When SHTF, which of these weapons would you choose?

[shikaki]

I think I can answer that more truthfully then he will.

It's no different then the jealousy of the left and money. Someone else has more of it,so it cant possibly be fair.
And of course if the SHTF they would become totally defenseless ...and that scares them.

Believe I already answered his question.. Hopefully you read...

For the record, I'm far from defenseless. Never remembered stating my political affiliation. And I thought this sort of board was about stimulating the noodle. If by not agreeing with all comments means I'm a liberal, then not sure how to respond to that. Sorry that drooling seems better than thinking!! Didn't realize that if you are conservative, that meant you had to be conservative about all issues.

You're the one who entered this thread like an a-hole.
Forgive me for jumping to an obvious conclusion.

I find it odd you would go from defining people who owned fire arms for defense as nuts.
To owning an arsenal. Yeah OK....

Derogatory and assumptive.. You seem a highly evolved and well rounded chap!!

Not all nuts own weapons, but some nuts do. The difficult part is determining which are nuts..

 

[WinterBorn]

Believe I already answered his question.. Hopefully you read...

For the record, I'm far from defenseless. Never remembered stating my political affiliation. And I thought this sort of board was about stimulating the noodle. If by not agreeing with all comments means I'm a liberal, then not sure how to respond to that. Sorry that drooling seems better than thinking!! Didn't realize that if you are conservative, that meant you had to be conservative about all issues.

You're the one who entered this thread like an a-hole.
Forgive me for jumping to an obvious conclusion.

I find it odd you would go from defining people who owned fire arms for defense as nuts.
To owning an arsenal. Yeah OK....

Derogatory and assumptive.. You seem a highly evolved and well rounded chap!!

Not all nuts own weapons, but some nuts do. The difficult part is determining which are nuts..

And the best course of action is to be prepared for either and able to take care of your own.

 

[shikaki]

Winterborn.. I appreciate the civil discussion we have entertained. You have had good points and I hope you feel the same. When the world has become so mundane and predictable, it is nice to explore thoughts outside of ourselves!!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Believe I already answered his question.. Hopefully you read...

For the record, I'm far from defenseless. Never remembered stating my political affiliation. And I thought this sort of board was about stimulating the noodle. If by not agreeing with all comments means I'm a liberal, then not sure how to respond to that. Sorry that drooling seems better than thinking!! Didn't realize that if you are conservative, that meant you had to be conservative about all issues.

You're the one who entered this thread like an a-hole.
Forgive me for jumping to an obvious conclusion.

I find it odd you would go from defining people who owned fire arms for defense as nuts.
To owning an arsenal. Yeah OK....

Derogatory and assumptive.. You seem a highly evolved and well rounded chap!!

Not all nuts own weapons, but some nuts do. The difficult part is determining which are nuts..

Derogatory and assumptive? Funny you should mention that.........actually I'm stunned,but whatever.
And you can drop the ridiculous prose,it doesnt make you sound any smarter.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Winterborn.. I appreciate the civil discussion we have entertained. You have had good points and I hope you feel the same. When the world has become so mundane and predictable, it is nice to explore thoughts outside of ourselves!!

Now you get the concept?

 

[WinterBorn]

Winterborn.. I appreciate the civil discussion we have entertained. You have had good points and I hope you feel the same. When the world has become so mundane and predictable, it is nice to explore thoughts outside of ourselves!!

I have enjoyed the discourse. Now if I could offer you a small piece of advice for future postings? The comparison between guns and penis size is a common insult from the anti-gun crowd. That single post put you in a category, whether real or not, that gun buffs despise. I am glad you didn't continue that, and glad we found common ground. But just know the reaction you will likely get if you use that in the future.

 

[shikaki]

Winterborn.. I appreciate the civil discussion we have entertained. You have had good points and I hope you feel the same. When the world has become so mundane and predictable, it is nice to explore thoughts outside of ourselves!!

I have enjoyed the discourse. Now if I could offer you a small piece of advice for future postings? The comparison between guns and penis size is a common insult from the anti-gun crowd. That single post put you in a category, whether real or not, that gun buffs despise. I am glad you didn't continue that, and glad we found common ground. But just know the reaction you will likely get if you use that in the future.

Only the weapon owners know if there is any truth to it.

 

[shikaki]

Winterborn.. I appreciate the civil discussion we have entertained. You have had good points and I hope you feel the same. When the world has become so mundane and predictable, it is nice to explore thoughts outside of ourselves!!

Now you get the concept?

Hopefully now you get the concept since you referred to me as an a-hole for asking a relevant question.

 

[WinterBorn]

Winterborn.. I appreciate the civil discussion we have entertained. You have had good points and I hope you feel the same. When the world has become so mundane and predictable, it is nice to explore thoughts outside of ourselves!!

I have enjoyed the discourse. Now if I could offer you a small piece of advice for future postings? The comparison between guns and penis size is a common insult from the anti-gun crowd. That single post put you in a category, whether real or not, that gun buffs despise. I am glad you didn't continue that, and glad we found common ground. But just know the reaction you will likely get if you use that in the future.

Only the weapon owners know if there is any truth to it.

Whether there is any truth to it or not, you will find a hostile reaction is common. I guess its up to you. If you want hostility instead of civil discourse, start a conversation with gun buffs with the penis comparison. I pretty much guarantee that a civil discourse is the last thing that will happen.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Winterborn.. I appreciate the civil discussion we have entertained. You have had good points and I hope you feel the same. When the world has become so mundane and predictable, it is nice to explore thoughts outside of ourselves!!

Now you get the concept?

Hopefully now you get the concept since you referred to me as an a-hole for asking a relevant question.

Dude you're impossible.
All you have to do is admit you came into this thread like as asshole and all will be forgotten.

Dont think you can just post up any ol shit you want without getting called on it around here.

 

[shikaki]

I have enjoyed the discourse. Now if I could offer you a small piece of advice for future postings? The comparison between guns and penis size is a common insult from the anti-gun crowd. That single post put you in a category, whether real or not, that gun buffs despise. I am glad you didn't continue that, and glad we found common ground. But just know the reaction you will likely get if you use that in the future.

Only the weapon owners know if there is any truth to it.

Whether there is any truth to it or not, you will find a hostile reaction is common. I guess its up to you. If you want hostility instead of civil discourse, start a conversation with gun buffs with the penis comparison. I pretty much guarantee that a civil discourse is the last thing that will happen.

I find it almost funny that statement generates so much hostility, when I read the sorts of name calling, derogatory, disrespectful dialogue that goes on. Why do you think that is?

 

[MikeK]

Only the weapon owners know if there is any truth to it.

Whether there is any truth to it or not, you will find a hostile reaction is common. I guess its up to you. If you want hostility instead of civil discourse, start a conversation with gun buffs with the penis comparison. I pretty much guarantee that a civil discourse is the last thing that will happen.

I find it almost funny that statement generates so much hostility, when I read the sorts of name calling, derogatory, disrespectful dialogue that goes on. Why do you think that is?

Because it's annoyingly repetitive. The same song, over and over.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Only the weapon owners know if there is any truth to it.

Whether there is any truth to it or not, you will find a hostile reaction is common. I guess its up to you. If you want hostility instead of civil discourse, start a conversation with gun buffs with the penis comparison. I pretty much guarantee that a civil discourse is the last thing that will happen.

I find it almost funny that statement generates so much hostility, when I read the sorts of name calling, derogatory, disrespectful dialogue that goes on. Why do you think that is?

Are you insane? Seriously.

 

[MikeK]

Got it... But in each case it was the government that maintained order, not the citizens..

Not so.

When the 1992 riot in Los Angeles was provoked by the first Rodney King verdict the violence was so menacing the police actually abandoned the affected areas, leaving the residents and business-owners to fend for themselves. Thousands of people were assaulted, homes were invaded, and businesses were looted.

The exception was KOREATOWN, because the Koreans were armed and they took to the streets with their guns. As a result the rioters gave Koreatown a wide berth. The Koreans weren't touched. And I know of no better evidence of the need to own guns. The simple fact is it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

When 'assault weapons' saved Koreatown | Human Events

 

[shikaki]

Got it... But in each case it was the government that maintained order, not the citizens..

Not so.

When the 1992 riot in Los Angeles was provoked by the first Rodney King verdict the violence was so menacing the police actually abandoned the affected areas, leaving the residents and business-owners to fend for themselves. Thousands of people were assaulted, homes were invaded, and businesses were looted.

The exception was KOREATOWN, because the Koreans were armed and they took to the streets with their guns. As a result the rioters gave Koreatown a wide berth. The Koreans weren't touched. And I know of no better evidence of the need to own guns. The simple fact is it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

When 'assault weapons' saved Koreatown | Human Events

Thanks for your civil and informed responses!! BTW: Like the avatar!!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Only the weapon owners know if there is any truth to it.

Whether there is any truth to it or not, you will find a hostile reaction is common. I guess its up to you. If you want hostility instead of civil discourse, start a conversation with gun buffs with the penis comparison. I pretty much guarantee that a civil discourse is the last thing that will happen.

I find it almost funny that statement generates so much hostility, when I read the sorts of name calling, derogatory, disrespectful dialogue that goes on. Why do you think that is?

Think about it from my point of view.
You are comparing my right to bear arms and the 2nd Amendment,along with the right to protect my family..... to penis size.
I'm starting to think troll............

 

[shikaki]

Whether there is any truth to it or not, you will find a hostile reaction is common. I guess its up to you. If you want hostility instead of civil discourse, start a conversation with gun buffs with the penis comparison. I pretty much guarantee that a civil discourse is the last thing that will happen.

I find it almost funny that statement generates so much hostility, when I read the sorts of name calling, derogatory, disrespectful dialogue that goes on. Why do you think that is?

Think about it from my point of view.
You are comparing my right to bear arms and the 2nd Amendment,along with the right to protect my family..... to penis size.
I'm starting to think troll............

If you go back and re-read with an open mind what I wrote, you will see that it was an attempt to move the conversation to the reality of potentially shooting another human being. It was not stating the sole reason anyone posses a weapon is because of inadequacies, it was to say let's stop pretending we are tough guys and really think about the potential implications.

Now to your point I see why you reacted the way you did, but I think you will see my thought processes if you re-read what I wrote.

And since we have drug it this far, I'm sure there are a few people around the world that do own weapons for the wrong reason, not saying you are one of them.

As far as the 2nd amendment, I fully support it, I do have exception with the wording. Weapons have changed dramatically since the amendment was created. There needs to be some parameters to help clarify acceptable weapons:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Can I own a tank or a f18? Those are extreme, but where is the line drawn?

 

[MikeK]

I find it almost funny that statement generates so much hostility, when I read the sorts of name calling, derogatory, disrespectful dialogue that goes on. Why do you think that is?

Think about it from my point of view.
You are comparing my right to bear arms and the 2nd Amendment,along with the right to protect my family..... to penis size.
I'm starting to think troll............

If you go back and re-read with an open mind what I wrote, you will see that it was an attempt to move the conversation to the reality of potentially shooting another human being. It was not stating the sole reason anyone posses a weapon is because of inadequacies, it was to say let's stop pretending we are tough guys and really think about the potential implications.

Now to your point I see why you reacted the way you did, but I think you will see my thought processes if you re-read what I wrote.

And since we have drug it this far, I'm sure there are a few people around the world that do own weapons for the wrong reason, not saying you are one of them.

As far as the 2nd amendment, I fully support it, I do have exception with the wording. Weapons have changed dramatically since the amendment was created. There needs to be some parameters to help clarify acceptable weapons:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Can I own a tank or a f18? Those are extreme, but where is the line drawn?

It has occurred to me that rather tricky wording in the Second Amendment which you refer to, ". . . keep and bear arms. . . . ," could be used by government to severely restrict citizen access to firearms by limiting our right to "keep" one single-shot .22 rifle, chambered for short, which must be kept in a locked metal container, and which we may "bear" only to and from a federally supervised range in that container.

Given the kind of Supreme Court we have now I don't believe that possibility is at all extreme.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I find it almost funny that statement generates so much hostility, when I read the sorts of name calling, derogatory, disrespectful dialogue that goes on. Why do you think that is?

Think about it from my point of view.
You are comparing my right to bear arms and the 2nd Amendment,along with the right to protect my family..... to penis size.
I'm starting to think troll............

If you go back and re-read with an open mind what I wrote, you will see that it was an attempt to move the conversation to the reality of potentially shooting another human being. It was not stating the sole reason anyone posses a weapon is because of inadequacies, it was to say let's stop pretending we are tough guys and really think about the potential implications.

Now to your point I see why you reacted the way you did, but I think you will see my thought processes if you re-read what I wrote.

And since we have drug it this far, I'm sure there are a few people around the world that do own weapons for the wrong reason, not saying you are one of them.

As far as the 2nd amendment, I fully support it, I do have exception with the wording. Weapons have changed dramatically since the amendment was created. There needs to be some parameters to help clarify acceptable weapons:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Can I own a tank or a f18? Those are extreme, but where is the line drawn?

Now that I know where you're coming from,it pretty much fits with your initial posts.
You have an aversion to people protecting themselves from government.
That is what the 2nd is all about. If you dont have at least small arms on par with the government you lose the ability to enforce the rest of the Constitution.

You seem to think the government is your friend. I don't. And recent activities make me doubt their benevolence even more.
World history is rife with seemingly benign government turning tyrannical.
This day and age,it wont be done with outright aggression,but slowly through gov mandate.
I dont know how old you are,but I'm not exactly ancient at 48 and the difference I see in America since my twenties is disheartening to say the least.
People want to make a living wage at McDs,more are on welfare then ever before,Government intrusion gone wild.
Sorry dude,but I dont see rainbows and unicorns in our future if shit doesnt change.
Since these happenings are pretty much beyond my control,I feel it's best to be prepared then to be caught like some sucker.

 

[shikaki]

Think about it from my point of view.
You are comparing my right to bear arms and the 2nd Amendment,along with the right to protect my family..... to penis size.
I'm starting to think troll............

If you go back and re-read with an open mind what I wrote, you will see that it was an attempt to move the conversation to the reality of potentially shooting another human being. It was not stating the sole reason anyone posses a weapon is because of inadequacies, it was to say let's stop pretending we are tough guys and really think about the potential implications.

Now to your point I see why you reacted the way you did, but I think you will see my thought processes if you re-read what I wrote.

And since we have drug it this far, I'm sure there are a few people around the world that do own weapons for the wrong reason, not saying you are one of them.

As far as the 2nd amendment, I fully support it, I do have exception with the wording. Weapons have changed dramatically since the amendment was created. There needs to be some parameters to help clarify acceptable weapons:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Can I own a tank or a f18? Those are extreme, but where is the line drawn?

Now that I know where you're coming from,it pretty much fits with your initial posts.
You have an aversion to people protecting themselves from government.
That is what the 2nd is all about. If you dont have at least small arms on par with the government you lose the ability to enforce the rest of the Constitution.

You seem to think the government is your friend. I don't. And recent activities make me doubt their benevolence even more.
World history is rife with seemingly benign government turning tyrannical.
This day and age,it wont be done with outright aggression,but slowly through gov mandate.
I dont know how old you are,but I'm not exactly ancient at 48 and the difference I see in America since my twenties is disheartening to say the least.
People want to make a living wage at McDs,more are on welfare then ever before,Government intrusion gone wild.
Sorry dude,but I dont see rainbows and unicorns in our future if **** doesnt change.
Since these happenings are pretty much beyond my control,I feel it's best to be prepared then to be caught like some sucker.

I don't have an aversion to people protecting themselves. I think you may be more distrustful of the government than I am, but I'm open to the fact they may screw us over. I just don't choose to live in that kind of fear.
I'm determined to stay cautiously optimistic until a I feel a reason not to. As far as being prepared, it really depends on what we are preparing against. If it is truly the government, me having a AK-47 is like me having a paintball gun, completely out "gunned". One aptly manned apache can destroy anything we can think of, not to mention the fighters or bombers.
I think if most were to really think about this sort of outcome to much, they would be to depressed to function.