Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#852 Feb 13 2013 at 11:00 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I vote that we shoot this thread. Dead.


Go ahead, waste your vote-bullet.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#853 Feb 13 2013 at 11:10 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
A three vote salute in honour of the fallen.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#854 Feb 14 2013 at 12:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,586 posts

Whenever I cast my vote, a flock of doves takes flight in slow-motion.

The election judges are usually not pleased.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#855 Feb 14 2013 at 12:57 AM Rating: Good
BrownDuck wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
I vote that we shoot this thread. Dead.

How do I shot thread?
With babby who doesnt affraid of anything?
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#856 Feb 14 2013 at 2:13 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,055 posts
Why can't I own a 1000 votes per minute precision voting machine?

I just want to exercise my right to vote.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#857 Feb 14 2013 at 1:49 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
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

?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#858 Feb 14 2013 at 1:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
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

?

Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#859 Feb 14 2013 at 2:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,586 posts

Now that I think about it, shooting a paper ballot to mark your vote would eliminate the problem of hanging chads.

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#860 Feb 14 2013 at 2:19 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
trickybeck wrote:

Now that I think about it, shooting a paper ballot to mark your vote would eliminate the problem of hanging chads.



What about, instead of shooting our votes, we voted by hanging guys named Chad?

Voting is basically just an analog to hanging people, anyway.

Edited, Feb 14th 2013 3:19pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#861 Feb 14 2013 at 2:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Are the choices hang or shoot then? What about a third option?

Edited, Feb 14th 2013 2:48pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#862 Feb 14 2013 at 2:43 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Please, nobody ever takes the third option serious.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#863 Feb 14 2013 at 4:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
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.


And yet you're scrambling really really hard to insist that elections are in no way replacements for using violence to make those decisions. Which I find amusing as ****.

Quote:
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!"


It's not about it being a "trap". It's about it being the truth. It's just a truth that you don't want to acknowledge because it calls into question a political position you happen to hold. You're "laughing" because that's what liberals do when they realize that they don't have a good counter argument. When you can't win on logic or reason, just point and laugh. Laugh as loudly as you can. Make sure lots of other people see you do it so that they'll laugh with you and maybe not stop and think "wait a minute, that guy has a point".

Voting in an election is a substitute for arming yourself and fighting for a faction in a civil war. You can laugh all you want, but that's what it is. That's the purpose it serves. Forgetting that is foolish and stupid.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#864 Feb 14 2013 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And yet you're scrambling really really hard to insist that elections are in no way replacements for using violence to make those decisions. Which I find amusing as ****.

Yeah, no one believes that. If you call everyone laughing at your comparison "scrambling", you probably need an English class or two.

Quote:
It's not about it being a "trap". It's about it being the truth.

And yet you refuse time and again to accept the same rules on voting to apply to firearms. Funny that. I'm sure when you proposed your little challenge, it sounded so much better in your head.

Quote:
Make sure lots of other people see you do it so that they'll laugh with you and maybe not stop and think "wait a minute, that guy has a point".

I'm flattered that you believe my charisma to be such that everyone just follows my lead without thought or hesitation (they may be less flattered). But I'm confident that they'd see your comparison for the joke it is with or without me.

Edited, Feb 14th 2013 5:31pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#865 Feb 14 2013 at 5:40 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
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

?

Smiley: rolleyes

?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#866 Feb 14 2013 at 5:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
Almalieque wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
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

?

Smiley: rolleyes

?

Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#867 Feb 14 2013 at 6:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And yet you're scrambling really really hard to insist that elections are in no way replacements for using violence to make those decisions. Which I find amusing as ****.

Yeah, no one believes that.


Believes what? That elections aren't replacements for using violence to make those decisions? I think they do.

Quote:
Quote:
It's not about it being a "trap". It's about it being the truth.

And yet you refuse time and again to accept the same rules on voting to apply to firearms.


Huh? I've at least twice given complete responses about which rules I think we should have in common for both. You apparently didn't like my "let's give a registration card to everyone who can own a gun and vote and use the same card for both" idea, because you never bothered to respond to it.

Quote:
Funny that. I'm sure when you proposed your little challenge, it sounded so much better in your head.


So you're all for handing a registration ID card to everyone who can legally vote and requiring them to present that when voting? Cause I'm perfectly find with handing a registration ID card to everyone who can legally own a gun and requiring them to present that when buying one (or carrying one outside their home). Your little rant would ring a bit more true if you'd even bothered to respond to what I wrote.

