I like guns..

skinofevil

Undeniably Plausible
Site Supporter
Messages
2,194
Location
The Third Rail
Colt-Python-Fet.jpg

I don't shoot handguns anymore, and also no longer hunt, although I do still have my Mossberg model 500 and PSE 90's vintage bow just in case I should pick the sport up again, but I digress,
The best .357 Magnum I ever practiced with was a Colt Python. It shot steady and on target with a fairly smooth pull on the dbbl action.
With the hammer cocked back,
Forgetaboutit.
I shot the short barrel.


Speaking of Magnum, right before my gf and I split up recently, I told her it was going to be my Magnum year. She thought I meant I was gonna buy a bunch of Magnum condoms and fuck everybody, but I meant it was cause I was turning 44 lol.

Conjure that means this is gonna be my Peacemaker year. And I don't mean 'cause I'm gonna make peace with anybody.
 

skinofevil

Undeniably Plausible
Site Supporter
Messages
2,194
Location
The Third Rail
The owning of weapons for personal self defense -- even with lethal force -- is a human right.

Those who seek to curtail that right are would-be human rights violators.

Period.

Nope, no period. It is utter bullshit.

Bet you can't say why it's bullshit.

Know why you can't? I do.

You can't explain why it's bullshit because you know just as well as anybody else that your life belongs to you.

Nobody fucking owns you.

And that means that nobody else has a right to end your life. It's yours.

That also means that you have a right to defend it. With whatever tools are required to defend it.

Consequently, you have a human right to own those tools. Because you are nobody's fucking property.

And that's why the period is period, period.
 

skinofevil

Undeniably Plausible
Site Supporter
Messages
2,194
Location
The Third Rail
Right, all those muslims that are using guns.

Consult the survivors of the fucking Charlie Hebdo massacre, ass basket. Maybe that's the difference between Americans and Europeans: we give a fuck about our countrymen, you don't even remember yours.
 

Q

Dictator of the Bastard Factory
Banned
Messages
14,660
Location
Continuum
It's your house, booby trap the shit out of it if you want to. As for an atom bomb, are you capable of constructing one such that it doesn't violate your neighbors' rights by leaking radiation or fouling the water table? If yes, go right ahead.

Your rights' only boundary is the human rights of other people.

And to forestall an argument I can already sense coming: Other people owning firearms doesn't violate anyone's right to not be afraid. To the extent that that's a right, it's also a choice. You can choose not to be afraid of other people owning weapons for their own defense just as surely and just as easily as you choose not to be afraid of other people owning shoes.

No. Your rights to have something as dangerous as an atomic bomb do not exist. As soon as the government in the US finds out, they will come by and take it away from you.

The same for idiots boobytrapping their house. You might not realize it, but also there you can take innocent lives. If you have an accident and people break in to help you, they will get killed by your idiotic actions. NO you do not have the right and any lawyer can confirm this.

No, not everything you like can just be done, being a "human right". The same should be applied to owning a gun.
There are plenty examples of happy, healthy and safe people not owing a gun.
 

Q

Dictator of the Bastard Factory
Banned
Messages
14,660
Location
Continuum
The owning of weapons for personal self defense -- even with lethal force -- is a human right.

Those who seek to curtail that right are would-be human rights violators.

Period.

Nope, no period. It is utter bullshit.

Bet you can't say why it's bullshit.

Know why you can't? I do.

You can't explain why it's bullshit because you know just as well as anybody else that your life belongs to you.

Nobody fucking owns you.

And that means that nobody else has a right to end your life. It's yours.

That also means that you have a right to defend it. With whatever tools are required to defend it.

Consequently, you have a human right to own those tools. Because you are nobody's fucking property.

And that's why the period is period, period.

And again that is where your logic goed all wrong. My life is mine, I can choose how to live my life.
But as soon as I harm others, it is time for others to stop me. Also when I have not yet harmed those others.

