Because these topics shape the time we live in.
In the stone age we probably would talk about mammoth hunting or cave paintings.

#3 Isn't me.

#6 Just looks pathetic. 15 pages and he still didn't have the spine to answer the question OR the sense to lie and say "It was an offhand comment made in the heat of the moment, I don't know why I said that".

[edit] I wonder what the most popular threads in IC:PF history are?[/edit]

Guns ranks up there to.

Yeah, the right of a free people to keep and bear arms is inherently linked with WAR. Because that's what the debate about me protecting my right to defend myself and my family and shoot bambi is about: war!

They're not even related. This is the level of exchange put forth in the "resource-based economy" fantasy thread. It's like talking to someone on LSD.

Relax Kemp.  Take a pill - Tylenol, Advil, or something stronger if you want.  For you, though, I  wouldn't recomend LSD.  Don't do that.   You're surely the type of person who should really stay away from that sort of stuff.

"Yeah, the right of a free people to keep and bear arms is inherently linked with WAR. Because that's what the debate about me protecting my right to defend myself and my family and shoot bambi is about: war!

They're not even related. This is the level of exchange put forth in the "resource-based economy" fantasy thread. It's like talking to someone on LSD"

The right to bear arms isn't really about the right to go hunting, nor is it really about protecting oneself from home-invading criminals.  American independance (and Eurpoean independance from despotic monarchies) was fought by irregular militaimen, often with with their own home-kept muskets.  The right to bear arms is in rememberance of these wars of independance, and thus specifically refers to bear arms in a WAR:

"The right to bear arms refers to ""weapon(s)" for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, "arms" refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to "bear arms" meant to wage war.[1]"

^  Wills, Garry To Keep and Bear Arms. New York Review Of Books, September 21, 1995.

Here is the actual 2nd ammendment quotation:

"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."

The purpose is clearly to keep and bear arms in case of being called to WAR against a foreign invader, or, I may add, even domestic oppressors, like corrupt, totalitarian governments.  The right to bear arms is all about ensuring the common people's ability to wage war against their enemies if necessary.

It's not about our right to shoot bambi, Kemp.

Kemp, actually, instead of taking a pill, read:  "The militia and the right to arms, or, How the Second Amendment fell silent‎" by H. Richard Uviller, William G. Merkel

Einstein.  Let's put it into a different perspective.  Basically, imagine a group of militiamen storming a colonial governer's home, or peasants of a European fiefdom storming the castle of a despotic monarch.  Imagine them winning and holding their ruler at the point of a gun.  Imagine him signing into effect certain reforms, freedoms, etc. to apease the respective commoners holding him prisoner.  One of these freedoms which was signed into effect all over the colonies and Europe was the freedom for militiamen to keep and bear arms, because that is how the common people had been able to get these reforms and freedoms passed in the first place.  Of course they would enact the right to keep and bear arms in case they would have to revolt about something else in the future.

"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house." --Thomas Jefferson to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432 "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms(within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

Kemp,l

It is a waste of time talking to you.  You're back on ignore status.

WHY AM i READING THIS???

Question: What topics, then, do we not like to talk about?  (Personally, I never talk about religion on these forums... no way you can resolve anything on that... but war and economics, definitely!)

>>Kemp said gun control had nothing to do with war.<<

While I could, perhaps, have stated it more clearly for a retard, I never said that it has nothing to do with war. The 2nd Amendment has in it an explanation that concerns war. I merely pointed out that there are additional arguments against gun control that have absolutely nothing to do with war, which you have continually ignored in claiming that the topic of war completely covers the topic, when it clearly does not.

>> I show how it does have to do with war, how it is rooted in having a national readiness for war, and then Kemp comes back and says it's not 'ONLY' about war. <<

That's obviously what I said from the beginning. I'm obviously aware of the defense-against-tyranny argument for gun rights. They're even stated in the 2nd amendment. Even if I hadn't been clear from the beginning, the point was and still is that war is not a topic that somehow "covers" gun control. It wouldn't matter if I just came to that realization and posted it now. You'd still be wrong.

You're a troll xeno. You never respond to points made against you. You call names (STILL having not responded to ANY of the posts addressed to you). I might point out that soooomeone is an embarrassing bloody idiot with the intellectual capacity of a child and the demeanor of a violent psychotic, BUT I'll point it out in/after responding to every one of their points addressed to me and explain how I came to that conclusion.

Let me give you an example from this thread: I said:
"Because that's what the debate about me protecting my right to defend myself and my family and shoot bambi is about: war!"
My point was very clearly that discussion of people's right to defend themselves and right to recreational hunting is NOT related to war. You disagree and claim that self-defense and hunting are related to war, but WHERE IS YOUR POST STATING/EXPLAINING YOUR DISAGREEMENT?

Stop spamming us with your angry insults. You have failed to post ANYTHING of your disagreement with the content I have posted, favoring instead ad-hominem attacks. Nobody cares what you call pathetic. Your inane nonsense posts (with misplaced aggression) are what's ridiculous. You're not embarrassing anyone but yourself. So long as you ignore all of the content addressed to you and insult others for posting legitimate content (without insults, anger, misplaced aggression), you're just going to get written off. It's only fair to the innocent readers of this forum that we don't take spamming trolls seriously. That would waste their time and embarrass all of us.

Edit: How funny is it that this nonsense is a result of questioning his categorization of topics.