NationStates Jolt Archive

(Hey if the anarchists can make one, so can I) Welcome to my thread. Here I hope we can talk about the NRA, the evils of gun control, and why the left hate America.

The other day I got in an argument with someone who stated that pointing a gun at someone in self-defense is NEVER justified...

The other day I got in an argument with someone who stated that pointing a gun at someone in self-defense is NEVER justified... That person was a moron.

Are you automatically Right (as opposed to Left) if you are a member of the NRA then?

Are you automatically Right (as opposed to Left) if you are a member of the NRA then? Well no, but generally the Right suapports the NRA and the Left tries to disband it.

Are you automatically Right (as opposed to Left) if you are a member of the NRA then?

Icluding Michael Morre then :P

Are you automatically Right (as opposed to Left) if you are a member of the NRA then? Well no, but generally the Right suapports the NRA and the Left tries to disband it.

Disband it? Somehow I doubt that. In fact, I'd wager cash money that if there was a concerted effort to ban the NRA that the ACLU would rush to it's defense.

The NRA is a little wacky in their view of gun control. However, I find their principles to be sound. Self defense is a good idea, and we need guns for hunting. But the use the founding framers had in mind was for the populace to effectively deter a dictatorship we don't like. Let me put it in America-hating-leftist-European terms.
From what I've heard from this forum, Europe wants to be one big, continent-wide communist government, right? Let's say, however, that in a coup d'etat of extraordinary circumstances, a super far-right dictator comes to power. Most areas in Europe will be at the mercy of this dictator because no one has a gun.
Quite frankly, too few people in America have guns to fight an oppresive government with. But that's where the NRA needs to come in, to promote gun ownership.

Are you automatically Right (as opposed to Left) if you are a member of the NRA then?

Icluding Michael Morre then :P The guy that wrote "Threats from an unarmed American"?

The other day I got in an argument with someone who stated that pointing a gun at someone in self-defense is NEVER justified... That person was a moron.

Yes, he was.

In fact, he probably still is.

Are you automatically Right (as opposed to Left) if you are a member of the NRA then?

I'm neither...

Are you automatically Right (as opposed to Left) if you are a member of the NRA then?

I'm neither...Okay then.....

Are you automatically Right (as opposed to Left) if you are a member of the NRA then?

Icluding Michael Morre then :P The guy that wrote "Threats from an unarmed American"?

Yeah. Sorry to break it to you, *whispers* He lies

I cannot remember where I found it, but their are a few dedicated to hating Micheal Morre :shock: . Most of them have links proving he is a member of the NRA

The NRA is a little wacky in their view of gun control. However, I find their principles to be sound. Self defense is a good idea, and we need guns for hunting.
I agree. I'm not as pro-gun as the NRA, but they're in the right direction.

Are you automatically Right (as opposed to Left) if you are a member of the NRA then?

Icluding Michael Morre then :P The guy that wrote "Threats from an unarmed American"?

Yeah. Sorry to break it to you, *whispers* He lies

I cannot remember where I found it, but their are a few dedicated to hating Micheal Morre :shock: . Most of them have links proving he is a member of the NRA How is that possible? He suapports gun control. Thats like saying a CEO is a communist.

The NRA is a little wacky in their view of gun control. However, I find their principles to be sound. Self defense is a good idea, and we need guns for hunting.
I agree. I'm not as pro-gun as the NRA, but they're in the right direction. Alright, supporter in the masses.

The NRA is a little wacky in their view of gun control. However, I find their principles to be sound. Self defense is a good idea, and we need guns for hunting. But the use the founding framers had in mind was for the populace to effectively deter a dictatorship we don't like. Let me put it in America-hating-leftist-European terms.
From what I've heard from this forum, Europe wants to be one big, continent-wide communist government, right? Let's say, however, that in a coup d'etat of extraordinary circumstances, a super far-right dictator comes to power. Most areas in Europe will be at the mercy of this dictator because no one has a gun.
Quite frankly, too few people in America have guns to fight an oppresive government with. But that's where the NRA needs to come in, to promote gun ownership.

that actually made sense in a time that people still used the musket and there where no such things as tanks and aircrafts. In those times a country filled with gunowners that could handle a gun well was capable of taking on an oppressing army as the only differences between an army of men an a regular army would be the use of tactics and the use of cannons by the regular army, but more motivation amongst the 'freedom fighters'.

Let's see now: an oppressing army would use tanks, aircrafts, ships, ... whatever exists, you name it. soldiers in that army would probably carry kevlar and possibly even armor capable of stopping rifle bullets. Try to take that on with your desert eagle, people have been called suicidal for less. So if you want to use this argument as a pro for gunownership, you are saying that we should allow people to have grenades, bazooka's, anti-aircraft guns, missiles, tanks, ...
gunownership does not protect you from a dictator as with regular guns you hardly stand a chance against a modern army, if it is making use of all it's force.

The NRA is a little wacky in their view of gun control. However, I find their principles to be sound. Self defense is a good idea, and we need guns for hunting. But the use the founding framers had in mind was for the populace to effectively deter a dictatorship we don't like. Let me put it in America-hating-leftist-European terms.
From what I've heard from this forum, Europe wants to be one big, continent-wide communist government, right? Let's say, however, that in a coup d'etat of extraordinary circumstances, a super far-right dictator comes to power. Most areas in Europe will be at the mercy of this dictator because no one has a gun.
Quite frankly, too few people in America have guns to fight an oppresive government with. But that's where the NRA needs to come in, to promote gun ownership.

that actually made sense in a time that people still used the musket and there where no such things as tanks and aircrafts. In those times a country filled with gunowners that could handle a gun well was capable of taking on an oppressing army as the only differences between an army of men an a regular army would be the use of tactics and the use of cannons by the regular army, but more motivation amongst the 'freedom fighters'.

Let's see now: an oppressing army would use tanks, aircrafts, ships, ... whatever exists, you name it. soldiers in that army would probably carry kevlar and possibly even armor capable of stopping rifle bullets. Try to take that on with your desert eagle, people have been called suicidal for less. So if you want to use this argument as a pro for gunownership, you are saying that we should allow people to have grenades, bazooka's, anti-aircraft guns, missiles, tanks, ...
gunownership does not protect you from a dictator as with regular guns you hardly stand a chance against a modern army, if it is making use of all it's force. So? A modern army need non body armored people to do behind the sences work. A tank dosn't run forever.

The NRA is a little wacky in their view of gun control. However, I find their principles to be sound. Self defense is a good idea, and we need guns for hunting. But the use the founding framers had in mind was for the populace to effectively deter a dictatorship we don't like. Let me put it in America-hating-leftist-European terms.
From what I've heard from this forum, Europe wants to be one big, continent-wide communist government, right? Let's say, however, that in a coup d'etat of extraordinary circumstances, a super far-right dictator comes to power. Most areas in Europe will be at the mercy of this dictator because no one has a gun.
Quite frankly, too few people in America have guns to fight an oppresive government with. But that's where the NRA needs to come in, to promote gun ownership.

that actually made sense in a time that people still used the musket and there where no such things as tanks and aircrafts. In those times a country filled with gunowners that could handle a gun well was capable of taking on an oppressing army as the only differences between an army of men an a regular army would be the use of tactics and the use of cannons by the regular army, but more motivation amongst the 'freedom fighters'.

Let's see now: an oppressing army would use tanks, aircrafts, ships, ... whatever exists, you name it. soldiers in that army would probably carry kevlar and possibly even armor capable of stopping rifle bullets. Try to take that on with your desert eagle, people have been called suicidal for less. So if you want to use this argument as a pro for gunownership, you are saying that we should allow people to have grenades, bazooka's, anti-aircraft guns, missiles, tanks, ...
gunownership does not protect you from a dictator as with regular guns you hardly stand a chance against a modern army, if it is making use of all it's force.
As if no one in the military is related to anyone in the US. If a dictatorship arises domestically, some in the military will defect to our side. Where will our pistols and rifles come in? Well, police forces are only a little better armed than most people, and are too small to stand up to thousands of ppl w/ .22 calibur rifles.
The only way something like you described would work is if a foreign power imposed a dictatorship on us. However, a decent resistence can develop from a well armed populace, though if a foreign power were to invade now (and the military was destroyed), then too few people own guns for even a respectable resistence to be launched.

The NRA are idiots. Remeber Columbine? Guess who went the the town of Columbine a month after the shootings to hold a pro-gun rally. In Flint Michigan a six year old boy shot aother six year old girl. Guess who came a month later to hold a pro-gun rally. Now what kind of @$!holes do that!

Aliens can have my penis when they pry it
FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!

. Let me put it in America-hating-leftist-European terms.
From what I've heard from this forum, Europe wants to be one big, continent-wide communist government, right? Let's say, however, that in a coup d'etat of extraordinary circumstances, a super far-right dictator comes to power. Most areas in Europe will be at the mercy of this dictator because no one has a gun.
Quite frankly, too few people in America have guns to fight an oppresive government with. But that's where the NRA needs to come in, to promote gun ownership.

What in the blue hell are you talking about? :shock: I've never heard a stupider arguement. Europe wants to be a cotinent-wide communist governement? I've never in my life anyone say that, period. Well, I suppose, that many communist believe there needs to be a worldwide revolution to destroy the current regime, but I've never heard any take that seriously.

So, after that, you say that TOO FEW PEOPLE OWN GUNS? To fight a mysterious oppresive regime? Um, i'm sorry, but, that's the job of the military to fight oppresive regimes, not indviduals citizens. In any case, if there was a region which has an oppresive regime, i'm sure there not gonna be too scared of two hundred and fifty million americans with pistols or rifles, i'm sure they wouldn't even give it any sort of credibility. Maybe if this was 1770s but not now, not at all.

I don't know if you actually believe this, or are actually just using this for your personal entertainment. I'd be real curious to see how many people agree with this statement as well.

I can't stand the NRA. sry, but they are the most evil special interest group

What I believe this country needs are more well organized militia groups. Individual people with guns wont be any good if the country were to be invaded as they’ll just likely get themselves killed if they tried anything.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

. Let me put it in America-hating-leftist-European terms.
From what I've heard from this forum, Europe wants to be one big, continent-wide communist government, right? Let's say, however, that in a coup d'etat of extraordinary circumstances, a super far-right dictator comes to power. Most areas in Europe will be at the mercy of this dictator because no one has a gun.
Quite frankly, too few people in America have guns to fight an oppresive government with. But that's where the NRA needs to come in, to promote gun ownership.

What in the blue hell are you talking about? :shock: I've never heard a stupider arguement. Europe wants to be a cotinent-wide communist governement? I've never in my life anyone say that, period. Well, I suppose, that many communist believe there needs to be a worldwide revolution to destroy the current regime, but I've never heard any take that seriously.

So, after that, you say that TOO FEW PEOPLE OWN GUNS? To fight a mysterious oppresive regime? Um, i'm sorry, but, that's the job of the military to fight oppresive regimes, not indviduals citizens. In any case, if there was a region which has an oppresive regime, i'm sure there not gonna be too scared of two hundred and fifty million americans with pistols or rifles, i'm sure they wouldn't even give it any sort of credibility. Maybe if this was 1770s but not now, not at all.

I don't know if you actually believe this, or are actually just using this for your personal entertainment. I'd be real curious to see how many people agree with this statement as well.
First of all, the Europeans on this forum tend to give me that impression. Secondly, I meant oppressive regimes arising within US borders. And third, if their were 300 million people with pistols and rifles, we'd do some real damage, and overtax resources of that power. Both the US and the Soviet Union have fallen at the mercy of a rag-taggle group of people without superior arms.
And yes, I believe this. The Second Amendment can be viewed as insurance. It provides that when a republic is forced to leave America, it won't be just a memory. Lots of people will fight for it if they can, and with guns, they will. Just not, however, at the current rate of gun ownership.

Ah, you Americans and your fantasies about dictatorships rising and being invaded in the 21st century, it's positively adorable.

Now I'm off to go help the rest of my fellow Europeans take over the world in a glorious revolution that will crush American values! After all it's the secret agenda of every European.
Oops!

that actually made sense in a time that people still used the musket and there where no such things as tanks and aircrafts. In those times a country filled with gunowners that could handle a gun well was capable of taking on an oppressing army as the only differences between an army of men an a regular army would be the use of tactics and the use of cannons by the regular army, but more motivation amongst the 'freedom fighters'.

Let's see now: an oppressing army would use tanks, aircrafts, ships, ... whatever exists, you name it. soldiers in that army would probably carry kevlar and possibly even armor capable of stopping rifle bullets. Try to take that on with your desert eagle, people have been called suicidal for less. So if you want to use this argument as a pro for gunownership, you are saying that we should allow people to have grenades, bazooka's, anti-aircraft guns, missiles, tanks, ...
gunownership does not protect you from a dictator as with regular guns you hardly stand a chance against a modern army, if it is making use of all it's force.

Well, if we've learned anything from the lessons of the past century, such as Vietnam, and other areas. No matter how well your forces are armed, a dedicated and armed populace fighting a guerilla war is a hard thing to subdue.

Actually, I know one person in my neighborhood that owns a WWII german armored car, complete with 30mm cannon and machine gun. As well as one who owns a refurbished Sherman tank(which he actually got to use one day when there was a bank robbery across the street lol). But, back on topic, it's not all that hard to fabricate weapons to take down tanks. Guns are a good start, but molotov cocktails, and homemade napalm do even up the playing field very nicely. Kevlar armor...hmmm, might stop low caliber rifle bullets, but I doubt it will stop what I have in the garage. :twisted:

Guerilla warfare, on a large scale, by a armed populace, is a very scary thing... heck, during WWII it was the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto that said to his commanders that, "You cannot invade the mainland United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Ah, you Americans and your fantasies about dictatorships rising and being invaded in the 21st century, it's positively adorable.

Now I'm off to go help the rest of my fellow Europeans take over the world in a glorious revolution that will crush American values! After all it's the secret agenda of every European.
Oops! The CIA can trace you, you know.

Ah, you Americans and your fantasies about dictatorships rising and being invaded in the 21st century, it's positively adorable.

Now I'm off to go help the rest of my fellow Europeans take over the world in a glorious revolution that will crush American values! After all it's the secret agenda of every European.
Oops!
One quality about Americans is that we're a paranoid bunch. If we know what the worse possible scenario is, we prepare for it. After all, it's not impossibe that America could be a dictatorship, or invaded in the next 100 years. Unlikely, but hey, I want my great-great-grandkids to have this country, too.

I can't stand the NRA. sry, but they are the most evil special interest group Well I can't stand you, you are a idiot.

I can't stand the NRA. sry, but they are the most evil special interest group Well I can't stand you, you are a idiot.

I presume you support them?

NRA sucks.

I can't stand the NRA. sry, but they are the most evil special interest group Well I can't stand you, you are a idiot.

I presume you support them? I presume that since you even had to ask such a question denotes your intellagence.

NRA sucks. You suck.

I have dificulty respecting an organization who heckled the father of a child who died a Columbine - shouting out things like "get a life" at him when he just wanted to talk about maintaining restrictions on assault weapons.

Any group that holds up the second ammendment as sacrosanct and yet wants to shout down the first is hypocritical.

Which is not an argument against the second ammendment - just the militant nature of this group.

I have dificulty respecting an organization who heckled the father of a child who died a Columbine - shouting out things like "get a life" at him when he just wanted to talk about maintaining restrictions on assault weapons.
Because those restrictions are wrong.

Any group that holds up the second ammendment as sacrosanct and yet wants to shout down the first is hypocritical.
Unlike this guy, who was trying to use the force of law to restrict them from possessing a certain means of self-defense, the NRA was not trying to use the force of law to restrict this man from speaking his mind.

I have dificulty respecting an organization who heckled the father of a child who died a Columbine - shouting out things like "get a life" at him when he just wanted to talk about maintaining restrictions on assault weapons.
Because those restrictions are wrong.

Perhaps. However being abusive is not a terribly constructive technique to try and sway people to your side.

Any group that holds up the second ammendment as sacrosanct and yet wants to shout down the first is hypocritical.
Unlike this guy, who was trying to use the force of law to restrict them from possessing a certain means of self-defense, the NRA was not trying to use the force of law to restrict this man from speaking his mind.

This guy is a private citizen, the same as the NRA members. How does he impose a "force of law" that they do not? And yes, the NRA did use the force of law to restrict him. they had security escort him from the building.

Like I said, they attempt to squelch his ability to speak freely on the subject in a forum clearly related to the subject, but wave the constitution as their supposed prime directive.

That is hypocritical.

-Z-

Any group that holds up the second ammendment as sacrosanct and yet wants to shout down the first is hypocritical.
Unlike this guy, who was trying to use the force of law to restrict them from possessing a certain means of self-defense, the NRA was not trying to use the force of law to restrict this man from speaking his mind.

This guy is a private citizen, the same as the NRA members. How does he impose a "force of law" that they do not?
Not himself--but he's trying to use government to restrict the rights of individuals to possess a means of defense. The NRA is not trying to use government to violate the rights of anyone.

And yes, the NRA did use the force of law to restrict him. they had security escort him from the building.
Whose building was it?

Like I said, they attempt to squelch his ability to speak freely on the subject in a forum clearly related to the subject, but wave the constitution as their supposed prime directive.
Unbelievably false and misrepresentative. They were NOT trying to suppress his speech, and only a lunatic would believe they were. They were simply exercising their property rights, either because they owned the property or because they had permission from the owner to do so.

So, he is trying to "use the government" by exercising his First Ammendment rights to speak what he believes and hope that the government he elects legislates according to his position on an issue..


In other words, you object to democracy?

And you support verbal abuse.


Thought of the day: If the Constitution is so perfect and inviolate, why did it ever need ANY ammendments?

-Z-
BTW: Note that I have NOT given my position on the issue, so don't assume. What you can assume is that I object to the NRA's tactics.

So, he is trying to "use the government" by exercising his First Ammendment rights to speak what he believes and hope that the government he elects legislates according to his position on an issue..
He's free to say whatever the hell he wants...but his ultimate goal is a violation of individual rights. He's free to have that as a goal of his and to convince others to agree with him; however, he is NOT free to actually act to implement that goal, as that would constitute a violation of individual rights.


In other words, you object to democracy?
Well, yeah. Democracy is mob rule. The only proper form of government is a Republic, where government is limited by a pre-determined set of restrictions rather than whatever side of the bed 51 out of 100 people get up on in the morning.

Thought of the day: If the Constitution is so perfect and inviolate,
Who said it was?

What you can assume is that I object to the NRA's tactics.
So you object to a property owner deciding for himself who is and is not allowed on his property, and what views they are allowed to express while on that property?

Damned fascist...

What you can assume is that I object to the NRA's tactics.
So you object to a property owner deciding for himself who is and is not allowed on his property, and what views they are allowed to express while on that property?

Damned fascist...[/quote]


Oh God, not you and your bloody property rights again. The "right" of the individual to do what they please on their own property might well mean that the rights of others are violated in the doing so - an intricacy you evidently don't understand.

So you don't support freedom of speech on private property?

You also said that on another thread that all public property should become private property.

Does that mean that you don't support freedom of speech?

The EU has nothing to do with communism, it annoys me to hell when Americans rubbish different economic systems and values just beacuse they are different to yours. It' just disrespectful. I can live with the fact that Americans don't want universal heathcare and favour a minalist government, but don't rubbish others because they don't trust private corporations enough to control everything.

So you're saying a bunch of paranoid people with guns is a good thing? I think murder statics in the US shows that is not.

Stopping dictatorships with guns - we have moved past that, if you haven't realised. The most effective way to stop political abuses of power (such as setting up dicatorships) is to not to have a gun, but to pay close attention to politics and don't really on the media alone for all your information, do some independant reaserch etc. It's called holding your government accountable. Voter participation helps too.

Beign invaded - that isn't going to happen. If you were invaded, however, chances are there will be some world power who's interest it is to see whoever it was invaded that invaded you fail. Examples - the US arming of Mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan to frustrate Soviet efforts, Soviet arming of the NVA and Viet-Cong to counter US efforts. That way you wont even have to pay for the guns, you'll get them for free.

Self-defence - guns for self defence? As soon as you pull a gun out on someone you've made it a life and death situation, who knows how the other person is going to react? I have been in a couple of punch ons, admittedly, so Australia isn't all safe, but I never needed a gun to defend myself, why? Because no-one else had guns. Guns for self defence is just an invalid arguement, look at the data on murder rates in the US compared to countries that have gun controls. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", but guns make it ALLOT easier for "people to kill people".

Hunting - I have no problem with that, but you don't need fully or semi automatic weapons for it or hand guns, which are both designed with the intent of killing people. So single shot rifles in the hands of responsible people (ie. they have a gun licence) is something I have no problem with, I've been shooting before.

Anyone on my property without permission has given up their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of not being shot by me. Pretty simple. :wink:

Oh God, not you and your bloody property rights again. The "right" of the individual to do what they please on their own property might well mean that the rights of others are violated in the doing so - an intricacy you evidently don't understand.
Because, as long as nothing is done under false information, that is impossible. Entering someone else's property is a voluntary choice made by the individual; therefore, he voluntarily accepts whatever restrictions and requirements that choice entails.

So you don't support freedom of speech on private property?
No.

Does that mean that you don't support freedom of speech?
No. My god, you're ignorant.

Freedom of speech means government will not punish you for the CONTENT of what you say. It is not a license to trespass--if you are arrested because you refuse a property owner's request to leave after saying something he disagrees with on his private property, the arrest is because you are TRESPASSING, not because of the content of what you said.

You're free to say whatever the hell you want on your own damn property, or on someone else's property with his permission.

Anyone on my property without permission has given up their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of not being shot by me. Pretty simple. :wink:

I enjoy the freedom not to be shot by my countrymen! :wink: Do you want to play the phrase game?

Do you really mean this? Isn't shooting someone on your lawn a little extreme?

http://www.gunowners.org/

The NRA is for sell-outs... the ouly real organization that stands up for the 2nd Amendment ALL of the time is the Gun Owners of America...

Oh God, not you and your bloody property rights again. The "right" of the individual to do what they please on their own property might well mean that the rights of others are violated in the doing so - an intricacy you evidently don't understand.

Because, as long as nothing is done under false information, that is impossible. Entering someone else's property is a voluntary choice made by the individual; therefore, he voluntarily accepts whatever restrictions and requirements that choice entails.

So you don't support freedom of speech on private property?
No.

Does that mean that you don't support freedom of speech?
No. My god, you're ignorant.

Freedom of speech means government will not punish you for the CONTENT of what you say. It is not a license to trespass--if you are arrested because you refuse a property owner's request to leave after saying something he disagrees with on his private property, the arrest is because you are TRESPASSING, not because of the content of what you said.

You're free to say whatever the hell you want on your own damn property, or on someone else's property with his permission.

Whoever said anything about trespassing?? You said that you did not believe in freedom of speech on private property, you also said that you believed that all public property should be made private. That is tantamount to saying that you do not believe in freedom of speech.

So basically if a person enters my property voluntarily they forego all civil liberties, human rights and legal protections. I could do to them what I will since they are exempt from these protections. Is this what you are saying?? Remarkable stuff.

The "no deception" part is interesting, do you expect me to spend about 10 minutes explaining to a person what the conditions and consequences are for them to enter my property before partaking in some kind of verbal contract.

I love the way that in your mind property rights supersede (or at least ought to supersede) every other law ever passed. It's capitalism gone mad, or Republicanism as it is more widely known.

Oh God, not you and your bloody property rights again. The "right" of the individual to do what they please on their own property might well mean that the rights of others are violated in the doing so - an intricacy you evidently don't understand.

Because, as long as nothing is done under false information, that is impossible. Entering someone else's property is a voluntary choice made by the individual; therefore, he voluntarily accepts whatever restrictions and requirements that choice entails.

So you don't support freedom of speech on private property?
No.

Does that mean that you don't support freedom of speech?
No. My god, you're ignorant.

Freedom of speech means government will not punish you for the CONTENT of what you say. It is not a license to trespass--if you are arrested because you refuse a property owner's request to leave after saying something he disagrees with on his private property, the arrest is because you are TRESPASSING, not because of the content of what you said.

You're free to say whatever the hell you want on your own damn property, or on someone else's property with his permission.

Whoever said anything about trespassing?? You said that you did not believe in freedom of speech on private property, you also said that you believed that all public property should be made private. That is tantamount to saying that you do not believe in freedom of speech.

My god, you are ignorant. Can you not READ? Can you not THINK? Freedom of speech simply means that you cannot be arrested for the content of what you say. That is true no matter where you are. But that is not a guarantee of a venue on which to make that speech. If you are on someone else's property and he doesn't like what you're saying, he has every right to kick you off--and have you arrested. You are not free to say whatever you want on someone else's property without his consent; however, any such arrest will be for TRESPASSING, not the content of what you said.

WHY is that so DIFFICULT for YOU to UNDERSTAND?

Oh God, not you and your bloody property rights again. The "right" of the individual to do what they please on their own property might well mean that the rights of others are violated in the doing so - an intricacy you evidently don't understand.

Because, as long as nothing is done under false information, that is impossible. Entering someone else's property is a voluntary choice made by the individual; therefore, he voluntarily accepts whatever restrictions and requirements that choice entails.

So you don't support freedom of speech on private property?
No.

Does that mean that you don't support freedom of speech?
No. My god, you're ignorant.

Freedom of speech means government will not punish you for the CONTENT of what you say. It is not a license to trespass--if you are arrested because you refuse a property owner's request to leave after saying something he disagrees with on his private property, the arrest is because you are TRESPASSING, not because of the content of what you said.

You're free to say whatever the hell you want on your own damn property, or on someone else's property with his permission.

Whoever said anything about trespassing?? You said that you did not believe in freedom of speech on private property, you also said that you believed that all public property should be made private. That is tantamount to saying that you do not believe in freedom of speech.

My god, you are ignorant. Can you not READ? Can you not THINK? Freedom of speech simply means that you cannot be arrested for the content of what you say. That is true no matter where you are. But that is not a guarantee of a venue on which to make that speech. If you are on someone else's property and he doesn't like what you're saying, he has every right to kick you off--and have you arrested. You are not free to say whatever you want on someone else's property without his consent; however, any such arrest will be for TRESPASSING, not the content of what you said.

WHY is that so DIFFICULT for YOU to UNDERSTAND?

Oh God, not you and your bloody property rights again. The "right" of the individual to do what they please on their own property might well mean that the rights of others are violated in the doing so - an intricacy you evidently don't understand.

Because, as long as nothing is done under false information, that is impossible. Entering someone else's property is a voluntary choice made by the individual; therefore, he voluntarily accepts whatever restrictions and requirements that choice entails.

So you don't support freedom of speech on private property?
No.

Does that mean that you don't support freedom of speech?
No. My god, you're ignorant.

Freedom of speech means government will not punish you for the CONTENT of what you say. It is not a license to trespass--if you are arrested because you refuse a property owner's request to leave after saying something he disagrees with on his private property, the arrest is because you are TRESPASSING, not because of the content of what you said.

You're free to say whatever the hell you want on your own damn property, or on someone else's property with his permission.

Whoever said anything about trespassing?? You said that you did not believe in freedom of speech on private property, you also said that you believed that all public property should be made private. That is tantamount to saying that you do not believe in freedom of speech.

