07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 9596979899 ...
tools
  1. metz65's Avatar
    OK, so you tell me what puts an AR-15 in the same class of weapon as an M-16.
    Because it's black and really big and scary looking and it makes a big loud noise when you pull the trigger.

    I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    05-25-2013 09:54 AM
  2. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Because it's black and really big and scary looking and it makes a big loud noise when you pull the trigger.

    I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.
    See I always thought something had to be hairy to be scary, you know like Sasquatch, Yeti, Bears, etc.

    BTW: I keep hoping you'll change your avatar, seriously clowns creep me out.
    05-25-2013 01:40 PM
  3. Live2ride883's Avatar
    That's seriously one of your talking points?
    So it's been awhile since you have responded so are we to accept that you have no counter to my last statement.
    05-25-2013 01:43 PM
  4. metz65's Avatar


    I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.
    05-25-2013 02:51 PM
  5. GadgetGator's Avatar
    You can't tell that nut job anything.
    It was ok for her to get a ccw but not the rest of us. It's ok for the rich to have armed security but those thay can't afford it can rely on law enforcement becuase when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
    Ask a liberal who's husband is getting those contracts for that high speed train to nowhere, you guesed it. Lining her pockets lime a common criminal. :beer:
    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Android Central Forums
    The average person doesn't need armed security. And while I don't agree with her on everything, she's far more reasonable than the nutcases on the right...Michelle Bachman I am looking at you!
    Mercury81 and msndrstood like this.
    05-25-2013 04:00 PM
  6. jova33's Avatar
    The average school child should have armed security.

    Sent from my wireless telephonic device.
    05-25-2013 04:12 PM
  7. dchawk81's Avatar
    See I always thought something had to be hairy to be scary, you know like Sasquatch, Yeti, Bears, etc.

    BTW: I keep hoping you'll change your avatar, seriously clowns creep me out.
    I tried quoting your other post but tapatalk had some strange glitch where it put someone else's post instead, but it's letting me quote this one.

    That actually was my rebuttal. The fact that select fire mode is the only significant difference puts it in the same class as far as I'm concerned.

    Your argument is, to me, like saying two identical cars are in two completely different categories if one has an automatic transmission and the other has a stick shift.

    And quite frankly it's up to you, the expert, to convince me, the non-expert as to why I'm wrong. You're the one with the facts. Insulting me doesn't convince me.
    jdbii and metz65 like this.
    05-25-2013 07:10 PM
  8. Aquila's Avatar
    Insulting me doesn't convince me.
    05-25-2013 07:25 PM
  9. metz65's Avatar
    Insulting me doesn't convince me.

    Dam. All that money I wasted on the Andrew Dice Clay school of debate.



    I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.
    05-25-2013 08:29 PM
  10. metz65's Avatar
    We need an unthank option to go along with the unlike option.

    I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.
    Live2ride883 and Aquila like this.
    05-25-2013 08:33 PM
  11. ItnStln's Avatar
    Obamastine. 3 morw years and we will be free last.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Android Central Forums
    I hope! Aren't they trying to rescind the 22nd Amendment?
    05-25-2013 10:16 PM
  12. Live2ride883's Avatar
    I tried quoting your other post but tapatalk had some strange glitch where it put someone else's post instead, but it's letting me quote this one.

    That actually was my rebuttal. The fact that select fire mode is the only significant difference puts it in the same class as far as I'm concerned.

    Your argument is, to me, like saying two identical cars are in two completely different categories if one has an automatic transmission and the other has a stick shift.

    And quite frankly it's up to you, the expert, to convince me, the non-expert as to why I'm wrong. You're the one with the facts. Insulting me doesn't convince me.
    First off there was no insult. When you, I assume sarcastically stated "that's seriously one of your talking points" set the tone for this discussion.

    The difference between select and semi auto fire IS what defines the class as far as I am concerned. In no way do I consider myself do be a firearms expert, I do have knowledge about fire arms simply because of the way I was raised, and the ones I have owned but does not make me an expert.

    A gun of any type is simply the tool, the person handling it is the real weapon. A gun has no objective, no consciousness, no morality, and no sense of right and wrong. The person using it should have all of those.

    I would suggest that you look up a class 3 weapons for starters, actually I'll provide the link.

    National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia discusses select and auto fire weapons.
    05-26-2013 12:30 AM
  13. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Forgive me for jumping into the discussion so late, I just came across it and found some points interesting (or just flat out wrong).

