WE NEED MORE GUNS..

[Age]

1 Right, or we need more guns.

But owning MORE guns does NOT lead to Peace NOR Harmony. As can be CLEARLY SEEN in the days when this is being written, as was PROVED True, in those days when guns and weapons were around.

2 Yes, but they exist nonetheless.

Human created 'pollution', for example, is ALSO NOT necessary, but because 'it' exists, nonetheless, then is 'this' ANY reason to CONTINUE creating pollution and to CONTINUE to keep creating MORE and MORE pollution?

3 See question 2.

So, did I, or did I NOT, EVER SAY guns ARE NECESSARY?

4 Asked and answered.

'you' NEVER ANSWERED 'that QUESTION' ANYWHERE here. And, if you WANT to CLAIM that you DID, then a CONSIDERATE 'link' TO 'it', or a 'copy and paste' OF 'it', would be MUCH APPRECIATED.

5 Long ago is when.

So, in other words, 'you' have NO REAL IDEA, and 'you' ARE just PRESUMING that 'it' DID HAPPEN, SOME TIME.

6 Asked and answered.

'you' NEVER ANSWERED, 'WHY guns became, supposedly, NECESSARY?'

7 I made that suggestion.

HOW do 'you' DISTINGUISH, EXACTLY, the DIFFERENCE between so-called 'aberrant gun owners' from 'non aberrant gun owners'?

In other words, what IS 'accepted gun ownership', and to WHO, EXACTLY?

8 No one.

So, what this ACTUALLY MEANS is that the 'current' MISBEHAVIOR in society, in the days when this being written, might ACTUALLY get FAR WORSE, If EVERY one was to own a gun.

9 Yes.

So, to you, just because one or two people own guns, then EVERY one "ELSE" should OWN guns AS WELL, in order to 'protect' "themselves" from just that one or two people who owned guns originally.

Can you REALLY NOT SEE the ABSOLUTELY ABSURDITY of 'this'?

10 No.

So, to you, it is NOT SMARTER and WISER to RID 'the world' of the just one or two guns in existence and instead 'arm' EVERY one "ELSE" WITH guns.

11 No reason.

Okay, so to you it is a MUCH BETTER idea if EVERY one KEPT 'arming' "themselves" with BIGGER and BIGGER, and continually MORE and MORE EFFICIENT WEAPONS and KILLING machines rather than just RIDDING 'the world' of one, two, or more guns.

12 No reason.

So you can NOT, REALLY, SEE ANY reason WHY EVERY one should 'arm' "themselves" WITH BIGGER and BETTER KILLING machines. Yet you still think or BELIEVE that 'this' is a MUCH BETTER idea than just taking ALL weapons out of society/'the world'.

13 See #12.

you have NO reason AT ALL for what you consider to be a BETTER idea here.

14 Right.

But RIDING 'the world' of ALL weapons would NOT protect you BETTER than a continual increase of weapons and of bigger weapons would.

15 No, probably not.

So, you only THINK that it is 'probably not' the 'Right thing' to do. I will INFORM you that it is DEFINITELY NOT the ACTUAL 'Right thing' to do.

16 In my heart, mind and soul.

Do 'you', REALLY, HAVE or POSSESS a 'heart', 'mind' AND 'soul'?

If yes, then will 'you' INFORM 'us' of who and/or what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY, and HOW 'you' could HAVE, or POSSESS, 'those three things', and then DEFINE what 'those three things' ARE, EXACTLY?

THEN will 'you' INFORM 'us' of HOW, EXACTLY, some so-called "american spirit" could come to exist in the so-called 'your heart', 'your mind', and 'your soul', EXACTLY?

If yes to both, then GREAT.

But if no to either, then WHY NOT?

17 Correct.

'This' is just HOW Truly STUPID and INSANE SOME adult human beings, back in those days, HAD ACTUALLY BECAME.

'This one' ACTUALLY BELIEVES, WHOLEHEARTEDLY, that, 'Loading "one's" 'self' UP WITH MORE and BIGGER WEAPONRY than what THE "other" has, is the 'right way' of THINKING and DOING.

And what IS Truly AMAZING to WATCH and OBSERVE happening here is that 'this one' started this thread thinking or BELIEVING the EXACT OPPOSITE of this here.

SO, just WITHIN a few days, and in fact with just one minuscule post, 'this one' was ABLE TO be CONVINCED as some 'thing' as ABSURD and RIDICULOUS AS; EVERY one SHOULD 'load' "themselves' UP with MORE BIGGER and BIGGER WEAPONS, and the TOTALLY ILLOGICAL PART, to 'protect' "themselves" FROM "themselves".

18 See#10.

But 'this question' was NOT a 'Yes' NOR a 'No' answer question.

19 Same as above.

20 Ask Skepdick.

So you FOLLOW and thus ARE GUIDED by "another's" VIEWS, but you, "yourself", do NOT even KNOW WHY 'those views' are, SUPPOSEDLY, 'right'.

21 Yes.

22 Yes.

23 Yes.

24 Ask Skepdick.

I DID.

25 Ask Skepdick.

I DID.

THANK you PROFUSELY for CLARIFYING here. It IS VERY REFRESHING to SEE. and HEAR.

No. q.v. MAD.

Yes.

Maybe.

You made the presumption.

Criminal activity.

Absence of criminal activity.

No.

Yes.

No.

No.

No.

What ANY of 'these' refer to, EXACTLY, I do NOT KNOW.

So to the entity that calls itself “Age”, whether normal human or not, it is important and necessary and even lots of fun to attribute absurd conclusions to the posts of others

REALLY?

WHERE did 'this' PURPORTEDLY HAPPEN, EXACTLY?

without reason or reasonable evidence to do so,

Are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE OF 'this'?

If yes, then WHERE is the ACTUAL 'evidence', and PREFERABLY WHERE is the ACTUAL PROOF, EXACTLY?

even at the annoyance of others and especially at the annoyance of others

Are 'you' here implying that I SAY 'things' ESPECIALLY AT, or FOR, the 'annoyance' of "others"?

If no, then what IS the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'even at ...' AND, 'especially at ...', here?

just because it believes that only it can provide wisdom for the posters on PNF.

Do 'you' have ANY ACTUAL 'evidence' for 'this', let alone ANY ACTUAL 'proof' for 'this'?

Also, have 'you' NOT YET READ WHERE I have ACTUALLY SAID, on a few occasions, that I am NOT necessarily WRITTEN here, in this forum, necessarily so for 'you', posters, here AT ALL.

So, WITHOUT ANY 'proof', 'you' ARE ACTUALLY Wrong on TWO accounts here, just in this very short part of that whole sentence of 'yours'.

[To anyone who may be aware of what I edited, I can only say that I had a brain fart.]

[Age]

Skepdick, can you tell more about the need for guns in South Africa particularly?

I don't know much about the history there, aside from I've heard it's a very volatile, lawless, and violent country.

You definitely have my sympathy in living in such a criminal environment. Western Liberal Elitists cannot empathize with your situation, ignore them.

Not really sure what to say.

A complex socio-political situation with shitty side-effects and no easy answers made worse by thieving politicians.

It's pretty silly that we have to pay 45% taxes in exchange for which we get no seafety/security; no access to healthcare, no public transport, no public education for our kids and no electricity for 12 hours a day during winter.

Do 'you' NOT have absolutely ANY "police officers" AT ALL in that country, for the safety/security of 'its' citizens?

So those fortunate enough to have the means iinvest their own capital in security, solar power + inverters, water purifiers, medical care, education etc. All the sort of stuff Europeans take for granted. None of this is tax deductable.

Part of this do-it-yourself attitude entails carrying a gun like you carry a smartphone; or your wallet. It's just part of the stuff you carry.

Is what 'you', personally, DO here, what EVERY one "else" DOES ALSO?

Or, when 'you' SAY words like, 'It is just part of the stuff 'you' carry', 'you' are just more or less referring to 'you' here?

And for the folks who live in the rural areas and farm lands - hunting is a big part of the culture.

Considering that 'hunting' has been a HUGE part of 'the culture', in 'that country', SINCE human beings came INTO Existence, which some SAY and CLAIM was over two or three million years AGO, in 'that continent', then it is NOT surprising AT ALL that 'hunting' IS a 'big part' of 'that culture'.

It's how a lot of people put food on the table still.

A LOT ALSO just go to the 'grocery store', instead, as some call 'it'.

[commonsense]

REALLY?
WHERE did 'this' PURPORTEDLY HAPPEN, EXACTLY?
Are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE OF 'this'?
If yes, then WHERE is the ACTUAL 'evidence', and PREFERABLY WHERE is the ACTUAL PROOF, EXACTLY?
Are 'you' here implying that I SAY 'things' ESPECIALLY AT, or FOR, the 'annoyance' of "others"?
If no, then what IS the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'even at ...' AND, 'especially at ...', here?
Do 'you' have ANY ACTUAL 'evidence' for 'this', let alone ANY ACTUAL 'proof' for 'this'?
Also, have 'you' NOT YET READ WHERE I have ACTUALLY SAID, on a few occasions, that I am NOT necessarily WRITTEN here, in this forum, necessarily so for 'you', posters, here AT ALL.

Which of these questions relates to the OP?

[commonsense]

REALLY?
WHERE did 'this' PURPORTEDLY HAPPEN, EXACTLY?
Are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE OF 'this'?
If yes, then WHERE is the ACTUAL 'evidence', and PREFERABLY WHERE is the ACTUAL PROOF, EXACTLY?
Are 'you' here implying that I SAY 'things' ESPECIALLY AT, or FOR, the 'annoyance' of "others"?
If no, then what IS the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'even at ...' AND, 'especially at ...', here?
Do 'you' have ANY ACTUAL 'evidence' for 'this', let alone ANY ACTUAL 'proof' for 'this'?
Also, have 'you' NOT YET READ WHERE I have ACTUALLY SAID, on a few occasions, that I am NOT necessarily WRITTEN here, in this forum, necessarily so for 'you', posters, here AT ALL.

Which of these questions relates to the OP?

[Age]

REALLY?
WHERE did 'this' PURPORTEDLY HAPPEN, EXACTLY?
Are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE OF 'this'?
If yes, then WHERE is the ACTUAL 'evidence', and PREFERABLY WHERE is the ACTUAL PROOF, EXACTLY?
Are 'you' here implying that I SAY 'things' ESPECIALLY AT, or FOR, the 'annoyance' of "others"?
If no, then what IS the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'even at ...' AND, 'especially at ...', here?
Do 'you' have ANY ACTUAL 'evidence' for 'this', let alone ANY ACTUAL 'proof' for 'this'?
Also, have 'you' NOT YET READ WHERE I have ACTUALLY SAID, on a few occasions, that I am NOT necessarily WRITTEN here, in this forum, necessarily so for 'you', posters, here AT ALL.

Which of these questions relates to the OP?

But they were NOT MEANT TO relate to the opening post, DIRECTLY, although 'they' MAY, SOMEHOW.

ALL of those QUESTIONS were IN, DIRECT, RELATION TO what 'you' WROTE, to 'me'.

If 'you' do NOT like to ANSWER 'them', then so be it.

'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE to DO absolutely ANY 'thing' 'you' like or WANT TO here

[commonsense]

If 'you' do NOT like to ANSWER 'them', then so be it.

'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE to DO absolutely ANY 'thing' 'you' like or WANT TO here

AMEN.

[Age]

If 'you' do NOT like to ANSWER 'them', then so be it.

'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE to DO absolutely ANY 'thing' 'you' like or WANT TO here

AMEN.

So, we have ANOTHER one here who LIKES to MAKE CLAIMS, BUT CERTAINLY DOES NOT LIKE to back up and support 'those CLAIMS'.

[Wizard22]

So, 'what' is there to have EMPATHIZE WITH here, EXACTLY?

...that in Anarchic governments and lawless societies, he should be able to defend himself against criminals and being victimized.

If this means high-powered, fully automatic rifles, then so be it.

[Skepdick]

So, we have ANOTHER one here who LIKES to MAKE CLAIMS, BUT CERTAINLY DOES NOT LIKE to back up and support 'those CLAIMS'.

Was I supposed to backup my claims?

Backup the claim that I have to backup my claims.

[Age]

So, 'what' is there to have EMPATHIZE WITH here, EXACTLY?

...that in Anarchic governments and lawless societies, he should be able to defend himself against criminals and being victimized.

If this means high-powered, fully automatic rifles, then so be it.

Well that government OBVIOUSLY, and IRREFUTABLY, ALREADY ALLOWS that one to OWN guns. So, AGAIN, 'what' is there to EMPATHIZE WITH here, EXACTLY?

'That one' HAS got, and IS getting, EXACTLY what 'it' WANTS, and DESERVES. So, I can NOT SEE absolutely ANY 'thing' here as to EMPATHIZE WITH, in regards to 'this one'.

MAYBE 'you' WILL ENLIGHTEN 'me' here?

[Age]

So, we have ANOTHER one here who LIKES to MAKE CLAIMS, BUT CERTAINLY DOES NOT LIKE to back up and support 'those CLAIMS'.

Was I supposed to backup my claims?

'you' are ABSOLUTELY FREE TO DO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' 'you' want to do here. So, there is ABSOLUTELY NO 'supposed to' here in this regard.

Backup the claim that I have to backup my claims.

'This' here is FURTHER PROOF of just how much 'you' TWIST and DISTORT the ACTUAL WORDS of others", and then PROCEED FROM 'there'.

[Wizard22]

Well that government OBVIOUSLY, and IRREFUTABLY, ALREADY ALLOWS that one to OWN guns. So, AGAIN, 'what' is there to EMPATHIZE WITH here, EXACTLY?

'That one' HAS got, and IS getting, EXACTLY what 'it' WANTS, and DESERVES. So, I can NOT SEE absolutely ANY 'thing' here as to EMPATHIZE WITH, in regards to 'this one'.

MAYBE 'you' WILL ENLIGHTEN 'me' here?

Watch some police videos.

People are brutalized by criminals, every, single, day. You show no sympathy for victims. If you could sympathize with victims, then you would want to put guns in their hands to protect themselves against criminals, who heed no laws.

[Skepdick]

'This' here is FURTHER PROOF of just how much 'you' TWIST and DISTORT the ACTUAL WORDS of others", and then PROCEED FROM 'there'.

I learned from you, Age.

You shouldn't have taught me how.

[Age]

Well that government OBVIOUSLY, and IRREFUTABLY, ALREADY ALLOWS that one to OWN guns. So, AGAIN, 'what' is there to EMPATHIZE WITH here, EXACTLY?

'That one' HAS got, and IS getting, EXACTLY what 'it' WANTS, and DESERVES. So, I can NOT SEE absolutely ANY 'thing' here as to EMPATHIZE WITH, in regards to 'this one'.

MAYBE 'you' WILL ENLIGHTEN 'me' here?

Watch some police videos.

People are brutalized by criminals, every, single, day. You show no sympathy for victims. If you could sympathize with victims, then you would want to put guns in their hands to protect themselves against criminals, who heed no laws.

What are 'you' on about here now "wizard22"?

What 'you' PREVIOUSLY SAID, which started this WAS:

'You ["skepdick"] definitely have my sympathy in living in such a criminal environment.'

And, since then, I have been trying to get 'you' to EXPLAIN WHY 'that one', named here as "skepdick" NEEDS absolutely ANY so-called 'sympathy' FOR, EXACTLY?

"skepdick" LOVES to live in 'that country', which ALLOWS "skepdick" to OWN guns. In fact "skepdick" LOVES that kind of environment and country, in which 'it' has found 'itself' living in, SO MUCH that 'it' CLAIMS that 'it' would NOT want to live in ANY country AT ALL that did NOT 'it' to OWN guns.

So, AGAIN, 'this one' IS GETTING EXACTLY WHAT 'it' WANTS, so WHY would "skepdick" DEFINITELY have 'your sympathy'?

Can 'you' COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that if one WANTS to STAY IN the country that they ARE IN, and WANT to STAY 'there' SO MUCH that even if 'they' were OFFERED to MOVE to ANOTHER country that 'they' STILL WOULD SAY, more or less implies that 'they' do NOT NEED NOR even WANT ANY 'sympathy' AT ALL?

"skepdick" WANTS TO LIVE IN 'that environment'. So, WHY would ANY one give "skepdick" ANY 'sympathy' here?

[Age]

'This' here is FURTHER PROOF of just how much 'you' TWIST and DISTORT the ACTUAL WORDS of others", and then PROCEED FROM 'there'.

I learned from you, Age.

You shouldn't have taught me how.

PROVIDE just ONCE WHERE I HAVE EVER DONE SUCH A 'thing' here.

The Fact that 'you' will NOT be ABLE TO will either MEAN:

'you' are CLAIMING ANOTHER 'thing', which 'you' can NOT back up and support.

Or,

'you' ARE LYING here.

Also, and by the way, THANK YOU FOR BEING OPEN and Honest here and ADMITTING that 'you' DO ACTUALLY TWIST and DISTORT 'THE WORDS' of "others", and then proceed FROM 'there'.

BUT by the amount of times that 'you' HAVE DONE 'this' here, it would be, literally, IMPOSSIBLE TO REFUTE anyway.