Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/14/09 04:49 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

Yes, it most certainly can.

Try throwing that into America today.

I dare you.

We're working on it.
However, I envision a global revolution.

We're working on it.
However, I envision a global revolution.

Well, you tell me when you fix all the little chinks.

At 7/14/09 05:02 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:

Though i agree we should respect our police officers more. The police station every few blocks may not work as well as it does in japan. this is being due to urban sprawl being rampant. Though it may work in densely populated cities like Chicago and New York.

i think it would work well in the inner cities... not so much the suburbs.

At 7/14/09 05:09 PM, Kev-o wrote: We're working on it.
However, I envision a global revolution.

a sudden, uncentralized, enlightened and fully united revolution, right?

At 7/14/09 08:28 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 7/14/09 05:09 PM, Kev-o wrote: We're working on it.
However, I envision a global revolution.

a sudden, uncentralized, enlightened and fully united revolution, right?

Who said it would be sudden?

At 7/14/09 02:31 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 7/13/09 05:04 PM, tiskewl wrote:

(Giving citizens guns actually cuts down on crime due to threat against criminals.)

I'm not so sure about that. How would a criminal know you own a gun? Could you get in time if you were being robbed? Assuming you could, are you a faster or better shot then he or she is? And, a weapon for home defense, let's just say a Ruger, is 46 times more likely to kill or wound a member of your household than it is to kill or wound an assailant. Children are also likely to find and misuse them, since a weapon for home defense would, in all likelihood, be kept within easy reach such as in a dresser drawer, as opposed to being safely put in a weapons locker. All in all, while a gun may give a sense of security, a home security system is a much better investment if your aim is to ward off criminals. Especially since a gun couldn't call a fire department, the police, or an ambulance if that's what the emergency calls for.

Its not that the criminal instantly knows you have a gun. It is that there is a higher potential risk for having a gun, so it works as a deterant to criminals. The thing is that they DON'T know who has a gun so everyone has the potential to have on.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Therefore, we shouldn't exactly give them an easier way to do so. If there was more gun control, there would be less crime. Giving people guns increases crime that therefore leads people to "need" guns. For god's sake, GET A DOG. Criminals say over and over that even a little dog is a huge deterrent. Adopt a pit bull, they're awesome if raised well

/animal help plug

Liberals by definition are more easy-going than conservatives and conservatives by definition being more willing to attack people will criticize liberals for this very reason and they think they're also fairly easy to attack.

At 7/15/09 09:40 AM, Shinzura wrote: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Therefore, we shouldn't exactly give them an easier way to do so. If there was more gun control, there would be less crime. Giving people guns increases crime that therefore leads people to "need" guns. For god's sake, GET A DOG. Criminals say over and over that even a little dog is a huge deterrent. Adopt a pit bull, they're awesome if raised well

/animal help plug

If you are going to murder someone would you really be afraid to illegaly own a gun? Taking guns from people is only taking guns from law abiding citizens. If there are dangerous criminals a gun ban won't stop them. Read between the lines not just what Obama tells you.

At 7/15/09 09:40 AM, Shinzura wrote: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Therefore, we shouldn't exactly give them an easier way to do so. If there was more gun control, there would be less crime. Giving people guns increases crime that therefore leads people to "need" guns. For god's sake, GET A DOG. Criminals say over and over that even a little dog is a huge deterrent. Adopt a pit bull, they're awesome if raised well

/animal help plug

Gun bans only take guns from law abiding citizens. Criminals won't be detered if they are illegaly owning a gun when braking the law. Read between the lines.

At 7/15/09 06:27 AM, tiskewl wrote:

At 7/14/09 02:31 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 7/13/09 05:04 PM, tiskewl wrote:

Its not that the criminal instantly knows you have a gun. It is that there is a higher potential risk for having a gun, so it works as a deterant to criminals. The thing is that they DON'T know who has a gun so everyone has the potential to have on.

They probably also know that said gun is 46 times more likely to kill a member of your household. And let's face it; someone who's willing to break into someone elses home isn't thinking logically, and probably won't think "Hey, what if they have a gun?". Besides all the other things I listed, such as what is the chance of you getting to your gun.
I personally think having a sign in your yard that says "This home is protected by Brinks Home Security" is a better criminal deterent than banking on the fact that the criminal might wonder whether you have a gun or not. And if said criminal thinks you could have a gun, won't he or she be more likely to break in armed themselves?

well to be honest you guys bashed us first. example a lot of conservative's are called names such as palin and her daughter. or saying that john Mcain was to old for the job and saying that he was going to die. yet no one's complaing now that he's in the office with Obama. aslo look at the health of johns mother. also another one: right wing nut jobs, crazy conservatives, etc. it just leads back to the golden rule:treat how you would like to be treated... or something like that.

At 7/15/09 01:37 PM, tiskewl wrote:

At 7/15/09 09:40 AM, Shinzura wrote: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Therefore, we shouldn't exactly give them an easier way to do so. If there was more gun control, there would be less crime. Giving people guns increases crime that therefore leads people to "need" guns. For god's sake, GET A DOG. Criminals say over and over that even a little dog is a huge deterrent. Adopt a pit bull, they're awesome if raised well

/animal help plug

Gun bans only take guns from law abiding citizens. Criminals won't be detered if they are illegaly owning a gun when braking the law. Read between the lines.

I'm talking about the clueless parents who leave guns unlocked in their homes to 'protect themselves,' but end up, in a crime of passion, using a completely legal gun for domestic violence. That, and the kids who pick up the gun because it's 'cool' or something stupid and wind up hurting themselves and, more importantly, innocent bystanders.

At 7/15/09 01:37 PM, tiskewl wrote: Gun bans only take guns from law abiding citizens. Criminals won't be detered if they are illegaly owning a gun when braking the law. Read between the lines.

Statistics of other developed nations who have implemented gun laws and at least restricted their access to the general public have had positive results. With less guns in circulation, less people fire them.

A proposed law that could take care of this would imprision any civilian caught with a firearm (that is not a police officer) for years.

It is relatively hard to fight a battle against statistics my friend.

At 7/6/07 08:46 PM, mooselad wrote: Im sort of a liberal but what i dont understand is why conservitives think liberals hate America, They say we hate it because we want to end the war, in fact we want to see as many soldiers come back alive as posible and not die in a pointless political war, but you know we arent the ignorant ones.

Oh, well, that's the beauty of politics in general. You can look at any country and at any point in time and you'll see animosity between political parties and their supporters. Hell, here's a few points of rivalry gone of over the top

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr-Hamilt on_duel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sum ner#Antebellum_career_and_attack_by_Pres ton_Brooks

What varies is how much they were willing to let it get in the way of governance. Americans let this go to the max and both sides are guilty of it. The wonders of two-party systems.

At 7/16/09 04:47 PM, drDAK wrote:

At 7/15/09 01:37 PM, tiskewl wrote: Gun bans only take guns from law abiding citizens. Criminals won't be detered if they are illegaly owning a gun when braking the law. Read between the lines.

Statistics of other developed nations who have implemented gun laws and at least restricted their access to the general public have had positive results. With less guns in circulation, less people fire them.

A proposed law that could take care of this would imprision any civilian caught with a firearm (that is not a police officer) for years.

It is relatively hard to fight a battle against statistics my friend.

You mean like the ones that you are fighting by ignoring the fact that regardless of in other nations, statistics for America show lower crime rates in areas with less gun restriction. Base American plans off American results smart one!

Right... Clearly we need to loosen gun control... It's not like allowing handguns in bars or something like that could EVER backfire.

Look at this:

http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/article.p hp?id=2312

Or, if it's TLDR for some reason:

Two-thirds of murders and three-fifths of suicides are committed with guns. 80 percent of the guns used to murder are handguns.

One study cited by Robert J. Spitzer in "The Politics of Gun Control" found that with a 10 percent drop in gun ownership there was an accompanying 5 percent drop in gun robbery and a 4 percent drop in robbery murder. With decreased availability of guns, the rate of violent crime went down.

I don't know because I can! lol you don't have to be conservative to dislike liberals now. I am mostly an anarcho-capitalist and I still hate their mostly underminding of good ideas for some reason.

At 7/16/09 06:47 PM, Shinzura wrote: Two-thirds of murders and three-fifths of suicides are committed with guns. 80 percent of the guns used to murder are handguns.

One study cited by Robert J. Spitzer in "The Politics of Gun Control" found that with a 10 percent drop in gun ownership there was an accompanying 5 percent drop in gun robbery and a 4 percent drop in robbery murder. With decreased availability of guns, the rate of violent crime went down.

and where was this study taken? Becuase the effects of gun control could be different for different area's of the country. i personally don't believe gun control nation wide would be helpful and i believe strongly in the second amendment.

At 7/16/09 07:52 PM, Masterzakk wrote: I don't know because I can! lol you don't have to be conservative to dislike liberals now. I am mostly an anarcho-capitalist and I still hate their mostly underminding of good ideas for some reason.

'Anarcho'-capitalism isn't anarchism, sorry.

At 7/16/09 09:25 PM, Kev-o wrote: 'Anarcho'-capitalism isn't anarchism, sorry.

Seeing as believe having a state is a big problem for a capitalistic society that and what your really are against is monopoly in which only states can create monopolies so they can ban other companies from forming a business. I can't see where communism is anarchistic. Maybe socialism but no chance in hell communism.

At 7/16/09 09:28 PM, Masterzakk wrote:

At 7/16/09 09:25 PM, Kev-o wrote: 'Anarcho'-capitalism isn't anarchism, sorry.

Seeing as believe having a state is a big problem for a capitalistic society that and what your really are against is monopoly in which only states can create monopolies so they can ban other companies from forming a business. I can't see where communism is anarchistic. Maybe socialism but no chance in hell communism.

No, what I am against is this mythical idea of a "free-market". I'm also against property, and the concept of wealth in general.

Communism is by definition, a stateless, classless society. And communism is socialism.
Capitalism can't exist without the state,

At 7/16/09 09:34 PM, Kev-o wrote: No, what I am against is this mythical idea of a "free-market". I'm also against property, and the concept of wealth in general.

I don't see the idea of that being a bad idea. I do agree that wealth is quite useless though.

Communism is by definition, a stateless, classless society. And communism is socialism.
Capitalism can't exist without the state,

What about Stalin? Also yes it can.

At 7/16/09 09:40 PM, Masterzakk wrote:
I don't see the idea of that being a bad idea. I do agree that wealth is quite useless though.

What makes it a bad idea is that a capitalist economy is unsustainable, let alone a form that has absolutely no regulation, and no police to keep the classes from killing each other. I don't know about you, but I kind of like not dying from lead poisoning, or getting murdered by a private company.
Also, if you're an 'anarcho'-capitalist, how could you possibly find wealth useless?

What about Stalin? Also yes it can.

The acts of Stalin really have nothing to do with communist ideas.

I posted this earlier, and I believe it puts my views in a more understandable light.

At 7/16/09 09:57 PM, Kev-o wrote:

I don't see the idea of that being a bad idea. I do agree that wealth is quite useless though.

What makes it a bad idea is that a capitalist economy is unsustainable, let alone a form that has absolutely no regulation, and no police to keep the classes from killing each other. I don't know about you, but I kind of like not dying from lead poisoning, or getting murdered by a private company.
Also, if you're an 'anarcho'-capitalist, how could you possibly find wealth useless?

I see we could trade something of value towards each other kind of like in mmo's whenever you trade equipment and such. Also the people could just not support the company and they will become bankrupt. Being nice and not poisining things is going to get you places.

The acts of Stalin really have nothing to do with communist ideas.

I posted this earlier, and I believe it puts my views in a more understandable light.

Mkay..

At 7/16/09 06:28 PM, tiskewl wrote: You mean like the ones that you are fighting by ignoring the fact that regardless of in other nations, statistics for America show lower crime rates in areas with less gun restriction. Base American plans off American results smart one!

I would love to see your statistics.

Here are mine: Link

At 7/16/09 06:47 PM, Shinzura wrote: Right... Clearly we need to loosen gun control... It's not like allowing handguns in bars or something like that could EVER backfire.

Ya I believe this is totaly going to fuck them over. But stimulate the funeral home economy!

At 7/17/09 05:49 AM, tiskewl wrote: Ya I believe this is totaly going to fuck them over. But stimulate the funeral home economy!

Yeah, I saw that episode of "The Colbert Report" too.

At 7/17/09 11:12 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 7/17/09 05:49 AM, tiskewl wrote: Ya I believe this is totaly going to fuck them over. But stimulate the funeral home economy!

Yeah, I saw that episode of "The Colbert Report" too.

I love you! I just saw that the other day. He is "A Difference Maker."

At 7/17/09 01:11 PM, tiskewl wrote:

At 7/17/09 11:12 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 7/17/09 05:49 AM, tiskewl wrote: Ya I believe this is totaly going to fuck them over. But stimulate the funeral home economy!

Yeah, I saw that episode of "The Colbert Report" too.

I love you! I just saw that the other day. He is "A Difference Maker."

My favorite line from that is "If we don't allow guns in bars it could open up the doors to terrorism"