General / Off-Topic Gun Nut America

[Minonian]

That we agree on. In any modern police or military force, or the sort thereof, every single enforcer is there because he has made the choice. If they did not know what they were signing up for then that's their own fault, . (everyone joins up for some kind of profit, monetary or otherwise)

(sigh) Yeah... Criminal mind, and you remain in the list i'm sure of it.

Non the less i think you did not get the real difference between criminals and law enforcers. While for a true law enforcer to kill is a sometimes (sadly) unavoidable necessity for a criminal mind it's just part of the job.

but they still willingly forfeited the right to be anything more than mere numbers in a game of chess

What makes you think we are just chess pawns? You ever had a tough that we are (at least in a more decent country) truly care, and that's why we do what we do?
The gang is a family right? (i know because i also have my gang, not as far fetched than the 2 of you had, but non the less...) Well... We consider our family a little bigger, in a somewhat simplyifled matter of speaking, that's the base difference.

Though mercenaries deserve credit as they don't hide or lie about their intentions

So you saying honesty is a good thing. Ok let's try this kind of honesty, as an example.

I'm gonna      your family!
It was a good thing?

 

[Asp Explorer]

Just out of curiosity, who here actually owns a firearm?

 

[verminstar]

As I questioned, "What's the point of asking such a question since there's such a general assumption that everyone on the internet overestimates their own willpower?"

It wasn't a question of whether ye "could" do it...wasn't questioning yer male pride so keep yer hair on. It was a rhetorical question...could you look someone in the eye and pull the trigger? It's not a fight, it's not an argument of any kind just a life that may or may not end depending on your choice. Could ye look them in the eye and pull the trigger? Yes or no...it's really not that complicated.

 

[Cydramech]

(sigh) Yeah... Criminal mind, and you remain in the list i'm sure of it.

No, it's not criminal to do things for profit.

Non the less i think you did not get the real difference between criminals and law enforcers. While for a true law enforcer to kill is a sometimes (sadly) unavoidable necessity for a criminal mind it's just part of the job.

No, there is a very real difference. As Lysander Spooner stated,

"The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.


"The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a protector, and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to protect those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do.


"He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful sovereign, on account of the protection he affords you. He does not keep protecting you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."

The law enforcer is the 2nd most morally-reprehensible creature in the world. The only creature more morally-reprehensible is the one who votes to affirm the law.

What makes you think we are just chess pawns? You ever had a tough that we are (at least in a more decent country) truly care, and that's why we do what we do? [...] The gang is a family right? (i know because i also have my gang, not as far fetched than the 2 of you had, but non the less...) Well... We consider our family a little bigger, in a somewhat simplyifled matter of speaking, that's the base difference.

I never said whether or not I think anyone is just a mere chess spawn. The fact is someone signed up to fight for someone else's , and so they chose to become a pawn. No modern leader would be little more than another sociopathic murdering freak if everyone else refused to fight, because every single war for the last few centuries has consisted of nothing more than a group of bankers and politicians in fancy attire masturbating over oil while sending their subjects off to their doom.

So you saying honesty is a good thing. Ok let's try this kind of honesty, as an example.

I'm gonna your family!
It was a good thing?

It's certainly better for me since I would know who to look for and what to prepare for.

I know where the murderer stands. I know where the thief stands. I even know where the stands. I don't need to trust them because I know their nature, I know what they want. Hell, I even know where men like Charles Manson and Al Capone stand. But there is not a single government employee I can say anything remotely similar about.

 

[Cydramech]

It wasn't a question of whether ye "could" do it...wasn't questioning yer male pride so keep yer hair on. It was a rhetorical question...could you look someone in the eye and pull the trigger? It's not a fight, it's not an argument of any kind just a life that may or may not end depending on your choice. Could ye look them in the eye and pull the trigger? Yes or no...it's really not that complicated.

I still find that my question stands, and I've done so.

That said, there is no tactical or strategic value in meeting someone head-on in a skirmish.

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." - Sun Tzu

 

[Minonian]

"The law enforcer is the 2nd most morally-reprehensible creature in the world. The only creature more morally-reprehensible is the one who votes to affirm the law."
Right... Just as i said previously, you boys created your own twisted philosophy, and nothing it this world can make you to understand the other side, or give you any sense of decency, futhermore? You think the black is withe and the white? Black. But in truth? Your true toughs after tossing aside all the self righteous moral self-justifications? your problems, with the law officer the voter, and with the politicians are pretty simple. We are in your way to get what you want, we are in the other corner of the box ring. And thats all. The rest of it? !

"I never said whether or not I think anyone is just a mere chess spawn. The fact is someone signed up to fight for someone else's bull"

Is that so? But if you are a gang or crime family member, than you too singed up to be someone else's bully... gangs and crime families too have leadership, right?

"It's certainly better for me since I would know who to look for and what to prepare for."
(Yadda yadda)

Yeah... You glorify the honesty of a criminals as makes them saints, you saying their actions are straight, and vilify the shepherd dog, because they are standing in your way, and vilify the sheep because they are don't want to be eaten.

In your eyes the world is a jungle, and you are the apex predator the rest of it? Enemy, or prey.

Well, here is a thing about the so called straight actions of criminals. They are straightly bad to everyone else...
And that's why you never ever can have the moral upper hand.

Because if what you do, is a trouble to everyone else? You can't be the good guy, or the "gray".

 

[Zeeman]

The problem, you can attach whatever you want to this dilemma, cars kill people, a lot of people, alcohol kill people, a lot of people, hammers kill people, don't know how many, but they do! Stupid politicians kill people, a heck of a lot of people, and that is a fact too

For cars, there is a training and licensing requirement.

I don't understand why there is an issue with gun owners needing training and licensing.

As for politicians, there should be a training and licensing requirement, too...

Z...

 

[Zeeman]

The law enforcer is the 2nd most morally-reprehensible creature in the world. The only creature more morally-reprehensible is the one who votes to affirm the law.

I think there sees to be some confusion in regards to the tool, and the one that wields it.

Z...

 

[Minonian]

As for politicians, there should be a training and licensing requirement, too...

LOL! True enough.

 

[lysan]

For cars, there is a training and licensing requirement.

I don't understand why there is an issue with gun owners needing training and licensing.

As for politicians, there should be a training and licensing requirement, too...

Z...

No, Gun owners Should mandatory be obligated to train how to handle and keep their weapons.

 

[Adept]

What's the point of asking such a question since there's such a general assumption that everyone on the internet overestimates their own willpower?

Now I'm not going to answer your question, but I'll let you ponder it by telling you a bit about myself: I'm an ex-gang member, I've been charged (not convicted however) with attempted murder, and I'm on both the domestic terrorist watch and no-fly lists.

You're quite the authority on the nature of social constructs and civilization then obviously. /sarcasm

 

[Glock_N_Load]

The issue today in France shows you if someone wants to kill they will kill, no guns needed. 911, no guns needed. Pentagon, no guns need. Pennsylvania, no guns needed. Oklahoma, no guns needed. On and On and On and On....etc

 

[Glock_N_Load]

That doesn't appear to be the case in the UK, criminals committed 42 gun crimes in 2015 in the UK which resulted in fatalities. Criminals killed 30 times that number in the US even though interestingly the US murder rate is not that much higher than the UK if you excluded gun deaths. Or take police officers. The US loses more police officers each year to guns than we've ever lost in our history.. Or even criminals themselves? More criminals are killed by police in a year in the US that have ever been killed in UK history. I know our population is about 5 times smaller, but the decrease in gun related deaths is so much bigger than that...

I don't really understand why anyone would want guns in society.. It really is fantastic living in a country where even if someone breaks into your house, you can be pretty sure that they won't have a gun. And the policeman that comes to help you? He won't have a gun either.. It quite literally never occurs to me that anyone I meet would have one because virtually nobody does with the exception of special poice units, the army and the odd eastern European organised crime gang (but I don't run into them very often ;-) Bliss

It's true of course that if the US outlawed guns now, it would have issues with criminals holding on to them for some time into the future. This actually happened in the UK briefly when they were restricted here. But eventually they came out of circulation and now we're where we are today. Of course the were fewer back then in the UK than there are in the US today.. but I still think eventually the numbers would become very small..

And if you take away the gun deaths from our three major cities (US) that have the most restrictive gun control laws (Illinois/Obama is one) our murder rates by any means would be better than yours (UK). And at anytime did the UK have 300mill people with 3 million guns with open boarders where guns could come across unabated?

 

[GJ51]

President Obama and Democrat Nominee Clinton have announced that they will demand emergency "Truck Control" legislation now that it has been clearly demonstrated to be a dangerous weapon. The NTA (National Truck Association) intends to vigorously oppose the legislation arguing that even though there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to own and drive trucks, it was merely an oversight due to the fact that trucks hadn't been invented at the time the Constitution was written. Obama and Clinton responded that the Constitutional issue would not be relevant as it has already been proven to be nothing more than an inconvenient stumbling block for the past 7 years and would not have had an impact even if there was a Constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to own and drive a truck.

Stricter controls, training, and security screening for truck drivers are being proposed as well as new regulations on the requirement for background checks prior to the sale of trucks are being drafted. Private sales of trucks will now also have to be screened and authorized by the government if the legislation as well as tighter controls on used truck sales passes.

The President and Mrs. Clinton believe that if this legislation were to be put in place it will prevent trucks being used in terror attacks by "lone wolf" actors who have no known associations with peaceful religions...

 

[verminstar]

President Obama and Democrat Nominee Clinton have announced that they will demand emergency "Truck Control" legislation now that it has been clearly demonstrated to be a dangerous weapon. The NTA (National Truck Association) intends to vigorously oppose the legislation arguing that even though there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to own and drive trucks, it was merely an oversight due to the fact that trucks hadn't been invented at the time the Constitution was written. Obama and Clinton responded that the Constitutional issue would not be relevant as it has already been proven to be nothing more than an inconvenient stumbling block for the past 7 years and would not have had an impact even if there was a Constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to own and drive a truck.

Stricter controls, training, and security screening for truck drivers are being proposed as well as new regulations on the requirement for background checks prior to the sale of trucks are being drafted. Private sales of trucks will now also have to be screened and authorized by the government if the legislation as well as tighter controls on used truck sales passes.

The President and Mrs. Clinton believe that if this legislation were to be put in place it will prevent trucks being used in terror attacks by "lone wolf" actors who have no known associations with peaceful religions...

Is this some sorta joke? Bad taste

 

[Don Alvarez]

Just out of curiosity, who here actually owns a firearm?

several. I'm in the state with some of the harshest restrictions on purchasing guns, we have the lowest % of ownership next to Hawaii, and yet the gun murder rate in New Jersey is nowhere near the bottom. NJ is proof harsh restrictions do not curb gun violence.

Oh yeah and I never killed nobody.

 

[Monk]

Just out of curiosity, who here actually owns a firearm?

Not currently in my possession, locked up at my parent's home. I didn't get them for home protection.

No pistols, just a pump-action shotgun and a simple bolt-action rifle. Mostly for recreation (target practice and challenges), but I keep the shotgun nearby when camping in the deep woods. Nice thing about the shotgun though, is that if I do want to keep it for home defense I can load it with non-lethal or less-than-lethal shells loading with rubber buckshot or even a bean bag slug.

I don't want to kill anyone unless there is literally no other choice. I'd beat an intruder over the head with my gun before taking a potentially lethal shot.

 

[Asp Explorer]

I only take my 9mm to the range. Although I am qualified and licensed for conceal carry, with today's police behaviour I don't think it wise to do so. Sad, as that defeats the entire purpose of following the law - but that's the grim reality of it.

 

[glynie]

There seems to be an awful lot of talk about guns lately, not just here. It's an obsession. Reminds me of little boys squabbling over toys.

 

[Monk]

I only take my 9mm to the range. Although I am qualified and licensed for conceal carry, with today's police behaviour I don't think it wise to do so. Sad, as that defeats the entire purpose of following the law - but that's the grim reality of it.

I much more afraid of the police than shady looking fellas that hang around my block. Trust in police is completely broken and it is their own doing.

When I see police, I think of them as soldiers who see me as the enemy.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

There seems to be an awful lot of talk about guns lately, not just here. It's an obsession. Reminds me of little boys squabbling over toys.

It can seem that way, and, certainly for some, it is an obsession.

The vast majority of gun owners want sensible regulation. Assault weapons bans are generally popular, heck, even the 'great' Ronald Reagan pushed an assault weapons ban.

We aren't squabbling over children's toys here. There is a vocal minority that is adamant about 'needing' guns for this and that poorly defended reasons. Most of us just want to keep pursuing our hobbies like normal people.



Perhaps it is time we ban people from driving trucks, too?