AGD Shot Turd!!!!!

[Rooster]

civil rights like maybe the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If playing paintball on my property and i'm assembling with people of my choosing, and those people are above the legal age to decide what to do with their lives, its my constitutional right to do that.


Like i said, the people playing like they were ten years ago, have every right to continue to play like they have been. I don't care if the in thing becomes for people to turn there markers down to 150 FPS and have their grade school children shoot each other, im still going to play the game like I am now. And those vets are going to play the game like they have been. They didn't go out and try to sell guns to kids, they didn't start young guns programs, and they have no responsibility to people they want nothing to do with.

[shartley]

This is not an argument or a discussion.... but I have to make one comment...

civil rights like maybe the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If playing paintball on my property and i'm assembling with people of my choosing, and those people are above the legal age to decide what to do with their lives, its my constitutional right to do that.

LOLROF Someone needs serious education.

[Rooster]

1) Your sporting analogies are not valid. Neither professional wrestling nor boxing is dependent on the use of sporting equipment. You're not going to be harmed by boxing or wrestling unless you're in a boxing or wrestling ring. No one walking down the street needs to worry about accidentally stumbling into a wrestling or boxing ring. Furthermore, neither boxing nor wrestling attempt to appeal to the PARTICIPATION of the general population. Our ability to play paintball in an inexpensive manner depends on the ability of MANY people to participate - boxing and wrestling are not popular sports, as measured by participation. Lots of spectators, very few participants. Paintball would simply not survive without lots of participants keeping paint and equipment pricing reasonable.

So every one within 500 feet of a field should be wearing goggles? Even if they are just walking down the street? Should everyone at a baseball game be wearing a helmet in case a foul ball falls on them? There are many undergroud wrestling circuits who do have untrained everyday people participating. And if expensive paintball means less children with over protective monthers playing, i'm all for it.

2) People should wear the appropriate equipment because 1) It's the responsible thing to do and 2) That equipment is now readily available and affordable, especially in comparison to the costs of getting your eye shot out. Just because you choose to play without appropriate protection doesn't mean I should have to pay for your stupidity through higher insurance rates. If you do really believe that it's "your right' to play without goggles because it "doesn't affect anyone else", I don't want to see you filing an insurance claim when you have to go to the hospital to get your eye fixed. Your choice, YOU pay for it.

I agree, and i happen to like my eyes. However people shouldn't be forced to wear that equipment, and they shouldn't be hassled when they don't. However i do pay insurance, and have paid far more than i have ever drawn out of it. If my eye gets shot out by my fualt or someone eleses, and insurance covers it, your damn right im goingto use it. But perhaps thats not fair. And while your at it, people who smoke and get cancer shouldn't be covered either. Nor anyone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet. Nor anyone who drives without a seat belt.

3) On what grounds would the Baltimore ban be overturned? A municipality is perfectly within their legal authority to ban the sale and possession of paintball markers, just like they could fireworks or lawn darts or driving without a license. In this matter, you're just plain ignorant. Come on, I really want to see you answer this one, Mr. I kow Everything About the Constitution.

4) You people who believe the NRA is the solution for everything are idiots. The NRA exists for one purpose: To prevent the government from creating legislation against the use of firearms. SOMETIMES this means we have mutual interests, SOMETIMES it means we don't. For example, paintball competes for land use with gun owners who would rather use the same land to hunt. Further, NRA involvement is harmful. Anyone who would do something because the NRA says so likely isn't going to vote for an anti-paintball law in the first place - but there are plenty of people who WOULD vote for an anti-paintball law precisely because the NRA opposes it.

You need to understand that all of those "zealots" out there are just as much americans and have just as much of a right to vote an dinfluence over the process as you do. Do you think violating the law is acceptable when you don't agree with it? If you do, don't be surprised when the cops beat you in the interogation room after they arrest you. Oh, it's illegal? Guess they didn't agree with the law - tough crap for you. If you think the laws you don't like don't matter, then the laws that protect you don't matter either.

If a community wants to ban the sale of markers and playing on their property, thats up to them. They however are going to have a huge fight on their hands if they try to ban ownership or playing on private property. Now considering the initial succes of Canada to classify paintball guns as firearms, it would follow that the same could be done in the US. Of course this means FA paintball guns would be in trouble, however it would give paintball GUNS constitutional protection.

