>>1 That girl was such a bitch.. seriously. Who the fuck does she think she is trying to dictate what items of property people in other countries can or can't own.
Fuck the U.N. and fuck her.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-25 5:49
>>4
UN conference and all the world leaders are there. Would be incerible awesome if say 500 or so gun nuts would storm there. Although I'm pretty sure it would lead to just more gun laws, so don't go doing it even though it would be true justice.
Name:
Cchan2006-06-25 5:54
No ive got it. We storm the place using only coconuts for weapons. This will draw attention away from guns and lead to a ban of coconuts, this will protect gun rights AND cripple africa's economy. Its a win win
>>7 Well you see its quite simple you just hurl it at whoever you are trying to kill and hit their nose at an upward angle shoving their nosebone into their brain. If this technique is too advanced to learn before the conference, perhaps you could hire chimpanzee mercenaries?
"OH SHIT MY KID GOT SHOT IN A SCHOOL SHOOTING LETS AMEND THE FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS LOL!!!!!!!"
Seriously, who gives a fuck? I sure don't. What I DO give a fuck about, is my right to bear arms.
Fuck the U.N., and fuck gun control.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-26 22:28
>>13
Actually, studies show that in situations where that is done, the death toll from crimes actually goes up. Long guns are so much more powerful than handguns, and statistics show that in crimes committed with longguns rather than handguns that the death rate is very, very significantly higher. Long guns are far more powerful than handguns... far more.
>>1
A rifle that can shoot over a hundred yards? LOL
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-27 16:57
>>17
As said in some very classic western(was it Once Upon a Time in America?), I'm ashamed for not remembering what movie it was or how quote did really go. Anyway it was something like "If you want to kill a man bring a rifle" and it was about superiority of rifles over pistols and shotguns.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-27 16:58
>>20
I ofcourse meant west not America(that was mafia movie).
Name:
Xel2006-06-27 17:17
>>1 Okay, so gun control bad, I feel that. So, I take it that the level of murders/capita in the US is actually the result of social factors rather than lax gun legislation? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm simply assuming the gist of what I've gathered so far. My real concern with it all is that somehow the limit of the 2nd is an offense that damns the entire left. Come on, the rightwingers are even worse on the constitution and Bush has stepped over more legislation than all other presidents combined.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-27 17:43
>>22
That's true. While gun control might reduce murder it's so small amount it's not worth it. Murders are already very rare. Also no-one kills because of gun. Removing tool does nothing to problem itself. Also depends on what you mean by right wingers. Libertarians are right wing, but they're probably only party in America that actually cares about constitution.
>>22
Yeah.. the libertarians will protect the constitution.
But back to the main two parties, and what you think of them.. The problem with that line of thinking, is that not ALL republicans are for violating the constitution. There are a few of them, such as the members of the RLC (Republican Liberty Caucus) that are kinda halfways between Libertarians and Republicans.
So, not all republicans are bad... but the elections have "primaries." In these, various republicans and dems run for who is going to be the "runners" for each party. So, really, you could vote for RLC type republicans rather than bush-type neo-cons.
The other thing to consider, is that, in the past, the 2nd amendment has shown itself to be the freedom that defends and preserves the rest. All (or a lot) of the revolutions of history, (most notably the american one) couldn't have happened if the populous was not armed.
If the people get too discontented with things, they can change things with bullets rather than ballots if it comes to it... not the case if the Democrats have their way.
There is a reason that red flags should go up when they start violating the second amendment in particular.... it's the people's last and final means of defense against despotism.
In that movie, it examines the historical link between tyranny, despotic/tyrannical regimes, and gun control. It's a really scary movie... and is definitely something you should keep in mind as your politicans start speaking of the benefits of their "gun control."
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-27 20:12
oddly enough
"That's true. While gun control might reduce murder it's so small amount it's not worth it. Murders are already very rare. Also no-one kills because of gun. Removing tool does nothing to problem itself. Also depends on what you mean by right wingers. Libertarians are right wing, but they're probably only party in America that actually cares about constitution."
sums up the pro gun argument pretty well.
some problems I have with the pro gun arguments.
american per capita criminal gun death rate is 20 times higher then englands.
for whatever reason, gun nuts LOVE LOVE LOVE to point out that violence and robbery and murder trends up in england, and down in the US. well two things, it's still 20:1 US : england criminal gun death wise (non criminal gun death it's higher) and now it's trending up in the US too, so stop with that dumb stuff please, it never made sense, now it no longer true.
another point on that... it's 20:1 vs england, it's even higher vs japan. something like 25,000 people are killed with guns in the US, it barely breaks 2 didgits in places where there's strict gun control. I forget if 25000 is gross, or criminal or whatever.
as for "it's a tool. nuclear weapons, napalm, chem/bio weapons, tanks, helicopter gunships, land/sea mines. these are all things that should be given out like condiments at mcdonalds or milk at starbucks. what person in their right mind would nuke hiroshima or nagasaki if they had two nukes, I mean, why not blow up an uninhabited island or something. I'm mixing arguments, but here's the killer.
it turns out guns do kill people, and I don't mean that the confinement of rapidly expanding gasses in a tube propel a slug of metal to a velocity on a trajectory that intersects someone's body.
I mean that in a society where gun ownership is low, there are fewer suicides. guns make suicide fun... apparently, so anyway. guns kill.
as for the constitution.
something like "for the safety of the nation the right for a well regulated militia to bear arms shall not be infringed"
no sane fuck says that that absolutely means that every citizen should be allowed to bear whatever arms he/she wants. so again. when you winge on about "our rights" "our rights" when did you join a well regulated militia might I add?
back in the day, the principle military force was the militia. today it's the army navy and airforce. they have replaced the well regulated militia.
so do the math. is the bill of rights carte blanch for you to carry guns? sorry, but no.
as for "machine guns are never used in crime"
yes it's rare, but it happens. stop lying. you're arguments are shit enough as is.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-27 20:50
>>26
Plz, stop trying to act like you have any semblence of credibility. Comparing crime rates between the United States and the UK is ridiculous. Crime is more based on economic and cultural factors than whether or not a person simply has a gun.
As for this... that is wrong, the second amendment reads:
"as for the constitution.
something like "for the safety of the nation the right for a well regulated militia to bear arms shall not be infringed"
That is quite a perversion of what it actually says. Here is the actual 2nd Amendment, folks:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It clearly implies that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is for the preservation and protection of a "free state." It is, at least in part, to deter despotism and tyrrany. The argument that it is a collective right vs. the argument that it is an INDIVIDUAL right (meaning the military argument is completely wrong, since that is 'collective'), is really quite old, and hardly anyone who is anyone follows it anymore. In all the other 10 amendments, "the people" refers to an individual right. Don't you think it might in this one too, dumbass?
"I mean that in a society where gun ownership is low, there are fewer suicides. guns make suicide fun... apparently, so anyway. guns kill."
People should be able to commit suicide if they want. If their lives are that shitty that they'd want to, to keep them from doing it would be equivalent to torture. Seriously, if some 90 year old guy is sitting on his deathbed with terminal cancer, but will likely have to live through another 3 months of agony before he dies, wouldn't you rather just let him shoot himself, and give him a quick and relatively painless death?
You don't own other people or their bodies. If they want to kill themselves, and it doesn't cause physical injury to others, there is no fucking reason not to let them do it.
"it turns out guns do kill people, and I don't mean that the confinement of rapidly expanding gasses in a tube propel a slug of metal to a velocity on a trajectory that intersects someone's body."
Oh, shit, guns can kill people? Damn, that's news to me. Good thing you let me in on that little secret.
You want to take my guns? Come pry them from my cold dead fingers you fucking commie punk.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-27 20:58
>>26
GB2UK if you prefer to trade freedom to safety. Not all people want goverment to baby you like you seem to. Not all people fear terrorists, robbers or even death. America was build to be truly liberal(in real sense) society and should return more to it's roots. You can get out if you don't like it. Good going also for ignoring cultural differences in Japan that keep crime rate low and the fact that about 80% of crimes in US are done by poor minorities living in hellholes like NY and the fact that those places have strixt gun control has changed nothing.
Enjoy live and enjoy guns don't live in world of irrational fears. If you have common sense(ie. don't be asshole, don't go to slums or shady bars) the change of you being shot is comparable to change that you'd win lottery, lightning would strike at you.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-27 21:12
Guns make it harder to murder, because then people can protect themselves. Take away guns and men aged 18-35 have an advantage over everyone else, give the people guns and everyone is on equal terms.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-27 21:15
>>29
Exactly. And women are especially vulnerable. Without guns, they are so much easier for large men to rape, assault, kill, etc.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-27 21:16
>>26
Move to China if you prefer Socialism. There are plenty of Socialist countries in the world. Stop polluting the United States with your garbage.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-27 21:17
>>29
Not exactly. Guns aren't that effective in hands of untrained person, but this is not argument for control it's more argument against it. For a person who has never shot gun it's much easier to kill unarmed man with axe than gun. Don't have that much range, but in home invasion scenario that doesn't really matter.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-27 21:18
>>26
Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it state that you MUST BE IN A MILITIA to actually keep and bear the said arms.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-27 21:20
>>33
If you read it carefully you see that militia actually refers to whole people of state meaning that armed people would form militia in case needed and people's right to bear arms shouldn't be infringed.
Name:
ru2006-06-27 21:28
>>26
Stop relying on the nanny state. Buy a pistol and handle your personal defense yourself. Studies show it takes the cops 20-30 minutes to get to your home. This could be much longer if you live in rural areas.
a pistol for personal defense? I thought it was to keep uncle sam inline, because sure, he may have the army, navy, and air force, but for instance a place with a lot of guns like Iraq could easily fight off... lets see, about 75,000 combat troops iirc... with more tanks really then pistols... but still, they held against the US military for hours. HOURS... sure that doesn't really bode well if instead of T-62's you have pistols and sks' like the US citizenry...
uhhh. please take this message from me, to your leader, the NRA.
"you're a fucking boob"
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 2:05
>>38
That poster was talking about the uses of firearms for self-defense at the time. His current argument had nothing to do with repelling tyranny and despotism.
A deterrant to tyranny
self-defense
sport (hunting)
shoot stuff in the backyard just for the fuck of it
Take your pick. There's plenty, not just a single. I'm sure the founders had in mind many reasons why the populous should be armed, not just one.
Nevertheless, it is safe to say that deterring tyranny was a big part of it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 6:09
1 bullet started ww1.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 7:56
>>42
That's an argument for gun control? Besides WW1 would have started anyway considering how bad relations between Germany, Britain and France were. That bullet just gave it boost.
Name:
Xel2006-06-28 9:34
It seems as if the violence levels in america are ridiculously high but that harder gun legislation doesn't help at all. So, what to do? If the problem isn't the outlet of the reservoir, isn't it better if you block the inlet to the reservoir in order to prevent pressure from building up?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 11:02
>>44
Don't believe everything you hear. America is actually not so violent country. Many countries are much more violent and most happen to have strict gun control. I'm not sure, but I think violent crime is actually more problem in UK(that's what has caused harsh police-statish laws to be enacted). Reasons behind violence in America are simple. Too much people from different cultures, too dense living, poverty etc. America is damn nice country, but big cities like NY are really bad places and oddly they have strict gun control.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 11:25
In the western world, there isn't even one country as violent and has such a high gun-crime and gun accident rate like amiland. It's funny how the gunfreaks try to justify their need for guns, while in fact they only have them to distract from their ridiculous tiny pee-pees.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 11:35
>>46
All that you have said is incorrect. GB2UK and enjoy your police state.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 11:52
person A: you ain't a threat to the US military with a pistol
person B: he was talking self def then, no overthrowing gov
person C: our chief weapons are fear, fear and surprise
person D: def v. tyranny, self def, & sport justify 25,000 deaths a year... even though the tyranny thing is bullshit, the self defense is wishful thinking, and the sport is like golf, only less skill.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 12:04
>>48
But thousand guys with rifles are already force to be reckoned with. Should all gun nuts of America join their forces they would quickly put goverment on it's knees. Why you hate so much guns? Is it fear or what?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 14:37
>>48
Are you suggesting privately owned arms couldn't deter tyranny? I have to disagree with you there.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 14:39
>>49
Exactly. You will never be able to understand it. The reason he hates guns is because of a completely irrational fear.
Maybe his kid got shot in a school shooting or something, who knows.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 17:07
>>51
Exactly. Their ability to judge things reasonably is clouded by emotion, in many cases.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 17:09
>>49
Maybe it's because the pros don't outweight the cons?
>>53
Stop trying to control what other lawful people do with their lives. Hate freedom? Move to China.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 17:14
And there's still people that wonder what makes America such a violent country? Haha. Mm.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 17:51
>>56
That statement is very misleading. If people listened to you liberals, they'd assume there is blood running in the streets. Get real. Your chances of being murdered in the USA are slim to none, and we have more freedoms than most other nations in the world. I live in the USA, and I'm happy here.
Name:
Xel2006-06-28 18:03
>>57 Just don't take those rights for granted. Also, what are rights good for when poverty or bigotry is chewing its way through your gut? I'm not satisfied with america, but I am impressed with what you've done so far.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 18:08
>>57
>Your chances of being murdered in the USA are slim to none,
Then why has America the highest deathcount in the world in gun-related cases?
>and we have more freedoms than most other nations in the world.
Like what?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 18:13
>>59
Just because they have a high deathcount or crime rate compared to other nations doesn't mean that it is likely you will be murdered.
">and we have more freedoms than most other nations in the
world.
Like what?"
Like the right to bear arms, among others.
The crime rate is not attributable to the simple fact that we have guns. Get real. Crime is associated with poverty, and cultural/economic factors. It has nothing to do with the simple right to bear arms.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 18:15
>>58
I hope you didn't interpret what I said as meaning that there wasn't room for improvement. A lot of our rights and freedoms are being infringed by both main parties. Getting some good third party candidates in there (such as the libertarians) who are willing to aggressively defend our liberty would be a monumental step in the right direction.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 18:15
>>60
Guess what, people in other countries own guns too. You're not special. And I'm not talking about the crime rate but the amount of gun-related deaths.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 18:16
>>62
That is just one liberty. There are many. Want a more vivid example? Go live in China for a few months. Then go live in the United States for a few months.
Yeah, the United States is nothing special, right?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 18:21
>>63 Just about any european country has the same rights. United States is nothing special.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 18:22
>>64
100% bullshit. Europe has so many ordinances, and stupid laws it's ridiculous. Not all of them are democratic republics like the United States, either.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 18:23
>>64
Europe is only one small area out of the entire world. Generally speaking, >>63 is right.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 18:25
>>65
Could you actually name something or is that the stuff they just told you to say whenever someone does not believe in the superiority of the US?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 18:27
>>67
Off the top of my head? Sure. UK has very strict firearms regulation. There's a great example of stupid European laws.
>>69
Then move to the UK and stop bitching about our freedoms here.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 18:40
>>69
Not true. UK = police state while America = still free country even though both repbs and dems try to fuck it up(thankfully we have constitution).
Americans are funny, Hitler would have loved a people that gullible.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 18:50
>>71
Funny how the democrats always critisize Bush and his fellow republicans for violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but then when they get elected, they violate the very 2nd Amendment.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 18:51
>>72
Hitler would never have been able to rise in the United States.
>>73
Not only that. Dems are hideous liars. They violate first amendment too quite often, but they mask it under fine words. >>75
Too stupid to learn truth about America?
>>77
The American constitution and freedoms it grants? History of free America? The fact that America is world's most diverse country and we have much more people than rednecks and crazy christians? The fact that America technically has more freedom of speech and other freedoms than most of Europe? I'm not saying America is best country, but you really know nothing of it really. Sounds like you have been reading only anti-US propaganda and never actually been there or even knew someone from there. Sure there are lot of asshole politicians here, but that's because America has too many people in first place and it's very same case with Europe too.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 19:20
>>78
Of course I haven't been to America, I don't want to be placed in a secret concentration camp ;)
Meh, what really ticks me off about America are its annoying people. Rednecks, crazy cristians, people like >>78, proud/loud niggers, etc.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 19:23
>>79
If people like me tick you off then you're really sad case. Enjoy your police state.
>>82
Uh, no, you can't just go around and shoot government officials. If you do, you'll be labeled a terrorist and shot on sight. Shot, by guys with better guns than you, and armor that protects against consumer-level weaponary.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 8:20
>>85
Enjoy your delusions. Even if they had secret power armor and weapons like no-one has seen before it's not like revolution with enough people wouldn't be possible. Remember that it happens to be also people in that army.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 10:04
>>86
You aren't going to rally more than 2 million for an armed uprising.
People in the army... possible, but I'd guess most of the people there are as delusional as the average American, if not moreso. And then there's the people that just like weapons and stuff. I think it'd be pretty hard to desert from the army too. Who would want to risk their life to fight on the losing side.
Considering equipment, it doesn't really matter anyway, as the soldier will shoot first, and hit. Then there's teamwork, something you can't just learn in a week.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 10:06
>>87
(Hm, if the army actually attacked the people, I think there's a chance that people fight back, no matter what they think.)
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 10:24
>>87
2 million people is so much that US goverment couldn't handle it all. Not even with nukes that would just destroy everything and it would times of wild west again. Hell, I'd think even revolution of 100000 people would be very hard to put down. Fighting revolution on your own soil is very different from fighting war. You can't effective deploy army against their own people and logistics are nightmare due to chaos. Also note that even most delusional redneck will eventually release should America start to really turn into police state dictatorship. Hell, they're already realising that Bush and patriot act is shit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 10:54
you do realize...you're on 4chan...complaining about racism on the internet?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 11:54
so I'm seeing two things. one, I don't know if these people are joking, but some people are saying that guns can stop tyrants.
the other thing I'm seeing is "people don't get murdered in America... sure 25,000 a year do, but there are 300 million, so your odds of not getting shot are good"
to that, I say. try being black. iirc one of the larger causes of death for black people is murder or something.
as for the "gun nuts will depose el presidente if he reaches too far"
in recent times, where has this worked? civil wars have been going on all over africa for decades, how about the middle east. countless other places too. gun nuts going up against the government would be dumber then iraqis defeating the US military, or the Arabs succeeding in wiping israel off the map.
people keep trying to depose dictators with guns. can you point me to the success stories?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 11:59
>>91
You should replace word black with criminal/ultra poor. Cause those blacks who get shot are ones who live in slums.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 12:11
>>85
"Uh, no, you can't just go around and shoot government officials. If you do, you'll be labeled a terrorist and shot on sight. Shot, by guys with better guns than you, and armor that protects against consumer-level weaponary."
Better armor than us? Better weapons than us? That's why it's not possible? Well guess what? Maybe you dumb liberals should stop asking for MORE gun control?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 12:13
>>91
Reagan got shot. Abe Lincoln got shot. Kennedy got shot. If the entire population is armed and pissed off, it's very hard to be safe, if you aren't one of them.
Sure, you might not view them as tyrants, but that's beside the point. It CAN happen.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 12:19
>>91
Exactly. Your choice to live in a shitty neighborhood, and possibly get shot, is just that - your choice.
Being poor is a lifestyle. You can almost always find a decent job somewhere if you look hard enough.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 14:00
Yeah, you can dramatically reduce your chances of being shot by simply living in a good neighborhood. It's mostly people's choice.
Name:
Xel2006-06-29 15:34
>>95 Once again there seems to be no such thing as environmental determinism here. I thought America believed thoroughly in empirical, behavioristic psychology, so why can't people understand that being born poor is like having your hamstrings kicked before a marathon? Poverty is like bleeding very slowly to death, and it isn't gonna make you the striving, self-made road warrior that earns you a role in the upcoming "Atlas Shrugged" movie, but it does entitle you to some of the money of those born in a luckier situation.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 16:21
>>97
How can you be "entitled" to the money of others, if they are not willing to give it voluntarilly, in any situation?
What happened to justice? The right to property is not the right to take other people's property. The right to property is the right to go out and earn or produce your own, yourself.
"Poverty is like bleeding very slowly to death, and it isn't gonna make you the striving, self-made road warrior that earns you a role in the upcoming "Atlas Shrugged" movie"
There are plenty of examples where people have climbed up and out of poverty in the United States. There is no income redistribution needed.
My very own history teacher used to be poor. She worked her way through college, became a teacher, and pulled herself out of poverty.
Not to mention all the famous ones... such as Andrew Carnegie.
Name:
Xel2006-06-29 16:25
>>98 America is less of a meritocracy than some European countries. Soc. sec. is thus still justified. And all of the income isn't due solely to your own efforts anyhow. If I get an opportunity to make money that a person of equal potential doesn't get because of his immediate natal situation, not giving some money is theft.
"Noun 1. theft - the act of taking something from someone unlawfully"
Name:
Xel2006-06-29 17:02
>>100 That money is indirectly taken, if unconsciously, and unless libertarians are ready to offer a very detailed and secure plan to empower individuals born in poverty, create new jobs WHILE they are removing soc. sec., I'll vote to make them pay through the nose.
Go ahead and vote for the liberals. Once the country has economically collapsed under a socialist police state, and you have no guns to answer the bayonets of the soldiers in your back for speaking out against the country's current leader, just keep all this in mind.
"That money is indirectly taken"
Explain how, if born to rich parents, I have somehow stolen something you are entitled to? (assuming you were poor, and assuming I was born into a rich family)
Never did I march into your house, and demand something of yours, or take something by force.
Name:
Xel2006-06-29 18:19
>>102 While libertarianism sounds better and better, it lacks a response to a) the poosibility of corporate control via non-political means, b) the fact of envronmental determinism or at the very least a diminishing of it as a social factor and c); a detailed, incremental plan that will create a stable consumer to market relationship. The alternative must be strictly non-ideological for me to hop on, but be aware that I hate socialism (just slightly less than conservatists) and that I wish dearly for an alternative.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 18:23
>>103
Keep in mind that not all libertarians are radical free-market economists. I'd think that even in a society with a government completely dominated by the libertarian party, the less-radical libertarians would keep the others from instituting a COMPLETE separation of state and economics.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 8:44
>>103
You have points, but forget enviromentalists and their propaganda. They're not better than gun grabbers. They too are misguided propagandists. Personally on this issue I have taken stance that what it matters if our pollution shall eventually destroy ourselves? Let's have fun and good life. It's not like that will happen on our lifetime.
Name:
Xel2006-06-30 8:55
>>105 If you honestly mean that, then you have taken the selfish ideal one step too far. The problem with individualism may be that a person regarding herself as a her own central investment forget to consider her place in the human struggle for a utilitarian, safe and prosperous domination of the universe.
...are you serious? or just trolling? (or just stupid?)
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 10:06
>>107
I'm totally serious. What it matters if human race is destroyed?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 10:36
>>108
Fossil fuels will get very expensive in our life times.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 10:37
>>109
Though truth is that they have already many working alternatives. Reason why they ain't used is that you want to make money through oil as long as you can.
It matters alot....to the human race.
Unless, you're, like, not human?
The point that you're missing is that dying by our own hand is easily preventable. That way we can go on living on as a species to do such things as explore the stars and unravel the mysteries of history and earth.
If you're not "down" with that, then you should probably end yourself, seeing as how progress is man's aim, if not his sole aim. This is true given the fact that you're able to drive around in an SUV and further aid our suicide.
The thing is- people like *you* with defeatist "death wish" ideologies should be forced to do whatever the rest of self-preservers want. You're just as bad as any criminal and your very mindset is a crime against humanity.
Just because you wanna die, doesn't mean you get to take everyone else with you.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 11:16
>>111
I don't want to die. Infact I want to be immortal and I also want to mankind to achieve those things mentioned. Point is that just enviromentalists tend to take it too extreme, so that it actually harms that progress you mention. If we just keep going like now we might be destroyed, but we might also develop technologies to survive. It's 50/50 situation and I take that rather than limit progress in order to increase our change of survival.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 12:01
>>112
We'll all be killed by the law of accelerating returns. Hopefully not in my lifetime, but the law itself makes it very likely... especially if the law extends my life by a couple hundred years >_<
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 13:37
Fossil fuels will run out, or we'll change to a new energy source long before it becomes an issue. The nature of Capitalism and greed factors will encourage the development of new energy resources as we use fossil fuels. I wouldn't worry about the environment.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 13:58
>>114
They're already developed and they work well too. When oil prices get too high there will be many people offering alternatives. Might consider that even myself could probably make some very nice nucks if I succeeded.
Name:
Xel2006-06-30 14:11
I prefer rampant environmentalism over none at all. But that is quite an unlikely diametrical opposition.
The point is, if all environmentalists are accused of being anti-human or some other contemptuous term while corps like Nike and McUbiquitious do whatever they want, it's no surprise they are raising holy hell over Alaska. They have to fight the easy but unimportant battles because they are facing -quite possible- the stupidest and most gullible consumer block in the world. If consumers got their stuff on the lockdown then environmentalism is redundant. But the minute some lazy cunt feeds her baby a McNugget an environmentalist is rightly born; it's fucking karma, dyuuuude.
Name:
Xel2006-06-30 14:20
>>116 Fuckery, wasn't this thread about guns initiately? Oh, here's my 1 rusty cent; considering the insane murder quota is caused by some hellish pockets of violence where you can get lead poisining just for "dissin'" (oh I hate people who end their words with apostrophes HATE HATE HATE) or "wearin the huh-rong muthafuckin' kulurs" (I mentioned the hate irght?), isn't it more sensible to heal those areas with some fucking decent policies instead of collectively punishing the entire populace? Also, considering that too strict legislation is a declaration of immaturity of a population, isn't it smarter to see if any previous limitations on guns have worked, and repeat them? Lastly, the left should stop attacking those "tough-on-crime" jackasses for picking leaves instead of going to the roots of the problem, when they are incapable of sorting out the ghettos by limiting segregation and instead go after the guns?!?! Then again, I doubt that the crime rate is solely an expression of ghetto mentalities when it is so high, so I guess that poverty levels or something needs to be ameliorated. Start with the minimum wage, or something... Shit, I need to read far more.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 14:36
>>117
"isn't it smarter to see if any previous limitations on guns have worked, and repeat them?"
No. Guns are not the reason there is violence. Even if they were, it's in our constitution. As soon as we depart from the constitution, well... that's our last safeguard here against despotism. We violated it in going to war with Iraq. This isn't something to be taken lightly.
We have a constitutional right to bear arms, period. The only acceptable regulation, is state/local/city government regulation. The constitution exists to limmit federal power.
This makes better sense anyways. Why should rural america have the same gun laws as inner city New York?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 14:50
>>117
Also, I would blame it in part at least, that police rarely actually are out hunting down murderers, rapists, thugs, robbers, etc. Oftentimes, they pursue victimless criminals, if you know what I mean. There are so many victimless laws that have been accumulating. (Crimes in which nobody is hurt.. in which there are no victims.)
I think the murder rate would fall if police hunted down the murderers instead of screwing around trying to catch some hippie pot smokers.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 15:52
Guns aren't the issue. The stupid fuckers who can't handle them, and thus have a terrible murder rate (Americans), are the problem.
Name:
Xel2006-06-30 15:57
>>120 Don't say "Americans"; you have nothing to support such a generalization. Just say that there needs to be fundamental changes in education and less segregation, that can be agreed on.
An ideal government balances personal and private responsibility. In the case of security, there should be a civil force (police) and defense of one's own assets. The gun is a means for the citizen to match the criminal in power.
Name:
Xel2006-06-30 17:07
>>122 Ah, that is sufficently specific, I guess. Fucking gangstas. If I have to see more Cris being poured on the floor, watch another "ho" be drooled over by that hare-lipped Jamaican underhuman or another blood-diamond flaunted by some non-talent ad for contraception like Chamillionare... I'm going to hop into a giant Escalade with a bunch of miniguns, Lupe Fiasco and Ann Coulter and just do one single genocidal drive-by from LA to Bronx that won't leave a single fucker with an oversized tee, baggy pants, more than one piece of headgear, diamond teeth, hotpants or any bling standing. We'll take down some jocks and people with tribals if we get bored...
The sad thing is, even though you would have made the world a significantly less annoying place in which to live, politicians and mothers would be outraged, and we would 'enjoy' another four presidencies of democrats with their obnoxious gun control and taxes.
Hell, they might just confiscate all firearms period, at that point. In their quest to take the guns from all the 'murderers', we'd probly have a bunch more Waco/Ruby Ridge kind of incidents all over the American heartland.
>>124
Aren't those gangstas with guns who shoot cops the epitomy of the "rightous citizen who resists government oppression"
Or is your argument just a tiny bit racist, considering you probably don't know a single fucking "nigger" by name?
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-03 2:29
>>124
Btw, the use of the word Underhuman is directly tied to "Untermensch", a term Hitler used for Slavs, Jews, Gays, the Mentally ill.
Good fucking game, you lose credibility for being a fucking Neo-Nazi.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-03 2:39
>>27
That's ok.
Its absolutely fucking hilarious that people are disputing how the constitution says they can have guns, when the real issue is...Why are Americans so motherfucking violent?
If guns aren't the reason violence is high, what is it?
Social/Cultural factors?
Are you fucking proud to endorse a culture that expounds violence as romantic and beautiful? Americans fetishize violence, and however you fucking try to justify it, it's goddamn disgusting.
Enjoy your own fucking repulsiveness.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-03 3:12
>>130
WTF? America is violent? I though many European countries were much more violent. Sure it's nothing compared to peace of Japan, but American culture doesn't fetishize violence infact it's generally not tolerated outside defensive situations. I guess violent America image cames from movies and fact that big cities like NYC are very unsafe and quite violent places(strangely enough they have restrictive gun control). While they're big, those places still aren't where majority of Americans live.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-03 5:00
Britain banned guns. They have more knifings now.
Name:
Xel2006-07-03 5:36
>>129 IN retrospect I apologize. Poor choice of words. I just can't find any ameliorating trait of people who consider non-heterosexuals to be a negative aspect of humanity. >>131 I think the US is more violent, number-wise. I could be hella wrong though. The important thing is the distribution, considering the blue state ghettos insane murder count.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-03 6:49
Japan is mono-racial and mono-cultural, everyone is settled, people rarely move, the most natural and effective form of child rearing (male and female couple raising their own children or adopting) is at high rates with low rates of divorce.
Every country should be like Japan to make the world a better place, anyone who disagrees must be a racist and wants to make everyone in a country a part of their race or destroy a race through miscegenation or something.
Name:
Xel2006-07-03 8:14
>>134 Japan? Gender roles are stagnating into slot A and Slot B, kids are committing suicide to a scary degree and in general you trade a lot for the relative safety of traditionalism.
The second paragraph suggests some sort of irony, but why make the post anyway if you're gonna make everything moot?
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-03 10:34
>>132
More compared to when, pre-gangsta nigga era?
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-03 18:55
>>131
America is much more lethally violent than Europe, whereas the cases of assualt are relatively the same, Murders are much more prevalent in the US.
Take a look at 90% of your big syndicated television, then your murder rates, then everything else.
>>133
Its not just the "blue ghetto" states, how many times do I turn on the TV, surf to some network like "Court TV" and I hear about rape+murder in wholesome, smalltown America? I never get the same damn murder, there seems to be no shortage of Americans from all walks of life fucking killing each other.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-03 19:09
>>137
I also need to add, that many of these murders are not "domestic disputes" gone bad, but cold-blooded shot/stabbed/strangled in their sleep.
And although I agree that guns deter smalltime criminals, it would likely embolden the determined criminal to plan ahead, arm himself with better weapons and/or accomplices, and steel myself to kill someone if the victim may not cooperate.
Another issue, how many thefts are committed to get guns? Because my Stepfather had a case full of fucking guns, and some jackasses broke in and stole them. I think the possession of a gun only deters crime on that person if they intend to victimize has the "desired goods" on them. I laugh everytime I hear a "Stop a burglar" excuse for loaded, unsafed guns at home, becaus e unless you're a paranoid shut-in who can feel disturbances in the force, that gun is worthless to protect you or your property when you are asleep or not home. Plus once you do get burglarized, that gun is an easy score to fence.
I guess my point is, the possession of a firearm will never deter all types of crimes that can be committed on you, and that reducing poverty as an excuse for criminal activity is a better solution than trying to guess when a crime is going to occur and fend it off.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-03 20:12
>>138
"becaus e unless you're a paranoid shut-in who can feel disturbances in the force, that gun is worthless to protect you or your property when you are asleep or not home."
That's why Americans like dogs so much. They let us know when intruders are approaching, or on our property. My family has never not had a dog in my life. Never has someone came up to the house, or gotten very close to it without my dog letting me know well in advance.
>>137
That's because the media just chooses to air those stories. You can ascribe a variety of reasons to this... maybe they 'sell' better, maybe they attract more attention, or maybe the media is just anti-gun. Who knows?
A relevent question to ask would be, why does the media not typically report the over 2,000,000/yr defensive uses of firearms in the USA? (Clinton's Justice Dpt. Figures)
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-03 22:01
>>139
Yeah and should consider that America is extremely large and diverse country too. No country has so many different people packed in so little area. That ofcourse means lots of crime too.
Name:
Xel2006-07-04 12:28
>>139 Defensive is a very relative term, especially when guns have a tendency to fuck things up something royally.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-04 13:29
>>141
So you prefer the victim to suffer instead of the criminal?
>>142
He's from Sweden. Quite anti-gun country where citizens virtually have no rights to defend themselves, so it's understandable he might have bit messed up views on America self defense, especially when it involes guns. Allowing people to defend themselves with deadly force has been proved to stop about million or so crimes per year in America. In most of self defense situations no-one is harmed and no shot is fired. Only negative thing about allowing such defense is that it can cause accidents when some paranoid guy shoots his friend when he comes to visit in night as he though it was burglar. Anyway rarely people shoot without warning and such incidents can be totally prevented by having some good manners as in informing that you're coming to visit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-04 23:09
>>144
Well put. Firearms rule. It's a no-compromise issue. I don't vote for candidates who don't support the 2nd amendment.
Name:
Xel2006-07-05 2:38
>>144 As long as it has been proven. My problem was that the word defensive is very relative to the situation. Chill. America's problem isn't the guns, it's the violence, anyway.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-05 14:01
>>139
"That's because the media just chooses to air those stories. You can ascribe a variety of reasons to this... maybe they 'sell' better, maybe they attract more attention, or maybe the media is just anti-gun. Who knows? "
4chan should start its own news network.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-05 15:14
>>147
You made sense until you wrote "4chan should start its own news network.". I'm not so sure whether to take the beginning of your post seriously now..
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-05 16:45
>>146
There is a lot of violence in America down South because the blacks/whites/mexican illegals get into brawls/fights and often end up killing each other.
While it is likely a small portion of national violence as a whole, it's not something to be simply overlooked. Stronger border control would help.
"As long as it has been proven. My problem was that the word defensive is very relative to the situation. Chill. America's problem isn't the guns, it's the violence, anyway."