"B" is for bullet! It's good enough for BANG! :soldiershoot::dyingsoldier: Uh-oh, Cookie Monster has tummy ache. Room spinning, getting dark........mommy?............" "One heartbeat! Two heartbeat! Three........damn. Tag him and bag him!" Today's episide was brought to you by the numbers 911 and the letters DOA.
Kind of like gun-control advocates arguing over the size of magazines. That aside, I'd like to point out that the OP was pointing out the emotionally-driven hyperbolic sentiment being expressed by the headline of that news rag. Rick echoed the sentiment, which was pointed out, and then rebuffed with more of the same sentiment. The use of terms like "mass murder machines" and calling AR-15s and the like "assault weapons" and especially "machine guns" is just more of the same, and both Rick and yourself damn well know it. So don't pretend this was about semantics or "weakness of logic." Rick's arguments have shown quite a bit of "weakness of logic" and I don't see you jumping all over him about it. I believe that like I believe the NSA is going to stop its mass data collection.
I see several other people liked this post as well, so I can ask this question: Doesn't this infringe on Tom Smith's second amendment rights? Isn't the argument that Tom Smith has the right to carry (and therefore needs no permission) versus Tom Smith has the privilege of driving a car (and therefore need to acquire a driver's license)? Or is this a clever way of embracing the status quo? We already register people who have criminal backgrounds and tell them they can't have guns anymore, yet those people still get guns. (The most interesting part of these debates for me is how possible it is to argue both sides.)
@oldfella has lots of things wrong with him, including an appreciation for vigilantism and unjustified violence, as demonstrated over and over. And that extends to whatever number of gun nuts that there are who own such devices, my being unable to identify it apart from other weapons at a glance aside.
You're wrong. Forbin made a broad brush statement applying to millions of people about a core belief that was unsupportable and wrong. You should correct people on something like that, and I'm not saying don't tell Rick an AR15 isn't a machine gun. But say it and then address the point he was trying to make. Care to have a semantic debate on that?
Hey, kids! I just had a GREAT idea that solve this whole "gun control" mess. Why don't we treat "the war on guns" like "the war on drugs"? You know, come together (rich and poor, lib and conservative, etc) and admit that the war on guns is a failed experiment that accomplishes nothing except infringing on civil liberties and helping the criminal underground economy? Now worship my awesomeness and genius! Anyway, for being a vigilantee with criminal tendencies (or whatever rick thinks) I must be asleep on the job, because last time I checked I had a clean criminal background check and a security clearance. Trust me folks, I'm not smart enough to cheat the investigators/police/FBI, etc. Anyway rick, when I'm at the range shooting responsibly with my family (not killing anybody) I'll fire off a shot in your honor, sir!
However, he does know that you can buy weapons out of the trunk of some stranger's car in his state, no questions asked.
For reference: Of COURSE it was a broad brush statement, I thought that would be obvious even to an enraged otter. Remember I was responding to Packard's equally broad statement: (which failed to account for the flippancy in the post he was reacting to). Your "demonstrably false" response also seemed too broad, seeming to deny that any such thing could happen. You subsequently fixated on the first half of my statement and ignored the second ("And the other side refuses to acknowledge that a firearm has ever, in the course of human history, been used by a civilian to save or protect a life, and continually misrepresents gun owners as psychos and murderers.") for which I provided examples within the thread. But of course I didn't make the original statement with the intent of focusing within the thread. Don't forget I've been in the gun control debate for 30 years, and I have encountered plenty of people with BOTH attitudes I described. People who poopoo self defense as "voilence begetting violence," and people who think - well, Rosie O'Donnel comes immediately to mind with her statement that all gun owners should be locked up.
I failed to account for the flippancy of the remark? That it was flippant is pretty much my point. Try again.
I find it interesting that the "no regulation ever" crowd continues to focus on everything but that point.
You can do that anywhere, man. Although, where I'm from, it's more likely to be in the back of a pickup truck.
Well, you're kicking all unholy hell out of his point of view, but I'd hardly characterize that as being unjustified.
You can do that in any state actually. Apparently it's pretty common in states where you can't get one legally. I wouldn't know really, since I live in The South, where all you have to do is go to Walmart, Academy Sports, the flea market, etc. and legally purchase one with a warranty. Thus only criminals buy out of car trunks.
State terrorism (in which you participate). The death penalty. Stand your ground laws. And lots of others that we've discussed, which you know about without having to disingenuously ask for examples.
1. State terrorism......which is what exactly? Is is military service? Holy shit, Rick - a large percentage of WordForge falls into that category. 2. The death penalty for caught-in-the-act baby rapers or career violent criminals who are a threat to society and have no motivation to change their ways? I don't see the need for a "middle man" in the form of an over-worked Justice Circus to nip that problem in the bud. 3. Stand your ground against somebody who is a proven threat and will not back down? Again, cutting out the middle-man while keeping yourself alive......everybody wins (who deserves to win that is.) Sorry, Rick, but if you don't believe that you the average citizen has more of a right to live than the deadly threat does, you must have severely low self esteem. Every human life does not carry the same value once you are a physical threat to your neighbors. I have a family to feed and protect. That's pretty much my obligation. I get injured by some violent person, I can't work so my family suffers, thus it's a clear, obvious choice to me to do what I have to do.
Okay - let me be clear - due process has it's merits. I'm talking about catching someone in the act of harming you or your family. Thank goodness I live in a state where handling your business doesn't get you in trouble 99 percent of the time. And just so nobody throws the race/income card, black store owners shooting shit-bag white armed robbers is encouraged too.
You knew that that's what I was referring to, so like I said, your question was disingenuous. Your attitude toward violence is deeply unhealthy, and your hiding behind your family as an excuse for all of these things continues to be both trite and a little bit disturbing. You see fit to appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner. THIS is why guns are a big problem. If advocates really had the restrained, sober attitude that they like to claim, then it wouldn't be so much of an issue.
It's (I guess) any military action Rick doesn't agree with. Apparently in his country soldiers pick-and-choose which missions they participate in. Hell of a way to run a railroad Apparently in Rick's country soldiers pick-and-choose which missions they participate in. So with 18+ years in the military I should have just thrown away my retirement pension/benefits and took a court-martial and trip to the Leavenworth big-house. What was I thinking, fulfilling my contract? But this from Rick speaks volumes: "You see fit to appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner. THIS is why guns are a big problem. If advocates really had the restrained, sober attitude that they like to claim, then it wouldn't be so much of an issue." Fair enough Rick - as soon as the criminals demonstrate a restrained, sober attitude by not picking up a gun in the first place. I guess a "restrained" posture is waiting for the bad guys to shoot first. The mind boggles. BTW guns are only as big a problem as some people make them out to be.
And now we're back to the Adolph Eichmann defense and insisting that people should adopt the same standards as criminals. Really, get bent.
WTF? If I had the same standards as the criminals I would indeed have a lengthy criminal record, would I not? As of today, I haven't held up a store, robbed a bank, carjacked a vehicle, shot indiscriminately toward my rival criminals, etc. etc. So if a threat presents itself I'm supposed to bring a rock to a gunfight? Do you have even one shred of self-preservation? Well I can't tell you to get bent, you already are, and holding your ankles I imagine.
