I agree, so you should stop talking. Oh, you've already been forced too oops!
This thread is really flushing out the full retards.
Last edited:
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
What gun control would you actually support?
- Thread starter zbrod
- Start date
- Status
I agree, so you should stop talking. Oh, you've already been forced too oops!
This thread is really flushing out the full retards.
We're getting well away from the original topic of gun control here. Maybe I missed it but the only place where explosives were brought into question here were when you brought Timmothy McVeigh into the discussion. McVeigh didn't use C4, or an a-bomb, or any other type of conventional explosives. He used a nitrogen based fertilizer and diesel fuel. That's it. Two things that anyone, criminal record or not, can go out and buy freely.
Why is it when someone says nuke everyone thinks Tsar Bomb? Not all nukes are high yield. Hell we developed artillery delivered nukes...
I'm still in the nukes for everyone category. You can't unring the bell.
I'm still in the nukes for everyone category. You can't unring the bell.
okay then, my question to you is: what ANFO control would you actually support?
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
i'd love to go to the store and be able to buy a tiny little nuke. if it was fun to trip the charge in an airbag under three feet of dirt a little nuke of similar yield would be awesome jammed inside a pumpkin or watermelon!
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Not anymore, at least as far as the fertilizer is concerned. IIRC the feds have all kinds of regulations on the sale of ammonium nitrate based fertilizer now.
Course what a lot of people don't know is that McVeigh and Nichols broke into licensed explosives magazines and stole all kinds of other explosives from those magazines... so much for the "laws" stopping them from doing that.
-Mike
Yes, all they've really accomplished is turning NHRA races into regulatory nightmares... [sad2]
Women fight less, we should castrate all men...We should ban...
's
that should fix it, right?
Tried that in Concord, MA... State AG wouldn't bite and approve their "home rule petition." Too soon I guess, showed their hand.
Zbrod, starting to get the picture about why, even if we thought gun control would work (which we don't because it never has) that our government is so lacking in credibility on this or any issue that we wouldn't accept giving them more power anyway?
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,985
- Likes
- 23,698
BAHAHAHA!
flintoid
Banned
zbrod- what are your opinions on the regulation of video games, or software for that matter? Do you believe that our government should judge what should be created for the free market? Or do you believe that the government should be able to outlaw a piece of software that you have created, regardless of your intent?
J
Jose
Ammonium nitrates are easy to get if you know a farmer.
Very nice Timber, I was hoping you didn't know how to use the Google cache. Not that any of that stuff is secret. Like I was telling Mark056, OKCupid is a cesspool of young, over-educated liberal socialists. My people. I don't think you guys would like it there. Also Timber, are you a closet /b/tard?
No, I am against banning video games and software, and I think any self-respecting liberal should be as well.
Let me throw something out there, and feel free to calmly tell me why it's wrong, but do not assume it is what I firmly believe and jump down my throat for it--not everything I bring up for discussion represents deeply held personal beliefs of mine (for ex, just because I ask what you guys think of gun control doesn't mean *I* support it).
I think the reason people give for banning, taxing, or regulating one thing and not another is that some things concern purely the individual and have no effect on others, whereas other things do. Myself and others would say that video games don't harm anyone, so it is up to the individual whether they want to buy it. Others might argue that violent games cause kids to become violent, and thus become dangers to others. Some say taxing cigarettes is bad because if a person wants to kill themselves, so be it. But others would argue that we all end up paying for the health care those people end up needing. Some don't like taxes on gas, others say the pollution it causes costs us all.
Before you start typing, I want everyone to think of this hypothetical question: the person who lives next to you acquires some sort of (atomic or otherwise) large explosive that, if detonated, would kill you and your whole family, and destroy your house. This explosive is highly volatile and your neighbor is an incompetent idiot, so there is a good chance he will accidentally set off the explosive. But he legally owns it and it is on his property. Does he have a right to put you and your family in that kind of danger?
Again, this is a hypothetical exercise, not a statement of belief. Work with me here people.
No, I am against banning video games and software, and I think any self-respecting liberal should be as well.
Let me throw something out there, and feel free to calmly tell me why it's wrong, but do not assume it is what I firmly believe and jump down my throat for it--not everything I bring up for discussion represents deeply held personal beliefs of mine (for ex, just because I ask what you guys think of gun control doesn't mean *I* support it).
I think the reason people give for banning, taxing, or regulating one thing and not another is that some things concern purely the individual and have no effect on others, whereas other things do. Myself and others would say that video games don't harm anyone, so it is up to the individual whether they want to buy it. Others might argue that violent games cause kids to become violent, and thus become dangers to others. Some say taxing cigarettes is bad because if a person wants to kill themselves, so be it. But others would argue that we all end up paying for the health care those people end up needing. Some don't like taxes on gas, others say the pollution it causes costs us all.
Before you start typing, I want everyone to think of this hypothetical question: the person who lives next to you acquires some sort of (atomic or otherwise) large explosive that, if detonated, would kill you and your whole family, and destroy your house. This explosive is highly volatile and your neighbor is an incompetent idiot, so there is a good chance he will accidentally set off the explosive. But he legally owns it and it is on his property. Does he have a right to put you and your family in that kind of danger?
Again, this is a hypothetical exercise, not a statement of belief. Work with me here people.
That's what we backwoods rednecks like to call "intellectual dishonestly," or perhaps "dissembling?"
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
First, understand that this is not even the same planet as the current debate nor even in the realm of your original question as you yourself admitted, you were thinking along the lines of tanks and C4. Your hypothetical has gone hyperbolic...zbrod said:
Second, understand that whether or not it is legal does not decide whether your dumb neighbor does it.
Third, few will, or should, debate that nukes present a unique problem - the assault one commits using them can be rather profound and difficult to detect until its too late. Amongst the law abiding, this is one of those problems where understanding that you will be punished severely for your negligence will means that most will be concerned enough for their own personal safety to avoid handling it or handle it with the appropriate precautions.
Then there are those who wish to do harm to others... No matter what we do, Constitution trampling or not, they are coming in our future... The debate about what to do about this is much, much bigger than anything related to "arms." It has to do with education, foreign policy, liability (social or legal) of vendors who sell such things, etc...
In short, I'll be honest and say that I don't have an answer for you other than this has little to do with the balance of power between government and other "arms" and citizen as government generally won't nuke it's own citizens... As such, to argue this point to prove another is hyperbolic...
In God We Trust
NES Member
I don't know where the line should be as to what arms people should keep and bear, but it definately falls short of nukes. I asked this earlier in the thread and I am really surprised that there are people here that think it should be ok to walk into Nukes R us and buy a 5 megaton just because uncle sam has one. accepting the dangers inherent in true liberty is one thing, but giving a nut job the means to destroy our country is another. By the way, what would you do with it anyway? Nuke DC because they were out of control?
I think the people that advocate for civilian ownership of nukes are just trying to be "one of the guys" and did not give it much thought before posting.
Last edited:
You're a grad student? How much are you paying for this?
You guys are right that this is not necessarily a realistic situation, that focusing on things like nuclear bombs and C4 is extreme. However, it is also Philosophy 101 to take a concept to the extreme in order to test whether it holds up to scrutiny. The example with the neighbor could possibly reveal something we could apply to more normal circumstances, help us see it more clearly. I don't care what the neighbor has, it is just something that can kill you and your family easily by accident. The details are unimportant unless you can justify why.
Timber: What if you talk to him and he tells you to piss off? What if you call the "authorities" and they say "hey, we live in a libertarian utopia, he's allowed to own that, we can't do anything." And then you go take him out, and you go to jail or are executed. Are those really the options?
Timber: What if you talk to him and he tells you to piss off? What if you call the "authorities" and they say "hey, we live in a libertarian utopia, he's allowed to own that, we can't do anything." And then you go take him out, and you go to jail or are executed. Are those really the options?
Well, zbrod, you've certainly poked the hornets' next. Several times.
I think anyone who was agnostic on gun control and who scanned the posts on this thread would recognize that open minds are not the norm on this blog. Not on any other gun blog that I know of, either. Anyone who wanders from the straight and narrow is jumped on, no matter how reasonable he/she maybe. Guns in high school? Sure. Guns in elementary school? Sure. Guns in pre-school? Why not? Arm the inmates down at the asylum? Of course.
I'm not sure how many posters actually believe these things, but this isn't the place to say them out loud.
The pro-control factions ("anti's in the local parlance) are as bad or worse. They see that the police need guns, but can't imagine that any other person could also walk in dangerous places. Well, lots of people do.
The pro-control folks are mostly urban. They don't have the slightest notion about country folks, and farms. They don't see the problem of Bambi grazing in the fields, or Peter Rabbit chowing down in the cabbage patch. They've forgotten about the historic relationship between wolves and lambs, or between foxes and chickens.
And, use the word "magazine", not the word "clip." There is a history that means "clip" is not completely wrong, but it's totally out of date. In today's world, a device that encloses ammo is a magazine. A device that holds the ammo by the back end and leaves it exposed is a clip.
I think anyone who was agnostic on gun control and who scanned the posts on this thread would recognize that open minds are not the norm on this blog. Not on any other gun blog that I know of, either. Anyone who wanders from the straight and narrow is jumped on, no matter how reasonable he/she maybe. Guns in high school? Sure. Guns in elementary school? Sure. Guns in pre-school? Why not? Arm the inmates down at the asylum? Of course.
I'm not sure how many posters actually believe these things, but this isn't the place to say them out loud.
The pro-control factions ("anti's in the local parlance) are as bad or worse. They see that the police need guns, but can't imagine that any other person could also walk in dangerous places. Well, lots of people do.
The pro-control folks are mostly urban. They don't have the slightest notion about country folks, and farms. They don't see the problem of Bambi grazing in the fields, or Peter Rabbit chowing down in the cabbage patch. They've forgotten about the historic relationship between wolves and lambs, or between foxes and chickens.
And, use the word "magazine", not the word "clip." There is a history that means "clip" is not completely wrong, but it's totally out of date. In today's world, a device that encloses ammo is a magazine. A device that holds the ammo by the back end and leaves it exposed is a clip.
He would be found not guilty but a jury of his peers, as it is a libertarian utopia after all.
Why not? If their parents feel theyre responsible enough to carry, its their decision, if theyre wrong then theres consequences. As for the asylum, theyre there for a reason, if theyre healthy enough to leave then they can get their guns back.
What else are we gonna do? Work?
- Status
