Two of the greatest speeches ever put on paper, in my opinion....

[Osborn F Enready]

What do you think of these two speeches, and the points within them?

Fountainhead Speech

Galt Speech

After reading them, I would like to hear your thoughts on the issues and points of each speech.

[butterbut]

Did'nt read the speach but I'm on page 225 of Alas Shrugged. So far I''ve found Ayn Rand's lack of morals disturbing.

[Osborn F Enready]

Lack of morals, or morals that are different than yours?

[Milton Bradley]

That Gault speech is awesome.


Makes me wonder how I arrived at the same exact place completely independently of Rand.

[loser]

From Gault's speech:

"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch-or build a cyclotron—without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think."

I didn't have to read far before I found him to be a liar and deceiver. He couldn't be more wrong about that. It is that selfless love for her child, that "self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth", which he so contemptuously derides, which he so eschews and detests, that allows a human to live. No amount of thinking would ever save the infant. Indeed, his mind is too infantile to facilitate life. He is totally helpless at birth and TOTALLY dependent upon the selfless nurturing of his mother.

What a despicable (and deviant) heart to ridicule and demean the very characteristics that allowed him to live and grow.

How could anyone see him as anything other than ignorant?

I may try to read more but what's the point? The man is obviously a miscreant. Should I hope to be persuaded by such 'dregs' of society?

[HelioPrime]

Just more attempts to drop everyone to same worship of logic and reason above all emotion. If my survival depends on the killing of this child, then by the will of my survival instinct I must kill this child, and no body of law should rule against me for I am only following the only code of man - survival. Absolute crap.

And people say our current government wants to make us into mindless drones...

I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others

I love this one. To hell with society and anyone around me, as a human I should clearly only be interested in my own well being. Fuck everyone else. Thats the message of the libertarian party isn't it.

“The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is—Hands off!

More of the same. If I see someone beating beaten nearby, HANDS OFF, not my fight my only goal is my own survival. Anyone who sees anything more than their own shallow life is a threat to humanity and the great state we live in. More libertarian self effacing BS.


All this illustrates my problem with the libertarian ideal. We live in a global community yet they would rather focus on just the individual and forget progress as a society. Forgot the space race, technology, and philosophy. They would rather just just isolate our selves and all live on our own self supporting farms.

[Osborn F Enready]

loser said: "Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch-or build a cyclotron—without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think." I didn't have to read far before I found him to be a liar and deceiver.

Make valid points for such accusations, and back them up please?

loser said: He couldn't be more wrong about that. It is that selfless love for her child, that "self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth", which he so contemptuously derides, which he so eschews and detests, that allows a human to live.

Nonsense. There is no such thing as "selfless love". The mother protects her child because the mother values the child, which is a part of her and her mate. There are many mothers who don't value their children, before or after birth. How do you address those issues?

loser said: No amount of thinking would ever save the infant.

Thats because an infant has a CAPACITY for reason, but has not yet learned the basics of reasoning and logic.

loser said: Indeed, his mind is too infantile to facilitate life. He is totally helpless at birth and TOTALLY dependent upon the selfless nurturing of his mother.

Which is why many infants are left to die, put in garbage dumpsters, put up for adoption, etc.

How do you address this if you claim selfless love exists, and is natural to all humans?

loser said: What a despicable (and deviant) heart to ridicule and demean the very characteristics that allowed him to live and grow.

Please explain, in detail, your point?

loser said: How could anyone see him as anything other than ignorant?

Could you define ignorant?

Ignorant is not being educated on the facts being questioned, but having hte capacity to learn. This is an issue of facts, truth, reason and logic, not faith.

loser said: I may try to read more but what's the point?

Challenging your mind, your views, your ideals, your values?

Do you see bad in doing such?

loser said: The man is obviously a miscreant.

Am I to "assume" you are religious?
That is the only reason I can assume you would take that stance.

loser said: Should I hope to be persuaded by such 'dregs' of society?

Should you be afraid of introspection, of challenging your ideals, beliefs, faith, that may or may not be "reasonable"?

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said: Just more attempts to drop everyone to same worship of logic and reason above all emotion.

Emotion is not seperate from logic and reason, only put in CHECK by logic and reason.

Which do you think should weigh more on our actions? Logic and reason, or emotion? Why?

Helio said: If my survival depends on the killing of this child, then by the will of my survival instinct I must kill this child, and no body of law should rule against me for I am only following the only code of man - survival. Absolute crap.

I suggest you read again, and actually read what was said, not what you "read into" what was said.

If your survival depends on killing the child, YOU have to make the choice between the childs life and your life. Is the child dependent on you? Most likely, if you are in that situation, yes. If you took your life, and spared the child, would the child live?

Helio said: And people say our current government wants to make us into mindless drones...

Who are you speaking of?

I alledge religion and altruism are attempting to do that, and often use the force of government as the cudgel to push that agenda.

Here nor there, this thread is about the speeches and valid points or counterpoints you wish to express.

Helio said: I love this one. To hell with society and anyone around me, as a human I should clearly only be interested in my own well being. Fuck everyone else. Thats the message of the libertarian party isn't it.

Once again, you appear to either be consciously dumbing down the message, or having a problem with your perception filter.

Focusing on your own welfare and happiness is a means to individual happiness. This does not mean you "don't care" about those around you, in fact, quite the contrary. It means you aren't willing to use force to bend others to YOUR will.

Would you care to reply, or restructure your question?

As far as the Libertarian party, you obviously haven't done much reading, or if you have read, you didn't comprehend much of what was read.
Arm yourself, and come back if you wish to debate.

Also, no need for foul language, it only serves to degrade the debate.

Helio said: More of the same. If I see someone beating beaten nearby, HANDS OFF, not my fight my only goal is my own survival.

Once again, it appears your not comprehending very well. You have the right to help, if you see fit. You also have the right not to. The choice is an INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.

Do you disagree?

Helio said: Anyone who sees anything more than their own shallow life is a threat to humanity and the great state we live in.

Please explain what you mean by that poorly worded thought?

Helio said: More libertarian self effacing BS.

Where do you see the word Libertarian anywhere in the speeches? What would make you think this has anything to do with Libertarians, other than the who posted it? Was this meant to be a personal attack?

Helio said: All this illustrates my problem with the libertarian ideal.

I don't think you could define the Libertarian ideal, and besides, that is not the topic of this thread, so how about dealing with the topic of this thread?

Helio said: We live in a global community yet they would rather focus on just the individual and forget progress as a society.

Your mistaken. It is people like yourself who think you can't have a global community without individual rights, and you people who are trying to outlaw those rights. You are the force wielder in this case my friend, and an unjust force, at that.

Helio said: Forgot the space race, technology, and philosophy. They would rather just just isolate our selves and all live on our own self supporting farms.

You are either brainwashed, ignorant or blinded by faith in mystics.

It is the men of the mind who brought those things to you, not the mystics, not the faithful, not the dictators of thought, or the collectivists.

I suggest if you don't like being embarassed and exposed as a hypocrite, you read and comprehend before taking up logical and philosophical arguments.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Emotion is not seperate from logic and reason, only put in CHECK by logic and reason. Which do you think should weigh more on our actions? Logic and reason, or emotion? Why?

Emotion. Because logic can't give an answer to questions that stem from held morals. Like abortion. What is the logical answer to the right to kill an unborn child? Does everyone accept it, and if do not accept it why is their emotional answer not as acceptable as the logical answer?

Taking the road to logic what occurs when logic confronts personal rights? If a man was determined to be the last carrier of a deadly virus, shouldn't his right logically be violated and he be taken away?

If your survival depends on killing the child, YOU have to make the choice between the childs life and your life. Is the child dependent on you? Most likely, if you are in that situation, yes. If you took your life, and spared the child, would the child live?

If someone tried to sacrifice their life for a child should they then be looked down on? People use sacrifice as a way to increase the worth or well being of society, a loss for a gain.

Focusing on your own welfare and happiness is a means to individual happiness. This does not mean you "don't care" about those around you, in fact, quite the contrary. It means you aren't willing to use force to bend others to YOUR will.

Not YOUR will, the will of the MAJORITY. Mob rule if you want to call it that. When in fact it is controlled majority rule.

As far as the Libertarian party, you obviously haven't done much reading, or if you have read, you didn't comprehend much of what was read. Arm yourself, and come back if you wish to debate.

The libertarian ideal stands for personal liberties and individual rights above the greater needs of society. It also stand for decreased power and strict following of the intent of the constitution and any powers not specifically spelled out can't be undertaken.

Once again, it appears your not comprehending very well. You have the right to help, if you see fit. You also have the right not to. The choice is an INDIVIDUAL CHOICE. Do you disagree?

Its not always your individual choice. Does the button pusher have a choice knowing pushing this button might kill millions? No, he is in a structured zone where he is expected to carry out orders because failure to do so puts a danger on those around him and the command he serves.

You are either brainwashed, ignorant or blinded by faith in mystics. It is the men of the mind who brought those things to you, not the mystics, not the faithful, not the dictators of thought, or the collectivists. I suggest if you don't like being embarassed and exposed as a hypocrite, you read and comprehend before taking up logical and philosophical arguments.

There is no hypocrite here, only conflicting points of view. You put yourself and your own rights before the needs or anyone else or society as a whole. While in many cases thats what we all want sometimes we can't go that route because it is a threat to society as a whole or a danger to progress.

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said: Emotion.

Interesting. So you put emotion, such as rage, anger, hate and spite above logic?

Helio said: Because logic can't give an answer to questions that stem from held morals. Like abortion.

It most certainly can, and has, many who disagree with abortion however refuse to accept the answers of logic and reason, as well as science.

Religion has no "ownership" of morals, they only lay claim to what "the religion" recognizes as morals. Many different religions have different morals, as do many men.

Helio said: What is the logical answer to the right to kill an unborn child?

The fetus is a parasite, living in the mothers body, and it only has rights to the extent of the mothers will to grant those rights.

Abortion is a right of the carrier, until the fetus is born.

Emotion is the only issue which clouds the logical answer.

A fetus is not a person (its a potential person)

A fetus is not an individual (its a parasite, dependent on the mother)

A fetus is not a citizen, a legal entity or any other title except by the extent of the will of the mother.

Helio said: Does everyone accept it,

Obviously not. There are many people in the world who put emotion above reason, to their, and the worlds detriment.

Helio said: and if do not accept it why is their emotional answer not as acceptable as the logical answer?

Logic and emotion are not equals.

This should be obvious.

Do you think I should be entitled to come and kill you if you upset me in a debate? Obviously, if we were ruled by emotion, this would be the norm.

Helio said: Taking the road to logic what occurs when logic confronts personal rights?

Very easy to explain.

Helio said: If a man was determined to be the last carrier of a deadly virus, shouldn't his right logically be violated and he be taken away?

No, not if he poses no threat to others. Are you alledging he does pose a threat, and if so, in what ways? To understand logic and reason as applied to rights, all details must be known, and weighed objectively.

Helio said: If someone tried to sacrifice their life for a child should they then be looked down on?

Who are you to judge another man in this case? Judge, jury, peer?

Helio said: People use sacrifice as a way to increase the worth or well being of society, a loss for a gain.

People CLAIM to use sacrifice as a way to increase the worth or well being of a society. I have yet to see proof of this.

Do you wish to answer the questions I asked in the last post, regarding this reply?

Helio said: Not YOUR will, the will of the MAJORITY. Mob rule if you want to call it that. When in fact it is controlled majority rule.

No, it is mob rule, and no mob or any other person owns my body, my labor, my thoughts, my good or bad will. Show me how they do? Where does this "law" come from?

Helio said: The libertarian ideal stands for personal liberties and individual rights above the greater needs of society.

Once again, you don't know what you speak of, how about staying on topic. Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian, so if you want to start a thread about Libertarianism, please do.

Helio said: Its not always your individual choice. Does the button pusher have a choice knowing pushing this button might kill millions?

Who gave him that right to push that button?

Helio said: No, he is in a structured zone where he is expected to carry out orders because failure to do so puts a danger on those around him and the command he serves.

How about addressing the issues of this thread?

Helio said: There is no hypocrite here, only conflicting points of view. You put yourself and your own rights before the needs or anyone else or society as a whole.

Why do I do that Helio?
What is self ownership?
What is not being born a slave?
Where is this "mystical claim" on life?

Helio said: While in many cases thats what we all want sometimes we can't go that route because it is a threat to society as a whole or a danger to progress.

Well, that sounds very sure of yourself, so you should have no trouble proving it, correct?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Interesting. So you put emotion, such as rage, anger, hate and spite above logic?

Yes, because logic doesn't answer all. Government rules thru popular decisions or it rules by absolute decree. Both are still based of popular morals.

Morals bleed through into everything. Attempting to break any situation down into pure logic doesn't please everyone, and in a majority rules state your logic loses.

It most certainly can, and has, many who disagree with abortion however refuse to accept the answers of logic and reason, as well as science. Religion has no "ownership" of morals, they only lay claim to what "the religion" recognizes as morals. Many different religions have different morals, as do many men.

Take religion out of the picture. Morals exists. Everyone has them, its ow we view things right or wrong. Nobody views everything by strict logic, not even you and if you claim that your just lying to attempt to prove absolute logic as limited by the constitution trumps all.

The fetus is a parasite, living in the mothers body, and it only has rights to the extent of the mothers will to grant those rights. Abortion is a right of the carrier, until the fetus is born. Emotion is the only issue which clouds the logical answer. A fetus is not a person (its a potential person) A fetus is not an individual (its a parasite, dependent on the mother) A fetus is not a citizen, a legal entity or any other title except by the extent of the will of the mother.

Ron Paul disagrees. Is he still an idol if he puts his religion or emotion before the women? If not then please explain why he is still an idol while he is pro life.

Once again you also lose on form of government. In a popular vote, even on state level the majority rules. If in a state the majority holds abortion to be morally wrong, then it is so.

Logic and emotion are not equals. This should be obvious.

They are part of the same. Logic and emotion are used together everyday. If you go by pure logic alone then you are no longer human, you are a statistic, if you want logic to rule then it must rule in EVERY case.

If an unknown organism began killing people in a town you MUST logically nuke the town to prevent the spread. Logic has no room for emotion, you can't rule a government on logic and expect people to still retain emotion.

Do you think I should be entitled to come and kill you if you upset me in a debate? Obviously, if we were ruled by emotion, this would be the norm.

Your missing the point. We rule by emotion but hold in check by the law and constitution. You may want to kill me but the law hopefully prevents you. You could still kill me if you want. In that case your proving me right, and making a move based on emotion, not logic. People everywhere prove that emotion, not logic rule.

Vulcans are still just the fantasy they are. We are more like their departed brothers, passionate but with legality to rule us.

No, not if he poses no threat to others. Are you alledging he does pose a threat, and if so, in what ways? To understand logic and reason as applied to rights, all details must be known, and weighed objectively.

All details is not always know. We have to make decisions without knowing.

If your in a hostile zone of Iraq and see a car suddenly accelerate in the direction while ignoring your presence do you wait to see if it is absolutely a suicide bomber? Or just shoot?

Who are you to judge another man in this case? Judge, jury, peer?

I'm a member of a society and if I am in the majority then my view rules.

People CLAIM to use sacrifice as a way to increase the worth or well being of a society. I have yet to see proof of this.

Fictional - Movie independence day. A man sacrifices himself to destroy the laser on a ship before it blow up all the people under him. Air Force One - A pilot sacrifice himself to save the president from harm

In real life agents will give their lives to buy time for the president to escape. Are you calling their dedication to duty folly and wrong?

No, it is mob rule, and no mob or any other person owns my body, my labor, my thoughts, my good or bad will. Show me how they do? Where does this "law" come from?

The mob doesn't own your body, but it owns the laws which control you. Look to your state laws. The MAJORITY vote put many in place. If your state bans abortion then the majority has just put a control over the body.


Once again, you don't know what you speak of, how about staying on topic. Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian, so if you want to start a thread about Libertarianism, please do.

Who gave him that right to push that button?

He signed up for the military. Now he has lost his personal rights. He is subject to the needs of the command he serves.

Well, that sounds very sure of yourself, so you should have no trouble proving it, correct?

- Assault weapons are illegal to possess by US citizens. That is the greater good determining these weapons are overkill. The needs they perform can be done by smaller weapons, as such to protect people we ban the powerful weapons in the hands of the people.

[Osborn F Enready]

Before I continue, I want to point out to you again Helio the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.

After reading them, I would like to hear your thoughts on the issues and points of each speech.

I will reply to this post of yours, but after this post, please either stay on topic or start a special debate between us, or a new thread.

Helio said: Yes, because logic doesn't answer all.

So then, your accusation leads me to believe you think emotion answers all? Please explain.

Helio said: Government rules thru popular decisions or it rules by absolute decree. Both are still based of popular morals.

Show me how you support this statement in the United States governments design?

Helio said: Morals bleed through into everything.

Its impossible for morals not to be involved in everything that involves people, as all people have morals, individual morals.

Helio said: Attempting to break any situation down into pure logic doesn't please everyone, and in a majority rules state your logic loses.

You can't prove that, nor has it ever been shown, so please, keep to only issues you can verify, sourcelink or show clearly using logic and reason.

Helio said: Take religion out of the picture. Morals exists. Everyone has them, its ow we view things right or wrong.

Agreed. Morals are subjective, and individual. Its a part of the equation we use to make volitional choices.

Helio said: Nobody views everything by strict logic, not even you and if you claim that your just lying to attempt to prove absolute logic as limited by the constitution trumps all.

I didn't say emotion had no place in man, or the role of man. I said logic and reason must trump emotion and faith for a stable society to function without hypocrisy.

Helio said: Ron Paul disagrees. Is he still an idol if he puts his religion or emotion before the women?

No, because he doesn't seek to use force to bend people to his will. You would know this if you studied Pauls position. Paul doesn't think this is the roll of Federal Government, which he has clearly stated. He is running for Federal Office.

Helio said: If not then please explain why he is still an idol while he is pro life.

He puts logic and reason above faith, in the sense that HE UNDERSTANDS you can't have national laws of this nature without starting, fostering or graduating unrest within a society.

The state is also not a good place for this type of law, as it includes far too many under one umbrella of "ethics", but the state is exponentially better than the fed to rule on this individually. The best situation would be to make it a local government issue, allowing people to find areas that best suit their views, by having more choices.

Helio said: Once again you also lose on form of government.

You don't seem to want to debate the topic, is there a reason for this?

Are you purposely derailing this thread?

Helio said: In a popular vote, even on state level the majority rules. If in a state the majority holds abortion to be morally wrong, then it is so.

And the people have the right to petition for redress, change the law, disobey the law (civil disobedience) to appeal to a jury, or move to another state.

Helio said: They are part of the same.

No, they are not.

Helio said: Logic and emotion are used together everyday. If you go by pure logic alone then you are no longer human, you are a statistic, if you want logic to rule then it must rule in EVERY case.

This doesn't make sense, please explain in another thread or a special debate if you wish.

Helio said: If an unknown organism began killing people in a town you MUST logically nuke the town to prevent the spread.

LOL....

No.

Helio said: Logic has no room for emotion, you can't rule a government on logic and expect people to still retain emotion.

Please explain why, in another thread or special debate if you wish.

Helio said: Your missing the point. We rule by emotion but hold in check by the law and constitution.

Nonsense, and absurd.

Helio said: You may want to kill me but the law hopefully prevents you. You could still kill me if you want. In that case your proving me right, and making a move based on emotion, not logic.

The logic is knowing what that action will cause once the action is performed. With only emotion, one does not understand what will happen due to an action, as you claim against cause and effect, correct?

Logic tells me if I act on emotion, I will have to bear the consequences of that action. Emotion has nothing to do with this process, except as the agitator, in which logic is acting to check.

Helio said: People everywhere prove that emotion, not logic rule.

So this should be easy to sourcelink?
Maybe you should try debating, instead of making several unsubstantiated allegations?

Helio said: Vulcans are still just the fantasy they are. We are more like their departed brothers, passionate but with legality to rule us.

Vulcans are a construct of film and television and books. Please keep your debate on topic.

Helio said: All details is not always know. We have to make decisions without knowing.

We have to weigh decisions based on all the information we can obtain, as well as statements sworn on our honor and integrity to be true. We have an obligation to provide objective evidence, objective arguments and objective goals when making a court case.

Emotion is a by-product of having human juries.

Helio said: If your in a hostile zone of Iraq and see a car suddenly accelerate in the direction while ignoring your presence do you wait to see if it is absolutely a suicide bomber? Or just shoot?

Thats an individual decision, and has nothing to do with this debate.

Helio said: I'm a member of a society and if I am in the majority then my view rules.

Tell that to Hitler, Pol-Pot, Marx, Stalin, the Pope and all people being supressed by unjust majorities, or dictators.

Are you going to take a stab at addressing the issues of this thread?

Helio said: Fictional - Movie independence day. A man sacrifices himself to destroy the laser on a ship before it blow up all the people under him. Air Force One - A pilot sacrifice himself to save the president from harm In real life agents will give their lives to buy time for the president to escape. Are you calling their dedication to duty folly and wrong?

I am calling it what it is. They are putting their lives on the line for money, for their own belief, and for their own happiness.

Are you trying to claim these are "selfless acts"?

Helio said: The mob doesn't own your body, but it owns the laws which control you.

No laws control anyone. People either give sanction to laws, or don't give sanction to laws. The individual has every opprotunity to obey or not obey any law, any law.

Helio said: Look to your state laws. The MAJORITY vote put many in place. If your state bans abortion then the majority has just put a control over the body.

No, they have said how they would hold accountable people who don't listen to them. You still have every opprotunity to do as you see fit.

Helio said: He signed up for the military. Now he has lost his personal rights. He is subject to the needs of the command he serves.

A volitional choice made by the individual. Who put the button there, and under what authority, or sanction?

Helio said: Assault weapons are illegal to possess by US citizens.

Really, I own one, and I am a U.S. citizen, and bought in the U.S. from another U.S. citizen. Your patently wrong, and false.

Helio said: That is the greater good determining these weapons are overkill.

What greater good?

Helio said: The needs they perform can be done by smaller weapons, as such to protect people we ban the powerful weapons in the hands of the people.

Ethel, you're talking out of the back of your neck again. That entire statement is patently and provably false.

[HelioPrime]

I'm not going to respond to each and every sentence....wow....

First, ok then MACHINE GUNS are illegal as of today at the federal level. There is no reasonable need to own one. You can still shoot with a pistol, you do not need the capacity to fire more rounds every minute.

Emotion and logic go together. Just as Ron Paul does. He views the issue of abortion from a logical standpoint, then uses his personal ethics to decide he believes the fetus has a right to life.

EVERYONE uses emotion to make decisions. And under a government where the majority decided then the morality of the majority is the law.

And what then is the issue of the speeches. Personal rights and yourself above society. I responded to how thats not the case.

People put society above themselves everyday. Part of your income goes to a military to defend the masses and to the welfare of the state.

Would you say it is wrong to take away from the masses to support the military? Or would you rather each person only be responsible for defending his or her home with their own weapon.

Sacrifice is anything but selfish. People risk their lives everyday in jobs to protect people. Firemen, Police, Soldiers. They are not all doing it just for money or greed. They should be honored for doing a duty to potentially put themselves at risk for others.

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said: I'm not going to respond to each and every sentence....wow.... First, ok then MACHINE GUNS are illegal as of today at the federal level.

No, they are not.

Almost any person can own a machine-gun if they pay the proper "fees" and submit the proper paper-work.

Class III firearms dealers are dealers of fully-automatic firearms. There are several in the U.S., as well as several private owners of fully-automatic firearms.

Helio said: There is no reasonable need to own one.

There is a reasonable need to own one.

There are several legitimate and logical reasons to own one.

1. Arms in the hands of citizens that are near or equal to military class firearms, is a benefit and a necessity of "being able to mount a competent defense" of unjust agression through force by foreign governments, or this government in the case of corruption.

2. Individual arms, semi-automatic or fully-automatic, do not pose a serious threat as to equate them to "WMD", so the government it could be argued has no right to rule against private ownership.

3. The could be a need in certain locales or situations in which "suppressing fire" could be ruled just, within purview of defense, and within the right of an individual, if the area was clearly out of range of posing threat to any other living humans by stray or over-penetrating fire.

There are other reasons also, but these should suffice for now.

Helio said: You can still shoot with a pistol, you do not need the capacity to fire more rounds every minute.

This is not only unfounded and unsupported in your post, but is not an accurate view of the purpose individual arms are protected in the Bill of Rights, which is as the last defense against foreign or domestic aggression, which in our modern day and age could reasonably be accepted to be firearms that fire full-auto(both in the hands of our government, as well as foreign governments) as well as the criminal elements of society, who are unaffected by laws preventing the use or unlicensed ownership of full-auto firearms.

We see this threat around the world daily, but if you like, any and all of my claimed facts are supportable at request.

Helio said: Emotion and logic go together.

I have stated that myself. What is your point?

Helio said: Just as Ron Paul does. He views the issue of abortion from a logical standpoint, then uses his personal ethics to decide he believes the fetus has a right to life.

No, he puts his PERSONAL feelings in check when acting as a representative of the people, and respects the auspice of authority recognized by the Constitution and BOR. He is the only one who admits the fact this is not a Constitutional realm of law for the federal government.

Helio said: EVERYONE uses emotion to make decisions.

I didn't deny emotion played a role.

I said logic is what is meant to keep check on emotions, if we attempt to live in a society.

I asked this question:
Which do you think should weigh more on our actions? Logic and reason, or emotion?

YOU SAID:
Emotion.

You have been grasping for a reason or argument to back that up since you allowed your emotion to make that choice for you, and you can't.

Helio said: And under a government where the majority decided then the morality of the majority is the law.

Again, show me where this notion comes from, in our system of law?

Helio said: And what then is the issue of the speeches.

The speeches address many issues.

I asked you to debate the issues you take fault with, or agree with, IN the speeches.

Helio said: Personal rights and yourself above society.

You misunderstood.

Individual rights, so you can have a society.
Selfishness, as the only means to achieve happiness.
Logic and Reason above Blind Faith.

as well as many other issues addressed.

Helio said: People put society above themselves everyday.

No doubt. The question of morality comes about by how that comes about, through volition or force?

Force by what authority?
Is this authority just? Why?
To who and for whom?

Helio said: Part of your income goes to a military to defend the masses and to the welfare of the state.

You don't understand taxation very well, and generalities and lack of being concise prevents an intellectually honest debate here.

Helio said: Would you say it is wrong to take away from the masses to support the military?

By force? Yes.

Helio said: Or would you rather each person only be responsible for defending his or her home with their own weapon.

I would rather there was a voluntary taxation system for non-necessities, and a rigid, clear, equal system for necessities, such as basic government function, as the Constitution prescribes.

Helio said: Sacrifice is anything but selfish.

You are making a subjective opinion statement, with no support, again.

I also di