Disqus - Latest Comments for Ryan_W

Re: Obama’s Youth is Worse Than Hitler Youth

Ryan_W — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:16:40 -0000

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/...

Re: Jesus, Jefferson, Gandhi, Hamilton and Hitler on Gun Control

Ryan_W — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:41:32 -0000

No, it was to emphasize why explosives shouldn't be available to the general public. Now please go and answer my question detailing why we should allow handguns, but ban explosives.

Re: Jesus, Jefferson, Gandhi, Hamilton and Hitler on Gun Control

Ryan_W — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:37:17 -0000

1. So you're refusing to think for yourself in the modern world?
2. Any legitimate references for active division taking place in this country?
3. Yes the were. Now can you please in detail describe what qualities distinguish a handgun from plastic explosives (both destructive devices) in the context of why we should allow ownership of one, but not the other?
4. So you still think a loosely organized militia could take on the Army? Or you don't care that they couldn't and are still clinging onto your point?
5. Government participation is important, however the government can't control the efficiency of the army. It can order it to do demoralizing things, but it won't do them efficiently.

To answer your question, I don't have anyone who is actively seeking to rob, beat or murder me. Maybe that's because I haven't given anyone reason to, or maybe its because the police and military are doing their job well.

Re: Jesus, Jefferson, Gandhi, Hamilton and Hitler on Gun Control

Ryan_W — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:50:25 -0000

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/...

Re: Jesus, Jefferson, Gandhi, Hamilton and Hitler on Gun Control

Ryan_W — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:16:32 -0000

Here are a couple of thoughts I have on why your arguments don't work:

1. Quoting our founding fathers for advice about gun control is almost entirely irrelevant. Would you follow a strict interpretation of Henry Ford's ideas on Model T auto safety in the world of the modern automobile? No, technological change requires you to think for yourself, for today. Were our founding fathers that much more brilliant than us and are their ideas more relevant to us today than our own ideas? No, if you take anything from our founding fathers, it should be that these were men who defined themselves and thought for themselves. We can do that today too.

2. Unlike the Nazis, Soviets or any other country that massacred its own people, our country is highly diversified and we have a government that promotes diversity. It would be easier for me to agree with you if our government was openly advocating persecution or hostility to any particular groups in this country. This is an important distinction between us and failed regimes of the past.

3. No one here has offered any practical limits on what they think defines "protecting oneself." I think at one point that daisy yang poster was ranting about legalizing plastic explosives. Would legalizing plastic explosive allow the citizenry to protect themselves in a greater way? Probably, but putting plastic explosives the hands of the common man would probably introduce many more problems than it would solve.

4. I'll bring back up the idea from my other post: Do you really think an uncoordinated American public would stand a chance against an organized US military? Someone posited the idea that military would become demoralized if the citizenry fought back. Wouldn't this give Army people more justification for what they were doing? It seems easier to feel bad about hurting innocent people than it is about people who are shooting at you.

5. If you still feel concerned about the military or government persecuting you, why not join the military? One thing we can learn from the civil rights movement is that it is harder for a government to persecute minorities if minorities have an active place in government.

http://www.strategicstudies...

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ryan_W — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:03:10 -0000

So you're positing that in the unlikely even the US Army were to start persecuting American citizens, that you think American citizens would be able to defend themselves and win?

Our country has the second largest active military in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... and is probably the best funded, best trained army in the world. No offense, but do you really think average citizens, armed with whatever would stand a chance?

I fully support gun ownership by small at risk businesses. If smaller, vulnerable stores aren't armed I think they should be. Why? I only really endorse gun ownership for those who have strong incentives to keep me alive: police, store owners, military personnel. None of these people could benefit by killing me.

Re: Barack Obama Will Divide Society

Ryan_W — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:04:14 -0000

Andrew, you may remember that my family is originally from West Virginia. Watching the results election night with my dad, he attributed West Virginia's republican vote to be largely due to racism. West Virginia is a heavily democratic state, with the number of registered democrats to republicans nearly 2:1

http://newsandsentinel.com/...

This doesn't explain why WV voted for Bush twice, I just thought it was interesting that my dad was so quick to name racism as a factor this election's vote.

Re: New Rules for Commenting

Ryan_W — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 15:37:33 -0000

1. Good point that this isn't your site. Since you created it, I've perhaps unfairly associated it with just you, when in fact you do have other contributors.

2. Given you know I disagree with you, I perhaps again unfairly assumed you would not welcome articles that debunked your ideas. I figured it would be easier for you to reject any articles I submitted than to censor my comments. What are your guidelines for contributors articles? Maybe I should step up and write some articles.

3. I'm confused regarding how I've been duped? Could you elaborate?

4. Betraying you in my mind would be if I didn't project my opinions here. I don't think its right that you look for conspiracy or injustice where there clearly is none. I believe it 1. Spreads fear 2. Spreads misinformation 3. encourages violence in indirect ways, by positing that our leaders, civil servants and other various groups are guilty of horrible crimes. As I've said before, I believe you're a talented and resourceful individual, it pains me to see you push yourself to obscurity by taking what I think are ridiculous viewpoints and unsubstantiated claims.

Perhaps I should write an article debunking Money Masters, I spent about two hours watching it, and found it to be unconvincing. If such an article would interesting to you, perhaps I could find the time to do it, though that is a very looooong movie.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ryan_W — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 14:03:15 -0000

Oh, and by the way I didn't wet my pants down at Mark's Texas Hots, I just left. I never actually saw the gun, my friend did. How? Well, I asked him again about it, it wasn't concealed, it was out on his lap in his hand. I left because I trusted my friend's judgement, not because I had seen it for myself. Now what would you have done?

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ryan_W — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:57:37 -0000

Your argument completely falls apart, don't most corner type stores in the city have armed cashiers? I'd argue you'd have to be a pretty stupid proprietor to not have some sort of protection. Surprisingly, these places still somehow get robbed.

Your argument for arming the general population falls apart too. While I can be fairly certain a store owner won't shoot me (if he wants me to buy his goods) I can't be certain delinquent or mentally unstable people would. How many times have you seen a bar fight by stupid people who are drunk or overly emotional? Now imagine if each time this happened they brought out guns instead of pummeling each other with their fists? This isn't the society I want to live in.

Re: 9/11 Truthers Are Not Holocaust Deniers

Ryan_W — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:34:47 -0000

This is a problem I've had with your site from the beginning Andrew. It contains what I believe are a lot of unsubstantiated claims for a variety of issues. Now how can you be so offended if others make unsubstantiated comments about you and your opinions?

Objectively, your McCain supporter arrested thread was horribly dishonest. If you want to run a legitimate site, you should set the example by not posting unsubstantiated claims.

Re: New Rules for Commenting

Ryan_W — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:18:20 -0000

While I agree you shouldn't have people promoting violence on your website, most of Ms. Yang's comments were not inciting violence. As misguided as her opinions might have been, I don't think inciting violence was her main objective. If you have to censor your site, it would be better to censor individual offensive comments, not everything, offensive and non-offensive a user has written.