Chefelf.com Night Life: The Right to Bear Arms - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (10 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »

The Right to Bear Arms gun-toting maniacs ahoy

#31 User is offline   JW Wells Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: 22-March 05
  • Location:Ice Planet Wisconsin
  • Country:United States

Posted 10 August 2005 - 02:04 PM

QUOTE (Jordan @ Aug 10 2005, 01:56 PM)
His opinon is right.  A mob of angry people with guns are shit all when faced with proffesional killers.  A large majority of that 300 million are too young, too old, or simply dont' want to fight a bloody revolution.


Well, I'm not trying to write up a "Guerilla War 101" manual or anything here, but the point is that if you're a partisan, you don't stay to shoot it out with the 82nd Airborne. If overwhelming force comes by, head for the hills or melt into the civilian population and wait for them to go away. Forcing a tyranny to repeatedly shift their troops across a very large country to deal with repeated local outbreaks of resistance is what you're after.

Again, if you don't trust people to resist tyranny, you accept that eventually it'll happen. Do I expect to see a tyrannical government in my lifetime? No. Do I think an armed revolt will be necessary? Of course not. Do I support the right of the people to bear arms as a reasonable step to make tyranny less likely? Yes.

This post has been edited by JW Wells: 10 August 2005 - 02:09 PM

0

#32 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 10 August 2005 - 02:13 PM

I see what you're saying. I don't think it would challenge tyranny at all in the end. It may give false confidence till the tyranny shows face. I guess that's better than nothing.
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#33 User is offline   James12345 Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 05-July 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 10 August 2005 - 03:45 PM

QUOTE (Renegade @ Aug 5 2005, 11:34 AM)
Agreed.. studies have shown that states with heavy gun regulation actually have increased crime rates.


Yep, true...
0

#34 User is offline   James12345 Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 05-July 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 10 August 2005 - 03:47 PM

QUOTE (barend @ Aug 5 2005, 08:08 PM)
despite the claim of statiscal proof of which, in all honesty, niether of us have provided... taking guns out of the home will still cut down substantially on gun related deaths!!!


So where is your proof?
0

#35 User is offline   James12345 Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 05-July 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 10 August 2005 - 04:01 PM

QUOTE (barend @ Aug 10 2005, 02:25 AM)
monsters, psychos, and pussy rednecks...

there is something fundemantally and emotionally wrong with anyone who wants to own a contraption that enables them the ability to end a life (or several) by squeezing a trigger...

and if anyone dissagrees, they can feel free to shoot me...
but it will just expose them for the coward they are...


Ok Barend, let me kill your argument fairly easily.

What about other weapons? Is using as knife cowardly against an unarmed mugger twice ur weight whos rushing you? huh? No really is it?
Because if he puts his hands on you your dead, he'll take your knife and kill you, or stomp your face into the ground.

(Though we can both agree that using a knife, gun against an unarmed opponent not in self defence is cowardly)

Is it cowardace to defend yourself? Or are the cowards u refer to only bullies who use the gun as a tool for murder, they could use an axe too couldn't they.

What about two fighters both using guns? The one with superior skills should win.
Was that a fair fight or is the a pussy move too??

What do you think?
0

#36 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 10 August 2005 - 06:29 PM

i think your all out of your depth here tongue.gif

let's meet up and see if you can kill me with an axe...
i'll be unarmed.

i'll win...

if twenty guys with broken bottles coudn't kill me...
if a guy with a knife couldn't kill me...
and two massive football playing looking mutherfuckers couldn't take me...

then i'm pretty sure that 95% of civillians without fire arms are no threat to me...

civ#2 is spot on...

send a bunch of people against me with most non-projectile weaponry and i'll tie them into a u human pretzel...

give a 7 year old a small revolver and suddenly i've got no chance...
(unless you factor in that most kids seem to like me and that i'm a charasmatic speaker) - but my point still stands strong.

pepper spray will take care of that mugger... i've seen footage of the biggest guys brought down by that shit, reduced to tears...
--------------------------

despite the claim of statiscal proof of which, in all honesty, niether of us have provided... taking guns out of the home will still cut down substantially on gun related deaths!!!
-Barend

So where is your proof?
-James12345


PROOF?

common sense requires no proof!!!

lets use the same premise but with different parameters and change the key words:
taking broken glass out of the home will still cut down substantially on foot related cuts!!!

does THAT require proof?

if one person a year (and we all know it's more) by a gun stored in their own house, that number will stop drop if no one stores guns in their house...

why is such a simple premise so difficult for everyone to understand....

This post has been edited by barend: 10 August 2005 - 06:30 PM

0

#37 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 10 August 2005 - 06:40 PM

QUOTE (Slade @ Aug 10 2005, 03:17 AM)
Again, your argument, seemingly based on nothing but extreme news articles boils down to "GUNS ARE t3H EVIL!!!" I maintain that just like every other dangerous thing on this planet, they are OK in responsible hands. There are laws in place to help ensure that they only get into responsible hands, but nobody's perfect. I'll easily admit that a bunch of people are idiotic and unmoving about not allowing limits placed on them to protect people. (The NRA, with it's "Give the public rocket launchers" philosophy.) And your solution only serves to reduce shootings, not murders.


1. guns aren't evil, people are.
2. responsible hands are attatched to humn minds that will crack under presure.
3. there are laws that prevent covicted felons from owning flamethrowers.
4. if my solution "only serves to reduce shootings, not murders." then it stands to reason that it would reduce MURDERS BY SHOOTINGS, therefore it would most certainly reduce murders.

QUOTE (Slade @ Aug 10 2005, 03:17 AM)
C'mon, man, what are you, Ham Salad? Spare me the emotional outbursts and at least fling some statistics at me, or if you must, how using a gun reduces the emotional impact of taking the life of one human being to a split second finger movement.


it doesn't reduce the emotional impact of killing someone, it reduces the reconsideration time.

if you can kill someone instantly you have no option to reconsider killing them.

it requires more time to ready yourself to run up to someone and plunge a knife into them.


...emotional outbursts?

i'm talking common sense here.
gun freaks... i'd like you to meet my friend LOGIC. he's not from around here, but if you give him a chance i'm sure you'll find him both enlightening and endearing

This post has been edited by barend: 10 August 2005 - 06:45 PM

0

#38 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 10 August 2005 - 07:07 PM

why do all you people want guns so badly anyway?

what do you need them for?

entertainment?

music, video games, movies, sex, and the arts might be worth looking into. their quality is suffering due to the lack of interest shown in them over the last few years.

protection on a personal level?

just pray that you don't get mugged from behind or taken by suprise...
because then you'll be arming a criminal.

protection against an opressive nation?

LOL.

civ#2, as rarely as i agree with him nailed this point beautifully...

people are cowards!!! THIS IS A SOLID FACT!!!

statistics:
the popularity of mainstreme 'music' that is not reflected by public interest but dictated and hand selected by the pepsi corporation.
they will not support art that makes them think or challanges them...
they could fight for something more meaningfull, but they don't because they are affraid that the majority will judge them.

planes being highjacked by people with boxcutters...

what the hell is that about? the only way to secure a death with one of those is to sever the corritid artery... no one fought back...
why not? a plane full of people could have taken them on...
but no, as soon as someone yells at you you all break down and fall in line.

i know that was a harsh example, but seriously folks...

all the majorit does is complain that celebrities are too fat or too thin, they all drive to work by them selves wondering why traffic is so bad.
they use leafblowers instead of rakes because it's easier to poison their own air supply then do some honest work, and they'd rather give up their hard earned cashed to let someone else do the thinking for them even when that elected 'thinker' can't string a single fucking speach together without completely choking it....

a majority of people are fucking morons.

they should not be entrusted with the right to bare arms...

that's just lunacy!!!!
0

#39 User is offline   James12345 Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 05-July 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 10 August 2005 - 09:35 PM

QUOTE (barend @ Aug 10 2005, 06:29 PM)
i think your all out of your depth here tongue.gif

let's meet up and see if you can kill me with an axe...
i'll be unarmed.

i'll win...

if twenty guys with broken bottles coudn't kill me...
if a guy with a knife couldn't kill me...
and two massive football playing looking mutherfuckers couldn't take me...

then i'm pretty sure that 95% of civillians without fire arms are no threat to me...

civ#2 is spot on...

send a bunch of people against me with most non-projectile weaponry and i'll tie them into a u human pretzel...

give a 7 year old a small revolver and suddenly i've got no chance...
(unless you factor in that most kids seem to like me and that i'm a charasmatic speaker) - but my point still stands strong.

pepper spray will take care of that mugger... i've seen footage of the biggest guys brought down by that shit, reduced to tears...
--------------------------

despite the claim of statiscal proof of which, in all honesty, niether of us have provided... taking guns out of the home will still cut down substantially on gun related deaths!!!
-Barend

So where is your proof?
-James12345


PROOF?

common sense requires no proof!!!

lets use the same premise but with different parameters and change the key words:
taking broken glass out of the home will still cut down substantially on foot related cuts!!!

does THAT require proof?

if one person a year (and we all know it's more) by a gun stored in their own house, that number will stop drop if no one stores guns in their house...

why is such a simple premise so difficult for everyone to understand....


Ok chill out tuff guy, your not the toughest man on earth and SOMEBODY can beat you fist to fist, or any other way you like to fight. You know this.

And if they preyed upon your weakness that would be cowardly.

Now, If you could rip me apart in a street fight then shooting you dead in my defense would not be cowardly (unless I raped your sister or did something equally as bad. And given that you were going to kill me, whatever the means it's just as bad, well... in a way, I'd rather be shot then beaten to death).

What I am saying Barend is that projectile weapons are not cowardly just because your sphere of influence is expanded...

Why is a katana not just as cowardly against an unarmed person as a gun, it is.

If your so afraid of guns why don't you get one? And learn how to use it. I'd figure that you'd rather burn somebody then die. Would you feel like a coward?

It's like saying that motor vehicles are cowardly because your horse can't compete fairly. (That is good comparison because hand to hand and sword to sword fighting is obsolete against a gun).

And to your last point...

Then why not make glass illegal? Or anything else that kills people, I bet you can name alot...

If someone else has a gun and can kill me with it, I want one too dammit!
0

#40 User is offline   James12345 Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 05-July 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 10 August 2005 - 09:41 PM

QUOTE (barend @ Aug 10 2005, 07:07 PM)
they'd rather give up their hard earned cashed to let someone else do the thinking for them even when that elected 'thinker' can't string a single fucking speach together without completely choking it....


Wait... Does this mean that you don't believe governments need to exist?

Oh, I forgot about the perfect society that exists with no one telling you what to do, people just produce and produce and become industrous...

No, government is needed to protect honest folks from cowardly villians...

But thats not really what you meant is it?
0

#41 User is offline   Slade Icon

  • Full of Bombs and/or Keys
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 8,626
  • Joined: 30-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:United States

Posted 10 August 2005 - 10:47 PM

Jamesy: I have to agree with Barend concerning you, though your point that if the opponents aren't equally matched, it's a cowardly fight on the side with the person with the deadlier weapon.

Civ: Thanks for providing that anti-gun argument I mentioned in my last post.

Barend: And if you'd look at a little logic, you'd understand that banning many things, not just firearms, because people use them illegally/responsibly is silly and that we need regulations. Insulting pop-culture doesn't really help the argument, although it does make me go "YAR! Stupid masses ruining everything!" Nor does associating me with "gun freaks," for that matter.

But what should the majority of people be trusted with then, Barend?

I'm about done here, since I have yet to see one of your points sway me, and I'm not going to convince you of anything either, obviously. I might as well be trying to explain why I don't have faith in supreme deities to zealots or why people should have social programs to right-wingers...
This space for rent. Inquire within.
0

#42 User is offline   James12345 Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 05-July 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 10 August 2005 - 11:25 PM

QUOTE (Slade @ Aug 10 2005, 10:47 PM)
Jamesy: I have to agree with Barend concerning you, though your point that if the opponents aren't equally matched, it's a cowardly fight on the side with the person with the deadlier weapon.


I don't understand completely.

My argument is that guns are not inherently cowardly, the intent can be cowardly.
0

#43 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 11 August 2005 - 12:00 AM

quote=James12345,Aug 10 2005, 09:35 PM
Ok chill out tuff guy, your not the toughest man on earth and SOMEBODY can beat you fist to fist, or any other way you like to fight. You know this.

And if they preyed upon your weakness that would be cowardly.

Now, If you could rip me apart in a street fight then shooting you dead in my defense would not be cowardly (unless I raped your sister or did something equally as bad. And given that you were going to kill me, whatever the means it's just as bad, well... in a way, I'd rather be shot then beaten to death).


i didn't say i was the toughest guy on earth....
(i beilieve i suggested that 5% of the population would likley beat me in unarmed combat)

if we were pitted against eachother in a street fight and you pulled out a gun, that would be CHEATING!!! and a lot of good gang folk would want their money back for beating on a fixed fight.

if i were mugging you and you shot me fair enough.... but this is exactly the kind corruption of the ideal of fairness that gun culture provokes.

just stop and think about that statement for a moment... that is quite a fucked up line of thought.... bringing a gun to a fist fight? that's truely an uncivilized thought.

guns are the epitome of uncivilization.


What I am saying Barend is that projectile weapons are not cowardly just because your sphere of influence is expanded...

Why is a katana not just as cowardly against an unarmed person as a gun, it is.

If your so afraid of guns why don't you get one? And learn how to use it. I'd figure that you'd rather burn somebody then die. Would you feel like a coward?


this isn't about cowardice and bravery though...

if a person was standing 50 feet away with a katana pointed at me and we were having an argument i would have more time to calm the person down before they built up the steam to run at me and push the metal through my flesh. failing that i could run away or still try and fight them.

if a person was standing 50 feet away with a 9mmgloack pointed at me... i'd be fucked. THERE IS NO TIME FOR RECONSIDEREATION WHEN YOU ONLY HAVE TO PULL A TRIGGER!!!!

WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE STOP AND ABSORB THAT!!!


It's like saying that motor vehicles are cowardly because your horse can't compete fairly. (That is good comparison because hand to hand and sword to sword fighting is obsolete against a gun).


i'm not a big fan of cars either....

but that comparison is wrong. if you want to put it in those terms then we're talking about a car and a horse in a head on collision.


and no... it wouldn't be fair...

it would just be mean...




And to your last point...

Then why not make glass illegal? Or anything else that kills people, I bet you can name alot...

If someone else has a gun and can kill me with it, I want one too dammit!


why not make glass illegal?

BECAUSE IT WON'T END SOME ONE LIFE FROM A QUARTER MILE AWAY!!!

BECAUSE YOUR KID WON'T FIND A DRINKING GLASS IN THE KITCHEN AND ACCIDENTALLY BLOW YOUR HEAD OF WITH IT!!!

BECAUSE DROPPING A FULL GLASS WON'T RESULT IN REMOOVING YOUR KNEECAP!!!

the list goes on, and if you people can't see that, then you're all quite doomed...
and i'm sorry...

This post has been edited by barend: 11 August 2005 - 12:04 AM

0

#44 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 11 August 2005 - 12:08 AM

QUOTE (Slade @ Aug 10 2005, 10:47 PM)
Barend: And if you'd look at a little logic, you'd understand that banning many things, not just firearms, because people use them illegally/responsibly is silly and that we need regulations. Insulting pop-culture doesn't really help the argument, although it does make me go "YAR! Stupid masses ruining everything!" Nor does associating me with "gun freaks," for that matter.

But what should the majority of people be trusted with then, Barend?


knives have a practical use.
cars have a practical use.
glass has a practical use.

GUNS DON'T.

the kill. that's what they do. that's all they do. that's what they're made for...

i don't see targets down at the shooting range shaped like oversized dafodils...

they are an unneccassary thing to have around.
they can only destroy things...

and slade, you are too creative a person to be into them.
0

#45 User is offline   James12345 Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 05-July 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 11 August 2005 - 12:15 AM

QUOTE (barend @ Aug 11 2005, 12:00 AM)
if we were pitted against eachother in a street fight and you pulled out a gun, that would be CHEATING!!! and a lot of good gang folk would want their money back for beating on a fixed fight.

if a person was standing 50 feet away with a katana pointed at me and we were having an argument i would have more time to calm the person down before they built up the steam to run at me and push the metal through my flesh. failing that i could run away or still try and fight them.

if a person was standing 50 feet away with a 9mmgloack pointed at me... i'd be fucked. THERE IS NO TIME FOR RECONSIDEREATION WHEN YOU ONLY HAVE TO PULL A TRIGGER!!!!


Ok, I narrowed it down, ur upset that now more than 95% of people can do you harm. Fair enough.

But things change times change, bullets are the new reality in combat...

BTW, a 9mm at 50 feet away in the hands of the average thug could be ran from too. Thats what most folks would do, get low. Maybe a lucky shot will get you but so could one of those football players, it's all a roll of the dice.

I just don't like the idea of regular folks being prevented from owning fire arms when criminals do.
0

  • (10 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size