Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at [email protected] and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

Pin-up and KaBar's Big Firearms Debate Thread

Discussion in 'News' started by KaBar2, Jul 17, 2004.

  1. KaBar2

    KaBar2 Senior Member

    Joined: Jun 27, 2003 Messages: 2,126 Likes Received: 64
    Okay. I support the Second Amendment and all forms of firearms ownership, and Pin-up does not, so I started this thread so we could discuss it without hi-jacking a thread on elections ("Erections"--maybe that's a thread on Chinese elections. Whatever.)

    Basically, I believe that every person everywhere has the God-given right to defend themselves, that no person or Government or any entity has the right to prohibit them from defending themselves, and to that end, they also have the right to own and possess and use firearms, and all manner of weapons. (Someone once accused me of supporting the open wearing of swords, and I said, "Well, duh. Don't you?")

    Texas, where I live, protects the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) in our State constitution, because of the right of states to raise and arm the militia. All able-bodied, male, Texas residents between 17 and 45 are automatically members of the militia (Federal too--Title 10, Section 311, United States Code) and are also part of the Texas State reserve military forces. This includes the Texas Army National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard (when under the command of the Governor of Texas,) the Texas State Guard (unpaid volunteer members of Texas' military police battalion,) the Department of Public Safety (state troopers,) the Texas Rangers (the "FBI" of the Department of Public Safety,) all county Sheriffs and their deputies, all constables of State and District Courts, all local police officers, and all public employees considered "Texas peace officers"--including all firefighters (both paid and volunteer), EMT-P paramedics and so forth.

    They aren't kidding when they include all able-bodied males between 17-45. Any time there is an emergency, any police officer can turn to the nearest able-bodied civilian male and say "I deputize you--pick up that deer rifle and follow me." In fact, this very thing occurred during one of the most tragic mass killings in Texas--the Texas Tower Sniper incident. The sniper, a former Marine rifleman with a brain tumor the size of an orange, killed 13 people on the ground from a sniper position at the top of the clock tower of the University of Texas in Austin. TWO of the four men who went up the tower after the sniper were civilians who were combat veterans of WWII and Korea, and both the veterans were civilians armed with their own shotguns.

    During the Fort Davis stand-off between the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) and a violent, extremist, "Republic of Texas" splinter group, the news media called up the leader of the militia group I trained with, and asked him "Do you and your group support the RoT people in Fort Davis?" and he replied "Ask the DPS troopers if they need any help, we'll be glad to help them enforce the law."

    Admittedly, these instances are rare, but the NRA estimates that civilians use personal firearms to defend themselves about 250,000 times a year, but most of these instances are not recorded or publicized. On a personal note, my wife has used her handgun three times since 1989 to defend herself from young men who were apparently attempting to either rob her or abduct her. She did not have to shoot them, all she had to do was pull her revolver and they ran like the cowards they are. They were more than willing to try to harm a defenseless woman, but they did not want to risk getting wounded or killed. They are very lucky it was not me, because I would have waited until they got too close for me to miss before I pulled my pistol.

    I have never had to defend myself against any attackers, but I am over six feet tall and weigh over 200 pounds, and male. Women are most often the victims of strong-arm robbers and rapists. In my opinion, ALL women should be armed, 24-7, because we live in a dangerous world of sorry little monsters who prey upon the weak and unprepared.

    Perhaps in other countries the gunshot death rate is lower. But I bet the rate of robbery, murder, forcible rape and so forth is lower as well. In Australia, when they banned private ownership of firearms, the robbery rate and the "kick burglary" rate went up 44%, especially against women and elderly people.

    Firearms, and especially handguns, empower women and those in society who are more vulnerable, if those persons choose to arm themselves and become proficient in the use of a pistol. Criminals will always be armed, regardless of the law, because they do not obey laws. Anti-gun laws only disarm HONEST PEOPLE.
     
  2. seeking

    seeking Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: May 25, 2000 Messages: 32,277 Likes Received: 234
    kabar, what are you trying to prove? we've had these discussions a thousand times on here. people have different perspectives, no amount of message board arguing will ever change that, and all it generally does is annoy the piss out of everyone. it's nothing but preaching, and not only is it a waste of fucking time, but it also makes you look like a self righteous, hollier than thou asshole. no one really cares for attitudes like that too much.
    i could give you concrete rebuttles to every single argument you've made, because they aren't based on facts, they're based on oppinion. the things that are based on facts (crime rates, statistics, etc) can be worded to reflect any side that you want to stand on.

    there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer to this 'question'. people's reasons for wanting guns banned are just as relivent, rational and intelligent as your reasons for wanting them, end of discussion.
     
  3. KaBar2

    KaBar2 Senior Member

    Joined: Jun 27, 2003 Messages: 2,126 Likes Received: 64
    Why, Seeking, I can't help but disagree. It's not the end of discussion AT ALL. Actually, I created this thread so that Pin-up and I could discuss firearms, and if you feel annoyed about it, I sincerely hope you feel better soon. If it bothers you that much, then I guess the best thing to do would be to avoid reading this thread, and then you won't feel as annoyed. Sometimes, if I'm really annoyed and irritated, I listen to soothing music, like "Guns 'N' Roses." Or sometimes I go out and gun my car up and down the street a few times. Or I promise myself that I never gun read that annoying person's threads again. You get the idea.
     
  4. amorphic

    amorphic Guest

    Screw guns and screw people who own them. I'd rather get victimized then become part of a greater problem that will cause more people pain and suffering in the long run.
     
  5. Faithfull

    Faithfull New Jack

    Joined: Jul 11, 2004 Messages: 83 Likes Received: 0
    THE PROBLEM WITH YOU KABAR IS THAT YOU ARE A RED NECK AND WE ARE (MOSTLY) CITY KIDS. SO FUCK YOU.
     
  6. Teh0wnz

    Teh0wnz Member

    Joined: Jul 23, 2003 Messages: 406 Likes Received: 0
    Kabar - off topic, what kind of car do you have? Is it worth gunning up and down the street? Ok, continue with the relevant discussion.
     
  7. Teh0wnz

    Teh0wnz Member

    Joined: Jul 23, 2003 Messages: 406 Likes Received: 0
    Hey, you're a fucktard. Come say that shit to someone in Texas anytime, and I garauntee you'll be sleeping with the fishes... like we don't have cities in Texas... fucktard.
     
  8. Faithfull

    Faithfull New Jack

    Joined: Jul 11, 2004 Messages: 83 Likes Received: 0
    ILL SAY THAT SHIT WHENEVER AND WHEREVER I WANT.

    FUCKTARD?!!!!????????????
     
  9. KYU

    KYU Member

    Joined: Feb 20, 2004 Messages: 437 Likes Received: 0
    *agrees with kabar*
     
  10. Teh0wnz

    Teh0wnz Member

    Joined: Jul 23, 2003 Messages: 406 Likes Received: 0
    Bring it then bitch, I can meet you somewhere in Dallas, and I will personally run your face across the asphalt.... and not feel bad about it.... Or we could always do the old fashioned hang your dumbass from a tree branch on a rope by your neck?

    I'm not gonna reply after this, so if you feel that you want the last word (and you actually have something good to say) go for it. Jackass hee haw.
     
  11. InnerCityRebel

    InnerCityRebel Veteran Member

    Joined: Aug 19, 2002 Messages: 8,297 Likes Received: 117
    i own an gun.it just comes down to the fact it is your freedom of choice..
     
  12. KaBar2

    KaBar2 Senior Member

    Joined: Jun 27, 2003 Messages: 2,126 Likes Received: 64
    Amorphic

    Spoken like a man who has yet to discover just how evil the world really is. I disagree with you. Very much. Oddly enough, I do not feel a similar animosity towards people who oppose the ownership of firearms that you seem to feel for those of us that do own them. This, despite the fact that many anti-gun people are not content to simply go their own way in the world, but instead are actively trying to disarm me and millions of other law-abiding gun owners.

    I have found that an armed society is a polite society. I have also found that many times the people that are most adamant about their intention to disarm the rest of the world are people who hold very unpopular opinions, or who covertly seek to seize power over others. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was translated almost word-for-word from a German law written by the Nazis to disarm the German Jews. The National Firearms Act has it's antecedents in the anti-freedmen "Black Codes" of the 1870's. EVERY SINGLE GENOCIDAL MASSACRE in the last 150 years was preceded by a series of laws that disarmed the civilian population.

    But, you have read all these arguments before, and know that they are true, but just don't care. Therefore, I can only conclude that either you feel that any sort of massacre is acceptable as long as it results in a docile, disarmed population, or perhaps you have your own reasons for wanting to be pretty certain that those that are too weak or elderly to prevail in an unarmed fight will not be armed.

    Frankly, I think that EVERY GAY PERSON, EVERY WOMAN, EVERY MINORITY PERSON OF EVERY RACE AND NATIONALITY AND CULTURE AND LANGUAGE AND RELIGION should be armed with a pistol. In fact, I believe that every adult, period, ought to be armed with a pistol. And I also think that if this were the case, there would be a hell of a lot less robbery, rape, gay-bashing, hate crime, etc., etc., etc. going on.

    I'm not advocating that any particular segment of society be denied firearms (except convicted felons--something already prohibited.) I think that every honest, law-abiding person should be armed, and any person convicted of a violent crime should be returned to prison if he (and it's almost always a he) is discovered to be in possession of a firearm.

    Actually, since it seems unreasonable to ask the Government to repeal the over 20,000 gun laws that are already on the books, I would be happy if they would simply stop writing more laws, and ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. Just doing that alone would put thousands of criminals back behind bars.

    It looks like that hated Assault Weapons Ban is about to expire. THANK GOD. Not that it stopped anybody from owning any assault rifles, and definately not any criminals, but it was a sort of spoil-the-party law that the Democrats wrote, and CHICKENSHIT COWARDS in the Republican Party supported.

    President Bush (41) signed it, and it cost him the presidency, the sorry sonofabitch. I was so glad that he was defeated. He deserved it.

    Bill Clinton sold more assault rifles to the conservative right wing than any President in history. Prior to Bill Clinton's administration, I had owned one assault rifle, and sold it. During his administration, I bought several, and lots of ammunition. A friend of mine and I were counting the rifles that we knew of among members of the Texas militia, and we counted enough assault rifles to arm a COMPANY of men, all purchased during the Clinton years. That's well over two hundred rifles. Many, many of those guys owned four rifles or more (at $500 to $1,000 apiece), with which they intend to arm their friends and relatives in a crisis.

    Clinton's gun-grabbing laws sold millions of rifles to concerned Americans. And if it looks like Kerry might win, no doubt, there will be a big upsurge in assault rifle sales again. And ammunition, too.
     
  13. Pinup

    Pinup Senior Member

    Joined: Mar 13, 2003 Messages: 2,208 Likes Received: 0
    <span style='color:silver'>"I believe that every person everywhere has the God-given right to defend themselves"</span>

    • I don't prone passivity in front of aggression just because i don't support the right for any citizen to carry guns, firearms, swords or crossbows of any sort. That's something which should be made clear in this post.

    <span style='color:silver'>"Texas, where I live [skiiiiiiiiiiiip it] and so forth."</span>

    • In this paragraph you say that people are in part allowed to carry guns because some member of authority can 'deputize' them. These don't necessarily have to inter relate.

      In fact, if i were a policeman, the last person i'd chose to follow me on any kind of operation would be the kind of guy who would happen to carry a gun at the present moment because he feels it could be needed in any day life. Just like you say that you shouldn't give political power to those who ask for it ? Call me crazy, i believe in that although there's obviously some kind of moot point in the whole thing. It's basically (i think) a question of judgement, and in a nutshell, i would not give the right to kill to someone who has, through the purchase of a gun projected himself in the actual possibility of killing. Is that clear ? Eh, whatever, just a sidenote.

      Therefore, deputize all you want, and if the law in France were as such (maybe it is ? i never looked it up), if some cop were to hand me a gun to try and take down some nut, maybe i would. But then it is not so much a question of protecting oneself, as it is a question of fulfilling your duty as a citizen at that moment. To that extent, i would never allow my citizens to carry guns on the offchance they may have to use them in a citizen duty. To me, this argument does not stand, therefore, in the whole idea of guns linked to self (AS OPPOSED TO COMMUNITARY) defence.

      Why ? Because that would only work if everyone who bought a gun would use it in such a way. Which is obviously not the case. Guns in the USA satisfy merely an individual since of comfort which defeats the entire purpose. Doesn't that scare you ? The idea that, when someone buys a gun, the basic motivation is "If I AM ever in danger, i will not die but the other one will.", and how subjective is that to be allowed to be incorporated into the greater scheme of a juridiction ? Sure, you may be in some kind of right, ethically, to be the one to outlive this situation, if you are the one who was aggressed, but the actual action of pulling the trigger and taking the other's life does not align. Defending oneself from aggression by anticipating in fatal aggression basically destroys the entire sense of value (what you could see as a form moral of superiority which justifies your using a gun) upon which your ethics are built. Whatever is WRONG is WRONG. I'd be glad to develop this if you disaggree, especially since i will have had a good night's sleep by then.;)

    Admittedly, these instances are rare, [...] I would have waited until they got too close for me to miss before I pulled my pistol.

    • I'm glad your wife made it. However, the only reason why that is because it so happened her aggressors did not carry guns, which they could very well have. In which case, the problem of guns would have appeared most clearly : someone would have killed someone else. Be it those morons or be it your wife, i don't believe in the right of one man to take another's life, based on the whole idea that "you don't want to be the one to go".

      Why do you not die ? Because you didn't pull the trigger out first. But you still pulled the trigger. Killing can not link up to the way law should provide justice.

      CHAIN OF THOUGH WHICH SCARES ME :
      "Someone was about to do something wrong, so I turned him into meat. What does he know ? Nothing, he's meat now. I knew what he was doing was wrong, but he didn't seem to care. So i killed him.
      He was going to do something wrong, so I did it before because I KNEW what he was going to do was wrong. This makes me morally superior"

      To me, it doesn't. This is what the authorization to carry guns is built upon, and i can't believe we can allow human beings to live on such principles.

      Coming back to your point with your wife, it IS lucky she had a gun at the moment. But the only reason why i can say this is because she was the 'victim' and because she did not have to use it. Killing provides no judgement, nor does it act as punishment, as punishment, I believe, comes with awareness and, at some point, hindsight.

      Basically :

      If you can guarantee to me that ONLY defenseless and morally flawless people are allowed to carry guns, granted they NEVER have to use them, then i'll sign straight away. But that's basically the situation in which your wife was in.


    I'd be quite happy to continue discussing this with you. There are several aspects i did not look at in this post, i merely concentrated on this whole illusion of morality which accompanies the carrying of guns for self defence. A lot of other aspects encourage me to go against the Second Amendment.

    Making too huge posts would not benefit the discussion though, i believe, and therefore, i'll pursue with anything else i have to say (which i do) once you get back at me.
     
  14. Pinup

    Pinup Senior Member

    Joined: Mar 13, 2003 Messages: 2,208 Likes Received: 0
    you think gaybashing and general aggression of the weaker would be reduced if everyone carried guns ? why, sure, but would that be because people started understanding why they shouldn't be ? nah, they just wouldn't want to die.

    in other words, would it be ok for me to be a pedophile if i didn't have the ability to molest ?

    would you say that the climate in which the cold war developed was a healthy one ? it's really the same. people didn't get nuked because everyone had nuclear power, so no one used it. but both superpowers had the capacity of flattening their opponent straight off the map, and everyone was dead terrified. every fucking day of their lives, on this very fine balance. this is basically the climate in which you'd support human beings to be living in ? if every one carried guns, no one would use them ? but everone would have the power to take out anyone else ?

    doesn't sound too healthy to me.




    it's nighttime here, and as i said, i'll get back at my other thoughts tomorrow.
     
  15. imported_dowmagik

    imported_dowmagik Senior Member

    Joined: Apr 19, 2001 Messages: 1,904 Likes Received: 1
    kabar you sound like a fucking psycho. and this is coming from someone who loves guns.
     
Top