222041 Bullies, 4327 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 20 of 154
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 12 345612 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Wounded Ronin is offline
    Wounded Ronin's Avatar

    ...is THE PENETRATOR

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,814

    Posted On:
    12/01/2004 3:01pm

    supporting member
     Style: German longsword, .45 ACP

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!



    Phil demonstrates his advanced gun expertise by reading a typical crap biased gun rag.

    Sweep aside any illusions, wishful thinking, and action movie fantasies you may have.
    http://www.themartialist.com/pecom/guncontrol.htm


    From the same URL

    Let us continue, then, by framing this debate. If you are not educated and trained in the use of firearms, you are not qualified to have an opinion on gun control. You heard me correctly. There are a lot of self-righteous firearms prohibitionists out there who are completely and profoundly ignorant of the weapons on whose possession they presume to pontificate. They repeat foolish nonsense they read in gun control literature and see in movies as if they actually know what they’re discussing – all the while making fools of themselves as they breathlessly condemn non-existent “plastic guns,” fictional “cop-killer bullets,” and paradoxical “semi-automatic machineguns.”

    Ignorance must dismiss from the gun control debate the uninformed citizen – for a thorough working understanding of firearms is necessary for rational discourse on them. Firearms columnist Jeff Cooper coined the term “hoplophobia” for the irrational fear of weapons. Hoplophobes are, almost without exception, ignorant of the uses, limitations, and realistic power of firearms. Their ignorance spawns fear through lack of understanding, but also hamstrings them in the gun control debate. Both parties to such a debate, in fact, are at a disadvantage, for how does one dispel fabrication held up as fact? Firearms advocates cannot easily discuss weapons with people who believe the fictional tenets of gun control mythology.

    It is my firm belief that anyone who actually takes the time to learn firearms in earnest will convert to firearms advocacy – for understanding and realistic training will bring almost anyone around, showing all who engage in such training the utility of guns while dispelling any misconceptions and irrational fear they may possess. Don’t trot out for me former military combatants who now abhor guns; being a soldier in war and being an armed citizen in daily life are different things.

    Oh, ohhkay.

    So, like, it's not okay for someone who dosen't know about guns to disagree with Phil...but it's ALSO not okay for "former military combatants" to disagree with him. Because clearly they don't know about guns either.

    WTF!
    Last edited by Wounded Ronin; 12/01/2004 3:06pm at .
    “nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you’re a hit man or a video gamer.” - Jack Thompson
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Th...%28attorney%29
  2. Ray Nelson is offline
    Ray Nelson's Avatar

    Learn to become Invisible

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    112

    Posted On:
    12/01/2004 3:18pm

    supporting member
     Style: Bartitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The argument doesn't read that way. What you guys are saying over here just sounds like you are just trying to regulate arms. That's fine. Nobody wants kids, crooks or psychos to have guns. That's what the regulatory process is for. And that's just dandy.

    It reads as more of a 'Why do you need firearms?' question. And phrased incorrectly, people almost always revert to the NRA catechism. And I can see where they are freaked out by the legislation. As more and more laws pass, the regulatory process deepens, and the number of legal weapons goes down. And it is viewed as a sort of slippery slope, culminating in general confiscation. Something no one wants, except the most liberal factions in our society.

    Does anyone here have firearms? Does anyone here know how to legally transport them? I have a few guns, and I can tell you firsthand that police officers get anxious any time they are dealing with you at a traffic stop. The fact that I own firearms comes across on the computer as 'Officer Alert'. I'm polite to LEOs, always. But they make sure that I am totally legal before thinking of letting me on my merry way. There is your pre-emptive solution, already in effect.

    Guns are dangerous, but only in the hands of a human. Or a monkey, i suppose, but still. Properly maintained and stored firearms are as safe as any other two pound chunk of metal. They don't 'just go off'. They are an inanimate object, reliant on an external will to operate it.

    But because they are so dangerous in the hands of people, It is registered. But that's kind of a misnomer, as it isn't the weapon that is registered as much as the owner. The paperwork is to see if you really should have one. If you are a drug addict, a criminal, mentally challenged, otherwise unfit to be responsible with the weapon. The very things that should go through your own brain before you go to get one.

    Do i need a machine gun? No. I know I don't. I might have fun shooting one at some targets, but i don't need one or want one. Does that mean that I like having the decision made for me by a government? No. I never like it when other people decide what's best for me. I'm a big boy, I can sort it out.

