I was pulled in to a HR meeting at work due to the 2a.

crazymjb said:
People owning guns may minorly endanger others lives... People owning Sarin gas or hundreds of pounds of military grade explosives threaten others peoples lives greatly, either out of maliciousness, or incompetence.

Someone sending a 40mm grenade over the berm, or an AT4... is much different than someone sending even a .50 cal round over the berm. For just a 40mm grenade you are talking a 5 meter kill/15 meter casualty radius vs a 1/4 inch kill/cas radius for a .50 cal round. Big ****ing difference.

Gas... pffff. Whole other ball game.

And as I said, if the boston bombers had military grade explosives you'd be looking at 100s dead, same for columbine, and ever other shooting that likely would have included a bombing. We are talking orders of magnitude worse. This is not the case when talking about "assault weapons" vs "conventional firearms"

Mike
Click to expand...

Right I see your point. Let's all give up liberty for security. Why didn't I think of that?[rolleyes]

Also the 2A was put in the constitution to protect us from the government. How are we supposed to do that if they got tanks and we don't? Oh right I forgot. Grab a Garrand and go steal a tank. Good talk! I am glad we had it. If they got it a free citizen should be able to as well. If we were only allowed to keep muskets would we be any more subjects they we are now? Nope! Fact remains I am for liberty over security. The 2A is the only check and balance that matters. I a good honest person. If I could afford and was so inclined to buy an f-15 I would probably instantly turn into a bad guy right? Maybe we should punish me before I ever did anything just to be super super sure. It's for the children.
 
Pretty much actually. Small arms are more than adequate for a sucessful insurgency. Never mind large ammounts of military defecting, the numbers game, etc.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
 
crazymjb said:
Pretty much actually. Small arms are more than adequate for a sucessful insurgency. Never mind large ammounts of military defecting, the numbers game, etc.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


Really?? Then why did we (the US) find it necessary to ship stinger missiles to the afghans during their fight with the old soviet regime??? Apparently, helicopters and low-flying fixed wing aircraft are a significant force multiplier in an active shooting war.
 
Jason Flare said:
No. I do not believe that sarin should be sold at HD in 55 gallon drums to anyone who wants it for the same reason that I didn't store the bleach in our baby's crib. If HD sold sarin, despite all the warning labels, some consumer might use it against cockroaches or mice and inadvertently destroy a town or two having not read the label.
Click to expand...
This. I agree that terrorists will find a way to get their hands on... whatever. I'd be much more worried about some moron misusing WMDs or explosives. A negligent discharge from a gun and a negligent C4 explosion or sarin release have VERY different consequences. I'll take my chances with a neighbor with an arsenal of firearms but hell no I don't trust any of you with weapons that can wipe out a whole block if misused.
 
I finally figured out why crazymjb's argument did not resonate - he chose the wrong straw man... sarin is scary, but nowhere near as scary as sharks with freaking lasers attached to their heads. Now THAT would convince all of us that we must trust the government to protect us from the boogie men.
 
My argument didn't resonate because many of you are pretty much anarchists and believe capitalism and the free market will successfully regulate everything, and believe in virtually zero government regulation. I am not, and think government regulation has a place. I believe that the ban on certain things are reflective of why they aren't used in crimes, and that some of the items I mentioned if more prolific in society would be a great danger to us.

As far as insurgency goes, I could talk to you about the amount of American military personnel it took to fight the Iraqi insurgency in urban areas, the amount of Iraqi insurgents and population versus that of the US, the fact that they often were able to acquire military equipment, and contrast that to the numbers of "insurgents" there would be in the US... That could be a book. I firmly believe small arms as prolific as they are in our society would be effective in waging war on the government if the people decided to do so.

It's funny, a lot of you say "small arms are more than adequate" when arguing with anti's, but in this scenario you need tanks and explosives... which Americans don't have anyway... if that is the case, than 2A would really be "outdated" and no longer functional, which I don't believe it is.

I will reiterate, I think the federal government has a valid position in strictly enforcing a ban on certain weapons and items in general in the interest of public safety.

Mike
 
Right I see your point. Let's all give up liberty for security.
Click to expand...
Well, yeaaaaahhh.

