13urnzz wrote:
wow
is that on the immigration test?
Lets play "who can torpedo shiftys argumemts the fastest."
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
My arguments are similar to a lot of people here. I just don't express myself as eloquently or as correctly as they do. Ya'll just target me because it's easy, which makes you pretty pathetic in retrospect. Bandwagon time!
Anyway I've been thinking about conceal carry for a while and I am probably not going to. My stance on gun control hasn't changed, but I've never been in a neighborhood bad enough to require a gun. I'll still keep one at home of course, and maybe one in my car eventually but I won't ever need to carry one around on me I think.
Anyway I've been thinking about conceal carry for a while and I am probably not going to. My stance on gun control hasn't changed, but I've never been in a neighborhood bad enough to require a gun. I'll still keep one at home of course, and maybe one in my car eventually but I won't ever need to carry one around on me I think.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
if you insist-Sh1fty- wrote:
Bandwagon time!
stupid Switz foreigner
Last edited by Macbeth (2013-01-23 11:51:16)
Keep the gun in your car, where it could easily be stolen, genius.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
That thought did occur to me. How easy is it to break into a car?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
And if you don't put in,-Sh1fty- wrote:
The French and American Revolutions were very bloody and thousands died. Freedom isn't free is a phrase that holds true.aynrandroolz wrote:
syria is a good example of a 'modern' state with fairly modern weaponry against a so-called 'popular' revolt. it's a massacre. and assad isn't even using the full tools at his disposal. as for whether or not the military would side with the state in a modern american revolution... who knows. for every committed patriot there's a neocon imbued with the conservative politics of fear, ceding control merrily to the state apparatus in return for supposed safety and stability. i just don't see why people hang onto semi-auto weapons as seemingly 'vital' tools for rebellion.
Your buck o' five who will?
Hammer > window = broken into.
Alternatively, coat hanger > lock = broken into.
Alternatively, coat hanger > lock = broken into.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2013-01-23 11:56:35)
Wait, so you think we won those wars? Sure, we won every conventional battle, but to say we won the wars... man not even close. You can't wage war on ideas and win.aynrandroolz wrote:
"the will to fight and die for an idea" is laughable rhetoric. it's funny that you're super cynical about most things but then will consider the iraq-afghan war and the vietnamese communist conflict (?!?!) in such absurdly idealist terms. none of those three conflicts were won by 'ordinary' people with ordinary ordnance fighting for an idea. they were all unanimously won by superior technology and massive geopolitical pressure. similarly, none of those states had anywhere near the military-industrial or intelligence complex of a modern superstate. there is simply no comparison.Jay wrote:
What kind of stupid argument is that? What use is a navy or nuclear bombs against an insurrection? The Afghanis, Iraqis and Vietnamese didn't need tanks or aircraft, just the will to fight and die for an idea.aynrandroolz wrote:
how are you going to revolt? are you thinking this through? your government has nukes, subs, space satellites, a navy, and high-tech air. your government has one of the largest and most well-equipped armies in the world. your government has one of the most advanced (and insidious) intelligent services in the world. a semi-automatic rifle is going to help you revolt... how... exactly? are you going to shoot down the nuclear bombers with your AR-15?
syria is a good example of a 'modern' state with fairly modern weaponry against a so-called 'popular' revolt. it's a massacre. and assad isn't even using the full tools at his disposal. as for whether or not the military would side with the state in a modern american revolution... who knows. for every committed patriot there's a neocon imbued with the conservative politics of fear, ceding control merrily to the state apparatus in return for supposed safety and stability. i just don't see why people hang onto semi-auto weapons as seemingly 'vital' tools for rebellion.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
nopeM.O.A.B wrote:
Hammer > window = broken into.
Heh, I remember that.Macbeth wrote:
nopeM.O.A.B wrote:
Hammer > window = broken into.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbOF11mQTjs
myeah...true that. Ok not going in car, guess I'd have to carry it then. Sucks cause I want the gun in a situation where I'd need it but carrying a gun around is a pain in the ass.M.O.A.B wrote:
Hammer > window = broken into.