    I can't remember if I already posted this point in another gun debate thread here, but is worth repeating. Guns are the great equalizer.
    Guns would only be the great equalizer if everyone had the exact same weapon and ammo supply. if you are sitting in a darkened movie theatre and someone comes bursting through the door firing with a high capacity weapon, there's not much equalization going on. Particularly if you are in the next movie over and bullets are coming through the walls at you.

    Here, good police response time is 9 minutes. In rural areas, it can be over an hour.

    A lot can happen in a violent encounter in 9 minutes. Some of us prefer to protect ourselves and families instead of being at risk of serious injury or death at the hands of a violent criminal while waiting for police
    I agree that in some locations people have a higher need to fend for themselves. However, I think many gun owners give themselves a false sense of security. Even police on the job get killed by people with guns. Sometimes even when it's a group of police. I think some gun owners think they are invincible if they own a gun. No, you're not. Even with your gun, you can still go down.

    As a husband and parent it is my responsibility to provide for and PROTECT my wife and children.

    It is my right and duty to protect myself, to defend my life. While our Constitution enumerates and guarantees our rights, it does not grant them.
    Another fallacy. No one is with their wife and kids 24 hours a day. Do the kids ever get left with a babysitter? Do they ever spend the night at grandmas house? Sleepover with friends? Does your wife take the gun into the shower with her when she is home alone? All very doubtful.

    Since the article states that sexual assault is the term that Aus. uses to describe rape then it becomes clear that they are stating that rape (sexual assault) increased 29.9%. If this included arse touching or grabbing the article would had stated this.

    Even IF under some extreme circumstance you could get the criminals to give up their guns, every last one of them I would not turn mine in. Simply because then the government would be the only ones to have them. Our founding fathers understood what it was like to live under tyrannical rule. So while our right to bear arms is and extension of our natural right to self defense, it is also to defend our way of life from a tyrannical government.
    What are founding fathers did NOT understand, is that someday technology would create weapons that they could not even conceive of. They were dealing in a world where everyone had roughly access to the same weaponry. Unless you are planning on stocking your yard with nukes, chemical weapons, RPGs, an airplane, a tank, some drones, some water cannons, a few flamethrowers, and have your own satellite in space not to mention whatever secret things the government has that you don't even know about, then you don't even have a chance. Your little pea shooters won't change that.

    Also it would make more logical sense to ban cars instead of guns
    Autos are always such a false analogy since 1) their primary purpose is transportation, not killing things and 2) auto safety is constantly being improved upon. There's not much innovation or effort to make guns safer. For obvious reasons. Unlike most products they aren't even subject to product safety laws. At some point cars will drive themselves reducing auto deaths to almost nothing. Meanwhile, guns will still be out there killing people.

    Yeah the problem with gun control is it is all about gun confiscation. Most people can agree okay no full auto and no 30+ rounds.

    But now they are saying e.g. as InfoWars reports Austin city councillor saying we are going to ban all guns, then now ridiculous things like no 10+ rounds no semi-auto. Like 15 rounds semi-auto handgun is reasonable but it is all about gun confiscation not "control".
    Infowars is not a news source. When claims of man made and controlled tornados are the order of the day you know you are dealing with nothing more then a delusional man's playground.

    Background checks are idiotic because robbers, rapists, gang bangers , and any other criminal don't get background checks.Libatards will never understand
    Ah..I see. So you're saying we shouldn't have any background checks at all? That makes perfect sense. Then the criminals will be able to get them even easier. Not to mention all the mental patients. I think you are the one who doesn't understand. BTW, please stop the use of offensive words.
    jdbii and msndrstood like this.
    05-26-2013 01:30 AM
  14. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Guns would only be the great equalizer if everyone had the exact same weapon and ammo supply. if you are sitting in a darkened movie theatre and someone comes bursting through the door firing with a high capacity weapon, there's not much equalization going on. Particularly if you are in the next movie over and bullets are coming through the walls at you.
    You just made my argument for me against placing such tough restrictions on guns that people that lawfully carry are hamstrung in their choice of what is best for them and their protection while the criminals find access to more deadly guns illegally.
    metz65 likes this.
    05-26-2013 02:01 AM
  15. jdbii's Avatar
    @GadgetGator, you brought up some really great points, but one you didn't address is the argument that guns provide a check against tyranny. Do you think the rule of law will always prevail, or do you think guns provide some kind of safeguard against government, state, or police abuse?

    Nexus 7 via Android Central App
    05-26-2013 02:23 AM
  16. dchawk81's Avatar
    @GadgetGator, you brought up some really great points, but one you didn't address is the argument that guns provide a check against tyranny. Do you think the rule of law will always prevail, or do you think guns provide some kind of safeguard against government, state, or police abuse?

    Nexus 7 via Android Central App
    Do you truly believe civilian ownership of small arms is what keeps our governments from blowing us all to smithereens with nukes, drones, and fighter jets?

    It doesn't. You know what does? Tax dollars. No citizens = no revenue. Even evil corporations know that they need consumers to be alive to buy the stuff they're hocking so they can fund SuperPACs, lobbyists, and lawyers.
    jdbii, msndrstood and GadgetGator like this.
    05-26-2013 02:39 AM
  17. Aquila's Avatar
    @GadgetGator, you brought up some really great points, but one you didn't address is the argument that guns provide a check against tyranny. Do you think the rule of law will always prevail, or do you think guns provide some kind of safeguard against government, state, or police abuse?
    They were dealing in a world where everyone had roughly access to the same weaponry. Unless you are planning on stocking your yard with nukes, chemical weapons, RPGs, an airplane, a tank, some drones, some water cannons, a few flamethrowers, and have your own satellite in space not to mention whatever secret things the government has that you don't even know about, then you don't even have a chance. Your little pea shooters won't change that.
    Do you truly believe civilian ownership of small arms is what keeps our governments from blowing us all to smithereens with nukes, drones, and fighter jets?
    I feel like this logic discrepancy has been covered quite a few times, but I also think all three of you are on the same page and saying it differently.




    jdbii likes this.
    05-26-2013 02:55 AM
  18. jdbii's Avatar
    Do you truly believe civilian ownership of small arms is what keeps our governments from blowing us all to smithereens with nukes, drones, and fighter jets?

    It doesn't. You know what does? Tax dollars. No citizens = no revenue. Even evil corporations know that they need consumers to be alive to buy the stuff they're hocking so they can fund SuperPACs, lobbyists, and lawyers.
    No I don't truly believe it, but I was kind of interested in what the other guy or girl had to say since he made such great points, but your response was good too. However, I am going to contradict myself, because I do believe a civilian population armed with small arms does provide some protection against potential abuse by the state. For instance I think police are much more likely to treat disadvantaged people in poorer sections of cities with more respect if the inhabitants of those sections have arms. If only the police were armed, there is the potential for police abuse. I believe that if you are going to disarm citizens then the de-militarization of the police needs to be part of the plan.

    Nexus 7 via Android Central App
    Aquila likes this.
    05-26-2013 03:07 AM
  19. dchawk81's Avatar
    No I don't truly believe it, but I was kind of interested in what the other guy or girl had to say since he made such great points, but your response was good too. However, I am going to contradict myself, because I do believe a civilian population armed with small arms does provide some protection against potential abuse by the state. For instance I think police are much more likely to treat disadvantaged people in poorer sections of cities with more respect if the inhabitants of those sections have arms. If only the police were armed, there is the potential for police abuse. I believe that if you are going to disarm citizens then the de-militarization of the police needs to be part of the plan.

    Nexus 7 via Android Central App
    I don't think that's really true. Police don't really know who is armed until they have an encounter. I'm sure they have access to a database of registered owners but checking it every time they come across someone? That doesn't happen. Even if they did, that database would say who owns, not who is currently carrying at that very moment. It also wouldn't tell them who is currently illegally carrying or owns.

    It's not like police randomly ransack retirement villages just because they'd have an upper hand.

    This country (USA) is far too politically correct to allow any kind of widespread abuse of power. Look at AZ for example...a sheriff there was sued and lost for alleged racial profiling.
    jdbii likes this.
    05-26-2013 04:10 AM
  20. GadgetGator's Avatar
    The average school child should have armed security.

    Sent from my wireless telephonic device.
    Beause armed security is always sucessful? Ask Columbine how that worked out. Besides, who's paying for that? Schools can barely afford things as it is now.

