For you democRATS that voted for Obama, here's some nice videos that'll explain why we Republicans didn't want him to win!!!!!
[youtube=2AkYlwMwlzw]2AkYlwMwlzw[/youtube]
[youtube=nGnWS8s3LB0]nGnWS8s3LB0[/youtube]
For more videos on Obama...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=KingofdaWackos&view=videos
Just try not to look at da title of da page that shows who's posting those videos!! :D:D:D
There are those who love this country, and those who aren't real Americans. GTFO everyone who isn't Juuust liiiike meeee.
jesse answer me.
Hi netman! :D
lol ****ed off republicans. That guy needs help....bad.
This guy better hope Anon never finds him. He may just be the next Hal Turner.
find him...? that's Rush Limbaugh, dude.
It's sorta funny listening to him lately after the election. Like, there really shouldn't be much to say at the moment, but somehow he finds the most BS things to ****-talk Obama and the Dems about and turns it into a 3 hour show. Day after day. Pretty impressive in that regard.
It's easy to bull **** when you consider the hypotheticals as facts and the facts as hypotheticals.
this financial crisis can be traced back to the dems you know
And rape victoms could have tried harder to escape the rapists you know.
Democrats are too stupid to even figure out how to create a three hour radio show and keep it populer!!! Proving just how stupid they are compaired to da King of Democracy!!! :D:D:D
no one cares
Stopped listening when he started talking about how Obama didn't wear a flag pin.
[quote=Arcadios;900400]no one caresonly policy you care about is how high the wall at the border is going to be
Stopped listening after the section starting at about a minute in.
Yeah, I'm in the ******* military, faggot. And I dont need some ****ing fat chickenhawk piece of **** telling me that the guy is a bad president because he does shake a certain demographics hand. WHO ****ING CARES? There are more important issues than ****ing trying to jerkoff vets, so knock this ****ing false troop supports, yellow ribbon ****ing armchair general bull****.
****ing conservative cocksuckers **** me of so ****ing much I dont even care that I'm being trolled. **** you all.
Rush is hilarious. Would listen again.
With some of the stuff he says, it's sometimes difficult for me to believe he's actually being serious. :/
he probably isn't, though i bet his listeners are like 'HOLY **** THIS GUY. HE'S SO DEEP.'
He totally is. You can tell.
bumbling, stumbling guy
heh, nice
I voted McCain.
But more importantly, I got my free tall cup of Starbucks coffee afterwards.
was the coffee for voting or for voting for mccain specifically
either way, ****ing gay *** ****
That's, like, six bucks of coffee right there. Worth it.
What, didn't you guys know that for voting, if you just brought in your sticker, you could get a free cup of Starbucks coffee, a free Krispy Kreme doughnut, a free chicken sandwich from Chick-Fil-A and.. uh, something from Burger King, I think. I swear, all the fat people in America got off their asses and voted for the sole purpose of getting free Krispy Kreme.
But it was worth it. I work at Starbucks, and I worked on Election Day. Having to deal with ****ing pricks who would come up and say, "I don't like caffiene, so can I just have hot chocolate instead?" or something relevent to that, with a constant line of at least 8 people yelling, "Are you guys doing the free coffee here?" or, "Where's my free coffee?" or, "Can I get a cinnamon dolce latte, nonfat, no whip, with caramel drizzle in a venti cup, instead of the coffee? For free?"
I deserved my free coffee, ****it.
[quote=netman]Really?
Really.
Understandably so. It was the fact that those people felt that they deserved free **** just for swiping a card and clicking a name, or otherwise. I know that at least a third of the people I saw that day wouldn't have even considered voting if it wasn't for the fact that if they just did some drive-thru hopping, they would get free dinner (and dessert!) out of it.
Well, if you're promised something, you rightly deserve it. So I can't really blame them. And getting people out to vote was the entire purpose of the promotion, and getting people to vote is a good thing.
Yeah, you're right. It's just a bit sad that some people need food to be motivated to do something as important as vote for their next president. :/
Our whole lives revolve around food and it's our motivation to do everything. So it only makes sense.
If you don't vote, then we'll put a bag over your head. Want air? VOTE.
I was being facetious, but w/e.
If everyone voted it'd balance itself out and be like they didn't vote in the first place.
It's true.
Sucks to be swedish I guess!
The least retarded thing ****tards can do is not make decision that'll effect the rest of us thinking people; atleast that's my feelings on the matter.
Lay them down all you want, but I'm not going to fall into one of your drama traps, Jesse Smith!
grrrr!!!!!!!! Drama is good!!!!!!!! Start bashing da Osama voters!!!!!!!! Why do you think I made this thread??!!! Politics = drama!!!! :D:D:D
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;901157]all of two cents for a glass of water....I can't tell if you missed Aesthetic's point or if you ignored it. It's simply ridiculous that the only way to get people motivated enough to vote is by dangling free food in their face and lead them to the booths. People shouldn't have to be bribed with donuts and sandwiches to get them to vote: they should vote because they care about themselves, their friends, and their family and they want to live within a nation whose government will protect them.
---
I think Republicans didn't want Obama to win for the same reason I don't want the guy on the other end of the Xbox Live headset to win: because losing sucks. That's the biggest problem with party affiliation and placing yourself in either categories.
It's sad to realize that many people did NOT vote on the issues this presidency, they voted either by party, by skin color, or by gender, and that's completely obvious to anybody who actually paid attention to the issues. A lot of right-wing morons voted McCain without even realizing that he's actually (SURPRISE!) very liberal. A lot of Obama voters didn't even care that Obama is definitely not ready to lead this country, especially in its current crises.
I only wish voting was not the popularity contest that it was today, and was turned into an issues contest: you sit down at the console, and it asks you "yes/no/I don't know" questions. "Do you support the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007?" "Do you support stem cell research?" "Are you pro-choice?" Using the person's answers, the machine would simply pick which candidate would best suit that person's ideas. If they answered "I don't know" too often, then it would be obvious they don't really care about their nation enough to follow the issues and thus are probably not capable of making a good informed decision on who to make president of what is still the most powerful nation in the world. Their "vote" would not be counted--of course, they would not be informed--and they can go on living their life, believing they made a difference.
Sure, that's mean, but I don't want some dickhead who only voted because he could get a donut/chicken sandwich/Whopper/cup of coffee ruining my or my friends' chance(s) for happiness.
*edit* Does anybody else find it funny that Jesse Smith is trolling his own message boards?
guess what, mccain lost, ha ha ha
[SIZE="3"]Republican Nixon loving loony tunes are extreme :jesse: morons !!!! [/SIZE]
KEEP YOUR REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDIST TRAP SHUT LEST YOU CONTINUE TO PROVE YOUR EXTREME LUNATICAL NIXON LOVING MORON:jesse:HOOD BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT SON !!!
Read my last post !!!
[SIZE="7"]SHUT THE HELL UP BEFORE YOU BURY YOURSELF FURTHER ALONG SIDE OF THE REST OF THE NIXON LOVING MORONS !!!! [/SIZE]
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;902417]A lot of people simply don't care what happens in their nation or in the world, and politics isn't an exception.
And, again, we want them voting... why?
You're just ignoring that point, right? Right...? Please say you're just ignoring it.
There's also the fact that there is no middle ground for people who don't believe in our current system. There is no prosperous way to vote neither Democrat or Republican, those votes are just considered by the masses as "lost votes" that could've been for their respective party. Democrats and Republicans own this government, as if this nation is truly "blue and red", which it isn't. Maleducation and the concept of voting for the lesser evil is what really rules and sways many voters. A Democracy should have a plethora of parties, all in varying sizes with original view points, not just two massives and a minimal amount of lessers.
ANYWAY, my point is that some people don't vote as an act of defiance and utilizing their right of free speech to communicate their views, rather than letting one of the two majors representatives speak for them; which isn't really their view point at all, more of a cookie-cut, politically white-washed and self-preserving dogspew opinion that we hear from every angle. And in the event they choose a lesser party, their voice means absolutely nothing (Although still cookie-cut and politically white-washed, not always.) because of the pragmatics of our government and how it dampers the lowers, while favoring the highers through financial means (Example: The more financial support you receive, the more able you are to participate in debates. However, without those debates, your opinion is never heard, and being endorsed is a much harder process, basically inabling the garnering of financial support.).
For the record, I voted Independent. To me though, the Propositions were more important than the Presidential Election. The above opinion is one I've heard, and respect as a viable choice.
And Skitzo: We want them to vote because one of the base principals of Democracy is an educated public, and every man is inherently logical. And we all know the ridiculousness of that, so... realistically, we don't want them to vote, no. Ideally, we do.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12599247
This thread should be titled:
Why we Republican Nixon loving morons SUCK !!!!
No, it should be titled:
Democrats are arsewipes for not impeaching Cheney and Bush 5 years ago before the oil fraud, GM and Ford going broke and the banking system failure and the economic depression caused by Daddy Bush's crimes.
YOU REPUBLICAN IDIOT !!!
PS: You're banned again ******* for your idiotic post of last night !!!!
er...er...er...It's not like I was trying to drive you insane!!! :D:D:D I was just posting da truth!!!! Forum Poster Graveyard is da last place to go to when it comes to learning how to make money online. That's where you go to learn how to SPAM. Da bots live there!!!! :D:D:D:D
er, why do you think da only threads you know how to make there are...related to SPAM!!!! :D:D:D:D
[SIZE="4"]SOMEONE WANTS TO DIE NO:jesse:ONE !!!! [/SIZE]:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
No, don't die!!!! You provide a lot of entertainment by being a total freak and n00bie!!!! :D:D:D:D
Jesse, you're a Mormon. You're a sheep. You don't vote on the issues. Good job. Go vote Republican just like your pastor/preacher/bishop tells you.
er, WackoHater, you need mental help!!!!! :D:D:D:D:D
[quote=WackoHater;904841]PS: Learn how to spell moron, MORON !!!
Quote: Jesse, you're a Mormon
...You know, I don't even know who you are, I've never seen you post, and this is probably the most moronic thing I've ever had the misfortune of reading.
Kid? Boy? Child? Go read up on your religion.
---
Jesse, why is it the Republican party lost the Congress, Senate, and the White House?
He claims to be over 40 years old, aka...a 'mature' adult!!!! :D:D:D:D
er...we lost cause of da way millions of stupid whites voted....
[youtube=fK-LAFWbygY]fK-LAFWbygY[/youtube]
explains why they voted for him!!!! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D
skitzo are you actually arguing with jesse and wacko hater. Seriously?
WackoHater has 2000+ posts and this is the first time I've seens him on the boards. How the **** was I supposed to know he's as retarded, close-minded, and autistically impaired as Jesse?
[SIZE="7"]Duarph !!!! [/SIZE]
Dude, u sound drunk!!!! Come bank when you're not drinking crack!!! :D:D:D:D
[CENTER]Son, you need to be......
[SIZE="7"]SLAPPED TO DEATH !!!!!! [/SIZE] [/CENTER]
[CENTER]:mad: :mad:[/CENTER]
You must be a moron to quote an extreme moron's idiotic statement that is not even worth a comment !!! :p:
Jezzie, get your prescriptions adjusted again, you have going completely bonkers on those pills and Rush Limpbrain's lunatical Nixion Nazi propaganda.
[SIZE="3"]SOMEONE WANTS SLAPPED TO DEATH NO:jesse:ONE !!! [/SIZE]:mad: :mad: :mad:
Republicans are idiots without ballz. I am SO glad Obama is in! Now we will get somewhere
[CENTER][SIZE="7"]THREAD CLOSED DUE TO BEING RUINED BY A LUNATICAL WACKO !!! [/SIZE]
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: [/CENTER]
*bump* Doesn't look closed to me!!! :D
[SIZE="7"]What are you ??
A moron Son ????[/SIZE] :rolleyes:
*bump* :D:D:D
[SIZE="7"]DUH, I'z a Wacko !!! [/SIZE]:eek:
:yawn:
[SIZE="4"][URL="http://www.vgchat.com/showpost.php?p=908728&postcount=88"][SIZE="7"]YOU[/SIZE] ARE A FORUM WRECKING MORON[/URL]!!!! [/SIZE]
[SIZE="3"]Someone please slap me to death, [URL="http://www.vgchat.com/showpost.php?p=909203&postcount=92"]I am an inept moron[/URL] !!! [/SIZE]
No, no, we don't want that!!!! We need you here!! You provide entertainment by being an insane freak!!! Death = You gone. = No more entertainment from you!!!!! = I have to start hunting for some other insane freak to drive insane!!!! :D:D:D:D:D:D
Or founded your country.
[quote=specopssv44;914751]Is that right? well, i guess it takes a real man to say that on a blog...
im mad obama won cause now i have to disassemble and hide all my Fire-arms...
I'm kinda glad you won't have a gun.
During this economic crisis, Obama will be too busy to really push legislation over gun control.
I hope to *** youre right, I wont bet 100 dollars but you should see the gun laws here in CA, effing insane.... and rest assured koala, one way or another I will always have a gun... *******.....
I cant wait for obama to muddle everything up and see the hypocrite media praise him anyways
control... over weapons... that can kill people with no real effort... its insane i tell you
My thesis:
obama: the only president with the power to completely remove the second amendment
Sources Cited:
freerepublic
stormfront
conservative blogs
*** bless ronald reagen and america.
lolreaganomics
[SIZE="4"]Because REPUBLICANS are brain:jesse:dead MORONS !!!
DUH :jesse: !!!!![/SIZE]
Keep altering posts and you will seal your fate as it is now, but IP bans will be added again, one for each post alteration.
YOU WILL ALSO SEE THIS FORUM DIE ONCE AGAIN[SIZE="4"] MORON [/SIZE]!!!
Having fun driving yourself insane?
[quote=specopssv44;915289]cars can kill people with no real effort as well.... and knives, and screwdrivers, and sharp pointy sticks.... just because you dont want any ability to defend yourself doesnt mean the rest of us want to be helpless as well.
