Poll of the Day > California teacher accidentally shoots student

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
darkknight109 03/18/18 7:14:53 PM #152:	bulbinking posted... You are american, right? You saw that part about "sensible firearms restrictions", right? bulbinking posted... Outside of poor people places and minorities who feel oppressed (its usually just one or two groups who dont even have it the worst but are told they do as a political strategy by one particular group) I dont see any crimes happening. "I don't see any rain outside; it must not be raining anywhere in the country today." bulbinking posted... Even the rural poor are not nearly as biolent as the urbans. On the aggregate, yes, urban crime rates are higher than rural crime rates, but that's definitely not the same thing as saying rural crime doesn't exist or that urban crime is restricted exclusively to "the ghettos". bulbinking posted... Most crime in the U.S. is criminal on criminal citation needed bulbinking posted... Firearms ownedship per capita is on the decline iirc so shouldnt firearm violence be going down? Firearms ownership per capita in the USA is definitely not decreasing. What you might have heard is that the number of households owning guns is decreasing and that part is true (basically the number of guns is increasing, but the number of people owning them is decreasing, which is actually a kind of bizarre trend and speaks to the deftness of the NRA and gun industry's advertising arms). Firearms crime is on the decline (along with all other kinds of crime, following a global trend), although the number of firearms death has been steadily increasing over the last few years (following graph annoyingly not corrected for population): https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/gundeathauto.JPG The problem is, because this is the US we're talking about, those crime levels, murder rate in particular, are dropping from "absolutely unreal" to merely "sky high". http://sociologylegacy.pbworks.com/f/the-us-has-had-the-western-worlds-worst-rate-of-homicide-for-at-least-60-years.jpg bulbinking posted... You dont see americans going on eurocuck forums getting engaged in politics and foreign affairs. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! Not European, BTW. Still, thanks for the laugh! bulbinking posted... I bet hes never ever gotten to shoot guns. It must be like penis envy but firearms so hes sour grapes we can have something they cant. "Penis envy"? Over guns? Is that really the way you guys think? Damn, you Americans are in worse shape than I thought. I know you guys love your guns, but I didn't realise you loved them that way... FYI, range shooting is completely legal here, (albeit something I've never had the slightest interest in doing), it's just not something most of us need to do to get an erection, which is apparently more than I can say for you guys... --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:898050582] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>bulbinking posted...</cite> <quote>You are american, right? </quote> You saw that part about "sensible firearms restrictions", right? <cite>bulbinking posted...</cite> <quote>Outside of poor people places and minorities who feel oppressed (its usually just one or two groups who dont even have it the worst but are told they do as a political strategy by one particular group) I dont see any crimes happening. </quote> "I don't see any rain outside; it must not be raining anywhere in the country today." <cite>bulbinking posted...</cite> <quote>Even the rural poor are not nearly as biolent as the urbans. </quote> On the aggregate, yes, urban crime rates are higher than rural crime rates, but that's definitely not the same thing as saying rural crime doesn't exist or that urban crime is restricted exclusively to "the ghettos". <cite>bulbinking posted...</cite> <quote>Most crime in the U.S. is criminal on criminal</quote> citation needed <cite>bulbinking posted...</cite> <quote>Firearms ownedship per capita is on the decline iirc so shouldnt firearm violence be going down? </quote> Firearms ownership per capita in the USA is definitely not decreasing. What you might have heard is that the number of households owning guns is decreasing and that part is true (basically the number of guns is increasing, but the number of people owning them is decreasing, which is actually a kind of bizarre trend and speaks to the deftness of the NRA and gun industry's advertising arms). Firearms crime is on the decline (along with all other kinds of crime, following a global trend), although the number of firearms death has been steadily increasing over the last few years (following graph annoyingly not corrected for population): https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/gundeathauto.JPG The problem is, because this is the US we're talking about, those crime levels, murder rate in particular, are dropping from "absolutely unreal" to merely "sky high". http://sociologylegacy.pbworks.com/f/the-us-has-had-the-western-worlds-worst-rate-of-homicide-for-at-least-60-years.jpg <cite>bulbinking posted...</cite> <quote>You dont see americans going on eurocuck forums getting engaged in politics and foreign affairs. </quote> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! Not European, BTW. Still, thanks for the laugh! <cite>bulbinking posted...</cite> <quote>I bet hes never ever gotten to shoot guns. It must be like penis envy but firearms so hes sour grapes we can have something they cant. </quote> "Penis envy"? Over guns? Is that really the way you guys think? Damn, you Americans are in worse shape than I thought. I know you guys love your guns, but I didn't realise you loved them that way... FYI, range shooting is completely legal here, (albeit something I've never had the slightest interest in doing), it's just not something most of us need to do to get an erection, which is apparently more than I can say for you guys...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VioletZer0 03/18/18 8:56:03 PM #153:	darkknight109 posted... Answer: None. Because even if no civilian owned a gun, the US still has the strongest military in the world and it's not even close. There is no power in the world that could fight the US and win. Vietnam called <cite>VioletZer0 posted [p:898055847] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Answer: None. Because even if no civilian owned a gun, the US still has the strongest military in the world and it's not even close. There is no power in the world that could fight the US and win.</quote> Vietnam called</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ssj4supervegeta 03/18/18 9:38:47 PM #154:	VioletZer0 posted... darkknight109 posted... Answer: None. Because even if no civilian owned a gun, the US still has the strongest military in the world and it's not even close. There is no power in the world that could fight the US and win. Vietnam called That was 40 years ago lol --- LoL summoner: Vejitables Wanna know why me rogers so jolly? hehe <cite>ssj4supervegeta posted [p:898058074] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>VioletZer0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Answer: None. Because even if no civilian owned a gun, the US still has the strongest military in the world and it's not even close. There is no power in the world that could fight the US and win.</quote> Vietnam called</quote> That was 40 years ago lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 03/18/18 10:58:09 PM #155:	VioletZer0 posted... darkknight109 posted... Answer: None. Because even if no civilian owned a gun, the US still has the strongest military in the world and it's not even close. There is no power in the world that could fight the US and win. Vietnam called You think Vietnam's military could launch a successful takeover of the US? Really? --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:898062014] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>VioletZer0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Answer: None. Because even if no civilian owned a gun, the US still has the strongest military in the world and it's not even close. There is no power in the world that could fight the US and win.</quote> Vietnam called</quote> You think Vietnam's military could launch a successful takeover of the US? Really?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bulbinking 03/18/18 11:25:26 PM #156:	VioletZer0 posted... darkknight109 posted... Answer: None. Because even if no civilian owned a gun, the US still has the strongest military in the world and it's not even close. There is no power in the world that could fight the US and win. Vietnam called It was politics that saved the commies in vietnam from complete eradication. --- Qc_Stryder 5/21/2015 6:58:09 AM posted... Mods- Protectors of feelings https://gamefaqscensorship.blogspot.com <cite>bulbinking posted [p:898063491] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>VioletZer0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Answer: None. Because even if no civilian owned a gun, the US still has the strongest military in the world and it's not even close. There is no power in the world that could fight the US and win.</quote> Vietnam called</quote> It was politics that saved the commies in vietnam from complete eradication.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Foppe 03/19/18 3:16:11 AM #157:	darkknight109 posted... VioletZer0 posted... darkknight109 posted... Answer: None. Because even if no civilian owned a gun, the US still has the strongest military in the world and it's not even close. There is no power in the world that could fight the US and win. Vietnam called You think Vietnam's military could launch a successful takeover of the US? Really? Moving goalposts. --- GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC <cite>Foppe posted [p:898071502] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>VioletZer0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Answer: None. Because even if no civilian owned a gun, the US still has the strongest military in the world and it's not even close. There is no power in the world that could fight the US and win.</quote> Vietnam called</quote> You think Vietnam's military could launch a successful takeover of the US? Really?</quote> Moving goalposts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 03/19/18 6:41:47 AM #158:	Foppe posted... darkknight109 posted... VioletZer0 posted... darkknight109 posted... Answer: None. Because even if no civilian owned a gun, the US still has the strongest military in the world and it's not even close. There is no power in the world that could fight the US and win. Vietnam called You think Vietnam's military could launch a successful takeover of the US? Really? Moving goalposts. How so? My initial post that VZ responded to said that if all civilian-owned guns disappeared there still would be no country that could invade the US and set up a dictatorship because America's military is stronger than any other in the world by a wide margin. He seems to think Vietnam is stronger, which is laughable. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:898074908] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>Foppe posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>VioletZer0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Answer: None. Because even if no civilian owned a gun, the US still has the strongest military in the world and it's not even close. There is no power in the world that could fight the US and win.</quote> Vietnam called</quote> You think Vietnam's military could launch a successful takeover of the US? Really?</quote> Moving goalposts.</quote> How so? My initial post that VZ responded to said that if all civilian-owned guns disappeared there still would be no country that could invade the US and set up a dictatorship because America's military is stronger than any other in the world by a wide margin. He seems to think Vietnam is stronger, which is laughable.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
zebatov 03/19/18 6:48:45 AM #159:	We can own guns here and only need to register pistols, if at all. Pistols can only be fired at a range. Ammo for all types must be kept separate and never loaded. Five-round mag max. We can buy AR-15s and Desert Eagles. You don't have a gun problem. You have a Constitution, mentality and culture problem. Embarrassing for the teacher in this story. --- lolmodhagomi <cite>zebatov posted [p:898075045] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote>We can own guns here and only need to register pistols, if at all. Pistols can only be fired at a range. Ammo for all types must be kept separate and never loaded. Five-round mag max. We can buy AR-15s and Desert Eagles. You don't have a gun problem. You have a Constitution, mentality and culture problem. Embarrassing for the teacher in this story.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Babbit55 03/19/18 7:08:09 AM #160:	@Kyuubi4269 Huh, guess it didn't take that long to prove me right, that putting guns in the class room is a terrible idea! --- GT:- Babbit55 PC - i5 4670k, 16g ram, RX 480, 2tb hybrid drive. <cite>Babbit55 posted [p:898075386] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote>@Kyuubi4269 Huh, guess it didn't take that long to prove me right, that putting guns in the class room is a terrible idea!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 03/19/18 7:50:54 AM #161:	Babbit55 posted... @Kyuubi4269 Huh, guess it didn't take that long to prove me right, that putting guns in the class room is a terrible idea! Doesn't prove shit, just shows that people who are ignorant of firearms are a danger with them, much like a baby with bleach. Shall I bring up that case of a terrorist trying to attack an art exhibit in Texas who was immediately gunned down by the armed citizens? Left wing states need regulation as they palm off personal responsibility on to the government. --- Scloud posted... Its like he wants two things at the same time. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:898076264] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>Babbit55 posted...</cite> <quote>@Kyuubi4269 Huh, guess it didn't take that long to prove me right, that putting guns in the class room is a terrible idea!</quote> Doesn't prove shit, just shows that people who are ignorant of firearms are a danger with them, much like a baby with bleach. Shall I bring up that case of a terrorist trying to attack an art exhibit in Texas who was immediately gunned down by the armed citizens? Left wing states need regulation as they palm off personal responsibility on to the government.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Babbit55 03/19/18 8:36:36 AM #162:	Kyuubi4269 posted... Babbit55 posted... @Kyuubi4269 Huh, guess it didn't take that long to prove me right, that putting guns in the class room is a terrible idea! Doesn't prove shit, just shows that people who are ignorant of firearms are a danger with them, much like a baby with bleach. Shall I bring up that case of a terrorist trying to attack an art exhibit in Texas who was immediately gunned down by the armed citizens? Left wing states need regulation as they palm off personal responsibility on to the government. How many school shootings does it take till people like you understand how terrible an idea guns in the general populace is? --- GT:- Babbit55 PC - i5 4670k, 16g ram, RX 480, 2tb hybrid drive. <cite>Babbit55 posted [p:898077421] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Babbit55 posted...