I'm not a big fan of fireams I can't get more than 2 fingers around...but if it works for you.DBBrinson1 wrote:
I just got a Seecamp pistol (.32) a week or so ago.
Our country needs more armed protests. these fuckers in washington don't listen to people unless they pay them or threaten them. Why pay for something that should be free.
We need to freak out the Media and the Liberals.
We need to freak out the Media and the Liberals.
A gun in no shape or form can resist attack. Indeed they don't need to be passive.RAIMIUS wrote:
DEFENSIVE (from definition 1 and 2a)
Defensive armaments are...defensive! They are "devoted to resisting attack."
Things do not need to be passive to be defensive.
Hence why a sword can be used defensively. A gun can not, a gun doesn't block bullets and neither can it target them and shoot them out the sky unless you are god like.
A guns purpose is to shoot bullets at something.
A swords purpose is to strike something and to block something.
See the difference. One can be used defensively the other cannot.
If you are coming at me with a knife and I pull out a gun and point it at you, you will stop.Vilham wrote:
A gun in no shape or form can resist attack. Indeed they don't need to be passive.RAIMIUS wrote:
DEFENSIVE (from definition 1 and 2a)
Defensive armaments are...defensive! They are "devoted to resisting attack."
Things do not need to be passive to be defensive.
Hence why a sword can be used defensively. A gun can not, a gun doesn't block bullets and neither can it target them and shoot them out the sky unless you are god like.
A guns purpose is to shoot bullets at something.
A swords purpose is to strike something and to block something.
See the difference. One can be used defensively the other cannot.
duh
you fail
shove your sword
Will I stop? What says I will stop? The only way you can guarantee I stop is by shooting me, an aggressive action not a defensive one.Lotta_Drool wrote:
If you are coming at me with a knife and I pull out a gun and point it at you, you will stop.Vilham wrote:
A gun in no shape or form can resist attack. Indeed they don't need to be passive.RAIMIUS wrote:
DEFENSIVE (from definition 1 and 2a)
Defensive armaments are...defensive! They are "devoted to resisting attack."
Things do not need to be passive to be defensive.
Hence why a sword can be used defensively. A gun can not, a gun doesn't block bullets and neither can it target them and shoot them out the sky unless you are god like.
A guns purpose is to shoot bullets at something.
A swords purpose is to strike something and to block something.
See the difference. One can be used defensively the other cannot.
duh
you fail
shove your sword
The bullet in your head that was fired in defenseVilham wrote:
Will I stop? What says I will stop? The only way you can guarantee I stop is by shooting me, an aggressive action not a defensive one.Lotta_Drool wrote:
If you are coming at me with a knife and I pull out a gun and point it at you, you will stop.Vilham wrote:
A gun in no shape or form can resist attack. Indeed they don't need to be passive.
Hence why a sword can be used defensively. A gun can not, a gun doesn't block bullets and neither can it target them and shoot them out the sky unless you are god like.
A guns purpose is to shoot bullets at something.
A swords purpose is to strike something and to block something.
See the difference. One can be used defensively the other cannot.
duh
you fail
shove your sword
Last edited by Lotta_Drool (2009-08-21 17:49:23)
That isn't defense. That is far from the definition of defense.
You are confusing self-defense with defense. Self-defense is a legal term based on attacking someone to stop them attempting to attack you.
So for the 50th time. A gun is not a defensive weapon.
You are confusing self-defense with defense. Self-defense is a legal term based on attacking someone to stop them attempting to attack you.
So for the 50th time. A gun is not a defensive weapon.
In theory you could use a gun as a club to defend yourself.Vilham wrote:
That isn't defense. That is far from the definition of defense.
You are confusing self-defense with defense. Self-defense is a legal term based on attacking someone to stop them attempting to attack you.
So for the 50th time. A gun is not a defensive weapon.
True. Finally someone that can actually debate this. If someone attacked you with a knife you could defend yourself my blocking them with the gun. But equally I can do that with a stick.Macbeth wrote:
In theory you could use a gun as a club to defend yourself.Vilham wrote:
That isn't defense. That is far from the definition of defense.
You are confusing self-defense with defense. Self-defense is a legal term based on attacking someone to stop them attempting to attack you.
So for the 50th time. A gun is not a defensive weapon.
Is the gun designed with such a method in purpose? I suppose you could argue a rifle with a bayonet has defensive purpose as that clearly is designed with that in mind.
It be more of a parry against a sword.Macbeth wrote:
In theory you could use a gun as a club to defend yourself.Vilham wrote:
That isn't defense. That is far from the definition of defense.
You are confusing self-defense with defense. Self-defense is a legal term based on attacking someone to stop them attempting to attack you.
So for the 50th time. A gun is not a defensive weapon.
Is a .32 -not a .357 mag. You ever held a seecamp?RAIMIUS wrote:
I'm not a big fan of fireams I can't get more than 2 fingers around...but if it works for you.DBBrinson1 wrote:
I just got a Seecamp pistol (.32) a week or so ago.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-08-21 17:59:08)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Vilham wrote:
True. Finally someone that can actually debate this. If someone attacked you with a knife you could defend yourself my blocking them with the gun. But equally I can do that with a stick.Macbeth wrote:
In theory you could use a gun as a club to defend yourself.Vilham wrote:
That isn't defense. That is far from the definition of defense.
You are confusing self-defense with defense. Self-defense is a legal term based on attacking someone to stop them attempting to attack you.
So for the 50th time. A gun is not a defensive weapon.
Is the gun designed with such a method in purpose? I suppose you could argue a rifle with a bayonet has defensive purpose as that clearly is designed with that in mind.
Well yeah they used to be, but as far as defending yourself the point of the gun is equalize things, I could try to use a 9mm as a club to fight off a 300 pound MMA fighter, I'll probably get killed now if I were to aim it at him squeeze off a round or two while he charges at me my survival rate increases.
I don't speak stupid so I will leave this argument for a dullard with time to waste.Vilham wrote:
That isn't defense. That is far from the definition of defense.
You are confusing self-defense with defense. Self-defense is a legal term based on attacking someone to stop them attempting to attack you.
So for the 50th time. A gun is not a defensive weapon.
You can say it 500 times, doesn't make you right.Vilham wrote:
That isn't defense. That is far from the definition of defense.
You are confusing self-defense with defense. Self-defense is a legal term based on attacking someone to stop them attempting to attack you.
So for the 50th time. A gun is not a defensive weapon.
A gun can be both defensive and offensive.
Speaking of Seecamp 32's, here's a Seecamp 32 and a Ruger LCP 380.
Pocket pistols really come in handy.
Seecamps a little prone to rust. I have to get on top of that before it becomes a problem.
indeed it would. You have gone off course here, because that isn't what im debating. I would hope you would shoot him. That doesn't make the gun a defensive weapon. It isn't being used to resist attack, it is being used to counter-attack.Macbeth wrote:
http://www.ambroseantiques.com/images/g … ouble1.jpgVilham wrote:
True. Finally someone that can actually debate this. If someone attacked you with a knife you could defend yourself my blocking them with the gun. But equally I can do that with a stick.Macbeth wrote:
In theory you could use a gun as a club to defend yourself.
Is the gun designed with such a method in purpose? I suppose you could argue a rifle with a bayonet has defensive purpose as that clearly is designed with that in mind.
Well yeah they used to be, but as far as defending yourself the point of the gun is equalize things, I could try to use a 9mm as a club to fight off a 300 pound MMA fighter, I'll probably get killed now if I were to aim it at him squeeze off a round or two while he charges at me my survival rate increases.
The gun may equalize things, but that doesn't stop it being a offensive arm not a defensive one.
I take that as an admission that you can't prove me wrong. Thx for the time. Bye.Lotta_drool wrote:
I don't speak stupid so I will leave this argument for a dullard with time to waste.
I ask again how. I would be delighted for you to prove me wrong.west-pheonix wrote:
You can say it 500 times, doesn't make you right.
A gun can be both defensive and offensive.
However that might prove hard as the definition of the word itself and the fact that a gun has one use proves me right.
Last edited by Vilham (2009-08-21 18:11:01)
Unless we are going to be using medieval style shields every weapon can be used for both offense and defense, don't be silly.Vilham wrote:
indeed it would. You have gone off course here, because that isn't what im debating. I would hope you would shoot him. That doesn't make the gun a defensive weapon. It isn't being used to resist attack, it is being used to counter-attack.Macbeth wrote:
http://www.ambroseantiques.com/images/g … ouble1.jpgVilham wrote:
True. Finally someone that can actually debate this. If someone attacked you with a knife you could defend yourself my blocking them with the gun. But equally I can do that with a stick.
Is the gun designed with such a method in purpose? I suppose you could argue a rifle with a bayonet has defensive purpose as that clearly is designed with that in mind.
Well yeah they used to be, but as far as defending yourself the point of the gun is equalize things, I could try to use a 9mm as a club to fight off a 300 pound MMA fighter, I'll probably get killed now if I were to aim it at him squeeze off a round or two while he charges at me my survival rate increases.
The gun may equalize things, but that doesn't stop it being a offensive arm not a defensive one.I take that as an admission that you can't prove me wrong. Thx for the time. Bye.Lotta_drool wrote:
I don't speak stupid so I will leave this argument for a dullard with time to waste.I ask again how. I would be delighted for you to prove me wrong.west-pheonix wrote:
You can say it 500 times, doesn't make you right.
A gun can be both defensive and offensive.
However that might prove hard as the definition of the word itself and the fact that a gun has one use proves me right.
You didn't think us retards would see your comment before you edited it?Vilham wrote:
I ask again how. I would be delighted for you to prove me wrong.
However that might prove hard as the definition of the word itself and the fact that a gun has one use proves me right.
Actually thinking about it you guys are retarded, I just thought of a way in which you could refute my claim. lol, your trying to argue against me and you can't even come up with an argument, I have to do it for you. hahaha
Honestly I think you're a dumbass and don't see any point in arguing with you. We could argue for years and I doubt we'd change our minds.
Actually I edited it because I thought of a reason that in fact it didn't refute my claim.west-phoenix-az wrote:
You didn't think us retards would see your comment before you edited it?Vilham wrote:
I ask again how. I would be delighted for you to prove me wrong.
However that might prove hard as the definition of the word itself and the fact that a gun has one use proves me right.
Actually thinking about it you guys are retarded, I just thought of a way in which you could refute my claim. lol, your trying to argue against me and you can't even come up with an argument, I have to do it for you. hahaha
Honestly I think you're a dumbass and don't see any point in arguing with you. We could argue for years and I doubt we'd change our minds.
Indeed we could argue for years. You so far however have failed to make any counter arguments at all. I would say your inability to debate would make you the dumbass... lol
"errr heres my gun hic" seems to be all you have said so far.
Last edited by Vilham (2009-08-22 02:42:18)
Well, you are still arguing using a VERY strict definition that is not widely accepted. There is not much to debate, since you keep defining the debate in a way that makes your argument the only one possible, then claiming we're all idiots when we use the more commonly accepted definition.
Indeed you and mac have been debating it. West hasn't at any point made any attempt to. Hence my last post.RAIMIUS wrote:
Well, you are still arguing using a VERY strict definition that is not widely accepted. There is not much to debate, since you keep defining the debate in a way that makes your argument the only one possible, then claiming we're all idiots when we use the more commonly accepted definition.
My definition is the first that comes up when I google it. Resistance to attack. I would think its also a pretty commonly thought definition, no?
Yes, but if someone attacks me and I punch them in the face, I am resisting their attack.
Guns at Presidential Speeches...hmm I don´t see what could go wrong here, carry on.....
Nothing has gone wrong, your point?
I just don´t think it´s an good idea, bringing guns around the president and all that, all it takes is one deranged man to change history.
I still think we should be allowed to bring frag-grenades and claymores mines to these things. As we are law-abiding citizens, we have the right to carry explosives into crowded place as we are law-abiding.
The problem is that you are applying an action/intent-based definition to an inanimate object.Vilham wrote:
Indeed you and mac have been debating it. West hasn't at any point made any attempt to. Hence my last post.RAIMIUS wrote:
Well, you are still arguing using a VERY strict definition that is not widely accepted. There is not much to debate, since you keep defining the debate in a way that makes your argument the only one possible, then claiming we're all idiots when we use the more commonly accepted definition.
My definition is the first that comes up when I google it. Resistance to attack. I would think its also a pretty commonly thought definition, no?
Additionally, if you go by the designed use of something, then there is no such thing as a "defensive weapon" as every weapon is designed to hurt/maim/kill something...including your sword example. It can be used to block an attack, but that's not it's primary purpose.
Offense and defense are about intent and the actions associated with that intent. An inanimate object is neither offensive nor defensive in nature. It is man's use of said object that makes it offensive or defensive.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular