Ted RULES!!

WantsumBier

I know this is old but I love this guy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjFiHENNf9Q&mode=related&search=

 

Adreal

Originally posted by WantsumBier


I know this is old but I love this guy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjFiHENNf9Q&mode=related&search=
 

What can I say? He rocks. 

I think that the real issue why the borders aren't secure is because of the planned NAFTA highway and integration of the countries of North America into a coalition similar to that of the European Union. Why pay tax money now to secure borders that may sooner be done away with when North America becomes integrated and free passage among Mexico, the States, and Canada is permitted?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497

Coldmeat

I don't agree with everything he says, but he is, in fact, distilled awesome.

It is hard to argue with a man that owns machine guns, though.

Adreal

 

Originally posted by Coldmeat


I don't agree with everything he says, but he is, in fact, distilled awesome.
It is hard to argue with a man that owns machine guns, though.

Nor do I, but I can certainly agree with a lot of it.  Forgiveness is one thing, but in terms of practicality it stands to reason that punishments or disciplinary action should be almost as, if not as, severe as the crimes committed. You kill someone > you are killed. Not: You kill someone > you're released > you kill someone else > you're released > you kill someone else.

Edit: It could be argued in some cases that if you had killed the murderer before he killed a second or third time, then it would have been showing justice and mercy to law-abiding citizens. I tend to frown on pre-emptive action though (e.g. don't kill the guy for commiting a capital offense before he commits it); it much depends on the situation I guess. If you can see it coming, it's best to take some sort of action...

 

I tend to interpet the Second Amendment a little differently than I think he does though. To me it only indicates that a well regulated militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms. As to what a militia is exactly I'd have to say citizen soldiers who are not part of the military but are still trained for combat. Personally I'd say that local militias should be fostered in our communities and that the members of those local militias should have the right to bear whatever arms (automatic or not) they dang well please to bear and in whatever fashion is determined by the militia so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of other American citizens. I really don't give a rat's butt about psychological damages people might claim from others exercising their inherent American freedom by walking down the streets with kalashnikovs slung over their shoulders. In my opinion fellow Americans should be just peachy with the thought of such occurrences.

WantsumBier

Originally posted by Adreal


 
 
Originally posted by Coldmeat


I don't agree with everything he says, but he is, in fact, distilled awesome.
It is hard to argue with a man that owns machine guns, though.

Nor do I, but I can certainly agree with a lot of it.  Forgiveness is one thing, but in terms of practicality it stands to reason that punishments or disciplinary action should be almost as, if not as, severe as the crimes committed. You kill someone > you are killed. Not: You kill someone > you're released > you kill someone else > you're released > you kill someone else.

 

Edit: It could be argued in some cases that if you had killed the murderer before he killed a second or third time, then it would have been showing justice and mercy to law-abiding citizens. I tend to frown on pre-emptive action though (e.g. don't kill the guy for commiting a capital offense before he commits it); it much depends on the situation I guess. If you can see it coming, it's best to take some sort of action...

 

I tend to interpet the Second Amendment a little differently than I think he does though. To me it only indicates that a well regulated militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms. As to what a militia is exactly I'd have to say citizen soldiers who are not part of the military but are still trained for combat. Personally I'd say that local militias should be fostered in our communities and that the members of those local militias should have the right to bear whatever arms (automatic or not) they dang well please to bear and in whatever fashion is determined by the militia so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of other American citizens. I really don't give a rat's butt about psychological damages people might claim from others exercising their inherent American freedom by walking down the streets with kalashnikovs slung over their shoulders. In my opinion fellow Americans should be just peachy with the thought of such occurrences.

Just looking for some clarification here. If a guy is pointing a gun at someone during a robbery, you would not shoot him first? I'm not trolling, just wondering what you would do. 

Adreal

Originally posted by WantsumBier

Originally posted by Adreal


 
 
Originally posted by Coldmeat


I don't agree with everything he says, but he is, in fact, distilled awesome.
It is hard to argue with a man that owns machine guns, though.

Nor do I, but I can certainly agree with a lot of it.  Forgiveness is one thing, but in terms of practicality it stands to reason that punishments or disciplinary action should be almost as, if not as, severe as the crimes committed. You kill someone > you are killed. Not: You kill someone > you're released > you kill someone else > you're released > you kill someone else.

 

Edit: It could be argued in some cases that if you had killed the murderer before he killed a second or third time, then it would have been showing justice and mercy to law-abiding citizens. I tend to frown on pre-emptive action though (e.g. don't kill the guy for commiting a capital offense before he commits it); it much depends on the situation I guess. If you can see it coming, it's best to take some sort of action...

 

I tend to interpet the Second Amendment a little differently than I think he does though. To me it only indicates that a well regulated militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms. As to what a militia is exactly I'd have to say citizen soldiers who are not part of the military but are still trained for combat. Personally I'd say that local militias should be fostered in our communities and that the members of those local militias should have the right to bear whatever arms (automatic or not) they dang well please to bear and in whatever fashion is determined by the militia so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of other American citizens. I really don't give a rat's butt about psychological damages people might claim from others exercising their inherent American freedom by walking down the streets with kalashnikovs slung over their shoulders. In my opinion fellow Americans should be just peachy with the thought of such occurrences.

Just looking for some clarification here. If a guy is pointing a gun at someone during a robbery, you would not shoot him first? I'm not trolling, just wondering what you would do. 

I think that would fall under the category of "it much depends on the situation."  It would really suck to shoot the guy I think. If it was absolutely necessary, well... that's self-explanatory. I wasn't envisioning a  gun-slinging standoff when I wrote the above. I was thinking of more of a stalking type of situation with death threats, etc. Some questions come to mind during a robbery:

1. If he's just robbing a store or a person, why would he want to add a possible murder charge to the deal?
2. What if the guy is holding a toy pistol, an unloaded one or a pellet gun and you shoot the guy dead?

In the end, I'd have to say that if he's flashing a gun around in any form and threatening someone, then he's asking for it. Every man has the right to choose whether he wants to defend himself or not. Just use discretion if at all possible in the heat of the situation or beforehand.

WantsumBier

Originally posted by Adreal


 
Originally posted by WantsumBier

Originally posted by Adreal


 
 
Originally posted by Coldmeat


I don't agree with everything he says, but he is, in fact, distilled awesome.
It is hard to argue with a man that owns machine guns, though.

Nor do I, but I can certainly agree with a lot of it.  Forgiveness is one thing, but in terms of practicality it stands to reason that punishments or disciplinary action should be almost as, if not as, severe as the crimes committed. You kill someone > you are killed. Not: You kill someone > you're released > you kill someone else > you're released > you kill someone else.

 

Edit: It could be argued in some cases that if you had killed the murderer before he killed a second or third time, then it would have been showing justice and mercy to law-abiding citizens. I tend to frown on pre-emptive action though (e.g. don't kill the guy for commiting a capital offense before he commits it); it much depends on the situation I guess. If you can see it coming, it's best to take some sort of action...

 

I tend to interpet the Second Amendment a little differently than I think he does though. To me it only indicates that a well regulated militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms. As to what a militia is exactly I'd have to say citizen soldiers who are not part of the military but are still trained for combat. Personally I'd say that local militias should be fostered in our communities and that the members of those local militias should have the right to bear whatever arms (automatic or not) they dang well please to bear and in whatever fashion is determined by the militia so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of other American citizens. I really don't give a rat's butt about psychological damages people might claim from others exercising their inherent American freedom by walking down the streets with kalashnikovs slung over their shoulders. In my opinion fellow Americans should be just peachy with the thought of such occurrences.

Just looking for some clarification here. If a guy is pointing a gun at someone during a robbery, you would not shoot him first? I'm not trolling, just wondering what you would do. 

I think that would fall under the category of "it much depends on the situation."  It would really suck to shoot the guy I think. If it was absolutely necessary, well... that's self-explanatory. I wasn't envisioning a  gun-slinging standoff when I wrote the above. I was thinking of more of a stalking type of situation with death threats, etc. Some questions come to mind during a robbery:

 

1. If he's just robbing a store or a person, why would he want to add a possible murder charge to the deal? Crooks are not all that smart. Thinking about a murder charge is more than likely not on their minds, hell they are robbing someone and that does not seem to bother them.
2. What if the guy is holding a toy pistol, an unloaded one or a pellet gun and you shoot the guy dead? I have had this happen to me, and the kid was lucky I did not have my gun on at the time, or he would have been dead (the cops responding told me they would have shot him too.)

In the end, I'd have to say that if he's flashing a gun around in any form and threatening someone, then he's asking for it. Every man has the right to choose whether he wants to defend himself or not. Just use discretion if at all possible in the heat of the situation or beforehand. Easier said than done. In those types of situations reflexes and training take over, not much time for thinking about it. 

 

Adreal

I'm curious. What was the situation like when the 'kid' pulled a gun on you? How old was he? Was it a toy pistol or a real one, etc? Not being a trained soldier myself, I more than likely would have hesitated. I'd like to think that I'd do a diving roll and cleanly kick the gun out of the kid's hand in some 007ish sort of fashion, but I'd probably end up with a bullet in my butt and sprawled out on the ground with the kid standing over me. 

WantsumBier

I was taking my dog for a walk befre heading to work on the midnight shift. As I was opening my garage I heard the sound of what I thought was a semi-auto handgun being chambered (cocked). As the door opened further I saw two individuals standing at the end of my driveway (about 35-40 ft from where I was). I closed the door and went back in the house and called the cops. One of them turned out to be my neighbor's kid. He was high and playing with a pellet gun that looked just like a .45 auto. (looked kinda like this http://www.speedytoys.com/shop/item.asp?itemid=1374 )

The kid was lucky. Usually I put on my duty weapon  or CCW before I take my dogs out at night. This night I didn't and that kid is still alive because of it.

Coldmeat

---

Originally posted by WantsumBier
I was taking my dog for a walk befre heading to work on the midnight shift. As I was opening my garage I heard the sound of what I thought was a semi-auto handgun being chambered (cocked). As the door opened further I saw two individuals standing at the end of my driveway (about 35-40 ft from where I was). I closed the door and went back in the house and called the cops. One of them turned out to be my neighbor's kid. He was high and playing with a pellet gun that looked just like a .45 auto. (looked kinda like this http://www.speedytoys.com/shop/item.asp?itemid=1374 )
The kid was lucky. Usually I put on my duty weapon  or CCW before I take my dogs out at night. This night I didn't and that kid is still alive because of it.

---

Lucky kid, indeed. If you wanna play with a toy made to look exactly like a weapon in every way, more so from 30'-45' away in a low light situation, expect to get dead. The worst part is, you just know that some whiney douchebag would have been screaming bloody blue murder had you shot the kid, even though he was waving around what appears to be a real .45. RIP personal responsibility.

I'm surprised they haven't passed some sort of regulation requiring that they add a bright plastic bit to air rifles/guns such as those, much like they have on kids toy guns these days.

WantsumBier

Originally posted by Coldmeat


 

Originally posted by WantsumBier

I was taking my dog for a walk befre heading to work on the midnight shift. As I was opening my garage I heard the sound of what I thought was a semi-auto handgun being chambered (cocked). As the door opened further I saw two individuals standing at the end of my driveway (about 35-40 ft from where I was). I closed the door and went back in the house and called the cops. One of them turned out to be my neighbor's kid. He was high and playing with a pellet gun that looked just like a .45 auto. (looked kinda like this http://www.speedytoys.com/shop/item.asp?itemid=1374 )

The kid was lucky. Usually I put on my duty weapon  or CCW before I take my dogs out at night. This night I didn't and that kid is still alive because of it.

 

Lucky kid, indeed. If you wanna play with a toy made to look exactly like a weapon in every way, more so from 30'-45' away in a low light situation, expect to get dead. The worst part is, you just know that some whiney douchebag would have been screaming bloody blue murder had you shot the kid, even though he was waving around what appears to be a real .45. RIP personal responsibility.

I'm surprised they haven't passed some sort of regulation requiring that they add a bright plastic bit to air rifles/guns such as those, much like they have on kids toy guns these days.

They do that and the bad guys will get kits like these. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2045782&page=1

Adreal

Originally posted by WantsumBier

Originally posted by Coldmeat


 

Originally posted by WantsumBier

I was taking my dog for a walk befre heading to work on the midnight shift. As I was opening my garage I heard the sound of what I thought was a semi-auto handgun being chambered (cocked). As the door opened further I saw two individuals standing at the end of my driveway (about 35-40 ft from where I was). I closed the door and went back in the house and called the cops. One of them turned out to be my neighbor's kid. He was high and playing with a pellet gun that looked just like a .45 auto. (looked kinda like this http://www.speedytoys.com/shop/item.asp?itemid=1374 )

The kid was lucky. Usually I put on my duty weapon  or CCW before I take my dogs out at night. This night I didn't and that kid is still alive because of it.

 

Lucky kid, indeed. If you wanna play with a toy made to look exactly like a weapon in every way, more so from 30'-45' away in a low light situation, expect to get dead. The worst part is, you just know that some whiney douchebag would have been screaming bloody blue murder had you shot the kid, even though he was waving around what appears to be a real .45. RIP personal responsibility.

I'm surprised they haven't passed some sort of regulation requiring that they add a bright plastic bit to air rifles/guns such as those, much like they have on kids toy guns these days.

They do that and the bad guys will get kits like these. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2045782&page=1

lol. I was just thinking of something like that. Some guy could buy a lethal pistol and outfit it with an orange cap. As Coldmeat said...

Originally posted by Coldmeat


The worst part is, you just know that some whiney douchebag would have been screaming bloody blue murder had you shot the kid...

I think you both were lucky.

ImixZinz

I can only stand to listen to TED until he starts going on about his body is a temple and all that spiritual crap, which unfortunately doesn't take long.

Adreal

Originally posted by ImixZinz


I can only stand to listen to TED until he starts going on about his body is a temple and all that spiritual crap, which unfortunately doesn't take long.

Meh. Doesn't bother me.  The only thing I'm really prejudiced against is when people say, "I'm not religious. I'm spiritual." They usually say it in a glazed stare after a few drags on a joint. What do they mean by spirit or spiritual? What sort of spirits are they referring to? The kind that you tap into with a keg tap? What supernatural compass guides them? Their own? So 6,000,000,000 people are wrong, and the beliefs of 1 person are the only right ones? What evidence do they have for it? It usually amounts to hearsay, emotional jargon, and clichés that are more rooted in their personal crack pipe than in actual empirical evidence. Not to offend anyone - I'm speaking partly from direct observation here. There are plenty of people out there, though, that believe they have had encounters with supernatural beings which you couldn't dismiss unless you just believed that they were flat-out lying. ::shrug::

Adreal

 

Originally posted by WantsumBier

Originally posted by Adreal


 
 
Originally posted by Coldmeat


I don't agree with everything he says, but he is, in fact, distilled awesome.
It is hard to argue with a man that owns machine guns, though.

Nor do I, but I can certainly agree with a lot of it.  Forgiveness is one thing, but in terms of practicality it stands to reason that punishments or disciplinary action should be almost as, if not as, severe as the crimes committed. You kill someone > you are killed. Not: You kill someone > you're released > you kill someone else > you're released > you kill someone else.

 

Edit: It could be argued in some cases that if you had killed the murderer before he killed a second or third time, then it would have been showing justice and mercy to law-abiding citizens. I tend to frown on pre-emptive action though (e.g. don't kill the guy for commiting a capital offense before he commits it); it much depends on the situation I guess. If you can see it coming, it's best to take some sort of action...

 

I tend to interpet the Second Amendment a little differently than I think he does though. To me it only indicates that a well regulated militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms. As to what a militia is exactly I'd have to say citizen soldiers who are not part of the military but are still trained for combat. Personally I'd say that local militias should be fostered in our communities and that the members of those local militias should have the right to bear whatever arms (automatic or not) they dang well please to bear and in whatever fashion is determined by the militia so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of other American citizens. I really don't give a rat's butt about psychological damages people might claim from others exercising their inherent American freedom by walking down the streets with kalashnikovs slung over their shoulders. In my opinion fellow Americans should be just peachy with the thought of such occurrences.

Just looking for some clarification here. If a guy is pointing a gun at someone during a robbery, you would not shoot him first? I'm not trolling, just wondering what you would do. 

I happened to be thinking about our old discussion here, Bier, and I just felt that I needed to clarify something. I am definitely against gun control. If the state ruling over you is allowed to possess firearms but you are not, then all gun control does is allow a democracy to transform into an oppressive dictatorship and let law-abiding citizens fall victim to those law-breaking citizens which have illegal firearms. It just makes no sense.

 And on another point, every man should have the right to defend himself, but whether he defends himself should also be entirely up to him. If he has a strong conviction which dictates to him that he would rather die than hurt another (regardless of who it is), then that is his choice. But the freedom to defend oneself without consequence from the state should always be available to him.

On the subject of defending others, Bier... I'd have to say that if I saw a man pointing a pistol at another and robbing him, then I would still have a strong aversion to kill the robber. If the man was going to kill the other guy, I might take more lethal action against the offender. I would try to wound rather than kill if at all possible. Rather than carry just a gun on me, I'd probably like to be prepared with less lethal defensive weapons as well such as pepper spray or a taser. I'd probably use the gun as a last resort if I could think clearly at the time. There are a lot of IFs in there, but that's what it would boil down to in a perfect situation...

I think that in the case of the defense of others, a man should not only have the right to defend another but the obligation to do so whether that be in a democracy or despotism. The offended should be defended against the offender unless it puts others in danger; always the good of the many over the good of the few or of the one.