Back to WMD:s

TheRealNeoHentaiMaster · Post by **TheRealNeoHentaiMaster** » Tue May 06, 2003 7:53 pm

kthulhu wrote:Regarding Nike:

Hell, a $20 - $30 pair of shoes from the local volume seller works just as well, and even BETTER, than a pair of Nikes. Why are they better? They're cheaper and easier to replace, so I don't worry about them. I can abuse them, make them dirty, etcetera, and the only cost is $20 (plus my vanity, if I'm so inclined)

NOT IF YOU WANTS TO GET GAME BITCH!! Seriously though, the guy above is right. Nike doesnt owe the workers anything more then they are promised. I mean, everyone is so quick to jump on THE BIG EVIL AMERICAN COMPANY, but what about the chinese themselves. Why doesnt their government do more to protect its own people. I mean, the same situation with buisnesses happened in the US in the early 1900s and people did something about it. Isnt China communist anyway, I thought their whole deal was watching out for the working man? Why does it seem like its the USs responsability to watch out for everyone else, while everyone else doensnt have to do shit to watch out for themselves. People just seemed litteraly conditioned (has in brainwashed) into thinking that, like some kneejerk reaction. Look at whats happened in Iraq and Afganistan. US goes in and takes out two tyranical governments, and then, 3 weeks later...when the countries havent become utopias, everyone gets all up in the USs face about it. Am I the only one who sees something wrong there. The US just did those two countries a huge favor. Basically came in and kinda wiped the slate clean so to speak. Other countries have gone through revolutions and formed better governments all on their own. The US just helped with one of the hardest parts, and so far it seems the majority of the people ACTUALLY LIVING IN THOSE COUNTRIES, have done very little..and yet this is the USs fault? Am I missing something here? The only explanation I can think of to justify this way of thinking is that there must have been some memo I missed stating that indeed, americans are superior to all other people, and are the only ones capable of taking care of themselves, and therefor, must take care of everyone else who are completely helpless. However, given that would be COMPLETELY RACIST MEMO, I probably wouldnt believe it even if I did see it.

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Tue May 06, 2003 8:18 pm

You dissing on my game?! I'll cut you, bitch! Cut you with my weapon of mass destruction! Or shoot you with one, like the state of Washington <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... ">tried</a> to classify guns as (and thankfully failed).

Completely asinine....

jonmartensen · Post by **jonmartensen** » Tue May 06, 2003 8:21 pm

kthulhu wrote:You dissing on my game?! I'll cut you, bitch! Cut you with my weapon of mass destruction! Or shoot you with one, like the state of Washington <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... ">tried</a> to classify guns as (and thankfully failed).

Completely asinine....

That was complete, uber-leftist (not liberal/democratic), idiocy.

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Tue May 06, 2003 8:55 pm

while i'm against most kinds of gun control. . i dont' think certain types of arsenal should be permitted for the public to have, like heavy assualt weapons.

In some cases, their destructive potential would make this law seem reasonable.

I'm still glad it didn't fly in court tho.

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Tue May 06, 2003 11:00 pm

sixstop wrote:while i'm against most kinds of gun control. . i dont' think certain types of arsenal should be permitted for the public to have, like heavy assualt weapons.

Depends on your classification

. Despite popular(?) opinion, it is not exactly easy to buy or own a fully-automatic weapon.

Let's say you want to own a fully-automatic AK-47.

1. Your state needs to allow you to own one in the first place, as a private citizen, with or without a dealer's license. Often you need a Class III license (not exactly a walk in the park to get, especially if you're not interested in operating a business). A fair amount of states don't let you own one, no matter what (unless you're connected to the powers that be).

2. Next, if you can own one without a dealer's license, you still typically need to talk to your local head of law enforcement and get a statement that you are legal to own a weapon of that nature. This isn't hard, and most will sign off, but it's another hoop to go through.

3. So once the preliminary paperwork is in order, you need to find the gun to buy in the first place. There aren't actually a whole lot of them available to non-dealers because of legislation, so they're kind of rare (and expensive!). If the weapon you want is out of state, then you need to find a proper dealer who can accept the transfer. This isn't always easy.

4. So you manage to find the AK you want, and you've paid the several thousand dollars it costs. There's also the $200 ATF fee/tax, AND the ATF registers the gun under your name in their database, ALWAYS.

Considering how few people (none, I think) have been killed with legal full auto weapons post-1934 (when the first full-auto legislation was enacted), I see nothing wrong with regular Joes owning them, so long as they go through the procedures above. I also don't see much wrong with owning semi-auto variants of military weapons (although they aren't subject to the same procedure).

EarthCurrent · Post by **EarthCurrent** » Tue May 06, 2003 11:10 pm

kthulhu wrote:Considering how few people (none, I think) have been killed with legal full auto weapons post-1934 (when the first full-auto legislation was enacted), I see nothing wrong with regular Joes owning them, so long as they go through the procedures above. I also don't see much wrong with owning semi-auto variants of military weapons (although they aren't subject to the same procedure).

EarthCurrent lives in Wyoming:
Sometimes he fears for his safety as he lalalas through the happy woods.
BAMBAMBAMBAM!!!!!
Dammit those regular Joes are out shooting at things again.
Can't they go to a shooting range?
BAMBAMBAMBAM!!!!!
BAMBAMBAMBAM!!!!!
BAMBAMBAMBAM!!!!!
BAMBAMBAMBAM!!!!!
BAMBAMBAMBAM!!!!!
BAMBAMBAMBAM!!!!!
BAMBAMBAMBAM!!!!!

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Tue May 06, 2003 11:22 pm

earthcurrent wrote:EarthCurrent lives in Wyoming:
Sometimes he fears for his safety as he lalalas through the happy woods.

That's your problem. You should never lalala through the dangerous woods! There might be bears or snakes or cougars or Negroes out there!

TheRealNeoHentaiMaster · Post by **TheRealNeoHentaiMaster** » Wed May 07, 2003 12:03 am

You know, im against almost all gun controll. I even think concealed weapons permits should be legal and easily attainable for your average person, and not just your politicion in favor of gun control. However, seriously..why does you average person need an assault riffle. I think just maybe that is a bit much. I even had some gun nut guy(and I dont throw that term around lightly) trying to convince me fragmentation grenades should be legal. I dunno, maybe im wrong on this, but I dont think youre average citizen needs an m16, a glock with ten rounds is fine, but not an m16 or a bazooka.

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Wed May 07, 2003 12:41 am

most people don't and most people wont get the local sheriff to okay them posessing a weapon like that without being a dealer or a known enthusiast.

But thats not the point. The point is kind of. . .i heard a person argue that a .45 was no different than a m-16 or an ingram for the average joe to own. he used a correlation that means that a butter knife is no different than a katana. . .

there's a difference between related implements than can do similar things.

Can a katana cut a steak? yes but man what a pain. Can a butter knife kill someone? It's dull you twit, it'll hurt more.

so can a .45 kill someone? yes, obviously. Can an m-16 or an ingram? yes.

can you use a .45 to defend yourself? you betcha, especially if permitted to carry in public. An m-16?. . .well, in your own home you can, and even then a rifle can be clumsy in self defense compare to a pistol. (unless sing at melee)

can a .45 kill alot of people in a short time? yes, but not nearly as easily as an assault rifle.

Can a .45 fire rounds designed to penetrate police, swat, and military grade armor that for the most part is very expensive and hard to buy?

jonmartensen · Post by **jonmartensen** » Wed May 07, 2003 12:42 am

TheRealNeoHentaiMaster wrote:You know, im against almost all gun controll. I even think concealed weapons permits should be legal and easily attainable for your average person, and not just your politicion in favor of gun control. However, seriously..why does you average person need an assault riffle. I think just maybe that is a bit much. I even had some gun nut guy(and I dont throw that term around lightly) trying to convince me fragmentation grenades should be legal. I dunno, maybe im wrong on this, but I dont think youre average citizen needs an m16, a glock with ten rounds is fine, but not an m16 or a bazooka.

Agreed.