• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Right to Bear Arms

Mrsrx

Mrsrx

Somehow a Member
Staff member
you could decide to help your government to protect your right by making yourself a little bit harder target than you are
The problem with the masses deciding to become vigilantes to help the government is all known and i do not need to explain that.

If you mean to say that your neighbor must give up his freedom because you feel uneasy, then I disagree - your uneasiness is your problem.
That is not what i meant. I feel uneasy with a lot of things but i do not ask for it to be illegal as long as it does not mess with everyone elses freedom. This is not what i am saying. It is just i do not want an armed militia making its laws where i live ....be it in lebanon, in mexico, in the US or in europe...we already have one that i get to vote for its called the government.

The disagreement is very easy to pinpoint:
you think of the "good guy with a gun" i think of the "bad guy with a gun"
you think to stop the bad guy with a gun the good guy should have a gun where i think to stop the bad guy with a gun make him a bad guy without a gun and the cops would deal with him in an easier way
you think a good guy is inherintly good while being good is very nuanced and its taking unnecessary risks of giving people excessive power to kill each others as a person is very complex. he can be good with his family and the biggest criminal outside the house or a person can be a good person today but become a horrible one because they suffered a traumatic even yet their licence stands....

I just think its safer for everyone that we do not take unecessary risks by arming everyone and playing a russian roulette of who has been bullied today or who's wife or husband cheated on them today....
You think its better to cary a gun in case shit happens...

In short the opinions are not reconcilable and i understand both points ...i just prefer a system where if i like guns i go to a shooting rage or designated hunting areas where i keep my gun and have as much fun as i want ...exactly like racecar enthusiasts that has to go to a racing ring...
no need to dig deeper.
 
  • Advertisement
  • proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    The problem with the masses deciding to become vigilantes to help the government is all known and i do not need to explain that.


    That is not what i meant. I feel uneasy with a lot of things but i do not ask for it to be illegal as long as it does not mess with everyone elses freedom. This is not what i am saying. It is just i do not want an armed militia making its laws where i live ....be it in lebanon, in mexico, in the US or in europe...we already have one that i get to vote for its called the government.

    The disagreement is very easy to pinpoint:
    you think of the "good guy with a gun" i think of the "bad guy with a gun"
    you think to stop the bad guy with a gun the good guy should have a gun where i think to stop the bad guy with a gun make him a bad guy without a gun and the cops would deal with him in an easier way
    you think a good guy is inherintly good while being good is very nuanced and its taking unnecessary risks of giving people excessive power to kill each others as a person is very complex. he can be good with his family and the biggest criminal outside the house or a person can be a good person today but become a horrible one because they suffered a traumatic even yet their licence stands....

    I just think its safer for everyone that we do not take unecessary risks by arming everyone and playing a russian roulette of who has been bullied today or who's wife or husband cheated on them today....
    You think its better to cary a gun in case shit happens...

    In short the opinions are not reconcilable and i understand both points ...i just prefer a system where if i like guns i go to a shooting rage or designated hunting areas where i keep my gun and have as much fun as i want ...exactly like racecar enthusiasts that go to a racing ring...
    no need to dig deeper.
    "The problem with the masses deciding to become vigilantes to help the government is all known and i do not need to explain that"
    You misunderstood the situation - you would not be vigilante because you will not be taking law in your own hands, you would be exercising your right to self-defense.

    "I feel uneasy with a lot of things but i do not ask for it to be illegal as long as it does not mess with everyone elses freedom" -
    and yet you decided to single out your armed neighbor as insurmountable cause for uneasiness that must require some kind of action.
    Why guys are so special to you, can you replace "guns" with pepper spray and assess the situation from that point of view?

    "safer for everyone that we do not take unecessary risks by arming everyone and playing a russian roulette" -
    "being armed" is not irrational, "playing Russian roulette" is irrational.
    However, Russian roulette would qualify as self-inflicted injury and that is totally different discussion.
     
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    That you decided to skip over noam chomsky, naomi klein, glenn greenwald, michael parenti, slavoj zizek, michelle alexander, tony judt, among others to give me Jack dorsey and cenk uygur shows that your idea of progressivism is a cartoonish one rooted in the hallucination of YouTube warriors. This is an unserious and not actually a discussion about free speech, but about twitter grievances. Nationalize facebook and twitter and your problems go away. Maybe corporate boards shouldn't be deciding what gets posted in the public squares. lol.
    I did you a favor by not mentioning Noam Chomsky, a Judea-Masonry conspiracy theorist that promotes the Rothschild theory, supports Hezbollah in Lebanon by deforming and denying established history of Jewish presence in the region (by referring to a fake map and timeline promoted by Palestinian activists), supporters the Islamic brotherhood in Egypt and got everything wrong about Trump from the start of his presidency. When ultimately he is nothing more than a failed linguistic theorist who even denies the empirical refutation of his "universal grammar theory" when one of his students actually went to live with the tribes he was theorizing about.

    And your other names such as Naomi Klein (the Mariam Bassam of Quebec) and Glenn Greenwald (the cringey virtue signaler) or Slavoj Zizek (the sympathzier to communist tyranny and Stalin) speak for themselves. If those are your progressives, you probably have to look for progress elsewhere. But I appreciate you didn't put Micheal Moore on that list as that would have turned my stomach.

    You still haven't addressed my original point which is that gun rights activists (and to the extent they intersect with libertarians) are part and parcel of the police state and largely reinforce it because their only interest is protecting their gun rights and not civil liberties, which is how we got to the discussion about elections and free speech anyway, because their electoral choices reflect that.
    They're basically a decentralized network of armed and independent citizens. They're not an organized militia belonging to a centralized government that can control them in any way or form. So they do not contribute to the parcel of a police state. But make it impossible to impose. As witnessed in their open carry states which are way less authoritiarian than California (or Commiefornia). In Nebraska, you're not arrested for smuggling in plastic straws or driving a diesel truck.

    No, they care about civil liberties as I pointed out.

    They are against "Hate speech" becoming law in the States unlike Leftist groups.
    They are against banning "holocaust revisionism" unlike Leftist groups.
    They are against establishing "safe spaces" and censoring forms of speech in universities unlike Leftist groups.
    They are against online censorship on platforms unlike Leftist groups. (It's the equivelant of comparing Minds.com ran by Libertarians to Twitter.com ran by progressives).
    They are against heavy rules and regulations concerning almost everything. Guns, beer, properties, cars, etc etc.
     
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The problem with the masses deciding to become vigilantes to help the government is all known and i do not need to explain that.
    The point you're missing is that they don't need weapons as vigilantes to be a threat to your freedom of speech.

    If a bunch of Leftists decided to protest in California without any weapons, I wouldn't be able to wear my Maga Hat as I would be beaten and probably hung from a noose if they could get away with it.

    So ultimately, when you have a riot which you are against, you need to lay low whether they have weapons or not.
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    and yet you decided to single out your armed neighbor as insurmountable cause for uneasiness that must require some kind of action.
    Why guys are so special to you, can you replace "guns" with pepper spray and assess the situation from that point of view?
    If someone sprayed me with pepper spray i would live to tell the tale ...is someone sprayed me with an AR-15 i would not...

    "safer for everyone that we do not take unecessary risks by arming everyone and playing a russian roulette" -
    "being armed" is not irrational, "playing Russian roulette" is irrational.
    However, Russian roulette would qualify as self-inflicted injury and that is totally different discussion.
    Playing russian roulette is irrational i agree and if you armed is giving many people the feel that they are playing russian roulette when they need to leave their houses (if you want to talk about semantics deciding to leave the house is the russian roulette)
    You conveniently decided to ignore a large chunk of my response where i say i understand you ...

    Imagine the (legal) hispanics in the south of the US all get armed and create their own militia to defend themselves against the tyranny of the US govts ...how fun that would be...because guess what we are living under these circumstances in lebanon and you are on the other side of the argument...
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    The point you're missing is that they don't need weapons as vigilantes to be a threat to your freedom of speech.

    If a bunch of Leftists decided to protest in California without any weapons, I wouldn't be able to wear my Maga Hat as I would be beaten and probably hung from a noose if they could get away with it.

    So ultimately, when you have a riot which you are against, you need to lay low whether they have weapons or not.
    F those guys aswell wear whatever you want its your decision to look like an idiot ... and anyone who says the opposite of that is a hypocrite. I just hope for you they are not armed hypocrites
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    The point you're missing is that they don't need weapons as vigilantes to be a threat to your freedom of speech.

    If a bunch of Leftists decided to protest in California without any weapons, I wouldn't be able to wear my Maga Hat as I would be beaten and probably hung from a noose if they could get away with it.

    So ultimately, when you have a riot which you are against, you need to lay low whether they have weapons or not.
    Actually "mob" is a weapon (often times deadly weapon where guilty cannot be found) and local governments allowing this to happen is classic example of ignoring citizen's rights.
     
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    F those guys aswell wear whatever you want its your decision to look like an idiot ... and anyone who says the opposite of that is a hypocrite. I just hope for you they are not armed hypocrites
    In a mob attack that's aimed to be a revolt (e.g French renaissance like), you can be killed by baseball bats or even the stomp of boots.
    Your solution to ban guns so you don't feel threatened in case a riot happens is very weak. Considering you can be ran down by a van or hit by a butter knife.
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    In a mob attack that's aimed to be a revolt (e.g French renaissance like), you can be killed by baseball bats or even the stomp of boots.
    Your solution to ban guns so you don't feel threatened in case a riot happens is very weak. Considering you can be ran down by a van or hit by a butter knife.
    1- please tell me where did i mention a riot?
    2- i never denied the fact that someone can kill me with a frying pan...but a frying pan has other uses ...a gun's main use is to kill (ye ye deterrent because it might kill that is the idea)

    There is a realistic way to organise a society and there is dumb arguments....
     
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Actually "mob" is a weapon (often times deadly weapon where guilty cannot be found) and local governments allowing this to happen is classic example of ignoring citizen's rights.
    True. And another failure for the argument above, is that if we all don't have weapons, it means we all will feel threatened by the Police if we do a riot. So the fear itself is not gone. it's just standard for people to have fear during riots.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    If someone sprayed me with pepper spray i would live to tell the tale ...is someone sprayed me with an AR-15 i would not...


    Playing russian roulette is irrational i agree and if you armed is giving many people the feel that they are playing russian roulette when they need to leave their houses (if you want to talk about semantics deciding to leave the house is the russian roulette)
    You conveniently decided to ignore a large chunk of my response where i say i understand you ...

    Imagine the (legal) hispanics in the south of the US all get armed and create their own militia to defend themselves against the tyranny of the US govts ...how fun that would be...because guess what we are living under these circumstances in lebanon and you are on the other side of the argument...
    "If someone sprayed me with pepper spray i would live to tell the tale ...is someone sprayed me with an AR-15 i would not" -
    First, true, but you cannot control how you are being sprayed, you can only control your own response.
    Second, in USA it is impossible to be legally sprayed from any weapon.
     
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    1- please tell me where did i mention a riot?
    2- i never denied the fact that someone can kill me with a frying pan...but a frying pan has other uses ...a gun's main use is to kill (ye ye deterrent because it might kill that is the idea)

    There is a realistic way to organise a society and there is dumb arguments....
    A non-service gun's main use is mostly hunting and sports (shooting competitions).

    If it's not a riot, then you're not threatened. You can stay safely at home while others have weapons and object to tyranny. Good for you.
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    "If someone sprayed me with pepper spray i would live to tell the tale ...is someone sprayed me with an AR-15 i would not" -
    First, true, but you cannot control how you are being sprayed, you can only control your own response.
    Second, in USA it is impossible to be legally sprayed from any weapon.
    Sorry click several times on a tiny button instead of a long press...my mistake.
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    A non-service gun's main use is mostly hunting and sports (shooting competitions).