Alternatively, coat hanger > lock = broken into.
Does anybody here carry?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
I bet a ball peen hammer would succeed.Macbeth wrote:
nopeM.O.A.B wrote:
Hammer > window = broken into.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbOF11mQTjs
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
but what if The Tyranny comes when you're out shopping for khakis at banana republic?-Sh1fty- wrote:
Anyway I've been thinking about conceal carry for a while and I am probably not going to. My stance on gun control hasn't changed, but I've never been in a neighborhood bad enough to require a gun. I'll still keep one at home of course, and maybe one in my car eventually but I won't ever need to carry one around on me I think.
jay: no i don't think you 'won', but i mean in terms of objectives - regime change, political change etc. - the technology achieved the job in a matter of weeks. for all intents and purposes, if the american government turned tyrannical, shit would be over basically before it begun. having a hand-gun or an assault rifle would be small change compared to the powers of the state/military which would kick in. this whole hypothetical 'tyranny' thing is utterly laughable in the 21st century, so don't give this little hypothetical 'what if' too much thought. what i am questioning is the logic that an assault-rifle is somehow 'sacred' for the purpose of popular rebellion, as if it will practically do anything more than a hand-gun.
Rebelling against the US would more than likely be fought in cyberspace.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
Assault rifles are the go-to for the same reason the military uses them. They're more effective in long range combat than a handgun.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
And thus pointless for close-quarters home defence.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Assault rifles are the go-to for the same reason the military uses them. They're more effective in long range combat than a handgun.
That doesn't mean they aren't effective up close, it just means they can reach out as well as close up.
MOAB, would you rather have 30 rounds or 5-15 rounds if an intruder came in?
MOAB, would you rather have 30 rounds or 5-15 rounds if an intruder came in?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
I wrote a blog!UnkleRukus wrote:
Rebelling against the US would more than likely be fought in cyberspace.
If an intruder came into my house and I had a weapon, a rifle would a) be harder to bring up, b) more liable to overpenetrate and cause damage to either vital parts of the house, water pipes, electrical conduits, gas lines, leading to secondary issues, not to mention other people in the vicinity. For close range self-defence a .45 would really be the only thing I'd chose. Properly trained, and depending on the threat, I'd put two rounds centre mass and if needed, have 5-6 in reserve.-Sh1fty- wrote:
That doesn't mean they aren't effective up close, it just means they can reach out as well as close up.
MOAB, would you rather have 30 rounds or 5-15 rounds if an intruder came in?
Hypothetical of course, but that's what I would do.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2013-01-23 12:17:43)
I'd also pick a .45, or maybe a .40 but that's beside the point. You CAN use assault rifles for self defense. I've even seen a few articles where younger teenagers use rifles to defend the home, in one case it was an AR-15.
Yes, a .45 is better, but you can still get the job done with an AR if need be. So yeah we don't need assault rifles for self-defense but who is anybody to say we can't pick what we'd prefer?
Yes, a .45 is better, but you can still get the job done with an AR if need be. So yeah we don't need assault rifles for self-defense but who is anybody to say we can't pick what we'd prefer?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Argument over. Point conceded. Let's move this shit over to "why the constitution is outdated." Mac, do it trivia style. I could use the laugh.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Yes, a .45 is better, but you can still get the job done with an AR if need be. So yeah we don't need assault rifles for self-defense but who is anybody to say we can't pick what we'd prefer?
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
You still need ARs in the event of tyranny. There's no reason a person can't have an AR. It's fun to shoot.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
There's a tragedy in Africa, let me go tumbl about on my obscure blog.AussieReaper wrote:
I wrote a blog!UnkleRukus wrote:
Rebelling against the US would more than likely be fought in cyberspace.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
There is no reason they should have one either.-Sh1fty- wrote:
You still need ARs in the event of tyranny. There's no reason a person can't have an AR. It's fun to shoot.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.