Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11
Results 201 to 208 of 208
  1. #201
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,324
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Indeed we took the guns, they had been using them to wreak havoc on their neighbors and on us. Seems a reasonable thing to do. And it's worked pretty nicely ever since. Taking guns away when people misuse them seems pretty rational to me. It was not some prelude to terrible oppression or exploitation.

    I guess that wasn't quite the story per Belthazor. You have a subservient public and they have been pretty aggressive towards other nations historically.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Lots of Americans don't own any guns and would like to live peacefully. Is being American tantamount to enjoying violence and crime? I'd be happy to see America as a less violent place. Better I think, much better in fact. Should we trust the government? To a degree. If you don't you should be an anarchist. The government is made up 100% of other Americans and it's chosen 100% by Americans. If we don't trust it at all it means we don't trust ourselves at all.

    This is a false set of choices. Gun ownership has no correlation with a desire to live peacefully. Being American means owning a certain amount of responsibility for one's own freedom and happiness. And that includes the right to own a firearm. Whether it be to defend one's home, to hunt, to collect, or for fear of the government, it is a fundamental right protected by our Constitution.

    And sure, our government is made up of Americans. And we don't trust them because we know that with enough power, most of us wouldn't be trustworthy and history defends this world view. Nazi Germany was made up of Democratically elected Germans. Venezuela's government consists of elected Venezuelans. The very existence of our Constitution is an expression of our mistrust of the men who we elect. It is why we have set the confines of government and why we have a bill of rights. The founders (some of them) didn't trust themselves. And I get it Sig. You have an almost childlike faith in government. And I don't mean that perjoratively. We have had similar discussion and you almost always defend those who are in govt and stand up for them. That's fine. It just isn't everyone's view. Hence, I am glad we have a right to own guns.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Carry that attitude forward and you end up saying that we should never learn or change, that perhaps we are perfect and incapable of improvement. Its rubbish I think.

    If other people do something better than you, you should learn from them. Being violent jerks is not our inherent strength. I'd say our real strength is our embrace of change and progress over dogma and tradition.
    Sure, IF other people do something better. I am not about to concede that the Japanese are a more peaceful people than we are because of their stance on private gun ownership. They have launched multiple wars of outright imperialism within the last century. It took a really big bomb (arguably two of them) to get them to express a more pacifistic global policy. Whose system is working better and who is more peaceful? Or do only the last couple of decades count?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  2. Likes mican333, Belthazor liked this post
  3. #202
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,012
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I am not about to concede that the Japanese are a more peaceful people than we are because of their stance on private gun ownership.
    I missed the significance of this point the first time I read it and it needs to be repeated, apparently often......

  4. #203
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,365
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I guess that wasn't quite the story per Belthazor. You have a subservient public and they have been pretty aggressive towards other nations historically.
    Not especially compared with any other culture. Imperial Japan was more an anomaly than a constant theme. They have had historical wars with China and Korea. But what nation with a 1000+ year history doesn't have such events?

    The fact is, Japan has the kind of low crime society that remains desired but elusive in America. And one result of that is they don't see much purpose for owning guns at home much less carrying them in public.

    This is a false set of choices. Gun ownership has no correlation with a desire to live peacefully.
    I disagree. Anyone who wishes to live a life of violence should probably get themselves a gun. It is a highly effective weapon. If you have no desire to engage in violence, then there are far fewer reasons to own a gun. What you should say is there is not a necessary cause between the two. But... there is a correlation. The people who die most from violence are gang members. Many gang members own firearms. This alone creates a strong correlation in the overall statistics.

    This does not mean any given gun owner is violent. But, violence and guns (or any weapon) go hand in hand, that is what they were designed for after all.

    Whether it be to defend one's home, to hunt, to collect, or for fear of the government, it is a fundamental right protected by our Constitution.
    Indeed, and that attitude is part and parcel of why America cannot shake its high level of violence compared to other countries with a similar level of development and wealth. The idea that we need to be ready for violence makes us ready for violence.

