Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Nothing about it is good, hence there is no reason to make it legal (i.e. to encourage further use of it)

But it makes them feel good and chill man... If it feels good do it. Right?

Don't even argue with people who bring up how armed security hasn't stopped mass shootings from being what they became. It is a logical fallacy.

Armed security sometimes present with some mass shootings, they still happened, so armed security must not work.

But the real issue is we simply don't know how many times a mass shootings never became a mass shooting because of security.

We don't call these events "attempted mass shootings" We usually just hear about how much ammo and crap the guy had before he got caught. Or how someone was stopped after opening fire on someone else. Nor do we know how often mass shootings haven't occurred because of the presence of armed security personnel.

If we use the word war instead of invasion can't people get back to the actual debate on it?

At 1/28/13 11:41 AM, DickChick wrote:

At 1/28/13 11:29 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Pot has more carcinogens, how is it less harmful?

Being drunk impairs coordination and judgement more than being high does. I'd never argue that marijuana is healthy or better than alcohol, but it's immediate effects are certainly not worse.

That isn't even a case for pot, it is a case against alcohol.

And no, you can't draw the comparison without reaching.

In short that guns were a fancy way to throw away $14,000, whereas even a horiffically underpaid, overstrecthed, and ineffective counselor, still would have a good chance of helping at least one student sometime or another.

Unlikely, 40k students for 1 person who would see them for less then a couple minutes.

Another tidbit I find quite ironic about this is that those who seem to support this waste of $14K are also those who complain about government throwing away money...

How is it being thrown away? Just because you feel it is wasteful you keep saying it is.

You are ignoring the point Mason was making. It isn't strictly because of race.

At 1/27/13 11:24 PM, DickChick wrote:

At 1/27/13 06:36 PM, Ceratisa wrote: That isn't a fair debate, it doesn't matter if those reasons should be valid today.

Of course it does. I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. I understand why alcohol is more socially acceptable than marijuana, but that doesn't mean that alcohol is "better" than cannabis.

Cannabis is the most popular recreational drug in the world behind alcohol and nicotine. At this point it's as well established as either of those drugs and possibly less harmful.

Pot has more carcinogens, how is it less harmful?

No one said it was better or worse. The difference is social acceptance, the rest of your post was a comparison to alcohol which can't be made until both are made legal and we see just how differently they are treated when they endanger others.

To be fair power armor is supposed to make you a tank. You can still die with it on for balance reasons... But as stated before basic jutsu would prove effective. Ninja tools including explosive tags would prove highly effective as well.

Earth, Lightning and Fire styles in particular would be highly effective against PA.

Eh wish I had more posts, should have joined sooner..

At 1/28/13 07:59 AM, Ononymous wrote:

At 1/28/13 02:23 AM, Ceratisa wrote:

What is the harm in letting it remain illegal?

The massive burden on an already over-crowded prison system from arresting non-violent drug users.

Don't mention cost because changing policies is expensive too.

Lolno.

Recreational use of drugs, really?

OH NO, SOMEONE IS DOING SOMETHING I DON'T LIKE, QUICK, LEGISLATE TO PROTECT MUH FEELINGS

Don't like weed, don't do it.

Fair enough?

Not really when it effects me. My life has already been changed because of others abuse of pot

Btw saying lolno doesn't make policy changes any cheaper.

And non violent indeed? Other then the fact that irritability, and paranoia are side effects that make some react in violent ways when using marijuana? Not to mention when they are coming down. I wish people who got high could just destroy their own lives instead of effecting others. I wouldn't care at all then, but they do and you can't argue that unless you are being dishonest.

And with the push to further restrict tobacco why would we be pushing to legalize another drug that has been proven to have some higher levels of some of the carcinogens find in a cigarette?

At 1/27/13 08:30 PM, Fim wrote:

At 1/27/13 04:23 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: what the NRA is getting at is Obama gets protection from the SS (Secret Service) armed for the rest of his life, while he he restricts gun ownership to regular citizens which would hamper their own ability to. The NRA is tryng to point out how is that fair?

1. Obama's getting exactly the same treatment that every republican/democrat president has got, it's not because he's better than anyone else, or because he's a hypocrite, its the obvious fact that he is an influential, high profile figure of power with very unique security needs. It's completely justifiable considering the world we live in of violent racists and active terrorism. As I've also stated, there have been 4 assassination attempts on his life already. Its a completely moot point that he has security.

So wait, who says his secrurity needs don't exist? It seems to me people are simply stating we all have security needs.

Iportant than yours?" the advert should really have just phrased it "Are the presiden't kids more likely to be attacked than yours?" Because there is a big difference.

No the president's children are not more likely to be attacked then the average citizen. It is called the secret service. Ever hear about child abduction stats? Now look at past president's child abduction stat.

2. There isn't even armed security at the school where his kids go to. The security follow them around where ever they are, and if they aren't in school then the building is not protected.

It is called the secret service, you don't need the school to be armed when you have personal body guards.

3. To answer what you said "while he restricts gun ownership to regular citizens", I don't know where you got that idea from. As far as I can tell, he's implementing very timid measures that are long overdue, these measures still make it very feasible for someone to defend themselves and their family. And who seriously thinks they need to walk around with an assault weapon for self defense anyway?

Can you define assault weapon? Can you actually describe the difference between semi automatic and automatic? Do you know the difference between a clip and a mag? Assault weapons are classified as assault weapons entirely by looks.

4. The reasons why the NRA have made the ad this way is completely transparent and childish, they are pushing their own political agenda against Obama, they call him "An Elitist hypocrite" because they themselves can not answer the hard questions on gun policy.

What hard questions? Historically there has been no connection to decreased gun violence with tighter gun control.

- Reasons why the NRA's idea is absolutely fucking terrible and stupid -

Frankly, it is a desperate, bad idea.

There are roughly 100,000 schools in America, and to arm every single one with security, who would all require extensive background checks, equipment, training, benefits, wages and pensions, would be enormously expensive. In the current financial climate this would be money down the drain that we don't have.

Have you ever heard of police officers? A lot of schools have them already, you see most people have local police and can have an officer come in for part of his shirt.

More importantly though, it is an often ignored fact by the NRA that out of the 60+ mass shootings that have happened over the past 30 years, none of them have ever been stopped by armed security. The armed security at Columbine and Virginia Tech proved incapable of stopping those mass shooting. In fact shooting rampages have rarely if ever been stopped this way.*

More importantly you are clearly incapable of analyzing the crap you just spewed. Of course secruity officers haven't stopped X many mass shootings, cause they happened. What you don't fucking know is how many times a shooter has been stopped from committing a mass shooting. (Cause you can't fucking tell if the situation resolves itself before a mass shooting)

The NRA are deluded, and they haven't thought the problem out well enough, it would no doubt be a terribly expensive and unpopular decision with the majority of Americans.*

Unpopular? Really cause the majority of Americans support the NRA.

*sic *sic

Wait, I'm confused what is Warforger's definition of invasion? Occupation?

At 1/28/13 12:19 AM, Light wrote:

At 1/27/13 06:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/27/13 06:03 PM, DickChick wrote: Are you saying that a drug's social acceptance should have a bearing on whether or not it's legal?

No, I'm merely saying that no one has really put forward enough to make a good case to change the status quo.

Do you think marijuana users should still be incarcerated for using the drug?

What's the harm in legalizing it?

What is the harm in letting it remain illegal? Don't mention cost because changing policies is expensive too.

Recreational use of drugs, really?

At 1/27/13 06:31 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 1/27/13 06:28 PM, Ceratisa wrote: TO be fair any cross country comparison isn't really a legitimate example. The US has particularly unique social and economic differences compared to other countries.

Not any different that Canada and Europe and Australia other than the fact that the US is even more in cahoots with the wrong people and more debt and in even more trouble.

Actually the US has amazingly different social aspects involved in it. To even attempt a comparison would force us to evaluate the fact that most gun crime is committed by black men. And their socioeconomic status being very different then groups in the countries you mention. If we removed them from the equation firearm related deaths and injuries would plummet.

At 1/27/13 07:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/27/13 06:24 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Well actually fighters traditional goal is to protect bombers from other fighters.

That sentence actually proves itself wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft

No it doesn't, establishing your superiority of the sky is a defensive measure It ensures the safety of ground strike capable aircraft, as well as defending your side from theirs. You don't have capitals to capture, factories to destroy or bridges to blow in the air.

I'm sorry dick, you can't actually debate the points I made if you choose to ignore the very points I made by dismissing the entirely valid facts I laid out.

If ancient rise of civilization, sanitary water intake, religious themes, and the difference in how long they have been used. By ignoring those facts, you ignore everything I said that contributes to alcohol being socially more acceptable then pot.

That isn't a fair debate, it doesn't matter if those reasons should be valid today. I laid out the facts on why it matters regardless of personal feelings on either side.

Should=/=Is

TO be fair any cross country comparison isn't really a legitimate example. The US has particularly unique social and economic differences compared to other countries.

Military aircraft (Well, what we're talking about anyone) are almost exclusively offensive in nature. When they escort, they are for seeking out and exterminating threats. Armed security is more defensive.

Well actually fighters traditional goal is to protect bombers from other fighters.

At 1/26/13 11:43 PM, Feoric wrote: I want a military aircraft escort the next time I fly coach. After all, it's my right to protect myself. Who knows if my plane will be hijacked?

Well to do what? Blow up your plane anyway? Not like they can use their special terrorist seeking missiles. Those clearly running low from all the drone strikes.

Umm Feoric, China shoots people trying to cross into its border.

At 1/26/13 10:45 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 1/26/13 10:35 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

Cheese sandwich is also unmoral due to the fact that the milk extracted from the cow to make the cheese was under extreme duress.

..They like it.. It hurts if you don't milk them...

They use mechanical milkers in a cage and the puss starts to build up on the utters and then it goes into the milk supply. The Government allows a certain amount of Puss to be present in the milk even after pasteurization.

Already know about that stuff. I'm talking about old cow milking. Are you a vegan? or are you just trying to be deliberately obtuse? You never address the actual talking points. You are dismissive and flippant.

Cheese sandwich is also unmoral due to the fact that the milk extracted from the cow to make the cheese was under extreme duress.

..They like it.. It hurts if you don't milk them...

Van Buren (Fallout 3)

At 1/26/13 08:56 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: No I think you shouldn't want a gun because it's a fucking self-defecation neanderthal tendancy that modern society should strive to destroy.

Neanderthal was actually more peaceful..

At 1/26/13 11:26 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/26/13 11:16 AM, LemonCrush wrote: So even though Obama is following Bush's policies EXACTLY,

On a quick look, his policies are actually quite different So explain how they're exactly the same.

Bush was pretty left for his party. If you deny that you don't know the facts or are ill informed.

At 1/26/13 02:24 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/26/13 02:14 PM, Feoric wrote: Everyone wants rhetoric, nobody wants war. This should be extremely obvious since we're talking about North Korea.

Well, they're run by an egotistical nutbar. Egotistical nutbars that run countries have a tendency to not think about consequences of war or their actions in general. War is nothing to them, because they think they are some sort of unbeatable power.

Kim Jong-Il was certifiably insane, and I wouldn't be surprised if the attitudes carried over into his successor.

It isn't that his attitude carries over imho, as much as he has even more to prove being the new leader. He could take drastic steps to cement himself into the position.

At 1/26/13 06:14 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 1/26/13 06:11 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 1/26/13 06:03 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: You shouldn't want to have a gun.

Why?

Sociopaths are behind the avocation of gun ownership and rights. That's why.

Sociopaths are behind it, but not in the way you are suggesting.

I find it odd how you use bigot though, can you explain to me how just because people are debating an issue passionately there is bigotry.
That the side who doesn't want to lose something is bigoted and the side that desires to take is not? Or how about that the side who does not actually understand guns is the one who is acting on their ignorant prejudice to push their agenda. Isn't that actually closer to the definition of bigot?

Please answer the question. Is demanding someone lose something based on prejudice and ignorance closer to the definition of the word you use so often or not?

At 1/26/13 02:26 AM, Feoric wrote: My high school had 1 cop (who was awesome) and 2-3 security guards on the premise every day. Is this uncommon? I was under the assumption that this was the norm throughout the country, but it must have just been from living in a yuppie Connecticut town.

Zero cops or security guards through my education. The area I attended K-12 was upper class and probably saw no need for it.

However go downtown and the schools at least seem to have a guy at the door.

At 1/26/13 06:03 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: You shouldn't want to have a gun.

Why?

Actually, legally, killing in self defense IS murder. It merely falls under the category of justifiable murder and thus carries no liability.

Actually you are talking out of your ASS again

1. the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/murder

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder

1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/murder

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder

Self Defense =/= Murder

See murder is unlawful. That is why we have trials to determine if people acted in self defense or not.