Author Topic: U.S. Marine Writes Letter to diane feinstein  (Read 5623 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

pelham32

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
  • Respect: +32
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: U.S. Marine Writes Letter to diane feinstein
« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2013, 10:22:48 am »
0
You know they brought him in on the show for a reason though. They knew what was going to happen.
Goal

windmill consistently/ touch top of the square consistently



weight= 193
height= 6'3 1/2
highest touch= top of the square, which is 11'4

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30939
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +7598
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: U.S. Marine Writes Letter to diane feinstein
« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2013, 10:38:01 am »
0
You know they brought him in on the show for a reason though. They knew what was going to happen.

doesn't matter though, he has millions of followers.

they brought him on for the same reason they bring on any guest though imo.. i really doubt they thought he'd go off like THAT. they obviously knew he was going to be controversial/combative but that was pure batshit.

pelham32

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
  • Respect: +32
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: U.S. Marine Writes Letter to diane feinstein
« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2013, 10:46:34 am »
0
You know they brought him in on the show for a reason though. They knew what was going to happen.

doesn't matter though, he has millions of followers.

they brought him on for the same reason they bring on any guest though imo.. i really doubt they thought he'd go off like THAT. they obviously knew he was going to be controversial/combative but that was pure batshit.


I think they knew it was going to split up the controversy even more. All Pierce had to do was try to be respectful and he wins and is made out the good guy. They knew how Alex jones was probably going to act, it didn't matter if he was right about every single argument he made. The way he acted, with yelling and mockery and blatant disrespect made him look like a baffoon on tv. Pierce knew all he had to do was just try and reason with him and he knows how he would look in the view of the public and how Alex jones looked. Even though Alex made some good points and had good statistics to back them up. He ruined his self in the debate and no one who has their mind already made up is listening or at least trying to look at the other side of the spectrum. They knew this would happen and I think they played it well.
Goal

windmill consistently/ touch top of the square consistently



weight= 193
height= 6'3 1/2
highest touch= top of the square, which is 11'4

pelham32

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
  • Respect: +32
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: U.S. Marine Writes Letter to diane feinstein
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2013, 01:48:01 pm »
0
Just found this today by the hodge twins and it it goes along with what I posted...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axIv0Ndr_Bs" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axIv0Ndr_Bs</a>
Goal

windmill consistently/ touch top of the square consistently



weight= 193
height= 6'3 1/2
highest touch= top of the square, which is 11'4

pelham32

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
  • Respect: +32
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: U.S. Marine Writes Letter to diane feinstein
« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2013, 07:51:08 pm »
0
This was shared on Facebook just as Lances original post was...
The letter was supposedly written by a retired marine major however I am unsure if that is correct as the source is from Facebook
It's the same argument and nothing new but I like Kloos's philosophy using reason and force for human interaction.

MARCH 23, 2007 by MARKO KLOOS
why the gun is civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Goal

windmill consistently/ touch top of the square consistently



weight= 193
height= 6'3 1/2
highest touch= top of the square, which is 11'4

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30939
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +7598
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: U.S. Marine Writes Letter to diane feinstein
« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2013, 01:24:45 am »
0
This was shared on Facebook just as Lances original post was...
The letter was supposedly written by a retired marine major however I am unsure if that is correct as the source is from Facebook
It's the same argument and nothing new but I like Kloos's philosophy using reason and force for human interaction.

MARCH 23, 2007 by MARKO KLOOS
why the gun is civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

He carries an AR-15 at all times?

When I read the above text, I think hand gun, 6-10 rounds, don't you? I definitely don't think of a mock-assault weapon capable of holding 30-100 rounds.

The same people who are ok with a ban on automatic weapons are also the same people acting as if a ban on semi automatic high capacity weapons is strictly unconstitutional..... well, it isn't.

Anyone who supports the second amendment, supports a ban on automatic assault rifles, yet claims a ban on high capacity semi automatic weapons is unconstitutional, is being extremely hypocritical.

A 100 lb women is going to carry a small hand gun, not an assault rife. She's also going to most likely carry a handgun that is 6-10 round capable, not 30+.

If I hear another "republican woman" claim she needs an AR-15 for self protection i'm going to go buy a nerf gun and shoot her in the face with spongeballs when she's coming home from work.