Saying "everything should be legal... market and societal pressure will ensure things are used the right way" is overtly preposterous. I seriously can't believe some people here seem to be arguing that.

So, yeah... let's let people buy C4 so they can... you know... blast stumps in their back yard. It's cheap (about $15/pound) and EFFECTIVE. And NOBODY who's unstable will EVER get to buy it or steal it and blow up, you know, their neighbor's house... or their workplace... or the local abortion clinic... or that fast-food place where they know, they just KNOW that the kid at the drive through spit in their onion rings.

C'mon guys. There's good reason to restrict stuff from being readily available. I'm glad you can't buy dynamite anymore at the local hardware store.

Like with anything, there's a balancing act, don't you agree? Cost vs benefit. The risk of loonies being able to buy a pound of C4 at Home Depot, or untrained people blowing themselves up, outweighs the benefit of having it available for casual use.

And, yes. It IS the same argument as for guns. Cost vs benefit. The benefit of having guns available to the citizenry for protection and to counter reactionary forces of the government outweighs the cost of accidents, and idiots shooting people in movie theaters because they won't shut off their cell phone, or criminals stealing unsecured weapons from homes and use them in robberies. The founding fathers knew this. THAT's why it's part of our constitution.
 
crazymjb said:
I will reiterate, I think the federal government has a valid position in strictly enforcing a ban on certain weapons and items in general in the interest of public safety.

Mike
Click to expand...

which is exactly what people who are anti-gun feel, which is exactly why what you have been saying has people fired up


always err on the side of less regulation, every day on every thing. that's my stance. I don't approve of a select group of people deciding whats best for a larger group of people, never have, never will, bad things happen that way
 
PeterGV said:

So, yeah... let's let people buy C4 so they can... you know... blast stumps in their back yard. It's cheap (about $15/pound) and EFFECTIVE. And NOBODY who's unstable will EVER get to buy it or steal it and blow up, you know, their neighbor's house... or their workplace... or the local abortion clinic... or that fast-food place where they know, they just KNOW that the kid at the drive through spit in their onion rings.

C'mon guys. There's good reason to restrict stuff from being readily available. I'm glad you can't buy dynamite anymore at the local hardware store.
Click to expand...

you are punishing responsible people who could use explosives for valid reasons for the acts of criminals.

sound familiar? assault weapon bans??

I am relatively young... was there a widespread public safety issue with dynamite?
 
PeterGV said:
Well, yeaaaaahhh.

Saying "everything should be legal... market and societal pressure will ensure things are used the right way" is overtly preposterous. I seriously can't believe some people here seem to be arguing that.

So, yeah... let's let people buy C4 so they can... you know... blast stumps in their back yard. It's cheap (about $15/pound) and EFFECTIVE. And NOBODY who's unstable will EVER get to buy it or steal it and blow up, you know, their neighbor's house... or their workplace... or the local abortion clinic... or that fast-food place where they know, they just KNOW that the kid at the drive through spit in their onion rings.

C'mon guys. There's good reason to restrict stuff from being readily available. I'm glad you can't buy dynamite anymore at the local hardware store.

Like with anything, there's a balancing act, don't you agree? Cost vs benefit. The risk of loonies being able to buy a pound of C4 at Home Depot, or untrained people blowing themselves up, outweighs the benefit of having it available for casual use.

And, yes. It IS the same argument as for guns. Cost vs benefit. The benefit of having guns available to the citizenry for protection and to counter reactionary forces of the government outweighs the cost of accidents, and idiots shooting people in movie theaters because they won't shut off their cell phone, or criminals stealing unsecured weapons from homes and use them in robberies. The founding fathers knew this. THAT's why it's part of our constitution.
Click to expand...

Freedom and responsibility scare you, don't they?
 
PeterGV said:
Like with anything, there's a balancing act, don't you agree? Cost vs benefit. The risk of loonies being able to buy a pound of C4 at Home Depot, or untrained people blowing themselves up, outweighs the benefit of having it available for casual use.
Click to expand...

