Why The American Revolution Is Not A Model For Gun Ownership

[darsenfeld]

lulz..  i'm not sure if I should believe that.

But yes, I contend gangs per their lifestyle use guns.  And yes, all aspects of society must be perfect since there are not circumstances causing violence and crime, right?  Maybe it's just me, but I'd have more sympathy for a young person without parents, who extorts money with his gang friends with a gun (no other way out) than some hick redneck, who may not even live in a rural area, but kills an animal because his "great, great grand pappy hunted them" (he had too most likely, if he couldn't afford to rear cattle or sheep or something..)  

Again, you claim intelligence, but for a supposed nihilist you don't really get the world that much, or triggers for human behaviour.

[Moralnihilist]

lulz..  i'm not sure if I should believe that.

But yes, I contend gangs per their lifestyle use guns.  And yes, all aspects of society must be perfect since there are not circumstances causing violence and crime, right?  Maybe it's just me, but I'd have more sympathy for a young person without parents, who extorts money with his gang friends with a gun (no other way out) than some hick redneck, who may not even live in a rural area, but kills an animal because his "great, great grand pappy hunted them" (he had too most likely, if he couldn't afford to rear cattle or sheep or something..)  

Again, you claim intelligence, but for a supposed nihilist you don't really get the world that much, or triggers for human behaviour.

Point 1.

And I have shown that gangs can and do exist without the usage of guns. The UK being a prime example. Something that your poor attempt at an argument fails to take into account. And that same environment that puts out gangs ALSO puts out doctors, lawyers, plenty of college educated people, factory workers, police officers, and too many other productive members of society to list. So there goes the no way out argument.

Now on to the "redneck" portion of this supposed argument of yours. You argue that it is a cultural need for gang members to need guns AND THEN dismiss hunters using the same argument. This brings me back to my earlier post that you simply lack the intellect to understand that what you are posting is not only asinine droolings but highly stupid.

And since you are now going to attempt to call me out as a "supposed nihilist" allow me to correct you here as well.
I am a moral nihilist. This means that I believe that that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. Thats it.  Morality is constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense.

Again here you go spouting off at the mouth again without an idea of what it actually means to be a moral nihilist. Thats point 2.

I have never claimed intellect. My words, actions, and posts show my intellect.
Yours shows a failure of intellect.


Face it junior,
you have been found wanting this entire argument.

[darsenfeld]

er..  yes, but gangs form for proven sociological reasons.  and yes, social exclusion lack of opportunity is a major cause of gang membership/activity.  Some do get out, but then this doesn't negate the social reality.  why do you think most gun activity i

No human being alive in 2014, unless s/he thinks it's 20,000 BCE, NEEDS to hunt.  His or her reasons for doing so are not valid IMO, and not a matter of circumstance.

Sorry, but it's just an opinion, as yeah people born into difficult circumstances take more measures than hick Dixie-fellow who may not live in the bayou, swamp, or forest and doesn't hunt out of necessity.  Is empathy wrong now?

[Moralnihilist]

er..  yes, but gangs form for proven sociological reasons.  and yes, social exclusion lack of opportunity is a major cause of gang membership/activity.  Some do get out, but then this doesn't negate the social reality.  why do you think most gun activity i

No human being alive in 2014, unless s/he thinks it's 20,000 BCE, NEEDS to hunt.  His or her reasons for doing so are not valid IMO, and not a matter of circumstance.

Sorry, but it's just an opinion, as yeah people born into difficult circumstances take more measures than hick Dixie-fellow who may not live in the bayou, swamp, or forest and doesn't hunt out of necessity.  Is empathy wrong now?

More get out than join gangs and stay in them.

And no person alive in 2014 NEEDS to join a gang.

Again you the same argument is used to both prove and disprove your entire argument. You simply lack the intelligence to see that the "idea" that you are putting forward is fundamentally flawed in that it is made up of 100% dumb. You fail to see that a person born into poverty is the same regardless of location. If it is right for a gang member to own a gun to help feed themselves and raise their station then it also is right for the hunter to hunt using a gun to put food on his families table. Since you are willing to overlook the fact that many more people are not in gangs in the inter cities and go on to become useful members of society. Your reason sited is a cultural reason. Then you must be willing to overlook the fact that although the hunter may be able to provide food for his family that a culture that prefers hunting to buying mass produced meat, would indicate the need to hunt.

[Johan]

Presented without comment.

sorry i don't believe in intelligence.  

[darsenfeld]

er..  yes, but gangs form for proven sociological reasons.  and yes, social exclusion lack of opportunity is a major cause of gang membership/activity.  Some do get out, but then this doesn't negate the social reality.  why do you think most gun activity i

No human being alive in 2014, unless s/he thinks it's 20,000 BCE, NEEDS to hunt.  His or her reasons for doing so are not valid IMO, and not a matter of circumstance.

Sorry, but it's just an opinion, as yeah people born into difficult circumstances take more measures than hick Dixie-fellow who may not live in the bayou, swamp, or forest and doesn't hunt out of necessity.  Is empathy wrong now?

More get out than join gangs and stay in them.

And no person alive in 2014 NEEDS to join a gang.

Again you the same argument is used to both prove and disprove your entire argument. You simply lack the intelligence to see that the "idea" that you are putting forward is fundamentally flawed in that it is made up of 100% dumb. You fail to see that a person born into poverty is the same regardless of location. If it is right for a gang member to own a gun to help feed themselves and raise their station then it also is right for the hunter to hunt using a gun to put food on his families table. Since you are willing to overlook the fact that many more people are not in gangs in the inter cities and go on to become useful members of society. Your reason sited is a cultural reason. Then you must be willing to overlook the fact that although the hunter may be able to provide food for his family that a culture that prefers hunting to buying mass produced meat, would indicate the need to hunt.

er.... yes, I'm judgmental since I'm looking down on hicks who hunt for cosmetic reasons, big deal..

Though your example is merely cultural/cosmetic, joining gangs lends to wider soci0-economic and emotional issues, but yeah, whatever... I'm not really interested in intelligence, i'm not a teenage nerd (though you may be, i dunno..) and to me intelligence is a moot point (I await the "you don't know me!" angle, but "intelligent" people know others judge them at will and move on...)  

Look, if you can accept disparate views (you claim to be a nihilist after all) then yes, choosing to hunt is a cosmetic choice, no different to choosing to buy a Ford over a Nissan.  People don't hunt primarily for emotional support, or due to poverty, or social exclusion.  Crime is also required in many cases, this is fact...

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Have you ever heard the phrase "you catch more flies with honey..."?

Now consider your anti-gun argument.  "You stupid gun owners are stupid hicks who need to feel macho by shooting stuff."  That will win over lots of people, I'm sure.

[darsenfeld]

huh?  let you keep your guns, it's not my worry...

[Moralnihilist]

er..  yes, but gangs form for proven sociological reasons.  and yes, social exclusion lack of opportunity is a major cause of gang membership/activity.  Some do get out, but then this doesn't negate the social reality.  why do you think most gun activity i

No human being alive in 2014, unless s/he thinks it's 20,000 BCE, NEEDS to hunt.  His or her reasons for doing so are not valid IMO, and not a matter of circumstance.

Sorry, but it's just an opinion, as yeah people born into difficult circumstances take more measures than hick Dixie-fellow who may not live in the bayou, swamp, or forest and doesn't hunt out of necessity.  Is empathy wrong now?

More get out than join gangs and stay in them.

And no person alive in 2014 NEEDS to join a gang.

Again you the same argument is used to both prove and disprove your entire argument. You simply lack the intelligence to see that the "idea" that you are putting forward is fundamentally flawed in that it is made up of 100% dumb. You fail to see that a person born into poverty is the same regardless of location. If it is right for a gang member to own a gun to help feed themselves and raise their station then it also is right for the hunter to hunt using a gun to put food on his families table. Since you are willing to overlook the fact that many more people are not in gangs in the inter cities and go on to become useful members of society. Your reason sited is a cultural reason. Then you must be willing to overlook the fact that although the hunter may be able to provide food for his family that a culture that prefers hunting to buying mass produced meat, would indicate the need to hunt.

er.... yes, I'm judgmental since I'm looking down on hicks who hunt for cosmetic reasons, big deal..

Though your example is merely cultural/cosmetic, joining gangs lends to wider soci0-economic and emotional issues, but yeah, whatever... I'm not really interested in intelligence, i'm not a teenage nerd (though you may be, i dunno..) and to me intelligence is a moot point (I await the "you don't know me!" angle, but "intelligent" people know others judge them at will and move on...)  

Look, if you can accept disparate views (you claim to be a nihilist after all) then yes, choosing to hunt is a cosmetic choice, no different to choosing to buy a Ford over a Nissan.  People don't hunt primarily for emotional support, or due to poverty, or social exclusion.  Crime is also required in many cases, this is fact...

Wow another argument that begins with point 1....

The reason I believe you aren't interested in intelligence is it requires the use of logic, something that you have yet to show an ounce of. And baseless insults are the sign of someone who realizes that they are severely out gunned in a debate. I offered my reasonings for thinking you lack intelligence, you failed to offer a counter, logically this leads me to believe that you either lack the ability to defend any of your "ideas"(and are thus here simply to troll) or that you acquiesce that my theory regarding your lack of any intelligence being correct(and again are here simply to troll). Either situation leads me to the same logical conclusion, you are a troll with no intelligence.

Frankly I don't give 2 rats asses on what your pathetically empty head comes up with. Its when you serve a direct challenge to me(I hunt and I eat what I kill) based off of faulty logic, obvious lack of thought, or simple stupidity that I took up this cause. You have yet to defend any of your points other to say that either you don't agree with me, or to insinuate that either I am not a "true" nihilist. Something that I don't claim to be I am however a Moral Nihilist, fairly decent difference, and had you even bothered to do a basic web search instead of just spouting off dumb, you would have found.

Again, you know this is getting quite sad, people DO hunt due to poverty(here in the US and in plenty of other countries all over the world, something that yet again you can find through the most basic web searches). There are also hunters that take the meat and have it  professionally butchered and sell the meat on to restaurant suppliers providing them with income and providing the "social elite" with expensive game meat that is all the rage in high end restaurants.

Based solely on this disconnect between reality and the crap that you spew, I would suggest that it is YOU who lacks an understanding of the human condition and its causes. My theory for this disconnect  is that you simply lack the brains to understand the amount of dumb that is attempting to be put forward as some sort of intelligent debate.

But, I digress, I will no longer feed the troll. Your argument is pathetic, misinformed, and uneducated. I truly feel sorry for you, to believe the crap that you put forward must lead to a miserable life for you.

[wolf39us]

er...

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[darsenfeld]

er.... yes, I'm judgmental since I'm looking down on hicks who hunt for cosmetic reasons, big deal..

Though your example is merely cultural/cosmetic, joining gangs lends to wider soci0-economic and emotional issues, but yeah, whatever... I'm not really interested in intelligence, i'm not a teenage nerd (though you may be, i dunno..) and to me intelligence is a moot point (I await the "you don't know me!" angle, but "intelligent" people know others judge them at will and move on...)  

Look, if you can accept disparate views (you claim to be a nihilist after all) then yes, choosing to hunt is a cosmetic choice, no different to choosing to buy a Ford over a Nissan.  People don't hunt primarily for emotional support, or due to poverty, or social exclusion.  Crime is also required in many cases, this is fact...

Wow another argument that begins with point 1....

The reason I believe you aren't interested in intelligence is it requires the use of logic, something that you have yet to show an ounce of. And baseless insults are the sign of someone who realizes that they are severely out gunned in a debate. I offered my reasonings for thinking you lack intelligence, you failed to offer a counter, logically this leads me to believe that you either lack the ability to defend any of your "ideas"(and are thus here simply to troll) or that you acquiesce that my theory regarding your lack of any intelligence being correct(and again are here simply to troll). Either situation leads me to the same logical conclusion, you are a troll with no intelligence.

Frankly I don't give 2 rats asses on what your pathetically empty head comes up with. Its when you serve a direct challenge to me(I hunt and I eat what I kill) based off of faulty logic, obvious lack of thought, or simple stupidity that I took up this cause. You have yet to defend any of your points other to say that either you don't agree with me, or to insinuate that either I am not a "true" nihilist. Something that I don't claim to be I am however a Moral Nihilist, fairly decent difference, and had you even bothered to do a basic web search instead of just spouting off dumb, you would have found.

Again, you know this is getting quite sad, people DO hunt due to poverty(here in the US and in plenty of other countries all over the world, something that yet again you can find through the most basic web searches). There are also hunters that take the meat and have it  professionally butchered and sell the meat on to restaurant suppliers providing them with income and providing the "social elite" with expensive game meat that is all the rage in high end restaurants.

Based solely on this disconnect between reality and the crap that you spew, I would suggest that it is YOU who lacks an understanding of the human condition and its causes. My theory for this disconnect  is that you simply lack the brains to understand the amount of dumb that is attempting to be put forward as some sort of intelligent debate.

But, I digress, I will no longer feed the troll. Your argument is pathetic, misinformed, and uneducated. I truly feel sorry for you, to believe the crap that you put forward must lead to a miserable life for you.[/quote]


er.. I never said I didn't believe in intelligence.  as for baseless insults, you insult me so I insult you back.

Logic is also spent, so whatever... nihilism isn't even mentally healthy, so I don't care...lol..

And yes, I understand the human condition.  I know sociological causes, you don't even know that most people hunt out of insecurity.

Sorry, it seems others holding opinions offends you.

[darsenfeld]

yes.  Gang leaders/members are such based on their environment and lifestyle. as they live in a crime-oriented/violent scope, they NEED guns to live.  Rationality is subjective.  I personally deem hunting immoral, but I don't care about the hunter.  I also don't think people need guns.

[ Image ]

A gang leader/member, who will use their gun to rape, kill, rob, and or maim(usually all of the above) is a stable person? On what fucking planet does that make any fucking sense? Do you not see the sheer amount of stupid that you are posting? And since you just LOVE to post stupid without bothering to look anything up, a neat little bit of info for you. Gangs existed prior to guns, they conducted their business without guns for the most part until the late 60's. GANGS DONT NEED GUNS, IT JUST MAKES KILLING EASIER.

Hunters, for the most part need guns. There are very few people that can pull a bow with a heavy enough draw to down a deer or other large game. And another neat little bit of info for you, there are less murders committed by people who hunt vs the gang members you claim to be balanced.

Honest question for you. Did you by chance take the short bus to school?

er...  who cares who kills or rapes others?  It's a free world and morals don't exist.

[Moralnihilist]

er.. I never said I didn't believe in intelligence.

sorry i don't believe in intelligence.

Liar.(page 7)

as for baseless insults, you insult me so I insult you back.

I can at least offer reasons for you to dispute. Something that you have not done, in fact you have simply gone on and proved my point by using the same crap I accused you of.

Logic is also spent, so whatever... nihilism isn't even mentally healthy, so I don't care...lol..

Oh neat, a new "argument". Lets see.....
Nope its the same type of crap, an unthought out, nearly incoherent, rambling, unbacked attempt at an insult.

And yes, I understand the human condition.  I know sociological causes, you don't even know that most people hunt out of insecurity.

Proof?

Sorry, it seems others holding opinions offends you.

Actually there are quite a few people(nearly everyone) on this forum that hold differing opinions to what I do. Most of them I disagree with, however, most others manage to back their opinions with something of substance. At the very least they back them with something better than your "nuh huh".

[josephpalazzo]

er...  who cares who kills or rapes others?  It's a free world and morals don't exist.

If you had paid attention then you would know that this was answered here. Either you're an idiot incapable of learning or you're wllfully ignorant, which makes you an asshole.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

And yes, I understand the human condition.  I know sociological causes, you don't even know that most people hunt out of insecurity.

Hahahahahahaha...you're a fucking dumbass.

Do you have evidence for this? Or are you just talking out of your ass? Do you have surveys, statistics, or any fucking thing of that nature to support your opinion that most hunters are insecure? If not you can fuck right off and drop that fucking line.

You can't hide behind opinion when your opinion is something that can be confirmed or refuted by facts. You made the claim, now back it up motherfucker.

You keep on harping that "all opinions are equal" bullshit when that's simply not true. You can't go around saying that most x are y without shit to back it up. Wanna few outrageous examples?

"Most whites are perverts."
"Most blacks are criminals."
"Most Hispanics are lazy."
"Most gays have HIV/AIDS."
"Most women are sluts."
"Most men are violent."

These are all things I've seen said by ignorant fucking assholes. You know what they all have in common besides using stereotypes? None of the people saying them had any fucking evidence that held up to scrutiny.