Originally Posted by waphtuos
With all due to respect it was intentionally "idiotic". Are rhetoric devices not allowed in discussion?
Don't be silly. Rhetorical devices are allowed, but rhetorics has nothing to do with posting a Rick Astley video in response to a relevant argument.
I suggest you try to respond to their arguments with proper counter-arguments rather than making ineffectual attempts to talk yourself out of blunders you've already made.
Last edited by CMon; Sep 11, 2009 at 12:54 AM.
Originally Posted by waphtuos
With all due to respect it was intentionally "idiotic". Are rhetoric devices not allowed in discussion?
Not if they're as stupid as that.
And guns don't give a mutual respect. They give a reason to be paranoid. Which promotes shoot first, ask questions later. Which is not the direction civilization is intended to go down.
Plus who the fuck do you think you are, Superman? If I shoot you I guarentee you I will not give you the chance to fire back. My first shot will hit and if it doesn't kill you the next 29 will. And all because you looked at me funny. That is the error with your judgement.
Plus, you come up with ideas of taking on S.W.A.T. teams. They aren't stupid. Unlike you, they're trained for combat. And if they're outnumbered they can easily barricade you in then snipe you out one by one. Civilians aren't supposed to come up with defense plans against their own protection.
And you implying that one right being denied and another allowed is bad is ridiculous. The second and third amendment have completely different ideas behind each of them. One is so that soldiers don't leech off the civilian population, the other is so that the civilian population can be mobilized into a simple militia for defensive purposes of defending the borders. One of those ideas are out of date and in dire need of removal or revision. And it's not the first one.
Second, this is gun control. Not gun scrapping. This is intended where your right to a gun is still allowed, but the right to life and security for others is placed at a higher value. If they feel you're mentally unsound to be carrying a gun, they have every right to strip you of your guns for the protection of other people's right to life. Don't value the possesion of a killing device over the security of neighbours, friends, and family.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by OrAclE
Second, this is gun control. Not gun scrapping. This is intended where your right to a gun is still allowed, but the right to life and security for others is placed at a higher value. If they feel you're mentally unsound to be carrying a gun, they have every right to strip you of your guns for the protection of other people's right to life. Don't value the possesion of a killing device over the security of neighbours, friends, and family.
^listen to that paragraph. In the end, it's still all about security, but by putting restrictions on armaments rather than handing them out freely.
Originally Posted by waphtuos
if everyone in my neighborhood had a gun we could easily take on a swat team. there are three or four times as many of us as them.
No, you couldn't
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)
160 American soldiers vs 2000-4000 (compertavily) well equiped miltia, 19 Americans die, at least 200 miltia die. With those odds, you'd need a huge zerg to stand a chance against your own military. For several reasons:
Miltia aren't (well) trained, meaning their aim sucks from the beggining. They are also generally not as well equipped, not every american citzen has an assault riffle - most opt for shotguns, handguns, or bolt action riffles, most of these weapouns a good body armour will stop, such as the ones used by the military. This means you have to aim for the head, that's even harder. Now, because the miltia doesn't have moral training, they'll panic under combat situations - whereas the military has a stronger form of hierachy and moral training that they'll keep their cool. Panicking means your aim sucks.
Plus, how the hell are you going to stand up to the military if they decide to roll in the tanks, aircraft, and other mechnical weapouns with your shoddy, poorly mantained MM9 handgun? Even with a hundred of those and the people required to use them banded together as a restiance?
Originally Posted by waphtuos
It isn't. They are both rights. By comparing one to another I'm attempting to make the absurdity of losing one right apparent by showing what it would be like if we lost a different right. It was to make a point, although you clearly missed it.
In canada it's illegal to ride on your bike with less than two hands on the steering thingy - but it's also illegal to turn around a corner without using an arm to point at that dirrection (meaning for a while there's only one arm on the steering thingy). This is not a controdaction - as the second law overrides the first one, and that they're both made with diffrent intentions in mind. The same applies to your two laws.
Originally Posted by waphtuos
You shoot me I shoot you back. Weapons virtually guarantee mutual respect.
Too bad the one with the first suprise shot wins 95% of the time in a gun fight.
Originally Posted by waphtuos
implying me or my loved ones would simply let you do either of those things.
... is it that hard to overpower at least one loved person? Just take a child or a women hostage, can't be too damn hard with an element of suprise.
tl;dr: deprived is spergin'
Ahahaha... "WE COULD TAKE ON A SWAT TEAM"
Bullshit. Members of trained crime organizations and syndicates are usually flat out slaughtered by professional combatants, if not, they're captured, prosecuted, and put in jail for a long while.
Secondly; if I shoot you, that's it. You die. This isn't the Matrix, you won't go to bullet time mode and dodge every bullet before throwing a staple at me and killing me instantly. You will die. It's very plain and simple.
Now, about your 'rhetorical' comment; you put it up because you realized your argument was terrible, had no real basis, and made you look like the type of retard who would like to shove his head into a bee's nest while toasting his balls in a barrel full of thermite. You're just trying to back out when you've made so many dumb blunders.
Lolno. 'Respect'? Look, there's two types of people who know how to use a gun. One type will blow your face off while you're blindly taking out the scenery and calmly walk away. The other will shoot you in the back when you least expect it.
Now excuse me, I need to get back to Miami. Continue floundering around, Mr. waphtuos. I will be watching in amusement.
And as was brought out by Odlov and CMon, this is to increase security. I can't believe that it has taken four pages for you to understand.
Bullshit. Members of trained crime organizations and syndicates are usually flat out slaughtered by professional combatants, if not, they're captured, prosecuted, and put in jail for a long while.
Secondly; if I shoot you, that's it. You die. This isn't the Matrix, you won't go to bullet time mode and dodge every bullet before throwing a staple at me and killing me instantly. You will die. It's very plain and simple.
Now, about your 'rhetorical' comment; you put it up because you realized your argument was terrible, had no real basis, and made you look like the type of retard who would like to shove his head into a bee's nest while toasting his balls in a barrel full of thermite. You're just trying to back out when you've made so many dumb blunders.
Originally Posted by waphtuos
You shoot me I shoot you back. Weapons virtually guarantee mutual respect.
Lolno. 'Respect'? Look, there's two types of people who know how to use a gun. One type will blow your face off while you're blindly taking out the scenery and calmly walk away. The other will shoot you in the back when you least expect it.
Now excuse me, I need to get back to Miami. Continue floundering around, Mr. waphtuos. I will be watching in amusement.
And as was brought out by Odlov and CMon, this is to increase security. I can't believe that it has taken four pages for you to understand.
Last edited by Ragdollmaster; Sep 11, 2009 at 10:33 PM.
How to complain in style: GG, Mahulk.
