hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 16 of 53 FirstFirst ... 61314151617181926 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 1047

Thread: Gun Laws and Gun Rights Discussion

  1. #301
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,412
    Quote Originally Posted by pesadelo View Post
    I wonder if the 2nd really is that effective , when USA enters a civil war against their own government what is stopping the military from carpet bombing the civilians armed with ar-5 ?

    What I mean is do the Americans really think that their semi-autos are going to defend their democracy ?Isn't it better that the court's defend your rights ?Or your politic?

    Enviado do meu SM-G900F através do Tapatalk
    1. They're not likely to all line up in one spot to be carpet bombed and they don't all wear orange camo to help them be identified.

    2. Think "Red Dawn" not "Saving Private Ryan".

    3. A bunch of dudes in caves managed to thwart both the USSR and USA in Afghanistan.

    4. Yes, it's vastly, unquestionably better than rule of law, democracy and a just legal system protect our rights. Woulda been good if those things worked in Germany in 1933 too.

    The folks who hoard AR-15's don't exactly place alot of trust in Federal institutions or fairness (to them, specifically) or the People (as a whole) to do right by them.

    Not justifying their view, just explaining it.


  2. #302
    pesadelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophichius View Post
    I despise the current terminology shittery being thrown around in the gun control debate.

    "Assault-style weapon" is a completely fucking meaningless phrase. So is "high capacity magazine". It's not surprising, given that the people who want to regulate guns are adamant in their refusal to actually educate themselves about the very things they want to regulate, but it's fucking disturbing. The fact that gun control advocates prance around proudly proclaiming that they haven't got the faintest fucking clue about the very things they want to regulate is disgusting.

    Until they actually educate themselves on the basics of the construction, operation, and capabilities of firearms, we will forever receive idiotic laws that fail to address the problems with the US gun culture, while imposing unfathomably stupid restrictions on legal gun owners.
    I have a term you might find more specific and defined: Semi-Automatic.

    I say a Federal-level ban of all semi-automatic firearms from civilian ownership.

    Civilians can still own bolt action rifles, non-semi-auto shotguns and single action revolvers. Hell, I'm feeling generous, and would carve an exception for double action revolvers.

    All these remaining legal firearms would be permitted to have a maximum capacity of five rounds before reloading would be required.

    Put simply, no civilian has a legitimate need for weapons beyond this level of function.

    Specific and defined enough?

    If you don't like it, explain why a civilian should be allowed weapons of greater function. No, the 2nd Amendment isn't enough of a reason, tell us why it should be allowed.
    Do you see self defence as a legitimate reason to own a firearm?
    How many times have you fired your weapon in self-defense?
    None, drawn once in two years against a nutter with a knife.

    How many times have the airbags/side intrusion bars/seatbelts in your car saved your life?
    About six time to-date.

    Would the nutter with a knife have done something differently if you'd drawn down with a 5-shot .357 or .44 revolver as opposed to whatever 9mm semi-auto you presumably drew down on him with?
    People thinking that they are going to protect themselves from a guy that wants to stab you with a gun , you can't in most situations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pesadelo View Post
    I wonder if the 2nd really is that effective , when USA enters a civil war against their own government what is stopping the military from carpet bombing the civilians armed with ar-5 ?

    What I mean is do the Americans really think that their semi-autos are going to defend their democracy ?Isn't it better that the court's defend your rights ?Or your politic?

    Enviado do meu SM-G900F através do Tapatalk
    1. They're not likely to all line up in one spot to be carpet bombed and they don't all wear orange camo to help them be identified.

    2. Think "Red Dawn" not "Saving Private Ryan".

    3. A bunch of dudes in caves managed to thwart both the USSR and USA in Afghanistan.

    4. Yes, it's vastly, unquestionably better than rule of law, democracy and a just legal system protect our rights. Woulda been good if those things worked in Germany in 1933 too.

    The folks who hoard AR-15's don't exactly place alot of trust in Federal institutions or fairness (to them, specifically) or the People (as a whole) to do right by them.

    Not justifying their view, just explaining it.
    1- Never said people would line up , but what are you going to do against professional militarized armed forces as a guerilla? Most will die and I guess most of the people that own guns wouldn't even fire a shoot.

    2- OK.

    3- Comparing people (afgans) that since the last time they were conquered when Alexandre the great went there , and since then have been in a state of war against some power or anoter. To USA that had a war in there own country since when ?The war of independence against the British?

    I think I would prefer 5 afgans doing asymmetrical war to 50 rednecks that think that owning a gun and killing some dears and bears is the same as killing humans .

    4-I am not understanding you here , are you saying g that owning a gun protects you more democratically than tribunals and the rule of law ?

    I know most Americans don't place allot of trust in the federal government, but guess what so doesn't most of the known world , it is not like we are changing our laws to protect from the government that WE elected. ..

    Enviado do meu SM-G900F através do Tapatalk

  3. #303

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Switzerland is in a weird place, everyone takes their service rifle home, [...]
    Which is recognized as problematic, I've read, because (German) the preferred means for male suicide are these weapons.

    [Added]
    This second link (German) seems to support that, as the suicide rate declined, when the Swiss army size shrinked.
    Last edited by Hel OWeen; March 2 2018 at 01:14:23 PM.

  4. #304

    Join Date
    July 30, 2011
    Posts
    1,447
    Quote Originally Posted by pesadelo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophichius View Post
    I despise the current terminology shittery being thrown around in the gun control debate.

    "Assault-style weapon" is a completely fucking meaningless phrase. So is "high capacity magazine". It's not surprising, given that the people who want to regulate guns are adamant in their refusal to actually educate themselves about the very things they want to regulate, but it's fucking disturbing. The fact that gun control advocates prance around proudly proclaiming that they haven't got the faintest fucking clue about the very things they want to regulate is disgusting.

    Until they actually educate themselves on the basics of the construction, operation, and capabilities of firearms, we will forever receive idiotic laws that fail to address the problems with the US gun culture, while imposing unfathomably stupid restrictions on legal gun owners.
    I have a term you might find more specific and defined: Semi-Automatic.

    I say a Federal-level ban of all semi-automatic firearms from civilian ownership.

    Civilians can still own bolt action rifles, non-semi-auto shotguns and single action revolvers. Hell, I'm feeling generous, and would carve an exception for double action revolvers.

    All these remaining legal firearms would be permitted to have a maximum capacity of five rounds before reloading would be required.

    Put simply, no civilian has a legitimate need for weapons beyond this level of function.

    Specific and defined enough?

    If you don't like it, explain why a civilian should be allowed weapons of greater function. No, the 2nd Amendment isn't enough of a reason, tell us why it should be allowed.
    Do you see self defence as a legitimate reason to own a firearm?
    How many times have you fired your weapon in self-defense?
    None, drawn once in two years against a nutter with a knife.

    How many times have the airbags/side intrusion bars/seatbelts in your car saved your life?
    About six time to-date.

    Would the nutter with a knife have done something differently if you'd drawn down with a 5-shot .357 or .44 revolver as opposed to whatever 9mm semi-auto you presumably drew down on him with?
    People thinking that they are going to protect themselves from a guy that wants to stab you with a gun , you can't in most situations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pesadelo View Post
    I wonder if the 2nd really is that effective , when USA enters a civil war against their own government what is stopping the military from carpet bombing the civilians armed with ar-5 ?

    What I mean is do the Americans really think that their semi-autos are going to defend their democracy ?Isn't it better that the court's defend your rights ?Or your politic?

    Enviado do meu SM-G900F através do Tapatalk
    1. They're not likely to all line up in one spot to be carpet bombed and they don't all wear orange camo to help them be identified.

    2. Think "Red Dawn" not "Saving Private Ryan".

    3. A bunch of dudes in caves managed to thwart both the USSR and USA in Afghanistan.

    4. Yes, it's vastly, unquestionably better than rule of law, democracy and a just legal system protect our rights. Woulda been good if those things worked in Germany in 1933 too.

