Why can't no-nanny gettin' geeks just be satisfied with tossing off anymore? 
What a homo...
- Thread starter BurlyShirley
- Start date
I haven't been to that site in ages. Looks like he isn't updating it anymore either...
it's actually not his site, but my friend is an angry asian.
Aren't they all
Is he Japanese?
of course.
I don't own a gun, nor do I see a need to. I think guns are stupid unless you live in Iraq, then I could see wanting to own one. Otherwise, not so much.
I will hunt when there are no more grocery stores left in the world.
I will hunt when there are no more grocery stores left in the world.
if it's a warrantless wiretap of your phone calls to 1-900-wet-toad, then yes.
the problem with that logic is,
by that time you won't be needing it to hunt.
you'll be needing it for survival.
and you'll be far behind the curve on that one.
and have you paid attention to the daily events in iraq ??
not too much gunplay there.
pretty much a world of i.e.d.'s.
otherwise known as weapons of mass destruction.
you know, those things that supposedly don't exist.
hey nostradamus, when's the apocalypse coming?
NO MORE NEW LAWS PLEASE !!!!!!!!
How about lower taxes .....
How about lower taxes .....
So I guess we need more traffic laws, and stricter driving tests right? Or how about we go back to prohibition? Perhaps we should institute nutritional laws too? I mean the 3 biggest killers in the US are heart disease and drunk driving, and we can prevent all those with laws too, right?
The price you pay to live in a free society is security. If you want to live in a totalitarian state, go ahead, there are plenty on the planet still.
L
luelling
Guest
You do realize that the right to weapons is in place so that the citizenship can't be the victim of a dictator? And the government would be kept in check because the citizenship would have the means to rebel if need be? Do you know why the Japanese never invaded after Pearl Harbor? Because every American owns a gun (at least thats the international impression). That was on the History channel before you tell me I'm full of ****.
I own several guns and have grown up around them, I don't view them as bad, but its unfortunate that someone would do this. I'll take this risk for my right to own a gun. Maybe if someone on campus would have taken their right to a concealed weapon they could have taken him down (not that I'm blaming anyone, I don't actually have my concealed permit). Just an example of the other side of our society permitting guns.
You really need to stop kidding yourself about that. It's complete crap.
Yep. Just ask the Iraqi "insurgents" how useless simple weapons are against the US military.
This is no longer a good reason. There are plenty of reasons for this. See Waco, Ruby Ridge, or this lady:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston
It's a good reason to allow private citizens the ability to buy nuclear weapons, however...
Just over 2% effective by my math...
L
luelling
Guest
Yup, we should have let the British continue to run this country. I know about all of those stories and your an idiot. Yes.....a nuclear weapon that can kill hundreds of thousands has the same effect as an assault rifle. Take your propaganda else where hippie. Next time you cry foul against the government, check if you have a rifle......if you don't...what are you going to do? Like I said before, guns are allowed so we keep the government in check. If you don't like weapons, Australia recently banned fire arms....you may feel very safe there.
Whats funny is that I probably come across as some red neck and I'm actually as far from that as you can get.
L
luelling
Guest
One more hole in your point....the cops killed her!!! Even in England they have armed cops....they could have done the same thing.
Don't talk crap about things you have no idea about. Australia never banned guns. The laws were tightened but it's still possible to get a gun. You were never able to get handguns in Australia.
As an aside, deaths by firearms in Australia are at historical lows.
That is my point. As soon as she used her firearm against the government in a situation that seems to me to be wholly warranted (pun intended) she was killed.
Are you normally this dense, or is this a bad night?
Yeah you HIPPIE!!!
Muh muhlishuh pwns jooz 2 teh maxxorz!!!!
Aym soo keepin da man in da check!!!!
Uh, yes, yes we do. We let the most inept retards behind the wheel of up to 6000lbs of moving metal. I'd like to see a far more extensive practical driving exam implemented, covering highway speed driving (lane changes with a clear understanding of the purpose of a left lane) and emergency driving (braking and swerving at the very least). I'd also like to see mandatory driving tests every 10 years for anyone 60 or older. Just because the government is a ****ty beauracracy doesn't mean laws, regulations, and standards are a bad thing.
as much as i hate to encourage the frothers, i think this is a valid point.
there is no way to know definitively whether a kid with thoughts of violence is just an emo kid who will cut his wrists for show or a brewing mass murderer. given this, i have tremendous reservations about both the efficacy of any system granting access to medical records by law enforcement and the ethical/privacy/discrimination concerns that it brings up.
So why assume that all god ****ing liberals want to encourage everyone to get a gun?
Instead of sharing medical records, why not make it pretty tough to get a gun? There is that little loophole in the 2nd amendment about a "well regulated militia".
If right wing idiots are going to claim that freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion, then I sure as hell feel fine making that claim.
i don't quite follow. how do you propose making it "pretty tough" to get a gun?
I don't see the conflict between keeping you medical details 'private' in the general scheme of things and relevant authorities being able to check your record for, for example deviations from sanity.
Plenty of people have access to 'sensitive' data about you all the time, but it doesn't become public knowledge. As long as there is a clear seperation between 'system' and 'requestee' as currently exists for many things, it's no problem.
Plenty of people have access to 'sensitive' data about you all the time, but it doesn't become public knowledge. As long as there is a clear seperation between 'system' and 'requestee' as currently exists for many things, it's no problem.
Being as how 99.9% of people don't actually need a gun, I know which way I'd prefer the authorities to err in this situatiuon.
100% of the people don't need to smoke weed, yet I see you idiots trying to get that legalized.
"Need" is not a valid basis for the revocation of a right.
Weed doesn't kill anyone, it just makes them sleepy/lazy/hungry.
So, when was the last time a developed, first world democracy was plunged into totalitarianism because the citizens didn't have quick access to firearms? And do you see, at any point in the conceivable future, an actual justified rebellion of the people in the US against its government? In principle, you have a point...in practice...not so sure...
Ok, then how about <cars, fast food, alcohol, cigarettes...>.
And guns don't kill people, people do.
None of those things are designed specifically to kill people. Guns are. They have no other purpose. Do you understand the difference?
No matter how many times you say that, it still sounds stupid. Amazing.