When the risk of you harming others and even taking other people's lifes arrises, it is time to stop. Then it is allowed for others to stop you.
It is your house, but as soon as you light it on fire you are risking other people's lifes and you should be stopped. And you will be stopped or punished afterwards.
If you build an atomic bomb, the FBI will throw you in jail. That is logic. That makes sense. YOU are not allowed to risk anyones life.
And -also in the US- that even goes as far as your own life in a lot of states.

That whole 2nd ammendment is something from the past. Life has changed. Please update the laws corresponding to the current situation.
 

skinofevil

Undeniably Plausible
Site Supporter
Messages
2,194
Location
The Third Rail
That whole 2nd ammendment is something from the past. Life has changed.

Presentism isn't going to win you any points. Life hasn't changed at all, when it comes to the fundamentals. Human beings, left to their own devices, tend to be selfish as individuals and dangerous in groups. That's natural, and it hasn't changed from then to now. Proof of that is on the news every night. Self protection remains every ounce as necessary now as it was then.

The 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights -- in fact, the entirety of the Bill of Rights -- only recognizes natural human rights and instructs government to not interfere with them. It isn't a list of permissions.
 

Q

Dictator of the Bastard Factory
Banned
Messages
14,660
Location
Continuum
No. Your rights to have something as dangerous as an atomic bomb do not exist. As soon as the government in the US finds out, they will come by and take it away from you.

The fact that human rights can be violated doesn't mean they aren't human rights.

There is a balance. Sure you have right, no that does not mean everything is allowed.
 

Q

Dictator of the Bastard Factory
Banned
Messages
14,660
Location
Continuum
Right, all those muslims that are using guns.

Consult the survivors of the fucking Charlie Hebdo massacre, ass basket. Maybe that's the difference between Americans and Europeans: we give a fuck about our countrymen, you don't even remember yours.

You keep blabbering bullshit. What makes you think we do not care about people? We DO. We do more than americans.

At least we have social care for people who need it. We have laws to protect people from idiots. Our government intervenes when things go wrong with a neighborhood.
Gangs? We don't have that here.
Shootings? So little every single one is news. Not like in the US where most are considered "normal, he was black/poor/criminal anyway so who cares".
 

Q

Dictator of the Bastard Factory
Banned
Messages
14,660
Location
Continuum
That whole 2nd ammendment is something from the past. Life has changed.

Presentism isn't going to win you any points. Life hasn't changed at all, when it comes to the fundamentals. Human beings, left to their own devices, tend to be selfish as individuals and dangerous in groups. That's natural, and it hasn't changed from then to now. Proof of that is on the news every night. Self protection remains every ounce as necessary now as it was then.

The 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights -- in fact, the entirety of the Bill of Rights -- only recognizes natural human rights and instructs government to not interfere with them. It isn't a list of permissions.

There you have it... "Proof of that is on the news every night". Correct. Because of all the guns there is so much violence that it's on the news every night.
In a civilized society people do not want to kill eachother. There people can trust eachother and depend on eachother.

The wild west period is over for a long time now, stop pretending it should be different. Civilized people do not need a gun.
Civilized people do not start a riot and start looting when ONE black guy is killed by the police by the guy's own fault.
Civilized people do not claim that "Black lives matter"; they know that all lives matter and that is so obvious it does not need to be mentioned. And they do not perform actions to counteract that, like having guns ready to kill other humans. Either on purpose or accidentally.

Your "2nd ammendment" is outdated so far it should be burned and the day that happens should be a national holiday. The day that the US started living in the present. Come on, you are keeping hold of a law that originates from 1791. This is 2020. A lot has changed in 229 years.
 

Q

Dictator of the Bastard Factory
Banned
Messages
14,660
Location
Continuum
Same image, now with translations added:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Note: Green is the Netherlands (firearm ownership is regulated), Blue is Switzerland (firearms allowed, but limited), red is US (firearms allowed too much).
 
  • Boring
Reactions: SKY

Q

Dictator of the Bastard Factory
Banned
Messages
14,660
Location
Continuum
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you look closely you will see that the syntax of this sentence is incorrect. A well regulated Militia, a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, and then there follows a clause that does not fit in with the first part: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The two sentences do not connect seamlessly. Now, early in American history, it was well understood what was meant by the phrase. The gun law of the Second was the gun right of the state, not of the individuals. In those days it was common for the states to establish and maintain a militia (army) with this Second Amendment to prevent slave revolts, repel Native American attacks, and contain civilian rebellion.
After the American Civil War and certainly after World War I, a large federal army put an end to the militia of the states. It wasn't really necessary anymore. Times change.
America's largest gun association, the National Riffle Association, co-wrote laws to restrict gun use until 1977. Everything was focused on correct instructions, shooting training and above all safety. So until 1977. That year, a group of NRA members rebelled against the government and its gun-control laws and seized power in the gun club; the individual against the state. A change of direction is implemented and the 2nd Amendment was gradually turned into a right of "self-defense for the individual", where it never was this. The Supreme Court, which tests and scrutinizes the constitutions, was played with a huge lobby. Successfully. The right to bear arms is due to this misinterpretation now justified for individuals.
In recent decades, arms sales have soared to more than $ 30 billion a year at the cost of thousands of deaths. The 2nd Amendment has little to do with self-defense and comes under fire with every slaughter. Ammosexuals benefit.
 

Q

Dictator of the Bastard Factory
Banned
Messages
14,660
Location
Continuum
^^^ Buddy you can say what you want but you will never change the minds of gun owners.
And that is the problem! No matter what, you cannot be convinced. That is just plain stupid.

Intelligent people can be convinced and are willing to change their point of view. Idiots stick with their point, no matter what.



To bad you aren't allowed guns in your world,you may actually enjoy shooting sports.

I do like shooting clay pigeons for instance. But in a controlled and regulated environment. And where the guns are kept safe, out of reach of the people who can do harm with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Q

Dictator of the Bastard Factory
Banned
Messages
14,660
Location
Continuum
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you look closely you will see that the syntax of this sentence is incorrect. A well regulated Militia, a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, and then there follows a clause that does not fit in with the first part: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The two sentences do not connect seamlessly. Now, early in American history, it was well understood what was meant by the phrase. The gun law of the Second was the gun right of the state, not of the individuals. In those days it was common for the states to establish and maintain a militia (army) with this Second Amendment to prevent slave revolts, repel Native American attacks, and contain civilian rebellion.
After the American Civil War and certainly after World War I, a large federal army put an end to the militia of the states. It wasn't really necessary anymore. Times change.
America's largest gun association, the National Riffle Association, co-wrote laws to restrict gun use until 1977. Everything was focused on correct instructions, shooting training and above all safety. So until 1977. That year, a group of NRA members rebelled against the government and its gun-control laws and seized power in the gun club; the individual against the state. A change of direction is implemented and the 2nd Amendment was gradually turned into a right of "self-defense for the individual", where it never was this. The Supreme Court, which tests and scrutinizes the constitutions, was played with a huge lobby. Successfully. The right to bear arms is due to this misinterpretation now justified for individuals.
In recent decades, arms sales have soared to more than $ 30 billion a year at the cost of thousands of deaths. The 2nd Amendment has little to do with self-defense and comes under fire with every slaughter. Ammosexuals benefit.

@SKY Yes, boring that little thing called "the thruth"....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP

Ice

Cold as Ice
Site Supporter
Messages
4,614
Location
East of the Rockies West of the rest
^^^ Buddy you can say what you want but you will never change the minds of gun owners.
And that is the problem! No matter what, you cannot be convinced. That is just plain stupid.

Intelligent people can be convinced and are willing to change their point of view. Idiots stick with their point, no matter what.


Well you just called yourself an idiot because you have a closed mind and are nto willing to listen to the other side. lol
 

Q

Dictator of the Bastard Factory
Banned
Messages
14,660
Location
Continuum
^^^ Buddy you can say what you want but you will never change the minds of gun owners.
And that is the problem! No matter what, you cannot be convinced. That is just plain stupid.

Intelligent people can be convinced and are willing to change their point of view. Idiots stick with their point, no matter what.

Well you just called yourself an idiot because you have a closed mind and are nto willing to listen to the other side. lol

OMG! You REALLY are too stupid to shit.

What arguments do you have? CONVICE me. By valid arguments.

Did you even read and UNDERSTAND what I told you?!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP

Ice

Cold as Ice
Site Supporter
Messages
4,614
Location
East of the Rockies West of the rest
^^^ Buddy you can say what you want but you will never change the minds of gun owners.
And that is the problem! No matter what, you cannot be convinced. That is just plain stupid.

Intelligent people can be convinced and are willing to change their point of view. Idiots stick with their point, no matter what.

Well you just called yourself an idiot because you have a closed mind and are nto willing to listen to the other side. lol

OMG! You REALLY are too stupid to shit.

What arguments do you have? CONVICE me. By valid arguments.

Did you even read and UNDERSTAND what I told you?!

It doesn't matter what I say to you,your mind is made up, guns are bad.
So shut your fucking pie hole I'm done with you..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q

TheHaze

If my dog doesn't like you, I probably won'teither
Site Supporter
Messages
9,909
If someone breaks into your home what are you going to protect yourself with,the TV remote Ha - well if you break into my place good luck in your next life cause I shoot to kill and have no problem with that and if you don't like it then stay away from this crazy Army train looney - - - - - -
 

skinofevil

Undeniably Plausible
Site Supporter
Messages
2,194
Location
The Third Rail
^^^ Buddy you can say what you want but you will never change the minds of gun owners.
And that is the problem! No matter what, you cannot be convinced. That is just plain stupid.

Intelligent people can be convinced and are willing to change their point of view. Idiots stick with their point, no matter what.

Well you just called yourself an idiot because you have a closed mind and are nto willing to listen to the other side. lol

OMG! You REALLY are too stupid to shit.

What arguments do you have? CONVICE me. By valid arguments.

Did you even read and UNDERSTAND what I told you?!

Do me a favor, just to satisfy my curiosity:

Lay out what you would accept as a valid argument for personal firearms ownership. Cards on the table. I don't think there is one you'd accept as valid, because you're not open to considering any.

Let me pose a further question to you -- do you believe you have the right to defend your own life against someone trying to kill you?
 

skinofevil

Undeniably Plausible
Site Supporter
Messages
2,194
Location
The Third Rail
I guess those must have been especially uncomfortable questions for you, eh?

Well, you're certainly free to concede the point; it's not as though refusing to do so is going to save you any face at this point.
 

Q

Dictator of the Bastard Factory
Banned
Messages
14,660
Location
Continuum
If someone breaks into your home what are you going to protect yourself with,the TV remote Ha - well if you break into my place good luck in your next life cause I shoot to kill and have no problem with that and if you don't like it then stay away from this crazy Army train looney - - - - - -

Do you realise what you are saying? Your stuff is worth more than a human life....
 

Q

Dictator of the Bastard Factory
Banned
Messages
14,660
Location
Continuum
^^^ Buddy you can say what you want but you will never change the minds of gun owners.
And that is the problem! No matter what, you cannot be convinced. That is just plain stupid.

Intelligent people can be convinced and are willing to change their point of view. Idiots stick with their point, no matter what.

Well you just called yourself an idiot because you have a closed mind and are nto willing to listen to the other side. lol

OMG! You REALLY are too stupid to shit.

What arguments do you have? CONVICE me. By valid arguments.

Did you even read and UNDERSTAND what I told you?!

Do me a favor, just to satisfy my curiosity:

Lay out what you would accept as a valid argument for personal firearms ownership. Cards on the table. I don't think there is one you'd accept as valid, because you're not open to considering any.

Let me pose a further question to you -- do you believe you have the right to defend your own life against someone trying to kill you?

I can not think of a valid argument. Please help me and provide me one. All I have heard until now is bullshit arguments like the "2nd amendement allows me so" and "protect myself against a sitution that will actually never happen".

Yes, I agree that is my life is threatened and I can save my life by killing the other, it is justified. Depending on the situation ofcourse, there should not be a way out apart from killing the other one, the killing should not be any form of torture, etc.