Jump to content

ContraBardus

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    6,826
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

ContraBardus last won the day on August 8

ContraBardus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,372 Holy Cow!

1 Follower

About ContraBardus

  • Rank
    Sage

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Gainesville, Fla.
  • Interests
    At the moment, not dying, video games, books, movies, and getting well enough to get another job so I'm not stuck at home all day.
  • More About Me
    I don't like stuff that sucks.

    My dog is awesome.

    Sometimes I cook stuff.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Shilling, someone I know can lift a curse

Recent Profile Visitors

4,452 profile views
  1. After reading some earlier replies to this thread, I feel I should add that there is a difference between being "afraid" of something and being prepared for something. I don't sit around my house thinking that someone is going to break into my house and attack me. It doesn't cross my mind, doesn't sit at the back of my mind, and isn't something that impacts my daily life in any way. I am, however, as prepared as I legally can be to deal with it if it does. I also don't expect China and North Korea to invade California, the US Government to melt down and Civil War to break out, or some despot ruler to take over the country. Though, again, I would like future generations to also be prepared for the world to go sideways as it has so many times in the past. That's not a fear, no one is fretting about it, it's just wisdom to want to have and not need, rather than need and not have. If anything, the prepared have less to be afraid of and worried about. That's one of the perks of being prepared in the first place.
  2. So, like, Pink Panthers? I can dig it. Usually groups that are tied to a social movement like that are the sort that go out and guard protesters. Basically standing around being visibly armed around them where legal, but not really directly engaging in protest themselves. The idea is to be entirely defensive, and not do anything that might be seen as aggressive at all. It's a very careful line that needs to be walked, and you need to know the law regarding firearms in the area you'd be operating in and stay firmly within it. You'd ideally want a lawyer in your group to parse that out for you. At the least someone who knows their way around that scene that won't land you and your group in serious legal trouble. The Black Panthers were masters at trolling their opposition using the letter of the law. Groups like that probably already exists, but it seems surprisingly difficult to dig up info on organizations like that that are all women. I tried looking it up and pretty much the YPJ-YPG militas in Syria were it. Them and some Civil War and Women's Suffrage era groups in the US.
  3. Not really. An advanced firearms user that goes to the range on a fairly regularly basis, hunts, or does other activities to remain proficient might be better off with another weapon, but the average person who is only buying a firearm for home defense and won't ever fire it for anything else should get a shotgun. Everyone who buys a gun should fire it at least a few times so they know what to expect, but generally you can just put a shotgun in a secure place and leave it for years and it will be fine. You just need to replace rounds and clean it every few years. Generally speaking, a shotgun is easier to use than a handgun.Long guns in general are also more stable, accurate, and easier to aim, even for a smaller person. The kick is the only issue, and it's not so bad that it's debilitating. A nine year old can fire a shotgun and not get knocked on their ass. I know this because both myself and my sister were skeet shooting at that age, and we were doing it with others in that age range. On a related note, long guns are safer, especially in the hands of children, but also for inexperienced adults, as it is much more difficult to accidentally shoot one's self with any type of long gun than a handgun. The size of the weapon alone makes it difficult. All firearms should be safely handled, stored, and secured, but it's more difficult to unintentionally shoot one's self if the firearm is too large for someone to easily reach the trigger with the barrel pointed at themselves. At the sort of ranges you'd be dealing with indoors, the spread is not that wide. Maybe somewhere between the size of a fist to the size of a softball. Again, real life is not video games where you end up with a three foot spread at six feet out because of game balance reasons. You still have to aim a shotgun and do need to be accurate, just slightly less so than with a standard round. It's more forgiving, but also not spraying led all over the place. That sort of weak structure is generally enough to slow down pellet rounds from a shotgun to non-lethal velocities. Again, this is because of the spread, as the force is not all concentrated in a single round that is designed to penetrate, but rather lots of very small balls that flatten out and spread the force out on impact. A bullet will flatten out, but it will also concentrate that force in one spot. Some pellets will probably get through, but they likely aren't going to still be going fast enough to seriously hurt anyone. Based on what an assault rifle ban accomplishes, which is nothing. The only thing anything that can be added to a weapon that makes it an assault rifle does is make it look scarier. You can literally buy the exact same weapon without the add-ons and it will do the exact same job just as well. Bans of these weapons doesn't accomplish any public safety objective. No one is safer because someone can't affix a bayonette to on the end of their rifle. The point is that shooters specifically target "gun free zones" because there will be less chance of armed resistance and response will be slower allowing them to do more damage before they are stopped. I already addressed the "fantasy world" point. We aren't planning for right now, and cannot assume that the world will remain as it is forever. The 2A isn't meant for times like today when everything is stable and relatively safe. We can't assume that the US will have the strongest military forever and just assume that it will always be that way because that's how it is now. That won't last forever and never has before, just look at the British Empire, the Romans, the Ottomans, etc.... As I said, we can't expect to be able to roll back after giving up rights and power. Once taken, those who have it are rarely willing to return it. The point of the 2A is to ensure that the public is able to defend themselves from both foreign and domestic threats. That means personal defense, and military conflict on US soil. It's intended to cover both, not be one or the other. Right now is not forever. Just because our government wouldn't do something to us right now, doesn't mean that it won't in the future, especially if we give up our rights that are intended to check that sort of thing from happening. Just because no one can feasibly invade us right now, doesn't mean that someone won't become a threat in the future. Even if we assume that our current leaders wouldn't abuse the power they would gain by weakening our rights, what about the next people to hold those seats, or the ones after that, or after that, or the ones a hundred years from now, or two hundred, etc...? Suicide rates artificially inflate those numbers. People are going to kill themselves regardless of whether they have a gun or not, and it isn't difficult to do. They can just hang themselves, lock themselves in an enclosed space with a running engine, overdose on any number of over the counter drugs [aspirin will do it if you take enough], etc... Guns don't cause people to commit suicide, nor are the particularly more convenient or faster than other methods. While I also support promoting mental health and getting people who need it help, I'm also for the right of someone to end their lives with dignity. How many of those suicides were people suffering from something terminal who just wanted to die with dignity? I don't expect anywhere near a majority, but I think it would be a fairly large chunk considering. We pay a higher price for cars than we do for firearms. It's also to the point where we don't really need to, especially in an urban environment. It's just a convenience for the vast majority of the population. AI drivers would already lead to far fewer fatalities on roads, public transportation could easily be built up to eliminate the need for personal transportation in urban environments, we have the means and technology to save thousands of lives a year and have had both for a few decades. It wouldn't eliminate vehicle deaths, but we could easily lower them by 30 thousand per year, simply by regulating motor vehicles more. Yet we don't, for the sake of convenience and personal freedom. Which in my view is a less worthy reason to put up with that many deaths than personal and national defense.
  4. DId BO turn liberal and change his account name? That entire post is the same sort of total logical disconnect I used to get from him all the time. It's the same sort of "if it's A it can't be B and everything is mutually exclusive unless it is convenient for my argument" nonsense, with that hint of belligerent "No, you", "Nuh-uh", and "I'm not mad, you're mad" non-arguments tossed in. I've already addressed and rebutted every point made and don't intend to do it again, as it would just lead to an irritating cycle of us both repeating ourselves. I don't have time to get dragged into a four page argument about this sort of thing anymore, so I'm done here. I've made my point and it stands on its own. Dragging it out won't accomplish anything and would just be throwing mud against the wall. Also, if none of the original post that disillusioned made that started this was an Ad Hom or misrepresentation, then neither is anything in this post, because it's just commentary about an observation I made and is how I personally feel, which apparently invalidates it from being anything else.
  5. Yeah, my late Stepdad was in a Militia. Most of them were Vietnam or Korea vets. I was an adult when he married my Mother, but I met a lot of his friends and they were all the same way.
  6. Yeah, you did. All of the above are claims that misrepresent pro-gun arguments. I already detailed why. They are not "just observations", but are blatant straw man arguments intended to color the argument of the opposing view in an unfavorable light by misrepresenting it. Claiming "I wasn't making an argument..." is nonsense and is just an attempt to sidestep responsibility for your claims so you don't have to bother with justifying them. You are literally making claims regarding the subject, which is by definition an argument. "Those people think about killing people a lot! How disturbing that is! They treat it as normal and it is fundamental to their beliefs! Not a society I want any part of!" There's no way you can defend that not being an ad hom. It's literally a "those people are crazy and obsessed with death! [Implying they are wrong and morally reprehensible.] I'm glad we're [I'm] not like them!" argument. It wasn't an insult, you earned it in this case and I was completely justified in calling you out on it. I don't care if you're offended by that. If you aren't willing to defend your view, or at least have it challenged, you shouldn't have posted it.
  7. Those are not mutually exclusive, and it was all of the above. It was literally a rebuttal, and was a mischaracterization of the issue using nonsense points I've seen from anti-gun positions before. Trying to claim it was "just an observation" is just a cop out. This is ToT, but being dismissive and pretending it's a valid point is still lame.
  8. That's a blatant straw man and misrepresentation of the pro-gun position. It's also a needless ad hom. Most gun owners are considering how to defend themselves and the things they care about and understand that lethal force by any means is a last resort and a desperate measure. Generally speaking, no one ever wants to have to shoot someone else even non-lethally, and will exhaust any other options before resorting to lethal force. They are, however, realistic enough to not eliminate that option and be prepared for the need to use it. They don't want to get cornered, literally or figuratively, and not have the option available. Gun owners are not sociopaths who want the weight of someone's life on their conscience for the rest of their lives, it is just a possible lesser evil to losing a loved one, getting killed themselves, or living under an oppressive regime that threatens them, their families, and friends. Most people aren't going to shoot someone over some stereo equipment. It's the home invasion and the danger that presents that is the issue, not the loss of property. People in general understand that John Wick is not reality and that the real world is not a giant Call of Duty server, and that includes gun owners. What you're suggesting is neither normal nor "fundamental" among gun owners. We do understand the concept of reality, despite the frequent straw man argument that we all think we're John Rambo or John Wayne. Ironically, people who are pro-gun are the ones with the best understanding of what firearms are actually capable of, how difficult they are to use effectively, their limitations, and how destructive they can be. Because we're the ones who have seen it first hand by actually firing them, and not just through movies and video games. We're the ones that understand best that we're not going to stand on the beach in California and hold off the entire North Korean army by ourselves. The concept of gun ownership is not so dissimilar to the concept of herd immunity. It's not any single individual, but the group as a whole that matters.
  9. This tells me you don't know much about firearms. The absolute best home defense weapon is a shotgun. Not a short one either. Semi-auto or a pump action. Eight rounds. They are basically idiot proof, easy to clear, clean, and maintain. It has a lower chance of penetrating walls, floors, and ceilings at lethal velocity. Meaning it's difficult to shoot a family member in another room or a neighbor and accidentally kill or injure them. The spread means it has a wider effective area. With a handgun you have to be on target, with a shotgun you don't need to be nearly as "on target" to be effective. They are also much easier to configure to be less lethal by changing ammo. A typical "home defense" loadout is birdshot, birdshot, buckshot, birdshot, buckshot, buckshot, buckshot, buckshot. The first shell is intended to be a warning shot, but you want something that puts lead out in case you're firing at someone who is charging. The reason for this is that birdshot is less likely to be lethal, but will still stop someone in their tracks. That's your deterrent shot. Buckshot will drop a target. It's relevant because the entire point of assault rifle bans isn't really to remove something that is more dangerous than other weapons. It is a foothold to justify larger bans in the future, an incremental step. Banning assault rifles is pointless, because other perfectly legal weapons can do the exact same thing, literally. Assault rifle bans are political grandstanding intended to set up further bans in the future. So, yeah, it actually does impact gun control. There are no "gun free zones" anywhere in the world by that standard. The police have them, the military has them, criminals have them, etc... Argument from extremes. Nuclear weapons are internationally regulated, but there's no reason a citizen shouldn't be able to own an armored transport or even a modern tank. That doesn't mean they can just drive one on the highway or around town either. Just like you can't drive a bulldozer or a steamroller wherever you want just because you own one. Also, yes, that would mean that Law Enforcement would also be able to have them. Because the US Military as it currently exists would not wage war on the citizens of the country and many would join them. There would be a sizeable force that would remain loyal to the government, but much of the military would very much have a problem with being deployed against their own country. There's a reason Rome didn't station their legions in areas where they were from. They always deployed them away from their homes, so they would remain loyal to the empire in the event they were needed against the regions they were stationed in. Don't forget that the US military is made up of citizens. You also have the National Guard, and that's kind of the point of the National Guard. You're making the assumption that the entire government would turn against the people, and that there wouldn't be Governors, law enforcement, and local elements that support the people against them. None of those elements on their own would be good enough, but together is another matter. Also, let's not ignore the possibility of foreign invasion. Just because we're "too strong" for it today, doesn't mean a thing to what might be in the future. We can't plan for the world to exist exactly as it does now forever. Safeguards are for when the status quo changes. Being secure right now isn't the issue, it's so we have a backup when things aren't so secure and stable anymore. That's what the second amendment is for. It's not intended for prosperous and peaceful times, but for when those times inevitably end. We can't "shelve" it now because things are good and expect to be able to roll back if something comes up.
  10. Ironically, the presence of a firearm can force diplomacy. One could easily argue that in a situation where a firearm was "present" and a diplomatic resolution occurred, that if it hadn't been there, the resolution would not have been diplomatic in the first place. I agree that it wouldn't happen every time, but you also seem to be downplaying how often it likely is a relevant factor just as much as people who quote that statistic are overstating it. It is true that there are no "numbers" that can prove that a specific number of incidents, but it's also misleading to say that guns aren't responsible for forcing a peaceful resolution either because of the same issue. "Assault Rifles" are no more dangerous than any other long gun with a similar fire rate that uses the same rounds. Nothing that makes an assault rifle an assault rifle makes it any more dangerous than any other rifle. Also, video games are not real life. AR does not stand for Assault Rifle, and as far as I'm aware, no real life firearms use AR to designate Assault Rifle. This is a case of confusing colloquial speech with technical speech. It's really no different than someone saying "It's just a theory" when talking about a scientific theory. It's just that person being wrong and not understanding what they are talking about, not a problem on the scientific theory's end. There are literal signs in a lot of places in the US that say "Gun Free Zone" indicating that firearms are not permitted. These signs are often backed by laws and getting caught with a firearm within that "zone" can lead to arrests and prosecution. This includes if it is secured and concealed. So yes, there actually are "gun free zones", it's just a designation for a zone where a ban on firearms is enforced. Actually, yes they did. The fact that they were unaware of technological advancements is irrelevant. Their intention was that citizens should have access to military quality weaponry. They actually intended the population to be able to oppose and overthrow the government by force of arms if necessary. Some of them actually expected it to eventually happen. If the founding fathers were brought back to live today somehow, they'd probably express surprise that we didn't overthrow the established government and form a new one by now.
  11. That's the thing. Everyone will act like they are losing their minds and that it is the end of America, grandstanding will fill the media outlets and soapboxes will be stood upon, but absolutely nothing will come of it. By the time the outrage over it would have accomplished anything, everyone will have forgotten about it in favor of the next thing to be outraged about. It would be a shitshow, but amount to nothing more than being a show.
  12. Using two hands is best for stability and accuracy. Unless using a scope, keep both eyes open when aiming down sights. Squeeze the trigger to fire. Keep your arms bent and don't lock them. Flex and bend your arms with recoil. Keep your weapon cleaned and maintained.
  13. No, it won't. We could have it take a few weeks and be perfectly fine. We've just gotten used to instant gratification thanks to things like telegraphs, phones, radio, and television. Delayed election results would be an inconvenience and little more. Sure, it would be presented as some unacceptable issue with lots of people complaining, but it won't actually be a real problem if it does. It would amount to little more than grumbling. The government will continue to function, and transitions might be a little rushed, but would still happen within a reasonable time frame. There wouldn't be riots in the streets or an economic meltdown over delayed election results.
  14. The problem with this is that the term is not clearly defined. I gave up arguing about anything that isn't clearly defined a while ago. I don't argue about the existence of God, I don't argue about who is or isn't a "real Christian", I don't argue about the existence of spirits. You'll get a different answer about what each of those things are from every person you ask, even if every one of them is from the exact same church. If they are all from different denominations, you can forget about the answers being even remotely similar. Even more so if they are different religions entirely. Why should I care about other people's opinions and beliefs about something we can't even define consistently?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.