INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: jman on March 21, 2013, 12:55:42 AM
-
I should be allowed to have an ak47 or an m16 in my home, even if there are children present, why, because MERIKUH :autism:
-
Your trolling attempt has failed.
I should be able to have one because I fucking want one.
-
I should be able to have one because I fucking want one.
You want an assault weapon, I want a tank, that would be so freaking cool! :mischief:
-
I should be able to have one because I fucking want one.
You want an assault weapon, I want a tank, that would be so freaking cool! :mischief:
Your sarcasm is acknowledged.
How is it having armed bodyguards and living in a gated community?
-
It is nice living in a gated community, keeps all the riff raff out including drug addicts, and crazy assholes brandishing assault weapons!
BTW my body guards are well compensated, they clear six figures with overtime, get full 100% paid for healthcare for them and their entire family, 4 weeks paid vacation, and a sweet pension all funded by the taxpayers,I need them, why? Because I am autistic :autism: and I live in Merikuh, fuck ya :2thumbsup:
-
It is nice living in a gated community, keeps all the riff raff out including drug addicts, and crazy assholes brandishing assault weapons!
BTW my body guards are well compensated, they clear six figures with overtime, get full 100% paid for healthcare for them and their entire family, 4 weeks paid vacation, and a sweet pension all funded by the taxpayers,I need them, why? Because I am autistic :autism: and I live in Merikuh, fuck ya :2thumbsup:
Have you ever fired a gun?
-
Yes, but never an assault weapon. Where are we going with this? and why is pertinent whether I did or not?
-
Yes, but never an assault weapon. Where are we going with this? and why is pertinent whether I did or not?
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
Also, define "assualt weapon" Is it something that the liberals tell you looks scary?
-
Congress dropped it from the bill they are working on because they knew it would never pass.
-
I should be allowed to have an ak47 or an m16 in my home, even if there are children present, why, because MERIKUH :autism:
Didn't laugh. Don't be a fag, dude.
-
I should be allowed to have an ak47 or an m16 in my home, even if there are children present, why, because MERIKUH :autism:
I do have an AKS and I don't give a rat's ass if you approve or not.
-
I am getting the feeling the gun industry actually likes this, any legislation will be very watered down so it's not much to worry about and it's driven prices through the roof on both guns and ammo. I am on the same side of this as TA but just wish people would stop using the well if you never did something your opinion is invalid argument
-
This thread.
Ideas and crusades like this.
Most politicians and soccer moms and "equal rights groups and whatnot".
Hey fuckers. Pic related. Its you.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lg5pgw9j9p1qh01w6o1_400.jpg)
-
You guys can AKs but I can't have a tank? :'(
And FTR I fired a rifle when I was a kid, it was not that impressive. I actually wouldn't mind owning a gun, I just don't see why someone needs own a gun that is overkill.
-
You guys can AKs but I can't have a tank? :'(
And FTR I fired a rifle when I was a kid, it was not that impressive. I actually wouldn't mind owning a gun, I just don't see why someone needs own a gun that is overkill.
Stick with a rubber band gun. Even busy body douche bags are unlikely to consider a rubber band gun over kill.
-
It is no so much an invalid opinion, but more or less hypocrisy.
It is hypocritical to detest guns and gun owners if you have never fired a gun.
-
Your trolling attempt has failed.
I should be able to have one because I fucking want one.
pfftt!! you'd just shoot yourself with it, kiddo!!!
:kapow:
-
Your trolling attempt has failed.
I should be able to have one because I fucking want one.
pfftt!! you'd just shoot yourself with it, kiddo!!!
:kapow:
Prove it.
-
Your trolling attempt has failed.
I should be able to have one because I fucking want one.
pfftt!! you'd just shoot yourself with it, kiddo!!!
:kapow:
Prove it.
You want ME to shoot YOU?? Sure, give me your addy and I'll oblige.
I know you don't brain and you have the dumb, but that's something YOU need to prove.
Tell us what local newspaper would carry your obituary and we'll keep an eye out for you.
:rofl:
-
Your trolling attempt has failed.
I should be able to have one because I fucking want one.
pfftt!! you'd just shoot yourself with it, kiddo!!!
:kapow:
Prove it.
You want ME to shoot YOU?? Sure, give me your addy and I'll oblige.
I know you don't brain and you have the dumb, but that's something YOU need to prove.
Tell us what local newspaper would carry your obituary and we'll keep an eye out for you.
:rofl:
:orly: I must be your new target, this should be.....boring.
You still did not prove that I would shoot myself, you just came close to threatening me and insulted my intelligence.
-
Ok, yer right BravoFoxtrotDelta, yer too doltish to troll.
:facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2:
-
Ok, yer right BravoFoxtrotDelta, yer too doltish to troll.
:facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2: :facepalm2:
Still not buying it.
-
:LMAO:
Are you really this dense or is this just your act?
-
:LMAO:
Are you really this dense or is this just your act?
lolwut
Really Scrappy, you are just entertaining me, the fail is strong within you.
-
You guys can AKs but I can't have a tank? :'(
And FTR I fired a rifle when I was a kid, it was not that impressive. I actually wouldn't mind owning a gun, I just don't see why someone needs own a gun that is overkill.
Stick with a rubber band gun. Even busy body douche bags are unlikely to consider a rubber band gun over kill.
Fuck that I still want my tank damn it
I'd also like a missile launcher and the missiles that go with it :2thumbsup:
-
You guys can AKs but I can't have a tank? :'(
And FTR I fired a rifle when I was a kid, it was not that impressive. I actually wouldn't mind owning a gun, I just don't see why someone needs own a gun that is overkill.
Stick with a rubber band gun. Even busy body douche bags are unlikely to consider a rubber band gun over kill.
Fuck that I still want my tank damn it
I'd also like a missile launcher and the missiles that go with it :2thumbsup:
If you were not being a butthurt troll, I would tell you to go for it.
However, you are mad because your side lost.
-
I actually could give two shits about the gun debate, I just think it's funny to watch a bunch of gun toting redneck muuurrrickans get mad. One even knocked my karma down. :thumbup: It would have been even more fun if the legislation actually passed.
-
I actually could give two shits about the gun debate, I just think it's funny to watch a bunch of gun toting redneck muuurrrickans get mad. One even knocked my karma down. :thumbup: It would have been even more fun if the legislation actually passed.
So we are redneck because we like owning and shooting guns jman?
Personally I would be more prone to consider a person redneck for starting a thread about why he doesn't like nigs than because he doesn't share my interests. Like this one for example. http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,10031.msg430419.html#msg430419 (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,10031.msg430419.html#msg430419) From my perspective you have more in common with the good old boy nigger lynching rednecks than any of the pro 2nd members who posted in this thread.
-
I actually could give two shits about the gun debate, I just think it's funny to watch a bunch of gun toting redneck muuurrrickans get mad. One even knocked my karma down. :thumbup: It would have been even more fun if the legislation actually passed.
So we are redneck because we like owning and shooting guns jman?
Personally I would be more prone to consider a person redneck for starting a thread about why he doesn't like nigs than because he doesn't share my interests. Like this one for example. http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,10031.msg430419.html#msg430419 (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,10031.msg430419.html#msg430419) From my perspective you have more in common with the good old boy nigger lynching rednecks than any of the pro 2nd members who posted in this thread.
Yay for racism :thumbdn:
-
I should be allowed to have an ak47 or an m16 in my home, even if there are children present, why, because MERIKUH :autism:
America fuck yeah-team america (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M#)
-
I should be allowed to have an ak47 or an m16 in my home, even if there are children present, why, because MERIKUH :autism:
America fuck yeah-team america (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M#)
I've heard that movie is pretty funny, though I won't watch it because I fucking hate marionettes.
-
I've heard that movie is pretty funny, though I won't watch it because I fucking hate marionettes.
Bigot! :smarty:
-
I should be allowed to have an ak47 or an m16 in my home, even if there are children present, why, because MERIKUH :autism:
America fuck yeah-team america (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M#)
I've heard that movie is pretty funny, though I won't watch it because I fucking hate marionettes.
Hey man don't be a marionettecist. :(
-
You guys can AKs but I can't have a tank? :'(
And FTR I fired a rifle when I was a kid, it was not that impressive. I actually wouldn't mind owning a gun, I just don't see why someone needs own a gun that is overkill.
not that impressive
own a gun that is overkill
Either make up your mind or learn to troll better, jman. I thought you were more fun than this.
-
If I could afford a tank, I'd buy one.
Always wanted to drive one.
I'd park it in front of the house, guns pointed towards the kingdom hall. :zoinks:
-
If I could afford a tank, I'd buy one.
Always wanted to drive one.
I'd park it in front of the house, guns pointed towards the kingdom hall. :zoinks:
At one time you used to be able to buy surplus M-60 tanks. The Patton Museum in Chiriaco Summit, Ca (http://www.generalpattonmuseum.com/) bought about a dozen of them and was able to make a couple running tanks from all the parts.
-
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
Sorry, but my BS detector just broke. This is probably just about the stupidest thing I've read today (sorry, TA, but this will help you grow as a human being).
Guns have only one purpose. You don't need to have fired a gun to oppose that purpose.
-
^Mind, I do realise that a gun can be used for a lot more than that purpose, and I know that several people that I respect and like here do just that, but my point stands. Having never fired a gun does in no way invalidate your opinion of them because of what they were designed to do.
-
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
Sorry, but my BS detector just broke. This is probably just about the stupidest thing I've read today (sorry, TA, but this will help you grow as a human being).
Guns have only one purpose. You don't need to have fired a gun to oppose that purpose.
Did you not see what I clarified later in the thread? More or less, if you want all guns taken out of the hands of the citizens and you have never bothered to fire a gun, you are a hypocrite, and hypocritical opinions are invalid.
-
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
Sorry, but my BS detector just broke. This is probably just about the stupidest thing I've read today (sorry, TA, but this will help you grow as a human being).
Guns have only one purpose. You don't need to have fired a gun to oppose that purpose.
Did you not see what I clarified later in the thread? More or less, if you want all guns taken out of the hands of the citizens and you have never bothered to fire a gun, you are a hypocrite, and hypocritical opinions are invalid.
If you need several posts to explain views best finished in one, you most likely aren't expressing yourself well enough. See, people will respond after reading *one* message, not waiting for clarification after that painful insert foot in mouth moment.
Btw, your clarification did little to change anything. Again: guns have exactly one purpose. You can oppose that purpose without ever touching a gun. Think about it.
I would never trust the general population to be in possession of anything as potentially dangerous as a gun. Look at the idiots walking the streets, ffs.
Not everyone is an idiot and not everyone would abuse their right to carry a firearm but quite a few would, and have. Where the line is drawn is a different discussion, though; all I want to make clear here is that no, you don't have to have pulled the trigger to be against killing.
-
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
Sorry, but my BS detector just broke. This is probably just about the stupidest thing I've read today (sorry, TA, but this will help you grow as a human being).
Guns have only one purpose. You don't need to have fired a gun to oppose that purpose.
Did you not see what I clarified later in the thread? More or less, if you want all guns taken out of the hands of the citizens and you have never bothered to fire a gun, you are a hypocrite, and hypocritical opinions are invalid.
If you need several posts to explain views best finished in one, you most likely aren't expressing yourself well enough. See, people will respond after reading *one* message, not waiting for clarification after that painful insert foot in mouth moment.
Btw, your clarification did little to change anything. Again: guns have exactly one purpose. You can oppose that purpose without ever touching a gun. Think about it.
I would never trust the general population to be in possession of anything as potentially dangerous as a gun. Look at the idiots walking the streets, ffs.
Not everyone is an idiot and not everyone would abuse their right to carry a firearm but quite a few would, and have. Where the line is drawn is a different discussion, though; all I want to make clear here is that no, you don't have to have pulled the trigger to be against killing.
Sure, and I guess being defenseless must be great. Whether you trust the public or not is irrelevant, you have a right to self preservation, or at least you Europeans did at one point, you don't have many rights at this point in time.
I stand by my position, call me a redneck idiot American if you like, but that will not change my opinion.
-
I'm not calling you anything. The whole discussion of being defenceless or a redneck American or whatever is a completely different one; all I'm saying is that your claim that your opinion of guns is invalid if you have never fired one is moronic at best.
Let me put it to you like this:
Do you think you should have dropped a nuke to be allowed to have an opinion about them?
-
I'm not calling you anything. The whole discussion of being defenceless or a rednexk American or whatever is a completely different one; all I'm saying is that your claim that your opinion of guns is invalid if you have never fired one is moronic at best.
Let me put it to you like this:
Do you think you should have dropped a nuke to be allowed to have an opinion about them?
Really, going to nukes, that is the oldest trick in the anti-gun talking point book. Really, what are the odds of Joe Schome off the street ever having the opportunity to drop a nuke? Are those odds not exponentially less than him having the opportunity to fire a gun?
I posted this weeks ago to simply troll Adam, but it has some valid points:
You Know You're a GUN CONTROL HYPOCRITE IF.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6-FtsnIFsc#ws)
-
You are missing the point. It's about who's allowed to have an opinion. That's all. Not likelihood. Likelihood is something that can change. Admittedly, nukes are too expensive but a comparison could be made about Iran.
Depending on where you live, likelihood will change, too. In quite a few places around the globe, gun possession is quite unusual. Does that mean that only the ones who have access should be allowed an opinion?
Here's a Stephen King reference for your convenience: do you think Captain Trips should be allowed? Its only use is to kill. Think carefully.
And this goes both ways. You may never have fired a gun but you might want one to finally get rid of that annoying neighbour of yours.
-
You are missing the point. It's about who's allowed to have an opinion. That's all. Not likelihood. Likelihood is something that can change. Admittedly, nukes are too expensive but a comparison could be made about Iran.
Depending on where you live, likelihood will change, too. In quite a few places around the globe, gun possession is quite unusual. Does that mean that only the ones who have access should be allowed an opinion?
Here's a Stephen King reference for your convenience: do you think Captain Trips should be allowed? Its only use is to kill. Think carefully.
And this goes both ways. You may never have fired a gun but you might want one to finally get rid of that annoying neighbour of yours.
So, you are advocating total gun eradication by saying their only purpose is to kill your annoying neighbor, no? You are missing my point, I should be able to possess anything I want and that no one has that right to tell me what I "need".
-
You are missing the point. It's about who's allowed to have an opinion. That's all. Not likelihood. Likelihood is something that can change. Admittedly, nukes are too expensive but a comparison could be made about Iran.
Depending on where you live, likelihood will change, too. In quite a few places around the globe, gun possession is quite unusual. Does that mean that only the ones who have access should be allowed an opinion?
Here's a Stephen King reference for your convenience: do you think Captain Trips should be allowed? Its only use is to kill. Think carefully.
And this goes both ways. You may never have fired a gun but you might want one to finally get rid of that annoying neighbour of yours.
So, you are advocating total gun eradication by saying their only purpose is to kill your annoying neighbor, no? You are missing my point, I should be able to possess anything I want and that no one has that right to tell me what I "need".
TA that was beautiful. If you were a girl i'd date you.
-
Guns have only one purpose.
If the one purpose you refer to is killing people I dispute that assertion. Guns were initially developed for warfare and expanded to hunting use but various types of target shooting are the most common use by far in the USA, Switzerland and where otherwise legally owned. Some people have specialized collections like model 1900 Swiss Army Lugers or Pre 1920 Colt SAA revolvers.
Target shooting disciplines include Metallic Silohuette, Benchrest, IPSC, IDPA, Cowboy Action, Camp Perry, Skeet, Trap, Sporting Clays.
The point being that should you ever visit the SF Bay Area and go to the range with me our purpose will not be to kill anyone.
You and TA can work out who gets to have an opinion between you.
-
Fires AK47 into the air in a celebratory manner.
(http://www.lolwtfcomics.com/upload/uploads/1316975637.jpg)
-
Is that Machmoud bin Jovi?
-
Guns have only one purpose.
If the one purpose you refer to is killing people I dispute that assertion. Guns were initially developed for warfare and expanded to hunting use but various types of target shooting are the most common use by far in the USA, Switzerland and where otherwise legally owned. Some people have specialized collections like model 1900 Swiss Army Lugers or Pre 1920 Colt SAA revolvers.
Target shooting disciplines include Metallic Silohuette, Benchrest, IPSC, IDPA, Cowboy Action, Camp Perry, Skeet, Trap, Sporting Clays.
The point being that should you ever visit the SF Bay Area and go to the range with me our purpose will not be to kill anyone.
You and TA can work out who gets to have an opinion between you.
Perhaps a better choice of words would be "developed for one purpose" but that's splitting hairs. I very much doubt someone would have come up with the construction if it hadn't been for warfare.
-
You are missing the point. It's about who's allowed to have an opinion. That's all. Not likelihood. Likelihood is something that can change. Admittedly, nukes are too expensive but a comparison could be made about Iran.
Depending on where you live, likelihood will change, too. In quite a few places around the globe, gun possession is quite unusual. Does that mean that only the ones who have access should be allowed an opinion?
Here's a Stephen King reference for your convenience: do you think Captain Trips should be allowed? Its only use is to kill. Think carefully.
And this goes both ways. You may never have fired a gun but you might want one to finally get rid of that annoying neighbour of yours.
So, you are advocating total gun eradication by saying their only purpose is to kill your annoying neighbor, no? You are missing my point, I should be able to possess anything I want and that no one has that right to tell me what I "need".
You missed it again. I've highlighted what I'm saying. I guess the analogies went over your head.
-
You are missing the point. It's about who's allowed to have an opinion. That's all. Not likelihood. Likelihood is something that can change. Admittedly, nukes are too expensive but a comparison could be made about Iran.
Depending on where you live, likelihood will change, too. In quite a few places around the globe, gun possession is quite unusual. Does that mean that only the ones who have access should be allowed an opinion?
Here's a Stephen King reference for your convenience: do you think Captain Trips should be allowed? Its only use is to kill. Think carefully.
And this goes both ways. You may never have fired a gun but you might want one to finally get rid of that annoying neighbour of yours.
So, you are advocating total gun eradication by saying their only purpose is to kill your annoying neighbor, no? You are missing my point, I should be able to possess anything I want and that no one has that right to tell me what I "need".
You missed it again. I've highlighted what I'm saying. I guess the analogies went over your head.
I think you are employing the age old conversation killer of insulting my intelligence because I disagree with your position. For that matter, I still stand by what I have been saying, anyone who has not fired a gun and is for gun control is a hypocrite, and hypocritical opinions are invalid.
You are obviously allowed to have an opinion, but that does not mean everyone has to consider it valid.
-
I thought I was being clear. Hence the highlighting in bold red lettering. Hence the insult.
I'm going to try this one last time. I'll try to keep it simple.
Guns were created for a single purpose, which is killing people. The fact that they are now used for target practice, are collectibles, etc, does in no way invalidate that assertion. It's also beside the point because I am *not* offering an opinion on whether or not they should be banned.
You don't have to have fired a weapon to be able to formulate and hold a perfectly valid opinion regarding them. That opinion might be "everyone should be allowed to own one" or "for target shooting, they are fine" or "no, they should be kept beyond reach for people because of the school shootings".
Or something more nuanced or complex.
Do you think you should have conceived at least one baby to be allowed to have an opinion regarding the use of contraceptives? Do you think you need to have had sex to be allowed an opinion regarding sex outside marriage? Should you have smoked pot before being allowed an opinion regarding legalising it?
See how this works? The subject of guns is an easy one in that respect because the basic issue is not a complicated one. How easy should it be to get hold of a gun? The topic is controversial for Americans, though--you tend to get really defensive about them, throwing in concepts like personal freedoms, overthrowing corrupt governments, etc.
Let's finish this with a slightly more complex example:
Let's say a teen is killed at a school shooting. The offender is 18 but unlicensed so he bought the gun privately. The teen's mother is understandably upset and advocates stricter gun control, eliminating the loophole that allowed the 18-yo to buy the gun from a private individual.
Should the mother's opinion only count if she had fired a gun?
And again, I'm *not* offering an opinion on gun control here.
-
Guns have only one purpose.
If the one purpose you refer to is killing people I dispute that assertion. Guns were initially developed for warfare and expanded to hunting use but various types of target shooting are the most common use by far in the USA, Switzerland and where otherwise legally owned. Some people have specialized collections like model 1900 Swiss Army Lugers or Pre 1920 Colt SAA revolvers.
Target shooting disciplines include Metallic Silohuette, Benchrest, IPSC, IDPA, Cowboy Action, Camp Perry, Skeet, Trap, Sporting Clays.
The point being that should you ever visit the SF Bay Area and go to the range with me our purpose will not be to kill anyone.
You and TA can work out who gets to have an opinion between you.
Perhaps a better choice of words would be "developed for one purpose" but that's splitting hairs. I very much doubt someone would have come up with the construction if it hadn't been for warfare.
No it is not splitting hairs. You stated that guns have only one purpose and left unstated that the purpose is to kill people. The fact that people do practice disciplines like benchrest shooting, IDPA, IPSC, Silohuette shooting, informal target practice or hunting shows that to be wrong. Hell in your adopted home country the 9.3mm X 74R cartridge has been a popular moose hunting cartridge for decades and works very well for that purpose. How often are rifles like that used in bank robberies and assassinations in comparison odeon?
If my only purpose to having guns was to kill people than I have failed miserably at that purpose for the last 38 years.
There are plenty of other examples of technology developed for one purpose being adapted for other purposes. Target shooting of various types has long since become a dedicated recreational pursuit in and of itself.
-
I thought I was being clear. Hence the highlighting in bold red lettering. Hence the insult.
I'm going to try this one last time. I'll try to keep it simple.
Guns were created for a single purpose, which is killing people. The fact that they are now used for target practice, are collectibles, etc, does in no way invalidate that assertion. It's also beside the point because I am *not* offering an opinion on whether or not they should be banned.
You don't have to have fired a weapon to be able to formulate and hold a perfectly valid opinion regarding them. That opinion might be "everyone should be allowed to own one" or "for target shooting, they are fine" or "no, they should be kept beyond reach for people because of the school shootings".
Or something more nuanced or complex.
Do you think you should have conceived at least one baby to be allowed to have an opinion regarding the use of contraceptives? Do you think you need to have had sex to be allowed an opinion regarding sex outside marriage? Should you have smoked pot before being allowed an opinion regarding legalising it?
See how this works? The subject of guns is an easy one in that respect because the basic issue is not a complicated one. How easy should it be to get hold of a gun? The topic is controversial for Americans, though--you tend to get really defensive about them, throwing in concepts like personal freedoms, overthrowing corrupt governments, etc.
Let's finish this with a slightly more complex example:
Let's say a teen is killed at a school shooting. The offender is 18 but unlicensed so he bought the gun privately. The teen's mother is understandably upset and advocates stricter gun control, eliminating the loophole that allowed the 18-yo to buy the gun from a private individual.
Should the mother's opinion only count if she had fired a gun?
And again, I'm *not* offering an opinion on gun control here.
For someone not having an opinion, you certainly have an opinion.
So what if they were created for the purpose of killing people. I don't give a damn what they were used for in the past, the point is a gun is an inanimate object that I should be allowed to have simply because it is an inanimate object.
You can consider your opinion valid, others may, but I don't.
-
I do not think that it is the number of guns per household or access to guns i necessarily the problem. i think it is the ideologies and culture around guns and gun use
-
I do not think that it is the number of guns per household or access to guns i necessarily the problem. i think it is the ideologies and culture around guns and gun use
Hip hop, Hollywood, nuff' said
-
I do not think that it is the number of guns per household or access to guns i necessarily the problem. i think it is the ideologies and culture around guns and gun use
Hip hop, Hollywood, nuff' said
I do think that anyone CAN use guns in bad ways BUT I would be interested to see guns/household in Canada vs guns/household in America and see the correlation between school shootings and violent gun crimes such as murders and armed robberies involving guns. IF (As I suspect) the gun accessibility is similar, then we have to look at whether there is a huge difference (which I imagine there would be) and try to understand why?
-
I do not think that it is the number of guns per household or access to guns i necessarily the problem. i think it is the ideologies and culture around guns and gun use
Hip hop, Hollywood, nuff' said
I do think that anyone CAN use guns in bad ways BUT I would be interested to see guns/household in Canada vs guns/household in America and see the correlation between school shootings and violent gun crimes such as murders and armed robberies involving guns. IF (As I suspect) the gun accessibility is similar, then we have to look at whether there is a huge difference (which I imagine there would be) and try to understand why?
Not related to that if you ever make it to the West Coast USA you and I will make a range trip together. You are cool to hang out with. :flyingbat:
-
I do not think that it is the number of guns per household or access to guns i necessarily the problem. i think it is the ideologies and culture around guns and gun use
Hip hop, Hollywood, nuff' said
I do think that anyone CAN use guns in bad ways BUT I would be interested to see guns/household in Canada vs guns/household in America and see the correlation between school shootings and violent gun crimes such as murders and armed robberies involving guns. IF (As I suspect) the gun accessibility is similar, then we have to look at whether there is a huge difference (which I imagine there would be) and try to understand why?
Not related to that if you ever make it to the West Coast USA you and I will make a range trip together. You are cool to hang out with. :flyingbat:
For sure mate :thumbup:
-
Odeon, if you don't like guns then don't have one! ;)
-
I thought I was being clear. Hence the highlighting in bold red lettering. Hence the insult.
I'm going to try this one last time. I'll try to keep it simple.
Guns were created for a single purpose, which is killing people. The fact that they are now used for target practice, are collectibles, etc, does in no way invalidate that assertion. It's also beside the point because I am *not* offering an opinion on whether or not they should be banned.
You don't have to have fired a weapon to be able to formulate and hold a perfectly valid opinion regarding them. That opinion might be "everyone should be allowed to own one" or "for target shooting, they are fine" or "no, they should be kept beyond reach for people because of the school shootings".
Or something more nuanced or complex.
Do you think you should have conceived at least one baby to be allowed to have an opinion regarding the use of contraceptives? Do you think you need to have had sex to be allowed an opinion regarding sex outside marriage? Should you have smoked pot before being allowed an opinion regarding legalising it?
See how this works? The subject of guns is an easy one in that respect because the basic issue is not a complicated one. How easy should it be to get hold of a gun? The topic is controversial for Americans, though--you tend to get really defensive about them, throwing in concepts like personal freedoms, overthrowing corrupt governments, etc.
Let's finish this with a slightly more complex example:
Let's say a teen is killed at a school shooting. The offender is 18 but unlicensed so he bought the gun privately. The teen's mother is understandably upset and advocates stricter gun control, eliminating the loophole that allowed the 18-yo to buy the gun from a private individual.
Should the mother's opinion only count if she had fired a gun?
And again, I'm *not* offering an opinion on gun control here.
I can see the point you want to make O-man. Good on you for sticking to your guns(HUEHUEHUEHE) But, check this out.
(http://Guns were created for a single purpose, which is killing people. The fact that they are now used for target practice, are collectibles, etc, does in no way invalidate that assertion. It's also beside the point because I am *not* offering an opinion on whether or not they should be banned.)
Guns were created for a single purpose, which is killing people. The fact that they are now used for target practice, are collectibles, etc, does in no way invalidate that assertion.
I can't argue with that. Do you deny this though? So were bladed tools, pointy sticks, sharp rocks, big heavy rocks, big heavy sticks, knives, swords, cannons, atom splitting, etc. :green:
I mean if you really think about it the majority of human invention was originally intended to be used to kill other humans.
-
I do think that anyone CAN use guns in bad ways BUT I would be interested to see guns/household in Canada vs guns/household in America and see the correlation between school shootings and violent gun crimes such as murders and armed robberies involving guns. IF (As I suspect) the gun accessibility is similar, then we have to look at whether there is a huge difference (which I imagine there would be) and try to understand why?
Well, I guess even a broken clock reads the right time twice per day.
You hit the nail on the head, it has nothing to do with accessibility of guns, rather the propensity of some groups to use them.
Americas gun violence problem is centered on gang violence and thousands of gang-banger wannabes.
-
I do think that anyone CAN use guns in bad ways BUT I would be interested to see guns/household in Canada vs guns/household in America and see the correlation between school shootings and violent gun crimes such as murders and armed robberies involving guns. IF (As I suspect) the gun accessibility is similar, then we have to look at whether there is a huge difference (which I imagine there would be) and try to understand why?
Well, I guess even a broken clock reads the right time twice per day.
You hit the nail on the head, it has nothing to do with accessibility of guns, rather the propensity of some groups to use them.
Americas gun violence problem is centered on gang violence and thousands of gang-banger wannabes.
Useful data in this link. Do with it what you will. I take no responsibility for the ensuing drama. Scroll down for table.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data)
-
Alot of items were invented for self defense/or killing or to aid in the process making the enemy easier to find (kill them before they kill you).
The yoyo was one, the cavity magnetron another...and there are tons more.
The purpose of an item lies with the possessor. I can use a knife to kill, or I can use it to chop vegtables...it's a choice.
I'm not disturbed by person's choice of use as much as I'm disturbed about WHY they make that choice...or what drove them to it...and why? ...and how do we prevent or help people from getting to that point?
Joseph Stack did not crash his plane into a Austin, Texas IRS office on a suicide mission 3 yrs ago because he woke up one morning and saw his plane sitting outside and thought it sounded like a "good thing to do". Something drove him to make that choice.
-
Useful data in this link. Do with it what you will. I take no responsibility for the ensuing drama. Scroll down for table.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data)
US is 1st in gun ownership rates but only 28th in firearm homicide rates.
Yes, it's not the guns that are a problem, rather gang violence.
-
Guns have only one purpose.
If the one purpose you refer to is killing people I dispute that assertion. Guns were initially developed for warfare and expanded to hunting use but various types of target shooting are the most common use by far in the USA, Switzerland and where otherwise legally owned. Some people have specialized collections like model 1900 Swiss Army Lugers or Pre 1920 Colt SAA revolvers.
Target shooting disciplines include Metallic Silohuette, Benchrest, IPSC, IDPA, Cowboy Action, Camp Perry, Skeet, Trap, Sporting Clays.
The point being that should you ever visit the SF Bay Area and go to the range with me our purpose will not be to kill anyone.
You and TA can work out who gets to have an opinion between you.
Perhaps a better choice of words would be "developed for one purpose" but that's splitting hairs. I very much doubt someone would have come up with the construction if it hadn't been for warfare.
No it is not splitting hairs. You stated that guns have only one purpose and left unstated that the purpose is to kill people. The fact that people do practice disciplines like benchrest shooting, IDPA, IPSC, Silohuette shooting, informal target practice or hunting shows that to be wrong. Hell in your adopted home country the 9.3mm X 74R cartridge has been a popular moose hunting cartridge for decades and works very well for that purpose. How often are rifles like that used in bank robberies and assassinations in comparison odeon?
No idea, tbh.
You are right in that I made a poor job of qualifying my statement. I blame my wanting to write a dramatic post, but yes, you are right.
If my only purpose to having guns was to kill people than I have failed miserably at that purpose for the last 38 years.
There are plenty of other examples of technology developed for one purpose being adapted for other purposes. Target shooting of various types has long since become a dedicated recreational pursuit in and of itself.
Indeed, and I realise that. Again, I should have qualified my statement better. Sorry about that--it was certainly not my intent to insult you, especially when my real point had nothing to do with whatever purpose guns were designed for initially and what they can be used for today.
-
I thought I was being clear. Hence the highlighting in bold red lettering. Hence the insult.
I'm going to try this one last time. I'll try to keep it simple.
Guns were created for a single purpose, which is killing people. The fact that they are now used for target practice, are collectibles, etc, does in no way invalidate that assertion. It's also beside the point because I am *not* offering an opinion on whether or not they should be banned.
You don't have to have fired a weapon to be able to formulate and hold a perfectly valid opinion regarding them. That opinion might be "everyone should be allowed to own one" or "for target shooting, they are fine" or "no, they should be kept beyond reach for people because of the school shootings".
Or something more nuanced or complex.
Do you think you should have conceived at least one baby to be allowed to have an opinion regarding the use of contraceptives? Do you think you need to have had sex to be allowed an opinion regarding sex outside marriage? Should you have smoked pot before being allowed an opinion regarding legalising it?
See how this works? The subject of guns is an easy one in that respect because the basic issue is not a complicated one. How easy should it be to get hold of a gun? The topic is controversial for Americans, though--you tend to get really defensive about them, throwing in concepts like personal freedoms, overthrowing corrupt governments, etc.
Let's finish this with a slightly more complex example:
Let's say a teen is killed at a school shooting. The offender is 18 but unlicensed so he bought the gun privately. The teen's mother is understandably upset and advocates stricter gun control, eliminating the loophole that allowed the 18-yo to buy the gun from a private individual.
Should the mother's opinion only count if she had fired a gun?
And again, I'm *not* offering an opinion on gun control here.
For someone not having an opinion, you certainly have an opinion.
So what if they were created for the purpose of killing people. I don't give a damn what they were used for in the past, the point is a gun is an inanimate object that I should be allowed to have simply because it is an inanimate object.
You can consider your opinion valid, others may, but I don't.
Are you deliberately trying to avoid the issue? You are not discussing, explaining or otherwise trying to qualify your statement re whose opinions about are guns are valid and whose aren't, you are discussing your perceived right to have a gun. It's a different discussion. And I did not offer an opinion on gun control in the above post, but I do have one.
Now answer my questions.
-
Guns were created for a single purpose, which is killing people. The fact that they are now used for target practice, are collectibles, etc, does in no way invalidate that assertion.
I can't argue with that. Do you deny this though? So were bladed tools, pointy sticks, sharp rocks, big heavy rocks, big heavy sticks, knives, swords, cannons, atom splitting, etc. :green:
I mean if you really think about it the majority of human invention was originally intended to be used to kill other humans.
No, I don't deny it, but I would argue that some of the bladed tools were designed for other things. Humans have a terrible track record, but that's not the point I am trying to make.
-
Odeon, if you don't like guns then don't have one! ;)
Doesn't anyone understand the point I am trying to make? :GA:
I had the opportunity to try target shooting a couple of years ago. I think I even posted about it here. It was great fun and I can certainly see why so many people like it.
But that's not why I posted here, even though some of my less than brilliant argumentation in past posts have derailed some of that discussion. Maybe I'm just not communicating clearly, maybe people choose to ignore what I wrote, I don't know, but my liking or disliking guns has *nothing* to do with why I posted.
-
I thought I was being clear. Hence the highlighting in bold red lettering. Hence the insult.
I'm going to try this one last time. I'll try to keep it simple.
Guns were created for a single purpose, which is killing people. The fact that they are now used for target practice, are collectibles, etc, does in no way invalidate that assertion. It's also beside the point because I am *not* offering an opinion on whether or not they should be banned.
You don't have to have fired a weapon to be able to formulate and hold a perfectly valid opinion regarding them. That opinion might be "everyone should be allowed to own one" or "for target shooting, they are fine" or "no, they should be kept beyond reach for people because of the school shootings".
Or something more nuanced or complex.
Do you think you should have conceived at least one baby to be allowed to have an opinion regarding the use of contraceptives? Do you think you need to have had sex to be allowed an opinion regarding sex outside marriage? Should you have smoked pot before being allowed an opinion regarding legalising it?
See how this works? The subject of guns is an easy one in that respect because the basic issue is not a complicated one. How easy should it be to get hold of a gun? The topic is controversial for Americans, though--you tend to get really defensive about them, throwing in concepts like personal freedoms, overthrowing corrupt governments, etc.
Let's finish this with a slightly more complex example:
Let's say a teen is killed at a school shooting. The offender is 18 but unlicensed so he bought the gun privately. The teen's mother is understandably upset and advocates stricter gun control, eliminating the loophole that allowed the 18-yo to buy the gun from a private individual.
Should the mother's opinion only count if she had fired a gun?
And again, I'm *not* offering an opinion on gun control here.
For someone not having an opinion, you certainly have an opinion.
So what if they were created for the purpose of killing people. I don't give a damn what they were used for in the past, the point is a gun is an inanimate object that I should be allowed to have simply because it is an inanimate object.
You can consider your opinion valid, others may, but I don't.
Are you deliberately trying to avoid the issue? You are not discussing, explaining or otherwise trying to qualify your statement re whose opinions about are guns are valid and whose aren't, you are discussing your perceived right to have a gun. It's a different discussion. And I did not offer an opinion on gun control in the above post, but I do have one.
Now answer my questions.
Maybe you are missing my point, if you have never bothered to fire a gun and your culture frowns on them, your opinion is not as valid as someone who has lived in a more gun-friendly culture and has actually bothered to fire a gun. A gun did not kill the mother's child, a violent sociopath did. Any inanimate object is morally neutral.
The point, is if your culture has thinks they are evil machines of death and it is a high crime to even look at one, you really cannot form a valid opinion.
-
Odeon, if you don't like guns then don't have one! ;)
Doesn't anyone understand the point I am trying to make? :GA:
I had the opportunity to try target shooting a couple of years ago. I think I even posted about it here. It was great fun and I can certainly see why so many people like it.
But that's not why I posted here, even though some of my less than brilliant argumentation in past posts have derailed some of that discussion. Maybe I'm just not communicating clearly, maybe people choose to ignore what I wrote, I don't know, but my liking or disliking guns has *nothing* to do with why I posted.
I get your point. A similar point is often made here in the US about voting in reference to complaining about govt. If you don't vote you can't complain according to that old saw. However the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution has no such qualification.
I agree with your point that owning guns, driving NASCAR tracks, playing FIFA football etc is not a prerequisite to having and expressing an opinion on those subjects.
-
Maybe you are missing my point, if you have never bothered to fire a gun and your culture frowns on them, your opinion is not as valid as someone who has lived in a more gun-friendly culture and has actually bothered to fire a gun. A gun did not kill the mother's child, a violent sociopath did. Any inanimate object is morally neutral.
The point, is if your culture has thinks they are evil machines of death and it is a high crime to even look at one, you really cannot form a valid opinion.
So it's about *culture* now? A friendly culture is a prerequisite so it's not enough to have fired a gun, you also require that the society is basically pro-gun?
Sorry, TA, but that is a bizarre at best. You so desperately need to protect your right to own a gun that you now basically want to rig the vote.
-
Maybe you are missing my point, if you have never bothered to fire a gun and your culture frowns on them, your opinion is not as valid as someone who has lived in a more gun-friendly culture and has actually bothered to fire a gun. A gun did not kill the mother's child, a violent sociopath did. Any inanimate object is morally neutral.
The point, is if your culture has thinks they are evil machines of death and it is a high crime to even look at one, you really cannot form a valid opinion.
So it's about *culture* now? A friendly culture is a prerequisite so it's not enough to have fired a gun, you also require that the society is basically pro-gun?
Sorry, TA, but that is a bizarre at best. You so desperately need to protect your right to own a gun that you now basically want to rig the vote.
Ever heard of social norms? In your culture, it is the norm to despise guns because you are told to, here it is the opposite.
So it is only logical that your opinion is that guns are only made for killing while my opinion differs.
Maybe saying your opinion is invalid because you have never fired a gun was too black and white.
A more accurate statement is that *I* don't consider the opinions of people that come from places with ludicrously draconian gun control as valid as those of people from more gun friendly places.
-
In other words, you not only want to rig the vote in favour of what you support, you also think it's perfectly legit.
-
In other words, you not only want to rig the vote in favour of what you support, you also think it's perfectly legit.
You are putting words in my mouth.
There are plenty of anti-gun individuals in pro-gun cultures.
-
Am I?
A more accurate statement is that *I* don't consider the opinions of people that come from places with ludicrously draconian gun control as valid as those of people from more gun friendly places.
-
Am I?
A more accurate statement is that *I* don't consider the opinions of people that come from places with ludicrously draconian gun control as valid as those of people from more gun friendly places.
Did I say anything about rigging a vote, no, I only stated who's opinions I consider valid.
There are plenty of anti-gun individuals in the US who's opinions I consider valid.
It is common sense that if you live in a nation with draconian gun control, that you will think guns are evil.
-
In other words, you not only want to rig the vote in favour of what you support, you also think it's perfectly legit.
Nope. I only want to vote for what I support, and I want to stop any politicians or business intrests from rigging the vote in favor of what they support. I think that's perfectly legit.
-
I just found a Romanian AK-47(full auto :headbang2:) for sale on the internets. Listing price is $1800....Should I buy it?
-
I just found a Romanian AK-47(full auto :headbang2:) for sale on the internets. Listing price is $1800....Should I buy it?
Yes. The BATFE will appreciate your business.
-
I just found a Romanian AK-47(full auto :headbang2:) for sale on the internets. Listing price is $1800....Should I buy it?
Yes. The BATFE will appreciate your business.
It's called the ATF over here, mate. This sort of thing is much easier to do without getting caught than you think.
-
I just found a Romanian AK-47(full auto :headbang2:) for sale on the internets. Listing price is $1800....Should I buy it?
Sounds legit.
-
Am I?
A more accurate statement is that *I* don't consider the opinions of people that come from places with ludicrously draconian gun control as valid as those of people from more gun friendly places.
Did I say anything about rigging a vote, no, I only stated who's opinions I consider valid.
There are plenty of anti-gun individuals in the US who's opinions I consider valid.
It is common sense that if you live in a nation with draconian gun control, that you will think guns are evil.
Again, this isn't about that. It's about you having some very strange views about who's allowed to have an opinion, or rather, whose opinions you consider to be valid. "Rigging the vote" is a figure of speech.
You didn't answer any of my earlier questions, btw. I'd be interested to know where you draw the line re having to try the things you want to have a say in.
Take your time. :popcorn:
-
In other words, you not only want to rig the vote in favour of what you support, you also think it's perfectly legit.
Nope. I only want to vote for what I support, and I want to stop any politicians or business intrests from rigging the vote in favor of what they support. I think that's perfectly legit.
Not the issue here, Rage.
-
I just found a Romanian AK-47(full auto :headbang2:) for sale on the internets. Listing price is $1800....Should I buy it?
I will stick with my Romanian semi
Its legal
I would imagine you would lose the right to legally own any weapon, if you get caught with that
Dont do it
Aint worth it, just to own one
-
I just found a Romanian AK-47(full auto :headbang2:) for sale on the internets. Listing price is $1800....Should I buy it?
Yes. The BATFE will appreciate your business.
It's called the ATF over here, mate. This sort of thing is much easier to do without getting caught than you think.
With the creation of the Dept Of Homeland Security the ATF was transferred from Treasury to DHS and the name changed to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. http://www.atf.gov (http://www.atf.gov) If you are stupid enough to buy something advertised as full auto from the internet without having an NFA tax stamp you may be setting yourself up for a rough ride. Ask Randy Weaver.
-
"Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms" would be a great name for a store. One stop shopping.
-
"Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms" would be a great name for a store. One stop shopping.
:indeed: There is such a store in Fallon Nevada. I stop in there when I visit my parents in Fallon. For the last 17 years I have not used tobacco or alcohol though.
-
My work is here done, I got everyone all fired up.
I just have one last thing to add:
Scarface - Say Hello To My Little Friend (HD) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVQ8byG2mY8#ws)
-
Am I?
A more accurate statement is that *I* don't consider the opinions of people that come from places with ludicrously draconian gun control as valid as those of people from more gun friendly places.
Did I say anything about rigging a vote, no, I only stated who's opinions I consider valid.
There are plenty of anti-gun individuals in the US who's opinions I consider valid.
It is common sense that if you live in a nation with draconian gun control, that you will think guns are evil.
Again, this isn't about that. It's about you having some very strange views about who's allowed to have an opinion, or rather, whose opinions you consider to be valid. "Rigging the vote" is a figure of speech.
You didn't answer any of my earlier questions, btw. I'd be interested to know where you draw the line re having to try the things you want to have a say in.
Take your time. :popcorn:
You are trying to bait me into a corner. The other issues that you mentioned are not the issues at hand.
-
Am I?
A more accurate statement is that *I* don't consider the opinions of people that come from places with ludicrously draconian gun control as valid as those of people from more gun friendly places.
Did I say anything about rigging a vote, no, I only stated who's opinions I consider valid.
There are plenty of anti-gun individuals in the US who's opinions I consider valid.
It is common sense that if you live in a nation with draconian gun control, that you will think guns are evil.
Again, this isn't about that. It's about you having some very strange views about who's allowed to have an opinion, or rather, whose opinions you consider to be valid. "Rigging the vote" is a figure of speech.
You didn't answer any of my earlier questions, btw. I'd be interested to know where you draw the line re having to try the things you want to have a say in.
Take your time. :popcorn:
You are trying to bait me into a corner. The other issues that you mentioned are not the issues at hand.
If you think your opinion about guns is only valid if you've fired one, surely that same logic can be applied to other things, in which case I want to know where you draw the line. Why should guns be special?
-
Am I?
A more accurate statement is that *I* don't consider the opinions of people that come from places with ludicrously draconian gun control as valid as those of people from more gun friendly places.
Did I say anything about rigging a vote, no, I only stated who's opinions I consider valid.
There are plenty of anti-gun individuals in the US who's opinions I consider valid.
It is common sense that if you live in a nation with draconian gun control, that you will think guns are evil.
Again, this isn't about that. It's about you having some very strange views about who's allowed to have an opinion, or rather, whose opinions you consider to be valid. "Rigging the vote" is a figure of speech.
You didn't answer any of my earlier questions, btw. I'd be interested to know where you draw the line re having to try the things you want to have a say in.
Take your time. :popcorn:
You are trying to bait me into a corner. The other issues that you mentioned are not the issues at hand.
If you think your opinion about guns is only valid if you've fired one, surely that same logic can be applied to other things, in which case I want to know where you draw the line. Why should guns be special?
You are trying to spin my words to your advantage. Again, the other issues are not the issues at hand. Maybe you missed the part where I said that I consider the opinions of anti-gun Americans valid.
-
In other words, you not only want to rig the vote in favour of what you support, you also think it's perfectly legit.
Nope. I only want to vote for what I support, and I want to stop any politicians or business intrests from rigging the vote in favor of what they support. I think that's perfectly legit.
Not the issue here, Rage.
I would certainly hope so.
-
You are trying to spin my words to your advantage. Again, the other issues are not the issues at hand. Maybe you missed the part where I said that I consider the opinions of anti-gun Americans valid.
I did see that, but you also said this:
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
So does this mean that only those anti-gun Americans that have fired a gun can have valid opinions about them? Or is it that only Americans can have valid opinions about them?
Your views about whose opinions are valid depending on what we happen to be discussing should certainly be of interest here. You may not want to go there, considering that it's your credibility on the line here, but that's not really my problem, is it?
And now that I think of it, what powers do those who have fired a gun gain by pulling the trigger? What does it change?
:popcorn:
-
You're way over TA's head odeon.
-
You're way over TA's head odeon.
Let's hope not. This is fun.
-
You're way over TA's head odeon.
Let's hope not. This is fun.
In TA's defense, I think I see where he's coming from, you shouldn't criticize something you're ignorant of. Also, when you live in counties where the news has certain biases, makes it difficult to have an informed opinion if all that you hear is one side of an argument.
-
You're way over TA's head odeon.
Let's hope not. This is fun.
In TA's defense, I think I see where he's coming from, you shouldn't criticize something you're ignorant of. Also, when you live in counties where the news has certain biases, makes it difficult to have an informed opinion if all that you hear is one side of an argument.
Informed opinions are valuable, I agree, but what I think about guns wasn't the issue here, TA's comment was. "Informed opinion" does not equal "have fired gun".
As an aside, I have been following the gun debate in the US for years. I do tend to be pro control and will readily agree that Michael Moore did more to convince me than did Charlton Heston, but I've more or less ignored the media in my country. They are ignorant of most of the issues and will only report based on the latest school shooting. I have learned more about guns here, ffs.
And besides, I have fired a gun so I am allowed to have an opinion. :P
-
You are trying to spin my words to your advantage. Again, the other issues are not the issues at hand. Maybe you missed the part where I said that I consider the opinions of anti-gun Americans valid.
I did see that, but you also said this:
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
So does this mean that only those anti-gun Americans that have fired a gun can have valid opinions about them? Or is it that only Americans can have valid opinions about them?
Your views about whose opinions are valid depending on what we happen to be discussing should certainly be of interest here. You may not want to go there, considering that it's your credibility on the line here, but that's not really my problem, is it?
And now that I think of it, what powers do those who have fired a gun gain by pulling the trigger? What does it change?
:popcorn:
I read back to the beginning of the thread, that was more of troll response to a troll.
Anywho, you live in a very anti-gun part of the World, therefore you are taught that guns are evil machines of death when in actuality, they are inanimate objects that happen to be the mechanism of a controlled explosion that releases a metallic projectile and nothing more. Those that have fired a weapon know that, and those that have not only know what they have been told.
-
I do tend to be pro control and will readily agree that Michael Moore did more to convince me than did Charlton Heston,
Did Michael Moore also influence your opinion on 9/11??
chogh, cough... the guy is a hack and a liar.
-
Time to pull the trump card in this debate.
Computer: Gun, Earl Grey, Deadly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGyI9oayt7A#)
-
What the hell, i'll add.
Too Late to Apologize: A Declaration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZfRaWAtBVg#ws)
-
Time to pull the trump card in this debate.
Pretty much. Problem is, it ain't limited to what's currently legal either.
-
Time to pull the trump card in this debate.
Pretty much. Problem is, it ain't limited to what's currently legal either.
Elaborate please. I'm not really sure what you're saying. Gun control isn't currently limited? Or what?
-
Time to pull the trump card in this debate.
Pretty much. Problem is, it ain't limited to what's currently legal either.
Elaborate please. I'm not really sure what you're saying. Gun control isn't currently limited? Or what?
Just because you're a 'lazy fuck' doesn't mean I can't be one.
Think.
-
I did. It seems to be an incomplete thought or sentence. Ohhh I see. That much be what all the cool people are doing nowadays. Posting obscure, half thought out crap to see if people will respond to it. And I did. Good trollin.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQgAcMUsgdSGkoZCykwdzeqKsaIVb6bk1TA444gt1x1FbTuJSyJFg)
-
Dunno 'bout 'cool'. I just don't feel it's worth burdening everyone (especially me)
with the full Calandale treatment over something unimportant.
Cool picture though.
-
Yeah ok man. :zoinks:
-
You are trying to spin my words to your advantage. Again, the other issues are not the issues at hand. Maybe you missed the part where I said that I consider the opinions of anti-gun Americans valid.
I did see that, but you also said this:
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
So does this mean that only those anti-gun Americans that have fired a gun can have valid opinions about them? Or is it that only Americans can have valid opinions about them?
Your views about whose opinions are valid depending on what we happen to be discussing should certainly be of interest here. You may not want to go there, considering that it's your credibility on the line here, but that's not really my problem, is it?
And now that I think of it, what powers do those who have fired a gun gain by pulling the trigger? What does it change?
:popcorn:
I read back to the beginning of the thread, that was more of troll response to a troll.
Anywho, you live in a very anti-gun part of the World, therefore you are taught that guns are evil machines of death when in actuality, they are inanimate objects that happen to be the mechanism of a controlled explosion that releases a metallic projectile and nothing more. Those that have fired a weapon know that, and those that have not only know what they have been told.
Seriously? This is your argument?
Do you have anything whatsoever to back this up with other than your preconceived notions about what we must have been taught in this godforsaken part of the world?
Firing a gun didn't change a thing for me, you know, beyond a realisation that the kick was different from what I thought and that target shooting with a pistol is more fun I imagined it would be. See, believe it or not, us backwater folks are perfectly capable of understanding that guns are inanimate objects. We know that guns do not kill on their own, nor do they magically take over their owners and make them commit horrible deeds.
I also know that toys do not come to life when I sleep and that there are no monsters under the bed (not that I'd ever stick my head down there).
Now, let's get back to what one needs to have tried to be allowed an opinion, according to you.
-
I do tend to be pro control and will readily agree that Michael Moore did more to convince me than did Charlton Heston,
Did Michael Moore also influence your opinion on 9/11??
chogh, cough... the guy is a hack and a liar.
9/11 itself or George W? He did little to change my views re the former and merely confirmed what I already thought of the latter. It was a good film but didn't have the power of Bowling for Columbine.
Want to share with the class what you think he lied about and where?
-
You are trying to spin my words to your advantage. Again, the other issues are not the issues at hand. Maybe you missed the part where I said that I consider the opinions of anti-gun Americans valid.
I did see that, but you also said this:
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
So does this mean that only those anti-gun Americans that have fired a gun can have valid opinions about them? Or is it that only Americans can have valid opinions about them?
Your views about whose opinions are valid depending on what we happen to be discussing should certainly be of interest here. You may not want to go there, considering that it's your credibility on the line here, but that's not really my problem, is it?
And now that I think of it, what powers do those who have fired a gun gain by pulling the trigger? What does it change?
:popcorn:
I read back to the beginning of the thread, that was more of troll response to a troll.
Anywho, you live in a very anti-gun part of the World, therefore you are taught that guns are evil machines of death when in actuality, they are inanimate objects that happen to be the mechanism of a controlled explosion that releases a metallic projectile and nothing more. Those that have fired a weapon know that, and those that have not only know what they have been told.
Seriously? This is your argument?
Do you have anything whatsoever to back this up with other than your preconceived notions about what we must have been taught in this godforsaken part of the world?
Firing a gun didn't change a thing for me, you know, beyond a realisation that the kick was different from what I thought and that target shooting with a pistol is more fun I imagined it would be. See, believe it or not, us backwater folks are perfectly capable of understanding that guns are inanimate objects. We know that guns do not kill on their own, nor do they magically take over their owners and make them commit horrible deeds.
I also know that toys do not come to life when I sleep and that there are no monsters under the bed (not that I'd ever stick my head down there).
Now, let's get back to what one needs to have tried to be allowed an opinion, according to you.
Again, your opinion is colored by your culture, therefore it is biased towards the "guns are evil machines of death" position.
Did I accuse mainland Europe of being backwoods, no. In most instances, it collectively has a better quality of life than the US. However, the draconian gun control laws in Europe color the opinions of the citizens.
Also, the other issues you bought up are irrelevant in a thread regarding gun control.
-
Just for the sake of discussion, did Adam Lanza have a right to own a gun even if we didn't know he was insane enough to shoot children to death?
Should there be stricter regulations concerning gun ownership?
-
Guns are objects and have no morals, so they're not evil, but this doesn't change the fact that guns make it easy for crazy and dangerous people to kill others.
-
Just for the sake of discussion, did Adam Lanza have a right to own a gun even if we didn't know he was insane enough to shoot children to death?
Should there be stricter regulations concerning gun ownership?
Rights are irrelevant now.
-
Just for the sake of discussion, did Adam Lanza have a right to own a gun even if we didn't know he was insane enough to shoot children to death?
Should there be stricter regulations concerning gun ownership?
Rights are irrelevant now.
Well maybe not yet, but things are being steered towards that path. Yes.
-
No 'steered'. this is technology.
-
I do tend to be pro control and will readily agree that Michael Moore did more to convince me than did Charlton Heston,
Did Michael Moore also influence your opinion on 9/11??
chogh, cough... the guy is a hack and a liar.
9/11 itself or George W? He did little to change my views re the former and merely confirmed what I already thought of the latter. It was a good film but didn't have the power of Bowling for Columbine.
Had power in the same sense that Triumph of the Will had power??
and yes, the comparison is fair, they're both propoganda films.
Want to share with the class what you think he lied about and where?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine#Criticisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine#Criticisms)
It's been years since I've seen Bowling for Columbine and after that steaming pile of shit I couldn't be arsed into watching anything he directed. I'd have to endure the torture of watching it again to pick it apart, point by point.
-
No 'steered'. this is technology.
I strongly disagree, but alright.
-
Just for the sake of discussion, did Adam Lanza have a right to own a gun even if we didn't know he was insane enough to shoot children to death?
Should there be stricter regulations concerning gun ownership?
IIRC, he was already diagnosed with mental issues and wouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun, that's why he stole his moms guns.
-
Just for the sake of discussion, did Adam Lanza have a right to own a gun even if we didn't know he was insane enough to shoot children to death?
Should there be stricter regulations concerning gun ownership?
IIRC, he was already diagnosed with mental issues and wouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun, that's why he stole his moms guns.
And obviously he killed people because he had aspergers, according to the police and other "professionals".
-
We're a dangerous lot.
Perhaps the government should keep track of us. :GA:
-
We're a dangerous lot.
Perhaps the government should keep track of us. :GA:
It won't matter if we vote yes or no. The masses don't actually matter, we're just made to think we do. We toil and toil so that the disgustingly rich can live bazillions of tiers above us like gods.
Sometimes they throw crumbs from their table, and that is what we survive off of.
-
You are trying to spin my words to your advantage. Again, the other issues are not the issues at hand. Maybe you missed the part where I said that I consider the opinions of anti-gun Americans valid.
I did see that, but you also said this:
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
So does this mean that only those anti-gun Americans that have fired a gun can have valid opinions about them? Or is it that only Americans can have valid opinions about them?
Your views about whose opinions are valid depending on what we happen to be discussing should certainly be of interest here. You may not want to go there, considering that it's your credibility on the line here, but that's not really my problem, is it?
And now that I think of it, what powers do those who have fired a gun gain by pulling the trigger? What does it change?
:popcorn:
I read back to the beginning of the thread, that was more of troll response to a troll.
Anywho, you live in a very anti-gun part of the World, therefore you are taught that guns are evil machines of death when in actuality, they are inanimate objects that happen to be the mechanism of a controlled explosion that releases a metallic projectile and nothing more. Those that have fired a weapon know that, and those that have not only know what they have been told.
Seriously? This is your argument?
Do you have anything whatsoever to back this up with other than your preconceived notions about what we must have been taught in this godforsaken part of the world?
Firing a gun didn't change a thing for me, you know, beyond a realisation that the kick was different from what I thought and that target shooting with a pistol is more fun I imagined it would be. See, believe it or not, us backwater folks are perfectly capable of understanding that guns are inanimate objects. We know that guns do not kill on their own, nor do they magically take over their owners and make them commit horrible deeds.
I also know that toys do not come to life when I sleep and that there are no monsters under the bed (not that I'd ever stick my head down there).
Now, let's get back to what one needs to have tried to be allowed an opinion, according to you.
Again, your opinion is colored by your culture, therefore it is biased towards the "guns are evil machines of death" position.
So you keep saying. Have anything to back that up with? Besides it fitting better with your non-existent argumentation, I mean.
Did I accuse mainland Europe of being backwoods, no. In most instances, it collectively has a better quality of life than the US. However, the draconian gun control laws in Europe color the opinions of the citizens.
Also, the other issues you bought up are irrelevant in a thread regarding gun control.
I'm discussing this:
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
I'm trying to find out what other areas you would define in this way, and if so, why? I'm not discussing my opinions about guns, nor am I particularly interested in what Europeans think of them, I'm trying to find out how you define this thing and why, because I don't know why. I can't see any rational reason to do so.
You keep avoiding the issue, you keep deflecting. It's not about what I think of guns, it's not about what Europeans think of them. This is wholly about why you think it's necessary to have fired a gun to be allowed an opinion about them. You have not bothered to answer which other areas you'd define similarly, in spite of me offering examples, and you have not addressed the apparent contradictions I've quoted above.
I'm starting to think that you've only lately realised just how big that foot in your mouth is. Or worse; you've still not seen that it's there but you are puzzled because this thing isn't going the way it should.
Btw, "backwater folks" etc was sarcasm. You might want to look it up.
-
Guns are objects and have no morals, so they're not evil, but this doesn't change the fact that guns make it easy for crazy and dangerous people to kill others.
Have you fired a gun?
-
I do tend to be pro control and will readily agree that Michael Moore did more to convince me than did Charlton Heston,
Did Michael Moore also influence your opinion on 9/11??
chogh, cough... the guy is a hack and a liar.
9/11 itself or George W? He did little to change my views re the former and merely confirmed what I already thought of the latter. It was a good film but didn't have the power of Bowling for Columbine.
Had power in the same sense that Triumph of the Will had power??
and yes, the comparison is fair, they're both propoganda films.
Not saying it isn't. It does make a compelling case, though. And yes, that is indeed what I mean. It's a very good film. It's well made, it's well written and it has a very clear message.
Moore's 9/11 film was not bad but it lacked the drive that Columbine had.
Want to share with the class what you think he lied about and where?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy)
I see controversy. I see accusations and Moore's replies. I can understand that his opinions are controversial and not everyone will agree, but if you are to call him a liar, I do think you need more than a Wikipedia overview.
Although my guess is that if you provide a Hitchens quote and I counter with a Moore reply, none of us will be the wiser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine#Criticisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine#Criticisms)
Heston's feelings were hurt by the ending and Locheed tried to downplay what they do? Free rifle for a new bank account sequence was compressed? Yes it was, but that's not the point. It never was. You have to do better.
The film is, as you say, a propaganda film, and a wildly successful one at that. It is very well made and it convinces. That's the whole point. It may not be to your liking but it's a bit simplistic to dismiss Moore as a hack and a liar. He is neither.
It's been years since I've seen Bowling for Columbine and after that steaming pile of shit I couldn't be arsed into watching anything he directed. I'd have to endure the torture of watching it again to pick it apart, point by point.
If you were able to pick it apart, point by point, others would have, too, and it would all be out there. There is a controversy and there always was, but it's not as easy as that. You may not like it but it is not fiction.
-
Just for the sake of discussion, did Adam Lanza have a right to own a gun even if we didn't know he was insane enough to shoot children to death?
Should there be stricter regulations concerning gun ownership?
IIRC, he was already diagnosed with mental issues and wouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun, that's why he stole his moms guns.
"Mental issues" beyond AS?
-
Had power in the same sense that Triumph of the Will had power??
and yes, the comparison is fair, they're both propoganda films.
Not saying it isn't. It does make a compelling case, though. And yes, that is indeed what I mean. It's a very good film. It's well made, it's well written and it has a very clear message.
Moore's 9/11 film was not bad but it lacked the drive that Columbine had.
Want to share with the class what you think he lied about and where?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy)
I see controversy. I see accusations and Moore's replies. I can understand that his opinions are controversial and not everyone will agree, but if you are to call him a liar, I do think you need more than a Wikipedia overview.
Although my guess is that if you provide a Hitchens quote and I counter with a Moore reply, none of us will be the wiser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine#Criticisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine#Criticisms)
Heston's feelings were hurt by the ending and Locheed tried to downplay what they do? Free rifle for a new bank account sequence was compressed? Yes it was, but that's not the point. It never was. You have to do better.
The film is, as you say, a propaganda film, and a wildly successful one at that. It is very well made and it convinces. That's the whole point. It may not be to your liking but it's a bit simplistic to dismiss Moore as a hack and a liar. He is neither.
It's been years since I've seen Bowling for Columbine and after that steaming pile of shit I couldn't be arsed into watching anything he directed. I'd have to endure the torture of watching it again to pick it apart, point by point.
If you were able to pick it apart, point by point, others would have, too, and it would all be out there. There is a controversy and there always was, but it's not as easy as that. You may not like it but it is not fiction.
It IS out there, just google "bowling for columbine lies" and you'll get plenty results.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html)
http://www.preventtruthdecay.com/mainmiscmoore.htm (http://www.preventtruthdecay.com/mainmiscmoore.htm)
http://bowlingfortruth.com/category/documentary/bowling-for-columbine/ (http://bowlingfortruth.com/category/documentary/bowling-for-columbine/)
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/columbine/Columbine4-12-02.pdf (http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/columbine/Columbine4-12-02.pdf)
http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=573 (http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=573)
http://www.houseofdiabolique.com/archives/moore010504.html (http://www.houseofdiabolique.com/archives/moore010504.html)
http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?24454-Long-and-thorough-list-of-lies-in-Michael-Moore-s-quot-Bowling-for-Columbine-quot (http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?24454-Long-and-thorough-list-of-lies-in-Michael-Moore-s-quot-Bowling-for-Columbine-quot)
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_michael_moore.html (http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_michael_moore.html)
http://www.cwob.com/movies/oscars2003/bfc.html (http://www.cwob.com/movies/oscars2003/bfc.html)
Need more deconstruction of Michael Moore's lies??
-
We're a dangerous lot.
Perhaps the government should keep track of us. :GA:
What the hell makes you think they don't?
All that DHS money has to be wasted on something.
-
We're a dangerous lot.
Perhaps the government should keep track of us. :GA:
What the hell makes you think they don't?
All that DHS money has to be wasted on something.
Secret wars around the world, area 51, keeping a bajillion embarrasing secrets secret, convincing people to watch shit like honey boo boo.
-
You are trying to spin my words to your advantage. Again, the other issues are not the issues at hand. Maybe you missed the part where I said that I consider the opinions of anti-gun Americans valid.
I did see that, but you also said this:
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
So does this mean that only those anti-gun Americans that have fired a gun can have valid opinions about them? Or is it that only Americans can have valid opinions about them?
Your views about whose opinions are valid depending on what we happen to be discussing should certainly be of interest here. You may not want to go there, considering that it's your credibility on the line here, but that's not really my problem, is it?
And now that I think of it, what powers do those who have fired a gun gain by pulling the trigger? What does it change?
:popcorn:
I read back to the beginning of the thread, that was more of troll response to a troll.
Anywho, you live in a very anti-gun part of the World, therefore you are taught that guns are evil machines of death when in actuality, they are inanimate objects that happen to be the mechanism of a controlled explosion that releases a metallic projectile and nothing more. Those that have fired a weapon know that, and those that have not only know what they have been told.
Seriously? This is your argument?
Do you have anything whatsoever to back this up with other than your preconceived notions about what we must have been taught in this godforsaken part of the world?
Firing a gun didn't change a thing for me, you know, beyond a realisation that the kick was different from what I thought and that target shooting with a pistol is more fun I imagined it would be. See, believe it or not, us backwater folks are perfectly capable of understanding that guns are inanimate objects. We know that guns do not kill on their own, nor do they magically take over their owners and make them commit horrible deeds.
I also know that toys do not come to life when I sleep and that there are no monsters under the bed (not that I'd ever stick my head down there).
Now, let's get back to what one needs to have tried to be allowed an opinion, according to you.
Again, your opinion is colored by your culture, therefore it is biased towards the "guns are evil machines of death" position.
So you keep saying. Have anything to back that up with? Besides it fitting better with your non-existent argumentation, I mean.
Did I accuse mainland Europe of being backwoods, no. In most instances, it collectively has a better quality of life than the US. However, the draconian gun control laws in Europe color the opinions of the citizens.
Also, the other issues you bought up are irrelevant in a thread regarding gun control.
I'm discussing this:
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
I'm trying to find out what other areas you would define in this way, and if so, why? I'm not discussing my opinions about guns, nor am I particularly interested in what Europeans think of them, I'm trying to find out how you define this thing and why, because I don't know why. I can't see any rational reason to do so.
You keep avoiding the issue, you keep deflecting. It's not about what I think of guns, it's not about what Europeans think of them. This is wholly about why you think it's necessary to have fired a gun to be allowed an opinion about them. You have not bothered to answer which other areas you'd define similarly, in spite of me offering examples, and you have not addressed the apparent contradictions I've quoted above.
I'm starting to think that you've only lately realised just how big that foot in your mouth is. Or worse; you've still not seen that it's there but you are puzzled because this thing isn't going the way it should.
Btw, "backwater folks" etc was sarcasm. You might want to look it up.
And, i'm not discussing the other issues you bought up. If your culture is antigun, you have likely never had experience with a weapon, and therefore your opinion can not be seen as credible.
No foot in mouth comments, I keep engaging you without allowing you to bait me into a corner.
-
Quote pyramids. :GA:
-
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
-
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
What are the rules?
and more important, what do you get if you win??
-
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
What are the rules?
and more important, what do you get if you win??
1. You have to quote anything you can think of.
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
What are the rules?
and more important, what do you get if you win??
2. Gheyed. And you can share the joy of crashing the server eventually.
-
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
What are the rules?
and more important, what do you get if you win??
1. You have to quote anything you can think of.
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
What are the rules?
and more important, what do you get if you win??
2. Gheyed. And you can share the joy of crashing the server eventually.
This
-
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
What are the rules?
and more important, what do you get if you win??
1. You have to quote anything you can think of.
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
What are the rules?
and more important, what do you get if you win??
2. Gheyed. And you can share the joy of crashing the server eventually.
This
is
-
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
What are the rules?
and more important, what do you get if you win??
1. You have to quote anything you can think of.
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
What are the rules?
and more important, what do you get if you win??
2. Gheyed. And you can share the joy of crashing the server eventually.
This
is
a
-
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
What are the rules?
and more important, what do you get if you win??
1. You have to quote anything you can think of.
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
What are the rules?
and more important, what do you get if you win??
2. Gheyed. And you can share the joy of crashing the server eventually.
This
is
a
pretty
-
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
What are the rules?
and more important, what do you get if you win??
1. You have to quote anything you can think of.
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
What are the rules?
and more important, what do you get if you win??
2. Gheyed. And you can share the joy of crashing the server eventually.
This
is
a
pretty
dumb
-
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
What are the rules?
and more important, what do you get if you win??
1. You have to quote anything you can think of.
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
What are the rules?
and more important, what do you get if you win??
2. Gheyed. And you can share the joy of crashing the server eventually.
This
is
a
pretty
dumb
game. :green:
-
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
What are the rules?
and more important, what do you get if you win??
1. You have to quote anything you can think of.
Quote pyramids. :GA:
A game we can all play.
What are the rules?
and more important, what do you get if you win??
2. Gheyed. And you can share the joy of crashing the server eventually.
This
is
a
pretty
dumb
game. :green:
It kills time.
-
:GA:
-
:GA:
Now we have to start all over.
-
Lets not and say we did. :eyebrow:
-
And, i'm not discussing the other issues you bought up. If your culture is antigun, you have likely never had experience with a weapon, and therefore your opinion can not be seen as credible.
No foot in mouth comments, I keep engaging you without allowing you to bait me into a corner.
You've qualified, changed and moved the context of your initial statement so many times now that I leave it to the reader to spot the foot in your mouth. You've been in that corner a long time.
-
Had power in the same sense that Triumph of the Will had power??
and yes, the comparison is fair, they're both propoganda films.
Not saying it isn't. It does make a compelling case, though. And yes, that is indeed what I mean. It's a very good film. It's well made, it's well written and it has a very clear message.
Moore's 9/11 film was not bad but it lacked the drive that Columbine had.
Want to share with the class what you think he lied about and where?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy)
I see controversy. I see accusations and Moore's replies. I can understand that his opinions are controversial and not everyone will agree, but if you are to call him a liar, I do think you need more than a Wikipedia overview.
Although my guess is that if you provide a Hitchens quote and I counter with a Moore reply, none of us will be the wiser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine#Criticisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine#Criticisms)
Heston's feelings were hurt by the ending and Locheed tried to downplay what they do? Free rifle for a new bank account sequence was compressed? Yes it was, but that's not the point. It never was. You have to do better.
The film is, as you say, a propaganda film, and a wildly successful one at that. It is very well made and it convinces. That's the whole point. It may not be to your liking but it's a bit simplistic to dismiss Moore as a hack and a liar. He is neither.
It's been years since I've seen Bowling for Columbine and after that steaming pile of shit I couldn't be arsed into watching anything he directed. I'd have to endure the torture of watching it again to pick it apart, point by point.
If you were able to pick it apart, point by point, others would have, too, and it would all be out there. There is a controversy and there always was, but it's not as easy as that. You may not like it but it is not fiction.
It IS out there, just google "bowling for columbine lies" and you'll get plenty results.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html)
http://www.preventtruthdecay.com/mainmiscmoore.htm (http://www.preventtruthdecay.com/mainmiscmoore.htm)
http://bowlingfortruth.com/category/documentary/bowling-for-columbine/ (http://bowlingfortruth.com/category/documentary/bowling-for-columbine/)
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/columbine/Columbine4-12-02.pdf (http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/columbine/Columbine4-12-02.pdf)
http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=573 (http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=573)
http://www.houseofdiabolique.com/archives/moore010504.html (http://www.houseofdiabolique.com/archives/moore010504.html)
http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?24454-Long-and-thorough-list-of-lies-in-Michael-Moore-s-quot-Bowling-for-Columbine-quot (http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?24454-Long-and-thorough-list-of-lies-in-Michael-Moore-s-quot-Bowling-for-Columbine-quot)
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_michael_moore.html (http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_michael_moore.html)
http://www.cwob.com/movies/oscars2003/bfc.html (http://www.cwob.com/movies/oscars2003/bfc.html)
Need more deconstruction of Michael Moore's lies??
Read what I wrote. There's plenty of controversy.
Here is a reply from Michael Moore: http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/bowling-columbine. (http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/bowling-columbine.)
I find some of his closing comments especially illuminating and interesting:
The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them. Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero.
I find this very interesting. Could this be only hyperbole? Would the NRA avoid suing just to look good? I bet they would if there was half a chance to win. A quick check of their web page confirms this; see, for example, http://www.nraila.org/legal/litigation.aspx. (http://www.nraila.org/legal/litigation.aspx.) Considering the editing Moore did to make them look worse in the film, I'm pretty sure they would have.
Their actions speak volumes, in my mind.
I know David Hardy has commented on this, of course, because Moore is right. The NRA wouldn't hesitate to sue if they had a chance of winning. They would have done so long before there was a film, actually. And Hardy knows this, so he does what he can to downplay the implications. Considering he wrote a book where he called Moore a fat stupid white man--in the title--he would, wouldn't he? It's an ongoing controversy for him. I wish he was better at designing a web page, though.
Moore, however, has moved on. He used to have a much larger page devoted to Columbine but it's gone now.
So controversy? Sure. Debunked? Hardly.
-
And, i'm not discussing the other issues you bought up. If your culture is antigun, you have likely never had experience with a weapon, and therefore your opinion can not be seen as credible.
No foot in mouth comments, I keep engaging you without allowing you to bait me into a corner.
You've qualified, changed and moved the context of your initial statement so many times now that I leave it to the reader to spot the foot in your mouth. You've been in that corner a long time.
What part of "I do not consider the opinion of someone who has not fired a gun valid" are you not getting? You can consider them valid if you so choose. There was no foot in mouth, just a bloody personal opinion that you went berserk over. I'm not giving up. Shall we continue?
-
Here's you first statement:
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
Here's your latest take on it:
If your culture is antigun, you have likely never had experience with a weapon, and therefore your opinion can not be seen as credible.
Can you spot the difference?
The first one was in response to jman who, I believe, is an American. I wasn't part of that discussion.
The last is in response to me and you are now qualifying your initial statement with "if your culture is..." and "you have likely never..."
For just a moment, let's ignore the qualification you made about the anti-gun culture because it raises other questions you have yet to address and focus on the fact that your first comment had no qualifications whatsoever. The message was clear: If you haven't fired a gun, your opinion of them is invalid.
Did you or did you not mean what you wrote?
Then, of course, I saw the comment and replied. We went a few rounds, me wanting to know who was qualified or not and you seemed to be thinking I was discussing banning guns when all I wanted was to find out whose opinions about guns were valid, in your opinion. I asked this but you never answered:
Let's say a teen is killed at a school shooting. The offender is 18 but unlicensed so he bought the gun privately. The teen's mother is understandably upset and advocates stricter gun control, eliminating the loophole that allowed the 18-yo to buy the gun from a private individual.
Should the mother's opinion only count if she had fired a gun?
You didn't answer this one. I still don't know if that mother has a valid opinion or not, in your view.
And I tried finding out what other areas you'd define similarly, and why. What things do you need to have tried in order to hold a valid opinion of them? Where do you draw the line and why?
Do you think you should have conceived at least one baby to be allowed to have an opinion regarding the use of contraceptives? Do you think you need to have had sex to be allowed an opinion regarding sex outside marriage? Should you have smoked pot before being allowed an opinion regarding legalising it?
But you've not answered those either, you've only moved the goalposts re your original statement. You now want to include anti-gun culture as a qualifying statement ("if your culture is anti-gun, your opinions aren't valid", basically).
Which is interesting. I come from a country that is not particularly anti-gun. We don't quite have the number of guns per household that you do, but we certainly aren't anti-gun and until fairly recent events, there wasn't much controversy surrounding the issues. Meaning that since I have also fired a gun, my opinions of them should be perfectly valid, don't you think?
Because it can't be that it's me specifically, right? It can't be that I've been anti-gun on this board on many previous occasions, right?
Or is it that you only think 'mericans are allowed an opinion? Is it that simple?
Let's try this again. Who is allowed an opinion and why? If you now choose to include culture in your definition, why does that matter? Why do you need to be from a pro-gun culture to hold a valid opinion? Tell me what the difference is.
And by all means, finally address that question about my fictional school shooting victim's mum.
-
I am not answering those questions.
You are again blatantly ignoring the fact that I said it was personal opinion, surprise, you can disagree with an opinion.
Also, you are taking everything out of context, spinning words, etc.
You said my credibility was on the line, more like my opinion is being scrutinized.
Also, you asked Calavera if he had fired a weapon.
If he has not, I would not give his opinion as much merit as I would give someone who has, the same applies to all.
-
You asked jman if he had ever fired a gun and, when asked why that is relevant, said this:
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
Sure, when pressed you later tried to qualify that statement, water it down a bit, by adding how culture matters, how your opinion can not be seen as credible, etc, but your first statement left little doubt about what you meant.
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
I am not answering those questions.
I know.
You are again blatantly ignoring the fact that I said it was personal opinion, surprise, you can disagree with an opinion.
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm calling you out over your own words. Or are you saying that you actually meant something else?
Now, of course the above is your opinion only, seeing that you wrote it and you aren't exactly expressing anything approaching a universal truth here, but you started out with no qualifiers, nothing to give your words another context; your intention when replying to jman was clear. Only later did you water it all down by rambling about anti-gun cultures and so on.
Also, you are taking everything out of context, spinning words, etc.
Really? Where?
I'm trying to understand your *opinions*, by asking questions and offering a few hypotheticals to give them context. It's hardly irrelevant to explore where you draw the line or how you think this thing works.
You said my credibility was on the line, more like my opinion is being scrutinized.
Your words are being scrutinised. Yes, it does affect your credibility, if you can't back up your words. This is I2. Deal with it.
Also, you asked Calavera if he had fired a weapon.
Remember when I suggested you to look up that thing, sarcasm? You might want to do that now.
If he has not, I would not give his opinion as much merit as I would give someone who has, the same applies to all.
So based on this I'm guessing that you wouldn't give the teen victim's mum in my example much merit unless she'd fired a gun?
Let's say a teen is killed at a school shooting. The offender is 18 but unlicensed so he bought the gun privately. The teen's mother is understandably upset and advocates stricter gun control, eliminating the loophole that allowed the 18-yo to buy the gun from a private individual.
Should the mother's opinion only count if she had fired a gun?
I'm can't help wondering how you'd phrase it to teen mum here. "Sorry, you really need to try a gun. It will change your world view. See the big picture. Oh, and where are you from, anyway?"
-
Read what I wrote. There's plenty of controversy.
No, there's no controversy, just Michael Moore spinning a web of lies that are based on grains of truth. When confronted with the fact that he has spun the facts, he plays his second best game, Muddy the waters.
Here is a reply from Michael Moore: http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/bowling-columbine. (http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/bowling-columbine.)
I find some of his closing comments especially illuminating and interesting:
The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them. Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero.
I find this very interesting. Could this be only hyperbole?
Yes it is only hyperbole, that's what MM does, he's a propagandist.
-
Okay. I will make a claim then. If someone has never fired a gun, never been exposed to one, has no idea how they work, what they're really for, how to use them (they don't know a goddamn thing of relevance to the issue at hand), then yes. They have no place trying to be a part of this debate.
I'm not pointing any fingers here, but i've met people like that. They're idiots. <insert stop liking things I don't like .jpg here. Quite related>
-
You asked jman if he had ever fired a gun and, when asked why that is relevant, said this:
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
Sure, when pressed you later tried to qualify that statement, water it down a bit, by adding how culture matters, how your opinion can not be seen as credible, etc, but your first statement left little doubt about what you meant.
If you have never fired a gun, your opinion on them is invalid.
I am not answering those questions.
I know.
You are again blatantly ignoring the fact that I said it was personal opinion, surprise, you can disagree with an opinion.
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm calling you out over your own words. Or are you saying that you actually meant something else?
Now, of course the above is your opinion only, seeing that you wrote it and you aren't exactly expressing anything approaching a universal truth here, but you started out with no qualifiers, nothing to give your words another context; your intention when replying to jman was clear. Only later did you water it all down by rambling about anti-gun cultures and so on.
Also, you are taking everything out of context, spinning words, etc.
Really? Where?
I'm trying to understand your *opinions*, by asking questions and offering a few hypotheticals to give them context. It's hardly irrelevant to explore where you draw the line or how you think this thing works.
You said my credibility was on the line, more like my opinion is being scrutinized.
Your words are being scrutinised. Yes, it does affect your credibility, if you can't back up your words. This is I2. Deal with it.
Also, you asked Calavera if he had fired a weapon.
Remember when I suggested you to look up that thing, sarcasm? You might want to do that now.
If he has not, I would not give his opinion as much merit as I would give someone who has, the same applies to all.
So based on this I'm guessing that you wouldn't give the teen victim's mum in my example much merit unless she'd fired a gun?
Let's say a teen is killed at a school shooting. The offender is 18 but unlicensed so he bought the gun privately. The teen's mother is understandably upset and advocates stricter gun control, eliminating the loophole that allowed the 18-yo to buy the gun from a private individual.
Should the mother's opinion only count if she had fired a gun?
I'm can't help wondering how you'd phrase it to teen mum here. "Sorry, you really need to try a gun. It will change your world view. See the big picture. Oh, and where are you from, anyway?"
I will admit that that was a blanket statement and Rage said it better than I could have, and yes you were correct, I do not express myself that well.
-
Read what I wrote. There's plenty of controversy.
No, there's no controversy, just Michael Moore spinning a web of lies that are based on grains of truth. When confronted with the fact that he has spun the facts, he plays his second best game, Muddy the waters.
There is a lot of controversy, in the minds of Hardy and others who quote each other in the links you provided. I believe Moore addressed most of the comments. Quite a bit more to what he is saying than a few grains of truth. Why else would your lot be so upset?
And more importantly, why else would the NRA not act the way they've done before and after? We are talking about a film that is over ten years old. The NRA has not grown softer since.
Here is a reply from Michael Moore: http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/bowling-columbine. (http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/bowling-columbine.)
I find some of his closing comments especially illuminating and interesting:
The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them. Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero.
I find this very interesting. Could this be only hyperbole?
Yes it is only hyperbole, that's what MM does, he's a propagandist.
I see. He's the one with the hyperbole while the gun lobby is fighting the good fight, forever parrying? I very much doubt it so unless you have definitive proof of something or the other, we will have to disagree and accept that there is a controversy.
Again, the film is not new. The discussion about it is not new.
-
Okay. I will make a claim then. If someone has never fired a gun, never been exposed to one, has no idea how they work, what they're really for, how to use them (they don't know a goddamn thing of relevance to the issue at hand), then yes. They have no place trying to be a part of this debate.
I'm not pointing any fingers here, but i've met people like that. They're idiots. <insert stop liking things I don't like .jpg here. Quite related>
So what's your response to my fictional teen mum? Sorry, your opinion does not count?
-
I will take a bite at the question at hand, now that statements have been clarified.
"I'm sorry you lost your son, a violent sociopath killed him, not a weapon alone."
-
Which is more or less what I'd expect a gun lobbyist to say, and it's fine. It's a reasonable answer. But it only works if you respect her opinion.
See, the mum's opinion does count. She will most likely oppose guns any way she can, given the circumstances, but her opinion matters. It is only when we accept that there are opposing viewpoints, when we learn to listen to them and learn from them, that we can actually turn the situation into something constructive and lasting.
And maybe, just maybe, prevent another tragedy.
-
Which is more or less what I'd expect a gun lobbyist to say, and it's fine. It's a reasonable answer. But it only works if you respect her opinion.
See, the mum's opinion does count. She will most likely oppose guns any way she can, given the circumstances, but her opinion matters. It is only when we accept that there are opposing viewpoints, when we learn to listen to them and learn from them, that we can actually turn the situation into something constructive and lasting.
And maybe, just maybe, prevent another tragedy.
I would not make light of her loss, but I would fight tooth and nail to see that she does not have a hand in punishing everybody for the actions of one.
-
Which is more or less what I'd expect a gun lobbyist to say, and it's fine. It's a reasonable answer. But it only works if you respect her opinion.
See, the mum's opinion does count. She will most likely oppose guns any way she can, given the circumstances, but her opinion matters. It is only when we accept that there are opposing viewpoints, when we learn to listen to them and learn from them, that we can actually turn the situation into something constructive and lasting.
And maybe, just maybe, prevent another tragedy.
I would not make light of her loss, but I would fight tooth and nail to see that she does not have a hand in punishing everybody for the actions of one.
Agreed...and if that makes me seem heartless, so be it.
Society is not guilty...an individual should be accountable for their own actions.
-
It would be irrational to blame an inanimate object, of course. But in my example, it would be reasonable to blame the loophole in the law and try to make sure it couldn't happen again.
I mean, let's face it. Why else are there licenses to carry a gun if not to make sure that the people that do are reasonably balanced individuals and of age?
-
I'd like to see one crazy guy use a dagger to kill a good bunch of random kids just because he hated his own mother.
I'd also like to see that PTSD old man try to kill a car driver with just a dagger just for entering his driveway.
Fact is guns make it really easy for dangerous people to kill, and if that isn't good reason for stricter regulations concerning gun possession, then I don't know what is.
-
Oh, and I shot someone with a rifle once during my vacation in Lebanon.
Does that count as me having a right to an opinion now? :autism:
-
Oh, and I shot someone with a rifle once during my vacation in Lebanon.
Does that count as me having a right to an opinion now? :autism:
It may show you as irresponsible
-
It would be irrational to blame an inanimate object, of course. But in my example, it would be reasonable to blame the loophole in the law and try to make sure it couldn't happen again.
I mean, let's face it. Why else are there licenses to carry a gun if not to make sure that the people that do are reasonably balanced individuals and of age?
The carry license issue(mainly a US issue), some like it, some don't.
The fact of the matter is, if you cannot be responsible enough to carry a loaded weapon, then why the hell should you own one?
-
It would be irrational to blame an inanimate object, of course. But in my example, it would be reasonable to blame the loophole in the law and try to make sure it couldn't happen again.
I mean, let's face it. Why else are there licenses to carry a gun if not to make sure that the people that do are reasonably balanced individuals and of age?
The carry license issue(mainly a US issue), some like it, some don't.
The fact of the matter is, if you cannot be responsible enough to carry a loaded weapon, then why the hell should you own one?
Huh?
"Responsible enough" in this case implies actual insight into their own good selves. Lots of people lack that wholly or in part and own all kinds of things, including guns. Only very rarely do people admit that they aren't responsible enough but never if they lack the insight.
-
It would be irrational to blame an inanimate object, of course. But in my example, it would be reasonable to blame the loophole in the law and try to make sure it couldn't happen again.
I mean, let's face it. Why else are there licenses to carry a gun if not to make sure that the people that do are reasonably balanced individuals and of age?
The carry license issue(mainly a US issue), some like it, some don't.
The fact of the matter is, if you cannot be responsible enough to carry a loaded weapon, then why the hell should you own one?
Huh?
"Responsible enough" in this case implies actual insight into their own good selves. Lots of people lack that wholly or in part and own all kinds of things, including guns. Only very rarely do people admit that they aren't responsible enough but never if they lack the insight.
To clarify, people like this fucktard are irresponsible:
DEA Agent (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeGD7r6s-zU#)
-
You do not need a license/permit to carry to purchase a gun...maybe in some states, but not here.
Here we have a 48 hr waiting period, whether it's by a private seller or dealer...while the application for purchase with the buyer's & seller's info is sent to the local and state police. The seller is also required to keep a record of the purchase on file for 6 years.
I still believe if a person is going to kill someone they will find a way regardless of the methods available. We just had a nutjob stab someone and run into Target when they chased him...he grabbed a 16 yr old girl standing at the checkout and started using her as a shield, stabbing her 3 times puncturing one lung. We could argue the variables until hell freezes over...if he used a gun or a bomb he could have killed more people...or if someone had a gun they could have shot his stupid ass in the leg before he ran into the Target and grabbed the girl and wounded 4 others...or maybe he could have tripped in one of Pittsburgh's massive potholes and fell on the knife while running to Target. You can rewrite the script a thousand times, it may or may not change the outcome.
As for being "responsible enough" I don't think there is any fool proof method of ever determining that, I know people who aren't "responsible enough" to breed, but they have. :zombiefuck:
-
Which is more or less what I'd expect a gun lobbyist to say, and it's fine. It's a reasonable answer. But it only works if you respect her opinion.
See, the mum's opinion does count. She will most likely oppose guns any way she can, given the circumstances, but her opinion matters. It is only when we accept that there are opposing viewpoints, when we learn to listen to them and learn from them, that we can actually turn the situation into something constructive and lasting.
And maybe, just maybe, prevent another tragedy.
I'm not saying her opinion doesn't count, but she has no right to take the feedom of everyone else away because she had a bad experience or doesn't like something.
Freedom is only freedom when tyrants can't infringe on the freedom of the majority.
-
Which is more or less what I'd expect a gun lobbyist to say, and it's fine. It's a reasonable answer. But it only works if you respect her opinion.
See, the mum's opinion does count. She will most likely oppose guns any way she can, given the circumstances, but her opinion matters. It is only when we accept that there are opposing viewpoints, when we learn to listen to them and learn from them, that we can actually turn the situation into something constructive and lasting.
And maybe, just maybe, prevent another tragedy.
I'm not saying her opinion doesn't count, but she has no right to take the feedom of everyone else away because she had a bad experience or doesn't like something.
Freedom is only freedom when tyrants can't infringe on the freedom of the majority.
So tell me, why can't North Korea not have nukes when all the col kids have them?
-
You do not need a license/permit to carry to purchase a gun...maybe in some states, but not here.
Here we have a 48 hr waiting period, whether it's by a private seller or dealer...while the application for purchase with the buyer's & seller's info is sent to the local and state police. The seller is also required to keep a record of the purchase on file for 6 years.
I still believe if a person is going to kill someone they will find a way regardless of the methods available. We just had a nutjob stab someone and run into Target when they chased him...he grabbed a 16 yr old girl standing at the checkout and started using her as a shield, stabbing her 3 times puncturing one lung. We could argue the variables until hell freezes over...if he used a gun or a bomb he could have killed more people...or if someone had a gun they could have shot his stupid ass in the leg before he ran into the Target and grabbed the girl and wounded 4 others...or maybe he could have tripped in one of Pittsburgh's massive potholes and fell on the knife while running to Target. You can rewrite the script a thousand times, it may or may not change the outcome.
As for being "responsible enough" I don't think there is any fool proof method of ever determining that, I know people who aren't "responsible enough" to breed, but they have. :zombiefuck:
which target was this?
-
Bump
-
You do not need a license/permit to carry to purchase a gun...maybe in some states, but not here.
Here we have a 48 hr waiting period, whether it's by a private seller or dealer...while the application for purchase with the buyer's & seller's info is sent to the local and state police. The seller is also required to keep a record of the purchase on file for 6 years.
I still believe if a person is going to kill someone they will find a way regardless of the methods available. We just had a nutjob stab someone and run into Target when they chased him...he grabbed a 16 yr old girl standing at the checkout and started using her as a shield, stabbing her 3 times puncturing one lung. We could argue the variables until hell freezes over...if he used a gun or a bomb he could have killed more people...or if someone had a gun they could have shot his stupid ass in the leg before he ran into the Target and grabbed the girl and wounded 4 others...or maybe he could have tripped in one of Pittsburgh's massive potholes and fell on the knife while running to Target. You can rewrite the script a thousand times, it may or may not change the outcome.
As for being "responsible enough" I don't think there is any fool proof method of ever determining that, I know people who aren't "responsible enough" to breed, but they have. :zombiefuck:
which target was this?
Up in East Liberty.
-
Which is more or less what I'd expect a gun lobbyist to say, and it's fine. It's a reasonable answer. But it only works if you respect her opinion.
See, the mum's opinion does count. She will most likely oppose guns any way she can, given the circumstances, but her opinion matters. It is only when we accept that there are opposing viewpoints, when we learn to listen to them and learn from them, that we can actually turn the situation into something constructive and lasting.
And maybe, just maybe, prevent another tragedy.
I'm not saying her opinion doesn't count, but she has no right to take the feedom of everyone else away because she had a bad experience or doesn't like something.
Freedom is only freedom when tyrants can't infringe on the freedom of the majority.
So tell me, why can't North Korea not have nukes when all the col kids have them?
I'm not against it actually. I wish they WOULD have nukes so they'd use them and all get killed.
Like the guy who owns a gun and breaks the law with it is punished, so korea should have the chance to be punished for being a cunt. I believe in freedom.
-
Georgia town mandates gun ownership
Nelson, a small Georgia city north of Atlanta, is requiring the head of virtually every household to own a firearm, the city's clerk told CNN Tuesday.
The community's five-member council voted unanimously to approve the measure Monday night.
The proposal was modeled on a similar law in nearby Kennesaw, a measure that has been on the books since 1982. Nelson, which numbers around 1,300 people, is the second city in the state to mandate gun ownership.
"In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore," the ordinance said.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/02/us/georgia-gun-requirement/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/02/us/georgia-gun-requirement/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
-
What kind of gun and ammo should I use to be able to insert the barrel into someone's anus and shoot off a couple of rounds without leaving any external wounds. I'm thinking a shotgun with rock salt rounds. I'd use a single barrel model well greased to prevent anal bruising.
-
What kind of gun and ammo should I use to be able to insert the barrel into someone's anus and shoot off a couple of rounds without leaving any external wounds. I'm thinking a shotgun with rock salt rounds. I'd use a single barrel model well greased to prevent anal bruising.
Actually rock salt would still leave external wounds. You'd have to go with a bb gun or something man. Either that or use your penis.
-
What kind of gun and ammo should I use to be able to insert the barrel into someone's anus and shoot off a couple of rounds without leaving any external wounds. I'm thinking a shotgun with rock salt rounds. I'd use a single barrel model well greased to prevent anal bruising.
Actually rock salt would still leave external wounds. You'd have to go with a bb gun or something man. Either that or use your penis.
Sadly my penis tends to leave external wounds.
-
What kind of gun and ammo should I use to be able to insert the barrel into someone's anus and shoot off a couple of rounds without leaving any external wounds. I'm thinking a shotgun with rock salt rounds. I'd use a single barrel model well greased to prevent anal bruising.
Actually rock salt would still leave external wounds. You'd have to go with a bb gun or something man. Either that or use your penis.
Sadly my penis tends to leave external wounds.
Ahh a barbed peen eh? Whend'd you escape hell?
-
What kind of gun and ammo should I use to be able to insert the barrel into someone's anus and shoot off a couple of rounds without leaving any external wounds. I'm thinking a shotgun with rock salt rounds. I'd use a single barrel model well greased to prevent anal bruising.
Actually rock salt would still leave external wounds. You'd have to go with a bb gun or something man. Either that or use your penis.
Sadly my penis tends to leave external wounds.
Ahh a barbed peen eh? Whend'd you escape hell?
Actually if I am careful and aim right I can get away without leaving external wounds. Pic relevant.
(http://cdn.rule34.xxx/r34//images/1205/0aea0dd4e5ed3da7341cdf498f7b2475.gif?1245310)
-
Her intestines are probably in a poor shape now.
-
So last year I got a 20 round magazine for an M16 in a box of military collectibles from the Vietnam war and I sold it, as of yesterday in my state that would be illegal am I the hardened criminal or spree shooter they are trying to stop?
-
So last year I got a 20 round magazine for an M16 in a box of military collectibles from the Vietnam war and I sold it, as of yesterday in my state that would be illegal am I the hardened criminal or spree shooter they are trying to stop?
Nope.
-
So last year I got a 20 round magazine for an M16 in a box of military collectibles from the Vietnam war and I sold it, as of yesterday in my state that would be illegal am I the hardened criminal or spree shooter they are trying to stop?
Nope.
I could still go to jail for it though I am sure it would be a felony also. I am also sure after seeing it that I could make one that while it would not be pretty it would work fine, it was a rather simple devise
-
TA, I can sadly inform you that even those who do own guns in Europe are usually in favour of the gunlaws here.
A better argument from you would have been: "If you live in a country with draconic gun laws, your opinion isn't as valid, because you are likely to be brainwashed".
I have met one guy who owns many guns legally and is against the gunlaw. He would never vent that at the shooting club, though. If you vent such an opinion at a shooting club here when you apply for a membership, they will reject you. I even know one ex army guy who had been a platoon leader in the Swedish army but was known for his pro-gun opinions, so that he was denied membership in a shooting club in Uppsala :facepalm2:
-
So last year I got a 20 round magazine for an M16 in a box of military collectibles from the Vietnam war and I sold it, as of yesterday in my state that would be illegal am I the hardened criminal or spree shooter they are trying to stop?
no.
Because you wouldn't have sold it if it were against the law.
-
What kind of gun and ammo should I use to be able to insert the barrel into someone's anus and shoot off a couple of rounds without leaving any external wounds. I'm thinking a shotgun with rock salt rounds. I'd use a single barrel model well greased to prevent anal bruising.
Actually rock salt would still leave external wounds. You'd have to go with a bb gun or something man. Either that or use your penis.
Sadly my penis tends to leave external wounds.
Ahh a barbed peen eh? Whend'd you escape hell?
Actually if I am careful and aim right I can get away without leaving external wounds. Pic relevant.
(http://cdn.rule34.xxx/r34//images/1205/0aea0dd4e5ed3da7341cdf498f7b2475.gif?1245310)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7_rWcqbDEGE/T1RNmPNpjaI/AAAAAAAABhw/6T-MuczeFUA/s1600/Chuck-Norris-in-Dodgeball.jpg)
-
TA, I can sadly inform you that even those who do own guns in Europe are usually in favour of the gunlaws here.
A better argument from you would have been: "If you live in a country with draconic gun laws, your opinion isn't as valid, because you are likely to be brainwashed".
I have met one guy who owns many guns legally and is against the gunlaw. He would never vent that at the shooting club, though. If you vent such an opinion at a shooting club here when you apply for a membership, they will reject you. I even know one ex army guy who had been a platoon leader in the Swedish army but was known for his pro-gun opinions, so that he was denied membership in a shooting club in Uppsala :facepalm2:
That would have been a better argument, yes. It seems the ruling class in Europe has successfully placated the citizenry so they can fuck you in the ass at will with laws that would make Orwell blush. Of course, that is just an outsiders prospective, I could be wrong.
-
That would have been a better argument, yes. It seems the ruling class in Europe has successfully placated the citizenry so they can fuck you in the ass at will with laws that would make Orwell blush. Of course, that is just an outsiders prospective, I could be wrong.
Except for the gun laws, I think most things are better (or rather less bad) in Europe. What I don't get is that most people here don't realize that gun laws have no other purpose than to protect the powers-that-be from the the people and that people accept to be defenseless against both power-abusing authorities as well as "ordinary" criminals.
-
That would have been a better argument, yes. It seems the ruling class in Europe has successfully placated the citizenry so they can fuck you in the ass at will with laws that would make Orwell blush. Of course, that is just an outsiders prospective, I could be wrong.
Except for the gun laws, I think most things are better (or rather less bad) in Europe. What I don't get is that most people here don't realize that gun laws have no other purpose than to protect the powers-that-be from the the people and that people accept to be defenseless against both power-abusing authorities as well as "ordinary" criminals.
Finally someone else sees what I see, protecting the powers-that-be from the common man has been the purpose of every weapon control law EVER.
-
It's so obvious that you must want to be fooled not to realize it.
In Rome 2000 years ago only the Pretorian guard was allowed to carry weapons.
In Japan 400 years ago they took the swords from the peasants and even openly declared that it was to protect the tax officials from getting attacked by the people.
In Nazi Germany they banned gun ownership, including sharp knives, for Jews.
In Sweden the first gun law came in 1926. It was a liberal-conservative government who wanted to prevent the masses of the people from arming themselves legally. This is very obvious since also rifles were included and land ownership in the countryside was required to get a license. Then the license itself was just a formality. Of course working class people back then didn't own any summer houses.
-
I'd like to shoot off a paedo's Dick and nuts with a shotgun.
-
That would have been a better argument, yes. It seems the ruling class in Europe has successfully placated the citizenry so they can fuck you in the ass at will with laws that would make Orwell blush. Of course, that is just an outsiders prospective, I could be wrong.
Except for the gun laws, I think most things are better (or rather less bad) in Europe. What I don't get is that most people here don't realize that gun laws have no other purpose than to protect the powers-that-be from the the people and that people accept to be defenseless against both power-abusing authorities as well as "ordinary" criminals.
Finally someone else sees what I see, protecting the powers-that-be from the common man has been the purpose of every weapon control law EVER.
Protecting the common man, too. There are all kinds.
I am fascinated by the 'merican fixation on guns, I must say. In their minds, guns are still so tightly connected with the sense of personal freedom that they miss the more blatant violations from their government.
-
Protecting the common man, too. There are all kinds.
I am fascinated by the 'merican fixation on guns, I must say. In their minds, guns are still so tightly connected with the sense of personal freedom that they miss the more blatant violations from their government.
This I can agree with. They have plenty of guns and easy access to them, but their government is as oppressive as any European government or worse.
-
That would have been a better argument, yes. It seems the ruling class in Europe has successfully placated the citizenry so they can fuck you in the ass at will with laws that would make Orwell blush. Of course, that is just an outsiders prospective, I could be wrong.
Except for the gun laws, I think most things are better (or rather less bad) in Europe. What I don't get is that most people here don't realize that gun laws have no other purpose than to protect the powers-that-be from the the people and that people accept to be defenseless against both power-abusing authorities as well as "ordinary" criminals.
Finally someone else sees what I see, protecting the powers-that-be from the common man has been the purpose of every weapon control law EVER.
Protecting the common man, too. There are all kinds.
I am fascinated by the 'merican fixation on guns, I must say. In their minds, guns are still so tightly connected with the sense of personal freedom that they miss the more blatant violations from their government.
It is not ignored as much as you would think, both major political divisions make noise on just about everything. Guns have just been at the forefront since some angsty git went insane and killed 27 people.
However, said political divisions are utterly ignorant. For Example, the Bush Administration started all of this Surveillance State and Drone Strike bullshit after 9/11, and the left made noise. Now that the Obama Administration is doing the EXACT SAME THING, the left is defending him while the right is screaming. It's just a huge clusterfuck.
Personally, I only argue with the left on gun control and affirmative action, but I argue with the right on just about everything, mainly forcing their religion down my throat and shameless greed.
-
But the point is: you should go to Washington and kill them! :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr:
-
But the point is: you should go to Washington and kill them! :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr: :arrr:
>Act of war
>Civil disobedience
Pick one....
-
Well, the point with the 2nd Amendment is that you should shoot them. Unfortunately 99% of all Americans seem to think that it's more important to shoot petty burglars.
-
Well, the point with the 2nd Amendment is that you should shoot them. Unfortunately 99% of all Americans seem to think that it's more important to shoot petty burglars.
Civil disobedience is a better approach. :M
-
Well, the point with the 2nd Amendment is that you should shoot them. Unfortunately 99% of all Americans seem to think that it's more important to shoot petty burglars.
Civil disobedience is a better approach. :M
Explain... :apondering:
-
It's a Catch-22 anyway. There will be no general uprising until many people enough are willing to join, and most people are unwilling to join until there are enough people who will join.
-
But it's only meaningful if you know the powers that be can be replaced with something better. About the last person I would trust to do the job was a revolutionary. :P
-
So you don't trust the little revolutionary Roman pony? :(
-
Nope. Sorry.
-
But it's only meaningful if you know the powers that be can be replaced with something better. About the last person I would trust to do the job was a revolutionary. :P
this is true. That's why the cops have adapted a strategy on street gangs to NOT arrest the head of he Gang.
Rather they control him. Once you get rid if the current leader a vacuum is created to fill that void. And since street gangs are brutally violent in nature you generally end up with a new leader who is worse than the last.
Over time, due to attrition, this will happen anyways. I think revolution and controlling the outcome by a democratic process is necessary from time to time.
-
It's a Catch-22 anyway. There will be no general uprising until many people enough are willing to join, and most people are unwilling to join until there are enough people who will join.
An uprising/civil unrest will happen when the powers that be do something extremely heinous and are unable to hide it. Trying to use dead children to further an agenda and pulling security away from a consulate in a hostile country are no where near enough.
-
Not going to happen. People like having someone else to control their lives. It's why society invented marriage. :P
-
:include:
Not going to happen. People like having someone else to control their lives. It's why society invented marriage. :P
i thought that was god.
Oh. Nevermind.
-
I don't think they like it, considering how much they bitch about the politicians and officials. They are only too stupid to understand that it is their own fault that someone else tells them what to do.
-
I don't think they like it, considering how much they bitch about the politicians and officials. They are only too stupid to understand that it is their own fault that someone else tells them what to do.
"How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror."
Not going to happen. People like having someone else to control their lives. It's why society invented marriage. :P
No one really wants it to happen, the general public enjoys being assfucked by the powerful then bitching about it.
-
Kinda like we need a scapegoat (someone to blame), so we don't have to take personal responsibility for our own life's choices.
A moral high ground. :hahaha:
-
I don't think they like it, considering how much they bitch about the politicians and officials. They are only too stupid to understand that it is their own fault that someone else tells them what to do.
But I do think they like it. Deep inside they do. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages. It's why you will happily accept the money from the state.
-
I don't think they like it, considering how much they bitch about the politicians and officials. They are only too stupid to understand that it is their own fault that someone else tells them what to do.
But I do think they like it. Deep inside they do. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages. It's why you will happily accept the money from the state.
And why I DON'T. 8)
-
I don't think they like it, considering how much they bitch about the politicians and officials. They are only too stupid to understand that it is their own fault that someone else tells them what to do.
But I do think they like it. Deep inside they do. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages. It's why you will happily accept the money from the state.
And why I DON'T. 8)
Most people would. It is why the system works.
-
Yes. They do. This entire problem is their fault, too. It may not have been in the past, but in modern times, all these ridiculous bans and proposals for retarded emotional decisions are approved by the vote of these exact kind of moron.
I hate them, so goddamn much.
-
It is only a problem if you perceive it as such. And most people don't.
-
I don't think they like it, considering how much they bitch about the politicians and officials. They are only too stupid to understand that it is their own fault that someone else tells them what to do.
But I do think they like it. Deep inside they do. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages. It's why you will happily accept the money from the state.
I personally actually don't happily accept it. It is just incredibly much easier than trying to survive on a job that is way below my potential, which is the situation I would end up in without my disability.
The difference between me and "average" peope is that they were happy with this to start with.
-
It is only a problem if you perceive it as such. And most people don't.
Some stalker threatens you and your family. You know that he is dangerous, but the cops say that they don't have the legal means to arrest him. You want a gun to defend your family, but you won't get any, because self-defense isn't a "valid reason" to get a license here. If you manage to get an illegal gun and you use it, you are more likely to get a harder punishment than the stalker will get. How is that not a problem?
Or the state surveilling your private communications without you not even being a suspect. Doesn't that bother you?
Or the state denying you some medication you need, not for an objective reason, but because they have "decided" that it is against their policy to allow the use of this substance.
-
I don't think they like it, considering how much they bitch about the politicians and officials. They are only too stupid to understand that it is their own fault that someone else tells them what to do.
But I do think they like it. Deep inside they do. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages. It's why you will happily accept the money from the state.
I personally actually don't happily accept it. It is just incredibly much easier than trying to survive on a job that is way below my potential, which is the situation I would end up in without my disability.
The difference between me and "average" peope is that they were happy with this to start with.
Same thing, really. You accept it, you are part of the system.
-
It is only a problem if you perceive it as such. And most people don't.
Some stalker threatens you and your family. You know that he is dangerous, but the cops say that they don't have the legal means to arrest him. You want a gun to defend your family, but you won't get any, because self-defense isn't a reason to get a license here. How is that not a problem?
Or the state surveilling your private communications without you not even being a suspect. Doesn't that bother you?
Read my reply. Most people won't see any of this as a problem. The system works.
-
Same thing, really. You accept it, you are part of the system.
I'm glad that I don't contribute, though :eyelash:
-
Read my reply. Most people won't see any of this as a problem. The system works.
No no, are you personally satisfied with this? Remember that you couldn't even get melatonin legally due to the incredibly stupid legislation here.
-
Amateur psychology: you are not satisfied with this system either, but you are obsessed with stability, which you like to talk yourself into that this system provides. Am I not right?
-
Odeon is uncomfortable with change. That is his preference. He should be free to pursue an un changeable life.
-
:agreed:
-
It is only a problem if you perceive it as such. And most people don't.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Government officials making decisions based on their own emotions, or those of a collective of whiny people is a SERIOUS problem. Even if the majority does not yet perceive it. Its as if you have given a person who gets drunk twenty four hours a day (because really drunk people make lots of emotional decisions, with disastrous results) complete control of your life. It will be quite dangerous for you and everyone involved, no matter how they "perceive it".
-
Amateur psychology: you are not satisfied with this system either, but you are obsessed with stability, which you like to talk yourself into that this system provides. Am I not right?
Nope. There's no better alternative, that's all.
-
Odeon is uncomfortable with change. That is his preference. He should be free to pursue an un changeable life.
I loathe change.
-
It is only a problem if you perceive it as such. And most people don't.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Government officials making decisions based on their own emotions, or those of a collective of whiny people is a SERIOUS problem. Even if the majority does not yet perceive it. Its as if you have given a person who gets drunk twenty four hours a day (because really drunk people make lots of emotional decisions, with disastrous results) complete control of your life. It will be quite dangerous for you and everyone involved, no matter how they "perceive it".
I disagree. In this case the system works because people do not perceive it as enough of a problem. It's not the same as the binge drinker's problem at all, because eventually his liver will be shot. We, on the other hand, can live through our lives thinking we are free.
-
Amateur psychology: you are not satisfied with this system either, but you are obsessed with stability, which you like to talk yourself into that this system provides. Am I not right?
Nope. There's no better alternative, that's all.
In this case I was not talking about abandoning the state, just getting rid of the most stupid and freedom-infringing legislation.
-
It is only a problem if you perceive it as such. And most people don't.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Government officials making decisions based on their own emotions, or those of a collective of whiny people is a SERIOUS problem. Even if the majority does not yet perceive it. Its as if you have given a person who gets drunk twenty four hours a day (because really drunk people make lots of emotional decisions, with disastrous results) complete control of your life. It will be quite dangerous for you and everyone involved, no matter how they "perceive it".
I disagree. In this case the system works because people do not perceive it as enough of a problem. It's not the same as the binge drinker's problem at all, because eventually his liver will be shot. We, on the other hand, can live through our lives thinking we are free.
I don't get why you want to lie to yourself. And it's not carved in stone that a freedom-infringing system will exist for ever.
-
It is only a problem if you perceive it as such. And most people don't.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Government officials making decisions based on their own emotions, or those of a collective of whiny people is a SERIOUS problem. Even if the majority does not yet perceive it. Its as if you have given a person who gets drunk twenty four hours a day (because really drunk people make lots of emotional decisions, with disastrous results) complete control of your life. It will be quite dangerous for you and everyone involved, no matter how they "perceive it".
I disagree. In this case the system works because people do not perceive it as enough of a problem. It's not the same as the binge drinker's problem at all, because eventually his liver will be shot. We, on the other hand, can live through our lives thinking we are free.
I don't get why you want to lie to yourself. And it's not carved in stone that a freedom-infringing system will exist for ever.
I'm not lying to myself. Reread the above carefully.
There's no better alternative, Lit. It doesn't mean the one we've got is good, only that it is better than the alternatives, in my not-so-humble opinion.
-
Again: you don't have to abandon the state completely to have more freedom. You know very well that America 100-150 years ago had enormous individual freedom. Why are you in favour of the nanny state?
-
Again: you don't have to abandon the state completely to have more freedom. You know very well that America 100-150 years ago had enormous individual freedom. Why are you in favour of the nanny state?
You're kidding, right?
-
Again: you don't have to abandon the state completely to have more freedom. You know very well that America 100-150 years ago had enormous individual freedom. Why are you in favour of the nanny state?
You're kidding, right?
No. At least for white people, who were the absolute majority, there was enormous freedom.
-
White males who were literate, lived in the right state, weren't poor and had the right background, maybe. And that's still just about the right to vote for someone who will then do the voting for you. You've been watching too many westerns on the telly.
-
White males who were literate, lived in the right state, weren't poor and had the right background, maybe. And that's still just about the right to vote for someone who will then do the voting for you. You've been watching too many westerns on the telly.
No one back then questioned why anyone would have a gun. No one questioned one's right to self-defense. No one stopped anyone from putting what they wanted in their own body. In America 1913 you could buy heroin legally without any prescription. Compare that to not even being able to buy something as harmless as melatonin.
-
To the kuiper belt with the two of you.
-
:orly:
-
:squiddy:
-
White males who were literate, lived in the right state, weren't poor and had the right background, maybe. And that's still just about the right to vote for someone who will then do the voting for you. You've been watching too many westerns on the telly.
No one back then questioned why anyone would have a gun. No one questioned one's right to self-defense. No one stopped anyone from putting what they wanted in their own body. In America 1913 you could buy heroin legally without any prescription. Compare that to not even being able to buy something as harmless as melatonin.
No one would question a white male's right to those things, maybe.
But yeah, if you value buying heroin more than voting, sure. We just see these things a bit differently.
-
To the kuiper belt with the two of you.
It's a cold, nasty place, reserved for those I flame.
-
White males who were literate, lived in the right state, weren't poor and had the right background, maybe. And that's still just about the right to vote for someone who will then do the voting for you. You've been watching too many westerns on the telly.
No one back then questioned why anyone would have a gun. No one questioned one's right to self-defense. No one stopped anyone from putting what they wanted in their own body. In America 1913 you could buy heroin legally without any prescription. Compare that to not even being able to buy something as harmless as melatonin.
No one would question a white male's right to those things, maybe.
But yeah, if you value buying heroin more than voting, sure. We just see these things a bit differently.
Strawman. I would prefer anarchism. I am saying that it is more relative freedom to be able to buy heroin legally.
-
I know you would, but anarchism is even more of a pipe dream than democracy.
Guns do not equal freedom and they never have. It's an illusion, and a dangerous one.
-
I know you would, but anarchism is even more of a pipe dream than democracy.
Guns do not equal freedom and they never have. It's an illusion, and a dangerous one.
Guns equal freedom, if everyone has the same firepower. It's a very obvious fact. The state is "invincible" just because it has all guns or the most powerful ones. Very simple.
-
See my reply in the other thread. The only place this might lead to is the Kuiper belt.
-
See my reply in the other thread. The only place this might lead to is the Kuiper belt.
and back!
-
Mannulus Romanus sum. Zonae Kuiperi non metuo 8)
-
Kätä kieltä jonka muut voivat ymmärtää.
-
I'm a Roman pony and don't fear the Kuiper Belt :toporly:
-
You should, mate, because I can get mean if I want to.
-
It is only a problem if you perceive it as such. And most people don't.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Government officials making decisions based on their own emotions, or those of a collective of whiny people is a SERIOUS problem. Even if the majority does not yet perceive it. Its as if you have given a person who gets drunk twenty four hours a day (because really drunk people make lots of emotional decisions, with disastrous results) complete control of your life. It will be quite dangerous for you and everyone involved, no matter how they "perceive it".
I disagree. In this case the system works because people do not perceive it as enough of a problem. It's not the same as the binge drinker's problem at all, because eventually his liver will be shot. We, on the other hand, can live through our lives thinking we are free.
Its beginning to become a problem though. I'm seeing a lot more grumbling than I did just a few years ago, which is the sign of a frustrated and annoyed people. I'm not saying they're "waking up" yet, but people are beginning to suspect something may be wrong with things.
Change occurs because of discomfort or pain.
-
I met an old pal from the university today. We discussed this. He said that if an uprising gets big enough to have success, you will get weapons for it anyway. It would feel safer with a thoroughly armed general public, though.
-
Consider this latest NSA/interwebz monitoring thing. Are people upset? Yes, sure, but I'm betting money on that most people worry more about the authorities being able to trace their frequent Pornhub visits than all the rest of it. Will there be an uprising because of it? No.
What surprises me is that some people are actually surprised. What did they think? That the internet would be unsupervised and unmonitored just because this isn't China? Oh please. Your employer knows what pages you visit. Your ISP knows. And your government knows.
-
We will have to make an uprising communicating with carrier pigeons then! :arrr: :arrr: :arrr:
-
They'll listen in on those, too. :P
-
I hope "mankind" dies out soon. No brave people anymore :thumbdn:
-
leaves more room for womankind :thumbup:
-
Give it a few years. There are plenty of brave people around but their agendas may not always be what you'd want them to be.
-
Back in Spartacus's days they were :viking:
-
They were crucified for being brave.
-
Consider this latest NSA/interwebz monitoring thing. Are people upset? Yes, sure, but I'm betting money on that most people worry more about the authorities being able to trace their frequent Pornhub visits than all the rest of it. Will there be an uprising because of it? No.
What surprises me is that some people are actually surprised. What did they think? That the internet would be unsupervised and unmonitored just because this isn't China? Oh please. Your employer knows what pages you visit. Your ISP knows. And your government knows.
how do you know about porn hub?
-
Consider this latest NSA/interwebz monitoring thing. Are people upset? Yes, sure, but I'm betting money on that most people worry more about the authorities being able to trace their frequent Pornhub visits than all the rest of it. Will there be an uprising because of it? No.
What surprises me is that some people are actually surprised. What did they think? That the internet would be unsupervised and unmonitored just because this isn't China? Oh please. Your employer knows what pages you visit. Your ISP knows. And your government knows.
how do you know about porn hub?
I've read about it. :tard:
-
Interesting :headbang2:
-
I met an old pal from the university today. We discussed this. He said that if an uprising gets big enough to have success, you will get weapons for it anyway. It would feel safer with a thoroughly armed general public, though.
That's true. We'd get or make weapons anyway, and the military would be with us. BUT. Taking weapons for the time being causes domestic problems. Who wants to wait fucking thirty minutes for the cops to show up while some criminal with a knife or a gun is taking all their shit?
Not me, man. I'll shoot him.
-
:yawn:
I have no opinion.
-
:yawn:
I have no opinion.
Liar.
-
:yawn:
I have no opinion.
Liar.
caught red handed.
I do have an opinion. But I view the gun debate as a major distraction over real issues that affect most people's lives: income inequality.
The gun debate should be one of logic. But it's not. It's one of capitalism practiced brilliantly by the NRA. It's all about money. Fear mongering and redistributing wealth to the enormously profitable shareholders of the gun industry.
-
:yawn:
I have no opinion.
Liar.
caught red handed.
I do have an opinion. But I view the gun debate as a major distraction over real issues that affect most people's lives: income inequality.
The gun debate should be one of logic. But it's not. It's one of capitalism practiced brilliantly by the NRA. It's all about money. Fear mongering and redistributing wealth to the enormously profitable shareholders of the gun industry.
Correct. Not only is the systematic removal of guns unrelated the actual reason for shootings, it would not solve the problem. PLUS what you just said.
Its all so... hysterical. ;)
-
Clinically insane gun control retard: "Less guns means less violence right?"
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/32023083.jpg)
-
Piers Morgan Vs Ted Nugent On Gun Control (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjNwMOLulUQ#ws)
-
Thanks a lot gun control nuts. 25 people were victims of gun violence, in just ONE CITY, IN JUST TWO DAYS. Thanks to your STUPID idea.
http://www.naturalnews.com/040750_New_York_City_Safe_Act_legislation_gun_control.html (http://www.naturalnews.com/040750_New_York_City_Safe_Act_legislation_gun_control.html)
Didn't hurt to try it out, right? Oh wait, yeah. It did. In fact six of those twenty five people are DEAD.
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And because of this, the amount of gun related deaths is RISING. People are dying because of them, and this makes them MURDERERS.
-
Yes.
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And the pro-gun folks aren't? Oh please.
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And because of this, the amount of gun related deaths is RISING. People are dying because of them, and this makes them MURDERERS.
The simple fact remains that if the murder victims hadn't been killed by guns, offing them would have been a lot harder. I love it how the pro-gun people conveniently ignore this.
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And the pro-gun folks aren't? Oh please.
Haha, many pro-gunners are stupid, but they're right nevertheless on this particular issue. There was never a gun law with another purpose than protecting those in power, not the Swedish one either. The Swedish gun law was to make it possible for the military to do things like that without risking payback:
Ådalen 31 - skotten (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYhsPx10Kls#)
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And because of this, the amount of gun related deaths is RISING. People are dying because of them, and this makes them MURDERERS.
The simple fact remains that if the murder victims hadn't been killed by guns, offing them would have been a lot harder. I love it how the pro-gun people conveniently ignore this.
It's easy to kill with a knife or to beat and kick someone to death too. And it's anyway unacceptable that law-abiding people should be slaughter cattle for criminals.
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And the pro-gun folks aren't? Oh please.
Let me make things as simple as possible. The evidence is now irrefutable: Here in the U.S., everywhere where these laws have been imposed, violent crime and gun related deaths exploded. FACT.
This having been proven in more studies than I can count on both hands and feet, and by PEOPLE DYING, can only mean that people that support this must be okay with more people dying, just to "get those unpleasant weapons out of their sight". It means that the HORRIBLE idea of an armed citizenry is important enough to merit a rise in violent crime and GUN RELATED DEATHS. Yep. This makes those people just as bad as the psychos doing the killing. Worse really, because they have convinced themselves they are making the world a better place.
I love it how anti gun people conveniently ignore this.
WAKE THE FUCK UP.
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And because of this, the amount of gun related deaths is RISING. People are dying because of them, and this makes them MURDERERS.
The simple fact remains that if the murder victims hadn't been killed by guns, offing them would have been a lot harder. I love it how the pro-gun people conveniently ignore this.
It's easy to kill with a knife or to beat and kick someone to death too. And it's anyway unacceptable that law-abiding people should be slaughter cattle for criminals.
So why not simply allow everything? I want an a-bomb (and know exactly where to use it).
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And the pro-gun folks aren't? Oh please.
Let me make things as simple as possible. The evidence is now irrefutable: Here in the U.S., everywhere where these laws have been imposed, violent crime and gun related deaths exploded. FACT.
This having been proven in more studies than I can count on both hands and feet, and by PEOPLE DYING, can only mean that people that support this must be okay with more people dying, just to "get those unpleasant weapons out of their sight". It means that the HORRIBLE idea of an armed citizenry is important enough to merit a rise in violent crime and GUN RELATED DEATHS. Yep. This makes those people just as bad as the psychos doing the killing. Worse really, because they have convinced themselves they are making the world a better place.
I love it how anti gun people conveniently ignore this.
WAKE THE FUCK UP.
Ah, yes, because the US is the norm by which the rest of the world should conduct its business. ::)
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And because of this, the amount of gun related deaths is RISING. People are dying because of them, and this makes them MURDERERS.
The simple fact remains that if the murder victims hadn't been killed by guns, offing them would have been a lot harder. I love it how the pro-gun people conveniently ignore this.
It's easy to kill with a knife or to beat and kick someone to death too. And it's anyway unacceptable that law-abiding people should be slaughter cattle for criminals.
So why not simply allow everything? I want an a-bomb (and know exactly where to use it).
It's unlikely that you need an a-bomb. Theoretically I want everything that is malum prohibitum to be allowed, though I hope people will abstain from having them.
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And the pro-gun folks aren't? Oh please.
Let me make things as simple as possible. The evidence is now irrefutable: Here in the U.S., everywhere where these laws have been imposed, violent crime and gun related deaths exploded. FACT.
This having been proven in more studies than I can count on both hands and feet, and by PEOPLE DYING, can only mean that people that support this must be okay with more people dying, just to "get those unpleasant weapons out of their sight". It means that the HORRIBLE idea of an armed citizenry is important enough to merit a rise in violent crime and GUN RELATED DEATHS. Yep. This makes those people just as bad as the psychos doing the killing. Worse really, because they have convinced themselves they are making the world a better place.
I love it how anti gun people conveniently ignore this.
WAKE THE FUCK UP.
Ah, yes, because the US is the norm by which the rest of the world should conduct its business. ::)
It's not the US vs the rest of the world. The fact is that you are helpless without a gun anywhere in the world. Remember that stalker example I gave you. The authorities in Sweden want you to be a helpless slaughter animal. The incredible thing is that you seem to be thinking that they are right.
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And because of this, the amount of gun related deaths is RISING. People are dying because of them, and this makes them MURDERERS.
The simple fact remains that if the murder victims hadn't been killed by guns, offing them would have been a lot harder. I love it how the pro-gun people conveniently ignore this.
It's easy to kill with a knife or to beat and kick someone to death too. And it's anyway unacceptable that law-abiding people should be slaughter cattle for criminals.
So why not simply allow everything? I want an a-bomb (and know exactly where to use it).
It's unlikely that you need an a-bomb. Theoretically I want everything that is malum prohibitum to be allowed, though I hope people will abstain from having them.
It's not unlikely at all. Who are you to infringe on my personal freedoms?
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And the pro-gun folks aren't? Oh please.
Let me make things as simple as possible. The evidence is now irrefutable: Here in the U.S., everywhere where these laws have been imposed, violent crime and gun related deaths exploded. FACT.
This having been proven in more studies than I can count on both hands and feet, and by PEOPLE DYING, can only mean that people that support this must be okay with more people dying, just to "get those unpleasant weapons out of their sight". It means that the HORRIBLE idea of an armed citizenry is important enough to merit a rise in violent crime and GUN RELATED DEATHS. Yep. This makes those people just as bad as the psychos doing the killing. Worse really, because they have convinced themselves they are making the world a better place.
I love it how anti gun people conveniently ignore this.
WAKE THE FUCK UP.
Ah, yes, because the US is the norm by which the rest of the world should conduct its business. ::)
No actually. I'm saying other countries should stop trying to force their model on the U.S., because its getting people killed.
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And because of this, the amount of gun related deaths is RISING. People are dying because of them, and this makes them MURDERERS.
The simple fact remains that if the murder victims hadn't been killed by guns, offing them would have been a lot harder. I love it how the pro-gun people conveniently ignore this.
It's easy to kill with a knife or to beat and kick someone to death too. And it's anyway unacceptable that law-abiding people should be slaughter cattle for criminals.
So why not simply allow everything? I want an a-bomb (and know exactly where to use it).
It's unlikely that you need an a-bomb. Theoretically I want everything that is malum prohibitum to be allowed, though I hope people will abstain from having them.
It's not unlikely at all. Who are you to infringe on my personal freedoms?
OK, but you will have to found your own anarchistic society, where those bombs are allowed. I doubt that many would join you.
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And the pro-gun folks aren't? Oh please.
Let me make things as simple as possible. The evidence is now irrefutable: Here in the U.S., everywhere where these laws have been imposed, violent crime and gun related deaths exploded. FACT.
This having been proven in more studies than I can count on both hands and feet, and by PEOPLE DYING, can only mean that people that support this must be okay with more people dying, just to "get those unpleasant weapons out of their sight". It means that the HORRIBLE idea of an armed citizenry is important enough to merit a rise in violent crime and GUN RELATED DEATHS. Yep. This makes those people just as bad as the psychos doing the killing. Worse really, because they have convinced themselves they are making the world a better place.
I love it how anti gun people conveniently ignore this.
WAKE THE FUCK UP.
Ah, yes, because the US is the norm by which the rest of the world should conduct its business. ::)
No actually. I'm saying other countries should stop trying to force their model on the U.S., because its getting people killed.
It's a great evil that guns aren't free in every country.
-
It is, but I have to do my part to stop this filth from spreading to my own country before I can offer help to yours.
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And the pro-gun folks aren't? Oh please.
Let me make things as simple as possible. The evidence is now irrefutable: Here in the U.S., everywhere where these laws have been imposed, violent crime and gun related deaths exploded. FACT.
This having been proven in more studies than I can count on both hands and feet, and by PEOPLE DYING, can only mean that people that support this must be okay with more people dying, just to "get those unpleasant weapons out of their sight". It means that the HORRIBLE idea of an armed citizenry is important enough to merit a rise in violent crime and GUN RELATED DEATHS. Yep. This makes those people just as bad as the psychos doing the killing. Worse really, because they have convinced themselves they are making the world a better place.
I love it how anti gun people conveniently ignore this.
WAKE THE FUCK UP.
Ah, yes, because the US is the norm by which the rest of the world should conduct its business. ::)
It's not the US vs the rest of the world. The fact is that you are helpless without a gun anywhere in the world. Remember that stalker example I gave you. The authorities in Sweden want you to be a helpless slaughter animal. The incredible thing is that you seem to be thinking that they are right.
I'd suggest you to employ some rest-of-the-world statistics, then. Rage is claiming a ban causes violent crime to "explode" in the US. Now, without numbers to back his shit up with, he is just causing a shrug or two from me, but I'm pretty sure the rest-of-the-world statistics will tell a different story. See, the population of the US is slightly less than the population of the rest of the world.
I'm game if you are.
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And the pro-gun folks aren't? Oh please.
Let me make things as simple as possible. The evidence is now irrefutable: Here in the U.S., everywhere where these laws have been imposed, violent crime and gun related deaths exploded. FACT.
This having been proven in more studies than I can count on both hands and feet, and by PEOPLE DYING, can only mean that people that support this must be okay with more people dying, just to "get those unpleasant weapons out of their sight". It means that the HORRIBLE idea of an armed citizenry is important enough to merit a rise in violent crime and GUN RELATED DEATHS. Yep. This makes those people just as bad as the psychos doing the killing. Worse really, because they have convinced themselves they are making the world a better place.
I love it how anti gun people conveniently ignore this.
WAKE THE FUCK UP.
Ah, yes, because the US is the norm by which the rest of the world should conduct its business. ::)
No actually. I'm saying other countries should stop trying to force their model on the U.S., because its getting people killed.
Ah, yes. The rest of the world is constantly meddling with you guys.
No wait, that doesn't sound right, does it? Could it be, wait for it, the other way around?
-
Now, without numbers to back his shit up with, he is just causing a shrug or two from me
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ (http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/)
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And the pro-gun folks aren't? Oh please.
Let me make things as simple as possible. The evidence is now irrefutable: Here in the U.S., everywhere where these laws have been imposed, violent crime and gun related deaths exploded. FACT.
This having been proven in more studies than I can count on both hands and feet, and by PEOPLE DYING, can only mean that people that support this must be okay with more people dying, just to "get those unpleasant weapons out of their sight". It means that the HORRIBLE idea of an armed citizenry is important enough to merit a rise in violent crime and GUN RELATED DEATHS. Yep. This makes those people just as bad as the psychos doing the killing. Worse really, because they have convinced themselves they are making the world a better place.
I love it how anti gun people conveniently ignore this.
WAKE THE FUCK UP.
Ah, yes, because the US is the norm by which the rest of the world should conduct its business. ::)
It's not the US vs the rest of the world. The fact is that you are helpless without a gun anywhere in the world. Remember that stalker example I gave you. The authorities in Sweden want you to be a helpless slaughter animal. The incredible thing is that you seem to be thinking that they are right.
I'd suggest you to employ some rest-of-the-world statistics, then. Rage is claiming a ban causes violent crime to "explode" in the US. Now, without numbers to back his shit up with, he is just causing a shrug or two from me, but I'm pretty sure the rest-of-the-world statistics will tell a different story. See, the population of the US is slightly less than the population of the rest of the world.
I'm game if you are.
Gun laws are wrong from the beginning, because no one has the moral right to deny you to defend yourself with the means necessary - especially considering the fact that gun laws are made up not to stop citizens from shooting each other but to stop the citizens from successfully defending themselves against a corrupt government.
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And because of this, the amount of gun related deaths is RISING. People are dying because of them, and this makes them MURDERERS.
The simple fact remains that if the murder victims hadn't been killed by guns, offing them would have been a lot harder. I love it how the pro-gun people conveniently ignore this.
It's easy to kill with a knife or to beat and kick someone to death too. And it's anyway unacceptable that law-abiding people should be slaughter cattle for criminals.
So why not simply allow everything? I want an a-bomb (and know exactly where to use it).
It's unlikely that you need an a-bomb. Theoretically I want everything that is malum prohibitum to be allowed, though I hope people will abstain from having them.
It's not unlikely at all. Who are you to infringe on my personal freedoms?
OK, but you will have to found your own anarchistic society, where those bombs are allowed. I doubt that many would join you.
You are doing it again.
I'd just get rid of them all.
-
Oh! But thanks to the gun law this doesn't happen very often: En person skjuten av maskerade män (http://www.gp.se/nyheter/goteborg/1.1741737-en-person-skjuten-av-maskerade-man)
-
Now, without numbers to back his shit up with, he is just causing a shrug or two from me
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ (http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/)
Check the about the ACRU page. This made me LOL:
That it is the purpose of government to secure our God-given rights, not to restrict them, nor to invent new rights.
And a few paragraphs later:
That the free exercise of religion, the right of private organizations to associate freely, the right to free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms are essential civil rights to be protected, not undermined, by the judiciary.
Of course, it is in their best interest to provide suitable statistics, considering that last part:
That the free exercise of religion, the right of private organizations to associate freely, the right to free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms are essential civil rights to be protected, not undermined, by the judiciary.
http://willblogforfood.typepad.com/will_blog_for_food/2013/01/gun-non-gun-homicides-in-us-and-europe.html (http://willblogforfood.typepad.com/will_blog_for_food/2013/01/gun-non-gun-homicides-in-us-and-europe.html)
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And the pro-gun folks aren't? Oh please.
Let me make things as simple as possible. The evidence is now irrefutable: Here in the U.S., everywhere where these laws have been imposed, violent crime and gun related deaths exploded. FACT.
This having been proven in more studies than I can count on both hands and feet, and by PEOPLE DYING, can only mean that people that support this must be okay with more people dying, just to "get those unpleasant weapons out of their sight". It means that the HORRIBLE idea of an armed citizenry is important enough to merit a rise in violent crime and GUN RELATED DEATHS. Yep. This makes those people just as bad as the psychos doing the killing. Worse really, because they have convinced themselves they are making the world a better place.
I love it how anti gun people conveniently ignore this.
WAKE THE FUCK UP.
Ah, yes, because the US is the norm by which the rest of the world should conduct its business. ::)
It's not the US vs the rest of the world. The fact is that you are helpless without a gun anywhere in the world. Remember that stalker example I gave you. The authorities in Sweden want you to be a helpless slaughter animal. The incredible thing is that you seem to be thinking that they are right.
I'd suggest you to employ some rest-of-the-world statistics, then. Rage is claiming a ban causes violent crime to "explode" in the US. Now, without numbers to back his shit up with, he is just causing a shrug or two from me, but I'm pretty sure the rest-of-the-world statistics will tell a different story. See, the population of the US is slightly less than the population of the rest of the world.
I'm game if you are.
Gun laws are wrong from the beginning, because no one has the moral right to deny you to defend yourself with the means necessary - especially considering the fact that gun laws are made up not to stop citizens from shooting each other but to stop the citizens from successfully defending themselves against a corrupt government.
Proof?
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And the pro-gun folks aren't? Oh please.
Let me make things as simple as possible. The evidence is now irrefutable: Here in the U.S., everywhere where these laws have been imposed, violent crime and gun related deaths exploded. FACT.
This having been proven in more studies than I can count on both hands and feet, and by PEOPLE DYING, can only mean that people that support this must be okay with more people dying, just to "get those unpleasant weapons out of their sight". It means that the HORRIBLE idea of an armed citizenry is important enough to merit a rise in violent crime and GUN RELATED DEATHS. Yep. This makes those people just as bad as the psychos doing the killing. Worse really, because they have convinced themselves they are making the world a better place.
I love it how anti gun people conveniently ignore this.
WAKE THE FUCK UP.
Ah, yes, because the US is the norm by which the rest of the world should conduct its business. ::)
It's not the US vs the rest of the world. The fact is that you are helpless without a gun anywhere in the world. Remember that stalker example I gave you. The authorities in Sweden want you to be a helpless slaughter animal. The incredible thing is that you seem to be thinking that they are right.
I'd suggest you to employ some rest-of-the-world statistics, then. Rage is claiming a ban causes violent crime to "explode" in the US. Now, without numbers to back his shit up with, he is just causing a shrug or two from me, but I'm pretty sure the rest-of-the-world statistics will tell a different story. See, the population of the US is slightly less than the population of the rest of the world.
I'm game if you are.
Gun laws are wrong from the beginning, because no one has the moral right to deny you to defend yourself with the means necessary - especially considering the fact that gun laws are made up not to stop citizens from shooting each other but to stop the citizens from successfully defending themselves against a corrupt government.
Proof?
The Romans forbade everyone but the Pretorian Guard to carry weapons in Rome.
The Japanese banned swords for everyone but the military and the aristocrats in the 17th century.
The Nazis forbade the jews to own both firearms and sharp knives.
The "liberal" government in Sweden in 1926 proposed and got through the first Swedish gun law. It is a known fact that communists and social democrats used to carry guns on their meetings.
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And the pro-gun folks aren't? Oh please.
Let me make things as simple as possible. The evidence is now irrefutable: Here in the U.S., everywhere where these laws have been imposed, violent crime and gun related deaths exploded. FACT.
This having been proven in more studies than I can count on both hands and feet, and by PEOPLE DYING, can only mean that people that support this must be okay with more people dying, just to "get those unpleasant weapons out of their sight". It means that the HORRIBLE idea of an armed citizenry is important enough to merit a rise in violent crime and GUN RELATED DEATHS. Yep. This makes those people just as bad as the psychos doing the killing. Worse really, because they have convinced themselves they are making the world a better place.
I love it how anti gun people conveniently ignore this.
WAKE THE FUCK UP.
Ah, yes, because the US is the norm by which the rest of the world should conduct its business. ::)
did he even cite a source?
Not that I believe in studies or stats I just like to consider the source instead of blindly agreeing.
-
Now, without numbers to back his shit up with, he is just causing a shrug or two from me
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ (http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/)
Check the about the ACRU page. This made me LOL:
That it is the purpose of government to secure our God-given rights, not to restrict them, nor to invent new rights.
And a few paragraphs later:
That the free exercise of religion, the right of private organizations to associate freely, the right to free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms are essential civil rights to be protected, not undermined, by the judiciary.
Of course, it is in their best interest to provide suitable statistics, considering that last part:
That the free exercise of religion, the right of private organizations to associate freely, the right to free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms are essential civil rights to be protected, not undermined, by the judiciary.
http://willblogforfood.typepad.com/will_blog_for_food/2013/01/gun-non-gun-homicides-in-us-and-europe.html (http://willblogforfood.typepad.com/will_blog_for_food/2013/01/gun-non-gun-homicides-in-us-and-europe.html)
I do not see a problem man. You don't think people should have freedom of religion? You don't think that the judiciare is supposed to do what we tell it to do?
Whats the problem?
-
But this has to do with being so rigid that he prefers a bad status quo to a possibly good change. I bet he never checked out any of my anarchism links either. That is narrow-minded. Some pretty conservative people on other boards have at least been open-minded enough to read Spooner's homepage, for instance.
-
But this has to do with being so rigid that he prefers a bad status quo to a possibly good change. I bet he never checked out any of my anarchism links either. That is narrow-minded. Some pretty conservative people on other boards have at least been open-minded enough to read Spooner's homepage, for instance.
some people have more time to follow links and read every possible article they are recommended.
Others don't.
I, for one, have read both sides of each several issues for years. Now I don't much bother. I enjoy the back and forth banter between individuals.
-
No, he just doesn't want anything disturbing=another option in his comfortable zone.
-
No, he just doesn't want anything disturbing=another option in his comfortable zone.
what is your job in the anarchist movement?
Mine is to be a cheerleader, because I have too much to lose and believe that the system cannot be reformed.
You have time on your hands. Have you recruited a flock of like minded people? Have you began to disrupt the system. Lobby for lawlessness.
I say, that you too are comfortable.
-
I discuss with like-minded people, mostly on the net, though. It's extremely hard to "recruit" people.
Most of the time I also feel "What the hell, those brainwashed morons want to be oppressed by psychopaths" :(
-
Best 7 minutes on gun control I have ever seen! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5ELyG9V1SY#ws)
-
I actually once posted a parody of "gun control" on a board. I said that private swimming pools should be banned. In fact 25 times more people drown in swimming pools than are killed by guns, and that is in America. Most people were furious about my suggestion, though. The most absurd thing was that the Swedish newspapers started to write about how many drown in swimming pools some weeks later :laugh:
-
I actually once posted a parody of "gun control" on a board. I said that private swimming pools should be banned. In fact 25 times more people drown in swimming pools than are killed by guns, and that is in America. Most people were furious about my suggestion, though. The most absurd thing was that the Swedish newspapers started to write about how many drown in swimming pools some weeks later :laugh:
The Romans would probably have taught themselves to swim in the icy ocean water! :viking:
-
I actually once posted a parody of "gun control" on a board. I said that private swimming pools should be banned. In fact 25 times more people drown in swimming pools than are killed by guns, and that is in America. Most people were furious about my suggestion, though. The most absurd thing was that the Swedish newspapers started to write about how many drown in swimming pools some weeks later :laugh:
I wrote a satirical gun control proposal that suggested we lock all guns in prison and use nuclear weapons and drone strikes against gun owning "terrorists".
-
The thing is: people who are pro "gun control" are brainwashed. You can't convince them to change their minds. Some of them (probably the most) are just stupid and believe anything the authorities tell them. Others are deceiving themselves, although deep inside they know that "gun control" isn't there to protect the common citizen at all.
And the pro-gun folks aren't? Oh please.
Let me make things as simple as possible. The evidence is now irrefutable: Here in the U.S., everywhere where these laws have been imposed, violent crime and gun related deaths exploded. FACT.
This having been proven in more studies than I can count on both hands and feet, and by PEOPLE DYING, can only mean that people that support this must be okay with more people dying, just to "get those unpleasant weapons out of their sight". It means that the HORRIBLE idea of an armed citizenry is important enough to merit a rise in violent crime and GUN RELATED DEATHS. Yep. This makes those people just as bad as the psychos doing the killing. Worse really, because they have convinced themselves they are making the world a better place.
I love it how anti gun people conveniently ignore this.
WAKE THE FUCK UP.
Ah, yes, because the US is the norm by which the rest of the world should conduct its business. ::)
It's not the US vs the rest of the world. The fact is that you are helpless without a gun anywhere in the world. Remember that stalker example I gave you. The authorities in Sweden want you to be a helpless slaughter animal. The incredible thing is that you seem to be thinking that they are right.
I'd suggest you to employ some rest-of-the-world statistics, then. Rage is claiming a ban causes violent crime to "explode" in the US. Now, without numbers to back his shit up with, he is just causing a shrug or two from me, but I'm pretty sure the rest-of-the-world statistics will tell a different story. See, the population of the US is slightly less than the population of the rest of the world.
I'm game if you are.
Gun laws are wrong from the beginning, because no one has the moral right to deny you to defend yourself with the means necessary - especially considering the fact that gun laws are made up not to stop citizens from shooting each other but to stop the citizens from successfully defending themselves against a corrupt government.
Proof?
The Romans forbade everyone but the Pretorian Guard to carry weapons in Rome.
The Japanese banned swords for everyone but the military and the aristocrats in the 17th century.
The Nazis forbade the jews to own both firearms and sharp knives.
The "liberal" government in Sweden in 1926 proposed and got through the first Swedish gun law. It is a known fact that communists and social democrats used to carry guns on their meetings.
I meant proof from this century.
-
Why would the reasons for "gun control" miraculously change after several thousand years?
-
Now, without numbers to back his shit up with, he is just causing a shrug or two from me
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ (http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/)
Check the about the ACRU page. This made me LOL:
That it is the purpose of government to secure our God-given rights, not to restrict them, nor to invent new rights.
And a few paragraphs later:
That the free exercise of religion, the right of private organizations to associate freely, the right to free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms are essential civil rights to be protected, not undermined, by the judiciary.
Of course, it is in their best interest to provide suitable statistics, considering that last part:
That the free exercise of religion, the right of private organizations to associate freely, the right to free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms are essential civil rights to be protected, not undermined, by the judiciary.
http://willblogforfood.typepad.com/will_blog_for_food/2013/01/gun-non-gun-homicides-in-us-and-europe.html (http://willblogforfood.typepad.com/will_blog_for_food/2013/01/gun-non-gun-homicides-in-us-and-europe.html)
I do not see a problem man. You don't think people should have freedom of religion? You don't think that the judiciare is supposed to do what we tell it to do?
Whats the problem?
You didn't think those two paragraphs were contradicting each other? Seriously?
As for your claim, did you check out my link?
-
But this has to do with being so rigid that he prefers a bad status quo to a possibly good change. I bet he never checked out any of my anarchism links either. That is narrow-minded. Some pretty conservative people on other boards have at least been open-minded enough to read Spooner's homepage, for instance.
First you make an assumption without proof and then you make conclusion based on that assumption. Isn't there a name for that sort of thing?
-
No, he just doesn't want anything disturbing=another option in his comfortable zone.
Or--the horror--I disagree with you.
-
Why would the reasons for "gun control" miraculously change after several thousand years?
Silly me. I thought we were discussing a current situation.
But sure, you go right ahead. Prove the reasons for each and every item on your list. Meanwhile I'll just post in other threads.
And by "proof" I mean something rather more substantial than the strawman or the ad hominem.
-
No, he just doesn't want anything disturbing=another option in his comfortable zone.
Or--the horror--I disagree with you.
You disagree because it's out of your comfortable zone that way.
-
Why would the reasons for "gun control" miraculously change after several thousand years?
Silly me. I thought we were discussing a current situation.
But sure, you go right ahead. Prove the reasons for each and every item on your list. Meanwhile I'll just post in other threads.
And by "proof" I mean something rather more substantial than the strawman or the ad hominem.
PPK is very pro guns. He has stopped arguing with you on this subject, though. Guess why that is.
-
No, he just doesn't want anything disturbing=another option in his comfortable zone.
Or--the horror--I disagree with you.
You disagree because it's out of your comfortable zone that way.
Or I genuinely think you are so wrong it hurts and I'm astounded by the fact that you just don't see it. I suspect it pokes holes in *your* comfort zone.
Let's do this a few more rounds. It's just so much fun to come up with things without any shred of evidence and post them as universal truths, isn't it?
-
Why would the reasons for "gun control" miraculously change after several thousand years?
Silly me. I thought we were discussing a current situation.
But sure, you go right ahead. Prove the reasons for each and every item on your list. Meanwhile I'll just post in other threads.
And by "proof" I mean something rather more substantial than the strawman or the ad hominem.
PPK is very pro guns. He has stopped arguing with you on this subject, though. Guess why that is.
The strawman, the ad hominem and now the argument from silence.
Cross off a few more of these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies) while you are at it. It is quite entertaining.
-
I'll just leave this here.
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/300x300/17569576.jpg)
-
Why would the reasons for "gun control" miraculously change after several thousand years?
Silly me. I thought we were discussing a current situation.
But sure, you go right ahead. Prove the reasons for each and every item on your list. Meanwhile I'll just post in other threads.
And by "proof" I mean something rather more substantial than the strawman or the ad hominem.
PPK is very pro guns. He has stopped arguing with you on this subject, though. Guess why that is.
The strawman, the ad hominem and now the argument from silence.
Cross off a few more of these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies) while you are at it. It is quite entertaining.
He stopped arguing because you are dishonest.
You are such a hypocrite. You ask me to provide evidence that the gun laws are there to protect the government! You know damned well that these psychopaths behind 9/11, this NSA thing and all the other crimes they commit don't care a iota about our lives and freedoms. Hypocrite.
-
You know damned well that these psychopaths behind 9/11, this NSA thing and all the other crimes they commit don't care a iota about our lives and freedoms. Hypocrite.
It's all the government.
Al Qaeda is simply the name of a "common enemy" which promotes nationalism, dependency on government and aids in stripping our liberties. All for the benefit of the status quo and the oligarchy.
I remember, in America, where it was the evils of communism, gonna come get you in the middle of the night and do rape thingies to your butt hole. Now, we are shipping all our jobs to the communists.
It's all a ruse.
-
It's all the government.
Al Qaeda is simply the name of a "common enemy" which promotes nationalism, dependency on government and aids in stripping our liberties. All for the benefit of the status quo and the oligarchy.
I remember, in America, where it was the evils of communism, gonna come get you in the middle of the night and do rape thingies to your butt hole. Now, we are shipping all our jobs to the communists.
It's all a ruse.
Exactly. And he is not that stupid that he believes that "our" European governments are any better. They do everything that America tells them to do. Or what the EU tells them to do.
So why this charade where he pretends to believe that they restrict guns for other reasons than preserving their own power?
-
Why would the reasons for "gun control" miraculously change after several thousand years?
Silly me. I thought we were discussing a current situation.
But sure, you go right ahead. Prove the reasons for each and every item on your list. Meanwhile I'll just post in other threads.
And by "proof" I mean something rather more substantial than the strawman or the ad hominem.
We haven't evolved into ancient alien astronauts, O-man. Humans are still humans.
-
Rage has gotten butt hurted all over this thread.. :hahaha:
-
Though he is right.
-
Though he is right.
im not firm in the belief that everything is either right or wrong.
I enjoy leading the arguments, but what works best for some doesn't work for all. Even hat changes. As life is ever changing.
-
I'll just leave this here.
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/300x300/17569576.jpg)
I'm reminded of Steve Martin reacting to the bartender's line "The German says to wait here" in Three Amigos. Brilliant film, btw.
-
Why would the reasons for "gun control" miraculously change after several thousand years?
Silly me. I thought we were discussing a current situation.
But sure, you go right ahead. Prove the reasons for each and every item on your list. Meanwhile I'll just post in other threads.
And by "proof" I mean something rather more substantial than the strawman or the ad hominem.
PPK is very pro guns. He has stopped arguing with you on this subject, though. Guess why that is.
The strawman, the ad hominem and now the argument from silence.
Cross off a few more of these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies) while you are at it. It is quite entertaining.
He stopped arguing because you are dishonest.
You are such a hypocrite. You ask me to provide evidence that the gun laws are there to protect the government! You know damned well that these psychopaths behind 9/11, this NSA thing and all the other crimes they commit don't care a iota about our lives and freedoms. Hypocrite.
You're not making much sense. but yeah, I'm asking you to back up your shit because it's how we do things here.
Take your time.
-
It's all the government.
Al Qaeda is simply the name of a "common enemy" which promotes nationalism, dependency on government and aids in stripping our liberties. All for the benefit of the status quo and the oligarchy.
I remember, in America, where it was the evils of communism, gonna come get you in the middle of the night and do rape thingies to your butt hole. Now, we are shipping all our jobs to the communists.
It's all a ruse.
Exactly. And he is not that stupid that he believes that "our" European governments are any better. They do everything that America tells them to do. Or what the EU tells them to do.
So why this charade where he pretends to believe that they restrict guns for other reasons than preserving their own power?
Better back that up, too, while you're at it. The fact is that you don't know what I believe, simply because I haven't told you. Pretend to know if you like, but you are guessing.
-
Why would the reasons for "gun control" miraculously change after several thousand years?
Silly me. I thought we were discussing a current situation.
But sure, you go right ahead. Prove the reasons for each and every item on your list. Meanwhile I'll just post in other threads.
And by "proof" I mean something rather more substantial than the strawman or the ad hominem.
We haven't evolved into ancient alien astronauts, O-man. Humans are still humans.
Sorry, mate, was that supposed to make more sense than Lit's last few posts?
-
Though he is right.
About the ancient astronauts?
-
It's all the government.
Al Qaeda is simply the name of a "common enemy" which promotes nationalism, dependency on government and aids in stripping our liberties. All for the benefit of the status quo and the oligarchy.
I remember, in America, where it was the evils of communism, gonna come get you in the middle of the night and do rape thingies to your butt hole. Now, we are shipping all our jobs to the communists.
It's all a ruse.
Exactly. And he is not that stupid that he believes that "our" European governments are any better. They do everything that America tells them to do. Or what the EU tells them to do.
So why this charade where he pretends to believe that they restrict guns for other reasons than preserving their own power?
Better back that up, too, while you're at it. The fact is that you don't know what I believe, simply because I haven't told you. Pretend to know if you like, but you are guessing.
You can't logically be in favour of gun laws and realize that the ones in charge are abusive psychopaths. You can at least not think that a gun law made by the current persons in charge has the goal to protect the "ordinary citizen"
-
It's all the government.
Al Qaeda is simply the name of a "common enemy" which promotes nationalism, dependency on government and aids in stripping our liberties. All for the benefit of the status quo and the oligarchy.
I remember, in America, where it was the evils of communism, gonna come get you in the middle of the night and do rape thingies to your butt hole. Now, we are shipping all our jobs to the communists.
It's all a ruse.
Exactly. And he is not that stupid that he believes that "our" European governments are any better. They do everything that America tells them to do. Or what the EU tells them to do.
So why this charade where he pretends to believe that they restrict guns for other reasons than preserving their own power?
Better back that up, too, while you're at it. The fact is that you don't know what I believe, simply because I haven't told you. Pretend to know if you like, but you are guessing.
You can't logically be in favour of gun laws and realize that the ones in charge are abusive psychopaths. You can at least not think that a gun law made by the current persons in charge has the goal to protect the "ordinary citizen"
But I can. My position is perfectly logical. Me being in favour of gun control has very little to do with those in charge and everything to do with the fact that I think the nutjobs are everywhere and guns can do very little to remedy that fact. For some reason you seem to think that they only exist in positions of power.
-
The most powerful weapons are in the hands of power-abusing psychopaths. They are called "the cops" and "the military".
In Sweden it is not thanks to any gun law that we have relatively little violence. It has to do with the Swedish mentality of non-confrontation. Gun violence was pretty rare even when guns were totally free or when the license was just a formality, and the revolver had existed for some 80 years and the browning for some 40 years.
I have read old newspaper articles and books where incidents were mentioned, but they were relatively few.
-
One country that you like very much, the Czech Republic, has the most liberal gun law in Europe. You need a license for most guns, which is still wrong in my opinion, but once you have a license you are allowed to carry the gun for self-protection in public places, just like in America.
Is it common with school shootings in the Czech Republic? Do you feel unsafe in Prague because people can legally be armed?
-
Though he is right.
About the ancient astronauts?
I implied "superior beings" in a mirthful way. No. We have not evolved.
-
The most powerful weapons are in the hands of power-abusing psychopaths. They are called "the cops" and "the military".
In Sweden it is not thanks to any gun law that we have relatively little violence. It has to do with the Swedish mentality of non-confrontation. Gun violence was pretty rare even when guns were totally free or when the license was just a formality, and the revolver had existed for some 80 years and the browning for some 40 years.
I have read old newspaper articles and books where incidents were mentioned, but they were relatively few.
The military will be on our side, man. They don't vow to protect the government in the soldier's creed every single morning. Google "soldier's creed".
-
One country that you like very much, the Czech Republic, has the most liberal gun law in Europe. You need a license for most guns, which is still wrong in my opinion, but once you have a license you are allowed to carry the gun for self-protection in public places, just like in America.
Is it common with school shootings in the Czech Republic? Do you feel unsafe in Prague because people can legally be armed?
Prague is quite safe. You might have more problems in the countryside.
-
Gun Control explained (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ptFVq22PY#ws)
-
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?action=post;topic=20570.330;last_msg=969886 (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?action=post;topic=20570.330;last_msg=969886)
-
^ :pwned:
-
Circular arguments abound.
-
Wtf?
-
Ftw.
-
:include:
-
Looks like I got my point across in any case.
Severe anti gun nuts feel that people being rape or killed with less protection than they already have is justifiable because...
M-muh feels
-
If just anti-gunners got raped and robbed it would be perfectly OK. Too bad it doesn't work that way.
-
If just anti-gunners got raped and robbed it would be perfectly OK. Too bad it doesn't work that way.
Actually no. I don't think that's alright either. They honestly believe removing guns will make America safer. They think they are campaigning for the right thing, CONCIOUSLY. But deep down, its all because of some bullshit "feel" about guns.
They won't succeed, because in the end, we adults will win the argument and keep our children (and overgrown children safe), but its still a serious annoyance.
-
PS. A serious waste of time, media coverage, money, and brain cells as well. We could be getting to the heart of the matter, but NOOOOOOOOO.
6'5 foot toddler: u have gun gun kill people if you pull trigger u might kill yourself
Me: Well not if you remember the bullet comes out of the end with the hole in it, dingus.
Brony: nuh uh all mass shootings are done with a gun
Me: Well no shit. Did you know all mass shootings ever since the fucking seventies have happened in GUN FREE ZONES? A fucking policy we started to shut you sons of bitches up? Look what happened, by the way.
Babyman: uh-uhhhh *shits his DIAPER* u jus say that because you have a gun
ME: No actually I say that because it HAPPENED. What is wrong with you people?
-
People like to tell themselves lies and create a false sense of security.
-
People like to tell themselves lies and create a false sense of security.
That statement explains the real "problem" perfectly. There are few actual "problems" that aren't a product of this kind of behavior. The crime problem, economic problem, etc would be almost non-existent if people would go for those, instead of some imaginary bullshit they dream up to fill their time fighting instead, because they're too much of a fucking baby to face a harsher truth.
-
Looks like I got my point across in any case.
Severe anti gun nuts feel that people being rape or killed with less protection than they already have is justifiable because...
M-muh feels
Sorry, what was your point? :autism:
-
If just anti-gunners got raped and robbed it would be perfectly OK. Too bad it doesn't work that way.
Actually no. I don't think that's alright either. They honestly believe removing guns will make America safer. They think they are campaigning for the right thing, CONCIOUSLY. But deep down, its all because of some bullshit "feel" about guns.
They won't succeed, because in the end, we adults will win the argument and keep our children (and overgrown children safe), but its still a serious annoyance.
This is how you think you can win arguments? Seriously?
Grow the fuck up.
-
:nerdy:
-
If just anti-gunners got raped and robbed it would be perfectly OK. Too bad it doesn't work that way.
Actually no. I don't think that's alright either. They honestly believe removing guns will make America safer. They think they are campaigning for the right thing, CONCIOUSLY. But deep down, its all because of some bullshit "feel" about guns.
They won't succeed, because in the end, we adults will win the argument and keep our children (and overgrown children safe), but its still a serious annoyance.
This is how you think you can win arguments? Seriously?
Grow the fuck up.
Actually I wasn't arguing right there, O-man. I was discussing a strange behavior I've observed in people with Lit.
-
Looks like I got my point across in any case.
Severe anti gun nuts feel that people being rape or killed with less protection than they already have is justifiable because...
M-muh feels
Sorry, what was your point? :autism:
HAH. My point is, you could basically open the dictionary, look up "psychopath", and superimpose that statement over the definition. They almost MATCH.
-
Sorry, does not compute. Carry on, though.
-
Sorry, does not compute.
Yes. I know.
We All Go a Little Mad Sometimes - Psycho (3/12) Movie CLIP (1960) HD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv88ASiLmgk#ws)
-
Also, take what you will out of this. Silly, but quite true.
Raiders of the Lost Ark - Why Guns Are Better Than Swords (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anEuw8F8cpE#)
-
I loved that scene :viking: :plus:
-
. :indeed: :plus:
-
I'm just saiyan. :dunno: :green:
-
(http://api.ning.com/files/ZVT*nHgcGTNpkRCBNZqa8lWJ7RgvQSufDsSJXL09EOGe-On03ASjy-B4HrEw*t1pbKdvZ9nhsVf7jnbG4dga4VpMS2WWW3rj/284904_481636631874484_1059871228_n.jpg?width=400&height=324)
I gots me one of these before they go and ban them :tard:
-
You terrorist, you.
-
I'll give up my "assault weapons" the same time that police give up all of their military equipment and go back to carrying revolvers and shotguns. 8)
-
I'll give up my "assault weapons" the same time that police give up all of their military equipment and go back to carrying revolvers and shotguns. 8)
I remember exactly when revolvers and shotguns became obsolete. It was the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997.
-
I'll give up my "assault weapons" the same time that police give up all of their military equipment and go back to carrying revolvers and shotguns. 8)
I remember exactly when revolvers and shotguns became obsolete. It was the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997.
:indeed:
I wish EBM would come back.
-
Yeah, I liked him. :agreed:
-
I loved that scene :viking: :plus:
Here's a scene for ya. Lots of firepower! :litigious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL9fnVtz_lc