Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:Did you read Walter Williams' article or not, you damned fool!

Not cited in the OP of this thread moron!

chaz wyman wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Did you read Walter Williams' article or not, you damned fool!

Not cited in the OP of this thread moron!

Do you want me to help you read it, you lazy oaf?

Jewish World Review Jan. 16, 2013
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
Are Guns the Problem?
By Free-market Economist Walter Williams

When I attended primary and secondary school — during the 1940s and '50s — one didn't hear of the kind of shooting mayhem that's become routine today. Why? It surely wasn't because of strict firearm laws. My replica of the 1902 Sears mail-order catalog shows 35 pages of firearm advertisements. People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped. Dr. John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," reports that until the 1960s, some New York City public high schools had shooting clubs where students competed in citywide shooting contests for university scholarships. They carried their rifles to school on the subways and, upon arrival, turned them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach and retrieved their rifles after school for target practice. Virginia's rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students going hunting in the morning before school and sometimes storing their rifles in the trunks of their cars that were parked on school grounds. Often a youngster's 12th or 14th birthday present was a shiny new .22-caliber rifle, given to him by his father.

Today's level of civility can't match yesteryear's. Many of today's youngsters begin the school day passing through metal detectors. Guards patrol school hallways, and police cars patrol outside. Despite these measures, assaults, knifings and shootings occur. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2010 there were 828,000 nonfatal criminal incidents in schools. There were 470,000 thefts and 359,000 violent attacks, of which 91,400 were serious. In the same year, 145,100 public-school teachers were physically attacked, and 276,700 were threatened.

What explains today's behavior versus yesteryear's? For well over a half-century, the nation's liberals and progressives — along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals and the courts — have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. These people taught their vision, that there are no moral absolutes, to our young people. To them, what's moral or immoral is a matter of convenience, personal opinion or a consensus.

During the '50s and '60s, the education establishment launched its agenda to undermine lessons children learned from their parents and the church with fads such as "values clarification." So-called sex education classes are simply indoctrination that sought to undermine family and church strictures against premarital sex. Lessons of abstinence were ridiculed and considered passé and replaced with lessons about condoms, birth control pills and abortions. Further undermining of parental authority came with legal and extralegal measures to assist teenage abortions with neither parental knowledge nor consent.

Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society. These behavioral norms — transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings — represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works. The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. The more uncivilized we become the more laws that are needed to regulate behavior.

Many customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now we're paying the price. What's worse is that instead of a return to what worked, people want to replace what worked with what sounds good, such as zero-tolerance policies in which bringing a water pistol, drawing a picture of a pistol, or pointing a finger and shouting "bang-bang" produces a school suspension or arrest. Seeing as we've decided that we should rely on gun laws to control behavior, what should be done to regulate clubs and hammers? After all, FBI crime statistics show that more people are murdered by clubs and hammers than rifles and shotguns.

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Did you read Walter Williams' article or not, you damned fool!

Not cited in the OP of this thread moron!

Do you want me to help you read it, you lazy oaf?
]

No.
It's not relevant to what I was saying, not relevant to the main issue and does not reflect your poor understanding of the issue.
We are not talking about Clubs and hammers. Clubs and hammers were not used to slaughter 20 babies recently.
If you were not such an oaf, you might realise that he is suggesting that morons like you are not 'civilised', which is what I have been telling you for a long time.

Laws against guns in civilised countries are enacted so that the police can put a person in gaol for the intent to commit a crime. The carrying of any weapon is an implicit intention to do that. Law abiding citizens have not enacted that law to restrict themselves - they have no need of guns or other weapons, as we can change the law through the democratic process - a thing which for all your talk is too remote for an American to see as a reality.
No, laws restricting weapons, are their to protect law abiding citizens from idiots like you.
And it works.
The British have never needed weapons to protect themselves from government, as we are civilised enough to listen to the people. The US have followed every democratic reform and improvement of significance that has been pioneered by British political thinkers, and is still behind most civilised thinking.

British have always had the gumption to struggle against their leaders. Political dissent is far more advanced in the UK than it has ever been in the US, with one exception. When the British made the US, they were following the long tradition of political struggle against authority. This is a lesson that British people have never forgotten.

The political landscape of the UK os more diverse and representative than it is in the USA. The USA has forgotten the roots of its political beginnings and many there still feel the need to keep a gun, in the misconceived notion that to have a gun will enhance their political clout in some way. This is the height of absurdity. Not only have they lost the plot when it comes to their childish macho ideology, they have missed the point of 'revolution', as a process of change and have attached themselves with an act of Faith to a moribund and ossified Constitution which was out of date 200 years ago. They have also missed the subtlety of the definition of the word "amendment".

"Like, um we caint change da constitution coz of da 2nd. amendment."

Amendments are made to avoid a constitution becoming irrelevant, to ensure that a constitution can continue to be responsive to the needs of the people. THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED AN AMENDMENT.

When armed revolution is called for, no one ever has any trouble to get hold of the weapons they need. This is a historical fact. In a democracy or in a country with aspirations of democracy guns are not useful; people power is. There are numerous examples of unarmed struggles leading to self determination and democracy, whilst armed struggles do not have the same level of success. The USA was not even one of them. The so-called revolution did not lead to democracy, but to a Oligarchy, for a further 100+ years, when the plebiscite extended to more than 5% of the population. In France it lead to a Monarchical backlash; Vietnam - tyranny; China - tyranny. Spain - Dictatorship, any other examples????

The notion that any armed struggle could establish democracy is a grand fallacy, and the lie beneath the gun lobby's ideological nonsense. Accepted by fools whose use of a long metal object is used as some sort of compensation.

It's absolutely relevant to this thread, or didn't you read the humorously ironic title, which of course wouldn't make any difference anyway in view of your crazy-assed posts!

bobevenson wrote:It's absolutely relevant to this thread, or didn't you read the humorously ironic title, which of course wouldn't make any difference anyway in view of your crazy-assed posts!

Clubs and hammers were not used to slaughter 20 babies recently.


It's not relevant to what I was saying, not relevant to the main issue and does not reflect your poor understanding of the issue.
We are not talking about Clubs and hammers. Clubs and hammers were not used to slaughter 20 babies recently.
If you were not such an oaf, you might realise that he is suggesting that morons like you are not 'civilised', which is what I have been telling you for a long time.

Laws against guns in civilised countries are enacted so that the police can put a person in gaol for the intent to commit a crime. The carrying of any weapon is an implicit intention to do that. Law abiding citizens have not enacted that law to restrict themselves - they have no need of guns or other weapons, as we can change the law through the democratic process - a thing which for all your talk is too remote for an American to see as a reality.
No, laws restricting weapons, are their to protect law abiding citizens from idiots like you.
And it works.
The British have never needed weapons to protect themselves from government, as we are civilised enough to listen to the people. The US have followed every democratic reform and improvement of significance that has been pioneered by British political thinkers, and is still behind most civilised thinking.

British have always had the gumption to struggle against their leaders. Political dissent is far more advanced in the UK than it has ever been in the US, with one exception. When the British made the US, they were following the long tradition of political struggle against authority. This is a lesson that British people have never forgotten.

The political landscape of the UK os more diverse and representative than it is in the USA. The USA has forgotten the roots of its political beginnings and many there still feel the need to keep a gun, in the misconceived notion that to have a gun will enhance their political clout in some way. This is the height of absurdity. Not only have they lost the plot when it comes to their childish macho ideology, they have missed the point of 'revolution', as a process of change and have attached themselves with an act of Faith to a moribund and ossified Constitution which was out of date 200 years ago. They have also missed the subtlety of the definition of the word "amendment".

"Like, um we caint change da constitution coz of da 2nd. amendment."

Amendments are made to avoid a constitution becoming irrelevant, to ensure that a constitution can continue to be responsive to the needs of the people. THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED AN AMENDMENT.

When armed revolution is called for, no one ever has any trouble to get hold of the weapons they need. This is a historical fact. In a democracy or in a country with aspirations of democracy guns are not useful; people power is. There are numerous examples of unarmed struggles leading to self determination and democracy, whilst armed struggles do not have the same level of success. The USA was not even one of them. The so-called revolution did not lead to democracy, but to a Oligarchy, for a further 100+ years, when the plebiscite extended to more than 5% of the population. In France it lead to a Monarchical backlash; Vietnam - tyranny; China - tyranny. Spain - Dictatorship, any other examples????

The notion that any armed struggle could establish democracy is a grand fallacy, and the lie beneath the gun lobby's ideological nonsense. Accepted by fools whose use of a long metal object is used as some sort of compensation.

chaz wyman wrote:

bobevenson wrote:It's absolutely relevant to this thread, or didn't you read the humorously ironic title, which of course wouldn't make any difference anyway in view of your crazy-assed posts!

Clubs and hammers were not used to slaughter 20 babies recently.


It's not relevant to what I was saying, not relevant to the main issue and does not reflect your poor understanding of the issue.
We are not talking about Clubs and hammers. Clubs and hammers were not used to slaughter 20 babies recently.
If you were not such an oaf, you might realise that he is suggesting that morons like you are not 'civilised', which is what I have been telling you for a long time.

Laws against guns in civilised countries are enacted so that the police can put a person in gaol for the intent to commit a crime. The carrying of any weapon is an implicit intention to do that. Law abiding citizens have not enacted that law to restrict themselves - they have no need of guns or other weapons, as we can change the law through the democratic process - a thing which for all your talk is too remote for an American to see as a reality.
No, laws restricting weapons, are their to protect law abiding citizens from idiots like you.
And it works.
The British have never needed weapons to protect themselves from government, as we are civilised enough to listen to the people. The US have followed every democratic reform and improvement of significance that has been pioneered by British political thinkers, and is still behind most civilised thinking.

British have always had the gumption to struggle against their leaders. Political dissent is far more advanced in the UK than it has ever been in the US, with one exception. When the British made the US, they were following the long tradition of political struggle against authority. This is a lesson that British people have never forgotten.

The political landscape of the UK os more diverse and representative than it is in the USA. The USA has forgotten the roots of its political beginnings and many there still feel the need to keep a gun, in the misconceived notion that to have a gun will enhance their political clout in some way. This is the height of absurdity. Not only have they lost the plot when it comes to their childish macho ideology, they have missed the point of 'revolution', as a process of change and have attached themselves with an act of Faith to a moribund and ossified Constitution which was out of date 200 years ago. They have also missed the subtlety of the definition of the word "amendment".

"Like, um we caint change da constitution coz of da 2nd. amendment."

Amendments are made to avoid a constitution becoming irrelevant, to ensure that a constitution can continue to be responsive to the needs of the people. THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED AN AMENDMENT.

When armed revolution is called for, no one ever has any trouble to get hold of the weapons they need. This is a historical fact. In a democracy or in a country with aspirations of democracy guns are not useful; people power is. There are numerous examples of unarmed struggles leading to self determination and democracy, whilst armed struggles do not have the same level of success. The USA was not even one of them. The so-called revolution did not lead to democracy, but to a Oligarchy, for a further 100+ years, when the plebiscite extended to more than 5% of the population. In France it lead to a Monarchical backlash; Vietnam - tyranny; China - tyranny. Spain - Dictatorship, any other examples????

The notion that any armed struggle could establish democracy is a grand fallacy, and the lie beneath the gun lobby's ideological nonsense. Accepted by fools whose use of a long metal object is used as some sort of compensation.

Bottom line: We saved your ass in World War II, and I suppose we'll have to do it again some day, but I would recommend just letting the British Empire sink to the bottom of the ocean like Atlantis.

Once again.

bobevenson wrote:Bottom line: We saved your ass in World War II, and I suppose we'll have to do it again some day, ...

Well you and 20,000,000 Soviets as without them we'd still be on the beaches.

but I would recommend just letting the British Empire sink to the bottom of the ocean like Atlantis.

There is no British Empire boob, it pretty much ended after WWII.

Arising_uk wrote:Once again.

bobevenson wrote:Bottom line: We saved your ass in World War II, and I suppose we'll have to do it again some day, ...

Well you and 20,000,000 Soviets as without them we'd still be on the beaches.

but I would recommend just letting the British Empire sink to the bottom of the ocean like Atlantis.

There is no British Empire boob, it pretty much ended after WWII.

Regarding your first point, I guess you probably celebrate the birth of Josef Stalin. Regarding your second point, you can bulldoze Cincinnati's seven hills and do away with its Queen City nickname, but it is still the reincarnation of ancient Rome.

bobevenson wrote:Regarding your first point, I guess you probably celebrate the birth of Josef Stalin. ...

Typical Yank reply. So no boob, I don't celebrate Stalins birth. What I do do is recognise the sacrifice of the Soviets without which we'd still be on the beaches and that the Yank would not have been over here if it wasn't for Jap attacking them, otherwise they'd still have been trading with the Nazi.

Regarding your second point, you can bulldoze Cincinnati's seven hills and do away with its Queen City nickname, but it is still the reincarnation of ancient Rome.

*Yawn* What was that you were saying about Bills repetitive manner?

We helped England before the war and after the war, but don't bother saying thank you. You and Bill make a fine team.

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
Clubs and hammers were not used to slaughter 20 babies recently.


It's not relevant to what I was saying, not relevant to the main issue and does not reflect your poor understanding of the issue.
We are not talking about Clubs and hammers. Clubs and hammers were not used to slaughter 20 babies recently.
If you were not such an oaf, you might realise that he is suggesting that morons like you are not 'civilised', which is what I have been telling you for a long time.

Laws against guns in civilised countries are enacted so that the police can put a person in gaol for the intent to commit a crime. The carrying of any weapon is an implicit intention to do that. Law abiding citizens have not enacted that law to restrict themselves - they have no need of guns or other weapons, as we can change the law through the democratic process - a thing which for all your talk is too remote for an American to see as a reality.
No, laws restricting weapons, are their to protect law abiding citizens from idiots like you.
And it works.
The British have never needed weapons to protect themselves from government, as we are civilised enough to listen to the people. The US have followed every democratic reform and improvement of significance that has been pioneered by British political thinkers, and is still behind most civilised thinking.

British have always had the gumption to struggle against their leaders. Political dissent is far more advanced in the UK than it has ever been in the US, with one exception. When the British made the US, they were following the long tradition of political struggle against authority. This is a lesson that British people have never forgotten.

The political landscape of the UK os more diverse and representative than it is in the USA. The USA has forgotten the roots of its political beginnings and many there still feel the need to keep a gun, in the misconceived notion that to have a gun will enhance their political clout in some way. This is the height of absurdity. Not only have they lost the plot when it comes to their childish macho ideology, they have missed the point of 'revolution', as a process of change and have attached themselves with an act of Faith to a moribund and ossified Constitution which was out of date 200 years ago. They have also missed the subtlety of the definition of the word "amendment".

"Like, um we caint change da constitution coz of da 2nd. amendment."

Amendments are made to avoid a constitution becoming irrelevant, to ensure that a constitution can continue to be responsive to the needs of the people. THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED AN AMENDMENT.

When armed revolution is called for, no one ever has any trouble to get hold of the weapons they need. This is a historical fact. In a democracy or in a country with aspirations of democracy guns are not useful; people power is. There are numerous examples of unarmed struggles leading to self determination and democracy, whilst armed struggles do not have the same level of success. The USA was not even one of them. The so-called revolution did not lead to democracy, but to a Oligarchy, for a further 100+ years, when the plebiscite extended to more than 5% of the population. In France it lead to a Monarchical backlash; Vietnam - tyranny; China - tyranny. Spain - Dictatorship, any other examples????

The notion that any armed struggle could establish democracy is a grand fallacy, and the lie beneath the gun lobby's ideological nonsense. Accepted by fools whose use of a long metal object is used as some sort of compensation.

Bottom line: We saved your ass in World War II, and I suppose we'll have to do it again some day, but I would recommend just letting the British Empire sink to the bottom of the ocean like Atlantis.

The US saved its own arse in WW2, and we all owe much more to Russia for the defeat of the Axis. The US sold the UK a lot of weapons that destroyed the British economy on account of the fact that we had to pay it back for 30 years. Eventually, when Hitler was past his best he stupidly declared war on the US.
We have nothing to thank the US for except a large INVOICE at the end of the war - Gee thanks.

chaz wyman wrote:The US saved its own arse...

If you're going to claim to be an American, then talk like an American or drop the phony pretense.

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:The US saved its own arse...

If you're going to claim to be an American, then talk like an American or drop the phony pretense.

I'm an American that prefers English spellings for English words, get over it, you knuckle-dragging moronic oaf!

chaz wyman wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:The US saved its own arse...

If you're going to claim to be an American, then talk like an American or drop the phony pretense.

I'm an American that prefers English spellings for English words, get over it, you knuckle-dragging moronic oaf!

The only English spellings worth their salt are in the KJV of Revelation.