PNWI Community Thread version 3.0 (KEEP REFRIGERATED AT ALL TIMES)

[Reaganista]

its unjust to kill anyone except gunowners
I don't take legal advice from internet trolls.

i didnt mean to create the impression that i was giving you legal advice or counsel i was just telling you wat the normal expected course of action is from any rational citizen as a midly interested party

Besides, I didn't specify when this incident occurred. It could have taken place a month ago
you shot the guy a month ago and kept him locked in your basement so you could rape him wtf are you some kind of australian?????!

[siva_chair]

its unjust to kill anyone except gunowners

Thank you Hitlery Clintron.

[Reaganista]

Thank you Hitlery Clintron.

why do you hate women

[1338 h4x0r]

I don't even see why that matters. 1) You seem to be assuming that all killing is unjust

Killing is inherently just, but I'm just pissing at you now.


The fundamental purpose of a gun, from and engineering standpoint, is to fire a projectile.

You confused 'gun' with 'mass driver'

Just like the fundamental purpose of a knife, from and engineering stanpoint, is to act as a fine wedge specifically for cutting purposes.

Knives, axes and hand-axes have had utility purposes from the beginning

[Reaganista]

i need knives for sex

[siva_chair]

i didnt mean to create the impression that i was giving you legal advice or counsel i was just telling you wat the normal expected course of action is from any rational citizen as a midly interested party

And I was just telling you I don't really care what you have to tell me.

you shot the guy a month ago and kept him locked in your basement so you could rape him wtf are you some kind of australian?????!

Nope. I don't know where you read I did that.

why do you hate women

I love women. The thing is, she isn't a woman, she is a fascist cyborg.

[siva_chair]

You confused 'gun' with 'mass driver'

No, I confused nothing. A gun is designed to fire a projectile. Where a person decides to aim that projectile has nothing to do with the mechanical functioning of the gun.

Knives, axes and hand-axes have had utility purposes from the beginning

Yes, and most of which were to kill things, be they animals or plants for food, or for self defense. A gun has had utility purposes from the beginning as well.

[Reaganista]

And I was just telling you I don't really care what you have to tell me.
ok i guess but it that just serves to illustrate how innane your hypothetical was

Nope. I don't know where you read I did that.

god you australians are all the same

I love women. The thing is, she isn't a woman, she is a fascist cyborg.
ya for real i mean she prolly doesnt even know where the kitchen is!!!
so why do you hate women again???

[siva_chair]

ok i guess but it that just serves to illustrate how innane your hypothetical was

Actually it probably just demonstrates that I don't listen to idiots.

god you australians are all the same

I really don't know who that was directed at.

ya for real i mean she prolly doesnt even know where the kitchen is!!!

She probably doesn't know a lot of things.

so why do you hate women again???

Why are you an idiot tool again?

[1338 h4x0r]

No, I confused nothing. A gun is designed to fire a projectile. Where a person decides to aim that projectile has nothing to do with the mechanical functioning of the gun.

It so happens that these projectiles are generally used to kill things.


Yes, and most of which were to kill things, be they animals or plants for food, or for self defense. A gun has had utility purposes from the beginning as well.

Such as


Felling
Shaving
Digging (in the case of hand-axes)
Hacking up carrion
Wood-splitting
Making planks
Mountain climbing
Use as ritual objects


Dude you are so full of ****

[Amit]

dude

shaving

kills hairs

hairs

ARE LIFE

[siva_chair]

It so happens that these projectiles are generally used to kill things.

Irrellevant until you can demonstrate how killing things is inherently wrong.




Such as


Felling
Shaving
Digging (in the case of hand-axes)
Hacking up carrion
Wood-splitting
Making planks
Mountain climbing
Use as ritual objects


And guns are also used for:

-Target shooting
-Sporting clays
-Crime deterrant
-Collecting

I don't really see what this has to do with anything.

Dude you are so full of ****

No sorry try again.

[Amit]

you listed 4 things he listed 8 so his argument is twice as good as yours lol pwned

[BridgeToSolace]

Irrellevant until you can demonstrate how killing things is inherently wrong.

I would think that the burden is on you to show how killing is okay, or not inherently wrong.

And guns are also used for:

-Target shooting
-Sporting clays
-Crime deterrent
-Collecting

Target shooting is target practice. You know, for those living things.

How are sporting clays different from target shooting? Stop artificially inflating your list :p

I fail to see how crime deterrent doesn't support the fact that guns are meant to kill people. They only could possibly function as a deterrent if someone was afraid that they were going to get killed.

Collecting. You mentioned before that the purpose of guns were to shoot projectiles. Collecting doesn't really involve ammo of any time, so this is moot. "One of the many uses of stamps is having a lot of them that you don't intend to use!"

No sorry try again.

nou

[Dr Hooch]

If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

Guns don't "cause crimes" no and neither does heroin but people use guns to commit crimes all the time and guns make it a lot easier for people to kill eachother and i don't like it when people kill eachother it makes me sad, ok?

I don't even see why that matters. 1) You seem to be assuming that all killing is unjust and 2) the answer is no.

The fundamental purpose of a gun, from and engineering standpoint, is to fire a projectile. Just like the fundamental purpose of a knife, from and engineering stanpoint, is to act as a fine wedge specifically for cutting purposes.

The fundamental purpose of a tennis ball coach is to fire a projectile

So you're saying from an engineering point of view

guns and tennish ball coach machines have the same purpose?

the purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile accurately and with extreme power, at range, to cause damage to persons or objects and any gun not designed to kill people that still fires bullets would be ten times more dangerous

dude

shaving

kills hairs

hairs

ARE LIFE

so are rocks man

it's all quantum

or so i herd

its unjust to kill anyone except gunowners

If someone was trying to knife you, i don't think it would be unjust to kill them, but this would be a pretty good rule of thumb if you had to go on the spur of the moment.


And guns are also used for:

-Target shooting
-Sporting clays
-Crime deterrant
-Collecting

I don't really see what this has to do with anything.


The first two are designed to help you kill people more efficiently with your projectile accelerator the third one is hilarious since all the criminals in your country also have guns and the design of the gun is inherently flawed for collecting because they're expensive and they don't stack well, stick to collecting pseudoscientific theories of concious or stamps or something

[siva_chair]

you listed 4 things he listed 8 so his argument is twice as good as yours lol pwned

Some of his were redundant.

I would think that the burden is on you to show how killing is okay, or not inherently wrong.

Not really. We kill things everyday for survival.

Also, if you think that self-defense is unjust then you are a moron.

Target shooting is target practice. You know, for those living things.

I can tell you aren't around guns very much, are you?

Guess what, I have lots of friends who own firearms and don't hunt, and don't go on drive by shooting sprees or school massacres. Guess what, they are perfectly content with shooting at targets.

How are sporting clays different from target shooting? Stop artificially inflating your list :p

Well 1) it's a completely different kind of target shooting (if you weren't an ignoramus on this issue you would know that) and 2) he inflated his list in the same manner so I don't see why I can't as well.

I fail to see how crime deterrent doesn't support the fact that guns are meant to kill people. They only could possibly function as a deterrent if someone was afraid that they were going to get killed.

No **** but they don't have to kill anyone to be effective as said deterrent. If I am wearing a gun on my hip or you know I have one right beside my bed, are you going to come up and **** with me or try to rob me? No, you are going to go for the easiest target that poses the least amount of risk to your personal well being, unless you have a death wish.

Collecting. You mentioned before that the purpose of guns were to shoot projectiles. Collecting doesn't really involve ammo of any time, so this is moot. "One of the many uses of stamps is having a lot of them that you don't intend to use!"

Collecting is simply a side benefit of firearms. I don't see how this is moot.

People collect swords, too, and they were designed to kill things.

nou

Don'tneedtogotitrightthefirsttime

[J Rad]

what is wrong with collecting guns

some guns are very beautiful demonstrations of craftsmanship

i know people that collect guns and have never shot one in their life

these winchester high grade and custom grade rifles are an example of great workmanship and manufacturing

http://www.gunblast.com/images/SHOT2007/Day3/100_0549.jpg

i find that many people who can't appreciate the work put into a gun or the plethora of non-lethal uses it offers are just afraid of guns and are too stubborn to learn more about them and instead stick to slam tactics to express what horrible creations they are

you can kill someone with a shovel does that mean we should have anti-shovel groups

[siva_chair]

Guns don't "cause crimes" no and neither does heroin but people use guns to commit crimes all the time and guns make it a lot easier for people to kill eachother and i don't like it when people kill eachother it makes me sad, ok?

Makes me sad too, but I'm going to do everything in my power to keep from any harm coming to myself or those close to me. If that means I have to put down a criminal like some animal then so be it.

A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.

The fundamental purpose of a tennis ball coach is to fire a projectile

So you're saying from an engineering point of view

guns and tennish ball coach machines have the same purpose?

They fundamentally have the same function, yes. Purpose is dictated by the operator. This is true with any tool.

the purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile accurately and with extreme power, at range, to cause damage to persons or objects and any gun not designed to kill people that still fires bullets would be ten times more dangerous

That is also the purpose of a bow or crossbow.

The first two are designed to help you kill people more efficiently with your projectile accelerator

Sorry no there are lots of people who just shoot for target and do not hunt and do go out and kill people or small children.

the third one is hilarious since all the criminals in your country also have guns

Not true. And even if it were, it would be even more of a reason for all law abiding citizens to own one (with perhaps the exception of the mentally ill and violent felons).

and the design of the gun is inherently flawed for collecting because they're expensive and they don't stack well,

Tell that to the countless gun collectors out there. You are being a fool and it doesn't seem you know anything about firearms and the ordinary people who own them.

stick to collecting pseudoscientific theories of concious or stamps or something

I just love it how that is the only sort of comeback you can ever seem to come up with for me. It really shows your awesome creative powers at work.

[siva_chair]

what is wrong with collecting guns

some guns are very beautiful demonstrations of craftsmanship

i know people that collect guns and have never shot one in their life

these winchester high grade and custom grade rifles are an example of great workmanship and manufacturing

http://www.gunblast.com/images/SHOT2007/Day3/100_0549.jpg

i find that many people who can't appreciate the work put into a gun or the plethora of non-lethal uses it offers are just afraid of guns and are too stubborn to learn more about them and instead stick to slam tactics to express what horrible creations they are

you can kill someone with a shovel does that mean we should have anti-shovel groups

This.

As a gunsmith, collector, hunter, and competetive shooter, it is very easy for me to see the craftmanship and hardwork that goes into these things.

[BridgeToSolace]

Also, if you think that self-defense is unjust then you are a moron.

I didn't know you had to kill someone to act in self defense.

I can tell you aren't around guns very much, are you?

No, I already have a large enough penis.

Guess what, I have lots of friends who own firearms and don't hunt, and don't go on drive by shooting sprees or school massacres. Guess what, they are perfectly content with shooting at targets.


This is not a justifiable reason to own a firearm, and undermines the fundamental purpose of target practice.

Well 1) it's a completely different kind of target shooting (if you weren't an ignoramus on this issue you would know that) and 2) he inflated his list in the same manner so I don't see why I can't as well.

flying clay targets launched from a machine are not targets? oic

No **** but they don't have to kill anyone to be effective as said deterrent.

I'll just wait until you're not home, like any thief worth half his ****.

Again, I don't see how this shows that guns aren't meant to kill people.


Collecting is simply a side benefit of firearms. I don't see how this is moot.

It is not a use of firearms. It is, in fact, the disuse of firearms.

People collect swords, too, and they were designed to kill things.

Most collector blades are not sharp sharp enough to do significant damage, and thus are simply designed to look pretty rather than kill people. It'd be like having a gun with no bullets, or with a firing mechanism removed. Besides, the skill and experience required to use a sword effectively is far different from a gun. But once swords are used in crime as much as guns are, get back to me. It'll be good times when swords are our biggest worry.

If we could just make bullets illegal, that'd be cool. Keep your guns. I'm fine with collecting, but I'd rather the guns not be functioning.

[thedeadwalk!]

As a gunsmith...
Is it true all gunsmiths are dwarves?

[siva_chair]

I didn't know you had to kill someone to act in self defense.

I didn't know that everyone who gets shot, dies.

I do know that a gun is the most effective form of self-defense and that when it comes to my family and my own personal safety, I'm not going to short change myself in the defense department.

No, I already have a large enough penis.

I just love it when anti-gun people say this. Seriously, is some guy's dick all you think about?

Plus, there are lots of women who own guns, so I don't think owning a gun has anything to do with dick except in the mind of anti-gun people who can't think of anything better to bring up in this sort of discussion.

This is not a justifiable reason to own a firearm, and undermines the fundamental purpose of target practice.

Yes it is. They aren't breaking any laws or infringing on the rights of anyone. That is a legitimate reason.

flying clay targets launched from a machine are not targets? oic

Never said they weren't targets, just said it's a different kind of target shooting. You fail once again at reading. You and Reaganista should start a study group.