    Put it into MA context. suppose you want to learn Muoy Thai. Knowing Muoy Thai makes you far more dangerous than an untrained guy. And, by looking through these fora, I see that there are many crazy people who do crazy stuff under any MA. Suppose the government, or the people decided that Muoy Thai is too dangerous to be taught unchecked by government. So now, before enlisting in a class, and every time you renew your membership, you have to go down to the sherriff's office and fill out paperwork and pay a fee. It's not a big deal, just a half hour out of work, five bucks, and it screens out the loonies from your classes, right?

    Suppose that there still are crazies, learning MT at illegal, unregistered institutions. ANd that their antics still get noticed. Heck, we'd better beef up the registration system. There are still MT crazies out there.

    And then, other arts get restricted, so that the only art you can study without a permit is TKD, and there are arts which require special permits that have far more invasive background checks. (like a level 3 FFA) What do you think then?

    I'm not going to get into a semantics argument over this example. It's not the point. The point is the involvement of government, and the general contempt many people feel for others who self-empower, because they don't want to, are too lazy to, or don't trust their neighbor's motives.

    And that, in a nutshell is the problem at hand.
    You may commence with the n00b beatdown now.

    Respectfully,
    Ray Nelson

    Oh, and I'm pretty sure Phil noticed he's overweight. And that he has glasses. As for the eyebrow thing, I think it's a running gag.
  3. Tef-the-Persian is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Basking Ridge, New Jersey
    Posts
    567

    Posted On:
    12/01/2004 3:21pm


     Style: Hashashin.

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by The Wastrel
    The typical Second Amendment zealot's argument, other than hinging upon a misunderstanding of a dependent clause, is that regulations on gun ownership only affect law abiding citizens. By this logic, which seems impervious, regulations don't matter because criminals break laws by nature. Therefore, only decent law-abiding citizens are affected.

    Anyone see the problem with that?
    Hold on, there are people who believe we should have no gun legislation in America? Wow. I didn't know that.
  4. WingChun Lawyer is offline
    WingChun Lawyer's Avatar

    Modesty forbids more.

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    São Paulo, Brazil
    Posts
    5,426

    Posted On:
    12/01/2004 3:34pm

    supporting member
     Style: Muay Thai, BJJ newbie.

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Ray, do you think car ownership should be regulated in any way?
    That civilisation may not sink,
    Its great battle lost,
    Quiet the dog, tether the pony
    To a distant post;
    Our master Caesar is in the tent
    Where the maps are spread,
    His eyes fixed upon nothing,
    A hand under his head.


    - W.B. Yeats
  5. Ray Nelson is offline
    Ray Nelson's Avatar

    Learn to become Invisible

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    112

    Posted On:
    12/01/2004 3:44pm

    supporting member
     Style: Bartitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Of course. Cars kill more people than guns. And nearly everyone has one. Like I said, I don't have any problem with the registration process as it stands... It's the idea that there are prominent voices pushing for more legislation that would make the government make more decisions for me.

    Do I have to get a special license to get a faster car? Do I have to prove why I want to go two hundred mph? Do i have to prove that I am not a criminal or a psychotic? Should I have to? Are there people trying to make it so that only the army and the police have cars, and that I have to rely upon them for transportation, even though it's not their duty?

    I, like many adults, try to maintain a semblance of self reliance for crucial needs. I have a job to pay for food and bills, own a car to get around, and train to defend myself and my family. The more regulations that the government passes to protect the lowest common denominator, the harder it is for me to do this.

    Respectfully,
    Ray Nelson
  6. Jekyll is offline
    Jekyll's Avatar

    .

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On the wrong side of the pond for gong sau
    Posts
    2,086

    Posted On:
    12/01/2004 3:46pm

    supporting member
     Style: San shou(tai chi) +judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    In the future all wars will be fought with muay thai.

    Be serious, can you imagine a kid running amock through a school doing muay thai, he'd just get suspended it wouldnt even make the local news. Martial arts control and gun control are in no way comparible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stickx
    It must suck for legit practitioners of tai chi like Cullion to see their art get all watered down into exercise for seniors.
    Those who esteme qi have no strength. ~ Exposition of Insights into the Thirteen Postures Attrib: Wu Yuxiang founder of Wu style tai chi.
  7. Jekyll is offline
    Jekyll's Avatar

    .

