Kalifornia silliness...

Bobby Hogg said:
I'm quite happily ignorant about guns.
Click to expand...

Then you have the freedom to shut up about us who aren't ignorant. Just because you, personally, don't like something, it doesn't give you the right to take it from me.

BH said:
I mean, I don't live in the US so I don't really care for the most part. I just find it sort of curious how in love you all are with this right. I can only imagine how much worse things would have been here had guns been freely available to the general public, and not only to people with criminal contacts in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and, of course, the USA.
Click to expand...

It's not love of this right. It's love of all of our rights. I don't agree with even one tenth of what flavio says, but I'll be damned if I deny him his right to say it. That's what it's all about. You're not even a US citizen, but I let you say your piece, wrong as it may, or may not, be. If you can't understand what all that means, then you'll never be able to grow.

BH said:
I would maintain, however, that the right to bear arms was not established with today's world in mind. I think the other rights should be defended at all costs, as they should be in any nation.
Click to expand...

To the point of picking up a gun and defending them, or just using harsh language and attitude?
 
The Bobbies used to say STOP!!! or I'll say STOP!!!! again...now they pull a revolver. Works fo rme.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Then you have the freedom to shut up about us who aren't ignorant. Just because you, personally, don't like something, it doesn't give you the right to take it from me.
Click to expand...

I mean in the technical operation of guns. I would be quite happy never to know the ins and outs, I'm not going to argue on technical points.

However, if they are of detriment to society, as they unequivocably are, then the right to hold them should be questioned.

Gato_Solo said:
It's not love of this right. It's love of all of our rights. I don't agree with even one tenth of what flavio says, but I'll be damned if I deny him his right to say it. That's what it's all about. You're not even a US citizen, but I let you say your piece, wrong as it may, or may not, be. If you can't understand what all that means, then you'll never be able to grow.
Click to expand...

How can you stop me saying my piece, exactly? Freedom of speech and the right to have a gun are seperate. The only thing they have in common is being written on the same piece of paper, obviously.

Gato_Solo said:
To the point of picking up a gun and defending them, or just using harsh language and attitude?
Click to expand...

Political costs. We live in a modern democracy. If someone attempts to change free speech laws, then the public should exercise their vote.
 
Gonz said:
The Bobbies used to say STOP!!! or I'll say STOP!!!! again...now they pull a revolver. Works fo rme.
Click to expand...

Not actually true.

When the question is brought up to arm normal police officers in Britain, the majority of officers are against it. They don't want to be armed.

As can be seen, when they are armed, they generally shoot the wrong people, such as the Brazilian man shot in the head 7 times on a subway train in London, the tragic culmination of a cataloguse of errors.
 
Perhaps, but once somebody is arrested for non-threatening speech, free speech is dead. It is my take that being denied any speech is a threat to free speech. Actions are arrestable, words shouldn't be.
 
I agree, I just don't think the example of Austria in this instance is representative of Europe as a whole. I don't believe there's a huge difference in what people are allowed to say in Europe as a whole and in the US.

The European media is a lot more open to tits and swearing, though.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Just because you, personally, don't like something, it doesn't give you the right to take it from me.
Click to expand...
You would take marriage from same sex couples because you personally don't like it.
 
Perhaps the homosexuals would change marriage because they don't like feeling different.
 
flavio said:
You would take marriage from same sex couples because you personally don't like it.
Click to expand...

Once again, you expose your ignorance. Marriage is not a right, and never has been.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Once again, you expose your ignorance. Marriage is not a right, and never has been.
Click to expand...
So it's ok to deny people "priviledges" because you personally don't like it?
 
flavio said:
So it's ok to deny people "priviledges" because you personally don't like it?
Click to expand...

It's the governments right to deny priviledges to whomever the government decides. If I am asked for my input, and I don't like it, then hell yes. If the majority decides to extend those priviledges, then I will step aside, and let those priviledges be extended. If the majority denies those priviledges, then too fucking bad. Since you claim the majority is on your side in extending those priviledges, then put it to a vote. Simple, really.
 
Gato_Solo said:
It's the governments right to deny priviledges to whomever the government decides. If I am asked for my input, and I don't like it, then hell yes. If the majority decides to extend those priviledges, then I will step aside, and let those priviledges be extended. If the majority denies those priviledges, then too fucking bad. Since you claim the majority is on your side in extending those priviledges, then put it to a vote. Simple, really.
Click to expand...
The majority through voting denied blacks freedom from slavery and women the ability to vote for awhile there. Just too fucking bad right? There was nothing wrong with that.
 
Female is a physical characteristic. Race is typically physically distinguishable. Homeosexulaity is an abnormality with no physical characteristic.
 
Gonz said:
Female is a physical characteristic. Race is typically physically distinguishable. Homeosexulaity is an abnormality with no physical characteristic.
Click to expand...
Ok, so it's ok to deny priviledges if what you base it on has no immediately visible identifier. Like maybe Catholics.
 
We've made abortion legal & took God out of the schools. The Catholics haver been beat down.
 
Then it shouldn't be a problem if we limit their marraige priviledges.

By the way Catholics still have the freedom to get abortions or not get them.
 
Gonz said:
Female is a physical characteristic. Race is typically physically distinguishable. Homeosexulaity is an abnormality with no physical characteristic.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality can have physical characteristics. A higher or lower pitch of voice, a more feminine or masculine gait.
 
Bobby Hogg said:
Homosexuality can have physical characteristics. A higher or lower pitch of voice, a more feminine or masculine gait.
Click to expand...

Hmm...very stereotypical. The homosexuals that change their physical characteristics do so by artificial means. As for the voice...men and women both have higher and lower pitched voices.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Hmm...very stereotypical. The homosexuals that change their physical characteristics do so by artificial means. As for the voice...men and women both have higher and lower pitched voices.
Click to expand...

Not always. Some homosexual men are just born more effiminate, some homosexual women more masculine. Why say "very stereotypical?" I didn't say "all" I said "can have."

Also, male homosexuals have been observed to have one section of the brain (that thought to be reponsible for artistic or creative thinking) significantly larger than in heterosexuals. That's a physical characteristic.

Additionally, white skin is little more than an abnormal version of black skin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top