I'll just wait until you're not home, like any thief worth half his ****.

And then I come home and shoot him with the gun I am carrying.

Again, I don't see how this shows that guns aren't meant to kill people.

Again, you fail to show how killing is inherently unjust.

It is not a use of firearms. It is, in fact, the disuse of firearms.

Lots of people collect and target shoot. You are trying to deny them a legitimate hobby that is very rarely used irresponsibly.

Most collector blades are not sharp sharp enough to do significant damage, and thus are simply designed to look pretty rather than kill people.

But I can buy ones that are razor sharp and are also ultra-functional.

It'd be like having a gun with no bullets, or with a firing mechanism removed.

Then it isn't a gun. It is like buying a reproduction stamp or anything like that. It isn't the same and you know it. And if you don't, you are an idiot.

Besides, the skill and experience required to use a sword effectively is far different from a gun.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. The skill and experience required to use a gun to it's highest degree of effectiveness is quite a bit. Just as easily as someone can pick up a gun and point and shoot, a person can pick up a sword and swing it.

But once swords are used in crime as much as guns are, get back to me. It'll be good times when swords are our biggest worry.

Once swords prevent as much crime as guns you can get back to me.

If we could just make bullets illegal, that'd be cool. Keep your guns. I'm fine with collecting, but I'd rather the guns not be functioning.

A gun without bullets is like a car without gas.

[siva_chair]

Is it true all gunsmiths are dwarves?

No sir. I'm about 6'4" so I don't think I qualify as a dwarven folk.

But I do know some gunsmiths that could be dwarves....

[J Rad]

I didn't know you had to kill someone to act in self defense.

i didn't know self-defense was restricted to non-lethal weapons

i'll let suzy rape victim know that carrying a handgun in her purse is a big bad no no because she might kill that guy that tried to drag her into a back alley and violate her vagina

No, I already have a large enough penis.

you're pretty good at making mature points keep it up

This is not a justifiable reason to own a firearm, and undermines the fundamental purpose of target practice.

the fundamental purpose of target practice is become fundamentally more proficient and educated in the use of your firearm not to kill someone with that firearm unless the situation states that this is a necessary action

people who are poorly educated and trained with firearms do much more damage than those who take the time to learn what they're doing

I'll just wait until you're not home, like any thief worth half his ****.

most burglaries are committed when the home owner is present

i've had three break-in attempts in the past couple of years and i was sitting right in the front room every time it happened

my firearm frightened the intruder away

i guess you'd be happier if those of us targeted by criminals had a big wooden stick we could poke the criminals with until the cops arrived ten minutes later

Again, I don't see how this shows that guns aren't meant to kill people.

it's not like you're going to stop being thick-headed and ignorant long enough to accept the non-lethal uses of a firearms so what are you expecting to hear in this conversation

It is not a use of firearms. It is, in fact, the disuse of firearms.

hey that was really profound you should be in politics with nonsensical drivel like that

Most collector blades are not sharp sharp enough to do significant damage, and thus are simply designed to look pretty rather than kill people.

that's interesting since a quick browse through swords.com will reveal dozens of collector blades that are sharp and combat tested maybe you missed those ones

If we could just make bullets illegal, that'd be cool. Keep your guns. I'm fine with collecting, but I'd rather the guns not be functioning.

awesome idea let's get together and collaborate on a letter to the secretary of defense telling him that we should make bullets illegal and that the millions of people in the country who use their firearms for safe and constructive purposes should be told what bad people they are for owning guns and how they shouldn't be allowed to use them anymore

after all it makes perfect sense to punish millions of people for the actions of thousands of criminals

[BridgeToSolace]

you're pretty good at making mature points keep it up

This is the discussion thread, not a legitimate debate thread. It was a joke, sorry.


most burglaries are committed when the home owner is present

False.

The majority of home and apartment burglaries occur during the daytime when most people are away at work or school. The summer months of July and August have the most burglaries with February having the fewest crimes. Burglaries are committed most often by young males under 25 years of age looking for items that are small, expensive, and can easily be converted to cash. Favorite items are cash, jewelry, guns, watches, laptop computers, VCRs, video players, CDs and other small electronic devices are high on the list. Quick cash is needed for living expenses and drugs. Statistics tell us that 70% of the burglars use some amount force to enter a dwelling, but their preference is to gain easy access through an open door or window. Ordinary household tools like screwdrivers, channel-lock pliers, small pry bars, and small hammers are most often used by burglars. Burglars continue to flourish because police can only clear about 13% of all reported burglaries and rarely catch the thief in the act.

http://www.crimedoctor.com/home.htm

Easiest thing I could find. I'll look more if I need to.

my firearm frightened the intruder away

i guess you'd be happier if those of us targeted by criminals had a big wooden stick we could poke the criminals with until the cops arrived ten minutes later

You sure it wasn't the fact that you were sitting in your living room at the time? Getting a ****ing alarm system, btw.

it's not like you're going to stop being thick-headed and ignorant long enough to accept the non-lethal uses of a firearms so what are you expecting to hear in this conversation

The legitimacy or relevance of the non-lethal uses of fire arms have to outweigh the negative effects, which has not been shown to me with any sort of substantial cause and effect relationship. Since we like stupid metaphors here, I can play catch with a hand grenade if I'd like. Doesn't mean I should be allowed to have one.

hey that was really profound you should be in politics with nonsensical drivel like that


To collect stamps, you have to not use them (the ones you collect, anyway). It is thus the disuse of stamps and the removal of stamps from circulation.

that's interesting since a quick browse through swords.com will reveal dozens of collector blades that are sharp and combat tested maybe you missed those ones


There was more than one point about swords.

And I didn't say people shouldn't collect guns, just that's it's not a legitimate reason for me to want to allow people to have them. Sword =/= guns. If you'd like to outlaw swords, I wouldn't be entirely opposed except for the fact that they aren't really used in crime much.

awesome idea let's get together and collaborate on a letter to the secretary of defense telling him that we should make bullets illegal and that the millions of people in the country who use their firearms for safe and constructive purposes should be told what bad people they are for owning guns and how they shouldn't be allowed to use them anymore

It comes from a Chris Rock bit. If you make bullets extremely expensive, very little gun crime. The shooter will actually take the bullet out of the victim :p

after all it makes perfect sense to punish millions of people for the actions of thousands of criminals

I don't really see it as a punishment. A precaution.

If torture isn't recognized by the supreme court as punishment, then neither is disallowing guns.

[Amit]

or criminalizing bullets would just lead to a massive black market for ammunition and severely **** everyone who aren't illegal gun owners using illegal ammunition

[BridgeToSolace]

or criminalizing bullets would just lead to a massive black market for ammunition and severely **** everyone who aren't illegal gun owners using illegal ammunition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juLQBeZXmPU

It's a Joke.

Sorriez for making lulz in teh discussion thred

[Smokey D]

I never really understood the guns don't commit crimes people do argument. To me it confuses the issue. No-one denies people are ultimately responsible for their actions, but it seems pretty intellectually dishonest to deny that guns have an extremely significant role in homicide rates.

[siva_chair]

You sure it wasn't the fact that you were sitting in your living room at the time? Getting a ****ing alarm system, btw.

Yeah because we are all wealthy enough to afford one of those.....

I could also raise the issue that gun laws primarily target the poor and so they are discriminatory by nature.



The legitimacy or relevance of the non-lethal uses of fire arms have to outweigh the negative effects, which has not been shown to me with any sort of substantial cause and effect relationship. Since we like stupid metaphors here, I can play catch with a hand grenade if I'd like. Doesn't mean I should be allowed to have one.

Well since you are thick headed I will repeat it:

Guns are used 65 times more often to prevent a crime than to commit one.


And I didn't say people shouldn't collect guns, just that's it's not a legitimate reason for me to want to allow people to have them. Sword =/= guns. If you'd like to outlaw swords, I wouldn't be entirely opposed except for the fact that they aren't really used in crime much.

And they aren't used in crime prevention that much either, so what use is there for them?

It comes from a Chris Rock bit. If you make bullets extremely expensive, very little gun crime. The shooter will actually take the bullet out of the victim :p

Because we all know that comedians such as Chris Rock have the solution to everything.

Fact is, it is really easy to make bullets.

I don't really see it as a punishment. A precaution.

Yeah, police states are big on that one.

If torture isn't recognized by the supreme court as punishment, then neither is disallowing guns.

Is it fun to introduce red herrings into discussions?

[siva_chair]

I never really understood the guns don't commit crimes people do argument. To me it confuses the issue. No-one denies people are ultimately responsible for their actions, but it seems pretty intellectually dishonest to deny that guns have an extremely significant role in homicide rates.

The point is you shouldn't punish people who use them responsibly for the irresponsible actions of a few.

[Smokey D]

Maybe but I can accept that there are public interest issues that might trump such a narrow view of justice.

[BridgeToSolace]

Yeah because we are all wealthy enough to afford one of those.....

I could also raise the issue that gun laws primarily target the poor and so they are discriminatory by nature.

If even a rudimentary alarm system is prohibitively expensive, then you should be saving your money rather than spending it on guns. You'd think a way to prevent theft when you aren't home would be a decent investment >_>

Well since you are thick headed I will repeat it:

Guns are used 65 times more often to prevent a crime than to commit one.


I called bullshit on that in your other thread. It's weird to have this discussion in two place.

And they aren't used in crime prevention that much either, so what use is there for them?

There isn't. If they become a problem, we can get rid of them. Decorative swords are real pretty, and display a far better craftsmanship than factory made guns. That's a whole different argument, though.

Because we all know that comedians such as Chris Rock have the solution to everything.

Fact is, it is really easy to make bullets.

It was not a serious suggestion.

Is it fun to introduce red herrings into discussions?

Red herrings like...

Yeah, police states are big on that one.

So...is it fun?

[totah]

Guns should be allowed as long as the state faction has a monopoly on them. Right now we're in a situation that cops go around with guns pushing people about, or the army, or the secret services, all these people somehow think they have a legitimate right to offensive weapons, and that civilians don't. Well, the best defence against an offensive weapon is your own offensive weapon, and as long as the state faction prevents anybody else from having a gun, we should all be allowed guns (though whether you want one is obviously your own decision). Otherwise the situation you have is one where there is an authoritarian controlling faction (the state) armed to the teeth and a victimised controlled population with no means of self-defence.

[siva_chair]

Maybe but I can accept that there are public interest issues that might trump such a narrow view of justice.

Considering that guns are more often used to prevent crime than to cause it in this country, I would say that it would be counterproductive to ban guns.

If even a rudimentary alarm system is prohibitively expensive, then you should be saving your money rather than spending it on guns. You'd think a way to prevent theft when you aren't home would be a decent investment >_>

It is much cheaper to buy a gun than it is to buy any alarm system. Plus, a gun is a far better defensive tool.

I called bullpoop on that in your other thread. It's weird to have this discussion in two place.

Umm even the source that you cited shows that they are used more often for crime prevention.

Also, just because you don't want to believe something, doesn't actually make it false.

There isn't. If they become a problem, we can get rid of them.

Well traffic fatalities due to drunk driving are also a problem. I suppose we should just get rid of booze and motor vehichles, amirite?

Decorative swords are real pretty, and display a far better craftsmanship than factory made guns. That's a whole different argument, though.

And one based on your own subjective opinion.


Red herrings like...

Yeah, police states are big on that one.

So...is it fun?

Except that was completely relevant to what you said. It was a precaution that Hitler took. It is a precaution that any dictator or head of a police state takes.

[totah]

Like your government, who forces everyone to register their guns so when push comes to cruise missile they know whose houses to bomb.

[Smokey D]

Considering that guns are more often used to prevent crime than to cause it in this country, I would say that it would be counterproductive to ban guns.

The relationship between guns and crime is far from clear cut.

[siva_chair]

Like your government, who forces everyone to register their guns so when push comes to cruise missile they know whose houses to bomb.

If you are talking to me, you are incorrect. Registration is usually on a state by state basis. Luckily, I live in a state where I am not required to register my firearms. Although since I have an FFL they pretty much know I have guns anyway.

The relationship between guns and crime is far from clear cut.

If this is in fact the case, then it makes even less sense to ban guns based on that reason, don't you think?

[BridgeToSolace]

Considering that guns are more often used to prevent crime than to cause it in this country, I would say that it would be counterproductive to ban guns.

Depends on the types of crimes that guns are used to prevent and commit.

I'd be okay with a lower murder rate if it meant a higher crime rate.

It is much cheaper to buy a gun than it is to buy any alarm system. Plus, a gun is a far better defensive tool.


Only if every person in your family has a gun with them at all times. An alarm system helps everyone in your home. Great for kids, who shouldn't be carrying guns around.

Also, just because you don't want to believe something, doesn't actually make it false.


