Ghost Gunner $1200 Home CNC Mill

[Trik'Stari]

yeah fair point. Now I just need money

Same here.

[murratri]

No, it's not. Basic human rights are those you require to survive, such as healthcare, water, shelter, and food.

Yes, clearly the answer here is that two people are just WRONG, WRONG I TELL YOU! And not that you could possibly be wrong...

No, but I am allergic to bits of lead jacketed in copper coming towards me at high speeds.

This is a hilarious example of the deluded fantasies you people have. Obama is centre-right. The entire Democratic party is centre-right. ISIS members coming into your house. The fact that you're scared of that means the terrorists have already won. That's literally the point of terrorism is to make every individual in the population think they could be next. You speak a lot on the topic of bravery when apparently for you that means giving in to terrorism and boarding ourselves into our houses with stockpiles of ammo and food waiting for ISIS to come and bust your door down.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that more guns are neutral or even that they help the situation.

You're not education anyone. Everyone who you try to "educate" for not agreeing with you already knows better so there's no point in trying.

But that doesn't mean that giving them more opportunities to make/buy guns is good.

Yes, black markets exist. But if you seriously believe that MORE actually legalized weaponry makes the situation better then we can leave the discussion at that.

I see the point of the 2nd Amendment as being that because England kinda screwed us over-tyranny and stuff- we need the ability to revolt against another government that may screw us over. Laugh all you want but it is a very legitimate reason to not let the government regulate firearms because if they do become tyrannical then it will be a basic human need- so that people may be able to actually win the fight. Having background checks may lead to tyranny because the government will have the ability to decide if one should have one and possibly affect the check to get as they want. Even deciding which guns people should be able to posses-*cough* assault rifles *cough*- can lead to tyranny because a military that goes against a people with far inferior weapons is undoubtfully going to win. Throughout history almost all tyranical governments attempted to remove firearms because it needed to be able to legislate without fear of the people.

Fyi, healthcare and shelter are not necessary to survive necessarily- but are nonetheless important- and are also not protected or guaranteed by the Constitution

P.S. I agree ISIL running into your home isnt a huge worry. Obama is quite progressive however, so whichever side you choose to group that on is the one he is- ie, center right or center left-; I personally define him as a center left. Of course Obama is also pretty corporatist so I guess its a mixed bag.

Edit: dont hurt me

[Trik'Stari]

I see the point of the 2nd Amendment as being that because England kinda screwed us over-tyranny and stuff- we need the ability to revolt against another government that may screw us over. Laugh all you want but it is a very legitimate reason to not let the government regulate firearms because if they do become tyrannical then it will be a basic human need- so that people may be able to actually win the fight. Having background checks may lead to tyranny because the government will have the ability to decide if one should have one and possibly affect the check to get as they want. Even deciding which guns people should be able to posses-*cough* assault rifles *cough*- can lead to tyranny because a military that goes against a people with far inferior weapons is undoubtfully going to win. Throughout history almost all tyranical governments attempted to remove firearms because it needed to be able to legislate without fear of the people.

Fyi, healthcare and shelter are not necessary to survive necessarily- but are nonetheless important- and are also not protected or guaranteed by the Constitution

P.S. I agree ISIL running into your home isnt a huge worry. Obama is quite progressive however, so whichever side you choose to group that on is the one he is- ie, center right or center left-; I personally define him as a center left. Of course Obama is also pretty corporatist so I guess its a mixed bag.

Edit: dont hurt me

Thank you for pointing out the logic here. Without guns, one cannot defend onesself against those with guns, and quite honestly, better guns than we can currently own. Gun ownership keeps us free, whether concious or not, whether actively being used or not.

[Builder]

I see the point of the 2nd Amendment as being that because England kinda screwed us over-tyranny and stuff- we need the ability to revolt against another government that may screw us over. Laugh all you want but it is a very legitimate reason to not let the government regulate firearms because if they do become tyrannical then it will be a basic human need- so that people may be able to actually win the fight. Having background checks may lead to tyranny because the government will have the ability to decide if one should have one and possibly affect the check to get as they want. Even deciding which guns people should be able to posses-*cough* assault rifles *cough*- can lead to tyranny because a military that goes against a people with far inferior weapons is undoubtfully going to win. Throughout history almost all tyranical governments attempted to remove firearms because it needed to be able to legislate without fear of the people.

Fyi, healthcare and shelter are not necessary to survive necessarily- but are nonetheless important- and are also not protected or guaranteed by the Constitution

P.S. I agree ISIL running into your home isnt a huge worry. Obama is quite progressive however, so whichever side you choose to group that on is the one he is- ie, center right or center left-; I personally define him as a center left. Of course Obama is also pretty corporatist so I guess its a mixed bag.

Edit: dont hurt me

Your argument is half slippery slope and half uninformed BS.

 

Obama is not that progressive on any issues. 

[Trik'Stari]

Your argument is half slippery slope and half uninformed BS.

 

Obama is not that progressive on any issues. 

If by "progressive" you mean "regressive and tyrannical" then yes you are correct. How is it half uninformed BS? you make claims but fail to back them up.

 

FACT: Every dictatorship in the HISTORY OF MANKIND, has outlawed private gun ownership. Or at the very least, regulated it into non existence

[murratri]

Your argument is half slippery slope and half uninformed BS.

Obama is not that progressive on any issues.

Please, what is unimformed and what is a slippery slope? I merely wish to umderstand your reasoning. I guess Obama isn't all that progressive but he seems to be as progressive as he can possibly be while still getting reelected.

[heathd]

Please, what is unimformed and what is a slippery slope? I merely wish to umderstand your reasoning. I guess Obama isn't all that progressive but he seems to be as progressive as he can possibly be while still getting reelected.

Anything that goes against what builder believes immediately gets flagged as misinformation or bullshit.

[Trik'Stari]

Anything that goes against what builder believes immediately gets flagged as misinformation or bullshit.

FACT^. As with all liberals, if you disagree you are racist, wrong, ignorant (despite that generally being misused by their side, making them ignorant of the meaning of the word ignorant), sexist, mysoginist, etc.

 

Liberal argument tactics 101: Never admit to being wrong, never admit to having an agenda, insult, deny, deflect, distract, silence, in that order.

[Builder]

If by "progressive" you mean "regressive and tyrannical" then yes you are correct. How is it half uninformed BS? you make claims but fail to back them up.

 

FACT: Every dictatorship in the HISTORY OF MANKIND, has outlawed private gun ownership. Or at the very least, regulated it into non existence

No, you're right, Obama is neither aggressive nor tyrannical. Read my post. That's what you just said.

 

Just because every dictatorship outlaws it doesn't mean every country that does becomes a dictatorship. Just because all cars run on gasoline doesn't mean putting gasoline into something makes it a car.

 

FACT^. As with all liberals, if you disagree you are racist, wrong, ignorant (despite that generally being misused by their side, making them ignorant of the meaning of the word ignorant), sexist, mysoginist, etc.

 

Liberal argument tactics 101: Never admit to being wrong, never admit to having an agenda, insult, deny, deflect, distract, silence, in that order.

Posts like this make me seriously not want to continue arguing with you.

 

Please, what is unimformed and what is a slippery slope? I merely wish to umderstand your reasoning. I guess Obama isn't all that progressive but he seems to be as progressive as he can possibly be while still getting reelected.

Progressive? No. Progressive as he can be? Possibly, but I hold out hope that Bernie Sanders will win next time around. 

 

Every time you say "can lead," "may lead," or any other uncertain clause of that nature you're leveraging the slippery slope argument. Nearly your entire post was centered around that method. I said the post was uninformed because Obama really isn't progressive, he's moderate leaning right on most issues.

[Admire]

Um, since when is obama right wing? you're a idiot, and a troll, welcome to the ignore list. When an ISIS member breaks into your house with a machete to kill you or your family, you will understand then why guns are a necessity

 

Wait, is it just an undrilled and tapped lower?

 

 

More like allergic to thinking for themselves, the government can do that for them so why should they? it already does everything else for them, that's what sheep are, following the shepard like a good little sheep.

 

Wait a second....Didn't I just hear you complain about people running away from debates?

 

You want to throw in all your right wing stuff into every single thread, no matter whether its political or not(You just called somebody liberal in another thread that had nothing to do with politics), but when people push back, you them on ignore?

 

This goes both ways. You don't get to propagandize without us pushing back.

 

 

FACT^. As with all liberals, if you disagree you are racist, wrong, ignorant (despite that generally being misused by their side, making them ignorant of the meaning of the word ignorant), sexist, mysoginist, etc.

 

Liberal argument tactics 101: Never admit to being wrong, never admit to having an agenda, insult, deny, deflect, distract, silence, in that order.

 

Conservative argument tactics 101: No other political orientation other that extreme conservative is allowed and all opinions will be labeled liberal or socialist and will be deemed without value without even having to point out why.

[MonkeyFace]

This thread is getting really toxic. 

[Real_PhillBert]

This thread is getting really toxic. 

I had some hope that it was going to stay on the topic of desk sized CNC milling machines, but the internet appears to have prevailed. 

[Admire]

I had some hope that it was going to stay on the topic of desk sized CNC milling machines, but the internet appears to have prevailed. 

 

TrikStari happened. You can't make a thread about anything gun related without him calling us all socialists hellbend of taking his 2nd. amendment rights away.

[murratri]

No, you're right, Obama is neither aggressive nor tyrannical. Read my post. That's what you just said.

Just because every dictatorship outlaws it doesn't mean every country that does becomes a dictatorship. Just because all cars run on gasoline doesn't mean putting gasoline into something makes it a car.

Posts like this make me seriously not want to continue arguing with you.

Progressive? No. Progressive as he can be? Possibly, but I hold out hope that Bernie Sanders will win next time around.

Every time you say "can lead," "may lead," or any other uncertain clause of that nature you're leveraging the slippery slope argument. Nearly your entire post was centered around that method. I said the post was uninformed because Obama really isn't progressive, he's moderate leaning right on most issues.

I was speaking in hypothetical and literal terms. I used hypothetical terms because a situation in which revolution is necessary has not happened and therefore cant be spoken of literally and neither has the federal government putting high restrictions on firearms- save the assault weapons ban of 1994-, however I did attempt to use more literal terms as much as possible.

P.S. Rand Paul 2016 ftw, he may not be a libertarian but he could pave the way for one.

[Trik'Stari]

No, you're right, Obama is neither aggressive nor tyrannical. Read my post. That's what you just said.

 

Just because every dictatorship outlaws it doesn't mean every country that does becomes a dictatorship. Just because all cars run on gasoline doesn't mean putting gasoline into something makes it a car.

 

Posts like this make me seriously not want to continue arguing with you.

 

Progressive? No. Progressive as he can be? Possibly, but I hold out hope that Bernie Sanders will win next time around. 

 

Every time you say "can lead," "may lead," or any other uncertain clause of that nature you're leveraging the slippery slope argument. Nearly your entire post was centered around that method. I said the post was uninformed because Obama really isn't progressive, he's moderate leaning right on most issues.

Right, because ignoring congress, bypassing the law altogether with illegal executive actions isn't tyrannical behavior. Nor is injecting himself into racial politics where he should not (race baiting). We could argue more on this point, but the fact that you think he isn't "regressive and tyrannical" enough is fine with me.

In the red: I'm not really sure what the fuck that even means in response to what I said

In the blue: Those tactics are taken almost directly from "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals" which is a staple for the modern liberal, and in my opinion represent your argument style. I'm sure that book is either in your house somewhere, or you've at the least read it before, or had it quoted to you by your college professor.

•RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

•RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

•RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

•RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

•RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

•RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

•RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

•RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

•RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

•RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

•RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

•RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

 

 

Wait a second....Didn't I just hear you complain about people running away from debates?

 

You want to throw in all your right wing stuff into every single thread, no matter whether its political or not(You just called somebody liberal in another thread that had nothing to do with politics), but when people push back, you act like a pussy and put them on ignore?

 

This goes both ways. You don't get to propagandize without us pushing back.

Fair enough, I have builder on ignore to begin with, only read his posts if they're on a topic I'm already interested in/reading. I've been doing that as of late so as to lessen the possibility of my continuing the argument and further derailing the thread. The one exception I make is peoples bullshit, uninformed, propagandized inspired opposition to gun ownership.

 

 

TrikStari happened. You can't make a thread about anything gun related without him calling us all socialists hellbend of taking his 2nd. amendment rights away.

I wouldn't do that if people wouldn't inject the " 'MURICA" statements pointlessly into a thread. It offends me and pisses me off, am I not allowed to have an opinion suddenly?

[Builder]

P.S. Rand Paul 2016 ftw, he may not be a libertarian but he could pave the way for one.

He's been moving farther right in an attempt to gain more of the Republican vote. He used to be opposed to giving foreign aid to Israel but now that he sees he has a chance he's totally backpedaled on that one. I want people to stay honest. I identify most with Bernie Sanders so that's who I want to win.

[murratri]

TrikStari happened. You can't make a thread about anything gun related without him calling us all socialists hellbend of taking his 2nd. amendment rights away.

He never said socialist just liberal.

Although the policies that seem to be supported are progressive not liberal- in the classical sense.

[Builder]

Right, because ignoring congress, bypassing the law altogether with illegal executive actions isn't tyrannical behavior. Nor is injecting himself into racial politics where he should not (race baiting). We could argue more on this point, but the fact that you think he isn't "regressive and tyrannical" enough is fine with me.

In the red: I'm not really sure what the fuck that even means in response to what I said

In the blue: Those tactics are taken almost directly from "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals" which is a staple for the modern liberal, and in my opinion represent your argument style. I'm sure that book is either in your house somewhere, or you've at the least read it before, or had it quoted to you by your college professor.

•RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

•RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

•RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

•RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

•RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

•RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

•RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

•RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

•RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

•RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

•RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

•RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

My god. Did you seriously just go full retard? What the fuck is this shit? I've never read it anywhere. The only books on my shelves are Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, and most recently Capital by Thomas Piketty.

[Admire]

Fair enough, I have builder on ignore to begin with, only read his posts if they're on a topic I'm already interested in/reading. I've been doing that as of late so as to lessen the possibility of my continuing the argument and further derailing the thread. The one exception I make is peoples bullshit, uninformed, propagandized inspired opposition to gun ownership.

 

Wait....That makes no sense man. If im opposed to gun ownership(Which im not), my opinion must be uninformed and propagandized, while any support of gunownership isn't. You can't put it like that! Its just a difference of opinion. Its you who always bring politics into it, calling people liberals, libtards, communists or socialists.

 

Thats not fair, nor does it make you more right.

 

 

And nobody fucking reads Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals!

 

Your perception of liberals is so wrong. Do you even know any? I honestly think that you live in a very conservative area and get your picture of liberals only from the tv or something.

 

But you don't regonize the difference....Everybody who is to the left of you is a liberal. doesn't matter what their actual political opinions are, if they aren't as conservative as you, their opinions have no merit. Thats how the whole "rhino" thing came about.

[murratri]

He's been moving farther right in an attempt to gain more of the Republican vote. He used to be opposed to giving foreign aid to Israel but now that he sees he has a chance he's totally backpedaled on that one. I want people to stay honest. I identify most with Bernie Sanders so that's who I want to win.

I wish him all the best but Rand Paul tends to align with my personal beleifs more-excluding military intervention and abortion-, and his election would make libertarian candidates more popular hopefully.

[Builder]

I wish him all the best but Rand Paul tends to align with my personal beleifs more-excluding military intervention and abortion-, and his election would make libertarian candidates more popular hopefully.

See I'm not entirely sure of Paul's beliefs on military intervention...enlighten me

[murratri]

The only books on my shelves are Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, and most recently Capital by Thomas Piketty.

Is this true? Sorry if its sarcasm- its hard to tell over text- but if its true then you may need to read a few more books man.

[murratri]

See I'm not entirely sure of Paul's beliefs on military intervention...enlighten me

He is an interventionist and I tend to be more non- intervention.

[Admire]

Is this true? Sorry if its sarcasm- its hard to tell over text- but if its true then you may need to read a few more books man.

 

Why? Those are must read books for anybody who is interested in politics...Just like Mein Kampf is a must read.

[Builder]

Is this true? Sorry if its sarcasm- its hard to tell over text- but if its true then you may need to read a few more books man.

No. I was trying to be honest in that I read a lot of so called "liberal" staples, (anarchy-communist/syndicalist myself) while showing that I don't read shit like that, whatever the hell it is. I've never even heard of it. Rest assured I read a lot more than that though.

 

He is an interventionist and I tend to be more non- intervention.

Ahhh. See I thought it might be the other way around because isn't Ron Paul non-interventionist?