Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/14/12 04:52 PM, Urban-Champion wrote:

At 12/14/12 04:39 PM, Timmy wrote: UrbanChampion, if you want to respond, PM me.

fucking done.

Why bother telling us, I'm sure he can see it we don't need it. He was 100% right you mention your controversial view. (The first time it was mentioned here) Then try to close it from further discussion.

That wasn't okay. You made the event something it doesn't need to be, political.

At 12/14/12 09:58 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: i believe in equal rights for all, especially women. men have trampled on women's rights for eons. they don't even care if you ask them about it today, sort of like how white people enslaved blacks

--supergandhi64

You mean you believe in equal rights, for everyone. Cause equal means equal and selecting a single group is not equal.

At 12/14/12 04:40 PM, Swag-in-a-Bag wrote: Worst ? I thought the V.Tech guy had -32 ? ANd whats up with all these shootings l8ly, are they sacred of 12.21.2012 or sum shiet ?

Too many people slip through the system and others are drugged with too much or the wrong kind of drug. Mental health in the country needs to be examined.

At 12/14/12 04:09 PM, Feoric wrote: So, how many kindergartners need to be killed to be in favor of the pro-gun control side?

Because the mental healthcare in America remains abysmal as people are drugged up or ignored and commit acts of violence.

It sounds like you want to control guns but allow violence to continue.

At 12/14/12 04:34 PM, MuyBurrito wrote:

At 12/14/12 04:29 PM, dogpup4 wrote: Is this real? If so... shit.

No.

Yet again, just like every single time there is a big media event, a 4chan user decided to doctor up a webpage to make it look as though the perpetrator was a member of Anonymous.

Doesn't matter, someone will pick up on it looking for a scapegoat.

Sorry this won't work too open to abuse. There are just too many ways this could be used to disarm the public.

At 12/14/12 04:29 PM, dogpup4 wrote: Is this real? If so... shit.

Crap now they will blame the internet...

At 12/14/12 02:28 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Also, ya'll heard about that school shooting in Utah?

I think a bomb might've killed less people than that. And all that done with only 4 guns.

A bomb could of done more easily. We really need to reexamine the state of mental health in this country.

At 12/14/12 12:08 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 12/13/12 09:53 PM, Ceratisa wrote: I thought that one was a given increased hygienic costs at least. There are plenty of lists that mention the increased cost for women serving. So thank you Lemon I didn't think it needed to be brought up but I guess it did.

Ah. Someone had mentioned it wasn't mentioned or something...

BTW, I meant to say "Not saying women SHOULDN'T serve"

I already understood that based on how you wrote your post. I'm sure others did too.

I'd personally love it if we were equal if women could serve in an equal manner.

Currently we'd need to raise the women standards to male ones. (They are currently much lower)

You were right we'd need to spend the extra money on hygienic concerns.

We'd probably need to form all female units, which would be hard considering attrition rates.
The raised standards would most likely mean they were undermanned.

And even with all of this they'd still be at increased risk because of their natural born physical differences. This is all so women who are pushing for it, most of which have no military experience can have other women serve in combat?

Still working on tetris..

Which is why he mentioned gun owners. Americans excel at both sides of many things.

At 12/13/12 10:00 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 12/13/12 09:36 PM, Revo357912 wrote:

At 12/13/12 04:46 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

sort of leveling the playing field.

sorry, but that might of been true in times of old, but now, I don't think it applies.

To level the playing field now in days every household in North America would have to have a Leopard2 Tank parked in there driveway LOL.

The Lep 2 is a four man tank. Giving everyone a RPG and training on home made bombs is much more realistic.

At 12/13/12 06:54 PM, ZJ wrote: I'd rather have this one:

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/OGRE-BATTLE-64-VERY-RARE-NINTENDO-N64 -Game-/290830314329?pt=Video_Games_Games&hash=item43b6d66b59

Oh my god I loved Ogre Battle
Emulator is possible.. of course be the legal owner of a copy..

The government isn't watching you.

At 12/13/12 06:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 12/13/12 06:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote: No, so bring it up.

What is the cost and logistics of tampons or maxi pads...I'm unsure, but it's just something I've always thought about. There's millions of women in the armed forces. That's a lot of tampons, and a lot of money...

Not saying women should serve, just wondering what kind of impact that has....

I thought that one was a given increased hygienic costs at least. There are plenty of lists that mention the increased cost for women serving. So thank you Lemon I didn't think it needed to be brought up but I guess it did.

Didn't we cover this while talking about the possibility to harness the Earth's rotational energy?

At 12/13/12 12:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/13/12 10:59 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Another stolen gun used to commit crime. Stricter gun laws don't stop people from using stolen weapons though, do they?

Actually, in this case it would have.

Unlike when Mason and TDG use the stolen gun argument, this gun was owned legally in the US. Had the guy's buddy not owned the gun, the shooter would not have been able to steal it the way he did.

Per ORS chapter 166 all non-shot guns classified as lesser than a machine gun are legal in Oregon. The definition of machine gun is any gun that fires more than one round with just one depression of the trigger. Based on the description by witnesses and the statement by the Sheriff's office the AR-15 used was semi-automatic and thus legal, unless Roberts' friend was disqualified for some reason.

The stolen weapon argument only applies to smuggled guns, whether they be smuggled from a state with loose laws or from a different country.

Are you suggesting that gun laws should limit semi automatic weapons? Because that is most weapons including ones people use for self protection.

In addition how would stricter gun laws help prevent this when someone legally obtains a weapon and it is stolen by someone else to commit a crime?

Well you see affirmative action also effects women. And hiring quotas are a thing..

At 12/13/12 12:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/13/12 10:00 AM, Ceratisa wrote: No one reads..

You included.

Who else is making the effort to back up their statements, you?

Since I live nearby and it's topical I thought i'd post this
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/12/justice/oregon-mall-shooting/i ndex.html
Another stolen gun used to commit crime. Stricter gun laws don't stop people from using stolen weapons though, do they?

At 12/13/12 02:58 AM, tsukikomi wrote: There shouldn't be a problem they should fit requirements like everyone else.

No one reads..

Good based solely on your post that would have been a terrible precedent.

Don't read the text? Why play RPGs?

At 12/12/12 09:39 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/11/12 08:50 PM, Feoric wrote: The conversation would probably be more meaningful if you didn't feel the need to always put yourself up against the evil liberal agenda. Y'know, empty platitudes and all that.

who ever said the liberal agenda was evil? I was merely pointing out what usually happens in these forums when you make mention of something the libs don't like, like pointing out union violence.

Only been here on the forums a few days, even I noticed a couple circle jerks.
Nothing wrong with you pointing it out imho.

At 12/12/12 04:08 AM, YomToxic wrote: You put a woman who's lost her children to the enemy on the field, and give her the means to punish the enemy.

That is how wars are won. Through appalling savagery.

Your ignorance is outstanding.

At 12/12/12 01:05 AM, Jeffyx wrote: I'm already used to the new design. I don't know why everybody is so butthurt about it, it's not that different than the old one.

Nope pretty different esp popular videos and related ones...

At 12/12/12 12:16 AM, Cootie wrote:

At 12/12/12 12:09 AM, DarkMatter wrote:
Hostess can't pocket pension because they don't give it, THE UNION is what handles that. Ironic how its all coming full circle for you.

http://www.politicususa.com/betrayal-remedy-hostess-pensions -fund-bankruptcy.html

Wow that is some bias crap you linked... Looking at some of the articles.

Niko, but my favorite GT was GTA 2

At 12/11/12 08:37 PM, NuclearWarfare wrote:

At 12/11/12 07:55 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 12/11/12 07:49 PM, NuclearWarfare wrote: Most definitely. Women are people too.

Which has nothing to do with serving in combat roles..

If they can pass boot camp, shouldn't they should be allowed to serve in combat?

Sure but only if they are brought up to male standards. (They are currently not obviously) Read the article a bit further up, written by a woman who served.

At 12/11/12 08:23 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 12/11/12 08:20 PM, Ceratisa wrote: ...Faux NEWZ, this is such a non story or something.. I dunno... I can't pretend to have that mindset.

I don't know, a large protest having some small violence start to happen, especially antagonistic towards security at the area, is kind of a big deal.

Am I WOOOOOSHING or are you WOOOOOOSHING? damn you internet and your inability to display non written communcation.