Post: #176

The media has anointed its shooting hero:

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-29-ye...ok-2012-12

Post: #177

(12-15-2012 08:59 PM)lavidaloca Wrote:  They were knived and will probably all live. Thats the difference when you have guns involved.

I wasnt even trying to compare the 2. At least your kid got stabbed in the head instead of shot to death! They should be thankful lol.

Post: #178

Every country has people with mental health issues, people that are disturbed, depressed, sociopaths, psychopaths etc etc the only difference is other countries don't have retarded gun laws.

Post: #179

(12-15-2012 09:37 PM)garygroundwork Wrote:  Every country has people with mental health issues, people that are disturbed, depressed, sociopaths, psychopaths etc etc the only difference is other countries don't have retarded gun laws.

You're right. The Founding Fathers were retards. You, garygroundwork, know better.

Post: #180

In an unrelated story, I woke up at 3pm today in my car inside the cosmopolitan parking garage. I was on an Ali B like tear.

Did not get laid for the first time in about 10 days BUT laid the groundwork for possible one of my first bangs ever off of facebook. In my Pics of the girls we've banged thread, I posted a brunette with huge tits at the beginning of it, her friend added me years ago. I just thought it was a cute asian girl and never really paid attention.

I was having drinks with this black girl across from Marquee and it went ok, (couldn't get her to come back to my place and could def bang her if I follow up) she texted me asking me what I was doing, so I just walk into Marquee past the line (I love showing dhv like this) and come in with a tshirt on and meet her. HOLY FUCK is she hot. It's her bday and we pair up and I isolate her from her friends and take her to the bar a good friend works at. Drinks instantly there and comped. She's wearing this little black dress that's soft and hanging off of her perfect tits and cute ass. She's pretty on camera but gorgeous in person.

Did not bang but we're hangin out tonight. Also, she has a boyfriend. When I got her alone my hands were wondering all over that loose little dress and she grabbed them and placed them elsewhere, I just said "baby let me touch you, know one will know" and she relented. A bouncer actually came over and said "hey man you have to keep it pg 13"

Fuck is she hot. Anyway she's with a group of friends and had to get back and blah blah blah, but I'm going for it again tonight.

What does this have to do with gun laws?

Well when I woke up after last night I no longer give a fuck about debating it on here. Those laws aren't changing thank god.

Post: #181

"an Ali B like tear" "baby let me touch you" "my hands were wondering all over"

" A bouncer actually came over and said " That's going to be a really good pizza"

Post: #182

"For one segment of American society, guns symbolize honor, human mastery over nature, and individual self-sufficiency. By opposing gun control, individuals affirm the value of these meanings and the vision of the good society that they construct. For another segment of American society, however, guns connote something else: the perpetuation of illicit social hierarchies, the elevation of force over reason, and the expression of collective indifference to the well-being of strangers. These individuals instinctively support gun control as a means of repudiating these significations and of promoting an alternative vision of the good society that features equality, social solidarity, and civilized nonagression.

These competing cultural visions, we will argue, are what drive the gun control debate. They are what dispose individuals to accept certain empirically grounded public-safety arguments and to reject others. Indeed, the meanings that guns and gun control express are sufficient to justify most individuals’ positions on gun control independently of their beliefs about guns and safety. It follows that the only meaningful gun control debate is one that explicitly addresses whether and how the underlying cultural visions at stake should be embodied in American law."

http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journ.../Kahan.pdf

Post: #183

I just found this on Facebook...

   

Post: #184

schoolteacher in Israel:

Post: #185

(12-15-2012 09:58 PM)assman Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 09:37 PM)garygroundwork Wrote:  Every country has people with mental health issues, people that are disturbed, depressed, sociopaths, psychopaths etc etc the only difference is other countries don't have retarded gun laws.

You're right. The Founding Fathers were retards. You, garygroundwork, know better.

times change, who knows what the founding fathers would write into the constitution if they had to write it today...what they wrote was right for their day and age...do you think they envisioned the right to bear arms being perversed into the right for everybody to get access to assault weapons? Ideas and thinking change and evolve...can't expect 200+ year old writing to answer all of todays problems...we gotta use our own brains once in a while.

