Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Russian

Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 2:59:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
-prepare for 15 second advertisement-

I think every household in America should have a pair of these.

Danger: Children cannot easily operate a weapon like this. Shotguns are not easily mismanaged, because you can't easily aim them at yourself. If Plaxico Burress was sporting an AA12 instead of a handgun, he would not have been able to shoot himself. A weapon like this also simply commands more respect than a Derringer, for instance. If every household had one, it would become the status quo to have a responsible adult in the household to manage it (the household and it's weaponry). It's similar to driving; we take driving very seriously because of the respect a large piece of metal traveling at high speeds demands; although people do crash and die, there's no one that would argue (outside of myself, for entirely different reasoning :) that we should remove autos because of the deaths they cause. For those of you who would think this would increase likelihood of misuse, I would challenge you to consider how we would change the way we set up our households in the presence of more responsibility. It's similar to if we never advanced past bicycles; there would be no licensing and scrutiny of intoxicated offenders. Without prior knowledge to how this ended up developing, one could have posited that manufacturing large autos would simply make it easy for a child to take his parents' keys, turn it on, and drive it right through your living room, killing your family... would we not?
kfc
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 4:28:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 5:47:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 4:28:32 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What?

You really should brush up on your second amendment rights if you cannot comprehend a few lines about gun ownership :)

As recently as February 2011, there have been real efforts by law-makers to introduce mandatory gun-ownership laws (this particular one is in South Dakota http://consumerist.com...). Seriously... you've never heard of anything like this?
kfc
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 6:09:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 5:47:23 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:28:32 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What?

You really should brush up on your second amendment rights if you cannot comprehend a few lines about gun ownership :)

As recently as February 2011, there have been real efforts by law-makers to introduce mandatory gun-ownership laws (this particular one is in South Dakota http://consumerist.com...). Seriously... you've never heard of anything like this?

Pelosi took my air pump pellet gun away :(
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 6:51:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 5:47:23 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:28:32 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What?

You really should brush up on your second amendment rights if you cannot comprehend a few lines about gun ownership :)

As recently as February 2011, there have been real efforts by law-makers to introduce mandatory gun-ownership laws (this particular one is in South Dakota http://consumerist.com...). Seriously... you've never heard of anything like this?

Oh, thats what you were talking about! I found your post to be relatively confusing. Well in that case I see it is an retarded thing to do, government is wasting funds on forcing people to get weapons.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 6:54:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 6:51:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:47:23 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:28:32 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What?

You really should brush up on your second amendment rights if you cannot comprehend a few lines about gun ownership :)

As recently as February 2011, there have been real efforts by law-makers to introduce mandatory gun-ownership laws (this particular one is in South Dakota http://consumerist.com...). Seriously... you've never heard of anything like this?

Oh, thats what you were talking about! I found your post to be relatively confusing. Well in that case I see it is an retarded thing to do, government is wasting funds on forcing people to get weapons.

They are just making fun of the unfunded mandate to purchase health insurance.

Just like the requirement to purchase a gun would be an unfunded mandate.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 7:23:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 6:51:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:47:23 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:28:32 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What?

You really should brush up on your second amendment rights if you cannot comprehend a few lines about gun ownership :)

As recently as February 2011, there have been real efforts by law-makers to introduce mandatory gun-ownership laws (this particular one is in South Dakota http://consumerist.com...). Seriously... you've never heard of anything like this?

Oh, thats what you were talking about! I found your post to be relatively confusing. Well in that case I see it is an retarded thing to do, government is wasting funds on forcing people to get weapons.

And if we could save that money back from the necessity of having to hire and employ officers?
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 7:25:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 6:54:42 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/14/2011 6:51:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:47:23 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:28:32 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What?

You really should brush up on your second amendment rights if you cannot comprehend a few lines about gun ownership :)

As recently as February 2011, there have been real efforts by law-makers to introduce mandatory gun-ownership laws (this particular one is in South Dakota http://consumerist.com...). Seriously... you've never heard of anything like this?

Oh, thats what you were talking about! I found your post to be relatively confusing. Well in that case I see it is an retarded thing to do, government is wasting funds on forcing people to get weapons.

They are just making fun of the unfunded mandate to purchase health insurance.

Just like the requirement to purchase a gun would be an unfunded mandate.

I believe there have been other test-tube communities with mandatory weapons laws... I guess the main issue is not whether the costs would be slightly higher or lower, it's about whether or not it is a viable and effective option to address crime in the community. Like I said to robotwars, I can't see some weapons costing more than putting feet on the ground to "serve and protect."
kfc
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 7:45:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 7:23:41 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 6:51:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:47:23 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:28:32 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What?

You really should brush up on your second amendment rights if you cannot comprehend a few lines about gun ownership :)

As recently as February 2011, there have been real efforts by law-makers to introduce mandatory gun-ownership laws (this particular one is in South Dakota http://consumerist.com...). Seriously... you've never heard of anything like this?

Oh, thats what you were talking about! I found your post to be relatively confusing. Well in that case I see it is an retarded thing to do, government is wasting funds on forcing people to get weapons.

And if we could save that money back from the necessity of having to hire and employ officers?

I would employ the officers, we have gun ownership tests and police officers for an reason.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 8:34:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 7:45:02 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 7:23:41 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 6:51:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:47:23 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:28:32 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What?

You really should brush up on your second amendment rights if you cannot comprehend a few lines about gun ownership :)

As recently as February 2011, there have been real efforts by law-makers to introduce mandatory gun-ownership laws (this particular one is in South Dakota http://consumerist.com...). Seriously... you've never heard of anything like this?

Oh, thats what you were talking about! I found your post to be relatively confusing. Well in that case I see it is an retarded thing to do, government is wasting funds on forcing people to get weapons.

And if we could save that money back from the necessity of having to hire and employ officers?

I would employ the officers, we have gun ownership tests and police officers for an reason.

And your policy decisions would lead to situations like this:
http://www.debate.org...

We wouldn't need officers if we had more guns, and we wouldn't need to be controlled by the government if we took more responsibility at the local level. Let's ditch the pigs and take care of ourselves, I say.
kfc
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 9:01:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 8:34:29 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 7:45:02 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 7:23:41 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 6:51:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:47:23 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:28:32 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What?

You really should brush up on your second amendment rights if you cannot comprehend a few lines about gun ownership :)

As recently as February 2011, there have been real efforts by law-makers to introduce mandatory gun-ownership laws (this particular one is in South Dakota http://consumerist.com...). Seriously... you've never heard of anything like this?

Oh, thats what you were talking about! I found your post to be relatively confusing. Well in that case I see it is an retarded thing to do, government is wasting funds on forcing people to get weapons.

And if we could save that money back from the necessity of having to hire and employ officers?

I would employ the officers, we have gun ownership tests and police officers for an reason.

And your policy decisions would lead to situations like this:
http://www.debate.org...

We wouldn't need officers if we had more guns, and we wouldn't need to be controlled by the government if we took more responsibility at the local level. Let's ditch the pigs and take care of ourselves, I say.

Thats what research into stun weaponry is for.

http://www.gateworld.net...'ni'katel
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 9:29:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 9:01:47 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 8:34:29 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 7:45:02 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 7:23:41 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 6:51:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:47:23 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:28:32 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What?

You really should brush up on your second amendment rights if you cannot comprehend a few lines about gun ownership :)

As recently as February 2011, there have been real efforts by law-makers to introduce mandatory gun-ownership laws (this particular one is in South Dakota http://consumerist.com...). Seriously... you've never heard of anything like this?

Oh, thats what you were talking about! I found your post to be relatively confusing. Well in that case I see it is an retarded thing to do, government is wasting funds on forcing people to get weapons.

And if we could save that money back from the necessity of having to hire and employ officers?

I would employ the officers, we have gun ownership tests and police officers for an reason.

And your policy decisions would lead to situations like this:
http://www.debate.org...

We wouldn't need officers if we had more guns, and we wouldn't need to be controlled by the government if we took more responsibility at the local level. Let's ditch the pigs and take care of ourselves, I say.

Thats what research into stun weaponry is for.

http://www.gateworld.net...'ni'katel

Have you ever been attacked by officers with tasers before? I have, and it's not fun. Because they are non-lethal, they can use them with much less discretion than an actual firearm. I'd be surprised if they had to do more than simply list it on a report after shooting me. Just like removing weapons from households decreases responsibility in the community, so does giving cops creative weaponry that can be used to attack without the same seriousness as a deadly weapon.
kfc
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 9:36:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 9:29:45 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 9:01:47 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 8:34:29 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 7:45:02 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 7:23:41 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 6:51:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:47:23 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:28:32 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What?

You really should brush up on your second amendment rights if you cannot comprehend a few lines about gun ownership :)

As recently as February 2011, there have been real efforts by law-makers to introduce mandatory gun-ownership laws (this particular one is in South Dakota http://consumerist.com...). Seriously... you've never heard of anything like this?

Oh, thats what you were talking about! I found your post to be relatively confusing. Well in that case I see it is an retarded thing to do, government is wasting funds on forcing people to get weapons.

And if we could save that money back from the necessity of having to hire and employ officers?

I would employ the officers, we have gun ownership tests and police officers for an reason.

And your policy decisions would lead to situations like this:
http://www.debate.org...

We wouldn't need officers if we had more guns, and we wouldn't need to be controlled by the government if we took more responsibility at the local level. Let's ditch the pigs and take care of ourselves, I say.

Thats what research into stun weaponry is for.

http://www.gateworld.net...'ni'katel

Have you ever been attacked by officers with tasers before? I have, and it's not fun. Because they are non-lethal, they can use them with much less discretion than an actual firearm. I'd be surprised if they had to do more than simply list it on a report after shooting me. Just like removing weapons from households decreases responsibility in the community, so does giving cops creative weaponry that can be used to attack without the same seriousness as a deadly weapon.

I know it hurts [I have actually been shocked by an homemade taser, which although less powerful then market models, it did hurt like hell] but the key point is it does take down the convict without physically injuring them and killing them and that is the entire point. And so what exactly is your point? Do you wish to ban or legalize weapons [I am for weapons legalization]?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.