NationStates Jolt Archive

I say good

Good.

Celebrate Diversity!

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/diversity750.jpg

Good, of course...

Me!

Answer is too simple to understand for most folks: it depends on who have the gun. Guns do nothing wrong, but the people who use it anything else than practising shooting or something like that, shouldn't have guns. If normal american has a gun I'd say it's bad thing :p

Why don't you rephrase the question as "People: Good or Bad"

Neither. Guns are inanimate objects, it's the person behind the trigger that makes the difference.

Overall, a good thing

A government would have a hard time opressing a nation that can willfully defend itself

Why don't you rephrase the question as "People: Good or Bad"
"Apples:Red or Green?" is even catchier and makes as much sense :D

You remember in Michael Moore's Columbine documentary when he wonders why is it that Canadians have more guns per person than Americans do, and yet gun-related crime in Canada is so much lower?

Well, one response to that question (not that a liberal like Moore would be interested) might be that Canada is only about 3-4 percent black and hispanic. And that the great majority of gun-related crimes in the US are committed by... blacks and hispanics. Moore never was too bright though, so maybe is wasn't an issue of self-censorship - maybe he really didn't know.

Good. Without citizens owning firearms the government can opress much more easily than those without. And if guns were ever banned thats just taking away guns from law abiding people the criminals most likely will not turn them in. I think guns are one of the greatest inventions ever.

Well, one response to that question (not that a liberal like Moore would be interested) might be that Canada is only about 3-4 percent black and hispanic. And that the great majority of gun-related crimes in the US are committed by... blacks and hispanics. Moore never was too bright though, so maybe is wasn't an issue of self-censorship - maybe he really didn't know.

That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Being a minority doesn't automatically predispose you to violence, being in a lower income bracket and living in a culture that promotes gun violence do. I'm not going to go any further, just to clarify that that was a racist and boneheaded comment.

That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Being a minority doesn't automatically predispose you to violence, being in a lower income bracket and living in a culture that promotes gun violence do. I'm not going to go any further, just to clarify that that was a racist and boneheaded comment.

Liberals always have problems with statistics - if they tend to disagree with their blinkered mindset about minorities that is. The fact that someone like Moore can complain about the gun culture in the US without ever mentioning that most gun-related crime in the US is perpetrated by blacks and hispanics does tend to show this to be true.

Moore might be a member of the NRA, but he hates guns. Fair enough. But omitting the fact that the great majority of gun-related crimes are committed by two specific minorities, and making it sound like its a cultural/national problem when in fact it's not at all, is just bad propaganda. There and again, Moore is really just a propagandist for liberal nuts and their wordview. The fact that the vast - I mean VAST majority of guns in the US - are owned and used sensibly by their owners is ignored by him, for poltical reasons.

Liberals always have problems with statistics - if they tend to disagree with their blinkered mindset about minorities that is. The fact that someone like Moore can complain about the gun culture in the US without ever mentioning that most gun-related crime in the US is perpetrated by blacks and hispanics does tend to show this to be true.

Moore might be a member of the NRA, but he hates guns. Fair enough. But omitting the fact that the great majority of gun-related crimes are committed by two specific minorities, and making it sound like its a cultural/national problem when in fact it's not at all, is just bad propaganda. There and again, Moore is really just a propagandist for liberal nuts and their wordview. The fact that the vast - I mean VAST majority of guns in the US - are owned and used sensibly by their owners is ignored by him, for poltical reasons.

You're still ignoring the fact that you're basically saying that blacks and hispanics are more violent than white people. There was no clarification here, you're just saying I'm "delusional," because I can't come to grips with the "fact," that blacks and hispanics are just all around bad people

You remember in Michael Moore's Columbine documentary when he wonders why is it that Canadians have more guns per person than Americans do, and yet gun-related crime in Canada is so much lower?

Well, one response to that question (not that a liberal like Moore would be interested) might be that Canada is only about 3-4 percent black and hispanic. And that the great majority of gun-related crimes in the US are committed by... blacks and hispanics. Moore never was too bright though, so maybe is wasn't an issue of self-censorship - maybe he really didn't know.
....

I don't even think I WANT to respond to that...being half-Hispanic myself

but at least I have something to go on the next time someone tells me that America has "the uber most blah blah blah gun crimes etc"

That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Being a minority doesn't automatically predispose you to violence, being in a lower income bracket and living in a culture that promotes gun violence do. I'm not going to go any further, just to clarify that that was a racist and boneheaded comment.
Here is what the statistic is - minorities make up the majority of the lower income/lower class of America. The lower income/lower class commit more violent acts than the middle and up income/class people do. Therefore, by defualt, the minorities commit more violent acts, not because the minorities are more violent, but because in our country the unfortunately making up a larger chunk of the violent part of our society.

Here is what the statistic is - minorities make up the majority of the lower income/lower class of America. The lower income/lower class commit more violent acts than the middle and up income/class people do. Therefore, by defualt, the minorities commit more violent acts, not because the minorities are more violent, but because in our country the unfortunately making up a larger chunk of the violent part of our society.

Thank you, I didn't want to take the time to clarify, although it seems like obviously the trend of this messageboard is to actual make well thoughtout posts. PS
:fluffle:

You're still ignoring the fact that you're basically saying that blacks and hispanics are more violent than white people. There was no clarification here, you're just saying I'm "delusional," because I can't come to grips with the "fact," that blacks and hispanics are just all around bad people

I suppose that one can assume that if most gun-related crime is committed by blacks and hispanics then yes, blacks (especially) and hispanics are more violent than white people. What world are you living in?

You can blame black violence on repression/poverty/drugs and all manner of things and that's fair enough. But the fact remains that the use of a gun in the furtherance of a crime is considered to be violent crime. And blacks really are more likely to use guns when they commit crime. That's a fact. And people like Moore ignore this and condemn everyone else for gun crime in the US.

It's really not hard to understand. Well, maybe if you are a liberal it is...

And on the issue of government oppression...

If the government is going to oppress its citizens in a manner that we would need to equip ourselves with firearms, that would likely mean they somehow would have the army on their side (I don't think a politician will be able to defend himself from a lynchmob of Arkansas hillbillies, even if they are unequipped...). Now I say that to say this. Even if every America had a firearm of some sort, don't you think that trained soldiers with M4s, M16s, M203 grenade launchers, M249 SAWs, grenade, and heck, even tanks would be able to easily crush our entire nation? No way in heck could our nation defend itself if it was our army that was attacking us as there would be nothing left to defend with (pfft...national guard is putting up sand bags and putting out forest fires every other weekend and earning money for college while doing it). However, I really don't think the Army would side to easily with the government as pretty much all of the army has non-government/military family that they'd like to defend...so that kind of nullifies that argument. However, I do think that pistols for self-defense from criminals with black markey weapons and rifles for hunting should be permitted and there should be rigirous laws on who can and can not buy them.

Here is what the statistic is - minorities make up the majority of the lower income/lower class of America. The lower income/lower class commit more violent acts than the middle and up income/class people do. Therefore, by defualt, the minorities commit more violent acts, not because the minorities are more violent, but because in our country the unfortunately making up a larger chunk of the violent part of our society.

In Canada, as in every country, the poor statistically commit more crimes than the rich or the middle class.

Canada is a country where more people on average own guns than America. Yet there is no evidence to suggest that the Canadian lower class/lower income groups are more likely to use guns when they commit crimes than any other racial/ethnic/socio-economic group. None at all.

I suppose that one can assume that if most gun-related crime is committed by blacks and hispanics then yes, blacks (especially) and hispanics are more violent than white people. What world are you living in?

You can blame black violence on repression/poverty/drugs and all manner of things and that's fair enough. But the fact remains that the use of a gun in the furtherance of a crime is considered to be violent crime. And blacks really are more likely to use guns when they commit crime. That's a fact. And people like Moore ignore this and condemn everyone else for gun crime in the US.

It's really not hard to understand. Well, maybe if you are a liberal it is...

Guns are more accessible in areas with higher crime, because crime breeds crime. The reason more minorities have guns is more minorities have access to illegal guns. This is the same reason that marijuana is a gateway drug, because people exposed to it are exposed to things that are more dangerous. This isn't quite a fair analogy, and this is a little convoluted, because I see that you aren't going to ever accept that black and hispanic people are not by default more evil than white people. You're a racist ass.

I suppose that one can assume that if most gun-related crime is committed by blacks and hispanics then yes, blacks (especially) and hispanics are more violent than white people. What world are you living in?

You can blame black violence on repression/poverty/drugs and all manner of things and that's fair enough. But the fact remains that the use of a gun in the furtherance of a crime is considered to be violent crime. And blacks really are more likely to use guns when they commit crime. That's a fact. And people like Moore ignore this and condemn everyone else for gun crime in the US.

It's really not hard to understand. Well, maybe if you are a liberal it is...

Read my post, please. Wait, here it is:
Here is what the statistic is - minorities make up the majority of the lower income/lower class of America. The lower income/lower class commit more violent acts than the middle and up income/class people do. Therefore, by defualt, the minorities commit more violent acts, not because the minorities are more violent, but because in our country the unfortunately making up a larger chunk of the violent part of our society.

Guns are more accessible in areas with higher crime, because crime breeds crime. The reason more minorities have guns is more minorities have access to illegal guns. This is the same reason that marijuana is a gateway drug, because people exposed to it are exposed to things that are more dangerous. This isn't quite a fair analogy, and this is a little convoluted, because I see that you aren't going to ever accept that black and hispanic people are not by default more evil than white people. You're a racist ass.

And you are just plain stupid. Maybe not stupid, but deluded. It wouldn't matter what evidence people like you are presented with - your liberalism is so ingrained, steroetypical and prejudiced, that you can't see the wood for the trees. It's really sad.

Read my post, please. Wait, here it is:

I already read it. Adequate, but ignoring the issue. As always.

And you are just plain stupid. Maybe not stupid, but deluded. It wouldn't matter what evidence people like you are presented with - your liberalism is so ingrained, steroetypical and prejudiced, that you can't see the wood for the trees. It's really sad.

Why the hell am I prejudice for assuming that socioeconomic factors weigh more heavily in gun violence than SKIN COLOR. You are an imbecile.

Why the hell am I prejudice for assuming that socioeconomic factors weigh more heavily in gun violence than SKIN COLOR. You are an imbecile.

Now, now. Temper temper! Didn't I learn early on that feeding the trolls -especially liberal trolls who get just so upset when you challenge their core prejudices - is a bad idea. Calm down.

Now, now. Temper temper! Didn't I learn early on that feeding the trolls -especially liberal trolls who get just so upset when you challenge their core prejudices - is a bad idea. Calm down.

So at the core liberals are prejudice against.. prejudice? Do you really think you're going to get a positive reaction from what you're proclaiming.
:fluffle:

Ok, if we're so wrong, show us? Show us how we're wrong for assuming that it's the people in the lower tax bracket who commit the crimes. Prove to us that it's because of race, not economics.

You remember in Michael Moore's Columbine documentary when he wonders why is it that Canadians have more guns per person than Americans do, and yet gun-related crime in Canada is so much lower?

Well, one response to that question (not that a liberal like Moore would be interested) might be that Canada is only about 3-4 percent black and hispanic. And that the great majority of gun-related crimes in the US are committed by... blacks and hispanics. Moore never was too bright though, so maybe is wasn't an issue of self-censorship - maybe he really didn't know.
you should watch bowling for columbine before making an ignorant comment. Moore does say that some people might blame the diversity in the US on our high rate of violent crime. And then he said something like "but I see black people all over in canada!!"
hmmm....too bad for that theory

You remember in Michael Moore's Columbine documentary when he wonders why is it that Canadians have more guns per person than Americans do, and yet gun-related crime in Canada is so much lower?

Well, one response to that question (not that a liberal like Moore would be interested) might be that Canada is only about 3-4 percent black and hispanic. And that the great majority of gun-related crimes in the US are committed by... blacks and hispanics. Moore never was too bright though, so maybe is wasn't an issue of self-censorship - maybe he really didn't know.

You might want to research your "facts"?

1. Moore did not say that Canadians have more guns per person than Americans do.

2. Canada has a greater multicultural population than the US.

3. I just saw Fahrenheit 911, and Moore is brighter than you might think. I also saw Bowling for Columbine. Both were excellent, well produced films that have won awards.

So at the core liberals are prejudice against.. prejudice? Do you really think you're going to get a positive reaction from what you're proclaiming.
:fluffle:

When you post things that challenge the liberal establishment view - well of course I don't expect to get a positive reaction from liberals like you.

I see you're a newbie, so I understand why you're upset. It's okay. Just so that you know that not all of us around here are liberal clones and some people do disagree with the way liberals stereotype the gun issue.

You'll get used to diverse viewpoints in here. I know it's hard for liberals sometimes to believe anyone else can be right but really, others can be right. Just learn to relax and don't get so heated when people disagree with you.

3. I just saw Fahrenheit 911, and Moore is brighter than you might think. I also saw Bowling for Columbine. Both were excellent, well produced films that have won awards.
That is irrelevant. Bad movies win awards too. (I do like Moore, but your comment about them winning awards is unnecessary and irrelevant.)

