Waitone
Member
Vendi, perchance is one of your teachers a lady named Rebecca Peters?
Read This, All Fellow Gun Users
- Thread starter vindi C
- Start date
- Status
Gordy Wesen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 422
you're using up my oxygen.
post after you grow up... if you live that long.
post after you grow up... if you live that long.
ReadyontheRight
Member
After an initial, promising couple of posts, our new friend seems to be drowning in a sea of THR logic where he thought he could skate across a pond of name-calling.
If you ever do come back:
1. You've got some great Australian soldiers protecting your borders and your interests abroad. Please consider thanking the next one you see for allowing you the ability to pontificate on pacifism. Just don't begrudge him or her their weapon.
2. Get out and try to hit a target with a real gun (offhand, no bench or rest - like in the real world). Get out and shoot in a competition. Your opinions may change. It's not easy hitting a target with a well-designed gun in ideal conditions, hitting something with a poor substitute while under attack is even more difficult.
3. Try to understand the difference between being a "citizen" and a "subject".
If you ever do come back:
1. You've got some great Australian soldiers protecting your borders and your interests abroad. Please consider thanking the next one you see for allowing you the ability to pontificate on pacifism. Just don't begrudge him or her their weapon.
2. Get out and try to hit a target with a real gun (offhand, no bench or rest - like in the real world). Get out and shoot in a competition. Your opinions may change. It's not easy hitting a target with a well-designed gun in ideal conditions, hitting something with a poor substitute while under attack is even more difficult.
3. Try to understand the difference between being a "citizen" and a "subject".
vindi C...
I read your post, and I read every post in response to it. Now I want you
to do me the same courtesy and go to the link I have posted at the bottom of this note, and read what comes up.
After you have looked that over, I hope you will realize that a MAJOR factor in
preventing the same thing from happening in your beloved Australia in 1942
and 1943 was the "GUNS" of the U.S Army, Navy, and Marines.
Guns ARE a tool, and like any other tool, may be used, or mis-used. But
you don't blame the "tool" for its mis-use. You blame the "user".
Walter
http://www.tribo.org/nanking/
I read your post, and I read every post in response to it. Now I want you
to do me the same courtesy and go to the link I have posted at the bottom of this note, and read what comes up.
After you have looked that over, I hope you will realize that a MAJOR factor in
preventing the same thing from happening in your beloved Australia in 1942
and 1943 was the "GUNS" of the U.S Army, Navy, and Marines.
Guns ARE a tool, and like any other tool, may be used, or mis-used. But
you don't blame the "tool" for its mis-use. You blame the "user".
Walter
http://www.tribo.org/nanking/
fistful
member
mnrivrat,
Does that mean Minnesota River Rat? If so, I envy you. Sounds fun. Do you pack on the river, and if so, what? Is corrosion a problem?
Precis of this post: Some guns are designed for killing people, but that doesn't support Vindi's arguments.
I think we agree, for the most part. Vindi tryed to use the idea that guns are designed for killing to support his point. I read all six pages of replies (at that time) and found a lot of people trying to argue that guns aren't designed for killing. I was trying to say, and I believe I did say, that some guns are designed for killing, and that there is nothing wrong with that. I don't know why so many High Roaders are shying away from the obvious fact that SOME of our guns are designed for killing animals or humans and that almost anyone who legally carries a pistol does so in order to kill a violent human attacker, if that becomes necessary. I understand that we hope the encounter will end with the presentation of the gun, but still we expect that the outcome may be a dead criminal or enemy soldier. In fact, the lethality of the gun is what causes us to be careful with it.
I don't recall saying anything about the military. Unless I am misinformed, the S&W Model 19 was intended for the police market and is called the Combat Magnum. Sounds to me like it was made to stop or kill human targets. As I said earlier, we expect it may very well kill the target, and that expectation , hopefully, keeps us from firing carelessly.
Regarding the Assault Weapons Ban, the reason that its supporters were so successful with their rhetoric about military-style guns being designed to kill is that, on this point, they were correct. The so-called semi-automatic assault rifle is indeed designed for engaging several human targets quickly, in a way that some other rifles are not. We should have no problem with acknowledging this. Should we have military weapons that we can use to shoot a lot of folks real, real quick? Of course we should. The problem lies with the public's perception that civilians shouldn't have such weapons, or would have no need for them. Of course, it also has to do with the public's ignorance.
In case you don't get the point yet, I DON'T agree with Vindi.
Does that mean Minnesota River Rat? If so, I envy you. Sounds fun. Do you pack on the river, and if so, what? Is corrosion a problem?
Precis of this post: Some guns are designed for killing people, but that doesn't support Vindi's arguments.
I think we agree, for the most part. Vindi tryed to use the idea that guns are designed for killing to support his point. I read all six pages of replies (at that time) and found a lot of people trying to argue that guns aren't designed for killing. I was trying to say, and I believe I did say, that some guns are designed for killing, and that there is nothing wrong with that. I don't know why so many High Roaders are shying away from the obvious fact that SOME of our guns are designed for killing animals or humans and that almost anyone who legally carries a pistol does so in order to kill a violent human attacker, if that becomes necessary. I understand that we hope the encounter will end with the presentation of the gun, but still we expect that the outcome may be a dead criminal or enemy soldier. In fact, the lethality of the gun is what causes us to be careful with it.
