concealed weapons
-
HAHAHAHAHA Hey stupid, I enlisted at 17. How about you? Considering I am the one here that has a track record of being in the military during a time of war and you don't, throwing stones in your glass house is kinda stupid. I may be old and out of shape, but I could easily take a target out with an M-16A3 at a few hundred yards. How about you coward? Would you be showing up and requesting to join the military to defend your country from a foreign invader? And, more importantly, would you want a particle beam, or ballistic weapon against the aliens? I hear they often overlook low tech attacks, like stormtroopers and ewok sticks...
remember if arguement.point <> understood then insult poster else change the subject while trying to keep on track
Thanks for taking the time, now go away and grow up and return in a newer, more polite and less shouty and ignorant form. - Dalek Dave
-
HAHAHAHAHA Hey stupid, I enlisted at 17. How about you? Considering I am the one here that has a track record of being in the military during a time of war and you don't, throwing stones in your glass house is kinda stupid. I may be old and out of shape, but I could easily take a target out with an M-16A3 at a few hundred yards. How about you coward? Would you be showing up and requesting to join the military to defend your country from a foreign invader? And, more importantly, would you want a particle beam, or ballistic weapon against the aliens? I hear they often overlook low tech attacks, like stormtroopers and ewok sticks...
-
Aren't police a socialist concept anyway? Who needs em? Oh wait, any society that wants to not devolve into anarchy.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Would you be showing up and requesting to join the military to defend your country from a foreign invader?
The thing is though, they will be used against the American people. They will be making sure everybody goes through the checkpoints, obeys curfew, and military dictatorship. You would be forced to work for crumbs and you would go to prison for saying anything unapproved.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Wait, so the best defense against a foreign army on our soil is a bunch of armed idiots hoping to hurt them with no training and not, you know, the military? You would actually let a foreign country occupy America because somehow the American military is worse in your mind?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They will be making sure everybody goes through the checkpoints
Checkpoints that might be there to give information and check to see if foreign troops coming are probably a good idea when invaded. They can offer resistance and inform military command of attacks as they happen.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
obeys curfew
Curfew keeps people out of combat zones during fighting and makes it easier to target invading forces.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
and military dictatorship.
During an invasion, the military would have to be in charge. Sorry, civilian governments would not have the logistics or expertise to comman military assets. The CiC is a civilian anyway, so it isn't so much a dictatorship as an electoral republic in charge.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You would be forced to work for crumbs and you would go to prison for saying anything unapproved.
AH!!! here's your real excuse. You would have to make the same amount of money as you do now and couldn't spout nonsense. Let me put you at ease. I was in the military. The pay may seem low, but it isn't. You get 3 meals a day, a place to live and full health care. That by itself is a ton of money. Add the pay and you are actually coming out being paid fairly well. You can say quite a bit without being put in jail. They start the actual paperwork with an Article 15, which is essentially a fine. Keep it up and they increase the fine or go with harsher stuff. Before they do that, you usually get a crap assignment. KP duty for a few weekends, etc. The military is actually pretty forgiving of the things people say, as long as you are within reason. It's made of people that want to defend their loved ones mostly. They aren't going to fly off the handle because someone said that Obama sucks. They'll ask you not to say it publically while in uniform. That's not unreasonable. Either way, you are admitting that if your country was attacked, you would do nothing. Grats on being a selfish little shit.
-
HAHAHAHAHA Hey stupid, I enlisted at 17. How about you? Considering I am the one here that has a track record of being in the military during a time of war and you don't, throwing stones in your glass house is kinda stupid. I may be old and out of shape, but I could easily take a target out with an M-16A3 at a few hundred yards. How about you coward? Would you be showing up and requesting to join the military to defend your country from a foreign invader? And, more importantly, would you want a particle beam, or ballistic weapon against the aliens? I hear they often overlook low tech attacks, like stormtroopers and ewok sticks...
if its aliens i opt for a cold, yes a common cold come on people i've watched war of the worlds !!! :laugh:
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Oh wait, any society that wants to not devolve into anarchy.
If police are the only thing holding back anarchy society has bigger problems than I thought. Now if you'll excuse me I need to go buy more canned foods and shotguns.
It would take a while. ;) They mainly help by removing some of the worst elements when they do their jobs right.
