(December 3, 2015 at 9:46 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(December 3, 2015 at 9:43 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Do people have the right to defend themselves, their homes, and property and arm themselves with sufficient force to do so?

Either you believe that people should be willing victims for the greater societal good or you don't. It's that simple. Really. It is that simple.

No, I believe people have the right to defend themselves with appropriate force.

Don't go there!!!

If I move to the 'States I'm getting a minigun for personal defence.

Wonder how much a tank costs?

(December 3, 2015 at 9:46 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(December 3, 2015 at 9:43 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Do people have the right to defend themselves, their homes, and property and arm themselves with sufficient force to do so?

Either you believe that people should be willing victims for the greater societal good or you don't. It's that simple. Really. It is that simple.

No, I believe people have the right to defend themselves with appropriate force.

So what is the appropriate amount of force you believe is sufficient to deter an armed and potentially violent intruder that breaks into your rural cabin in the woods while your wife and children are upstairs and the nearest police officer is a half-hour away?

I'm not going to play power games. Why don't you tell me what I ought to do? Hint: you're not likely to change my nature, so save your braincell.

What "strawmanning " was that.  Do you deny what you wrote?

(December 3, 2015 at 9:59 pm)Minimalist Wrote: What "strawmanning " was that.  Do you deny what you wrote?

No. I deny what you attributed to me.

(December 3, 2015 at 9:55 pm)Beccs Wrote: Wonder how much a tank costs?

You can pickup this British Chieftain Mk 6 complete with live 120mm main gun and 10 projectiles in Oklahoma for less than $250K plus $200 for the NFA tax stamp. It will probably take at least 6 months for your form 4 to clear.

(December 3, 2015 at 9:43 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Do people have the right to defend themselves, their homes, and property and arm themselves with sufficient force to do so?

Either you believe that people should be willing victims for the greater societal good or you don't. It's that simple. Really. It is that simple.

You are fear mongering Chad.  Flip through the Second Amendment thread and you'll find lots of well-armed people who shoot themselves and/or others or see their guns used for those purposes all with the idea that they were "protecting" themselves.  They weren't.  They were opening themselves up for tragedy.

If guns made us safer this would be the safest country in the world.  It isn't.  There are far too many assholes walking around with guns.

(December 3, 2015 at 9:59 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I'm not going to play power games. Why don't you tell me what I ought to do? Hint: you're not likely to change my nature, so save your braincell.

You want to say you believe in the right to self-defence, because you recognize it as an essential human right, but are unwilling to specify what that means. Is that because you are unwilling to admit that sometimes only a firearm is sufficient to deter a potential crime?

I hope you don't have kids in your house with all your fucking guns, Chad. You seem like the careless type to me.

(December 3, 2015 at 10:18 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(December 3, 2015 at 9:59 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I'm not going to play power games. Why don't you tell me what I ought to do? Hint: you're not likely to change my nature, so save your braincell.

You want to say you believe in the right to self-defence, because you recognize it as an essential human right, but are unwilling to specify what that means. Is that because you are unwilling to admit that sometimes only a firearm is sufficient to deter a potential crime?

There's no such thing as a potential crime. A firearm won't change that. From where I'm sitting, a person with a firearm and a criminal are the same thing, even if only in intent. Someone who subscribes to shit like "thou shalt not kill" ought to appreciate that.