Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Scroto Gaggins

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 20
31
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain this to me...
« on: December 10, 2015, 05:04:47 AM »
NASA was supposedly reflecting lasers off the moon a decade before any man-made object supposedly landed on the moon.  Sorry, but the reflector debate stops there.
Citation needed.
Also, why would you, of all people, take anything NASA says truthfully?

Quote
Also, the sun is not a spot light; it simply acts like a spot light.
So, what makes it act like a spotlight without being one?
This is under the assumption that a spotlight is a light source with a restriction of some kind only making the projected beam a certain size.
Basically, if it acts like a spotlight, then for all intents and purposes, it should be regarded as such.

32
Flat Earth General / Re: What is the reason you are a Flat Earther
« on: December 10, 2015, 04:59:29 AM »
An image taken from a high altitude balloon on Dec. 20, 2014, shows the curvature of the Earth taken with a fish-eye lens, with the towering Rocky Mountains below.  Patrick Cullis, courtesy of Royal Museums Greenwich

x-15 60 miles up not taken with a fish-eye lens.

But I thought photos were out of bounds on this forum, seeing as how they can be easily manipulated?
Plenty of photos exist showing the earth to be spherical, and yet they are ignored.
Either photos can constitute evidence, or they can't.
Choose which one.

33
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 10, 2015, 04:51:50 AM »
You phucken lying sack of shit. Its the opposite to what your claiming it to be. Just ask any farmer who has been rated & taxed off his land with no just terms provide , just extorted "Agended"In the name of environmental sustanabilty. Only to see the land & environment  carved up & as many houses & units you could squeezed on that land  squeezed on that land. You scum poison our drinking water, poison our air. Phuck with the climate with your haarp. Sold off all our state owned utilities to foreign intrests . Yes you really are lying phucken scum.
You keep on assuming a false dichotomy between the people and the government.
Why?
Non binding treaty & you agenda21 traitors are implamenting it , who aproved it ?. So who or what is it binding on, If its non binding? & how is it possibley enforceable. If its non binding ? Where is the full disclosure if it is binding , when its stated its non binding.  Fraudulent deception seems to be the correct answers.
Seeing as the government is comprised of people, not to mention the "shills" like myself, then technically we are the people also.
I.e the government is a subset of 'the people', rather then them being two different sets.

Also, how can we be traitors?
Who are we betraying?
The government? I thought they were with us?
The people? Which people?
The people that include us?
What treaty are you speaking of?
What is binding?
Why does fraudulent deception count as more than one answer?
What are you talking about?
The Government is comprised of people ? No! comprised of "persons" corporates.
Who are you betraying. You have & are betraying the sovereign people.
Which treaty . This agreement that was signed .http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/which-nations-signed-agenda-21.html Now you can call it an agreement . Call it what you phucken like. Its a treaty or if you want to dance around with your underpants on your phucken head like an imbecile. Entreaty. It was signed so its formal. Its a treaty
I'm pretty sure Agenda 21 is a non-binding statement of intent.
Not a treaty.
And certainly not anything to wrap up in conspiracy.

34
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 10, 2015, 12:54:36 AM »
You phucken lying sack of shit. Its the opposite to what your claiming it to be. Just ask any farmer who has been rated & taxed off his land with no just terms provide , just extorted "Agended"In the name of environmental sustanabilty. Only to see the land & environment  carved up & as many houses & units you could squeezed on that land  squeezed on that land. You scum poison our drinking water, poison our air. Phuck with the climate with your haarp. Sold off all our state owned utilities to foreign intrests . Yes you really are lying phucken scum.
You keep on assuming a false dichotomy between the people and the government.
Why?
Non binding treaty & you agenda21 traitors are implamenting it , who aproved it ?. So who or what is it binding on, If its non binding? & how is it possibley enforceable. If its non binding ? Where is the full disclosure if it is binding , when its stated its non binding.  Fraudulent deception seems to be the correct answers.
Seeing as the government is comprised of people, not to mention the "shills" like myself, then technically we are the people also.
I.e the government is a subset of 'the people', rather then them being two different sets.

Also, how can we be traitors?
Who are we betraying?
The government? I thought they were with us?
The people? Which people?
The people that include us?
What treaty are you speaking of?
What is binding?
Why does fraudulent deception count as more than one answer?
What are you talking about?

35
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 09, 2015, 09:24:33 PM »
You phucken lying sack of shit. Its the opposite to what your claiming it to be. Just ask any farmer who has been rated & taxed off his land with no just terms provide , just extorted "Agended"In the name of environmental sustanabilty. Only to see the land & environment  carved up & as many houses & units you could squeezed on that land  squeezed on that land. You scum poison our drinking water, poison our air. Phuck with the climate with your haarp. Sold off all our state owned utilities to foreign intrests . Yes you really are lying phucken scum.
You keep on assuming a false dichotomy between the people and the government.
Why?

36
I don't think he should be kicked from his position.
He does moderate some of the time, after all.
The problem is consistency, which he lacks.
Maybe new moderators?

37
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 07, 2015, 04:49:22 AM »
Alright, Scrotum.  I finally had a little time to sit at the computer, although I am still at work.  I looked up the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina in google, and the first hit that I clicked on said that the current active duty membership is almost 15,000 and the reserve membership is 7,000.  I am not sure where you found your source that says that they do not have any reservists, but apparently, your source is wrong.  Nice try, but I believe you have failed, once again, to prove any point what so ever.    :-\
Boy, is my face red.
The armed forces of Bosnia do indeed have a reserve component.
No matter, there are several countries which assuredly (touch wood  ;D) do not.
Trinidad and Tobago.
Slovakia.
UAE.
Qatar.


I am sorry, Scrotum, but I refuse to do more research every time you present an example of a free state that does not have a militia.  You either give examples of countries which are not free states, or that do in fact, have a militia.  I have shown this several times, and you seem to be trying to wear me out by doing it over and over.  If you can't have a proper debate, perhaps this is not the forum for you.

Now, if you can give a reasonable argument that supports your side, I will be happy to debate with you.  If you are going to waste my time by having to research your failed attempt at nit-picking the Constitution of the United States of America, then I think I am done.  I am sorry, but I just do not have the fortitude to do this over and over again.
OK then.
Slovakia, according to two separate sites, has no reserve component to their military.
You don't have to research this, I've done that for you.
Seeing as they don't have any militia involvement in their nation's defence, they should therefore by unfree, or insecure, or both, if the 2nd Amend. is correct.
They are a democratic nation, and not insecure.
Ergo, the logic contained within the 2nd Amend. is flawed.
Ergo, it is wrong.
Ergo, the main point of opposition to gun control is illogical and fundamentally flawed.

38
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 07, 2015, 03:37:05 AM »
Questions for scrotum Gaggins.  Do you hold a firearms licence. Do you own registered fire arms.
No, I do not currently hold a firearms licence.
Therefore, I do not own registered firearms.

39
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 07, 2015, 12:22:29 AM »
Alright, Scrotum.  I finally had a little time to sit at the computer, although I am still at work.  I looked up the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina in google, and the first hit that I clicked on said that the current active duty membership is almost 15,000 and the reserve membership is 7,000.  I am not sure where you found your source that says that they do not have any reservists, but apparently, your source is wrong.  Nice try, but I believe you have failed, once again, to prove any point what so ever.    :-\
Boy, is my face red.
The armed forces of Bosnia do indeed have a reserve component.
No matter, there are several countries which assuredly (touch wood  ;D) do not.
Trinidad and Tobago.
Slovakia.
UAE.
Qatar.

40
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 06, 2015, 03:28:07 PM »
OK.
Who has the burden of proof, then?
We are both making claims, sure.
But shouldn't the default position on something like necessity be that of non-existence?
I think it is, while you probably think, or at least will claim, that it's not. That's fine.
A quote from USA today; "... if a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, then it follows that a state without such a militia is either insecure, or unfree, or possibly both."

Now, I gave you a list of countries that don't have army reserves or paramilitaries, which should then, therefore, be insecure, or indeed unfree, or both.
But, before we talk about those countries, let's examine whether or not the army reserves count as 'militia'.

Militia means, basically, non-professional fighters.
Now, without a doubt, one can be in the army reserve and not be a professional soldier.
Technically, though, it does count as part-time employment, but for the sake of your argument, let's say that that doesn't count.
There are, however, differing levels in the reserve military.
These of course depend on the country, but the example I'll bring up is that of Canada.
In the Primary Reserve, there are 3 tiers of service.
The first is that of part-time non-operational service
The second is that of full-time, but non-operational service.
The third is that of full-time, and operational service.
It is fair to say that for the 2nd and 3rd tiers, that they would count as professionals.
My point is that the army reserve as a whole cannot be counted as militia, as there are different levels of participation and employment within the system.
Note, also, that the only reservists actively deployed are those who are professionals, i.e. not militia.

On to the example of Bosnia.
The state of Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently nationally secure.
They also have democracy, and hence can be considered a 'free state'.
The military of Bosnia does not include any non-professional fighters.
Ergo, a militia is not involved in national defence.
If the founding fathers' logic is to hold true, then the Bosnian situation cannot arise.
A free state cannot exist securely if not for the presence of a well-regulated militia, so the 2nd Amend. states.

There.
There's my evidence given to support my 'claim' that a militia is not necessary to the security of a free state.

Scrotum, I can't speak for the Canadians, as I have never been a member of their military in any form or fashion.  However, I can speak in regards to the United States Marine Corps.  There are several different statuses for reservists of the USMC, and these probably correlate to some degree with the Canadian's reserve corps.  The most basic status of reserves is the Individual Ready Reserves, or IRR.  These reservists are only obligated to maintain their uniforms in serviceable condition and keep their contact information up to date.  They are generally called up once per year to make sure they are fulfilling these very basic requirements.  They do not train, and while they may be compensated for their time during the annual inspection, I would hardly call this their profession. 

The next component of the Marine Corps Ready Reserve Force is the Selected Marine Reserves.  These are the ones most people are familiar with.  They typically train 2 days per month and 2 weeks per year.  I have not been in this status for around 15 years, but back then, we got compensated fairly well for those 2 days of training, but I would hardly call this status professional in the sense that it is not their profession.  These people are butchers and bakers and candlestick makers for 28 days and train for 2 days.

In addition to these part time Marines, there are a few active duty personnel attached to the reserve units.  In a rifle company of around 200 Marines, there will be around 6 or 8 active duty individuals who run the reserve centers the other 28 days per month.  These are the only ones whom I would consider professionals, as this is typically their full time job. 

There are other forms of reservists, like members of the retired reserves and state level militias, such as a State Naval Militia (which includes members who were previously in the US Navy and Marine Corps) and National Guards. 

I am at work right now, but I will comment on the Bosnia portion of your post when time permits.
My point when talking about the reserves, is that they can hardly be considered militia on the whole.
Certainly, there are sizeable portions who do fit the description, but not all do.
Also worth noting is that to actively serve, one must usually be a professional.
Again, this doesn't apply in all cases, though.
That whole segment was me basically wondering whether reserves would count as militia.

The Bosnia section is what is really important, though.
I look forward to your reply.

41
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 06, 2015, 04:12:50 AM »
Again, though, burden of proof says that the Founding Fathers, and by proxy you, must show how the existence of reservists is necessary to national security.

I see.  Argumentum ad Logicam is no more useful than your other logical fallacies.  Something is not proven false simply because it has not been proven true, or in this case, perceived to have not been proven true.  Please, try again.
So who does the burden of proof lie on?
The burden of proof lies with the claimant, with the asserter.
In this case, the claim being asserted is that militias are necessary to the security of a free state.
I should not have to prove that it isn't, as you haven't shown that it is.
The debater who offers the argument must show that it is valid in order for it to be accepted.

