wrong in the first half of the first sentence. It's like you're willfully not listening to me. Like you're trying to control what I mean. Like if you keep ignoring what I say I mean and keep injecting this irrational bullshit as a substitute that I'll somehow take on the view you seem to want me to. You ain't no Jedi.

(https://pa1.narvii.com/6090/cef1d79bb0ce2290f1623000826444b0d6622424_hq.gif)

Quote from: Old SeerI'm not implying that Blacks law or others are right or wrong, I'm transferring to you what they determined as they are the ones in charge of your society.

You claim that they are in charge of society. I'd like to see you support that. With reliable evidence, not simply you saying things or citing other people saying things. Point to the people behind the Black's Law Dictionary and show how they are in charge of society. You're making an exceptional claim, so I await exceptional evidence.

Because I think they're simply people trying to write a book that shows current usages of legal terms based on legal precedents. And not in control of society. Much like how the people that write dictionaries are defining popular usages and are not controlling language.

I'm sorry, but what you're saying right here is loony tunes, conspiracy theory nutjob, laughable, insanity. I suppose not only are they in charge of society, but they're lizard people too. And I suppose they're using technology from the alien ship that crashed in Roswell, NM. to send out mind control waves that we have to wear tinfoil hats to protect us from.

And don't think that this crazy sentence clears you from defending what you say by trying (AGAIN), to avoid your responsibility in this discussion to defend what you bring into it.

Quote from: Old Seer
If you say they're wrong then to you they're wrong. I didn't consider them right or wrong. I don't create right or wrong for others. I may unintentionally do so but what's right or wrong I normally leave for each to decide.   An interjection of right or wrong into a conversation can be an attempt to control another's thinking. I prefer each do your own.  :)

That's insane... and also bullshit. You might not remember what you said, but the good part about these forums is that they are still there for people to see that you have directly and intentionally injected your opinion that I was wrong. And you've told me what I meant (in spite of me saying I mean something completely different). Get that hypocritical, loopy, condescending, lunacy out of here.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/W3H6keuCen2MG36j4O/giphy.gif)

Quote from: Old Seer on April 09, 2020, 03:04:03 PM
You would have to discuss this with the one's making up the tenants of your society.[...]

Time after time you present something and then refuse to defend it. This is preaching and is against the rules of the forum.

I have no intention of defending anything. I'm presenting information for your analysis. There's nothing here for me to defend, I'm not at war with your system, but you may be. I recommend that you go to Blacks Law and read for yourself so you can be liable for the information you wish to make others liable for. It's there for you to read, so I ask that you assume your own responsibilities.  I make presentation of the material from knowing the recipients may be unfamiliar with it. These are things not commonly understood.  In science one submits their material or experiment to peers for review and analysis, this is the method we use. I cannot determine what's right or wrong, correct or incorrect for you. It is imperative to allow others to do thinking on their own, as it may take time for realization of what the unfamiliar material incorporates. It's not wise to force others to accept things they are unfamiliar with, and by their analysis they can determine if they accept the information as right or wrong for themselves.   :)

Quote from: Davin on April 08, 2020, 08:43:07 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 08, 2020, 07:24:25 PM
I understand your concept of "stealing". If I didn't I wouldn't be able to post on the subject. In order to understand your concept I need to know the difference between natural person and artificial person, I do. Blacks Law Dictionary is about your law, if you say it's wrong, you're saying Blacks are wrong. Blacks law people understand civil law compared to natural law.  In order for law to be effective there must be a distinction between natural and man made (contrived). Without that distinction a law system would break down.  Civil law still allows you to be like the lion mentally, but not do as the lion does in all respects physically. 

Addition. The civil overseers of the system doesn't want you to know about natural law.

If you think you need to understand the difference between a natural person and an artificial person, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing. If you keep bringing a separate concept like laws into it, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing. If you think "my" concept of stealing requires civil overseers, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing.

Furthermore, Black's Law Dictionary is simply a reference, it's like an old version of wikipedia. It's OK as a starting point, but don't use it as a primary source. And certainly don't act like its definitions are definitive,

Having been around for 80 years and being born into the present system I am very well aware of your concept of stealing. I existed in your system all this time. There's more in the universe to consider then someones preferred system of thought.  :)

Quote from: Old Seer on April 09, 2020, 07:34:02 PM
I have no intention of defending anything.[...]

So you're preaching. Which is against the forum rules.

Quote from: Old Seer on April 09, 2020, 07:41:15 PM

Quote from: Davin on April 08, 2020, 08:43:07 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 08, 2020, 07:24:25 PM
I understand your concept of "stealing". If I didn't I wouldn't be able to post on the subject. In order to understand your concept I need to know the difference between natural person and artificial person, I do. Blacks Law Dictionary is about your law, if you say it's wrong, you're saying Blacks are wrong. Blacks law people understand civil law compared to natural law.  In order for law to be effective there must be a distinction between natural and man made (contrived). Without that distinction a law system would break down.  Civil law still allows you to be like the lion mentally, but not do as the lion does in all respects physically. 

Addition. The civil overseers of the system doesn't want you to know about natural law.

If you think you need to understand the difference between a natural person and an artificial person, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing. If you keep bringing a separate concept like laws into it, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing. If you think "my" concept of stealing requires civil overseers, then you don't understand "my" concept of stealing.

Furthermore, Black's Law Dictionary is simply a reference, it's like an old version of wikipedia. It's OK as a starting point, but don't use it as a primary source. And certainly don't act like its definitions are definitive,

Having been around for 80 years and being born into the present system I am very well aware of your concept of stealing.

Then why do you keep being wrong about it? If you're well aware of my concept of stealing, then define for me what my concept of stealing is. It should be easy, because I've expressed it and you have the freedom to back and look at my posts.

Quote from: Old Seer
I existed in your system all this time. There's more in the universe to consider then someones preferred system of thought.  :)

Then why are you not considering my concepts? Take your own advice.

I don't get you, Old Seer. It's like you're not on the same plane of existence. ::)

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 09, 2020, 08:55:11 PM
I don't get you, Old Seer. It's like you're not on the same plane of existence. ::)

Correct.  I'm trying to put things in a context one can reason things to the end on their own. Getting back to the OP. I needed to know how people see their social system before I make a statement on possession of firearms. I understand the gun nut accusations and trying to avoid causing disharmony on the site. I know about gun nuts as I used to be one. A gun nut is not necessarily a dangerous person, and I'm sure we all understand that. When I was a gun nut I was only dangerous to an adversary wanting to do me harm. Presently not being a gun nut I'm still dangerous to said adversary. Being a US Marine I'm very well versed on the use of weapons as each Marine is a basic rifleman, even the commandant. At the age of 11 I owned my first .22 cal Mossberg.  I haven't shot anyone yet and hope not to. I have 3 occasions in my time to use the pistol that "may" have saved me from harm. Just having having the firearm was enough as long as the attacker was made aware of me having it. Living in Minneapolis I determined from observation that this could be a very dangerous place. Actually it turned out that it's mainly certain places that are dangerous. Living downtown one could hear gun shots quite often at night.
Today it is several times over what it was back in the 60s.  If there is a weapons confiscation the weak are left vulnerable to the strong much more so now then before. You are no longer in a world that can give up firearms, you're trapped just as all civilizations previous. That option is no longer available. To remove firearms from the public will allow the strong and the harmful the opportunity to expand into areas that aren't accessible to them now, because the main deterrent is ---those people there are armed.
The strong and harmful don't need firearms or blades, they need to be 3 against one. If you're in the wrong place which many harmless are you loose your wallet and are very likely to undergo serious harm.

OK, for explanation sake. Corporations designated persons. Why and what for. Without artificial designation corporations may not exist. A corporation is comprised of material assets in product and money. The designation decrees that the material assets are a person. That is to protect the officers from being sued and paying from their personal assets. It's not likely that anyone will set up a corporation that can be sued on a personal basis. Corporations are business that can make big mistakes and the cost will be to the corporate officers with out the corporation designated as a person the officers pay the damages, and loose their personal assets if they are the corporation.    Being the government decides the legal criteria that a corporation operates under the corporation must exist under the rules that the government allows it to exist. To break those rules the government can fine or remove the corporate status. The rules are made for the safety and well being of the public. Now corporations are buying up the government. So, what is actually the case today may have changed.
   Problem: The material assets of a corporation is deemed a man made person. That has tentacles that go off toward many other things, such as, a grocery product that is "real" or man made (artificial), which the label  must specify as such.
  A rock is a rock is a rock, until you tamper with it. A rock that has been formed into a grave stone is an artificial structure---if they decide it that way.  Some rocks get designated a structure and some not. There's no law that say government has to amount to common sense, it becomes what they say it is when they say it is. 