My god, you are ignorant. Can you not READ? Can you not THINK? Freedom of speech simply means that you cannot be arrested for the content of what you say. That is true no matter where you are. But that is not a guarantee of a venue on which to make that speech. If you are on someone else's property and he doesn't like what you're saying, he has every right to kick you off--and have you arrested. You are not free to say whatever you want on someone else's property without his consent; however, any such arrest will be for TRESPASSING, not the content of what you said.

WHY is that so DIFFICULT for YOU to UNDERSTAND?


I notice you've only replied to one of my points, does that mean you've conceded defeat upon the others? You might also want to reconsider your excessive repetition of the word 'ignorant' since in all reality the chances are that I am vastly more intelligent that you'll ever be.

Freedom of speech so long as you have someone elses permission is not freedom of speech. If the owner of a piece of private property for whatever reason asks me to leave then of course he has the right to do so and has the right to have me arrested if I do not leave, but for me, arguing that a person can be arrested for speaking their mind on a piece of private property, for me borders on disgusting.

Trespassing is entering someones private property without their permission, the case you have highlighted has nothing to do with this process but rather what they say whilst on that property which is something completely different.

Obviously you do not realise the inherent contradictions in what you are saying - freedom of speech is permitted as long as you are in a place where freedom of speech is permitted. I really do think it's tragic when this kind of selfish capitalist extremism which you seem to embody is responsible for developing arguments whereby basic human rights are eroded for the sake of capitalism.

I notice you've only replied to one of my points, does that mean you've conceded defeat upon the others?
No, it means that they're so unbelievably ignorant they're not even worth consideration.

You might also want to reconsider your excessive repetition of the word 'ignorant' since in all reality the chances are that I am vastly more intelligent that you'll ever be.
My...how ignorant of you.

Freedom of speech so long as you have someone elses permission is not freedom of speech.
For the umpteenth time--PAY ATTENTION! Permission is NOT required to speak your mind. Permission IS required to use a specific venue for speaking your mind if that venue is owned by someone else. Learn to understand the difference.

If the owner of a piece of private property for whatever reason asks me to leave then of course he has the right to do so and has the right to have me arrested if I do not leave, but for me, arguing that a person can be arrested for speaking their mind on a piece of private property, for me borders on disgusting.
Why not? If because of what you said the owner no longer wants you on his property, he's fully within his rights to kick you off.

Ever thought about branching out on your vocab, how about obtuse, foolish, naive, or even, as would quite possibly be more appropriate in your case - downright retarded.

Your little lexical hocus pocus does not actually amount to anything. So basically I can say what I like, but only in certain places? Hypothetically, if the entire world was privatised, I could still say what I like I'd just have nowhere to say it. Basically I couldn't say anything. But that wouldn't matter because I'd know that it was my right despite the fact that it would be MEANINGLESS. It's such a dumb argument, you could apply it to anything, I have the freedom to worship who I choose but only if a venue to do so is provided, I have the right to life but only if a venue is provided and so on.

You would argue for freedoms and liberties that mean NOTHING, they are not undeniable universal rights since they only apply in certain places.

Eventually, decades (or centuries) from now, when the USA is finally invaded it won't be by tanks or bombers or armies. It will be by nukes, biological weapons and chemical weapons. It will be helped along by spoiling crops and tainting water supplies. A nation with armed citezens can only be invaded "at a distance" with weapons that can wipe out populations without a single bullet. When this is the only option an invading force will cast aside international law that condemns such weapons.

Conversely, when the UK is finally invaded there will be armies, and tanks and bombers, but most of the population will live to see another day.

Obviously the founding fathers did not know that the world would eventually go on to develop biological, chemical and nuclear warfare, and so it seemed sensible to use the most advanced weaponry against a very real threat to the Republic. But those days are long gone.

Aidan

Ever thought about branching out on your vocab, how about obtuse, foolish, naive, or even, as would quite possibly be more appropriate in your case - downright retarded.
You would argue for freedoms and liberties that mean NOTHING, they are not undeniable universal rights since they only apply in certain places.

Learn a bit about the nature of rights. The existence of a certain right simply means that government cannot legitimately punish you for the exercise of that right in and of itself--it is not a guarantee that you will be physically able to practice that right.