I don't recall saying anything about the military. Unless I am misinformed, the S&W Model 19 was intended for the police market and is called the Combat Magnum. Sounds to me like it was made to stop or kill human targets. As I said earlier, we expect it may very well kill the target, and that expectation , hopefully, keeps us from firing carelessly.
Regarding the Assault Weapons Ban, the reason that its supporters were so successful with their rhetoric about military-style guns being designed to kill is that, on this point, they were correct. The so-called semi-automatic assault rifle is indeed designed for engaging several human targets quickly, in a way that some other rifles are not. We should have no problem with acknowledging this. Should we have military weapons that we can use to shoot a lot of folks real, real quick? Of course we should. The problem lies with the public's perception that civilians shouldn't have such weapons, or would have no need for them. Of course, it also has to do with the public's ignorance.
In case you don't get the point yet, I DON'T agree with Vindi.
chink
Member
Look at me.. I got here a little late. like 8 pages late.
Anyway, I like to welcome you here as many other already have. I would also like to as you to forgive me as I only read the first 15 or so posts and decided that wanted to chime in on the original post.
First, while am not sure the original intent of a guns design, at one point it was decided that guns would make a useful tool in gathering food. While I agree that guns are designed to kill. I don't think they are explicitly designed to kill people. No more than a Bow and Arrow designed to kill people. I think that they are more designed to kill game.
Second, I think you have us figured a little bit wrong. I don't think the goal here is for everyone in America to own guns. I think that goal is for everyone to have the option of owning any firearm they want.
Anyway, I like to welcome you here as many other already have. I would also like to as you to forgive me as I only read the first 15 or so posts and decided that wanted to chime in on the original post.
First, while am not sure the original intent of a guns design, at one point it was decided that guns would make a useful tool in gathering food. While I agree that guns are designed to kill. I don't think they are explicitly designed to kill people. No more than a Bow and Arrow designed to kill people. I think that they are more designed to kill game.
Second, I think you have us figured a little bit wrong. I don't think the goal here is for everyone in America to own guns. I think that goal is for everyone to have the option of owning any firearm they want.
You paint a picture of utopia where if guns were banned there would be no murder. You dream of a utopia where by banning guns this would lead to your utopia. I say you will never reach your utopia till every human being has a gun and not one chooses to use it to commit a crime. Mankind can not be forced to be good----- mankind can only choose to be good. Your utopia will probably only come about when the lamb lays down with the lion and that is not in your power to achieve.
Hi Fistful,
The user name does in fact mean as you determined. It is however a little out of context with some perceptions. There are no rapids here to run .
Most of my time spent on the river has been in something other than a raft.
I live in the valley here next to the river and the term river rat has been more of a term used by the locals to discribe a series of batchelers strung out along the river on this gravel road that curves along with it. Several of the others are gone now. but that's a whole new story.
I think what you see here is a reluctance to associate terms like assualt and killing with the word firearm for the exact reason that you brought up.
The terminoligy is important as to setting the perception. After all, a firearm does not assualt anyone or anything, people do that. A firearm also does not kill anyone or anybody , people also do that .
You and I are in agreement as you say , for the most part. It is in the presentation where my concern lyes .
We've spent a lot of time in the RTKBA dancing on words and there meanings.
Arguing with people who think that the second amendment only gaurantees rights to the military because of a single word used in that amendment . A word that has no room for interpretation in the context of the people who drew up the document and at the time the document was drafted.
The bottom line for me is I try not to use phrases like "designed to kill" , and "assualt rifle" when refering to a firearm because it invokes a perception that some people use to villify an object rather the the person that misuses the object. Guns do not assault or kill under my perspective - people do that.
The user name does in fact mean as you determined. It is however a little out of context with some perceptions. There are no rapids here to run .
Most of my time spent on the river has been in something other than a raft.
I live in the valley here next to the river and the term river rat has been more of a term used by the locals to discribe a series of batchelers strung out along the river on this gravel road that curves along with it. Several of the others are gone now. but that's a whole new story.
I think what you see here is a reluctance to associate terms like assualt and killing with the word firearm for the exact reason that you brought up.
The terminoligy is important as to setting the perception. After all, a firearm does not assualt anyone or anything, people do that. A firearm also does not kill anyone or anybody , people also do that .
You and I are in agreement as you say , for the most part. It is in the presentation where my concern lyes .
We've spent a lot of time in the RTKBA dancing on words and there meanings.
Arguing with people who think that the second amendment only gaurantees rights to the military because of a single word used in that amendment . A word that has no room for interpretation in the context of the people who drew up the document and at the time the document was drafted.
The bottom line for me is I try not to use phrases like "designed to kill" , and "assualt rifle" when refering to a firearm because it invokes a perception that some people use to villify an object rather the the person that misuses the object. Guns do not assault or kill under my perspective - people do that.
peacefuljeffrey
member
What's an "air tazer"?
Anyway, "get him the help he needs"?
What makes you think he needs "help"? Do you discount the notion that some people are just BAD, for whatever reason, and have DECIDED, CONSCIOUSLY, to do others harm so that they can have money they did not work for?
I don't see a need to "get him the help he needs." All the help he needs is the following:
DON'T
ROB
PEOPLE -
GET
A
JOB
AND
MAKE
AN
HONEST
LIVING.
There, I just helped your robber. Now, if he decides to snub my help and continue his criminal career, and he comes to take me or mine, I'm gonna kill him. And I'm not gonna cry about the terrible tragic loss of one scumbag criminal from humanity's ranks.
See, the mistake you are making, vindi, is that you are treating it as a given that every human life makes itself equal in worth to every other human life. You have to EARN the right to be treated equally. A person CAN LOSE it. The major part of earning equal standing with all other humans is to NOT DO UNPROVOKED HARM TO OTHERS. Robbing, stealing, beating, raping, killing -- these things diminish the value of your life to humanity, to the point that humanity will be, if you do these things, better off without you. And someone will kill you in order to remove the threat that you present.
-Jeffrey
Aguila Blanca
Member
Martial arts my left foot.
A number of years ago my former sister-in-law was in training to become a state police woman. She and my brother were visiting my parents one evning, and I was there as well. She was all hyped up and gushing about all the hand-to-hand combat training she'd received, and how she was now able to get the best of much bigger guys.
My brother played center on the high school football team, and fullback/defensemen on the college soccer and lacrosse teams. So we tried a little test. He walked up behind her (she knew he was coming, this was not an involuntary test) and grabbed her around the neck. She grabbed his arm and went into her best throw routine ... and he just stood there with his arm around her neck.
As to Tasers ..., you really need to research your facts. Direct from the Taser web site:
M26 -- "up to 21 feet"
X26 -- "up to 21 feet"
X26c -- "up to 15 feet"
Mate, 21 feet is a far cry from 50 metres. And an angry Bad Man can cover that 21 feet in a lot less time than you can load up that Taser cartridge for a second shot. Your ideas about the taser are unrealistic, at best.
www.taser.com
A number of years ago my former sister-in-law was in training to become a state police woman. She and my brother were visiting my parents one evning, and I was there as well. She was all hyped up and gushing about all the hand-to-hand combat training she'd received, and how she was now able to get the best of much bigger guys.
My brother played center on the high school football team, and fullback/defensemen on the college soccer and lacrosse teams. So we tried a little test. He walked up behind her (she knew he was coming, this was not an involuntary test) and grabbed her around the neck. She grabbed his arm and went into her best throw routine ... and he just stood there with his arm around her neck.
As to Tasers ..., you really need to research your facts. Direct from the Taser web site:
M26 -- "up to 21 feet"
X26 -- "up to 21 feet"
X26c -- "up to 15 feet"
Mate, 21 feet is a far cry from 50 metres. And an angry Bad Man can cover that 21 feet in a lot less time than you can load up that Taser cartridge for a second shot. Your ideas about the taser are unrealistic, at best.
www.taser.com
kayak bum
Member
I've been watching this, and the related threads, from the start, and finally decided to add my two cents....
Vindi, I have been teaching martial arts for longer than you have been alive. The only way someone is going to disarm an attacker that easily is in a movie. End of story.
Bearing in mind that I have been teaching martial arts for that long (and training for approriately longer.....) is it significant to you that I choose to carry a firearm for personal protection?
Second point.... I have been a police officer for significantly less time, but more than enough years to be very clear on the fact that there exist in this world plenty of people who will hurt you simply because they can. They are not dissuaded by pain, shock, chemical sprays, or a rational notion of morality. If caving your head in brings them $10 closer to their next high, then it is worth caving your head in. And these are the people on the street. I will point you back to Armoredman's post above (#109); he expresses the nature of the beast very, very well.
Best wishes to you,
Vindi, I have been teaching martial arts for longer than you have been alive. The only way someone is going to disarm an attacker that easily is in a movie. End of story.
Bearing in mind that I have been teaching martial arts for that long (and training for approriately longer.....) is it significant to you that I choose to carry a firearm for personal protection?
Second point.... I have been a police officer for significantly less time, but more than enough years to be very clear on the fact that there exist in this world plenty of people who will hurt you simply because they can. They are not dissuaded by pain, shock, chemical sprays, or a rational notion of morality. If caving your head in brings them $10 closer to their next high, then it is worth caving your head in. And these are the people on the street. I will point you back to Armoredman's post above (#109); he expresses the nature of the beast very, very well.
Best wishes to you,
UberPhLuBB
Member
The martial arts subject reminds me of a quote, I believe I heard it here. It's one of my favorites:
"I ain't seen no karate chop that could stop a bullet."
"I ain't seen no karate chop that could stop a bullet."
another okie
Member
In the absence of firearms the world would be run by the biggest and strongest, as was the case before firearms. Ever hear of Genghis Khan, or Tamerlane, or Attila the Hun? None of them ever had a firearm.
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Some very restrained and excellent posts have been submitted - for those thank you. This and other threads by the young man have I feel run their course substantially and can now be closed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