Post: #186

(12-16-2012 12:39 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  times change, who knows what the founding fathers would write into the constitution if they had to write it today...what they wrote was right for their day and age...do you think they envisioned the right to bear arms being perversed into the right for everybody to get access to assault weapons? Ideas and thinking change and evolve...can't expect 200+ year old writing to answer all of todays problems...we gotta use our own brains once in a while.

Thank you. I'm well over the fawning of the founding fathers who had a lot of things about them that suggested they were indecent human beings at best.

To add insult to injury, children begin their indoctrination with talltales such as fat dudes flying kites with keys attached to them during thunderstorms, and men who could never tell lies, but didn't seem to be too bothered by participating in other human atrocities.

It doesn't make any sense for the Constitution to be a living document when it is filled with many ideas that modern society can't possibly agree with, we're a society that self-imposes expiration dates on cars, cell phones, computers, friends, spouses, etc. but shit written by men who are dead and gone must be adhered to for eternity?

Please.

Post: #187

Quote:A man was arrested Saturday after firing about 50 shots in the parking lot of a Southern California shopping mall, prompting a lockdown of stores crowded with holiday shoppers.

Marcos Gurrola, 42, of Garden Grove was taken into custody by bicycle police officers patrolling around the open-air Fashion Island mall around 4:30 p.m., police spokeswoman Cathy Lowe said. She said he fired into the air and onto the ground in the parking lot near a Macy's department store.

No one was injured, but the gunfire caused panic, coming a day after a gunman killed 26 children and adults at a Connecticut elementary school, and days after a deadly mall shooting in Oregon.

http://news.yahoo.com/man-fires-50-shots...34513.html

Post: #188

(12-16-2012 12:53 AM)jariel Wrote:  It doesn't make any sense for the Constitution to be a living document when it is filled with many ideas that modern society can't possibly agree with, we're a society that self-imposes expiration dates on cars, cell phones, computers, friends, spouses, etc. but shit written by men who are dead and gone must be adhered to for eternity?

Please.

Slippery slope there. If it's decided that the right to bear arms is no longer valid because the constitution was written by people who lived two hundred years ago, what else might be cast aside?

Are the ideas of free speech, freedom of religion, and of the press potentially erasable because the Founding Fathers may have been less than savory people?

Is the idea of being protected from unreasonable search and seizure invalid because the dudes that came up with the fourth amendment owned slaves and were part of a secret society?

Are the fifth through eighth amendments bad ideas because times have changed?

Post: #189

(12-16-2012 01:24 AM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 12:53 AM)jariel Wrote:  It doesn't make any sense for the Constitution to be a living document when it is filled with many ideas that modern society can't possibly agree with, we're a society that self-imposes expiration dates on cars, cell phones, computers, friends, spouses, etc. but shit written by men who are dead and gone must be adhered to for eternity?

Please.

Slippery slope there. If it's decided that the right to bear arms is no longer valid because the constitution was written by people who lived two hundred years ago, what else might be cast aside?

Are the ideas of free speech, freedom of religion, and of the press potentially erasable because the Founding Fathers may have been less than savory people?

Is the idea of being protected from unreasonable search and seizure invalid because the dudes that came up with the fourth amendment owned slaves and were part of a secret society?

Are the fifth through eighth amendments bad ideas because times have changed?

This arguments becoming an all or nothing conversation, gun control doesn't mean making all guns illegal. You can keep the 2nd amendment but make it relevant to the present. The founding fathers were wise men for their time who did what needed to be done...however unscrupulous they may or may not have been...what the current time needs is wise men to step up and do what's right for our times not point to the past and say sorry can't change it cause they decided based on no knowledge of what the future held what the rules were....We have to be smarter than that.

Post: #190

(12-16-2012 12:53 AM)jariel Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 12:39 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  times change, who knows what the founding fathers would write into the constitution if they had to write it today...what they wrote was right for their day and age...do you think they envisioned the right to bear arms being perversed into the right for everybody to get access to assault weapons? Ideas and thinking change and evolve...can't expect 200+ year old writing to answer all of todays problems...we gotta use our own brains once in a while.

Thank you. I'm well over the fawning of the founding fathers who had a lot of things about them that suggested they were indecent human beings at best.

To add insult to injury, children begin their indoctrination with talltales such as fat dudes flying kites with keys attached to them during thunderstorms, and men who could never tell lies, but didn't seem to be too bothered by participating in other human atrocities.

It doesn't make any sense for the Constitution to be a living document when it is filled with many ideas that modern society can't possibly agree with, we're a society that self-imposes expiration dates on cars, cell phones, computers, friends, spouses, etc. but shit written by men who are dead and gone must be adhered to for eternity?

Please.

Yeah, the US constitution is a piece of shit. Who the hell did those assholes think they were? Let's throw the whole thing out and you can write a new one in your infinite wisdom. This is an isolated, horrific incident, have some respect for the dead, don't use them for your political agenda. You wouldn't piss in their faces while they were alive (I hope) so don't do it just because they're dead and can't tell you to cut the shit.

Post: #191

(12-16-2012 12:39 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  times change, who knows what the founding fathers would write into the constitution if they had to write it today...what they wrote was right for their day and age...do you think they envisioned the right to bear arms being perversed into the right for everybody to get access to assault weapons? Ideas and thinking change and evolve...can't expect 200+ year old writing to answer all of todays problems...we gotta use our own brains once in a while.

Yes. They did think that the right to bear arms meant that people could have access to assault weapons. Whenever people like you spout this nonsense of "times change", I can only think of one retort: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. You want to know what would happen if the bill of rights were written today? It would be 10,000 pages in length, loaded with pork barrel spending, ridiculous conditions and disclaimers, and in the end you would really have no rights whatsoever. Even worse, you'd have no clue as to what was actually in it. But who cares as long as the guns are gone? Right?

Post: #192

(12-16-2012 12:53 AM)jariel Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 12:39 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  times change, who knows what the founding fathers would write into the constitution if they had to write it today...what they wrote was right for their day and age...do you think they envisioned the right to bear arms being perversed into the right for everybody to get access to assault weapons? Ideas and thinking change and evolve...can't expect 200+ year old writing to answer all of todays problems...we gotta use our own brains once in a while.

Thank you. I'm well over the fawning of the founding fathers who had a lot of things about them that suggested they were indecent human beings at best.

To add insult to injury, children begin their indoctrination with talltales such as fat dudes flying kites with keys attached to them during thunderstorms, and men who could never tell lies, but didn't seem to be too bothered by participating in other human atrocities.

It doesn't make any sense for the Constitution to be a living document when it is filled with many ideas that modern society can't possibly agree with, we're a society that self-imposes expiration dates on cars, cell phones, computers, friends, spouses, etc. but shit written by men who are dead and gone must be adhered to for eternity?

Please.

So free speech and due process are antiquated ideals as well? Do you believe that some modern amenities can render individual liberties moot? Our Constitution is more relevant today than it has ever been. Nearly every President and congress we've had over the last century has attempted to restrict our freedoms in some manner, and the only real thing standing in their way is our Bill of Rights. Do you really trust government that much?

As for the founding fathers, yeah they had shit on their shoes, but who the fuck doesn't? Name one person please. And because they weren't saints, we should disregard them?

We are not that advanced in our thinking. We make the same mistakes that have been made many, many times in the past. Look at the fall of the Roman Empire, and compare their monetary system which contributed to their downfall to our current one. It is so similar that it is fucking frightening.

Post: #193

Men being brought up on "equality" is a dangerous thing.

In reality no one gives a shit. Men are disposable under a cruel darwinist law.

In the past they knew this. They remedied it with masculine skills, progress, arts and philosophy, brotherhoods with other men in the same disposable boat, and with nurturing wives.
Today they have few of these things to fall back on. and they don't realize how little the world cares about them until later in their formative years if ever. They are just aimlessly wandering, with hedonism offering bits of happiness here and there. Often medicated, circumcised, and feminized to shit, their best odds in life are to take care of a 35 year old wrinkled piece of shit and her bastard offspring. If they scream like the MRA no one listens. When the illusion of equality falls apart they snap.

I feel terrible for every little boy I see with a single mother. Incomplete people with bleak futures.

Post: #194

(12-15-2012 01:08 PM)MrXY Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 12:21 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  For the paranoids among us (Gubmint gonna getchoo) , if you were to have some fantasized revolution against the Gubmint, a Blackhawk with a misslie will take out your whole house and your pals holed up in it before you can even draw a bead. The gubmint has such superior firepower you could never fight them. Not even close. All you can do is Lee Harvey Oswald shit. Real productive.

Are you seriously saying that anyone concerned about the oppressive use of state power is an irrational and ignorant paranoid?

Because if you are , you are just demonstrating your own ignorance of human history. In the 20th century alone governments killed 100 million+ of their own people. And that's just the dead-not including the 100s of millions who were impoverished, starved, oppressed, tortured, imprisoned, etc.

Do you really have that much faith in the eternal beneficence of the all powerful State? I don't, and neither did the Founding Fathers, which is why they recognized the citizen's right to keep and bear arms as a counterweight to state power.

As for your claim that resistance against a better armed government is hopeless, history refutes that as well in countless examples.

You're right about oppressive governments, and the potential for armed rebellion by underdogs-- in a general sense. I think you may agree that any successful rebellion by an populist force requires enough dissatisfaction amongst the masses that some of the soldiers themselves turn against the government.

Here in the US, it is the exact opposite of dissastisfied underclass. For the most part, the overfed masses are unbelievably complacent and obedient. They not only have no problem with the endless upward flow of wealth, they admire and love hearing about their rich owners.

They love Big Brother.

They don't even want to get out of their SUVS, and hover in the lanes of parking lots so they can get a spot within 10 or 20 steps of a store.

Then they waddle into the store and buy more cheap carbohydrates.

They are idiots, and like their enslavement to consumerism. The idea of significant unrest, let alone rebellion amongst Americans is inconceivable at this time.

The ruling class has perfectly mastered propaganda, and largely controls both the content and direction of debate-- - eg "How much do we need to cut social security?". I've ranted elsewhere here about my distrust of doomsayers, who say things are "just around the corner" which corner is always moving. This is no 1932 in Germany.

If you want to be a doomsayer, name a date-- a date when I believe all the TV shows are still on with a vast sea of transfixed whale-women and Betas watching , and the date you would be wrong about armageddon and the rebellion agin the Gubmint.
I also believe many revolutions end up being worse for the masses. I don't know enough about Russia under the Tsars to judge if the average Russian was better off in 1935 than in 1915, , but Vietnam had a really rough time after the Commies won, and Germany lost 7 million in WW2.

Granted, things could change in 100 years or so. But not significantly sooner. I believe right now a revolution in the USA would mean a greatly reduced standard of living for most people.

Post: #195

(12-16-2012 02:00 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 12:39 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  times change, who knows what the founding fathers would write into the constitution if they had to write it today...what they wrote was right for their day and age...do you think they envisioned the right to bear arms being perversed into the right for everybody to get access to assault weapons? Ideas and thinking change and evolve...can't expect 200+ year old writing to answer all of todays problems...we gotta use our own brains once in a while.

Yes. They did think that the right to bear arms meant that people could have access to assault weapons. Whenever people like you spout this nonsense of "times change", I can only think of one retort: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. You want to know what would happen if the bill of rights were written today? It would be 10,000 pages in length, loaded with pork barrel spending, ridiculous conditions and disclaimers, and in the end you would really have no rights whatsoever. Even worse, you'd have no clue as to what was actually in it. But who cares as long as the guns are gone? Right?

IF no infringement to the right to bear arms is what they meant, shouldn't everyone be able to build missiles, build/buy fully auto .50 caliber guns?

Seriously. What do you think. Do you want ANY limits at all?

Post: #196

(12-15-2012 11:46 PM)billbudsocket Wrote:  schoolteacher in Israel:

Since we're not getting the guns away from Murkans in the next few decades, the most practical thing to do might be armed guards at schools. We have a lot of soldiers coming back, why not put them to work. Of course, you're giong to get someof them going off and killing the 16 year old chick who wouldn't fuck.

