Because he crossed the line. He's not not arguing his position against handguns, he's making personal accusations, of me buying guns with the intent of killing people. That lie is unacceptable and can't go unanswered.

Whatever you say Bruce. I was just voicing my opinion. It's dissappointing to see normally reasonable adults speak to each other in that manner.

That's why Cloud started all those threads for you.

I don't think she started any threads for me Bruce.

Have a nice day.

Really? If someone forced their way into your house and threatened you with a baseball bat, what would you do? Don't avoid the question, this time. You're making accusations, answer the question.

Do bear in mind that Spexxvet has already demonstrated that this is a subject on which he cannot think rationally. This has been pointed out by me, by wolf, and perhaps xoxoBruce (implicitly if not explicitly). We beat Spexx into the ground.

The rational way is not to delegitimize armed self-defense. It's even less rational once you see in all its horror just what that opens the way for. (My least-favorite Cellar-Dweller leans heavily towards delegitimizing it too, and how very like him.)

And a ball bat is a potentially lethal weapon. Invading your dwelling plus offering you lethal violence -- every law in the land says you can do anything up to lethal force to stop him. The law only allows you to stop him, but he's the one who determines how much stopping is required. It would be bad for the rest of town to let him run, for one consideration.

The law prefers a proportionality of force to the situation, if at all available. Lethal possibility on one side justifies lethal force on the other. We are however, talking about only three percent of armed self-defense cases.

Well, the thing is, the people in this argument have all stated their case on numerous occasions and there's been no concensus.

I just wonder why it has to degenerate into something so base.

Why can't people just stop arguing if there's nothing new to present?

Sorry, V, but whenever you speak stupidly -- assuming I catch you at it -- I'll call you on your suboptimum thinking. It is hardly ad-hominem to point out errors. In a forum, stupid is as stupid speaks.

You are in effect asking me, through all your arguments, such as they are, to leave you in your previous condition of ignorance.

Knowledge is preferable to ignorance, is it not?

Leaving you in your previous condition of unknowingness would hardly be the action of a friend, now would it?

Is insisting upon ignorance the action of an intelligent adult human being?

You seem to have a little problem with me trying to bring a sort of balance here: I know something, and you don't. I do not understand your refusal to know better than once you did. Knowing better worked for me. I used to be ignorant too.

You are free to do the sort of thinking you do precisely because the people who think as I do are the ones standing watch -- in camouflage uniforms, in blue shirts behind badges, and in plain clothes.

Heinlein Was Right -- Again
 

Heinlein remarked of pacifists, somewhere in The Notebooks of Lazarus Long [Time Enough For Love] that their pacifism only stretches so far. When it snaps, he said, "they hoist the Jolly Roger." This is a textbook illustration.

Thanks for demonstrating how the hoplophobes crack, and show the viciousness within, to say nothing of logistical or anatomical incoherence.

Your kind of pacifism is not a well-advised, balanced path of life.

I've walked a better road in my life. It's not too late for you. Repent.

If someone broke in your house and threatened to kill you with a baseball bat, wouldn't you use any means at your disposal to defend yourself? Of course you would.
Does that mean you bought that knife, lamp, golf club, crowbar, to kill someone? No, that's a stupid assumption.

If your dog attacks and rips the intruders throat out, does that mean you bought the dog to kill people? No, that's a stupid assumption.

Does that mean if I shoot that same attacker, I bought that gun to kill someone? No, that's a stupid assumption.

If you feel that is true, then why in hell are you reading this thread, other to scold people. Go read Clouds threads.

A gun is not purchased to kill someone. (unless, of course, it is, in the case of a criminal or whatever... but thats another deal altogether)
A gun IS purchased expressly to defend yourself with, up to and including using it to kill.

This is a semantics issue, I think.

Too, simplistic, there are more reasons to buy a gun than just self defense.

Well duh, but I mean, that's the most important reason... right?

Yes, maybe even primary for some people, just not exclusive.

I was reading this thread to see if there had been anything new said on the subject which hadn't been discussed before.

Stop being such a child Bruce.

Answer the question.

Answer the question.

Exactly. If someone buys a gun to defend themselves, they intend to use lethal force to defend themselves. If the circumstances arise, they intend to kill someone. They may even hope that they never have to, but just owning a gun indicates their intent.

You may be angry because my presumption is incorrect. You may be angry because my presumption is correct, and you don't like being read so easily. You may be angry just at my presumption. But to say I'm lying is just plain wrong.

BTW, do I have an innate right to presume?;)

You can presume all you want, but when you start telling lies, the gloves come off.

I live a couple miles from where you work. If you were really worried about my guns and how I use them, you wouldn't be talking shit.
It's obvious you're making up ridiculous claims, to support your opinion, because it won't stand on it's merits nor convince rational people.

