Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS


Guest Sparoism

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Sparoism
Originally posted by John Birch@Dec 28 2005, 11:43 PM

I think sf1 and kabar are one and the same...

Here's a scary thought...the 12 oz. board is sort of like the Borg.

 

We're all plugged into it via a cybernetic system, and it's slowly starting to create a uniform behavior/thought process in all of us through subliminal messages and corrective measures by our overseers (AKA "the mods").

 

Hmmmm.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Sparoism@Dec 29 2005, 07:46 AM

No, I doubt that. Angel is more of an anarchist, Kabar is more of a "when the shit goes down, I'm gonna be ready" kind of guy.

 

I respect Angel's views, and understand where he's coming from. The thing is, Americans are simply unable to be responsible for their actions 100% of the time. I'm no law and order type, but you have to see the logic behind protecting people from themselves.

 

Angel may be able to do it. I doubt his neighbors could.

 

 

Yes but what ALOT of people forget is that nobody can possibly be held accountable for their actions 100% of the time. Why do you think our Forefathers decided that criminals would receive the right to a trial by a jury of their peirs? (I.E. if somebody breaks into your house and commences raping your wife or daughter or whatever... and you bust in and kill that person (usually with a gun, by the way) ... you are not supposed to be subjected to some mandatory sentence, rather the "jury" takes factors into consideration and decides whether you are even guilty or not.

 

And another thing ALOT of people forget is the fact that our forefathers fought and died for the belief that we as a people are born to be free to live a life of liberty in pursuit of hapiness, free from the restricting confines of enslavement that an overbareing government by nature imposes. And there is a reason why they drew up a Constitution that limits government from opressing the people of this nation. And a reason why they made it known that the PEOPLE shall have the right to keep and bare arms in order to hold enough power as to prevent this nation from the tyrany in which we are currantly witnessing.

 

 

 

(I probably misspelled a word or two. so what. fuck you.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Sparoism@Dec 29 2005, 07:32 AM

This may be the first time in 12 oz. history where Kabar and SF1 actually AGREE on something.

 

Maybe I did the impossible...or maybe there isn't a whole lot of difference in what they think, just where the two of them are coming from.

 

Either way, it's remarkable.

 

I'm a little shocked myself, but not disappointed.

 

I taught my daughter to shoot a .22 rifle at age six, a .22 revolver at age seven, and a .38 revolver at age eight. When she was fourteen, she was accompanying me on night ops training in the militia.

 

She will admit today that her real interest was the 15 and 16 year old militia boys that were there with their fathers. What she doesn't know is that all of us Dads agreed beforehand to bring the kids, so the boys were participating so they could see the girls and the girls were participating in the hopes of seeing the boys, and they all learned how to shoot, patrol at night, set up and conduct ambushes and field-strip/clean an AR15 rifle, LOL. We watched them like hawks.

 

My kid was exposed to firearms her entire life, growing up. I have always kept them locked up, except for my carry pistol. She knew that ANY TIME, day or night, she could say "Dad, let's look at some guns," and I would drag them all out (unloaded, of course) and we'd talk about guns till she was sick of it. And when she was ready to stop, I always dragged out one more. Guns hold no fascination for my kid. She has fired every gun I own numerous times. She checks every gun she picks up instantly to see if it is loaded. She NEVER points the muzzle anywhere but in a safe direction. When she was four, she could recite the NRA Gun Safety rules for kids who find a firearm: 1.) STOP! 2.) DON'T TOUCH! 3.) TELL AN ADULT! At age 13 she fired a 236/250 on the Texas State Concealed Handgun License course (too young to actually be licensed, of course.)

 

I have seen gun owners do so pretty stupid things with guns, but most of them were yahoos to start with. A friend of mine in college suffered a terrible facial disfigurement from a hunting accident at age 14. He was shot in the face with a .410 gauge shotgun. (This is a very small bore shotgun.) He and a another boy were out hunting rabbits, and they decided to cross a fence. They both knew better than to cross a fence with loaded guns, but they were kids and thought it was a stupid rule to have to unload them. My acquaintance handed his .410 to his buddy, and climbed through the strands of barbed wire. Once on the other side, his friend handed him the shotgun muzzle first. As he passed the shotgun through the barbed-wire fence, the trigger caught on the wire. The shotgun was cocked and the safety was off--my friend was shot in the face.

He was knocked unconcious by the blast. His hunting buddy was so shocked and terrified that he ran home, but couldn't talk once he got there. The neighbors followed him back to the field and brought the injured boy out to a highway where he could be picked up by an ambulance.

I asked him if he still owned guns, and he said "Yes, but they aren't fun anymore like before I got shot. I don't hunt for fun. I just own guns for self-defense."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sparoism

Misspell away. As long as you get the point across, that's all I really care about.

 

I work in the judicial system, and sometimes wonder about the efficacy of jury trials over a panel system at the civil and District level. This would be similar to the Circuit and Supreme courts, where a panel of judges hears the case, and has to reach a majority vote on the disposition of the case based on the merits. I've seen too many slam-dunk cases get thrown out over jury tampering or bias...juries are supposed to be impartial members of the community deciding on what could amount to life-or-death situations, and the decisions of the panel are not to be colored by personal opinion or belief, ESPECIALLY in cases where the matter tends to be heavily polarized.

 

Yeah, right.

 

Well, it's just one of my many opinions.

 

I am a constitutionalist, until people use it as a defense for their behavior. You can use it as a basis for your opinion, and I'll never say a word about it. When it's interpreted as a "get out of jail free card", or "this is what Thomas Jefferson really meant for me as a free American citizen to do" defense, then I have to wonder if it's being abused or not.

 

I'm not disagreeing or calling anyone out, but personal responsibility plays into the issue a lot more than anything else does. I believe the architects of this country had NO IDEA of the abuses that would occur to the system/society in the centuries to come. Not that it would have changed much about the way they set things up, but still...

 

Besides, people were usually hung for heinous crimes within a week of being tried back when the Constitution was being written, and that was with a jury. The sense of right and wrong was a lot more black and white then. You couldn't fuck around, and get some famous lawyer to get you off.

 

Things have changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sparoism

In case you were wondering, two things-

 

The panel system I described above is in place in Sweden, and it works just fine. Trial delay is unheard of unless the case is so complex that it raises too many questions of law to be decided in a short amount of time.

 

Also, a lot of the judges I have met don't tend to make their decisions based on their personal opinions, they judge cases they hear on the facts presented to them.

 

That's how they stay on the bench.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Sparoism@Dec 29 2005, 08:48 AM

Also, a lot of the judges I have met don't tend to make their decisions based on their personal opinions, they judge cases they hear on the facts presented to them.

 

That's how they stay on the bench.

 

Not where I'm from! That's for damn sure!

the judge almost always kisses the prosecutors ass. and then uses that fact to keep themslves on the bench.

 

Maybe I SHOULD move. :yuck:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sparoism

I could see that happening there. It's probably the old boy's network in action.

 

Well, it's expensive here, and the graff laws are shitty. Funny how those two tend to go hand in hand.

 

Once I get used to the idea of cold weather, Sweden is the place to be. I could teach English, I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Besides, people were usually hung for heinous crimes within a week of being tried back when the Constitution was being written, and that was with a jury. The sense of right and wrong was a lot more black and white then. You couldn't fuck around, and get some famous lawyer to get you off. "

 

this is a very very very good point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess i'm confortable with guns being a major part of makind's eventual destruction

i can admit that.

i really don't know how i feel about them, except that they've been used against me enough times to know that they hurt me more than help me.

 

even when confronted with someone shooting at me and being armed myself, i didn't want to shoot them. i'd much rather shoot myself.

 

i guess it's a personality thing.

 

the last gun i fired was an AK. they are fun, but hell, anything that can pump out rounds like that does not need to exist.

but it does. and i'm not sure that the guys who founded our country had any idea what they were giving to the average person..who doesn't appear to have the mental capability to understand the destructive power of firearms.

 

i may like to argue viewpoints, but i do not hold steadfast to many of them.

i don't have a position on this issue, as i stated before.

and being a scientist, i know that statistics at least give a window on a issue.

if you would like to deny their validity, i guess my part here is done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"and being a scientist, i know that statistics at least give a window on a issue.

if you would like to deny their validity, i guess my part here is done. "

 

im definately not discounting them. im just saying that i could pull out my copy of called "the bias against guns" and could literally blow any "anti gun" statistics out of the water.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sparoism

I'm sorry to hear that, Symbols, no bullshit. That's a shitty place to be. A lot of how I feel about cars gas to do with having messengered and A) seen close friends get killed by them and B) coming close to death because someone couldn't talk on the phone, drink a latte, and DRIVE A CAR simultaneously....but, I have no quarrel with ambulance drivers, for instance. Personally, I think the world would be a safer place if less people drove, but that's just not gonna happen...it starts with me making a decision to not drive, and realizing that's about all i can do.

 

I wasn't trying to use statistics to invalidate where you're coming from, but as a way to illustrate my point.

 

Personal responsibility is still a major part of this. That includes your right to choose whether or not to own a gun, or use it, should the need arise.

 

I'm not selling anything here. I just wanted to know where some people stood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

indeed

 

personal responsibility is ESSENTIAL for gun ownership, in my opinion

 

and it seems that a minority of people in our society are willing to take a good hard look at themselves and their families, and take responsibility for who they are and what they do.

 

there's a gun in my possession, as there has been for some time.

it isn't mine and i'm not connected to it, but i've got one

and believe, if i ever have to use it outside of my home, i will not be taking responsibility for what happens if i can help it.

 

i'm not too shy to look at the nasty side of human nature, i've got plenty of it in myself.

maybe that's why i don't really like them, i know exactly what i can do with them

 

just the other day i was waiting for this fat ass bitch of a dumb cashier to ring my shit up at the grovery store, and as she was taking her sweet old time i was fantasizing about blowing her brains all over the register.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sparoism

Well, shooting cashiers.....I guess that's a little different.

 

I am a lot mellower than I used to be. I realized that people like that have a very limited impact on my life, overall. I don't know if that helps, but...

