Grandaddy's Gun

[surreptitious57]

If nature intended you to be a Sisyphean slave it doesnt sound like freedom to me

But what if by accepting such limitations the slave then becomes free within his own mind ?
Not wanting any more than what you already have is as close to absolute freedom as it gets

[henry quirk]

If nature intended you to be a Sisyphean slave it doesnt sound like freedom to me

But what if by accepting such limitations the slave then becomes free within his own mind ?
Not wanting any more than what you already have is as close to absolute freedom as it gets

yeah, right: I'm locked down, locked up, monitored, corralled, directed, and on and on, but I'm free inside my head

We're not computers, Sebastian, we're physical. -Roy Batty

[Immanuel Can]

We're not computers, Sebastian, we're physical. -Roy Batty

Still one of the greatest movies ever made.

"I've seen attack ships on fire, off the shoulder of Orion. I've seen C-beams glitter near the Tannhauser Gate...Now, all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain..."

[Lacewing]

The gun is more than a tool for kiiing three year olds in Chicago requiring your government to take them away. It is much more which the libs have no conception of.

By "libs", do you mean liberals? If so, your extremism is toxic bullshit... and you are the one who has no conception of anything beyond your contrived bubble.

[Age]

But are you free to shoot and kill any one or any thing with that gun?

If no, then are you really living in a free society?

I am. Every single day I live I shoot as many people as I want to shoot.

Which is zero.

An obvious deflection, and refusal, to answer my ACTUAL clarifying question posed to you, which was;
Are you free to shoot and kill any one or any thing with that gun?

But, to respond to your actual response. If you one day choose to shoot some one, because, let us say, just because they are a human being, then are you 'allowed' to?

[Age]

If there are still "kings" and "commies" ruling over "others", then, obviously, guns have ALREADY been PROVEN to NOT work against those "kings" and "commies".

never said gun use is the end of all tyranny

bein' free (self-directin', self-responsibility) and safeguardin' freedom against tyrannts is on-goin' thing

tyrannts, (actual and would be) are like roaches: kill one, there's ten more in the shadows waitin' to take its place

These "kings" and "commies", or "tyrants", also known as 'governments' are STILL in control and rule OVER 'you', and the society in which you find "your" 'self' in, no matter how much you want to deny this fact.

When you are UNDER these governments you do NOT have FULL self-direction as you are always being led and directed in a particular direction.

Besides the fact that there are NO actual true 'free societies' anyway,

a society is just folks livin' in proximity to one another: workin', tradin', transactin', livin', etc.

freedom is just self-direction & self-responsibility

so: a free society is just folks who self-direct and who are self-responsible

But what is 'self-responsibility'?

viewed that way: I live in a free society, and you probably do too

LOL This could not be further from the truth, from my perspective.

But we do have very different views of what 'freedom' actually means.

The land and/or resources, which you say is "yours", or "mine".

as I say: what's mine (my property) I got through transaction or self-production

I didn't steal any of it

If this is what you WANT to BELIEVE, and is part of YOUR 'self-responsibility' meaning, then so be it.

DOING THE WRONG.

not everyone does wrong

To me, NO 'body' does wrong. But, some 'human beings' do wrong. Those human beings, who do wrong, are ALL of the adult ones. The child of those ones do not, and can not, do wrong.

But, there is a LOT MORE that needs to be explained, and understood fully, first, before this can be fully understood.

do you?

Yes.

why not?

Why make an ASSUMPTION, which is OBVIOUSLY TOTALLY WRONG?

Did 'you' ASSUME that most, if not all, see things the same way as you do?

If EVERY one was like these, supposed, ones like 'you' who do not do wrong, then this human being created 'world' would be PERFECT, correct?

If no, then why not?

But you are NOT answering my question, which is; If they say that they own their guns for defense, then they are on the EXACT SAME "page" as you, correct?

I did answer: they don't defend with firearms, they offend, so -- no -- we're not on the same page

ONCE AGAIN, you did NOT answer my ACTUAL question.

I said, and asked; If they SAY that they own their guns for defense, (which is EXACTLY what you say you own guns for), then they are on the EXACT SAME "page" as you, correct?

Obviously, this is irrefutably True.

Unless, of course, you can EXPLAIN, logically and soundly, just HOW one person saying that they own guns for defense is NOT on the EXACT SAME page as "another" person saying that they own guns for defense.

You are JUST 'trying to' "defend", or "justify", for having and using guns.

no, I'm explaining, not justifying

So, your "explanation" for owning guns is for defense, correct?

So, are all of the sons of the, so called, "bitches" NOT 'good eggs', correct?

you finally got one right...congrats


And, if this is correct, then that would mean that your mom is NOT a, so called, "bitch", right?

my ma is ditsy, but she's no bitch

What is 'ditsy' and what is 'bitch', to you?

And, if the sons of those who are "bitches" are NOT 'good eggs', just because they are "sons of bitches", then that is NOT their fault at all, is it?

Also, how do you actually differentiate between the, so called, "good" ones from the, so called, "not good" ones?

in the context of this thread, this conversation: the not good ones the ones who breaks into someone's home in the middle of the night lookin' to take property that isn't theirs, and the good one is the property owner who, by way of his shotgun, doesn't allow that theft to occur

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

As EVIDENCED and PROVEN, once again.

And, absolutely ANY thing can be put into a context, to 'try to' "justify" just about ANY thing.

how many people would actually be in agreement with your own differentiation?

most folks, I suppose, even the bad eggs

They would also be the sensible, and "good" ones, too, correct?

WHY NOT in regards to ANY and ALL accusations?

sure, if anyone has accusations (and proof) of wrongdoin' by anyone (say you, for example) they ought to step up and be heard

WHY 'ought' they, supposedly, "step up and be heard"?

Would it not be the responsibility of the 'self' to 'step up' and be Honest about EVERY thing they do, good or bad?

I see being a Truly responsible 'self' NOT being one that informs "others" of what is wrongdoing nor one that seeks from "others" to be informed about what is actually wrong, and right.

I was asking are they ALLOWED to do whatever they like?

he does as he chooses within the broad constraints of the morality I teach him, that I myself abide by

So, thee actual Truth IS 'No'.

Just like 'you' are NOT allowed to do whatever you like.

'you' are BOTH constrained by the government/society in which you live in.

'you', human beings, are NOT as 'free' as you would like and wish to be, in the days of when this is being written.

But you are being told what to do every day of your life.

oh, I get jibber-jabbered at, like everyone, by all manner of folks lookin' to skew me

I don't pay 'em any mind

Honestly I have NO idea what you are saying and talking about here.

Otherwise you would NOT be doing most of what it is that you do.

tell me of all those things I'm doin' that cuz someone told me to

ALL of 'those things' would be to much of a list to put on here.

Also, are you OPEN to the fact that you could be doing, because you are being told to by "others"?

Also, you can NOT self-defend against those who actually do make a slave state, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, EVIDENCED, and PROVEN.

nah, you haven't shown me that, haven't evidenced it

you assert, which is diddly-squat to me

You MISSED my point.

I have NOT provided ANY evidence, YET.

Those who are making the slave state are SHOWING, and EVIDENCING, and PROVING the slave state.

Things are now seemingly to turn around finally, although extremely, very slowly.

nah, there's no turn around; there's just the slow walk forward (for me, anyway...you: I'm truly beginnin' to understand that yiu don't understand, and may not be capable of understandin', anything I written in this thread)

Okay.

What is this 'aspect' of human nature, EXACTLY, which you perceive or believe I am apparently denying?

right now: I pretty sure you don't understand any aspect of human thinkin' or nature

And this is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of how those who are NOT YET able to back up and support their claim/s respond to my very simple clarifying questions.

Again, this is NOT about if I can or can NOT, supposedly, understanding ANY aspect of human thinking or human nature. This is ABOUT 'you' informing 'us', readers, what this actual 'aspect of human nature' IS, which you think or believe that I am, apparently, denying.

So, the very reason WHY you have not stopped wanting to conquer over "others" is because of 'you', correct?

what makes you think I wanna conquer anything or anyone?

Because you said, in a roundabout way, that what is "yours", or "mine", has to also follow the 'constrained morality', which you find "your" 'self' in, and are confined by. You teach "yours" to abide by these same constraints. You want to conquer over "yours" by making them follow what 'you', "your" 'self', are constrained by and 'have to' follow.

I KNOW what 'you' ARE, by the way.

no, you don't

Okay, if this is what you BELIEVE, then it MUST BE SO, correct?

[Nick_A]

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation. In the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention, a lady asked Dr. Franklin “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.” Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.”

Is the ideal of the Republic serving the purpose of preserving liberty worth the effort? Ben franklin says it is providing we can keep it. But why can't we keep it? What threatens the Republic? Granddaddy's gun suggests an attitude that liberty and self reliance is worth the effort. The progressive beliefs say it isn't and must be sacrificed to the all knowing central government. Liberty vs statist slavery. Is it any wonder that gun sales are up.

[henry quirk]

no matter how much you want to deny this fact.

I do deny it, cuz it ain't a fact


we do have very different views of what 'freedom' actually means.

yep


there is a LOT MORE that needs to be explained, and understood fully, first, before this can be fully understood.

then: make with explanin'


Did 'you' ASSUME that most, if not all, see things the same way as you do?

nope


If EVERY one was like these, supposed, ones like 'you' who do not do wrong, then this human being created 'world' would be PERFECT, correct?

never said I do no wrong; the world is not a human creation; perfection is a pipe dream


If they SAY that they own their guns for defense, (which is EXACTLY what you say you own guns for), then they are on the EXACT SAME "page" as you, correct?

nope

what the say and do are two different things; what I say and do are the same

we're not on the same page


So, your "explanation" for owning guns is for defense, correct?

defense, huntin', for the pleasure of shootin', cuz a whole whack of folks don't like it, etc.


then that is NOT their fault at all, is it?

you're takin' expressions literally

you: computer or autistic?


Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

nope

fire is always fire no matter who observes it

this everything is relative nonsense is mind-poison


absolutely ANY thing can be put into a context, to 'try to' "justify" just about ANY thing.

nope

some things (slavery, for example) are wrong all the time


So, thee actual Truth IS 'No'.

as I reckon freedom: my kid is free


Just like 'you' are NOT allowed to do whatever you like.

I do as I choose...I deliberate, I self-regulate

there ain't no leash on me


'you' are BOTH constrained by the government/society in which you live in.

as I say: there's always folks lookin' to leash others...their desire is not synonymous with success


'you', human beings, are NOT as 'free' as you would like and wish to be, in the days of when this is being written.

speakin'n for me and mine: we're free


are you OPEN to the fact that you could be doing, because you are being told to by "others"?

nope, cuz it ain't a fact


I have NOT provided ANY evidence, YET.

well, get to it then


those who are NOT YET able to back up and support their claim/s

like you


the 'constrained morality'

my morality doesn't constrain: it frees

[henry quirk]

We're not computers, Sebastian, we're physical. -Roy Batty

Still one of the greatest movies ever made.

"I've seen attack ships on fire, off the shoulder of Orion. I've seen C-beams glitter near the Tannhauser Gate...Now, all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain..."

yep, but not the director's cut (with the voice overs)

the ambiguity of the original is what makes it a great flick

I wonder how many folks get that Deckard(sic) was the bad guy?

[Immanuel Can]

the ambiguity of the original is what makes it a great flick

Well, the very first release was the one with the narrative voice-over track. Do you mean that one? The one that ends with him sailing off over a Fall forest with Rachel in his aero car?

I wonder how many folks get that Deckard(sic) was the bad guy?

Roy: "That wasn't very sporting -- aren't you supposed to be the good man?"

[henry quirk]

Well, the very first release was the one with the narrative voice-over track. Do you mean that one?

after my last post: I went did a little research...turns out the voiceover version is the studio cut...studio execs didn't think the audience would understand the flick, so -- against the director's wish's -- they had Ford come in and shoot the voiceovers

the version I like: the one without the voiceover, which is the director's cut...that's a bit misleadn', though cuz there's actually four or five cuts out there


Roy: "That wasn't very sporting -- aren't you supposed to be the good man?"

yep

the voiceover version(s) skews the flick so Deckard is the good man, which is a shame cuz in the more ambiguous version Roy and his people are more clearly the good guys (slaves lookin' to be free) while Deckard is the (increasingly reluctant) agent of the state (the bad guy)

[Immanuel Can]

the version I like: the one without the voiceover, which is the director's cut...that's a bit misleadn', though cuz there's actually four or five cuts out there

Yeah, that's the version I like too. There's only one "false" moment in it, in my view. The unicorn dream. I've always felt that was a mistake. It was too leading, too obvious, too didactic, and invited a conclusion that I agree was better left ambiguous.

After all, the whole point is that you don't know what the moral or personal status of Deckard is in this whole mess, and as the watcher, you're getting punched back and forth on it throughout the film.

And nothing's more ambiguous than the "seduction" scene; that really, really raises some questions about what's going on.

the voiceover version(s) skews the flick so Deckard is the good man, which is a shame cuz in the more ambiguous version Roy and his people are more clearly the good guys (slaves lookin' to be free) while Deckard is the (increasingly reluctant) agent of the state (the bad guy)

That's one of the brilliances of the film. You start off thinking you're supposed to be sympathetic and sorry for Deckard, because he's the traditional film-noir hero, the "good man," as Roy calls him. But you start having trouble with that viewpoint right about the time he goes to the club. And you can never quite feel happy about it afterward.

[henry quirk]

Yeah, that's the version I like too. There's only one "false" moment in it, in my view. The unicorn dream. I've always felt that was a mistake. It was too leading, too obvious, too didactic, and invited a conclusion that I agree was better left ambiguous.

it's been a coon's age since I first saw it, so my recollection is fuzzy, but in the version I saw there was no unicorn dream

as I say, there are multiple versions out & about: the skewin' to imply Deckard was a replicant wasn't in keeping with the rest of the flick


After all, the whole point is that you don't know what the moral or personal status of Deckard is in this whole mess, and as the watcher, you're getting punched back and forth on it throughout the film.

exactly right


And nothing's more ambiguous than the "seduction" scene; that really, really raises some questions about what's going on.

I always took it as Deckard abusin' a toaster so as to remind himself she was a skinjob

obviously: he failed


That's one of the brilliances of the film. You start off thinking you're supposed to be sympathetic and sorry for Deckard, because he's the traditional film-noir hero, the "good man," as Roy calls him. But you start having trouble with that viewpoint right about the time he goes to the club. And you can never quite feel happy about it afterward.

when he offs Zora (that was her name, yeah?) is what sealed it for me he wasn't the hero

he didn't wanna kill her, knew killin' her was wrong, but he did it anyway

Batty and his did questionable things as a matter of perceived necessity: Deckard did bad cuz it was his job

he self-redeems (partly) by the end of the flick but too little, too late

never saw the follow up (bladerunner 2067, or somesuch)

[attofishpi]

never saw the follow up (bladerunner 2067, or somesuch)

2049 I think Henry ..it's on Netflix.

[henry quirk]

never saw the follow up (bladerunner 2067, or somesuch)

2049 I think Henry ..it's on Netflix.

is it any good?