CrossCuT Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) Buuuuuuuuurn! You totally got me ND! Edited April 16, 2014 by CrossCuT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) If it's possible to buy the power government has, then perhaps it's dumb to grant it to them in the first place. Who believes that if they limit campaign contributions, the corporations will suddenly be stymied? Who is that stupid? The system is corrupt, what do you expect? Im sure at one point people were honest and nice in politics...not anymore. Campaign contributions is one thing that would help, but also all the insane money thrown around in lobbyists is another big thing. Are you stupid enough to think that these DONT have an effect? Thats like the entire problem. Money is running our government...money is buying votes! Corporations are dictating how things should be. Why? Because they are saying "Hey dude, look at this huge pile of cash! It can be yours if you vote yes on this bill we want passed! What do you say?" If you honestly dont think thats the problem, then ship yourself off somewhere else so that the rest of us can actually solve this [i][color=#ff0000]poo[/color][/i]. Money is continually being siphoned to the top. They are rolling in the dough and the rest of us are screwed. But guess what? Now that they have all the money, we cant afford stuff anymore. So their solution? Increase taxes, cut funding to tons of programs. That way, we get even LESS while we try to scramble to close the huge gaps they are creating. Edited April 16, 2014 by CrossCuT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 The over simplified appeal from Envy is a very powerful one. Blame the rich, and putting the rich in their place has been the battle cry of tyrants through out time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 The over simplified appeal from Envy is a very powerful one. Blame the rich, and putting the rich in their place has been the battle cry of tyrants through out time. Sigh. Im so glad you are blind to what they are doing. They are very grateful for your efforts to cloak them KoC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) Are you stupid enough to think that these DONT have an effect? Where exactly do you get that out of my posts? Edited April 16, 2014 by Winchester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Who believes that if they limit campaign contributions, the corporations will suddenly be stymied? Who is that stupid? of course they'll be stymied, because if we have legal limits evil corporations won't control the media! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Sigh.Im so glad you are blind to what they are doing. They are very grateful for your efforts to cloak them KoC. Whatever I can do for the Rand Corporation and the reverse vampires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) Whatever I can do for the Rand Corporation and the reverse vampires. Ps. To get back to the gun topic, the above is my weapon against bad guys. Edited April 16, 2014 by CrossCuT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Whatever I can do for the Rand Corporation and the reverse vampires. Image no workie. Maybe it's the secret super rich order of the stone cutters trying to stop you from exposing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Ps. To get back to the gun topic, the above is my weapon against bad guys. Vampires are the devil! THE DEVIL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) The picture is of sparkling Edward Cullen. Weapon of mass destruction. Just as lethal (if not more) than a gun. I think everyone should have Edward in their homes for self defense. Are his super vampire powers what is lethal? No! Its his super powers of epic brooding and irritating emoness. Its probably a good thing you didnt see the picture KoC, or else your eyes would have burned out. :) Edited April 16, 2014 by CrossCuT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Ps. To get back to the gun topic, the above is my weapon against bad guys. See. I said you had a superpower! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 See. I said you had a superpower! I dont like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 The thing is, I've never actually heard a LOGICAL explanation for having a gun that couldn't be solved through other means. If you have no good reason, why have the gun in the first place? The self-defense argument is a tired one. There are other methods of self-defense besides owning a firearm. The self-defense argument may be "tired," but it is a sound one, and the right to self-defense (and defense of family and such) is central to the issue of gun-ownership rights. If it is so illogical as you imply, I have not seen you refute it, or show the flaws in its logic. It seems instead you want to just avoid the issue. It reminds me a bit of the "pro-choice" folks who want to debate abortion while demanding that we not discuss such things as the life and humanity of the unborn child. How, for instance, can a seventy-something-year-old lady have any chance of defending herself against a muscle-bound 25-year-old male attacker without a gun? Yeah, maybe she's a Jedi master or something, but let's be realistic. Sometimes, a violent aggressor may be talked out of violence, and sometimes there are ways to defend against an armed or stronger aggressor without a gun - but many times this is not the case. Guns generally give the person who has them a major advantage over those who do not, and if this were not true, then there would be little reason to debate gun control. There's also the deterrent effect - there tend to be fewer robberies and such where most people have guns and know how to use them. Criminals are less willing to commit crime when they know there's a risk of getting shot. Imo, the burden of proof should be on those who say the government should disarm law-abiding persons. Generally, I believe the government should not go about confiscating the property of individuals unless it can be shown that there is an extremely serious need to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 It's not batman movies, it's not difficult to disarm an attacker as far as i'm told, you don't even need to be that strong or throw an ultra sharp knife with precision in direction 10ft. And tell women that are olympic judo champions there weak, or even those miss universe professional body builders, get out of the beauty pagent mentality and the whole women are weak mentality, dude, obviously you haven't met a black belt 3rd dan tae kwon do female. Women can do push ups too, if they truly believe they can and desire to, and of course your not less of a women if you choose not to. Whoever told you disarming an attacker with a gun is easy is an idiot, and has probably never been in a real combat situation. It's not impossible, but requires a lot of skill, as well as the attacker being very close and in the right position before he pulls the trigger. Seriously, if disarming and overcoming attackers were so easy, why even waste money giving cops and soldiers guns? And yes, I'm aware there are badass women out there who could kick my butt. But the truth is that overall, women on average have considerably less physical strength than men - which leaves most of them vulnerable to rape and other physical assault by stronger males if they are not armed. The minority of women who can overpower most men physically are the product of years of extreme training and conditioning, and would still usually be at a disadvantage against men with similar levels of training (all Hollywood bs to the contrary). If women have guns and are trained to use them, the gender gap in this respect is closed considerably. But if including women in my post is too un-pc or "sexist" for your tastes, then you can still use the example of the elderly, those in poor health or with physical disabilites, or just physically weak for whatever reason, and my point still stands. Guns do help level the playing field when it comes to violence, and can act as a deterrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now