    The folks who hoard AR-15's don't exactly place alot of trust in Federal institutions or fairness (to them, specifically) or the People (as a whole) to do right by them.

    Not justifying their view, just explaining it.
    1- Never said people would line up , but what are you going to do against professional militarized armed forces as a guerilla? Most will die and I guess most of the people that own guns wouldn't even fire a shoot.

    2- OK.

    3- Comparing people (afgans) that since the last time they were conquered when Alexandre the great went there , and since then have been in a state of war against some power or anoter. To USA that had a war in there own country since when ?The war of independence against the British?

    I think I would prefer 5 afgans doing asymmetrical war to 50 rednecks that think that owning a gun and killing some dears and bears is the same as killing humans .

    4-I am not understanding you here , are you saying g that owning a gun protects you more democratically than tribunals and the rule of law ?

    I know most Americans don't place allot of trust in the federal government, but guess what so doesn't most of the known world , it is not like we are changing our laws to protect from the government that WE elected. ..

    Enviado do meu SM-G900F através do Tapatalk
    Please go be dumb somewhere else. The military as a whole leans right to begin with, so it wouldn't surprise me if a large portion of those veterans are in the "hate the gubmint" crowd.

    Now bad@botes

  5. #305
    Ophichius's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 15, 2011
    Location
    Hedonistic Imperative
    Posts
    5,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pesadelo View Post
    I wonder if the 2nd really is that effective , when USA enters a civil war against their own government what is stopping the military from carpet bombing the civilians armed with ar-5 ?

    What I mean is do the Americans really think that their semi-autos are going to defend their democracy ?Isn't it better that the court's defend your rights ?Or your politic?

    Enviado do meu SM-G900F através do Tapatalk
    1. They're not likely to all line up in one spot to be carpet bombed and they don't all wear orange camo to help them be identified.

    2. Think "Red Dawn" not "Saving Private Ryan".

    3. A bunch of dudes in caves managed to thwart both the USSR and USA in Afghanistan.

    4. Yes, it's vastly, unquestionably better than rule of law, democracy and a just legal system protect our rights. Woulda been good if those things worked in Germany in 1933 too.

    The folks who hoard AR-15's don't exactly place alot of trust in Federal institutions or fairness (to them, specifically) or the People (as a whole) to do right by them.

    Not justifying their view, just explaining it.
    The problem with that view is that they have no understanding of exactly how great the difference between a professional military and a bunch of wankers with rifles is.

    Even at just the infantry level, excluding supporting arms, a civilian outfit would have only their AR-15s. No body armor, no secure radios, no gunshot locators, no grenade launchers, no automatic weapons, no NVGs.

    This leaves them in a position of being less effectively equipped than the opposition in Afghanistan and Iraq, which means the US military would simply roll over them faster. Explosives are a dime a dozen in those two countries, from grenades to RPGs to artillery shells. Furthermore, automatic weapons are far easier to acquire there.

    When you look beyond the infantry level, at the supporting arms available to the US military, it looks exceedingly grim for the good ol' boys with guns. Contact with a US infantry squad will inevitably bring supporting arms into play, and that means that it's hit and run and pray there's nothing with a FLIR pod in the area, because if someone happens to have an Apache overhead this happens. Then there's artillery to contend with, CAS from fixed-wing aircraft, and the firepower that armored vehicles can bring to bear.
    Last edited by Ophichius; March 3 2018 at 01:46:29 AM.
    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those Thukkers, that way I wouldn't have to have any goddamn stupid useless conversations with anybody.
    Failing the Voight-Kampff test, one tortoise at a time.

  6. #306
    Frug's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    13,869
    Quote Originally Posted by pesadelo View Post
    1- Never said people would line up , but what are you going to do against professional militarized armed forces as a guerilla? Most will die and I guess most of the people that own guns wouldn't even fire a shoot.
    I used to think the same as you. Other than your bullshit about "omg 5 afghans vs 50 rednecks". The government would surely win because it has equipment and trained military, right? I've changed my mind completely on this point. I'm not for guns - I'm Canadian and I think 'muricans are brainwashed when it comes to how much they love guns - but on this particular point the pro-gun position is clearly right. If things regress to the point you're talking about violence against your own people, you're talking about a giant mess. It's immeasurably harder to bully an armed population than an unarmed one when it comes down to the use of force. Just imagine comparing how hard it would be to something like shove people in camps in Canada versus the US. Here we'd basically have to go fisticuffs with them and knowing that you'd basically have total compliance, other than people fleeing. There it would be a massive ordeal. If nothing else, it's the difference between boiling a frog slowly or throwing it in hot water.

    I don't think that will happen, so I don't think it's a gamble worth taking, but if we're only talking about that point then it's pretty obvious that it would be the difference between folding over and being victims, or resisting and hoping that some other variable, like internal strife within the government. You want to "carpet bomb civilians" you'll have people questioning your orders.

    "But Frug, we carpet bombed civilians in ww2/nam/korea/whatever"

    Yes I know, but there's a difference between killing dehumanized others and killing your own people. You can still convince people to do it, but it's a lot harder. This is why dehumanizing people you don't agree with is fucking terrible.
    Last edited by Frug; March 3 2018 at 01:52:13 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loire
    I'm too stupid to say anything that deserves being in your magnificent signature.

  7. #307
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,947
    I'd just like to point out that having lived through "The struggle" where 80% of the population got the shit oppressed out of them but then the Soviets smuggled in weapons and there were bombs and landmines, etc, and every one lived under the specter of their kitchen staff rising up and eating them, the thing that brought that state to its knees was mass economic action. Armed resistance just hardened the response and people died.
    meh

  8. #308
    evil edna's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    5,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pesadelo View Post
    1- Never said people would line up , but what are you going to do against professional militarized armed forces as a guerilla? Most will die and I guess most of the people that own guns wouldn't even fire a shoot.
    I used to think the same as you. Other than your bullshit about "omg 5 afghans vs 50 rednecks". The government would surely win because it has equipment and trained military, right? I've changed my mind completely on this point. I'm not for guns - I'm Canadian and I think 'muricans are brainwashed when it comes to how much they love guns - but on this particular point the pro-gun position is clearly right. If things regress to the point you're talking about violence against your own people, you're talking about a giant mess. It's immeasurably harder to bully an armed population than an unarmed one when it comes down to the use of force. Just imagine comparing how hard it would be to something like shove people in camps in Canada versus the US. Here we'd basically have to go fisticuffs with them and knowing that you'd basically have total compliance, other than people fleeing. There it would be a massive ordeal. If nothing else, it's the difference between boiling a frog slowly or throwing it in hot water.

    I don't think that will happen, so I don't think it's a gamble worth taking, but if we're only talking about that point then it's pretty obvious that it would be the difference between folding over and being victims, or resisting and hoping that some other variable, like internal strife within the government. You want to "carpet bomb civilians" you'll have people questioning your orders.

    "But Frug, we carpet bombed civilians in ww2/nam/korea/whatever"

    Yes I know, but there's a difference between killing dehumanized others and killing your own people. You can still convince people to do it, but it's a lot harder. This is why dehumanizing people you don't agree with is fucking terrible.
    Except civil wars are usually the most brutal and bloody. Killing your own people isnt as hard as you think it is

  9. #309
    Super Chillerator Global Moderator teds :D's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,066


    Quote Originally Posted by BBC
    Reverend Hyung Jin Moon prepares to take a gold AR-15 from his wife, Reverend Yeon Ah Lee Moon, during a ceremony to rededicate marriages at the World Peace and Unification Sanctuary in Newfoundland, Pennsylvania. The church believes guns are a symbol of the "rod of iron" referenced in the Book of Revelations.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-43257178

  10. #310
    pesadelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by Dianeces View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pesadelo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophichius View Post
    I despise the current terminology shittery being thrown around in the gun control debate.

    "Assault-style weapon" is a completely fucking meaningless phrase. So is "high capacity magazine". It's not surprising, given that the people who want to regulate guns are adamant in their refusal to actually educate themselves about the very things they want to regulate, but it's fucking disturbing. The fact that gun control advocates prance around proudly proclaiming that they haven't got the faintest fucking clue about the very things they want to regulate is disgusting.

    Until they actually educate themselves on the basics of the construction, operation, and capabilities of firearms, we will forever receive idiotic laws that fail to address the problems with the US gun culture, while imposing unfathomably stupid restrictions on legal gun owners.
    I have a term you might find more specific and defined: Semi-Automatic.

    I say a Federal-level ban of all semi-automatic firearms from civilian ownership.

    Civilians can still own bolt action rifles, non-semi-auto shotguns and single action revolvers. Hell, I'm feeling generous, and would carve an exception for double action revolvers.

    All these remaining legal firearms would be permitted to have a maximum capacity of five rounds before reloading would be required.

    Put simply, no civilian has a legitimate need for weapons beyond this level of function.

    Specific and defined enough?

    If you don't like it, explain why a civilian should be allowed weapons of greater function. No, the 2nd Amendment isn't enough of a reason, tell us why it should be allowed.
    Do you see self defence as a legitimate reason to own a firearm?
    How many times have you fired your weapon in self-defense?
    None, drawn once in two years against a nutter with a knife.

    How many times have the airbags/side intrusion bars/seatbelts in your car saved your life?
    About six time to-date.

    Would the nutter with a knife have done something differently if you'd drawn down with a 5-shot .357 or .44 revolver as opposed to whatever 9mm semi-auto you presumably drew down on him with?
    People thinking that they are going to protect themselves from a guy that wants to stab you with a gun , you can't in most situations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pesadelo View Post
    I wonder if the 2nd really is that effective , when USA enters a civil war against their own government what is stopping the military from carpet bombing the civilians armed with ar-5 ?

    What I mean is do the Americans really think that their semi-autos are going to defend their democracy ?Isn't it better that the court's defend your rights ?Or your politic?

    Enviado do meu SM-G900F através do Tapatalk
    1. They're not likely to all line up in one spot to be carpet bombed and they don't all wear orange camo to help them be identified.

    2. Think "Red Dawn" not "Saving Private Ryan".

    3. A bunch of dudes in caves managed to thwart both the USSR and USA in Afghanistan.

    4. Yes, it's vastly, unquestionably better than rule of law, democracy and a just legal system protect our rights. Woulda been good if those things worked in Germany in 1933 too.

    The folks who hoard AR-15's don't exactly place alot of trust in Federal institutions or fairness (to them, specifically) or the People (as a whole) to do right by them.

    Not justifying their view, just explaining it.
    1- Never said people would line up , but what are you going to do against professional militarized armed forces as a guerilla? Most will die and I guess most of the people that own guns wouldn't even fire a shoot.

    2- OK.

    3- Comparing people (afgans) that since the last time they were conquered when Alexandre the great went there , and since then have been in a state of war against some power or anoter. To USA that had a war in there own country since when ?The war of independence against the British?

    I think I would prefer 5 afgans doing asymmetrical war to 50 rednecks that think that owning a gun and killing some dears and bears is the same as killing humans .

    4-I am not understanding you here , are you saying g that owning a gun protects you more democratically than tribunals and the rule of law ?

    I know most Americans don't place allot of trust in the federal government, but guess what so doesn't most of the known world , it is not like we are changing our laws to protect from the government that WE elected. ..

    Enviado do meu SM-G900F através do Tapatalk
    Please go be dumb somewhere else. The military as a whole leans right to begin with, so it wouldn't surprise me if a large portion of those veterans are in the "hate the gubmint" crowd.
    Huh you think that percentage is big in a country of 300 + milions ?And iam not saying troops are from the right or the left , what prevents them from attacking their own population is perhaps they are well educated and have good leadership and belive that their democratic process works.

    Just for comparison in my country till born in 84 all had to spend 6 to 8 month in the military, no to mention a whole generation of veterans that fought for 10 + in Africa, India and east Timor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophichius View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pesadelo View Post
    I wonder if the 2nd really is that effective , when USA enters a civil war against their own government what is stopping the military from carpet bombing the civilians armed with ar-5 ?

    What I mean is do the Americans really think that their semi-autos are going to defend their democracy ?Isn't it better that the court's defend your rights ?Or your politic?

    Enviado do meu SM-G900F através do Tapatalk
    1. They're not likely to all line up in one spot to be carpet bombed and they don't all wear orange camo to help them be identified.

    2. Think "Red Dawn" not "Saving Private Ryan".

    3. A bunch of dudes in caves managed to thwart both the USSR and USA in Afghanistan.

    4. Yes, it's vastly, unquestionably better than rule of law, democracy and a just legal system protect our rights. Woulda been good if those things worked in Germany in 1933 too.

    The folks who hoard AR-15's don't exactly place alot of trust in Federal institutions or fairness (to them, specifically) or the People (as a whole) to do right by them.

    Not justifying their view, just explaining it.
    The problem with that view is that they have no understanding of exactly how great the difference between a professional military and a bunch of wankers with rifles is.

    Even at just the infantry level, excluding supporting arms, a civilian outfit would have only their AR-15s. No body armor, no secure radios, no gunshot locators, no grenade launchers, no automatic weapons, no NVGs.

    This leaves them in a position of being less effectively equipped than the opposition in Afghanistan and Iraq, which means the US military would simply roll over them faster. Explosives are a dime a dozen in those two countries, from grenades to RPGs to artillery shells. Furthermore, automatic weapons are far easier to acquire there.

    When you look beyond the infantry level, at the supporting arms available to the US military, it looks exceedingly grim for the good ol' boys with guns. Contact with a US infantry squad will inevitably bring supporting arms into play, and that means that it's hit and run and pray there's nothing with a FLIR pod in the area, because if someone happens to have an Apache overhead this happens. Then there's artillery to contend with, CAS from fixed-wing aircraft, and the firepower that armored vehicles can bring to bear.
    Yeah that is what I was trying to say thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pesadelo View Post
    1- Never said people would line up , but what are you going to do against professional militarized armed forces as a guerilla? Most will die and I guess most of the people that own guns wouldn't even fire a shoot.
    I used to think the same as you. Other than your bullshit about "omg 5 afghans vs 50 rednecks". The government would surely win because it has equipment and trained military, right? I've changed my mind completely on this point. I'm not for guns - I'm Canadian and I think 'muricans are brainwashed when it comes to how much they love guns - but on this particular point the pro-gun position is clearly right. If things regress to the point you're talking about violence against your own people, you're talking about a giant mess. It's immeasurably harder to bully an armed population than an unarmed one when it comes down to the use of force. Just imagine comparing how hard it would be to something like shove people in camps in Canada versus the US. Here we'd basically have to go fisticuffs with them and knowing that you'd basically have total compliance, other than people fleeing. There it would be a massive ordeal. If nothing else, it's the difference between boiling a frog slowly or throwing it in hot water.

    I don't think that will happen, so I don't think it's a gamble worth taking, but if we're only talking about that point then it's pretty obvious that it would be the difference between folding over and being victims, or resisting and hoping that some other variable, like internal strife within the government. You want to "carpet bomb civilians" you'll have people questioning your orders.

    "But Frug, we carpet bombed civilians in ww2/nam/korea/whatever"

    Yes I know, but there's a difference between killing dehumanized others and killing your own people. You can still convince people to do it, but it's a lot harder. This is why dehumanizing people you don't agree with is fucking terrible.
    Why is it bullshit comparing people that were born in war and bred for it , and the average American ?

    What Iam trying to say is that if some crazy fucktard does wage war with the military against it's own people and they (military ) know they are with guns they will rather bomb you from afar or when they come they will bring letal force and kill everything, they are not cops.Imagine Iraq and Syria.

    Regarding dehumanising people , I don't think that is that hard ..



    Enviado do meu SM-G900F através do Tapatalk

  11. #311

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,078
    Now, this is quite comical: when the oh so well-trained and experienced gun lunatics responsible gun owners go visit their sacred mass annual NRA convention, the number of people hurt by guns drops from 1.5/100k to 1.25/100k.

  12. #312
    walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Fancomicidolkostümier- ungsspielgruppenzusammenkunft
    Posts
    6,266
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Now, this is quite comical: when the oh so well-trained and experienced gun lunatics responsible gun owners go visit their sacred mass annual NRA convention, the number of people hurt by guns drops from 1.5/100k to 1.25/100k.
    When gun enthusiasts gather for the National Rifle Association’s annual conventions, rates of gun-related injuries and deaths drop by 20 percent nationwide—and a whopping 63 percent in the hosting state—according to an analysis published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine.
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...hosting-state/

    You just have to have a continuous NRA convention.
      Spoiler:
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    But islamism IS a product of class warfare. Rich white countries come into developing brown dictatorships, wreck the leadership, infrastructure and economy and then act all surprised that religious fanaticism is on the rise.
    Also:
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    walrus isnt a bad poster.
    Quote Originally Posted by cullnean View Post
    also i like walrus.
    Quote Originally Posted by AmaNutin View Post
    Yer a hoot

  13. #313
    Super Chillerator Global Moderator teds :D's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,066
    See they're a bunch of good eggs really

  14. #314
    pesadelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by teds :D View Post
    See they're a bunch of good eggs really
    Indeed.

    Enviado do meu SM-G900F através do Tapatalk

  15. #315

    Join Date
    July 3, 2014
    Posts
    3,969
    funny times ahead


  16. #316
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Now, this is quite comical: when the oh so well-trained and experienced gun lunatics responsible gun owners go visit their sacred mass annual NRA convention, the number of people hurt by guns drops from 1.5/100k to 1.25/100k.
    I think we've identified the problem.
    meh

  17. #317
    Lief Siddhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 15, 2011
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    6,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    funny times ahead

    a candy crush post that i +rep, i literally can't even
    I was somewhere around Old Man Star, on the edge of Essence, when drugs began to take hold.

  18. #318
    Smarnca's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 30, 2013
    Location
    SVN
    Posts
    9,043
    This is hilarious

    https://thegoldwater.com/news/19792-...ers-in-a-Month

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) became the most vilified organization in the U.S. after the tragic Parkland shooting. Democrats and liberals pinned the blame on them for the massacre. The mainstream media had a field day demonizing them. And some business giants were quick to join the bandwagon and severed ties with NRA including Hertz, Delta Airlines, United Airlines and Simply Safe. But guess what? NRA has gained nearly 500,000 new members since the Parkland tragedy.



  19. #319
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    14,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Smarnca View Post
    This is hilarious

    https://thegoldwater.com/news/19792-...ers-in-a-Month

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) became the most vilified organization in the U.S. after the tragic Parkland shooting. Democrats and liberals pinned the blame on them for the massacre. The mainstream media had a field day demonizing them. And some business giants were quick to join the bandwagon and severed ties with NRA including Hertz, Delta Airlines, United Airlines and Simply Safe. But guess what? NRA has gained nearly 500,000 new members since the Parkland tragedy.
    And that just one month after even die hard rednecks posted videos like this:

    nevar forget

  20. #320
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Smarnca View Post
    This is hilarious

    https://thegoldwater.com/news/19792-...ers-in-a-Month

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) became the most vilified organization in the U.S. after the tragic Parkland shooting. Democrats and liberals pinned the blame on them for the massacre. The mainstream media had a field day demonizing them. And some business giants were quick to join the bandwagon and severed ties with NRA including Hertz, Delta Airlines, United Airlines and Simply Safe. But guess what? NRA has gained nearly 500,000 new members since the Parkland tragedy.
    and/or they are lying to you.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/fact-c...rticle/2011755

    and/or is a liberal conspiracy to flood the NRA, take over control and #rekt the 2nd amendment that way,

    http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/19/campai...e-nra-7326059/
    meh

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •