Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/1/09 11:26 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Oh yes another point/question (really I'm ONLY asking questions and speaking my thoughts on the subject, which is a contribution, to the thread...)

If you support gun rights for individuals: i.e. the right for a person to govern and protect themselves (these two may not be the same, if so, explain)

If these are the same. Then, why do you support the need for a militant government?

Isn't that redundant, to have that strong of a police force if you can defend yourself.

Polices? HA! Polices only take account on what happened and who fucked who over. The real protection is yourself.

At 3/1/09 11:44 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:
It is.

But then again, police are primarily there for people who aren't capable of defending themselves.

Well tyranny of a lazy majority sucks. :(

ty for being patient

At 3/1/09 10:54 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: My point is banning guns is even dumber than killing someone with one.

Really? You could have fooled me.

I mean really, if you're going to kill someone, do it with your bare hands. Most do. That's my fucking point.

Actually, most don't.

Wait a second, if I love everyone and everything though, wouldn't 'it not matter if someone was about to kill me?

No, because you love everyone and everything, you made no mention of what everyone else was doing while you were in your own private Idaho. You were sitting there just being at peace with the universe when someone decided to murder you for the fun of it, don't you feel stupid?

Yes. Sorry. But I also said that your argument about 200,000 of violence making said violence inseparable from humanity is like that dinosaurs didn't grow feathers.

We're the only species on the planet that wages war on each other for generations on end for reasons beyond habitat and mating rights. Have you ever noticed that?

And by the way? Some dinosaurs did grow feathers.

Reality check, you just called a forum mankind.

We're all members of mankind.

At 3/1/09 11:26 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Then, why do you support the need for a militant government?

The government does not allow the military to operate inside our borders, see; Posse Comitatus Act.

to have that strong of a police force if you can defend yourself.

The job of the of the police is to "protect and serve" only when they are on the scene. When they are not, or are on their way, you're on your own. Even they will tell you that. You the individual are responsible for your own well being, and you are the first line of defense in any situation where your well being is in danger. If you don't do the logical thing and arm yourself (either through self defense classes, carrying mace or a key chain weapon, or getting a gun for home and personal defense), then evolution will kick in when you least expect it and remove you from the rest of the heard.

wow prot, my point was that dinosaurs did grow feathers. As in they changed.

I would think that people would be able to change too.

I guess I need how to be more clear.

And no I don't feel stupid for someone else's stupidity if they decide to murder me.

"Actually most don't."

Couldn't you tell that I already knew that from the way I wrote that sentence. Why would I even say that if it was already what happens.

Come on, prot.

At 3/1/09 12:51 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Question: Would you buy a gun if it couldn't kill someone?

Yes, when I was an undergrad I shot on my school's rifle team. We shot precision .177 air rifles. As a joke sometimes we would shoot each other in the back as one of us went "down range" to replace a target. Now the "armchair gun-phobes" (God I love that quote!) are probably gasping that this is horrible and irresponsible. "You'll put your eye out!" Instantly comes to mind. However, we wore leather jackets that helped keep our posture correct and our aim steady and the only way we knew we had been shot was the noise it made.

Now I know what you're probably going to say: "that is not a real gun". But it gets to the core of your question, which is to link shooting with a desire to kill. I love to shoot just to develop the skill. It is a challenge to overcome and a competion with myself...even when competing against others. It need not be destructive or lethal to be fun.

But that said, many choose to hunt to either supplement their diet...or in some places it provides the protein needs of some impoverished rural families. Sport hunters (aka; City Hunters...and yes there is a difference) often donate their kills to food pantries to feed the less fortunate in rural and urban settings. So if you're engaging in this sport, then you are going to require a weapon that can kill a human...because humans and deer are not altogether different in terms of size. Furthermore, some larger game require more killing power than it takes to kill someone.

Finally, cops in either rural or urban settings are not there to protect. Their real job is to fill out the report and help with clean-up. In rural counties you will have two deputies patrolling upwards of 600 miles of roads. This means thousands of people are without effective police coverage. Even if you're being raped/murdered and the cop is driving with full lights & sirens...he may still be 2-3 hours away. (People in Europe do not comprehend this fact, they are used to small geography.) In urban settings there is such a demand on the police's services that their ability to respond is questionable at best. The result; there is a need for people to have a firearm for self-defense. This requires lethal force.

Question: Do you think more or less individuals would buy banned guns if they weren't banned?

Talk or anxiety regarding banning does increase sales for these firearms. Some of this is people who are collectors or thinking about them feel the need to stock-up or get them sooner so that when they decide that they really would like one...they'll have it instead of it being banned.

But yes there is a definite market for these firearms that is legitimate and non-criminal in nature.

But this question is also irrelevent. The question on whether or not they should be banned is do they pose a public risk that makes their banning a reasonable errosion of a civil right?

The answer is a resounding "no" when you cut through the rhetoric and look at the technology & ballistics (science) and statistics (social science). The FACTS all point to things like the AWB to be bad governance...very bad governance.

At 2/17/09 02:09 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: You know what the best control for poison is.

Not having any.

I carry my firearm for the same reason I bring tools to a construction site. A "gun" is not for flash or to prove how "cool" you are. A firearm is a tool for the use of hunting prey or protecting life.
A firearm in the hands or purse of trained 110lb woman brings her to the same playing field of a 225lb would-be rapist.
It sickens me to see how this generation views guns. But far worse is lawmakers thinking that "gun control" will make the law abiding citizen safer.

But at the heart of this is the term assault rifle. An assult rifle is able to select between an automatic mode and semi-auto mode of fire. These weapons are already well regulated. This is why you rarely hear of a crime committed with a true automatic rifle. The "assault weapon" ban in states like CA are more based on looks than on lethality. It is possible to turn a semi-auto .22 into an "assault weapon" simply by slapping plastic on the frame.

PM me if you want to know more about why you should have the right to own a firearm.

You should have the right to own anything.

Banning something is indeed part of the poison.

At 3/2/09 11:13 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: wow prot, my point was that dinosaurs did grow feathers. As in they changed.

You were using a comparative analogy to make you're point, which made the sentence read as thought you really didn't think dinosaurs grew feathers.

And no I don't feel stupid for someone else's stupidity if they decide to murder me.

But do you feel stupid because you chose not to arm yourself or prepare accordingly? That's what my point was.

At 3/3/09 06:14 PM, Proteas wrote:
You were using a comparative analogy to make you're point, which made the sentence read as thought you really didn't think dinosaurs grew feathers.

My mistake then.

But do you feel stupid because you chose not to arm yourself or prepare accordingly? That's what my point was.

How would arming myself physically be accordingly when I am already at peace with the universe? I'm not, no fucking way, but that was my point. Preparedness is relative. So I assume, you're talking about being prepared for survival.

Well, what is surviving? My genes? My species? My genes get broken down and their matter gets reused by the earth. They're not gone.

My species obviously isn't gone either.

I don't see what there is to fret about. I suppose, my friends and family. I guess you've got me there.

At 3/3/09 07:30 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: How would arming myself physically be accordingly when I am already at peace with the universe? I'm not, no fucking way, but that was my point. Preparedness is relative. So I assume, you're talking about being prepared for survival.

You're existing in your own blissed out state of mind whilst paying no attention to the world around you.

And you don't see a problem with it.

Can you say "Darin Award?"

And just so you know, I don't debate via pm.

What words could you possibly muster to make someone with a gun "go away," beside "here's my wallet?"

On the contrary prot, if I were to be in such a state of mind it would come ONLY from paying COMPLETE attention to EVERYTHING around me.

At 3/3/09 09:30 PM, Proteas wrote: And just so you know, I don't debate via pm.

It was a concession.

What words could you possibly muster to make someone with a gun "go away," beside "here's my wallet?"

Entirely dependent on the situation.

I would also say that body language and general demeanor would be far more important than even saying anything.

At 3/3/09 09:38 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: On the contrary prot, if I were to be in such a state of mind it would come ONLY from paying COMPLETE attention to EVERYTHING around me.

"Nirvanna" is defined as "a place or state characterized by freedom from or oblivion to pain, worry, and the external world."

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do not believe I mentioned the word nirvana.

Even that definition. External world could mean things in the world that are unnecessary, material things. That's what I get when I read that definition at least.

But again, that's not what I meant by at peace. (which I'm not)

At 3/3/09 09:52 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but I do not believe I mentioned the word nirvana.

You didn't, but until you can come up with a better word to describe this wonderful state of blissfull existence with the world....

Being happy? Loving? Chill? Relaxed?

Also if I carry around a weapon or self-defense mechanism of some sort, I will CONSTANTLY be reminded of why I have it. And that is a thought that I don't want entering my mind. That's weak though, because no doubt eventually it wouldn't enter at all.

If we're talking about a mugging situation, I would gladly give up anything I had. If that person is that desperate and brave enough to commit such an act then they have my respect. And I will SHOW that respect, and make it apparent that I see them as an equal. Not show fear, fear is basically, "you're an animal, a monster."

At 3/3/09 09:38 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: On the contrary prot, if I were to be in such a state of mind it would come ONLY from paying COMPLETE attention to EVERYTHING around me.

At 3/3/09 09:30 PM, Proteas wrote: And just so you know, I don't debate via pm.

It was a concession.

What words could you possibly muster to make someone with a gun "go away," beside "here's my wallet?"

Entirely dependent on the situation.

Getting back to your supposition that gun owners want to kill someone - do you have any idea of the hell people may have to go through (emotionally and financially) even when a trial finds their actions justifiable? It may involve years of legal hassles (and their related legal fees). I listened to a podcast today that put it all in perspective. Prosecutors are out to win cases for political gains. Civil lawyers are out for financial awards. These are the people you are up against - even when you are in the right. They aren't concerned with you being right. They are concerned with winning a case, to further their careers.

Self defense instructors have a couple slogans:

1) "nobody wins a gun fight, there are just differing degrees of losing".
2) "the best gunfight is the gunfight you avoid"

That is why you are trained to retreat to your bedroom, lock the door, arm yourself, call the police, and wait for them to arrive. You don't go looking for the criminal.

Now, getting to your situation, it sounds like you have elected to be what we call a "sheep". A sheep is someone who refuses to acknowledge danger, and when confronted with it, chooses not to resist. The wolf comes along and eats the sheep.

If that is your choice, then so be it. That is a personal choice, and up to nobody but you can make that decision.

On the other hand, there are the "sheep dogs". Those are the people who, when confronted by a wolf chooses to fight back. The sheep dog may even elect to help out the sheep (though from a liability standpoint is trained NOT to). Another personal choice.

The problem is that the sheep are trying to make laws that prevent the sheep dogs from doing their job. The problem is that the wolves are still out there.

Because I totally repeatedly said gun owners are crazy killers.

And I have totally been saying what sheep say, things like "guns are bad."

Oh wait I didn't.

I also only mentioned letting someone kill me as an argument of semantics concerning the term "prepared."

Like, also, in my line of thought, the sheep, the sheep dog, and the wolf, are all the same.

I completely agree, and I think the sheep dog should have no reason to be on the same level as a wolf. Isn't that metaphor painting you as weaker than criminals?

Also. Again. I am not a sheep. I'm like, a coyote or something at the moment. (honestly trying to find the best animal that would accurately describe me in that metaphor)

At 3/4/09 12:20 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Isn't that metaphor painting you as weaker than criminals?

Yes, because criminals do not play by the same rules you do. They can, will, and do prey on the weaker members of society for their own gain.

I'm like, a coyote or something at the moment. (honestly trying to find the best animal that would accurately describe me in that metaphor)

Coyote = Wolf in that example, so you're not really helping your case...

Let me put it this way, outside of opressive invasion from within or without what scenario would an average joe need this level of firepower for?
I'm never going to say don't defend yourself but there are reasonable limits.

At 3/4/09 07:23 PM, stafffighter wrote: I'm never going to say don't defend yourself but there are reasonable limits.

Reasonable limits are in place, the problem is that the upcoming generation does not realize that these limits are already in place. We have a ridiculous number of gun laws in this country to drive that point home, and people want more of them for near non-existant problems (i.e.; crime comitted by "assault rifles").

At 3/4/09 07:23 PM, stafffighter wrote: Let me put it this way, outside of opressive invasion from within or without what scenario would an average joe need this level of firepower for?
I'm never going to say don't defend yourself but there are reasonable limits.

Please explain to me why the same semi-automatic rifles that we've had and been shooting for the past 100 years are now "unreasonable". Is it because they now have pistol grips? Because they now have bayonet lugs? Flash suppressors?

I think a "reasonable limit" is that which allows you to accomplish what you are trying to do. These guns allow me to shoot in 600 yd matches. They allow me to compete in 3 gun speed matches. They allow me to inexpensively plink. They allow me to hunt. They allow me to protect my home.

So, I'd say these fit the reasonable limit criteria.