More Guns = More Safer

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
PCXV said:
Then why did you equate guns to knives, rocks, hammers? You contradict yourself, which was the point of my rhetorical question. Guns are the most deadly, made for killing.



Not very successful because of the Republican constituency. Republicans are relentless in their fight to grow the MIC to further the financial interests of their constituents. But I have hope that truth will prevail in the long run. Either way, I'm standing on the right side of history.



Refer to our conversation in the other thread. We've covered this enough.
Click to expand...

My point wasn't to equate guns to knives rocks and hammers in the sense that they are the same things.

I mentioned them in the sense that they are similar in that they are all inert UNTIL a person bent on murdering or defending themselves from murder or assault does something with them. Thus the PERSON dong the action is the variable and the object is the constant. Some people use guns, like knives, rocks and hammers as offensive tools and some use them as defensive tools. It is clear you want to use them offensively to reach your goals and said as much in your lame refutation when you tried to rationalize using them.

Republicans? Who cares? Republicans and Democrats both systemically rely on threats of offensive gun use to achieve their goals. That is irrefutable by the way. You may not understand that or agree with it, but you can't shoot the truth, although I think you might nonsensically and illogically try to and somehow twist it into an offensive action that must be used in order to prevent offensive actions from occurring, since that is a feature of your previous arguments.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
PCXV said:
Not to be rude, but it seems you do not grasp the nuances of my argument. Say a person threatened to rape and kill you and your family members. They sit outside your house every day lurking menacingly and shouting about how they would harm you. They shot a bullet once, it whizzed past your baby's head and almost hit your wife. Your family is scared. Is your preemptive strike to stop this guy completely unjustified? Maybe not the best analogy but you should get the point.



No, that's a straw man you put up. Let me reiterate: The government is enacting defensive force to defend the right to life of the majority. If the offensive force is killing the majority, what do you call the force opposed to that offensive force?



I didn't propose that, I said it was a possibility I would like to avoid, but that it isn't entirely unreasonable because it is lives vs hobby, too easy access for bad guys, no other solution being offered, etc.



I don't pretend I know more than our intelligence agencies and military. I also try to weigh risk/cost vs benefit. History will judge though. Are we all complicit for paying taxes? Well I might give you some credit here, because it is a philosophical dilemma.



Not true. I am standing up for authority when it is legitimate and recognizing its flexibility to continually increase legitimacy. I also recognize when it is flawed and don't see authority as inherently moral or immoral. I recognize that progress it has afforded us by being flexible and moving towards objective morality, justice, and legitimacy. It is legitimate defensive force to protect the minority form the tyranny of the majority. I would think you'd agree.
Click to expand...

The problem with your arguments is you exempt government's use of offensive force in a kind of delusional and fawning Stockholm syndrome kind of way. You even tried to rationalize preemptive government violence as a kind of offensive force which magically becomes defensive force, since it is the government doing it. Of course that's impossible, but you tried it as a rationale anyway. Silly.

It seems you claim an action by you or me should be called one thing, but when your "authority" does it, the very same action magically shifts to being something else by virtue of the entity doing the action.

I have no right to use a gun to threaten you if you are leaving me alone.

You have no right to threaten me if I am leaving you alone. You apply a different standard to people you deem as authorities, which is the evidence of your mental capture.

Also you never addressed your fervent government worship which clouds your conscience so badly that you obediently pay for weapons to kill innocent people. I can understand why you haven't addressed that, since it must be very uncomfortable for you to think of your magical protector as your captor, forcing you to fund their murder.
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
totally agree that gun owners aren't going to change.

They are the 35%. It's the attitudes of non-gun owners that are changing.
Click to expand...
So will you "non gun owners" focus your awesome mental powers and take away peoples guns in a kind of peaceful Vulcan mind meld or will you use guns offensively against neutral people who own guns for defensive purposes to ensure nobody uses guns?

Scared to answer? Thought so.


 
since1991

since1991

Well-Known Member
How many members and posts/threads (no one in particular) are the same fukin dork on this forum with multiple accounts? Its obvious as fuk. Whoever you really are...your a fukin retard.
 
Cold$moke

Cold$moke

Well-Known Member
gwheels said:
As a Canadian I don't get it at all. But we have had more restrictive gun laws for years. The occasional shooting and that is mostly gang on gang with weapons we can not really have (handguns are a massive pain in the ass in Canada) but I have never felt impugned to have my shot gun and 338 win mag for hunting (birds and moose respectively). I used to have a wildcat 35 whelan that I had to hand load for because commercial ammo wasn't available.

I digress because the brownie really hit me just now.

I tell my friends who are adamant that there will be change in the USA....You have no idea of the culture there.

It is apples and oranges. Good luck convincing people to give their guns up. And bump stocks are not the problem. Not by a long shot.

5000 rounds of ammo with 30 house guns is getting close to the problem.

A friend from work (Texas) said he has 23 guns in his house loaded and ready. When someone rings the doorbell he goes to the garage with his 44 and sees who is calling on him.

I said has anyone ever robbed you or broke in?

Nope....it is because i have the guns. Well i really don't buy that. But I live here.

Here I have a bat. The rule of law is 1 inch into my house I can knock you into last generation. I can live with that. We all have bats. And we dont bring a bat to a gun fight. The guns are just not in general population. Dont make me get that sawd off side by side i didnt register....allgedly!!!

All this to say...it is your country. Do what you will but do not hide under covers and say guns are not part of the problem. Suicide excluded. That shit happens with guns or cars or knives.

The only hoard i want is infused coconut oil and bud.

That is my 2 cents. Take it or leave it. Either way I am not effected :D
Click to expand...
That bat is just fine........

till you notice the inch he put in your Door was an inch of barrel

Not saying anything like you need to answer your door in tactical gear or anything like that :)
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Terps said:
Click to expand...
That's a way incomplete list. Way farther up on the list is the failure of lawmakers to address the problem by passing gun control laws. So, absolutely the NRA takes a huge share of the blame.

Gun control laws work.

Since when is the radical right in favor of the FBI and local police taking guns away from people?

Tell me, is this fake news?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-ended-rule-block-mentally-ill-guns/story?id=53113891

President Donald Trump has often pointed to mental illness as the underlying cause for mass shootings, but one of his earliest actions as president was to undo a regulation that would have made it more difficult for people with a known mental illness to buy guns.

Nearly a year ago, on Feb. 28, 2017, President Trump signed H.J. Res. 40, effectively ending the Social Security Administration's requirement to enter the names of people who receive mental health benefits into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This is the database used by the FBI to determine who is able to purchase firearms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top