|
|
Post by Randalla on Feb 9, 2013 14:23:21 GMT -8
This is starting to look like a buffet here. Nobody is going to willingly limit themselves to what they fight wars with, and criminals sure as hell aren't going to limit themselves to what they victimize someone with. They aren't going to stop and say, oh damn, I can't rob this store with this gun, it's not on the Cal-compliant list. Or, damn, I have to take three bullets out of this 10 round magazine before I go hold up this bank. You're in it to win it, not to fight fair. I'm not talking about hunting as a sport--but if it was a matter of life and death, eat or die, you bet I'm not gonna want to make a fair sport out of it. I'm gonna want to eat, not starve. And if I'm up against a nut with a knife or a sword, I don't want to fight fair. I want to fill him full of lead before he can slice and dice me. If an asshole breaks into my house, that person has just declared war on me, and I'm going to drop his ass like a lead balloon. If that means I need 10-15 bullets to make sure his ass goes down and stays there, that's what I'm gonna do. I'm not going to challenge some asshole who's trying to hurt me to a duel. I want to be better armed and better prepared than the shitholes who decide to break into my house, or hold me up on the way to my car. The house always wins, and you can bet your ass I'm gonna stack the deck in my favor whenever I can legally do so.
So, armed guards at school. I don't think armed guards are the optimal way to go, either. They could easily be picked off as the first target. That is why I think allowing the teachers and supervisors who want to go through all the necessary hoops to get their CCW permit, to carry their weapons. Well, you say, the teacher's gun COULD fall into the wrong hands. Or the teacher MIGHT not even be able to stop a madman, anyway. Well a madman COULD go rampaging through any other school on the map, too. It's been going on in Utah schools, at least, for a while now, and you haven't heard anything untoward there. And I say it's better than letting yourself be a victim, and not having ANY line of defense if it does happen. An armed principal in Sandy Hook may have been able to put a stop to the madman sooner. Instead, she tried to rush him with her bare hands, and you know the rest of the story.
You guys don't want guns, or you think a sword will do you more good against someone with a gun. Go right ahead, be my guest. But I'll keep my guns, and don't keep telling me I don't "need" my guns, or that I shouldn't have my guns. I don't need my guns as much as you guys don't need your swords.
|
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Feb 9, 2013 17:30:30 GMT -8
To bring your first argument towards it's logical conclusion Rand, you are supporting the idea of MAD -- Mutually Assured Destruction. We will eventually have enough firepower to blow ourselves up 1 million times over, and that will somehow protect us? Remember how close we came in Cuba. If I'm "in it to win it" if you enter my home, it triggers a fucking thermo-nuclear detonator with an audio warning that if they don't exit in 5 seconds, the entire neighborhood and perhaps state will glow green. THAT is in it to win it my dear. And yes, there are recipes for LER (Low-Enriched Uranium) bombs available online. Or there used to be. And I have one. So seriously, unless you're willing to nuke me to take me out, my gun is bigger than yours. So says the U.S., so says me. Seriously, why do you think it won't escalate to total dysfunctional Mad Max craziness if everyone just arms themselves and shoots anyone who scares them? Again, at least with swords, you have to SEE the damage you do close-up. Might make you reconsider attacking unarmed children with good grades in school who smoke a little pot (see: Trayvon Martin) (yes, I used his case just to mess with you).
You're so worried about being a victim that you're willing to sacrifice the safety of others. Even though you admit giving teachers (even when properly trained) guns could lead to situation whereas the teacher (not being a police officer or anyone else who can focus on their gun at least half the time) loses their gun to a student quite easily. Your fear is controlling you Rand, and so is the fear of "white America", ever since they heard "young black male killed..." on the 24/7 news throughout the 90s. This is a relatively new problem -- people wanting their own AK-47s for "home defense", and it's driven by fear. That Armed Principal in Sandy Hook could have gotten MORE people killed, just like what happened with *trained police* at the Empire State Building. You think a principal who doesn't do such things for a living is going to make the critical shot in a moment of fear? Doubtful.
You keep your gun. I'll keep my sword, or if it gets that crazy out there, my knowledge of how to build a thermonuclear warhead. Salt the Earth, a man once said, and you shall weep tears of blood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cerridwyn on Feb 9, 2013 18:12:37 GMT -8
And after you blow up the world, the few that survived in their caves or somewhere odd that they get lucky, eventually, the guns and bullets are gone and the even if not the knowledge, the ability to make them.