-
if its aliens i opt for a cold, yes a common cold come on people i've watched war of the worlds !!! :laugh:
ah, low tech biological warfare. Good choice!
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Would you be showing up and requesting to join the military to defend your country from a foreign invader?
The thing is though, they will be used against the American people. They will be making sure everybody goes through the checkpoints, obeys curfew, and military dictatorship. You would be forced to work for crumbs and you would go to prison for saying anything unapproved.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
HAHAHAHAHA Hey stupid, I enlisted at 17. How about you? Considering I am the one here that has a track record of being in the military during a time of war and you don't, throwing stones in your glass house is kinda stupid. I may be old and out of shape, but I could easily take a target out with an M-16A3 at a few hundred yards. How about you coward? Would you be showing up and requesting to join the military to defend your country from a foreign invader? And, more importantly, would you want a particle beam, or ballistic weapon against the aliens? I hear they often overlook low tech attacks, like stormtroopers and ewok sticks...
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Would you be showing up and requesting to join the military to defend your country from a foreign invader?
Oh, come on. Captain Coprophilia won't even turn out for a Tea Party to defend his country from taxation!
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
I have to say the gun rights and the justifications for having or banning/controling them fascinate me. For every episode of concealed weapons I can find an accidental shooting. Case in point for the midwest and roughly the center of the US. http://www.omaha.com/article/20100429/NEWS01/704299847[^] Then the accidental shooting. http://www.ketv.com/news/23265294/detail.html[^] Now both are used as examples of defending gun rights and banning gun rights. I'm not much for statistics since those who create them tend to only find the ones that justifies their point of view and not look for the truth, but then again that's just my opinion.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
In America, it's a part of the national religion. You can't discuss it using reason, it just doesn't work. They are so brainwashed that common sense just does not enter into it. I've had many discussions on the topic in the soapbox and I've decided it's a form of selective blindness. I read a book by Michael Shermer called 'what smart people believe dumb things', but, because he's American, he didn't have a chapter on why a country with third world like levels of gun deaths think that guns make them safer than countries like Australia, where we have less and less guns, and a lot less deaths per capita than they do.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
They fascinate you? :wtf: They should anger you, nobody has a right to disarm lawful citizens. People have life, property, family, and their freedom to protect. The police ain't there to come rescue you when someone breaks into your home at night, they aren't comic superheroes. It takes about 10 minutes for the police to arrive, sometimes longer because the police cars are somewhere far away and are stuck in traffic, and other police activities. Get real man, you are in a fantasy land if you think your society is safe without lawful citizen's guns.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
When I said 'ignorant' below, I was actually envisaging finding an idiotic post like this from you when I scanned the other posts afterwards. Thanks for proving me right.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
In America, it's a part of the national religion. You can't discuss it using reason, it just doesn't work. They are so brainwashed that common sense just does not enter into it. I've had many discussions on the topic in the soapbox and I've decided it's a form of selective blindness. I read a book by Michael Shermer called 'what smart people believe dumb things', but, because he's American, he didn't have a chapter on why a country with third world like levels of gun deaths think that guns make them safer than countries like Australia, where we have less and less guns, and a lot less deaths per capita than they do.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
less and less guns, and a lot less deaths per capita than they do.
We've talked guns before and don't really need to rehash our positions on them. But you seem to be implying the presence or absence of guns is the deciding factor on the death/murder rate. I don't think it's anywhere near that easy. I think the largest difference comes from cultural backgrounds, values, etc. I don't know about Australia(haven't been yet), but there are a whole lot of intolerant angry assholes in America. I'd be willing to bet if you could calculate it, the percentage of angry assholes would track nicely with the murder rate. With or without guns.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
less and less guns, and a lot less deaths per capita than they do.
We've talked guns before and don't really need to rehash our positions on them. But you seem to be implying the presence or absence of guns is the deciding factor on the death/murder rate. I don't think it's anywhere near that easy. I think the largest difference comes from cultural backgrounds, values, etc. I don't know about Australia(haven't been yet), but there are a whole lot of intolerant angry assholes in America. I'd be willing to bet if you could calculate it, the percentage of angry assholes would track nicely with the murder rate. With or without guns.
thrakazog wrote:
But you seem to be implying the presence or absence of guns is the deciding factor on the death/murder rate.
