Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#802 Feb 12 2013 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
******
44,511 posts
gbaji wrote:
You guys seriously don't understand that votes are a replacement for violent conflict as a means of deciding who leads us?
We understand it's your latest attempt to scramble away from the actual point. You'll do it again before Thursday.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#803gbaji, Posted: Feb 12 2013 at 8:20 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) What point was I scrambling away from again?
#804 Feb 12 2013 at 8:20 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,511 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You guys seriously don't understand that votes are a replacement for violent conflict as a means of deciding who leads us?
We understand it's your latest attempt to scramble away from the actual point. You'll do it again before Thursday.
What point was I scrambling away from again?
You want the original one or the latest?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#805 Feb 12 2013 at 8:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You guys seriously don't understand that votes are a replacement for violent conflict as a means of deciding who leads us?

That doesn't make them analogous. Nor does it make statements like...
Quote:
Each person, armed with a gun (weapon of the time really), fights for his side and counts as one person fighting for his side. Each person, armed with a vote, fights for his side and counts as one person fighting for his side.

...less stupid.

But you never really responded: You feel that the conservatives would all agree to mandatory registration for every firearm and publicly available records of all firearm purchases/transactions? Because you currently need to be registered to vote and voting records are public. In fact, just like in voting, owning a gun while failing to register it would result in legal action including potential imprisonment.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#806 Feb 12 2013 at 8:29 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,239 posts
But then what about all those dead people registering guns and using them? You just armed the zombies of the apocalypse Joph...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#807gbaji, Posted: Feb 12 2013 at 10:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Except that the sole purpose of voter registration is to ensure that only those legally allowed to vote vote (something it's woefully inept at btw). It's not so we can track and/or restrict those who vote. I'll tell you what though. Remove all restrictions and requirements on becoming registered to own a gun (except proving age and lack of felon/mental patient status), and hand out a national "registered to own a gun" ID, and I'd be more than happy. Note that registering to own a gun doesn't require that one actually own one, just as registering to vote doesn't require that you vote. We could then register everyone in the country who wants to be registered and be done with the issue. Then the card can be used whenever one wants to buy a gun with no waiting periods or background checks required. Obviously, cards can be revoked if the legal status changes. Easy solution and very few people would have a problem with this.
#808 Feb 12 2013 at 10:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's not stupid at all. It's brilliance that sadly is lost on a population that has a very limited grasp on even the most basic concepts of civics and social constructs.

That must be it Smiley: laugh

Quote:
No. Because we don't require voters to tell us who they voted for, do we?

Doesn't matter. Each time you go to vote, you need to prove that you are registered and the fact that you are voting is recorded for public record. If "guns are votes" then each time you go to purchase a gun, you should have to prove government registration and then have that purchase recorded. Simple as that.
Quote:
Voting records are *not* public. The fact that you voted is

Erm, what do you think is meant by "voting records"? Anyway, it's currently the law and so you obviously agree that gun purchases should also be public record since guns are votes. And, by the way, while who you voted for isn't recorded, things such as whose ballot you choose in a primary certainly can be. So I think a fair amount of information about your gun purchases recorded into the public record is reasonable. Since "guns are votes" I'm certain that you agree.
Quote:
I'm totally up for that. Are you?

I said what I'm up for: treating guns like votes just like you asked. Required government registration which is checked for each and every "vote", public recording of "votes" and imprisonment for owning a "vote" without registration. You're the one flailing about trying to say these things don't really count. Ah, I almost forgot -- just as you are limited in how many times you can vote (once per election, assuming you're registered for that cycle), we're going to need strict limits on those "votes" as well, if you know what I mean.

Well, anyway, nice job stepping all over your **** as you try to compare a couple things, throw up some dumb challenge and then look like a fool trying to explain how they're nothing alike and guns shouldn't really be subject to the same laws as voting Smiley: laugh

Edited, Feb 12th 2013 11:00pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#809 Feb 12 2013 at 11:26 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, anyway, nice job stepping all over your **** as you try to compare a couple things, throw up some dumb challenge and then look like a fool trying to explain how they're nothing alike and guns shouldn't really be subject to the same laws as voting Smiley: laugh


"Don't retreat; recount!"
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#810 Feb 12 2013 at 11:43 PM Rating: Excellent
So gbaji, what's a compelling reason to not have a public list of gun owners?