To make a sword, just takes a hammer and anvil and some metal, doesn't have to be forged steel, can make one with pit iron or bronze, and it does more damage than a stick.
Those that have the skills to use them, or their descendants, will inherit the world you leave behind.
*****
And Phae, told you for along time you fit my side of the fence more than Rands
|
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Feb 9, 2013 18:38:09 GMT -8
I'm talking about taking out my attacker, not my whole neighborhood. You're throwing out complete and utter absurdities to belittle my desire to protect myself and my family from an intruder or someone who may try to attack us elsewhere.
We're talking self defense, not nuking a whole city block. Absurd. What's not absurd is not wanting to be the one criminalized for having a 10, 15, or 30 round magazine when I've done nothing to break any laws whatsoever. It's not absurd not wanting to be turned into a criminal overnight simply because we have an AR 15 in our safe, which we've used to indiscriminately mow down exactly 0 innocent people.
And the argument that an armed principal at Sandy Hook could have potentially hurt MORE people is pure conjecture. She was close enough to try and rush the guy with her bare hands, she very easily could have dropped him in her first shot, too. I don't think it could have gotten any worse than it already was, the fact that those kids and teachers were all as easy to pick off as fish in a barrel because none of the adults were able to fight back just makes it that much worse, to me. There have been plenty of incidents where armed good guys have been able to stop armed bad guys without shooting up the place. You don't give us credit where it's due.
There are bumblenuts cops out there who, despite their training, end up panicking and causing more damage, themselves. LAPD over here is so jumpy because of the nutcase we have on the loose, they were shooting up practically every blue truck on the road, and asking questions later. You don't hear about civilians with their CCW's constantly going off on a panic, causing all that chaos, do you? You don't hear about modern day OK Corral shoot-outs.
As for me, my fear controls nothing. Refusing to let myself be a victim if push comes to shove isn't letting my fear rule jack shit. It's called being aware and being practical, with crime rates skycrocketing.
There's a little thing over here we're having to deal with right now called AB109 realignment. Because California sucks ass crack and can't control it's finances, and caters so much to union thuggery, their answer to prison overcrowding was simply to make it so certain felony sentences could be castrated even more than they already are, and these felons are able to serve time in jail rather than prison, and a lot of jail time is being hacked in half or more. We're dealing with more and more violent offenders being kicked a lot sooner. We're dealing with these jackwads wandering the streets more frequently instead of being locked away for longer, as they should be. It's an acknowledged fact around here that that's why our crime rates are going up. That involves increased break-ins, increased home invasions, increased assaults, increased assaults with deadly weapons. We're not just talking small time petty theft or shoplifting in tight economic times.
We're also dealing with a piss poor budget and law enforcement that's either unwilling or unable to respond to certain calls, or is incapable of responding more quickly than 15-30 minutes or more. Just trying to report suspicious activity gets you referred to a form to fill out online. We tried reporting suspicious activity at the end of our cul-de-sac, and basically, BPD brushed us off and didn't do jack shit about it even after my dad filled out the form and told them we have security camera footage burned on disk for them to look at if they wanted it. What can a scumbag do in the time it takes police to respond, if they're even able to respond?
It's a fact around here, it's not paranoia. It's determination, not fear. Not being prepared for it, and not being MORE determined to protect and defend yourself than the criminals are to hurt you is just plain naive, oblivious and irresponsible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cerridwyn on Feb 9, 2013 19:59:09 GMT -8
Gosh, so that guy who took pot shots out of his car at the road when I was driving home from a visit on New Year's Day a few years ago, was executing his god given right to both drive drunk and fire a gun? Oh, and the one who did the same thing one forth of July night. I worried to death since he was shooting in the air, where the bullets would come down.
A drunk Scottsman with a Claymore is more likely to slice of his own nuts than he is to put a hole in you. We can't keep people from driving drunk. If you put more guns out there in the hands of those who think ethanol does not impair their thinking, well.. you do the math.
And I know you don't drink. I know that is not the case for many people who own and carry guns. It's much scarier going into a bar that serves alcohol in an open carry state than one that serves coffee.
Oh, and while I don't disapprove, let's remember MJ is legal in more places now. I have no clue what impact being high would have on your likelihood to shoot something. Since it makes you more mellow than Alcohol does, you'd likely shoot yourself in the foot but I've never smoked it, only had a contact high.
Nonviolence is not merely a personal virtue. It is also a social virtue to be cultivated like other virtues. -- Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Feb 9, 2013 20:40:05 GMT -8
People who do what you just described are breaking several laws, even without the gun in their possession, much less shooting it off like you described. Responsible owners are not going to go pulling that crap. You're not supposed to mix alcohol and guns, you're not supposed to go shooting it off like that, and those of us who are responsible owners know what goes up must come down.
People get drunk and promptly crawl into their cars. Innocent lives are lost that way, but we already saw what prohibition caused, and nobody's proposing banning cars because of the actions of a few stupid or crazy people.
The idiot you saw shooting off his gun in that irresponsible manner needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
But because he's a dipshit who deserves to have the book thrown squarely into his face, it doesn't make it ok to say I'm going to do the same thing, and that it's ok to punish ME for something some other idiot does.
And a drunk anyone with a claymore is just as dangerous, you're saying you'd let someone take a swing at you just because it's not a gun? I don't get the mentality that getting sliced and diced with a sharp pointy thing is somehow better or less deadly or less dangerous or less painful than getting shot.
I'm plenty non-violent. I'm not going to go out and run someone over with my car, or shoot them with my gun, or stab them with a knife, or a fork, or even take a bare fisted swing at anyone.
Unless someone intends to do me harm, first.
|
|
|
|
Post by gribsshap on Feb 11, 2013 4:40:27 GMT -8
So Got to this party late, but have read every post and one stuck out that I needed to comment on.
==============================================
The only point that needs to be made about "militias" protecting us from tyranny:
-- Militias have at best, what? RPGs? A couple claymores?
-- The U.S. Armed Forces have multiple aircraft carriers, unmanned drones, and nuclear effing missiles.
The same could be said about the AQ/Taliban fighters in Afghanistan and yet we seem to be having some difficulty completely irradicating them...even though we do have "multiple aircraft carriers, unmanned drones, and nuclear effing missiles...
The point the forefathers were making is that EVEN in the face of superior force, the public can still fight.
If you don't like the Afghanistan example, what about Egypt, Lybia, or Mali. All 3 of those situations was a 'militia' taking on a countries government. Much as the colonies did with England...we just had an ocean separating us from the crown.
If they wanted to subjugate us, and that assumes the U.S. military isn't coup-proof, which I think it is, every gun in your home would be worthless against a single M1-A1 Abrams tank.
The fact that America is still stuck in a revolutionary war mentality proves just how young of a nation we are... thinking we know anything at the ripe young age of 250, meanwhile most of Europe, Japan, and China have all been sovereign nations learning from their mistakes for far longer.
Whatever, it's harder to get a license to drive a car in this country (a single-fire death weapon) than it is to get a gun (a multi-fire death weapon). That TOTALLY makes sense...
This seems to be more of a tongue and cheek statement than an actual statement of fact so I withhold comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Feb 12, 2013 0:51:10 GMT -8
The same could be said about the AQ/Taliban fighters in Afghanistan and yet we seem to be having some difficulty completely irradicating them...even though we do have "multiple aircraft carriers, unmanned drones, and nuclear effing missiles... They actually have been killed... a LOT. And they have way more mountains per square mile than we do. Where do the people in Indiana and Kansas hide? lol. Point is, they die more than the U.S. Armed Services do, and the same thing would happen here. The point the forefathers were making is that EVEN in the face of superior force, the public can still fight. I wish I had the same conduit to the Founding Fathers' original intent as you do. If you don't like the Afghanistan example, what about Egypt, Lybia, or Mali. All 3 of those situations was a 'militia' taking on a countries government. Much as the colonies did with England...we just had an ocean separating us from the crown. The colonies with England isn't a good example, because air power didn't exist, nor did WMDs. Egypt is an internal affair where the military HELPED the coup de'tat. Libya is a police action at best where we didn't commit any ground forces or even many manned air forces. Mali? We have like 100 troops there as advisors. This seems to be more of a tongue and cheek statement than an actual statement of fact so I withhold comment. Totally a statement of fact that I totally think should be taken seriously. Easier to get a gun than a car. I think that's hilarious in a sad way. Oh, and Rand: if the shit REALLY hits the fan, I'll make my bomb, you have your guns -- let's see who everyone is more scared of  |
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Feb 12, 2013 3:00:43 GMT -8
Shit hits the fan, your hippy tailfeathers are gonna keep assuming we'll never be able to win a rebellion. Lost before the battle's even been fought. You ain't gonna make anything but breakfast. Hehehehe But if you do make one, come on over to my place, I'll cover ya with my guns while you plant it. Lmao Edit: and if you make breakfast, come on over anyway. Even freedom fighters gotta eat. |
|
