General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > Armageddon and Survival
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Copejunkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post






man, you sure owned me with your "logic"

Nice straw man, must have taken you a while to construct such an elaborate scheme.
Be proud of yourself, you have truly won at the internet.



if you think i am trying to win an argument... then you got me all wrong
__________________
A.K.A - Copejunkie

ZzNU|gHub|mizVPpIlnw

ba0c6bd47ccbfd90d8e81ee92406586a [y yuo throw haet :( :(] porn may <3's yuo.
Old 06-01-2009, 07:44 AM Copejunkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
#121  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Bukkakeboy
 
Bukkakeboy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kruz3n View Post
You make no sense, therefore discussing anything further with you is pointless.

Christ. Look, you made a huge retarded strawman out of my arguments, and you then expect me to defend myself? Fgs you said that
Quote:
You're basically saying it's ok to be a mass murderer who wants to shoot up a school or office building
WHERE IN THE FUCKING WORLD IS THAT A LEGAL CONCLUSION FROM WHAT I POSTED?
You didn't address what I said, you made up a stupid straw man and then expected me to reply to that.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkHelmet View Post
I'm done using facts to debate you. Insulting us simply because we don't agree with you is not a valid debate strategy. It's a beech of logic to change the argument.

oh please, read my post and reply to the points. You aren't using facts, you are using nra talkpoints and lofty moral high ground statements. I said it several times in my post, YOU MAKE STRAW MEN that noone in their right minds would argue with. FOR FUCKS SAKE YOU SAID YOU ARGUED
Quote:
I argue that peace without freedom is a worthless peace, and certainly not a prosperous one.
How in hell is this not a drooling strawman you are feebly trying to toss up to a moral highground?

Because I'm a nice guy, I'll even sum up my arguments against your post so you can address them here:

Quote:
Noone, NOONE (except maybe the 0.000001% of the population which is retardedly pacifist) is against the right to defend yourself, OR to try to overthrow a government that is destructive of liberty (as you put it).
This proves that the statement that is a reply to is a drooling straw man.

Quote:
Look to the western world, look at how many people who don't arm themselves to protect&defend their country from a potential "government that is destructive of liberty". Does it look like everyone except the weaponhoarding gun-nut is living on his knees?
Does it look like Scandinavia is living on its knees? Does it look like Spain/Germany is living on its knees? Stop with the retarded hyperbole, you are only hurting yourself/your cause.
answer this. Even if you think I'm the most retarded idiotic nerd you have ever seen post. ANSWER THAT FUCKING BIT.


Quote:
History has proven that governments can turn on its people, this is true. And though the likelihood may be low, if shit hits the fan it's better to be armed then not.
BUT, and here is the kicker. You come back to the question I've asked 3 or 4 times in this forum: If you want to have guns for the purpose of being able to overthrow a corrupt government, where does the line go?
Why shouldn't civillians have tanks/jets, artillery and militia-training and form fighting squads to be prepared?
What help will random unorganized rabble with assault rifles do against the U.S army?
Answer this too.





Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkHelmet View Post
I'm done using facts to debate you. Insulting us simply because we don't agree with you is not a valid debate strategy. It's a beech of logic to change the argument.

Show me where you have used facts trying to debate me.
Show me fucking where. All I see is you posting something, me replying and you shutting the hell up.

Its such a huge fucking cop out you don't even have the balls to TRY to argue against me.

To not have you work too hard. Here is one more you didn't reply to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
1) Then where is the line, and why?
2) What is the purpose of the 2nd amendment (as in WHY does it exist?)
3) If the purpose/intent of the 2nd amendment is anything close to allow you to fight back/overthrow a corrupt government, how does this affect the line at which weapons you can/can't buy.
__________________
fuck IRL

this is the internet... and someone is WRONG on it

-Tongboy
Old 06-01-2009, 07:48 AM Bukkakeboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#122  

mofugger
I'm married to a gay man
 
mofugger's Avatar
 
The only reason we have little to no desire to argue with you it becase arguing with a pile of rocks is more effective.
__________________
Zombie Outbreak Response Team: Urban Division
Old 06-01-2009, 09:28 AM mofugger is offline  
Reply With Quote
#123  

Chilly
 
So Firefox ate my original post that I wrote up, so you're getting the condensed version. I'll expand if you want me to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
Yeah, but if man A is an angsty teenager who wants to shoot up his school?
Or a recently fired employee gunning for revenge, etc.