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On the wrong side of the pond for gong sau
    Posts
    2,086

    Posted On:
    12/01/2004 3:48pm

    supporting member
     Style: San shou(tai chi) +judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    In the context of your arguement the primary difference between cars and guns is that cars are neccisary, in daily life not just in outlandish what if scenarios.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stickx
    It must suck for legit practitioners of tai chi like Cullion to see their art get all watered down into exercise for seniors.
    Those who esteme qi have no strength. ~ Exposition of Insights into the Thirteen Postures Attrib: Wu Yuxiang founder of Wu style tai chi.
  8. The Wastrel is offline
    The Wastrel's Avatar

    Such as thou art, sometime was I.

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,620

    Posted On:
    12/01/2004 3:51pm

    supporting member
     Style: Brazilian Jiujitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Nelson
    The argument doesn't read that way. What you guys are saying over here just sounds like you are just trying to regulate arms. That's fine. Nobody wants kids, crooks or psychos to have guns. That's what the regulatory process is for. And that's just dandy.
    Right, but you are also aware that there are many advocates who oppose even registration.

    It reads as more of a 'Why do you need firearms?' question. And phrased incorrectly, people almost always revert to the NRA catechism. And I can see where they are freaked out by the legislation. As more and more laws pass, the regulatory process deepens, and the number of legal weapons goes down. And it is viewed as a sort of slippery slope, culminating in general confiscation. Something no one wants, except the most liberal factions in our society.
    I think that's the wrong approach. I don't like the emotive liberal entreaties, nor do I like the blustering paranoiac responses of gun rights advocates.

    Does anyone here have firearms? Does anyone here know how to legally transport them?
    Yes, and not exactly.

    I have a few guns, and I can tell you firsthand that police officers get anxious any time they are dealing with you at a traffic stop. The fact that I own firearms comes across on the computer as 'Officer Alert'. I'm polite to LEOs, always. But they make sure that I am totally legal before thinking of letting me on my merry way. There is your pre-emptive solution, already in effect.
    This is kind of the point I try to make. Regulation actually liberates you in a sense. I know that sounds Orwellian, but...

    In any case, your Muay Thai argument is wholly spurious, but you sort of acknowledge that, and you and I don't seem to differ yet on what are reasonable regulations, so...meh.

    As for the forum, I think Afronaut is tapping into a psychological tendency that is open to question.

    As for the contempt for people who "empower"...You know, it might help some of these gun rights advocates to think for just one moment about the way they act.

    I live out in the country, on a walnut orchard and vineyard that borders an area that is popular for pheasant-hunting, among other things. Every year we get people driving up to hunt on the property. Many people don't even ask, and just merrily ignore the "No Trespassing" signs, thinking, I suppose, that their Libertarian politics are not contradicted by trespassing because we happen to own the only road that leads to their chosen spot.

    Those who ask, and are told to take a hike, frequently defy us, and go in anyway when we are not around. One day, my fiancee and I are walking the dogs and we come up on the area where the pheasant usually are, and suddenly we notice a handful of armed men, hunting in our "backyard". We had only a quarter of an hour ago told them that they could not hunt on the land.

    They had already ignored us once. Now more than a half a mile from our own firearms, we were in no position to tell them to clear off. They had the power, on our territory. Chilling.

    It's hard to explain to someone how it feels to come upon armed folks when one is not similarly equipped. There IS an emotional response to this sort of thing that is enough sometimes to set one off on an anti-gun tirade. Like the time my mother, who is a citizen of the U.K. and quite ignorant of firearms, discovered that her neighbor was selling handguns out of his garage.

    Most of y'all just ain't responsible, and seem to literally get off on displays of power. Phil's posturing is a perfect example.
    Normally, I'd say I was grappling, but I was taking down and mounting people, and JFS has kindly informed us that takedowns and being mounted are neither grappling nor anti grappling, so I'm not sure what the **** I was doing. Maybe schroedinger's sparring, where it's neither grappling nor anti-grappling until somoene observes it and collapses the waveform, and then I RNC a cat to death.----fatherdog
  9. The Wastrel is offline
    The Wastrel's Avatar

    Such as thou art, sometime was I.

