How Military Guns Make the Civilian Market - Page 3
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > How Military Guns Make the Civilian Market

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-31-2014, 10:44 PM   #21
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,937
Liked 1314 Times on 728 Posts
Likes Given: 570

Default

Here's the way I see it:

Most media publications, news or not, spew statist/collectivist tripe that they attempt to foist upon the unwashed, unclean masses as "news" or "intellectualism". It's really a mile high steaming pile of bovine manure that only pseudo-intellectuals (people who think they are intellectuals but substitute their own feelings or beliefs for fact or science) or willfully ignorant (stupid) like them believe.

These same people run articles on a regular basis that demonstrate how corrupt or incompetent the government is but entrust their lives to a third party who won't be there (the police) when trouble shows up (but somehow magical flying unicorns will spirit the police to their doorstep whenever you dial 911).

In the amount of time it takes to dial 911, a criminal can shoot or stab you to death, but no matter, since it hasn't happened to them it won't happen to you. Nevermind the body count, they were just unlucky in life or had it coming because they weren't good victims.

So, here's what I would like them to answer. If your wife or children were about to meet their demise at the hands of someone who was intent on murdering them, would you rather call 911 to let the police know how many body bags to bring to clean the human filth up off your doorstep or describe to the 911 operator how the people you love most in life were violently murdered?

Personally, I think that anyone who wouldn't shoot them dead on the spot, using whatever number of bullets were required to do it, is as psychotic as Jeffrey Dahmer.

This line of thinking is also why I believe that liberalism/progressivism and psychotic behavior have a strong association with each other. You'd have to be mentally defective to think a criminal who is intent on murdering you or your family would voluntarily stop if you "used the right words" or "called the cops", but this is exactly what these nut jobs think you should do, or at the very least they provide no other answers as to how you should solve the problem.
kbd512 is offline  
Axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 01:06 AM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 848
Liked 520 Times on 279 Posts
Likes Given: 114

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbd512 View Post
The M9 pistol is sold to civilians as we speak, has been for many years, and there is not a rash of civilians being shot with M9's.
Not to mention the M9 was based on an existing design. Beretta already produced the 92 series before they decided to compete in the US Army trials and further modified the design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbd512 View Post
This line of thinking is also why I believe that liberalism/progressivism and psychotic behavior have a strong association with each other. You'd have to be mentally defective to think a criminal who is intent on murdering you or your family would voluntarily stop if you "used the right words" or "called the cops", but this is exactly what these nut jobs think you should do, or at the very least they provide no other answers as to how you should solve the problem.
Yes, they really do think you can talk someone out of a violent situation, that all human beings will respond to rational thought.

I used to believe this way to until I had enough violent altercations with people who simply were not reasonable people. I wouldn't say they were all inherently violent, but the first step to being able to reason with someone is that they have to be willing to listen. Someone in a position of power, like someone intending to do violence, is already not in a position to listen.
__________________
"For every problem there is always a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong." - Mark Twain

Last edited by CrazedJava; 08-01-2014 at 01:09 AM.
CrazedJava is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 02:01 AM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 6,624
Liked 2220 Times on 1525 Posts
Likes Given: 820

Default

To negotiate with someone you have to be in a position of power. If 3 gangsters have guns or knifes, all you have is a cell phone you are not in a position to negotiate. You either comply or you get injured and maybe the ones you love most get injured or dead. Personally, I would rather die taking out the gangsters or buying time for my wife to get her gun. I could not spend the rest of my life knowing I let the people I love die.

Most of these liberals are well educated and understand how negotiations work. It seems like they would be the first to support the second amendment. They also know when it comes right down to it we all are animals. We are no different than any other animal that will fight to the death to take something from another animal or defend our young ones.

Also given that many liberals have a college education they should have heard of the Stanford prison experiment. Given the results of the SPE I don't see how the hell they trust the police to protect them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

Last edited by John_Deer; 08-01-2014 at 02:14 AM.
John_Deer is offline  
kbd512 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 02:37 AM   #24
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 0
Liked 22306 Times on 12476 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Deer View Post
To negotiate with someone you have to be in a position of power. If 3 gangsters have guns or knifes, all you have is a cell phone you are not in a position to negotiate. You either comply or you get injured and maybe the ones you love most get injured or dead. Personally, I would rather die taking out the gangsters or buying time for my wife to get her gun. I could not spend the rest of my life knowing I let the people I love die.

Most of these liberals are well educated and understand how negotiations work. It seems like they would be the first to support the second amendment. They also know when it comes right down to it we all are animals. We are no different than any other animal that will fight to the death to take something from another animal or defend our young ones.
the first paragraph of your statement i have no issue with, but the second paragraph i happen to disagree with you.

first of all, most liberals are not intelligent, nor well educated. simply put, to attack a right based on an emotional response to events that happen as reason to want that right restricted or abolished isn't intelligent, nor does is show being well educated. to demand that a right be restricted or to want to abolish others rights to own guns doesn't show any means of negotiating or wanting of compromise.

lets touch on the definition of compromise. it means to reach a solution that is beneficial to all parties involved. at what point, in the past, have any gun laws, restrictions, or bans have been negotiated to where a compromise has been reached where gun owners have benefited from those negotiations? simple answer, is none. every time we the gun owners have lost and gained nothing. in reality we have never gained, so therefor there has never been any negotiations for any type of compromise in favor of the gun owners.

because the second amendment is the shortest, and simplest of amendments written, that even children understand what many adults fail to understand, is of a mystery to me. IMO, you either support the 2nd as it was written or you don't. there is no middle ground or exception here. as in none. some liberals want to restrict our rights based on their interpretation of what they think it means instead of what it means. "Shall not be infringed" means simply to not violate that right to own or bear arms. so if someone wants to restrict in part or all of that right as in infringe, they are violating that right in full. it's really very much black an white. no grey areas. a person is either for, or against the second amendment, but in no way can they sit on the fence say there is middle ground. all or nothing.

i believe we are also very far removed from being animals as well. animals fight or kill to either eat or to protect. human beings will fight or kill for fun or sport, out of revenge, for profit or simply because we can.
Axxe55 is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 04:21 AM   #25
Lifetime Supporting Member
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,937
Liked 1314 Times on 728 Posts
Likes Given: 570

Default

Wow, Axxe!

Very well put.

Let's see how long it takes for someone to bring up ownership or use of nuclear weapons for self defense.
kbd512 is offline  
Axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 04:27 AM   #26
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 0
Liked 22306 Times on 12476 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbd512 View Post
Wow, Axxe!

Very well put.

Let's see how long it takes for someone to bring up ownership or use of nuclear weapons for self defense.
well i have an opinion on that as well.

personally, i wish such things had never been invented. no one has need for nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. not even the military or the government.
Axxe55 is offline  
kbd512 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 09:12 AM   #27
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 6,624
Liked 2220 Times on 1525 Posts
Likes Given: 820

Default

Axxe55, I hate to bust your bubble but I am going to anyway. Most liberals write so much better than we do it is pathetic. They are definitely have a college education. Liberals out maneuver gun owners like we are frikin idiots. If you think Open Carry Texas is run by political genius' it's no wonder the liberals win a lot.

We have to do better than what part of shall not be infringed is so hard to understand? They already have infringed and pissed all over the second amendment as have conservatives pissed on other parts of the constitution.
John_Deer is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 09:24 AM   #28
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 7,427
Liked 8137 Times on 4197 Posts
Likes Given: 9348

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Deer View Post
Axxe55, I hate to bust your bubble but I am going to anyway. Most liberals write so much better than we do it is pathetic. They are definitely have a college education. Liberals out maneuver gun owners like we are frikin idiots. If you think Open Carry Texas is run by political genius' it's no wonder the liberals win a lot.

We have to do better than what part of shall not be infringed is so hard to understand? They already have infringed and pissed all over the second amendment as have conservatives pissed on other parts of the constitution.
i wood half two agreee wit JD, were not rele edumcated altho we like our hellmumut and machinamaguns alrite we dose!
WebleyFosbery38 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 09:39 AM   #29
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 0
Liked 22306 Times on 12476 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Deer View Post
Axxe55, I hate to bust your bubble but I am going to anyway. Most liberals write so much better than we do it is pathetic. They are definitely have a college education. Liberals out maneuver gun owners like we are frikin idiots. If you think Open Carry Texas is run by political genius' it's no wonder the liberals win a lot.

We have to do better than what part of shall not be infringed is so hard to understand? They already have infringed and pissed all over the second amendment as have conservatives pissed on other parts of the constitution.
sorry JD, but a college education doesn't necessarily mean they are intelligent. many of them have proven that beyond a reasonable doubt. and simply being able to write a some nice words doesn't equate to gun owners being pathetic either. the content of what is written is still important and being able to broadcast that message is equally important. so when a so-called educated liberal can't find or use facts to make a statement, i hardly see that as being intelligent. maybe it impresses you, but not me.

and when the liberals are using misinformation, lies and deception as the content of their message, i hardly see them outmaneuvering law abiding gun owners who are using facts and proof to support their position. if you want to consider yourself in those terms, then that is your personal choice, not mine. i hardly consider myself to be an idiot by any means.

at what point have you ever seen me support the Texas OC Movement? i think you had better read some of my previous posts on other threads as to where i stand on that issue. you can search them if you like, but don't make statements of what i have or haven't said without knowing what you are talking about. that is just rude and arrogant on someone's part when they do that. for what it's worth, i do support the OC Movement, but very much disapprove of their methods of getting it enacted.

the 2nd amendment is that simple. only a college educated idiot needs to try and re-interpret or put it into context that was never meant to be. and i fully realize it's been infringed upon for a good many years now. apparently you glossed over the part where i discussed the definition of compromise. i discussed it in very plain and simple English. you can go back and re-read it later at your leasure if you like. i favor no more compromise in regards to the 2nd amendment in any way shape or form. that simple enough for you?
Axxe55 is offline  
WebleyFosbery38 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 09:47 AM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Chainfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,879
Liked 1727 Times on 1029 Posts
Likes Given: 374

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxe55 View Post
the first paragraph of your statement i have no issue with, but the second paragraph i happen to disagree with you.

first of all, most liberals are not intelligent, nor well educated. simply put, to attack a right based on an emotional response to events that happen as reason to want that right restricted or abolished isn't intelligent, nor does is show being well educated. to demand that a right be restricted or to want to abolish others rights to own guns doesn't show any means of negotiating or wanting of compromise.

lets touch on the definition of compromise. it means to reach a solution that is beneficial to all parties involved. at what point, in the past, have any gun laws, restrictions, or bans have been negotiated to where a compromise has been reached where gun owners have benefited from those negotiations? simple answer, is none. every time we the gun owners have lost and gained nothing. in reality we have never gained, so therefor there has never been any negotiations for any type of compromise in favor of the gun owners.

as ibecause the second amendment is the shortest, and simplest of amendments written, that even children understand what many adults fail to understand, is of a mystery to me. IMO, you either support the 2nd as it was written or you don't. there is no middle ground or exception here. n none. some liberals want to restrict our rights based on their interpretation of what they think it means instead of what it means. "Shall not be infringed" means simply to not violate that right to own or bear arms. so if someone wants to restrict in part or all of that right as in infringe, they are violating that right in full. it's really very much black an white. no grey areas. a person is either for, or against the second amendment, but in no way can they sit on the fence say there is middle ground. all or nothing.

i believe we are also very far removed from being animals as well. animals fight or kill to either eat or to protect. human beings will fight or kill for fun or sport, out of revenge, for profit or simply because we can.
In reference to the bolded part of your post:

Then, why do you suppose that generations of judges, liberal and conservative, who have been trained in the interpretation of our laws, do not agree. There are, and always have been some restrictions on gun ownership.

No amount of personal interpretation will ever change that. That is why gun owners should drop that line of reasoning, that, under close examination, very few Americans buy, and stand for reasonable limits that the people, in general, will accept, but that still protects the rights of eligible Americans to own guns. Something similar to the system we have now.
__________________
"It is better to be too skeptical then too credulous"

Carl Sagan
Chainfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Guns and Military Suicides Vikingdad Firearms in the Media 69 10-13-2012 12:24 AM
DHS and US Military Make Final Preparations Before Announcing Martial Law Bigcountry02 Conspiracy 8 08-11-2012 06:19 AM
gunpowder - civilian ammo vs military ammo erandyc AR-15 Discussion 10 03-02-2012 06:32 PM
Differences berween a civilian 500 and a military 500? indyfan General Shotgun Discussion 15 01-10-2012 02:23 AM



Newest Threads