    And sure, our government is made up of Americans. And we don't trust them because we know that with enough power, most of us wouldn't be trustworthy and history defends this world view.
    Yet the people that support gun ownership tend to be the same people that support the massive US military spending and dominance. And they tend to be the people that support militarised police and strict violent punishment for breaking social rules. If the belief is truly that power is inherently dangerous, why do they so often support the most violent apparatus of political power? I think this talk of corruption and the danger of power is just lip service. It doesn't comport with actual behavior.

    What does is the belief that violence is the best tool to settle moral disagreement and so all agents must be ready and able to engage in violence at all times. If you truly distrust political power, don't give politicians political power or more importantly, the martial means to enforce that power. Why are these so-called small government people so rarely in favor of disarming the government? I find it especially foolish because they will never have enough martial power to actually oppose the government if it did become oppressive.

    It is why we have set the confines of government and why we have a bill of rights.
    Indeed, the rule of law. That people follow the law is what we trust. It is just a piece of paper ultimately. It is only the trust that people will obey what is written there that gives it any power at all. It is what we call rule of law. The government's job is to enforce and build upon it. If you don't trust them to some extent to follow the law then there is no law. Wisely, we structure power in balance so that it is difficult for any one person or any small group to control all the levers of power. But... with sufficient conspiracy, there is still nothing but paper between you and tyranny, and any personal firearm won't amount to jack squat when the police or military comes for you.

    So it is faith in the law and faith in people charged to uphold it that is the foundation for society.

    And I get it Sig. You have an almost childlike faith in government. And I don't mean that pejoratively. We have had similar discussion and you almost always defend those who are in govt and stand up for them. That's fine. It just isn't everyone's view.
    You really don't get it. I don't have any special faith in Government. I see the government as just people who have power. There are all kinds of people with all kinds of power. I trust them all about the same. I have to have some trust or it would be most rational to kill them all or myself. That's no way to live. Trusting is a good way to live. It cannot be unlimited because people are not universally good. But you need to at least start from a position of trust and then move towards one of distrust when your trust is broken. Many people seem to think the Government is some alien entity, not like themselves. But the truth is it is just more of themselves. The same human strengths and failings. I only defend the government as being human and a natural extension of social organization. Some governments are mostly good, and some are mostly evil, and all of them are human.

    Hence, I am glad we have a right to own guns.
    And I don't really care if we do or not. But I think that many Americans who own guns do so for foolish reasons. Unfortunately, that makes them more dangerous fools.


    Sure, IF other people do something better. I am not about to concede that the Japanese are a more peaceful people than we are because of their stance on private gun ownership.
    Good, because THAT ISN'T MY ARGUMENT. How many times do I have to say this before it penetrates peoples brains? I will resort to all caps until people stop with this strawman.

    My argument is.....
    JAPANESE CULTURE IS MORE PEACEFUL AND TRUSTING AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T LIKE GUNS AS MUCH AS WE DO. IF WE HAD MORE TRUST WE WOULD HAVE FEWER GUNS AND LESS VIOLENCE.

    They have launched multiple wars of outright imperialism within the last century.
    So did Germany, Italy, China, Russia, and England. And in the past nearly all of Europe. And America had its own wars of expansion and conquest as well if farther back. But it doesn't matter because we are not talking about being pacifists, we are talking about social trust within a society. We are talking about using guns to murder one another, not to engage in war. We are discussing civilian gun ownership, civic violence, crime, and personal safety.

    ---------- Post added at 11:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Most Americans that own guns DO live peacefully!
    Since there is roughly one gun per person in America, if life here were the way you describe, murders by guns would be exponentially higher!
    They are exponentially higher than in other countries where crime is very low. America's murder rate is 5.35 per 100K people. Japan's is 0.28 per 100K people. That's a hell of a lot lower, exponential in fact. Are guns to blame? No. American attitudes and culture are to blame. And that same culture loves guns.

    Now if you could show disarming Americans would necessarily lead to a more peaceful/respectful society you would have a great point!
    OK, you get the Caps treatment too. THAT IS NOT MY ARGUMENT. I NEVER ARGUED TAKING AWAY GUNS WOULD MAKE US PEACEFUL. I SAID IF WE WERE PEACEFUL WE WOULD NOT WANT SO MANY GUNS.

    IOW, guns in and of themselves DO NOT cause violence, period!
    Yes, I did say that, so WHY DO YOU KEEP ARGUING AS IF I SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. #204
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,012
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Not especially compared with any other culture. Imperial Japan was more an anomaly than a constant theme. They have had historical wars with China and Korea.
    GREAT (disappointing) misdirection (you know, trying to deflect a point rather than not being able to answer it) but Ibelsd's comment was to point out you are totally incorrect about how/when the Japanese restricted gun ownership. It was not because the US after WWII, as you said:
    " Indeed we took the guns, they had been using them to wreak havoc on their neighbors and on us. Seems a reasonable thing to do. And it's worked pretty nicely ever since."




    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The fact is, Japan has the kind of low crime society that remains desired but elusive in America.
    True, now if you could just tie that in with owning a gun makes a society more/less likely to commit a crime, you would have something.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I disagree. Anyone who wishes to live a life of violence should probably get themselves a gun. It is a highly effective weapon. If you have no desire to engage in violence, then there are far fewer reasons to own a gun.
    Gun ownership does not correlate to violent behavior, you need to support this or STOP saying it because it is an unsupported claim!



    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    This does not mean any given gun owner is violent. But, violence and guns (or any weapon) go hand in hand, that is what they were designed for after all.
    You keep saying this, but have yet to support it at all!!
    Please support that all guns/gun ownership was/were designed for violence against humans.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Yet the people that support gun ownership tend to be the same people that support the massive US military spending and dominance. And they tend to be the people that support militarised police and strict violent punishment for breaking social rules.
    Support this if you can, with MORE than an emotional response. Your entire post is one HUGE EMOTIONAL response!



    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    They are exponentially higher than in other countries where crime is very low. America's murder rate is 5.35 per 100K people. Japan's is 0.28 per 100K people. That's a hell of a lot lower, exponential in fact. Are guns to blame? No. American attitudes and culture are to blame. And that same culture loves guns.
    You will note that the US is actually in the middle of the murder rate worldwide and we have MORE GUNS THAN AYNONE!!!!!! :O (a little levity there, please don't jump on my subtle attempt at humor):
    https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...y-country.html

    and once again, most murder/violence does NOT INVOLVE A GUN!
    (since you like caps when a point is thought to be ignored)

    Also, if you care to take just a few cities out of the equation, the US murder rate drops like a rock, though you won't want ot discuss that since those cities are bastions of liberalism....
    https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...y-country.html



    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    OK, you get the Caps treatment too. THAT IS NOT MY ARGUMENT. I NEVER ARGUED TAKING AWAY GUNS WOULD MAKE US PEACEFUL. I SAID IF WE WERE PEACEFUL WE WOULD NOT WANT SO MANY GUNS.
    Well this is an Op about "taking away guns"/restricting gun ownership, so if you "NEVER" argued about that you are spamming the thread aren't you?

    But to your OVERSTATED APPEAL TO EMOTION INSTEAD OF SUPPORTING YOUR ARGUMENT!!!....
    Well, to have an argument you need support of some kind or it is just your emotional opinion isn't it?....

    So (per you);
    1. Taking guns away/limiting ownership would not necessarily make a more peaceful society
    2. Guns are not a cause of violence

    And (per me)
    1. Most violence does NOT INVOLVE A GUN! Can you understand this? I gave you recent stat's that show this is true.
    2. If limiting gun ownership does not necessarily lower violence then what is the motive to take ownership away?
    3. You have not in any way supported that guns were made and owned PRIMARILY for violence against other humans!
    4. There is virtually one gun per person in the US, if the primary reason to own one was for violence against humans, guns would vastly outweigh other tools of violence. MOST violence does not involve a GUN!


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Yes, I did say that, so WHY DO YOU KEEP ARGUING AS IF I SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT?
    Because this is an Op about limiting gun ownership and your emotional outburst show you think that a peaceful society would not/could not own guns is na´ve since you have already acknowledged there are many, many reasons one might own a gun that don't involve violence against another human.


    So.....

    maybe put your caps lock away for at least a bit,...take a walk (no coffee for god's sake!!!), think about what you are trying to argue, make your point and THEN:

    support it with more than emotion!.....

    Can you do that?
    Last edited by Belthazor; May 19th, 2019 at 10:13 PM.

  6. #205
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,365
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Before I start, read your own post and see how many times you make personal rhetorical attacks on me. I bet if I'd said them to you, you would find them offensive or evidence of my emotional state. So read it, imagine I'd said it to you, and think on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    GREAT (disappointing) misdirection (you know, trying to deflect a point rather than not being able to answer it) but Ibelsd's comment was to point out you are totally incorrect about how/when the Japanese restricted gun ownership. It was not because the US after WWII, as you said:
    " Indeed we took the guns, they had been using them to wreak havoc on their neighbors and on us. Seems a reasonable thing to do. And it's worked pretty nicely ever since."
    1. We outlawed Japanese ownership guns and swords when we took over Japan, this is an established fact. (yes they have had restrictions on firearms in the past, but the current laws were put in place by the US)
    2. We also outlawed them from using force for international disputes and maintaining a military capable of aggressive action, it is in their constitution at our insistence.
    3. None of it matters to my argument in this thread. You two just bring it up because you want to say Japan is also violent. But war is not the topic of discussion here so just drop it.

    True, now if you could just tie that in with owning a gun makes a society more/less likely to commit a crime, you would have something.
    THAT IS NOT MY ARGUMENT

    Gun ownership does not correlate to violent behavior, you need to support this or STOP saying it because it is an unsupported claim!
    73% of US murders in 2016 were with guns. So being if you are a murderer you are much more likely to own a gun than not. (indeed we presume some who didn't use one may still have one but everyone who used one certainly did at the time of the murder)

    The assertion is not that putting a gun in your hand makes you a killer, it is that if you are a killer, you will be most likely to want a gun in your hand. I think this point is so obvious that anyone can understand it. If you want to kill people, you want a good weapon to do it with. The best personal weapon is generally a gun. Killers like guns.

    You keep saying this, but have yet to support it at all!!
    I have no evidence that Guns and Violence are connected? What is a gun? It is a tool designed for killing things, usually people or animals. Killing things is violence. Guns and violence are intrinsically linked by the very purpose of a gun. It is a tool for violence.

    This does not mean everyone who owns a gun uses it for violence or intends violence. But that is what a gun is, a weapon. and how do we define a weapon?

    From Websters
    Weapon: " something (such as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy"
    Violence: "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy"

    Support this if you can, with MORE than an emotional response. Your entire post is one HUGE EMOTIONAL response!
    I had no significant emotion other than frustration at the straw man that both of you keep putting forward and which I have to refute in nearly every post.

    There is pretty poor data available on the views of the military by gun owners but there are some well-known facts we can consider.
    1. The GOP is the political party most associated with gun rights, and the DEM party most associated with restricting gun rights
    2. Presumably, most gun owners are in favor of the right to own their firearms.
    3. The GOP is the party most in favor of expanded military spending and the DEM party most associated with restricting military budgets
    4. The GOP is most associated with support for law enforcement and the DEMS most associated with reform of law enforcement

    So we can say that at least the political allegiance of most gun rights advocates is the same as most of the strong military/police advocates.
    Anecdotally I find that in argument gun rights activists are often strong supporters of the military and the police. (a little less with the police than the military but they tend to coincide)
    If you dispute the facts of analysis, by all means, do so.

    You will note that the US is actually in the middle of the murder rate worldwide and we have MORE GUNS THAN AYNONE!!!!!! :O (a little levity there, please don't jump on my subtle attempt at humor):
    https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...y-country.html
    Comparing impoverished Latin American and African nations to America and Japan is not a reasonable comparison for crime rates.

    and once again, most murder/violence does NOT INVOLVE A GUN!
    Most murders and homicides in America do according to FBI statistics.
    Data from FBI: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ables/table-12

    Also, if you care to take just a few cities out of the equation, the US murder rate drops like a rock, though you won't want ot discuss that since those cities are bastions of liberalism....
    You quoted the murder rates by country again here so I don't know what data you are pointing to.
    There are some very high murder rate cities, they are where there is strong gang activity, I discussed this earlier in case you forgot and linked an article about it.
    The fact is, most of those murders were done by people with guns, they like guns. Guns are popular with people who want to do violence like gang members. People who like violence tend to end up dead more often than people who don't in civil society.
    This only reinforces my argument that violent attitudes lead to higher rates of gun ownership.

    Well this is an Op about "taking away guns"/restricting gun ownership, so if you "NEVER" argued about that you are spamming the thread aren't you?
    We already discussed this. Talking about why we like guns is a perfectly reasonable topic. The thread title is "Gun control and your stance." I am explaining my stance. Seems pretty on topic to me. Don't want to discuss my stance? Don't respond to me.

    But to your OVERSTATED APPEAL TO EMOTION INSTEAD OF SUPPORTING YOUR ARGUMENT!!!....
    Where did I appeal to your emotion? I don't recall ever trying to stir up your feelings to change your mind.

    You mistake making general observations with an emotional appeal. General observations are often made without citing some statistic. Citing statistics is not in and of itself a requirement for rational debate.

    So (per you);
    1. Taking guns away/limiting ownership would not necessarily make a more peaceful society
    2. Guns are not a cause of violence
    Sure, true... you should add...

    1. A love of guns is reflective of social distrust and a penchant for revering violence.

    And (per me)
    1. Most violence does NOT INVOLVE A GUN! Can you understand this? I gave you recent stat's that show this is true.
    If you are talking about killing people in America, you are wrong. If you are talking about including a punch in the face, then you are right, but it is irrelevant to the safety most folks feel or don't. Most people in America actually don't own a gun, but among murderers, the rate is pretty high.

    2. If limiting gun ownership does not necessarily lower violence then what is the motive to take ownership away?
    This would be me speculating on others since I don't advocate for taking away ownership.
    They feel safer in a society where people agree not to have guns or other weapons of violence.

    3. You have not in any way supported that guns were made and owned PRIMARILY for violence against other humans!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_firearm
    This Wikipedia article gives examples of the worlds first guns. Shockingly, they are all weapons of war, you know for violence against other humans.
    You yourself said that making a gun unable to kill people would take away its value to you, even if you were just a collector.
    Most of the reasons people have for owning a gun involve violence against a person or an animal.
    Guns are weapons, weapons do violence by definition.

    4. There is virtually one gun per person in the US, if the primary reason to own one was for violence against humans, guns would vastly outweigh other tools of violence. MOST violence does not involve a GUN!
    Yet they are not owned by every person. Indeed around half the guns in the US (owned by citizens) are owned by around 3% of the population. Nearly all those guns are owned for violence against people or animals.

    Tell me why you own a gun, list each reason. I bet most of them are directly or indirectly a case where you would use it for violence.

    Because this is an Op about limiting gun ownership and your emotional outburst show you think that a peaceful society would not/could not own guns is na´ve since you have already acknowledged there are many, many reasons one might own a gun that doesn't involve violence against another human.
    There is no emotional outburst. I am using CAPS when you fail at reading comprehension, not because I am angry. It is designed to make you pay attention when you are failing to pay attention. I'll continue to do it each time someone says that I have failed to prove that taking away guns will reduce violence.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  7. #206
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,012
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Before I start, read your own post and see how many times you make personal rhetorical attacks on me. I bet if I'd said them to you, you would find them offensive or evidence of my emotional state. So read it, imagine I'd said it to you, and think on it.
    My sincere apologies if I came off that way, it certainly was/is not my intention. AS ODN sunsets, I have no desire to be remembered as a troll in my last posts here.

    I am going to PM ODN staff for an unbiased (or as close as we are going to get) opinion.
    I will let you know their response if you like?

    I won't respond to your post until I hear back from ODN staff.

    hope your day goes well,
    Belthazor

  8. #207
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,365
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    My sincere apologies if I came off that way, it certainly was/is not my intention. AS ODN sunsets, I have no desire to be remembered as a troll in my last posts here.
    I'm not personally offended nor do I think you stepped over any boundaries on ODN, I just think you have turned from the topic to discuss me and my style of argument. No one on the staff will chide you for what you wrote.

    I was talking to my wife about this thread. I just find it strange that I present my argument, which is unusual but not hard to grasp, and nearly all the responses are about something else. I get that my argument is not a direct refutation to your OP, but that doesn't mean you can't address it on its own merits instead of trying to steer it to be a rebuttal of your view.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  9. #208
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,324
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Not especially compared with any other culture. Imperial Japan was more an anomaly than a constant theme. They have had historical wars with China and Korea. But what nation with a 1000+ year history doesn't have such events?

    The fact is, Japan has the kind of low crime society that remains desired but elusive in America. And one result of that is they don't see much purpose for owning guns at home much less carrying them in public.
    So, per you. They have a low crime rate because they don't have a lot of guns and they don't have a lot of guns because they have a low crime rate. I don't know if the average Japanese citizen does not own a gun because he does not feel threatened by crime or because gun ownership in Japan has simply never been part of the culture. As for crime itself, Japanese has always had low crime rates. Again, living on an island with a homogeneous population probably explains many of the cultural differences. It should also be noted that Japan's justice system is very different than ours. They have no issue with compelling confessions. A suspect may be held for up to 27 days with minimal contact with a lawyer. And all I'm saying here is that there is an upside and a downside to Japanese culture as it relates to gun ownership. There is cultural aspects in Japan that differ with America's and that makes gun ownership a very different prospect.

    My point is that the very things you admire about Japanese culture, such as their take on gun ownership, is part of a broader tapestry. If we didn't allow guns in the U.S. then we could expect a very different history (and future). Would we have been able to rise up and defeat the 20th century fascists? Would we have had the resolve to see the end of the U.S.S.R.? I can tell you one thing for sure. Japan and their no-gun culture certainly didn't help in these causes. Certainly not the former and, perhaps, minimally on the latter. Would a U.S. without guns and our brand of cowboy individualism achieved half the things we have done? And is there a downside? Sure. We have a high murder rate. We accept a higher level of violence in our entertainment. We have a sort of arrogance that sometimes exceeds our ability. No one is perfect. Nothing is perfect. There is no utopia. I'd love less violent crime here in America. However, some things are not worth the price of peace. Capitulating on our basic freedoms, rights, and responsibilities to allow us to protect ourselves isn't liberating.

    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " - Franklin

    Just hollow words by some old, dead, white guy? Yeah, sure. Maybe. But, I think more than you're willing to admit it suggests that every choice is one of trade-offs. What are you willing to give up?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  10. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
 

 
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11

Similar Threads

  1. There is no tenable stance against gay marriage
    By Zhavric in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 207
    Last Post: August 2nd, 2011, 09:57 AM
  2. Your stance on overpopulation
    By Xanadu Moo in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: August 13th, 2007, 08:11 AM
  3. Something from nothing: the THEIST stance.
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: May 16th, 2007, 07:27 AM
  4. Abortion Stance
    By Meng Bomin in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: October 21st, 2004, 09:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •