|
|
Post by Warfish on Mar 21, 2016 18:57:51 GMT -5
Who decides who is a danger? The State. Your dislike of the concept doesn't make it any less accurate. When it comes to gun, in the future the collective, via the State, will decide who is allowed to have guns. Are you of the mistake belief that you're free to do as you wish, yet others are not free to judge you? Of course it's relevant. But you seem dedicated to rejecting the concept that times, and society, changes, and what was relevant and right, perhaps, in 1797, may not be relevant and right in 2016. There have always been groups dedicated to obstruction of our progress as a species. Today is no different, people clinging to their Gods and Guns in fear of a changing world, rather than embracing our diversity and collective betterment. Then we're in agreement on all counts with this statement. Indeed. You are an intelligent, free individual. You're no less qualified to judge that anyone else comrade. You should think more of yourself, you are the equal of any member of the bourgeoisie. We are all small cogs, only via the collective, by uniting as a society, for the betterment of society, can we make progress. It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed. That's what Gun Control is all about. |
|
|
|
Post by Gunnails on Mar 21, 2016 19:23:03 GMT -5
Your dislike of the concept doesn't make it any less accurate. When it comes to gun, in the future the collective, via the State, will decide who is allowed to have guns. ================================================== The future is here.. -------------------------------------------------------- It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. |
|
|
|
Post by wesleymctoon on Mar 21, 2016 19:42:06 GMT -5
There have always been groups dedicated to obstruction of our progress as a species. Today is no different, people clinging to their Gods and Guns in fear of a changing world, rather than embracing our diversity and collective betterment. Our progress as a species relies on survival of the fittest. For real progress, we must allow our weakest to fail and allow those with the traits to survive to flourish. To prop them up hinders progress and halts our evolution. Why do collectivists deny that very science? Or choose the arrogance of believing that we've reached the apex of our growth and now is the time to stop the nature of our being? THAT is the true fear of change, from those whom practice their own religion, Collectivism, with a deity that is no less delusional than the image of a man in a beard sitting in a cloud splitting off a man's rib to make woman. |
|
|
|
Post by Hotman on Mar 21, 2016 19:57:38 GMT -5
Where is Green Jets and Ham when you need him.  Dayummm hnnng is that chopped? What exactly did you say about her that got Ham so nuts?! |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Mar 21, 2016 20:05:59 GMT -5
coolectivism plus a dash of Palin.
fucking perfection, this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warfish on Mar 21, 2016 20:15:43 GMT -5
There have always been groups dedicated to obstruction of our progress as a species. Today is no different, people clinging to their Gods and Guns in fear of a changing world, rather than embracing our diversity and collective betterment. Our progress as a species relies on survival of the fittest. For real progress, we must allow our weakest to fail and allow those with the traits to survive to flourish. To prop them up hinders progress and halts our evolution. Why do collectivists deny that very science? Or choose the arrogance of believing that we've reached the apex of our growth and now is the time to stop the nature of our being? THAT is the true fear of change, from those whom practice their own religion, Collectivism, with a deity that is no less delusional than the image of a man in a beard sitting in a cloud splitting off a man's rib to make woman. Social Darwinism, eh? You know who else where Social Darwinist? The Nazi's. They were perfectly happy to "let the weakest fail", and felt they (of course) were the strongest, and hence the weakest were to be removed for their needs. The actively worked on it, by killing off the "weakest" in society. Is THAT the society you wish to replicate? This is a dangerous belief system to partake of. Society and intelligence allow us to overcome evolutionary ideas like "survival of the fittest". To take care of all of our societal members, to take from each what they can provide, and provide to each what they need, for the betterment of one and all. It's not science to claim we must behave like thoughtless animals. Science would show that through collective, intellectual, action, we as a species can Trump evolution, and allow our weakest (today) to thrive alongside us, equal to us. For today's weakest may one day be our strongest. |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Mar 21, 2016 20:32:17 GMT -5
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by wesleymctoon on Mar 21, 2016 21:07:23 GMT -5
Our progress as a species relies on survival of the fittest. For real progress, we must allow our weakest to fail and allow those with the traits to survive to flourish. To prop them up hinders progress and halts our evolution. Why do collectivists deny that very science? Or choose the arrogance of believing that we've reached the apex of our growth and now is the time to stop the nature of our being? THAT is the true fear of change, from those whom practice their own religion, Collectivism, with a deity that is no less delusional than the image of a man in a beard sitting in a cloud splitting off a man's rib to make woman. Social Darwinism, eh? You know who else where Social Darwinist? The Nazi's. They were perfectly happy to "let the weakest fail", and felt they (of course) were the strongest, and hence the weakest were to be removed for their needs. The actively worked on it, by killing off the "weakest" in society. Is THAT the society you wish to replicate? This is a dangerous belief system to partake of. Society and intelligence allow us to overcome evolutionary ideas like "survival of the fittest". To take care of all of our societal members, to take from each what they can provide, and provide to each what they need, for the betterment of one and all. It's not science to claim we must behave like thoughtless animals. Science would show that through collective, intellectual, action, we as a species can Trump evolution, and allow our weakest (today) to thrive alongside us, equal to us. For today's weakest may one day be our strongest. This is no less a denial of science than climate change conspiracy theory or that the earth is flat. |
|
|
|
Post by Gunnails on Mar 21, 2016 21:13:00 GMT -5
The earth continues to go round, whether it’s the man who kills the tiger or the tiger who eats the man. The stronger asserts his will, it’s the law of nature. The world doesn’t change; its laws are eternal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warfish on Mar 21, 2016 23:03:14 GMT -5
This is no less a denial of science than climate change conspiracy theory or that the earth is flat. Evil, in a nutshell. With this belief, nothing cannot be excused. |
|
|
|
Post by Hotman on Mar 21, 2016 23:24:36 GMT -5
This is no less a denial of science than climate change conspiracy theory or that the earth is flat. Evil, in a nutshell. With this belief, nothing cannot be excused. I agree with you WaRFISH. |
|
|
|
Post by wesleymctoon on Mar 22, 2016 7:04:26 GMT -5
This is no less a denial of science than climate change conspiracy theory or that the earth is flat. Evil, in a nutshell. With this belief, nothing cannot be excused. No, there's nothing evil about letting nature take its course. At no time have I advocated for murder. On the contrary, it has been progressives/liberals/collectivists that brought us the eugenics movement, spawning Planned Parenthood, and continue to promote the genocide of babies in our society under the mask of "freedom of choice". Push the freeze of real progress of our species. The inevitable result is we will be surpassed and destroyed by another, from this planet or elsewhere is this vast universe. |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Mar 22, 2016 7:26:00 GMT -5
Evil, in a nutshell. With this belief, nothing cannot be excused. No, there's nothing evil about letting nature take its course. So you would advocate withholding treatment to a sick child isn't evil? |
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Mar 22, 2016 7:35:43 GMT -5
No, there's nothing evil about letting nature take its course. So you would advocate withholding treatment to a sick child isn't evil? Sick children. Veterans. Whats the difference? |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Mar 22, 2016 7:38:10 GMT -5
So you would advocate withholding treatment to a sick child isn't evil? Sick children. Veterans. Whats the difference? Yes, let nature take its course. |
|
