And as I already said, no country has ever been able to implement communism or even Marxism without resorting to ruthless dictatorships where the people are more in fear of their lives then wanting to participate.
I think you are confused. One can not implement Communism through dictatorships or fear. One can not a Communal Dictator. What you are referring to is the intermediate step between Capitalism and Communism, which, according to Marx, is socialism. And I'm not saying I believe in any of that, I'm just trying to set the facts straight.
It won't work unless you threaten people's lives.
If you look at it as a threat then it's certainly no more of a threat to one's life than capitalism. I see it is a benefit. You can starve in the ocean or become a productive member of society and have all your needs met. Given the choice I personally would chose to be productive. But that's no different than capitalism which says exactly the same thing. If you are not productive you will die.
Greed... basic...trait. Everything from Lions to wild dogs [are greedy].
Everything accept communal animals like ants, termites, and Meerkats (Yes I realize that those are autocratic societies, but they are also communal). But what's better is humans have a higher intellect that we can use to overcome animal instincts.
This is because their is no capitol or for some reason not enough capitol is available to market it.
You are correct, it is because there is not enough capitol available to market it. That's not to say that there is not enough capital, but instead because the capitol is controlled by a limited oligarchy. But that goes back to my original statement, that no one is looking for a cure because there is no capitol gain in a cure, but there is in keeping the country sick.
Inventions would be around, that's for sure. But being around and being used outside of the close nit of the inventor is something that wouldn't happen.
How do you decide who gets bigger this or that? If it's just those with better jobs isn't that just less defined version of money?
The answer is that everyone gets the benefit. The person that comes up with the idea gets the benefit. The person that implements the idea gets the benefit. All the people that support society so that these people can do this creative work get the benefit.
Point being that there is no reason to restrict new inventions to a select few. If it is something that will have a limited supply, then only a limited number of people can use it at a single time, but still everyone can have equal access. Then someone who would like to have more access works on a less resource intensive process so their can be more. Motivation remains, it's just that an individuals motivation happens to benefit all of society.
You've suggested a stick might work instead but tbh i don't think you can get that far punishing people for not being good enough people.
No actually I suggest nothing but a carrot. But like everything in life, one persons carrot is another person stick. The carrot is simple, you can have all your needs met and have access to all the available resources of society, and all you need to do is be reasonably productive (and yes I realize someone would have to define reasonably productive). I would think that would be a much better carrot than the current economic motivator that only provides for the needs of a very select few, and limits all other resources to an even smaller minority.
Then again, this whole thing started from one sentence, certainly not enough to define an entire ideology.
people who have a job flipping burgers have no incentive to move up
Two things to say about that. First we need burger flippers, if we didn't need them we wouldn't have them, but people need to eat. That being said anyone capable of a different lie of work would probably chose it. I don't know about you but I know I would rather do what I do than flip burgers (thought I wouldn't mind pumping gas for a living.
No-one has any incentive to do anything other than the bare minimum to not get marooned, and greed is currently the only really feasible leverage
As much as I believe there are plenty of other positive motivators, besides greed, I don't believe that greed would be taken out of the equation. If there are ten widgets in the world and twenty people want them then there is motivation to make ten more (assuming there is no other viable way to share them). People will still want faster computers, and faster cars, and bigger this and smaller that. The fact that we wouldn't need to exchange money for these resources does not make them any less valuable.
I would recommend you look at the history of countries like Cuba...
I can imagine that any country that has limited natural resources that is the victim of major international sanctions might have some difficulty. And violent human rights violations by the government tends to be difficult of the people of a country. I fail to see what any of that has to do with the removal of monetary need, since cuba has maintained a monetary system for it's entire existence, or the supplying of basic needs to all productive (yes I'm clarifying my original statement) people.
Trust me, what I am suggesting, and has been suggested by others before me, has never been tried. It hasn't been tried because it confuses most people, but that doesn't make it any less viable.
Really? I assume you have some computer simulations somewhere that prove this. I mean they would have to be simulations since it's never been tried in reality.
And more importantly, what does that even remotely have to do with the comment you are responding to?
Hey let's not compare what I proposed in one short little sentence fragment with what Stalin took years to destroy.
Why, because if you provided for all my needs, then I wouldn't need to work.
Then I put your ass on a boat and drop you off in the middle of the pacific with a bologna sandwich and life vest.
Others would see me not working and decide to follow suit.
I imagine most people would rather be productive than have die of exposure.
This trait is called greed and you will never be able to take it out of the equation.
Greed only exists because there is incentive to do so. Remove the incentive and you remove the greed.
And this is where someone goes on about how no one would have the incentive to invent new things, but that's only because we assume the only motivation in monetary gain. While in reality most true inventions happen because the inventor actually wants to use his invention.
Even better solution, do away with the monetary system completely. If we provided for the needs of all citizens and made all none essential resources shared property of the people...
Oh wait, what was I thinking, that would actually solve the problem and I'm sure that's the last thing we want to be doing here (that would be like a pharmaceutical company researching a cure.).
All of that may be true, but if you don't think that unions artificially prop up useless workers then you're out to lunch.
This is a myth perpetuated by corporations who want to keep their employees from unionizing. If you examine the myth you will see that it is not reasonable to even believe.
Unions are a collective of workers. The protection a union provides is that the members of the union stand together to achieve better working conditions. Protecting an under productive coworker does nothing to improve working conditions. No worker wants their coworkers to receive equal compensation for less effort.
If you want to get away with being lazy, then do not join a union, or be employed by a union shop. In unionized workplaces your coworkers know how hard you work and exactly what your compensation is, and they have the ultimate final say in your continued employment. Coworkers with this knowledge will not stand for someone benefiting from the efforts of someone else's labor.
The majority were opposed to national health care. In fact, after the law passed, even more are opposed to it now!
Wait. When did we pass a law about national health care? I know recently we passed a bill on regulations of health insurance, but I have yet to see anything that even resembles national health care.
There are plenty of polls that do not back up your assertion that US citizens oppose Universal Health Care.
Yes US citizens opposed one half-assed attempt reform health care in a way that would pass our bipartisan legislature. That is not the same as saying that the US citizens opposed Nationalized or Universal Health care.
Having worked both union and non-union jobs I can tell you that your generalization of unions is incorrect. A Union is merely a collection of workers. Unions collectively bargain with employers. Yes it means that all members of the Union agree to certain standards, but it does not mean that they are necessarily without any control over their own employment. The Union can bargain for non-salary requirements such as insurance benefits, limits on overtime hours, and safe working environments. Unions can bargain to minimum salaries with out making a stipulation on higher pay negotiated by individuals.
Every time you bargain with, or enter into any agreement, with an employer (accept in very rare circumstances), you are bargaining collectively. The problem is, that with out a union (be it formal or informal) you are not the one with the collective backing you up.
Employers naturally collude to keep expenses low, and that includes salaries. Employees have no such natural collusion as it does not batter to us if our coworkers are underpaid. In many cases people would support their coworkers being underpaid if it meant them getting a slightly larger share because of it.
Unions must exist for capitalism to remain viable. In the past 20 years we have seen the weakening of the power of the established unions, and it may just be a coincidence that this coincides with economic collapse, but I personally doubt the two are unrelated.
think it's far easier and cleaner to build a class-based system on top of prototype-based
You really can't say things like that and then expect people to take you serious when you say "Don't abuse the language." Creating a classical framework on top of a prototypical language is clearly abusing the language. And I don't mean abusing as is "trying to get it to do something it was not originally designed for," I mean abusing as in "what goes on in prison when then guards are not looking." And this coming from someone that wrote one of the earlier classical frameworks for JS, before I realized that prototypical inheritance is, in my opinion, far superior.
Also you don't look like much of an advocate for a language when you refer to other languages ( specifically the number one... err... number two language in the world) as "shittier."
I imagine the "logic" goes more like this: If we teach children about sex then they may be tempted to seek it out, or be more willing to try it when it is suggested. They may seek it out with adults, or be more easily manipulated into it by adults. If we don't teach our children that they only correct way to handle sex is with pure abstinence then we won't run the risk of statutory rape.
I think it's a complete load of crap just like most age of consent laws as implemented around the world, but that's just me.
Seriously dude, pick up a dictionary, then go back an reread this entire thread. Apply some basic reading comprehension skills. Focus specifically on the difference between "practical use" and "use" as well as the difference between "designed purpose" and "user intent" as they have very different meaning.
Did anyone say that you could not enjoy target shooting? I ask because I have been back through this thread multiple times and so far have not been able to find it. This whole thread has had nothing to do with restricting your abilities to do anything or forcing that all activities be practical. The whole purpose, if I get the original posters comment, was to state that people who own lethal firearms should have the respect for the weapon they are using, by acknowledging that the intended purpose, based on design, of the firearm is to main or kill.
And you are correct that golf is no more practical than target shooting, but then again no one was trying to claim that the intended purpose of a golf club was anything other than hitting golf balls, so I'm not sure how that even applies to the conversation.
But somehow we get off track and people start name calling...
I think this is why fanatics are so hard to argue with. They have this habit of reading or hearing things that where never actually said.
I don't see anywhere in this thread where someone said that you can't do things just for fun. The majority of my time is spent having fun, it's what I live for. The only reason the "practicality" of an item was brought into questions was to show that knives and firearms are not comparable, as one has many practical uses and the other, when using lethal ammunitions (as I will accept that flare guns though potentially lethal I guess, does have a practical uses as do some more obscure use), has exactly one practical use. That is it. This had nothing at all to do with your right to enjoy firing firearms.
All the original poster that started this was saying is that gun owners should accept that the intended purpose and design of their firearms is to maim and kill (obviously not true in the case of a air gun that fires non-lethal ammunitions, but that was not the origin of the topic).
Now they have to open supply line and contract another energy supplier (diesel is just another way of transporting energy). They already have the power line in place and are all ready contracting with the power supplied. Keeping this Battery charged will actually reduce their per kw cost, as the over all volume will go up. As for environmental, building a pipe line, or trucking in Diesel would have it's own environmental impact. Never mind that you would have to store an explosive material.
That is the most amazing Troll I have ever seen. It so obscure that one would actually have to be looking for a Troll to find it. And to hide that obscure assault on a minor subset of the population deep down in an off-topic thread about the Human Immune response. I'll tell you if they really are a troll, then they Deserver the Troll of the year award for that one.
Oh and really some times the only response to someone who keeps trying to divert your eyes from the man behind the curtain, is to just keep pointing at the curtain.
Guns are intended to kill... But some times they are used to defend oneself...by killing... but they are just a tool... for killing.
I'm not even saying if the argument is right or wrong, but until someone actual refutes the claim that firearms are designed to kill, then Lunix Nutcase really has no reason to say anything else, they're just trying to bring the conversation back on topic... well at least the topic of the thread they thought was being discussed.
I don't recall ever saying that you should not be allowed to own firearms. Even if you go back and read I never even said that you should be denied the right to purchase or pursue anything.
On the other hand there are plenty of things that people enjoy that we as a society have deemed it reasonable to infringe upon the freedom to do so. Like some people like to have sex, with unwilling participants, but we have deemed that restricted. Some people like to kill other people, but we have also deemed that restricted (there isn't even a full ban on it). Some people like to live without the fear of firearms, but god forbid we actually try and enforce their freedom to live without the presence of firearms.
I really don't care if people are allowed to own firearms at all, I seriously don't as it has so far in my life had no affect on my life what so ever. But if you are going to make an argument for something you better have a better reason than "because I want to" because no matter what it is, your right to do something is infringing on someone else's right.
And you can think what you want, but firing a gun at a target is not "concerned with the production or operation of something useful", because I hate to tell you this, but a shot up target is not all that useful (with the obvious exception being if your target is part of a Rube Goldberg device)
And it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about, having emptied multiple clips from an AR15, a Mini 30, a number of.22s and multiple 9mm handguns with in the last year alone, just to name a few.
I think the problem here is that you don't realize that words have multiple meanings and you are refusing to use the context of the word to determine that actual meaning, such as in the word "practical". In the above sentence I was using the meaning "Concerned with the production or operation of something useful". For Example, A Knife can be used to create a meal, or in carving a boat. Shooting a target is not "Concerned with the production or operation of something useful". (You can argue that it is useful in that it perfects someones abilities, but then we are right back to the only practical purpose for those abilities, which is to cause harm)
You do realize that Troll is not the same as "You don't agree with me"? Personally I think you are all nut jobs, but that, in itself, doesn't make any you Trolls.
I have never personal read any news articles about someone being hurt by a stray sword. Or a child accidentally killing themselves or a friend by playing with a sword. (I imagine there have been some cases of accidental sword injury but I'm pretty confident they are usually less serious and considerably less common than with firearms).
I agree that anyone that says the purpose of a firearm is to kill is taking an extremely narrow view. I would suggest anyone who wants to take up that argument should state that "lethal projectiles" are intended to be used to kill. You can target shoot all day with firearms that have little potential to severely damage a living animal.
Personally I think we should have no restrictions on the sale of firearms at all, whether it be fully automatic, high caliber, or what ever. On the other hand, ammunition should be highly regulated. No one needs a.50 Caliber high velocity projectile for target practice, and no one needs hollow point ammunition unless they are intending to kill living animals without the purpose of retaining them for food.
And as soon as you can give me another practical use of a firearm, for the average citizen (as I doubt most people have a need to set off avalanches or some other obscure use), other than to harm living animals, then you can start comparing them to knives or other tools that can be used to harm.
And just as a side note, I really have no opinion on the regulation of firearms, it just makes for a good argument.
I think I need to start shooting every one out there on the streets that has a camera, or an cell phone, or an iPod, because from where I'm standing they look like weapons to me. I'm an untrained professional so there is no way I would be able to tell the difference if these trained soldiers can't figure it out.
There is that whole idea that we don't just open fire on everyone we think is carrying a weapon, but that's really just for pansies.
He believe the law was broken, so he publicly broke it
That is a far cry from privately violating someone's copyright. If you went out into the public and started making copies and distributing them, then you might be on the same level as Ghandi, and you would be undertaking Civil Disobedience. Breaking the law, and attempting to hide your actions, as is common with piracy, is not civil disobedience. The important part is that to undertake civil disobedience you have to do it openly, and be willing to suffer the consequences of your actions. Remember that Ghandi spent many years in prison for his violations of laws he felt where unjust, and he did so graciously.
Slashdot Mirror
And as I already said, no country has ever been able to implement communism or even Marxism without resorting to ruthless dictatorships where the people are more in fear of their lives then wanting to participate.
I think you are confused. One can not implement Communism through dictatorships or fear. One can not a Communal Dictator. What you are referring to is the intermediate step between Capitalism and Communism, which, according to Marx, is socialism. And I'm not saying I believe in any of that, I'm just trying to set the facts straight.
It won't work unless you threaten people's lives.
If you look at it as a threat then it's certainly no more of a threat to one's life than capitalism. I see it is a benefit. You can starve in the ocean or become a productive member of society and have all your needs met. Given the choice I personally would chose to be productive. But that's no different than capitalism which says exactly the same thing. If you are not productive you will die.
Greed... basic...trait. Everything from Lions to wild dogs [are greedy].
Everything accept communal animals like ants, termites, and Meerkats (Yes I realize that those are autocratic societies, but they are also communal). But what's better is humans have a higher intellect that we can use to overcome animal instincts.
This is because their is no capitol or for some reason not enough capitol is available to market it.
You are correct, it is because there is not enough capitol available to market it. That's not to say that there is not enough capital, but instead because the capitol is controlled by a limited oligarchy. But that goes back to my original statement, that no one is looking for a cure because there is no capitol gain in a cure, but there is in keeping the country sick.
Inventions would be around, that's for sure. But being around and being used outside of the close nit of the inventor is something that wouldn't happen.
Your powers of precognition are astounding.
How do you decide who gets bigger this or that? If it's just those with better jobs isn't that just less defined version of money?
The answer is that everyone gets the benefit. The person that comes up with the idea gets the benefit. The person that implements the idea gets the benefit. All the people that support society so that these people can do this creative work get the benefit.
Point being that there is no reason to restrict new inventions to a select few. If it is something that will have a limited supply, then only a limited number of people can use it at a single time, but still everyone can have equal access. Then someone who would like to have more access works on a less resource intensive process so their can be more. Motivation remains, it's just that an individuals motivation happens to benefit all of society.
You've suggested a stick might work instead but tbh i don't think you can get that far punishing people for not being good enough people.