I bought my pistol in '74 when I was in the Navy so I could go to the range and kill paper with my buddies. At that time I considered that it could be a defense in the home. I bought a .22 caliber target rifle in '02. Paper's the only things that I have ever used them for. I'm not enamored at all of trying to defend myself with them, haven't been for a long time. I have no intention of using the pistol as concealed carry. My hands are lethal weapons. :lol: How many times has anyone heard that!? Also, it's an "N" frame Smith & Wesson .357 that weighs almost 3 pounds. My firearms are locked in a safe when not en route to/from the range. I wouldn't be able to get them out fast, but neither would a burglar or intruder. I have other means at my disposal; they will not be discussed on an internet forum.

Excellent. I'm fairly the same today. I gave up on pistols when my son got to about 11 years old. I didn't want him handling it. and got to thinking that hiding it would be useless. According to my boyhood days I would search and keep going till I found it. I traded it for a rifle as pistols are to easy to pointing around. Rifles by design are normally carried muzzle up or down. Pistols get carried in all directions. A high school buddy shot himself in the leg playing John Wesley Harden. It was the days of the cowboy movie during my younger days. I was overly fascinated with the Mountain men of the1800s. I was totally enamored by the sight of the Colt peace maker and the Ruger Blackhawk. In high school it was off to the library for study hall, haw, the hell with that. I would spend the hour going through Sports Afield looking at the western gun adds. I still hold to some of the philosophy of the day, one you may be familiar with----God didn't create all men equal, Samuel Colt did. When it comes to fire arms there's no better one then that. But today, eh, I don't give a hoot. I haven't fired a weapon in several years.
Some one posted an insight I find quite true at the beginning of this tread. , that one is more likely to shoot them self with a pistol---agree. A grandson in his 20s bought a 9mm, shot himself in the hand---and ----and--- I warned him bout that---- ahh well so it goes.
I do appreciate long range shooting but can' get involved right now---to much family to deal with. Firearms can be a sporting hobby also. I think most floks against fire arms have never been around them and have always been distant from them, and don't realize that to some a firearms is equivalent the a billionaires expensive wall paintings. 

Many years ago, I was an NRA-Certified Firearms Instructor, as I volunteered for the BSA. Don't do that anymore, either. Anyway, I would run the gun range, and if people didn't want their sons to shoot, I understood. After watching the strict discipline and safety education, they pretty much allowed their sons to shoot. The only person ever "ejected" by me from a gun range was one Cub Scout's mother who just couldn't understand why I kept grabbing the BB gun when she cocked it by aiming back at the spectators.  ::) I never had a problem with the Boy Scout shooters, though. Some of the people I tried to train as range officers didn't make the cut, either. It's hard to believe that people can't follow simple instructions. No, I take that back.  ;D

my kids have all been exposed to shooting a pistol since they were about five yearz old. kept a government model at tbe house with an empty magazine on it, locked up, loaded magazine in the case too. they were always supervized, but it wS important that they knew what it was

Quote from: Dark Lightning on April 10, 2020, 12:52:22 AM
I bought my pistol in '74 when I was in the Navy so I could go to the range and kill paper with my buddies. At that time I considered that it could be a defense in the home. I bought a .22 caliber target rifle in '02. Paper's the only things that I have ever used them for. I'm not enamored at all of trying to defend myself with them, haven't been for a long time. I have no intention of using the pistol as concealed carry. My hands are lethal weapons. :lol: How many times has anyone heard that!? Also, it's an "N" frame Smith & Wesson .357 that weighs almost 3 pounds. My firearms are locked in a safe when not en route to/from the range. I wouldn't be able to get them out fast, but neither would a burglar or intruder. I have other means at my disposal; they will not be discussed on an internet forum.

I can understand the anti gunners and have no quarrels with them other then---use your head on this deal. But that's useless also because they little experience with forearms. It seems to them everyone with a firearm is a potential murderer. The use of and need for firearms to them in their circumstances aren't needed, and everyone killed with a firearm is what they hear. There are bears more passive then other bears, same with wolves, coyotes etc, and people. The Brits who don't have many weapons are more so passive then Americans, because of their history they have most of their differences settled, so do many Euro countries. Their less need for weapons is is influencing the anti gunner here in America. It's ridicules to me that at times Americans didn't have to worry about constitutional rights. But there we go unnecessarily whimpering about constitutional rights when not needed to. From the way it looks to me the idea is---"my constitutional rights are better then yours" (syndrome) We are highly adversarial and desire to "out rights" others. Everyone is a constitutional scholar.
Red flag laws: Here's your chance to be a psychiatrist. No experience, no schooling.  You go outside to turn off your lawn sprinkler. Across the street a neighbor is ranting and raving about something or another. He pick up a hatchet and throws it into the garage. We all are disturbed by temper fits. So, you're not particularly fond of the guy for one reason or another, you know he's got firearms. You call the police concerned that that fella over there is exhibiting dangerous behavior. The police are obligated by law and have no choice but to relieve him of his weapons. (when all he did was drop a hatchet on his foot.) Now he's taken in for evaluation (this has happened floks) by a qualified psychiatrist.
Now we have a problem: The government has a way of determining ---we have a nut ball here---or we don't. The psychiatrist is being paid for his services. You take it from here.

There is a way for citizens to remove their own right of keeping and bearing arms. Someone has got you removing fire arms from yourselves.  And, governments will always migrate ideas and procedure to other things.

i bought my first pistol for a simple reason: to kill people who were a threat to me.

i was coming home one night from work with my wife to our house in south san jose, in california. wqe lived in the barrio. rich culture, lots of gangs.. stopped at the light a block from our house and four or five men jumped out of a car ahead of us, ran to the car just ahead of them and began beating on it with crowbars. the car ran the red and drove into the neighborhood, and the men jumped back into their own car and chased them. i caled th epolice and left it there.

later tht night i was about to step out of my friont doorwhen i noticed that a car was parked in front of the neighbors driveway. five police cars with all the lights were surrounding it and every cop ws out with a weapon drawn and pointed at the car.

two men stepped out into the lights and stood there. eventually the cops found someone who spoke spanish and they raised their hands and were arrested.

turned out that the car chase i had witnessed had ended a block or two away with a 12 gauge shotgun poked into the window with the frnt seat passenger getting his head blown off.

so i went nd bought a .45 colt to keep with me should my experience turn out to be similar. nver happened again, but you never know.

i'm not concerned about the niceties of philosophy. i keep my weapons loaded and accessible.. i live in a dangerous world, and i prefer the option of self-protection. anybody who feels differently can live their own life as they think appropriate.

sold the colt to buy groceries when were down on money, but i  may get another. i can strip and reassemble a colt with my eyes closed. nice simple weapons.

Quote from: Recusant on April 07, 2020, 07:54:44 PM

Quote from: Drich on April 07, 2020, 05:16:47 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 07:11:23 PM
The OP invites a discussion that isn't particularly interesting.

it must been hard growing up for you. As you Never have anything nice to say and everything you do say is super critical often stabbing at self worth.

The comment was about the topic, not about you, Drich. The rest of your projection and snivelling about your supposed poor treatment is irrelevant.

and the rebuttal covered the fact the op has spawned 10 pages of content which by the look of this website might not be a record, but it is not a common occurrence either. (I am not stabbing at you or your self worth as curator fot he website.) pointing out 10 pages of dialog show far more interest than you are giving credit for.

Quote from: Drich on April 07, 2020, 05:16:47 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 07:11:23 PMIt's been chewed on so extensively in the US that it's nothing but a heap of saliva-soaked rawhide at this point.

which is why i came at it from a different perspective. And, is probably why the subject has traction here.

Quote
Is it necessary to explain to you why that does not even begin to qualify as evidence?

if you had the data that backs your supposition then why not post it?

QuoteI don't know who the people are who've been buying guns and ammunition in the US, and I don't think you do, either.Perhaps they are moderates and slight left, or perhaps they're just the usual regular customers, who've spiked the sale of guns and ammunition in the past. 

hey smarty.. "we gun" owners know who are buying guns by the depletion of gun stock.
Home defense shot guns and pistols= high crime, obama era riots ect. AR-15 carbines and hi cap gun.. gun nuts when a "dim" is threatening a gun ban.. these are the typical gun buyers and their typical runs. now... there's nothing. the shelves are empty. the way you can tell lefies and non gun owners are truly buying, all the garbage guns and garbage calibers are also gone, with all the ammo.

