1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

Diggler would've been put away for life.

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by syciprider, Jun 9, 2007.


  1. That's close to what I read, I wasn't sure but is was very fast. I think they quoted 2-3 mins in this case. At least the cops turning up are specialized in combat too. Not your average cop with minimal training or some public member that "thinks" they can resolve the conflict.

    I wouldn't let any member of the public be a surgeon without training, why let them gun battle in public?
     
  2. Pacman

    Pacman Layin' Down Time Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Apr 1, 2000
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification

    Unless you or your family are being beating beaten, or raped.

    I can take out multiple targets, with reloads, in under a minute. That's aimed fire, not just spray and pray...
     
  3. kserg

    kserg

    Feb 20, 2004
    San Jose, CA
    Oh yeah? Well i can take out more then multiple targets in under 59 seconds.
     
  4. Toasted

    Toasted

    May 26, 2003
    Leeds, UK
    Good, I'm happy for you that you feel safe. :)
     
  5. Marlat

    Marlat

    Sep 17, 2002
    London UK
    What's your response time if you are not in the house at the time?
     
  6. Diggler

    Diggler

    Mar 3, 2005
    Western PA
    I won't speak for Pacman, but for myself it's a matter of seconds.
     
  7. Toasted

    Toasted

    May 26, 2003
    Leeds, UK
    What if it was an African Swallow?
     
  8. Diggler

    Diggler

    Mar 3, 2005
    Western PA
    Easy! You just don't lead 'em as much! /FullMetalJacket
     
  9. Marlat

    Marlat

    Sep 17, 2002
    London UK
    How can you get back to your house in a matter of seconds? Do you work on your property?

    I live fairly close to work and even then it would take me a minimum of 10 mins (in a taxi) or 15 mins (running) to get back to my house if there was an emergency. Luckily, I dont think me laptop, camera and bass are in any danger of being raped or beaten and the security on my apartment makes it all but impenetrable.
     
  10. Toasted

    Toasted

    May 26, 2003
    Leeds, UK
    I'd submit to consenting sex with your bass, Mark.
     
  11. Diggler

    Diggler

    Mar 3, 2005
    Western PA
    I was speaking of my own response time, in case of an attack/robbery. If I'm not home, my wife usually is, and she has her own "response time" which is probably under 10 seconds. ;)

    If I'm at home, it's about the same for me as it is for her... but probably under a minute to get to the point of three family members armed enough to put down a small to moderate insurgency/zombie outbreak. :D

    If no one's home, well, that's great, that's what insurance is for.
     
  12. Toasted

    Toasted

    May 26, 2003
    Leeds, UK
    Do you have:

    a) Chainsaws
    b) Shotguns
    c) Sticks lit on fire at the end for waving

    Incase of Zombie attack? You need those. Oh, and a Bren gun.
     
  13. Diggler

    Diggler

    Mar 3, 2005
    Western PA
    a) No... chainsaws splatter gore and blood, which could infect anyone near the person wielding the chainsaw. My son does have a pretty substantial sword collection though, and may even have a mace or two.
    b) All you can carry
    c) I'd rather not advertise my location to the brain-eaters...

    My zombie preparedness plan, in this home, is to buy time while we load up my urban assault vehicle (Avalanche), at which time we bug out. My home has way too many ground-level windows to be secure against the rotting hordes.

    Next stop: to our truck garage 15 miles away, to weld protective bars over the window openings...
     
  14. Nikoubis

    Nikoubis

    May 3, 2007
    Athens, Greece
    Zombies? Who cares about zombies? We wanna see flaming! We want Hitler and he Nazis, dammit! :mad:




    Oh, well... :D
     
  15. soulgeezer

    soulgeezer Inactive

    Jan 29, 2007
    Northern New Jersey
    Endorsing Artist: Red Zone Effects
    I never said that not having guns was stupid. I said that making guns illegal was stupid. Two very different things.

    If you choose not to have a gun, good for you. But, do not deign to tell me, a law-abiding citizen, that I can't have one.

    Criminals get guns regardless of the law -- Hence the reason that the illegal sale of ammo carries a penalty. Let's face it, if there were no illegal guns, there would be no need for illegal ammo, now would there?

    Again, in the US, the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution protects the right to "keep and bear arms." Therefore, in the US, gun ownership is a right, not a privilege.

    An earlier poster said that gun ownership did not rise to the level of basic literacy in the heirarchy of rights. Strangely, in the US, basic literacy is not a right, but gun ownership is. Go figure...