Liberals always have problems with statistics - if they tend to disagree with their blinkered mindset about minorities that is. The fact that someone like Moore can complain about the gun culture in the US without ever mentioning that most gun-related crime in the US is perpetrated by blacks and hispanics does tend to show this to be true.
So...by your logic, shouldn't Africa and South America have RIDICULOUS gun crime rates?
edit: :rolleyes:

When you post things that challenge the liberal establishment view - well of course I don't expect to get a positive reaction from liberals like you.

I see you're a newbie, so I understand why you're upset. It's okay. Just so that you know that not all of us around here are liberal clones and some people do disagree with the way liberals stereotype the gun issue.

You'll get used to diverse viewpoints in here. I know it's hard for liberals sometimes to believe anyone else can be right but really, others can be right. Just learn to relax and don't get so heated when people disagree with you.

I'm not a "newbie" per se, I've posted over 22,000 posts on the VNBoards and something like 5,000 at other boards combined. I'm not infuriated either, just mildly pissed off that you're telling me that I "can't accept when someone else is right," and I'm a "stupid liberal," when you're a proponent of racism.

So...by your logic, shouldn't Africa and South America have RIDICULOUS gun crime rates?
edit: :rolleyes:
And Arkansas outside the Little Rock and Fayetteville areas is absolutely crime free...

I'm not a "newbie" per se, I've posted over 22,000 posts on the VNBoards and something like 5,000 at other boards combined. I'm not infuriated either, just mildly pissed off that you're telling me that I "can't accept when someone else is right," and I'm a "stupid liberal," when you're a proponent of racism.

This is the stock liberal reply whenever you challenge liberals on issues about race. You must be a racist. I've become so accustomed to seeing that word flung around by liberals as a means of censoring debate that I'm immune to it now. It means nothing, because you expect liberals to say it. This is the liberal-mindset. They try to stifle debate by use of the big, bad "racist" word.

I see that with all your experience of posting elsewhere you still resort to that cliche. Really, you could do better.

This is the stock liberal reply whenever you challenge liberals on issues about race. You must be a racist. I've become so accustomed to seeing that word flung around by liberals as a means of censoring debate that I'm immune to it now. It means nothing, because you expect liberals to say it. This is the liberal-mindset. They try to stifle debate by use of the big, bad "racist" word.

I see that with all your experience of posting elsewhere you still resort to that cliche. Really, you could do better.
Eh, cliche or no cliche, it can be applicable still. Explain why Africa does not have such high crime rates.

So...by your logic, shouldn't Africa and South America have RIDICULOUS gun crime rates?
edit: :rolleyes:

No because the blacks and hispanics in africa and south america don't have the white man to produce their guns (it is too hard for them, they can only plant things) so they can be violent and the good white man can just use it at the shooting range or some other noble pursuit such as hunting for sport

Eh, cliche or no cliche, it can be applicable still. Explain why Africa does not have such high crime rates.

Well, South Africa has some of the highest gun crime incidence in the world. Almost of which is committed by guess which particular racial group? Do I have to say it?

This is the stock liberal reply whenever you challenge liberals on issues about race. You must be a racist. I've become so accustomed to seeing that word flung around by liberals as a means of censoring debate that I'm immune to it now. It means nothing, because you expect liberals to say it. This is the liberal-mindset. They try to stifle debate by use of the big, bad "racist" word.

I see that with all your experience of posting elsewhere you still resort to that cliche. Really, you could do better.

It's not a cliche, your statements are RACIST, regardless of whether or not you are racist. It's just an inference that you are because you support that idea. I'm not going to do this anymore, because you're not only trying to trip me, but you're trying to force me into a stereotypical liberal stance, which I am not.

No because the blacks and hispanics in africa and south america don't have the white man to produce their guns (it is too hard for them, they can only plant things) so they can be violent and the good white man can just use it at the shooting range or some other noble pursuit such as hunting for sport
North Africa is littered with weapons and has an extremely extensive black market.

Well, South Africa has some of the highest gun crime incidence in the world. Almost of which is committed by guess which particular racial group? Do I have to say it?


The blacks in South Africa were oppressed until apartheid was abolished and Nelson Mandela was brought into power. The rich upper class in South Africa are white. You're ignoring culture and economics again and being completely illogical.

Well, South Africa has some of the highest gun crime incidence in the world. Almost of which is committed by guess which particular racial group? Do I have to say it?
That is because in South Africa, the blacks are oppressed by whites. English is national language there...

It's not a cliche, your statements are RACIST, regardless of whether or not you are racist. It's just an inference that you are because you support that idea. I'm not going to do this anymore, because you're not only trying to trip me, but you're trying to force me into a stereotypical liberal stance, which I am not.

Everything you've written in here is a liberal stereotype. Learn to be independent - stop quoting received liberal "wisdom" and you'll do much better. Okay?

Everything you've written in here is a liberal stereotype. Learn to be independent - stop quoting received liberal "wisdom" and you'll do much better. Okay?
Which obviously makes everything he says untrue therefore excusing you from defending it...except not. Stop calling him a liberal stereotype. The first time was more than enough. We all can read and make up our own mind on him. Start defending what you're presented with so we can take you seriously.

Everything you've written in here is a liberal stereotype. Learn to be independent - stop quoting received liberal "wisdom" and you'll do much better. Okay?

I'm not saying this because I'm a liberal, I'm saying this because I'm working under the apparently false assumption that "evil" isn't increased by having skin shade reach a darker shade.

Also, I bet that Democratic Nationality would argue that terrorist are much more likely to be Arab. Not because we've screwed up foriegn relations in the mid-east, an area which happens to be Arab dominant, but because they are "sand-niggers" and that's how those people act.

That is because in South Africa, the blacks are oppressed by whites. English is national language there...

Oh boy. Yes, it's still Apartheid days in Opal Isle's mind in SA. It's not the marvellous rainbow nation of Nelson Mandela that the world proclaims. This is the most ludicrous post you've made so far.

Come on now... the inference to English being spoken predominantly is ridiculous especially. Most black South Africans speak tribal languages first, english second, even to this day. SABC may still predominantly broadcast in English and Afrikaans but what does that have to do with it?

Oh boy. Yes, it's still Apartheid days in Opal Isle's mind in SA. It's not the marvellous rainbow nation of Nelson Mandela that the world proclaims. This is the most ludicrous post you've made so far.