    If it's not a riot, then you're not threatened. You can stay safely at home while others have weapons and object to tyranny. Good for you.
    Those school riots in the US are getting out of hand!

    quoting myself on what i said earlier and please stop assuming my opinions as this is the second time (regarding your first point):

    .i just prefer a system where if i like guns i go to a shooting rage or designated hunting areas where i keep my gun and have as much fun as i want ...exactly like racecar enthusiasts that has to go to a racing ring...
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    True. And another failure for the argument above, is that if we all don't have weapons, it means we all will feel threatened by the Police if we do a riot. So the fear itself is not gone. it's just standard for people to have fear during riots.
    Police we pretty much have took to order.
    At this point I am more concerned with criminal wielding illegal weapon and I am having anything to stop him.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Sorry click several times on a tiny button instead of a long press...my mistake.
    If even that.
    If I am trained and prepared it would take me about 4-5 seconds to empty single-action six-shooter and about another 4 sec to reload and start over.
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    If even that.
    If I am trained and prepared it would take me about 4-5 seconds to empty single-action six-shooter and about another 4 sec to reload and start over.
    6 bullets in 5 seconds is spraying...all it takes is 1 in the wrong place.
     
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    Member
    I did you a favor by not mentioning Noam Chomsky, a Judea-Masonry conspiracy theorist that promotes the Rothschild theory, supports Hezbollah in Lebanon by deforming and denying established history of Jewish presence in the region (by referring to a fake map and timeline promoted by Palestinian activists), supporters the Islamic brotherhood in Egypt and got everything wrong about Trump from the start of his presidency. When ultimately he is nothing more than a failed linguistic theorist who even denies the empirical refutation of his "universal grammar theory" when one of his students actually went to live with the tribes he was theorizing about.

    And your other names such as Naomi Klein (the Mariam Bassam of Quebec) and Glenn Greenwald (the cringey virtue signaler) or Slavoj Zizek (the sympathzier to communist tyranny and Stalin) speak for themselves. If those are your progressives, you probably have to look for progress elsewhere. But I appreciate you didn't put Micheal Moore on that list as that would have turned my stomach.



    They're basically a decentralized network of armed and independent citizens. They're not an organized militia belonging to a centralized government that can control them in any way or form. So they do not contribute to the parcel of a police state. But make it impossible to impose. As witnessed in their open carry states which are way less authoritiarian than California (or Commiefornia). In Nebraska, you're not arrested for smuggling in plastic straws or driving a diesel truck.

    No, they care about civil liberties as I pointed out.

    They are against "Hate speech" becoming law in the States unlike Leftist groups.
    They are against banning "holocaust revisionism" unlike Leftist groups.
    They are against establishing "safe spaces" and censoring forms of speech in universities unlike Leftist groups.
    They are against online censorship on platforms unlike Leftist groups. (It's the equivelant of comparing Minds.com ran by Libertarians to Twitter.com ran by progressives).
    They are against heavy rules and regulations concerning almost everything. Guns, beer, properties, cars, etc etc.
    Lol @ Noam Chomsky. Academics like that have been brainwashing Middle Eastern students with communist ideas for a while now. I should now, as I was once a victim.
     
    Mrsrx

    Mrsrx

    Somehow a Member
    Staff member
    True. And another failure for the argument above, is that if we all don't have weapons, it means we all will feel threatened by the Police if we do a riot. So the fear itself is not gone. it's just standard for people to have fear during riots.
    Who's argument is that it is as stupid as ****. Please do not debate with people who make such arguments are they are as much idiots as the right wing nuts (not going to automatically tag you as that....yet).
    Life is nuanced i say ban guns i may be okay for several occupations to have guns, i may be ok if someone has a legitimate reason to think their life is in danger to have a gun.... not just i want to make youtube videos so i buy all the guns i want!!!

    Then there is the point if you think gun control is about idiots thinking they can live forever and nothing can kill them because there are no guns that is as stupid as it can get!! It is a question of peace and how to lead better and safer lives!
    I am not married to the opinion of banning guns if the right data is shown to me i can be convinced that it is not that the problem (i think its probably a symptom)...

    For the next few post at least pretend you are not talking to who fox news tells you that you are talking to and try to have a nuanced discussion.
     
    Top