</cite> <quote>@Kyuubi4269 Huh, guess it didn't take that long to prove me right, that putting guns in the class room is a terrible idea!</quote> Doesn't prove shit, just shows that people who are ignorant of firearms are a danger with them, much like a baby with bleach. Shall I bring up that case of a terrorist trying to attack an art exhibit in Texas who was immediately gunned down by the armed citizens? Left wing states need regulation as they palm off personal responsibility on to the government.</quote> How many school shootings does it take till people like you understand how terrible an idea guns in the general populace is?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 03/19/18 10:04:27 AM #163:	Babbit55 posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... Babbit55 posted... @Kyuubi4269 Huh, guess it didn't take that long to prove me right, that putting guns in the class room is a terrible idea! Doesn't prove shit, just shows that people who are ignorant of firearms are a danger with them, much like a baby with bleach. Shall I bring up that case of a terrorist trying to attack an art exhibit in Texas who was immediately gunned down by the armed citizens? Left wing states need regulation as they palm off personal responsibility on to the government. How many school shootings does it take till people like you understand how terrible an idea guns in the general populace is? Til there's no kids left, I guess? The terrible idea is fostering sociopathic behaviour then not putting up defenses against defectors. --- Scloud posted... Its like he wants two things at the same time. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:898080190] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>Babbit55 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Babbit55 posted...</cite> <quote>@Kyuubi4269 Huh, guess it didn't take that long to prove me right, that putting guns in the class room is a terrible idea!</quote> Doesn't prove shit, just shows that people who are ignorant of firearms are a danger with them, much like a baby with bleach. Shall I bring up that case of a terrorist trying to attack an art exhibit in Texas who was immediately gunned down by the armed citizens? Left wing states need regulation as they palm off personal responsibility on to the government.</quote> How many school shootings does it take till people like you understand how terrible an idea guns in the general populace is?</quote> Til there's no kids left, I guess? The terrible idea is fostering sociopathic behaviour then not putting up defenses against defectors.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VioletZer0 03/19/18 12:52:08 PM #164:	bulbinking posted... It was politics that saved the commies in vietnam from complete eradication. THAT'S THE THING It doesn't need to be a complete and total military victory with Donald Trump's head in a bucket. All it needs to be is more worth it to respect people's rights than it is to continue fighting. George Washington won with politics too. He didn't have to take over the entire British Empire. All he had to do was make it not worth it to keep the US colonies. <cite>VioletZer0 posted [p:898087956] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>bulbinking posted...</cite> <quote>It was politics that saved the commies in vietnam from complete eradication.</quote> THAT'S THE THING It doesn't need to be a complete and total military victory with Donald Trump's head in a bucket. All it needs to be is more worth it to respect people's rights than it is to continue fighting. George Washington won with politics too. He didn't have to take over the entire British Empire. All he had to do was make it not worth it to keep the US colonies.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VioletZer0 03/19/18 12:57:32 PM #165:	Babbit55 posted... How many school shootings does it take till people like you understand how terrible an idea guns in the general populace is? Till the end of the time. Because it's either guns everyone's hands, or guns exclusively in government hands. And government is less trustworthy that citizens are. <cite>VioletZer0 posted [p:898088261] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>Babbit55 posted...</cite> <quote>How many school shootings does it take till people like you understand how terrible an idea guns in the general populace is? </quote> Till the end of the time. Because it's either guns everyone's hands, or guns exclusively in government hands. And government is less trustworthy that citizens are.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VioletZer0 03/19/18 12:58:58 PM #166:	darkknight109 posted... How so? My initial post that VZ responded to said that if all civilian-owned guns disappeared there still would be no country that could invade the US and set up a dictatorship because America's military is stronger than any other in the world by a wide margin. He seems to think Vietnam is stronger, which is laughable. Vietnam still won over the US. Besides that wasn't my point. My point was that you need an armed military to prevent foreign takeover. And said armed military is no more trustworthy with guns than citizens are. <cite>VioletZer0 posted [p:898088339] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>How so? My initial post that VZ responded to said that if all civilian-owned guns disappeared there still would be no country that could invade the US and set up a dictatorship because America's military is stronger than any other in the world by a wide margin. He seems to think Vietnam is stronger, which is laughable.</quote> Vietnam still won over the US. Besides that wasn't my point. My point was that you need an armed military to prevent foreign takeover. And said armed military is no more trustworthy with guns than citizens are.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 03/19/18 1:15:40 PM #167:	Kyuubi4269 posted... Babbit55 posted... How many school shootings does it take till people like you understand how terrible an idea guns in the general populace is? Til there's no kids left, I guess? At least you're honest about it. VioletZer0 posted... George Washington won with politics too. George Washington won thanks to French and Spanish military intervention; had he not had that, his rebellion would have been crushed in short order. VioletZer0 posted... Because it's either guns everyone's hands, or guns exclusively in government hands. You understand there are more options than that, correct? It's not even close to the pigeonholed situation you're presenting here. VioletZer0 posted... Vietnam still won over the US. Not in an invasion of America, though, which is a rather significant omission. The last time America was successfully invaded by a foreign military power was over 200 years ago when Canada did it in the War of 1812. VioletZer0 posted... Besides that wasn't my point. My point was that you need an armed military to prevent foreign takeover. Correct - an armed military, not an armed populace. VioletZer0 posted... And said armed military is no more trustworthy with guns than citizens are. Except it is, because military personnel are vetted and trained extensively with their weapons and are monitored for any evidence that they should no longer be trusted with that weaponry, whether for medical, mental, or psychological reasons. If civilians were held to the same standard as the military is when talking about guns, you guys would probably be in a much better place. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:898089249] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><quote><cite>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Babbit55 posted...</cite> How many school shootings does it take till people like you understand how terrible an idea guns in the general populace is?</quote> Til there's no kids left, I guess? </quote> At least you're honest about it. <cite>VioletZer0 posted...</cite> <quote>George Washington won with politics too. </quote> George Washington won thanks to French and Spanish military intervention; had he not had that, his rebellion would have been crushed in short order. <cite>VioletZer0 posted...</cite> <quote>Because it's either guns everyone's hands, or guns exclusively in government hands. </quote> You understand there are more options than that, correct? It's not even close to the pigeonholed situation you're presenting here. <cite>VioletZer0 posted...</cite> <quote>Vietnam still won over the US. </quote> Not in an invasion of America, though, which is a rather significant omission. The last time America was successfully invaded by a foreign military power was over 200 years ago when Canada did it in the War of 1812. <cite>VioletZer0 posted...</cite> <quote>Besides that wasn't my point. My point was that you need an armed military to prevent foreign takeover.</quote> Correct - an armed military, not an armed populace. <cite>VioletZer0 posted...</cite> <quote>And said armed military is no more trustworthy with guns than citizens are. </quote> Except it is, because military personnel are vetted and trained extensively with their weapons and are monitored for any evidence that they should no longer be trusted with that weaponry, whether for medical, mental, or psychological reasons. If civilians were held to the same standard as the military is when talking about guns, you guys would probably be in a much better place.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VioletZer0 03/19/18 1:25:58 PM #168:	darkknight109 posted... Except it is, because military personnel are vetted and trained extensively with their weapons and are monitored for any evidence that they should no longer be trusted with that weaponry, whether for medical, mental, or psychological reasons. If civilians were held to the same standard as the military is when talking about guns, you guys would probably be in a much better place. But the people in charge of the military are not vetted. If anyone does vet them, who is in charge of them? And so on and so forth. <cite>VioletZer0 posted [p:898089834] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Except it is, because military personnel are vetted and trained extensively with their weapons and are monitored for any evidence that they should no longer be trusted with that weaponry, whether for medical, mental, or psychological reasons. If civilians were held to the same standard as the military is when talking about guns, you guys would probably be in a much better place. </quote> But the people in charge of the military are not vetted. If anyone does vet them, who is in charge of them? And so on and so forth.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ArvTheGreat 03/19/18 1:26:22 PM #169:	Its california teacher did it so guns Would be banned --- Things are about to get arvified <cite>ArvTheGreat posted [p:898089856] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote>Its california teacher did it so guns Would be banned</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VioletZer0 03/19/18 1:30:12 PM #170:	Besides, the "vetting system" is just giving the government power to pick and choose who they want to have political power. <cite>VioletZer0 posted [p:898090063] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote>Besides, the "vetting system" is just giving the government power to pick and choose who they want to have political power.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bulbinking 03/19/18 3:06:00 PM #171:	VioletZer0 posted... bulbinking posted... It was politics that saved the commies in vietnam from complete eradication. THAT'S THE THING It doesn't need to be a complete and total military victory with Donald Trump's head in a bucket. All it needs to be is more worth it to respect people's rights than it is to continue fighting. George Washington won with politics too. He didn't have to take over the entire British Empire. All he had to do was make it not worth it to keep the US colonies. I dont like potus so im going to smear crap all over the constitution until nobody wants anything to do with this country anymore and then I can do whatever I want and be happy! --- Qc_Stryder 5/21/2015 6:58:09 AM posted... Mods- Protectors of feelings https://gamefaqscensorship.blogspot.com <cite>bulbinking posted [p:898095769] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>VioletZer0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>bulbinking posted...</cite> <quote>It was politics that saved the commies in vietnam from complete eradication.</quote> THAT'S THE THING It doesn't need to be a complete and total military victory with Donald Trump's head in a bucket. All it needs to be is more worth it to respect people's rights than it is to continue fighting. George Washington won with politics too. He didn't have to take over the entire British Empire. All he had to do was make it not worth it to keep the US colonies.</quote> I dont like potus so im going to smear crap all over the constitution until nobody wants anything to do with this country anymore and then I can do whatever I want and be happy!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 03/19/18 3:11:07 PM #172:	People be arguing with anarchists here. --- https://i.imgur.com/ymuEJsp.gif <cite>Blighboy posted [p:898096112] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote>People be arguing with anarchists here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bulbinking 03/19/18 3:16:55 PM #173:	Blighboy posted... People be arguing with anarchists here. Anarchism funded and pushed by the neoliberal idustrial elites to overthrow our current systems to help create a more controllable centralized system in the future. All the young disenfranchised neets and social rejects are told they are fighting nazis and global oppression. Everybody wants to feel special I guess. Its funny how they will be tossed aside as soon as they help usher in the new global regime they are unknowingly working for just like all other useful idiots of previous political and social movements. --- Qc_Stryder 5/21/2015 6:58:09 AM posted... Mods- Protectors of feelings https://gamefaqscensorship.blogspot.com <cite>bulbinking posted [p:898096439] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>Blighboy posted...</cite> <quote>People be arguing with anarchists here.</quote> Anarchism funded and pushed by the neoliberal idustrial elites to overthrow our current systems to help create a more controllable centralized system in the future. All the young disenfranchised neets and social rejects are told they are fighting nazis and global oppression. Everybody wants to feel special I guess. Its funny how they will be tossed aside as soon as they help usher in the new global regime they are unknowingly working for just like all other useful idiots of previous political and social movements.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VioletZer0 03/19/18 3:40:00 PM #174:	Blighboy posted... People be arguing with anarchists here. I'm not an anarchist, but it's like Thomas Paine said. "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. - Thomas Paine" <cite>VioletZer0 posted [p:898097770] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>Blighboy posted...</cite> <quote>People be arguing with anarchists here.</quote> I'm not an anarchist, but it's like Thomas Paine said. "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. - Thomas Paine"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 03/19/18 5:48:39 PM #175:	VioletZer0 posted... But the people in charge of the military are not vetted. If anyone does vet them, who is in charge of them? And so on and so forth. First of all, yes they are. Second of all, even were that not the case, how would civilian gun ownership change anything about that? Again, the civilians are never going to win a fight against the military, especially not one as powerful as the American military. VioletZer0 posted... I'm not an anarchist, but it's like Thomas Paine said. "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. - Thomas Paine" He said his name at the end of it? That sounds rather pretentious of him. -darkknight109 --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:898105429] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>VioletZer0 posted...</cite> <quote>But the people in charge of the military are not vetted. If anyone does vet them, who is in charge of them? And so on and so forth. </quote> First of all, yes they are. Second of all, even were that not the case, how would civilian gun ownership change anything about that? Again, the civilians are never going to win a fight against the military, especially not one as powerful as the American military. <cite>VioletZer0 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm not an anarchist, but it's like Thomas Paine said. "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. - Thomas Paine"</quote> He said his name at the end of it? That sounds rather pretentious of him. -darkknight109</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VioletZer0 03/19/18 10:04:32 PM #176:	darkknight109 posted... First of all, yes they are. Second of all, even were that not the case, how would civilian gun ownership change anything about that? Again, the civilians are never going to win a fight against the military, especially not one as powerful as the American military. Honestly I am struggling to think of an example where they WON against civilians. I can only think of losses or ongoing conflict. <cite>VioletZer0 posted [p:898121546] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>First of all, yes they are. Second of all, even were that not the case, how would civilian gun ownership change anything about that? Again, the civilians are never going to win a fight against the military, especially not one as powerful as the American military.</quote> Honestly I am struggling to think of an example where they WON against civilians. I can only think of losses or ongoing conflict.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bulbinking 03/19/18 11:23:44 PM #177:	VioletZer0 posted... darkknight109 posted... First of all, yes they are. Second of all, even were that not the case, how would civilian gun ownership change anything about that? Again, the civilians are never going to win a fight against the military, especially not one as powerful as the American military. Honestly I am struggling to think of an example where they WON against civilians. I can only think of losses or ongoing conflict. People dont get that a war of occupation is not the same as forcing an enemy nation to surrender. --- Qc_Stryder 5/21/2015 6:58:09 AM posted... Mods- Protectors of feelings https://gamefaqscensorship.blogspot.com <cite>bulbinking posted [p:898127028] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote><cite>VioletZer0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>First of all, yes they are. Second of all, even were that not the case, how would civilian gun ownership change anything about that? Again, the civilians are never going to win a fight against the military, especially not one as powerful as the American military.</quote> Honestly I am struggling to think of an example where they WON against civilians. I can only think of losses or ongoing conflict.</quote> People dont get that a war of occupation is not the same as forcing an enemy nation to surrender.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Muffinz0rz 03/20/18 3:12:49 PM #178:	this topic only made it to nearly 200 posts because of the misleading topic title --- Not removing this until Pat Benatar is in Super Smash Bros. (Started 8/31/2010) 2018 NFLB Summersim (0-1): https://i.imgur.com/7cjNtgQ.png <cite>Muffinz0rz posted [p:898161774] in California... [t:76415250]...</cite> <quote>this topic only made it to nearly 200 posts because of the misleading topic title</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Poll of the Day > California teacher accidentally shoots student (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > California teacher accidentally shoots student