Welcome to Gaia! ::

Death Magnificent
It is not smart to give one group all the guns. Simple precaution.

Elaborate please, before I'm forced to assume your argument.
LadyBramante's avatar

Lonely Loiterer

10,600 Points
  • Timid 100
  • Friendly 100
  • Dressed Up 200
Tadpole Jackson


As it also happens, if you can see that I have guns, if I make you aware of the fact that I have guns, I would bet that stands to reason that I don't plan to use them on you.


No, it doesn't stand to reason that swaggering about waving a gun = will never use it on the neighbours.

I think you're suffering from an inflated sense of your own importance - or a worrying lack of respect for everyone else's rights.

Let's go do an anology.

Feudal Japan.
Samurai walks into a tea house.
Takes tea (and an iced bun), walks out without paying.
The tea house waitress bows in front of him.
He puts his hand on the hilt of his sword - doesn't draw it, doesn't cut her in half.
But he could.
She grovels out of the way.
Off he goes.

Having the ability to kill the people about you IS tyranny in action.
Can you see it in the analogy?

Now, back at your apartment, waving your guns in your neighbours' faces, can you see why we don't think it is all about YOUR rights ?
LadyBramante
Tadpole Jackson


As it also happens, if you can see that I have guns, if I make you aware of the fact that I have guns, I would bet that stands to reason that I don't plan to use them on you.


No, it doesn't stand to reason that swaggering about waving a gun = will never use it on the neighbours.

I think you're suffering from an inflated sense of your own importance - or a worrying lack of respect for everyone else's rights.

Let's go do an anology.

Feudal Japan.
Samurai walks into a tea house.
Takes tea (and an iced bun), walks out without paying.
The tea house waitress bows in front of him.
He puts his hand on the hilt of his sword - doesn't draw it, doesn't cut her in half.
But he could.
She grovels out of the way.
Off he goes.

Having the ability to kill the people about you IS tyranny in action.
Can you see it in the analogy?

Now, back at your apartment, waving your guns in your neighbours' faces, can you see why we don't think it is all about YOUR rights ?


Hmm, yes, I am waggling that little ******** around like it's my d**k and I'm in the middle of rubbing one out, "Hey everybody look how much ******** gun this is, ya better not cross me now!"

'cept of course brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner is, in fact, a crime, big no no.

Do you understand concealed carry? it's like this

Concealed means concealed, if people can see that you're carrying, and can be threatened by that (and that's tyranny now) then it's not ******** concealed, and you're doing it wrong.

I have the ability to kill the people around me with or without a gun, I get that power every time i get behind the wheel of a car.

TL;DR

Your analogy would get you arrested under current brandishing laws.

I have this incredibly strong suspicion you don't know a whole lot about gun owners and the laws regarding such.
LadyBramante's avatar

Lonely Loiterer

10,600 Points
  • Timid 100
  • Friendly 100
  • Dressed Up 200
Tadpole Jackson

I have this incredibly strong suspicion you don't know a whole lot about gun owners and the laws regarding such.


Ah, gun-enthusiast wants to make it all about the exact wording of legislation or petty definitions of parts of his killin' toy ?

That's not a new ploy.

If you'ld like to make it about knowledge, I ask you how much you know about hydostatic shock?

About the number of consecutive human bodies that a magnum slug can punch through ?

About the number of fragments that a fragmented round will break into and the surgeons' decisions in whether or not to cut in and try to remove them? Or leave them, balancing long term pain and permanent incapacity against the risk of immediate death ?

I know dead.
I know bereaved.
I know pain.
I know terror when threatened.

And I know about guilt. I know about guilty drunks who sober up and find that they've done something unforgivable.

Why'n'cha go down your local A&E on a Saturday night and learn something ?
Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

Death Magnificent
Interesting. Still, my rights were guaranteed.
And the rights of slave ownership were written right into the ******** text of the document. But, amazingly, rights are just laws. They're laws that are hard to change, but they can be changed.

Death Magnificent
Well, legally, if the masked men kicking my door down turn out to be government agents, whether local police or alphabet boys, there will be no self-defence acquittal for killing them. Also, the proper forum is responsible for creating corporate personhood, encouraging the sale of democracy, letting Bush & Pals do whatever they wanted, allowing outright lies to be sold as news... They pretty much always disappoint.
Depends on what you did, and how the how the government agents act. Government agents generally identify themselves before entering an occupied residence, present a search warrant, et cetera, just to avoid another Ruby Ridge. See, Randy Weaver got acquitted on self-defense grounds, despite a dead marshall.

In addition, corporate personhood has existed in common law for hundreds of years. It sounds like your complaint is limited to the Citizens United issue regarding Super PACs and such, but frankly, it's kind of a non sequitur. The SCOTUS is also very friendly to gun rights. One legal doctrine has nothing to do with the other.

Death Magnificent
p***y-a** Englishmen.
Hey, those are the men who guaranteed your rights there. Show some goddamn respect.
LadyBramante
Tadpole Jackson

I have this incredibly strong suspicion you don't know a whole lot about gun owners and the laws regarding such.


Ah, gun-enthusiast wants to make it all about the exact wording of legislation or petty definitions of parts of his killin' toy ?

That's not a new ploy.

If you'ld like to make it about knowledge, I ask you how much you know about hydostatic shock?

About the number of consecutive human bodies that a magnum slug can punch through ?

About the number of fragments that a fragmented round will break into and the surgeons' decisions in whether or not to cut in and try to remove them? Or leave them, balancing long term pain and permanent incapacity against the risk of immediate death ?

I know dead.
I know bereaved.
I know pain.
I know terror when threatened.

And I know about guilt. I know about guilty drunks who sober up and find that they've done something unforgivable.

Why'n'cha go down your local A&E on a Saturday night and learn something ?


So, what you can do, i've learned is
1) make wild a** assumptions about behavior
2) appeal to emotion.

Hydrostatic shock is bullshit.

How many bodies can a 'magnum slug' make it through? which caliber? .357? .44? .375H&H? 7mm Rem Mag? .22WMR?

Your argument is that *I* am the problem, when *I* haven't ******** with anybody.

So honestly, I couldn't possibly care less than i do about what *you* know about any of this terror and pain and death, because I didn't ******** do it.
N3bu
Death Magnificent
It is not smart to give one group all the guns. Simple precaution.

Elaborate please, before I'm forced to assume your argument.

I don't think the government should directly command all the decent firepower in the country, is all. I don't trust the government, they shot up a school in the 70s on some Boston Massacre s**t.
LadyBramante
Tadpole Jackson

I have this incredibly strong suspicion you don't know a whole lot about gun owners and the laws regarding such.


Ah, gun-enthusiast wants to make it all about the exact wording of legislation or petty definitions of parts of his killin' toy ?

That's not a new ploy.

If you'ld like to make it about knowledge, I ask you how much you know about hydostatic shock?

About the number of consecutive human bodies that a magnum slug can punch through ?

About the number of fragments that a fragmented round will break into and the surgeons' decisions in whether or not to cut in and try to remove them? Or leave them, balancing long term pain and permanent incapacity against the risk of immediate death ?

I know dead.
I know bereaved.
I know pain.
I know terror when threatened.

And I know about guilt. I know about guilty drunks who sober up and find that they've done something unforgivable.

Why'n'cha go down your local A&E on a Saturday night and learn something ?

I could ******** you up just as bad with a Buick going 35. Light rail needs advocates, you know.

A&E, the ******** is that?
Ban
Death Magnificent
Interesting. Still, my rights were guaranteed.
And the rights of slave ownership were written right into the ******** text of the document. But, amazingly, rights are just laws. They're laws that are hard to change, but they can be changed.

I don't like that. The government can do anything it wants to do, and we are compelled to follow by threat of force.

Quote:
Death Magnificent
Well, legally, if the masked men kicking my door down turn out to be government agents, whether local police or alphabet boys, there will be no self-defence acquittal for killing them. Also, the proper forum is responsible for creating corporate personhood, encouraging the sale of democracy, letting Bush & Pals do whatever they wanted, allowing outright lies to be sold as news... They pretty much always disappoint.
Depends on what you did, and how the how the government agents act. Government agents generally identify themselves before entering an occupied residence, present a search warrant, et cetera, just to avoid another Ruby Ridge. See, Randy Weaver got acquitted on self-defense grounds, despite a dead marshall.

In addition, corporate personhood has existed in common law for hundreds of years. It sounds like your complaint is limited to the Citizens United issue regarding Super PACs and such, but frankly, it's kind of a non sequitur. The SCOTUS is also very friendly to gun rights. One legal doctrine has nothing to do with the other.

Interesting. They wouldn't let it happen twice, though.

I have so many grievances that listing them is too much goddamn work. I don't like how my government has been operating since its origination, so I'd like it replaced.

Quote:
Death Magnificent
p***y-a** Englishmen.
Hey, those are the men who guaranteed your rights there. Show some goddamn respect.

Ah, but wasn't it only for white men at first? I just like the idea of rights, and of not letting people ******** with them, so I suppose I'm really just inspired by that.

Some people tell those who're complaining about rights not yet recognised that they're entitled. They might have a point in that rights are not simply handed out just like that. There has to be unstoppable unrest.
Death Magnificent
N3bu
Death Magnificent
It is not smart to give one group all the guns. Simple precaution.

Elaborate please, before I'm forced to assume your argument.

I don't think the government should directly command all the decent firepower in the country, is all. I don't trust the government, they shot up a school in the 70s on some Boston Massacre s**t.

So your implication is what? If you give up all your guns your government will what? Takeover?
LadyBramante
Tadpole Jackson


As it also happens, if you can see that I have guns, if I make you aware of the fact that I have guns, I would bet that stands to reason that I don't plan to use them on you.


No, it doesn't stand to reason that swaggering about waving a gun = will never use it on the neighbours.

I think you're suffering from an inflated sense of your own importance - or a worrying lack of respect for everyone else's rights.

Let's go do an anology.

Feudal Japan.
Samurai walks into a tea house.
Takes tea (and an iced bun), walks out without paying.
The tea house waitress bows in front of him.
He puts his hand on the hilt of his sword - doesn't draw it, doesn't cut her in half.
But he could.
She grovels out of the way.
Off he goes.

Having the ability to kill the people about you IS tyranny in action.
Can you see it in the analogy?

Now, back at your apartment, waving your guns in your neighbours' faces, can you see why we don't think it is all about YOUR rights ?

If a samurai did such a thing repeatedly he would probably get killed by a more honorable samurai.
N3bu
Death Magnificent
N3bu
Death Magnificent
It is not smart to give one group all the guns. Simple precaution.

Elaborate please, before I'm forced to assume your argument.

I don't think the government should directly command all the decent firepower in the country, is all. I don't trust the government, they shot up a school in the 70s on some Boston Massacre s**t.

So your implication is what? If you give up all your guns your government will what? Takeover?

If history repeats itself, yes.
Death Magnificent
N3bu
Death Magnificent
N3bu
Death Magnificent
It is not smart to give one group all the guns. Simple precaution.

Elaborate please, before I'm forced to assume your argument.

I don't think the government should directly command all the decent firepower in the country, is all. I don't trust the government, they shot up a school in the 70s on some Boston Massacre s**t.

So your implication is what? If you give up all your guns your government will what? Takeover?

If history repeats itself, yes.
Yet Australia, which has fairly low gun ownership, hasn't had that happen.
N3bu
Death Magnificent
N3bu
Death Magnificent
N3bu
Death Magnificent
It is not smart to give one group all the guns. Simple precaution.

Elaborate please, before I'm forced to assume your argument.

I don't think the government should directly command all the decent firepower in the country, is all. I don't trust the government, they shot up a school in the 70s on some Boston Massacre s**t.

So your implication is what? If you give up all your guns your government will what? Takeover?

If history repeats itself, yes.
Yet Australia, which has fairly low gun ownership, hasn't had that happen.

Everything is banned over there, that's apparently just how they do things. Hell, they even banned photos and video of small tits. The Austrailian government, to my knowledge, is not so ruthless or dangerously ambitious as ours.
LadyBramante's avatar

Lonely Loiterer

10,600 Points
  • Timid 100
  • Friendly 100
  • Dressed Up 200
Death Magnificent
LadyBramante
Tadpole Jackson


As it also happens, if you can see that I have guns, if I make you aware of the fact that I have guns, I would bet that stands to reason that I don't plan to use them on you.


No, it doesn't stand to reason that swaggering about waving a gun = will never use it on the neighbours.

I think you're suffering from an inflated sense of your own importance - or a worrying lack of respect for everyone else's rights.

Let's go do an anology.

Feudal Japan.
Samurai walks into a tea house.
Takes tea (and an iced bun), walks out without paying.
The tea house waitress bows in front of him.
He puts his hand on the hilt of his sword - doesn't draw it, doesn't cut her in half.
But he could.
She grovels out of the way.
Off he goes.

Having the ability to kill the people about you IS tyranny in action.
Can you see it in the analogy?

Now, back at your apartment, waving your guns in your neighbours' faces, can you see why we don't think it is all about YOUR rights ?

If a samurai did such a thing repeatedly he would probably get killed by a more honorable samurai.


A female 'merchant' such as a tea house waitress, counted for less than a male 'merchant', who counted for less than a peasant. And a peasant was a 'half person.'
Honourable samurai did not pay any attention to money.
And they gave no importance to behaviour towards the lower castes.
At worst, it was damage to some other lord's property.

The Japanese feudal system was as nasty a system of thuggery as the European feudal system.
Desperate peasants rebelled, on average, once a year.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games