One may own one or two shot guns a hand full of pistols several long guns, but no one is running to buy .32, 380, and .22's unless they feel a need and that is all there is. these are back up, or teach a child to shoot guns. last time the guns stores were completely bare like this was 9-11-01

Quote from: Drich on April 07, 2020, 05:16:47 PM

Quote from: Recusant on April 06, 2020, 07:11:23 PMThe rest of the world (outside places like Somalia) has long since left it behind, and mostly just watches the gory circus in the US in horrified bemusement.

and how many first generation or illegal somalis do you have in your neighborhood? Again it is easy to preach social collectives whe you all share the same pigment and back story.

Quote
I don't know, and I don't care.

then please stop wasting my time and make room for people who want to have this discussion.

Quote
I don't keep track of who lives near me who is also an immigrant.

no situational awareness even after you yourself identified that particular race as being known for violence. if this is what you think then your attitude of idc is negent at best.

Quote
Let me explain something about myself: I've lived the majority of my adult life in what in the past were described as ghettos--high crime areas where I as a white person was definitely in the minority.

Did you live in public provided/assisted housing? use to be they did not allow guns/evict you for gun ownership. So you did not have that option.

For those who lived NEAR the ghetto KNOWS public housing IS the Ghetto. People who live in the suburbs condemn a whole side of town as the ghetto when in fact and in practice a ghetto is limited to a specific neighborhood. Started with NAzi germany roping off jewish neighborhoods to contain and starve them out. (you story seems to be falling a part)

Quote
I grew up in a rural area and my family owns and uses guns. I own a couple myself, but never felt the need to own one for personal protection because I know that while in some rare cases they might prove useful for that, they're largely irrelevant.

so all of that and you owned guns...

Quote from: billy rubin on April 03, 2020, 01:47:41 PMdangerous situations can occur withou you being an instigator. i've had guns in my house most of my life. i'm licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and i do.

i dont plan on killing someone, but i live in a society where i would rather choose not to use the gun i carry rather than be unable to use the one i dont. i dont see this as dangerous.

quite the contrary, i consider it reasonable and prudent

I believe in gun control and that sounds reasonable to me. I'm not against anyone carrying a gun for personal and family protection but there's no need for anyone to have an assault rifle or a big stash of guns in their home Carrying a small firearm for your own security is fine, the problem is these bulletheads that bring an AR-15 into Burger King just to order lunch.

Quote from: MadBomr101 on April 23, 2020, 07:17:59 PM
I believe in gun control and that sounds reasonable to me. I'm not against anyone carrying a gun for personal and family protection but there's no need for anyone to have an assault rifle or a big stash of guns in their home Carrying a small firearm for your own security is fine, the problem is these bulletheads that bring an AR-15 into Burger King just to order lunch.

i don't see the logical process for making the distinctions you do, mad. what is a "small firearm?" what is an "assault rifle?" how many guns is a "big stash?"

the AR15 is the most popular rilfe in north america. people hunt with it, plink with it, compete with it, keep it for self defense, and yes, they do mass murders with it too. in semi auto form, it's not legally an assault rifle at all, so there are the usual problems with defining what we might want to restrict.

i almost bought a mac10 a while back. but it was the original .45, and that's way too expensive to shoot. there was an uzi next to it, same price, but it was in .22, and that's too small.

my sister used to live in islamabad. people would walkinto hotels and stand in the buffet line with AK47s over their shoulders. ive lived in open carry regions where people walked into my convenience store (i was a cashier) wearing guns every day of the week.

im in favor of restricting certain kinds of ownership forcertain kinds of guns. easy or not, i would regulate semi auto rifles in the same way we currently regulate full auto machine guns. that slowed the ownership of m16s and thompsons, and would eventually do the same for the AR15.

what would you propose we do?

Quote from: billy rubin on April 23, 2020, 09:20:59 PMwhat would you propose we do?

If I had the answer to that, I'd put in for the Nobel and blow the prize money on lots of stupid stuff.

not easy.

like it or not, we in the states have gun ownership written into the countrys constitution, too. one of our three or four founding documents.

whatever solution we pick has to accomodate that.