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

  You know that doesn't mean there has been a national poll with 100% response and agreement right? ;-p

  Of course but that goes both ways right? ;)
• 
  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

  Fair enough but he said "any Canadian". I took him at his word. To say to me that it is silly and "any" Canadian thinks you're a sissy doesn't seem accurate based the law and the indication that sidearms have a purpose of personal protection given the circumstances. Seems pretty plain there to me.
• 
  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

  It makes sense that a rifle for some people, while working, would not make sense for purely practical reasons. Bit it's clearly not the normal tool for hunting and requires special permission (at the bottom of the screenshot).

  I agree those are their laws but Orphan was implying that Canadians think it's silly and not needed but clearly the Canadian government sees carrying a sidearm for protection. That was all my point was. it couldn't be more clear that Canada sees this as valid for protection. I don't see how anyone could say otherwise.

  My bud at the ATF said that the laws are not the same for each province either. He said it isn't across the board and that they ban other things as well like muzzle loaded weapons and so on.

  Bottom line @Orphan's statement just wasn't accurate.

  In the end I'm just glad I'm not a sissy anymore 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

  As I said before, I have asked people who are active hunters. A side arm is not necessary to be a good hunter. Not at all. If you ask any northern Canadian hunter about using a side arm in hunting, they would call you either a sissy or a bad hunter.

  @OrphanCrow called the entire mounted police sissies. They apparently see a need for any person licensed and working with wildlife to carry a sidearm for projection. Isn't the below pretty much exactly what I was referring to? See Below

  BTW your laws also vary from region to region, Just texted a buddy of mine with the ATF. So your statement that they aren't used in Canada is patently false. You're implication that American's are sissies for carrying a side arm for close quarters protection is employed by your own wildlife departments and police.

  
  
• 
  8

  For fun: What should JW stand for?

  by dbq407 in

  1. social
  2. humour

  judged worthless was one i thought of today.

  .

  because anyone that isn't giving 100% all the time is judged by other witnesses as worthless..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Hadriel

  ...Just Waiting
• 
  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.