Regarding the 1st and 2nd Amendments

Archive of the Sojourn3 General Discussion Forum.
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Regarding the 1st and 2nd Amendments

Postby Xisiqomelir » Thu Feb 27, 2003 3:07 am

thanuk, see how hard I work finding you the good stuff?
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"

Gura: ..btw, being a dick is my god given right as an evil.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Re: Regarding the 1st and 2nd Amendments

Postby thanuk » Thu Feb 27, 2003 1:58 pm

Xisiqomelir wrote:thanuk, see how hard I work finding you the good stuff?


Pure comedy:)

I suppose since only the printing press was around when they wrote the first amendment, we shouldn't be able to use our free speech on TV, the radio, or the internet either right?:)

Edit---
Rofl i never actually let it run before:) I guess im psychic!
Last edited by thanuk on Thu Feb 27, 2003 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'
You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'
Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'
You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'
Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 27, 2003 2:07 pm

Err... is it just me, or did that computer look _way_ too advanced for 1985?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Thu Feb 27, 2003 7:48 pm

The first time a convenience store clerk is killed by a robber wielding a Mac G4, I'll see your point :)
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 27, 2003 7:52 pm

Bah! Making someone use a mac is an act of torture plain and simple!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 27, 2003 7:53 pm

Oh, and most convenience store clerks are killed by small, non-controcersial (mostly) handguns... not high-powered assault rifles.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Thu Feb 27, 2003 7:59 pm

Ragorn wrote:The first time a convenience store clerk is killed by a robber wielding a Mac G4, I'll see your point :)


And the first time the police arrive in time to stop an armed assailant BEFORE he shoots the clerk, the rest of America will see your point:)
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Fri Feb 28, 2003 12:57 am

Sarvis, please do not interject your Microsoftophilia into this most excellent thread. ;)

How to be a good person:


Image
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"



Gura: ..btw, being a dick is my god given right as an evil.
Zen
Sojourner
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Michigan

Postby Zen » Fri Feb 28, 2003 1:48 am

Xisiqomelir wrote:Sarvis, please do not interject your Microsoftophilia into this most excellent thread. ;)

How to be a good person:



Notice, good people without guns are dead. I'm not one to criticize a childs efforts or artwork, but since you've brought it up here, please consider the following comments to be directed at you:

It is far better to live in a society of alive bad people, than a society of dead good people. If being good means you are lambs to the slaughter, chisel 'bad' on my firearm and have pity for the fool who doesn't respect it.

That said, I am of the opinion that everyone should be allowed and ecouraged to possess weapons they know how to store safely and use lethaly if required. Understanding and knowledge of the potential destruction of a weapon first hand is a very effective deterent to it's misuse. I was raised in a household where we had guns in the closet. I fired my first weapon when I was 8, and I got my first knife when I was 5. 15 years later, I still haven't managed to have an accident or get mad and blow some fools head off.

If you know there's a gun in my house, and you know I can use it, you'd have to be a fool to come in shooting my place up.

-Lorgan "Bad but alive" Blackmane
Gort
Sojourner
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Ft. Collins, CO

Postby Gort » Fri Feb 28, 2003 3:00 am

In over 30 years of firing weapons, and being familiar w/ knives in more than a cut my steak fashion, I have not had the need to utilize either for the purpose of self defense. I do still believe I have the right to be able to though.

I agree w/ Lorgan on many of his points, being able to store properly, and use properly the weapons is key, and all the "good people" (yes it was a 6 yr old, so black and white is still the world) are dead is a sad recrimination on the way things could very well be here were we to not be able to keep and bear arms.

It works in Europe because they've not had them in civilian population for a very long time. Here it is part of our cultural identity.

IMHO

Toplack
"In the immortal words of Socrates, I drank What?!" Real Genius
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 28, 2003 3:18 am

Zen & Gort: Look closely. The picture is a joke, although a good one. I was fooled until I read who sponsored the contest. Flashbunny.org, the same people who brought you the original flash animation in this thread.

Honestly though, it's still so very, very true.

Xisi: It's not Microsoftophilia. I have no problem with _real_ operating systems such as Sun Solaris or Linux. Pretty much any variation of UNIX* is fine. BeOS is probably fine, along with OS2/Warp (though I've never used either and can't really say.) But OSX is shit. Pure shit. In a company of people who program and test on Macintoshes only two people have anything good to say about it, and even they can only look sheepish when a problem is pointed out. One of our QA testers put it this way: "OSX is beta quality software at best."


*: Do _not_ point out that OSx is built on a UNIX variant. I know this. It doesn't help the mac at all.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Dlur
Sojourner
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Dlur » Fri Feb 28, 2003 2:38 pm

Agree Lorgan, I got my first .22 caliber rifle when I was 7 years old, started hunting with it the very next year. There were always firearms in our house, but I knew for a fact that if I played with them either the firearm would end up hurting/killing me or if my dad caught/found out about it he'd kill me(figuratively). Guns are tools, not toys and I've always known that, even before I took my first firearms safety course at the age of 8 years old.

Now I've got a kid, and he's 9 months old. I still own a pretty large collection of firearms, but as of right now they're all at my parent's house. My SO doesn't believe that it's safe to have firearms in the same home as a child. My argument is that if they are around them, they'll learn to respect, and fear them and also to use them properly, and only properly. Hers is that they are just plain dangerous. As I see it, anything can be dangerous, the stairs in our house are dangerous as well, yet they haven't been removed and replaced with elevators. Every single household chemical in the house has been merely raised up out of reach of our now crawling child, but they haven't been removed from the house completely. The coffee table is also quite dangerous to a little child learning to walk, and with a tough fall at just the right corner of the cofee table, could easily result in a split open head or lost eyeball for a child, but that's merely been moved downstairs where he's less likely to climb on it.

If a child doesn't grow up around something, they'll never learn to respect it. Also I don't live in the best neighborhood either, and I'd sure as hell feel a heck of a lot safer if there were at least one firearm at hand, even if there were no ammunition. But alas, the things you do to appease your SO. Feh.

Anyways, rest assured that in time my child will also receive the use of his first firearm when he shows readiness for such learning. He will learn to respect, fear, and utilize the firearm to the best of his ability. If he does not respect the firearm, he will no longer be able to go hunting with me or his grandfather and that's as simple as that. The first time he points the barrel in the wrong direction, whether accidentally or on purpose he will get yelled at, reprimanded and have the firearm taken away. I do not tolerate playing with firearms in any shape or fashion, and when he grows up, neither will he, just as my father didn't tolerate horsing around when it came to firearms or hunting either.

If children are raised properly to think for themselves, respect others, and value the life of both themselves and others above all else, then there would not be half the problem with people killing other people. But I guess that's just too much work for most parents these days.
Ghimok|Dlur|Emeslan|Ili|Zinse|Teniv
*~~~~~~~~~~*
"Censorship is telling a man he can't eat a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - Mark Twain
Rausrh
Sojourner
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Madison,WI
Contact:

Postby Rausrh » Fri Feb 28, 2003 3:08 pm

Of course Dlur, your kid could grow up to be like me. Putting .22 shells in a vice and hitting them with a hammer. You might be suprized to hear that a 2x4 dosent always stop a bullet from zinging off the concrete wall. I stopped that after one time the brass kicked back and sliced my thumb. I also pulled the bullets off the brass to play witht the 'gunpowder' inside. Once I tried to collect the pimer material by scraping it off with a pin. Damn stuff went off and burnt my fingers.
Dlur
Sojourner
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Dlur » Fri Feb 28, 2003 3:27 pm

Heh I had a chemistry set and jugs of gasoline and aerosol cans of WD-40 to satisfy my need to start stuff on fire and blow things up. Never felt a need to play with bullets or gunpowder (except the blackpowder I made myself with my Poor Man's James Bond book and my chemistry set).
Ghimok|Dlur|Emeslan|Ili|Zinse|Teniv

*~~~~~~~~~~*

"Censorship is telling a man he can't eat a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - Mark Twain
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Fri Feb 28, 2003 4:34 pm

Rausrh wrote:Of course Dlur, your kid could grow up to be like me. Putting .22 shells in a vice and hitting them with a hammer. You might be suprized to hear that a 2x4 dosent always stop a bullet from zinging off the concrete wall. I stopped that after one time the brass kicked back and sliced my thumb. I also pulled the bullets off the brass to play witht the 'gunpowder' inside. Once I tried to collect the pimer material by scraping it off with a pin. Damn stuff went off and burnt my fingers.


Darwinism at its best.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Zen
Sojourner
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Michigan

Postby Zen » Fri Feb 28, 2003 5:33 pm

thanuk wrote:
Rausrh wrote:Of course Dlur, your kid could grow up to be like me. Putting .22 shells in a vice and hitting them with a hammer. You might be suprized to hear that a 2x4 dosent always stop a bullet from zinging off the concrete wall. I stopped that after one time the brass kicked back and sliced my thumb. I also pulled the bullets off the brass to play witht the 'gunpowder' inside. Once I tried to collect the pimer material by scraping it off with a pin. Damn stuff went off and burnt my fingers.


Darwinism at its best.


Gun control lobbyists would try and stop this kind of thing, they really aren't being true to their morals as good evolutionists.

-L
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Fri Feb 28, 2003 5:57 pm

Zen wrote:Gun control lobbyists would try and stop this kind of thing, they really aren't being true to their morals as good evolutionists.
-L


There is no morality to evolution. Evolution is cruel and unforgiving, whereas morality is an abstract human concept rather than an observed reality of life. Morality in effect slows evolution, because it prevents the weeding out of the unfit. To try and apply morals to evolution would be a waste of time, as they are countereffective to one another.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 28, 2003 6:15 pm

No necessarily Thanuk. A society _could_ have morals based on natural evolution. Closest example I can think of in fiction would be the Nietzcheans on Andromeda. Their entire society is based around honing their race to be stronger and better, and more fit to survive.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Fri Feb 28, 2003 6:17 pm

Heh i guess your right, but i was only really considering the morality of our current society, which is highly counterproductive to evolution. Not that its necessarily a bad thing.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Fri Feb 28, 2003 6:19 pm

Are you guys getting ready to argue yet another unanswerable debate? One would argue that evolution brought us to the point where our own brains were complex enough to develop 'morals' which were not based on survival. In a sense those same brains are killing us off in a whole new way of perverted natural selection.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Fri Feb 28, 2003 7:02 pm

Ashiwi wrote:Are you guys getting ready to argue yet another unanswerable debate? One would argue that evolution brought us to the point where our own brains were complex enough to develop 'morals' which were not based on survival. In a sense those same brains are killing us off in a whole new way of perverted natural selection.


I would argue that morality is most definately based on survival, but the lack of threat to survival is what has ultimately caused the two to separate. Humans are pack animals; strength in numbers, moving in groups, i think it can be accepted that we are animals who live together, like wolves, or perhaps more like ants, who work together rather than against each other when facing issues of survival.

Once we have accepted this(if you need proof then dont even bother responding), we can see where morality fits into survivability. Morality is what tells us that we should help those weaker than us, and those who cannot help themselves. This is directly beneficial to us as individuals, because even if the person is weaker in comparison to other people, his strength still contributes to the strength of the pack, making us stronger, not weaker, through his presence. So morality, while idealistically seen as unselfish, is a selfish concept in practice. Why do three wolves help the one injured wolf when fighting a bear? Because the wolves realize that the bear could kill any one of them individually, but as a group they possess enough strength to defeat the bear, eliminating his threat to each of their individual survival.

