Members 17 Tubes Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 B ut he is wrong Chris.How many people are endangered because of home intruders?monky would have you believe NO one.I don't know where you or monkey live, but around here, it's a common occurence. VERY common. Sadly common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members xiwiwix1 Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 Sweet! I used to be into AS too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tommythelurker Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 But the quote draelyc posted said:"except in self defense".Now, who's gonna tell who what measure of self defense is permissable? You're harping on 4 words, from one individual and interpreting them extremely literally. You're not seeing the big picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 I've objectively weighed the evidence provided by each side, and... you lose. Your lone quote is obliterated by the many previous quotes. And your own quote says "except in private self-defense..." So right there your argument is DOOMED. John is telling us to have weapons for self-defense. There is NO mention of WHAt you should plan on defnsing yourself against. But the "the government" has been clearly mentioned. And have you seen "the government's" weapons lately? With all DUE respect...you are wrong. This thread proves it, with the exception of a couple douches that posted repeatedly. Boy, you love to say that about me, as countless threads over the past couple years prove. God bless ya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Neilrocks25 Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 I have an Uncle in florida, one day some one asked him what gun he had. He replied that he did not own a gun. The other man said "are you crazy how do protect your home" My uncle replied " If someone broke into my house and pulled a gun on me, and I pointed my gun at them, I dont know if I can kill another human so maybe I wouldnt shoot. But because I have pointed a gun at them they may shoot me. So it would probably make the situation worse" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 Actually it's not quite that simple. You gave one side of the story and only quoted anti-federalists (how convenient of you). Draylec was giving the other side. From wikipedia (bold emphasis added by me) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Origin_of_the_Second_AmendmentThe founding fathers were divided on ratification of the constitution. The Bill of Rights was a compromise to get the constitution ratified. The federalists believed in a central army to protect the nation, and kept in check by state run and organized militia, while the anit-federalists were sceptical of a strong central government. The wording of the 2nd amendment referring to the organized militia was there for the federalists. The ambiguity was the compromise to satisfy both sides. Thank you! I'm glad *some* Americans actually know their own history! Again, I'm not saying "my" side is "right" -- I *am* saying that the whole thing historically is not quite so "obviously cut & dried" as dude was making it out to be. Of course, that doesn't matter, because 17 tubes has "objectively" determined who's right & who's wrong for us all.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 But the quote draelyc posted said: "except in self defense". Actually, the quote I posted said a HELL of a lot more than that, and it was all significant.Now, if you just, in your mind, reduced the whole thing to that one little bit, I guess I can see why that one little bit was, in your mind, outweighed by all the other shiney metal objects in this thread. Now, who's gonna tell who what measure of self defense is permissable? I realize the government has done that to SOME extent. And should saty that way. Colonial times. I'm sure these weapons are OUR version of the musket. Not sure what point(s) you're making here.... Clarification? Thanx! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 B ut he is wrong Chris.Except for the fact that he's, um, right. How many people are endangered because of home intruders? monky would have you believe NO one. Not true. Go back and actually read his post, slowly and carefully. He clearly and fully acknowledges the threat of home intrusion, and offers a solution/response to that threat which is superior to the "home arsenal" proposition. Seriously, he does. Go back and actually read the post. I don't know where you or monkey live, but around here, it's a common occurence. VERY common. Sadly common. That's horrible. I mean, sincerely, that's messed up, & I wouldn't wish that on you or anybody else in any location. But there are better solutions out there than upping the number of quasi-military grade weapons in the average household... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sekler Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 for collection purposes..I can understand..but to feel more secure or defend a house ? that's beyond me..lol whatever right to bear guns, it's not an issue here. We may not have as many sickos, but as much as I love guns (and I do for sure), shrinking the access to me lowers the level of violence in conflicts for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 17 Tubes Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 Boy, you love to say that about me, as countless threads over the past couple years prove. God bless ya! Well no...I don;t think I have said "douche"....exactly. You'll have to reference that. God bless ya right back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Assiah Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 Well played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sekler Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 stop buying guns, buy pointy guitars instead. It can kill a zombie still and it's not too dangerous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 17 Tubes Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 You're harping on 4 words, from one individual and interpreting them extremely literally. You're not seeing the big picture. This for draelyc as well. Well, I happen to think YOU don't see the big picture. I think you are trying to narrow it down into a little narrow slot slot. "harping on 4 words"? As I said, sir, where I live, they are NOT so little, I ASSURE you. I am not saying I don't enjoy where I live, it's beautiful, But it does attract a certain... crowd. And if I don't agree with "4 words"...then they become pretty BIG, don't they? (RE: "nappy-headed ho's"...okay that's 3...point made) These guys (where all these fab quotes are coming from)were masters of in-their day language. As we know things have changed drastically. Here's to show you your accusation is wrong...I do see a BIG picture: 1) What is "defending". Is it merely stopping an intruder? How do you know what will? Shouldn't you be prepared for the worst. Ever seen a video of a doped up druggie being shot by police? 2) Defense against WHAT? a lone intruder? A riot? An "illegal" government take-over? Rampaging flesh-eating zombies from the underworld? 3) Who shall define the limits of this "defense". The government? The very people (some of?) the writers of the constitution had in mind? Your neighbor? The local parson? 4) AFAIK...and I admit I could be wrong about this, but there's little proof that complete gun control makes for a safer environement. Especially now (now that weapons are on the streets) 5) The quotes and 2nd amendment being thrown around are actullay pretty vague, IMVHO. Not one of them say "no weapons"...not one says "free-for-all". Yet, amazingly!...that's just about where we stand right now. And these are just a few of my thoughts, so you can see, I *AM* looking at a bigger picture. Are you? Having said this....I don't see the need for such assault weapons. I do not even own a gun (for now). But I wouldn't presume to be so arrogant as to tell another person what they need for their personal protection and possible militia contributions. I know I'd need to borrow a rifle or two in worst case scenario, and I bet turd would be MORE than willing to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members STEEL KAGE Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 Not denying anything, simply I'm not trying to win an argument:) Sure you are or else you wouldnt show up to reply, Something that you said earlier that you dont do.. Again, you demonstrate a insincere,convienient attitude.This is not sound thinking.You're still making the same choice over again. Au Contraire, Im being very sincere; Youre a moron and you advertise it with every post. You conveniently duck,sidestep and backpeddle in the face of obvious truth because its easier for you to do that than admit that youre being an idiot. Sound thinking is something that you have nothing in common with so please just leave it up to us adults:idea: You have yet to make a cogent point yet you cant seem to let go, Sounds like an ego issue to me... It's okay Kage, just call me a loser again and put me on your ignore list. Im sorry if the Truth hurts but thats something that youll have to deal with. As for the ignore list, nah, Putting morons like you in their place is fun and protects the young and immature minds that you refer to by exposing people like you for all to see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 17 Tubes Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 Well played. I am the original owner from 1986 (I think:freak: ).Yes...well-played indeed!And still going strong. I broke it out the other day, mad riff zombie killer indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 17 Tubes Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 for collection purposes..I can understand..but to feel more secure or defend a house ? that's beyond me..lolwhatever right to bear guns, it's not an issue here. We may not have as many sickos, but as much as I love guns (and I do for sure), shrinking the access to me lowers the level of violence in conflicts for sure. On the face of it, you would seem to make sense. However, many factors involved! Who would abide by the "shrinking access". People like you and me. Would-be victims. Certainly NOT those who freely partake in the violence. The underground market would have more than enough supply. You would simply disarm those seeking wishing hoping praying for peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members STEEL KAGE Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 You're harping on 4 words, from one individual and interpreting them extremely literally. You're not seeing the big picture. +1, go back and reread Steve, DM post is focused on the Yahoos, not resonsible gun ownership. Youre missing the point... I will add that I dont neccessarily agree with what Chris said about the DM's Soution/response being superior to the Home Arsenal proposition because its just an opinion. IMO If youre that concerned about Breakins and Intrusions, a good alarm system is a no brainer and The choice to supplement with Firearms is pretty much a personal choice, one that Im obviously in favor of... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 17 Tubes Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 Actually, the quote I posted said a HELL of a lot more than that, and it was all significant. Now, if you just, in your mind, reduced the whole thing to that one little bit, I guess I can see why that one little bit was, in your mind, outweighed by all the other shiney metal objects in this thread. Not sure what point(s) you're making here.... Clarification? Thanx! We all chose and pick what we see as an issue. You've ignored MANY things in MANY posts and sources, and yet HAMMER and HAMMER at something you've picked out. No...I'm not going to source that. No need. Not sure what needs clarifying. Do you need clarying on all three of my sentences? Since you didn't CLARIFY...for the sake of brevity:1) Who defines the level of permissable defense? The government? As I said...to a CERTAIN extent, maybe. But the Gov is the main factor the writers had in mind, that and another government's invasion. 2) The government HAS defined the limits to a certain extent, And should STAY a "certain extent", as opposed to unlimited power. 3) (and this is the one I *think* you were asking about.)The musket *probably* was held int he same regard as these rifles, fcomparatively speaking. Possibly:2nd regimate soldier: Hey old man...see this fine musket I gots here. I kin take yer arm off at 100 paces.old-skool farmer: goddurned WTF is that? Evil I tell pure EVIL! wha-n sam hell I need that fer when I gots me pitch-fork?Yes, I am trying to be funny to illustrate my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ibanezfoo Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 And what exactly are those for? Duck hunting? FREEDOM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 17 Tubes Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 +1, go back and reread Steve, DM post is focused on the Yahoos, not resonsible gun ownership. Youre missing the point... I disagree. He said this: "Thieves, as I understand the concept, try to enter when you are NOT at home." And I am saying this is NOT correct. Where I live. And I don't see your point about deathmonkey. His whole post is over-emotional and exageration. "reach into your pocket for a cell phone and get blasted"? Come on. We have everyday occurences of forced entry and intentional brutalization in the home. I understand this might be a localized thing, but it's where *I* live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Assiah Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 I just didnt know if it had been mentioned yet, but with all this talk of automatic weapons and assault rifles being horrible, I just thought I would mention that the VT killer used a Glock 9mm handgun. I am more worried some guy on the street packing a small handgun than an M16 any day of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mickaroony Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 I support the constitutional right to bear arms Without them they couldn't catch the salmon needed to bulk up for winter hybernation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FearTheReaper Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 bite me. +1,000 People need to wake up and realize that an incredibly small percentage of gun owners are going to use their guns in a way that is illegal. Not all blacks are criminals. Not all whites are Nazis. Not all gun owners are homicidal maniacs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nibsborg Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pir Posted April 17, 2007 Members Share Posted April 17, 2007 man are you tuff.perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.