Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

the world is the world, and its all fucked up. there isnt much you can do about it

At 2/13/04 02:08 AM, Stuporman wrote: I would actually feel safer if everyone walking around was armed with something as opposed to everyone not being armed with anything, because once that single asshole with a weapon comes along everyone else is going to be shit out of luck. This of course is only how >>> I <<< personally feel about the matter.

Agreed. And then there's the fact that if the majority of the population decides to rebel, what will they use to fight? Harsh language?

Not that I see a second revolutionary war in America any time soon, but it's something to chew on.

We don't need a revolution now, but someday we might. The individuals who started this country made a loose constitution to last. All govenments eventually become dictatorships. When that happens it is time for revolution.

At 2/13/04 02:54 AM, Vowl wrote: We don't need a revolution now, but someday we might. The individuals who started this country made a loose constitution to last. All govenments eventually become dictatorships. When that happens it is time for revolution.

And if there are no guns? Sure, they could be smuggled in. Weapons would (are) be smuggled in anyway, regardless of the legality of firearms. It would be naive to assume otherwise.

At 2/13/04 02:54 AM, Vowl wrote: We don't need a revolution now, but someday we might. The individuals who started this country made a loose constitution to last. All govenments eventually become dictatorships. When that happens it is time for revolution.

You believe in loose gun control purely because you think one day, you might want to shoot your government?

God, is this still going on (in a brickwall manner)?

Put it down to this basic question:

"As Americans, we have the right to bear arms." Why?

What is it that makes it so damn necessary to have a gun? Because it's in some outdated town charter? In case you get invaded - despite the fact a GLOC has little or no chance of shooting down a nuclear missile (9/11 showed how powerless the Second Ammendment is, surely?). Because it'll piss off the Liberal scumbags? It makes you look, like, big and hard when you carry a gun?

If you break it down to the basics you can use a gun for (legally) - Home Protection and Hunting.

How many Americans actually hunt for food these days? Yes, some hunt, FOR SPORT, but how does that benefit anything other than bloodlust? You have food pre-packaged for you in supermarkets so you don't have to go and shoot something to eat for a week, due to this idea of "evolution." Maybe in the Frontier times a gun was still required, but then mass production came along, and it's significantly less relevant.

As for home protection. Right - can we have a show of hands of everyone who's been burgled in the last year? Now, can we also see hands of people who have had a friend or relative burgled in the last year? Or any other crime that would necessitate having a gun on the premesis?

Just put thedamn guns down for a change. You don't need themas anything other than a status symbol, so don't act otherwise.

i dont if anyone said this or not but here it goes-
"guns dont kill people, people kill people."

Much of the time people argue without statistics.

I'm not saying that we, as citizens, shouldn't have the right to protect ourselves and family. However, statistics show that the numbers of deaths in the US from guns is far greater than any other country. This can also be related to the fact that when people in the US turn on their news shows, they're being pumped full of fear. Murders, homicide, death etc. If you live there you have an obligation to feel like you must protect your family. In Canada, the news doesn't cover violent gang shootings and massacres. When the citizens of Ontario turn on the Television they watch things that pertain to their community. That doesn't mean they don't hear about death and violence, but compared to the US, it is far less.

This is a point expressed by Mr. Moore's documentary Bowling For Columbine. In a society that is so overprotective because it is being pumped full of fear by the media, how else do you expect people to act?

At 2/13/04 02:40 PM, groundtarget wrote: This is a point expressed by Mr. Moore's documentary Bowling For Columbine.

Shouldn't of brought up Michael Moore. Now everyone is going to just talk about how he's an asshole or whatever, how Bowling for Columbine was not a real documentary, etc., etc., etc.

At 2/13/04 02:22 PM, shotheman wrote: i dont if anyone said this or not but here it goes-
"guns dont kill people, people kill people."

Yes, but an oppertunist killing without a gun is hard.

Shouldn't of brought up Michael Moore. Now everyone is going to just talk about how he's an asshole or whatever, how Bowling for Columbine was not a real documentary, etc., etc., etc.

I don't fear their ignorance. I don't think Bowling For Columbine was Moore's best work, but it did raise some interesting arguments.

At 2/13/04 05:47 PM, groundtarget wrote: I don't fear their ignorance.

You will learn to... Trust me.

At 2/13/04 06:17 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 2/13/04 05:47 PM, groundtarget wrote: I don't fear their ignorance.

You will learn to... Trust me.

That would be good advice for a newbie, but after posting on the BBS for a while on a previous account, I've learned that much of the time the political forum is nothing but pointless debate. That would not be so bad if the debates were actually on the topics of the threads themselves, but the posters just jump at the first thing they believe is irrational and waste two or three pages going off topic about it. :P

At 2/13/04 06:30 PM, groundtarget wrote: but the posters just jump at the first thing they believe is irrational and waste two or three pages going off topic about it. :P

Like just now?

At 2/13/04 06:34 PM, -redskunk- wrote:

At 2/13/04 06:30 PM, groundtarget wrote: but the posters just jump at the first thing they believe is irrational and waste two or three pages going off topic about it. :P

Like just now?

yes but this didn't last 3 pages did it? :)

At 2/13/04 06:59 PM, groundtarget wrote: yes but this didn't last 3 pages did it? :)

Not yet...

At 2/13/04 06:30 PM, groundtarget wrote: I've learned that much of the time the political forum is nothing but pointless debate.

And your posting in here because.....?

At 2/13/04 08:23 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/13/04 06:30 PM, groundtarget wrote: I've learned that much of the time the political forum is nothing but pointless debate.

And your posting in here because.....?

Well I said most of the time. Not all. In this case I'm just trying to give my opinion on the topic at hand.

At 2/11/04 01:36 AM, SchiesterSpear wrote:

:We need to teach people to be responsible with their guns, have some sort of required test or class designed for people who have never owned a gun before to ensure they know how to use it correctly.

The N.R.A. sponsors said training courses, the problem is they are not required in order for someone to legally own a firerarm.

At 2/11/04 07:30 AM, Stuporman wrote: This is one such thing that is illegal in the state of New York. Why...because you can choke or hit people with it? You can strangle someone with a shoelace or bludgeon them with a wrench just as easily; are those going to be illegalized also?

Anything can be used as a weapon anymore. If people want to hurt someone they will find something. Example: Japan. After swords were outlawed, it was considered o.k. to carry tools of the field around, like the rice threshing fork (now known as a Sai). The nightstick that some cops carry is modeled after a tool used in the process of grinding wheat.

At 2/11/04 01:36 AM, SchiesterSpear wrote:

:We need to teach people to be responsible with their guns, have some sort of required test or class designed for people who have never owned a gun before to ensure they know how to use it correctly.

The N.R.A. sponsors said training courses, the problem is they are not required in order for someone to legally own a firerarm.

At 2/11/04 07:30 AM, Stuporman wrote: This is one such thing that is illegal in the state of New York. Why...because you can choke or hit people with it? You can strangle someone with a shoelace or bludgeon them with a wrench just as easily; are those going to be illegalized also?

Anything can be used as a weapon anymore. If people want to hurt someone they will find something. Example: Japan. After swords were outlawed, it was considered o.k. to carry tools of the field around, like the rice threshing fork (now known as a Sai). The nightstick that cops carry is modeled after a tool used in the process of grinding wheat. Kendo sticks and Wooden katanas were considered o.k. because they weren't sharp enough to injure someone, just raise welts.

Oh, if anybody's wondering why I didn't mention nun-chuks, it's because those are an invention of the 20th century movie industry.

oh fuck! I double posted.

oh double fuck, I tripple posted. I knew something bad would happen to me today, being friday 13th and all.

At 2/8/04 02:32 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: c) Your home has been burgled in the middle of the night, by a guy with a gun, who then proceeds to attack or threaten you or your family?

Yes.

d) Have you ever fired a gun

Yes, .44 Magnum, .38 Special, .22, 410, 20 Gauge, 12 Gauge, 10 Gauge, M16, AK-47, 30-30, .30-06, .357 Magnum, Glock 9mm, Army Issue 45

e) Do you own a firearm?

Yes. Browning 2000 Automatic Gas Operated Shotgun (12 Gauge), Remington 12 Gauge pump, .30-06 Springfield, Remington 700 Bolt Action, 30-30 Winchester.

f) Has your firearm (if you have one) ever came in useful in protecting the security of you or an immediate member of your family/close friend?

Yes.

At 2/13/04 09:08 PM, 70TA wrote:

At 2/8/04 02:32 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: c) Your home has been burgled in the middle of the night, by a guy with a gun, who then proceeds to attack or threaten you or your family?

Yes.

When was this? Did you have enough time to grab your gun, and shoot him? What exactly happened?

f) Has your firearm (if you have one) ever came in useful in protecting the security of you or an immediate member of your family/close friend?

Yes.

Put simply, how?

The N.R.A. sponsors said training courses, the problem is they are not required in order for someone to legally own a firerarm.

What is legally required for someone to own a firearm?

Anything can be used as a weapon anymore. If people want to hurt someone they will find something.

A commonly used argument. Sure if someone wants to hurt/kill someone bad, we can't really stop them, short of pre-emtive powers [Read: Minority Report].

WHowever, if no-one has guns, it stops or slows oppertunist killing. If i'm pissedd off at someone and I have a gun, things could get nasty. If i'm pissed off at someone and i have two fists, there might be a fight, which isn't a HUGE deal.

At 2/14/04 03:08 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: A commonly used argument. Sure if someone wants to hurt/kill someone bad, we can't really stop them, short of pre-emtive powers [Read: Minority Report].

But EVEN THAT wasn't fool-proof. Why Tom Cruise, why???

At 2/14/04 03:08 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: What is legally required for someone to own a firearm?

In the U.S.? You have to be at least 21, never been convicted of a felony, and you have to a firearm owners license. And from what I understand, there's a shitload of paperwork and fees to get a license.

Anything can be used as a weapon anymore. If people want to hurt someone they will find something.

A commonly used argument. Sure if someone wants to hurt/kill someone bad, we can't really stop them, short of pre-emtive powers [Read: Minority Report].

Commonly used, yet true. I don't believe that violence is in Human Nature, I believe it is taught. This is why you never see the sheltered little fundamentalist Christian kids going around shooting people, they just don't know they can do that.

WHowever, if no-one has guns, it stops or slows oppertunist killing. If i'm pissedd off at someone and I have a gun, things could get nasty. If i'm pissed off at someone and i have two fists, there might be a fight, which isn't a HUGE deal.

And during the course of a fist fight, what would happen if someone brandishs a gun? Everyone he/she's pissed at is FUCKED.

At 2/14/04 10:26 AM, Stuporman wrote: The nightstick comes from the tonfa, which was the handle used to turn the millstone (for grinding, like you said). Nunchaku have a similar history; they weren't invented in the 20th century.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. But I had been told the nunchaku was 20th century invention, so I guess we're at an impass on that one.

Wasn't it supposedly a rice flail?

At 2/14/04 03:30 PM, Proteas wrote: Commonly used, yet true. I don't believe that violence is in Human Nature, I believe it is taught. This is why you never see the sheltered little fundamentalist Christian kids going around shooting people, they just don't know they can do that.

Nah. you see the funddamentalist christian children harassing AIDS victims, but that isn't the point.

And during the course of a fist fight, what would happen if someone brandishs a gun? Everyone he/she's pissed at is FUCKED.

Exactly. The gun might be legally owned. Dont forget, before they commit a crime, nobody is a criminal. YOu can get a gun if you want to comitt a crime, just haven't done your first one yet.

At 2/14/04 03:32 PM, Proteas wrote: Wasn't it supposedly a rice flail?

Yep. Just about all weapons in martial arts were derived from some sort of tool. Even the bo.

History Lesson