Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps , but only for the entertainment value..His carrying the advocacy of unarmed methods, even into verbal combat, makes for great fun. Shooters ready? Stand By.............
I believe every free, non-criminal person has the right to be armed when and wherever they are. I do not believe in firearms registration or restriction.
I also believe that the shooter is ALWAYS responsible for what ever the bullet damages even if the gun was fired by accident. If the bullet punches a hole in a paper target there is no damage done. If it punches a hole in a person they the shooter need to have a very good reason. Defense of self, family or others are good reasons.
Let's say I am an expert with bombs. I took a class on bombs and know a lot about them.
Should I (being a free, non-criminal person) be able to strap explosives to my body and walk around densely populated areas?
We have the freedom to express our opinions. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with them.
no kidding. you keep talking out of both sides of your ass though when you say that you support banning everything under the sun, and yet say that you don't like the power that government wields.
earth to tk, but who is going to do the banning under your perfect system? do you know what a ban is, or are you just throwing around big words (relative to the user) again?
Quote:
Again, advocacy is not action.
wrong again. advocacy definitely is an action. look it up in a dictionary for crying out loud. quit coming into these debates with the idea that all of us are going to understand and agree with your personal definitions of everything in the world.
if you want to redefine reality, you need to qualify it with actual definitions. when you try arguing crap like "boycotts are bans" you show that you are ignorant of either one of two facts: that your personal definitions are personal and do not apply to *anyone* else, or that you are just plain ignorant of the big words that you are using.
so again, pick up a dictionary and find out what the rest of us are talking about before trying to communicate.
Quote:
It's all just talk, and that's the primary basis for these forums, or any forums. Just talk.
You're not changing your mind, however foolish that may be. And I'm not changing mine. A person that holds an opinion on a subject should not change their mind. That's kind of wishy-washy, don't you think? Oh, right, you don't think. You're not mature enough yet to do so.
a person that holds a position on something that has been proven over and over to be logically fallacious should most certainly change their mind if they wish to retain any semblance of rational thought.
when you continue to use straw man arguments, hasty generalizations, and red herrings as your sole argumentative strategy, you fail. that simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
Boycott, ban...very little difference in the long run.
there is a huge difference, and this is one of the biggest evidences that you have given us that you have no clue what you are talking about. not only that, but you are lying about it now.
you have argued over and over about banning things. banning requires government controlled restrictions against certain things. it requires punishment against those that disobey, because it is a law, a power and authority of the government.
now you are saying that you meant that people should choose for themselves. that is not what banning means. were you unaware of that fact or are you just tripping over yourself in an effort to lie your way out of some earlier slip ups?
boycotting is an act of personal preference that is used as you mentioned earlier, "to do the right thing because [you think] that it is the right thing to do." it generally has nothing to do with a government's authority or anything, can't be enforced, can't be punished, etc.
it is in no way similar to a ban except for the fact that you stop subscribing to a particular product, philosophy, or organization.
here are the two definitions since i bet that you aren't going to look them up for yourself.
further, you can't hold to a desire to ban everything that you don't personally like or find useful to you in your tiny little life, giving the government that much more power, and desire a smaller, less powerful government.
way to fail your ethics & philosophy class, your government class, your debate class, and your history class. i am confident that you don't get it, but your reasoning is completely fallacious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
Defending yourself doesn't require a gun. Even in anarchy.
another logical fallacy in one of two ways. i'll ignore the "even in anarchy" bit because like so much else that you have been writing, it is completely tangential and deflective.
a broad statement like that needs to be narrowed down so that we know in what sense you are speaking.
it means either that defending one's self never requires a gun, or that you think that we are arguing that defending one's self always requires a gun.
neither one is true. defending yourself can require a gun in certain circumstances, and no one here is arguing that everyone needs to go get a gun because it is mandatory in order to be able to defend yourself.
i know you think that your supposed martial arts training makes you invincible, but the reality is far from it. most martial arts cannot teach you to effectively take down an armed attacker, and most martial artists will still be seriously injured in an attack by a thug with a knife, much less a gun.
so, quit relying on straw man arguments and ridiculous generalizations.
guns are not the answer to every problem, but they certainly are the answer for a few dramatically serious problems that are not capable of being overcome with chuck norris roundhouses to the chin.
now, back to our regularly scheduled program. i'm done dealing with you, tk, until you can actually begin answering questions (so far you do the same thing that trickd did, dodge, ignore, and distract without ever actually discussing the issues), and that you can show some sort of mental reconnect that inspires you to quit using logical fallacies and insults for everything you post.
Let's say I am an expert with bombs. I took a class on bombs and know a lot about them.
Should I (being a free, non-criminal person) be able to strap explosives to my body and walk around densely populated areas?
If not, why?
Explosives are a different critter, obviously. By definition, they are indiscriminate in choosing a target and are , again ,obviously, not something that could be considered as proper for public use. A firearm, only hits the target it is aimed at. ONE specific target, as a general rule, therefore the comparison of firearms to explosives is rather illogical.
Explosives are a different critter, obviously. By definition, they are indiscriminate in choosing a target and are , again ,obviously, not something that could be considered as proper for public use. A firearm, only hits the target it is aimed at. ONE specific target, as a general rule, therefore the comparison of firearms to explosives is rather illogical.
A gun is not going to protect me when I have a gang of people surrounding me with guns of their own, and whose intent is to kill me.
Wouldn't them knowing that I have explosives strapped to my chest be a better deterrent to them shooting at me than just me having a gun?
Even one person would be more hesitant to pull a gun on me if I had explosives on me.
Using the 'self-defense' argument, it would seem that explosives would be better than guns.
(Disclaimer: These posts are for the sake of argument. I do not advocate the wearing of explosives.)
A gun is not going to protect me when I have a gang of people surrounding me with guns of their own, and whose intent is to kill me.
Wouldn't them knowing that I have explosives strapped to my chest be a better deterrent to them shooting at me than just me having a gun?
Even one person would be more hesitant to pull a gun on me if I had explosives on me.
Using the 'self-defense' argument, it would seem that explosives would be better than guns.
(Disclaimer: These posts are for the sake of argument. I do not advocate the wearing of explosives.)
LMAO, that's carrying the Devils Advocate to levels I have never seen.. As to multiple targets being engaged with a firearm, much depends on how cool a cucumber you are. Explosives must be considered to be a non viable option for the purposes you describe. Unlike a firearm, explosives can have a mind of their own. They tend to do what they do for no better reason than a change of temperture or ambiant humidity change. A firearm requires concious control for it's intended purpose, and, as I said, is single traget specific. The 'gang of thugs' thing? Well, sorry, but working on your shooting skills, or situational awareness, will have to suffice.
A gun is not going to protect me when I have a gang of people surrounding me with guns of their own, and whose intent is to kill me.
there is no defense that will protect you against every possible assault.
Quote:
Wouldn't them knowing that I have explosives strapped to my chest be a better deterrent to them shooting at me than just me having a gun?
Even one person would be more hesitant to pull a gun on me if I had explosives on me.
probably, but irrelevant.
Quote:
Using the 'self-defense' argument, it would seem that explosives would be better than guns.
you sure that you thought this through all of the way? blowing yourself up is a good way to defend yourself? psychological warfare can only go so far, man...
Quote:
(Disclaimer: These posts are for the sake of argument. I do not advocate the wearing of explosives.)
LMAO, that's carrying the Devils Advocate to levels I have never seen.. As to multiple targets being engaged with a firearm, much depends on how cool a cucumber you are. Explosives must be considered to be a non viable option for the purposes you describe. Unlike a firearm, explosives can have a mind of their own. They tend to do what they do for no better reason than a change of temperture or ambiant humidity change. A firearm requires concious control for it's intended purpose, and, as I said, is single traget specific. The 'gang of thugs' thing? Well, sorry, but working on your shooting skills, or situational awareness, will have to suffice.
How 'cool a cucumber' I am? If you are going to use that argument, what is the point of having any weapon at all? If much just depends on how 'cool' someone is?
Let's say that we can control the explosives? Let's say that changes in temperature and humidity will not give them a 'mind of their own'. Would explosives then be okay in the situation I have outlined?
I like how you laugh/mock my argument with multiple shooters surrounding me. Should we mock people who are threatened by one shooter just the same?
No, but being for free will requires you mind your business. If you are for real.
Unless you're only for free will until it goes beyond YOUR desired limitations. But then thats not really being for or respecting free will now is it?
Limitations such as laws against real & actual wrongs against others are acceptable limitations for someone who respects liberty & freedom, they cannot really exist, liberty & freedom, for everyone without such laws.
But limiting liberties arbitrarily before any crime is committed, or creating an imaginary crime by criminalizing innocent harmless behavior such as merely possessing a weapon, cannot be construed as respecting liberty & freedom or even supporting individual free will.
It can only honestly be construed as what it is, the unjust suppression & blatant violating of civil rights.
That is what you really support. Judging by what you say here anyway.
And I'm not forcing anyone to give up their guns. You want to be stupid, go right ahead. I don't want to stop you.
there is no defense that will protect you against every possible assault.
probably, but irrelevant.
you sure that you thought this through all of the way? blowing yourself up is a good way to defend yourself? psychological warfare can only go so far, man...
nice to hear.
If someone is going to shoot you anyway, the shooter will immediately get the repercussions for shooting someone. They die from the explosions just as you have.
What do you think is a better psychological deterrent for someone looking to rob/kill?
Option A: If you shoot this person, you die yourself.
Option B: If you shoot this person, there's a small chance they could brandish a weapon in time and take aim and injure you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.His carrying the advocacy of unarmed methods, even into verbal combat, makes for great fun. Shooters ready? Stand By.............
. As to multiple targets being engaged with a firearm, much depends on how cool a cucumber you are. Explosives must be considered to be a non viable option for the purposes you describe. Unlike a firearm, explosives can have a mind of their own. They tend to do what they do for no better reason than a change of temperture or ambiant humidity change. A firearm requires concious control for it's intended purpose, and, as I said, is single traget specific. The 'gang of thugs' thing? Well, sorry, but working on your shooting skills, or situational awareness, will have to suffice.
If you are for real.
