Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
Date registered: May 5, 2024 6:22:07 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 13:28:15 GMT
Will a Taser allow you to promptly dispatch three adversaries? What if the are intoxicated? I've read reports of drugged individuals shrugging off Taser strikes as if they are nothing. Sorry but I'm sticking with a firearm on this one. Please see bolded. It IS a good option in some cases. The best example I can use is a personal friend of mine. She is a mother of 2 smaller children and a husband who works out of town and odd hours (meaning sometimes he returns at 2am). She is not experience with firearms and has never been taught. She is in the process of that...but for the time being a Taser C2 suits her well. IF one of her children, husband, etc alarms her...and she shoots them with the Taser, well, they are wounded - but not dead. Also...there is no recoil or bang - and again...with her experience (as we proved when we started teaching her) she is almost more dangerous with a firearm than without. And that is all fine. She was able to choose the best option for her. She had the option to own a firearm and passed. That is her prerogative. My issue is with people who do not want to give me that choice.
|
|
FormulaZR
Lieutenant
Posts: 917
Likes: 606
Console: Xbox one
Date registered: Apr 20, 2016 18:49:42 GMT
|
Post by FormulaZR on Jul 15, 2016 13:35:51 GMT
Please see bolded. It IS a good option in some cases. The best example I can use is a personal friend of mine. She is a mother of 2 smaller children and a husband who works out of town and odd hours (meaning sometimes he returns at 2am). She is not experience with firearms and has never been taught. She is in the process of that...but for the time being a Taser C2 suits her well. IF one of her children, husband, etc alarms her...and she shoots them with the Taser, well, they are wounded - but not dead. Also...there is no recoil or bang - and again...with her experience (as we proved when we started teaching her) she is almost more dangerous with a firearm than without. And that is all fine. She choose the best option for her. She had the option to own a firearm and passed. That is her prerogative. My issue is with people who do not want to give me that choice. At what point did I ever say that you shouldn't have the choice? I merely pointed out there ARE other options. She still has the option to own a firearm. She is still working toward that through proper training and practice...but at this point, it is absolutely not her best option.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
Date registered: May 5, 2024 6:22:07 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 13:36:54 GMT
And that is all fine. She choose the best option for her. She had the option to own a firearm and passed. That is her prerogative. My issue is with people who do not want to give me that choice. At what point did I ever say that you shouldn't have the choice? I merely pointed out there ARE other options. She still has the option to own a firearm. She is still working toward that through proper training and practice...but at this point, it is absolutely not her best option. I never stated that you said that. Some people in this thread have said that though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
Date registered: May 5, 2024 6:22:07 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 13:44:54 GMT
A free individual should have the right To defend and arm themselves as the see fit. If that means they have an AR-15 in their trunk and a pistol in the small of their back then so be it. If they want a Taser, shotgun, knife, or baseball bat than they should be free to choose what serves them best.
|
|
I AM The Scouting Authority.
Captain
Invicta Insomniac
Like a circle in a spiral, Like a wheel within a wheel
Posts: 1,683
Likes: 541
Console: Xbox
Preferred server: East
Clan tag: BNKR
Is R35T a Skreb?: Yes
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 17:12:18 GMT
|
Post by I AM The Scouting Authority. on Jul 15, 2016 15:36:24 GMT
A free individual should have the right To defend and arm themselves as the see fit. If that means they have an AR-15 in their trunk and a pistol in the small of their back then so be it. If they want a Taser, shotgun, knife, or baseball bat than they should be free to choose what serves them best. Most people dont carry knives properly. They are more a danger to themselves than anybody else.
|
|
Snorelacks
Captain
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 1,256
Console: Xbox one
Clan tag: [BNKR]
Is R35T a Skreb?: No
Date registered: Feb 14, 2016 15:32:33 GMT
|
Post by Snorelacks on Jul 15, 2016 16:07:43 GMT
A free individual should have the right To defend and arm themselves as the see fit. If that means they have an AR-15 in their trunk and a pistol in the small of their back then so be it. If they want a Taser, shotgun, knife, or baseball bat than they should be free to choose what serves them best. Most people dont carry knives properly. They are more a danger to themselves than anybody else. In an attempt to inject some humor into this discussion:
I propose a new law that bans spoons. They cause obesity and people are more of a danger to themselves armed with one. From hereon out, all people will be required to eat with chop sticks (with blunted tips). This will ensure that it takes too long to eat ridiculous amount of food thus causing a strain on our national healthcare system due to inordinate cases of heart disease, diabetes, joint issues, etc. We must eliminate the leading cause of death in the United States!!!!
|
|
Vince Cable's Exotic Spresm
Captain
Faith, King, Empire President for Life
The cause of labour is the hope of the world
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 628
Console: Xbox 360 & One
Mini-Profile Background: https://ericgerlachdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/samuel-johnson-cant-believe-what-just.jpg
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 17:06:06 GMT
|
Post by Vince Cable's Exotic Spresm on Jul 15, 2016 17:16:29 GMT
Most people dont carry knives properly. They are more a danger to themselves than anybody else. In an attempt to inject some humor into this discussion:
I propose a new law that bans spoons. They cause obesity and people are more of a danger to themselves armed with one. From hereon out, all people will be required to eat with chop sticks (with blunted tips). This will ensure that it takes too long to eat ridiculous amount of food thus causing a strain on our national healthcare system due to inordinate cases of heart disease, diabetes, joint issues, etc. We must eliminate the leading cause of death in the United States!!!!
I once tried to eat some Japanese food using solely the cutlery provided. It ended with me getting rather annoyed as I attempted to cut up pieces of beef using a stick and a ladle. What kind of culture does that? It took me a long time to eat the beef, I tell you. Also, you don't have a national healthcare system, so ha!
|
|
Skankhunt42
Sergeant
Sir Longrod Von Hugendong
Posts: 495
Likes: 109
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 22:37:26 GMT
|
Post by Skankhunt42 on Jul 15, 2016 17:17:10 GMT
Faith, King, and Empire. How do you think that was maintained? Well, not with a nice chat at the table with all of the Empires' subjects. When I asked you why you played the game I wanted a real answer and not a cop out answer. That is why I said what I did. From your responses so far I take it you only find offense with gun violence, and all other forms of violence are okay? You are not going to offend me, that is very difficult to do. The only thing that makes the statement and your belief that Gun Control(control gun violence/crime) works true, is that yes gun related deaths, murder,suicide, etc will go down. This will just be replaced with all the other weapons or methods for such acts. Understand this: Gun Control in the US is sold as this, If we just ban/heavily restrict guns all crime and murder will disappear and we can live happily ever after in the perfect utopia of no guns. Well just so you know that is absolute bullshit because I live in the suburbs of Chicago. In the suburbs it nice, mostly quite, and peaceful. Mostly non-threatening environment. Chicago and Auroa, IL are the highest crime/murder shitholes in the state and they have the most strict gun laws.(Chicago has ignored the ruling against their gun ban) So suburbs you can own guns, peaceful. City you can own guns(but can't) high crime very dangerous. To add to this every anti-gun advocate, celebrity, and politician either own guns themselves or have bodyguards or both. If you think that's a "cop out" answer then you can fuck off, the use of firearms by the armed forces and the use of firearms by the general populace are two very different things. Right now you're the only one here taking that condescending and haughty tone I mentioned earlier. The thing is though, under the intent behind the 2A, the firearms used by the military, and those by private citizens, aren't intended to be any different at all.
|
|
Vince Cable's Exotic Spresm
Captain
Faith, King, Empire President for Life
The cause of labour is the hope of the world
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 628
Console: Xbox 360 & One
Mini-Profile Background: https://ericgerlachdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/samuel-johnson-cant-believe-what-just.jpg
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 17:06:06 GMT
|
Post by Vince Cable's Exotic Spresm on Jul 15, 2016 17:19:12 GMT
If you think that's a "cop out" answer then you can fuck off, the use of firearms by the armed forces and the use of firearms by the general populace are two very different things. Right now you're the only one here taking that condescending and haughty tone I mentioned earlier. The thing is though, under the intent behind the 2A, the firearms used by the military, and those by private citizens, aren't intended to be any different at all. I did mean just as a general issue, not really in terms of what is actually available. Now that I think about it, doesn't that amendment come from a time when pretty much the only firearms available to anyone were flintlock/wheellock muskets and pistols, and the odd cannon?
|
|
Skankhunt42
Sergeant
Sir Longrod Von Hugendong
Posts: 495
Likes: 109
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 22:37:26 GMT
|
Post by Skankhunt42 on Jul 15, 2016 17:19:42 GMT
Kind of hard to carry a shotgun concealed. You don't need to conceal a shotgun if you want to protect yourself from burglars. You don't need to carry a gun around in public. Faulty logic. You're more likely to be a victim of crime outside the home, and the 2A doesn't stop at your doorstep anymore than the 1A does.
|
|
Skankhunt42
Sergeant
Sir Longrod Von Hugendong
Posts: 495
Likes: 109
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 22:37:26 GMT
|
Post by Skankhunt42 on Jul 15, 2016 17:27:52 GMT
A free individual should have the right To defend and arm themselves as the see fit. If that means they have an AR-15 in their trunk and a pistol in the small of their back then so be it. If they want a Taser, shotgun, knife, or baseball bat than they should be free to choose what serves them best. I'm of this mindset. Also, just as a small sidenote, if there is anyone here that thinks a non-NFA, AR, AK, FAL, AUG, or the like that you can walk into a US gunshop and purchase is an "assualt rifle", you are factually wrong. They aren't.
|
|
Skankhunt42
Sergeant
Sir Longrod Von Hugendong
Posts: 495
Likes: 109
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 22:37:26 GMT
|
Post by Skankhunt42 on Jul 15, 2016 17:29:22 GMT
The thing is though, under the intent behind the 2A, the firearms used by the military, and those by private citizens, aren't intended to be any different at all. I did mean just as a general issue, not really in terms of what is actually available. Now that I think about it, doesn't that amendment come from a time when pretty much the only firearms available to anyone were flintlock/wheellock muskets and pistols, and the odd cannon? Machine guns existed at the time of adoption, as did semi-automatics. But even if they hadn't, that's like saying the 1A wouldn't apply to mormonism or phone calls because neither existed at the time of adoption. It's faulty logic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
Date registered: May 5, 2024 6:22:07 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 17:30:29 GMT
The thing is though, under the intent behind the 2A, the firearms used by the military, and those by private citizens, aren't intended to be any different at all. I did mean just as a general issue, not really in terms of what is actually available. Now that I think about it, doesn't that amendment come from a time when pretty much the only firearms available to anyone were flintlock/wheellock muskets and pistols, and the odd cannon? That is a false argument. It would be like saying the first amendment only applies to forms of communication that were in place in 1791. That simply isn't the case. If you look at additional writings of the Founders it is plain to see that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to have well armed citizenry as a final stop gap against tyranny.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
Date registered: May 5, 2024 6:22:07 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 17:31:16 GMT
I did mean just as a general issue, not really in terms of what is actually available. Now that I think about it, doesn't that amendment come from a time when pretty much the only firearms available to anyone were flintlock/wheellock muskets and pistols, and the odd cannon? Machine guns existed at the time of adoption, as did semi-automatics. But even if they hadn't, that's like saying the 1A wouldn't apply to mormonism or phone calls because neither existed at the time of adoption. It's faulty logic. Ninja's should be illegal.
|
|
Skankhunt42
Sergeant
Sir Longrod Von Hugendong
Posts: 495
Likes: 109
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 22:37:26 GMT
|
Post by Skankhunt42 on Jul 15, 2016 17:32:21 GMT
I did mean just as a general issue, not really in terms of what is actually available. Now that I think about it, doesn't that amendment come from a time when pretty much the only firearms available to anyone were flintlock/wheellock muskets and pistols, and the odd cannon? That is a false argument. It would be like saying the first amendment only applies to forms of communication that were in place in 1791. That simply isn't the case. If you look at additional writings of the Founders it is plain to see that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to have well armed citizenry as a final stop gap against tyranny. With the added bonus of an armed citizenry available as a warning against an invasion too. Those are two of the arguments I've seen the founders put forth.
|
|
Vince Cable's Exotic Spresm
Captain
Faith, King, Empire President for Life
The cause of labour is the hope of the world
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 628
Console: Xbox 360 & One
Mini-Profile Background: https://ericgerlachdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/samuel-johnson-cant-believe-what-just.jpg
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 17:06:06 GMT
|
Post by Vince Cable's Exotic Spresm on Jul 15, 2016 17:33:18 GMT
I did mean just as a general issue, not really in terms of what is actually available. Now that I think about it, doesn't that amendment come from a time when pretty much the only firearms available to anyone were flintlock/wheellock muskets and pistols, and the odd cannon? That is a false argument. It would be like saying the first amendment only applies to forms of communication that were in place in 1791. That simply isn't the case. If you look at additional writings of the Founders it is plain to see that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to have well armed citizenry as a final stop gap against tyranny. It wasn't an argument, it was an observation.
|
|
FormulaZR
Lieutenant
Posts: 917
Likes: 606
Console: Xbox one
Date registered: Apr 20, 2016 18:49:42 GMT
|
Post by FormulaZR on Jul 15, 2016 17:39:59 GMT
That is a false argument. It would be like saying the first amendment only applies to forms of communication that were in place in 1791. That simply isn't the case. If you look at additional writings of the Founders it is plain to see that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to have well armed citizenry as a final stop gap against tyranny. It wasn't an argument, it was an observation. Sounded more like a ponderous statement than an argument to me.
|
|
Vince Cable's Exotic Spresm
Captain
Faith, King, Empire President for Life
The cause of labour is the hope of the world
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 628
Console: Xbox 360 & One
Mini-Profile Background: https://ericgerlachdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/samuel-johnson-cant-believe-what-just.jpg
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 17:06:06 GMT
|
Post by Vince Cable's Exotic Spresm on Jul 15, 2016 17:41:36 GMT
Yeah, maybe, but I'm not going to bother going anywhere with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
Date registered: May 5, 2024 6:22:07 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 17:41:49 GMT
That is a false argument. It would be like saying the first amendment only applies to forms of communication that were in place in 1791. That simply isn't the case. If you look at additional writings of the Founders it is plain to see that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to have well armed citizenry as a final stop gap against tyranny. It wasn't an argument, it was an observation. Okay. Flawed observation.
|
|
FormulaZR
Lieutenant
Posts: 917
Likes: 606
Console: Xbox one
Date registered: Apr 20, 2016 18:49:42 GMT
|
Post by FormulaZR on Jul 15, 2016 17:42:01 GMT
That is a false argument. It would be like saying the first amendment only applies to forms of communication that were in place in 1791. That simply isn't the case. If you look at additional writings of the Founders it is plain to see that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to have well armed citizenry as a final stop gap against tyranny. With the added bonus of an armed citizenry available as a warning against an invasion too. Those are two of the arguments I've seen the founders put forth. Reportedly Yamamoto is quoted as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Though there is no proof of this - and most believe it was bogus.
|
|