Interesting
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Ask them people to wait while he fetches his gun from the car?
That's called "the art of the deal".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
They are tools that are exclusively designed for murder on a large scale, unlike knives, ropes and cars.
They are not designed to "murder". Admittedly, they are designed to kill, as were knives, and clubs (we now call them bats).
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The right to self-defense does not mean that you need to be able to buy submargines and jet-fighters.
Anybody (in the US) can own either of those things. Of course, you have to have the necessary funds and be trained to actually use them... Paul Allen (Microsoft) has his own Mig-29 Fulcrum.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Like nuclear missiles
Why do liberals always resort to reductio ad absurdum when trying to win a gun control argument?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
more dangerous than those bogeymen that you claim are out to get you
You honestly think the government can be trusted, even after it has repeatedly displayed no propensity for honesty? Enjoy your time in the gulag.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
They are not designed to "murder". Admittedly, they are designed to kill, as were knives, and clubs (we now call them bats).
You'll find knives in any kitchen; that's a far cry from a modern semi-automatic rifle.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Anybody (in the US) can own either of those things
You still don't see how rediculous it sounds? A jet for "self defense"?
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Why do liberals always resort to reductio ad absurdum when trying to win a gun control argument?
I'm not pulling it into the rediculous, your argument is. A semi-automatic weapon is not for self-defense, not for hunting, and will not protect you from the army. Yet you insist on having your toys about, despite the danger it creates. And no, I am not a "liberal"; not in the modern American sense of the word, nor in the previous European sense of the word.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
You honestly think the government can be trusted, even after it has repeatedly displayed no propensity for honesty? Enjoy your time in the gulag.
Who claims I trust any government? You seriously think your petty little rifle is going to help you when an army of trained US-mercenaries come? :D
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
They are tools that are exclusively designed for murder on a large scale, unlike knives, ropes and cars.
They are not designed to "murder". Admittedly, they are designed to kill, as were knives, and clubs (we now call them bats).
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The right to self-defense does not mean that you need to be able to buy submargines and jet-fighters.
Anybody (in the US) can own either of those things. Of course, you have to have the necessary funds and be trained to actually use them... Paul Allen (Microsoft) has his own Mig-29 Fulcrum.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Like nuclear missiles
Why do liberals always resort to reductio ad absurdum when trying to win a gun control argument?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
more dangerous than those bogeymen that you claim are out to get you
You honestly think the government can be trusted, even after it has repeatedly displayed no propensity for honesty? Enjoy your time in the gulag.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Why do liberals always resort to reductio ad absurdum when trying to win a gun control argument?
Because you're a homophobic racist? :-\
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Freedom doesn't mean the absence of things you don't like. Dave
-
I don't call it negotiation. I call it a pause for effect.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Why do liberals always resort to reductio ad absurdum when trying to win a gun control argument?
Because you're a homophobic racist? :-\
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Freedom doesn't mean the absence of things you don't like. Dave
DRHuff wrote:
Because you're a homophobic racist?
No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :)
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
I think this proves that gun control is the solution for overpopulation. :-\
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
In Texas, "gun control" is hitting what you aim at.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
So you're accusing Mike of being a liberal? :rolleyes:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
The liberal label was being applied to StableGenius
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
In Texas, "gun control" is hitting what you aim at.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
I don't call it negotiation. I call it a pause for effect.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Your effect is showing in the statistics, and measured in "children killed". And you try and justify those consequences by jammering about "God given rights". People talking about fictional characters should be a incentive to not give them guns :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
The liberal label was being applied to StableGenius
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Well that's odd. "Playing the race card" usually means claiming that something is racist. I only saw one person doing that in this thread. :laugh:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
The liberal label was being applied to StableGenius
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013A gun grabbing leftist liberal to be more precise. Not sure if there is a clearer association with certain parts. Castration fears are always associated with a strong Oedipus complex btw. What that does mean for a certain psychological type, I leave it to the enlightened highly educated rightists to sort out.
throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.
-
-
When I leave the house, I always have a pistol in the car - even when I go to car shows. The pistol is in a holster, and is in contition-1 status (cocked and locked, with one in the pipe, and the thumb safety is on) unless I'm cleaning it. I like 1911's because I feel they're safer than Glocks (Glocks don't have a thumb safety, and aren't heavy enough to beat your opponent to death if you run out of ammo). I ain't Rambo, and don't pretend to be, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
They are tools that are exclusively designed for murder on a large scale, unlike knives, ropes and cars. There are no maurauding bands of pirates you need to fend of, and hence, you don't need cannons. The right to self-defense does not mean that you need to be able to buy submargines and jet-fighters. Like nuclear missiles - you don't need them, and you having those weapons is creating a risc. You're not allowed to take those things on a plane, because the introduction of the tool is more dangerous than those bogeymen that you claim are out to get you. Grow up.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
you don't need them
So what exactly does one "need"? Does one "need" three different game systems and hundreds of games? Does one "need' a horse? Does one "need" a dog? (Just noting that about 28 people a year are killed by those.) Thing about the US Constitution is that a fundamental right, above all other in the amendments, is the right to pursue happiness. So people get to do things that are stupid just because they want to.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Normal people don't need a gun like that.
Just curious what exactly do "normal people" need?
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
you don't need them
So what exactly does one "need"? Does one "need" three different game systems and hundreds of games? Does one "need' a horse? Does one "need" a dog? (Just noting that about 28 people a year are killed by those.) Thing about the US Constitution is that a fundamental right, above all other in the amendments, is the right to pursue happiness. So people get to do things that are stupid just because they want to.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Murder-weapons are part of your persuit of happyness?
Your loaded characterization does not alter what I said - pursuit of happiness.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
In that case, simpy stop whining about the deaths by shooting each year; just a choice you guys take for you own happyness.
That does not follow. Living on a beach that is sure to be hit by a hurricane is pursuit of happiness but it doesn't preclude people from feeling sorrow when the house is lost. Watching cars whiz around a track 500 times is pursuit of happiness but it doesn't preclude sorrow when someone dies. And, as I already mentioned, owning a dog is something that many people specifically refer to making them happy but it doesn't preclude sorrow and shock when even mild manner dogs manage to maim or kill someone.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Education, obviously.
So is there a great deal of hunger in the Netherlands? That would explain the "need" to hunt in with a gun in the Netherlands? Or a great deal of "targets" running amok so the population "needs" to defend itself from those? Just asking because the Netherlands allows gun ownership for both of those so I am curious what "need" those fulfill?
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Education, obviously.
So is there a great deal of hunger in the Netherlands? That would explain the "need" to hunt in with a gun in the Netherlands? Or a great deal of "targets" running amok so the population "needs" to defend itself from those? Just asking because the Netherlands allows gun ownership for both of those so I am curious what "need" those fulfill?
jschell wrote:
Just asking because the Netherlands allows gun ownership for both of those so I am curious what "need" those fulfill?
The Netherlands does not allow assault rifles. Hunting is only allowed in certain area's for restricted periods, and there certainly is NO need to hunt with a gun here. Besides what is and isn't allowed, there's also a difference in what is generally available.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Murder-weapons are part of your persuit of happyness?
Your loaded characterization does not alter what I said - pursuit of happiness.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
In that case, simpy stop whining about the deaths by shooting each year; just a choice you guys take for you own happyness.
That does not follow. Living on a beach that is sure to be hit by a hurricane is pursuit of happiness but it doesn't preclude people from feeling sorrow when the house is lost. Watching cars whiz around a track 500 times is pursuit of happiness but it doesn't preclude sorrow when someone dies. And, as I already mentioned, owning a dog is something that many people specifically refer to making them happy but it doesn't preclude sorrow and shock when even mild manner dogs manage to maim or kill someone.
jschell wrote:
Your loaded characterization does not alter what I said - pursuit of happiness.
How does a weapon, strictly to end others' life, give you happiness?
jschell wrote:
Living on a beach
Your gun is not a natural cause.
jschell wrote:
And, as I already mentioned, owning a dog is something that many people specifically refer to making them happy but it doesn't preclude sorrow and shock when even mild manner dogs manage to maim or kill someone.
Is that your defense? "People can own deadly rocks, so don't take my automatic rifle that makes me happy"?? You're allowed to; but you're not allowed to whine about the consequences. Enjoy your choice :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