Quote:
Quote:
Make sure lots of other people see you do it so that they'll laugh with you and maybe not stop and think "wait a minute, that guy has a point".

I'm flattered that you believe my charisma to be such that everyone just follows my lead without thought or hesitation (they may be less flattered). But I'm confident that they'd see your comparison for the joke it is with or without me.


I was talking about why you do it, not about whether it works. I kinda envision you kinda straining and laughing nervously going "Wow. That's just crazy. Isn't that crazy? Haha! Um... Really guys. Look how funny that is. I mean, no one could believe that! Guys?". All the while you're looking around and gauging people's reactions and hoping they're buying it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#868 Feb 14 2013 at 6:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Believes what?

That I'm "scrambling" for anything. Particularly when everyone else seems to realize the same thing I do.
Quote:
Huh? I've at least twice given complete responses about which rules I think we should have in common for both.

But that wasn't the question. You were asking ME to decide on the fair laws that should apply to both. And when I applied the same laws we have NOW for voting to gun ownership you started backpedaling like a ****.
Quote:
So you're all for handing a registration ID card to everyone who can legally vote and requiring them to present that when voting?

I'm fine for treating guns like we treat voting. Mandatory registration, publicly available records of gun ownership (including dates of every instance of purchase) and strict laws and penalties (including imprisonment) for possession of unregistered weapons.
Quote:
I was talking about why you do it, not about whether it works. I kinda envision you kinda straining and laughing nervously going "Wow. That's just crazy. Isn't that crazy? Haha! Um... Really guys. Look how funny that is. I mean, no one could believe that! Guys?". All the while you're looking around and gauging people's reactions and hoping they're buying it.

It's nice that age hasn't diminished your vivid, childlike imagination Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#869 Feb 14 2013 at 6:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
But that wasn't the question. You were asking ME to decide on the fair laws that should apply to both.


No. I said we should treat them equally under the law. You then went off on a bizarre tangent inventing ridiculous rules that would treat them very unequally.

Quote:
And when I applied the same laws we have NOW for voting to gun ownership you started backpedaling like a ****.


You didn't apply the same laws. You came up with how you thought the laws should be applied. I responded by saying that they should apply differently. That's a difference of opinion Joph. I think that we should apply the same rules for both. You and I disagree on what "the same" means though.

Quote:
Quote:
So you're all for handing a registration ID card to everyone who can legally vote and requiring them to present that when voting?

I'm fine for treating guns like we treat voting. Mandatory registration, publicly available records of gun ownership (including dates of every instance of purchase) and strict laws and penalties (including imprisonment) for possession of unregistered weapons.


That's not the same though. We don't register "votes". We register voters. And the registration is not tied to the act of voting. Registration simply means you are legally allowed to vote. I have absolutely no problem with a registration that simply says "this person is legally allowed to own a firearm". I've sated that many times.

You want to track people's gun purchases and ownership. But that's more like tracking how people vote. It's not analogous in terms of basic registration. I'm opposed to a system which tracks how people vote in any election and I'm similarly opposed to a system that tracks which guns people buy and how many they own. And as I already explained, I oppose both for more or less the same reason.


You want to track the guns people own. I want to make sure that only those legally allowed to own guns can buy them. Just as I don't want to track how people vote, I just want to make sure that only those people who are legally allowed to vote do so. You've presented a ridiculous scenario in response to my proposal. I'll ask again: Why don't we just maintain a database of people registered to own a gun and a database of people registered to vote. Hand out ID cards to those people that are tied to that registry. When they go to vote, they swipe their card at any polling place to prove their eligible to vote, and they can then vote. When they go to buy a gun, they swipe their card at any gun store to prove their eligible to buy a gun, and then they can buy a gun. The systems are maintained and if the status of anyone in the system changes, it's instantly reflected and will prevent them from voting or buying a gun.

Simple. Effective. No one's privacy gets infringed, and we close the loopholes in both systems. But you don't want to register people to own guns. You want to track gun ownership. Those are completely different things. And I'll wager you would oppose a voter registration system like the one I've proposed, because, well that's a good question. Why would one oppose such a system? Seems like it would be a much better way of managing things.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#870 Feb 14 2013 at 6:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's not the same though.

Probably because votes aren't guns, huh? For instance, guns aren't an action. When you purchase a gun, it tends to stay where you put it. When you cast a vote, you're done. You don't carry a vote in your pocket. You can't sell a vote as a physical item. You can't stockpile votes in your basement. Amazing!

It's not a difference of opinion, it's a difference of reality. I'm treating guns as votes within the framework we have for voting and applying it to physical, permanent objects. You're hung up on ignoring these obvious differences and pretending that they're the same things. Then everyone laughs at you and you flip out and accuse me of leading a gaggle of hysterical drones with my Pied Piper like powers of persuasion Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#871 Feb 14 2013 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
I don't know where gbaji votes, but every time I have ever voted there was someone there with this big book of names and I had to sign it next to my name. If that's not recording the fact that I voted, I'm not sure what it is.

And in case you need that spelled out, gbaji, that would equate to recording every gun purchase. Not necessarily what try purchased, but that they did purchase a firearm.
#872 Feb 14 2013 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Signing your name is also you attesting that you are, in fact, legally registered to cast that vote. You are actively registering your vote for that election.

This is different from the step where some election judge says "Yep, you're on the list" which is what Gbaji's card swipe would accomplish.

Speaking of election judges, I'm assuming Gbaji is also in favor of restricting gun purchases to a select geographic zone where your house is.

Edited, Feb 14th 2013 7:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#873 Feb 14 2013 at 7:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's not the same though.

Probably because votes aren't guns, huh?


Correct. Good thing I never said that. That was a bizarre strawman you pulled out all on your own. I said that the voting is a replacement for fighting in a civil war, and that each person voting was equivalent to an armed person fighting for his side in a civil war. I never directly equated guns to votes, or bullets to votes. Those were silly responses form the peanut gallery.

Quote:
For instance, guns aren't an action.


Correct. The physical paper you write on when you vote isn't an action either. The act of voting is an action. And the act of fighting is an action. The difference is whether we decide who wins by counting up votes on pieces of paper, or by having the sides fight it out for real.

Quote:
When you purchase a gun, it tends to stay where you put it. When you cast a vote, you're done. You don't carry a vote in your pocket. You can't sell a vote as a physical item. You can't stockpile votes in your basement. Amazing!


Yes. But the results of that vote don't disappear immediately after voting either. And you retain the right to vote in each election. It's not about the physical vote, but the concept of "being able to vote". Similarly, it's not about the physical gun, but the concept of "being able to own a gun" that matters here.

Quote:
I'm treating guns as votes within the framework we have for voting and applying it to physical, permanent objects.


Which isn't what I originally was talking about. I was talking about treating "registering to vote" the same as "registering to own a gun". And I'm more than happy to apply the same rules to both. Tracking every gun purchase would be equivalent to tracking how you voted.

Quote:
You're hung up on ignoring these obvious differences and pretending that they're the same things.


No. I'm saying that those obvious differences only matter to someone who's ignoring what I'm saying and arguing a strawman instead. You can't treat guns identically to votes because, as you yourself pointed out, there are differences between them. Which is why I didn't propose that. I proposed that we use the same method to register people's legal ability to vote as we'd use to register people's legal ability to buy guns. You're trying to expand that into something I never argued for.

I'll ask for the third time: Do you have a disagreement with what I proposed? If so, why? You still haven't really addressed this.

Edited, Feb 14th 2013 5:43pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#874 Feb 14 2013 at 7:46 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
I never directly equated guns to votes, or bullets to votes.
gbaji, two pages back wrote:
Votes are a substitute for weapons and civil war.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#875 Feb 14 2013 at 7:49 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Correct. Good thing I never said that. That was a bizarre strawman you pulled out all on your own. I said that the voting is a replacement for fighting in a civil war, and that each person voting was equivalent to an armed person fighting for his side in a civil war. I never directly equated guns to votes, or bullets to votes. Those were silly responses form the peanut gallery.


Which is yet again, completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion. You continue to make statements irrelevant to the topic and wonder why people get confused when they assume relevancy.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#876 Feb 14 2013 at 7:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Signing your name is also you attesting that you are, in fact, legally registered to cast that vote. You are actively registering your vote for that election.

This is different from the step where some election judge says "Yep, you're on the list" which is what Gbaji's card swipe would accomplish.


Except that the reason we sign our names is so that they can compare it to the list of people registered to vote. It's only required because we currently do not have any system in place for them to determine this. But if we had the card I proposed we would, and thus there would be no need to sign in.

Quote:
Speaking of election judges, I'm assuming Gbaji is also in favor of restricting gun purchases to a select geographic zone where your house is.


Don't be silly. As I've said repeatedly, analogies are not identical cases, they are similar cases. The restriction regarding voting and geography is a construct of our specific voting process, not an aspect of voting in general. Also, you're certainly allowed to use absentee balloting if you don't happen to be in your district on election day. And if you move, you can vote wherever you move to.

Um... Such a card could also potentially eliminate the geographical restriction (for voting, not for what you're voting on of course, cause that would require a radical change of our system). The card could contain information about what district/state/city you're registered to vote in allowing it to be used in conjunction with voting machines to automatically present you with the correct set of voting options regardless of where you actually are, and submitting that to the tally for that geographical region. Obviously, this would require more work than a simple "yes/no" response (although that would already have to identify that you're registered in the district you're voting in and haven't already voted so it's more of a technical problem with the voting machines than anything else). So you're kinda backwards. I don't want to restrict things. I want to open them up and make things easier.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#877 Feb 14 2013 at 7:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I never directly equated guns to votes, or bullets to votes.
gbaji, two pages back wrote:
Votes are a substitute for weapons and civil war.


Key word: Substitute. We use votes to make determinations instead of weapons and civil war. Do you really have a disagreement with that? It does not mean that a single physical vote is equivalent to a single physical gun (or bullet for that matter). It means that the decisions are made based on the whole accumulation of "votes" instead of by using "weapons" to make "civil war". Get it? The better comparison is between the whole body of "voters" and the whole body of "people fighting in a war". But then, I've already said this several times, so if you haven't gotten it yet, you're either really slow or you're intentionally ignoring those parts so you pretend I'm arguing for something I'm not (ie: strawman).

Edited, Feb 14th 2013 5:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#878 Feb 14 2013 at 8:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Correct. Good thing I never said that. That was a bizarre strawman you pulled out all on your own. I said that the voting is a replacement for fighting in a civil war, and that each person voting was equivalent to an armed person fighting for his side in a civil war. I never directly equated guns to votes, or bullets to votes. Those were silly responses form the peanut gallery.


Which is yet again, completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion. You continue to make statements irrelevant to the topic and wonder why people get confused when they assume relevancy.


The topic of discussion is whatever we're discussing. Circular, I know. Don't strain yourself thinking about it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#879 Feb 14 2013 at 8:00 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
Key word: Substitute.
Whatever you need to tell yourself as you scramble to cover your tracks, sunshine.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#880 Feb 14 2013 at 8:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Key word: Substitute.
Whatever you need to tell yourself as you scramble to cover your tracks, sunshine.


No track covering at all. I never said that one vote equals one gun, or one bullet, nor that the method of use was the same. Voting in an election is a replacement for using guns to fight a civil war. That does not mean I think that votes come with **** stocks and different capacity magazines or fling things at other people at high velocity and/or kill them, and it's silly that people go there. But then, much like Camelot, this place is very silly.

Edited, Feb 14th 2013 6:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#881 Feb 14 2013 at 8:08 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Key word: Substitute.
Whatever you need to tell yourself as you scramble to cover your tracks, sunshine.
No track covering at all.
Of course, sweety. Smiley: smile
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#882 Feb 14 2013 at 9:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We should treat voting like guns because they're the same except all the times when they're not!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#883 Feb 14 2013 at 9:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
We should treat voting like guns because they're the same except all the times when they're not!


Is this different than how we treat anything else? We treat cars and trucks the same except for the times when they're not the same, right? I mean, this is a concept we employ all the time in every other facet of our lives, but you can't noodle it out in this one case? Seem somewhat pointless to insist that we can't compare the common aspects of two things unless those two things are absolutely identical in every way.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#884 Feb 14 2013 at 10:01 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
gbaji's arguments always remind me of the scene from Willow.

"Go in the direction the bird is flying!"
"He's going back to village!"
"Ignore the bird. Follow the river. "
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#885 Feb 14 2013 at 10:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
We treat cars and trucks the same except for the times when they're not the same, right?

You meant "We treat cars and interpretive dance the same except for the times they're not, right?"

And, yes we do. Likewise, we're already treating guns and votes the same except for when they're not. Which is often since they're about alike as cars and interpretive dance.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#886 Feb 15 2013 at 12:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,055 posts
trickybeck wrote:

Now that I think about it, shooting a paper ballot to mark your vote would eliminate the problem of hanging chads.



TL;DR wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Registration and a record kept of each time you exercise the right? You're only able to own a gun once every couple years or so?

Treating guns likes votes? Bold move for someone from Illinois.


How about we allow people to use guns to vote?

No more hanging chads!


Already made that joke! get your own.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#887 Feb 15 2013 at 12:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,586 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Already made that joke! get your own.

I'll just vote you dead and claim it as mine.

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#888 Feb 15 2013 at 6:01 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,055 posts
trickybeck wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Already made that joke! get your own.

I'll just vote you dead and claim it as mine.



Diebold is on my side.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#889 Feb 15 2013 at 6:38 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
Totem will be back here soon and see that his post from 2months ago is still at the top of the page. His head will blow up.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#890 Feb 15 2013 at 7:50 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Correct. Good thing I never said that. That was a bizarre strawman you pulled out all on your own. I said that the voting is a replacement for fighting in a civil war, and that each person voting was equivalent to an armed person fighting for his side in a civil war. I never directly equated guns to votes, or bullets to votes. Those were silly responses form the peanut gallery.


Which is yet again, completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion. You continue to make statements irrelevant to the topic and wonder why people get confused when they assume relevancy.


The topic of discussion is whatever we're discussing. Circular, I know. Don't strain yourself thinking about it.


So, you don't believe in the terms "irrelevant", "off topic", etc.? Kind of hypocritical as you seem to call things "irrelevant" all of the time. However, you are partly right. It is based on what WE are discussing, not what YOU want it to be.

You're confusing people's knack and inclination for responses with a change in topic. If everyone were on the same page as you, then they would understand your analogies. Instead, your analogies and statements are independent to the topic at hand. Then when posters respond to your posts with the intent of relevancy, you accuse them of nescience. When in reality, this is nothing more than a ruse to appear misunderstood. To be fair, the common population here often do that on their own, but in this case you're intentionally constructing it.

This is why when you asked a specific question on how to implement gun control without violating the 2nd amendment you responded to posts that had their responses intertwined with your irrelevancy. However, you ignored my post which was concise and on topic. You have no intention of actually talking about the gun control in question, but tangents that you created which is akin to the current Republican tactics.

"As long as we can keep people talking about stuff that isn't relevant to the discussion, or even true, then we can avoid having to talk about the actual issues at hand!".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#891 Feb 15 2013 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Already made that joke! get your own.
It's recycling.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#892 Feb 15 2013 at 2:32 PM Rating: Excellent
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Already made that joke! get your own.
It's recycling reloading.

____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#893 Feb 15 2013 at 2:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Is this different than how we treat anything else? We treat cars and trucks the same except for the times when they're not the same, right? I mean, this is a concept we employ all the time in every other facet of our lives, but you can't noodle it out in this one case? Seem somewhat pointless to insist that we can't compare the common aspects of two things unless those two things are absolutely identical in every way.

Yes, an enfranchised right of citizenship and deadly physical object, nearly identical. Pairs more simmilar than your example: Ducks and Blue. Imagination and Talcum.
____________________________
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.

#894 Feb 15 2013 at 3:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
As I worked on my Paint-by-Numbers kit, I was about to paint the sky but for some reason could not find the Duck segment in my paint kit. I suddenly came to the realization that this was one of the rare times that Ducks and Blue deviated from one another, and recovered, happily painting all the sections with a 2 in them.
____________________________
Banh
#895 Feb 15 2013 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Why stop with voting and guns? We should treat guns just like freedom of religion! If you're registered with the government, you're allowed to go to church. Or maybe if you have the correct voter registration you're allowed to keep soldiers from crashing on your couch but without that card, you don't get that right. The pen is mightier than the sword so we should have required tests to prove mental competence before allowing you freedom of the press.

Actually, given the usual comments section for any news article that last one isn't such a shabby idea. And it's treating words like guns!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#896 Feb 15 2013 at 8:14 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
If words are like bullets then Gbaji is a machine gun that pulls to the right.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#897 Feb 16 2013 at 3:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
If words are like bullets then Gbaji is a machine gun that pulls to the right.

I'm calling it.

Top Joke of 2013.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#898 Feb 16 2013 at 9:42 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
If words are like bullets then Gbaji is a machine gun that pulls to the right.

I'm calling it.

Top Joke of 2013.


Were that true, I think I'd quit the forum.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#899 Feb 16 2013 at 9:54 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
If words are like bullets then Gbaji is a machine gun that pulls to the right.

I'm calling it.

Top Joke of 2013.


Were that true, I think I'd quit the forum.
Wouldn't you stay to see what new lows the Asylum can reach in it's next *** marriage & abortion thread?
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#900 Feb 16 2013 at 5:46 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
When was the last abortion thread?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#901 Feb 16 2013 at 6:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Any thread you post in is an abortion.
____________________________
Banh
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 37 All times are in CST
Bijou, Jophiel, Samira, Anonymous Guests (34)