Come on now... the inference to English being spoken predominantly is ridiculous especially. Most black South Africans speak tribal languages first, english second, even to this day. SABC may still predominantly broadcast in English and Afrikaans but what does that have to do with it?
Especially since I said that English was the predominant language, eh? Why don't you show us an example of a country with high gun crime rates and low (or almost no) white population...

I'm not saying this because I'm a liberal, I'm saying this because I'm working under the apparently false assumption that "evil" isn't increased by having skin shade reach a darker shade.
yeah, I'd be damn near holy if that was the case :eek:

I'm just waiting for Democratic Nationality to actually make a solid argument for his case...

yeah, I'd be damn near holy if that was the case :eek:

I'd be holy in all the areas not affected with farmers tan. :fluffle:

I'm just waiting for Democratic Nationality to actually make a solid argument for his case...
As opposed to one against our arguments, which are against his side of the story, which ... he isn't trying to prove, only trying to defend...mmm, sounds like religion to me...(which, ironically, spawned the KKK like it or not)...

I'm just waiting for Democratic Nationality to actually make a solid argument for his case...
looks like you'll be waiting a while- he hasn't even tried yet. Doesn't seem to be important if the person he's arguing against is "liberal" or..."not racist"

I'm just waiting for Democratic Nationality to actually make a solid argument for his case...

He won't, he provokes people and ignores their arguments, instead relying on comparing them to the "liberal stereotype" and trying to discredit them in that manner. He also doesn't know the meaning of the phrase "correlation, not causation."

looks like you'll be waiting a while- he hasn't even tried yet. Doesn't seem to be important if the person he's arguing against is "liberal" or..."not racist"
Guess it is kind of hard to disprove someone who disagrees with you if you can't prove what you've said...

Especially since I said that English was the predominant language, eh? Why don't you show us an example of a country with high gun crime rates and low (or almost no) white population...

You said that English is the national language in SA. In fact there is no national language in SA. English and Afrikaans and other black tribal languages all have equal status. Like the US and the UK, SA is one of the very few countries that doesn't have one official language.

I don't see what your point is anyway, regarding English. Is this supposed to be a reference to people who speak English - and are therefore exposed to the "American Gun Culture" via Hollywood etc - being more prone to committing crime? That's a genuinely terrible reference if that's what you mean. Black in SA are so stupid, you are suggesting, that they simple copy what they see in American movies?

You said that English is the national language in SA. In fact there is no national language in SA. English and Afrikaans and other black tribal languages all have equal status. Like the US and the UK, SA is one of the very few countries that doesn't have one official language.

I don't see what your point is anyway, regarding English. Is this supposed to be a reference to people who speak English - and are therefore exposed to the "American Gun Culture" via Hollywood etc - being more prone to committing crime? That's a genuinely terrible reference if that's what you mean. Black in SA are so stupid, you are suggesting, that they simple copy what they see in American movies?

You're picking on a single illogical comment made by Opal and ignoring the overarching theme of the intelligent people in this thread (oh my god I insulted you). No, English being the national language doesn't oppress black people, but the fact that whites control the corporations and controlled the country for the majority of its existence does.

You said that English is the national language in SA. In fact there is no national language in SA. English and Afrikaans and other black tribal languages all have equal status. Like the US and the UK, SA is one of the very few countries that doesn't have one official language.

I don't see what your point is anyway, regarding English. Is this supposed to be a reference to people who speak English - and are therefore exposed to the "American Gun Culture" via Hollywood etc - being more prone to committing crime? That's a genuinely terrible reference if that's what you mean. Black in SA are so stupid, you are suggesting, that they simple copy what they see in American movies?
And now he goes to completely misconstruing my statements. I said English was an official language there, which would imply a strong Western Influence compared to the rest of Africa. And yes, English is an official language of South Africa. (And I never said it was the only one.)

Languages:

11 official languages, including Afrikaans, English, Ndebele, Pedi, Sotho, Swazi, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa, Zulu

That is from: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sf.html#Intro (Although...the CIA has been wrong before...)

Anyways, instead of putting down our arguments, start putting up one of your own. Show us a country with little to no white population that has gun crime problems.

Also, I bet that Democratic Nationality would argue that terrorist are much more likely to be Arab. Not because we've screwed up foriegn relations in the mid-east, an area which happens to be Arab dominant, but because they are "sand-niggers" and that's how those people act.


Actually that's mainly the Archangel Micheal's fault. He's been really active in pushing the whole jihadi thing in islam the last 30 years. i hear moe isn't too thrilled with the whole idea, but dad lets mike pursuit these weird pet projects so what ya gonna do...

Don't show us a country with a small white population that has high gun violence, show us a country whose lower class ISN'T violent that isn't highly religious or urban.

:rolleyes: Actually that's mainly the Archangel Micheal's fault. He's been really active in pushing the whole jihadi thing in islam the last 30 years. i hear moe isn't too thrilled with the whole idea, but dad lets mike pursuit these weird pet projects so what ya gonna do...

Don't show us a country with a small white population that has high gun violence, show us a country whose lower class ISN'T violent that isn't highly religious or urban.

To fix that;

Show us a country where the gun violence ISN'T primarily focused in the lower class, regardless of race.

Guess it is kind of hard to disprove someone who disagrees with you if you can't prove what you've said...

When is Nationstates finally going to get the forum issue sorted out, so there are more people here? There are so many intelligent liberals out there in NS with whom to debate more seriously, not just the likes of you and that four fiends character. Oh well, one can only hope for better times.

I'll see you around Opal Isles, I'm sure. Until then, try and read some good books or periodicals, and learn a bit more. C'ya ;)

Ignore CannibalChrist. He thinks he is Jesus Christ and has been really annoying me on a religion forum (which is why I came here).

Anyway, here are some other FACTS about South Africa, according to the CIA (Which again, has been wrong before)

Population below poverty line:
50% (2000 est.)

Unemployment rate:
37% (includes workers no longer looking for employment) (2001 est.)

Illicit drugs:
transshipment center for heroin, hashish, marijuana, and cocaine; cocaine consumption on the rise; world's largest market for illicit methaqualone, usually imported illegally from India through various east African countries; illicit cultivation of marijuana; attractive venue for money launderers given the increasing level of organized criminal and narcotics activity in the region

All of these things probably contribute to the gun crime rate and having nothing to do with race except that the people effected by the first two are most likely blacks. The Illicit drugs could effect all equally, but drugs and drug trafficking normally isn't done by high society, so again, South Africa having a high black population has a higher portion of their bottom end made up of blacks, therefore putting more blacks in these situations.

When is Nationstates finally going to get the forum issue sorted out, so there are more people here? There are so many intelligent liberals out there in NS with whom to debate more seriously, not just the likes of you and that four fiends character. Oh well, one can only hope for better times.

I'll see you around Opal Isles, I'm sure. Until then, try and read some good books or periodicals, and learn a bit more. C'ya ;)
it's easy to think you've won an argument when you walk away before making a single point, huh :mad: :gundge:

When is Nationstates finally going to get the forum issue sorted out, so there are more people here? There are so many intelligent liberals out there in NS with whom to debate more seriously, not just the likes of you and that four fiends character. Oh well, one can only hope for better times.

I'll see you around Opal Isles, I'm sure. Until then, try and read some good books or periodicals, and learn a bit more. C'ya ;)

Learn a bit more about what? You're leaving because you can't provide us with the information you asked for. I want a country where the violent crime isn't focused in the lower class.

When is Nationstates finally going to get the forum issue sorted out, so there are more people here? There are so many intelligent liberals out there in NS with whom to debate more seriously, not just the likes of you and that four fiends character. Oh well, one can only hope for better times.

I'll see you around Opal Isles, I'm sure. Until then, try and read some good books or periodicals, and learn a bit more. C'ya ;)

This is the best argument Democratic Nationality has for anything. He automatically labels both of us as stereotypical liberals because of our stance on one issue yet will not address any of our arguments. I don't think it has to be said as most people are already wondering "How can Democratic Nationality really think he's beat these people in this argument...?"

it's easy to think you've won an argument when you walk away before making a single point, huh :mad: :gundge:
I think he was trying to sneak out before I brought the above facts about South Africa in...too slow...

I'd say it's time to abandon this thread before we form a "stereotypical liberal circlejerk"

PS :fluffle: ;) :D :cool: :fluffle:

world's largest market for illicit methaqualone, usually imported illegally from India through various east African countries

Read - lots of drug related gun crimes...and when you can't get money because you're part of the 37% of the unemployed population, drug trafficking becomes an option...

I'd say it's time to abandon this thread before we form a "stereotypical liberal circlejerk"

PS :fluffle: ;) :D :cool: :fluffle:
hey none of that, that's a sin, and can land you right in hell, unless you all are married(to each other) and there is at least moderate gender diversity in the marriage unit.

hey none of that, that's a sin, and can land you right in hell, unless you all are married(to each other) and there is at least moderate gender diversity in the marriage unit.

We're an all eunuch non-genital love unit.
:fluffle:

hey none of that, that's a sin, and can land you right in hell, unless you all are married(to each other) and there is at least moderate gender diversity in the marriage unit.
/me is waiting for a mod to catch on to CannibalChrist's posts...which apparantly are being flooded everywhere in a sad attempt to get a higher postcount (why, who knows?)

Statistics, statistics, statistics. Maybe more likely DN got tired than ran away. This is one stupid debate. I thought it was about guns good or bad? This stuff DN says about African-Americans being more likely to use guns for crime, well everyone knows that this is true, that's not the issue.


Should we be allowed to have guns or not? Are they any use for personal protection, or should they just be banned outright?

Statistics, statistics, statistics. Maybe more likely DN got tired than ran away. This is one stupid debate. I thought it was about guns good or bad? This stuff DN says about African-Americans being more likely to use guns for crime, well everyone knows that this is true, that's not the issue.


Should we be allowed to have guns or not? Are they any use for personal protection, or should they just be banned outright?
You should've let the post die. If society was structured different, blacks would be less likely to commit gun crimes. No one has presented an solid evidence against this.

This stuff DN says about African-Americans being more likely to use guns for crime, well everyone knows that this is true, that's not the issue.


That's not right. Statistically more violent gun crime is committed by African-Americans, but he almost explicitly stated that it's because they are African-American, not because they are in an economically repressed minority.

/me is waiting for a mod to catch on to CannibalChrist's posts...which apparantly are being flooded everywhere in a sad attempt to get a higher postcount (why, who knows?)

never gotten in trouble with him before. i do walk the line sometimes, its always a risk, but i'm only on 4 maybe 5 threads and i'm pretty sure i've posted less than you this eve my self righteous new friend.

never gotten in trouble with him before. i do walk the line sometimes, its always a risk, but i'm only on 4 maybe 5 threads and i'm pretty sure i've posted less than you this eve my self righteous new friend.
But I'm not posting pointless posts. (Actually, this one seems kind of pointless except that I'm defending myself.) I'm actively, seriously taking a part in the debates and that is pretty much the point of nationstates forums. If you want to be humorous, make a new thread for humor, but don't tear down the serious ones, please.

That's not right. Statistically more violent gun crime is committed by African-Americans, but he almost explicitly stated that it's because they are African-American, not because they are in an economically repressed minority.

The thread wasn't yours to let die btw. I don't care about the socio-economic aspects of why African-Americans are more likely to commit violent crime with or without guns, that's not the issue here, let someone else figure that out. This issue is guns good or bad. If you are going to go ona about that type of thing, about economically repressed minorities and stuff like that, then please take it elsewhere, start your own thread. But if f you want to address the gun issue - good or bad, then post something substantive beyond what you have learned in social science classes. Thanks.

The thread wasn't yours to let die btw. I don't care about the socio-economic aspects of why African-Americans are more likely to commit violent crime with or without guns, that's not the issue here, let someone else figure that out. This issue is guns good or bad. If you are going to go ona about that type of thing, about economically repressed minorities and stuff like that, then please take it elsewhere, start your own thread. But if f you want to address the gun issue - good or bad, then post something substantive beyond what you have learned in social science classes. Thanks.

I like how you devalued learning in your response. I've already made my statement on why guns are OK, because guns don't have a mind of their own. DemocraticNationality basically started all the crap on this thread.

The thread wasn't yours to let die btw. I don't care about the socio-economic aspects of why African-Americans are more likely to commit violent crime with or without guns, that's not the issue here, let someone else figure that out. This issue is guns good or bad. If you are going to go ona about that type of thing, about economically repressed minorities and stuff like that, then please take it elsewhere, start your own thread. But if f you want to address the gun issue - good or bad, then post something substantive beyond what you have learned in social science classes. Thanks.
If you would stop being insultive, I wouldn't have to defend myself and the people you insult who aren't here to defend themselves. And aside from that, suppose everything I am posting is what I learned in my social science classes (despite the fact that it isn't), what makes that any less accurate? What should it matter where knowledge is recieved from so long as it is recieved?

But I'm not posting pointless posts. (Actually, this one seems kind of pointless except that I'm defending myself.) I'm actively, seriously taking a part in the debates and that is pretty much the point of nationstates forums. If you want to be humorous, make a new thread for humor, but don't tear down the serious ones, please.


come on, you guys had already hijacked this thread long before i showed up...

And when I said you should've let this thread die, I misspoke. I should've said that if you want to go back to the original topic, you should have made a post on that topic and request that we go back to that topic and say absolutely nothing about what you want to leave behind.

Also, I bet that Democratic Nationality would argue that terrorist are much more likely to be Arab. Not because we've screwed up foriegn relations in the mid-east, an area which happens to be Arab dominant, but because they are "sand-niggers" and that's how those people act.
How about "neither of the above"?

Maybe arabs are more likely to be terrorists because "they" screwed up domestic relations in the mid-east, and the arab male has an inferiority complex because of the failure and humiliation brought about by dictator rule. And because their lords have given them an outlet for their impotence, a struggle against the Jew and other infidels?

They aren't "sand-niggers" but they are sand-slaves, and they deserve to be freed.

Whee! Off topic!

I like how you devalued learning in your response. I've already made my statement on why guns are OK, because guns don't have a mind of their own. DemocraticNationality basically started all the crap on this thread.

I'm reading back through this thread and it seems like there's a whole bunch of people like you all opposed to one person and the thread loses its purpose because all you do is attack him with calling hime a racist and so on. You are the people/person who made this thread lose track.
This is an important issue here, and you hijacked it. Why don't you go away?

I'm reading back through this thread and it seems like there's a whole bunch of people like you all opposed to one person and the thread loses its purpose because all you do is attack him with calling hime a racist and so on. You are the people/person who made this thread lose track.
This is an important issue here, and you hijacked it. Why don't you go away?

A whole bunch of people were opposed to ONE PERSON because he was the only person presenting an opinion contrary to ours. Obviously this is an example of the majority attacking the minority, which is ironic in a way

How about "neither of the above"?

Maybe arabs are more likely to be terrorists because "they" screwed up domestic relations in the mid-east, and the arab male has an inferiority complex because of the failure and humiliation brought about by dictator rule. And because their lords have given them an outlet for their impotence, a struggle against the Jew and other infidels?

They aren't "sand-niggers" but they are sand-slaves, and they deserve to be freed.

Whee! Off topic!

"they" = we...like I said the first time, we being the United States. And maybe the Arab male does have an inferiority complex, etc. and because their lords have given them an outlet, etc. but by that logic, most Africans are likely to commit the same type of acts...(I'm talking about International Terror, not that trainwreck in Israel)...and also, I'm not asking you what you think the answer to that theory is...I'm theorizing as to what the Democratic guy things based off the logic he used to pinpoint blacks as gunners...

I'm reading back through this thread and it seems like there's a whole bunch of people like you all opposed to one person and the thread loses its purpose because all you do is attack him with calling hime a racist and so on. You are the people/person who made this thread lose track.
This is an important issue here, and you hijacked it. Why don't you go away?

Uh, and Four was the only person in the thread who was calling names...definitely...
JEE-ZUHS CHRIST! Calling a racist a racist is an attack in the same that calling Osama bin Laden a terrorist is an attack. It is an attack on the person no doubt, but does not change anything about the truths behind it. And really, I'd rather be called a racist if I was being a racist than be called a "stereotypical liberal" based off my opinion on one issue...

"they" = we...like I said the first time, we being the United States.
I was taking a shot at your collectivism. An arab male is not part of any responsible "they" for their messed up societies, and neither is an American part of a responsible "we" for the same.

I reserve my scorn for the individual Husseins, Assads, "Crown Princes", and mullahs who keep their citizens under their heel.

Uh, and Four was the only person in the thread who was calling names...definitely...
JEE-ZUHS CHRIST! Calling a racist a racist is an attack in the same that calling Osama bin Laden a terrorist is an attack. It is an attack on the person no doubt, but does not change anything about the truths behind it. And really, I'd rather be called a racist if I was being a racist than be called a "stereotypical liberal" based off my opinion on one issue...

I saw nothing racist in what he/she wrote, but I see a lot ofprejudice coming from the other side, from people like you. I'm not a liberal or a conservative, but I can see how ugly it is when a whole bunch of liberals gang up on someone for expressing something they don't agree with. I guess maybe a long time ago liberals were different, they used to be more open minded, because its not a nice sight to see you in action here.

I was taking a shot at your collectivism. An arab male is not part of any responsible "they" for their messed up societies, and neither is an American part of a responsible "we" for the same.

I reserve my scorn for the individual Husseins, Assads, "Crown Princes", and mullahs who keep their citizens under their heel.
But then again, I'm not asking for your opinion on the issue at all, merely speculating at someone else's

I saw nothing racist in what he/she wrote, but I see a lot ofprejudice coming from the other side, from people like you. I'm not a liberal or a conservative, but I can see how ugly it is when a whole bunch of liberals gang up on someone for expressing something they don't agree with. I guess maybe a long time ago liberals were different, they used to be more open minded, because its not a nice sight to see you in action here.
You can not label a person politically based of their stand on one issue.
He argued against us when we argued that gun crimes are socio-economic related rather than race related (therefore taking the side that gun crimes are in fact race related, therefore making him a racist).
He then proceeded to not show a shred of evidence supporting his side.

Actually its a whole lot of unpleasnt self righteous liberals taking over the thread to prove they are right by calling someone they don't agree with offensive names so that he/she is tarred with the racist thing. This is not a good advertisement for liberalism and you have basically destroyed this thread by this childishness. If this thread is still alive tomorrow I hope you have all vanished so it can be returned to its original purpose. Idiots.

Actually its a whole lot of unpleasnt self righteous liberals taking over the thread to prove they are right by calling someone they don't agree with offensive names so that he/she is tarred with the racist thing. This is not a good advertisement for liberalism and you have basically destroyed this thread by this childishness. If this thread is still alive tomorrow I hope you have all vanished so it can be returned to its original purpose. Idiots.

cut it out democratic nationalism :)

Guns good or bad? Thats the issue.

I'm going to create a guns good or bad 2 thread, because this one is ruined. Wel, I will do late on

Actually its a whole lot of unpleasnt self righteous liberals taking over the thread to prove they are right by calling someone they don't agree with offensive names so that he/she is tarred with the racist thing. This is not a good advertisement for liberalism and you have basically destroyed this thread by this childishness. If this thread is still alive tomorrow I hope you have all vanished so it can be returned to its original purpose. Idiots.
Again, you put us down for name calling then call us names. That's really the best way to fight from that stand point, eh? I'll have you know that on some threads I get accused of being "conservative" and others "liberal" and then there is the "democrat" and "republican," etc. The only thing I've never been accused of being called is a communist (as there isn't as much depth to economy as there is politics, less issues, etc.), anyway. I will state again. There is no way, based off my stance on one issue (and I'm not taking a stance really, just arguing against what this guy said...) that you can label me as conservative or liberal, republican or democrat. Call me a free-thinker who makes up his own mind and use that as an insult if you want to insult my politics. The fact of the matter is, there is only one thing we called him, and that was a racist, and that is because he was making racist remarks.

Guns good or bad? Thats the issue.

I'm going to create a guns good or bad 2 thread, because this one is ruined. Wel, I will do late on

Later on even. I just think its a real shame how important issues become so sidetracked by this type of thing.

Later on even. I just think its a real shame how important issues become so sidetracked by this type of thing.
Uh...
We did branch off and get of the strict topic, but we were within the realm of the main topic. We were debating about guns being good or bad and what we should do as far as making laws about them. That stemmed into trying to figure out what spawned all the violence in some places...which stemmed into Democratic Nationalists accusation of blacks being the main part of gun crimes...which stemmed into a debate to prove/disprove that, to better understand what creates gun crimes, which would help us decide what we think should done about laws concerning guns. I mean, if blacks really were the cause, all of our problems would be solved by just prohibiting them from having guns, right? (sarcasm...)

Again, you put us down for name calling then call us names. That's really the best way to fight from that stand point, eh? I'll have you know that on some threads I get accused of being "conservative" and others "liberal" and then there is the "democrat" and "republican," etc. The only thing I've never been accused of being called is a communist (as there isn't as much depth to economy as there is politics, less issues, etc.), anyway. I will state again. There is no way, based off my stance on one issue (and I'm not taking a stance really, just arguing against what this guy said...) that you can label me as conservative or liberal, republican or democrat. Call me a free-thinker who makes up his own mind and use that as an insult if you want to insult my politics. The fact of the matter is, there is only one thing we called him, and that was a racist, and that is because he was making racist remarks.

Okay, no problem, but I dont see what he wrote as racist but I guess that makes me racist too. I live in NYC and I see who uses the guns in the borough where I live. I know from experience who does it and I know why they do it, it doesn't need explaining for me just like it doesn't need explaining for anyone else if you are white and live in a highcrime area where there are plenty of people who are not white. The issue was about the whole morality of gun ownership in the US.

Okay, no problem, but I dont see what he wrote as racist but I guess that makes me racist too. I live in NYC and I see who uses the guns in the borough where I live. I know from experience who does it and I know why they do it, it doesn't need explaining for me just like it doesn't need explaining for anyone else if you are white and live in a highcrime area where there are plenty of people who are not white. The issue was about the whole morality of gun ownership in the US.


Do they do it because they're black?

We are not denying that blacks commit the majority of the gun crimes, but because of the stance Democratic Nationalists took so adamantly against us, we (or at least I) feel that by arguing against the theory that gun crime is the product of being in a poor economic status, he believed that it was the product of being black. (By the way, I think Four Friends racist accusation was premature, but I don't think I said anything about him being racist until he had established himself on the side of the argument he had.)

This is a waste of time. I'm through with this thread, but if you want to talk about racism, talk about it through experience and not through books. There were plenty of people where I grew up who were white and poor and almost never took up a gun to settle a dispute. The blacks did, and they still do. Blame it on gangculture or anything else, but a black guy would not think twice about killing someone over a disgreement where I lived. I don't give a sh** if that makes me a racist for saying it. Blacks were and are more likely to use guns to commit crime and thats the way it is. Thats the way its always been. But getting rid of guns for the average person who does not misuse them because minorities regularly abuse them is NOT a reason to criminalize gun ownership.
Im outta, keep it for yourselves, dumn fuc***

This is a waste of time. I'm through with this thread, but if you want to talk about racism, talk about it through experience and not through books. There were plenty of people where I grew up who were white and poor and almost never took up a gun to settle a dispute. The blacks did, and they still do. Blame it on gangculture or anything else, but a black guy would not think twice about killing someone over a disgreement where I lived. I don't give a sh** if that makes me a racist for saying it. Blacks were and are more likely to use guns to commit crime and thats the way it is. Thats the way its always been. But getting rid of guns for the average person who does not misuse them because minorities regularly abuse them is NOT a reason to criminalize gun ownership.
Im outta, keep it for yourselves, dumn fuc***

At least you came out and admitted that you think that blacks are worse than white people; regardless of whether or not you're wrong, at least you're honest.

Tools can neither be good or bad. Rather it’s the people using the tool which make actions positive or negative. Even then it’s all relative. But instead of dealing with the main problem people want to take shortcuts and deal with whatever is easiest. Which in reality really solves nothing. You can take away any tool you want, but a well motivated person will still find a means of doing whatever deed they were planning on using a gun for.

Something which has no other purpose but to kill.

I would classify this as 'bad.'

Something which has no other purpose but to kill.

I would classify this as 'bad.'
They have other purposes other than just killing. They can be used to shoot out tires of cars to slow criminals down. They can be used to wound people, or knock people unconscious. They can be used to shoot another gun out of somebody’s hand. Hell they can even be used to open that stubborn pickle jar. It even makes a good modern art masterpiece.

Just killing? I think not. Although that’s what it’s primary design was for doing, it is not limited to that capacity.

And on the issue of government oppression...

If the government is going to oppress its citizens in a manner that we would need to equip ourselves with firearms, that would likely mean they somehow would have the army on their side (I don't think a politician will be able to defend himself from a lynchmob of Arkansas hillbillies, even if they are unequipped...). Now I say that to say this. Even if every America had a firearm of some sort, don't you think that trained soldiers with M4s, M16s, M203 grenade launchers, M249 SAWs, grenade, and heck, even tanks would be able to easily crush our entire nation? No way in heck could our nation defend itself if it was our army that was attacking us as there would be nothing left to defend with (pfft...national guard is putting up sand bags and putting out forest fires every other weekend and earning money for college while doing it). However, I really don't think the Army would side to easily with the government as pretty much all of the army has non-government/military family that they'd like to defend...so that kind of nullifies that argument. However, I do think that pistols for self-defense from criminals with black markey weapons and rifles for hunting should be permitted and there should be rigirous laws on who can and can not buy them.



Consider this: There are 14 million active firearm deer hunters in America. All of these hunters own at least some form of a rifle or handgun. The incredible majority of these hunters own camoflague(sp?) clothes. Several of them own nightvision goggles/scopes. 14 million is far more than any standing army on earth.

Secondly, do you really think the United States boys and girls in the military would go along with a dictator's plans and turn their guns on their own family and friends?

Third, look at how many deaths the US has had in Iraq by terrorist ambushes and bombings. If there's an oppressive gov't in America one day, the same will be happening here.

Fourth, the French in the French Resistance were very effective with a tactic using the Liberator pistol. Young frogs would walk up to Nazi checkpoints and pick a guard that was isolated from his friends. They'd strike up a conversation, ask for a cigarette or ask if the gaurd wanted a half-hour with the Frenchman's sister. Then, as soon as they found an ample time, the froggy would brandish his Liberator and blow the German guard's brains out. He'd quickly steal whatever he could from the guard and then would get the hell out of dodge. Enough Frenchmen did this that they obtained quite an arsenal. They also stole from supply trucks, attack German armory outposts, et al.

Me!

Something which has no other purpose but to kill.

I would classify this as 'bad.'

I would never call something that can save my life 'bad.' I would never call something that can save my family's lives 'bad.' I would never call something that can protect my property 'bad.' I would never call someting that protects my rights as an American 'bad.' I would never call something that America's Founding Fathers gave their lives to be able to include in our Constitution 'bad.'

Firearms are not bad....

Me!

Consider this: There are 14 million active firearm deer hunters in America. All of these hunters own at least some form of a rifle or handgun. The incredible majority of these hunters own camoflague(sp?) clothes. Several of them own nightvision goggles/scopes. 14 million is far more than any standing army on earth.

Secondly, do you really think the United States boys and girls in the military would go along with a dictator's plans and turn their guns on their own family and friends?

Third, look at how many deaths the US has had in Iraq by terrorist ambushes and bombings. If there's an oppressive gov't in America one day, the same will be happening here.

Fourth, the French in the French Resistance were very effective with a tactic using the Liberator pistol. Young frogs would walk up to Nazi checkpoints and pick a guard that was isolated from his friends. They'd strike up a conversation, ask for a cigarette or ask if the gaurd wanted a half-hour with the Frenchman's sister. Then, as soon as they found an ample time, the froggy would brandish his Liberator and blow the German guard's brains out. He'd quickly steal whatever he could from the guard and then would get the hell out of dodge. Enough Frenchmen did this that they obtained quite an arsenal. They also stole from supply trucks, attack German armory outposts, et al.

Me!
As far as the statistics on who has guns etc. If our Army was pitted against our civilian population, it would be like the Russian army...sure our hunters know how to evade a deer, but do they know how to evade highly trained killing machines (because that is what soldier is, which makes it illegal for a soldier to even punch someone) (or at least that's what my army friend told me, but he isn't too bright).

Secondly, I said if the government had the army on their side, which I doubted would happen, and if it didn't happen, than the army would be on our side and would fight the government for us, therefore nullifying our need for guns still...

Third: AKs and RPG left behind by the Soviets not to mention a very popular and extensive black market makes getting guns easy. Not all the civilians have guns, most don't, but they know where to go get one easy if they want to kill an American. An AK47 is much more deadly than a hunting rifle. And heck, an RPG is even more deadly than an AK...or an M16 if you know how to use it right...

Your fourth point however...is a good one...

As far as the statistics on who has guns etc. If our Army was pitted against our civilian population, it would be like the Russian army...sure our hunters know how to evade a deer, but do they know how to evade highly trained killing machines (because that is what soldier is, which makes it illegal for a soldier to even punch someone) (or at least that's what my army friend told me, but he isn't too bright).


Several would not need to evade the hypothetical tyrant's soldiers. Ambushes are carefully planned. As as side note, many firearm deer hunters are ex-soldiers. And the fourteen million is just active firearm deer hunters in the country. That does not include the two hundred million plus firearm owners in this nation....


Secondly, I said if the government had the army on their side, which I doubted would happen, and if it didn't happen, than the army would be on our side and would fight the government for us, therefore nullifying our need for guns still...

I must have missed where you said that you doubted the military would side with the hypothetical tyrant....


Third: AKs and RPG left behind by the Soviets not to mention a very popular and extensive black market makes getting guns easy. Not all the civilians have guns, most don't, but they know where to go get one easy if they want to kill an American. An AK47 is much more deadly than a hunting rifle. And heck, an RPG is even more deadly than an AK...or an M16 if you know how to use it right...

An AK-47 is no more deadly than my .308 Winchester. Moloktov Cocktails are deadly, easily-made weapons that could easily be used by the hypothetical American rebellion against this hypothetical American tyrant. They are perhaps as deadly as the aforementioned rocket-proppelled grenade, (cocktails lack the obvious range that an RPG has....but the fire it produces will engulf everything it can). Home-made hand grenades are not that hard to produce. (I've had a interesting childhood...I'm proficient with making my own explosives..hehe...)


Your fourth point however...is a good one...

Thank you....

Me!

Take our pistols, he have shotguns. Take our shotguns, we have rifles. Take our rifles, we have crossbows. Take our crossbows, we have swords. Take our swords, we have polearms. Take our polearms, we have spears. Take our spears, we have rocks. We have blunt objects. We have our hands. We have our feet. We have many things. They have all been taken away in time. But do care to remember who took them.

They have all been taken away in time. But do care to remember who took them.
We willingly gave them up when something better came along. Guns will be no different.

While ideally, guns wouldn't be necessary, the government is slowly but surely taking away our freedoms. They instituted the patriot act and combined the profit motive and FCC to ensure that gundam SEED would be targeted to 3 year olds in the US and edited beyond recognition.

This, in my view, makes it clear that we need to be able to defend ourselves against the government.

While ideally, guns wouldn't be necessary, the government is slowly but surely taking away our freedoms. They instituted the patriot act and combined the profit motive and FCC to ensure that gundam SEED would be targeted to 3 year olds in the US and edited beyond recognition.

This, in my view, makes it clear that we need to be able to defend ourselves against the government.
Oh the FCC did the same thing to DBZ and probably a whole lot of other shows. Those dirty bastards. :mad:

Guns can be misused but Ultimately Guns must be considered good because they promote People Power

Oh the FCC did the same thing to DBZ and probably a whole lot of other shows. Those dirty bastards.

I know. How is anime supposed to make sense if half of it's cut out? And don't get me started on the whole selective service thing.

Neither good nor bad; merely a tool.

It's the use to which the user puts the gun which can be categorized as good or bad.

Neither good nor bad; merely a tool.

It's the use to which the user puts the gun which can be categorized as good or bad.
good answer

That is irrelevant. Bad movies win awards too. (I do like Moore, but your comment about them winning awards is unnecessary and irrelevant.)

I had to chuckle at this one. If my comment was unnecessary and irrelevant, that your post saying so was also unnecessary, irrelevant and redundant.