Polite discussion

Posts that are locked but open for perusal.

Moderator: phpBB2 - Administrators

Polite discussion

Postby LibraLabRat on Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:23 am

As my gun thread got locked, I will simplify it to one question at a time.

First question:

Which is more preferrable: more laws that are weak or unenforceable, or stricter enforcement of current gun law?

Second Question: Should each and every town, city, and state be able to make its own firearms related laws that are different than the Federal Governments? If so, should they be allowed to lessen controls that the Fed has in place, or only apply more stringent laws?

Third question: If you were assaulted, would that change your opinion on gun ownership? Why or why not?
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby LibraLabRat on Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:19 am

I found it. I am trying really hard......but when people refuse to even learn the rudimentaries of the discussion, how am I supposed to discuss it?
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby Qwertyuiopasd on Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:01 am

I think it might be that you come off as being rude, because you're rather... agressive, and even on a forum, intimidating.
daftbeaker wrote:But if I stop bugging you I'll have to go back to arguing with Qwerty about whether beauty is truth and precisely what we both mean by 'purple' :moon:


Any statistical increase in the usage of the :idiot: emoticon since becoming Admin should not be considered significant, meaningful, or otherwise cause for worry.
User avatar
Qwertyuiopasd
Admirable Admiral Qwerty
 
Posts: 14360
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby LibraLabRat on Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:16 am

The funniest thing is that in person, I come across as more of an endearing smart ass. The military thing I think gives people this image that I am some sort of ass kicking thug.....

Im not. I just dont understand how someone can honestly claim that if attacked, they dont feel that they have the right to resist and defend themselves.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby Qwertyuiopasd on Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:21 am

thats not what they said... they said they'd want self defense, but not neccisarily a gun. there are other effective methods.
daftbeaker wrote:But if I stop bugging you I'll have to go back to arguing with Qwerty about whether beauty is truth and precisely what we both mean by 'purple' :moon:


Any statistical increase in the usage of the :idiot: emoticon since becoming Admin should not be considered significant, meaningful, or otherwise cause for worry.
User avatar
Qwertyuiopasd
Admirable Admiral Qwerty
 
Posts: 14360
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby LibraLabRat on Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:35 am

This is true. However, there has not been any other item in human history that is such a field leveler as the hand gun.

How else would a 98 lb woman be able to effectively defend herself against a 225lb male attacker?

I know that there are those who think that martial arts can defeat anyone....but that is not true. Brute force and mass is an important factor in hand to hand combat.

Also, pepper spray, stun guns, ect. are considerably weaker in civilian models than military and law enforcement use.

I know from experience that being tazed or hit with pepper spray, while painful, is not necessarily incapacitating.

I am just trying to inject some honesty into the discussion. I do not understand how someone can claim equality and empowerment for women, while at the same time holding on to antiquated myths that a woman with a gun will not know how to defend herself.

A gun equalizes the situation when talking about differences in size between male and female.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby Qwertyuiopasd on Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:43 am

LibraLabRat wrote:How else would a 98 lb woman be able to effectively defend herself against a 225lb male attacker? .


she could kick him in the balls....

but I agree with you, just trying to make sure they were correctly represented. but lets take this to the other thread. lest the Dee Dee beast get angry.
daftbeaker wrote:But if I stop bugging you I'll have to go back to arguing with Qwerty about whether beauty is truth and precisely what we both mean by 'purple' :moon:


Any statistical increase in the usage of the :idiot: emoticon since becoming Admin should not be considered significant, meaningful, or otherwise cause for worry.
User avatar
Qwertyuiopasd
Admirable Admiral Qwerty
 
Posts: 14360
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby LibraLabRat on Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:11 am

AGREED.
:fsm_rock:
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby DeadPoet on Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:01 am

And locked... before someone accidentally posts in here...
User avatar
DeadPoet
The Resident Resident
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:20 pm
Location: Frankfurt, Germany


Return to Locked Posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron