But you start the argument down that path when you say "Because it will save lives". So will a lot of things. You might not know of a good reason for me to own an AK, and I can't think of a good reason for you to own . . . a motorcycle. I don't ride them, wouldn't miss them. But, they kill people. I can't think of any reason why someone would want one when cars are safer, drier, etc. So, they can be banned too.
That is the logic you are using. "I don't need it, so, no big deal if it's banned." If someone likes to go to a range and waste a bunch of money going full auto into the side of a hill. . . they should be allowed to. Just like people are allowed to drive around town looking like a gorilla hanging from a tree branch on those stupid motorcycles with the really high handlebars. . . . with no mufflers.
But, if we are going to ban AKs, even though some people like owning them and have fun with them, because it will "save lives", then, you can apply that logic to say. . . . manure.
Second Amendment poll
Who's fit to judge who is & isn't a danger w\ a weapon? If you're arguing a middle ground, where's the line drawn?
In order for me to go drinking in certain neighbourhoods in this country by myself, yeah, an automatic weapon might be the only thing that keeps me from getting jumped by groups of 20+ people. I shit you not. When I was 16, I used to have to drink in groups of two dozen or more just to be sure I had a decent chance to avoid getting jumped whilst walking downtown at 1am.
Has technology increased to the point where one man has 1000x the firepower & killing potential of a dude in 1794? Yeah. Did the founding fathers even fathom the population density & social factors of modern urban gang warfare & what appears to be the general stupification of the country that we're looking at today? Probably not.
So let's even concede we need some type of control from the gov't. I don't see ATF agents on every corner of every block. Or cops, for that matter. What's a more effective deterrent to abuse of firearms (regardless of their lethality -- if you can got the $$$ to buy it, you'll probably find a fucking way) : (i) federal/state/local laws enforced by officers who aren't guaranteed to be present or (ii) the potential that any one given concerned citizen within one mile has a weapon capable of mowing you down in half a second from hundreds of feet away?
Granted, this assumes society is bright enough not to self-exterminate. If you think we're all going to kill each other, though, we'd all've been fucked when the A-bomb was invented.
There've been a scant few socieities that have truly ingrained military service into the population -- the Spartans, the Mongolians, the Huns, & some others. But NO ONE fucked w\ them. You want to cut down school shootings? Make every public high school a military high school. You want to cut down crime? Give the entire populous mandatory training as a secondary police force.
Shit, tens of MILLIONS of people are trusted w\ multi-ton killing machines every single fucking day. You know them as cars.
In order for me to go drinking in certain neighbourhoods in this country by myself, yeah, an automatic weapon might be the only thing that keeps me from getting jumped by groups of 20+ people. I shit you not. When I was 16, I used to have to drink in groups of two dozen or more just to be sure I had a decent chance to avoid getting jumped whilst walking downtown at 1am.
Has technology increased to the point where one man has 1000x the firepower & killing potential of a dude in 1794? Yeah. Did the founding fathers even fathom the population density & social factors of modern urban gang warfare & what appears to be the general stupification of the country that we're looking at today? Probably not.
So let's even concede we need some type of control from the gov't. I don't see ATF agents on every corner of every block. Or cops, for that matter. What's a more effective deterrent to abuse of firearms (regardless of their lethality -- if you can got the $$$ to buy it, you'll probably find a fucking way) : (i) federal/state/local laws enforced by officers who aren't guaranteed to be present or (ii) the potential that any one given concerned citizen within one mile has a weapon capable of mowing you down in half a second from hundreds of feet away?
Granted, this assumes society is bright enough not to self-exterminate. If you think we're all going to kill each other, though, we'd all've been fucked when the A-bomb was invented.
There've been a scant few socieities that have truly ingrained military service into the population -- the Spartans, the Mongolians, the Huns, & some others. But NO ONE fucked w\ them. You want to cut down school shootings? Make every public high school a military high school. You want to cut down crime? Give the entire populous mandatory training as a secondary police force.
Shit, tens of MILLIONS of people are trusted w\ multi-ton killing machines every single fucking day. You know them as cars.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
I know my response here is going to be a bit long Troy, but you asked for discussion, so here you go. I'm detailing what my argument is, why the "ban everything" tactic isn't "ridiculous", where OUR (yes, "our") position on gun control is logically flawed, and why it's the exact same argument as the "ban everything" tactic that you call ridiculous. So please don't skim. I think this is the first time in months I've been interested in a debate enough to post something like this...
P.S. Did you mean for your last post to come off so condescending?
Just because you think something is ridiculous, doesn't make it so. Hear out the argument before you just assume it's wrong. The "ban everything" argument isn't my position on gun control, but it's a means to an end to prove my argument regarding gun control that I stated earlier:
Back to your statements...
First of all, it's not "connect the dots", as I'll shortly establish.
Secondly, before you ask me if "my" argument even sounds logical while I'm typing it out, I'd double check your own.
See, I'm on your side. No, really! Only I know where that position (OUR position) fails. Hang on a second...I'll get there...
I totally and completely support background checks, training classes, and waiting periods. I 100% agree that most folks probably don't need M-50s to hunt rabbits. They also don't need to buy an M-16 with armor piercing rounds to keep squirrels off their bird feeders.
However, after that I'm torn, and this is where we differ.
They may not need those weapons to defend their homes against a burglar or to keep moles out of their yard, but they DO need them to keep the government out of their homes. THAT'S WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT EXISTS!!! It doesn't say "the right to own handguns for self-protection and shotguns/rifles for hunting". It says "the right to bear arms". This document was written by guys who needed to rely on foreign powers for weapons and ammo, so they could fight for their independence from tyranny and oppression. When they wrote the Constitution, do you think the second amendment was honestly written in for anything other than ensuring that the people of this country could defend their freedom?
So go ahead, debate that. Debate that despite all evidence to the contrary based on what they just went through and exactly what the rest of that "meaningless little document" says, how it says it, and why it says it. Tell us how the framers actually meant to add a line about only owning small caliber, non-automatic weapons because someone might accidentally get shot or because it's easier for some loony to kill multiple people with a gun that shoots faster.
And there's your connection to the "ban everything" argument. Follow me...
WHY do we need to ban military grade assault weapons from being sold to law abiding citizens who have gone through the proper background checks, training classes, and waiting periods?
Because these types of weapons can enable a nut job or cold blooded killer to murder multiple people with minimal effort in minimal time. Also, their rate of fire and less than pinpoint accuracy, combined with their kick increase the chances for an innocent bystander to get shot.
Right? Please stop me if I've gone away from your talking points here.
However, you do NOT want handguns, hunting rifles, and/or shotguns banned right? And why? Because it ISN'T as easy for a nut job or cold blooded killer to murder multiple people with minimal effort in minimal time. Also their rate of fire, increased accuracy, and smaller kick decrease the chances for an innocent bystander to get shot.
Right? Again, stop me if I'm not reflecting your views accurately.
Now, please read both of those statements again. Do you see the flaws in logic?
It all stems from these two important, important facts that are truly indisputable:
1. You are drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.
2. Those lines are based on emotion, not logic.
Here's why:
1. You want military grade assault weapons banned, but forget the fact that in a trained hand, a handgun can be just as deadly, if not deadlier. Think about it:
-Less kick
-Less sound and easier to muffle
-Easier to aim and control during rapid firing
-Easier to conceal
-Easier to carry more ammo
-Easier to aim
-Easier to turn quickly and/or react with it
-Etc.
It's pretty tough for a guy to march through hallways with an M-50 and not be vulnerable to attacks from the sides, and the rear simply due to the gun's extreme weight and length (Yes, I know I'm using a ridiculously extreme example, and it's for effect only.). However, give that same man a handgun, or even two, and he becomes far less vulnerable, and far more capable of reacting to threats and/or targets. (And we are talking about urban and suburban civilian settings, not war zones.)
2. Most work place shootings have been carried out with handguns, not military grade assault weapons.
3. In fact, I challenge you to dig up the numbers that show assault weapons are responsible for more deaths than handguns in this country. (not to it's citizens, as I don't want Iraq or Afghanistan figures creeping in as they don't count) I guarantee you that handguns kill FAR more people each year.
3a. P.S. Anyone killed with an illegally obtained military grade assault weapon doesn't count towards your argument. Sorry. Anyone who thinks that just because they're illegal the criminals won't be able to get them is the highest level of moron. (And I know you don't as stated, so don't think I'm calling you one.) Prohibition of alcohol didn't do much to stop people from drinking, the war on drugs hasn't stopped drugs from being cheap and easily obtained, the current laws banning guns hasn't stopped criminals from getting their hands on them, etc.
4. I also guarantee that handguns kill far more people accidentally each year.
5. Drive byes became the poster child for accidental shootings. How many were committed with handguns, rather than semi-automatic weapons as depicted in movies? How many drive byes occur anymore?
6. How many legally purchased military grade assault rifles have been used in crimes? Before you ignore this question, isn't this an answer you should know before you continue your argument to ban them?
Point being is that your line in the sand about how handguns are safer than military grade assault weapons is completely made up. There's no logic to it whatsoever. It's based on an emotional response to the theory that a man armed with a military grade assault weapon could take out more people, faster, and potentially harm more people accidentally. (Although, is anyone "accidentally" hurt if the shooter doesn't care who he's shooting?)
Your argument for the ban of military grade assault weapons here is the basis for banning handguns in other countries.
It's also why your argument, as also pointed out by Cakedaddy, is exactly the same as the "ban everything" one, you call ridiculous. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You ask for a ban on assault weapons because of their capability to kill multiple people easily and quickly, yet don't support on handguns despite them being just as deadly and the preferred weapon of choice by nut jobs and criminals over the aforementioned assault weapons. Meanwhile, you state that any suggested similar ban on something simply because it has the same ability to kill multiple people easily and quickly is "ridiculous".
Where is the logic in that defense? How can it be logical to arbitrary ban one type of object over another with the same capabilities, yet call illogical the banning of other types of objects with the same capabilities as the object you want banned?
Where's the logic is banning something because of what it might be used for? How is logical to demand the banning of military grade assault weapons because they might be used to commit murder (despite facts and statistics showing they are the weapon of choice), yet it's illogical to demand the banning of other objects, like manure or planes, which have killed thousands of people?
And again Troy, I've ALWAYS been on your side of this debate. I've always felt that handguns should be ok, but military grade assault weapons should be banned. After writing this novel, I have to say, I no longer agree with that position. Not only because there's no logic to it, but also because I truly believe the founding fathers would not agree with gun control. (Plus, I think gun control does NOTHING to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.)
Actually, I simply posted those videos because I knew about that episode of the documentary style show hosted and written by two libertarians, whom I do not agree with on every issue. I figured it would be interesting to you to see actual gun control leaders, including the James Brady Foundation state their case, not only for the ban on assault weapons, but their stated goal of the ban of ALL guns period. Instead of going off to view a non-partisan look at the gun control debate, you responded with the equivalent of the Chris Rock "Oh, you got a masta's huh? Let me ask you this...can you kick my ass?" routine.
Why'd you do that? Because you didn't understand my earlier point. If you take the stance of banning military grade assault weapons because "they can kill multiple people quickly and easily" blah, blah, blah, then when they get banned, you WILL find yourself defending your right to own a handgun against those "cooks". That's what makes it a tough debate. That's what I was pointing out to you.
Thus, we were on topic and debating the issues, you just didn't see it. Note, that Cake points that fact out as well. (So it's not just me.)
Just as an FYI...nope. You couldn't be more off base here. I know you absolutely, positively will not believe it, but I honestly had pretty much the same beliefs as you before typing up this novel today. I've never really gotten in depth in any gun debates before as any forum member will tell you. This is Thib's territory. I'm honestly now struggling with the concept of me supporting the second amendment, but not wanting my neighbor to own an RPG. Help?
Sorry for how long this is, I had no idea I had this much to say on the topic. If you read the whole thing...thanks. Seriously. I look forward to it being shredded by you or even Thib if I got some pro-gun arguments wrong (I don't think I did...).
Edited By Leisher on 1254949356
P.S. Did you mean for your last post to come off so condescending?
I think I ignored that point because I addressed how ridiculous the tactic is, and is used in the same method you are using it right now.
Just because you think something is ridiculous, doesn't make it so. Hear out the argument before you just assume it's wrong. The "ban everything" argument isn't my position on gun control, but it's a means to an end to prove my argument regarding gun control that I stated earlier:
People will find a way to kill if they have decided to kill. You cannot stop them.
Back to your statements...
Ban this? BAN EVERYTHING, NO WAIT, BAN THINGS THAT KILL PEOPLE!! It's like, I can't think of a good reason not to ban automatic weapons, so I'm going to drag you down into this silly connect the dots that ends with banning manure. When you type that argument/statement out, does it even sound logical to you? Seriously?
First of all, it's not "connect the dots", as I'll shortly establish.
Secondly, before you ask me if "my" argument even sounds logical while I'm typing it out, I'd double check your own.
See, I'm on your side. No, really! Only I know where that position (OUR position) fails. Hang on a second...I'll get there...
I totally and completely support background checks, training classes, and waiting periods. I 100% agree that most folks probably don't need M-50s to hunt rabbits. They also don't need to buy an M-16 with armor piercing rounds to keep squirrels off their bird feeders.
However, after that I'm torn, and this is where we differ.
They may not need those weapons to defend their homes against a burglar or to keep moles out of their yard, but they DO need them to keep the government out of their homes. THAT'S WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT EXISTS!!! It doesn't say "the right to own handguns for self-protection and shotguns/rifles for hunting". It says "the right to bear arms". This document was written by guys who needed to rely on foreign powers for weapons and ammo, so they could fight for their independence from tyranny and oppression. When they wrote the Constitution, do you think the second amendment was honestly written in for anything other than ensuring that the people of this country could defend their freedom?
So go ahead, debate that. Debate that despite all evidence to the contrary based on what they just went through and exactly what the rest of that "meaningless little document" says, how it says it, and why it says it. Tell us how the framers actually meant to add a line about only owning small caliber, non-automatic weapons because someone might accidentally get shot or because it's easier for some loony to kill multiple people with a gun that shoots faster.
And there's your connection to the "ban everything" argument. Follow me...
WHY do we need to ban military grade assault weapons from being sold to law abiding citizens who have gone through the proper background checks, training classes, and waiting periods?
Because these types of weapons can enable a nut job or cold blooded killer to murder multiple people with minimal effort in minimal time. Also, their rate of fire and less than pinpoint accuracy, combined with their kick increase the chances for an innocent bystander to get shot.
Right? Please stop me if I've gone away from your talking points here.
However, you do NOT want handguns, hunting rifles, and/or shotguns banned right? And why? Because it ISN'T as easy for a nut job or cold blooded killer to murder multiple people with minimal effort in minimal time. Also their rate of fire, increased accuracy, and smaller kick decrease the chances for an innocent bystander to get shot.
Right? Again, stop me if I'm not reflecting your views accurately.
Now, please read both of those statements again. Do you see the flaws in logic?
It all stems from these two important, important facts that are truly indisputable:
1. You are drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.
2. Those lines are based on emotion, not logic.
Here's why:
1. You want military grade assault weapons banned, but forget the fact that in a trained hand, a handgun can be just as deadly, if not deadlier. Think about it:
-Less kick
-Less sound and easier to muffle
-Easier to aim and control during rapid firing
-Easier to conceal
-Easier to carry more ammo
-Easier to aim
-Easier to turn quickly and/or react with it
-Etc.
It's pretty tough for a guy to march through hallways with an M-50 and not be vulnerable to attacks from the sides, and the rear simply due to the gun's extreme weight and length (Yes, I know I'm using a ridiculously extreme example, and it's for effect only.). However, give that same man a handgun, or even two, and he becomes far less vulnerable, and far more capable of reacting to threats and/or targets. (And we are talking about urban and suburban civilian settings, not war zones.)
2. Most work place shootings have been carried out with handguns, not military grade assault weapons.
3. In fact, I challenge you to dig up the numbers that show assault weapons are responsible for more deaths than handguns in this country. (not to it's citizens, as I don't want Iraq or Afghanistan figures creeping in as they don't count) I guarantee you that handguns kill FAR more people each year.
3a. P.S. Anyone killed with an illegally obtained military grade assault weapon doesn't count towards your argument. Sorry. Anyone who thinks that just because they're illegal the criminals won't be able to get them is the highest level of moron. (And I know you don't as stated, so don't think I'm calling you one.) Prohibition of alcohol didn't do much to stop people from drinking, the war on drugs hasn't stopped drugs from being cheap and easily obtained, the current laws banning guns hasn't stopped criminals from getting their hands on them, etc.
4. I also guarantee that handguns kill far more people accidentally each year.
5. Drive byes became the poster child for accidental shootings. How many were committed with handguns, rather than semi-automatic weapons as depicted in movies? How many drive byes occur anymore?
6. How many legally purchased military grade assault rifles have been used in crimes? Before you ignore this question, isn't this an answer you should know before you continue your argument to ban them?
Point being is that your line in the sand about how handguns are safer than military grade assault weapons is completely made up. There's no logic to it whatsoever. It's based on an emotional response to the theory that a man armed with a military grade assault weapon could take out more people, faster, and potentially harm more people accidentally. (Although, is anyone "accidentally" hurt if the shooter doesn't care who he's shooting?)
Your argument for the ban of military grade assault weapons here is the basis for banning handguns in other countries.
It's also why your argument, as also pointed out by Cakedaddy, is exactly the same as the "ban everything" one, you call ridiculous. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You ask for a ban on assault weapons because of their capability to kill multiple people easily and quickly, yet don't support on handguns despite them being just as deadly and the preferred weapon of choice by nut jobs and criminals over the aforementioned assault weapons. Meanwhile, you state that any suggested similar ban on something simply because it has the same ability to kill multiple people easily and quickly is "ridiculous".
Where is the logic in that defense? How can it be logical to arbitrary ban one type of object over another with the same capabilities, yet call illogical the banning of other types of objects with the same capabilities as the object you want banned?
Where's the logic is banning something because of what it might be used for? How is logical to demand the banning of military grade assault weapons because they might be used to commit murder (despite facts and statistics showing they are the weapon of choice), yet it's illogical to demand the banning of other objects, like manure or planes, which have killed thousands of people?
And again Troy, I've ALWAYS been on your side of this debate. I've always felt that handguns should be ok, but military grade assault weapons should be banned. After writing this novel, I have to say, I no longer agree with that position. Not only because there's no logic to it, but also because I truly believe the founding fathers would not agree with gun control. (Plus, I think gun control does NOTHING to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.)
Yes, congratulations, you can find websites of people from TEH INTERNET, and other cooks who want to ban them entirely. I've put together my arguments against it and my feelings concerning personal firearms. Can we continue discussing issues instead of bringing up random arguments that I haven't ONCE posted in this thread?
Actually, I simply posted those videos because I knew about that episode of the documentary style show hosted and written by two libertarians, whom I do not agree with on every issue. I figured it would be interesting to you to see actual gun control leaders, including the James Brady Foundation state their case, not only for the ban on assault weapons, but their stated goal of the ban of ALL guns period. Instead of going off to view a non-partisan look at the gun control debate, you responded with the equivalent of the Chris Rock "Oh, you got a masta's huh? Let me ask you this...can you kick my ass?" routine.
Why'd you do that? Because you didn't understand my earlier point. If you take the stance of banning military grade assault weapons because "they can kill multiple people quickly and easily" blah, blah, blah, then when they get banned, you WILL find yourself defending your right to own a handgun against those "cooks". That's what makes it a tough debate. That's what I was pointing out to you.
Thus, we were on topic and debating the issues, you just didn't see it. Note, that Cake points that fact out as well. (So it's not just me.)
It's like you have practiced this stuff in defense of a super Liberal Anti Gun nut, and are having trouble applying it to a Southern Democrat with stances that aren't entirely polarized.
Just as an FYI...nope. You couldn't be more off base here. I know you absolutely, positively will not believe it, but I honestly had pretty much the same beliefs as you before typing up this novel today. I've never really gotten in depth in any gun debates before as any forum member will tell you. This is Thib's territory. I'm honestly now struggling with the concept of me supporting the second amendment, but not wanting my neighbor to own an RPG. Help?
Sorry for how long this is, I had no idea I had this much to say on the topic. If you read the whole thing...thanks. Seriously. I look forward to it being shredded by you or even Thib if I got some pro-gun arguments wrong (I don't think I did...).
Edited By Leisher on 1254949356
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
I totally get that the give an inch, end up losing it all philosophy.
Where do you guys feel we should draw the line? I'm sure there are plenty of people in your camp who see weapons grade explosives the same way. Sarin Gas? Tanks? Mortars?
What differentiates those things from a military issue rifle, or teflon coated tungsten rounds?
Edit: Oh god wall of text appeared while i was typing up a tiny post.