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,620

    Posted On:
    12/01/2004 3:53pm

    supporting member
     Style: Brazilian Jiujitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The more regulations that the government passes to protect the lowest common denominator, the harder it is for me to do this.
    This is, quite frankly, offensive in the extreme.
    Normally, I'd say I was grappling, but I was taking down and mounting people, and JFS has kindly informed us that takedowns and being mounted are neither grappling nor anti grappling, so I'm not sure what the **** I was doing. Maybe schroedinger's sparring, where it's neither grappling nor anti-grappling until somoene observes it and collapses the waveform, and then I RNC a cat to death.----fatherdog
  10. Wounded Ronin is offline
    Wounded Ronin's Avatar

    ...is THE PENETRATOR

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,814

    Posted On:
    12/01/2004 4:00pm

    supporting member
     Style: German longsword, .45 ACP

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Nelson
    The argument doesn't read that way. What you guys are saying over here just sounds like you are just trying to regulate arms. That's fine. Nobody wants kids, crooks or psychos to have guns. That's what the regulatory process is for. And that's just dandy.

    It reads as more of a 'Why do you need firearms?' question. And phrased incorrectly, people almost always revert to the NRA catechism. And I can see where they are freaked out by the legislation. As more and more laws pass, the regulatory process deepens, and the number of legal weapons goes down. And it is viewed as a sort of slippery slope, culminating in general confiscation. Something no one wants, except the most liberal factions in our society.

    Does anyone here have firearms? Does anyone here know how to legally transport them? I have a few guns, and I can tell you firsthand that police officers get anxious any time they are dealing with you at a traffic stop. The fact that I own firearms comes across on the computer as 'Officer Alert'. I'm polite to LEOs, always. But they make sure that I am totally legal before thinking of letting me on my merry way. There is your pre-emptive solution, already in effect.

    Guns are dangerous, but only in the hands of a human. Or a monkey, i suppose, but still. Properly maintained and stored firearms are as safe as any other two pound chunk of metal. They don't 'just go off'. They are an inanimate object, reliant on an external will to operate it.

    But because they are so dangerous in the hands of people, It is registered. But that's kind of a misnomer, as it isn't the weapon that is registered as much as the owner. The paperwork is to see if you really should have one. If you are a drug addict, a criminal, mentally challenged, otherwise unfit to be responsible with the weapon. The very things that should go through your own brain before you go to get one.

    Do i need a machine gun? No. I know I don't. I might have fun shooting one at some targets, but i don't need one or want one. Does that mean that I like having the decision made for me by a government? No. I never like it when other people decide what's best for me. I'm a big boy, I can sort it out.

    Put it into MA context. suppose you want to learn Muoy Thai. Knowing Muoy Thai makes you far more dangerous than an untrained guy. And, by looking through these fora, I see that there are many crazy people who do crazy stuff under any MA. Suppose the government, or the people decided that Muoy Thai is too dangerous to be taught unchecked by government. So now, before enlisting in a class, and every time you renew your membership, you have to go down to the sherriff's office and fill out paperwork and pay a fee. It's not a big deal, just a half hour out of work, five bucks, and it screens out the loonies from your classes, right?

    Suppose that there still are crazies, learning MT at illegal, unregistered institutions. ANd that their antics still get noticed. Heck, we'd better beef up the registration system. There are still MT crazies out there.

    And then, other arts get restricted, so that the only art you can study without a permit is TKD, and there are arts which require special permits that have far more invasive background checks. (like a level 3 FFA) What do you think then?

    I'm not going to get into a semantics argument over this example. It's not the point. The point is the involvement of government, and the general contempt many people feel for others who self-empower, because they don't want to, are too lazy to, or don't trust their neighbor's motives.

    And that, in a nutshell is the problem at hand.
    You may commence with the n00b beatdown now.

    Respectfully,
    Ray Nelson

    Oh, and I'm pretty sure Phil noticed he's overweight. And that he has glasses. As for the eyebrow thing, I think it's a running gag.



    Actually, there are plenty of people on these boards who are not pro gun control in the typical sense of the term. There are even a bunch of current or former military people on the board who are very knowledgable about firearms and experienced with their use.

    The beef with Phil has a lot to do with the fact that he's a Walter Mitty type poseur who nevertheless writes as though he were John Rambo. Not so much with us disliking guns.
    “nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you’re a hit man or a video gamer.” - Jack Thompson
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Th...%28attorney%29
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 12 345612 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.