Is it just me...

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, he destroyed you. Go back to defending the RIAA's fascism and stop whining.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where your misplaced anger is coming from buddy. Glad I decided against coming to your aide when two people called you a troll the other day.

BTW, MMMMMM, I take serious offense to Scoot's misrepresentation of my stance on the RIAA, especially claiming that I am "defending" "fascism". I'm kidding about taking serious offense, but Scoot, "dude", you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to my feelings about the RIAA.

By the way, you must have done some real digging in OOT to find those quotes (unless you were directly involved with that thread and still care about it - are you the new incarnation of Dead?). Between all that digging and the tons of posts you make per day, you must have a great life. Enjoy it. And please find those quotes of mine so you can "pwn" me some more.

Pvn did indeed come down hard. I don't think the sarcasm was really called for there. I simply have a different opinion than him (although not that often); and he is very opinionated. But unlike you, he puts some quality thinking into his posts, and other than the one where he jumped on me, I have enjoyed reading his posts. Actually, I enjoyed that one too.

Not so with you (for the most part). I'm beginning to see the wisdom of the troll accusation.

-ptmusic

[coffeecrazy1]

What is that, then...since I'm so behind the times?

[Cyrus]

It's the con artists of the neo-conservative spin doctors and the media that make the timea seem as if they're leaving you behind.

Just a strong sleight of hand, see.

To the point where you cannot immediately tell blatant racism and xenophobia when you see 'em.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
We obviously have different ideas about what role a government should play.

Here's where you reply back with some sarcastic, holier-than-thou shtick about the one and only true definition of government's role.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the government's role is unimportant to the main point - it doesn't matter if you alter or eliminate the 2nd amendment, people still have the right to self defense.

Now, that said, I prefer a government that respects human rights to one that doesn't.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We obviously have different ideas about what role a government should play.

Here's where you reply back with some sarcastic, holier-than-thou shtick about the one and only true definition of government's role.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the government's role is unimportant to the main point - it doesn't matter if you alter or eliminate the 2nd amendment, people still have the right to self defense.

Now, that said, I prefer a government that respects human rights to one that doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I agree that people have the right to self-defense. I just don't think that guns are a necessity, nor should they be a "right".

I also prefer a government that respects human rights... not sure where you're going with that. (Who here wouldn't prefer that?)

Correct me if I'm wrong (no worries there), but I think we differ in the role of government, and I do believe it's important to this discussion. I think that one of government's primary roles is to protect its citizens in three areas: from each other, from outside entities, and yes, from government itself. Sometimes, as in the case of guns, a policy can be a good protection in one of these areas and bad in the others.

Using your description of the 2nd Amendment as a limitation on government, I believe those limits should be put higher than they currently are, so that citizens can legally get guns, but not as easily as they can today.

-ptmusic

[MMMMMM]

15/30Jerome, please do not use profanity (or misspellings of profanity) in an attempt to make your point. This applies all users.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I also prefer a government that respects human rights... not sure where you're going with that. (Who here wouldn't prefer that?)

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, then how do you reconcile your position that the government should make it harder for its citizens to defend themselves, which you've conceded is a basic human right, and your preference for a government that respects human rights?

[Chris Alger]

I don't know if you're behind the times, but the last time I read anything about the Minutemen was in a Mad magazine satire ridiculing their whacky fascism when I was a kid in the 1960's.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also prefer a government that respects human rights... not sure where you're going with that. (Who here wouldn't prefer that?)

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, then how do you reconcile your position that the government should make it harder for its citizens to defend themselves, which you've conceded is a basic human right, and your preference for a government that respects human rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never suggested that the government make it harder for citizens to defend themselves.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I never suggested that the government make it harder for citizens to defend themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I have changed my stance, however, from a desire to completely abolish it, to a desire to alter it: citizens should have a right to "bear arms" (a phrase that should be updated as well, btw) under certain limited circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't think that guns are a necessity, nor should they be a "right".

[/ QUOTE ]

You are suggesting that the government limit its citizens' right to defend themselves. This would make it harder for people to exercise a fundamental human right, which you agree exists.

Perhaps you've never heard the old saying, "don't bring a knife to a gunfight". It applies very literally here.