Most people who discuss this with me, suggest that by claiming htat I am less safe than them. CSS did it above.
thrakazog wrote:
I don't think it's anywhere near that easy. I think the largest difference comes from cultural backgrounds, values, etc.
I would agree that there are deeper issues in US society that are more of an issue for you. But, guns sure don't seem to be helping.
thrakazog wrote:
I don't know about Australia(haven't been yet), but there are a whole lot of intolerant angry assholes in America. I'd be willing to bet if you could calculate it, the percentage of angry assholes would track nicely with the murder rate. With or without guns.
The number of school shootings between the nations is a decent statistic of deaths that would not occur if kids could not get access to guns, but I'm sure your theory also holds water.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I am a firm believer that everyone within reason (no criminal record) should be allowed a weapon to hunt or defend themselves. I am also a firm believer that military grade weaponry belongs in the military, not in the hands of people. There is no reason you would need to send 3 rounds downrange at anything in less than a second, have tracer rounds, or cut through body armor like butter. It may be weird to have this atitude, but a lot of former military folks do.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I am a firm believer that everyone within reason (no criminal record) should be allowed a weapon to hunt or defend themselves.
Too me this seems misguided. If a bunch of people who are carrying concealed weapons to "defend themselves" have an argument a fist fight often escalates into something much worse. This happens all the time. Then there's the issue that the more guns that are floating around, even for "legitimate" reasons, increases the chances of one getting into the wrong hands.
Steve
-
You would think otherwise when you see foreign troops on the streets setting up checkpoints and roadblocks. Even if our military wasn't overseas and about to go to Iran and we weren't totally bankrupt, wouldn't you want to stand up and fight as your city and country is being destroyed by foreign troops?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
That's laughable - bring on the guns in case you need to defend your country from foreign invaders. These same guns are killing your own citizens and I don't see the U.S. being invaded.
Steve
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I am a firm believer that everyone within reason (no criminal record) should be allowed a weapon to hunt or defend themselves.
Too me this seems misguided. If a bunch of people who are carrying concealed weapons to "defend themselves" have an argument a fist fight often escalates into something much worse. This happens all the time. Then there's the issue that the more guns that are floating around, even for "legitimate" reasons, increases the chances of one getting into the wrong hands.
Steve
You are a hater of humans, so therefor humans are stupid and pathetic, therefor they are not permitted to defend themselves, they are to be subjects, and they are to serve their masters.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
thrakazog wrote:
But you seem to be implying the presence or absence of guns is the deciding factor on the death/murder rate.
Most people who discuss this with me, suggest that by claiming htat I am less safe than them. CSS did it above.
thrakazog wrote:
I don't think it's anywhere near that easy. I think the largest difference comes from cultural backgrounds, values, etc.
I would agree that there are deeper issues in US society that are more of an issue for you. But, guns sure don't seem to be helping.
thrakazog wrote:
I don't know about Australia(haven't been yet), but there are a whole lot of intolerant angry assholes in America. I'd be willing to bet if you could calculate it, the percentage of angry assholes would track nicely with the murder rate. With or without guns.
The number of school shootings between the nations is a decent statistic of deaths that would not occur if kids could not get access to guns, but I'm sure your theory also holds water.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
The number of school shootings between the nations is a decent statistic of deaths that would not occur if kids could not get access to guns, but I'm sure your theory also holds water.
To add to this, it's also largely ignored or dismissed that access to firearms is a profound risk factor for completed suicide. N Engl J Med. 2008 Sep 4;359(10):989-91. Guns and suicide in the United States. Miller M, Hemenway D. Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, USA. Three additional findings from the case–control studies are worth noting. The higher risk of suicide in homes with firearms applies not only to the gun owner but also to the gun owner's spouse and children. The presence of a gun in the home, no matter how the gun is stored, is a risk factor for completed suicide. and The empirical evidence linking suicide risk in the United States to the presence of firearms in the home is compelling. ... The association between guns in the home and the risk of suicide is due entirely to a large increase in the risk of suicide by firearm that is not counterbalanced by a reduced risk of nonfirearm suicide. Moreover, the increased risk of suicide is not explained by increased psychopathologic characteristics, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempts among members of gun-owning households. and Why might the availability of firearms increase the risk of suicide in the United States? First, many suicidal acts — one third to four fifths of all suicide attempts, according to studies — are impulsive. Among people who made near-lethal suicide attempts, for example, 24% took less than 5 minutes between the decision to kill themselves and the actual attempt, and 70% took less than 1 hour.2 Second, many suicidal crises are self-limiting. ... more than 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt, including attempts that were expected to be lethal (such as shooting oneself in the head or jumping in front of a train), do not go on to die by suicide. Third, guns are common in the United States (more than one third of U.S. households contain a firearm) and are lethal. A suicide attempt with a firearm rarely affords a second chance. Attempts involving drugs or cutting, which account for more than 90% of all suicidal acts, prove fatal far less often. are some choice tidbits. Owning a gun is a risk-benefit scenario as the article above points out but I h
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The number of school shootings between the nations is a decent statistic of deaths that would not occur if kids could not get access to guns, but I'm sure your theory also holds water.
To add to this, it's also largely ignored or dismissed that access to firearms is a profound risk factor for completed suicide. N Engl J Med. 2008 Sep 4;359(10):989-91. Guns and suicide in the United States. Miller M, Hemenway D. Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, USA. Three additional findings from the case–control studies are worth noting. The higher risk of suicide in homes with firearms applies not only to the gun owner but also to the gun owner's spouse and children. The presence of a gun in the home, no matter how the gun is stored, is a risk factor for completed suicide. and The empirical evidence linking suicide risk in the United States to the presence of firearms in the home is compelling. ... The association between guns in the home and the risk of suicide is due entirely to a large increase in the risk of suicide by firearm that is not counterbalanced by a reduced risk of nonfirearm suicide. Moreover, the increased risk of suicide is not explained by increased psychopathologic characteristics, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempts among members of gun-owning households. and Why might the availability of firearms increase the risk of suicide in the United States? First, many suicidal acts — one third to four fifths of all suicide attempts, according to studies — are impulsive. Among people who made near-lethal suicide attempts, for example, 24% took less than 5 minutes between the decision to kill themselves and the actual attempt, and 70% took less than 1 hour.2 Second, many suicidal crises are self-limiting. ... more than 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt, including attempts that were expected to be lethal (such as shooting oneself in the head or jumping in front of a train), do not go on to die by suicide. Third, guns are common in the United States (more than one third of U.S. households contain a firearm) and are lethal. A suicide attempt with a firearm rarely affords a second chance. Attempts involving drugs or cutting, which account for more than 90% of all suicidal acts, prove fatal far less often. are some choice tidbits. Owning a gun is a risk-benefit scenario as the article above points out but I h
Really the real cause of the suicides is antidepressants and the like that explicitly state that a major side-effect is suicide. Give me a fucking break. People are so miserable because of the chemicalized foods, destructive drugs pushed by doctors and governments, and rampant tyranny causing great misery to the people.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Really the real cause of the suicides is antidepressants and the like that explicitly state that a major side-effect is suicide. Give me a fucking break. People are so miserable because of the chemicalized foods, destructive drugs pushed by doctors and governments, and rampant tyranny causing great misery to the people.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Really the real cause of the suicides is antidepressants and the like that explicitly state that a major side-effect is suicide.
Perhaps this is a factor, but not every suicide is on these drugs.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
People are so miserable because of the chemicalized foods, destructive drugs pushed by doctors and governments, and rampant tyranny causing great misery to the people.
Well, what do you expect ? Do you want to take away their freedom to eat what they want, demand the drugs they want of thier doctors, etc ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Really the real cause of the suicides is antidepressants and the like that explicitly state that a major side-effect is suicide.
Perhaps this is a factor, but not every suicide is on these drugs.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
People are so miserable because of the chemicalized foods, destructive drugs pushed by doctors and governments, and rampant tyranny causing great misery to the people.
Well, what do you expect ? Do you want to take away their freedom to eat what they want, demand the drugs they want of thier doctors, etc ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, what do you expect ?
I expect media to report on how the chemicals in the food cause health problems, and how the culture is based on garbage designed to make young people feel bad about themselves and to worship whorish celebrates.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]