Yeah, it's just that not only do you have the advantage with a gun, you can also be go loose from a distance.
There's plenty of defensive measures other than that of a gun.
And I could go on about this but it wouldn't make a difference so I just won't.
[quote]did you know crime rates are almost 70% lower in areas where citizens can easily obtain concealed weapons permits?
Somehow that interferes with the whole, "America has a ****load more people killed by a gun every year than the rest of the world."
And don't even try the America's much hueger than the rest of the world la-di-da ****.
Cause it ain't.
[quote=specopssv44;916521]
i could make a bomb out of **** from under the sink, make a detonator out of a cordless phone and base, and bam, i dont even have to see who I want to kill.... guess we should ban all cleaning supplies and cordless phones now too.
So you claim that anyone without greater knowledge could do this?
And you could't really make a anything of a bomb from that, that is most likely something you've heard from a superior.
I.E; You could use anything, cordless phone and base, and you've got yourself a bomb.
Don't get me wrong I'm sure there's a lot of stuff you could produce a bomb from, but if it is not impossible to do it from what what mentioned before, I'm even more sure that you lack both the skill and intelligence to do so.
[quote=specopssv44;916533]
im sure that you havent the slightest understanding of what I am, and am not trained and capable of doing.
I'm pretty sure.
[quote=specopssv44;916586]
i dont pretend to, but its a safe guess that half the people here who wanna talk about gun control know little or next to nothing about firearms.
Come from a family of hunters that go way back.
But somehow it makes me feel more of a man to be firing a shotgun for food, than firing guns just cause, or, even to be carrying it just cause.
We can have rifles, as long as they're ****ing locked away when you're not hunting.
Oh and, you pretty much need a license too, in case you're in the wrong mindset to even be in possession of firearms.
And guess what? I can't recall one time someone was shot to death over here.
That's not saying it doesn't happen at all.
But if I fail to recall such an event I'm confident when saying; Gun control is good.
Specopss: What kind of gun control do these liberal pussies propose? Banning or just some form of regulation?
[quote=#061402;916668]
Because we all know you need to be a rocket scientist to handle a firearm.
Something about having the right kind of bullets with the right kind of gun, and the squeezing of a trigger, comes to my mind. Also, something about the caliber and the kickback, and keeping them clean, **** like that. But for the most part, yeah, I could probably learn everything about how to use a gun in less than an hour, so the need of knowing isn't that great. Regardless though, what's that have to do with having/wanting to keep rational gun restrictions? yeah, your assault rifle is really going to help in your overthrow of the government's tanks and air crafts... Since that's more likely to happen than a criminal using them to rob banks, or an employe going postal. Or the other branch of logic is pretty funny aswell. You know, that scenario where since everyone has a gun, the advantage for criminals having a gun would dissapear. A utopia of the wild west...which is ****ing retarted. No, if everyone has a gun, then escalation happens. Criminals would just change their methods in someway to keep an advantage, which has been seen throughout history starting back in the days of swords, while the meantime more accidental deaths could rise as a result to more guns in house holds.
Idk what kind of gun restrictions there should be per say, just that the consequences, aswell as the true motivations of owning a fire arm, should be understood. Right to bear arms? Please be realistic. If we really want to keep to that right's meaning, then we should have a right to a minute man missile in our backyards!
more than likely, a form of regulation.
Funny, the differences between our debate on the 2nd amendment in Constitutional Law and reading the arguments here. Dumb arguments on both sides.
I won't use direct quotes because I am lazy.
To whomever mentioned population in regards to crime: It is a factor, and yes, the US is more populated than sweden or wherever the hell you're from. The USA is the third most populated (most populace?) country in the world (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/WPP2004_Vol3_Final/Chapter1.pdf). Just because you guys in Sweden, home of a jaw-dropping 9 million people (less than half of the population of the state of New York [http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/WPP2004_Vol3_Final/Chapter1.pdf]) have such a happy existence with gun control doesn't necessarily mean we will here. I'm not saying gun control/regulation is wrong, just that don't insult my intelligence with your anecdotes and limited expertise on all things "best for the United States", because frankly, all I'm left to ask is "what the f*ck do you know, you live in Finland/Sweden/England/whatever?" I mean, even the entire United Kingdom's population is still less than a quarter of the United States.
Why does it matter? Logistics. I sincerely doubt that complete, strict gun control will work in the United States. There's simply too many people and not enough police. I mean, look how great drug control has worked out thus far?
I agree with gun control in the sense of regulating guns and who has them (your average joe should be able to have a gun). Psychiatric problems, felons, etc of course should not. Then again, I have lived in two major US cities, and the majority of you have not, so what do I know about what the conditions are like, or how dangerous it can be? I'll just go tell my roommate in Philly who got robbed in front of our house, that he should have used "those things called fists" on that guy who pointed a gun at him from 15 feet away (it had to have been a legally acquired handgun, as apparently nobody smuggles in guns anymore). Or the next time an elderly person or a woman gets robbed or sexually assaulted, I'll remind them that they should be like the hypocritical people on vgchat, and know kung-fu and think that guns are for pussies (I'm calling you a hypocrite for calling him an internet tough-guy, and then acting like fighting is so easy, with 'those things you call fists'. Right. I'd like to see you beat up a street thug, who's done nothing his whole life but steal and fight, is twice your size, and has no moral qualms about killing you. I'd like to see you do that, kid. You do that and I'll take you seriously).
It's in our constitution. Smarter men than you and I thought it was important enough to make it a second amendment. Quit acting like you're an expert on the topic just because your bumf*ck country has gun control and less crime than ours. You're comparing apples to oranges.
[quote=Bj Blaskowitz;928357]just that don't insult my intelligence
And that's where I stopped reading.
Pretty much what the average cop/meathead says.
Or no, wait:
[quote](I'm calling you a hypocrite for calling him an internet tough-guy, and then acting like fighting is so easy, with 'those things you call fists'. Right. I'd like to see you beat up a street thug, who's done nothing his whole life but steal and fight, is twice your size, and has no moral qualms about killing you. I'd like to see you do that, kid. You do that and I'll take you seriously).Basically if someone's twice the size of said person, he would most likely be 50% faster, and should then easily be able to swosh between and hit him straight in the nutsack, leaving him incapacitated.
Thereby eliminating said threat.
And if the nutsack punch/kick doesn't do the trick, keep kicking him in the balls until he can't ****ing move anymore.
If you've got any kinds of guts, and don't freeze up in fear smaller size will work to you advantage in two aspects:
[LIST=1]
[*]Speed.
[*]Your opponent will underestimate you.
[/LIST]
So unless they are more than you, you should be able to take care of it without much difficulty.
One thing almost always applies; the attacker is almost always weaker than the defender because he will underestimate his strength.
Of course, there's always the percentage that will fail to defend.
(And I pretty much wouldn't have any moral restrictions compelling me not to kill anyone who comes against me with every intent of killing me.)
But tah-dah! you couldn't defend yourself against a gun, and therefore I deem it incredibly weak and cowardly.
Would also make the police's job quite a lot easier if there was restrictions on handguns.
There will always be the kind of criminals who still uses guns, but that's almost never street thugs and small-time criminals.
Gun control works, in practice and in theory.
I did the **** math in another thread, or if it was this one(pretty simple if you just use whatever little calculator you can find.).
Oh fine I'll make it simple for you:
Germany has a population of 80~mil, whereas the us has a population of 300mil~
So in round numbers Germany is 1/3 of the US, and if you look at this:
[IMG]http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/9660/yeahah3.png[/IMG]
I mean holy ****, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see it.
Something is clearly messed up.
So yeah, there, I insulted your "intelligence."
Basically if Germany had the same population as the US, they would have about 700~ gun murders.
Let's even round it up to a 1000, the US would still have the lead with ****ing 800% more than that.
It's too ****ing obvious to even debate, it's quite ****ing clear.
[quote=Bj Blaskowitz;928357]It's in our constitution. Smarter men than you and I thought it was important enough to make it a second amendment
You were doing pretty well until this part. Come on, man, you know that's bullshit. It was written at a time when America had just fought a guerilla war against the British. You aren't seriously trying to tell me that they were psychic God-men who knew that in 200 years how big the country would be, how large the population would be and what impact that would have on the police's ability to effectively enforce gun control.
I don't really see what relevence the size of the population has. England might have a smaller population but it's certainly more densely populated. Totally guessing here but I assume the policeman per thousand ratio is about the same too. I would've thought the country just being larger would affect how easy it is to police with having a wider area to cover and criminals having more places to hide and so on.
you are a dying breed beejay
obama will send you to the gas chamber in due time
Fair enough, but still, I don't think they could've known the population's impact on their ability to control guns or exactly what kind of guns we'd end up having in 200 years. It makes sense that they'd consider a rifle or pistol to be an acceptable means of self-defence back then, but would they say the same about Uzis, assault rifles and the like. Basically weapons designed to kill a whole lot of people rather than defend just one at relatively close range. I guess you could argue that they'd allow anyone to have any gun else only criminals will own the most powerful...
@Bj:
I was basically being completely serious about that.
No matter how ****ing big your opponent is his disposition will always be that he has the upper hand, and will totally bypass that you are going to be ferocious defending yourself(Especially if the attacker doesn't have a gun, or a knife, which is also illegal to carry around for no purpose over here.).
As for gun control solving all of Americas ****? Hell no.
It will greatly reduce the numbers though.
There is no way of solving murders, be it with guns or without guns.
But yes, the ratio obviously goes way down.
And I can't find a good reference about ethnic population in the US.
All I can say is within a short amount of time, maybe 10 years Sweden's arab populous has gone up from <1% to >13%, and we RARELY, if ever have any guns killing people.
If we do it's a hunting accident, or some maniac in the military service that has snapped.
Of course, yeah, 70% of the crime in Sweden is done by immigrants, which will likely cause a civil war within a short future but that's beside the point.
Now that I think about it, if they could legally have guns that would be a pretty big problem.
So now if they decide to invade from within, every Swede is called in the military, whereas the arabs would have to like, import, or make their own bows and arrows or some ****.
Basically it would be wiser for them to go home.
In the end, gun control works.
It's not a divine fix, people are scum, they kill each other, never gonna end.
I wasn't referring to size, Exo. I'm talking upbringing. Chances are, someone who is robbing you on the street has seen more fights than you or I. Inner-city kids have it rough growing up. That whole "you're big and slow, I am small and quick" thing works for a few, but not many. That's more of a silly hollywood/anime mentality than realistic. Big strong street-thugs can probably kick our asses. While we were playing video games or studying, they were getting into fights, stealing, or in juve getting beat up. It's not reasonable to expect everybody to be an expert at hand-to-hand combat. Guns are for the avg joe to defend himself.
What the hell, the handgun is the most dangerous one, easy to hide, can fire off 10-22 shots in less than a minute.
There are so many more ways of defending yourself, especially if the majority of the population does not have firearms.
But this is a moot point, it's so obvious that gun control does what it's supposed to do, and trying to counter argue it is just silly.
Not my country, do not care.
Much.
did you miss my south africa and mexico parts? Obviously it does not do what it's supposed to do every time. Some countries just have violent people-you were right.
I also do not think it is right to expect a woman or elderly person to be able to adequately defend herself/himself from someone trying to assault them in their home or in an alley or anywhere with pepper spray or a pocket knife. To ban guns with the defense "you should be able to defend yourself" is unreasonable and, frankly, stupid, as far as excuses go.
[quote=Bj Blaskowitz;928920] I wasn't referring to size, Exo. I'm talking upbringing. Chances are, someone who is robbing you on the street has seen more fights than you or I. Inner-city kids have it rough growing up. That whole "you're big and slow, I am small and quick" thing works for a few, but not many. That's more of a silly hollywood/anime mentality than realistic. Big strong street-thugs can probably kick our asses. While we were playing video games or studying, they were getting into fights, stealing, or in juve getting beat up. It's not reasonable to expect everybody to be an expert at hand-to-hand combat. Guns are for the avg joe to defend himself.
Well I wouldn't know since I started working when I was in 5th grade, and I still do.
I'm a from a reaaaally rural area, and the only time I got beat up was when I was attacked from behind, and that was back in 7th grade.
Bad call for me to turn my back against some junkie.
And the whole hollywood/anime stuff? It pretty much teaches that you can stand after a few punches, whereas in real life you'd probably be dead.
If you can pack one good punch to either balls or solar plexus you're the winner, in almost every case.
The people you need to watch out fro are people who fight with objects, or guns.
And junkies, cause they can't feel ****.
[quote=Bj Blaskowitz;928933]did you miss my south africa and mexico parts? Obviously it does not do what it's supposed to do every time. Some countries just have violent people-you were right.
As far as I know SA's government is not especially stable, but I'll reread that in just a sec.
[quote]
I also do not think it is right to expect a woman or elderly person to be able to adequately defend herself/himself from someone trying to assault them in their home or in an alley or anywhere with pepper spray or a pocket knife. To ban guns with the defense "you should be able to defend yourself" is unreasonable and, frankly, stupid, as far as excuses go.
Get a hunter's licence, defend your home.
Could also be reasoned with:
Gun control - The elderly woman lived, handgun related murders went down 800%.
No gun control - Elderly woman killed her encounter - the >9k gun related murders continue each year.
I'm just gonna throw this out there as an example of how totally not useless self-defence training can be. This guy in my kung fu club has been doing it about as long as I have (1-2 two-hour sessions a week for about 7-8 months). He's quite short (5ft or under) and has reduced lung capacity and strength in general due fighting off almost fatal lung cancer. Not an intimidating figure by any means.
One day this guy started a fight with him. It turned out he was known to police and had a history of violence. Anyway, the guy I know, he ruined his s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it. By the time the police took photos his entire face was black and his neck had swollen to twice it's size (from where my friend bent him over and hammered the back of his head). My friend got away with just a kick to the ribs.
Honestly though, what kind of situation are we talking about that'd need guns? If someone's busted in your home, to be honest, you're f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cked. Unless you're so irresponsible that you have your guns laying around all the time (or you live in the ghetto) you won't be able to get to them. They'll have the element of surprise and the shock of your home being invaded. They'll have a gun in your face before you can reach yours.
In a street mugging situation you're hardly going to blow a guy's brains out for taking your wallet, you'd go to prison for murder. You're not even supposed to fight in those kind of situations because it's absurdly dangerous and your belongings aren't worth the risk of your own life.
So the only time a weapon will be useful is when defending your own life from a completely unprovoked attack or a quickly escalating situation. Unless you have a price on your head keeping a gun around in case someone randomly tries to kill you isn't exactly sane. In fact, it's completely paranoid. Chances are with these cold-blooded murders is that you'll never see it coming anyway. On the other hand defusing a heated and potentially violent arguement isn't exactly rocket-science, it takes a basic understanding of fight psychology. Honestly, you could learn that in a week.
[quote=Speedfreak;929099]One day this guy started a fight with him. It turned out he was known to police and had a history of violence. Anyway, the guy I know, he ruined his s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it. By the time the police took photos his entire face was black and his neck had swollen to twice it's size (from where my friend bent him over and hammered the back of his head). My friend got away with just a kick to the ribs.sounds excessive
It's what defending does to you.
Adrenaline kicks in and you don't know what the **** you're doing.
I guess I made it sound like he beat on him for half an hour, he didn't. It just so happens that you can so a lot of damage with a few strikes in a short amount of time if you know what you're doing. If you have to defend yourself in a street fight you're really supposed to beat the other guy to the ground, though, because you have no idea what kind of psychomaniac he is if all attempts at defusing the situation have failed.
isn't kung fu supposed to teach you how to take someone down quickly and without excessive force
Kinda, it depends what you mean by excessive force. It trains you to fight using less energy and strength if that's what you mean. If you mean it's supposed to disable or otherwise incapacitate rather than cause damage then not really, though you can use it like that. It's definitely more like a Magnum than a tazer.
what's the fighting style invented my that nun that uses pretty much no energy and all the opponents momentum to take them down?
That's pretty much what judo is.
it's not judo though. nothing fancy like tossing someone.
Dunno, one of the legends (there are many) about wing chun kung fu's origins was that it was invented by a woman. And it is all about screwing around with your opponents momentum and balance.
Yeah that's it. The one that looks like slapping.
er, what is dis thread about again!!! :D:D:D
Oh, there's now a Gun Control thread right over there!!!
Yeah. If some dude busts in your house at night and your sleeping you have quite a bit of time to get to your gun. Especially if you keep it somewhere in your room. Only time you might not have a chance to react is if you're sitting in the living room in the middle of the day or you wake up as they're already in your room.
I was totally imagining some movie-like scene where bad dudes somersault through your window while you're sitting there watching TV and point a gun in your face. I can realistically imagine both situations, to be honest, I've certainly seen reports on TV where a couple of guys basically storm a house as quickly as possible, a gun wouldn't help you all that much there unless you happened to be upstairs right next to your safe. Even then if they knew what they were doing one would cover downstairs while the other would confirm upstairs is clear.
Maybe I'm in the wrong business...
I think in situations where a "storm" is in order, they know enough about the house and belongings to be able to do that. ****ing suburbia, ain't happening man. I'd brick wall one of my windows just for kicks though, if that were the case, and either some random burglar would feel the fury of cast-fire brick, or one of my dumb *** friends.
Most robbers probably don't want to get into a confrontation with the house owners. You're just asking for too much trouble. Most likely they'd try to break in quietly and get out quickly. And I have to wonder how many americans actually keep their guns in a safe.
In most of the Midwest handguns are kept in locked boxes under beds.
i keep my deagle in a real american leather shoulder holster at all times... you never know when some african american 'thug gangster' is going to pounce on you...
in scotland.
guns got banned over here for everyone but farmers the year i started primary school. someone took a shotgun and shot up a bunch of five year olds. a PE teacher tried to shield a group of them and the guy blew him apart and the kids in a single shot. **** up ****.
I never understood why people need assault rifles and sniper rifles. Handguns almost make sense, but an AK? Really?
I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE A PART OF A MILITIA!!!!!!!! WHEN JUDGEMENT DAY COMES I MUST BE PREPARED!!
I know a dude over xbox who has 22 assault rifles. Usually they're made so they can only fire in bursts but he's modified all of his so they're fully auto. I'm like "why... seriously." and he's like "I'll need them."
Americans rule.
*Judgment.
I still stand by and repeat my belief that expecting every single person, despite their disabilities, age, or situation, to somehow be able to defend him/herself against a criminal using any form of self-defense due to absence of a firearm by federal law, is the most absurd and laughable expectation for any "rational" person to have. Seriously. Consider how idiotic that is. Go ahead. Reeeeaallly think about it. I mean, there are plenty of other valid arguments for banning guns, but that one is unf*ckingbelievably stupid. Seriously. But maybe I should take my arguments away from vgchat, where everybody is 120 lbs of hell, death and destruction (that plays video games in between fights/bouts).
Additionally, the American approach to gun control is more centered around the balance of powers and the US Constitution. It is our Holy Roman Catholic Church. The Constitution is infallible, and one cannot go against it. It then turns into an argument over interpretation, and essentially is another Bible-esque "what does the second amendment mean?!" Other than the 13th and 14th amendments, I seriously doubt the US Constitution will ever undergo any earthshaking changes. I like it like that, to be honest. I'm a stickler for tradition, though.
[quote=Bj Blaskowitz;929817]*Judgment.
I still stand by and repeat my belief that expecting every single person, despite their disabilities, age, or situation, to somehow be able to defend him/herself against a criminal using any form of self-defense due to absence of a firearm by federal law, is the most absurd and laughable expectation for any "rational" person to have. Seriously. Consider how idiotic that is. Go ahead. Reeeeaallly think about it. I mean, there are plenty of other valid arguments for banning guns, but that one is unf*ckingbelievably stupid. Seriously. But maybe I should take my arguments away from vgchat, where everybody is 120 lbs of hell, death and destruction (that plays video games in between fights/bouts).
That's a bit of a strawman because our arguement is that that kind of force isn't an acceptable form of self-defense. The counterpoint to that is usually something along the lines of "what would you do in X situation without a gun, then?" where we then draw on our own ideas of what we personally would do in that situation. It's wrong to assume that our personal solution is our idea of what works for everyone, no one's stated that a 5 year old or a 70 year old should rely on self-defence training.
if you didn't have a gun you'd do what everyone does. grab something heavy and swing.
I'd try to strike up a dialog which would fail miserably. Last words be "hey, can't we talk about this?"
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;930122]if you didn't have a gun you'd do what everyone does. grab something heavy and swing.
That.
And you know, most of the time people are not out to kill people, Bj.
I'd figure it goes down like this:
Oh hai, give me ur moneys or ur dead.[IMG]http://www.vgchat.com/images/icons/icon8.gif[/IMG]
- Oh Yeah? well I have a gun so you'd better back off.:mad:
Later they both died.
Whilst if none of them had guns, he'd probably just have taken the money.
And if just the bad guy had a gun, he'd probably just have taken the money.
In the majority of cases.
Yeah, I don't get the assumption that if good guys don't have guns bad guys will, but if good guys have guns bad guys won't. Both would have guns, and it'd be the bad guy getting the jump on you.
Making it illegal for that reason is pretty stupid, though.
[quote=Iron Koala;930144]I'd try to strike up a dialog which would fail miserably. Last words be "hey, can't we talk about this?"should have invested in your charisma stat, owned
good one
Republicans are idiotic:jesse:morons responsible for the entire world economic depression, Cheney and Kissinger and Daddy Bush stole trillions on oil and war, they should all be jailed !!!
Washington should take the trillions from those morons offshore accounts to bail out GM and Ford and the Banks, that is where the cash went !!
to hell with gm. All their cars are crap anyways.
A government-owned [COLOR="Yellow"]The Garage Sale Warehouse[/COLOR] would be a dream of mine come true to end house burglaries. Donating your goods such as a fridge or television set to the warehouse would help desperate people get their lives set up by getting stuff for free. The stimulus package won't help if people working can't buy stuff they already have unless the stuff is given away to the poor. ;):cool:
Next time remember:
[IMG]http://www.oberholtzer-creative.com/visualculture/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/gasguzzling.jpg[/IMG]
hey anyone isn't a neoliberal didn't want obama to win. hell it is always gonna be same ol same ol anyway.
i love how conservatives are freaking the **** out and planning armed rebellion because they lost a ****ing election tho.
also the people who think obama can take away your guns: lol. you're ****ing pathetic.
also to the people who think the 2nd amendment allows anyone to buy any gun: read the first half. it's called a dependent clause; any high school freshmen would know what that is.
edit: the only person i know who cares about guns and militia is a homeschooled kid from a retirement community in pickecock, arkansas. he sits around saying naive **** and acting smug and **** because well he's in a militia.
also he's christian. and a liberatardian.
hey anyone isn't a neoliberal didn't want obama to win. hell it is always gonna be same ol same ol anyway.
i love how conservatives are freaking the **** out and planning armed rebellion because they lost a ****ing election tho.
also the people who think obama can take away your guns: lol. you're ****ing pathetic.
also to the people who think the 2nd amendment allows anyone to buy any gun: read the first half. it's called a dependent clause; any high school freshmen would know what that is.