Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 188

Thread: Why You NEED Standard Capacity Magzines: Multiple Home Invaders

  1. -111
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,284
    vCash:
    30561
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    I would certainly agree with you that they need to be well regulated. I also believe that there a lot of idiots out there on both sides of the fence who have no basis in logic or reality. I just saw a walrus make some semblance of an endorsement that guns should be banned altogether and would like to hear how he would implement that if given the opportunity without inciting what could reasonably become a civil war. Everybody keeps referring to Sandy Hook but needs to remember that those murders were committed with stolen weapons.
    I have no idea how it would work, or what would be involved. Australia would be an example, at least in the initial phase. Mostly though I'm just stating my preference. I don't think I have to have every detail worked out to do that.

    FWIW though if people would really initiate a civil war over gun ownership... that tells your everything about how ridiculous this has gotten. To initiate treason against the United States over one's gun is to identify oneself as a moronic *******.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -112
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,587
    vCash:
    13170
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Re: Why You NEED Standard Capacity Magzines: Multiple Home Invaders

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    I have no idea how it would work, or what would be involved. Australia would be an example, at least in the initial phase. Mostly though I'm just stating my preference. I don't think I have to have every detail worked out to do that.

    FWIW though if people would really initiate a civil war over gun ownership... that tells your everything about how ridiculous this has gotten. To initiate treason against the United States over one's gun is to identify oneself as a moronic *******.
    Some, including me, would view disarming the populous as treasonous. You are way too smart to make emotional, knee-jerk comments and decisions such as this. Thoughts of disarming the populous are absurd and ultimately would do nothing to protect anyone. The whole concept is completely ludicrous.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -113
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,284
    vCash:
    30561
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    Some, including me, would view disarming the populous as treasonous. You are way too smart to make emotional, knee-jerk comments and decisions such as this. Thoughts of disarming the populous are absurd and ultimately would do nothing to protect anyone. The whole concept is completely ludicrous.
    Changing the law on gun ownership =/= shooting Marines. Sorry, but under no flag of reasonable discourse is that comparison going to fly.

    Amendments change, the interpretation of amendments change, and you're free to agitate for whatever change you want. You're even free to defy the law if you can and will pay the prescribed penalty if you're caught. But once you start shooting members of the armed forces because they're enforcing the law then you've crossed the line into treason and should be shot on sight.

    As for the rest... first of all, I don't think total elimination of gun ownership is so absurd a proposition that it can't even be discussed. I'm not talking about taking a jet pack to Mars. Let's talk about it. Secondly, I reject out of hand that notion it wouldn't protect people. Look at Australia for reference. The numbers are clear. If anything is ridiculous, it's the proposition that fewer guns would not result in fewer gun deaths. That defies even the basest common sense. If you want to make a rational argument against gun control, focus on the fact that all freedom comes with a price, and that the death total due to gun violence is acceptable because... I dunno, you take it from there.

    My shift on this issue is not due to Aurora or Sandy Hook. All those incidents did was cause me to go back and reexamine my position from the ground up and see if they held water. I decided it didn't, that's all. And nothing from the rhetoric from the anti-gun control advocates has convinced me they care even a whit about the people who die so they can own daddy's shotgun and pretend that if someone came into the house with a gun they'd blow them away instead of doing what they'd actually do, which is **** their pants.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -114
    GoonBoss's Avatar
    Finheaven Templar

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    19,063
    vCash:
    12197
    Loc:
    The Crossroads of TX
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    I have no idea how it would work, or what would be involved. Australia would be an example, at least in the initial phase. Mostly though I'm just stating my preference. I don't think I have to have every detail worked out to do that.

    FWIW though if people would really initiate a civil war over gun ownership... that tells your everything about how ridiculous this has gotten. To initiate treason against the United States over one's gun is to identify oneself as a moronic *******.
    Australians went quietly. We wont.


    Quote Quote  

  5. -115
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,284
    vCash:
    30561
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by GoonBoss View Post
    Australians went quietly. We wont.
    I'd laugh if you weren't insinuating that you're willing to kill members of the US armed forces so you can keep your gun.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -116
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,587
    vCash:
    13170
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Re: Why You NEED Standard Capacity Magzines: Multiple Home Invaders

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Changing the law on gun ownership =/= shooting Marines. Sorry, but under no flag of reasonable discourse is that comparison going to fly.

    Amendments change, the interpretation of amendments change, and you're free to agitate for whatever change you want. You're even free to defy the law if you can and will pay the prescribed penalty if you're caught. But once you start shooting members of the armed forces because they're enforcing the law then you've crossed the line into treason and should be shot on sight.

    As for the rest... first of all, I don't think total elimination of gun ownership is so absurd a proposition that it can't even be discussed. I'm not talking about taking a jet pack to Mars. Let's talk about it. Secondly, I reject out of hand that notion it wouldn't protect people. Look at Australia for reference. The numbers are clear. If anything is ridiculous, it's the proposition that fewer guns would not result in fewer gun deaths. That defies even the basest common sense. If you want to make a rational argument against gun control, focus on the fact that all freedom comes with a price, and that the death total due to gun violence is acceptable because... I dunno, you take it from there.

    My shift on this issue is not due to Aurora or Sandy Hook. All those incidents did was cause me to go back and reexamine my position from the ground up and see if they held water. I decided it didn't, that's all. And nothing from the rhetoric from the anti-gun control advocates has convinced me they care even a whit about the people who die so they can own daddy's shotgun and pretend that if someone came into the house with a gun they'd blow them away instead of doing what they'd actually do, which is **** their pants.
    We aren't talking about simply changing a law then complying. We are taking about changing a fundamental principal of the constitution. The constitution calls for us to resist tyranny in the second amendment and overturning that amendment would be tyrannical. Key someone come into my home and we will see who ****s their pants.

    For the record, I don't have a problem with reasonable gun control or regulations but the idiots with the most air time on both sides are complete morons. There really is a reasonable middle here that is fairly easy to find. Gun confiscation will cause a civil war...bank on it. Unregulated arms trade will cause anarchy. Somewhere in the middle is where reasonable people dwell.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -117
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,284
    vCash:
    30561
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    We aren't talking about simply changing a law then complying. We are taking about changing a fundamental principal of the constitution. The constitution calls for us to resist tyranny in the second amendment and overturning that amendment would be tyrannical.
    The second amendment isn't about "resisting tyranny" for God's sake. Show me something -- anything -- from the period that says that was their intention. The second amendment was written at a time when there was no national army. All we had were militias, made up of people who supplied their own weapons. The "security" of the state depended on them because, you know, the USMC and the US Navy hadn't been invented yet. The founders probably felt like that's always how our defense would be organized, that we'd never be like the British and have a regular army.

    Didn't end up that way. Now that the "security of a free state" is secured by other means, a "well regulated militia" is no longer needed. The amendment therefore has no bearing on modern society.

    Key someone come into my home and we will see who ****s their pants.
    Better people than you have failed in that situation.

    For the record, I don't have a problem with reasonable gun control or regulations but the idiots with the most air time on both sides are complete morons. There really is a reasonable middle here that is fairly easy to find. Gun confiscation will cause a civil war...bank on it. Unregulated arms trade will cause anarchy. Somewhere in the middle is where reasonable people dwell.
    I don't see a "reasonable middle" being found any time soon, not as long as the will of 95% of the population is thwarted by a well financed whack job minority who seeks to utterly poison the well at every opportunity.

    This "gun confiscation will cause a civil war" line of thought in interesting, though, because it shows just how far the madness has spread. The idea that people would throw their flag in the dirt and look to fight -- to the death -- with their own Army... over GUNS... tells me that people need to really examine their priorities in this matter. Or maybe they need to just need to say **** it and forget about the Stars and Stripes and start pledging allegiance to a flag with a .30-06 on it. 'Cause apparently that's what really matters to them.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -118
    SpurzN703's Avatar
    I like your style Dude

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2004
    Posts:
    26,750
    vCash:
    7943
    Loc:
    703 Virginia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 91Tannehill 172013 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by GoonBoss View Post
    Australians went quietly. We wont.
    How so?



    Quote Quote  

  9. -119
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,587
    vCash:
    13170
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Re: Why You NEED Standard Capacity Magzines: Multiple Home Invaders

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    The second amendment isn't about "resisting tyranny" for God's sake. Show me something -- anything -- from the period that says that was their intention. The second amendment was written at a time when there was no national army. All we had were militias, made up of people who supplied their own weapons. The "security" of the state depended on them because, you know, the USMC and the US Navy hadn't been invented yet. The founders probably felt like that's always how our defense would be organized, that we'd never be like the British and have a regular army.

    Didn't end up that way. Now that the "security of a free state" is secured by other means, a "well regulated militia" is no longer needed. The amendment therefore has no bearing on modern society.



    Better people than you have failed in that situation.



    I don't see a "reasonable middle" being found any time soon, not as long as the will of 95% of the population is thwarted by a well financed whack job minority who seeks to utterly poison the well at every opportunity.

    This "gun confiscation will cause a civil war" line of thought in interesting, though, because it shows just how far the madness has spread. The idea that people would throw their flag in the dirt and look to fight -- to the death -- with their own Army... over GUNS... tells me that people need to really examine their priorities in this matter. Or maybe they need to just need to say **** it and forget about the Stars and Stripes and start pledging allegiance to a flag with a .30-06 on it. 'Cause apparently that's what really matters to them.
    For someone who is generally so smart and fairly rational, you have gone completely nuts. It is not the guns that would cause me or anyone else to stand up against our government, it is the fundamental infringement on liberty and imminent tyranny that follows. I will not bow to anyone yet I would gladly die to protect our country. I served and love this country but when the government becomes tyrannical, my country is dead.

    With that being said, we will have to agree to strongly disagree in the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. To me, the fundamental reason it exists is to ensure an armed populous that can not be oppressed by force.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -120
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,587
    vCash:
    13170
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Re: Why You NEED Standard Capacity Magzines: Multiple Home Invaders

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    I don't see a "reasonable middle" being found any time soon, not as long as the will of 95% of the population is thwarted by a well financed whack job minority who seeks to utterly poison the well at every opportunity.
    Are you referring to the Right-Wing Nut Jobs, the Ultra-Liberals or more accurately, both? By the way, no where near 95% of the US population believes in or against gun control. It is more split down the middle than anything.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-05-2013, 11:20 AM
  2. Saudis signal boost in production capacity
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-21-2008, 09:42 PM
  3. Iran Doubles Nuke Enrichment Capacity
    By WharfRat in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-28-2006, 03:34 PM
  4. Again with the double standard
    By PhinPhan1227 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-28-2006, 02:16 PM
  5. Double standard
    By 67Stang in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-30-2004, 01:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •