DC Handgun Ban
-
digital man wrote:
What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
Primarily to protect us from tyranical gov't, or from invaders such as the Britsh were 200 years ago.
Technically, the British didn't "invade" us. They were already here and the colonials were trying to push them out. Now, if you want to talk 1812, we can use the word "invaded" - because the British invaded us, and we tried to invade Canada...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Also, the 2nd amendment does not restrict the types of arms you may keep/bear.
I take a bunch of Stingers then. I am living near the Airport, and sometimes the sound starts to annoy me. Oh, and do they still need the USS Iowa?
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"Non sequitur and straw man. learn to think and discuss properly.
-
Technically, the British didn't "invade" us. They were already here and the colonials were trying to push them out. Now, if you want to talk 1812, we can use the word "invaded" - because the British invaded us, and we tried to invade Canada...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001damn facts getting in the way. ;P ;P :laugh: i was "generalizing", but I think you get my drift. :-D anywho, I think you and I are of the same opinion concerning gun-rights, basically.
-
A simple outsider's view (based on my own arrogant assumptions) is that things that seemed a good idea 230 years ago may not be a good idea today. I'm still astounded that the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire. Why does anyone in a civilised society need to buy weapons that are designed specifically to kill as many people as possible in a short space of time? Those of you who don't buy those weapons should surely be concerned about those who do.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
cp9876 wrote:
A simple outsider's view (based on my own arrogant assumptions) is that things that seemed a good idea 230 years ago may not be a good idea today.
Having legal access to weapons or not iS one thing but what we can take pride in is the fact that in our sosiety very few people feel the need to be armed for personal protection.
-
jhwurmbach wrote:
--Edit: Completely reversed the meaning of my text. I got the doses wrong.--
I was about to call you an idiot, but I see that you changed it. :laugh:
jhwurmbach wrote:
Anyway, happy horror trip!
As long as I am listening to music, and posting in the soapbox, the trip cant go wrong. I have done close to 1gram in one night, and I didn't loose my head.
The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.
-
Member 2593477 wrote:
Aren't you against everyone elses right to believe what they want?
Aren't you an ignorant, lying ass?
-
Unlocked and unarmed... everybody here is. So?
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
Sounds like a lovely place - mind you 1 murder and you'll blow your per capita stats all to hell. I do love living in a country where offensive weapons are banned.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I don't think it's a law of nature that everyone can own a gun
It certainly *is* a law of nature that one can defend oneself, even if it means killing the attacker. A gun is a necessary implement of defense in a modern society. Therefore, owning a gun for self-defense *is* indeed a natural right.
You and I must define a 'law of nature' very differently. Everyone wants to defend themselves. The reason it isn't a right is because 'rights' are a completely man-made thing. Nature doesn't care about rights. It cares about survival. Prey doesn't have the right to survive any more than the predator does. One just does.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
- Being just 13 and largely unaware of even your immediate surroundings, your opinions and statements in this conversation are severely discounted. 2) Living in Europe, it's understandable that you don't have the same outlook on life as Americans do, so once again, your opinions and statements in this conversation are severely discounted. 3) Just so you know, it was your government's actions that inspired the creation of the Bill of Rights. Since this indicates that you would have a dramatic conflict of interest in *anything* we do over here, your opinions and statements in this conversation are severely discounted. 4) Technically speaking, "we" didn't "give" anyone guns. "We" have the right to own them if we so choose. Your statement not only indicates a severe lack of understanding of historical events as well as society in this country as a whole, but a lack of respect for the United States in particular, so your opinions and statements in this conversation are severely discounted. 5) There's not one thing I'm embarrassed about regarding my country's origins. Just because some Europeans don't agree with our constitution or understand why it exists doesn't mean it's invalid.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001- Oh yeah, what would I know? What's the point in even arguing with me, if you can just discredit me based simply on my age? 2) Living in Australia, I laugh at your idiocy. 3) Living in Australia, I laugh at your idiocy...again. Anyway, what did I do, sign the Bill of Rights? I can see how then it would be a conflict of interest. 4) All right, I concede: you gave them the right and the means to easily obtain guns, and you continually support it. And since you gave the murderers the means to easily murder your family, you now must fight fire with fire. Fire and paranoia. 5) I understand why it exists, and I even support most of it. Hell, Australia doesn't have freedom of speech privacy and whatnot. But I do think that giving everyone the means to easily murder everyone else is a little excessive.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
jparken wrote:
So, if my "weapon of choice" is a bozooka, that's OK to keep and bear?
If you shoot it responsibly, sure, why not? I know none of the local shooting ranges will allow you to use it. You'll probably have to drive at least 100 miles from the city before you can find a place.
jparken wrote:
Does "common sense" come in to play anywhere in your distorted gun-toting hands?
I wouldn't say my hands are "distorted". I have some rifles and a few hand guns. Two of the four rifles I own are .22's (one bolt-action, and the other a lever-action) used for target practice because the Winchester .30-30 (a lever-action) is too expensive to shoot on a week-to-week basis. The fourth rifle is also a .22 (another bolt-action) that I let guests shoot when I go to the range. Notice that none of the rifles are semi-auto or considered "assault rifles". The pistols are both 9mm - one belongs to my wife, and one belongs to me. My wife has a CCL because she is often going (unescorted) to parts unknown to meet people unknown in the interest of volunteering for our dog rescue group. There's no telling what might happen while she's out and about, and was eager to get a CCL for self defense. I got my CCL to keep her company in the CCL class, and while I don't often carry, there are times when I have a gun in my car. Now, I'm a licensed experienced gun owner, and I have what I would call a less-then-exhaustive collection of firearms. How is that in any fucking way considered to be "distorted"?
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Now, I'm a licensed experienced gun owner, and I have what I would call a less-then-exhaustive collection of firearms. How is that in any fucking way considered to be "distorted"?
Nothing. You would have the right to own and use this arms even here in Germany. Despite the uninformed ramblings of the pseudo-arab here in the forum. You would need to become member of a gunnery club (available in all flavours from uniformed drinking society to serious sports), and you would need to buy a weapons safe. Thats about all.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" -
Rob Graham wrote:
Psst... You're an idiot.
Nawww. He's just a little baby. Throw him back and wait until he's old enough to fry up.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
:suss: Fuck you.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
:suss: Fuck you.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Fuck you.
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth, child?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Umm...yes. You started it.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Umm...yes. You started it.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
According to early reports, it appears as if the DC handgun ban will be struck down as being unconstitutional. If true, this will be a substantial victory for all patriots. For the uninitiated, the 2nd amendment does not *grant* the right to keep/bear arms, it says that the right shall not be infringed, meaning the right already existed as a natural right and thus cannot be taken away. Also, the 2nd amendment does not restrict the types of arms you may keep/bear.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Also, the 2nd amendment does not restrict the types of arms you may keep/bear.
Do you think I can keep a nuclear bomb as a personal weapon? :-D
-
- Oh yeah, what would I know? What's the point in even arguing with me, if you can just discredit me based simply on my age? 2) Living in Australia, I laugh at your idiocy. 3) Living in Australia, I laugh at your idiocy...again. Anyway, what did I do, sign the Bill of Rights? I can see how then it would be a conflict of interest. 4) All right, I concede: you gave them the right and the means to easily obtain guns, and you continually support it. And since you gave the murderers the means to easily murder your family, you now must fight fire with fire. Fire and paranoia. 5) I understand why it exists, and I even support most of it. Hell, Australia doesn't have freedom of speech privacy and whatnot. But I do think that giving everyone the means to easily murder everyone else is a little excessive.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
- Living in Australia, I laugh at your idiocy. 3) Living in Australia, I laugh at your idiocy...again. Anyway, what did I do, sign the Bill of Rights? I can see how then it would be a conflict of interest.
Hey! It's very similar to Austria which is in Europe.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
- Living in Australia, I laugh at your idiocy. 3) Living in Australia, I laugh at your idiocy...again. Anyway, what did I do, sign the Bill of Rights? I can see how then it would be a conflict of interest.
Hey! It's very similar to Austria which is in Europe.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
Yeah, but he was being annoying.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
