Topic: Gun free zone - page 2. (Read 21969 times)

How very anarchist of you. Your shirt is looking very neat and ironed and black.

BUMP for interest.
...and also to crap on myrkul.

[sarcasm]
Yes. Let's divide up the oceans as well. And the atmosphere. Homestead it! No mountain shall be open to the public. Let's put up fences for all to enjoy. Build walls all around. Let's be sure animal migrations cannot occur due to barriers.

Public property is disgusting. The statists, the sociopaths, the fascists, the socialists, the whole lot of you! Pointing guns at me! 

Global warming. It's all a lie! Why! Because S.M. told me anything that is paid for by stolen money is not true!
[/sarcasm]

Luckily I don't live somewhere that social norms such as these exist. Unless you're taking about soldiers,  there has been plenty of social dissent and ostracism over the matter.


I think murder is morally wrong. My social peers agree with me. We show our dissent. Unfortunately the ostracism of our political leaders seems to have had little effect.


Maybe it wasn't a good example. My family is close knit, and I have no Aunt Maggies. There have been many times I've done something I didn't want to do for the good of the family though. Also, my elders are often wiser than I am, and I've avoided poor choices because I put family before my own preferences and taken their advice. I know I'm not always (or even  often) right, which is one reason I like to get feedback from people who face issues with which I'm completely unfamiliar - like you.

So, getting back to the original point - do you only do what you want to do (assuming you want to do only things that adhere your your own moral code) or do you not do some of them because you want stay where you are and not deal with social backlash? Do you enjoy naked dancing in public?

Making the choices a little simpler (simplistic maybe):
1. The cost of accepting any social norm is too high: You do only what you want to do, assuming you're a rational person and a) the things you want to do and b) the things you think are ok to do from the standpoint of your moral code, are one and the same. No one can tell you what to do.

2. Accept social norms only if the cost is not too high. You do mostly what you want to do (with the proviso above) but if what you want to do is not acceptable to others and not doing it will have no significant effect on the quality of your life, you do what is acceptable. Others can tell you what to do if it does not have a significant impact on your quality of life or your moral outlook.

3. Accept only social norms; the cost of any individual opinion is too high: You either never do what you want, or you change your moral standards so they mesh with the majority opinion. You accept that others will always tell you what to do, how to behave, and probably how to think.


I think most people have experienced all of these at some point in their lives, especially as children or teenagers. I tend to go mostly option 2. If you really think that no one can tell you what to do, then option 1 is for you (you lone wolf, you!).

No, I'm not even American. Had to joke about the right to kill they neighbour in the most efficient way possible.

lol Are you one of those people like the Republicans who think there is only a portion of 'real' America left in the world? lololololololollololool

Haven't you gun-loving libertarians considered that right to own a gun is a government conspiracy to get rid of free Americans?

If I were the U.S President I would have a nationwide referendum on it or get the states to have a vote but America and the UK etc. have to be the most undemocratic countries I have ever seen, every election it's a matter of which dictator you hate the least rather than just voting for someone who you like and you can't do anything to overturn stupid laws they pass either. I'm seriously considering moving to Switzerland if I can ever get the money to and I won't care if I have to learn a second language either.

I agree. What works for one country is not guaranteed to work for another. However I'm still not sold on which strategy - stringent gun control, no gun control, or somewhere in between -  will work best in the US.

You know it's interesting, I'm looking at countries other than the U.S which allow for gun ownership and Serbia of all places has almost 3,000,000 guns in civilian hands despite being a small country, the homicide rate seems to be much lower there than in the U.S if the data on this site is to be believed, the amount of guns held in government hands? 789,000, yep they barely have 1,000,000 you'd think with the logic you guys keep pulling the government would have rounded the civilian weaponry up but nope.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/serbia

I don't hear news about mass murder-suicide happening constantly over there so maybe the problem isn't guns, the problem is Americans.


Interesting no?

Sorry, missed this gem.

I didn't mix anything. I asked if you were as influenced by laws that you agree with as laws with which you disagree. Well done avoiding the question, though. You start by making a non-sequitur, and procede with an ad-hominem attack, all so you hope no one notices you've avoided the question.

I've had rational discussions with both the pro and anti gun forum members. I am enjoying one with Holliday right now. If someone questions you about your views, it's much better to think about the question than react emotionally. If someone asks a question you simply can't answer, why not sit back, think about it for a while and make sure the other person hasn't misunderstood you or that you haven't written clearly. Address issues you think need addressing and then write your response.

If you want to present your own moral code in a way that others can understand, then don't quit because the discussion gets difficult.

On the other hand if nothing on earth can make you change your mind, then you don't want a discussion - you want a back slap for being "one of us". In this case it's better not to post.

No, earlier, when I said I couldn't find a pro-gay reference in the link, you pointed out in big letters "PRO HOMOSEXUAL".

Therefore you have already said you equate "gay" with "homosexual". Now you are equating "homosexual" with illogical, emotional, brainwashed sheeple.

Some logic would be good here, conspirosphere.tk.


I still don't know what pro gay means. Either you want to discourage homosexuality, or you don't care about other people's sexual habits, or you actively indulge in them.

As far as I can tell, it's an illogical term unless one is gay in which case it's simpler to say "gay".

As I've said many many times, I'm not anti gun control in the US. I am however very much anti wooly and illogical thinking.

No: for me anyone for gun "control" (ban) is "gay" meaning illogical, emotional, brainwashed sheeple.


You are mixing social and legal norms, making a mess and trying to be specious again. So its better to leave you trolling by yourself.


No. Neither I am pro gay (I don't care if that is that mandatory according your politically correct party line).

No, they aren't. If no one informs you of social norms, then you can only do what you think is right. Unless you have a masochistic moral code, then the things you want to do are the things that are right. Therefore, if no one informs you of social norms, you will only do things you want to do.




No, I wouldn't murder anyone because I think it's wrong. But I would like to dance down the street naked once in a while (who wouldn't?). I don't think it's wrong to be naked in public once in a while. However my neighbours wouldn't enjoy the spectacle, so I wont dance naked in public because I have to live with my neighbours.

Perhaps you're not following me or I've not been clear. Let's start with a simple example. Your mum tells you you'd better be nice to Aunt Maggie because, although she's a mean old tyrant she's part of the family. You think mean old Aunt Maggie shouldn't spend Christmas with your family because she causes trouble, and you don't want to fake being nice to her.

Do you do what your mum asks even though you think it's against what you think is the right thing to do? I hope you do what mum says because mum is family, and being in a family involves some give and take.

My point is that we all have to do things we don't want to do ( and not do things we'd like to do ) for the good of the society in which we live. If you act in a way that your society finds offensive, do you continue in that manner anyway and incur ostracism?

So it's ok to do anything you want, just because you want to do it. No moral, legal, or societal code can encourage you do other than what you want? And that's ok for you?

I really do doubt that. I think, like most normal people, you really do care what your peers think of you. I'm certain your peers will sway your judgement when it comes to doing things you don't want to do, or not doing things you might feel like doing.

So anyone who does not discriminate against gays is gay? Very poor logic there sonny. I am disappoint.


So you've decided that no one has the right to tell you what to do. That's rather egotistical of you, isn't it? You do belong to some society? Or are you a unibomber-esque loner who enjoys only his own companies and does not care what society thinks of him?

Or, more likely, is it that you're happy to be regulated by laws you agree with, but not by laws you disagree with?

I have no position either for or against gun control in the US. I do have a position against muddy thinking, as well as illogical and specious arguments - such as yours.

For the record, are you anti-homosexual?

For me it implies that they were just gays. Anyway, I find very unintelligent to be "regulated" by anyone -of the gay lobby or not-, especially if the "regulation" is based on illogical and specious arguments.

Ah, I searched only for the term you mentioned - pro gay.

Did you read the paper the article links to? It also doesn't really explain what pro-homosexual means, except that it implies some acceptance of gays. The opposing viewpoint would be rejection of gays. Not a very liberal attitude. Or are you of a more fascist right wing ideology?

The term "pro gay" is mentioned nowhere in the article. Is it a term you made up - are you afraid of the gays?