Hardware Analysis - Who trade liberty for security will lose both - Benjamin Franklin

Re: Who trade liberty for security will lose both - Benjamin Franklin

Bob Marley — 2007-12-26T18:17:11-05:00

This coming from someone who didn't recognize the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence then insists on seeing a source. Granted you're not American, but that still seems wrong.
I do however agree with most of what you said, but you're awful english does make it easy to misunderstand you.

Re: Who trade liberty for security will lose both - Benjamin Franklin

christopher noegel — 2007-09-24T06:17:58-05:00

Michel Merlin said:

Dictatorships have merged and have now complete control over the world. So current Medias all are cleverly sabotaging Benjamin Franklin's universally known saying, by diluting it in so many false variants that none can find which one (if any) is the right one; example http://www.google.com/search?q=Benjamin+Franklin+quotes+security+freedom > http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin . So I made my title with the most probable I could think of.

The ennemies of Freedom have achieved a great way by making so many people and medias are now advocating stripping people from their weapons. When you think of it, this is such an enormous lie that it would never get any credibility in any country still lead by civilized people. Following this giant lie, they are making NRA look bad (using mostly their friend sabotaging NRA from the inside by faking awkwardness in "defending" the freedom to be armed).

The present maneuver faking to try to forbid video games is just intended to overshadow this enourmous attempt at the 1st of all freedoms, the freedom of being armed.

When a people is no more armed, it is ready to be exterminated - which will happen faster than some featherbrains think. Just as it happened in 1940-45 in Germany and France, in 1994 in Rwanda, and in so many other tragic instances.

No need to discuss the tiny question officially at stake (video games must obviously NOT be regulated - whatever their current sabotaging), which is just an attempt at disrouting the real questions.

Versailles, Thu 19 Apr 2007 18:08:10 +0200

Re: Who trade liberty for security will lose both - Benjamin Franklin

Bobby — 2007-05-05T19:39:14-05:00

A few points:

No one has threatened to ban you.

My misspelling of your name was a simple mistake, and for that, I apologize.

If you wish to nitpick every little itty bitty thing I or anyone else writes, you're not going to make very many friends. But by the same token, you aren't breaking any rules, so I reiterate, no one has threatened to ban you.

I never called you stupid, I simply said your idea has no backing, no evidence.

And clearly taking my quotes out of context obviously had no clear goal but to call me stupid.

Now, shall we stop this childish bickering?

Forum clearly under political control and censorship - I regret to have to silent

Michel Merlin — 2007-05-05T01:08:51-05:00

Bobby Phillipps said:

It's part of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.

Thanks. I guessed it, but I would like if a link had been posted. Here's one: http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html "The Declaration of Independence".

Bobby Phillipps said:

And refrain from calling other forum members' ideas "stupid."

Openly swapping the roles to that point, after doing it a first time a few weeks earlier (after my http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/65670/?o=20#480768 "Date & Time in the official world-wide RFC 2822 format please" and http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/65670/?o=40#480932 "Please don't troll"), clearly shows that you are once more forbidding me from expressing myself, for arbitrary pretexts (hence probably for political reasons) and under threat of arbitrary ban. So I do refrain - which forces me to refute in advance anything that has or would be implied by anyone here (and particularly by you or your friends) as allegedly said or done or thought by me.

Versailles, Sat 5 May 2007 03:09:00 +0200

Deliberately arbitrary

Michel Merlin — 2007-05-05T01:08:00-05:00

Bobby Phillipps said:

Michael, you talk as if the attempt to "banish" video games is one small step to the greater conspiracy of ruling the world, or something.

Misrepresenting my writing that bad, while vague and ambiguous, has clearly no goal other than presenting myself as "stupid" while knowing I am not (BTW miswriting my name can't be inadvertent either).
Bobby Phillipps said:

...and anyone who thinks so is blind.

So you forbid me from calling "stupid" an idea wrongly (and knowingly) lent to me, while at the same time you allow yourself to call persons "blind". Which amounts at making quite clear to everyone that selecting who is approved or bashed (and probably banned), is or will be deliberately and completely arbitrary.

Versailles, Sat 5 May 2007 03:08:10 +0200

Re: Who trade liberty for security will lose both - Benjamin Franklin

A_Pickle — 2007-05-04T23:58:33-05:00

I think that politicians are just uneducated about video games. And I say "uneducated" because I'm being nice, what I really mean is that most politicians are being outright f**king stupid about them. Hot Coffee is a perfect example of it -- based on a USER CREATED MODIFICATION THAT DID NOT SHIP WITH THE PRODUCT, they forced Rockstar to apply an "Adults Only 18+" rating to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

Stupid Congressmen p**s me off.

Re: Who trade liberty for security will lose both - Benjamin Franklin

Bobby — 2007-05-04T23:47:50-05:00

Michael, you talk as if the attempt to "banish" video games is one small step to the greater conspiracy of ruling the world, or something.

I'm all against video game regulation, and if anyone here on this forum will argue that to the death, it's me. But I don't think that the politicians who are pushing for this (Jack Thompson and Hillary Clinton, amongst others) are doing this as part of some greater scheme to control the American people. Sure, there could be a domino effect, one thing leads to another, but it's not a planned effort, and anyone who thinks so is blind.

Re: Who trade liberty for security will lose both - Benjamin Franklin

Bobby — 2007-05-04T23:42:30-05:00

Michel Merlin said:

A_Pickle said:

"[i]We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, ...

Can you link the source of this (very useful) quote? TIA,

It's part of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.

And refrain from calling other forum members' ideas "stupid." Point out where you think they may be wrong, but don't just flat out say they're stupid.

-

Michel Merlin — 2007-05-04T23:15:26-05:00

A_Pickle said:

"[i]We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, ...

Can you link the source of this (very useful) quote? TIA,

Versailles, Sat 5 May 2007 01:15:35 +0200

Re: Who trade liberty for security will lose both - Benjamin Franklin

A_Pickle — 2007-04-20T00:05:57-05:00

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Without the right to bear arms, those lines mean nothing.

Concentrating weapons in a few hands is against democracy and security

Michel Merlin — 2007-04-19T21:33:43-05:00

dark41 said:

China has 10 times as many people as the USA and much stricter gun control laws.

And I don't think ordinary Chinese people are very well protected from the few provileged with arms (police, triades, army, etc.).

No one is threatening to take over their country. No, the guns in every household have very little to do with the USA being safe from invasion.

It's your right to think of stupid ideas (whether by transforming others' or by building new ones), but please refrain from lending them to me; read me before posting instead.

Shoot-em-up video games are so unrealistic that I don't understand how anyone sees them as entertainment.

I guess you know better than I about current "Shoot-em-up video games" and the real motivations of their producers. The problem for regular people (as me) is not doing something about this (they can't), but having their kids use what is good and not what is bad. Most parents do it quite well - whatever dishonest politicians and their forum lakies try to make people think about it - and any additional regulation or limit on the market would only hamper them in this positive behavior.

Democracy is spreading the power the most equally possible and reasonable, and avoiding too much concentration of it. The main power is the one to be armed. This is why the ones wanting to establish a dictatorship have always teamed together (from state chiefs to officers to soldiers to political agitators to forumers) to strip arms from the people and concentrate them in hands of privileged (police, mafias, army), so to better control people later - which inevitably leads later to mass killings (as you certainly know): history shows that when all weapons in a country are in control of a single corp (e.g. when governement with its police and army is the only one to own arms), then dictatorship is there with these inevitable consequences; few years ago Hugo Chavez ordered to fire on the people, which killed many - after which he got absolutely zero opposition in Venezuela (and even outside), whether in street or in papers or radios or else. I wonder if this is why you wish for USA, Australia, France, etc...

Versailles, Thu 19 Apr 2007 23:33:50 +0200

Re: Who trade liberty for security will lose both - Benjamin Franklin

dark41 — 2007-04-19T19:00:32-05:00

There's not one thing in that post that I agree with.

In case you haven't noticed, China has 10 times as many people as the USA and much stricter gun control laws. No one is threatening to take over their country. No, the guns in every household have very little to do with the USA being safe from invasion.

Shoot-em-up video games are so unrealistic that I don't understand how anyone sees them as entertainment. I wouldn't advocate getting rid of the games for this reason though. I do think that no one under the age of 17 should be playing them though. I have nothing against government regulation on video games.

As a card carrying member of the NRA for 20 years, I think the NRA has totally lost it anymore. Fighting for assault rifles and automatic hand guns has made the USA a very scary place to live anymore.

Who trade liberty for security will lose both - Benjamin Franklin

Michel Merlin — 2007-04-19T16:08:06-05:00