The problem arises when there is no longer a threat to survival, that the added strength of those who would be saved by morality is no longer a necessary part of survival. By saving the injured wolf, you have eliminated the threat of the bear. But what if that wolf has been injured in the fight in such a way that he can no longer be of any benefit to anyone? What if his legs have been broken, or his jaw? He can no longer fend for himself, and can no longer aid the group in any way whatsoever. This is where the morality of animals stops, as they will most assuredly either kill the wolf or leave him for dead, if he cannot keep up with the pack. But humans will help the fallen comrade, feed him, try to heal him, and go to any other lengths to ensure his survival, even though it is a drain to their own existence. This is bad in an evolutionary sense, because it prevents us from weeding out the weak in our society, although our current society says it is the moral thing to do, and i agree that it is.

It does yield benefits as well. Take for example a man like Stephen Hawkins. For all intents of evolution, the man is unfit for survival because of his physical limitations. But because of morality, he was able to survive despite his limitations, and has revealed himself as one of the greatest minds of our time, an obvious strength to our society and our survival, rather than a drain upon it.

But application into our modern world often yields as many negative results as it does positive. How many people could be saved if we were to just take all the people of the world with HIV and banish them from society or kill them? Of course, any decent human being finds this idea unconsciounable in itself; to treat others in such a way is disgusting, and is not even to be considered by any rational person. Whereas pure evolutionists, lacking any morality, would see such an action as a beneficial stage in the evolution of society; it eliminates a threat to survival;albeit at the cost of many lives.

And so we see how morality is both a boon to our evolution, and a drain upon it. Perhaps the cruelest joke the universe plays on humanity will some day manifest itself in morality; the very trait that allowed us to eliminate threats to our survival so effectively, will ultimately lead to our demise. But I highly doubt that our brains evolved to the point where we developed a morality that has no effect on our survival. I instead contend that morality developed as a definite boon to our survival, and worked so effectively that we have eliminated almost all the threats to our existence, except for ourselves. But it is the fact that we continue to apply morality when it is no longer necessary for our survival that is the perversion of natural selection. We have no threat to survival, due to morality, and it is that same morality that prevents us from evolving further.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Fri Feb 28, 2003 7:54 pm

Ashiwi wrote:Are you guys getting ready to argue yet another unanswerable debate? One would argue that evolution brought us to the point where our own brains were complex enough to develop 'morals' which were not based on survival. In a sense those same brains are killing us off in a whole new way of perverted natural selection.


I'd take this over another gun control debate.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Zen
Sojourner
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Michigan

Postby Zen » Fri Feb 28, 2003 7:56 pm

Zen wrote:Gun control lobbyists would try and stop this kind of thing, they really aren't being true to their morals as good evolutionists.

-L


Subtle arguement seems lost here. Therefore I would make the following statements:

1) I do not believe in evolution
b) I have made the assumption that most gun control lobbyists, like most people in this crazy world are evolutionists.
3) I do think that most people have morals.
d) Rausrh's story, while humorous begs the question of how he managed to survive long enough to post on this bbs, much less play on this mud.
5) Using Rausrh as an example, I am poking fun at the morals of (3) based on the assumption of (b) to show that:
f) If you really believe in evolution, you believe that everyone should have the right to keep an bear arms.

Personally, not believing in evolution or gun control I have to say that the above points are complete hogwash, entirely as valid as the entire flashbunny.org website and not to be construed as basis for further argument. We live in a world inconsistent with evolutionary morality, and that alone is enough to make me, personally, doubt the validity of the theory.

I sympathize with gun control activists at the basic level. I understand that all anyone wants is to live in a world where their children are safe, they are well fed and cared for, and we have the hope to die peacefully in our sleep at the ripe old age provided by prolonged medical science. I respectfully disagree with the methods they would use to bring this about. Law abiding citizens should have guns, not criminals. Passing laws to control guns only effects law abiding citizens. I live in a state where I will soon have to pay $75.00 per year to merely excercise my first amendment rights in the open. However, I can walk down to any shady corner and purchase a firearm for cash from a person of disreputable status. I ask you, is that the result we want?

Peace and safety are afforded to us in a choatic, and unpredictable world by our willingness to meet and face the challenges of that world. We cannot hide from the undesired elements of our existance and hope they go away. For myself, I would rather have everyone armed and willing to protect themselves, their children, their women, their families, and their friends. The alternative is to be unarmed and unwilling to defend what is entrusted to you to protect and provide for.

I speak only for myself, but for me, it is far better to be a dead lion than a live sheep.

-Loragn
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Fri Feb 28, 2003 8:20 pm

Zen wrote:Subtle arguement seems lost here. Therefore I would make the following statements:

1) I do not believe in evolution
b) I have made the assumption that most gun control lobbyists, like most people in this crazy world are evolutionists.
3) I do think that most people have morals.
d) Rausrh's story, while humorous begs the question of how he managed to survive long enough to post on this bbs, much less play on this mud.
5) Using Rausrh as an example, I am poking fun at the morals of (3) based on the assumption of (b) to show that:
f) If you really believe in evolution, you believe that everyone should have the right to keep an bear arms.

Personally, not believing in evolution or gun control I have to say that the above points are complete hogwash, entirely as valid as the entire flashbunny.org website and not to be construed as basis for further argument. We live in a world inconsistent with evolutionary morality, and that alone is enough to make me, personally, doubt the validity of the theory.
-Loragn


Well you cant have both d) and 1. If there is no evolution, then its perfectly understandable how Rausrh is still kicking, and if it suprises you that he is, then you obviously believe there is at least some validity in the concept of evolution.

Secondly, a major contingent of gun control lobbyists are christian groups or other religious organizations, who believe in creationism, not evolution. That may be the point of your confusion, as your assumption b) is false.

If you would like to ignore the concept of evolutionary morality, that is fine. But i dont see how you can call it inconsistent with our current society, when it is as consistent as just about every other accepted tenet of society. So again, if you wish to ignore it, that is your choice, but for you to say that you ignore it because it is not based in fact is a farse.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Postby belleshel » Fri Feb 28, 2003 9:16 pm

Zen wrote:
Zen wrote:Gun control lobbyists would try and stop this kind of thing, they really aren't being true to their morals as good evolutionists.