You're arguing that we should all trust the government (in other words, politicians) to make these cost/benefit decisions for us. Most of the rest of us disagree, and recognize that letting the government determine who should be able to have what results in runaway government regulation, which rises exponentially as people like yourself become more entrenched in the misguided notion that government must do whatever it can to to protect all of us from every danger in the world.
 
mattyw said:
which is exactly what people who are anti-gun feel, which is exactly why what you have been saying has people fired up


always err on the side of less regulation, every day on every thing. that's my stance. I don't approve of a select group of people deciding whats best for a larger group of people, never have, never will, bad things happen that way
Click to expand...


Anti-gun people don't understand the difference between an AR15 and a rocket launcher. If you want to Err on the side of less regulation, ZERO regulation beyond NICS of any semi-automatic firearms in design or posession. I've said that.

That doesn't mean I'm cool with frag grenades being sold at my LGS to any yahoo who walks in. There is a difference.

As far as Sarin goes... No, home depot won't stock it, but some places will. And then you will have idiots like the rich dude I met at HSC with his many very expensive toys and car (IE, easily able to afford Sarin if it were legal) telling me how he has buttons in each room of his house that turn on all the lights to blind the night vision of intruding forces, has decoys set up around his house to distract intruding SWAT teams, etc, when they come for the guns. If any of you have met this clown, you know he is 100% serious, hell he probably posts here. People like this would buy themselves some Sarin, set up claymores, etc and I am not OK with that, and if you live anywhere in his fricken town, you should not be OK with that. An accident with a gun doesn't kill everyone on your block, or worse, some of this other shit can.

People who need/use explosives for valid reasons obviously will be able to get them as they can now.

I don't disagree with you that government regulation tends to run away... but some of it has it's purpose. It doesn't run away because they are allowed to regulate X and it slips into Y and Z... it runs away because they want to regulate both X Y and Z in the first place, which is what needs to be fixed.

This is a pretty stupid conversation as your high as shit if you think any of this stuff will ever be deregulated anyway. We can't even cut our barrels down with a hacksaw currently.

Mike
 
Last edited:
crazymjb said:
Anti-gun people don't understand the difference between an AR15 and a rocket launcher. If you want to Err on the side of less regulation, ZERO regulation beyond NICS of any semi-automatic firearms in design or posession. I've said that.

That doesn't mean I'm cool with frag grenades being sold at my LGS to any yahoo who walks in. There is a difference.

As far as Sarin goes... No, home depot won't stock it, but some places will. And then you will have idiots like the rich dude I met at HSC with his many very expensive toys and car (IE, easily able to afford Sarin if it were legal) telling me how he has buttons in each room of his house that turn on all the lights to blind the night vision of intruding forces, has decoys set up around his house to distract intruding SWAT teams, etc, when they come for the guns. If any of you have met this clown, you know he is 100% serious, hell he probably posts here. People like this would buy themselves some Sarin, set up claymores, etc and I am not OK with that, and if you live anywhere in his fricken town, you should not be OK with that. An accident with a gun doesn't kill everyone on your block, or worse, some of this other shit can.

Mike
Click to expand...

what he does is of no concern of mine or yours, he could already have toxic gas and grenades for all you know

machine guns ok, a psycho/idiot killing a dozen people, acceptable sacrifice for freedoms/rights

grenade not ok, a psycho/idiot killing a few dozen people, unacceptable sacrifice for freedoms/rights


got it, makes perfect sense
 
crazymjb said:
I don't disagree with you that government regulation tends to run away... but some of it has it's purpose. It doesn't run away because they are allowed to regulate X and it slips into Y and Z... it runs away because they want to regulate both X Y and Z in the first place.
Click to expand...

Accepting that the federal government has the authority in the first place is a step too far, but I disagree entirely with that last sentence. Incrementalism is exactly how we got from the text of the constitution to having a federal government forcing people to buy health insurance in a little over 200 years.
 
I think this may tie in with this discussion.

Have you heard about Riverdale Wyoming? it is no longer part of the U.S. the EPA just gave it to the Indians for a treaty signed 150 years ago. All the people there are now screwed because the Indians don't recognize deeds filed on "their" lands. I assume you can keep your furnishings but your house and lands are now gone at the mercy of the tribal council.
It they did it there they can give back North Dakota and other lands maybe even some around here - give Dover back to the Indians!

How does the Environmental Protection agency give the land, well maybe because land is part of the environment.
 
if you want to get really crazy you can discuss who has right to any land at all and why? how did they come about owning this land and who acknowledges their ownership?

land ownership has always intrigued me.
 
Do you guys run stop signs and red lights? Drive on the left side of the road? Speed through school zones? Damn you gubment, stop telling me what I can and can't do!

The answer to the current big-government over-regulation does not lie in complete deregulation. We don't have to switch to anarchy in order to live in a free America. It's ok to have some rules and regulations.
 
How many people ALWAYS come to a full stop at a stop sign? I do if I think a cop is there, or I have to wait a while to go, but often I am easing forward, maybe 1 mph or less, but the wheels don't come to a full and complete stop which is the law
 
kalash said:
Do you guys run stop signs and red lights? Drive on the left side of the road? Speed through school zones? Damn you gubment, stop telling me what I can and can't do!

The answer to the current big-government over-regulation does not lie in complete deregulation. We don't have to switch to anarchy in order to live in a free America. It's ok to have some rules and regulations.
Click to expand...
run stop signs? sometimes, if I think it shouldn't be there or can obviously tell no one is coming the other ways
would I speed through a busy figure 8 without looking for crossing traffic if there were no stop sign? no, because I don't NEED government to tell me what to do to know what is best for me

speed through school zones?
there isn't much time on the road that I am NOT going over the "speed limit" yet I haven't died or killed anyone, so much for the government there

drive on the left?
not typically, its unsafe, why would I do something unsafe? because the government forbid me? or because I MIGHT DIE
jeez which one is more of a deterrent for me?
 
It's the same stupid argument used against people who don't like having 70% of their income confiscated in the name of taxation. "You like having roads, don't you?"
 
kalash said:
The answer to the current big-government over-regulation does not lie in complete deregulation. We don't have to switch to anarchy in order to live in a free America. It's ok to have some rules and regulations.
Click to expand...

it's not the only answer but it is an answer and it is one many would prefer.

you could argue that without anarchy no one is ever truly free

under a form of anarchy everyone who wishes to have a state tell them when they should stop their car can do so but those who do not wish for that wouldn't be subject to it

not everyone has to live in Anarchy, many people here don't understand what Anarchy as a political/world system actually means

and when it boils down to it you can't have rules if there are no rulers, and I for one do not like being ruled
 
mattyw said:
what he does is of no concern of mine or yours, he could already have toxic gas and grenades for all you know

machine guns ok, a psycho/idiot killing a dozen people, acceptable sacrifice for freedoms/rights

grenade not ok, a psycho/idiot killing a few dozen people, unacceptable sacrifice for freedoms/rights


got it, makes perfect sense
Click to expand...

Wrong. What he does is of concern to me if it can effect/kill me very easily due to negligence. Again, this is HIGHLY unlikely in the case of a firearm, when some ******* has claymores pointed at my backyard, and the "government" is cool with that... you know, because he's not hurting anyone, and I have a family, I'm going to get rid of that problem. Why? Because it's a huge goddamn liability for my health and safety.

None of you like having guns pointed at you at the shooting range. We accept that maybe .0000001% of the time some random gun is pointed at us in someones house, quite possibly loaded as well. Well if your neighbor has X Y and Z, he effectively has a gun pointed at you, your kids, and your wife, ALL THE TIME. I'm not cool with that, and unlesss it's "no big deal" to you when you are at the range and someone turns around with a loaded AR pointed at your face, your wifes face, parents face, kids face, you aren't cool with it either. Or would you let someone hold a gun to your head, as long as they promised not to pull the trigger, even being unable to tell you 1 of the four weapons safety rules?

Mike
 

Similar threads

HR 354
Replies
0
Views
149
HuntMaine
HuntMaine
Ongoing Effort (and Appeal to Firearm Owners) to Stall H4139 in Session
Replies
0
Views
182
wma01541
W
Washington school shooting: Students in lockdown at William Wiley Elementary as police rush to the scene
Replies
8
Views
437
CMEBoston
CMEBoston
How To: Individual Importing a Shotgun from Europe?
Replies
9
Views
277
greencobra
greencobra
These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
669
Zappa
Zappa
Back
Top Bottom