"The government will take them" will only earn you a Smiley: tinfoilhat so don't go there.

"The thieves will know where to break in" will fall apart, because, according to you, the gun-owners will shoot them dead upon entry.

Go.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#811 Feb 13 2013 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,511 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's not stupid at all. It's brilliance that sadly is lost on a population that has a very limited grasp on even the most basic concepts of civics and social constructs.
It's not stupid in itself, but the problem is you were asked what type of apple you liked and you're on a tangent about elephants. Yes, elephants are big, but that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. But that's the point, isn't it? To ignore facts and data, to disregard anything resembling rational and reasonable examination and to just try to tug on heart strings, all the while attempting to accuse everyone else of doing it and hoping no one can figure out how to scroll up or go back a page to see what was said.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#812 Feb 13 2013 at 9:38 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,570 posts
No. Because we don't require voters to tell us who they voted for, do we?

Just who we paid to support. So let's just have records of guns people paid to have. Seems fair.
____________________________
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.

#813 Feb 13 2013 at 1:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
Based on Gbaji's analogy here, I think we can find a solution. 1 vote per person, 1 bullet per person. No restrictions on guns.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#814 Feb 13 2013 at 2:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
This is relevant.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#815 Feb 13 2013 at 2:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
Based on Gbaji's analogy here, I think we can find a solution. 1 vote per person, 1 bullet per person. No restrictions on guns.

No, he already said that doesn't count. See, each person with a gun is a soldier in his side's army just like every person with a vote is a soldier in his side's army. Because casting one vote is the same as firing lots of bull--- ****, I don't know. Here, this sums up my feelings on this line of debate well enough:

Screenshot
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#816 Feb 13 2013 at 2:09 PM Rating: Good
******
44,511 posts
**** you I just stopped opening the other thread with that image and now I have to see it here and laugh.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#817 Feb 13 2013 at 2:31 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Based on Gbaji's analogy here, I think we can find a solution. 1 vote per person, 1 bullet per person. No restrictions on guns.

No, he already said that doesn't count. See, each person with a gun is a soldier in his side's army just like every person with a vote is a soldier in his side's army. Because casting one vote is the same as firing lots of bull--- ****, I don't know.


Wait. Wait. Wait.



Wait.




What's the Electoral College in this metaphor?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#818 Feb 13 2013 at 2:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
The only ones on the battlefield who weren't issued blanks.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#819gbaji, Posted: Feb 13 2013 at 3:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Beyond the specific concerns, it's also a matter of privacy. We should not need a compelling reason to not have the government collect data about your life and make it public. We should require a compelling reason for any release of private information about an individual without their consent. Is there one in this case? Is there a compelling reason not to have a public list of women who've had abortions? How about lists of what books people read? What they watch on TV? What movies they rent? Let's make lists of associations while we're at it. It's a terrible idea. Doubly so given that gun ownership is an enumerated right in our constitution.
#820 Feb 13 2013 at 3:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
So gbaji, what's a compelling reason to not have a public list of gun owners?
The same compelling reason to not have a public list of how people voted in the last election.

But there IS a public list of people who chose to vote in every election. So a list of people choosing to own firearms is completely acceptable.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#821 Feb 13 2013 at 3:15 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,570 posts
The same compelling reason to not have a public list of how people voted in the last election. The concern that they would be unfairly exposed to public pressure for doing something that is completely legal, but which their neighbors might not agree with.

Exactly, this is why no one can find out who owns real estate and how much they paid for it. Because people who own a great deal that they purchased at low prices might be unfairly...oh wait.

There are thousands of things that are matters of public record. Things far more benign than owning a deadly weapon. Let's set that aside though.

Are you against a universal registry through ATF that can only be accessed by law enforcement? (nothing like this currently exists before you assume)
____________________________
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.

#822 Feb 13 2013 at 3:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Based on Gbaji's analogy here, I think we can find a solution. 1 vote per person, 1 bullet per person. No restrictions on guns.

No, he already said that doesn't count. See, each person with a gun is a soldier in his side's army just like every person with a vote is a soldier in his side's army. Because casting one vote is the same as firing lots of bull--- ****, I don't know.


Wait. Wait. Wait.



Wait.




What's the Electoral College in this metaphor?


The Electoral College members are battles won or lost in a war. Is this really such a difficult analogy for people to grasp? What do you think we'd be doing to determine who leads us if we didn't have elections or hereditary rule?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#823 Feb 13 2013 at 3:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Waiting for the cardinals to arrive at a new pope?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#824 Feb 13 2013 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
So gbaji, what's a compelling reason to not have a public list of gun owners?
The same compelling reason to not have a public list of how people voted in the last election.

But there IS a public list of people who chose to vote in every election. So a list of people choosing to own firearms is completely acceptable.

Obviously we should compromise: you only have to register your gun if you use it.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#825 Feb 13 2013 at 3:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
gbaji wrote:
The Electoral College members are battles won or lost in a war. Is this really such a difficult analogy for people to grasp? What do you think we'd be doing to determine who leads us if we didn't have elections or hereditary rule?


Arguably only in those districts where they're bound by law to vote the people's choice. Until then we're all just running around with blanks...

Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#826 Feb 13 2013 at 3:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In true Republican spirit though, we don't want any same day registration. If you need to use your gun, you'll have to register and wait two to six weeks for your gun-use registration card.

otherwise you'll have minorities using that right and we can't have that...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#827 Feb 13 2013 at 3:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Are you against a universal registry through ATF that can only be accessed by law enforcement? (nothing like this currently exists before you assume)


If by universal registry, you simply mean a registry of people who are legally registered to own a firearm? Sure. No problem at all. I just proposed an idea where anyone can get a gun registration ID that verifies that they are legally allowed to own firearms. You do that once. The cards are required to purchase any firearm. The POS systems are linked to a database that validates the card, so that if the persons legal status changes, they can't buy guns. Beyond that, no tracking of anything at all. It would act like a credit check. You either can or can't legally own a weapon.

No background checks required because it's already done for you. Swipe your card. Green means you can buy a gun. No need for bewildering registration or licensing systems for the firearms themselves. If you are in possession of a firearm, cop swipes your card. Green means you're legal and you continue on your way. Point being as long as the firearms themselves are legal to own (ie: don't violate existing restrictions), there's no need to track how many anyone has or what types they are within that range. In exactly the same way that if I'm legally able to buy alcohol, the government shouldn't be tracking how many bottles I buy, or what kind. If I want to buy 20 television sets, the government shouldn't track that either. See how that works? If I want to give a friend of mine a gun, as long as he's got a valid card, it's legal. There's no more need to track that than there is whether I give that friend an old dresser I don't need anymore.


We track way too many things already IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#828 Feb 13 2013 at 3:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The Electoral College members are battles won or lost in a war. Is this really such a difficult analogy for people to grasp? What do you think we'd be doing to determine who leads us if we didn't have elections or hereditary rule?


Arguably only in those districts where they're bound by law to vote the people's choice. Until then we're all just running around with blanks...

Smiley: tinfoilhat


Um... But the party chooses the electoral college members. So I suppose it would be more like generals in your army, each holding the territory they won. While it's certainly possible for your general to decide to betray his side and hand over the city/whatever to the other guys, it's pretty unlikely.

It's just funny to me that you guys seem to have never even considered the idea that elections are an analogy for civil war.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#829 Feb 13 2013 at 3:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... But the party chooses the electoral college members. So I suppose it would be more like generals in your army, each holding the territory they won. While it's certainly possible for your general to decide to betray his side and hand over the city/whatever to the other guys, it's pretty unlikely.


Okay, I can live with that.

gbaji wrote:
It's just funny to me that you guys seem to have never even considered the idea that elections are an analogy for civil war.


Have many times, hence post #786. Best part of a civil war is when neither side will really represent you in the end, but they still force you to choose sides... Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#830 Feb 13 2013 at 3:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,614 posts
gbaji wrote:
In exactly the same way that if I'm legally able to buy alcohol, the government shouldn't be tracking how many bottles I buy, or what kind.


We do have self policing (supposedly) on the amount of alcohol you are allowed to purchase and consume in a public place. Someone is keeping track of that, when you go into a bar, and start consuming.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#831 Feb 13 2013 at 4:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
In exactly the same way that if I'm legally able to buy alcohol, the government shouldn't be tracking how many bottles I buy, or what kind.


We do have self policing (supposedly) on the amount of alcohol you are allowed to purchase and consume in a public place. Someone is keeping track of that, when you go into a bar, and start consuming.


Shooting ranges tend to have rules as well.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#832 Feb 13 2013 at 4:21 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... But the party chooses the electoral college members. So I suppose it would be more like generals in your army, each holding the territory they won. While it's certainly possible for your general to decide to betray his side and hand over the city/whatever to the other guys, it's pretty unlikely.


Okay, I can live with that.

gbaji wrote:
It's just funny to me that you guys seem to have never even considered the idea that elections are an analogy for civil war.


Have many times, hence post #786. Best part of a civil war is when neither side will really represent you in the end, but they still force you to choose sides... Smiley: rolleyes


What's the saying? If you don't choose a side, a side will choose you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#833 Feb 13 2013 at 4:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
gbaji wrote:
What's the saying? If you don't choose a side, a side will choose you?

Not if I can help it; got an underground bunker a shotgun and a tinfoilhat.

GET ME IF YOU CAN AMERICA!!



Smiley: tinfoilhat

[:shotgun:]

Actually it's kind of nice that most of the time no one else really cares. Well, until we legalize pot or euthanasia or something... Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Feb 13th 2013 2:37pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#834 Feb 13 2013 at 4:47 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,511 posts
gbaji wrote:
Shooting ranges tend to have rules as well.
Like a log of users, a surcharge, and cameras watching you do what you're there to do. Just like voting!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#835 Feb 13 2013 at 4:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Shooting ranges tend to have rules as well.
Like a log of users, a surcharge, and cameras watching you do what you're there to do. Just like voting!

Absentee FTW. All voting should be done while lounging on your couch in your underwear.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#836 Feb 13 2013 at 5:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Likewise, you're only allowed to use a gun in your own home!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#837 Feb 13 2013 at 5:09 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Based on Gbaji's analogy here, I think we can find a solution. 1 vote per person, 1 bullet per person. No restrictions on guns.

No, he already said that doesn't count. See, each person with a gun is a soldier in his side's army just like every person with a vote is a soldier in his side's army. Because casting one vote is the same as firing lots of bull--- ****, I don't know.


Wait. Wait. Wait.



Wait.




What's the Electoral College in this metaphor?


The Electoral College members are battles won or lost in a war. Is this really such a difficult analogy for people to grasp? What do you think we'd be doing to determine who leads us if we didn't have elections or hereditary rule?


What's an absentee ballot? Is it like, a sniper rifle or something?

I JUST WANT TO KNOW THE RULES, GBAJI.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#838 Feb 13 2013 at 5:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
A provisional ballot is when you run out of bullets and throw your pistol at the enemy, Superman bank-robber style.
gbaji wrote:
It's just funny to me that you guys seem to have never even considered the idea that elections are an analogy for civil war.

They're not, really. Or at least not past the most basic sense of "two or more 'teams' decide on a winner via some fashion" (hey, chess is an analogy for fist fighting because instead of me beating up an old guy in the park, we can play chess to decide who wins!). Democracy is an alternative to a bunch of other ways to choose the guy(s) in charge but that's not really the same thing as you keep hilariously proving time and again with your goofy attempts to link guns directly to votes.

No one is confused that one of the perks of stable government of whatever stripe is the lack of regular murdering to determine head of state. We're all just laughing at you as you try and stretch it far beyond that because at some point you said to yourself "Hey, people like voting so if I say guns are just like votes, they'll have to agree with me! The perfect trap!"

...and then, of course, you fell into your own pit about fifty times in a row.

Edited, Feb 13th 2013 5:27pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#839 Feb 13 2013 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Chairman Mao wrote:
Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.


Come on, it's supposed to be part of liberal indoctrination or something right? Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#840 Feb 13 2013 at 6:36 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,084 posts
How is casting a vote equivalent to shooting somebody? Isn't shooting somebody similar to shooting somebody? Did I miss an explanation?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#841 Feb 13 2013 at 6:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Those kids at Sandy Hook were voted DOWN~!!!

Why can't we respect these gun-vote rights?!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#842 Feb 13 2013 at 7:26 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Almalieque wrote:
How is casting a vote equivalent to shooting somebody? Isn't shooting somebody similar to shooting somebody? Did I miss an explanation?


Casting your bullet-vote helps you shoot (read: instruct) your electoral college commander to hold territory, thereby vote-killing the enemy persons. Unless your commander turns traitor, which would mean that he kills you with his betrayal voting cities. But if he's firing vote-blanks, you're okay, as long as you succeed with your saving roll.

Try to keep up.

Edited, Feb 13th 2013 8:26pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#843 Feb 13 2013 at 7:39 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,084 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
How is casting a vote equivalent to shooting somebody? Isn't shooting somebody similar to shooting somebody? Did I miss an explanation?


Casting your bullet-vote helps you shoot (read: instruct) your electoral college commander to hold territory, thereby vote-killing the enemy persons. Unless your commander turns traitor, which would mean that he kills you with his betrayal voting cities. But if he's firing vote-blanks, you're okay, as long as you succeed with your saving roll.

Try to keep up.

Edited, Feb 13th 2013 8:26pm by Eske


I know that you're being facetious, but the actual vote isn't being shot. In that philosophical thought, the car is just as guilty for transporting you to the location.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#844 Feb 13 2013 at 8:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Lets be honest. No one knows what is actually being "shot" in this analogy. Like most of gbaji's analogies, it only works if you don't really think about it. At all. Ever. Just assume that he's right because the concept is so very obvious.
#845 Feb 13 2013 at 9:09 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
How is casting a vote equivalent to shooting somebody? Isn't shooting somebody similar to shooting somebody? Did I miss an explanation?


Casting your bullet-vote helps you shoot (read: instruct) your electoral college commander to hold territory, thereby vote-killing the enemy persons. Unless your commander turns traitor, which would mean that he kills you with his betrayal voting cities. But if he's firing vote-blanks, you're okay, as long as you succeed with your saving roll.

Try to keep up.

Edited, Feb 13th 2013 8:26pm by Eske


I know that you're being facetious, but....


Smiley: dubious
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#846 Feb 13 2013 at 9:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,599 posts

If votes are guns that decide the war, then a filibuster is zombie reanimation?

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#847 Feb 13 2013 at 9:50 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,511 posts
If we're going to do this, let's really do this. First, all votes are meant to be equal, therefore the only legitimate thing to do is to only have one legal model firearm. How can you sit there and suggest that a Remington 700 CDL is the same as a Beretta 950 Jetfire? It's ridiculous. Equal vote, equal gun. Next, no one pays to vote, therefore whatever model we decide on has to be free. But to do that it'd have to be government funded, as no one would suggest that people produce millions upon millions of pistols for free, so you'd simply have to raise taxes to cover it. Beretta and Glock already have contracts to make weapons for the armed forces and various law enforcement agencies, so I'm sure they'd be more than happy to get paid more to make more. And, you know we don't prevent people who don't pay taxes from voting, so we can't prevent people who don't pay taxes from these free guns either. That would be unconstitutional.

So I guess that's what gbaji really wants. Higher taxes, no real choice in what low quality firearm you can get and in pretty much anyone's hands regardless of socio-eco status.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#848 Feb 13 2013 at 10:09 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
I want a higher caliber weapon than that. Some kind of hand cannon, maybe. With 9-10mm pistols, it's just not America.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#849 Feb 13 2013 at 10:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
I vote that we shoot this thread. Dead.
#850 Feb 13 2013 at 10:36 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I vote that we shoot this thread. Dead.

How do I shot thread?
____________________________
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.


#851 Feb 13 2013 at 10:40 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I vote that we shoot this thread. Dead.


I don't know, I wasn't all that impressed with the manifesto...
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 55 All times are in CST
Debalic, Iamadam, Samira, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (51)