Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Oh, Shoot (Connecticut)Follow

#27 Dec 14 2012 at 5:34 PM Rating: Default
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,139 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Thank God. If we don't murder a couple dozen children now and then, how else will the government know we're serious about overthrowing tyranny.

Throw their tiny corpses in with the rest of the cashed checks for those precious 2nd Amendment freedoms.


This one is also relevant.
#28 Dec 14 2012 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
Mazra wrote:
KTurner wrote:
Even if it was the right dude, why would anyone threaten a guy who's already dead?


Because people are stupid.

Terry Goodkind was onto something when he made those Wizard's Rules.


But wizards are supposed to be smart!

On a side note, I do think it's hilarious that he created all those rules, then goes out of his way to show that Richard doesn't follow them because he doesn't know better, which causes him to get into these huge scrapes, but he fixes everything in the end because he's special. WTF kind of message is that to be sending to people?
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 100 Priest
Thelesis, 91 Mage
Necralita, 90 DK
Digits, 87 Shaman
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#29 Dec 14 2012 at 6:11 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,778 posts
Quote:
It's not about banning anything that can do damage, buses/cars/baseball bats have a primary function which isn't killing, whereas guns are only made for one purpose; to kill.
____________________________
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Invictus -- William Ernest Henley
#30 Dec 14 2012 at 6:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
paulsol wrote:
Merry Christmas! I wonder how many people get a firearm as a gift this year?
Baby Jesus would approve......


Well, at least that didn't take long.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Dec 14 2012 at 6:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Tatham wrote:
It's not about banning anything that can do damage, buses/cars/baseball bats have a primary function which isn't killing, whereas guns are only made for one purpose; to kill.


Not sure who you're quoting, but so what? Bows and arrows also exist only for that purpose. So do swords, many forms of axes, knives, clubs, etc. Anything in the history of man that has been built to be a weapon is built for that purpose (to kill). Is that really the distinction though? Should we ban all weapons? Or perhaps we should not make decisions about such things when emotions are high and reason is low. The purpose of guns hasn't changed since the writing of the 2nd amendment, so that argument really has no weight does it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Dec 14 2012 at 6:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,778 posts
Quote:
Not sure who you're quoting, but so what? Bows and arrows also exist only for that purpose. So do swords, many forms of axes, knives, clubs, etc. Anything in the history of man that has been built to be a weapon is built for that purpose (to kill). Is that really the distinction though? Should we ban all weapons? Or perhaps we should not make decisions about such things when emotions are high and reason is low. The purpose of guns hasn't changed since the writing of the 2nd amendment, so that argument really has no weight does it?

Oh, you're that right wing nutjob aren't you? Ok, I'd best make this simple then.
Sure; your constitution gives your citizens the "Right to Bear Arms", however what "Arms" means is different from what it meant back in 1783. When you have weapons like the sort used in so many shootings (ie: automatic) so readily available then even you need to admit that the amendment needs some revision.
I wouldn't outright ban firearms but the laws need revising, badly.

I suggest you take a look at Switzerland's gun laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
____________________________
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Invictus -- William Ernest Henley
#33 Dec 14 2012 at 6:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Or perhaps we should not make decisions about such things when emotions are high and reason is low.

Yeah, we just need a nice lengthy period between these mass shootings for things to settle down.

Oh, wait... ****. That doesn't seem to exist these days. Oh well, just the cost of business for the 2nd Amendment.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Dec 14 2012 at 8:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Tatham wrote:
Oh, you're that right wing nutjob aren't you? Ok, I'd best make this simple then.


Sadly, I suspect even when simplified, you'll get most of it wrong. Let's see, shall we?

Quote:
Sure; your constitution gives your citizens the "Right to keep and Bear Arms", however what "Arms" means is different from what it meant back in 1783.


Mistake number one.

Also, not really. And not relative to what other citizens can legally carry, which is kind of the point. Muskets were pretty cutting edge at the time and gave a huge advantage to the guy using them versus the guy not, yet no one argued that arms only meant swords and shields.

Quote:
When you have weapons like the sort used in so many shootings (ie: semi-automatic) so readily available then even you need to admit that the amendment needs some revision.


Mistake number two.

What revision though. If someone is able to propose a change to the 2nd amendment and then get it passed, then that's great. Will of the people and all that. But no one actually does what you propose. They talk about the need to change it, but instead of changing it (or even coming up with a propose change) just kinda want to ignore it, or pretend it says something different, or complain about it, and make snide remarks when people like me point that out.


Quote:
I wouldn't outright ban firearms but the laws need revising, badly.


Fine. Propose a change then. Tell me what you think the 2nd amendment should say, and what our gun laws should be. Then tell me how that will prevent crimes like this without unduly imposing on the rights of the citizens. I mean, since you acknowledge that you don't think firearms should be outright banned, then you need to tell me what limits you'd place that would still work legally and accomplish what you want it to accomplish. Just saying "there need to be a change" without being able to say what changes you would make is somewhat meaningless. It serves only to inflame the emotions of those who want "a change", and increase the likelihood of a really poor change being implemented based on those emotions..

Quote:
I suggest you take a look at Switzerland's gun laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland


I'm reasonably certain that those fighting for tighter gun control laws in the US want nothing remotely like the Swiss gun laws implemented. Meanwhile, I'm quite certain that the NRA would love for the US to require everyone to train as part of the militia and keep military firearms in their homes. It would teach them respect for the weapon, more law abiding citizens would have them and know how to use them, and it would remove the culture of fear of firearms that largely leads the push for restricting them.

Edited, Dec 14th 2012 6:05pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Dec 14 2012 at 8:41 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,720 posts
Any idiot who starts spouting off about 2nd ammendment bs is just that, an idiot. Banning guns would work about as well, probably even less so, than banning alcohol did. When was the last time one of these shooters used his own gun purchased through legal channels? Of the last 100 or so incidents, how many were of this nature?

Go ahead, I'll wait while you figure it out.









Exactly.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#36 Dec 14 2012 at 8:49 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Any idiot who starts spouting off about 2nd ammendment bs is just that, an idiot. Banning guns would work about as well, probably even less so, than banning alcohol did. When was the last time one of these shooters used his own gun purchased through legal channels? Of the last 100 or so incidents, how many were of this nature?

Go ahead, I'll wait while you figure it out.









Exactly.


The whole "Strict gun laws only affect law abiding citizens" is also bs as you being a "law abiding citizen" today doesn't mean that you will be one when you come home early and catch your wife riding cowboy on your neighbor. Besides, it's not the registration of the gun, it's their existence. In order for such a strict law to be effective, you would have to remove all guns, which is practically impossible.

#37 Dec 14 2012 at 8:58 PM Rating: Good
******
49,730 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
When was the last time one of these shooters used his own gun purchased through legal channels?
James Eagan Holmes.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#38 Dec 14 2012 at 9:03 PM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,139 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
When was the last time one of these shooters used his own gun purchased through legal channels?
James Eagan Holmes.


Wade Michael Page was later and also used legally purchased weapons.
#39 Dec 14 2012 at 9:07 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,882 posts
Sci Fi decided not to show the new episode of Haven tonight, because it dealt with a High School reunion and had 'violence' take place in a High School...

Instead they are showing the old Eureka Christmas special.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#40 Dec 14 2012 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Not sure who you're quoting, but so what? Bows and arrows also exist only for that purpose. So do swords, many forms of axes, knives, clubs, etc. Anything in the history of man that has been built to be a weapon is built for that purpose (to kill). Is that really the distinction though? Should we ban all weapons?

Probably not. Should we allow anyone to buy shoulder fired missiles? Probably not. Where the line is drawn between those two points should be a matter of reasoned debate, not infantile rhetoric. The current justification for private ownership of handguns and combat rifles is essentially "people need them to protect themselves against criminals because its easy for criminals to get handguns and combat rifles". While in reality, of course, the weird fear fantasy that you're going to be attacked by someone and be saved by your handgun almost never happens. To be fair, it's also the case that statistically your kid is about 30000 times more likely to be killed because you're a ****** driver than they are to be shot by a crazy ******.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#41 Dec 14 2012 at 9:56 PM Rating: Excellent
NSFW, Language

.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#42 Dec 14 2012 at 10:34 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Wish I could rate you up.. Would post on facebook, but definitely too soon for comedic relief.
#43 Dec 14 2012 at 11:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
I can hardly stomach Facebook today. I feel like a right *****, but this has hardly affected me at all. I think it's sad, and ****** up, but the Facebook posts are really making me sick. One guy posted that he usually regrets never having kids, but today isn't one of those days, then proceeds to tell all the parents on his friends list to hug their kids. One chick posted that this makes her want to home school her kid when she's ready to start school. My mom told me today "I cried through my whole lunch break."

Those that have kids, I can understand it a little more, I guess. Especially young kids. But mostly I just want it to go away. And I hate to speak ill of the dead, but apparently this guy was 20 years old, lived with his mom, and had "mental issues." Do you know who's guns he used? His mothers. Why on earth would you have guns in the house if you have a mentally ill adult living with you?
#44 Dec 15 2012 at 12:28 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira wrote:
Why on earth would you have guns in the house if you have a mentally ill adult living with you?

The government won't know you're serious about stopping tyranny unless you have a gun readily accessible for your mentally ill son to grab and start freedom fighting against school children with. Thank god for the 2nd Amendment.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Dec 15 2012 at 1:36 AM Rating: Good
Joph, sarcastically wrote:
Thank god for the 2nd Amendment.


Well, since this ******* wasn't a "well regulated militia" I don't see how that applies.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#46 Dec 15 2012 at 2:02 AM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,699 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Any idiot who starts spouting off about 2nd ammendment bs is just that, an idiot. Banning guns would work about as well, probably even less so, than banning alcohol did. When was the last time one of these shooters used his own gun purchased through legal channels? Of the last 100 or so incidents, how many were of this nature?

Go ahead, I'll wait while you figure it out.









Exactly.


Adam Lanza? This was a sarcastic post right?

Edited, Dec 15th 2012 3:03am by Deadgye
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#47 Dec 15 2012 at 2:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
Joph, sarcastically wrote:
Thank god for the 2nd Amendment.
Well, since this @#%^ wasn't a "well regulated militia" I don't see how that applies.

Didn't you know? The holy, divine and infallible Founding Fathers meant "well regulated militia" to mean anyone who could hold a gun, ever. This mentally ill person needed ready access to guns for militia purposes.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Dec 15 2012 at 6:10 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Of the 22 children stabbed in today's Chinese school massacre, while several ended up in critical care, none died.

I must mention that out of all the recent spate of school stabbing massacres in China, very often some children died. However the ratio of deaths from stabbings to deaths from gunshots is still lower overall.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#49 Dec 15 2012 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
670 posts
gbaji wrote:
Fine. Propose a change then. Tell me what you think the 2nd amendment should say, and what our gun laws should be. Then tell me how that will prevent crimes like this without unduly imposing on the rights of the citizens. I mean, since you acknowledge that you don't think firearms should be outright banned, then you need to tell me what limits you'd place that would still work legally and accomplish what you want it to accomplish. Just saying "there need to be a change" without being able to say what changes you would make is somewhat meaningless. It serves only to inflame the emotions of those who want "a change", and increase the likelihood of a really poor change being implemented based on those emotions..

I'd say civilians can only legally own 2 firearms. A 6-shot revolver and a rifle that only holds a single round. If you are a hunter, no need for more than 1 bullet. If you miss, chances are the animal would bolt anyway so what would having to reload hurt. Same with a revolver. 6 shots should easily be enough to protect yourself from whatever threat. By limiting the number of shots before reloading, I would think it would make it easier for people caught in that situation to be able to flee with a much higher chance of survival.
#50 Dec 15 2012 at 7:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Quote:
When was the last time one of these shooters used his own gun purchased through legal channels?


In almost every case, actually.

Guns legal or not


Saying that guns used in most mass shootings were obtained illegally is one of those commonly purported fallacies, like that Prohibition didn't reduce the use of alcohol (it did), or that dressing modestly reduces your risk of rape (it doesn't).

Edit: Graphic is from this post and created by Mother Jones.

Edited, Dec 15th 2012 8:37am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#51 Dec 15 2012 at 7:42 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira wrote:
I can hardly stomach Facebook today. I feel like a right *****, but this has hardly affected me at all. I think it's sad, and @#%^ed up, but the Facebook posts are really making me sick. One guy posted that he usually regrets never having kids, but today isn't one of those days, then proceeds to tell all the parents on his friends list to hug their kids. One chick posted that this makes her want to home school her kid when she's ready to start school. My mom told me today "I cried through my whole lunch break."


Don't feel bad, someone has to get coal for Christmas! I joke I joke.

People react differently. I first heard two students and a principal. I was bothered, but kind of shrugged it off. I missed all of the updates and was wondering why every news station was covering it. Thought they were overacting a bit. Then I saw the new total and became angry. I think that I'm getting softer and I don't like it.

Belkira wrote:
Do you know who's guns he used? His mothers. Why on earth would you have guns in the house if you have a mentally ill adult living with you?


I'm not buying the whole "mental illness". "Mental illness" could be anything. It could be that he was suffering from bulimia. I'm not going to degrade whatever his illness was , but at the same time, I'm not going to pardon his actions simply based on a broad statement of a "mental disorder". I heard that it was planned and I'm guessing that his mental illness did not prevent him from knowing good from bad in this scenario.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 87 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (87)