Guns, Guns, Guns.
POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Monday, June 30, 2025 05:56
VIEWED: 46757
PAGE 9 of 44
If a government says YES, you say NO. If a government says THIS, you say THAT. If a government says I AM, you say, I WILL MAKE YOU TO BE NOT. That's being reflexively anti-government, which Frem demonstrates, in spades. Anything from the government, of the government, by the government he's agin' (except where he recently has grudgingly allowed government may have some limited uses.)
But WHAT IF the people - the vast, vast majority - chose to have a government? WHAT IF the people - the vast, vast majority - direct their government to conform some portion of social rules to their demands? What if the people actually freely CHOOSE the form of their society? Isn't that a true exercise of freedom? Looking at options and freely making choices rather than living by the governance of larger forces more organized than you are? Frem - and Anthony and others - are against that. They are against the society of people making free choices in the construction of their own society. Because they can NOT allow that a people may freely choose to put some limits on guns, or arms in general.
Getting back to Frem specifically, I think we all realize that his background has formed a unique perspective. That perspective is HIGHLY emotional - not logical, not historical, not social. And yet he prescribes his individually meaningful emotions onto society AS IF they were applicable to all. AS IF they're a model for everyone. They're not. As deeply felt as they are, they're not based on anything other than one individual's feelings. I think people have been trying to get Frem to broaden his perspective just a touch, to step outside of his own reactions and understand that there are other reactions equally deeply felt and just as valid.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, that's NOT what the Founders had in mind, when the penned the 2nd Amendment. Govt is suppose to be kept in check by the citizens, at the ballot box. As well as abide by the laws of the land. It's when that govt becomes tyrannical, and starts to over step its bounds, ignoring the will of the people and the laws, that the people are obligated to defend themselves, and their freedoms.
Read the amendment again. What the they had in mind was keeping militias ready for state and national defense. Not to keep the government in check.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Leave American citizens to read and know their own constitution , and the minds of the Founders, a bit better than Australians.
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Not sure what part of 'well regulated militia' you don't understand.
ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If a government says YES, you say NO. If a government says THIS, you say THAT. If a government says I AM, you say, I WILL MAKE YOU TO BE NOT. That's being reflexively anti-government, which Frem demonstrates, in spades. Anything from the government, of the government, by the government he's agin' (except where he recently has grudgingly allowed government may have some limited uses.)
Hello,
If someone admits that government has some use, they aren't anti government. They may be anti the current government. They are probably anti government abuses of the people. And when armed with dozens of cases of government malfeasance and inappropriate action, they may have a reason to doubt government's good intentions much of the time.
Quote:
But WHAT IF the people - the vast, vast majority - chose to have a government? WHAT IF the people - the vast, vast majority - direct their government to conform some portion of social rules to their demands? What if the people actually freely CHOOSE the form of their society? Isn't that a true exercise of freedom? Looking at options and freely making choices rather than living by the governance of larger forces more organized than you are? Frem - and Anthony and others - are against that. They are against the society of people making free choices in the construction of their own society. Because they can NOT allow that a people may freely choose to out some limits on guns, or arms in general.
Wow. You're making a lot of leaps. The first leap you make is that the majority of people can't infringe on the freedoms of a minority. History shows pretty clearly that they can and do.
The second leap you make is that anyone is against anyone else making choices about their government. Opposing bad choices is not the same as opposing the ability to make choices. You are confusing someone saying 'hell no' to a bad idea with someone saying 'hell no' to making choices.
The people of the United States have methods available to them to influence policy. They use them, on both sides of pretty much any issue.
Quote:
Getting back to Frem specifically, I think we all realize that his background has formed a unique perspective. That perspective is HIGHLY emotional - not logical, not historical, not social. And yet he prescribes his individually meaningful emotions onto society AS IF they were applicable to all. AS IF they're a model for everyone. They're not. As deeply felt as they are, they're not based on anything other than one individual's feelings. I think people have been trying to get Frem to broaden his perspective just a touch, to step outside of his own reactions and understand that there are other reactions equally deeply felt and just as valid.
Well, there's a lot of people who don't consider Frem's views valid at all. So what are you asking for when you ask him to understand that the views of others are 'equally valid?' Should he scoff at them with equal vigor?
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AnthonyT
Frem would prefer no government at all. That's his basic position. If pressed he may grudgingly admit that government can do some useful things at present - test foods for safety, test for pollution, and so forth. But only until he thinks he can find a way to do those things without government. His basic position is that there should be no government.
"The first leap you make is that the majority of people can't infringe on the freedoms of a minority. History shows pretty clearly that they can and do."
And that's where the Constitution comes in. It's supposed to be the limit on what things can't be removed, even by the will of the majority. That's why there are so many Constitutional arguments.
But let's take that further. WHAT IF there are limits placed on a minority by the majority that are deemed Constitutional (not an infringement on basic 'rights')? It happens all the time. Do you propose that such a thing is necessarily bad? Or do you think that it's simply the people exercising their freedom to form their society as they wish?
"Opposing bad choices is not the same as opposing the ability to make choices."
Unless the argument is a 'cold dead hands' argument which says you have no right to make ANY decision which infringes on MY GUNS in ANY WAY. That absolutist argument opposes any socially made decision as invalid - and invalidates society’s right to make any decisions at all.
As for Frem - and you - who have equally strong emotions on guns - I think I understand both of you. I think I understand your positions. I think I understand where they come from. I think I can project your opinions onto society and see how they play out in a larger context. I think I have a broader perspective than either of you, who seem to have no understanding at all of my opinions. As a specific example. All I'm saying is that it wold be kinda' nice if the two of you could get out of your mental rut that you've worn far too deep.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Not sure what part of 'well regulated militia' you don't understand.
What part of ' the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed' escapes you ?
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmmm ... the part where it's conditioned on a 'well regulated militia'.
ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
That's being reflexively anti-government, which Frem demonstrates, in spades.
No, he actually doesn't. I don't know if you remember Frem saying this, but he's had dust ups with other anarchists because they lean a little more towards wanting to force the issue through collateral damage. Your vision of Frem and Anthony are not the real Frem and Anthony. Your vision of them is only the product of your fears.
Quote:
AS IF they were applicable to all. AS IF they're a model for everyone. They're not.
He's never represented otherwise. Good thing too, I know full well that I'm quite a bit like Frem, and that all of you think our attitude is unhealthy.
All Frem has said is that he will fight you, to the death, if you try to take his weapons on an individual basis. While that does appear to spill over to his opinion about gun control in general, ultimately it is not one single person, it is not FREM or ANTHONY who is holding up the gun control your country so desperately wants. And you are not the axe hovering over their heads, waiting to drop.
They are standing up for their beliefs same as you, and they have every right to, and just standing up for those beliefs and speaking them is NOT the same as personally oppressing you with guns or forcing you to accept guns. Just as you standing up for your beliefs is not demanding they hand all their defenses over to cower naked in a cellar while the police surround them.
Quote:
As for Frem - and you - who have equally strong emotions on guns - I think I understand both of you. I think I understand your positions. I think I understand where they come from. I think I can project your opinions onto society and see how they play out in a larger context. I think I have a broader perspective than either of you, who seem to have no understanding at all of my opinions.
You all - Anthony, Frem, 1kiki - have demonstrated none of you have absolutely any IDEA what the other side is talking about, both pro-gun control and anti-gun control, let alone that any of you understand each other AT ALL.
Frem calls you liars and hypocrites, and you call him and Anthony authoritarians. It's a hopeless business. You all know full well that none of you are ANY of those things, yet one argument has everyone tossing those insults around like knives in a juggling contest.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Frem would prefer no government at all. That's his basic position. If pressed he may grudgingly admit that government can do some useful things at present - test foods for safety, test for pollution, and so forth. But only until he thinks he can find a way to do those things without government. His basic position is that there should be no government.
Hello,
I think that depends on what you mean by 'no government.' Having listened to Frem carefully over the years, I've come to the conclusion that he actually advocates for a style of community governance that is simply vastly different than what we currently have. When I've pressed him on his views, I've learned that he does not actually favor chaos. Just a very different system of decision making and community management.
Quote:
And that's where the Constitution comes in. It's supposed to be the limit on what things can't be removed, even by the will of the majority. That's why there are so many Constitutional arguments.
Agreed. The Constitution's Bill of Rights is meant to prevent society from making certain decisions on behalf of itself, unless a startling majority have jumped off the deep end and there is a constitutional amendment to excise a right.
Quote:
But let's take that further. WHAT IF there are limits placed on a minority by the majority that are deemed Constitutional (not an infringement on basic 'rights')? It happens all the time. Do you propose that such a thing is necessarily bad? Or do you think that it's simply the people exercising their freedom to form their society as they wish?
Decisions by the majority which are not deemed to infringe on basic rights are much less likely to be bad. Although it's possible to utterly miscalculate when something is infringing on basic rights. We have a history of that, too.
Quote:
Unless the argument is a 'cold dead hands' argument which says you have no right to make ANY decision which infringes on MY GUNS in ANY WAY. That absolutist argument opposes any socially made decision as invalid - and invalidates society’s right to make nay decisions at all.
This is no different than saying that government has no right to your reproductive system. When you make a stance in defense of your rights, you generally make those stances strict and absolute. Society may trample on you anyway, but how should that change your position on the subject? Frem and I have both lived under a broad and idiotic weapons ban in the past, so I'm not sure what you're thinking?
Quote:
As for Frem - and you - who have equally strong emotions on guns - I think I understand both of you. I think I understand your positions. I think I understand where they come from. I think I can project your opinions onto society and see how they play out in a larger context. I think I have a broader perspective than either of you, who seem to have no understanding at all of my opinions. As a specific example. All I'm saying is that it wold be kinda' nice if the two of you could get out of your mental rut that you've worn far too deep.
Do you think your position is misunderstood? That Frem and I have a lack of imagination to understand what you want and why? That we can not extrapolate your position into real world scenarios? That we don't, in fact, have ample real life examples of exactly the kinds of gun controls you may advocate? Do you mistake yourself that we can see these horrible incidents without thinking that something has to be done about this? That we do not ourselves have the thought that reasonable gun controls might prevent some of these incidents?
You are seen by us just as much as you see us.
The problem isn't that you are ignored or invisible or outside the scope of our imagination.
You look at us, understand us, weigh our arguments and concerns, measure their validity, and find them lacking in several particulars.
This,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sorry, but you're wrong. Leave American citizens to read and know their own constitution , and the minds of the Founders, a bit better than Australians.
I'm an American. The forth amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Pretty clear.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME