Religion ron paul raises 3.5 million in less than a day (Read 4699 times)

  • Avatar of Ryan
  • thx ds k?
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Oct 22, 2003
  • Posts: 4460
i'm much too lazy to comment on both of your posts but

Quote
That is true, he also wants to do away with this tax and social security itself.  The program is very expensive to fund,  provides minimal benefit, and its setup is going to require either a tax increase or benefit reduction in the elderly take up a greater fraction of the population.

you obviously have no understanding of social security if you think this.
  • Avatar of The Truth
  • SB is unaware that Dimmu sucks
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: May 15, 2003
  • Posts: 1204
No, you just DON'T GET IT.

I don't care how much you reduce costs, some people CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY MEDICATION AT ALL WITHOUT SACRIFICING FOOD/LODGING/ETC. How is this a difficult concept to understand.

(Also extrapolate that to just about everything you've said as you're making the same exact argument on every issue).
--- Back when we were young and loved the internet....
  • Avatar of Cardinal Ximenez
  • Not a 47, just a liar
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: May 1, 2004
  • Posts: 503
I don't care how much you reduce costs, some people CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY MEDICATION AT ALL WITHOUT SACRIFICING FOOD/LODGING/ETC. How is this a difficult concept to understand.

And how is one particular entity justified in coercing other people into paying for it?
  • Avatar of crone_lover720
  • PEW PEW PEW
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2002
  • Posts: 5554
And how is one particular entity justified in coercing other people into paying for it?
what the hell

I haven't been following this topic at all since the argument started, but man that is fucked up. you know without proper medical care, people can die from afflictions that are easily remedied with a doctor's diagnosis and medication or treatment. do you honestly hold ECONOMIC FREEDOM so highly that allowing people's lives to depend on GOOD WILL and charity sounds like a good idea? regulation of this kind of thing is a good idea man

oh but ron paul is a big supporter of natural medicine isn't he. heh, who needs a doctor's diagnosis anyway, we have garlic to use as a bactericide against rhinoviruses and influenza
Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 05:02:15 am by Render
  • Avatar of KK4
  • Slit. Your. Throat.
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jul 21, 2007
  • Posts: 108
Yeah, I know this is off topic, but Fully Auto weapons are legal if you 1) live in a state which will let you purchase an NFA weapon 2) pass a federal background check 3) get the permission of the local sheriff 4) Are willing to pay far out the ass for a weapon made prior to 1986 5) pay a $200 transfer fee.

Interestingly enough, NFA (national firearms act) was passed in 1934 during the depths of depression, making coming up with $200 extremely difficult unless you were the pinkertons, when the federal government was taking on expanded federal power under the War Powers act and the Roosevelt administration. Also quite interesting is that if a corporation wants full auto weapons all they have to so is pay the $200 transfer tax per weapon.

I would like to see Ron Paul elected because of his veiws on the constitution and the economy, but if he can get NFA and the 68GCA (1938 Nazi weapons law in english) repealed I will love the man forever. You guys should go read over the gun laws and see how frigging inane they are. case in point, I have a Yugo SKS which is classified as a Curio & Relic by the BAFTE, if I want to add a new stock to it I have to add 10 US made compliance parts to comply with 922r, or I go to jail for 10 years. I'd like a neat T6 adjustable stock for my SKS, 'cause the standard stocks are a bit short for a person of my size, but I don't want to go to federal prison for violating 922r.

So yeah, I must be a horrible person because I want full auto weapons, want a nice synthetic stock on my SKS, believe in Ron Paul, the consitution, and think stupid ass laws should be repealed.
  • old skool
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jan 7, 2003
  • Posts: 780
Yeah, I know this is off topic, but Fully Auto weapons are legal if you 1) live in a state which will let you purchase an NFA weapon 2) pass a federal background check 3) get the permission of the local sheriff 4) Are willing to pay far out the ass for a weapon made prior to 1986 5) pay a $200 transfer fee.

Interestingly enough, NFA (national firearms act) was passed in 1934 during the depths of depression, making coming up with $200 extremely difficult unless you were the pinkertons, when the federal government was taking on expanded federal power under the War Powers act and the Roosevelt administration. Also quite interesting is that if a corporation wants full auto weapons all they have to so is pay the $200 transfer tax per weapon.

I would like to see Ron Paul elected because of his veiws on the constitution and the economy, but if he can get NFA and the 68GCA (1938 Nazi weapons law in english) repealed I will love the man forever. You guys should go read over the gun laws and see how frigging inane they are. case in point, I have a Yugo SKS which is classified as a Curio & Relic by the BAFTE, if I want to add a new stock to it I have to add 10 US made compliance parts to comply with 922r, or I go to jail for 10 years. I'd like a neat T6 adjustable stock for my SKS, 'cause the standard stocks are a bit short for a person of my size, but I don't want to go to federal prison for violating 922r.

So yeah, I must be a horrible person because I want full auto weapons, want a nice synthetic stock on my SKS, believe in Ron Paul, the consitution, and think stupid ass laws should be repealed.

Is there any good reason for you to even want a full-automatic?  By "good reason" I mean good enough to be worth the downsides of allowing such weapons to be more accessible.
  • Avatar of Frankie
  • Phylactère Colaaaaaa!
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jan 25, 2002
  • Posts: 473
He looks like a pretty bad candidate. I'm wondering what parts of his policies and ideas are really libertarian ideals and what parts are weird ass personal things that are not specifically libertarian. I am not very good with political labels and don't really know their meanings.

What political ideology is for government-manned universal insurance programs, raising taxes to get these said insurance programs going, giving tax cuts to small enterprises and generally fuelling competition to help speeding up economy, abolition of laws that protect people from themselves instead of protecting people from others, complete secularity of the state, easing the process of immigration and getting citizenship, free education at all levels, does not aggressively reject the idea of using force when dealing with other countries simply taking it as a possible last resort, and who also plans to act in the face of current horrible conflicts, like the Darfur conflict that is still raging on right now and where soldiers would be much more useful than in Iraq or Afghanistan, even though the media and general public seems completely uninterested by it?

Is there any actual ideology that shares all of these ideals, or is it like, IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE IN ALL OF THAT AT ONCE because it doesn't fit any label?
I mean some of it is libertarian (abolition of some laws), some of it is liberal(government-manned insurance), some of it is conservative(Not being systematically against using weapons, helping small enterprises). They like, don't have the right to be more than just flat labels? Is it simply because people understand these labels better than they understand ideas?
Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 02:37:47 pm by Psychoskull
Bloggin' | Website | Tubin'|Tweetin'
  • I fear and I tremble
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Aug 21, 2005
  • Posts: 6165
Is there any good reason for you to even want a full-automatic?  By "good reason" I mean good enough to be worth the downsides of allowing such weapons to be more accessible.

No...No there isn't.
DEUCE: MEETING THE URINE UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL AND REALIZING IT'S JUST LIKE ME AND MY PREJUDICES  THIS WHOLE TIME WERE COMPLETELY FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF PTTTTHTHTHH GOD IT'S EVERYWHERE<br />DEUCE: FUCK THIS TASTES LIKE PISS<br />PANTS: WHERE IT SHOULD TASTE LIKE COTTON CANDY OR PICKLES<br />DEUCE: OR AT LEAST LIKE URINE NOT PISS
  • Avatar of KK4
  • Slit. Your. Throat.
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jul 21, 2007
  • Posts: 108
Is there any good reason for you to even want a full-automatic?  By "good reason" I mean good enough to be worth the downsides of allowing such weapons to be more accessible.

It's all about freedom of choice IMHO. There is no "good reason" for me to want one any more than there is "good reason" for a person to have a 10 karat diamond ring or and SUV the size of an APC in the city, I would like to have a fully automatic weapon because I believe that I would get enjoyment out of its use and possession. Will making automatic weapons legal without heavy regulation increase some public danger? perhaps. But far more people are killed by car crashes and far more people are killed because they have nice diamond jewelry than have been killed by guns, and far fewer killed by fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals. Even so, the weapons will still be expensive because of the small supply and those willing to purchase them. We already have laws to stop criminals from getting guns, and we have laws to stop people from getting unregistered automatic weapons, yet criminals still manage to get them. I doubt that every drug pusher will be packing an m249 under his coat if the NFA was repealed. Fully auto weapons, even for criminals, are not very cost efficient unless you have a sizable fortune and government backing, which includes experts who know how to maintain the weapons. When the AWB sunset in 2004 there were worried cries that blood would run red in the streets, yet there have been no wild west style shoot outs, and the Justice department's own study of the AWB showed that it had little to no effect on crime because criminals would rather use a .38spl revolver with a 4" barrel than a Kalashnikov clone with an over all length of about 3'. So I think the dangers of more automatic weapons on the street is exaggerated.

Also, I as a law abiding citizen should be trusted with an automatic weapon. Am I not innocent until proven guilty, and any legislation to preempt my owning of a weapon assumes that I am a criminal, which according to my interpretation violates my right to the due process of law. Also, I have gone through multiple background checks and have been vetted as a responsible citizen. I vote regularly, I pay my taxes, follow the traffic laws, and have never been suspected or convicted of a crime. I am a model citizen, although I admit I am somewhat eccentric (which is no crime), and if it is my choice to use my hard earned money to buy an automatic weapon, a 9lb gold chain, a huge gas guzzling SUV, or a 10 Karat diamond ring than it should be my right to do so, and it should be the same for everyone.

IMHO, Ron Paul agrees with this freedom of choice for all people. Not just for guns, or cars, but what ever we wish to spend our money on. I believe that I can make wiser uses of my money than the federal government.
  • Avatar of The Truth
  • SB is unaware that Dimmu sucks
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: May 15, 2003
  • Posts: 1204
It's all about freedom of choice IMHO. There is no "good reason" for me to want one any more than there is "good reason" for a person to have a 10 karat diamond ring or and SUV the size of an APC in the city, I would like to have a fully automatic weapon because I believe that I would get enjoyment out of its use and possession. Will making automatic weapons legal without heavy regulation increase some public danger? perhaps. But far more people are killed by car crashes and far more people are killed because they have nice diamond jewelry than have been killed by guns, and far fewer killed by fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals. Even so, the weapons will still be expensive because of the small supply and those willing to purchase them. We already have laws to stop criminals from getting guns, and we have laws to stop people from getting unregistered automatic weapons, yet criminals still manage to get them. I doubt that every drug pusher will be packing an m249 under his coat if the NFA was repealed. Fully auto weapons, even for criminals, are not very cost efficient unless you have a sizable fortune and government backing, which includes experts who know how to maintain the weapons. When the AWB sunset in 2004 there were worried cries that blood would run red in the streets, yet there have been no wild west style shoot outs, and the Justice department's own study of the AWB showed that it had little to no effect on crime because criminals would rather use a .38spl revolver with a 4" barrel than a Kalashnikov clone with an over all length of about 3'. So I think the dangers of more automatic weapons on the street is exaggerated.

Also, I as a law abiding citizen should be trusted with an automatic weapon. Am I not innocent until proven guilty, and any legislation to preempt my owning of a weapon assumes that I am a criminal, which according to my interpretation violates my right to the due process of law. Also, I have gone through multiple background checks and have been vetted as a responsible citizen. I vote regularly, I pay my taxes, follow the traffic laws, and have never been suspected or convicted of a crime. I am a model citizen, although I admit I am somewhat eccentric (which is no crime), and if it is my choice to use my hard earned money to buy an automatic weapon, a 9lb gold chain, a huge gas guzzling SUV, or a 10 Karat diamond ring than it should be my right to do so, and it should be the same for everyone.

IMHO, Ron Paul agrees with this freedom of choice for all people. Not just for guns, or cars, but what ever we wish to spend our money on. I believe that I can make wiser uses of my money than the federal government.

what enjoyment will you be getting from a weapon thats only purpose is to kill human beings more efficiently? I could see if you wanted a rifle for hunting but you just want to shine the stock while you jerk off over your new found power over human life.
Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 05:11:58 am by The Truth
--- Back when we were young and loved the internet....
  • Avatar of Roman
  • Gameboy Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Apr 9, 2002
  • Posts: 1460
this douchebag in my american thinkers class who nobody likes 'cause he's THAT KID (you know, the one who always raises his hand and gives some long-winded response about some bullshit that is totally irrelevant HEH GUYS I KNOW SO MUCH...) answered a question one day and at the end shouted RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT man i was so close to punching him in the neck
  • old skool
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jan 7, 2003
  • Posts: 780
what enjoyment will you be getting from a weapon thats only purpose is to kill human beings more efficiently? I could see if you wanted a rifle for hunting but you just want to shine the stock while you jerk off over your new found power over human life.

This.  (First time I think I've completely agreed with The Truth  :fogetgasp:​)
Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 06:35:25 am by Evil Bob
  • Avatar of Roman
  • Gameboy Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Apr 9, 2002
  • Posts: 1460
ps guys i think it's pretty obvious that KK4 wants automatic rifles for cool pix

Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 06:49:31 am by Roman
  • old skool
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jan 7, 2003
  • Posts: 780
ps guys i think it's pretty obvious that KK4 wants automatic rifles for cool pix

In that case I think I would look pretty cool posing with some nuclear weapons.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jun 22, 2005
  • Posts: 1325
When the AWB sunset in 2004 there were worried cries that blood would run red in the streets, yet there have been no wild west style shoot outs, and the Justice department's own study of the AWB showed that it had little to no effect on crime because criminals would rather use a .38spl revolver with a 4" barrel than a Kalashnikov clone with an over all length of about 3'. So I think the dangers of more automatic weapons on the street is exaggerated.

I know you are familiar with their existence, so I will just have to call you out on the fact that you totally "overlooked" them; submachine guns. Submachine guns are fully automatic and do not have 3' barrels. They are easily concealed and sometimes very inexpensive (as is the case with Tec9s) and are fairly easy to maintain. In addition, they use easily obtainable and inexpensive pistol ammunition.

When I hear about automatic weapons becoming legal, I don't just suddenly envision a bunch of gangs driving around with AR15s and AK-47s shooting them in the air wildly, I imagine escalating violence after some private collector has his gun collection stolen and suddenly all those fully automatic SMGs he had to buy because IT WAS HIS RIGHT GOD BLESS AMERICA are now floating around in the hands of criminals. If you keep them out of the market entirely then you keep them off the streets, it is that simple. Sure, people will still be able to get them, but it keeps their cost high and keeps their appearance uncommon.

The simple truth is that more guns owned by HONEST AMERICANS directly translates into more guns floating around in the streets. Despite thinking you are totally insane, I don't doubt that you'd probably not kill anyone with your fine collection of rifles and crazy Yugoslavian knockoffs, but someone out their is going to amass a big old cache of them and then get robbed and lose it, and then those guns will be used to rob and shoot people (which is the primary usage of guns).

Also, stop using terminology that no one knows because we are not gun-nuts. I am pretty familiar with guns so I get all the .38spl/Kalashnikov/SKS/et cetera but not everyone can follow your crazy comments about various acronyms and their danger to HONEST AMERICANS.
The Misadventures of Crimebot
  • Avatar of The Truth
  • SB is unaware that Dimmu sucks
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: May 15, 2003
  • Posts: 1204
but... but guys... the jew nwo conspiracy just wants guns taken away from hard working white men so that when they start their neo-con right wing takeover (killing 80% of the world....) nobody will be able to stop them.

well fuck that, i'm sitting here in camo, with my fucking sk8ks29.12 glock ak sam here polishing its barrel ready for the hordes to come in and SLIT.MY.THROAT. you're not taking me without a fight. i can't stand taxes either, some coon doesn't need food, i need that money to build my own bunker with heavy weapons on the wall.


RON PAUL 08
DEFENDER OF FREEDOM, DEFENDER OF OUR GUNS, DEFENDER OF OUR LIBERTY


remember remember the fifth of novemeber liberals.....
--- Back when we were young and loved the internet....
  • Avatar of KK4
  • Slit. Your. Throat.
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jul 21, 2007
  • Posts: 108
what enjoyment will you be getting from a weapon thats only purpose is to kill human beings more efficiently? I could see if you wanted a rifle for hunting but you just want to shine the stock while you jerk off over your new found power over human life.

It will make me forget I have a tiny penis... seriously.

What enjoyment to people get from collecting old toy trains, making toy models or buying old cars. It's a personal preference, and to me it's not about owning something that is for killing people. To me it's a machine that I find extremely interesting. Don't assume that my interest in weaponry has anything to do with some psychological urge to have power over human life, I am not that petty. Weapons are
extremely interesting because not only are they tools, complex machinery, but also pieces of history. My SKS was used in the former Yugoslavia, and my Mosin Nagant was used in WWII by the Russians. They're pieces of history and I find that extremely enjoyable.

I know you are familiar with their existence, so I will just have to call you out on the fact that you totally "overlooked" them; submachine guns. Submachine guns are fully automatic and do not have 3' barrels. They are easily concealed and sometimes very inexpensive (as is the case with Tec9s) and are fairly easy to maintain. In addition, they use easily obtainable and inexpensive pistol ammunition.

Yes, I suppose I did over look them.

With the exception of the small family of Submachine pistols, such as the above mentioned Tech-9 and the Beretta 93R, and Vz.61
Skorpion, most submachine guns are still too bulky and cumbersome to be easily concealed. Also, they're not very cost effective at all. some criminals and gang members will get them, mainly because it's a matter of pride, but they are still very rarely used in crimes and woefully inaccurate and inefficient in the hands of people not trained to use them. Still, even though SMGs can be found on the blackmarket, it's easier to get a small revolver that can be ditched easily with little cost.

Also, the Tech-9s which are sold in the US, which was originally developed by the Swedes as an SMG for tank crews, is not an SMG. The guns are modified to make them fully auto by grinding down the trigger sear. So the gun is basically broken and slam fires (fires uncontrolably) until the magazine is empty. The same thing happens with old P-38s that have a defective saftey, but that doesn't make them SMGs.

When I hear about automatic weapons becoming legal, I don't just suddenly envision a bunch of gangs driving around with AR15s and AK-47s shooting them in the air wildly, I imagine escalating violence after some private collector has his gun collection stolen and suddenly all those fully automatic SMGs he had to buy because IT WAS HIS RIGHT GOD BLESS AMERICA are now floating around in the hands of criminals. If you keep them out of the market entirely then you keep them off the streets, it is that simple. Sure, people will still be able to get them, but it keeps their cost high and keeps their appearance uncommon.

The simple truth is that more guns owned by HONEST AMERICANS directly translates into more guns floating around in the streets. Despite thinking you are totally insane, I don't doubt that you'd probably not kill anyone with your fine collection of rifles and crazy Yugoslavian knockoffs, but someone out their is going to amass a big old cache of them and then get robbed and lose it, and then those guns will be used to rob and shoot people (which is the primary usage of guns).

