GUNS are COOL

  • Thread starter frestkd
  • 154 comments
  • 5,227 views
My neighbor has a grenade launcher...I have no clue why he bought it since you cant get any ammo for it...Whats the point of owning it? It just sits in a trunk in his room collecting dust...
 
Whats the point of it though? Wasted all the money he spent on the damn grenade launcher when he coulda spent it on something worthwhile like something he could actually shoot...
 
What makes Gran Turismo cool? What makes building and collecting models cool? What makes listening to or playing music cool?

It's unique, not many people own one. It's a conversation piece!

It doesn't have to be practical to be cool ~
 
We have a military surplus store about 15 miles from where I am (live near a marine base). They sell sniper rifle rounds of all sizes and they also have tear gas. You need to have a military I.D to get it though.
 
Originally posted by Sk8rKiD
My neighbor has a grenade launcher...I have no clue why he bought it since you cant get any ammo for it...Whats the point of owning it? It just sits in a trunk in his room collecting dust...
Click to expand...

Your neighbor is a moron. :rolleyes:
 
It's rather odd to own several unless he cleans them well. Are they like a collection of shoes, just shoved into a closet or are they in a display case or what?
 
Wow. So many thoughts. So much crap.

By the way Kristof, I live in North Phoenix.

But anyway...
Arizona is full of ass backwards hicks. Pure and simple. The ratio of educated to redneck is dangerously skewed. That's why they keep voting in Governors who drive the state further and further down the ****ter.

"Can't get a job, but I got a gun. I'm a happy, free American." (say like Cletus the slack jawed yokel)

Yes, you are able to walk down the street with a gun on your hip. But you can't go in anywhere . You can't even set foot in a park. So unless you like just walking around aimlessly, so what?

I actually do sympathize with the most extreme pro-gun rhetoric. But my civilized conscience won't allow me to incorporate it.

I work with a bunch of big gun guys. I like them and all but I don't like that they kill animals. Don't see the point of hunting. I once said I'd rather shoot a deer with a camera and he said he'd rather put an arrow through it's heart and started laughing. That is some chilling ****.

But I had a talk with these big gun guys just a few days ago because I am thinking of buying a gun. Just one, for home protection.

Kristof probably knows about the forced home invasions that have plagued the Phoenix area this year. These mother ****ers come right into your house while you're home and kill you. I just can't believe that. It's a state of lawlessness. I have no confidence in the police around here, none at all. So I feel like I need to protect my wife and our unborn child. That's why I'm thinking of buying a gun. A handgun and a combination safe to keep it in. I have it all planned out, where to keep it in case I ever need it, how to keep it away from my kid, etc. All I need is to do it. My wife is waffling. When I think of anyone ever hurting her or my baby, killing becomes an option. And I'm not ashamed. I call it instinct.

So a long-time anti-gun person here is going to buy a handgun.

But... I still am against killing animals for fun. I am against owning grenade launchers, machine guns, bazookas, etc. You get the drift. I'm not getting ready for a revolution. I just want to be safe.
 
Your mixing issues. Hunting and gun ownership, though connected to some degree, can be thought of as seperate issues. One need not defend an opposition to hunting to prove they should own a gun. Besides, I think most hunting is done with a rifle.

There is one other thing I want to address:
I actually do sympathize with the most extreme pro-gun rhetoric. But my civilized conscience won't allow me to incorporate it.
Click to expand...
While I cannot argue on unspecified "rhetoric," the language troubles me (perhaps, if this were to happen, I will be settled by your explaining to me an intent I prefer). It brings to mind a sort of elitist, far left idea of what civilized is. If you mean only that you dislike violence as a means to resolution and nothing more, that is an agreeable philosophy. But if you think that persons whom use violence to resolve matters are automatically uncivilized, I do take issue. I read your post, so pointing this part out,
When I think of anyone ever hurting her or my baby, killing becomes an option. And I'm not ashamed. I call it instinct.
Click to expand...
, is unecessary. My problem is with the definition of civilized. To me, a civilized society does not act as if others will adhere to its tenets, but as if others may seek to undermine it, and act to protect itself with as minimal risk to all parties as possible. If one man refuses to fight and encourages others to do the same is he more civil than a man who does the opposite? Either may be successful, but the second man gives to his fellow people the advantages of not having them be in the more favorable position for their enemy(ies), disarmed (possibly compliant), thus leaving their fate much more so to themselves than the un-armed.

I am starting to yawn a lot, I think I will end for now,
 
Originally posted by Talentless
Your mixing issues. Hunting and gun ownership, though connected to some degree, can be thought of as seperate issues. One need not defend an opposition to hunting to prove they should own a gun. Besides, I think most hunting is done with a rifle.

There is one other thing I want to address: While I cannot argue on unspecified "rhetoric," the language troubles me (perhaps, if this were to happen, I will be settled by your explaining to me an intent I prefer). It brings to mind a sort of elitist, far left idea of what civilized is. If you mean only that you dislike violence as a means to resolution and nothing more, that is an agreeable philosophy. But if you think that persons whom use violence to resolve matters are automatically uncivilized, I do take issue. I read your post, so pointing this part out, , is unecessary. My problem is with the definition of civilized. To me, a civilized society does not act as if others will adhere to its tenets, but as if others may seek to undermine it, and act to protect itself with as minimal risk to all parties as possible. If one man refuses to fight and encourages others to do the same is he more civil than a man who does the opposite? Either may be successful, but the second man gives to his fellow people the advantages of not having them be in the more favorable position for their enemy(ies), disarmed (possibly compliant), thus leaving their fate much more so to themselves than the un-armed.

I am starting to yawn a lot, I think I will end for now,
Click to expand...

I thought my line of thought was more simple than you made it out to be.

All I meant is this: A nation that absolutely forbids anything beyond hurting others or their property is, in my opinion, corrupt. One must question the motive for the prohibition. It is always about taking power away from the many and consolidating it in the hands of the few. This is dangerous and only serves to place unecessary pressure on society, pressure that must be more and more severely supressed by the keepers of the power.

So I agree with the fact that to forbid guns is wrong and corrupt. But I also reserve the right to think owning machine guns and grenade launchers is stupid. So if you want to have an arsenal, I want to make fun of you. I guess if there were more real, compelling evidence that the population needed to pepare for a revolution or to defend themselves against some pending invasion, I would be the first in line for my AK47. But I think people who think that's currently necessary are paranoid.

And regarding hunting...
I made a generalization and didn't justify it. But then it wouldn't have been a generalization. Many gun owners also hunt. Many rifle owners also own handguns. That's about it. I eat meat that was killed in a big, ugly industrial food complex. I do not want to kill my own food, but I would if I had to. And if it ever bothered me that much I would just not eat meat. I only question guys who (and I've been told all about it by people who've done it) chase down herds of elk in a pick-up and shoot into the group, bait animals in the off season and just sit and wait for them to come back and shoot them; people who enjoy killing because it's fun, etc. I have also listened to hunters that seem to have a deep understanding of what they do by killing animals, not unlike the Pacific Northwest indians who kill whales, and waste nothing, recognize the sacristy of the act and it's consequences, and feel fulfilled in a spiritual way by participating in the cycle of life; this I have the utmost respect for and may even, at some point in my life, have to try. But when I see a bunch of hicks in Flagstaff walking around shooting squirrils for fun I have pure disdain.

I hope that clarifies, Talentless. If it doesn't, please let me know.
 

Similar threads

milefile
What's happened to our little forums?
2
Replies
51
Views
1K
Race Idiot
Race Idiot
M
Directory listing
Replies
28
Views
79K
toyomatt84
toyomatt84

Latest Posts

Back