No actually I suggest nothing but a carrot. But like everything in life, one persons carrot is another person stick. The carrot is simple, you can have all your needs met and have access to all the available resources of society, and all you need to do is be reasonably productive (and yes I realize someone would have to define reasonably productive). I would think that would be a much better carrot than the current economic motivator that only provides for the needs of a very select few, and limits all other resources to an even smaller minority.
Then again, this whole thing started from one sentence, certainly not enough to define an entire ideology.
people who have a job flipping burgers have no incentive to move up
Two things to say about that. First we need burger flippers, if we didn't need them we wouldn't have them, but people need to eat. That being said anyone capable of a different lie of work would probably chose it. I don't know about you but I know I would rather do what I do than flip burgers (thought I wouldn't mind pumping gas for a living.
No-one has any incentive to do anything other than the bare minimum to not get marooned, and greed is currently the only really feasible leverage
As much as I believe there are plenty of other positive motivators, besides greed, I don't believe that greed would be taken out of the equation. If there are ten widgets in the world and twenty people want them then there is motivation to make ten more (assuming there is no other viable way to share them). People will still want faster computers, and faster cars, and bigger this and smaller that. The fact that we wouldn't need to exchange money for these resources does not make them any less valuable.
I would recommend you look at the history of countries like Cuba...
I can imagine that any country that has limited natural resources that is the victim of major international sanctions might have some difficulty. And violent human rights violations by the government tends to be difficult of the people of a country. I fail to see what any of that has to do with the removal of monetary need, since cuba has maintained a monetary system for it's entire existence, or the supplying of basic needs to all productive (yes I'm clarifying my original statement) people.
Trust me, what I am suggesting, and has been suggested by others before me, has never been tried. It hasn't been tried because it confuses most people, but that doesn't make it any less viable.
Communism is the very definition of FAILURE!
Really? I assume you have some computer simulations somewhere that prove this. I mean they would have to be simulations since it's never been tried in reality.
And more importantly, what does that even remotely have to do with the comment you are responding to?
And what exactly does that have to do with my prior statement? I'd like to know because maybe the words I wrote don't mean what I think they mean.
Basically, no sticks means no carrots.
A better lifestyle (for all people) is one hell of a carrot, and future is one hell of a stick.
Why, because if you provided for all my needs, then I wouldn't need to work.
Then I put your ass on a boat and drop you off in the middle of the pacific with a bologna sandwich and life vest.
Others would see me not working and decide to follow suit.
I imagine most people would rather be productive than have die of exposure.
This trait is called greed and you will never be able to take it out of the equation.
Greed only exists because there is incentive to do so. Remove the incentive and you remove the greed.
And this is where someone goes on about how no one would have the incentive to invent new things, but that's only because we assume the only motivation in monetary gain. While in reality most true inventions happen because the inventor actually wants to use his invention.
Even better solution, do away with the monetary system completely. If we provided for the needs of all citizens and made all none essential resources shared property of the people...
Oh wait, what was I thinking, that would actually solve the problem and I'm sure that's the last thing we want to be doing here (that would be like a pharmaceutical company researching a cure.).
All of that may be true, but if you don't think that unions artificially prop up useless workers then you're out to lunch.
This is a myth perpetuated by corporations who want to keep their employees from unionizing. If you examine the myth you will see that it is not reasonable to even believe.
Unions are a collective of workers. The protection a union provides is that the members of the union stand together to achieve better working conditions. Protecting an under productive coworker does nothing to improve working conditions. No worker wants their coworkers to receive equal compensation for less effort.
If you want to get away with being lazy, then do not join a union, or be employed by a union shop. In unionized workplaces your coworkers know how hard you work and exactly what your compensation is, and they have the ultimate final say in your continued employment. Coworkers with this knowledge will not stand for someone benefiting from the efforts of someone else's labor.
The majority were opposed to national health care. In fact, after the law passed, even more are opposed to it now!
Wait. When did we pass a law about national health care? I know recently we passed a bill on regulations of health insurance, but I have yet to see anything that even resembles national health care.
There are plenty of polls that do not back up your assertion that US citizens oppose Universal Health Care.
Yes US citizens opposed one half-assed attempt reform health care in a way that would pass our bipartisan legislature. That is not the same as saying that the US citizens opposed Nationalized or Universal Health care.
Having worked both union and non-union jobs I can tell you that your generalization of unions is incorrect. A Union is merely a collection of workers. Unions collectively bargain with employers. Yes it means that all members of the Union agree to certain standards, but it does not mean that they are necessarily without any control over their own employment. The Union can bargain for non-salary requirements such as insurance benefits, limits on overtime hours, and safe working environments. Unions can bargain to minimum salaries with out making a stipulation on higher pay negotiated by individuals.
Every time you bargain with, or enter into any agreement, with an employer (accept in very rare circumstances), you are bargaining collectively. The problem is, that with out a union (be it formal or informal) you are not the one with the collective backing you up.
Employers naturally collude to keep expenses low, and that includes salaries. Employees have no such natural collusion as it does not batter to us if our coworkers are underpaid. In many cases people would support their coworkers being underpaid if it meant them getting a slightly larger share because of it.
Unions must exist for capitalism to remain viable. In the past 20 years we have seen the weakening of the power of the established unions, and it may just be a coincidence that this coincides with economic collapse, but I personally doubt the two are unrelated.
think it's far easier and cleaner to build a class-based system on top of prototype-based
You really can't say things like that and then expect people to take you serious when you say "Don't abuse the language." Creating a classical framework on top of a prototypical language is clearly abusing the language. And I don't mean abusing as is "trying to get it to do something it was not originally designed for," I mean abusing as in "what goes on in prison when then guards are not looking." And this coming from someone that wrote one of the earlier classical frameworks for JS, before I realized that prototypical inheritance is, in my opinion, far superior.
Also you don't look like much of an advocate for a language when you refer to other languages ( specifically the number one... err... number two language in the world) as "shittier."
Why does it have to be two minors?
I imagine the "logic" goes more like this: If we teach children about sex then they may be tempted to seek it out, or be more willing to try it when it is suggested. They may seek it out with adults, or be more easily manipulated into it by adults. If we don't teach our children that they only correct way to handle sex is with pure abstinence then we won't run the risk of statutory rape.
I think it's a complete load of crap just like most age of consent laws as implemented around the world, but that's just me.
Seriously dude, pick up a dictionary, then go back an reread this entire thread. Apply some basic reading comprehension skills. Focus specifically on the difference between "practical use" and "use" as well as the difference between "designed purpose" and "user intent" as they have very different meaning.
Did anyone say that you could not enjoy target shooting? I ask because I have been back through this thread multiple times and so far have not been able to find it. This whole thread has had nothing to do with restricting your abilities to do anything or forcing that all activities be practical. The whole purpose, if I get the original posters comment, was to state that people who own lethal firearms should have the respect for the weapon they are using, by acknowledging that the intended purpose, based on design, of the firearm is to main or kill.
And you are correct that golf is no more practical than target shooting, but then again no one was trying to claim that the intended purpose of a golf club was anything other than hitting golf balls, so I'm not sure how that even applies to the conversation.
But somehow we get off track and people start name calling...
I think this is why fanatics are so hard to argue with. They have this habit of reading or hearing things that where never actually said.
I don't see anywhere in this thread where someone said that you can't do things just for fun. The majority of my time is spent having fun, it's what I live for. The only reason the "practicality" of an item was brought into questions was to show that knives and firearms are not comparable, as one has many practical uses and the other, when using lethal ammunitions (as I will accept that flare guns though potentially lethal I guess, does have a practical uses as do some more obscure use), has exactly one practical use. That is it. This had nothing at all to do with your right to enjoy firing firearms.
All the original poster that started this was saying is that gun owners should accept that the intended purpose and design of their firearms is to maim and kill (obviously not true in the case of a air gun that fires non-lethal ammunitions, but that was not the origin of the topic).
Now they have to open supply line and contract another energy supplier (diesel is just another way of transporting energy). They already have the power line in place and are all ready contracting with the power supplied. Keeping this Battery charged will actually reduce their per kw cost, as the over all volume will go up. As for environmental, building a pipe line, or trucking in Diesel would have it's own environmental impact. Never mind that you would have to store an explosive material.
Lunix is a derogatory stab at Linux?
That is the most amazing Troll I have ever seen. It so obscure that one would actually have to be looking for a Troll to find it. And to hide that obscure assault on a minor subset of the population deep down in an off-topic thread about the Human Immune response. I'll tell you if they really are a troll, then they Deserver the Troll of the year award for that one.
Oh and really some times the only response to someone who keeps trying to divert your eyes from the man behind the curtain, is to just keep pointing at the curtain.
Guns are intended to kill... But some times they are used to defend oneself...by killing... but they are just a tool... for killing.
I'm not even saying if the argument is right or wrong, but until someone actual refutes the claim that firearms are designed to kill, then Lunix Nutcase really has no reason to say anything else, they're just trying to bring the conversation back on topic... well at least the topic of the thread they thought was being discussed.
I don't recall ever saying that you should not be allowed to own firearms. Even if you go back and read I never even said that you should be denied the right to purchase or pursue anything.
.22s and multiple 9mm handguns with in the last year alone, just to name a few.
On the other hand there are plenty of things that people enjoy that we as a society have deemed it reasonable to infringe upon the freedom to do so. Like some people like to have sex, with unwilling participants, but we have deemed that restricted. Some people like to kill other people, but we have also deemed that restricted (there isn't even a full ban on it). Some people like to live without the fear of firearms, but god forbid we actually try and enforce their freedom to live without the presence of firearms.
I really don't care if people are allowed to own firearms at all, I seriously don't as it has so far in my life had no affect on my life what so ever. But if you are going to make an argument for something you better have a better reason than "because I want to" because no matter what it is, your right to do something is infringing on someone else's right.
And you can think what you want, but firing a gun at a target is not "concerned with the production or operation of something useful", because I hate to tell you this, but a shot up target is not all that useful (with the obvious exception being if your target is part of a Rube Goldberg device)
And it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about, having emptied multiple clips from an AR15, a Mini 30, a number of
I think the problem here is that you don't realize that words have multiple meanings and you are refusing to use the context of the word to determine that actual meaning, such as in the word "practical". In the above sentence I was using the meaning "Concerned with the production or operation of something useful". For Example, A Knife can be used to create a meal, or in carving a boat. Shooting a target is not "Concerned with the production or operation of something useful". (You can argue that it is useful in that it perfects someones abilities, but then we are right back to the only practical purpose for those abilities, which is to cause harm)
You do realize that Troll is not the same as "You don't agree with me"? Personally I think you are all nut jobs, but that, in itself, doesn't make any you Trolls.
I have never personal read any news articles about someone being hurt by a stray sword. Or a child accidentally killing themselves or a friend by playing with a sword. (I imagine there have been some cases of accidental sword injury but I'm pretty confident they are usually less serious and considerably less common than with firearms).
I agree that anyone that says the purpose of a firearm is to kill is taking an extremely narrow view. I would suggest anyone who wants to take up that argument should state that "lethal projectiles" are intended to be used to kill. You can target shoot all day with firearms that have little potential to severely damage a living animal.
.50 Caliber high velocity projectile for target practice, and no one needs hollow point ammunition unless they are intending to kill living animals without the purpose of retaining them for food.
Personally I think we should have no restrictions on the sale of firearms at all, whether it be fully automatic, high caliber, or what ever. On the other hand, ammunition should be highly regulated. No one needs a
And as soon as you can give me another practical use of a firearm, for the average citizen (as I doubt most people have a need to set off avalanches or some other obscure use), other than to harm living animals, then you can start comparing them to knives or other tools that can be used to harm.
And just as a side note, I really have no opinion on the regulation of firearms, it just makes for a good argument.
I think I need to start shooting every one out there on the streets that has a camera, or an cell phone, or an iPod, because from where I'm standing they look like weapons to me. I'm an untrained professional so there is no way I would be able to tell the difference if these trained soldiers can't figure it out.
There is that whole idea that we don't just open fire on everyone we think is carrying a weapon, but that's really just for pansies.
He believe the law was broken, so he publicly broke it
That is a far cry from privately violating someone's copyright. If you went out into the public and started making copies and distributing them, then you might be on the same level as Ghandi, and you would be undertaking Civil Disobedience. Breaking the law, and attempting to hide your actions, as is common with piracy, is not civil disobedience. The important part is that to undertake civil disobedience you have to do it openly, and be willing to suffer the consequences of your actions. Remember that Ghandi spent many years in prison for his violations of laws he felt where unjust, and he did so graciously.