However, The more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens the less crime there is. (look at the crime stats in places with tighter gun laws vs those with fewer gun laws) I am aware that the vast majority of guns which are on the street are stolen or from straw purchases or blackmarket deals. However, how many times are police and national guard armories knocked off? Not too frequently because they are armed to the teeth. Now, I may be dead wrong, but I believe that criminals are not going to try to rob people they know are armed to the teeth, unless of course they wait until they go on vacation. However, I do advocate reasonable security for your weapons for just that reason. For example, all of my weapons, save for my carry pistol, are all kept in a reinforced 300 lbs safe which is bolted to the foundations. Also, my neighbors happen to know I am armed to the teeth, at least the ones I like do, and they're not gonna let any criminals get out of my house with my meager collection. Anyway, I advocate saftey, when it comes to shooting, and when it comes to keeping your stuff locked up. I doubt the average crack fiend carries around with them a plasma cutter, so unless a professional crime syndicate is trying to steal my stuff my guns are fairly safe.

Also, stop using terminology that no one knows because we are not gun-nuts. I am pretty familiar with guns so I get all the .38spl/Kalashnikov/SKS/et cetera but not everyone can follow your crazy comments about various acronyms and their danger to HONEST AMERICANS.
This is a reoccurring problem, seeing as I am a self described weapons specialist. I'll just add pictures when I go on about weapons. That should fix some things.

ps guys i think it's pretty obvious that KK4 wants automatic rifles for cool pix
That is a friggin' awesome graphic. Fuckin' saved

:words:

Fuckin' eh man, fuckin' eh  :2guns: :fogetguns: :gunsdude: :rockout: We should get together and talk about all of our imaginary enemies. (with graphics like these how can you doubt GW thinks guns are awesome?)
Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 04:21:49 am by KK4
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jun 22, 2005
  • Posts: 1325
However, The more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens the less crime there is. (look at the crime stats in places with tighter gun laws vs those with fewer gun laws)

Uh, what? Statistically speaking, the exact opposite of this is true. Perhaps state by state it is correct (I can't say as I don't have the facts), but in places like Canada or Great Britain, where gun control is much more strict, gun-related violence (and crime in general) is much lower. MUCH lower. The United States is obsessed with guns, it is pretty obvious. The police at the airport have assault rifles; why? What do they expect is going to happen? Do they really think heavily armed jihadists are going to storm in with AKs and start shooting up the place? A pistol is enough to subdue an individual or even an entire group of people. Hell, for many years British police didn't even carry guns; the idea of authority and the obvious notion of crime and punishment was enough to keep the power in the hands of the police. Their proficiency with clubs didn't hurt, either.

Generally speaking, guns only lead to escalating violence. If the police have a club, all you need if you want to protect yourself from the police is a bigger club, or more guys with clubs. If the guy next door has a club, then all you need is some rocks and a club and you've trumped him. But if the guy next door has a gun, well shit, what is your club going to do? Sure, he's a damn good neighbour and a nice guy and a family man, but he has a gun! At any moment, he could take everything you own. YOU NEED A GUN TOO, RIGHT? And the criminals, well, they see you guys have guns. But they're criminals, and they want to rob you. But you have guns. But they want to rob you! Ugh, it's so confusing for them! But wait, they can get guns. Bigger guns. More guns. Lots of guns. Then they can rob you. Which they want to do, because they are criminals.

Locks are for the honest man, KK4. I don't lock my door because I am worried some burglar is going to try my front door and find it unlocked and invite himself in, I lock my door so some punk kid doesn't wander into my house because he is dumb and drunk. If some burglar wants to get into my house, he will smash the lock, or break a window. The same goes for guns. If a criminal wants to rob you, he's not going to be stopped by your gun. He might go after an easier target, but they're only easier until they get a gun. Then he is at an impasse. Everyone has guns, but he still wants to rob people, so he buys a gun. He's more resolute and determined to use it, and all you've done by arming yourself is to make you more of a threat to him. He robs you, and because you have a gun, he shoots you. You later die on the operating table, because all the (privately owned) ambulances are busy trying to rescue other gunshot victims.

The reason crime rates in small towns that have more guns are lower is not because they have more guns, it is because they have less poor people and thereby have less criminals. I'm not saying all poor people are criminals, or anything, but generally speaking being completely out of money and hopeless is the leading cause of criminal development.

Gun ownership is a microcosm (and a very obvious one) of the arms race in general; you need a bigger gun to make sure your neighbours bigger guns don't outclass yours. I don't own a gun, and no one I know owns a gun. Not even the guys who I know to be criminals. Hell, no one I have ever talked to has mentioned having seen a gun outside of a police holster (barring the internet and TV and pictures and shit, obviously). Therefore, I don't feel in danger because I don't have a gun. If a criminal robs me, he might beat me up and take my money, but he doesn't have a gun, and neither do I, so nobody is going to get shot. Sure, violent crimes still happen, but generally speaking they wouldn't have been prevented if one party had a gun, anyways. If you see some guy walking toward you at night, are you going to pull your gun out and shoot him at twenty paces? No, you're going to have to wait until he's within arm's reach and he stabs you, or whatever.

I think the Wild West played a greater part in American Civilization than most people like to take seriously; in Europe cities were built and walled and people got on with their lives. The town had a town guard, a militia, who took care of minor matters of defence while the rest of the city got on with their lives. The national government took care of serious military threats, as was their role. Over time, the militia evolved into police forces, and the walls fell into disrepair because nobody needed them anymore. In the USA, frontier towns were rugged and on their own; no walls, no militia, just a sheriff and a handful of deputies and every other man for himself. Each man carried a gun to make his own fortune, each town had their own justice, only loosely affiliated with any singular national body. If that doesn't play to the sentiment of modern day libertarians, I don't know what does.

I understand collecting guns because they are interesting; I myself am very interested in them. But I wouldn't need to fire them. Hell, they wouldn't even have to have firing pins, never mind being fully automatic. They are interesting tools of history, but do you really need to shoot them? Yes, it's of course more interesting, but does it really outweigh the cost? And do you really need looser blanket gun laws (that govern modern day armaments) because you want a WW2 Luger that fires, and you want your hobby to be less expensive?

I hope my words have stirred some thoughts in you.
Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 05:47:35 am by Kaempfer
The Misadventures of Crimebot
  • Avatar of The Truth
  • SB is unaware that Dimmu sucks
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: May 15, 2003
  • Posts: 1204
so you collect guns because you enjoy their history right? okay i can understand that

then why do you find the need to make your gun full auto, what is all your camo for? your vests? your ammo?

don't just fucking lie.
--- Back when we were young and loved the internet....
  • Avatar of GZ
  • Gythol Granditti will be out "soon". Honest.
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jan 16, 2003
  • Posts: 789
*** DOCTOR DOUG BEACH SURVIVAL REPORT : THE PLACE OF "PROFESSIONAL BLACK MEN" IN SOCIETY ***

well done ron paul supporters. you have finally _got it_. guess these plebeian fuckhead "sub-humans" who don't vote for ron paul just need some sense knocked into their head. better yet a bullet LOL we do have the gun's after all. hey guys i think we should talk about somalia, the libertarian paradise as written about by pro libertarian website mises.org:

http://www.mises.org/story/2066

number of successful nations not using a libertarian system: 0
number of successful nations using a libertarian system: somalia (only libertarian nation in existence)

Cool Quotes:

"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."

"Decisions are enforced and oaths taken in ways that may seem unsophisticated or odd, yet they are the custom and must be respected. If, for instance, the defendant refuses to comply with the verdict without appealing his case to a higher court, he can be tied to a tree covered with black ants until he agrees. When evidence is sketchy or lacking, several types of oaths are available. A strong oath is one that is repeated fifty times. Another type is a divorce oath. If a man testifies under divorce oath and it is later found that his testimony was false, his marriage becomes null and void."

did you know? somalia has a thriving telecommunications sector. it's good to know when you walk down the street with your cell phone as you see dead bodies and sick people line the streets ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4271353.stm ) that you can get calls rates lower than 1 cent a minute. to me, the freedom of cheap telecommunications is worth five donkeys (this is a lot in somalia). it's also good to know the current anarchy in somalia is better than the previous "deathmonger lets ruin own own economy corrupt politico bathe in caviar" government previously in power. who would have thought? chalk up another victory to libertarians. but don't believe me, let's look at some testimonials straight from the horses mouth:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4040889.stm

Rational Actor Snips:

"I drive this bus on a 30km route to Mogadishu. On the way, we go through six check-points run by different militias. At each one, I have to pay 50,000 shillings ($3). This covers the whole day. I cannot do anything about it, if I had armed guards on my bus, there might be a gunfight and passengers would be killed."

"We need protection, as we are not related to the major clans. Whenever I leave my home, I cannot be sure that I will make it back alive."

cool factiod of the day: pirates still exist in somalia. because "outsiders" have no place in society they are essentially worth little more than a severed goose penis (this is worth roughly 1/500th of a donkey) it's cool to hijack boats and kill people for goods. this is what all rational actors can only hope to achieve.

it's good to know somalia has it's freedom in order. i can only dream to live in a country where i have the freedom to work at below-slavery rates and the freedom to use guns as a tool of fear to gain sustenance. after all, it's a dog eat dog world out there.

--- ADVERTISMENT ---

Doc Beaches Eclectic Kidney Pills



feeling down? maybe you just need a jumpstart on the tough american work day? well fear not citizen, doc beach has you covered! made with 100% pure mule piss (100c dilution ratio), dihydrogen monoxide and talcum powder doc beaches kidney pills cure all ails. buy now and get it in 20% BONUS PACK form!

--- ADVERTISMENT ---

i am ecstatic that ron paul the uniter can make me agree with racists and bigots he understands the issues. i personally look forward to setting back the united states 100 years because the CONSTITUTION is the only true law and everything else can go to h*ll. its not like i voted for those assholes in washington and everyone who voted before me is a retard so to me this is a good idea. p.s. guys i am setting up a ron paul party there will be lots of drugs and booze (also sexy ladies) i am not having this party because i enjoy it but only because i am a responsible person who must spread the political word of saviour paul.

state rights are essential because we all know the famous adage "one mind is better than two" - dough beach. states clearly are ahead of the curve when it comes to government especially alabama who would likely vote for segregation in schools if given the chance and this is a good idea because darkies are known to be less intelligent than white people (to offset this they have big penises this in in scientific journals LOOK IT UP)

unlike the government which is certainly not voted by people (the illuminati hand selects all government positions there is no choice), the FREE MARKET (TM) is purely regulated by reputation and if a company does bad things it will not prosper under the "truer free markets" thus people choose which companies stick and which ones go to h*ll. for example, DOW suffered huge losses after acquiring union carbide (responsible for one of the greatest industrial disasters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster and refusing to take responsibility). so much so, DOW is only the number 1 company in the united states for chemical manufacturing. i equate this into RPG terms because i enjoy playing JRPGS all day but dow would have been CLOUD STRIFE righteous and very powerful but since their reputation is damaged they are a lot like SPEHIROTH dark and mysterious but also powerful.

GOLD NUGGET OF WISDOM: the gold standard is such a great idea all societies that once used the gold standard have abandoned it. this is because the NWO is slowly making the population dumber with ZETA MIND WAVES and wants to rob you of all your golds. also, if we had the gold standard yankee town wouldn't have been able to get into a trade deficit because all of mankind likes shiny things and would never allow this to happen (precious golds).

- physician beach md