-L


Subtle arguement seems lost here. Therefore I would make the following statements:

1) I do not believe in evolution

-Loragn



I understand not believing in things that can't be proven, God's existance for example. But how do you refused to believe something that is scientific fact? Something that has a mountain of supporting evidence?
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Vigis » Fri Feb 28, 2003 9:45 pm

I believe the answer you are searching fore is Faith, Belle.

While the scientific demand facts and evidence, the religous require no such thing to convince themselves. Firm belief in something without supporting evidence is Faith.

Of course the same is true of firm disbelief in something that has a mountain of evidence behind it.

Tricky stuff that Faith :)

Vigis
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Postby belleshel » Sat Mar 01, 2003 7:33 am

Vigis wrote:I believe the answer you are searching fore is Faith, Belle.

While the scientific demand facts and evidence, the religous require no such thing to convince themselves. Firm belief in something without supporting evidence is Faith.

Of course the same is true of firm disbelief in something that has a mountain of evidence behind it.

Tricky stuff that Faith :)

Vigis


Your right I looked it up
Faith:
1. The idea that something can be made true, merely by wishing it to be so.
2. The proposition that something is true, even if there is no evidence to support it..
3. The belief that something is true, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

If a man told you 2+2 = 5 would you call him faithful, or stupid?;)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Sat Mar 01, 2003 8:11 am

belleshel wrote:If a man told you 2+2 = 5 would you call him faithful, or stupid?;)


Both. There's a very fine line between faith and idiocy, and many people are fuzzy on where that line is.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Postby belleshel » Sat Mar 01, 2003 8:17 am

Ragorn wrote:
belleshel wrote:If a man told you 2+2 = 5 would you call him faithful, or stupid?;)


Both. There's a very fine line between faith and idiocy, and many people are fuzzy on where that line is.


Blind faith is a scary thought..
Zen
Sojourner
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Michigan

Postby Zen » Sat Mar 01, 2003 3:22 pm

thanuk wrote:Well you cant have both d) and 1. If there is no evolution, then its perfectly understandable how Rausrh is still kicking, and if it suprises you that he is, then you obviously believe there is at least some validity in the concept of evolution.

Secondly, a major contingent of gun control lobbyists are christian groups or other religious organizations, who believe in creationism, not evolution. That may be the point of your confusion, as your assumption b) is false.

If you would like to ignore the concept of evolutionary morality, that is fine. But i dont see how you can call it inconsistent with our current society, when it is as consistent as just about every other accepted tenet of society. So again, if you wish to ignore it, that is your choice, but for you to say that you ignore it because it is not based in fact is a farse.


Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you just said that I can't talk about other idividuals beliefs unless I believe the same way myself. I personally have no ambiguity in my mind as to why Raursh is still kicking. I am however, pointing out that good evolution would simply let him kill himself or not based on how stupid he was. My apologies to Raursh for using him as an example.

My point about evolutionary morality is that we do a great many things in our society that we think are 'right' that are not consistent with an idea of 'right' based on evolution. We raise retarded children and we preserve the lives of our elderly long past the point when they can reproduce or have a productive impact on society. Simply put, I think the origins of our morality are found elsewhere, you can make your own determinations where.

I do not doubt that there are Christians who are in favor of gun control. For myself I have not heard any arguement based in christianity, or any religion for that matter, that supports the disarming of citizens. I also do not doubt that there are evolutionists in favor of gun control, wich you seem to do. To each their own. Myself, I would make the demographic assumption that the anti-gun lobby reflects a cross section of the american population.

Lastly, I must grudgingly comend Thanuk for being true to his beliefs in evolution and wanting to arm every man woman and child.

-Lorgan
Zen
Sojourner
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Michigan

Postby Zen » Sat Mar 01, 2003 3:28 pm

belleshel wrote:If a man told you 2+2 = 5 would you call him faithful, or stupid?;)


I might call him an evolutionist.

We've had this debate elsewhere on the bbs, but to digress a moment, 2+2=5 sounds a lot like the missing link.

-Lorgan
Jegzed
Sojourner
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Jegzed » Sat Mar 01, 2003 3:48 pm

Zen wrote:
belleshel wrote:If a man told you 2+2 = 5 would you call him faithful, or stupid?;)


I might call him an evolutionist.

We've had this debate elsewhere on the bbs, but to digress a moment, 2+2=5 sounds a lot like the missing link.

-Lorgan


Religious fanatics are scary, doesn't matter if they are called Osama Bin Laden or Lorgan...
/Jegzed - Sorcere Master - Crimson Coalition
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Sat Mar 01, 2003 4:15 pm

Zen wrote:
belleshel wrote:If a man told you 2+2 = 5 would you call him faithful, or stupid?;)


I might call him an evolutionist.

We've had this debate elsewhere on the bbs, but to digress a moment, 2+2=5 sounds a lot like the missing link.

-Lorgan


Why would you do that? Why wouldn't you ask god if you've been wrong all this time, and maybe two plus two DOES equal five? And then find an obscure bible passage that supports it and believe it until the day you die? :)
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Mar 01, 2003 4:47 pm

Zen wrote:
belleshel wrote:If a man told you 2+2 = 5 would you call him faithful, or stupid?;)


I might call him an evolutionist.

We've had this debate elsewhere on the bbs, but to digress a moment, 2+2=5 sounds a lot like the missing link.

-Lorgan


No. Evolution is a large sequence of data missing a few points. It would look like this:

1+2+3+4+X+6+7+Y = 36

We can see many of the items in the sequence, and the end result (humans.) All we don't know is what X and Y are.

Creationism, however, looks like this:

0 = 36.

Which is more absurd? Wait, I shouldn't have asked... you'll just say Evolution. :rolleyes:
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Zen
Sojourner
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Michigan

Postby Zen » Sat Mar 01, 2003 10:07 pm

Ragorn, you make no sense sometimes.

Sarvis, you quantify that wich you can't see in creation as nothing. If God hasn't personally told you he does exist, He does not? If that's the case, apply that to your equation for evolution.

1+2+3+4+0+6+7+0 = 36

If we haven't found the pieces they don't exist, not unless you're willing to admit the possiblity that G=36. In wich case, regardless of what you believe you have at least approached the issue from an open minded perspective.

2+2=4 unless you believe in evolution, where 2+2=5 and we just haven't found the 1 yet.

-L
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 03, 2003 4:09 am

Not quite, Zen. The creationist viewpoint is that God created humans instantly, as his first life form. That's going from 0 (life) to human instantly.

Evolution is taking a bunch of small steps along the way, first you create some protozoa (1) then some algae (2) and eventually you get apes (4) then the "missing link" (X) and eventually add up to humans. I wasn't stating God doesn't exist, I was stating that it's more absurd to instantly go from nothing to finished product than it is to slowly build up to it making revisions and improvements. I would contend that if there is a God, or Gods, he/she/they used evolution as a tool to create all life on this planet.

(Before this confuses too many people I've argued with in the past, remember that it's not God that I don't believe in... it's religion.)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Mon Mar 03, 2003 4:25 am

Zen wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you just said that I can't talk about other idividuals beliefs unless I believe the same way myself. I personally have no ambiguity in my mind as to why Raursh is still kicking. I am however, pointing out that good evolution would simply let him kill himself or not based on how stupid he was. My apologies to Raursh for using him as an example.


No, not at all. You can talk about any beleifs you wish, however I may have misunderstood you, i thought those statements that you listed were your own personal beliefs, which are inherantly contradictory, but you were making some point about evolution. And no, by evolutionary standards, Raursh should still be here, because after he almost died from playing with bullets, he stopped playing with them. That is the test of evolution, congrats Raursh, you pass.


Zen wrote:My point about evolutionary morality is that we do a great many things in our society that we think are 'right' that are not consistent with an idea of 'right' based on evolution. We raise retarded children and we preserve the lives of our elderly long past the point when they can reproduce or have a productive impact on society. Simply put, I think the origins of our morality are found elsewhere, you can make your own determinations where.


Ahh and here we find the same debate inherant within the greater debate; i say that our morals evolved to the point where we raise retarded children and preserve the elderly, whereas you believe they are found elsewhere. I could sit here and explain how raising retarded children is all part of the nurturing nature of humans, and that preserving the elderly as bastions of knowledge are in the best interests of society, but i believe they would fall on deaf ears.
Zen wrote:
I do not doubt that there are Christians who are in favor of gun control. For myself I have not heard any arguement based in christianity, or any religion for that matter, that supports the disarming of citizens. I also do not doubt that there are evolutionists in favor of gun control, wich you seem to do. To each their own. Myself, I would make the demographic assumption that the anti-gun lobby reflects a cross section of the american population.

I most definately believe in gun control in the form of assault weapons. I do feel that the restrictions on weapons for protection and/or hunting are in violation of our amendment rights, and that it is ludicrous to even bother because they will never be able to be enforced, due to the availability of weapons from illegal means. Long story short, you can have 1500 semi-automatic handguns if it makes you happy, but only the military gets AK-47s.
Zen wrote:Lastly, I must grudgingly comend Thanuk for being true to his beliefs in evolution and wanting to arm every man woman and child.

-Lorgan


Hehehe, indeed the two seem to aid one another quite a bit. But maybe thats what makes our country great, is its ability to evolve....
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Mon Mar 03, 2003 4:41 am

thanuk wrote:I most definately believe in gun control in the form of assault weapons.


You blazing pinko! :evil:
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"



Gura: ..btw, being a dick is my god given right as an evil.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Mon Mar 03, 2003 5:06 am

Xisiqomelir wrote:
thanuk wrote:I most definately believe in gun control in the form of assault weapons.


You blazing pinko! :evil:


The Second Amendment wrote: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.



Im afraid its just the opposite actually. The Second Amendment denotes the right to keep and bear arms as being necessary to the security of state. You will never convince me that a weapon capable of firing multiple rounds per second, which is designed completely as an offensive weapon, is necessary for the security of any state. Hand guns, rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic weapons are all arms that are necessary to the security of a free state, assault weapons are not, because you can completely fill the necessity of security to a free state with the former, without use of the latter.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Mon Mar 03, 2003 8:07 am

thanuk wrote:
Xisiqomelir wrote:
thanuk wrote:I most definately believe in gun control in the form of assault weapons.


You blazing pinko! :evil:


The Second Amendment wrote: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.



Im afraid its just the opposite actually. The Second Amendment denotes the right to keep and bear arms as being necessary to the security of state. You will never convince me that a weapon capable of firing multiple rounds per second, which is designed completely as an offensive weapon, is necessary for the security of any state. Hand guns, rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic weapons are all arms that are necessary to the security of a free state, assault weapons are not, because you can completely fill the necessity of security to a free state with the former, without use of the latter.


Swiss law mandates that every household possess a fully-automatic rifle, and their's is possibly the most secure state in the world.

To quote the NRA:

There is no rational reason to restrict firearms as "assault weapons"-arguments for doing so are founded on emotion, not fact.
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"



Gura: ..btw, being a dick is my god given right as an evil.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 03, 2003 12:47 pm

thanuk wrote:
Xisiqomelir wrote:
thanuk wrote:I most definately believe in gun control in the form of assault weapons.


You blazing pinko! :evil:


The Second Amendment wrote: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.



Im afraid its just the opposite actually. The Second Amendment denotes the right to keep and bear arms as being necessary to the security of state. You will never convince me that a weapon capable of firing multiple rounds per second, which is designed completely as an offensive weapon, is necessary for the security of any state. Hand guns, rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic weapons are all arms that are necessary to the security of a free state, assault weapons are not, because you can completely fill the necessity of security to a free state with the former, without use of the latter.


Unless, of course, whomever is attacking the state has fully automatic rifles. Then just having shotguns puts you at a severe disadvantage. And I believe the main point of that amendment is so that an individual state can protect itself from the US government's army if they ever try to overstep their authority. (Though, in that case I doubt any kind of rifle will help you very much against a tank or jet fighter. )
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Mon Mar 03, 2003 3:07 pm

Xisiqomelir wrote:
Swiss law mandates that every household possess a fully-automatic rifle, and their's is possibly the most secure state in the world.

To quote the NRA:

There is no rational reason to restrict firearms as "assault weapons"-arguments for doing so are founded on emotion, not fact.


That is wonderful news for the Swiss, but this is America, a much larger country with a very different form of government, and we will do just fine with semi-automatic weapons. As for your quote from the NRA, i can only say the rational reason i have for restricting assault weapons is that they are offensive in nature and the second amendment implies the reason for bearing arms is security, which is defensive in nature, so it does not include the possession of weapons useful only for offensive attacks.

Sarvis - there is no reason you cannot defend your home from an assailant who has automatic weaponry with semi-automatic weaponry. Automatic weapons are highly inaccurate at a distance, as apposed to the amazing accuracy achievable through semi-automatic rifles. Under many conditions, having only automatic weapons would put you at a much more serious disadvantage than having a semi-automatic weapon would, as the ability to fire accurately from a distance is often more important than the ability to fire multiple rounds per second in a general direction. Although your right that they would do little good against a fighter jet or a tank, semi-automatic weapons would fare just as well against either of those machines as an automatic weapon would:) I, personally, would choose a shotgun over an AK-47 if i saw a tank chasing after me, because there is the slight possibility that the shotgun could pierce the armor of the tank, whereas the tank has been battle tested and proven to reflect the fire of an assault rifle, but either way your spitting at the rain:)
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 03, 2003 4:42 pm

Explain to me how semi-automatic weapons are _not_ offensive in nature? They're still a tool meant to kill people. A fully automatic rifle is no more or less offensive than a shotgun, crossbow or even broadsword.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Mon Mar 03, 2003 5:27 pm

Sarvis wrote:Explain to me how semi-automatic weapons are _not_ offensive in nature? They're still a tool meant to kill people. A fully automatic rifle is no more or less offensive than a shotgun, crossbow or even broadsword.


Simply by design. Taken out of the context of fighting, of course they are offensive in nature, as all weapons have offensive capabilities; if they did not they would merely be shields. However, within the context of fighting a single shot weapon is indeed less offensive than an automatic rifle, because it delivers a single shell at a time. You cannot fire it blindly into enemy forces and expect it to actually hit anything, it is designed for precision and accuracy. Meaning that it is more effective, by design, for shooting a predetermined target, sometimes from a distance, sometimes at short range, by aiming at said target and firing it. This is ambigiously offensive and defensive in nature, but as a defensive tool your target has been pre-established as the aggressor, and so you use your weapon defensively to kill the aggressor, but the only way you will succeed in doing so is through accuracy.

Whereas an assault rifle is poor for this purpose; even when you determine your target its accuracy falls into question, and its only real usefulness comes in firing multiple rounds into an area where one or many targets may be, and hoping that one of the rounds actually hits what you are aiming for. Although this weapon does have uses in a defensive position, it is much more functional by design to be used on an offensive attack, which is in no way related to security or defending ones home. Simply put, if someone is attacking you in your home, you are better off using a single shot weapon accurately to kill the assailant, rather than firing blindly toward him and hitting everything in the surrounding area; doing so would cause damage to that which you are defending and could possibly kill those people you are trying to defend. Whereas when using an automatic rifle, you are firing into an area in which you are trying to destroy, and those bullets which do not hit an intended target have the chance to destroy something you weren't aiming for, which is just an added benefit when one is attacking, but has an adverse effect if you are trying to defend and preserve rather than attack and destroy.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Dlur
Sojourner
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Dlur » Mon Mar 03, 2003 6:29 pm

thanuk wrote:
Xisiqomelir wrote:
Swiss law mandates that every household possess a fully-automatic rifle, and their's is possibly the most secure state in the world.

To quote the NRA:

There is no rational reason to restrict firearms as "assault weapons"-arguments for doing so are founded on emotion, not fact.


That is wonderful news for the Swiss, but this is America, a much larger country with a very different form of government, and we will do just fine with semi-automatic weapons. As for your quote from the NRA, i can only say the rational reason i have for restricting assault weapons is that they are offensive in nature and the second amendment implies the reason for bearing arms is security, which is defensive in nature, so it does not include the possession of weapons useful only for offensive attacks.

Sarvis - there is no reason you cannot defend your home from an assailant who has automatic weaponry with semi-automatic weaponry. Automatic weapons are highly inaccurate at a distance, as apposed to the amazing accuracy achievable through semi-automatic rifles. Under many conditions, having only automatic weapons would put you at a much more serious disadvantage than having a semi-automatic weapon would, as the ability to fire accurately from a distance is often more important than the ability to fire multiple rounds per second in a general direction. Although your right that they would do little good against a fighter jet or a tank, semi-automatic weapons would fare just as well against either of those machines as an automatic weapon would:) I, personally, would choose a shotgun over an AK-47 if i saw a tank chasing after me, because there is the slight possibility that the shotgun could pierce the armor of the tank, whereas the tank has been battle tested and proven to reflect the fire of an assault rifle, but either way your spitting at the rain:)


Heh, learn something about firearms before you go and post stuff like this.

First of all the ONLY difference between a semi-automatic and fully automatic firearm is that the semi-automatic firearm has a limiter which only allows one projectile to be fired per pull of the trigger. A fully automatic firearm has no limiter, and thus if the trigger is kept in a depressed fashion, it will continue to fire. This is the ONLY difference mechanically. If you are fast with your trigger finger on a semi-automatic firearm, you can fire off shots at nearly the same pace as some slower fully automatic firearms. Also on most semi-automatic firearms, a half-assed gunsmith can modify them to become fully automatic without any major complications. A fully automatic firearm can be fired shot by shot, just like a semi-automatic firearm can be, and the majority of bullets fired from fully automatic firearms are in fact fired one bullet at a time, burst fire only being used in certain situations, or by panicked people who are unable to first find a target, and then shoot at it with skillful aim.

As for what constitutes an "assault rifle" the vast majority of it is in the looks, not in specifiable facts or specifications. "Assault Rifles" are categorized as such because they LOOK bad, not neceasarily because they are bad. For example, you have the Ruger Mini-14 firearm, in a .223 caliber, primarily used for varmit hunting and sometimes smaller deer. This is a semi-automatic firearm, of small caliber that in it's stock form comes with a wooden full-stock that makes it look just like your grandpa's .22 for the most part. The rifle in this form is not considered to be an "assault rifle". However if you take off the standard stock, purchase a synthetic black stock, with a folding shoulder rest in order to cut down on weight, and also to make the gun more weather resistant, and then add a bi-pod (in order to have a rest on the ground when varmit hunting), and then purchase a larger clip. You now have a gun that looks very similar to a military M-14. The firarm itself has not changed, just the accessories applied to it, but now this firearm is considered an "Assault Weapon", merely because it looks different. It's no less deadly if used in the wrong hands, and no more deadly, just athsetically different.

Also not all firearms which have been labled "assault rifles" are fully automatic weapons. In fact the vast majority of firearms that have been labled as "assault rifles" are in fact athsectically modified semi-automatic firearms. Fully automatic firearms have never been widely available to the public, and they require a special permit to own, unless you owned them before the law went into effect, in which case your fully automatic firearm is "grandfathered" into the law, but none-the-less cannot be transfered to another person, unless said person has a permit to own a fully automatic firearm. Even the dreaded AR-15, which is a civilian version of the military's M-15 is a semi-automatic firearm, that in mechanical specifications is little different than what I use for squirrell hunting or what someone else might use for deer hunting, only a different caliber, and visually different, having a lightweight stock, and junky iron sights.

Fully automatic weapons are no less accurate than a semi-automatic weapon. Accuracy is derived from the caliber of the weapon, the grade of bullet used, the load of powder in the cartridge, the type and length of barrel of the firearm, and most importantly the skill of the shooter. Also you obviously have never shot a fully automatic military firearm, because if you had you would realize that they all have switches on them that let you select between semi-automatic (one shot per pull of the trigger) and burst fire (lots of bullets per pull of the trigger). The skill of the shooter matters so much more than the type, caliber, or impact force of the firearm used. Give me any firearm and I can hit and either kill or lethally wound a target whether moving or standing still, judging by my ability to get fresh deer meat every year. I've yet to use more than 2 shells on any 1 deer, and I've yet to hit them in any area other than the head, neck, or heart. This is with a shotgun slug, and most of my shots have been at a distance of roughly 100 yards, at a decline, and with the deer moving. I'm much more accurate with a rifle than a shotgun slug :).

Also the fact that you think a shotgun would be more effective against an armored vehicle than a rifle tells me that you have absolutely no experience with firearms in general. A shotgun fires a controlled pattern of small projectiles down its barrell and impacts the target in many different places. The spread of the shot pattern varies by choke (constriction at the end of the barrel) and distance. A shotgun barrel is not rifled (except in the case of some slug barrels used in deer hunting), and generally only has a maximum effective distance of 75 yards (sometimes more depending on the powder load, choke pattern, barrel length, gauge, and whether a slug or shot is being fired). The vast majority of shotguns are and would be incapable of penetrating a regular car door from a distance greater than 10 yards. For you to think that a shotgun firing regular shot would be able to penetrate a tank's armor is quite humorous, and both myself, and a few guys at work that are both hunters and former Marines found it to be a laugh riot. Actually fully automatic firearms ARE used to kill tanks, just that they are not firearms that you carry on a sling and put up to your shoulder to fire. .50 caliber machine guns are used in anti-tank warefare quite often, look at the A-10 Warthog for an example of an effective use of a fully automatic weapon against armored advasaries. It'll also rip another jet wide open, given the chance.

In summary, keep the humor coming, but if you're actually wanting to convince someone with your arguments, please try to argue something you actually have some knowledge of first as it's much more effective that way.
Ghimok|Dlur|Emeslan|Ili|Zinse|Teniv

*~~~~~~~~~~*

"Censorship is telling a man he can't eat a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - Mark Twain
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Mon Mar 03, 2003 8:01 pm

Dlur, im glad your a redneck, but i fail to see what any of what your saying has to do with gun control. I remember saying that there would be a better chance of a shotgun blast penetrating tank armor than a regular weapon, which was by no means a guarentee, and you automatically assumed i was talking about your standard buck shot shotgun. Ill ask you then, since your the resident gun expert; are there not also shotguns that fire a single shell at a time? Im glad you can name a 50 caliber mounter machine gun turret which can in fact penetrate such armor, but that has nothing to do with the discussion of gun control, as such weapons are clearly outlawed. While im not going to sit here and argue semantics with you about something you obviously have more knowledge than me about, i fail to see what any of your points has to do with the availability of automatic firearms to the general public. Last i checked, an automatic weapon with a switch to change it into a semi-automatic weapon, was still, in fact, an automatic weapon, and not available to the public unless you meet the requirements you specified in your post.

Im also glad you pointed out the ease with which a semi-automatic weapon can be converted into an automatic weapon, although such a point is counterproductive to the argument for lax gun control, as it clearly shows how easily a legal weapon can be changed into an illegal one. I think i can safely assume you are a card carrying NRA hilbilly, and that promoting stricter gun laws is not in your interest, so you should probably not offer information like this freely to your opposition:)

So continue to poke fun at my statements if you would like, but if you want to argue about weapons specs and their effectiveness, your in the wrong post. This is about gun control, and why some weapons should be legal and others should not. Im sorry if my terminology didn't meet your standards, but again, i am not a redneck :wink:. FYI, i have fired a number of different weapons before, although not on a consistent basis or for any reason other than to have fired the weapon. If you have any thoughts about gun control id love to hear them, but i dont think your post has anything to do with that...i think you were just trying to display your vast knowledge of weapons, and you did a good job of it. So my arguments will keep coming, because i am trying to convince people that some type of weapons should be legal because of the 2nd amendment and others should not, because they are unnecessary and dangerous in the hands of civilians. I dont know what your arguing, but if its that you know more about guns than i do, you win:)
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Gurns
Sojourner
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Gurns » Mon Mar 03, 2003 8:51 pm

thanuk wrote:if you want to argue about weapons specs and their effectiveness, your in the wrong post.
[snip]
i am trying to convince people that some type of weapons should be legal because of the 2nd amendment and others should not, because they are unnecessary and dangerous in the hands of civilians.

He's pointing out that, if you're arguing that "some weapons should be illegal because they are ... dangerous in the hands of civilians", then you should know what weapons are relatively more dangerous than other weapons. He's also pointing out that it is very difficult to arrive at an accurate and non-arbitrary definiton of even such apparently simple terms as "assault rifle". Which means that one needs to know, even more clearly, what weapons are and what they can do, if one is going to restrict some of them on the grounds that they are more dangerous.

Unless you just want to argue the general point, but then you should refrain from examples, because wrong examples just confuse the issue.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Mon Mar 03, 2003 9:03 pm

Indeed that was my mistake, was the use of examples. I will however, contend that i have approximately the same knowledge of weapons as some of the people who will be making the laws regarding such weapons. Politicians are not known for their proficiency with guns, in fact quite the opposite. So while my knowledge may be vague, limited, and in some cases flat wrong, also realize that the people who ultimately make these decisions are often just as ill-informed as i am, and will be alot harder to convince of their shortcomings...which is why such an ambigious term as assault rifle is likely to appear in legislation concerning gun control, thus further confusing the issue as i have managed to do here.

So to restate my point as clearly and as generally as i can, without misusing any gun industry terms:

People should be allowed to have guns that fire 1 bullet at a time, but they should not be allowed to have guns that fire multiple rounds at a time. The reason is that the 2nd amendment protects our right to defend ourselves by bearing arms, and one does not need a gun that fires multiple rounds per second in order to defend themselves effectively. These weapons are too dangerous to be trusted in the hands of Joe 6 pack, and he can hunt, and defend his family just fine with regular, 1 bullet in, 1 bullet out guns.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Zen
Sojourner
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Michigan

Postby Zen » Mon Mar 03, 2003 9:59 pm

I don't have time to look this up, but I believe the current federal law defines an 'assault' weapon as a weapon carrying more than 10 rounds in the magazine. That's a pretty broad definition, and I don't think it has much to do with the semi/fully automatic status of the weapon. After all, if you file the pin on your bolt, I can have a fully automatic varmit gun as Dlur pointed out.

In terms of self defense, give me a shot gun with 6 shot anyday. Pump prefered to automatic, even a complete idiot can recognize that sound and run. Hopefully before I have to shoot anyone. Also, the small pellets in a shotgun won't go through your walls like a solid bullet will, so there's less risk to your children.

-L
Dlur
Sojourner
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Dlur » Mon Mar 03, 2003 10:33 pm

Damnit, I had a 4 page reply typed up in here in response to Thanuk's post, but my session timed out before I could hit submit and I lost it all.

A couple recaps:

1) in 1996 there were only 4 rifles used in murders in the US. This includes "assault rifles"
2) in the 1990s, "assault rifles" accounted for only 2.5% of all weapons recovered by police while investigating all categories of crimes.
3) In 2000, firearms deaths accounted for less than 1% of all total deaths. It was beaten out by such deadly killers as influenza, and the common cold even.
4) Campaigning for her federal "assault weapons" legislation, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) admitted that the guns were rarely used in crimes, but said, "I have no doubt in the next 10 years it (crimes with assault weapons) is going to climb, and I am not willing to wait." For the record, Sen. Feinstein's prediction proved to be false.
5) VPC leader Josh Sugarmann, in 1988, advised anti-gun groups to begin campaigning against "assault weapons" because "Handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and the public" and "Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed." He noted, "the public's confusion over (the difference between machine guns and semi-automatics);--anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun--can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions."
6) Handguns account for the vast percentage of gun deaths, yet legislation is in effect in many states to make it even easier for law-abiding citizens to get concealed carry permites. This is both due to the inability of the anti-gun lobby to convince the general public that handguns are too dangerous for them to own and use both for sport and self-defense, and also due to the fact that criminals tend to not want to target victims that might be carrying a concealed weapon, especially if that person knows how to use it.
7) Colt AR-15s (a civilian semi-automatic version of the military's fully automatic M-16 rifle) are currently banned under amendments made to the Gun Control Act of 1968 by Bill Clinton's 1994 "Crime Bill" along with a broad range of other weapons. All weapons manufactured after Sept. 13 1994 are required to be stamped with the date and "RESTRICTED LAW ENFORCEMENT/ GOVERNMENT USE ONLY." on them. All weapons specified by the bill manufactured before this date are grandfathered in, and possession, sale, and transfer of ownership is not prohibited. AR-15s are the most commonly used firearm for both target practice and competition in the US. They are now banned, so the pre-ban weapons are highly sought after for use in target competition.
8) More to come later as I dig it up and remember what all I wrote about.
Ghimok|Dlur|Emeslan|Ili|Zinse|Teniv

*~~~~~~~~~~*

"Censorship is telling a man he can't eat a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - Mark Twain

Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests