What is actually going to happen?

[jeremy]

The number who send me insults that violate forum rules via rep comments and threaten my life are really rather few.

I don't really think my suggestions would threaten your life...

By the way the Executive Assistant Position is still unfilled in my Merc Outfit...

 

[88GT]

I don't really think my suggestions would threaten your life...

By the way the Executive Assistant Position is still unfilled in my Merc Outfit...

You're funny. But I do have mad typing skillz. What's the pay?

 

[jeremy]

You're funny. But I do have mad typing skillz. What's the pay?

I am thinking 6 figures...

 

[88GT]

I am thinking 6 figures...

Fine, as long as I get to pick who they are.

 

[jeremy]

Fine, as long as I get to pick who they are.

Hmmm...

How about you can pick 2 of them and you cannot pick Tom Selleck...

 

[Mackey]

Just so we are clear, this is NOT, I repeat, NOT meant as an attempt to understand the gun control argument. This being a gun forum, I assumed anyone reading would be a gun owner. Sorry if thats what you thought, guys.

I'm glad you made that clear. But this being a gun forum, the thread will certainly head in directions related to guns and you're most likely NOT I repeat NOT going to be able to control that.

 

[88GT]

Hmmm...

How about you can pick 2 of them and you cannot pick Tom Selleck...

JG is going to hurt me, but Tom would not be on the list. I need young blood.

I'm good with 2. I can put the other 4 to work in other ways.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Problem:

I'm already chafing at the restraints though.

Solution:

slave outlet.com has fur lined restraints..... might help with the chafing problem.

The folks here, on INGO are always so helpful

(Of course, I have to wonder how printcraft knows about this place...well, not really)

 

[jamil]

I guess what I really wondering is, are all of us actually wanting freedom, or are we just wanting to impose our way of life (whatever that may be) onto someone who doesnt (cant) see it the same? Can any of us see things the same? Are the socialistic values that have defined this country since the beginning of the 20th century so ingrained in everybody that we take a certain type of control over another? These questions are not rhetorical. These questions are honest, genuine questions, though their nature does promote some thought. Im not calling anybody out specifically, I really just want honest answers.

I can't imagine freedom being too much of an imposition. But then, I had an online conversation the other day with a Brit who said that when he sees a gun it makes him "uneased". Not sure how often a Brit actually gets to see such an evil machine, but that's what he said. He essentially believes that he has a right to feel safe from anything that scares him. That's his side of the debate, he wants to ban all guns everywhere so that fewer guns are manufactured, so that he doesn't have to feel "uneased". His side is collectivist. My side of the debate is that individuals have an inherent right to protect life and property, even by deadly force if necessary. You're free to exercise that right, or not.

So who's imposing what on the other? He feels I am imposing "unease" on him. I believe he is imposing his pussified fear on me by prohibiting me from owning a firearm. Can society provide real security from all harm? Not unless it controls everything everyone does. Does one have a right to *feel* safe? Only if society sedates its citizens. That kind of society is worth fighting against.

Is self protection a collectivist or individualist idea? Is mandating/prohibiting others to do/not do something a collectivist or individualist idea? An individual right can only be individual. It can't require the collective to do for the individual.

So to answer the question, requiring someone to behave a certain way or do certain things, or refrain from certain things, is not freedom. And, no, we can't all see everything the same way. There will always be different sides in the war of ideas. I can't imagine that panzy-ass Brit fighting for anything though.

 

[poptab]

There are always going to be people who will want to use the coercive power of the state to impose thier will on others. That is why the founding fathers tried to set limits on the power of the federal government. However, one of the few things government is good at is consolodating its own power. That is why I do not believe the state will ever be a solution to any of humanities problems. The history of the 20th century is full of examples of governments killing millions of thier own citizens. Large centralized governments are the enemy of the people.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

(Of course, I have to wonder how printcraft knows about this place...well, not really)

Hell, I'm guessing he owns the place!

 

[jeremy]

JG is going to hurt me, but Tom would not be on the list. I need young blood.

I'm good with 2. I can put the other 4 to work in other ways.

Kinky is the first thought that comes to mind when you say you are good with 2...

So who would the 2 be...

 

[88GT]

Kinky is the first thought that comes to mind when you say you are good with 2...

So who would the 2 be...

I just want to look at them. Living statues, if you will. THe rest can clean house for me.

 

[rambone]

Is there ever a time and place where all groups are satisfied? Never. The fight for liberty is constant. Embrace the struggle.

 

[BrianJacobsen]

Freedom? I want liberty!

 

[88GT]

Freedom? I want liberty!

Is this like that stupid permit/license argument?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Is this like that stupid permit/license argument?

It is more like the democracy/republic argument. In common usage, most people won't really understand the difference but the nuances are very important. Just as a democracy is unlimited government and basically mob rule by 51% vote versus a republic being a limited government which does not allow the 51% to run roughshod over the 49%, liberty generally represents the greatest amount of freedom possible while maintaining a social structure where freedom in its absolute sense would basically be anarchy. Personally, I like the .gov to be like those distant cousins you may see a couple of times a decade, but don't want to deal with the chaos of anarchy either.

 

[BrianJacobsen]

Well put Indy Dave, well put!

 

[MickeyBlueEyes]

Dear O.P. I appreciate your bravey in such a query. Personally, if the Constitution was a living constitution, it would be as useless as the fickle masses that change their moral and secular compasses to whims that suit their sheeplike behavior. Perfect example, too many people thought that slick willie's escapades in the white house were perfectly acceptable. With the Highest Security Clearance in our country, I thought that it was completely despicable of the Commander In Chief thinking that adultry was only a subjective idea. The Military prosecutes adultry under the UCMJ, so why wasnt the POTUS prosecuted, being that he was our boss? Seeing as most people that are divergent to Power, Money or Sex are rarely given High Clearance in the Military, how did slick willy get off so to speak, and I don't mean with a wipe on Ms. Lewinski's dress.
I believe that Ethics should be invloved in any decision, and like the constitution, will have some contrary principles.
Common ground is a great unifier. I think that any discussion should be a discussion. Not a lecture. Have a Great Day.
MOLON LABE! From my cold, dead hands!

 

[RockofStrength]

In the end all a government can do is enforce a kind of moral authority over the people (this is wrong, we punish this; this is right, we glorify this). A good governmental system permits the varying viewpoints to have the ability to speak and operate openly to influence people to their side.