No, *true* freedom is feeling you don't need a gun, and not fearing from not carrying one.
Then I am *truly* free. Why is it that you are not? Because, as has been repeated over and over and over, the issue is the culture of various places (not their level of gun posession). You live in a place where guns are not needed. I live not to far from a place whre they are needed. Just because you are free enough not to need a gun, does not mean that others are as well. By your own admission elsewhere, you don't own a gun, and yet you seem to be just fine. Maybe your fears are imagined? Or maybe you should move. And I recall a desire to go to Somalia on your part. Is that a better place that gives you freedom (no need to carry a gun). Until that happens, carrying a gun is the only way to have freedom in a situation where you need to carry guns and feel unsafe without them. You are putting your freedoms in the wrong order, in other words.
Huh? We've just agreed that I'm already free. You are free because you live in a place where you don't need a gun. Not because you don't have a gun. As I said, you got the order backwards. It is NOT Bad Culture > Give up guns because they are "not needed" > Better Culture as you claim. The "freedom" order is Bad culture > Better culture > Give up guns because they are "not needed" Does that make sense? Sounds like the sound thing for you to do is find some better culture. |
|
|
|
Also everyone talks about self-defense here. Imagine a situation, where some sort of brawl/robbery is happening and one of the subjects has a knife in his hand, wiling to use it on another subject. Would you whip out your gun, and when attacker refuses to comply with your verbal warning, shoot him (aiming for the leg, hand, torso, whatever)?
If the options are shoot, or surrender, I'd certainly shoot. No good will come to either of us by surrendering. A pointless question to ask, and a pointless question to answer, given that the chance of one finding themselves in said situation, and the chances of someone actually knowing what they would do in said situation are limited. The truth of the matter is, the burden one carries with themselves when carrying a gun all the time subtracts from one's freedom. True freedom is not thinking about carrying a gun, because one isn't carrying a gun, nor feels the need to, and doesn't fear being without a gun. No, *true* freedom is feeling you don't need a gun, and not fearing from not carrying one. Then I am *truly* free. Why is it that you are not? Until that happens, carrying a gun is the only way to have freedom in a situation where you need to carry guns and feel unsafe without them. You are putting your freedoms in the wrong order, in other words.
Huh? We've just agreed that I'm already free. |
|
|
|
Also everyone talks about self-defense here. Imagine a situation, where some sort of brawl/robbery is happening and one of the subjects has a knife in his hand, wiling to use it on another subject. Would you whip out your gun, and when attacker refuses to comply with your verbal warning, shoot him (aiming for the leg, hand, torso, whatever)?
If the options are shoot, or surrender, I'd certainly shoot. No good will come to either of us by surrendering. A pointless question to ask, and a pointless question to answer, given that the chance of one finding themselves in said situation, and the chances of someone actually knowing what they would do in said situation are limited. The truth of the matter is, the burden one carries with themselves when carrying a gun all the time subtracts from one's freedom. True freedom is not thinking about carrying a gun, because one isn't carrying a gun, nor feels the need to, and doesn't fear being without a gun. |
|
|
|
|
Why isn't Rassah in here cheerleading for McDonald's?
|
|
|
|
"Efficiently" Absolute bullshit. What's efficient about paying $6/round plus thousands of USD per rifle to fire it, to have far more than a snowball's chance at actually killing someone (not strapped to a chair at more than point blank range) with a single shot? Hands and feet are free and used in about double the murders in the U.S. than rifles. So if you had any intellectual consistency, you would be calling for the preemptive full amputation of all human beings' limbs and not just the most effective tools for statistically overwhelmingly non-lethal self-defense against violent crime, guns. Good luck killing anyone with just your head and torso! Then I guess guns are inefficient, ineffective, and unnecessary. |
|
|
|
|
There's a lot of very good, very cerebral, heartbreakingly beautiful films out there. Just step outside your comfort zone a little bit, and then it will become the new normal.
|
|
|
|
If I'd live in a place where I'd feel that I need to carry a firearm because the risk of being murdered by another firearm is too high, I would just fucking move. I don't give a shit about countries, flags and whatnot, so there is nothing making me to stay in one place if I feel that my family could be in danger, and I know for sure I don't want my kids growing around firearms.
I guess we have different approaches to the same problem (insecurity).
Let me assure you that is has nothing to do with fear or insecurity. I carry a firearm for the same reasons I regularly check the tire pressure on my vehicle. I carry a firearm for the same reasons I use Bitcoin Armory. I would carry a firearm in a large city as well as in the middle of nowhere. You carry a firearm to help with your gas mileage? |
|
|
|
So you had a very dark time, when the population was disarmed, and some very nasty people with guns came in to occupy and butcher people without guns. Then those nasty gun-totin' people were eventually kicked out when other good people with guns came to fight them off. And the lesson you guys learn is that it's best to disarm the population again? So that if any more nasty people with guns come, you'll once again be helpless? Why not take your lessons from Switzerland, which was practically the only country no one wanted to mess with, and just keep yourselves armed?
Switzerland: - Squirreling away art for the Nazis - Mountainous terrain - Strict gun laws - Neutrality And you're claiming the lesson is guns? |
|
|
|
I'm not saying that at all.
I'm saying its no-fucking-business-of-mine what you do (and vice versa)*.
There's plenty of other stinky shit you could single out that is doing way more damage to people and the environment.
I think in reality though you;
a) have a problem right now with the smell (your neighbors etc) or
b)have another unmentioned problem with cannabis and the smell of it is you 'channeling', maybe?
Anything you would like to share?
*please dont assume im condoning murder or rape etc like that sock in the other thread
You're just reading way too much into it, and being too sensitive about it, which, frankly, I'm kind of glad to see. Let's review: Weed stinks. It really does. Now maybe you're a little self conscious about it. Which is fine with me. Because stinky habits are kind of gross. As for neighbors, nope, I have no neighbors stinking up the neighborhood smoking weed. But there have been incidents in the past. Thankfully not now. Because... It does stink. |
|
|
|
On the contrary. You seem to be assuming that because I proclaim smoking weed to be a stinky habit, and that it is a personal opinion of mine, that others don't hold such a view. Perhaps it is you who has, in your ardent admiration for the stuff, merely become desensitized to its stink, not unlike those who work in stinky environments, such as sewage plant workers, slaughterhouse workers, landfill workers, and so on. |
|
|
|
It stinks.
So you said.... Surely this is a matter of personal opinion though (as you can see from my prev posts  ) I also have the personal opinion that bowel movements stink. Are you implying that my personal opinions are unique to me? |
|
|
|
Sorry, but I don't keep a stash. I don't smoke weed. It stinks. |
|
|
|
Weed:
NONE. There is no known dose of marijuana that will kill a mammal. Marijuana is not poisonous.
Pretty much anything will kill in large quantities. Marijuana sure does stink though. It's an unpleasant acrid odor that is just, well stinky and unpleasant. Much happiness to you for wanting to stink up your environment with your stinky habit. Pussy stinks too but I can live with it. Yeaaaah... but you usually don't smell it three rooms away, and if you do... well...  Or the next house over. |
|
|
|
Regardless of which Mcdonalds you go to in the country, you know exactly what you are going to get.
You sure do. An uninspired, semi tasteless, okay tasting burger. At In-n-Out, you also get the same great taste everywhere you go, except it tastes delicious, and is made from 100 percent fresh ingredients, cooked on the spot for you. Honestly, Hardee's burgers taste better to me than In 'N Out. In 'N Out "secret sauce" is absolutely disgusting. And price to me is more important, hence I'd prefer McDonald's because, yes, it's cheaper. Actually, if I could pick any fast food joint in the world, I'd pick this place Nicky's Red Hots right by my house. They absolutely obliterate In 'N Out. But, they have like 2 or 3 stores max. Actually, I prefer Wendy's over In 'N Out simply because I can get chili or a baked potato, far healthier than anything In 'N Out has to offer. I honestly don't think your poor taste matters. Even Rassah can't find your opinion useful, given that he's never tried In-n-Out. Here's some more reliable information: http://consumerist.com/2011/06/30/science-confirms-in-n-out-burger-is-the-best-and-mcdonalds-the-worst/http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/02/in-n-out-v-mcdonalds-which-burger-chain-has-been-deemed-superior/http://voices.yahoo.com/in-n-out-vs-mcdonalds-337393.htmlhttp://blogs.wsj.com/independentstreet/2009/01/28/in-n-out-burger-vs-mcdonalds-guess-who-won/Yeah, I read your pseudoscience articles. Gotta love when journalists butcher the scientific method. My opinion is infinitely more important to me than the opinions of others. Quit your ad populum bullshit. Your opinion is more important than that of a large poll? Let me see if I understand: your opinion is more important because it is in disagreement with many people? Also, let me remind you, near the beginning of this thread, you admitted "In-n-Out is tasty", to quote you. |
|
|
|
Regardless of which Mcdonalds you go to in the country, you know exactly what you are going to get.
You sure do. An uninspired, semi tasteless, okay tasting burger. At In-n-Out, you also get the same great taste everywhere you go, except it tastes delicious, and is made from 100 percent fresh ingredients, cooked on the spot for you. Honestly, Hardee's burgers taste better to me than In 'N Out. In 'N Out "secret sauce" is absolutely disgusting. And price to me is more important, hence I'd prefer McDonald's because, yes, it's cheaper. Actually, if I could pick any fast food joint in the world, I'd pick this place Nicky's Red Hots right by my house. They absolutely obliterate In 'N Out. But, they have like 2 or 3 stores max. Actually, I prefer Wendy's over In 'N Out simply because I can get chili or a baked potato, far healthier than anything In 'N Out has to offer. I honestly don't think your poor taste matters. Even Rassah can't find your opinion useful, given that he's never tried In-n-Out. Here's some more reliable information: http://consumerist.com/2011/06/30/science-confirms-in-n-out-burger-is-the-best-and-mcdonalds-the-worst/http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/02/in-n-out-v-mcdonalds-which-burger-chain-has-been-deemed-superior/http://voices.yahoo.com/in-n-out-vs-mcdonalds-337393.htmlhttp://blogs.wsj.com/independentstreet/2009/01/28/in-n-out-burger-vs-mcdonalds-guess-who-won/ |
|
|
|
Regardless of which Mcdonalds you go to in the country, you know exactly what you are going to get.
You sure do. An uninspired, semi tasteless, okay tasting burger. At In-n-Out, you also get the same great taste everywhere you go, except it tastes delicious, and is made from 100 percent fresh ingredients, cooked on the spot for you. |
|
|
|
|
Spoken like true pot lovers. Nonetheless, your habit stinks.
|
|
|
|
Then, for shits and giggles, I went across the street to check out business at the McDonald's. I counted 5 employees, 18 patrons, and one car in the drive-thru. The one guy at the register was twiddling his thumbs because he had no one to serve.
Their building was over half the size of In-n-Out's.
Maybe it was because people can get their food within seconds after ordering, and no one has to stick around waiting for their order? McDonald's around my area are packed (despite us having Checkers, Hardees, Burger King, Wendy's, etc), and serve about 300 customers an hour during lunch rush, and about 100 a hour the rest of the day. Average a day for the good ones is about 3,000 customers. So not THAT much worse. Imagine how empty McDonald's in your area would be if an In-n-Out was next to it. As for your other comments, they seem like you're reaching. Pretty far. For example, you claim that the McDonald's I went in was so efficient, that nobody was waiting and they were in and out in a flash. The reality is, nobody was coming in or out or ordering. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
