Topic: In the gun debate who do you think is the most stupid? - page 4. (Read 15507 times)

Indeed I do. But that is not the same as the scenario I posited there, now is it?

We have it on record in this forum (unless you go delete your posts) that you indeed favor an AnCap society in which everyone may keep nuclear bombs with zero regulation.

There is no debate because one side doesn't have a leg to stand on. That was my point. There is nothing to understand here except that one side sees the reality for what it is and acts accordingly and the other side doesn't and instead clings on to some sort of a fantasy and acts irrationally and I call that the most stupid thing one can possibly do.

I never said the pro gun side on the other hand isn't stupid. No the vast majority of them are stupid too because they let themselves being goaded into arguing with irrational people instead of just standing their ground and may the irrational do whatever.

Eventually that is what it will come down to. Either the pro gun stand their ground and defend their position even if it means by any means necessary or the irrational side will win and force the pro gun side to give up their weapons. There's no other way to resolve a dispute with irrational people, cause they're irrational. You defend yourself against them or they win.

You cannot be this stupid and still dress yourself in the morning. This was intended to illustrate to a rational person the level of fear which you live in that someone, somewhere, owns a pistol.


And did so to answer the question posed in the title. See the top part of this post for further evidence of Hazek's position, that the gun control nuts are not just the most stupid participants in the debate (or even just the only stupid participants) but are actually insane.

No, I do not know exactly. No, it is not my first language. Do you have a problem with that?


Let me understand, you are saying that I accused you to posses an 'evil/bad/harmful' weapon because users are arguing for the benefits of gun control?

At no moment I even came near to suggest that.

Let me remind you the premise from organofcorti: 'Sure. But if you didn't own a gun, you wouldn't feel safe.'

This is your premise: 'I don't believe that is generally true.  It's certainly not true for myself.  I've never felt unsafe, before or after owning firearms. All my firearms spend the vast majority of their time locked in a rather large safe, because they are valuable. The rest of the time, they are shooting at paper. I don't hunt, myself.(...) and the rifle is the king of personal weapons.  I'm a sheepdog among a flock of sheep, and I'm fully aware of that.'

My observation: 'Then, because you do not hunt (and therefore, you do not kill), you can safely transfer back to you the moral conduct and avoid any criticism. In other words, when your premise can become target of criticism you assign your conduct to the firearm, when your premise cannot become target of criticism you do not assign your conduct to the firearm.'

I did not said that you "has done something illegal or wrong", even less that you firearms are 'evil/bad/harmful'. I am showing off how you act in the debate to avoid criticism. You even proclaimed that a weapon is 'the king of personal weapons'.

So, yourself assigned human or moral qualities to the firearms, not me.

Get it over!


You indeed made an attempt to justify your firearm ownership: 'The military culture was not for me either, but I do enjoy shooting, and also understand that the judicious use of force is a cornerstone of civilization; and the rifle is the king of personal weapons. I'm a sheepdog among a flock of sheep, and I'm fully aware of that. Many of those here that defend the personal ownership of weaponry are also sheepdogs.'




This is a forum, do you know that? There is a debate going on here. At no moment I demanded you to present any justification to approve your right to own a firearm. You presented yourself a justification why you own a firearm and I made an observation of your premises.

I said: 'So far I made an observation of how you justify your intent to use the firearms you own.'

You said: 'The rest of the time, they are shooting at paper. I do have a concealed carry license, but rarely carry at all.  I have the weapons, and the license, in the event that I ever do feel that I should need to carry.'

You implied that you have the intent to shooting at papers to entertain yourself. You are showing "to be right or reasonable" your intent to use the firearms you own.



Oh, you are in the debate, but I am not? So the "sheepdog" metaphor is just a joke?


Really? So you are just fooling around?

'I'm not anti-gun because I joined the USMC at 17, partialy out of rebellion to my childhood.'



I still have the right to criticize your actions and arguments in this forum. Do you have a problem with that?



An article with self-prediction elements... How pathetic. I should write one of these one day and then use in a debates here:


There is no such thing of 'practical utilization of your rights'.

I do not require your approval to honor rights which you pretend I have. You are not in a position to dictate what rights I have.


I said: 'I am comfortable with this lack of right because it is not just applied over me.'

So from this premise, you made a whole straw man argument.

How funny you are!

I still have the right of self-defense and I voluntary agree with society that men and women in uniforms can protect me.

You know what is really funny?

'You might not like the idea that we are around, but we are necessary for your peaceful society to continue to exist; whether or not we may be wearing a uniform.'

So, what is what, Moonshadow? Is the individual entitled or not entitled to feel 'safe and protected by the uniformed sheepdogs'?


Well, I did not admitted that. Moreover, I still can argue with basic knowledge about a subject.


Wow.. Now at least you presented logical explanations for simple questions.

I am glad for your choices and for your knowledge of firearms.

Well done.

Or you are just mocking me?

Of course it was. And this thread is about poking fun at emotional slanging matches that don't add anything useful to the debate. Don't misconstrue my comment as being pro gun control, it was solely that hazek made the type of comment the OP created the thread to ridicule in the first place.

Unless it was a piss-take and hazek is actually pro gun control?

Is that your dream?

Not really, but it wasn't meant to add anything new, or really explain anything to anyone. It was ridicule, pure and simple. To understand the anti-gun control position, ask Thomas Jefferson:

 "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

To understand the pro-gun control position, imagine that everyone is carrying around an armed, ready to blow, rain-triggered nuclear explosive strapped to their hip. That should get you close to the level of fear.

From the OP:


I was referring to the fact that hazek was not adding anything new to the debate, and he was doing it in a rude and shouty manner. Do you honestly think that sort of post helps anyone understand either point of view?

The topic is which side is more stupid. He made a clear argument that the "anti-gun" side is the stupid one, specifically that rather than eliminate the tools they seek to eliminate, what they will be doing is concentrating the ownership of those tools in the hands of a political elite, and that the idea that a piece of paper can stop someone from acquiring a tool is absurd.

You've gotta love the stupidity of someone who makes inflammatory posts in a thread about the stupidity of making inflammatory posts.

It doesn't get more stupid than that. 

You got to love the stupidity of the position that some words on a piece of paper will stop evil people from getting the tools they want to do evil shit with. Not to mention they need a whole other group of thugs armed precisely with the tools they want to get rid of to enforce those words.

It doesn't get more stupid than that. 

http://cogitansiuvenis.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-america-really-more-violent-than.html

Here's the last paragraph...


What I find most ironic about that last sentence, is that the home that I own is "hardened"; including (but not limited to) the use of wrought iron grating on the ground level windows.  A further irony, is that I didn't do it.  It's a 'historical' home, built in 1905, and protected in it's current form by zoning laws that limit what I can do to alter the house itself.  Whoever built it, however, was very concerned about the physical security of the second & third floors.  I would not be surprised at all to eventually discover a well hidden safe in here someday.  Even the choice of construction materials favors a secure home, as the method of wall plaster is one that used an expanded steel meshing, but a mesh gauge that is thicker than was the norm, thus making a hammer hole access to circumvent a locked door very difficult when compared to modern construction techniques.  The stairwell is enclosed, offering zero access to the upper floors without passing through an internal security door with it's own deadbolt, that we use nightly.  The stairwell is straight, and there is a door immediately to one side at the top of the stairwell, offering a right handed shooter the ability to fire down the stairwell from the cover of the heavy wooden doorjam, and the ability to lock an intruder out of two of the second floor bedrooms and prevent ready access to the third floor stairwell with another lockable security door.  If the concept of a "panic room" had been invented by 1905, I have no doubt that this house would have had one.

The house's inherently designed security features are one of the reasons that I bought it, and was apparently one of the reasons that the last owner bought it also; for I was told after buying it (both by an old neighbor and a veteran beat cop) that the last owner (who died in the house) was a notorious pimp, and the cops were aware of the difficulty in raiding the home fast enough to aquire any actionable evidence of prostitution, and would not bother most of the time.  I imagine the idea of a forced entry raid into that home, considering the nature of the stairwell, wasn't a particularly inviting idea either; should the crazy old pimp decide that suicide-by-cop was preferable to natural causes.  In the end, he died of smoke inhalation from a fire, which may have actually been suicide by arson.  Fortunately for the firemen, he was considerate enough to leave the doors unlocked.

This is a great one:

Check out his posters.  Notice, also, that many of them are sub-texted in Russian.  The owner & author of that website, and photographer of the many photos, was born in the former USSR.  He has, more or less, dedicated his adult life to highlighting the BS to his own former countrymen.

I have never met anyone who was more passionate about their own individual rights than those who were not born in the United States.  Most seem to take their newly respected rights to heart, and any threats to those rights very personally.

That's a great site. I particularly like the survey if you click "a liability." If any of the pro-centralization of gun ownership people here would like to share their answers, I think it would be illuminating for all of us.

Yes, literally.  Do you know what the term 'literary license' means?  Is English your first language?


I beg your pardon, but what are you talking about? What is exactly the accusation?