Advances in non-lethal defense make the 2nd amendment unnecessary

[micrometers]

If you were starting over in civil society, non-lethal defense has come a long way in the past 50 years. Things like tasers, pepper stray, pepper balls, and mace, not to mention electronic surveillance and home security systems, remote surveillance, etc.

Basically means that for all practical purposes, guns really are unnecessary in a civil society. There is hunting, I suppose, but there are also crossbows for that.

If you think about the danger of "false positives", non-lethal defense tools provide something like 90% of the protection of the gun with 10% of the downsides.

That leads the "armed revolution" fantasy, which is based on paranoia since we live in a democratic society and revolutions are carried out at the ballot box.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's nice. The reality is that your interpretation doesn't remove the 2nd. We get to keep what is ours. Next.

 

[shortylickens]

Excellent troll, sir!
You do Flying Pig proud.

 

[cybrsage]

One of the guys who wrote that Amendment disagrees with you:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson​

http://www.fightthebias.com/Quotes/thomas_jefferson.htm​

 

[MotF Bane]

Does freedom scare you, karmypolitics?

 

[shortylickens]

Does freedom scare you, karmypolitics?

Dude, seriously, he's trolling. Just ignore him.

 

[Ronstang]

Umm...No.

 

[Elfear]

Ya I'm thinking if I was a 100lb chick facing a 250lb dude who wants to rob or rape me, I'd much rather be looking down the barrel of gun than the nozzle of a pepper spray can.

 

[micrometers]

Ya I'm thinking if I was a 100lb chick facing a 250lb dude who wants to rob or rape me, I'd much rather be looking down the barrel of gun than the nozzle of a pepper spray can.

Pepper spray is lighter and can be discharged without dislocating a shoulder.

 

[waggy]

this is the kinda shit mods should be looking at. a flat out troll.

not disagreements between people.

 

[Number1]

this is the kinda shit mods should be looking at. a flat out troll.

not disagreements between people.

PFF, who is going to take shit like this seriously?

It's sooooo retarded.

LOL

 

[micrometers]

Does freedom scare you, karmypolitics?

I'm just making a point, sir. non-lethal defense systems have made great advancements in recent years. Law enforcement in particular has been big on it as of late. It is also an interesting way to sidestep the debate. You can have effective self-defense without carrying around a murder tool.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Ladies and Gentlemen, let's not engage in thread crapping here. If you think that this topic is unworthy of discussion, then just leave it at that and don't post here.

Let's elevate the level of discourse. Thanks.

 

[Number1]

Ladies and Gentlemen, let's not engage in thread crapping here. If you think that this topic is unworthy of discussion, then just leave it at that and don't post here.

Let's elevate the level of discourse. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

 

[Fenixgoon]

let me know the next time a criminal comes at you with a taser or pepper spray.

do i personally want to carry? no - because that's a huge responsibility and i'd hate to miss and hit a bystander.

but i'm all for castle laws.

 

[micrometers]

Let's take a hypothetical. Bernie Goetz.

What if instead of a gun he had had a can of mace instead?

The answer: he probably would have gotten away from this potential mugging okay. He would not have had any court trouble. The four young men who were criminal at the time would not have had this amount of pain inflicted on them.

 

[woodie1]

If you were starting over in civil society, non-lethal defense has come a long way in the past 50 years. Things like tasers, pepper stray, pepper balls, and mace, not to mention electronic surveillance and home security systems, remote surveillance, etc.

Basically means that for all practical purposes, guns really are unnecessary in a civil society. There is hunting, I suppose, but there are also crossbows for that.

If you think about the danger of "false positives", non-lethal defense tools provide something like 90% of the protection of the gun with 10% of the downsides.

That leads the "armed revolution" fantasy, which is based on paranoia since we live in a democratic society and revolutions are carried out at the ballot box.

I will be civil.

You are entitled to your opinion. However I do not agree with you and it seems I'm not alone.

With government taking away more and more of our freedoms this is one right that should remain untouched.

 

[JSt0rm]

well they want to be able to fight off the military when they come to throw them in camps. So they need shotguns and pistols and riffles in the shape of assault rifles.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

well they want to be able to fight off the military when they come to throw them in camps. So they need shotguns and pistols and riffles in the shape of assault rifles.

We do not need to justify the rights we have. You can try to belittle us, you can say whatever you like, but we don't need your or anyone's approval. That has to drive you mad.

 

[micrometers]

well they want to be able to fight off the military when they come to throw them in camps. So they need shotguns and pistols and riffles in the shape of assault rifles.

at this point a more likely scenario of armed revolution is if some militia groups (i.e. Timothy McVeigh) used their guns to try to say, close down all of the abortion clinics in the country. There is a democracy and checks and balances and there is always a vote. It is more likely that any armed revolution would be itself tyrannical on everyone else than fighting for "freedom"

 

[JSt0rm]

We do not need to justify the rights we have. You can try to belittle us, you can say whatever you like, but we don't need your or anyone's approval. That has to drive you mad.

i never said you did. I will not join you when you pump round after round into fellow countryman in your attempt to defend yourself from the oppression of well tanned leaders.

 

[JSt0rm]

at this point a more likely scenario of armed revolution is if some militia groups (i.e. Timothy McVeigh) used their guns to try to say, close down all of the abortion clinics in the country. There is a democracy and checks and balances and there is always a vote. It is more likely that any armed revolution would be itself tyrannical on everyone else than fighting for "freedom"

I'm confident that the tax dollars i spend for law enforcement with be used to stop any crazy people who think they need to fight tyranny with force.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

i never said you did. I will not join you when you pump round after round into fellow countryman in your attempt to defend yourself from the oppression of well tanned leaders.

That's a nice fantasy you have. We aren't going to be shooting anyone because we don't have a need. You'll need a cloth to wipe your face while kneeling and servicing those well tanned leaders long before that.

 

[JSt0rm]

That's a nice fantasy you have. We aren't going to be shooting anyone because we don't have a need. You'll need a cloth to wipe your face while kneeling and servicing those well tanned leaders long before that.

Who is this we?

How many are you?

Where is your compound?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Who is this we?

How many are you?

Where is your compound?

We are the ones who have the 2nd Amendment and we don't need your approval. We don't need to justify ourselves, and that we have rights is something you can't stand. Sucks to be you.