captaingreenthumb
Active Member
He better be a badass, he's obviously not very smart.
straps
- Thread starter shadowweed
- Start date
Super Toker
Active Member
I have a Ruger P85 9mm with a 30 round clip, and a 15 round spare clip.
Perfextionist420
Well-Known Member
I have a hammer
13 oz kobalt framing hammer to be exact
13 oz kobalt framing hammer to be exact
torturekiller420
Well-Known Member
me too
im a felon. lol nah, no hammer here, airforce survival knife between my matresses and on the coffee table.seriously thoe i laughed so hard at that for some reason. been a rough day and you just brightend it, thankyou.
Perfextionist420
Well-Known Member
sorry to hear man but im with you, welcome to the felon club lolme too
seriously thoe i laughed so hard at that for some reason. been a rough day and you just brightend it, thankyou.
reason I have a hammer and boxcutter at arms reach is because they aren't considered deadly weapon which can be an amplifier on a charge like that knife could. both are very effective though
Ganju
Well-Known Member
Wtf kind of talk is straps sounds like a punk word 2 me...... yo what typ strap u got???? 12" dong yo whats up ?
After i trolled a bit i found out u was talking about whats your favorite Gun
I keep one in my truck 24/7
i pulled it out the other day at a skeet shoot and i bet i promoted them enough everyone wanted one ^.^
After i trolled a bit i found out u was talking about whats your favorite Gun
I keep one in my truck 24/7
i pulled it out the other day at a skeet shoot and i bet i promoted them enough everyone wanted one ^.^
torturekiller420
Well-Known Member
yes you are right there, the terrible thing too, is that my i grew up shooting since i was able to walk, all the guys in my family are concealed carriers. which is an awesome thought. i would love some dumbass to try and shoot up a place with a concealed carrier near by, that would put these gun laws on a whole new perspective. and i by no means wanna so another mass public shooting, it discusses me, but thats why they carry. now my knifes are more or less for when im backpacking. i dont do anything to draw heat or commit crimes, the one between my matress is for protction at night on the off chance my home is randomly picked and broke into, i live in a nice neighborhood and home, sounds like it would be unlikely that id have to worry about such a thing, but really its just the opposite nowadays, ill be ready, and the table knife, well i only use it for opening things lol.
"All I need is this hammer and this lampshade.
That's all I need".
Hammers are a bitchin tool - in many ways.
blowincherrypie
Well-Known Member
Once I finally reached my mid 20's I realized how stupid guns really are. All they do is raise the chances that someone is going to die for little or no reason. EDIT: I deleted my other post which described before my life prior to the mid 20's. Please don't take the quote out of context. Thanks!
BarnBuster
Virtually Unknown Member
So, you're personally against having a gun as a home defense weapon?
Hit your 50/60's & see how you feel about it then.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Guns are no stupider than their users.
Possessing one does carry the risk you describe; however I think it wise to balance the twofold benefit they provide.
1) they can save your life when nothing else could.
2) They keep our Federal and more local governments grudgingly more honest than they want to be.
Jmo. cn
blowincherrypie
Well-Known Member
I still have my chief special but I no longer feel the need to carry it around everywhere I go. I can say with certainty that there were 2 or 3 times that whatever handgun I wore for the day(The Chief, a snub .38 or a nice little .380) actually kept violence from escalating, but I had a child and grew up. I feel I'm better off avoiding situations where a gun is necessary. I don't go to any clubs anymore and don't drug deal so until I get my concealed carry permit the .45 stays on top of the fridge. I just know there are too many out of control "kids" with guns, like I once ashamedly was. Until you're mature enough(notice I didn't say old enough because it has nothing to do with age) to understand the finality of death, you shouldn't have a firearm. View attachment 2610064 (note: not my actual weapon)
How old is your child ?
blowincherrypie
Well-Known Member
Celebrate his 20th birthday this summer.. The apple of my eye, really turned my life around..
Rock on & congratulations.
Kids really help anchor one in reality don't they ?
And speaking of carrying a firearm for personal protection. I received this today via E-mail & thought it appropriate for this thread.
And it happens to sum up my feelings quite accurately.
"The Gun Is Civilization"
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society.
A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
And it happens to sum up my feelings quite accurately.
"The Gun Is Civilization"
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society.
A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
minnesmoker
Well-Known Member
Strap? LoL.
You should NEVER bring a gun to a knife fight. EVER.
I carry a 3.5" serrated "work knife" and a quick-flick 5.5" "work knife." (It's neither sprung, nor button operated, so it's all legal.) Both have evidence of my job on them, I actually DO use them for work, but, when some dick with a gun walks up to my car (like last summer) they come in really handy to disarm.
You should NEVER bring a gun to a knife fight. EVER.
I carry a 3.5" serrated "work knife" and a quick-flick 5.5" "work knife." (It's neither sprung, nor button operated, so it's all legal.) Both have evidence of my job on them, I actually DO use them for work, but, when some dick with a gun walks up to my car (like last summer) they come in really handy to disarm.
meechz 024
Active Member
it doesn't really remove force from the equation. The physically dominant person would be quicker to the shot than some scrub becuase you got to have heart to actually pull the trigger.
an experienced person would look into a frail person's eyes and sense if they have the heart to pull through. they would see if the person is actually using the gun for defence with intent or intimidation defence
for example, in a scenariowhere a physically dominant 30 year old man with a gun robs an average joe family man with a gun......
the dominant person has the threat of death to take control, and so does the family man.
So the force that now takes over is who has the heart. Who is experienced and been through these type of situations before. that's what now determines it. The strongest will still survive
an experienced person would look into a frail person's eyes and sense if they have the heart to pull through. they would see if the person is actually using the gun for defence with intent or intimidation defence
for example, in a scenariowhere a physically dominant 30 year old man with a gun robs an average joe family man with a gun......
the dominant person has the threat of death to take control, and so does the family man.
So the force that now takes over is who has the heart. Who is experienced and been through these type of situations before. that's what now determines it. The strongest will still survive