Post: #197

(12-16-2012 03:02 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 02:00 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 12:39 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  times change, who knows what the founding fathers would write into the constitution if they had to write it today...what they wrote was right for their day and age...do you think they envisioned the right to bear arms being perversed into the right for everybody to get access to assault weapons? Ideas and thinking change and evolve...can't expect 200+ year old writing to answer all of todays problems...we gotta use our own brains once in a while.

Yes. They did think that the right to bear arms meant that people could have access to assault weapons. Whenever people like you spout this nonsense of "times change", I can only think of one retort: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. You want to know what would happen if the bill of rights were written today? It would be 10,000 pages in length, loaded with pork barrel spending, ridiculous conditions and disclaimers, and in the end you would really have no rights whatsoever. Even worse, you'd have no clue as to what was actually in it. But who cares as long as the guns are gone? Right?

IF no infringement to the right to bear arms is what they meant, shouldn't everyone be able to build missiles, build/buy fully auto .50 caliber guns?

Seriously. What do you think. Do you want ANY limits at all?

The killer with you gun grabbers is that you don't really know what laws exist and what laws don't exist. You don't know how much shit is dictated by the federal government and what is overseen by the states. The government already permits people to own Browning machine guns and missiles. Some states don't allow it, but the Federal government is cool with it as long as your state is as well. Missiles and Browning machine guns are classified as "Title II Weapons." You can obtain them, but they're prohibitively expensive, there's a ton of paperwork you must file, you must pay various processing fees to the tune of several hundred dollars, and you can expect regular visits from the ATF so they can make sure you're in compliance with their rules. You must also submit to a rather intensive criminal background check. ANY violation of the rules pertaining to Title II weapons carries up to a $10K fine, up to 10 years in prison, and forfeiture of your weapons.

I'm content with these limits, because I know what the limits are, and you clearly don't.

Post: #198

(12-16-2012 04:12 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  ... gun grabbers...
I'm content with these limits, because I know what the limits are, and you clearly don't.

No, I don't want to grab anyone's guns. I know you're very attached to them.

Much more into guitars than guns. I defer to your expertise.

So if you get all the permits and stuff you really can have, IDK, like a fully auto .50 cal like they mount on combat tanks all set up in a white van with a few thousand rounds, and just sort of drive around with it ready to go in your van, in case, you know, some gang banger tries to rob you ?

Then you could open up the back doors and assert your rights? It's amazing to me that the Feds allow this. But far be it from me to deprive you of these sublime pleasures.

Post: #199

(12-16-2012 04:19 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 04:12 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  ... gun grabbers...
I'm content with these limits, because I know what the limits are, and you clearly don't.

No, I don't want to grab anyone's guns. I know you're very attached to them.

Much more into guitars than guns. I defer to your expertise.

So if you get all the permits and stuff you really can have, IDK, like a fully auto .50 cal like they mount on combat tanks all set up in a white van with a few thousand rounds, and just sort of drive around with it ready to go in your van, in case, you know, some gang banger tries to rob you ?

Then you could open up the back doors and assert your rights? It's amazing to me that the Feds allow this. But far be it from me to deprive you of these sublime pleasures.

Edit: Previously I stated that in theory you could theoretically get away with doing the above scenario you discussed, but I was wrong. I did a little research and this isn't the case. You can't just travel around with a title 2 weapon in your vehicle. The ATF will frown on this. You will violate some regulation and they will seize your gun. Much beyond this point and I'm really out of knowledge on the matter. I've never had a lot of interest in title 2 weapons simply because they cost a lot of money, the regulations are a fucking headache, and automatic fire is only fun when someone else is picking up the tab.

Post: #200

Once upon a time, men in power owned the right to appoint their successors. Some called it inbreeding, others called it nepotism.

One day, elections started to replace this right, and the word became more democratic and civilized.

It is about time to get rid of the absurd right for everyone to own guns.

Let's become civilized. The world can't wait any longer.

In the meanwhile, it's the countdown until the next Mass shooting "coming soon to a theatre near you"...

I hope America will wake up from this nightmare it is keeping alive for its own people. Sometimes I ask myself why I care: after all this is 100% an American problem, and noone there seems to see the elephant in the room. If people don't want to learn from the past, they are condemned to keep suffering.