My counter-argument could be as simple as "No, they're not necessary."
Because you haven't given any proof, neither do I.

What are you talking about?  The designers of the constitution had their debate on the subject 250 years ago.  As there are no written records of their debate points other than the finished document, how the hell can you claim that they have the burden of proof of people who died over 200 years ago?  Now, you are demanding for me to speak for the these dead people, like I am a psychic clairvoyant or something.  I know you are struggling with this whole debate thing, but perhaps you should rethink your strategy and start making reasonable points.  The Burden of Proof Fallacy does not help your argument at all.  You are making the claim that, "Militias are not necessary for a free state."  Then, you are demanding proof from me that they are necessary.  Argumentum ad Ignorantiam here at its best.
OK.
Who has the burden of proof, then?
We are both making claims, sure.
But shouldn't the default position on something like necessity be that of non-existence?
I think it is, while you probably think, or at least will claim, that it's not. That's fine.
A quote from USA today; "... if a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, then it follows that a state without such a militia is either insecure, or unfree, or possibly both."

Now, I gave you a list of countries that don't have army reserves or paramilitaries, which should then, therefore, be insecure, or indeed unfree, or both.
But, before we talk about those countries, let's examine whether or not the army reserves count as 'militia'.

Militia means, basically, non-professional fighters.
Now, without a doubt, one can be in the army reserve and not be a professional soldier.
Technically, though, it does count as part-time employment, but for the sake of your argument, let's say that that doesn't count.
There are, however, differing levels in the reserve military.
These of course depend on the country, but the example I'll bring up is that of Canada.
In the Primary Reserve, there are 3 tiers of service.
The first is that of part-time non-operational service
The second is that of full-time, but non-operational service.
The third is that of full-time, and operational service.
It is fair to say that for the 2nd and 3rd tiers, that they would count as professionals.
My point is that the army reserve as a whole cannot be counted as militia, as there are different levels of participation and employment within the system.
Note, also, that the only reservists actively deployed are those who are professionals, i.e. not militia.

On to the example of Bosnia.
The state of Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently nationally secure.
They also have democracy, and hence can be considered a 'free state'.
The military of Bosnia does not include any non-professional fighters.
Ergo, a militia is not involved in national defence.
If the founding fathers' logic is to hold true, then the Bosnian situation cannot arise.
A free state cannot exist securely if not for the presence of a well-regulated militia, so the 2nd Amend. states.

There.
There's my evidence given to support my 'claim' that a militia is not necessary to the security of a free state.

42
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 04, 2015, 02:53:02 PM »
Again, though, burden of proof says that the Founding Fathers, and by proxy you, must show how the existence of reservists is necessary to national security.

I see.  Argumentum ad Logicam is no more useful than your other logical fallacies.  Something is not proven false simply because it has not been proven true, or in this case, perceived to have not been proven true.  Please, try again.
So who does the burden of proof lie on?
The burden of proof lies with the claimant, with the asserter.
In this case, the claim being asserted is that militias are necessary to the security of a free state.
I should not have to prove that it isn't, as you haven't shown that it is.
The debater who offers the argument must show that it is valid in order for it to be accepted.

My counter-argument could be as simple as "No, they're not necessary."
Because you haven't given any proof, neither do I.

43
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 04, 2015, 01:17:12 AM »
I was not going to mention this, but since you insist on bringing up the term Free State, most of the countries that you listed as not having a reserve component to their military are in fact a form of dictatorship government.  Why would you equate a free state to a dictatorship?  A dictatorship fears armed civilians.  A free state does not.
Fair enough.
Most of these countries don't have what most would call democracy.
Most is not all, however, and even if one free state which lacks a reserve or paramilitary component of their military still has state security, then the Founding Fathers are wrong.
Again, though, burden of proof says that the Founding Fathers, and by proxy you, must show how the existence of reservists is necessary to national security.
Necessary.
Not useful, not helpful, not established, but necessary.

44
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 03, 2015, 05:02:17 AM »
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.

I fail to see how you have established a lack of necessity.  Militias have always been around, and continue to exist virtually everywhere even today.  The fact that they still exist speaks for their necessity.  But, let us examine your perception of reservists.  I can assure you that reservists have participated in every major US conflict that I can think of.  You are absolutely wrong in your statement that they rarely participate in military operations.  I was in the USMC reserves, and I know which recent military operations my old unit participated in.  It sounds to me that you started with Petitio Principii, moved to Dicto Simpliciter when you got called out, and are now trying to back out using Non Sequitur arguments.  How many more fallacies are you and your cohorts going to try to pass off as valid debate tactics?
Existence doesn't imply/infer/prove necessity by a long shot.
It may prove potential usage, but necessity is a very specific term.
In this sense, x being necessary to the security of a state means that without x, a state isn't secure.
Ergo, if x is not present, then a state isn't secure.
So, Mr. Roach, allow me to present a list of countries without both reserve military forces, or paramilitary forces.
i.e. all countries without civilian involvement in state defence.
By your logic, all these countries shouldn't be secure.

Bahamas
Bosnia
Cape Verde
Ethiopia
Gambia
Ghana
Kosovo
Mozambique
Papua New Guinea
Qatar
Sierra Leone
Slovakia
South Sudan
Suriname
Timor
Turkmenistan
Trinidad and Tobago
United Arab Emirates

A lot of these countries are doing pretty bad, true.
But if the founding fathers were correct, then all of these countries shouldn't be secure.

And yes, reservists have participated in military conflicts. I concede that.
But it is a far cry to say that participation equals necessity.
If all reserve forces were taken out of the equation, and the only military available was professional soldiers, are you saying that the nation would fall?
Bear in mind that if the Founding Fathers were correct, this rule needs to apply to all free states, past and present.

You continue to use a Dicto Simpliciter argument, and it is not helping you at all.  Just because something is true (or claimed to be true) in one case, that does not mean it is true in all cases.  You can continue with this line of debate all you want to, but that does not make it logically true.  Of course, you will repeat this over and over in an attempt at Argumentum ad Nauseam, but repeating something over and over does not make it logically true.  Sorry that you have failed so hard, but maybe next time you will do better in a debate.
Well, technically, the Founding Fathers used Dicto Simpliciter when they wrote the 2nd Amend. then.
Just because a militia might have been construed as essential to the security of their free state at that time, they wrote that a militia is "necessary for the security of a free state".
Now, unless they didn't mean this, in which case nothing they wrote should be taken seriously, they think that without a militia, a free state cannot be secure.
This is the argument on which they predicate the "right to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed".
If the basis of the entire amendment is flawed, then it follows that the whole amendment is flawed in some way.
And if the amendment is flawed in some way, then it can and should be changed.

Need I also add that the burden of proof lies on the 2nd Amend. , and those who support it, to prove the necessity of a militia in the security of a state.
I shouldn't have to, logically, show that a militia is unnecessary, as you haven't shown that it is.
The Founding Fathers stated that it was, but that's not really good enough.
So, I'll need you to show that the militia is an obligatory component of national security in all free states, without which the state is not secure.

45
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 03, 2015, 02:10:18 AM »

Bear in mind that if the Founding Fathers were correct, this rule needs to apply to all free states, past and present.

NO! The constitution is limitations on Federal power, to insure the continuation of our "Constitutional republic"
It is not some damn globalist document.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
That's what my quote was about.

46
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 03, 2015, 01:45:17 AM »
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.

I fail to see how you have established a lack of necessity.  Militias have always been around, and continue to exist virtually everywhere even today.  The fact that they still exist speaks for their necessity.  But, let us examine your perception of reservists.  I can assure you that reservists have participated in every major US conflict that I can think of.  You are absolutely wrong in your statement that they rarely participate in military operations.  I was in the USMC reserves, and I know which recent military operations my old unit participated in.  It sounds to me that you started with Petitio Principii, moved to Dicto Simpliciter when you got called out, and are now trying to back out using Non Sequitur arguments.  How many more fallacies are you and your cohorts going to try to pass off as valid debate tactics?
Existence doesn't imply/infer/prove necessity by a long shot.
It may prove potential usage, but necessity is a very specific term.
In this sense, x being necessary to the security of a state means that without x, a state isn't secure.
Ergo, if x is not present, then a state isn't secure.
So, Mr. Roach, allow me to present a list of countries without both reserve military forces, or paramilitary forces.
i.e. all countries without civilian involvement in state defence.
By your logic, all these countries shouldn't be secure.

Bahamas
Bosnia
Cape Verde
Ethiopia
Gambia
Ghana
Kosovo
Mozambique
Papua New Guinea
Qatar
Sierra Leone
Slovakia
South Sudan
Suriname
Timor
Turkmenistan
Trinidad and Tobago
United Arab Emirates

A lot of these countries are doing pretty bad, true.
But if the founding fathers were correct, then all of these countries shouldn't be secure.

And yes, reservists have participated in military conflicts. I concede that.
But it is a far cry to say that participation equals necessity.
If all reserve forces were taken out of the equation, and the only military available was professional soldiers, are you saying that the nation would fall?
Bear in mind that if the Founding Fathers were correct, this rule needs to apply to all free states, past and present.

47
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 02, 2015, 03:31:35 PM »
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.

48
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 02, 2015, 04:07:38 AM »
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

49
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 02, 2015, 01:58:51 AM »
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.
No, my post(s) about how the Second Amendment is demonstrably wrong on one count, and should therefore not be perceived as infallible in its wisdom.

i.e. It's wrong on one (major) point, so why should its other points be valid

Please, post a concise statement declaring exactly what the 2nd Amendment is wrong about and I will be happy to have a pleasant discussion about it with you.
Sure.
The 2nd Amend. states clearly that the aforementioned "well-regulated militia" is "... necessary to the security of a free state..."
I would like to point out that a militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not, as the 2nd Amend. claims, necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.
Switzerland has a well-regulated militia, it is a secure free state.
Japan does not have a militia, and is a secure free state.
NB: Militia, in this sense, means any form of organised armed citizenry.

As we can see, a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state.
Ergo, the 2nd Amend. is wrong in this sense.
Ergo, the 2nd Amend. should not be taken as irrefutably wise.
Ergo, the non-regulation of guns shouldn't be considered wise.
Ahem.

50
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 01, 2015, 03:42:20 PM »
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.
No, my post(s) about how the Second Amendment is demonstrably wrong on one count, and should therefore not be perceived as infallible in its wisdom.

i.e. It's wrong on one (major) point, so why should its other points be valid

Please, post a concise statement declaring exactly what the 2nd Amendment is wrong about and I will be happy to have a pleasant discussion about it with you.
Sure.
The 2nd Amend. states clearly that the aforementioned "well-regulated militia" is "... necessary to the security of a free state..."
I would like to point out that a militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not, as the 2nd Amend. claims, necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.
Switzerland has a well-regulated militia, it is a secure free state.
Japan does not have a militia, and is a secure free state.
NB: Militia, in this sense, means any form of organised armed citizenry.

As we can see, a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state.
Ergo, the 2nd Amend. is wrong in this sense.
Ergo, the 2nd Amend. should not be taken as irrefutably wise.
Ergo, the non-regulation of guns shouldn't be considered wise.

51
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 01, 2015, 03:30:41 PM »
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.
No, my post(s) about how the Second Amendment is demonstrably wrong on one count, and should therefore not be perceived as infallible in its wisdom.

i.e. It's wrong on one (major) point, so why should its other points be valid

52
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 01, 2015, 03:08:00 PM »
Quote
reg·u·late  (rĕg′yə-lāt′)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

You focus on definition 1. while ignoring the other three meanings and assume that people centuries ago would agree with you.  You liberals have no morals.  How do you sleep at night?
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

53
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 01, 2015, 02:52:56 PM »
Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"Well regulated" applies to Militias in that sentence, not the ownership of firearms.  Basically, it is saying that citizens should be allowed to own and master firearms so that if they are ever needed to be part of a Militia, they will already be armed and trained in the use of firearms.  How could you possibly misinterpret that to mean that the firearms should be regulated?  This is the worst argument I have ever heard.
Militia means armed citizenry.
The second amendment says that the armed citizenry should be well-regulated.
Now, seeing as regulations of some form are sanctioned by the second amendment, why are anti-gun control people always so against regulations of any kind?
Also, the amendment is wrong.
A militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.

Well Regulated means properly trained, equipped, and organized when referring to a Militia.  I know you anti firearm people like to move words that are at the beginning of a sentence to make it reference something at the end of the sentence, but the fact is the words Well Regulated were referring to the word that immediately following them, which is Militia, and the fact is that well regulated means that a Militia would be compatible and comparable with regular troops as far as the equipment that they have and their ability to fight.  Have you ever even studied the American Revolution?

No. Well-regulated means the same thing when referring to anything:

Quote
regulated - control or supervise something by means of rules and regulations.

You literally could've just searched "define regulated" online and found this.

You really seem like an idiot right now.  During the American Revolution, the term Regulars was applied to the official military troops on both sides.  Militias were more haphazardly assembled.  After the war, when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, the people who wrote it knew the term Regular to mean a soldier, so allowing a group to be Regulated meant that it was allowed to be like the Regular army.  This is not rocket science, folks.  You can twist words and meanings around all you want, but you can't change the fact that it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Your only defense on this is what the term 'regulated' means and to what it applies.  Seems like you are really digging at the bottom of the barrel here.
Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't think that any gun-control advocate wants guns to banned entirely.
We just want there to be regulations, as advocated by the second amendment.
If these regulations are on the type of gun, then fine.
If these regulations are on who is allowed to have guns, then fine.
If these regulations are on where guns can be carried, then fine.

And, if you are the student of history that you appear to be, then you should know what 'arms' constituted back in the 1700's.
Muskets, which have a fire rate of approximately 3 shots per minute with the accuracy of a drunken piss.
Maybe if the founding fathers had known of automatic weapons and school shootings then they wouldn't have added that amendment.

Also, you haven't addressed my other major point.
If the Second Amendment is so clearly wrong when it talks about the security of a state, then we can see that the constitution is not infallible.
Maybe at the time, and in the circumstance; a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of that particular free state; but demonstrably, armed citizenry is not necessary to the security of a state.

54
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 01, 2015, 02:23:59 PM »
I cite the Constitution of the United States of America.

Not good enough. You weren't there when they wrote it. You can't read the minds of dead people. Just because it's written that way, it doesn't mean that it was intended to be conveyed that way. Try again.

The Constitution is not good enough for you?  It is the supreme law of the land.  It even says so in the Constitution.  Why do you liberals constantly feel the need to change its meaning?
What he is saying is that you can't claim that you know the rationale behind the constitution, as you weren't present.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land, but it can be changed.

EDIT: Thanks TheEarthIsRound. Means a lot

55
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 01, 2015, 02:19:42 PM »
Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"Well regulated" applies to Militias in that sentence, not the ownership of firearms.  Basically, it is saying that citizens should be allowed to own and master firearms so that if they are ever needed to be part of a Militia, they will already be armed and trained in the use of firearms.  How could you possibly misinterpret that to mean that the firearms should be regulated?  This is the worst argument I have ever heard.
Militia means armed citizenry.
The second amendment says that the armed citizenry should be well-regulated.
Now, seeing as regulations of some form are sanctioned by the second amendment, why are anti-gun control people always so against regulations of any kind?
Also, the amendment is wrong.
A militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.

56
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: December 01, 2015, 04:01:56 AM »
This thread is being derailed by discussions on the validity of laws and governments both.
If you want to make another thread about this, then do so.
This thread is about gun control, and all discussions thereof are predicated on the assumption that democracy exists and governments are benign.
Running from the truth ,I rest my case.
Dont give up your rights , dont give up your guns. Till & when  you know who your contracting with. Demand to know who your contracting with , never just assume. If you dont like the contract proposed & its terms . Then dont contract.
No, I'm not running from the truth.
I'm merely saying that this discussion is between sane people, who don't make grand claims of governmental evil from their comfortable armchairs.
You may believe that all governments are evil, that's fine.
It's just that if that is your standpoint, then any contributions you make to this particular thread will be rather off-topic and counter-productive.
Listen here ya pharken sock puppet. Why don't you provide some evidence  they are public constatuted Governments . Seen as you claim they are &   are making grand claims anyone questioning  their validity to enact firearm controling laws is not sane. 
There are plentiful links to documents on the net that evidence them as fiat. Lets see what you can provide to change those heavly evidenced observations.
Can I just ask some questions?
Do you think that all governments that have ever existed have been corrupt at some level?
Do you think that any governments that exist right now are not corrupt?
Do you think that a government can ever exist without corruption of some kind?

57
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 30, 2015, 02:56:02 PM »
This thread is being derailed by discussions on the validity of laws and governments both.
If you want to make another thread about this, then do so.
This thread is about gun control, and all discussions thereof are predicated on the assumption that democracy exists and governments are benign.
Running from the truth ,I rest my case.
Dont give up your rights , dont give up your guns. Till & when  you know who your contracting with. Demand to know who your contracting with , never just assume. If you dont like the contract proposed & its terms . Then dont contract.
No, I'm not running from the truth.
I'm merely saying that this discussion is between sane people, who don't make grand claims of governmental evil from their comfortable armchairs.
You may believe that all governments are evil, that's fine.
It's just that if that is your standpoint, then any contributions you make to this particular thread will be rather off-topic and counter-productive.

58
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 29, 2015, 02:40:11 PM »
This thread is being derailed by discussions on the validity of laws and governments both.
If you want to make another thread about this, then do so.
This thread is about gun control, and all discussions thereof are predicated on the assumption that democracy exists and governments are benign.

59
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 29, 2015, 04:16:42 AM »
Charles, are you saying that there should be anarchy?
Because unless there is a hierarchy of power, then that's what it will be.

Oops, you've draw me back! Good day, good sirs.
Clearly here, a truly marvelous concept has been skewed. I speak of this concept of anarchy. The word has been used for decades now to be thought of as chaos. It is by no means chaos.
The word anarchy actually come from the term anti-archon. It means against the ruler or ruling class.
Chaos means the lack of order. Anarchy means no ruling elite. Here we must break the shackles of brainwashing.
The states in the US had this vision in mind i believe. Once the Federal government was formed, the ruling class got right to work. They established the Federal reserve, (A private cabal of international banks).
Began calling our republic a "democracy", removed from congress the power to select senators and now
"elects" them by popular vote. It is a shame and a crime. Money will buy power. Who controls the money?
An anarchy will always have a steering and guidance body. of the people, by the people and for the people.
Truth be told, I believe men's fears will return them to this idea of centralized power.
So my point is just to clarify that anarchy is not chaos.
True, but never once did I compare anarchy to chaos.
It is just that in an anarchic society, there will be inevitable bloodshed and misery caused by our reverting to primitive societal hierarchies.
In nature, the physically strong (usually males) are in control.
In our current system, like it or not, one can't deny that our quality of life is quite good.

Need I also remind old Charlie that there are always going to be laws that have to be obeyed.
Laws of motion, etc.

60
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« on: November 29, 2015, 02:22:32 AM »
Charles, are you saying that there should be anarchy?
Because unless there is a hierarchy of power, then that's what it will be.
Anarchy no, "honesty" yes. Being forced to consent to a system run on lies & dishonest manipulation. Exstorting exploiting , useing & abusing peoples trust . Is not hierarchy of power. Its nothing more then manipulated fraud & corruption by dishonest elitists. Persons I would never want to see ever  having any say in who gets to own a firearm.
Name me any society that existed in history, and I will name you the person(s) in charge.
If you can see this manipulation in today's society, then you should see it in all societies.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 20