|
|
|
We Know you Ride, But do you Shoot?
- Thread starter Triple
- Start date
Re: We know you ride, but do you Shoot?
Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk
Lol glad I could be of service. But judging by the girls i actually take out vs ones i talk to I'm just a big fat liar.
Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk
Re: We know you ride, but do you Shoot?
Just started my new job after 4 months without work, $2000 in unexpected expenses over importing my guns into Chile, ticket back to Canada, first and last month's rent, computer, furniture/kitchenware and.... I'm in a hole so deep I couldn't afford a US-priced Hi Point
Just started my new job after 4 months without work, $2000 in unexpected expenses over importing my guns into Chile, ticket back to Canada, first and last month's rent, computer, furniture/kitchenware and.... I'm in a hole so deep I couldn't afford a US-priced Hi Point
Roadghost
Well-known member
Re: We know you ride, but do you Shoot?
LOL. I hear Quebec is starting its own gun registry and the OPP is saying Ontario should start one too. What an absolute waste of taxpayer's money. They've already proven in court the registry did nothing for public safety. Give it up for cryin' out loud.
LOL. I hear Quebec is starting its own gun registry and the OPP is saying Ontario should start one too. What an absolute waste of taxpayer's money. They've already proven in court the registry did nothing for public safety. Give it up for cryin' out loud.
Re: We know you ride, but do you Shoot?
The two most corrupt provinces in Canada want to crack down on the most law-abiding segment of their population.. Why am I not surprised?
The two most corrupt provinces in Canada want to crack down on the most law-abiding segment of their population.. Why am I not surprised?
Re: We know you ride, but do you Shoot?
Some of you may find the following, an interesting read.
(link: http://bearingarms.com/americas-gunsurgency/)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of violence.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Some of you may find the following, an interesting read.
(link: http://bearingarms.com/americas-gunsurgency/)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of violence.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Re: We know you ride, but do you Shoot?
Why spend ridiculous importation fees when I have plenty of storage space in my safeJust started my new job after 4 months without work, $2000 in unexpected expenses over importing my guns into Chile, ticket back to Canada, first and last month's rent, computer, furniture/kitchenware and.... I'm in a hole so deep I couldn't afford a US-priced Hi Point
Re: We know you ride, but do you Shoot?
I expected to shoot my guns a bit down there, but I barely managed to get them imported before having to fly back to Canada. Thanks for the offer, though
Why spend ridiculous importation fees when I have plenty of storage space in my safe
I expected to shoot my guns a bit down there, but I barely managed to get them imported before having to fly back to Canada. Thanks for the offer, though
Motorcycle Mike
Well-known member
Re: We know you ride, but do you Shoot?
Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
I'm a moderate gun owner (as opposed to an extreme one); I don't own a single restricted firearm and am down to only about 2k rounds of ammo. Very moderate.
Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
Re: We know you ride, but do you Shoot?
Moderate and I still oppose registration of non-restricted's.
Moderate and I still oppose registration of non-restricted's.
Re: We know you ride, but do you Shoot?
I am a moderate. I think only those reasonably law-abiding non-violent citizens who want to have guns should have them. Nobody should be forced to own one or shoot one even though I'd make safe handling of firearms mandatory in school just in case
I am a moderate. I think only those reasonably law-abiding non-violent citizens who want to have guns should have them. Nobody should be forced to own one or shoot one even though I'd make safe handling of firearms mandatory in school just in case
Re: We know you ride, but do you Shoot?
After all even a job requires no criminal record
I believe this too. I think a criminal background check is a must & sound mental stability.I am a moderate. I think only those reasonably law-abiding non-violent citizens who want to have guns should have them. Nobody should be forced to own one or shoot one even though I'd make safe handling of firearms mandatory in school just in case
After all even a job requires no criminal record
Snobike Mike
Banned
Re: We know you ride, but do you Shoot?
This.
The only non-moderates are the shrill leftards that want to sanction law abiding citizens due to the actions of the non-law abiding.
I am a moderate. I think only those reasonably law-abiding non-violent citizens who want to have guns should have them. Nobody should be forced to own one or shoot one even though I'd make safe handling of firearms mandatory in school just in case
This.
The only non-moderates are the shrill leftards that want to sanction law abiding citizens due to the actions of the non-law abiding.
|
|
|
|
|