Pro-Gun Anti-Gun.

[Onyx]

Originally Posted by Delkaetre

I still want to know the justification for eight guns.
If you have one hand gun you carry at all times, and a second kept at home as backup, and a rifle for hunting and (if you're, pardon my French, fucking batshit and think you're going to have shoot people in a civil war that will break out any month now) possibly ranged self defence, that's still just THREE guns. Not eight.

The other five- are they rare collectors' items, historical pieces, heirlooms? In which case they don't need to be functional, because they're display pieces. Do you just really like owning lots and lots of highly lethal weapons? In which case, I'd really like to know why desire to own things is sufficient justification for owning them. I might like to own rare or deadly animals, but I certainly wouldn't acquire them just because I really want to.

Unlike clothing, books, paintings, sculpture, records and so on, guns are not a harmless thing to collect. Guns are deadly, and if someone broke into your house while you were away, that's (presumably) seven more lethal weapons now loose in the local criminal community. A break in isn't terribly likely, but if you're paranoid to go constantly armed, then you should be paranoid enough to recognise the risk of burglary while you're away.
You need better justification to collect guns than just wanting to, you need actual reasons.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a couple of actual responsible gun owners a while back, both of whom laughed at the idea of a gun being good for home defense. Their positions were that, if a gun is readily available enough to defend yourself with then it is a danger to your family and community, one of your children could get to it or it could be stolen if your house was broken into. While, on the other hand, if the gun is properly stored away as to not be a danger then chances are that you will be unable to access it quickly enough to be ready to defend yourself.

You have to figure that, with average house size, in a home invasion it is only going to take a minute or two for the thugs to find you so, unless you're locked and loaded within a minute the criminals will be on you before the gun is ready.

When I asked what they would do if they heard someone kick in their back door at night one of them responded "Go out the bedroom window!".

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

That's because you guys are counting on someone shooting the plates,head shots are tricky but when pulled off they do have good results.

Terminus already addressed most of this but do you really think you can do that? It's not just a case of being able to hit a small target, but being able to do it while under fire from a group of people with superior weapons, knowing that unlike them you have no armour.

Were this a real situation surely they would be able to make a reasonable guess of how many people are in the area and how much force they'd need to overcome any resistance. Even with others on your side you would still be outgunned, way beyond the point of "it's not going to be easy".

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Terminus already addressed most of this but do you really think you can do that? It's not just a case of being able to hit a small target, but being able to do it while under fire from a group of people with superior weapons, knowing that unlike them you have no armour.

Were this a real situation surely they would be able to make a reasonable guess of how many people are in the area and how much force they'd need to overcome any resistance. Even with others on your side you would still be outgunned, way beyond the point of "it's not going to be easy".

No it's in the case of hitting a moving,small target area,that can shoot back.

I feel more than up to the task,all I need to do is my part the rifle and ammunition will do the rest.

As I said before I would continue to do so until victory in life or defeat in death, no matter what happens in which order,I'll still fight if/when the time comes.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Never mind the fact that guys like me (Civilians) would be on the field,these would be the guys that would back the Civilian Population up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zztaj...layer_embedded

[Alan]

In anything? What if the revolution is for socialism? Would you back it if it's popularly demanded?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

No,I would not I would instead suggest we recognize State Sovereignty and begin rebuilding at the Local level.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Individual States will decide their own local governments and how they function,through choices made by their Citizens.

[Alan]

Why the states? Texas wanted to secede and El Paso didn't.
We always get less money than we give back to the state. We are economically leftist but are shut up because we're just in a small corner of the state. We wanted to open discussion for the legalization of marijuana and Texas threatened to cut our funds if we continued to push this forward.
Why should the state have the right to impose itself unto us with more ferocity than the federal government?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Alan

Why the states? Texas wanted to secede and El Paso didn't.
We always get less money than we give back to the state. We are economically leftist but are shut up because we're just in a small corner of the state. We wanted to open discussion for the legalization of marijuana and Texas threatened to cut our funds if we continued to push this forward.
Why should the state have the right to impose itself unto us with more ferocity than the federal government?

Let me repeat this one more fucking time,and I hope to hell it sinks in this time.

The People (Like You and Me) make choices at the LOCAL LEVEL and that in turn effects things state wide,as well as at the national level,the states can also instate their 10th Amendment rights and dissolve the Union until every one is satisfied about what this country will be Re-Unified as.

[Terminus]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Never mind the fact that guys like me (Civilians) would be on the field,these would be the guys that would back the Civilian Population up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zztaj...layer_embedded

I know that Oath. Guess what part of that Oath is? "And that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Even in that amount of time they couldn't get there fast enough to stop us from moving away and focus on hitting other patrols.

And the best way to avoid a sweep from the air is to keep moving,even with the 45-minute time frame a bunch of guys that know the hills would be in a completely different spot,ready for another strike.

I'm sorry, but you can't outrun Predators and Reapers. Who the hell do you think we've been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 8 years? The Taliban fire at American troops, then run back in to the hills. And you know what happens? Predators and Reapers follow them, and then light them up like Christmas trees, assuming that the Blackhawks, Apaches, and Spookys don't find them first!

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Let me repeat this one more fucking time,and I hope to hell it sinks in this time.

The People (Like You and Me) make choices at the LOCAL LEVEL and that in turn effects things state wide,as well as at the national level,the states can also instate their 10th Amendment rights and dissolve the Union until every one is satisfied about what this country will be Re-Unified as.

And in all that it goes back to the same thing.

Let ME repeat this one more fucking time, and I hope to hell it sinks this time:


Nothing you've fucking said is even remotely close to a rationalization of how a civil war that will obviously end in thousands if not millions of deaths, a broken infrastructure, and a power vacuum, will allow people to make better choices by VOTING than today with VOTING and not killing anyone.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Terminus

I know that Oath. Guess what part of that Oath is? "And that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."



I'm sorry, but you can't outrun Predators and Reapers. Who the hell do you think we've been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 8 years? The Taliban fire at American troops, then run back in to the hills. And you know what happens? Predators and Reapers follow them, and then light them up like Christmas trees, assuming that the Blackhawks, Apaches, and Spookys don't find them first!

What does it say about "A duty to refuse Unlawful Orders made by Superior Officers"?

Who said I would hit and run into the hills when clearly the best thing to do once initiating a conflict with a known enemy of greater strength,is to keep pressure on the enemy by a series of hit and run attacks one right after the other,as soon as one shot is fired reload on the move to a different position,once at that position continue as best as possible to constantly harass the enemy,to cause confussion,and to demoralize through casualties.

All that would be needed is to stay in close to them so if they do use that firepower advantage they run the risk of killing their own people.

It wouldn't be massive strings of fire by any means,but static well placed shots,keep in mind that I don't really plan on living through any of it if if what we have been talking about happens ,I know that I can be killed just the same as anyone else.

But make no mistake about this,if a civil war does happen I will do my best to defend this republic and what it once stood for.

[Saya]

And we can let them know your plans since you posted them on a public forum. Now they know what to expect, dude.

[Duane]

At the expense of maybe hundereds of soldiers live's, you do your country proud, DMW.

[Terminus]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

What does it say about "A duty to refuse Unlawful Orders made by Superior Officers"?

The oath itself? Nothing. Unless you can prove the order violates the UCMJ or the Constitution itself, I have an obligation to follow it.

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Who said I would hit and run into the hills when clearly the best thing to do once initiating a conflict with a known enemy of greater strength,is to keep pressure on the enemy by a series of hit and run attacks one right after the other,as soon as one shot is fired reload on the move to a different position,once at that position continue as best as possible to constantly harass the enemy,to cause confussion,and to demoralize through casualties.

The Viet Cong tried that, and that resulted in a 1 to 5 kill ratio in favor of the United States. The Iraqis and Afghanis have also tried that, resulting in similar kill ratios, all in favor of the United States.

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

All that would be needed is to stay in close to them so if they do use that firepower advantage they run the risk of killing their own people.

And by the time you're that close, the foot soldiers have killed you because you no longer have a range or stealth advantage.

[Delkaetre]

Do you think Deadman's put me on ignore? I still don't have an answer (and I can and will be annoying tenacious), and even when someone else has quoted my post to show why there's not really much need for even those few guns, there's still no answer!

It's a very simple question. There are eight guns- what is the justification for each individual firearm to make each gun indispensable as part of the collection?

[Terminus]

Originally Posted by Delkaetre

It's a very simple question. There are eight guns- what is the justification for each individual firearm to make each gun indispensable as part of the collection?

I've been thinking about this, and I have a question: Why does he need a justification for each firearm?

[msg_themoon]

i cant wait to have my gun for the purpose of firing at an enemy who threatens my life, but if that enemy is me then what?

[Alan]

Jesus christ, that was fucking lame.

[msg_themoon]

Really? Oh man. I was trying to be serious and poetic not lame. Oh My. This is not going good for me at all.

[Delkaetre]

Terminus- because I can see a reason to have one, or two, or maybe even three.
But to have five more than that seems needless, serves no purpose, and can only endanger others (beyond the cause of self defence).

So I want to know what his reasoning is for these guns. And, since he said earlier that each gun has a unique purpose, I'd like to know what's so special that he can't make do with just two or maybe three.

If he can't explain why he has all these guns, then I seriously doubt that he should have these guns. As with my previous example, guns are more dangerous than shoes, handbags, paintings, china figurines. Guns, if stolen, will quite likely be lethal- if they're resold on the black market, they probably won't be going to decorate someone's home, but for actual use. A better reason than 'just because I like them' should surely be offered, and it's not like it should be hard for him to do so.

In short- the justification for having such an unusually large number of lethal weapons, given previous statements about 'self defence' which do not explain it.

He can question me if he likes about the things I have, or believe in, or support- but nothing I have or do will directly kill people.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Delkaetre

Do you think Deadman's put me on ignore? I still don't have an answer (and I can and will be annoying tenacious), and even when someone else has quoted my post to show why there's not really much need for even those few guns, there's still no answer!

It's a very simple question. There are eight guns- what is the justification for each individual firearm to make each gun indispensable as part of the collection?

No I didn't put you on ignore.

I don't really have to answer your question no matter how many times you ask.

But to be fair.

Below is my Reason and sole Justification for owning 8 firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution


Because I can, Because I want to,and because I have the right to do so.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Delkaetre

Terminus- because I can see a reason to have one, or two, or maybe even three.
But to have five more than that seems needless, serves no purpose, and can only endanger others (beyond the cause of self defence).

So I want to know what his reasoning is for these guns. And, since he said earlier that each gun has a unique purpose, I'd like to know what's so special that he can't make do with just two or maybe three.

If he can't explain why he has all these guns, then I seriously doubt that he should have these guns. As with my previous example, guns are more dangerous than shoes, handbags, paintings, china figurines. Guns, if stolen, will quite likely be lethal- if they're resold on the black market, they probably won't be going to decorate someone's home, but for actual use. A better reason than 'just because I like them' should surely be offered, and it's not like it should be hard for him to do so.

In short- the justification for having such an unusually large number of lethal weapons, given previous statements about 'self defence' which do not explain it.

He can question me if he likes about the things I have, or believe in, or support- but nothing I have or do will directly kill people.

Okay since you want to use a strawman argument on me,let's see how you do when the tables are turned.

What would happen if you had someone break in while you were home,what would you do to ward off a possible violent attack in your own home?

One more question.

what would you do if someone tried to attack you while you're out and about running errands?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Saya

And we can let them know your plans since you posted them on a public forum. Now they know what to expect, dude.

Those were only examples honey.

Nothing about my real battle plans and tactics.


Just like with snakes the one you don't see is the one that bites you.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Okay since you want to use a strawman argument on me,let's see how you do when the tables are turned.

What would happen if you had someone break in while you were home,what would you do to ward off a possible violent attack in your own home?

One more question.

what would you do if someone tried to attack you while you're out and about running errands?

I know this is Delk's question but its easy. I wouldn't confront the attacker, and if I had a gun securely locked up somewhere I probably wouldn't have time to retrieve it. If it wasn't locked up I'd be irresponsible. Or I'd arm myself with a bat and run. Or after I take self defense classes I'd have a chance to fight, but I'm not stupid enough to do so.

Did you know that men are more likely to be victims of violent crime? And that the violent crime rate is going down? And most of the time when women are attacked, especially when it comes to things like **** its by someone they know and in their home. Statistically speaking, my odds are good as long as I keep my eye on the men I know, I don't have to live my life with the fear of getting attacked on the street, and I refuse to do so. I think its just good marketing strategy for gun manufacturer's to keep the fear of other people in others, and its a tactic to control women to always have the threat of attack and **** over their heads.

Those were only examples honey.

Nothing about my real battle plans and tactics.


Just like with snakes the one you don't see is the one that bites you.

I bet if the government does survey the internet, they're laughing their asses off at you.