Why do we need guns?...

[aGameOfThrones]

...because of idiots like this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc9QwwsSjTk




We need to ban all guns to save many peoples lives!! I thank all of you who voted for Obama since he will ban guns and restore peace to america. People shouldn't have to worry about some criminal or redneck killing them. Rednecks support the killings and mass shootings at columbine, virginia tech and love to expand their political agenda. We need a total ban all guns in all 57 states RIGHT NOW!!! I have the right to feel safe, it's in the constitution.



Note 1: 5:30 is of interest.

Note 2: I really hope he's joking, but I'm not sure.

[JoshLowry]

Yea, pretty obvious troll. Especially at the end.

[aGameOfThrones]

Yea, pretty obvious troll. Especially at the end.

You know, there are people who actually think like this.

[JoshLowry]

Sadly, yes. However, I would still put my money on troll.

[DamianTV]

A right to feel safe? And thats in the Constitution of the 57 States? But a right to own a gun ISNT?

/facepalm

[LedHed]

Why do we need guns??? I'll tell you why. Zombies!!! THAT'S why!!!

[DamianTV]

I am so tempted to give you a +rep for that! (I lol'd)

[LedHed]

Please don't do it. I'm proud of my REPutation as it is. It means I'm not part of the crowd of sheeple and that I'm capable of independent thought.

[oyarde]

Why do we need guns??? I'll tell you why. Zombies!!! THAT'S why!!!

Thankfully , I have seen no zombies ...

[LedHed]

Thankfully , I have seen no zombies ...

Trust me, they are all around us. Hiding. Waiting. Watching. And JUST when you thought you were safe BANG!!!!! You're getting your brains eaten. I'm telling ya, best to have a gun on you at all times. Those zombies are sneaky bastards...

Guy on the video???

ZOMBIE!!!!

With a toothache, apparently.

And sinus congestion.

(Trust me...)

"320 rounds on average per second" Awesome!!!! I WANT one of those!!!!

Check out the poster at .37. Some of the labels are really freaking funny.

"Black color scheme make bullets more deadly" (I got nuthin' to say about this one)

"I don't know what these are, but they sure do look scary" (My personal favorite)

"Flash hider makes it impossible to find the shooter" ('cause he is rendered "invisible")

"High capacity "clips" provide an endless number of bullets" (Cool! No more trips to the store!)

"Firing selector has two modes "Safe" and "Killing Spree"" (Damn! Mine just says 'Safe" and "Semi" I feel rooked.)

[Dr.3D]

A right to feel safe? And thats in the Constitution of the 57 States? But a right to own a gun ISNT?

/facepalm

And the best way to feel safe is to own and carry a pistol. LOL

[TonySutton]

If you believe in Liberty the question should never be why do we need this or that, the question should always be why should we ban this or that. Way too many laws!

[JoshLowry]

Please don't do it. I'm proud of my REPutation as it is. It means I'm not part of the crowd of sheeple and that I'm capable of independent thought.

Please don't do that.

You need to follow our guidelines or you will be removed from the premises.

[LedHed]

Help me out here. What part of the guidelines say I can't request a member to not give me a rep. You mean I have to accept a positive "rep" if someone says they want to give me one, and I'm prohibited from requesting them not to?

Seriously. Did I miss that part? I really do want to follow the guidelines, so please point it out to me.


Forum Guidelines

+ Posting of direct or inferred threats of violence against other people or property that is not your own is completely unacceptable by any user and subject to immediate banning.

+ No promotion of illegal activities.

+ Thread starters who are promoting their own material will be limited to two personal thread bumps.

+ Insulting or personally attacking other users is not allowed by any member. There is very little tolerance for violations, particular for new members. Reason: Insults lead to retaliation. This often results in a disruption of the board, which dilute the resources of members and the intent of the forum.

+ Off-topic posts - Posts that do not relate to the threads intent are subject to being deleted.

+ Topics posted in the wrong sub-forum are subject to being moved or deleted. Please understand the sub-forum division before starting a new topic. Suggestions for new sub-forums are always welcome. Reason: Leads to most effective use of users resources.

+ Any form of antagonizing other members is not allowed by non-established members.

+ If you are to be critical of another users ideas or message please do so in a respectful manner. It is possible to discuss your points as to why you feel the way you do, ideally you should include alternate suggestions or acknowledge you have none.

+ No posting of graphically offensive material. If there is a valid reason that relates to the campaign as to why something graphic is of value then post a link to the content and provide a clear warning adjacent to the link explaining the issue.

+ Floods of low-value material may be subject to being moved into an alternate sub-forum or deleted. More tolerance will be allowed for established members. Reason: Excessive low value posts dilute users time spent on the forum just reading topic threads.

+ No posting of others personal contact information.

+ No posting of any proclaimed campaign announcement that is not supported with a link to the campaigns homepage or other directly verifiable source.

+ Promoting agendas alternate to the platform of Dr. Paul will have allowances for established members. Controversial topics should focus on facts whenever possible.

+ Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. It will not be tolerated here.

+ Use relevant and descriptive topic titles. Poorly titled messages may be renamed. Reason: Respect time of other users.

+ No promoting of campaign tactics or other activity that grossly counter the morals or ethics of Dr. Paul.

+ No excessive / pointless negativity on the campaign, its future or elements of it. All messages with a negative tone about the campaign from new users must provide supportive facts as to why there is a perceived negative and provide some suggested solutions to the issue.

+ Ad hominem attacks on other candidates and their support groups are discouraged. This is not a moderatable offense for established users but will have low tolerances for non-established users. All are encouraged to address other candidates with their proper name. Reason: This activity is discouraged as it can be used to generate a negative image for our support community.

+ Care should be used when soliciting money for some effort to support the campaign as it is totally possible that a scammer will be looking to take advantage of the good nature of Ron Paul supporters. If you're going to do anything that will solicit taking money you'd be wise to make sure you have some established credibility within the community that matches what you expect. If you don't have that, try to set up some arrangements with a third party that does that so people send money to the trusted third party who make sure it goes where intended. When asking for money or promoting an event that you make money from, you should be transparent about any fees or percentages you will receive.

+ Read the welcoming message for each sub-forum to understand specific guidelines needed to achieve the objective of that sub-forum.

[Brian4Liberty]

Seriously. Did I miss that part? I really do want to follow the guidelines, so please point it out to me.


It's possible that he may not be referring to that particular post, but to some of the guidelines lines in general. Just a guess.


+ Insulting or personally attacking other users is not allowed by any member. There is very little tolerance for violations, particular for new members. Reason: Insults lead to retaliation. This often results in a disruption of the board, which dilute the resources of members and the intent of the forum.

+ Any form of antagonizing other members is not allowed by non-established members.

+ If you are to be critical of another users ideas or message please do so in a respectful manner. It is possible to discuss your points as to why you feel the way you do, ideally you should include alternate suggestions or acknowledge you have none.

[Bern]

You don't need a gun until you do. And then you really need it.

[LedHed]

It's possible that he may not be referring to that particular post, but to some of the guidelines lines in general. Just a guess.


+ Insulting or personally attacking other users is not allowed by any member. There is very little tolerance for violations, particular for new members. Reason: Insults lead to retaliation. This often results in a disruption of the board, which dilute the resources of members and the intent of the forum.

+ Any form of antagonizing other members is not allowed by non-established members.

+ If you are to be critical of another users ideas or message please do so in a respectful manner. It is possible to discuss your points as to why you feel the way you do, ideally you should include alternate suggestions or acknowledge you have none.

He specifically quoted me in that particular post and asked to "please don't do that." So, again. What guideline does what I said violate?

[Bern]

He specifically quoted me in that particular post and asked to "please don't do that." So, again. What guideline does what I said violate?

Do you mind taking it with him privately instead of shitting all over this thread? Thanks.

[LedHed]

Oh, good grief...:rolleyes:

[oyarde]

I do not understand the bust a cap for Jesus thing .

[LedHed]

I do not understand the bust a cap for Jesus thing .

It's ironic humor and a play on the fact that many conservative gun owners are fundementalist christians, when Jesus would in all liklihood not have owned a gun had they been around at the time he was walking around on the earth (Had to be careful on that one, since if I'd said, "when he lived" it would have prompted all kinds of "What do you mean WHEN he lived" retorts). Tragically, it's also a double entendre when you consider that Jesus is a common hispanic name, and there's a lot of "busting a cap for Jesus" going on down there on the border right now. So it's funny to some, and dangerous to others. For more, go to the "ARRESTED for wearing a hat" thread and see posts #17 and #31. I had hoodies made.

[oyarde]

I dunno . I am a fiscally conservative , Lutheran , weapon owner . Check out Matthew 10 : 35 - 36 . I think , maybe Micah 7 : 6 , Luke 12 : 49 -53 & 14 : 25 - 33 , if I recall .

[Pericles]

It's ironic humor and a play on the fact that many conservative gun owners are fundementalist christians, when Jesus would in all liklihood not have owned a gun had they been around at the time he was walking around on the earth (Had to be careful on that one, since if I'd said, "when he lived" it would have prompted all kinds of "What do you mean WHEN he lived" retorts). Tragically, it's also a double entendre when you consider that Jesus is a common hispanic name, and there's a lot of "busting a cap for Jesus" going on down there on the border right now. So it's funny to some, and dangerous to others. For more, go to the "ARRESTED for wearing a hat" thread and see posts #17 and #31. I had hoodies made.
Jesus has more powerful weapons than are available to myself.

[JoshLowry]

Oh, good grief...:rolleyes:

I meant don't shoot for a negative reputation when I said Don't do that. It was a general blanket statement.

The reputation system when used appropriately is actually quite helpful.

I point out the guidelines randomly in threads because people don't always seem to read them. You are a new member with a negative rep so I added them.

Honestly, thank you for reading them.

[Anti Federalist]

It's ironic humor and a play on the fact that many conservative gun owners are fundementalist christians, when Jesus would in all liklihood not have owned a gun had they been around at the time he was walking around on the earth (Had to be careful on that one, since if I'd said, "when he lived" it would have prompted all kinds of "What do you mean WHEN he lived" retorts). Tragically, it's also a double entendre when you consider that Jesus is a common hispanic name, and there's a lot of "busting a cap for Jesus" going on down there on the border right now. So it's funny to some, and dangerous to others. For more, go to the "ARRESTED for wearing a hat" thread and see posts #17 and #31. I had hoodies made.

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 22:36

[Anti Federalist]

http://www.hypothesisspits.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ZombieSurvivalGuideCover.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Survival-Guide-Complete-Protection/dp/1400049628

[Promontorium]

I agree with Red Led Hed, this whole rep system is bogus, people give Pos Rep to those who make inane 'preach to the choir' comments, and neg rep to anyone who dares argue an unpopular opinion. I would hope the system were different, but we can clearly see it's not.

"This is why we need to restore the constitution! This is why we need to end the fed! This is why police are corrupt!"

-Yay! +Rep +Rep +Rep!!!! He's saying what everyone else is!!!!!

"I'm begginning to think we should consider a moderate approach, We'll get more flies with honey, Ron Paul isn't a god, he's a man".

-Boooo!!!! Trollolololol!!! -Rep -Rep -Rep!!!!



I would propose giving +Rep for well thought out, novel writing; and -Rep for actual trolling or other irrelevant writings.


And to the OP, that is a troll quote. It might sound legit, but the 57 state part is from an Obama interview, dead giveaway. I've read much more ridiculous real anti-gun comments, I'm sure we all have, the only reason this is 3 pages, when this forum is like a snail on most posts is that trolling works. People respond much more to trolls than well-thought out text, which probably somehow ties back to the Rep issue, as snarky smart-ass one liners are much more likely to get +Rep.

[Anti Federalist]

+rep

Hahahahhahahahah


I agree with Red Led Hed, this whole rep system is bogus, people give Pos Rep to those who make inane 'preach to the choir' comments, and neg rep to anyone who dares argue an unpopular opinion. I would hope the system were different, but we can clearly see it's not.

"This is why we need to restore the constitution! This is why we need to end the fed! This is why police are corrupt!"

-Yay! +Rep +Rep +Rep!!!! He's saying what everyone else is!!!!!

"I'm begginning to think we should consider a moderate approach, We'll get more flies with honey, Ron Paul isn't a god, he's a man".

-Boooo!!!! Trollolololol!!! -Rep -Rep -Rep!!!!



I would propose giving +Rep for well thought out, novel writing; and -Rep for actual trolling or other irrelevant writings.


And to the OP, that is a troll quote. It might sound legit, but the 57 state part is from an Obama interview, dead giveaway. I've read much more ridiculous real anti-gun comments, I'm sure we all have, the only reason this is 3 pages, when this forum is like a snail on most posts is that trolling works. People respond much more to trolls than well-thought out text, which probably somehow ties back to the Rep issue, as snarky smart-ass one liners are much more likely to get +Rep.

[JoshLowry]

I agree with Red Led Hed, this whole rep system is bogus, people give Pos Rep to those who make inane 'preach to the choir' comments, and neg rep to anyone who dares argue an unpopular opinion. I would hope the system were different, but we can clearly see it's not.

"This is why we need to restore the constitution! This is why we need to end the fed! This is why police are corrupt!"

-Yay! +Rep +Rep +Rep!!!! He's saying what everyone else is!!!!!

"I'm begginning to think we should consider a moderate approach, We'll get more flies with honey, Ron Paul isn't a god, he's a man".

-Boooo!!!! Trollolololol!!! -Rep -Rep -Rep!!!!



I would propose giving +Rep for well thought out, novel writing; and -Rep for actual trolling or other irrelevant writings.


And to the OP, that is a troll quote. It might sound legit, but the 57 state part is from an Obama interview, dead giveaway. I've read much more ridiculous real anti-gun comments, I'm sure we all have, the only reason this is 3 pages, when this forum is like a snail on most posts is that trolling works. People respond much more to trolls than well-thought out text, which probably somehow ties back to the Rep issue, as snarky smart-ass one liners are much more likely to get +Rep.

That's always been the argument against it.

I was hesitant to use it at first, but the forums have been heading in a direction that I approve of since it was installed. The rep system has helped greatly.

Content is much better, people are more polite, moderators and admins can identify trolls easier.

It's not going away.


I would propose giving +Rep for well thought out, novel writing; and -Rep for actual trolling or other irrelevant writings.It has been working this way.

Here are our highest repped users: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/memberlist.php?order=desc&sort=reputation&pp=30

All high quality liberty lovers.

[Promontorium]

I was considering putting "With nothing but love to AF" at the end of that rant.

Oh and I already warned you Led that you were being a troll. Not in your opinion, but in repetition, *Open thread about revolvers* (first reply by Led) 'As long as you have a license.' *Facepalm*. - Inspired by a true story.

[aGameOfThrones]

And to the OP, that is a troll quote. It might sound legit, but the 57 state part is from an Obama interview, dead giveaway. I've read much more ridiculous real anti-gun comments, I'm sure we all have, the only reason this is 3 pages, when this forum is like a snail on most posts is that trolling works. People respond much more to trolls than well-thought out text, which probably somehow ties back to the Rep issue, as snarky smart-ass one liners are much more likely to get +Rep.

Yes, I know it's from an Obama speech, but you can't deny there are people who probably don't even know we actually have 50 states. Also, you can't deny people actually think like the video's OP.

[oyarde]

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 22:36

That was one I was looking for , but could not remember where . Thank you .

[oyarde]

http://www.hypothesisspits.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ZombieSurvivalGuideCover.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Survival-Guide-Complete-Protection/dp/1400049628

Excellent !

[oyarde]

Then there is the disturbing Isaiah 9 :19 .

[nobody's_hero]

A semi-auto that shoots an average of 320 rounds a second?

Which company makes that one? I wanna get my hands on that!

[oyarde]

I would settle for a M 61 Vulcan , 20 mm round , 6000 rounds per minute .

[Dr.3D]

I would settle for a M 61 Vulcan , 20 mm round , 6000 rounds per minute .

I couldn't afford to feed such an animal.

[oyarde]

I couldn't afford to feed such an animal.

Me as well . After Danke gets his chip in for Disneyland , I will see about getting us a chip in for ammo : )

[Dr.3D]

Me as well . After Danke gets his chip in for Disneyland , I will see about getting us a chip in for ammo : )

I would just love to have a 22lr sub machine gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISDyjQT8CSM
This is one I could afford to feed. :D

[oyarde]

I would just love to have a 22lr sub machine gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISDyjQT8CSM
This is one I could afford to feed. :D

Yes , we could afford to shoot that . You can still get a great deal on that on sale .

[Anti Federalist]

It has been working this way.

Here are our highest repped users: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/memberlist.php?order=desc&sort=reputation&pp=30

All high quality liberty lovers.

And I would gladly turn over some of my "rep" to Gunny and RPH to put them at the top.

Glenn and Mike are the two people here that I feel, more than anybody else, have really "gone above and beyond the call of duty" in the work of spreading liberty in a real world way.

Not to take away the efforts that others have made, of course, but these two men are really "walking the walk".

[JoshLowry]

Glenn and Mike are the two people here that I feel, more than anybody else, have really "gone above and beyond the call of duty" in the work of spreading liberty in a real world way.

these two men are really "walking the walk".

I agree!

I'd love to hand out past rep for past activism, but it'd be impossible to do it fairly.

[Anti Federalist]

I was considering putting "With nothing but love to AF" at the end of that rant.

<<<salutes.

Please take no offense at the "butthurt" remark in the other thread.

All in jest...:D;):collins:

[Anti Federalist]

I agree!

I'd love to hand out past rep for past activism, but it'd be impossible to do it fairly.

Yeah, that would be a herculean task, for sure.

I rep them both when the system lets me.

I still haven't figured out what exactly has to happen before you can give rep to the same person again.

Is it time, or number reps or posts or what?

In fact I think I owe RPH one.

[pcosmar]

Why do we need guns?...

Because the enemies of Liberty have them. They will and do use them.

Honest men bear arms in defense, of themselves and of others.
Criminals and tyrants use them for aggression.

Without guns,(Arms) honest men are defenseless against armed aggressors.

[ClayTrainor]

Why do we need guns?...

Because the enemies of Liberty have them. They will and do use them.

Honest men bear arms in defense, of themselves and of others.
Criminals and tyrants use them for aggression.

Without guns,(Arms) honest men are defenseless against armed aggressors.

good points.

Why do we need guns?...

I think this questions kind of misses the point. Guns exist in reality, whether we "need" them or not. Now, the only way you're going to get a gun owner to give up their private property is to send men after them with guns... so how can anyone say that people don't have a right to have guns?

How the hell do they think "gun control" will be enforced? WITH GUNS.

Most gun owners are responsible and the last thing they would ever want to do is use their gun on a human. However the "gun control" advocates are literally asking men with guns to go and use their guns on other people.

[Pericles]

We need guns because those are the tools bequeathed us by the founders of this country to keep its government under control. QED

[ClayTrainor]

We need guns because those are the tools bequeathed us by the founders of this country to keep its government under control. QED

That's the typical argument that the "gun control" people expect. It's easy for them to argue against, because the founders were just flawed men like all men are. The reason gun ownership is the rational and moral position, is not because anyone said so...

You can't take peoples guns away, without sending men after them with guns.... Hold to that logic, and they will have no choice but to fold their hand. The cognitive dissonance may cause them to get angry with you, but the observers will see you as the logical one.

You gotta back them into a corner with sound logic, in order to destroy their arguments.

[Dr.3D]

That's the typical argument that the "gun control" people expect. It's easy for them to argue against, because the founders were just flawed men like all men are. The reason gun ownership is the rational and moral position, is not because anyone said so...

You can't take peoples guns away, without sending men after them with guns.... Hold to that logic, and they will have no choice but to fold their hand. The cognitive dissonance may cause them to get angry with you, but the observers will see you as the logical one.

You gotta back them into a corner with sound logic, in order to destroy their arguments.

Ah but Clay, those men using the guns to take the guns away from the other people have been authorized to do so by the government.


........ Just throwing it out there what some clown is going to say back. People seem to believe the government has special powers that make it able to do things ordinary citizens (the mundane) should not be able to do.

[Grubb556]

Suppose you were a gun-control person. If I gave you gun (as a present) would you go out and kill people ? I doubt it. Therefore I don't see why somebody should be denied to the right to acquire property through just means.

[Pericles]

Ah but Clay, those men using the guns to take the guns away from the other people have been authorized to do so by the government.


........ Just throwing it out there what some clown is going to say back. People seem to believe the government has special powers that make it able to do things ordinary citizens (the mundane) should not be able to do.

Correct, and that is exactly the line of thinking of the species of tyrant which infests the circle of my acquaintance. The well reasoned argument that we instinctively understand makes no difference to them. They believe a ban to be effective over time even without force, as eventually the gun owners will die, and the next generation will have been properly educated to despise such implements of violence. For some reason, there is an acceptance of such weaponry being in the hands of police and military (presumably only as long as those institutions remain under the control of their "betters").

I like to attack that line of thinking in the following manner. When I was on active duty, I had the authority to order the issue of any weapon in the Army inventory except nukes. Now, as a civilian, whether or not I should have access to a handgun is a matter of debate. At what point was I no longer qualified to have access to weapons? This eliminates the "training" excuse, and moves the issue exactly where it belongs - control.

Once we let the debate be about "need" rather than "rights" we surrender the main point. It is not about my requirement to justify a "need" for a gun, drive a Mercedes, own a 8000 sq. ft. home, or have a girlfriend who wears a D cup. It is about rights and the concept of liberty to which we are the inheritors of a tremendous legacy.

Free citizens own the means of their defense, and thus maintain control of the state by controlling the means of war, while slaves are disarmed, and live at the pleasure of their masters.

[ClayTrainor]

Ah but Clay, those men using the guns to take the guns away from the other people have been authorized to do so by the government.

This is a likely response... I'd follow up with something like...

"Okay, so we both agree that there are at least some people who should be be able to have guns. I believe no one should have the right to initiate the use of guns on other people, and you believe some people should have the right to initiate the use of guns on other people. Is this fair to say? Why or why not?"

That'll really fire up their cognitive dissonance. :D



........ Just throwing it out there what some clown is going to say back. People seem to believe the government has special powers that make it able to do things ordinary citizens (the mundane) should not be able to do.

It's a fair point. It's not likely you'll convince the gun control advocate of anything, but so long as you dismantle their argument with sound logic, undecided observers will see who is being rational and who isn't. It's highly likely that you'll make the gun control advocate frustrated and angry, and as long as you stay calm and rational, he's gonna look pretty dumb. :)

[overeaper]

wow.... anyone have this guys email? wanna tell him when I get a new piece

[xd9fan]

Why do we need guns?.....Why do we want liberty???

[oyarde]

wow.... anyone have this guys email? wanna tell him when I get a new piece

Excellent !

[Pericles]

wow.... anyone have this guys email? wanna tell him when I get a new piece
Great way to introduce yourself to the board:D