Edited By Troy on 1254949559
Where do you guys feel we should draw the line? I'm sure there are plenty of people in your camp who see weapons grade explosives the same way. Sarin Gas? Tanks? Mortars?
What differentiates those things from a military issue rifle, or teflon coated tungsten rounds?
Edit: Oh god wall of text appeared while i was typing up a tiny post.
Edited By Troy on 1254949559
Ya. HUGE wall!
I want to add that guns are illegal in England, but owning a tank is not. There was a show about a couple in England that bought old WWII tanks and they have races with them on their property. So ya, we should be allowed to own tanks.
And the second amendment talks about guns. Not Sarin gas, etc.
I want to add that guns are illegal in England, but owning a tank is not. There was a show about a couple in England that bought old WWII tanks and they have races with them on their property. So ya, we should be allowed to own tanks.
And the second amendment talks about guns. Not Sarin gas, etc.
It's 100% possible to make thermite & napalm from ingredients you can buy legally. It merely takes the chemical knowledge (which isn't nothing -- but isn't fucking rocket science, either) & the will to do so. I'm not advocating banning chemistry books or burning them, either.Troy wrote:I totally get that the give an inch, end up losing it all philosophy.
Where do you guys feel we should draw the line? I'm sure there are plenty of people in your camp who see weapons grade explosives the same way. Sarin Gas? Tanks? Mortars?
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Heh, You were like third on the list of people I guessed would make the "We could build homemade explosives" comment.
@ Cake. It says Arms.
Back then, didn't arms consist of a rifle, and a good deal of gunpowder?
Edit: I promise I will read and comment on the wall o text when I get home and don't have to worry about looking like i'm posting in internet forums for an hour
Edited By Troy on 1254951446
@ Cake. It says Arms.
Back then, didn't arms consist of a rifle, and a good deal of gunpowder?
Edit: I promise I will read and comment on the wall o text when I get home and don't have to worry about looking like i'm posting in internet forums for an hour
Edited By Troy on 1254951446
That was the most prevelant, but the term also included swords, knives, cannons, battleships, and etc. It's a general term that means "deadly weaponry". The rifle you describe just happened to be the most commonly held by individuals. But plenty of traders owned merchant ships that could double as warships, and they didn't stop them from owning them. Based on their phrasings and the politics and customs of the day, I do think they would - if they had written it today - meant to include things like C-4, detonation cord, sarin gas, and nuclear weaponry.Troy wrote:Back then, didn't arms consist of a rifle, and a good deal of gunpowder?
At the time they had no limitations on what you could own. Instead they focused on punishing you for actual misdeeds instead. They seemed to believe that attempting to limit the possibility of a crime by limiting the actions of free citizens would be counter to their entire basis for which they formed the nation.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Mexico.Malcolm wrote:To where?GORDON wrote:If the government does actually manage to disarm the public like England has, I will be getting the fuck out. As fast as I can.
If the government ever mandates a religion, I'm getting out even faster. For example.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
If you're on full auto and "spraying," then you're sloppy.Troy wrote:There isn't anything I can do to an intruder with an AK47, besides spray bullets through the walls of my apartment, that I can't do with my Glock 17.
There isn't anything I can do on 3-round burst that I can't do on semi-auto.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Israel does all these things in the present day. I have personally seen kindergarten teachers take their classes to the park, and the teacher has an uzi slung over her shoulder. I made out with a chick who had a 9mm in her purse.Malcolm wrote:There've been a scant few socieities that have truly ingrained military service into the population -- the Spartans, the Mongolians, the Huns, & some others. But NO ONE fucked w\ them. You want to cut down school shootings? Make every public high school a military high school. You want to cut down crime? Give the entire populous mandatory training as a secondary police force.
I felt quite comfortable in Israel.
Someone look up violent crime rates in Israel not related to the neighbors lobbing mortars into their neighborhoods.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Please take your time. I'm fighting the flu or food poisoning and have NO energy to discuss anything at the moment.Troy wrote:Edit: I promise I will read and comment on the wall o text when I get home and don't have to worry about looking like i'm posting in internet forums for an hour
Still, when you read it, just keep in mind that I was trying to be as detailed as possible in explaining where I was coming from and as I indicate at the end of the wall of text, I'm still not 100% sure.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”