    And, I don't need to justify why I keep or carry a gun. Home defense? Self-defense? Competitive shooting? Target practice? Recreational shooting? It's all of these. But, the important point is that it doesn't matter if it's one or all of the above reasons, because gun ownership is my right. Not a gift granted by the government, but rather my inalienable right.

    You were raised to believe guns are evil and that their mere presence means that people will die. In this, you are very wrong. The number of people murdered with legal guns is very small. The number of people killed by folks defending themselves with legal firearms is small as well. But, when you lump the two together, you get a false picture of reality.

    Look, you're English. I'm American. Let me turn the question around for a second:

    How can the English people be willing to give up their basic right to own and possess firearms? As an American, it seems very strange to me to give up a basic right like that.

    There was a very famous quote that went something like this:

    "He who is willing to trade liberty for safety deserves neither."

    Guns in the right hands are tools that protect. Guns in the wrong hands are weapons that harm. Remember, it's not the gun that's good or evil, it's the person holding it.





























    (Y'know, the first thing Hitler did when he took over Germany was outlaw guns...

    GODWIN'S LAW! THIS THREAD HAS BEEN ASSIMILATED!) ;) :p
     
  16. morf

    morf Inactive

    Feb 17, 2006
    We're not giving up anything, we're gaining something. That's something you will never understand, and thats ok :)
     
  17. dlloyd

    dlloyd zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Apr 21, 2004
    Scotland
    I'm fairly certain you wanted to mention illegal guns there...
     
  18. Marlat

    Marlat

    Sep 17, 2002
    London UK
    Doesn't this assume that the English had a right to bear arms in the first place to give up?

    I find the rights argument interesting. It seems to me that the right to bear arms, could not probably be traced back to being a fundamental human right, even if such a thing exists. There is no doubt it is a right conferred by law in the US, but the law that confers it is only a piece of paper created by a group of men given the force of law by the rule of law by which the government of a particular country has chosen to abide by. I have never heard a philosophical argument that the right to bear arms is some kind of fundamental human right (ie conferred by god (if you believe in god)) or by some other natural metaphysical concept of rights. Taken further, I have never heard it said that the second amendment confers any kind of fundamental human right on a US citizen - only that it confers a right that it confers.

    In that sense I find the description of the "right to bear arms" as a basic right odd. Its not a basic right, its a right that was constructed by a group of men chosing to bestoy certain rights on citizens. That could be distinguished from what otherwise could be called basic rights (such as perhaps life (which is the only "basic" right I could really think of - or in a stretch "freedom of expression")).

    If you think about it, if the right to bear arms was so fundamental, why is there no schools of philopsphy or ancient debate about the history or nature or the right? Why is it not part of the common law of countries who have systems of common law recognising rights since before there was much in the way of written law recorded?

    No, at best its a right granted by men in a particular situation which is codified in a fundmental legal document of a particular nation. But, I have yet to see a convincing argument that it approaches anything like a fundamental or basic human right as a principle sitting outside the particular laws of a country.
     
  19. Diggler

    Diggler

    Mar 3, 2005
    Western PA
    I believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right, based on the definite human right to self-defense. As sovereign beings have a right to protect themselves from those who would do them harm, a firearm is a very effective, if not THE most effective, tool with which to protect themselves from criminals and rogue governments.

    If they weren't so effective, the police and military wouldn't use them.

    ETA: The Second Amendment is the built-in equivalent to a CTRL-ALT-DEL forced reboot when the system gets too corrupt.
     
  20. Marlat

    Marlat

    Sep 17, 2002
    London UK
    If humans have a right to self defence (probably falls under the heading of the right to life), then that doesn't necessarily follow that the right to bears arms is a fundamental right.

    If the right was merely to defend oneself, then the second amendment should grant a right to do so by whatever means were necessary (be that a gun, sword, nuclear weapon, claymore mine, lawnmower etc). The two rights arn't the same (right to defend onself and the right to bear arms). You can argue that the right to defend oneself can exist without the other.

    Testing this further, it would be completely compatible to remove the right to defend oneself and still have a right to bear arms. For example, assume that it was illegal (ie not a defence to murder / manslaughter) to kill someone in self defence. It doesn't render the right to bear arms redundent as there are situations when the illegality of defending yourself may not apply (ie times or war) or for collecting purposes / hunting etc. No, the right to bear arms does not seem to me to be a codification of the right to defend oneself (even if that was a fundamental right) and, if it is, it is expressed very poorly to achieve its aim.
     
  21. Primary

    Primary TB Assistant

    Here are some related products that TB members are talking about. Clicking on a product will take you to TB’s partner, Primary, where you can find links to TB discussions about these products.

     
    Mar 1, 2021

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.