Guns, guns, guns

Yes, I don't like those fancy new AR-15 parts. This is just an oldschool A2 style. :wink:

I used other music with my other video, and the Youtube sent me a message about Copyright issues. :roll: I just give Fallout 3 music now, looks like the Youtube doesn't are about these.
 
So, who on this board watches NutnFancy's youtube channel?


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNx4GqbuqHM[/youtube]


A Harley and a SKS in the middle of the desert is my idea of orgasm.
 
Yeah, I don't like the guy or his preferences at all, but he makes good videos.

Strange.
 
I sometimes enjoy smoking a joint and after that, shoot a revolver and then start to write.

...

Almost complete off-topic
 
Jansson said:
http://fragcdo.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/rk953.jpg
My "bride" from 13.7.2009 to 8.1.2010...pretty classic design, but it's fun to shoot with..
Click to expand...

Galil? :)

))<>(( said:
So, who on this board watches NutnFancy's youtube channel?
Click to expand...

I'm subscribed to his channel. I don't agree with him and I don't think he is too serious, but his shooting videos and reviews are fun.

There are few things he should change. For example: No more "dude"!

:)
 
I feel sorry for his kid. Honestly, he berates everyone he has on his videos, but they know more what they are talking about than he does. If he went around combat like a little bunny rabbit like he does on the firing line, he'd get a 7.62 between the eyes from 500 yards.
 
))<>(( said:
I feel sorry for his kid. Honestly, he berates everyone he has on his videos, but they know more what they are talking about than he does. If he went around combat like a little bunny rabbit like he does on the firing line, he'd get a 7.62 between the eyes from 500 yards.
Click to expand...

He's not that good, he's mostly winging it. He makes a lot of basic mistakes and his form is clumsy.

None the less I'd love to get with him and do some shooting. He lives in Utah.
 
The way I see it, I think a lot of people are missing an important point: What right does the government have to forbid people to walk around with whatever they want wherever they want? Or, for that matter, to own whatever they want?

Merely owning a tank causes no damage to anyone. Walking around with a rocket launcher on the shoulder may be provocative but noone is harmed by the act of doing so.

Killing or harming someone with it, or destroying property, should obviously be illegal, but no government has any moral right to infringe on:

1) Owning whatever you want (except, obviously, for people).
2) Carrying it with you wherever you want (assuming you don't cause any harm).
3) Using it responsibly (again without causing any harm).

This is a philosophical argument. It does not need to be backed up by hard evidence or history lessons. The point is that noone has any right to forbid anyone from owning anything.
That almost every government does it is actually not relevant and I quote George Orwell on this: "Sanity is not statistical." It doesn't mean something is morally correct just because everyone does it; remember ancient Rome when it was considered more pure to have sex with young boys rather than women, while today it would get you thrown in jail.

Ultimately, the reason for any attempt by a government to prohibit ownership of what they think are dangerous items is to safeguard their own money and power (the two things that everything that any government does in the end boils down to). For the sake of the argument, I will use a related example about the legality of ownership: Drugs are illegal because they lower productivity (increased crime rate is bullshit; it may be true that drugs increase crime because drugs are expensive but the fact that crime increases is not the reason to why they are illegal), id est weakens the economy (money).

Similarly, owning any type of firearms is (completely or partly) illegal because then people can use them against the government (power). In doublespeak, the government says that the real reason is of course that if everyone can own rocket launchers then terrorists are going to blow up your childrens' schools, and you don't want that, do you?
One could argue that if anyone wants to blow up anything they can just go to the supermarket and buy ingredients for nitroglycerine to make dynamite (even if they are not allowed to own rocket launchers), but then we are moving past the point here: They have no moral right in the first place and that's the end of it; Whether people can kill eachother anyway or not is not relevant for the argument.

If you kill someone, then you are the criminal. The gun is not the criminal and owning the gun is not a criminal act.

If you are allowed to own anything then it follows that you're allowed to own atomic bombs and the ebola virus too. The problem with this is not that people as a direct consequence will detonate them and cause massive destruction - the problem is why anyone would want to detonate them in the first place. If you are homicidal enough to want to do that then you've obviously had to endure something that you shouldn't have had to endure (which, in the end, is the government's fault. Either that, or you're an opportunistic asshole who should be dead, i.e. probably working for the government), which is where the fault is.

Fat Man didn't destroy Nagasaki - the US government did. The bomb itself was never responsible. North Korea developing nukes is not a problem unless someone pressures them to use them. We can apply the formula here too: The UN - the world's self-appointed government - doesn't want North Korea to have any power, so they want to take away their right to have nukes, similarly to how a local government wants to take away their citizens' right to have guns while still having them themselves.
 
You are right. I don't agree with you about the drugs, but yes, the government should step back a little bit. At least they should re-read the Constitution sometimes, especially the 1st and the 2nd Amendment.
 
Harold said:
This is a philosophical argument. It does not need to be backed up by hard evidence or history lessons.
Click to expand...
At least you plainly state that your argument is a bare assertion fallacy.

Harold said:
The way I see it, I think a lot of people are missing an important point: What right does the government have to forbid people to walk around with whatever they want wherever they want? Or, for that matter, to own whatever they want?
...
Killing or harming someone with it, or destroying property, should obviously be illegal, but no government has any moral right to infringe on:

1) Owning whatever you want (except, obviously, for people).
2) Carrying it with you wherever you want (assuming you don't cause any harm).
3) Using it responsibly (again without causing any harm).

This is a philosophical argument. It does not need to be backed up by hard evidence or history lessons. The point is that noone has any right to forbid anyone from owning anything.
That almost every government does it is actually not relevant and I quote George Orwell on this: "Sanity is not statistical." It doesn't mean something is morally correct just because everyone does it; remember ancient Rome when it was considered more pure to have sex with young boys rather than women, while today it would get you thrown in jail.
Click to expand...
Arguments for law based on morality are fundamentally flawed as the presenter of the argument makes the assumption that their set of morals is both universal and is right, no matter what. The former is obviously not true, you prove that yourself with your example of the Romans having sex with young boys but it's even more true in the modern world with the amount of immigration from around the world to most countries in the world, especially the US. If someone were to say that because it was morally correct for them to eat other people for every meal of the day, thus people should be allowed to kill people or raise and kill people for food, would that be fair to make into a law? What about slavery? If you can own anything, why can't you own other people? For that matter, why should it be illegal to kill other people?

The issue comes down to providing a reasonable level of protection for the entire populace. Allowing people to own anything including nuclear weapons and highly contagious diseases without any regulations is anarchy and would result in massive death. There is also the question of why does anyone need to own such things? A nuclear weapon is only used for one thing, large numbers of people with massive environmental side effects. Why do people need to own ebola? Some labs need it for research but John Smith? He can't do anything productive with it and if he mishandles it he could create and outbreak which would kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of people.

The reason you prevent this is in order to maintain and maximize order and individual rights, as killing another person deprives that person of their rights. Where exactly to draw the line is debatable as it's a complex question of how much liberty are you saving by putting in limitations and regulations. It seems to me like your ideal society is one which only outlaws things you find morally objectionable but has no preventative measures in place to prevent those actions from happening. There is such a thing as a healthy balance and correct me if my assumption's wrong.

Harold said:
Similarly, owning any type of firearms is (completely or partly) illegal because then people can use them against the government (power).
Click to expand...
The reason owning certain types of firearms is illegal (or all in some countries) is because they are designed to kill animals, many are designed specifically to kill humans. Why does any private citizen need an automatic weapon? Shooting targets for recreational fun? Sure, fair enough. What are those weapons designed for and what else can they be used for? Killing other people. Can most automatic weapons rendered purely semi-automatic or many semi-automatic weapons be converted to be automatic? Sure, some quite easily. Honestly I don't really know how beneficial it is to outlaw automatic weapons as it may provide less funding to criminal organizations to sell them through legal outlets but it's conceptually sound. I haven't seen the data and given the framing of your argument, I doubt you have either.

Harold said:
In doublespeak, the government says that the real reason is of course that if everyone can own rocket launchers then terrorists are going to blow up your childrens' schools, and you don't want that, do you?
One could argue that if anyone wants to blow up anything they can just go to the supermarket and buy ingredients for nitroglycerine to make dynamite (even if they are not allowed to own rocket launchers), but then we are moving past the point here: They have no moral right in the first place and that's the end of it; Whether people can kill eachother anyway or not is not relevant for the argument.
Click to expand...
There's a fundamental difference between the two as rocket launchers are only used for destroying things/people while those chemicals have other productive purposes. I would have no problem with select gun ranges having such weapons or with the US military allowing people to pay to fire those weapons but there really isn't a valid reason for people to own a RPG. If it's about recreation then I see no reason why people would object to having them limited to firing ranges.

Harold said:
Drugs are illegal because they lower productivity (increased crime rate is bullshit; it may be true that drugs increase crime because drugs are expensive but the fact that crime increases is not the reason to why they are illegal), id est weakens the economy (money).
Click to expand...
Drugs are illegal because many people have (or had at the time of the law) moral objections to them (think prohibition), because of the guise of crime (looking at prohibition, it's likely that organized crime would make less profit from them if it was legalized), and to prevent people from damaging themselves. It's entirely different as drugs are almost always self inflicted damage (ie the user makes a conscious choice to take the drug) rather than guns which are used to directly inflict damage on another individual. There are also environmental questions (mostly property damage) of producing drugs which could be regulated if they were legalized, an issue not inherent in firearms.

Harold said:
If you are allowed to own anything then it follows that you're allowed to own atomic bombs and the ebola virus too. The problem with this is not that people as a direct consequence will detonate them and cause massive destruction - the problem is why anyone would want to detonate them in the first place. If you are homicidal enough to want to do that then you've obviously had to endure something that you shouldn't have had to endure (which, in the end, is the government's fault. Either that, or you're an opportunistic asshole who should be dead, i.e. probably working for the government), which is where the fault is.
Click to expand...
Ya man, the government is evil and everyone who works for them is a homicidal maniac man. Game over man, game over!
 
At least you plainly state that your argument is a bare assertion fallacy.
Click to expand...
Whatever. It doesn't mean I'm not right.

Arguments for law based on morality are fundamentally flawed as the presenter of the argument makes the assumption that their set of morals is both universal and is right, no matter what.
Click to expand...
Morality is an extension of the laws of nature. The is no randomness or interpretation. Either it is right, or it isn't. People can of course have different opinions in which case either they are wrong and I'm right, or I'm wrong and someone else is right (which is rare because I'm usually right ;)). Two conflicting views cannot simultaneously be right.

The former is obviously not true, you prove that yourself with your example of the Romans having sex with young boys but it's even more true in the modern world with the amount of immigration from around the world to most countries in the world, especially the US.
Click to expand...
About the example about raping children: What I meant was that 2000 years ago, they were doing it even though it was wrong (i.e. they were wrong but they thought it was right so they acted on what they thought was best). Today it's a crime, which is right. How this relates to whether guns should be illegal or not is: Today guns are (completely or partly, depending on where you live) illegal to own, which is wrong. This might change in the future when humanity and civilization evolves. That was my point.

If someone were to say that because it was morally correct for them to eat other people for every meal of the day, thus people should be allowed to kill people or raise and kill people for food, would that be fair to make into a law? What about slavery? If you can own anything, why can't you own other people? For that matter, why should it be illegal to kill other people?
Click to expand...
Slavery: I specified that the exception would be slaves. (Because I had the feeling that someone would bring that up... We're discussing soulless objects - i.e. firearms - here, NOT people.)

Cannibalism is an entirely different topic, I don't see how it ties into gun ownership.

The issue comes down to providing a reasonable level of protection for the entire populace. Allowing people to own anything including nuclear weapons and highly contagious diseases without any regulations is anarchy and would result in massive death. There is also the question of why does anyone need to own such things? A nuclear weapon is only used for one thing, large numbers of people with massive environmental side effects. Why do people need to own ebola? Some labs need it for research but John Smith? He can't do anything productive with it and if he mishandles it he could create and outbreak which would kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of people.

The reason you prevent this is in order to maintain and maximize order and individual rights, as killing another person deprives that person of their rights. Where exactly to draw the line is debatable as it's a complex question of how much liberty are you saving by putting in limitations and regulations. It seems to me like your ideal society is one which only outlaws things you find morally objectionable but has no preventative measures in place to prevent those actions from happening. There is such a thing as a healthy balance and correct me if my assumption's wrong.

[...]

If it's about recreation then I see no reason why people would object to having them limited to firing ranges.
Click to expand...
You are thinking too far here.

The question was: Is it right or wrong to forbid people from owning certain items (such as weapons, WMDs, et c)?

If you are even CONSIDERING that the government might have a good reason to forbid it, then you have already accepted that THEY HAVE THE RIGHT to forbid it, as long as they can come up with a good enough reason.

Why should the bullies (=the government) have the final say over you only because they have more power and the gestapo to back them up?

If a normal, life-worthy person wants to blow up the world, then you can bet that he has a pretty good reason for it. Why is his reason any worse than the governments', who can own the ebola virus and nuclear weapons?

The reason owning certain types of firearms is illegal (or all in some countries) is because they are designed to kill animals, many are designed specifically to kill humans.

[...]

Ya man, the government is evil and everyone who works for them is a homicidal maniac man. Game over man, game over!
Click to expand...
Sorry. This is naive, wishful thinking. The government is only interested in preserving their own well-being, not to look out for the well-being of others. When they want to ban firearms, they want to do so because they're afraid that someone might do another JFK. Don't buy into their bullshit about how they want to do it to protect you from other dangerous people - they only want to protect themselves from people who might stop for a moment to think about who the real dictator is, and in this case they are doing so by painting someone else (the "other, dangerous people") out as the devil.

If you can own a rocket launcher then you can blow up corrupt politicians with it because you're dissatisfied with how they abuse their power (the will to do so follows naturally from being bent over by them), which makes you dangerous for them. If they would actually be doing what's best for the people then noone would want to blow them up in the first place, and they would never even get the idea of forbidding you from owning a rocket launcher.
 
Harold said:
The way I see it, I think a lot of people are missing an important point: What right does the government have to forbid people to walk around with whatever they want wherever they want? Or, for that matter, to own whatever they want?

Merely owning a tank causes no damage to anyone. Walking around with a rocket launcher on the shoulder may be provocative but noone is harmed by the act of doing so.

Killing or harming someone with it, or destroying property, should obviously be illegal, but no government has any moral right to infringe on:

1) Owning whatever you want (except, obviously, for people).
2) Carrying it with you wherever you want (assuming you don't cause any harm).
3) Using it responsibly (again without causing any harm).

This is a philosophical argument. It does not need to be backed up by hard evidence or history lessons. The point is that noone has any right to forbid anyone from owning anything.
That almost every government does it is actually not relevant and I quote George Orwell on this: "Sanity is not statistical." It doesn't mean something is morally correct just because everyone does it; remember ancient Rome when it was considered more pure to have sex with young boys rather than women, while today it would get you thrown in jail.

Ultimately, the reason for any attempt by a government to prohibit ownership of what they think are dangerous items is to safeguard their own money and power (the two things that everything that any government does in the end boils down to). For the sake of the argument, I will use a related example about the legality of ownership: Drugs are illegal because they lower productivity (increased crime rate is bullshit; it may be true that drugs increase crime because drugs are expensive but the fact that crime increases is not the reason to why they are illegal), id est weakens the economy (money).

Similarly, owning any type of firearms is (completely or partly) illegal because then people can use them against the government (power). In doublespeak, the government says that the real reason is of course that if everyone can own rocket launchers then terrorists are going to blow up your childrens' schools, and you don't want that, do you?
One could argue that if anyone wants to blow up anything they can just go to the supermarket and buy ingredients for nitroglycerine to make dynamite (even if they are not allowed to own rocket launchers), but then we are moving past the point here: They have no moral right in the first place and that's the end of it; Whether people can kill eachother anyway or not is not relevant for the argument.

If you kill someone, then you are the criminal. The gun is not the criminal and owning the gun is not a criminal act.

If you are allowed to own anything then it follows that you're allowed to own atomic bombs and the ebola virus too. The problem with this is not that people as a direct consequence will detonate them and cause massive destruction - the problem is why anyone would want to detonate them in the first place. If you are homicidal enough to want to do that then you've obviously had to endure something that you shouldn't have had to endure (which, in the end, is the government's fault. Either that, or you're an opportunistic asshole who should be dead, i.e. probably working for the government), which is where the fault is.

Fat Man didn't destroy Nagasaki - the US government did. The bomb itself was never responsible. North Korea developing nukes is not a problem unless someone pressures them to use them. We can apply the formula here too: The UN - the world's self-appointed government - doesn't want North Korea to have any power, so they want to take away their right to have nukes, similarly to how a local government wants to take away their citizens' right to have guns while still having them themselves.
Click to expand...

Ah, the usual "guns don't kill people, death kills people" fallacy, complete with the usual unfounded government-hatred.

Tell me, if you're so anti-government, why are you even using a government-created network called the Internet?
 
Oh noo...

This is great. "If you use Internet, you must love governments." Hey dude, this is like when people say "if you support the national health care, you must love communism". :roll:

Or "if you support the US government, you support communism, because the USA and the Soviet Union were allies in the WW2."

Or "if you buy electronics, you must love Japan and the other Asian countries. Many Asian countries are communist countries, so you must love communism."

What a bunch of b.s. If you have no point, just don't post in the "Guns, guns, guns" topic, please. :roll: If you don't like guns, why would you post in a gun topic anyway?
 
Harold said:
Morality is an extension of the laws of nature. The is no randomness or interpretation. Either it is right, or it isn't. People can of course have different opinions in which case either they are wrong and I'm right, or I'm wrong and someone else is right (which is rare because I'm usually right ). Two conflicting views cannot simultaneously be right.
Click to expand...
I'm so gratified you managed to solve ages of philosophical debate all by yourself.
Harold said:
Today guns are (completely or partly, depending on where you live) illegal to own, which is wrong.
Click to expand...
No, it is right.

See what I did there?
Harold said:
If you are even CONSIDERING that the government might have a good reason to forbid it, then you have already accepted that THEY HAVE THE RIGHT to forbid it, as long as they can come up with a good enough reason.
Click to expand...
There are several philosophical and governmental theories on why governments have this right. The most famous one would be Rousseau's social contract. The idea is that the people give the government power to act on their behalf because the people themselves cannot domany of the things a government can do. Instating a monopoly of violence is usually seen as a key element of any government, as the government needs that monopoly to prevent mob rule.

Harold said:
Sorry. This is naive, wishful thinking. The government is only interested in preserving their own well-being, not to look out for the well-being of others.
Click to expand...
Given that their livelihood depends on being re-elected, they should be interested in appeasing their electorate.

Harold said:
When they want to ban firearms, they want to do so because they're afraid that someone might do another JFK. Don't buy into their bullshit about how they want to do it to protect you from other dangerous people - they only want to protect themselves from people who might stop for a moment to think about who the real dictator is, and in this case they are doing so by painting someone else (the "other, dangerous people") out as the devil.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, this is paranoid, conspiracy theory type thinking. You are wrong.

the_cpl said:
If you don't like guns, why would you post in a gun topic anyway?
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm wondering why y ou constantly posted your guns in a *gun debate* thread.
 
Sander said:
the_cpl said:
If you don't like guns, why would you post in a gun topic anyway?
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm wondering why y ou constantly posted your guns in a *gun debate* thread.
Click to expand...

I post in the other gun thread, then.

I hope when the liberals ban all the guns in the US too, they ban the cars. Those damned cars kill 42,000 people in the US, each year. (Firearm accidents: average 700/year in the US )

Don't forget the knives! http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=a2bb30ecf4f91972

Baseball. That's a killer sport. Ban the baseball! http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=baseball+bat+murder&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=a2bb30ecf4f91972

:roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top