Flip 'Em The Bird And Die Like A Viking


I've come to the conclusion that there are about a dozen or so people on these boards who come here to live out their tough-guy fantasies. Keyboard ninjas they've been called and I think that sums it up. Maybe they get bullied one way or the other at work or at home, or maybe they're just overcompensating for some other inadequecies, or maybe it's just good 'ol fashioned displaced anger. In any case they can't be reasoned with and just make the vast majority of gun owners look bad.

WOW, I have yet to see a post that your not acting like a 5th grader. Anytime someone says the littlest thing you disagree with, out comes the name calling. If you can't force them to see your point of views, you seem to feel the need to belittle them and call them names. In an effort to somehow put them back in their place? Or maybe it's just to make yourself feel good, in some sadistic way?

If in fact as you say they're trying to live out some tough guy life style on the internet. I have to ask how it affects you and impacts your life in anyway shape or form?

They are not violating any of the forum rules with their so called "Internet tough guy/Rambo talk" as you put it. They are just stating what THEY themselves would do in a given situation. So again I ask how that impacts your own life? If it really troubles you that much, as it seems it does. Why do you feel the need to keep egging them on by posting back? If it troubled you so much would you not want to walk away and stop feeding the trolls (As you so choose to call them)?....
 

They are just stating what THEY themselves would do in a given situation. So again I ask how that impacts your own life?
If someone has control issues, failing to control the actions and indeed the opinions of others is likely to make them very angry. Hence the ad hominems and acting out.
 
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

Link Removed
 
This is meaningless if you are one of the 1/2 of one percent. If you really believe this crap, why don't you turn in your CCW and sit in a corner and wet yourself. Col. Cooper (God rest his soul!) would have little respect for you. It is our duty to resist. There is another statistic that you fail to mention; how many robberies are stopped by a person who resists. I can tell you that in the four times that I needed to use my weapon, the situation resolved itself immediately upon the actor discovering that I was armed. That is a 100% success rate. I never informed the uniformed criminals (known by some as the police) about these events since three of the events occurred in the Peoples Republic of Illinois where I was a criminal for carrying a weapon. I wonder how many of the successes never get reported to the FBI, making the statistics somewhat unreliable.

complying with a report is more hassle then it is worth and you lose annomity
 
WOW, I have yet to see a post that your not acting like a 5th grader. Anytime someone says the littlest thing you disagree with, out comes the name calling. If you can't force them to see your point of views, you seem to feel the need to belittle them and call them names. In an effort to somehow put them back in their place? Or maybe it's just to make yourself feel good, in some sadistic way?

If in fact as you say they're trying to live out some tough guy life style on the internet. I have to ask how it affects you and impacts your life in anyway shape or form?

They are not violating any of the forum rules with their so called "Internet tough guy/Rambo talk" as you put it. They are just stating what THEY themselves would do in a given situation. So again I ask how that impacts your own life? If it really troubles you that much, as it seems it does. Why do you feel the need to keep egging them on by posting back? If it troubled you so much would you not want to walk away and stop feeding the trolls (As you so choose to call them)?....

I see your mighty sword of judgement only gets used on people who's views differ from your own. You seem to have no problem "Liking" posts from your friends which do exactly what you're so quick to criticize me (and others) for. Your hypocrisy is both amusing and a bit sad. Now that I think about it, I am feeding the trolls and this post is no exception.
 
So not only do you advise drawing a gun in a situation that (according to statistics) will most likely end right then and there with you walking home to cancel your credit cards, but you also suggest outright disobeying the law?

I took a long break from these forums because of the whole sheepdog argument, but despite my own feelings of protecting myself and others, I'm still going to obey the law, and I'm not going to risk getting shot over some credit cards. If anything, my military ID and classified courier card gives me more of a reason to draw compared to somebody losing only their driver's license and credit cards, but as long as you don't escalate the situation through body language and what you say, there's a very, very high chance of walking home that night. Drawing in that kind of situation where the BG has the drop on you is a surefire way to get killed if you underestimated their reaction time and/or training. Not worth the risk IMHO.

You've had to draw your weapon 4 times? You have to break the law in order to carry? Sounds like somebody needs to move.

I also can't carry on base. I may not like it, but that's the law, and what do we do about laws we don't like? We fight to get them changed, and observe the law until they are.

just some info on laws,

Constitution of the Republic of the United States of America

Article 6 Supremacy Clause (please read and reshearch)

SCOTUS opinions:


Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425
"Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no
duties, it affords no protection, it
creates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as inoperative as
though it had never been passed."

Boyd v. US, 116 US 616
5th Amendment rights. "...constitutional provisions for the security of
person and property should be
liberally construed... It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for
the constitutional rights of citizens,
and against any stealthy encroachment thereon."

US v. Bishop, 412 US 346
Relying on prior decisions of the Supreme Court is a perfect defense
against willfulness.

U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many
citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced
into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)


Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw. 60 (1830). "Statutes that violate the plain
and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

We the people/citizens have the tools we need to enforce them by standing up and fighting for our right to be left alone as to what concerns us alone.

U.S. v. Morris. 125 F 322, 325. "Every citizen and freeman is endowed
with certain rights and privileges to enjoy which no written law or statute is
required. These are the fundamental or natural rights, recognized among
all free people."

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297 (1977)
"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral
duty to speak or
where an inquiry left unanswered is intentionally misleading".

Supreme Law School : E-mail : Box 036 : Msg 03678

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvc.htm
 
I see your mighty sword of judgement only gets used on people who's views differ from your own. You seem to have no problem "Liking" posts from your friends which do exactly what you're so quick to criticize me (and others) for. Your hypocrisy is both amusing and a bit sad. Now that I think about it, I am feeding the trolls and this post is no exception.

LOL, The angry man opens his mouth and shuts his eyes. Is that why your so up tight because no one likes your posts? Poor baby! Here I'll click on "Like" so you can stop crying.

As for the name calling, your the one that starts it and they respond to it.

How can it be that the "so called TROLLS, as you call them" are backed up and supported by a large group of other forum members?

Have fun in your angry up tight world!
 
I "liked" your post too dude, happy now?

Here's the story, of a troll named Brady....:biggrin:

I'm indifferent to your "liking" of any of my posts. I would, however, be much happier without the hypocritical double-standards that that are shown by some people on this site that are selectively holier-than-thou. I know....too much to ask. That's OK. I know what I'm dealing with.

Come to think of it, if you actually opted to "like" one of my posts I think I'd have to go back and review it to make sure of what I wrote.
 
I "liked" your post too dude, happy now?

Here's the story, of a troll named Brady....:biggrin:

Oy vey! he played the "troll" card!

"You are a troll" is the equivalent of "I can't form a rational logical argument to dispute what you said so I'll just label you a troll and claim I'm, right..."
 
Oy vey! he played the "troll" card!

"You are a troll" is the equivalent of "I can't form a rational logical argument to dispute what you said so I'll just label you a troll and claim I'm, right..."
The next thing you know, it'll turn to juvenile spelling flames... no wait...
 
Oy vey! he played the "troll" card!

"You are a troll" is the equivalent of "I can't form a rational logical argument to dispute what you said so I'll just label you a troll and claim I'm, right..."

Ditto for the worn out "Ad hominem" response....especially by people who don't know how to properly use it.

BTW, on my way to my weekly Brady meeting the other day I somehow managed to acquire my 15th firearm. Still can't figure out how that keeps happening.....
 
No, this is the point where I tell you I'm going to fight period . I've been shot, I know what it feels like, it's not some big mystery. I'm not going to trust the good intentions of a bad guy w/ a gun I'm going to fight
Seems that we may actually agree on some point, finally.
Bad guys have made their intention clear enough by BEING bad guys.
 
Asinine.
Here in Ohio you'll face jail time if you use lethal force over property.
That's pretty impressive FAIL there.

Not only do I live in Ohio, I'm qualified to give the CHL class.

Somebody stealing your TV while you're asleep is a property crime.
Somebody stealing your car while you're not in it is a property crime.
Somebody stealing your wallet out of your gym locker is a property crime.

Armed robbery is a crime against a PERSON. It involves the direct threat of VIOLENCE against a PERSON in order to COMPEL them to surrender property to which they have a legal right to somebody who has NO legal right to it.

You have ZERO duty to submit to an armed robbery in Ohio. At MOST, when outside of your home or vehicle, you have a duty to ATTEMPT to withdraw if you can do so "IN PERFECT SAFETY". That doesn't mean you have to turn your back and run away. It just means that must ATTEMPT to withdraw (walk away) if you CAN without incurring ANY additional danger by doing so.

Trying to portray armed robbery as a "property crime" is just one more stanza from the same tired, old AHSA tune.

If you don't believe me, ask Artie Buford.

Hope you know how to hold a seance.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,526
Messages
610,760
Members
74,962
Latest member
troydistro
Back
Top