Like i said, i firmly beleive in civil disobedeance. Slavery was the law, did that make it right? Some people feel strongly about freedom of speech, others about the right to trial by jury, I feel strongly about the freedom of assembly and the right to keep and bear arms. I feel strongly about the rights of people to do what they like on their own property as long as they arn't hurting innocent by standers. If that involves beating the crap out of each other ala fight club, or playing paintball without eye protection, if all participants are of legal age, its their right to assemble and do what they like.

[raehl]

Bzzt.... wrong.

"If a community wants to ban the sale of markers and playing on their property, thats up to them. They however are going to have a huge fight on their hands if they try to ban ownership or playing on private property."

Wrong, and this is another case of you just simply not knowing what you're talking about. Playing paintball is *ALREADY* banned on *ANY* property, private or otherwise, in pretty much any urban area in the country under existing laws which ban the discharge of projectiles within urban limits. Penalties range from fines to jail time. These are perfectly constitutional, established, and judicially tested laws. If I go outside my parent's house in my back yard and fire my paintball marker, the cops are going to show up, and depending on their mood, confiscate the marker or issue a fine or possibly even arrest me. And that's fine - private property or otherwise, the city has determined, through a democratic process, that me using projectiles on my property is an undue risk to the rights of my neighbors to use their private property in a safe manner.

No one has the right to do anything they want, private property or otherwise, because that would necessitate no one else having any rights.


As for your insurance analogies, there are laws against driving without your seatbelt, and there are laws in many states against riding a motor cycle without a helmet - precisely because people don't want to pay the higher insurance rates to cover those who don't use the appropriate equipment. If you are arguing that people who have their eyes shot out should be able to use their insurance to pay for it (as you are), and site seatbelts as an example (as you do), then you are also arguing that there should be laws requiring that people where goggles when playing paintball. Pretty stupid of you to use examples of safety equipment you're legally mandated to use to demonstrate that people shouldn't/can't be legally mandated to use safety equipment, isn't it? "Everyone has the right to choose not to use safety equipment, like seat belts, which everyone is required to wear." You're a riot, you know that?


And yes, EVERYONE within LOS and range of a paintball field should be wearing goggles, even if they're just walking down the street. That's why we have netting. The analogy does not apply to baseball because the odds that the ONE baseball used in the game in the park hits you when you're not looking are very slim compared tothe odds that one of the thousands of paintballs fired in a game hits you when you're not looking.

As for slavery, no, it was not right - but you change the law by electing people who write different laws, not by simply ignoring the laws that exist. But again, your analogy is not valid, as you're talking about a permitted activity being wrong, not, as we are talking about here, a prohibitted activity being right. Your arguement would hold that those persons who lived in a Northern state prior to the Civil War could own slaves if they believed that the laws prohibitted slavery were wrong.

The problem with believing you don't have to obey the law when you don't think it's right is that then other people don't have to obey the law when they don't think it's right either. That's chaos. Better a few laws that are wrong than no laws at all.

And laws don't just magically appear - they are written by the people who participate in society. If you don't participate, you can't be surprised when the rest of society doesn't write the laws you want.

- Chris

[Rooster]

Ah little Mr. high and mighty, you pick what you want to refute, and ingnore the rest, so i like you, will do the same. First of all, in this state it is not a requirement to wear a motocycle helmet, and it is also legal to drive historic cars that do not have seat belts.

Secondly, it is only illegal to discharge weapons where there is a danger of hurting someone. If im in said village and a big man comes into my house brandishing a gun, i can shoot him dead and it will be perfectly legal.

"No one has the right to do anything they want, private property or otherwise, because that would necessitate no one else having any rights."

I never said anyone can do anything they want, i said they can do anything they like as long as they arn't violating the rights of someone else.


"And yes, EVERYONE within LOS and range of a paintball field should be wearing goggles, even if they're just walking down the street. That's why we have netting. The analogy does not apply to baseball because the odds that the ONE baseball used in the game in the park hits you when you're not looking are very slim compared tothe odds that one of the thousands of paintballs fired in a game hits you when you're not looking."

And what about hockey? People have died from getting hit by pucks, even with the boards in place. Could you remind me of the last time a spectator died at a paintball game? And how much netting is 100% safe? Isn't it concievable that the net could fail? And if paintball ever becomes an area sport, will everyone need to wear goggles to an event, just in case the net fails? Of course that will be up to the owner of the area, or to the organizer of the event. Just like it will be up to the people that play in their own woods to decide what people waer when playing and when spectating.




"As for slavery, no, it was not right - but you change the law by electing people who write different laws, not by simply ignoring the laws that exist. But again, your analogy is not valid, as you're talking about a permitted activity being wrong, not, as we are talking about here, a prohibitted activity being right. Your arguement would hold that those persons who lived in a Northern state prior to the Civil War could own slaves if they believed that the laws prohibitted slavery were wrong.

The problem with believing you don't have to obey the law when you don't think it's right is that then other people don't have to obey the law when they don't think it's right either. That's chaos. Better a few laws that are wrong than no laws at all.

And laws don't just magically appear - they are written by the people who participate in society. If you don't participate, you can't be surprised when the rest of society doesn't write the laws you want. "

Society manages to write some laws that are wrong. There were laws passed early in our country's history preventing free speech when it came to talking about the Federalist party. Your attitude honestly scares me. Its people like you that let Hitler rise to power, people like you that stood back and watched Stalin carry out the purges. Who watched Mao kill the academics. Laws that are wrong can not be followed. Allowing ourselves to become sheep for the sake of order is wrong. If you can't see that, then i truely feel sorry for you.

[raehl]

"First of all, in this state it is not a requirement to wear a motocycle helmet, and it is also legal to drive historic cars that do not have seat belts. "

I said in some states for helmets. And fine, the law, in most cases, says you have to wear a seatbelt if your car is equipped with one. There's generally an exemption for equipment that is no longer in common use and was not originally constucted with safety equipment, which is what, maybe .1% of automobiles on the road? Of course, none of this invalidates the original argument, which is that it is perfectly reasonable and legal to mandate the use of safety equipment, and stupid of you to attempt to prove otherwise by citing instances where the use of safety equipment is legally mandated.

""No one has the right to do anything they want, private property or otherwise, because that would necessitate no one else having any rights.""

"I never said anyone can do anything they want, i said they can do anything they like as long as they arn't violating the rights of someone else."

Actually, you originally said "If a community wants to ban the sale of markers and playing on their property, thats up to them. They however are going to have a huge fight on their hands if they try to ban ownership or playing on private property." What you're missing is that it isperfectly possible to do things on your own private property that STILL violate the rights of others, and this still doesn't change the original point: There are MANY things you are legally prohibitted from doing, even on your own private property. Your belief that you can do whatever you want on your land is just incredibly stupid. Zoning laws would be a case and point.


"And what about hockey? People have died from getting hit by pucks, even with the boards in place."

While I can't speak for all of hockey, in the entire history of the NHL, *ONE* spectator has died from being struck by a puck in the stands. One. One out of millions is hardly risk worth mentioning - certainly nothing close to the risk of driving a car.

"Could you remind me of the last time a spectator died at a paintball game?"

We're not just trying to prevent death, we're trying to prevent blindness. Blindness is prevented by the use of netting.

"And how much netting is 100% safe? Isn't it concievable that the net could fail? And if paintball ever becomes an area sport, will everyone need to wear goggles to an event, just in case the net fails?"

It's CONCEIVABLE (although we're likely not that lucky) that you could be struck by lightning tomorrow. It isn't likely, and it isn't likely that netting will fail. The use of netting makes the risk of getting hit by a paintball coming through the area coverred by the netting so minimal that it isn't worth considering.

"Of course that will be up to the owner of the area, or to the organizer of the event. Just like it will be up to the people that play in their own woods to decide what people waer when playing and when spectating. "

So what's your point? All your saying is that people can be stupid if they want to. Way to defend your right to be a dumbass. Being able to be stupid does not mean there are not consequences for being stupid.

"Society manages to write some laws that are wrong. There were laws passed early in our country's history preventing free speech when it came to talking about the Federalist party. Your attitude honestly scares me. Its people like you that let Hitler rise to power, people like you that stood back and watched Stalin carry out the purges. Who watched Mao kill the academics. Laws that are wrong can not be followed. Allowing ourselves to become sheep for the sake of order is wrong. If you can't see that, then i truely feel sorry for you."

Society passes bad laws when society lets bad laws be passed. I participate in my government. The kind of people who let Hitler come to power are those who complacently sit by as their leaderscircumvent the democratic process because the economy is good. Nazis were able to do what they did not because there were bad laws, but because people allowed their democratic process to be circumvented. The disctintion between bad laws and bad governmetns is a very large distinction that you're missing. Unfortunately, I doubt you really know anything about how the Nazi party managed to get control of the government in Germany, just like I'm pretty sure you have no idea how Stalin came into power either. Stalin didn't come to power in a democracy - he came to power as the result of a regime instilled by people acting outside the bounds of the law.

It's very cute of you to cite bad governments in history without any understanding about how those governments came to be. It's also worth noting that in those cases, what you had were people acting without any regard to the democratic determination of the population - exactly what you're advocating ignoring.


And lastly...

"Secondly, it is only illegal to discharge weapons where there is a danger of hurting someone. If im in said village and a big man comes into my house brandishing a gun, i can shoot him dead and it will be perfectly legal. "

And now you're just talking out your ***. Laws against the discharge of projectiles in urban areas are just that. You can't do it, period, whether you think you'll hurt someone or not. Most do have exemptions for use in defense of person or property, but it is *NEVER* legal in areas with anti-projectile ordinaces to discharge projectiles, whether they be from firearms, bb guns, or paintguns.

Anyway, your rather ignorant use of a Hitler analogy coupled with starting to just make stuff up means this "argument" is over. You're wrong and you've taken to completely irrelevant analogies and non-existent "facts" to try and convince yourself otherwise.

To reiterate:

1) Laws which ban possession and use paintball markers, while stupid, are perfectly constitutional.
2) Private property is no obstacle to such laws, and laws banning the use pf paintball equipment on private property already exist, and are quite common, reasonable, and constitutionally accepted.
3) Irresponsible use of paintball equipment, while your "right", is still irresponsible, and increases the chances that one of those stupid, yet entirely constitutional, laws gets passed.
4) If it gets passed, despite your "noble" attempts to resist through civil disobedience, you'll still end up inside a jail cell, and the rest of us won't have paintballs or paintball equipment to buy or a place to use them.

Not that I expect you to actually do so - if you're not willing to do the simple things to keep paintball legal, I highly doubt you're willing to sit in a jail cell over it either.

- Chris

[Rooster]

"And now you're just talking out your ***. Laws against the discharge of projectiles in urban areas are just that. You can't do it, period, whether you think you'll hurt someone or not. Most do have exemptions for use in defense of person or property, but it is *NEVER* legal in areas with anti-projectile ordinaces to discharge projectiles, whether they be from firearms, bb guns, or paintguns. "

You contridict yourself in your own paragraph.



"Laws against the discharge of projectiles in urban areas are just that. You can't do it, period, whether you think you'll hurt someone or not."

"Most do have exemptions for use in defense of person or property,"

I thought you just got down saying it couldn't be done, period?


"Of course, none of this invalidates the original argument, which is that it is perfectly reasonable and legal to mandate the use of safety equipment, and stupid of you to attempt to prove otherwise by citing instances where the use of safety equipment is legally mandated. "

do you really think its law to wear your seat belt becuase the government wants to keep you safe? Ever thought why they don't make air-bags law? They arn't to keep you safe, its to keep your butt in the seat when you wreak into something. So you don't lose control of your car. Thats way many state allow people to ride without helmets, but still require the use of seat belts. Seat belts arn't their for your protection, they are there for everyone else's.


"So what's your point? All your saying is that people can be stupid if they want to. Way to defend your right to be a dumbass. Being able to be stupid does not mean there are not consequences for being stupid. "

Becuase people have the right to be stupid as long as its not hurting anyone else. I agree there are consequences for being stupid, you could lose your eyes. That that stupid person's problem to deal with. If someone wants to play without goggles that their problem, not you and your little goggle gestapo's.

[raehl]

Right, I mispoke. It's not legal to discharge a projectile unless in defense of person or property - which still excludes your blatantly false assertion that it's just "when someone might be harmed".

And the government mandates seatbelt use for multiple reasons, but mainly to keep insurance costs down, the same reasons more and more states are proposing and passing helmet laws.

And the whole point is that playing without goggles *IS* hurting other people, by creating situations where it's easier for paintball ban laws to get passed and situations which make it harder for fields to get and stay open and paintball to be an organized activity. Playing without goggles is *NOT* a choice that only has consequences for the person making it, it has consequences for *ALL* paintball players.

So no, you can't decide to not wear goggles, because then people like me have to pay for your stupidity. Other people not playing with goggles *IS* my problem because it threatens *MY* ability to play.

- Chris

[MrMag]

ok, here is my opinion on things:

who cares what u think about wearing goggles or not, if u dont, and u get blinded and or killed, u will see the paintball industries makings drop so quickly u'll schite your pants. ur basically saying that someone should be able to tempt fate for the hell of it. that is also what serial killers do....IT IS NOT OK.

now to tippman. they really screwed up making an mpk wanna be marker. when i first saw it, i thought it was a joke. how can u possibely think that making a paintball marker look like an actual rifle is ok; especially during these times. that gun marker should be banned.

and lastly, what is the point of full auto. u cant use it in most corses, it is incredibely cheap, and takes no skill. all it shows is that u have a lot of money, and that ur a cheap bastard.

tk, i luv u man, and i luv ur markers. i understand what u were trying to show everyone, but what these other guys r trying to say, is that others may not. so u have to be catious.

[shartley]

Becuase people have the right to be stupid as long as its not hurting anyone else.

LOL (Again)

Once again someone needs SERIOUS education, and they speak of things they know nothing about.

[blackmag3]

it's my opinion that paintball will never be banned as a sport. reason being soccer is still a sport and they have riots in the stands which result in massive public harm , death and damage. look at euopean soccer , when the crowd says kill the ref they sometimes really mean it and have done so on numerous occasions. if soccer can get away with riots and tramplings and numerous innocent bystanders getting killed or maimed , paintball won't get banned. untill soccer is banned paintball will still be legal.

[raehl]

sigh...

Again, you're missing the parallels. Regardless, it's not the SPORT that will be banned, it's the use/possession of the equipment that will.

There have been multiple laws proposed to ban or severely restrict paintball in the past year. How many for soccer? While I'm not positive, I'm willing to bet none.

Since people are trying to ban paintball and no one is trying to ban soccer, I'd be inclined to believe paintball will be banned first.


The problem with these arugments is that if the point comes where it's proven that I'm right and this all is a serious concern, it'll already be too late.

- Chris

[manike]

Originally posted by blackmag3
when the crowd says kill the ref they sometimes really mean it and have done so on numerous occasions.

I've never heard of a ref being killed? Care to tell me where I can find evidence of this?

Originally posted by blackmag3
if soccer can get away with riots and tramplings and numerous innocent bystanders getting killed or maimed , paintball won't get banned. untill soccer is banned paintball will still be legal.

Tramplings are very rare and were not caused by violence or any other issue rather than crowd enthusiasm and bad crowd control. That issue is not relevant here.

As for innocents getting killed? Not very likely. All the incidents I know of where people have gotten hurt or killed were where the parties were involved in the trouble and it got taken too far. I don't personally think any of them were completely innocent.

You are portraying a picture which is worse than what really happens with very little proof. That is what Chris and I and the rest are worried will happen with the Turd Video and pictures. Your use of some 'facts' from European soccer mixed up with a lot of 'interpretation' paint a picture that is not representative. You prove exactly why we are concerned about this and how people can embelish the facts.

manike

[billmi]

Originally posted by Rooster

If a community wants to ban the sale of markers and playing on their property, thats up to them. They however are going to have a huge fight on their hands if they try to ban ownership or playing on private property.

It already is illegal to play paintball in a majority of cities in the US (violation of airgun discharge ordinances), and in some cities like New York City, it is illegal to posess a paintgun.

Where's this "huge fight" you were talking about?

And as for the NRA protecting paintball, I have a friend who worked for a few years as an NRA lobyist. She's told me that the NRA specifically avoids any protection of paintball, as they will not support something that involves aiming a "gun" at living people who are not posing a direct threat to the life of others.

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

[Will Wood]

I get lit up without rubber protecting me. So does everyone else at one point or another. Must of the times I know I will get lit up. (IE, Charging towards 3 guys with impulses during a game of hopper ball, resulting in dozens of welts on me, and a few on their rear ends). Other times we don't anticipate it, in a game. What's wrong with some one willingly volenterring to be shot, and then at that with protection. It may be stupidity, but what's wrong with it? Ever watch shows like Ripleys Believe it or Not, Guiness World Records, or any other stunt shows that show odd things? Like a man getting hit by a cannon ball, on his bare belly. Now are you going to try to bring up a arguement about Pirates appearing and shooting people with their cannons? No. Another person was run over by a truck. Is that driver going to start running over everyone? No. Just because one man is a idiot and gets lit up doesn't mean everyone is going to start think it ok and start liting up everyone in their sight.