But if the DOJ's statistics are directly in conflict and say it's a bit less than twice rather than 65 times, then maybe that does mean it's false.

Well traffic fatalities due to drunk driving are also a problem. I suppose we should just get rid of booze and motor vehichles, amirite?

Again, the benefits of motor vehicles FAR outweigh their danger. Especially since these are accidents and not premeditated. No one has convinced me that legitimate uses of gun ownership justify the negative effects (if there are any. Neither side is very good at this).

And one based on your own subjective opinion.

That's why I said it's a whole different argument.

In your words, no ****.

Except that was completely relevant to what you said. It was a precaution that Hitler took. It is a precaution that any dictator or head of a police state takes.

Except that the united states is not Hitler and there are checks and balances in place to keep us from becoming a police state.

You really think that if German citizens had guns, things would have happened differently? Perhaps some Jews would have killed some nazis before they were killed...just giving Hitler easy propaganda reasons to catch more Jews!

I fail to see the relevance. It's a red herring.

[Smokey D]

If this is in fact the case, then it makes even less sense to ban guns based on that reason, don't you think?

It means we should investigate it and be prepared to ban them if that's what the results suggest.

[siva_chair]

Depends on the types of crimes that guns are used to prevent and commit.

I'd be okay with a lower murder rate if it meant a higher crime rate.

Crime is crime. Prevention of any crime is good.

Only if every person in your family has a gun with them at all times. An alarm system helps everyone in your home. Great for kids, who shouldn't be carrying guns around.

Or how about I have guns in the house and I teach my family how to use them responsibly, so that way if some prick criminal wants to enter into my home any one of us can put two in his chest and one in his head.

Also, I never said I was against alarms. But if I had to choose one, I'd pick the gun any day.

But if the DOJ's statistics are directly in conflict and say it's a bit less than twice rather than 65 times, then maybe that does mean it's false.

Ok let's just just take your statistics. It still means that guns are used twice as likely to prevent than to cause crime. I'd say that is a perfectly good justification for allowing responsible citizens to own them.

Again, the benefits of motor vehicles FAR outweigh their danger. Especially since these are accidents and not premeditated. No one has convinced me that legitimate uses of gun ownership justify the negative effects (if there are any. Neither side is very good at this).

Lots of accidents with firearms aren't premeditated either so what is your point?

That's why I said it's a whole different argument.

In your words, no ****.

Actually I collect Japanese swords as well, so I admire both greatly.

Except that the united states is not Hitler and there are checks and balances in place to keep us from becoming a police state.

Yes and the 2nd Amendment is one of those checks and balances.

You really think that if German citizens had guns, things would have happened differently?

Yes, I do.

Perhaps some Jews would have killed some nazis before they were killed...just giving Hitler easy propaganda reasons to catch more Jews!


“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”---Adolf Hitler

"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."---Joseph Stalin

[BridgeToSolace]

Crime is crime. Prevention of any crime is good.

Are you going to be dense enough to argue that all crime is equal?

Or how about I have guns in the house and I teach my family how to use them responsibly, so that way if some prick criminal wants to enter into my home any one of us can put two in his chest and one in his head.

So you're keeping the guns in your home and your family wants to use them...what are you going to use OUTSIDE of your home? Again, you'd have to buy a whole lot of guns, making or "it's not financially realistic" thing moot.

Also, I never said I was against alarms. But if I had to choose one, I'd pick the gun any day.

Maybe that's why people keep trying to rob you.

Ok let's just just take your statistics. It still means that guns are used twice as likely to prevent than to cause crime. I'd say that is a perfectly good justification for allowing responsible citizens to own them.

Again, depends on the crime.

Lots of accidents with firearms aren't premeditated either so what is your point?

Erm...I don't think a whole lot of people get shot by accident. Few people intentionally hit people with their cars.

Actually I collect Japanese swords as well, so I admire both greatly.


Ah, simple and elegant. I prefer my decorative things to be be bedazzled and ****.

Yes and the 2nd Amendment is one of those checks and balances.

We can repeal that or condition it if we need to.

Yes, I do.

Describe, if you will. My WWII history knowledge is superficial.

It's ridiculous to remotely suggest that we should have guns because if they were taken away, we'll become Nazi German.

[siva_chair]

Are you going to be dense enough to argue that all crime is equal?

No. Are you going to be dense enough to argue that crime prevention isn't a good thing?

Besides, banning guns doesn't appear to lower murder rates anyhow.

So you're keeping the guns in your home and your family wants to use them...what are you going to use OUTSIDE of your home? Again, you'd have to buy a whole lot of guns, making or "it's not financially realistic" thing moot.

I'm going to carry one outside of my home as well.

All of this is moot anyway because I already have enough firearms to supply everyone in my family one if need be. I also have a very effective security system. It's called a dog.

Maybe that's why people keep trying to rob you

Nobody has ever tried to rob, fyi.

I have had someone come up to my home in a threatening manner and I stopped that situation in a hurry. Mr. 12 gauge doesn't like threatening people coming onto my property.

Again, depends on the crime.

Not when murder rates don't increase while gun ownership does.

Erm...I don't think a whole lot of people get shot by accident. Few people intentionally hit people with their cars.

Yup and a large percentage of gunshot victims have criminal records. Most gun deaths are criminals shooting other criminals, tbh.

Ah, simple and elegant. I prefer my decorative things to be be bedazzled and ****.

I prefer excellent craftmanship and effectiveness.

We can repeal that or condition it if we need to.

Yes we sure can but then we wouldn't have anything to back the other Amendments up if the government were to stop being "for the people."

Besides, with as many gun owners in this country, I don't think it is going to be repealed any time soon. And if it is, then the government is no longer "for the people, by the people" and it is time to use those guns to take it back.

Describe, if you will. My WWII history knowledge is superficial.

Well any dictator has an easier time taking power if the local population is unarmed. History shows this again and again.

It's ridiculous to remotely suggest that we should have guns because if they were taken away, we'll become Nazi German.

I never said that. What I did say was that it is easier for tyrants to take control and subjegate the people if the people do not have any means to effectively fight back.

Only a government that is afraid of its citizens would try to control them. Free people do not have to ask permission to be armed.

[totah]

This made me lol hard, and it's funnier than gun talk:

A DOLPHIN was killed when it collided with another dolphin while performing a mid-air trick at a Florida marine park.

Sharkey, a 30-year-old dolphin, died on Saturday at the Discovery Cove park - a sister property to Sea World in Orlando, the Associated Press reported.

About 30 spectators were watching when the dolphins went through their routines before something went horribly wrong and they hit each other as they leapt out of the water.

The second dolphin was uninjured, Discovery Cove spokeswoman Becca Bides said today.

"This is a very unfortunate and very rare incident," she said.

Park officials were reviewing dolphin training "to ensure that even such a random incident like this can't occur again", Ms Bides said.

[BridgeToSolace]

No. Are you going to be dense enough to argue that crime prevention isn't a good thing?

Crime prevention is awesome. I will debate that preventing murder is good if a consequence is higher theft rates, however.

Besides, banning guns doesn't appear to lower murder rates anyhow.

It's hard to prove either way, and no one has shown that satisfactorily. You believe it because you want to believe it, I don't believe it because I don't want to so. Nothing out there has evaluated the situation objectively enough and thoroughly enough to change minds.

All of this is moot anyway because I already have enough firearms to supply everyone in my family one if need be. I also have a very effective security system. It's called a dog.

Dogs are extremely ineffective security systems, and probably more expensive in the long wrong.

You would like "It Takes A Thief" on the discovery channel. It's on at 5 or 6 pm every day if your around. They get permission to break into people's houses to expose security risks and such, and then pay for methods of making the house safer.

Even trained dogs will not stop a thief.

Nobody has ever tried to rob, fyi.

I have had someone come up to my home in a threatening manner and I stopped that situation in a hurry. Mr. 12 gauge doesn't like threatening people coming onto my property.

It was more a crack at J Rad, I suppose. I probably would have just locked my door, but that's just me.

Yup and a large percentage of gunshot victims have criminal records. Most gun deaths are criminals shooting other criminals, tbh.

Which doesn't make it okay, tbh

I prefer excellent craftmanship and effectiveness.

Effectiveness and art very rarely mix.

Yes we sure can but then we wouldn't have anything to back the other Amendments up if the government were to stop being "for the people."

The constitution doesn't require and armed populace. Arms are not the best means of resistance. Ask Ghandi.

Besides, with as many gun owners in this country, I don't think it is going to be repealed any time soon. And if it is, then the government is no longer "for the people, by the people" and it is time to use those guns to take it back.

You're honestly telling me you would take up arms if the government were to repeal or put conditions on the second amendment? Besides, it would probably ban the sale of guns, which would just limit supply.

I never said that. What I did say was that it is easier for tyrants to take control and subjegate the people if the people do not have any means to effectively fight back.

Propaganda is sooo much more effective than force in modern society.

[siva_chair]

Crime prevention is awesome. I will debate that preventing murder is good if a consequence is higher theft rates, however.

But you haven't demonstrated how rise in gun ownership = rise in murder rates.

In fact, according to the national average, it appears the murder rates have gone down while the number of guns in the country has gone up.

It's hard to prove either way, and no one has shown that satisfactorily. You believe it because you want to believe it, I don't believe it because I don't want to so. Nothing out there has evaluated the situation objectively enough and thoroughly enough to change minds.

Ok. But it is a fact that murder rates have steadily gone down while gun ownership has gone up. This would suggest that gun ownership has nothing to do with murder rates (except perhaps lower them, but we can't jump to that conclusion based on the data). Banning them obviously isn't the answer.

Dogs are extremely ineffective security systems, and probably more expensive in the long wrong.

lol long wrong

The dog is also a family companion. Security from that source is just a bonus, tbh. Though I know lots of people piss their pants when they see a large Rottweiler sitting at the door.

You would like "It Takes A Thief" on the discovery channel. It's on at 5 or 6 pm every day if your around. They get permission to break into people's houses to expose security risks and such, and then pay for methods of making the house safer.

I probably would. Discovery channel has some good shows.

I really like Future Weapons....:p

Even trained dogs will not stop a thief.

No but criminals are less likely to break into a house with a dog present.

It was more a crack at J Rad, I suppose. I probably would have just locked my door, but that's just me.

Well this way he learned flat out not to come around my house anymore.

Now he is nothing but polite to me.

Which doesn't make it okay, tbh

Yes but the point is that criminals are killing other criminals and that responsible gun owners who are not should not be punished for their misdeeds.


Effectiveness and art very rarely mix.

In the case of Samurai swords, they go hand in hand.


The constitution doesn't require and armed populace.

You realize the reason the 2nd Amendment was put in there, right?

Arms are not the best means of resistance. Ask Ghandi.

Umm tell that to someone attacking your home, or firing at you. As much as I respect Ghandi, there is a time and place for that kind of resistance, and then there is a time and a place for Sun Tzu's Art of War and the reciprocation of force to a oppressor with lead.


You're honestly telling me you would take up arms if the government were to repeal or put conditions on the second amendment?

Yes.

Besides, it would probably ban the sale of guns, which would just limit supply.

And it would still be unjust and reason to take up arms.

Propaganda is sooo much more effective than force in modern society.

Not denying that. I don't see what that has to do with effectiveness of backing your threats and words up with force. The government shouldn't have a monopoly on force.

[totah]

Can't you move this to the guns thread or something? or at least minimise your posts? they're huge!

[Iskandar]

I don't understand people who get really worked up over guns. Sure, law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own them but there are far more important rights afforded to the citizens of a democracy.

[McP3000]

no

guns is the end all of a stable democracy. if you can own guns, then you have all the freedom you need.

[Reaganista]

I just love it when anti-gun people say this. Seriously, is some guy's dick all you think about?

Plus, there are lots of women who own guns, so I don't think owning a gun has anything to do with dick except in the mind of anti-gun people who can't think of anything better to bring up in this sort of discussion.
women all want dicks too u micropenis having hayseed

[Iskandar]

no

guns is the end all of a stable democracy. if you can own guns, then you have all the freedom you need.No ... ?

[PerpetualBurn]

Crime is crime. Prevention of any crime is good.

No.

[McP3000]

No ... ?
yes...?

if a government allows its citizens to have guns, it most likely gives its citizen most, if not all commonly accepted rights.

[Reaganista]

yes...?

if a government allows its citizens to have guns, it most likely gives its citizen most, if not all commonly accepted rights.

excuse me but wtf are you talking about

[Iskandar]

yes...?

if a government allows its citizens to have guns, it most likely gives its citizen most, if not all commonly accepted rights.Other way around, mate.

[big80smullet]

They have guns in Angola, and Chechnya, and afghanistan.


lol sure america has the "Freedom" to own guns but they also have a violent crime and gun death rates which are so much higher than any other western democracy so as to be ridiculous.

I wrote a paper on this last year and from memory the gun deaths rate is around 5000 times higher per capita in america than in australia and the UK. Id have to do a bit of digging to find the exact number though

[Reaganista]

at least we dont have freaky basement rapists like australia

[Smokey D]

That was Austria.

[siva_chair]

at least we dont have freaky basement rapists like australia

:smash:

[Reaganista]

first hitler now this guy! i swear it's all been downhill since steve irwin died!

[PerpetualBurn]

You molest that many fish, eventually one of them's going to strike back.

[big80smullet]

at least we dont have freaky basement rapists like australia

i tip my leiderhosen to you sir

[Reaganista]

ugh australia is so sick also why cant you just speak english

[big80smullet]

we prefer to communicate through the medium of yodel. Its culturally significant to the aboriginal peoples

[Mister_Che]

I am in the vast minority here, but, I see where this is coming from. This is just another step in the direction that was started when they outlawed profanity on bumper stickers. Like it or not folks, EVERY THING about this countries history is based on the moral peramiters set forth by the Bible. Period! So, when a law is passed that is clearly an offspring of the Christian faith, don't be surprised! Are you against reading the pledge of aligence? Are you against using the American dollar? Are you against the Constitution? Humm, all of those are Christian based too. The laws of this country are a more specific reflection of the Ten Commandments. Ya think Moses would have told Arron to take the dangling balls off his chariot? I think he would have. Just me. Ok, let the firing squad assemble.

Sweet jesus, all this over bumper balls.

It surprises me when I see people post stuff like this, and then the replies thereafter, though I guess I shouldn't be.

[ringworm]

Did anyone see Bush in The Rose Garden Yesterday?
http://www.c-span.org/ scroll down to the link

it was freakin hikarious

[guitrguy]

I can't view it in firefox

[1338 h4x0r]

Use a non-faggy browser u fag

Internet Explorer RULEZ

[Iskandar]

Are you against reading the pledge of aligence? Are you against using the American dollar? Are you against the Constitution? Humm, all of those are Christian based too.

[The Stig]

Alex I see a Jewish flag in your avatar.

That's damn unamerican if I ever saw it.

[Iskandar]

Alex I see a Jewish flag in your avatar.

That's damn unamerican if I ever saw it.Right next to a Palestinian one.

[BridgeToSolace]

But you haven't demonstrated how rise in gun ownership = rise in murder rates.

In fact, according to the national average, it appears the murder rates have gone down while the number of guns in the country has gone up

We do get into repeating territory by having this discussion in two threads. No one has satisfactorily shown much about the effect of guns and gun ownership. There are simply too many variables to make any concrete and defendable stance on their effect.

lol long wrong

The dog is also a family companion. Security from that source is just a bonus, tbh. Though I know lots of people piss their pants when they see a large Rottweiler sitting at the door.

In my defense, it was 4 am. Dogs are hardly better at alerting police to an intruder's presence than an alarm system, though.

I probably would. Discovery channel has some good shows.

I really like Future Weapons....:p

Future weapons is cool, although the host is silly. He tries to be tough, but then has euphemize everything that he says to make the show not controversial.

No but criminals are less likely to break into a house with a dog present.

Having a guard dog indicates that you are uneducated about house hold security and that you don't have a more sophisticated alarm system. At least to me. Who knows what thieves think.

Yes but the point is that criminals are killing other criminals and that responsible gun owners who are not should not be punished for their misdeeds.

Criminals are killing people with guns taken from or given by these responsible owners. Who are in fact irresponsible if they allow their guns to be stolen or give them out.

You realize the reason the 2nd Amendment was put in there, right?

And I do not believe that their concerns still apply today. I'm an interpretationist when it suits me, and so are you. Amendments are not a basis for the merit or justification of owning guns.

Umm tell that to someone attacking your home, or firing at you. As much as I respect Ghandi, there is a time and place for that kind of resistance, and then there is a time and a place for Sun Tzu's Art of War and the reciprocation of force to a oppressor with lead.


Only if you don't care about moral imperatives. And have little respect for all human life. (meaning you take the Steve route and say criminals = scum = deserve to die)

And it would still be unjust and reason to take up arms.
I call bullshit on that, but we'll never know, neh?

Not denying that. I don't see what that has to do with effectiveness of backing your threats and words up with force. The government shouldn't have a monopoly on force.

I agree. People should have a monopoly on physical force. But pretty much always through the government.

[Reaganista]

cops are great if you want someone to come and write down what was stolen afterwards

[Akira]

So, I have to take McCarthy's side on a debate on Communism, specifically on why Communists should not be allowed into the government.

Now this whole position is based on rhetoric and fear-mongering, and I need to support my position with evidence, something McCarthy himself didn't do.

Help me. Please.

[J Rad]

In my defense, it was 4 am. Dogs are hardly better at alerting police to an intruder's presence than an alarm system, though.

just wanted to say this

an alarm system has the chance of frightening a burglar and chasing them off

a guard dog has the chance of devouring a burglar making it much more likely that they will run like hell

this is why i have a pit bull and a rott/mastiff mix

[thedeadwalk!]

Any of you ever watch the show "To Catch a Thief" on Discovery? Not a single owner's dog has helped so far.

[J Rad]

that's because the dogs weren't trained properly

[thedeadwalk!]

What home has properly trained dogs that is likely to be burgled without them?

[Hababi]

Blah I got an A- this semester, now my GPA is a 3.9 :(

[thedeadwalk!]

I'm sailing with a cool 3.12. It's likely to go down after this semester, but who cares? No one I care about.

[J Rad]

What home has properly trained dogs that is likely to be burgled without them?

mine for one

[Hababi]

I'm sailing with a cool 3.12. It's likely to go down after this semester, but who cares?

I'm guessing you don't :p

I'd be very, very sad if I got below a 3.75 in a given semester. As long as I graduate summa cum laude, I should be in good position for grad school.

[thedeadwalk!]

mine for one
Bad neighborhood?

I'm guessing you don't :p

I'd be very, very sad if I got below a 3.75 in a given semester. As long as I graduate summa cum laude, I should be in good position for grad school.
Nah. If I leave above 3.0, I'm cool; still doing better than in high school.

I have no intention for grad school, as I'm burned out on formal education right now. Where are you planning on going?

[Hababi]

Bad neighborhood?


Nah. If I leave above 3.0, I'm cool; still doing better than in high school.

I have no intention for grad school, as I'm burned out on formal education right now. Where are you planning on going?

If I go to grad school for history, the University of Florida, Southern Methodist University, and a few others would be on the list---basically everywhere where there's a faculty member who specializes in east African history. There aren't too many.

If I go for political science, I'm not sure.

[thedeadwalk!]

Why the interest in East Africa?

[J Rad]

Bad neighborhood?

very

[Dr Hooch]

Blah I got an A- this semester, now my GPA is a 3.9 :(

"and my youth is gone! And i'm still not married. And I don't masturbate!"



get some perspective man ;)

[Hababi]

Why the interest in East Africa?

It's heavily Christian, there's a different dynamic since the Occidental slave trade didn't really touch it (at least in the interior, Great Lakes area that is where my interest is), there's a significant amount of major historical events in recent times there, and Rwanda is showing a whole lot of promise--within a decade, it could emerge as the leading country on the continent. That's pretty incredible being only 14 years removed from a genocide on an unimaginable scale.

"and my youth is gone! And i'm still not married. And I don't masturbate!"


:lol: I'm 22. I have many years of youth ahead of me.

[Smokey D]

Rwanda will never emerge as a leader because it's the size of a postage stamp surrounded by monsters like Congo and Uganda..

[Hababi]

Rwanda will never emerge as a leader because it's the size of a postage stamp surrounded by monsters like Congo and Uganda..

See: Singapore

[Smokey D]

Maybe. I think the region is too unstable.

[Hababi]

Maybe. I think the region is too unstable.

Many of the countries surrounding Singapore are hardly beacons of stability, either, to be fair. That being said, it's not an unfair point. But I will mention that Uganda is moving toward a peace between the government and the LRA, Tanzania is politically stable, and Rwanda's improvements can have a stabilizing effect on Burundi and Congo. Recent history has seen Rwanda exporting more problems than importing. And given the homogeneity, strong leadership, and low crime rate, there's quite a lot to be hopeful.

[Smokey D]

Rwanda isn't homogenous.

That was kinda the problem in the 1990s.

I dunno, I can't say I follow the region closely but it seems to me that there are other more likely candidates for regional leadership.

[Hababi]

Rwanda isn't homogenous.

That was kinda the problem in the 1990s.

The Hutu/Tutsi divide was largely artificial, fostered and reinterpreted by Dutch colonizers. Moreover, those Hutu extremists that fueled the genocide mostly fled the country, and are in DRC now. There basically are no more interahamwe or akuza left. Rwandans speak the same language, worship the same God, and now are behind a common leader, Paul Kagame.


I dunno, I can't say I follow the region closely but it seems to me that there are other more likely candidates for regional leadership.

Who?

[Iskandar]

See: SingaporeIt's not a regional leader, it's just richer than its immediate neighbours.

[Hababi]

It's not a regional leader, it's just richer than its immediate neighbours.

Significantly richer. That's more what I was referring to, though I think that Kagame can become the new face for the region and play a role in mediating conflict.

Btw if you want to find out how much of a pathetic failure the Clinton administration and Kofi Annan were in dealing with the Rwandan genocide, and just how despicable the French govt at that time was, read We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families.

[Mr. Ron]

Hey Steve, hows that book coming along you said you were working on that we talked about on AIM FOREVER ago?

[Hababi]

Hey Steve, hows that book coming along you said you were working on that we talked about on AIM FOREVER ago?

the antarctic one?

[Mr. Ron]

Yes.

[Hababi]

Yes.

I haven't worked on that one in a while :(

[Iskandar]

Haha, Steve always says he's going to write things and then he doesn't.

[Hababi]

oh no I've stopped committing to writing stuff



though I do have a really wonderful idea in mind currently

[Iskandar]

Like always.

[Hababi]

Like always.

why yes, I do always have really wonderful ideas :D

[Iskandar]

What's your idea this time?

[Hababi]

What's your idea this time?

I shant be too specific but it involves an African refugee in America and hits on themes of contemporary race relations.

[Iskandar]

You mean Barack Obama?

[Hababi]

You mean Barack Obama?

:lol: no, a Rwandan refugee and it takes place in the nineties.

[siva_chair]

In my defense, it was 4 am. Dogs are hardly better at alerting police to an intruder's presence than an alarm system, though.

Screw warning the cops. They are there to warn me. After that I get Mr. 12 gauge or Mr. .45 and go show the criminal the errors of his ways.


Future weapons is cool, although the host is silly. He tries to be tough, but then has euphemize everything that he says to make the show not controversial.

He is tough. He was a Navy SEAL Sniper. If you know anything about SEAL training, you know the people who make it through it are nothing but tough.

Having a guard dog indicates that you are uneducated about house hold security and that you don't have a more sophisticated alarm system. At least to me. Who knows what thieves think.

That is why a gaurd dog isn't my only means of home security.

Criminals are killing people with guns taken from or given by these responsible owners. Who are in fact irresponsible if they allow their guns to be stolen or give them out.

Haha so I guess if someone steals your car and goes and kills someone with it you are irresponsible and shouldn't be allowed to drive or own a car anymore.

And I do not believe that their concerns still apply today. I'm an interpretationist when it suits me, and so are you.

No they perfectly apply today. Time doesn't diminish a person's right to self-defense against criminal or tyrant government.

Amendments are not a basis for the merit or justification of owning guns.

Ha!

I'd say Amendments are the cornerstone of our way of government.

Only if you don't care about moral imperatives. And have little respect for all human life. (meaning you take the Steve route and say criminals = scum = deserve to die)

No it's more like: you enter my house uninvited and with the intent to harm or steal = you give your rights up to me. Sorry but when my family's or own well being is in question over some criminal's illegal actions, I reserve the right to self-defense, no matter if that ends the criminal's life or not. As far as I'm concerned you gave up your well being the moment you decided to break the law and threaten my family.

I call bullpoop on that, but we'll never know, neh?

Well we will know if it comes to that.

I agree. People should have a monopoly on physical force. But pretty much always through the government.

No see that is not really the people, that is the government.

cops are great if you want someone to come and write down what was stolen afterwards

^This.^

[BridgeToSolace]

He is tough. He was a Navy SEAL Sniper. If you know anything about SEAL training, you know the people who make it through it are nothing but tough.

Tough =/= badass. But that is the reason why they have to try and pussify him on the show.

That is why a gaurd dog isn't my only means of home security.

Mr. 12 and 45 :p

Haha so I guess if someone steals your car and goes and kills someone with it you are irresponsible and shouldn't be allowed to drive or own a car anymore.

Again, cars are not guns. But if you want to keep it up, if I lend my car to my friend and he gets into an accident, the car is in my name and I am still the one who is technically responsible for the outcome of the accident. No such accountability exists for gun owners.

And unless you leave your gun in the parking lot when you go into the store, it's not exactly as easy to get your gun stolen. It should always be in a secure place, outside the reach of thieves.

No they perfectly apply today. Time doesn't diminish a person's right to self-defense against criminal or tyrant government.

Of course it doesn't. But it diminishes the legitimacy of firearms as a method to do so.

I'd say Amendments are the cornerstone of our way of government.

Still not a valid argument about the merit of guns. If someone asks you why we should have free speech and all you can say is "The first amendment!" then you really have no idea why you should have free speech. (not that the 2nd amendment is all you can say...but...)

No it's more like: you enter my house uninvited and with the intent to harm or steal = you give your rights up to me.

Well we will know if it comes to that.

The south'll just succeed again.

"They took'rrrr guns!"

No see that is not really the people, that is the government.

The government and the people are not independent of one another in this Country.

^This.^

Don't call him retarded and then agree with :p

[siva_chair]

Tough =/= badass. But that is the reason why they have to try and pussify him on the show.

Or because it is a show.

Believe me, the guy is a badass.


Mr. 12 and 45 :p

And a plethora of other weapons.

Again, cars are not guns. But if you want to keep it up, if I lend my car to my friend and he gets into an accident, the car is in my name and I am still the one who is technically responsible for the outcome of the accident. No such accountability exists for gun owners.

No if someone steals your car and wrecks it and kills someone, you aren't responsible for that.

And unless you leave your gun in the parking lot when you go into the store, it's not exactly as easy to get your gun stolen. It should always be in a secure place, outside the reach of thieves.

Or on my side. That is why I have a Conceal and Carry liscense.


Of course it doesn't. But it diminishes the legitimacy of firearms as a method to do so.

No it doesn't.

Still not a valid argument about the merit of guns. If someone asks you why we should have free speech and all you can say is "The first amendment!" then you really have no idea why you should have free speech. (not that the 2nd amendment is all you can say...but...)

The 2nd Amendment is another check and balance to the government. That alone is enough to justify it.


The south'll just succeed again.

"They took'rrrr guns!"

I'm not from the south. I don't know why people equate gun ownership with the south when the two states with the most liberal gun laws aren't even in the south.

The government and the people are not independent of one another in this Country.

And guns are an insurance policy to make sure it stays that way.

Though there could be a lot of disagreement as to whether the US government is still "For the People, By the People."

Don't call him retarded and then agree with :p

Don't tell me what to do.:thumb:

Plus, just because he is usually retarded doesn't mean he doesn't have a few nuggets of truth in his posting every once in a while. I have learned I have to take his posts on an individual basis.

[BridgeToSolace]

No if someone steals your car and wrecks it and kills someone, you aren't responsible for that.

Yet if I let my friend borrow my car and he gets into an accident, I'm the one responsible.

Like I said, 80% of people get their illegal guns from family, friends and theft. It's weird that they didn't break that down into smaller categories, but they didn't. I said to start that, though, guns =/=cars. Especially because...

Or on my side. That is why I have a Conceal and Carry liscense.

You can't really do that with your car.

No it doesn't.

You disagree that a mixture of moral imperative and media propaganda have devalued firearms as a general source of protest?

The 2nd Amendment is another check and balance to the government. That alone is enough to justify it.

The electoral college is more of an affront to democracy than banning guns.

And guns are an insurance policy to make sure it stays that way.

Though there could be a lot of disagreement as to whether the US government is still "For the People, By the People."

People are effective insurance people. You overstate the value of guns in maintaining the United State's political environment.

Don't tell me what to do.:thumb:


What are you, five? Don't tell me what not to do. :thumb:

[siva_chair]

Yet if I let my friend borrow my car and he gets into an accident, I'm the one responsible.

Like I said, 80% of people get their illegal guns from family, friends and theft. It's weird that they didn't break that down into smaller categories, but they didn't.

Perhaps it is because most of them are stolen.

Banning legal firearms to combat illegal firearms acquisition is on par with banning banks because they might get robbed.

I said to start that, though, guns =/=cars. Especially because...

You can't really do that with your car.

Wtf does that have to do with anything?

You disagree that a mixture of moral imperative and media propaganda have devalued firearms as a general source of protest?

No, a gun is still as effective at doing what it does. A government that disarms it's citizens says that it doesn't trust it's citizens. It no longer is a government for the people, but a government to control the people.

The electoral college is more of an affront to democracy than banning guns.

No I pretty much despise both.

People are effective insurance people.

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms"--V.I. Lenin.

A person with a gun is a more effective one.

You overstate the value of guns in maintaining the United State's political environment.

And I think you understate them.

It is a fact, the government is less likely to use force against it's own people and trample all over their rights if they think there is a good possibility that they will rise up with arms and resist. It is much easier to control an unarmed population than an armed one no matter how you cut it.

[Der Übermensch]

I was in the ****ing West Wing today! It was ****ing sweet!

[siva_chair]

I was in the ****ing West Wing today! It was ****ing sweet!

The show? :p

[Der Übermensch]

No. The ****ing White House.

[BridgeToSolace]

Banning legal firearms to combat illegal firearms acquisition is on par with banning banks because they might get robbed.

Wtf does that have to do with anything?

It's not the same thing. Guns are not banks. You're little "That's just like..." are completely irrelevant and fallacious. That was my point. Extremely shallow metaphors.

No, a gun is still as effective at doing what it does. A government that disarms it's citizens says that it doesn't trust it's citizens. It no longer is a government for the people, but a government to control the people.

Except the government does not disarm the people without the will of the people. Banning guns will only happen with public outcry and action. If our government disarms the portion of citizens who chose to be armed, it will be because those who are not armed lack trust.

And every single time someone protests anti-gun legislation with guns, the anti-gun people will say "See what we mean?"

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms"--V.I. Lenin.

A person with a gun is a more effective one.

I love the quotes, really. One many with a gun can control 100 only for so long. Lasting and meaningful change is not wrought from the barrel of a gun.

And I think you understate them.

It is a fact, the government is less likely to use force against it's own people and trample all over their rights if they think there is a good possibility that they will rise up with arms and resist.

This implies that the only means a person has of resisting government authority is armed resistance. It's completely ridiculous to assert that our current government would legislate any differently than it already does if no one had any guns.

Legal gun ownership is on the rise, yes? And at the same time, they seem to have been taking away rights recently. Thus gun ownership seems to have no correlation with maintaining Civil rights! I proved it!

[The Stig]

I thought the community thread was supposed to be friendlier and all. I mean, can't there be one thread in here that doesn't feature uptight people arguing in circles?

And Ubermensch -- Did you get to see any of the Executive Office Buildings (Old or New)?

[Der Übermensch]

No, those are boring. I could see Eisenhower from my dorm window last year. West Wing tour is only available if you know someone who works there pretty much 8-)

[Dr Hooch]

No, a gun is still as effective at doing what it does. A government that disarms it's citizens says that it doesn't trust it's citizens. It no longer is a government for the people, but a government to control the people.

and

It is a fact, the government is less likely to use force against it's own people and trample all over their rights if they think there is a good possibility that they will rise up with arms and resist. It is much easier to control an unarmed population than an armed one no matter how you cut it.

What does it take, though? If the government tried to take away your heaters, is that justification for you shooting at their officials? WOULD you ever open fire on an armed representative of your "democratically elected" government decided you couldn't have one anymore?

Also, do you believe that people should be able to buy Cluster bombs and helicopter gunships? It's just that if you ever actually chose to enjoy this right you imagine to take up arms against a government YOU deem oppressive, i don't think even with your .45 and your double barrel, that you would EVER be stupid enough to try it?

[The Stig]

No, those are boring. I could see Eisenhower from my dorm window last year. West Wing tour is only available if you know someone who works there pretty much 8-)

Eh; I used to visit them a lot when we lived near DC because my dad is Secret Service. I thought they were pretty neat (they had more electronic stuff than the White House, and that interested me). And I had never heard the Eisenhower building referred to as such until the fire a few weeks ago on TV. I was flipping through the channels, and I said to myself something like, "That looks like the Old Executive Office Building; wtf is the Eisenhower building." Then they said something like the Eisenhower Executive Building...Kind of weird to me.

Where do you go to school?

[siva_chair]

It's not the same thing. Guns are not banks. You're little "That's just like..." are completely irrelevant and fallacious. That was my point. Extremely shallow metaphors.

Bullshit. You are blaming the fact that criminals misuse and steal these things on legal gun owners and using that fact to justify banning them. It is bullshit. I never said banks are the same thing as guns or cars are the same thing as guns or anything like that. I am saying your ideas of regulations would be absurd if applying the same logic to other things.

Except the government does not disarm the people without the will of the people. Banning guns will only happen with public outcry and action. If our government disarms the portion of citizens who chose to be armed, it will be because those who are not armed lack trust.

I think you place way too much trust in the politicians and interest groups that control this country and dicatate policy.

White people didn't trust black people before and after the era of slavery. Does that give a justification for denying them rights? No. The right to own a gun is every bit as much of a right as freedom of speech or the right to freedom of religion. Repealing the 2nd Amendment would be an unforgivable crime. Just as much as repealing the 1st would be. You repeal the Bill of Rights, and you going against everything America was founded for.

And every single time someone protests anti-gun legislation with guns, the anti-gun people will say "See what we mean?"

That's why they don't protest them with guns. The 1st Amendment, however, is backed up by the 2nd.

I love the quotes, really. One many with a gun can control 100 only for so long. Lasting and meaningful change is not wrought from the barrel of a gun.

The point was that if you give the government the sole authority to possess arms, you are asking for enslavement. All your free speech in the world isn't going to stop a tyrant government who wishes to keep power.

This implies that the only means a person has of resisting government authority is armed resistance.

No, it doesn't. It implies that armed resistance is a very effective means, and the absolute means that people have.

It's completely ridiculous to assert that our current government would legislate any differently than it already does if no one had any guns.

You trust the power elite far more than I do.

History shows that disarming the people is one of the first steps that dictators do. The fact that you are willing to give up that safegaurd against tyrany is very disturbing.

Legal gun ownership is on the rise, yes? And at the same time, they seem to have been taking away rights recently.

Actually the past few years have been pretty good. With the expiration of the assault weapons ban and all. That will certainly change if the Democrats get the office, though.

As for the taking of our rights away, it is a disturbing trend. All the more reason people should arm themselves.

Thus gun ownership seems to have no correlation with maintaining Civil rights! I proved it!

Umm, no?

[siva_chair]

What does it take, though? If the government tried to take away your heaters, is that justification for you shooting at their officials? WOULD you ever open fire on an armed representative of your "democratically elected" government decided you couldn't have one anymore?

All it takes is enough armed people to be fed up with the way things are going.

I would say direct infringement on any of our Bill Of Rights is justification enough.

Also, do you believe that people should be able to buy Cluster bombs and helicopter gunships?

I really find it hard to imagine how anyone could use those responsibly. Bombs in general tend to be very hard to be used responsibly. Guns, on the otherhand....

It's just that if you ever actually chose to enjoy this right you imagine to take up arms against a government YOU deem oppressive, i don't think even with your .45 and your double barrel, that you would EVER be stupid enough to try it?

I would take up arms against my government if I felt that all diplomatic solutions had been exhausted and they were trampling on my rights. Like Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I have no problem dying for what my country was founded on.

[griftadan]

unfortunately for the armed rebellion thing to work it takes a large portion of the population to actually participate and an even larger majority of the population to be at least apathetic

[thedeadwalk!]

Unfortunately?

[Der Übermensch]

Only about 1/3 of the population supported the American Revolutin

[griftadan]

yeah and the rest were apathetic besides a few torries

Unfortunately?

if you're trying to over throw oppressive government as was the aim the second amendment yes

[Der Übermensch]

no, most #'s i have seen were about 1/3 pro, 1/3 who cares and 1/3 tory

[siva_chair]

unfortunately for the armed rebellion thing to work it takes a large portion of the population to actually participate and an even larger majority of the population to be at least apathetic

No doubt, but an armed population has a far better chance than an unarmed one.

Plus, outstanding things have been done with guerrilla warfare. Look at the odds Castro faced at one point in time. He managed to defeat a force that outnumbered him 15:1 and surpassed him technologically by probably decades. And this is just one example out of many in history.

[1338 h4x0r]

'mugwumps'

say it out loud

'mugwumps'

[griftadan]

that also brings up the point about violent revolution seldom creating free countries

no, most #'s i have seen were about 1/3 pro, 1/3 who cares and 1/3 tory

been reading up on sons of liberty propaganda, have you?!

[thedeadwalk!]

Wouldn't the American Revolution be considered to have been started by those in power rather than an armed populace? I don't think what was originally said was meant to apply to this kind of situation.

