Buy a SUV and support terrorism
- Thread starter Joey D
- 92 comments
- 3,016 views
- 601
Originally posted by M5Power
The site was funny, but are you going to respond to my comments?
Okay I will... If you are a convicted felon, committed to mental institution, have been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces,and convited wife beater you CAN NOT own, carry, buy any type of firearm. If you are under 18 years of age you CAN NOT buy, and own any type of firearm legally. If you are under 21 you CAN NOT buy, own, and carry handgun. All federal and state government buildings you CAN NOT carry any type of firearm on the property, including public schools. Did these laws stop the Columbine Massacre? NO The laws that I stated are federal laws. If you're in the Washington D.C. city limits and surrounding area you CAN NOT own, carry, and buy any type of firearm. Did these laws that have been on the books since 1977 stop the DC Snipers NO!. Go back to the flash bunny site and click on Free Speech Kills on the left side of the screen. I like to try to stay on topic, but I have someone who is really thinks that power hungry people should tell us how to live.
goto this link to continue the Gun Control Issue....
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=439799#post439799
Kristof
Listen, I agree with you in that we should not have our gun rights restricted, but your logic is all wrong. First off, you didn't directly reply to what I previously said. I'd appreciate it if you did. Second, the "DC snipers" shot just one person in Washington DC. I have no knowledge of a law in Washington stating that you cannot carry within city limits. And finally the gun laws are only effective if enforced. As I said, the snipers bought their gun in either Alabama or New Jersey. If every state had a law like Washington DC (no guns for sale) how could they have purchased a gun?
Do you know how the killers at Columbine purchased their guns? A 22-year-old friend bought the guns for the killers at a gun show, then gave the guns to the killers. In other words, the loose gun laws worked out perfectly for the killers.
Do you remember when Ron Reagan took a bullet in the head in 1989 or so? When the man who shot him was asked what would've made him reconsider shooting Reagan, he had exactly one thing to say: "If it had been harder to get a gun, I wouldn't have done it."
Your logic about people who have been in prison, who are crazy, who have been given a dishonourable discharge, and who are under 21 is good, but still flawed. See, John Muhammad was generally discharged, yet he was still evil enough to kill. Tim McVeigh was honourably discharged after fighting in the Gulf War, but he was evil enough to kill, also. Ted Kaczynski went to the University of Michigan and was a professor at the University of California/Berkeley (the best university other than Stanford in the state) then he moved to Montana and became the unibomber.
Although only a few of these people used guns, I'm describing a pattern. None of these people would be held back from buying a gun because they behaved badly in the US military, or because they were crazy, or because they had a felony conviction. But that doesn't mean they can't kill.
advanR
(Banned)
- 1,389
nobody is evil. I think it was either religion or hollywood that spread the idea of evil. correct me if im wrong.
people can have different concerns and agendas, people can be mentally unstable, people can be raised by fuc*ing trash that wouldnt know how to raise a chicken. But i dont believe a person can be evil.
if so, when do they become evil? are they born this way? is satan in their blood from birth? I think that is ludicrous.
Oh and i brought this up because of your comment, in addition to bush's dumb **** "axis of evil" comments.
(i didnt get a chance to respond to your previous comments because i was out of town for a day and a half. when i came back everyone was way off subject. maybe i will if i can stir up the energy later, as some of your wacky logic got me heated up.)
people can have different concerns and agendas, people can be mentally unstable, people can be raised by fuc*ing trash that wouldnt know how to raise a chicken. But i dont believe a person can be evil.
if so, when do they become evil? are they born this way? is satan in their blood from birth? I think that is ludicrous.
Oh and i brought this up because of your comment, in addition to bush's dumb **** "axis of evil" comments.
(i didnt get a chance to respond to your previous comments because i was out of town for a day and a half. when i came back everyone was way off subject. maybe i will if i can stir up the energy later, as some of your wacky logic got me heated up.)
Evil is a word, and people perceive words differently. If you think there is no evil, fine. I think there is no such thing as a mental illness.About FlashBunny:
[urlhttp://www.flashbunny.org/content/whatguns.html[/url]
This is idiotic. All guns can kill. If you ban one gun, you really should ban all of them. There's always going to be a loophole so long as gun development continues.
http://www.flashbunny.org/content/logic1.html
This one misses the simple point that the right to bear arms was relevant when we were under attack by native Americans (understandably so) and the Spanish & British. Now that we have an organized military (and an extremely capable one), what good would having an M16A in the closet do Joe 6Pack when the current enemy wants to blow himself up at his workplace?
http://www.flashbunny.org/content/gunnuts.html
This one's absurd, and downright wrong. First of all, the Dali Lama was talking about how wrong it is to kill, thus your improper instinct to shoot back if you had a gun. And the words from Ghandi were in reference to how it was not India's blackest day, but Britain's, in that India defeated Britain in spite of the fact that they were almost totally unarmed. The rest of the fallacies refers to the previous link.
http://www.flashbunny.org/content/freespeech.html
This one is misleading, because it lets people think that they aren't responsible for their own actions. Stalin, et. al., were the leaders, but without millions of dimwits acting without thinking, none of this would have happened. The Crusades are another example of this...only without guns. Sure, you could argue about charisma and crowd control in each situation, but we're talking at least hundreds of thousands believing this tripe. At some point, you have to think for yourself.
The whole site is like this. It's one-sided. If you ignore the other half of the argument, then of course it will all make sense. Neo-Nazi groups do the same thing; can't exactly call them "right", can you? I don't know what to think on this issue (of gun control). The government could totally go off its rocker, in which case we'd need to form an uprising. Or we could all just get bent out of shape with this anti-terrorism stuff and kill everyone of Middle-Eastern descent after drinking too much. There are so many plus and minus situations where guns are good and bad. Which is the lesser of the two evils? Of any of the evils?
Quite frankly, this whole discussion shouldbe dropped. Most of us are not quite up to the task of understanding the entire situation....
[urlhttp://www.flashbunny.org/content/whatguns.html[/url]
This is idiotic. All guns can kill. If you ban one gun, you really should ban all of them. There's always going to be a loophole so long as gun development continues.
http://www.flashbunny.org/content/logic1.html
This one misses the simple point that the right to bear arms was relevant when we were under attack by native Americans (understandably so) and the Spanish & British. Now that we have an organized military (and an extremely capable one), what good would having an M16A in the closet do Joe 6Pack when the current enemy wants to blow himself up at his workplace?
http://www.flashbunny.org/content/gunnuts.html
This one's absurd, and downright wrong. First of all, the Dali Lama was talking about how wrong it is to kill, thus your improper instinct to shoot back if you had a gun. And the words from Ghandi were in reference to how it was not India's blackest day, but Britain's, in that India defeated Britain in spite of the fact that they were almost totally unarmed. The rest of the fallacies refers to the previous link.
http://www.flashbunny.org/content/freespeech.html
This one is misleading, because it lets people think that they aren't responsible for their own actions. Stalin, et. al., were the leaders, but without millions of dimwits acting without thinking, none of this would have happened. The Crusades are another example of this...only without guns. Sure, you could argue about charisma and crowd control in each situation, but we're talking at least hundreds of thousands believing this tripe. At some point, you have to think for yourself.
The whole site is like this. It's one-sided. If you ignore the other half of the argument, then of course it will all make sense. Neo-Nazi groups do the same thing; can't exactly call them "right", can you? I don't know what to think on this issue (of gun control). The government could totally go off its rocker, in which case we'd need to form an uprising. Or we could all just get bent out of shape with this anti-terrorism stuff and kill everyone of Middle-Eastern descent after drinking too much. There are so many plus and minus situations where guns are good and bad. Which is the lesser of the two evils? Of any of the evils?
Quite frankly, this whole discussion shouldbe dropped. Most of us are not quite up to the task of understanding the entire situation....
- 601
I agree if you want to go rant about guns goto the opinion forum or click on link below.........
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=8337&perpage=20&pagenumber=5
Kristof
"Why...why just last week I was accosted in my home by this redcoat who thought he could just barge on in and I said -- I said -- I said 'Sir! I take great umbrage at this outrageous invasion of my home! If you will not leave this instant, I shall be forced to remove my blunderbuss from the mantle and blow your sorry cahoot back to London!' And he said, 'Well, okay, if that's how you feel about it....' "
- 135
I reckon you'd be flat out fitting someone under a TVR 
.
Good on ya Hooligan!
.Good on ya Hooligan!
- 4,473
I just skipped through everything so sorry if this has already been posted.
Car & Driver Magazine did a review on her little book. About everyhting was false except for two facts which were semi-false. She is just a person who hates SUV's...
Car & Driver Magazine did a review on her little book. About everyhting was false except for two facts which were semi-false. She is just a person who hates SUV's...
Similar threads
