Pic of the Day

Out of context: Reply #93208

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 129,577 Responses
  • GeorgesII4

    hehehe.

    • You dont need a gun because you have cops who are evil and racistdrgs
    • this actually makes perfect sense. It's called having your cake and eating it, too.futuremongolian
    • Um actually, the argument is more like: 'we don't need guns because other people won't have guns'iCanHazQBN
    • someone will always have the gun. trust in the cops who have guns will make better sense.yurimon
    • Liburalism is a menial disorder!11yuekit
    • How about this...reform police so they aren't racist assholes, then you won't need to carry around a machinegun all the time?yuekit
    • exactly, yuekitmonospaced
    • Nicegilgamush
    • assuming the corporate state wants to reform police. i like to dream also. but judging by how people act and events. its not going to happen.yurimon
    • Machine guns aside, if you are gonna rely on someone else to defend your person and property you aren't a mangilgamush
    • Tell that to...basically every other modern civilized country where they don't feel the need to own an arsenal of guns.yuekit
    • Actually people have guns in Norway, n Switzerland. most places country side.
      humans are extreme domesticated by their master. bravo for calling it progress.
      yurimon
    • Being responsible doesn't = your programmed response. essence of freedom n power is you have responsible authority. gov is a service beneath you.yurimon
    • Modern Man= pussified child of the state with false sense of the world living in a simulacra simulation of reality. calling it progress.yurimon
    • plus your error in believing who can have guns. if you look at professional armies n professional leaders n how they use authority to progressively bomb peopleyurimon
    • with drones progressively, but an average decent individual with a gun to protect himself n his family is a primitive ape.yurimon
    • http://thelibertycau…yurimon
    • In Norway and Switzerland the gun laws are much stricter. People mostly own them for hunting. It's rare to be granted gun permit for self-defense in Norway.yuekit
    • My point is simply that the majority of civilized countries have gun control that ranges from stricter than the US to much more restrictive, and most of themyuekit
    • are doing just fine. In fact many rated "more free" than the U.S. The idea that you need a gun arsenal to be free or be a man is only found in the America dueyuekit
    • to our cultural history. I'm not against people being able to own guns, but worshipping them is silly and backwards.yuekit
    • Also all this criticism of "the state", while you probably live in and benefit from things the gov provides, is pretty juvenile man.yuekit
    • Renounce your citizenship and go live in one of the ungoverned regions of the world if you feel that way. I'm sure that will be an awesome life right?yuekit
    • I think what you are reacting to about guns in america is media hype. your ideas are forged through propaganda.yurimon
    • I dont think majority of people worship the gun. you are not going to see the majority of people portrayed in media.yurimon
    • you are assuming civilization comes from gov. you are looking for a evermore financially hungry predatory bureaucracy, centralized power brewing here.yurimon
    • its true some people benefit but the direction with technology and increasing control over peoples lives, what ever it developing is far from your idealisticyurimon
    • 20th century propaganda. its an adult who is above the servant in truth. not the child of a nanny state. thinks he is great. thats childish. evolve and beyurimon
    • responsible and sovereign like it was intended for enlightened society. not a dependent subversive soul. study some more. dont get an ego boot it.yurimon
    • Civilization definitely comes from people working together and doing that requires common rules and agreements. There's a reason why every modern society worksyuekit
    • this way, it wasn't just an accident or an evil plot of some kind. I find it funny that you call people weak for living under government but choose to liveyuekit
    • that way yourself. If it's so much better to be a stateless individual, why don't you just go do it. And stop complaining so much.yuekit
    • I'm commenting but i am trying to see what i can do. trying stuff out, learning. so dont judge. however working together is key. i think it dependsyurimon
    • on what people value. what you have now is accumulative lack of action and a result of it.yurimon
    • Most people value the ability to live their lives in relative peace and freedom. Which despite all its flaws, the state and society provides.yuekit
    • Most people don't want to be living in woods forced to personally defend themselves, forage for food, etc. That isn't actually a free life but a very tiringyuekit
    • one. And apparently you agree judging by the fact that you choose to live under the same kind of system as everyone else.yuekit
    • What you are describing is freedom on paper, but it doesn't equate to freedom in practice. Which is probably why so many internet libertarians constantly whineyuekit
    • about "the state", but almost none of them actually act out on their beliefs.yuekit
    • The whole basis of libertarianism is voluntarism and self-reliance, which means the optimal solution would be to just check out of society and start your ownyuekit
    • thing. But funny enough, that has not happened in despite people having had decades to do so.yuekit
    • I dont know what you are talking about? do you know the difference between different system and premise of living free. doesnt require living in the woods.yurimon
    • Its a legal issue especially in the states. it just so happens gov is over stepping its bounds on peoples ignorance and lack of action.yurimon
    • You have a right to live in your own society in the framework. if you understand what a society is. you can different societies in one country.yurimon
    • The self reliance issue is based in what happens when you give to much regulation, centralization to a fictional entity with a monopoly on force.yurimon
    • the less integrated into the system the more freedom you can have if you are responsible. its a case study of how people get hurt through over regulation.yurimon
    • the direction and where its going is becoming more of liability and burden then an administrative process in helping the public that it was intended to be.yurimon
    • because its corrupt through how it makes its $ and ability to wage force on individuals and idiots participating in the violence.yurimon
    • At a certain point, it becomes a conflict of interest.yurimon
    • plus its just poor use of resources in what you get for what ever you put into via taxes or fees. i dont my $ going to bomb places for corporations.yurimon
    • Holy fuck the comments on this post.jtb26
    • lol yeah these notes are not exactly the best place to have in depth conversationyuekit
    • this is why yurimon drives everyone nutsmonospaced
    • posting theories, sociological anecdotes, but rarely sticking to the point being discussed and instead attempting to tell us we aren't discussing correctly at amonospaced

View thread