[griftadan]

not really

[griftadan]

and why is this not in the other perfectly good gun thread

[Der Übermensch]

I would hardly call it propoghanda... it's pretty accepted by most histortians that anywehre from 30-40 percent at least leaned towards loyalist sympathies.

[griftadan]

ehh that might as well mean apathetic

[siva_chair]

that also brings up the point about violent revolution seldom creating free countries

As much as I despise Castro's politics, I have to hand it to him when it comes to popular revolution and guerrilla tactics. The man knows how to take down a bigger army.

I can't wait to get my new toy.

[totah]

It takes a hundred years of violent struggle for a non-violent solution to become effective.

[big80smullet]

Guns are bad. They kill people. There should be as few of them as possible. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete dickpole

[siva_chair]

Guns are bad. They kill people. There should be as few of them as possible. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete dickpole

Well then I'm a dickpole with a gun.

I guess that makes you a dickpole without a gun.

[Mr. Ron]

Ok, you know how I was talking about those smiley face serial killers a while ago? Well, the kid that I knew that supposedly "fell in the river by accident", they found a smiley face spray painted on a tree next to the crime scene. :^/

[Der Übermensch]

ehh that might as well mean apathetic
Very few were active in trying to suppress the rebellion. Loyalist militias were small, and they almost never took independent action. They needed the morale support of the RedCoats.

Where do you go to school?
GWU

[BridgeToSolace]

Bullpoop. You are blaming the fact that criminals misuse and steal these things on legal gun owners and using that fact to justify banning them. It is bullpoop.

I'm stating that I don't give a **** about your right to own guns if it means that we have more illegal guns on the street.

I never said banks are the same thing as guns or cars are the same thing as guns or anything like that. I am saying your ideas of regulations would be absurd if applying the same logic to other things.

Of course they would. That's why I'm not applying the logic to them. Different things don't need to adhere to the same logic. An thus the whole banks/cars thing is completely irrelevant.

I think you place way too much trust in the politicians and interest groups that control this country and dicatate policy.

You're too cynical about these things. None of those groups have much power to do anything without constituency support. Although they have the money to sway public opinion with ads and such, I just don't trust the American people to know what's good for them. I do trust our system of checks and balances, however.

White people didn't trust black people before and after the era of slavery. Does that give a justification for denying them rights? No.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make with this, honestly.

The right to own a gun is every bit as much of a right as freedom of speech or the right to freedom of religion. Repealing the 2nd Amendment would be an unforgivable crime. Just as much as repealing the 1st would be. You repeal the Bill of Rights, and you going against everything America was founded for.


Repealing the 2nd amendment is no more or less a crime than getting rid of the clause in the constitution that made black people worth 3/5ths of a vote. Or the part that says that the state legislature elects the senate members. Or getting rid of prohibition. The constitution is a fluid document. If you later figure out that something is retarded, take it out.

Not that I'm saying the right to own guns is the same as institutionalized racism. Just that constitution it completely devoid of inherent merit. If we find out definitively that speech should have limitations, then we should get rid of the first amendment. And to some extent, we have.

That's why they don't protest them with guns. The 1st Amendment, however, is backed up by the 2nd.

Free speech and freedom of the press is the basis of any functioning democracy. An armed citizenship? Not so much. The government banning guns does not indicate that the government is afraid of its people. That's a blatantly retarded suggestion.

The point was that if you give the government the sole authority to possess arms, you are asking for enslavement.

Just like japan, amiright?

Although I guess very strict isn't the same as banishment.

History shows that disarming the people is one of the first steps that dictators do. The fact that you are willing to give up that safegaurd against tyrany is very disturbing.

Good thing we don't have a dictatorship, nor a system that facilitates one. Checks and balances rock! Tyranny is not even on my radar of concern.

All the more reason people should arm themselves.\

No...just...no. Preparing for plan B (although armed revolution is far lower on the list) completely undermines legitimate and peaceful solutions to perceived injustices.

Umm, no?

I was showing has awesome and valuable correlational relationships are.

I have no problem dying for what my country was founded on.

Dying with a gun in your hand is so much more worthless than dying without that gun.

The death of an aggressor is meaningless. The death of an innocent is a rallying cry.

[siva_chair]

I'm stating that I don't give a **** about your right to own guns if it means that we have more illegal guns on the street.

Look I can do that too: I don't give a **** about all black and Mexican people's rights if it means more thugs and criminals on the street killing people.

See how silly the line of reasoning is?

Just because you are afraid of guns, doesn't give you the right to deny them to responsible people.


Of course they would. That's why I'm not applying the logic to them. Different things don't need to adhere to the same logic. An thus the whole banks/cars thing is completely irrelevant.

No, it really isn't. Your line of logic is: X should be banned because X might be stolen and used for crime.

Fertilizers should be banned because someone my get ahold of some and make a big bomb out of it.

You're too cynical about these things.

No.

None of those groups have much power to do anything without constituency support. Although they have the money to sway public opinion with ads and such, I just don't trust the American people to know what's good for them. I do trust our system of checks and balances, however.

Hey guess what an armed population IS a check and balance.


I have no idea what point you're trying to make with this, honestly.

The point was that it isn't just to go and start banning human rights because you might be afraid of what some people will do with them.

Repealing the 2nd amendment is no more or less a crime than getting rid of the clause in the constitution that made black people worth 3/5ths of a vote. Or the part that says that the state legislature elects the senate members. Or getting rid of prohibition. The constitution is a fluid d0cument. If you later figure out that something is retarded, take it out.

Except the Bill of Rights is pretty much central. It was put there for a reason, and it would be a great crime to strip the civilians of their arms. Even your good buddy Ghandi said so:

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

Not that I'm saying the right to own guns is the same as institutionalized racism. Just that constitution it completely devoid of inherent merit. If we find out definitively that speech should have limitations, then we should get rid of the first amendment. And to some extent, we have.

I feel so very sorry for you.

Free speech and freedom of the press is the basis of any functioning democracy. An armed citizenship? Not so much. The government banning guns does not indicate that the government is afraid of its people. That's a blatantly retarded suggestion.

Bullshit. If a government disarms it's people it is because it doesn't trust them with said arms.

"Those who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations
on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people."---Aristotle

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."--JFK

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that...it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."---Thomas Jefferson

Just like japan, amiright?

Although I guess very strict isn't the same as banishment.

Look at Feudal Japan. Only the military class were allowed arms and the peasantry lived in misery.

Good thing we don't have a dictatorship, nor a system that facilitates one. Checks and balances rock! Tyranny is not even on my radar of concern.

You seem to keep forgeting that the right to arms is one of the checks and balances.

You trust those in power far too much for my tastes...

No...just...no. Preparing for plan B (although armed revolution is far lower on the list) completely undermines legitimate and peaceful solutions to perceived injustices.

Then you you will be enslaved if it ever comes to that.

The people of Germany in the earlier part of the 20th century probably never thought what happened to them would happen.

I was showing has awesome and valuable correlational relationships are.

Well you failed horribly.

Dying with a gun in your hand is so much more worthless than dying without that gun.

Umm no. One shows you stood up and fought, while the other shows you just died.

The death of an aggressor is meaningless. The death of an innocent is a rallying cry

And the death of a patriot is what popular revolutions are founded on.

You seem to be implying that everyone with a gun is an aggressor.

[Reaganista]

GWU
OMG will u still be there next year ??????????????????????

Just because you are afraid of guns, doesn't give you the right to deny them to responsible people.
responsible people doesnt include people who let their guns get stolen

[PerpetualBurn]

Ok, you know how I was talking about those smiley face serial killers a while ago? Well, the kid that I knew that supposedly "fell in the river by accident", they found a smiley face spray painted on a tree next to the crime scene. :^/

It pains me to link to this source, but after a quick google search it doesn't seem there's much behind this other than conspiracy and the love of a classic urban legend in the making.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353624,00.html

[siva_chair]

responsible people doesnt include people who let their guns get stolen

I would agree to a point. But saying that all thefts are the fault of the legal owner is like saying that all rape victims had it coming and invited it. Let's punish rape victims for being raped!

Oh wait wait we aren't the Saudis.....

[Reaganista]

some rape victims do have it coming though just sayin

[siva_chair]

some rape victims do have it coming though just sayin

Probably. Just like some gun owners probably have it coming to have their guns stolen or some banks/stores have it coming to get robbed. That doesn't mean we should ban banks and stores or slutty clothing.

[Reaganista]

we should tell banks and stores that are theftbait to stop doing that and encourage more women to be rapebait

[Dr Hooch]

just putting this here to discuss it, so don't bitch at me personally (although i'm not sure i can disagree really, however shitty the writing style)

**** THE TROOPS
A Beastly Opinion

By Ian Murphy
So, 4000 rubes are dead. Cry me the Tigris. Another 30,000 have been seriously wounded. Boo ****ing hoo. They got what they asked for—and cool robotic limbs, too.
Likely, just reading the above paragraph made you uncomfortable. But why?
The benevolence of America’s “troops” is sacrosanct. Questioning their rectitude simply isn’t done. It’s the forbidden zone. We may rail against this tragic war, but our soldiers are lauded by all as saints. Why? They volunteered to partake in this savage idiocy, and for this they deserve our utmost respect? I think not.
The nearly two-thirds of us who know this war is bullshit need to stop sucking off the troops. They get enough action raping female soldiers and sodomizing Iraqi detainees. The political left is intent on “supporting” the troops by bringing them home, which is a good thing. But after rightly denouncing the administration’s lies and condemning this awful war, relatively sensible pundits—like Keith Olbermann—turn around and lovingly praise the soldiers’ brave service to the country. Why?
What service are they providing? I don’t remember ordering 300,000 dead Iraqis—although I was doing a lot of heavy narcotics back in ‘03. Our soldiers are not providing a service to the country, they’re providing a service to a criminal administration and their oil company cronies. When a mafia don orders a hit, is the assassin absolved of personal responsibility when it’s carried out? Of course not. What if the hit man was fooled into service? We’d all say, “Tough ****, you dumb Guido,” then lock him up and throw away the key.
As a society, we need to discard our blind deference to military service. There’s nothing admirable about volunteering to murder people. There’s nothing admirable about being rooked by obvious propaganda. There’s nothing admirable about doing what you’re told if what you’re told to do is terrible.
We all learned recently that the Bush administration instituted its policy of global torture during quaint White House meetings. And we already know this war was started with lies. Shame on them. But what about the people who physically carry out these atrocities? We’ve seen bad apples punished and CEO despots walk free, but all verbal and written denouncement is focused on our leaders. Surely, they deserve that and more—decapitation, really. But why can’t we be critical of the people who have actually tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens? We deride private contractors like Blackwater for similar conduct—why are the troops blameless?
Take John McCain, or “McNasty,” as they called him in high school. While the conventional wisdom says that Obama gets a pass from the media, McCain is clearly the least scrutinized presidential candidate. He diddles lobbyists, sings about bombing Iran and doesn’t know Shiite from Shinola, yet he remains unscathed, cloaked in his Vietnam “hero” legend.
Again, what is heroic about involving one’s self in a foolish war, being a shitty pilot or getting tortured? Yeah, it must have sucked, but getting your *** kicked every day for five years doesn’t make you a hero—it makes you a Bad News Bear.
Here’s where America’s military lust becomes a true perversion. If we truly valued military prowess, John McCain would be viewed as a failure. But duty alone is enough to inspire our gratitude. Hence the left’s tendency to obligatorily praise the troops while decrying the sum of their actions. Good thing, too, because this war is unwinnable.
George Washington warned that the biggest threat to the young United States was in keeping and deploying standing armies. An overextended military is a drain on any nation—eventually it will break. It also pisses off the people your army is standing on. We’ll never heed this warning and break the cycle of violence, so long as military service is so reflexively praised.
People want to be respected. And in a country with an abysmal education system and disappearing economic opportunities, they seek respect wherever they can find it—as street corner toughs or as government-sanctioned thugs. It beats McDonald’s. But this kind of victim-of-circumstance-sympathy for the troops turns them into automatons, neither deserving of praise or damnation. Disregarding the Stop Loss back door draft travesty, they had a choice.
We’re a squeamish people; we eschew heated debates and, in principle, strive for political correctness when arguing with those who hold contrary views. The left does anyway; the right makes no such pretense. That’s one of the reasons liberals have taken such a beating in the last few decades.
As plainly stupid as religious belief or participating in immoral and illegal wars may be, the castrated left can only argue against these things by appealing to reason. In America, that fails every time. We respond best to partisan venom and ad hominem attacks.
The right has no problem painting their opponents as cowards or godless heathens, but liberals—instead of sticking to the merits of their arguments—fight those accusations by leaning right, praising god and guns, and pandering to the people who cling to them. The left has taken to appeasing bullies as their only course to victory. And that’s no victory at all.
Liberals need to start calling a moron a moron—and openly mocking that moron if his positions or actions are indefensible. Just as Limbaugh or Hannity insults the left, tilting the battlefield so liberals are left scrounging for their patriotic bona fides, the left must begin attacking stupidity whether in the form of religious nonsense, “free market” capitalism or military worship.
Instead of blowing the troops every chance we get, to prove our patriotism and insulate ourselves against attacks from the right, liberals should grow a pair and start dishing the damnation.
How despicable must a military campaign be before Americans turn on their beloved troops? After chiding the “War on Toddlers” as fool-headed and pointlessly barbaric, would Keith Olbermann still thank the troops for their service? After the “Great Grandmother Slaughter of 2010,” will the press remove the fat military **** from its mouth? Following “Operation Murder Fluffy Kittens,” will the left finally nix the “honored service” crap? No. No, they won’t.
Condemning the “troops”—a term coined during the Gulf War—is almost unthinkable. And it won’t win you any awards. “Troops” are a monolithic entity, a cohesive group of pride-inspiring order-takers. Whereas an individual soldier is accountable for his or her actions, the “troops” are too abstract to blame. For Americans, there are only bad apples, never bad orchards.
But what kind of world would we rather live in: one where fools are admired for being fooled and murderers are extolled for murdering, or one where we have the capacity to step back and say, “I don’t care who told you to do what and why; you’re still an asshole!” Personally, I’d rather live in a world where people who act like retards are treated like retards: executed in Texas.
Americans fear the truth. It’s the slipperiest slope of all. Once we start extending responsibility beyond those who gave orders to those who took them, it won’t be long before we’re blaming ourselves. And we can’t have that.
Well, guess what, kids? The Iraq debacle is a pointless bloodbath—and every time you applaud those who “bravely” fill that tub, you’re soaking in it.

[Hababi]

Yeah well Ian Murphy should only drown in a septic tank.

[Dr Hooch]

Yeah well Ian Murphy should only drown in a septic tank.

ffs care to elaborate

[Hababi]

So, 4000 rubes are dead. Cry me the Tigris. Another 30,000 have been seriously wounded. Boo ****ing hoo.


Yeah like I said, he should only drown in a septic tank.

[Mr. Ron]

It pains me to link to this source, but after a quick google search it doesn't seem there's much behind this other than conspiracy and the love of a classic urban legend in the making.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353624,00.html
Its always a possibility that they are not linked at all, and I hope they are not. I just think its rather odd that the symbol was found near the crimes scenes of a lot of them.


EDIT: To the above article about soldiers: I do agree that the near religious reverence of soldiers is a bit silly.

[PerpetualBurn]

The FBI don't think that they're even murders (bar one). They think the faces were staged. My guess would be by the two retired coppers looking for infamy who made these so called links

[Mr. Ron]

Could be.

[Der Übermensch]

OMG will u still be there next year ??????????????????????


Yeah

[spitfirejunky]

Yeah like I said, he should only drown in a septic tank.

I think you missed the point.

[Amit]

serenity is only proving that guy right :lol:

[Dr Hooch]

serenity is only proving that guy right :lol:

he's clearly a douche but i think he's a hero just for the widespread internet condemnation in which the whole of the conservative american blogosphere fails miserably to come up with a single counterpoint to something so poorly written =)

[BridgeToSolace]

Hey, I just realized that you're Dr. Hooch, and my avatar is Dr. Turk.

Scrubs = good times

[Hababi]

I think you missed the point.

tbh I don't care what the point was.

[Against Miik!]

Hey, I just realized that you're Dr. Hooch, and my avatar is Dr. Turk.

Scrubs = good times

Hooch is crazy

[dei]

tbh I don't care what the point was.

You really are a ****.

[Reaganista]

**** THE TROOPS
A Beastly Opinion

By Ian Murphy
So, 4000 rubes are dead. Cry me the Tigris. Another 30,000 have been seriously wounded. Boo ****ing hoo. They got what they asked for—and cool robotic limbs, too.
Likely, just reading the above paragraph made you uncomfortable. But why?
The benevolence of America’s “troops” is sacrosanct. Questioning their rectitude simply isn’t done. It’s the forbidden zone. We may rail against this tragic war, but our soldiers are lauded by all as saints. Why? They volunteered to partake in this savage idiocy, and for this they deserve our utmost respect? I think not.
The nearly two-thirds of us who know this war is bullshit need to stop sucking off the troops. They get enough action raping female soldiers and sodomizing Iraqi detainees. The political left is intent on “supporting” the troops by bringing them home, which is a good thing. But after rightly denouncing the administration’s lies and condemning this awful war, relatively sensible pundits—like Keith Olbermann—turn around and lovingly praise the soldiers’ brave service to the country. Why?
What service are they providing? I don’t remember ordering 300,000 dead Iraqis—although I was doing a lot of heavy narcotics back in ‘03. Our soldiers are not providing a service to the country, they’re providing a service to a criminal administration and their oil company cronies. When a mafia don orders a hit, is the assassin absolved of personal responsibility when it’s carried out? Of course not. What if the hit man was fooled into service? We’d all say, “Tough ****, you dumb Guido,” then lock him up and throw away the key.
As a society, we need to discard our blind deference to military service. There’s nothing admirable about volunteering to murder people. There’s nothing admirable about being rooked by obvious propaganda. There’s nothing admirable about doing what you’re told if what you’re told to do is terrible.
We all learned recently that the Bush administration instituted its policy of global torture during quaint White House meetings. And we already know this war was started with lies. Shame on them. But what about the people who physically carry out these atrocities? We’ve seen bad apples punished and CEO despots walk free, but all verbal and written denouncement is focused on our leaders. Surely, they deserve that and more—decapitation, really. But why can’t we be critical of the people who have actually tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens? We deride private contractors like Blackwater for similar conduct—why are the troops blameless?
Take John McCain, or “McNasty,” as they called him in high school. While the conventional wisdom says that Obama gets a pass from the media, McCain is clearly the least scrutinized presidential candidate. He diddles lobbyists, sings about bombing Iran and doesn’t know Shiite from Shinola, yet he remains unscathed, cloaked in his Vietnam “hero” legend.
Again, what is heroic about involving one’s self in a foolish war, being a shitty pilot or getting tortured? Yeah, it must have sucked, but getting your *** kicked every day for five years doesn’t make you a hero—it makes you a Bad News Bear.
Here’s where America’s military lust becomes a true perversion. If we truly valued military prowess, John McCain would be viewed as a failure. But duty alone is enough to inspire our gratitude. Hence the left’s tendency to obligatorily praise the troops while decrying the sum of their actions. Good thing, too, because this war is unwinnable.
George Washington warned that the biggest threat to the young United States was in keeping and deploying standing armies. An overextended military is a drain on any nation—eventually it will break. It also pisses off the people your army is standing on. We’ll never heed this warning and break the cycle of violence, so long as military service is so reflexively praised.
People want to be respected. And in a country with an abysmal education system and disappearing economic opportunities, they seek respect wherever they can find it—as street corner toughs or as government-sanctioned thugs. It beats McDonald’s. But this kind of victim-of-circumstance-sympathy for the troops turns them into automatons, neither deserving of praise or damnation. Disregarding the Stop Loss back door draft travesty, they had a choice.
We’re a squeamish people; we eschew heated debates and, in principle, strive for political correctness when arguing with those who hold contrary views. The left does anyway; the right makes no such pretense. That’s one of the reasons liberals have taken such a beating in the last few decades.
As plainly stupid as religious belief or participating in immoral and illegal wars may be, the castrated left can only argue against these things by appealing to reason. In America, that fails every time. We respond best to partisan venom and ad hominem attacks.
The right has no problem painting their opponents as cowards or godless heathens, but liberals—instead of sticking to the merits of their arguments—fight those accusations by leaning right, praising god and guns, and pandering to the people who cling to them. The left has taken to appeasing bullies as their only course to victory. And that’s no victory at all.
Liberals need to start calling a moron a moron—and openly mocking that moron if his positions or actions are indefensible. Just as Limbaugh or Hannity insults the left, tilting the battlefield so liberals are left scrounging for their patriotic bona fides, the left must begin attacking stupidity whether in the form of religious nonsense, “free market” capitalism or military worship.
Instead of blowing the troops every chance we get, to prove our patriotism and insulate ourselves against attacks from the right, liberals should grow a pair and start dishing the damnation.
How despicable must a military campaign be before Americans turn on their beloved troops? After chiding the “War on Toddlers” as fool-headed and pointlessly barbaric, would Keith Olbermann still thank the troops for their service? After the “Great Grandmother Slaughter of 2010,” will the press remove the fat military **** from its mouth? Following “Operation Murder Fluffy Kittens,” will the left finally nix the “honored service” crap? No. No, they won’t.
Condemning the “troops”—a term coined during the Gulf War—is almost unthinkable. And it won’t win you any awards. “Troops” are a monolithic entity, a cohesive group of pride-inspiring order-takers. Whereas an individual soldier is accountable for his or her actions, the “troops” are too abstract to blame. For Americans, there are only bad apples, never bad orchards.
But what kind of world would we rather live in: one where fools are admired for being fooled and murderers are extolled for murdering, or one where we have the capacity to step back and say, “I don’t care who told you to do what and why; you’re still an asshole!” Personally, I’d rather live in a world where people who act like retards are treated like retards: executed in Texas.
Americans fear the truth. It’s the slipperiest slope of all. Once we start extending responsibility beyond those who gave orders to those who took them, it won’t be long before we’re blaming ourselves. And we can’t have that.
Well, guess what, kids? The Iraq debacle is a pointless bloodbath—and every time you applaud those who “bravely” fill that tub, you’re soaking in it.
agree 100% only he doesnt go far enough i think the troops should all be turned over to the iraqis to stand trial for genocide

Yeah
holy ****

[Der Übermensch]

holy ****

O...?

[Mr. Ron]

I keep reading that article and agreeing that America indulges itself in near religious worship of patriotism and the military. Its quite funny.

[Reaganista]

O...?
awkward!!!!!!!!!

I keep reading that article and agreeing that America indulges itself in near religious worship of patriotism and the military. Its quite funny.
wats funny about thinking that

[Mr. Ron]

No, I think its funny that Americans pretty much worship the military.

[dei]

This is a serious problem, Mr. Ron. Quit laughing.

[Der Übermensch]

awkward!!!!!!!!!


Why...?

[Reaganista]

o im going to gw law is all

[Der Übermensch]

Cool. Next semester is going to be living hell here. ****ing election season to the max :-\

[Reaganista]

yah

[Der Übermensch]

You'd think living in DC would make me care more, but I really care less. Political stuff is just a nuisance that makes me have to take detours.
When the Pope visited the shut down Penn Ave and a bunch of my friends simply weren't able to get to their class...

[Reaganista]

also taxation without representation lol

[Der Übermensch]

I'm still legally a Maine resident, so that don't bother me

[totah]

Do people believe in peak oil now that rice prices have more than doubled, simply because the price of shipping has?

We have to make like Cuba during the Soviet collapse and turn our green green gardens into vegetable and fruit gardens. We gotta localise food production, otherwise we're buggered (especially those of us living in cities). Pretty much every stage of getting the food grown and delivered to my local supermarket involves oil (fertilisers, harvesting, shipping, plastic bags), and most of the supermarket price of basic food goes to the oil industry. Gotta start planting tomatos, since I can barely afford a kilo of them now.

[Dr Hooch]

Hey, I just realized that you're Dr. Hooch, and my avatar is Dr. Turk.

Scrubs = good times

NO

NOT THAT DOCTOR HOOCH

I hate scrubs and it is lame

[totah]

It's hilarious! Scrubs it to Greenwing what Family Guy is to South Park.

[Futue te Ipsum]

'cept scrubs is really good in comparison to green wing but family guy is really quite awful compared to south park

[Dr Hooch]

It's hilarious! Scrubs it to Greenwing what Family Guy is to South Park.

that one episode of srubs where all the characters do their little trope thing and JD LEARNS A LESSON is really good


wait that's every episode because THEY'RE ALL THE SAME

[Reaganista]

I'm still legally a Maine resident, so that don't bother me

oic

[Dave de Sylvia]

that one episode of srubs where all the characters do their little trope thing and JD LEARNS A LESSON is really good


wait that's every episode because THEY'RE ALL THE SAME
I know this is true yet I feel the need to argue. Scrubs rocks you ****ing monkey

[totah]

'cept scrubs is really good in comparison to green wing but family guy is really quite awful compared to south park

I wasn't comparing them. I was comparing the relationship between Scrubs-Greenwing to that of Family Guy-South Park. Scrubs relies mostly on randomised and flashback humour, much like Family Guy. Green Wing, on the other hand, takes most of its humour from clever plots and calculatingly-constructed (alliteration bonus!) jokes, much like South Park.

that one episode of srubs where all the characters do their little trope thing and JD LEARNS A LESSON is really good


wait that's every episode because THEY'RE ALL THE SAME

Doesn't mean they're not funny. John Le Carre has pretty much written the same book thirty times, except the character names and places change; doesn't mean it isn't good.

I know this is true yet I feel the need to argue. Scrubs rocks you ****ing monkey

Those lyrics sound like Johnny Hobo and the Freight Trains.

[Dr Hooch]

i wish i'd read more john le carre so i could say how awful it was but it appears you have me at an advantage

Suffice to say green wing is funny and family guy is not

[totah]

No that will not suffice. FG is funny, but comparing it to Green Wing is like comparing something quite slapsticky-funny to something clever-funny.

[stevensonmat2]

FG is funny in the sense that wal-mart is an excellent retail chain.

[ringworm]

just putting this here to discuss it, so don't bitch at me personally (although i'm not sure i can disagree really, however shitty the writing style)

i didnt see anything outrageous arguable or disagreable, even the style (well, maybe :)), some things just have to be said, too bad it isnt a more standard or mainstream thought being said by more people

[Dr Hooch]

I didn't expect that kind of response from you =)

[griftadan]

FG is funny in the sense that wal-mart is an excellent retail chain.

yes it is

[Dave de Sylvia]

FG is funny in the sense that wal-mart is an excellent retail chain.
Wal-mart is an excellent retail chain.

[Der Übermensch]

Wal-mart is an excellent retail chain.

From a technical standpoint. Their business practices and treatment of labor force is questionable at times

[dei]

yes it is

No it's not.

[descendents1]

Wow great analogies guys family guy sucks scrubs sucks i don't know what green wing is and south park is good

[McP3000]

family guy used to be good
scrubs was always bad
south park is where its at

[Aaron]

drawn together ftw

[Iskandar]

Wal-Mart is not an excellent retail chain from a technical point of view. They have practically nothing I want. They sell the low end of everything.

[guitrguy]

Even low end PS3s!?!?!?!

[Dr Hooch]

especially low end PS3s

[guitrguy]

Oh noes :eek:

I hate living in a small town. I have no real choice but to shop at Wal-mart. Even though I hate Wal-mart and what it stands for.

[Dave de Sylvia]

From a technical standpoint. Their business practices and treatment of labor force is questionable at times
I dunno, I don't think old people should be allowed to unionise either. And those gold vests are dapper.

[Mr. Ron]

Real men are hermits

[McP3000]

real men hunt bears and have beards

[guitrguy]

Vasily is half a man then.

[Mr. Ron]

real men hunt bears and have beards

123

[Der Übermensch]

real men hunt bears and have beards

Real men have beards with bears living in them for them to hunt at their leisure....

[guitrguy]

Real men have beards with bears living in them for them to hunt at their leisure....

123456789

[totah]

especially low end PS3s

It took me about five times re-reading that before I understood it.

real men hunt beards and have bears

Fix'd'd'd.

[Against Miik!]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3868063.ece

Sooo if you think we aren't going to strike Iran...

[guitrguy]

I'd be surprised if there wasn't a war plan. I can guarantee you that we have contingency war plans against other nations as well.

[Against Miik!]

Well these plans are being drawn up right now, and when you look at that next to some of the words people have been using recently, there is no reason to believe that this is nothing more than contingency plans.

[guitrguy]

Well these plans are being drawn up right now, and when you look at that next to some of the words people have been using recently, there is no reason to believe that this is nothing more than contingency plans.

Oh I know, but given the saber rattling from both sides its makes sense to at least get more specific with war plans. Not that I necessarily agree with it.

[BridgeToSolace]

I wasn't comparing them. I was comparing the relationship between Scrubs-Greenwing to that of Family Guy-South Park. Scrubs relies mostly on randomised and flashback humour, much like Family Guy.

You might as well just say "I don't watch scrubs."

Very shows are as consistently character oriented and considerate than Scrubs. There are a lot of intelligent lessons in scrubs, and a fair amount of dramatic elements. Family Guy can be funny, but is completely one dimensional. Scrubs has many dimensions.

I've never seen Green Wing, so I can't comment.

But I think we can all say from a hilarity perspective that Arrested Development is the funniest, best written show ever on television.

[PerpetualBurn]

There are a lot of intelligent lessons in scrubs

But not really.

But I think we can all say from a hilarity perspective that Arrested Development is the funniest, best written show ever on television.

It's close.

[BridgeToSolace]

But not really.

Except that there are. It's far beyond every comedy show but south park as far as lessons go.

It's close.

So what's number 1?

If you say Seinfeld, I'm going to hit you.

[PerpetualBurn]

I don't think I've ever seen Scrubs have a moral agenda more insightful than the ugly duckling. And the number of times I've watched an episode where they've almost made a stance on a religious argument, and then copped out to be inoffensive is sickening.

I do enjoy Scrubs but I dislike it's cheesy sentiments. They're nauseating, not intelligent.

And I wouldn't like to put a number one, my opinion drifts depending on what I've been watching most recently.

I've never been into Seinfeld though. Same with Frasier. I keep wondering when one of them is going to say something funny, but it never comes.

[BridgeToSolace]

I don't think I've ever seen Scrubs have a moral agenda more insightful than the ugly duckling.

I've seen every episode more than once, so I know. Lessons about maturity, intimate relationships, pride, protecting others, etc.

Like the episode when JD didn't want to sleep with Amy Smart because her husband was in a Coma. At the same time, his German patient's brother, who's translating for him, lies and says to his brother that he's going to be okay. In reality, the German patient is dying.

The connection...is it right for JD to protect tasty coma wife despite her wishes? Is it that different from the German man thinking he knows what's best for his brother?

C'mon, if that's as mind numbingly stupid as Family Guy, I'm a horse's tit.

There's a good bit of cheese, though, I admit.

And I wouldn't like to put a number one, my opinion drifts depending on what I've been watching most recently.

You just can't beat Arrested Development for the laughs-per-minute and the intensity of the laughter. I've never laughed so hard at a television show as I have at Gob and Tobias.

[PerpetualBurn]

I think those are rather basic moral problems presented and concluded in a very simplistic and obvious way. So no, I don't think that's very intelligent at all.

And yes, Arrested Development is amazing. But there's other shows that I love for how much I enjoy them. South Park, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Peep Show, and a few others.

[BridgeToSolace]

I think those are rather basic moral problems presented and concluded in a very simplistic and obvious way. So no, I don't think that's very intelligent at all.

You see not merit or intelligence in juxtaposition or alternate moral perspectives?

I guess we have different ideas of intelligent.

I mean, it's not Lost or Battlestar Galactica, but there's merit to scrubs outside of the laughs.

And yes, Arrested Development is amazing. But there's other shows that I love for how much I enjoy them. South Park, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Peep Show, and a few others.

South Park is hit or miss, recently. The AIDs episode was piss funny, and the internet one had some clever bits, but the others were kind of boring.

Curb didn't show enough promise in the first episode for me to want to keep watching >_>

And I've never heard of Peep Show. We don't get your silly British television shows in the states until we remake them without accents.

Except your stupid low-budget shitty sci-fi shows. We get those.

[PerpetualBurn]

Peep Show's not got any intelligent narrative really, but it makes me laugh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXLlhNsbncI

[BridgeToSolace]

It's alright.

The camera work is terrible, though. And I'm not a film nerd at all so it's just really noticeable. Looks like an amateur youtube video.

[1338 h4x0r]

you know what turned out to be a mother****ing disappointment?

The Root of All Evil

How is Lewis Black in this shitty program?

[PerpetualBurn]

I enjoy the camera work.

It probably makes more sense in the context of an episode. The constant shifting between character perspectives adds to the general surrealism of the constant internal monologues. And it adds to the awkwardness that's usually rife through the show.

[BridgeToSolace]

It probably makes more sense in the context of an episode. The constant shifting between character perspectives adds to the general surrealism of the constant internal monologues.

To me, it just screams "LOW BUDGET," which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it just kind of punches you in the face with the fact that they literally only need two people to shoot most of those scenes.

It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia is a better example of a low budget show done right, to me. It's a decent show with no budget that doesn't throw at you.

The Root of All Evil

How is Lewis Black in this poopty program?

Lewis Black used to be the ****, and then he realized that all had to do was yell about politics and people would pay him. I loved two of his early comedy specials that I saw, but he's gone down hill.

And yes, the show is complete ****. I love Patton Oswald, but the entire show idea is just stupid. They should bring back Colin Quinn's show, just with someone who isn't a complete washout.

A group of comedians hanging out and talking about current events? It's a great idea for casual viewing. Colin ****ed it up, though.

[PerpetualBurn]

To me, it just screams "LOW BUDGET," which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it just kind of punches you in the face with the fact that they literally only need two people to shoot most of those scenes.


I don't think that's a fair appraisal at all. I think it's down to the fact that the two main characters are also the writers, and thus it reflects their own quirky approach to comedy. Their sketch show didn't come across that way at all, though granted it wasn't very funny.

[1338 h4x0r]

A group of comedians hanging out and talking about current events? It's a great idea for casual viewing. Colin ****ed it up, though.

Dat Phan was funny **** on that show

[Dave de Sylvia]

I like Scrubs, and there are a couple of quite moving episodes (the Ben ones especially), but I could take or leave the constantlessons. It kind of reminds me of Sister, Sister or another one of those godawful Nickelodeon shows.

[BridgeToSolace]

Dat Phan was funny **** on that show

I HATE Dat Phan's stand up. Steve Byrne is a real asian comedian.

I like Scrubs, and there are a couple of quite moving episodes (the Ben ones especially), but I could take or leave the constantlessons.

The episode where Cox kills all those patients with the transplanted organs had be choked up. The following episode with the aftermath as well.

[guitrguy]

I like Scrubs, and there are a couple of quite moving episodes (the Ben ones especially), but I could take or leave the constantlessons. It kind of reminds me of Sister, Sister or another one of those godawful Nickelodeon shows.

Sister Sister was originally on public channels.

[Dave de Sylvia]

gtfo nerd

[Iskandar]

I only saw Arrested Development once and the episode incorporated some tired old Jew-joke (something about a yarmulke) and that made me hate it forever.

I also hate Scrubs, because it's trendy.

[guitrguy]

gtfo nerd

I can't help being American. :upset:

[McP3000]

American's aren't nerds

we're jocks


BRAH

[ringworm]

lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYOlCjyoUs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Pcgr68QFT8&feature=related

:)

[Akira]

So I just went to vote, at Indiana at least, a 17 year old can vote if he or she will be 18 before the general election day. We can vote for things like the national primary, governor, county council, etc. However, we can't vote for some things, in my opinion the most notable example being school board members.

Why in the world can't the people actually in school vote for the school board?

[Iskandar]

Ooh ooh did you vote for John McCain???

[Dr Hooch]

So I just went to vote, at Indiana at least, a 17 year old can vote if he or she will be 18 before the general election day. We can vote for things like the national primary, governor, county council, etc. However, we can't vote for some things, in my opinion the most notable example being school board members.

Why in the world can't the people actually in school vote for the school board?

you might vote for someone that represents your interests

this would not suit them

[BridgeToSolace]

Why in the world can't the people actually in school vote for the school board?

Because the school board and faculty loves not being accountable to students.

[Akira]

Ooh ooh did you vote for John McCain???

Totally.
If by John McCain you mean Barack Obama.

And yeah, it pisses me off that the school board isn't directly accountable to the people most directly affected by its actions.

Also, it's completely moronic that you can't cross ticket. I had to go Democrat to vote for Obama, but in Indiana there are very few Democrats who even bother running for office. Not to mention partisan politics are pretty meaningless on a state level. I mean, I don't care what party the county commissioners are if they are competent, and I wanted to vote for a teacher of mine, but he's a Republican.

And why the hell is coroner a partisan position? That's just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard.


/rant

[ringworm]

i voted today too, it looks like Obama will take NC so far

i wish they would hurry up with this year long circus and just decide, hello superdelegates

our system must look absurd

[Akira]

We need a one-day primary.

There is no legitimate reason to draw it out like this.

[Reaganista]

the point of dragging it out like this is to make it impossible for non establishment candidates to really compete due to lack of funds

[Against Miik!]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BkqEdlRDKfo

lol tway you are actually quite correct

[ringworm]

yeah, thats rep worthy tway

[BridgeToSolace]

And why the hell is coroner a partisan position? That's just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Why are people voting for coroner in the first place 0.o

[Iskandar]

i voted today too, it looks like Obama will take NC so farWho did you vote for?

[BridgeToSolace]

I can't believe half of Indiana voters said the Wright thing was important.

C'mon!

[dei]

Half of Indiana voters are morons.

Edit - No, all Indiana voters are morons. They live in Indiana!

[Dr Hooch]

Why are people voting for coroner in the first place 0.o

yeah, surely a degree in medical coronology is like

sufficient