 

Sadly, it is a sign of the times when people don't want to admit that the state is a lot more responsible for their actions than they are.

 

However, if the state is responsible for their actions, then it gets out of the business of governance and becomes an arbiter of morality. THAT is something that scares me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not like i need help dealing with life

i do ok.

i just sometimes think about killing people and myself.

well, maybe more than sometimes.

 

i am a very conflicted person.

i have a love/hate relationship with humanity.

2005 really reaffirmed it.

 

i'm not interested in legislating morality

i don't think the goverment should be able to tell people whether or not they can commit suicide, or have an abortion, or own guns.

the government needs to get out of people's personal lives.

but i do wish they would get more involved with CORPORATE responsibility

because some of that can be legislated.

 

so i don't care if gun companies have to redesign shit to be more reliably safe, or restrict sales of cedrtain types of guns which are not necessarily for home defense (unless you're insane) ..like a 50 cal.

 

Barrett82A1.jpg

 

i mean, i could own this gun

but it's a very bad idea. and i know that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

firearms_mg_m2_03.jpg

Not everybody is metally stable enough to own a firearms. Some us are real quick to put a round in somebody reguardless. I know for a fact, theres a few people on my shit list, that if I catch them at the right place and time, i'm going to turn them into swiss cheese..

But i guess thats why people want to ban guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sparoism
Originally posted by symbols@Dec 29 2005, 11:35 AM

it's not like i need help dealing with life

i do ok.

i just sometimes think about killing people and myself.

well, maybe more than sometimes.

 

i am a very conflicted person.

i have a love/hate relationship with humanity.

2005 really reaffirmed it.

 

i'm not interested in legislating morality

i don't think the goverment should be able to tell people whether or not they can commit suicide, or have an abortion, or own guns.

the government needs to get out of people's personal lives.

but i do wish they would get more involved with CORPORATE responsibility

because some of that can be legislated.

 

so i don't care if gun companies have to redesign shit to be more reliably safe, or restrict sales of cedrtain types of guns which are not necessarily for home defense (unless you're insane) ..like a 50 cal.

 

Barrett82A1.jpg

 

i mean, i could own this gun

but it's a very bad idea. and i know that.

 

Wow, if I had that for home protection....I mean, how much velocity does a bullet that size HAVE? My guess is, quite a lot...and not much in its way would slow it down.

 

Speaking of personal responsibility and corporate greed intersecting, there was a guilty plea in the Enron case today. I just saw the headline when I was on my way to the store.

 

Who's next? Halliburton admitting to war profiteering?

Link to post
Share on other sites

a .50 cal is essential. but in reality, even in the military, they are not used to kill people exclusively. sure a few here and there, they are taking out big things. tanks, jeeps, setting off explosives, you know shit like that. a stock barrett .50 m107 is on a good day a 3 minute gun. what does this mean? at a 1000 yards, well in its effective velocity range, it will shoot a 30" group. this is not sniping quality. but hey, they are damn cool, and it essentially boils down to "what part of infringed dont you understand." :innocent:

 

I think overall i can agree with what symbols is saying above. however i am uncomfortable with the reguard to regulating morality. while i agree the federal government shouldnt have its hand in anything not talked about in the constitution, such as legalising abortion, banning drugs, etc etc, I do believe the states have the right to do what the people want, and it shouldnt concern the federal government what they do nor should it concern the other states. but not legislating morality is kind of a bad wording because then there might still be segregation, lynchings, slavery, etc etc. just a thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting.

i hadn't thought about it like that.

 

clearly i think though, corporations in general have very little regard for anything except their bottom line. i think that's dangerous.

then you run into the problem of our overly litigious society. and an overreaching govt

not every philosophical problem can be solved with a law.

 

as far as 50 cals.

we know there are mofos out there that have em in their homes, and are fighting for the right of private citizens to have them

i'm not really talking military use here.

 

 

this shit weirds me the FUCK out

 

"The campaign segregates large caliber rifles, in this case .50 calibers, in the attempt to convince people that the mere size of a cartridge is somehow more prone to criminal misuse or more dangerous than another. Much like the ill conceived thought that a rifle with a pistol grip was somehow more dangerous than another."

 

http://www.barrettrifles.com/

 

the movie that plays when you go to the site is a little freaky

i mean, do these guys have like one inch penises or what?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with all of ronnie barretts press releases.

its like the assault weapons ban. everyone thought it would do all this good, keep guns out of criminals hands, stop killings, etc etc. it didnt do shit. all it did was keep me and robj from buying an ak or ar15 with... something like 3 out of the 10 banned features. im sure kabar could elaborate on this, in cant remember the specifics. but, big whoop they were regulating an ar 15 from having a 30 round mag AND a bayonet lug, with a pistol grip, when in reality, an almost insignificant amount of gun crime is done with these evil black assault weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by angelofdeath@Dec 29 2005, 05:46 PM

man, this is one of the few subjects i can yap about for years.

if i had an extra 7500k laying around my man hood would really be pumped up............

:haha: :haha:

fuck yeah,, bigger guns, bigger truck, even bigger ding dong.. I told somebody the other day I wanted try out Levitra just to see if it works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...