Should we consider other's opinions?

[swine]

imported post

nightgunner wrote:

swine wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

swine wrote:

I'd rather bet on the power of the people in greatnumbers in peacefull protest to overcome the might of arms.

Then... you're a fool. Nothing left to say.

Worked in India to drive the English out. Worked in the South to establish the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Were Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. fools as well?

Don't forget in China at Tiananmen Square! Oh wait, that didn't work out too well....

Ok, one for you. But is China now seething with civil unrest and repressed revolutionary resentment? Not!

 

[Bikenut]

imported post

swine wrote:

Bikenut wrote:

Why is it the young, with their young ideas, seem to think that the old, with their time tested truths, are irrelevant?

The concept that the founding fathers and their ideas are just old fogey stuff not relevant to the new and cool today neglects to address the truth that there are concepts that have proven throughout History to be timeless.

Such as....

-There will always be people who wish to rule and those people will always relentlessly seek to rule.

-Those who wish to rule will always seek to disarm the populace.

-An unarmed population always becomes subservient to an elitist ruling class.

-And there will always be those misguided folks who, thinking they are being "hip", or "cool", or "intellectual" will help those who wish to rule to take over.

But in the end it is the same old story that has played out all over the world since the beginning of time when the only "arms" were rocks and sharp sticks... and will continue to play out until the end of time when "arms" are ray guns or whatever whiz bang technological thing they have....

But the time tested and Historically proven TRUTH is .... only the well armed are able to resist being ruled by those who consider themselves the elite... and those who consider themselves to be the elite will stop at nothing to disarm anyone and everyone who could stand in their way of ruling.

This a stirring, even slightly thrilling, justification for war,

No.. it is a statement of plain old facts.

like the ones going on in Iraq and Afganistan right now, and I, for one, find it a bit anachronistic. It sounds like a fantasy from thesimplerdays of yesteryear.

Anachronistic? Simpler days of yesteryear? I find the idea that human nature changes just because technology advances or how one wishes the world was... to be... astonishingly naive.

Human nature has not changed one bit since humans began. The only thing that has changed is that folks have more sophisticated ways of doing harm to each other, of stealing from each other, of forcing their rule upon each other... but, like when humans began, they still do all of that to each other today... and will do the same tomorrow.

Right now, in Mexico, thedrug gangs outgun the government and the police. The gangs there arebetter armed than the police and are therefore able tomake the laws as they see fit withoutbothering with democratic institutions.

Like I said... those with the "arms" will rule those without. So the gangs have bigger guns than the police and are ruling because of it. The solution that will keep the common man free is for the common man to have the same big guns those who wish to rule have in order to have the means to resist being ruled.

And you want to open the borders and let those gangs into the U.S. so they can also rule here?

Is that the world you want? You hinted atthe way the future would develop in such a world when you alluded to "ray guns or whatever whiz bang technological thing they have...." So a continual and escallating 'arms race'? That's the world you want?

An "arms race" as you put it... isn't such a bad thing as long as the common man is also in that race and has the same "arms" as those who wish to rule. That way there is a standoff.... and peaceful freedom... which is far more desirable than peaceful slavery.

No matter how well armed you are, with sufficient resources and will, the'other guys' will be able to subdue you with their superior firepower.

And your solution is what? Everyone be afraid of those "other guys" with their superior firepower and just give up, lay down, and surrender?

I'd rather bet on the power of the people in greatnumbers in peacefull protest to overcome the might of arms.

Yep, about what I thought. No concept of how the real world works. Again... read some History and see how the ruling elite with "arms" reacts to peaceful protest without "arms".

Oh... and if anyone is dumb enough to bet that peaceful protest will stop the might of "arms" they may as well bet their last dollar on it... because when the dust settles after that conflict they won't need money anyway.

Throughout History those who had the "arms" ruled those who didn't. Ignoring that doesn't change it one bit. Peaceful protest by the people has no power over the might of "arms" if those who have the "arms" decide to shut down the peaceful protest. That has happened a lot during History too...

 

[Repoman]

imported post

swine wrote:

nightgunner wrote:

swine wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

swine wrote:

I'd rather bet on the power of the people in greatnumbers in peacefull protest to overcome the might of arms.

Then... you're a fool. Nothing left to say.

Worked in India to drive the English out. Worked in the South to establish the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Were Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. fools as well?

Don't forget in China at Tiananmen Square! Oh wait, that didn't work out too well....

Ok, one for you. But is China now seething with civil unrest and repressed revolutionary resentment? Not!

Actually they are.

We can always bring up the Jews in Nazi Germany and Poland in the 1930's and 40's. Oops, when the populace was disarmed there it didn't end well either. Maybe in Russia in the late 1800's and early 1900's,. Again, peacefull protesting fixed everything for the people.



You cannot win this arguement, when facing facts. The fact is quite simple. Every time peaceful people have been dis-armed, they eventually took to the streets, and in 90+% of the time, murdered by the same government that they protested against.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

nightgunner wrote:

Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of men. - Pope John Paul II

Violence and arms just ended most forms ofSlavery, Communism, Fascism, Naziism, Japanese Imperialism, or opression by England.

Careful with that one.

Rarely did slaves end their slaverly by their own violence and arms.

More importantly, while slavery was ended in America by violence, it did not solve the real problem, and caused worse problems.

By that I mean that slavery was the advertised reason to end slavery that garnered public support for the invasion. The actual problem was a federal government abusing the South through tariffs on goods the South needed to import. A federal government that had grown too powerful. Yes, slavery needed to end. But, no one has ever shown me that civil war, the destruction of vast amounts of property in the South, the killing and wounding of hundreds of thousands was the only way to end slavery. Or, that the pricewas worth endingslavery by violence in lieu of other honest methods.

The violence that ended slavery also wiped out some of the strongest checks on the federal government--meaning, the violence caused more and greater problems. States rights suffered horribly. Suddenly, instead of people thinking of many individually sovereign states with a central government toact as a foreign office, peoplewent futher down the path of thinkingin terms of one nation with that nation's government in Washington, DC.

Also, the whole concept that the federalgovernment was a creation of the states was practically wiped away.Priorto thewar, secession was a huge check on the federal government. The states created the fedgov, thus they must be senior to it. And, if they entered voluntarily the union, it follows that if their interests are horribly putupon, they necessarily retain the right to voluntarily leave it. Those ideaswas shot to hellby the war--by the federal government.

Where are blacks today? Yes, many are economically much better off. But, what about dependency on the federal governmentsapping the drivefrom many, many blacks? What about many, many blacks infederal prisons for breakingfederal laws, some as simple as smoking or sellinga weed, little more dangerous than drinking bourbon? It is better than slaverly, that is for sure; but at what historical and contemporary price? And, did blacks really win all that much, or did the fedgov grow so much that having freed the blacks back then, it could tyrannizethem today?

Wasending slaverly by violence before it would have ended by public pressure alone worththe huge jump in federal power ultimatelybringing us to where we are todaywith a colossus, tyrannical, over-reaching federalgovernment? What would have happened if Lincoln had observed the Constitution--which contains no declaration of perpetual union and does not prohibit secession--and let the South go? Wouldwe have a morerestrained fedgov today? Still restrained by states rights, anda commonly held idea that the states are supreme except in the few areas they transferred power to the fedgov?

What if the fedgov had treated the South fairly in the antebellum years? What if the fedgov, instead of cheating theSouth on tariffs, had invested its energy into a hugecampaign to help the South convert from a slave-based economy? What if abolitionistshad first worked on a one-off, sunsetted constitutional amendment temporarilyauthorizing Congress the power to help the South rework its economy? That the South's economy was reworked during Reconstruction shows it was possible; what if it had been done honestly and within constitutional limits without any war?

 

[Repoman]

imported post

We really don't know how or when slavery would have ended, or if it would have entirely, that is all speculation.

What I am saying is that the idea every man made problem can be discussed away is a myth. Humans create these problems mostly through a power and/or blood lust, sitting down for a cold beer will not solve everything.

There was no way peoplelike Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Lincoln are or ever can be "talked down" from their power.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

nightgunner wrote:

SNIP There was no way peopleHitler, Stalin, Mao, or Lincoln are or ever can be "talked down".

I agree with you, there. I was merely discussingincluding slavery on the list. Nothing wrong with the rest of the list.

 

[Repoman]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

nightgunner wrote:

SNIP There was no way peopleHitler, Stalin, Mao, or Lincoln are or ever can be "talked down".

I agree with you, there. I was merely discussingincluding slavery on the list. Nothing wrong with the rest of the list.

The rest of the list was directed at the OP, who lives in Disneyland and spends all day singing "It's a small world".

 

[Citizen]

imported post

nightgunner wrote:

Citizen wrote:

nightgunner wrote:

SNIP There was no way peopleHitler, Stalin, Mao, or Lincoln are or ever can be "talked down".

I agree with you, there. I was merely discussingincluding slavery on the list. Nothing wrong with the rest of the list.

The rest of the list was directed at the OP, who lives in Disneyland and spends all day singing "It's a small world".

Oh! If you have a person genuinely like that, you just have to talk at their level. Just remind them of what happened to the witch in Snow White.

 

[Repoman]

imported post

I just re-read the title of this thread. I have an answer to that question OP.

Yes! As a matter of fact we should.I did, andI consider your personal views to be irrelevant and misleading.

Sorry I missed the point of the OP.

 

[swine]

imported post

nightgunner wrote:

Citizen wrote:

nightgunner wrote:

SNIP There was no way peopleHitler, Stalin, Mao, or Lincoln are or ever can be "talked down".

I agree with you, there. I was merely discussingincluding slavery on the list. Nothing wrong with the rest of the list.

The rest of the list was directed at the OP, who lives in Disneyland and spends all day singing "It's a small world".

'Frisco, not Disneyland. Or is that the same to you?

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

swine wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

swine wrote:

I'd rather bet on the power of the people in greatnumbers in peacefull protest to overcome the might of arms.

Then... you're a fool. Nothing left to say.

Worked in India to drive the English out. Worked in the South to establish the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Were Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. fools as well?

Pretty much... Both were shot dead. You seem to forget Lexington Green, 1776 'n a raft ofother historical facts accomplished thru the barrel of a gun.



San Fransicko? Say no more... That place needs another good shakin'.

 

[swine]

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

swine wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

swine wrote:

I'd rather bet on the power of the people in greatnumbers in peacefull protest to overcome the might of arms.

Then... you're a fool. Nothing left to say.

Worked in India to drive the English out. Worked in the South to establish the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Were Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. fools as well?

Pretty much... Both were shot dead. You seem to forget Lexington Green, 1776 'n a raft ofother historical facts accomplished thru the barrel of a gun.



San Fransicko? Say no more... That place needs another good shakin'.

I don't forget 1776, but after 235 years it's time to think of other ways to stay free than the barrel of a gun.

 

[Bikenut]

imported post

Some would do well to ponder this little fact....

"Arms", and the common men who used their own personally owned "arms", defeated the tyranny of King George and produced a country where people have the freedom to peacefully protest.

Does anyone think, even for a half second, that if those common men would have peacefully protested in King George's palace that they would have won the freedom of this country? Or would King George have simply imprisoned them? Or had them killed?

It is quite simple... it wasn't peaceful protest that produced freedom in this country... it was "arms" in the hands of the common man that produced the freedom to peacefully protest.

And it is "arms" in the hands of the common man that will protect the freedom to peacefully protest.. it is not peaceful protest that will protect freedom from those who would disarm the common man in order to establish rule over said common man.

Want to have a peaceful protest about something? Thank the "armed men" past, present, and future, that you have the freedom to do it.

 

[swine]

imported post

The predominance of opinion on this site seems tobe -->"Assume people will be bad (e.g. violent) unless they demonstrate otherwise - and carry a gun tosupport(and publicly express) that assumption."

An anologous assumption is "Guilty until proven innocent." But in America we assume the opposite --> "Innocent until proven guilty". That may not be the safest assumption, but it is more just. To assume otherwise is to punish, and perhaps execute (not to say 'lynch') a lot of innocent people.

Similarly, to assume people will be bad and/or criminal and/orviolent, to the extent that one has always to be under the protection of one's own personal firearm, is to create a self realizing proposition.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

Like I mentioned... you're a fool. Those that turn their swords into plows will soon plow for those who don't. Have you noticed this is a pro-2A armed citizen open carry forum?You're oinking in the wrong hog pen swiney...

 

[Citizen]

imported post

swine wrote:

Having been involved in a number of contentious threads here, the question occurred to me whether we should be listening to opposing views or not? I say ‘we’ because I am[/i] a member here and because I have expressed opposing views, some of which I have had to relinquish or modify as a result of these discussions.

I don't know 'bout nobody else, but that comment takes some guts and wisdom. Ben Franklin made almost the same remark during his closing address to the Constitutional Convention.

I'm interested to hear what he has to say.

 

[Bikenut]

imported post

swine wrote:

The predominance of opinion on this site seems tobe -->"Assume people will be bad (e.g. violent) unless they demonstrate otherwise - and carry a gun tosupport (and publicly express) that assumption."

An anologous assumption is "Guilty until proven innocent." But in America we assume the opposite --> "Innocent until proven guilty". That may not be the safest assumption, but it is more just. To assume otherwise is to punish, and perhaps execute (not to say 'lynch') a lot of innocent people.

Similarly, to assume people will be bad and/or criminal and/orviolent, to the extent that one has always to be under the protection of one's own personal firearm, is to create a self realizing proposition.

What we have here is just another internet...

FAIL.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

swine wrote:

They were very clear, no doubt about that, but the Pope (the infallable Pope) of the time was also very clear when he told Gallileo that the Earth most certainly did not orbit the Sun; thatit was the other way around. Butthe Popeturned out to bewrong and Gallileo turned out to beright.

It is hard to converse with one who has admitted to never being in a life threatening circumstance on any moral grounds whatsoever, while simultaneously espousing moral and technical superiority in the same.

Something about specific lack of knowledge in regards to Donkeys and circular voids.


swine is a egotistical, narcissistic individual who shuns proof when counter to his fabricated reality, but will surely claim moral superiority over any person who is able to provide sufficient counterpoint.


swine has come here claiming open mindedness, much like the claims of his "people" he claims to "represent", wherein his aforementioned narcissistic behavior leads him to believe that he speaks with authority for "100 million people", in this country.



Swine is the epitome of the "oh woe is me, I am so oppressed!" mentality, as he shares his meaningless diatribe about never seeing combat, and making love to other men in the 60's.

He will dictate how trained combat professionals ducked and cowered in fear as he, and he alone, mishandled a pistol on the qualifying range while in the Army. During the 60's, it is far more likely that the other soldiers on the range would have folded him in half, and hazed him back to reality. Training exercises happen. Oops.

He provides himself as the clear cut example of stupidity in America, using his mentally deranged, and dangerous mindset as a platform for why "firearms should not be allowed", projecting his inadequacies onto every other human being he meets.

While clearly expressing an unfounded, irrational, and mentally ill status (He has confirmed he is seeing a Psychiatrist), he will go on and on about how children die from firearms every year, while simultaneously skirting the outright ban of firearms by saying that he is not, "Against firearm ownership in the home".

It's hard to follow swines zigzagging all over conversations and posts.

While admitting he is not against firearms in the home, he tries desperately to cling to "child safety" as basis for not open carrying, patently ignoring that no children have ever died from an open carrier in the act of open carrying, and that child mortality statistics confirm accidental death in the house as the leading cause of FIREARM related child death.

Which by the way is significantly higher in automobile accidents and swimming pool drownings.

However, he justifies automobiles as "ok" because he proclaims that "firearms are designed to kill", while "automobiles are not".

So therefore it is, to him, morally superior to cause mass death by an object not specifically "designed to kill" as he puts it, regardless of whether or not it is significantly higher than an object "designed to kill".


swine is the shining example of what is wrong with a certain party, or caste of people in this society.

He is his very own counterpoint, and is too stupid to realize otherwise.


All positive points, and clear, factual examples are lost on him. So is historical perspective, and rational thought. He is so overtly pompous that unless it came from his cranium, it clearly does not matter.

What do we know about swine? Some insight:

--He has mental health concerns, and is seeing a therapist.

--He will pull a knife on somebody just because someone else was being loud. He has judgment issues.

--He will purchase a single movie theater ticket, which shows the name of the one movie viewing and time that he is allowed to watch, then demand some sort of fictional, non-existent "inalienable right" to stay and watch a second movie, ignoring all private property rights of the establishments owner.

and above all else...

--He will certainly waste no time projecting his mental, social, historical, and legal inadequacies on you.


swine is clown shoes.

Ignore him.

swine wrote:

The predominance of opinion on this site seems tobe -->"Assume people will be bad (e.g. violent) unless they demonstrate otherwise - and carry a gun tosupport (and publicly express) that assumption."

No. That is actually completely and totally incorrect.

The predominant opinion on this site, and in the open carry movement itself is:

"People are inherently good, and when unified in the exercising of our rights to defend ourselves, the criminals find near no opportunity to exploit their malicious acts."

Hence, "An armed society, is a polite society".

The idea has been, from the start, that the vast majority of this nation is wonderful people, who have integrity, and are law abiding citizens contributing to their respective localizations.

I do not fear my fellow man enough to warrant carrying any form of arms he deems necessary.

I instead respect my fellow man enough, to embrace his right to do the same.


You should try viewing the world like that sometime. It's liberating.

 

[swine]

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Like I mentioned... you're a fool. Those that turn their swords into plows will soon plow for those who don't. Have you noticed this is a pro-2A armed citizen open carry forum?You're oinking in the wrong hog pen swiney...

Yeah I know what this forum is all about, but this Thread is about considering other opinions. The most dangerous thing about the internet is the tendency for people to segregate themselves into 'silos' of opinion, where everybody is always just reinforcing each other'salready well entrenched, and potentially erroneous (not to say dangerous) opinions.

Why not allow somebody to speak here that sees things differently. What are y'all up to here anyway, just a group f..king gang-bang?!

 

[Bikenut]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

swine wrote:

Having been involved in a number of contentious threads here, the question occurred to me whether we should be listening to opposing views or not? I say ‘we’ because I am a member here and because I have expressed opposing views, some of which I have had to relinquish or modify as a result of these discussions.

I don't know 'bout nobody else, but that comment takes some guts and wisdom. Ben Franklin made almost the same remark during his closing address to the Constitutional Convention.

I'm interested to hear what he has to say.

That comment by Swine is nothing more than clever bait to keep the discussion going so he can continue to puff up his ego with his pontificating.

Just another leftist using Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals methods of discussion to allow himself to enjoy mentally masturbating.

I have great pity for him... and those who think like him...