I know it aint a perfect example, but well, I hope you see a point here

It's already legal to own an AR-15 and a Beta C-Mag (a 100 round drum magazine that feeds said rifle), why aren't angsty teens using them to shoot up schools? A) They're bulky and impossible to conceal and B) They're expensive (a Beta C-mag itself will run you ~$300, not to mention the cost of the rifle ~800+). For $400 you can get a handgun, which you can slip into your pocket and no one will know.

A rifle is going to have infinitely more power than a handgun and 100 round without a reload is more than a handgun can even get close to. If angsty teens and disgruntled employees aren't using the fullest extent of the weapons they can get now why would that change?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
And I do not believe the US government will ever in any case do anything that will lead to you having to defend your freedom against your own nations army, noone should have anything but one shotgun and one handgun for personal defense

What if I want more than one shotgun, or what if I want a rifle? Not every gun is for defense. Some have collector/sentimental value, some are for sport, some are just fun to shoot.

You can't have a gun law that bans guns from being used in crimes (this is what you'd want to do right?). It'd be impossible to enforce. Rather than try to reduce crime with more laws (which is sort of odd, you would think making more things illegal would just make it easier to commit a crime) try a different approach. Try different sentencing, better education, some sort of outreach program, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
Your (and my) beliefs and worst case scenarios cant count. You cant have a gun law based on your personal estimation of what you'd need and what could happen. Either the law is there to protect against the worst possible outcome, or its there to protect you/your home/your loved ones. You can't chose the scenario and then decide what level of weaponry people should get to buy.

The law should be there to protect us/our homes/loved ones from everything, up to and including the worst possible outcome. The law should not prohibit me from buying a fully-automatic rifle if I want one. If I use it unlawfully, I'll take my sentence and the police can have all my guns. If I use it lawfully, what's your problem with me spending a Sunday afternoon target shooting?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
Yeah, scenarios again

Sorry that came out as a scenario, my point is that a civilian hunting rifle is as (or more) dangerous than a military battle rifle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
yes, but its not _only_ the rifles/machine guns etc. The military has a million tools and advantages. Besides, as gorgon pointed out, there aren't that many hunters here (very few).

Yes the military has a better communications network, transport, etc. but if you already said we're not fighting one then it doesn't matter.

Also, Genmay is not the best place to find hunters. It's like an NFL scout checking out the Star Trek convention, the demographics are just too different.


What I'll boil it down to is this: If one type of gun is illegal, why not another type? And if one type is legal, why not another type?
Old 06-01-2009, 09:57 AM Chilly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#124  

Bukkakeboy
 
Bukkakeboy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly View Post
It's already legal to own an AR-15 and a Beta C-Mag (a 100 round drum magazine that feeds said rifle), why aren't angsty teens using them to shoot up schools? A) They're bulky and impossible to conceal and B) They're expensive (a Beta C-mag itself will run you ~$300, not to mention the cost of the rifle ~800+). For $400 you can get a handgun, which you can slip into your pocket and no one will know.

A rifle is going to have infinitely more power than a handgun and 100 round without a reload is more than a handgun can even get close to. If angsty teens and disgruntled employees aren't using the fullest extent of the weapons they can get now why would that change?
good point. I concede.


Quote:
What if I want more than one shotgun, or what if I want a rifle? Not every gun is for defense. Some have collector/sentimental value, some are for sport, some are just fun to shoot.

You can't have a gun law that bans guns from being used in crimes (this is what you'd want to do right?). It'd be impossible to enforce. Rather than try to reduce crime with more laws (which is sort of odd, you would think making more things illegal would just make it easier to commit a crime) try a different approach. Try different sentencing, better education, some sort of outreach program, etc.
well that was the point, the law must have a purpose, and its text must allow that purpose. If its just to defend your home, then shotguns, handweapons and whatever other weapons that work well for home defense should be allowed. (hunting imo is always omitted in my mind since people should be allowed to hunt. I gotta think more about why that is, I'm busy atm )


Quote:
The law should be there to protect us/our homes/loved ones from everything, up to and including the worst possible outcome. The law should not prohibit me from buying a fully-automatic rifle if I want one. If I use it unlawfully, I'll take my sentence and the police can have all my guns. If I use it lawfully, what's your problem with me spending a Sunday afternoon target shooting?
Worst possible outcome requires me to ask where you draw the line on weaponry. Should anyone be able to buy any weapon?
Again, very good point on the lawfully/unlawfully thing.


Quote:
Sorry that came out as a scenario, my point is that a civilian hunting rifle is as (or more) dangerous than a military battle rifle.
True and accepted,


Quote:
Yes the military has a better communications network, transport, etc. but if you already said we're not fighting one then it doesn't matter.
It goes to the intent of the law; I just think its extremely unlikely that will happen, but again, back to the intent of law.

Quote:
Also, Genmay is not the best place to find hunters. It's like an NFL scout checking out the Star Trek convention, the demographics are just too different.
good point

Quote:
What I'll boil it down to is this: If one type of gun is illegal, why not another type? And if one type is legal, why not another type?
Back to intent again
If the intent of the law is that you have unalienable rights to defend your home from intruders/threats from criminals etc (the "lowest" tier of threat if you will) then the optimal/most practical weapons for this will never be illegal (shotgun/handguns as far as I see it). The point of this reasoning is that an assault rifle doesn't (as far as I see it) serve much of a practical purpose for home defense. Neither does a .50 cal rifle.

The bottom line, it doesn't serve a practical purpose in relation to defense of you&yours.
__________________
fuck IRL

this is the internet... and someone is WRONG on it

-Tongboy
Old 06-01-2009, 10:54 AM Bukkakeboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#125  

Chilly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
well that was the point, the law must have a purpose, and its text must allow that purpose. If its just to defend your home, then shotguns, handweapons and whatever other weapons that work well for home defense should be allowed. (hunting imo is always omitted in my mind since people should be allowed to hunt. I gotta think more about why that is, I'm busy atm )

An automatic rifle would work exceedingly well for home defense. The first machine guns were developed to defend static positions. Everyone argues about what handgun loads are best suited for stopping attackers. Any (center-fire) rifle round will have infinitely more stopping power than even the biggest pistol rounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
Worst possible outcome requires me to ask where you draw the line on weaponry. Should anyone be able to buy any weapon?
Again, very good point on the lawfully/unlawfully thing.

My original point was and still is: If I use it legally, why should it be illegal? As far as conventional weapons go, yes, if you have the money, you should be able to buy it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
Back to intent again
If the intent of the law is that you have unalienable rights to defend your home from intruders/threats from criminals etc (the "lowest" tier of threat if you will) then the optimal/most practical weapons for this will never be illegal (shotgun/handguns as far as I see it). The point of this reasoning is that an assault rifle doesn't (as far as I see it) serve much of a practical purpose for home defense. Neither does a .50 cal rifle.

The bottom line, it doesn't serve a practical purpose in relation to defense of you&yours.

All weapons will have pros and cons. Shotguns are popular because they don't need much aiming (yes, you still have to aim but an inch or two off target won't make a difference), they're easy to use and maintain. Above all, shotguns are powerful.
On the down side they don't carry much ammunition and lack penetration (which can be a good thing i.e. you're not shooting through a bunch of walls).

Pistols are popular because they're small, portable and convenient. They're (a lot) harder to aim and control than shoulder fired weapons.

Rifles, specifically semi-automatic, magazine fed "assault" rifles, are powerful, accurate and carry plenty of ammunition. They (like the shotgun) are shoulder fired, and easy to aim. They will also shoot through most things in your house (this can be a con).
Really the only downside to the rifle is that it will penetrate walls, this means the bad guy can't take cover from you, but you are responsible for every shot you fire. If you errantly hit someone in the house next door, this is your fault.

So depending on your definitions of practical and optimal, you're running a pretty wide gamut of weapons.
Old 06-01-2009, 12:25 PM Chilly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#126  

Bukkakeboy
 
Bukkakeboy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly View Post
An automatic rifle would work exceedingly well for home defense. The first machine guns were developed to defend static positions. Everyone argues about what handgun loads are best suited for stopping attackers. Any (center-fire) rifle round will have infinitely more stopping power than even the biggest pistol rounds.



My original point was and still is: If I use it legally, why should it be illegal? As far as conventional weapons go, yes, if you have the money, you should be able to buy it.



All weapons will have pros and cons. Shotguns are popular because they don't need much aiming (yes, you still have to aim but an inch or two off target won't make a difference), they're easy to use and maintain. Above all, shotguns are powerful.
On the down side they don't carry much ammunition and lack penetration (which can be a good thing i.e. you're not shooting through a bunch of walls).

Pistols are popular because they're small, portable and convenient. They're (a lot) harder to aim and control than shoulder fired weapons.

Rifles, specifically semi-automatic, magazine fed "assault" rifles, are powerful, accurate and carry plenty of ammunition. They (like the shotgun) are shoulder fired, and easy to aim. They will also shoot through most things in your house (this can be a con).
Really the only downside to the rifle is that it will penetrate walls, this means the bad guy can't take cover from you, but you are responsible for every shot you fire. If you errantly hit someone in the house next door, this is your fault.

So depending on your definitions of practical and optimal, you're running a pretty wide gamut of weapons.


Yes, but the difference here is the scenarios.
It looks like you are thinking of this like if a swat-team like cadre of badguys storm your house. This is not a very likely scenario to me ^^

I said shotgun and handgun because those two work very well if someone intrudes in your house (in a "likely" manner, as in b&e etc), or any other halfway likely scenario.
This is the reason I consider those two the "main" categories for defense, because they can actually happen. When you are holed up on top of your stairs with a machine gun on full auto, you've done something wrong
__________________
fuck IRL

this is the internet... and someone is WRONG on it

-Tongboy
Old 06-01-2009, 01:20 PM Bukkakeboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#127  

drx
Kruz3n
 
drx's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
When you are holed up on top of your stairs with a machine gun on full auto, you've done something wrong

This alone is why there is no talking to you.

You are a good little member of the herd of sheeple, and I feel sorry for you. I will continue to defend your freedom and mine while you graze.
__________________
R1 3 5
└┼┼┤
_2 4 6
Old 06-01-2009, 02:03 PM drx is offline  
Reply With Quote
#128  

Bukkakeboy
 
Bukkakeboy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kruz3n View Post
This alone is why there is no talking to you.

You are a good little member of the herd of sheeple, and I feel sorry for you. I will continue to defend your freedom and mine while you graze.

jesus christ, take something a bit more out of context.
(and it does seem like chilly is talking to me, but what do I know, I'm just a sheeple grazing while you high&mighty defend my freedom )

and fgs, if you are gonna respond to me, dont pick out one part out of all my posts and say "OMG THIS IS WHY NOONE IS TALKING TO YOU". Even if you feel that point is somehow the end all be all, then you still have to address where to draw the line since the 2nd amendment for you must be also about defending/fighting against a corrupt government
__________________
fuck IRL

this is the internet... and someone is WRONG on it

-Tongboy

Last edited by Bukkakeboy; 06-01-2009 at 11:20 PM..
Old 06-01-2009, 11:12 PM Bukkakeboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#129  

drx
Kruz3n
 
drx's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
jesus christ, take something a bit more out of context.
(and it does seem like chilly is talking to me, but what do I know, I'm just a sheeple grazing while you high&mighty defend my freedom )

and fgs, if you are gonna respond to me, dont pick out one part out of all my posts and say "OMG THIS IS WHY NOONE IS TALKING TO YOU". Even if you feel that point is somehow the end all be all, then you still have to address where to draw the line since the 2nd amendment for you must be also about defending/fighting against a corrupt government

If the second amendment for you is not in part about defending against a corrupt government then you're not an American and you're not worth talking to about this subject. You can have your opinion, fine, but you're wrong, and you will never sway me or those who think like me. And thank god for that. Like I said, I will continue fighting for your rights and mine if you cannot or will not. There is nothing high and mighty about defending freedom and you will not make me feel like an extremist or a crazy person for wanting to do so. It is the most basic of things and surprisingly the most easily retained. You only lose it when you make the choice to give it up, which is what you have done. Thankfully you're in the minority.
__________________
R1 3 5
└┼┼┤
_2 4 6
Old 06-02-2009, 06:40 AM drx is offline  
Reply With Quote
#130  

Bukkakeboy
 
Bukkakeboy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kruz3n View Post
If the second amendment for you is not in part about defending against a corrupt government then you're not an American and you're not worth talking to about this subject. You can have your opinion, fine, but you're wrong, and you will never sway me or those who think like me. And thank god for that. Like I said, I will continue fighting for your rights and mine if you cannot or will not. There is nothing high and mighty about defending freedom and you will not make me feel like an extremist or a crazy person for wanting to do so. It is the most basic of things and surprisingly the most easily retained. You only lose it when you make the choice to give it up, which is what you have done. Thankfully you're in the minority.

So you are still too dumb to actually answer my question?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
and fgs, if you are gonna respond to me, dont pick out one part out of all my posts and say "OMG THIS IS WHY NOONE IS TALKING TO YOU". Even if you feel that point is somehow the end all be all, then you still have to address where to draw the line since the 2nd amendment for you must be also about defending/fighting against a corrupt government

Still too dumb?
__________________
fuck IRL

this is the internet... and someone is WRONG on it

-Tongboy
Old 06-02-2009, 08:12 AM Bukkakeboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#131  

DarkHelmet
BIGHEAD BIGHEAD BIGHEAD BIGHEAD BIGHEAD BIGHEAD BIGHEAD BIGHEAD BIGHEAD BIGHEAD
 
DarkHelmet's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
So you are still too dumb to actually answer my question?

Still too dumb?

I can sum up the argument.

1. We are right.

2. and you're a dipshit.
Old 06-02-2009, 08:29 AM DarkHelmet is offline  
Reply With Quote
#132  

Bukkakeboy
 
Bukkakeboy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkHelmet View Post
I can sum up the argument.

1. We are right.

2. and you're a dipshit.

awesome, you sure showed me!



except its not about right or wrong atm, its about explaining your views. But well done, your mom must be proud
__________________
fuck IRL

this is the internet... and someone is WRONG on it

-Tongboy
Old 06-02-2009, 08:49 AM Bukkakeboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#133  

DarkHelmet
BIGHEAD BIGHEAD BIGHEAD BIGHEAD BIGHEAD BIGHEAD BIGHEAD BIGHEAD BIGHEAD BIGHEAD
 
DarkHelmet's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
[SIZE="gay"]awesome, you sure showed me![/SIZE]



except its not about right or wrong atm, its about explaining your views. But well done, your mom must be proud

I said i was done using facts in my last post.

I fucked your sister and fisted your mother.

Suck on that :P
Old 06-02-2009, 09:32 AM DarkHelmet is offline  
Reply With Quote
#134  

Bukkakeboy
 
Bukkakeboy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkHelmet View Post
I said i was done using facts in my last post.

SIZE="7"]I fucked your sister and fisted your mother[/SIZE].

Suck on that :P

great job virgin, you are just the kind of person gorgon warned against.
__________________
fuck IRL

this is the internet... and someone is WRONG on it

-Tongboy
Old 06-02-2009, 10:25 AM Bukkakeboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#135  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:33 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.