    We didn't need armed security when I was in school. So what's changed? That's what we need to figure out and fix. Putting security in schools is just a band aid and doesn't address the root cause.
    msndrstood and Blaize19 like this.
    05-26-2013 04:18 AM
  21. Aquila's Avatar
    We didn't need armed security when I was in school. So what's changed? That's what we need to figure out and fix. Putting security in schools is just a band aid and doesn't address the root cause.
    Bingo.

    I don't want to pay for bullets in schools, I want to pay for books. If we can't afford the latter, we don't need the former because there is no point in having the school in the first place.
    msndrstood and Blaize19 like this.
    05-26-2013 04:21 AM
  22. Aquila's Avatar
    I believe that if you are going to disarm citizens then the de-militarization of the police needs to be part of the plan.
    I don't want to disarm normal citizens, but I'm in favor of demilitarization of the police. I am in favor of educating people and trying to reduce the paranoia, ignorance and seething hatred that seems to rule over people as a whole. That irrationality and fear is encouraged by the puppeteers and too many people lap it up, forever seeking drama to entertain the reptilian...
    jdbii likes this.
    05-26-2013 04:27 AM
  23. dchawk81's Avatar
    I don't want to disarm normal citizens, but I'm in favor of demilitarization of the police. I am in favor of educating people and trying to reduce the paranoia, ignorance and seething hatred that seems to rule over people as a whole. That irrationality and fear is encouraged by the puppeteers and too many people lap it up, forever seeking drama to entertain the reptilian...
    Hmm. Where I live, people only hate the cops when they're getting or got caught for something. The law-abiding folks respect the police and appreciate their existence.
    05-26-2013 05:00 AM
  24. GadgetGator's Avatar
    You just made my argument for me against placing such tough restrictions on guns that people that lawfully carry are hamstrung in their choice of what is best for them and their protection while the criminals find access to more deadly guns illegally.
    No I didn't. The point is that people will never have all the same kind of weapons or the exact same amount of ammo. Many won't have any at all. But even if you do have one, there is no equalizer. All the guns in the world won't help you if it's fired through a wall or through a car window as you drive down the highway. This equalization comment, like many of the comments on guns, sounds nice on paper, but in reality is a myth and impossible to achieve.

    @GadgetGator, you brought up some really great points, but one you didn't address is the argument that guns provide a check against tyranny. Do you think the rule of law will always prevail, or do you think guns provide some kind of safeguard against government, state, or police abuse?

    Nexus 7 via Android Central App
    I thought I was kind of clear on what I thought about guns tyranny effectiveness (or lack thereof) with my comments, but let me be even clear...no. I do not think guns do anything in that regard. It's a great myth perpetuated onto people by people in the NRA who want to keep the money flowing in and keep their own power in place. Nothing more then a scare tactic. Just a grown up version of the boogeyman under the bed. Boo!

    Someone else mentioned it, and I've said it before on other sites...the government doesn't want anyone's guns...they want your tax revenue! You did bring up the local police which does bring up a point I meant to mention earlier...people that talk about guns as some sort of guard against tyranny never seem to fully think things all the way through. If the government wanted to take over (good luck on that, they can't even agree on simple things, much less a plot against everyone!) then what would the gun defenders do? Shoot up police and army members? Yeah..I don't see that working out well.

    The only way these tyrannical fantasies that some people have could become a reality, is through some absolute global catastrophe. Like an asteroid slams into the planet. Or the power goes out like the Revolution TV show. But if something like that happens, you"re going to be worried about far more pressing matters, like how to eat. Or survive blast waves, extreme cold, extreme heat..you know..life ending stuff that guns won't solve. Not that guns serve no purpose. They do. Great for hunting and helping protect yourself if we're living in the stone age again without our Android devices. But notice I said helping. That distinction is important and I made reference to it earlier. Guns are nothing more then an aide or tool. They are not a cloak of invincibility as some gun owners seem to consider them to be.
    jdbii likes this.
    05-26-2013 05:01 AM
  25. Aquila's Avatar
    Hmm. Where I live, people only hate the cops when they're getting or got caught for something. The law-abiding folks respect the police and appreciate their existence.
    Was that meant to respond to me? If so, I don't hate cops. I just don't want them to be in body armor, etc. like storm troopers. My uncle was a police officer and several of my friends and students are and they'd all love to go back to the friendly neighborhood officer mentality. The person you asked for assistance and waved hello to.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    jdbii likes this.
    05-26-2013 05:16 AM
4,617 ... 9596979899 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD