Hadriel

Joined

• started 24 topics
• posted 583 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Hadriel

• 
  166

  2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

  very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

  so muskets all round.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hadriel

  But you are correct that in a dynamic combatative situation its hard to hit anything with a pistol. Out of all the bullets fired by cops only 16% hit target. Movies make it seem so easy. Its not.

  Dead on accurate statement.
• 
  166

  2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

  very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

  so muskets all round.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hadriel

  @Village Idiot just said it perfectly...has nothing to do with hunting itself.

  I'd really like to see the naysayers sight in something charging at you with a magnified scope...the fact that you say this tells me you have no clue what you're saying. man you must be hella accurate with the hipfire LOL.
• 
  166

  2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

  very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

  so muskets all round.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hadriel

  @Fingkelstein you're right it is better to have a shotgun but the problem is it isn't likely that you'll be carrying a shotgun and a rifle.
• 
  166

  2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

  very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

  so muskets all round.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hadriel

  ...and I'd like to see some of you with a long rifle with a scope sighting in a charging Mountain Lion. Good luck with that, let me know when you get out of the hospital.

  Just last year in Arizona the camp next to us got attacked and the guy put one down.

  Yep bears scare pretty easily as long as food isn't involved lol. They can be a real "bear" then...pun intended.
• 
  166

  2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

  very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

  so muskets all round.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hadriel

  @OrphanCrow did I say it was for hunting? Uh no I didn't did I. I said in the area of personal protection when getting charged unexpectedly. It's a safety precaution it has nothing to do with the actual kill.

  ...and I don't care how you do it in Canada. I don't know any famous Canadian hunters but there are plenty from the U.S. People hunt in Canada due to the vastness. It has zero to do with the elite hunters in Canada. Like we're all rolling up there to take a class or something too funny.
• 
  166

  2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

  very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

  so muskets all round.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hadriel

  Hunting Boar or bear isn't the same as hunting Deer or Caribou

  well you'll get no arg there. Ask anyone trying to sight in with a rifle that close with a dangerous animal charging you, you need a sidearm. ask anyone that's done a decent amount of med. to lg. game hunting. Sort of a necessity.
• 
  43

  The Modern Exodus: Perception or Reality?

  by Hadriel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'm completely new at this however just in my joining this forum and of course interacting with others i can't help but notice what appears to be a significant exodus from the organization.. for those of you that have long been in this game have you seen this before?

  i'm really curious and we should refrain from the sensational, but is what we're seeing different than in years past?.

  it sure seems like so so many are waking and leaving.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hadriel

  @cookiemaster - winner winner chicken dinner. been on here a few months and at least to my knowledge you're the first to get the meaning...nicely done sir!

  I think Fink is dead on here. The scrap heap is getting pretty big these days I just don't see how much more can fit on that sucker before man say enough is enough.
• 
  166

  2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

  very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

  so muskets all round.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hadriel

  @Finkelstein I want you to understand I'm honestly not picking on you but here's a prime example of why commenting on something you're not fully aware of shouldn't be done. Hear me out.

  Hunting for boar years ago with the old man I nearly got gouged. Basically he's a terrible shot. Like its a family joke bad. Needless to say he whizzed one by this sucker and he started charging me.

  At that point a rifle isn't going to help you. You need a side arm, which thankfully I had. It was a 10mm Glock (missed on the first, clipped on second but between the withers on the third). On the third shot I dropped the boar just a couple feet from me.

  What's my point? No way in the world I'm hunting for certain game without a pistol/revolver. No chance. Aiming down a rifle sight in that scenario just isn't going to work. So banning side arms won't work.

  Banning semi-auto rifles won't work either. What's wrong with my Remington R-15. Are you saying that my varmint rifle is bad news? Cause that's what that gun is for.

  See there are legit uses for these guns. Unless you're just saying I shouldn't hunt anymore. something I've done my entire life. Perhaps everyone should take something they've done their entire lives and remove it just to be fair then? (obviously not serious and not being argumentative but hopefully you appreciate what I'm saying)

  All for control I'm a good citizen I'm not the concern but I get it there are people that are. So if there's some inconvenience I have zero issue with that. Honestly I don't. However you can't cast a wide net. Needs to be specific and predominantly based on individuals not the weapon itself. Guns don't spontaneously combust people do.

  California is a prime example that the wrong kind of gun control flat doesn't work. That state is a danger zone. Strictest in the business yet the most deaths by guns.

  ...and I totally disagree that guns are the primary mechanism in these terrible incidents. The twin towers, Boston Marathon, San Bernardino. All either not guns or guns that were obtained illegally. Which all the gun control in the world does nothing for any of those terrible situations.

  Not saying gun control can't help over all I think it can but it isn't a magic wand. In those three incidents I just mentioned gun control would have done nothing...zero...buptkis...so don't be under the impression it will magically fix it all.

  Preventing conflict and stress for people will have a far greater effect than the gun control. Combine the both and you might have something.

  Lastly everyone has been pretty civil in here but stood their ground. I hope I'm not overstepping here but during this @simon and I have had some PMs on totally unrelated topics throughout this whole deal. Seriously as if this thread didn't even exist and here we are on polar opposite sides of the fence.

  I know some are upset or are claiming censorship. I haven't seen the posts so I can't really comment fully but I've not exactly been a cupcake in my position here and have received zero flak in the process. If you are civil and not abusive in your speech I don't think you'll see any censoring. Not making judgments just saying that is my personal experience. Take it as you will.

  Now if we can just get the politicians to act in the same constructive manner as everyone has been here maybe we'll get somewhere!!.
• 
  43

  The Modern Exodus: Perception or Reality?

  by Hadriel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'm completely new at this however just in my joining this forum and of course interacting with others i can't help but notice what appears to be a significant exodus from the organization.. for those of you that have long been in this game have you seen this before?

  i'm really curious and we should refrain from the sensational, but is what we're seeing different than in years past?.

  it sure seems like so so many are waking and leaving.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hadriel

  @Vidiot I'm waiting for the t-shirts....

  WE ARE EXODUS
• 
  166

  2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

  very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

  so muskets all round.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hadriel

  @Giordano & @Simon

  You guys are missing the point. You're quick to sight isolated incidents however when albeit via satire I state another way someone might die in the same environment that doesn't count? What kinda logic is that?

  The point is you can't sight a single incident and say see see if someone is hunting a camper/hiker dies. That is what you are implying.

  So my counter is well then if you pitch a tent you get killed by a tree.

  Maybe you missed it but my point is that it's ridiculous to say either!!!

  No one has explained to me the fact that in states where gun ownership is nearly 65% that they have so few murders by guns they don't even register in the analytics. See those are facts. Those aren't isolated incidents we see that in multiple states.

  I feel like you guys think if there's a gun in the picture it's for sure going off and someone is getting killed. Yet the proof that gun lenient states are safer is clearly there. That is categorically contrary to the theory that guns spontaneously go off.

  I get it you think all guns should be banned, fine just add everything thing else to the list too as bombs are far more destructive and kill many more yet none of you have even mentioned it.

  I have to get out of this one as I think I'm gonna lose my mind ha ha.

  I'll leave everyone with this. I'm all for reasonable gun control however I refuse to say guns kill people. People kill people and they do it by many means. You'd be better off starting programs to help people coincide and relive stress than limiting a cartridge to 10 rounds instead of 15.

  Respectfully,

  HH