Oh, and I did answer the question.

Stop being such a cunt.

That's bullshit. You're assuming someone that buys a gun, strictly for self defense, is willing to kill someone. You have no way of knowing what their intentions are, how far they are willing to take a confrontation, whether they will even load that gun.
You're talking bullshit because, you just don't know and claiming you do is a lie.

I would agree with that. I would kill the first of you fucks who tried to rob me or my family or any other scumbag who came through the door. And thank God our state now has a law the lets me shoot your ass if you try to steal my car as well. :eek:

I didn't lie, you dumb motherfucker
Liar.

The fuck I didn't, I just didn't give you the answer you could twist into your stupid, illogical, claims. So your not worried about my guns after all, you're just bullshit, you lying cocksucker.
UG was right (you don't know how much it pains me to say that), you're so fucked up you don't even understand what you're saying. What a waste.

That doesn't look like an answer - it looks like a bunch of questions with some comments. Complete this statement "if someone forced their way inot my house and threatened me with a baseball bat, I would..."

Don't presume to tell me my intentions, lying moron.

I doesn't look like an answer because your so busy trying to support your lies you can't read for comprehension.
None of my handguns were bought for self defense.
If you broke in my house, and tried to kill me me a baseball bat, I'd cut you in half with a 12 gage shotgun, dumb fuck.

WHO'd a thunk it!;)

Comes easier with time and experience -- assuming, of course, that I do my part to stay on good grounds.

Though really, xoB, having rassled with you for a while on this and that, I do respect you: you're not stupid, you're not warped, and you make an intelligent and worthy opponent in those instances when we oppose. (Then afterwards I suppose we can break out the bran muffin cupcakes. ;) With sprinkles.)

There are other such Cellar Dwellars who have one way or another earned respect: richlevy, and BigV, when the subject is NOT firearms and the man. You guys seem to agree a lot among yourselves, and seem to make up something of a group.

And of course there are the ones I've just plain liked anyway, wolf, LabRat, and Aliantha among these. While I haven't much respect for Ibram's attempts to take me down, Ibram's own self seems not bad at all. Pierce I eye with suspicion. Youthful-leftist BS from either of these is something I left behind ever so long ago -- upwards of forty years now. So I don't have time for it.

May hope? Hell, they do. I've been up against that kind of situation once, and it feels awful. But it doesn't feel awfuller than being assaulted or murdered, now does it? But it's no wonder people throw up afterwards.

If owning indicates anything, it indicates preparation, and a will to prevail regardless of the level of violence an attacker may bring. This is simply the martial-arts self-defense viewpoint, and the resisting of evil so that evil simply can no longer act is a moral action.

I see the current way of running things as a trial that has proven some points and left us with more information on how to progress with an even better style of government and economics. I don't think there is a perfect system but the ones we have right now are flawed and need to be changed.

Also, how does age have anything to do with views? I know people that are much older than me that still shares some of the same views as me. Just because you changed from a more liberal phase that is probably much differently from mine doesn’t mean you are right with experience, social settings can change anyone’s views dramatically in any direction. Views are also very subjective.

P.S. – My views are usually much different than my peers so don’t bring it up. I actually never had a close friend that even closely resembled my modern views until a month ago.

I rest my case.

Eh? Your whole point is that Bruce would defend himself if attacked? :confused:

People own guns for alot of reasons. One reason is just because they can.



I don't own a gun because I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

But I would like a little pistol in my boot if it were all about asthetics and I may just do that one of these days. I doubt a pea shooter would do much damage so I don't think it would be about self defense so much.

If someone forced their way into my home and threatened any member of my family, I'd exercise my right to defend my life, property, and family and I'd shoot the motherfucker in DEFENSE. Depending on the situation, it may be a shot to kill or a shot to wound. I'd use whatever level of force I personally deemed appropriate up to and including deadly force.

That's the part morons like you don't get. You make no distinction between killing in defense, and killing to attack. Not one person in the entire recorded history of mankind has ever been killed by a gun. There have been plenty of people killed by other people who were using guns.

A gun is an inanimate object and we have a RIGHT to own any weapon we obtain honestly without any government oversight, permission, or limitations. No person or group of people regardless of their number has any authority or right to prevent another from owning any weapons they choose.

You are wasting your time on this one Radar. I don't think he will ever get it.:neutral: Criminals need victims, we will never be one.

If someone buys a gun to defend themselves, they hope to have the force needed to do it. This does NOT mean they are buying a gun to kill people. In nearly all cases, merely showing the attacker a weapon is enough of a deterrent to get them to leave. Owning a gun does not indicate an intent to kill and only an idiot would claim such.

I have a question, Radar...

With all your absolutist spiels about rights and how nobody can or cant tell you to do something...

Let's say I'm your next-door neighbor. We're on really good terms, as good neighbors should be, and everything's fine. Then one day you exercise your right as a human being to own arms and buy an RPG launcher (or something of the same level, you get what I'm saying) that you don't really need, but that you simply want to have. I dont like this much; the very idea of a weapon that could easily blow up a car or even house sitting in the garage next door is just downright unsettling. I talk to the rest of the neighbors on the street and they kinda agree with me. So I knock on your door and ask nicely if you could kinda, if its not too much trouble, get rid of the weapon. What do you do? Defy the neighborhood and sit on your porch with it loaded and ready for any opposition, in the face of everything just for the sake of it, or, to assuage the fears of your worried friends and neighbors, sell it?

That's what society is. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices, put limits on ourselves, about what we do. Thats why some limits on gun ownership are necessary, for the mentally ill or incompetent, criminals, etc, and reasonable limits imposed on what's simply too powerful or too dangerous for personal ownership.
The only question is where to draw the line.


(since I know all you people are downright CRAZY about gun threads (i swear these threads set you off worse than a matador to a bull) and all, keep in mind that I'm PRO-gun rights, dont flip out at ME for this - i'm just sayin', you know)

You have no case, fool.

If the neighbors asked me very nicely, I might consider it. But in the end, it is my choice alone, and my neighbors have no say in whether or not I keep the weapon. I don't believe any limitations on guns is reasonable. In fact when people get out of prison (even if they've used a gun in a crime), they should be able to own guns again. If they pose a danger, they should not be released.

You, and my neighbors, could choose to shun me, and never do business with me, and make my life inconvenient enough (without violating my rights) that I might want to move.

He's saying, "I've proven nothing, and I can live with that"

How could he prove anything, when he can't even come up with a credible theory.

Intelligent people understand, and know I'm right. You can keep going on and on and on, you won't make any more sense.

Intelligent people understand, and know you're and idiot that doesn't have a clue.

I don't know what happened when you had your little breakdown, or whatever, but you've been a dick ever since you came back. Just stop.

Well again we go up against it: under the Constitution, who decides the definition of the word "arms" in the 2nd amendment?

!

My rights have nothing to do with the Constitution. My rights don't come from the government. I was BORN with the right to own any number of any kind of gun I want without any government oversight or permission.

The Constitution merely protects the rights we're born with and even if the 2nd amendment were stricken from the Constitution entirely, I'd still have that right.

What would you know about intelligent people other than how to bother us with annoying drivel?

Any type of gun, or any type of weapon? Nukes? Bioweapons?

Wrong, that is not what "society" is, that is a pure democracy, which is mob rule.
Franklin described it accurately. "Two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner".
The majority should NEVER be able to remove rights from a minority. Rights, should never be up for a vote.
Many think any kind of fire arm is too "powerful" to own, which is ridiculous.

Every handgun/shotgun I have ever purchased I did so with the intention of never using it to harm anyone.
I hope to never harm anyone in any way.
If I have to protect myself I will and want to be able to if I have to, but hope never to be placed in that position by someone again.
That is not, however, up to me.

OK. Here's a concession. Accepting that normal rational sane people should be able to carry guns legally with all the permits etc, and discounting all the accidents that stem from this as simply accidents just like misspelling and drunk driving and fat people; what is being done about the massive number of people who have illegal guns or own them illegally. Or are trafficking guns to minors or are committing crimes with guns etc?

This is really the crux of the problem if you accept that everyone should have the right to own a gun...isn't it?

Oh and yeah I know I said I wasn't going to talk in gun threads anymore, but I broke that rule already when I wanted bruce and spex to stop fighting, and look where that got me. :(

Anyway, I just wanted to ask that one question - well two actually - without emotion.

I wouldn't have to if you weren't being such an asshole with you stupid illogical claims and lying about me, Fuck you.

No, that ISN'T mob rule. They arent coming with torches and pitchforks telling you to get rid of it; they're coming nicely and asking you to please get rid of it. Theyre asking, not telling. To be part of society, you need to make sacrefices. You dont have to make the sacrifice - but if you want to be part of the neighborhood, you might wanna make nice with the neighbors.

If they are asking, and not telling, you don't have to give up anything to be part of society. If they make it conditional, then they are telling.

"IF you give up the guns, THEN we wont be scared of you.

if you want us (or dont mind us) being scared of you, go ahead and keep them."

(note once again that this isn't how I think, only my take on the situation and my take on how some people think)

It seems that the "crux of the problem" is that a lot of people seem to be under the mistaken impression that removing the rights of law abiding citizens will, somehow, inhibit the actions of criminals.
Even worse, they cannot see the magnificent flaw in this logic.
Oh, ok then, I would just say "no, thank you". Simple enough.

Well that wasn't really an answer rkz. I already know what a lot of people seem to think.