Just curious on different points of view
- Thread starter 9mmGirl
- Start date
RosaMariTB
New member
Xavier,
"MACHINES DON'T OFFEND ME, only people offends"
My home is made of different colors...
I don't think colors have anything to do with it " IT'S THE MENTALITIES OF SOME INDIVIDUALS " what I am refering to.
I used to live by MacDill airforce base and did not bother me a bit, then again they have security surrounding them.
Is this elaborated enough for you to understand?
"MACHINES DON'T OFFEND ME, only people offends"
My home is made of different colors...
I don't think colors have anything to do with it " IT'S THE MENTALITIES OF SOME INDIVIDUALS " what I am refering to.I used to live by MacDill airforce base and did not bother me a bit, then again they have security surrounding them.
Is this elaborated enough for you to understand?
Wildalaska
Moderator
Group buy?
WildyourtankheadquartersAlaska
rosamari said:
OH, so you want to legislate THOUGHT.
rosamari said:
No, actually, I think you're digging yourself deeper into an indefensible position.
You think that people's thoughts should be the reason why some are allowed certain items and others are not.
Why is it that you automatically have no problem with those people in a military being allowed to have tanks, fighter and bomber aircraft, etc., but not civilians? Laws are what keep the military from using them in bad ways. Why can't laws be what keep civilians from using them in bad ways, once they're allowed to have them?
-blackmind
wildalaska said:
You can always tell when wildalaska disapproves but doesn't have a decent reason to articulate why. He gives the equivalent of a sigh/eyeroll. But no explanation of just why the statement is wrong.
Xavierbreath made good points that have not been refuted. Rosamari has not articulated why it would be wrong for Xavierbreath to have a tank, apart from her own projected fears of what people might do with them. Well, we don't tell people they can't own pipes, bats, gasoline, matches, automobiles because of what we fear they will do with them (and they DO do bad stuff with them). That's what we have codified laws and restrictions on behavior for -- to set down what is tolerated, and provide for punishment if people transgress. There's no reason why that can't go for tanks as well as guns and knives.
-blackmind
XavierBreath
New member
459,
How about gasoline and fertilizer?
Rose Mari,
For the record, it is perfectly legal for a private citizen to own the tank I pictured, as well as other surplus military equipment. Now whether that citizen has land to run it on, and fuel money to propel it is another matter all together.
How about gasoline and fertilizer?
Rose Mari,
No, actually it was quite incomprehensible. Why, in simple English, pray tell, do you believe a law abiding citizen should be prohibited from owning a tank? The color of your house is irrelevant.
For the record, it is perfectly legal for a private citizen to own the tank I pictured, as well as other surplus military equipment. Now whether that citizen has land to run it on, and fuel money to propel it is another matter all together.
MeekAndMild
New member
Er, I hate to say this but I don't see any reason for anyone to own an AK-47. I'd rather keep my NFA Uzi thank you. Much more politically correct. 
Seriously, there is a long precident for citizens owning major weapons of war. Much of the sea wars in the American Revolution and War of 1812 were fought by privateer warships whose captains held government contracts to raid enemy shipping. This precident carries right down to the present where private contractors guard present day rock stars and political figures.
So if we stop citizens from owning major ordinence who will guard Ted Kennedy and The Dixie Chicks?
Seriously, there is a long precident for citizens owning major weapons of war. Much of the sea wars in the American Revolution and War of 1812 were fought by privateer warships whose captains held government contracts to raid enemy shipping. This precident carries right down to the present where private contractors guard present day rock stars and political figures.
So if we stop citizens from owning major ordinence who will guard Ted Kennedy and The Dixie Chicks?
Tell the ACLU wannabe that there is one reason tantamount above all others.
Because I want to... and I don't need her permission.
It is a Constitutional right to pursue my life and happiness as long as I don't interfere with hers!!!!!
And, it is my right that she doesn't have any influence on mine!!
Because I want to... and I don't need her permission.
It is a Constitutional right to pursue my life and happiness as long as I don't interfere with hers!!!!!
And, it is my right that she doesn't have any influence on mine!!
lol assembling a diesel fert bomb is one thing...
but I dont think people should be able to go purchase certain weapons of warfare
How about biological weapons?
How bout chemical weapons?
How bout nuclear weapons?
Rights aside, for the average person the learning curve in utilizing these weapons and or devices is to high. Storeage is unsafe and uncertain.
I for one do not want some illiterate untrained idiot living next door with several leaking 155mm howitzer shells filled with mustard gas in his basement.
You cant compare past weapons as the lethality of the modern stuff is extreme. A home made diesel bomb is not in the same league has nuclear tipped shell or a fuel air bomb.
my only point is that there should be certain limits placed on weaponry beyond small arms.
The tank comparison isnt the same...as its nothing more than an armoured bulldozer with a gun on top...
but I dont think people should be able to go purchase certain weapons of warfare
How about biological weapons?
How bout chemical weapons?
How bout nuclear weapons?
Rights aside, for the average person the learning curve in utilizing these weapons and or devices is to high. Storeage is unsafe and uncertain.
I for one do not want some illiterate untrained idiot living next door with several leaking 155mm howitzer shells filled with mustard gas in his basement.
You cant compare past weapons as the lethality of the modern stuff is extreme. A home made diesel bomb is not in the same league has nuclear tipped shell or a fuel air bomb.
my only point is that there should be certain limits placed on weaponry beyond small arms.
The tank comparison isnt the same...as its nothing more than an armoured bulldozer with a gun on top...
orionengnr
New member
back on topic...
read this one this morning and really liked it
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=161592
read this one this morning and really liked it
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=161592
RosaMariTB
New member
OK ! let's say we all citizens go ahead and buy one tank or two...(I never said I am against it) how do you know that some people that in appearance looks decent does go into a weird twist of mind and gets in the tank and starts a rampage...then the neighbord gets defensive and starts another...and here we are all tanks together going all over each neighbords belongins, squashing cars, etc.
I am so sure that in some of you I could trigger your anger in a matter of secons and it is proven that anger many times can't be controled, that's why many domestic violance is started and ended in death. No matter what many of you guys try to tell me I will come back with an answer regardless of how dumb it may seem, I just simply like to analyze the pros and cons of this kind of things. I would not mind owning a cannon or mortar myself but have to outweight pros/cons.
Blackmind,
Don't let the darkness of your mind cloud your thoughts, try understanding others.
I was a Dare Devil once before too, but I had to grow up for my childrens sake.
I just won't allow anyone walk over me and with or without goverment I will continue to be me, but I know limits and respect towards others should be in force even if that means some compromise needs to be settled.
I've been a warrior since the day I was born ( I've won plenty of battles) I intent to continue my journey in peace as long as there is mutual respect or no harm comming my way otherwise I will fight.
You stated your opinions, I stated mine and leave Wild...alone because at least he acted polite and like a gentleman something that many men have a lack off.
I am so sure that in some of you I could trigger your anger in a matter of secons and it is proven that anger many times can't be controled, that's why many domestic violance is started and ended in death. No matter what many of you guys try to tell me I will come back with an answer regardless of how dumb it may seem, I just simply like to analyze the pros and cons of this kind of things. I would not mind owning a cannon or mortar myself but have to outweight pros/cons.
Blackmind,
Don't let the darkness of your mind cloud your thoughts, try understanding others.
I was a Dare Devil once before too, but I had to grow up for my childrens sake.
I just won't allow anyone walk over me and with or without goverment I will continue to be me, but I know limits and respect towards others should be in force even if that means some compromise needs to be settled.
I've been a warrior since the day I was born ( I've won plenty of battles) I intent to continue my journey in peace as long as there is mutual respect or no harm comming my way otherwise I will fight.
You stated your opinions, I stated mine and leave Wild...alone because at least he acted polite and like a gentleman something that many men have a lack off.
Blackmind,
Peoples thoughts should be more then enough to justify them not having certain things. For example. Would you let a known repeated child molester adopt a child? Would you give Lee Harvey Oswald a rifle if he would have been released from prison? Would you give Hitler the right to weapons and tanks etc...
Believe it or not in the world of today there have to be certain conditions. Although I fully support the 2nd ammendment it doesnt mean certain conditions shouldnt apply when buying and selling firearms. Full auto and semi auto can both kill easily. I do believe a tank should be allowed but once again under certain conditions (disabled weapons) . I believe our military would do a damn well job defending us in the situation of being invaded. I dont think it takes a tank to stop a burglar though it would be pretty fun.
I hope you don't take this as offensive seeing as how your knowledge and input greatly contribute to the forum. (which I really Thank you for). But it appears you have an issue respecting other peoples opinions. Usually when I dont agree with someone I just shut up seeing as how there will never be an agreement on it.
In this case I sorta agree with you though. Just thought id give my opinions.
As a man you should know that you can never argue with a woman because you will never win! (even if your right).
Peoples thoughts should be more then enough to justify them not having certain things. For example. Would you let a known repeated child molester adopt a child? Would you give Lee Harvey Oswald a rifle if he would have been released from prison? Would you give Hitler the right to weapons and tanks etc...
Believe it or not in the world of today there have to be certain conditions. Although I fully support the 2nd ammendment it doesnt mean certain conditions shouldnt apply when buying and selling firearms. Full auto and semi auto can both kill easily. I do believe a tank should be allowed but once again under certain conditions (disabled weapons) . I believe our military would do a damn well job defending us in the situation of being invaded. I dont think it takes a tank to stop a burglar though it would be pretty fun.
I hope you don't take this as offensive seeing as how your knowledge and input greatly contribute to the forum. (which I really Thank you for). But it appears you have an issue respecting other peoples opinions. Usually when I dont agree with someone I just shut up seeing as how there will never be an agreement on it.
In this case I sorta agree with you though. Just thought id give my opinions.
As a man you should know that you can never argue with a woman because you will never win! (even if your right).
rosamari said:
Okay, we're pushing far into idiotic territory with this, and with your utter failure to understand that this is no different from if "some people that in appearance looks decent does go into a weird twist of mind" and gets his RIFLE and starts a rampage...
I mean, then you'd have everyone shooting rifles all around the neighborhood.
Why do you fail to see how the situations are analagous?
By your logic, we should not allow anyone to have gas cans and bottles and gasoline and rags and cigarette lighters, because what's to stop some nutcase from going around lobbing molotov cocktails.
We have no guarantee (after all, it is a guarantee that you seem to be looking -- no, pining for) that bad people won't do bad things with them in an unpredictable and unpreventable manner. So onto the list of prohibited items we go with gasoline, lighters, and bottles, I guess.
-blackmind
AndrewTB said:
Please note for the record that those examples you gave are of people who have already COMMITTED ACTS THAT DEMONSTRATE A PROPENSITY TOWARD A GIVEN CRIME.
Those examples are NOT -- repeat NOT -- about PEOPLE'S THOUGHTS.
You are confusing the two issues. One is about what people THINK, and the other is about what people HAVE ACTUALLY DONE.
AndrewTB said:
Yes, well, demilitarizing a tank for civilian ownership would defeat the purpose of having it for the opposition of a tyrannical government, now wouldn't it?
Of course, our military stands ready and effective for the task of defending our nation against invasion. But part of the purpose of maintaining an armed populace is not to repel foreign invaders, but DOMESTIC ones. Those domestic ones may someday actually BE that military of which you speak so highly.
By the way, what is the point of your mention that both full auto and semi auto can kill easily? Where were you going with that? Is that a defense of having full auto owned by civilians, or is it an indictment of civilians owning SEMI auto?
AndrewTB said:
And it would help a people remain free to have tanks at their disposal if the government should run amok.
AndrewTB said:
Thank you for the flattering compliments. I'm not offended. I do think, however, that it's not necessary or even desirable to "just shut up" when a difference of opinion is detected. What about trying to explain why and how you've come to hold your own opinion? Haven't you ever explained something and given someone an "Ah, oh yeah" moment where they realized their thinking had been askew; you had clearer thoughts on the subject; and yours was a more reasoned, reasonable opinion?
I've changed minds. You haven't?
Doing so starts with opposing the other person's notions, and then explaining why you do.
-blackmind
XavierBreath
New member
Perhaps, Rosa Mari, you cannot control your own anger. That does not mean I cannot control mine. Your statements beg the question why one person would want to "trigger" anger in another. Why would you desire to do that Rosa Mari? Nevertheless, an incoherently rambling woman will hardly spur a man to anger, but rather towards compassion.
I don't doubt this a bit. The question is whether you can support your answers with fact rather than opinion.
how do you know that some people that in appearance looks decent does go into a weird twist of mind and gets in the truck and starts a rampage...then the neighbord gets defensive and starts another...and here we are all trucks together going all over each neighbords belongins, squashing cars, etc.
So, you want to outlaw trucks now? What about those helicopters and private planes? Bulldozers? Can I own a bulldozer? Can you support your argument? Should we outlaw clock towers since Charles Whitman used one so effectively in Texas? What about buildings over one story? If it weren't for six story buildings John Kennedy would be alive today! Heck, why not just outlaw Texas! Afterall, both those events took place there.
MeekAndMild
New member
Sometimes giving these weapons to the military doesn't seem like such a good idea either. I used to know a guy who lived in a neighborhood where there was legal action against the Army over pollution of Lake Michegan by leaking unexploded artillery shells. And I have read of huge problems in Alabama and Texas where old chemical weapons are stored.
I think a standing army may not have enough incentive to keep up with their toys. It makes more common sense to have a national militia armed with citizen soldiers who can provide defense in depth like the Swiss and Finns proved during WW-II.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6706.shtml
I think a standing army may not have enough incentive to keep up with their toys. It makes more common sense to have a national militia armed with citizen soldiers who can provide defense in depth like the Swiss and Finns proved during WW-II.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6706.shtml