El Sitherino Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 we were given the right to overthrow the current government should it become too powerful, by means of protest or use of arms. But then again, noone excercises that right anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 probably because our government isn't too powerful, yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Patriot Act my man, patriot act. Tons of people being unlawfully imprisoned because an officer had a hunch, or a bad feeling. People being held without trial, families not notified for days, they get no phone calls. Unlawful searches of private information, random unlawful and unwaranted phone taps. not to mention unwarranted searches of private property (aka houses). I'm pretty sure they've become a wee bit too powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 it may be wrong, but not too powerful, and i would much rather have their hunches be wrong, then have them be right and have nobody act on it... BTW, you don't seem like the kinda guy to ever join the military, are you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Actually I've often thought about it. And I come from a military family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 interesting... you just don't come off as that sort of guy... i apologize for judging you as not someone to join the military, if i may ask, what branch? again, i will pass a judgement, and say it wasn't the marines or Navy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch again, i will pass a judgement, and say it wasn't the marines or Navy I think passing judgement on something you've already shown yourself to be wrong on is a bad idea. That's how you step on toes at the same time you put your foot in your mouth. And why not marines or Navy? Just curious why Army or Airforce seems more likely for Sith.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Lol, actually Marines and Navy were my considerations. My uncle served as a navy SEAL. Both my Opas were marines. My mothers father fought in the Korean war. My fathers father Served in World War 2 and the Korean War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 because the marines and Navy are a more conservative bunch of soldiers, however, seeing his family ties to those two branches, i can see why he would choose those, as if i had family ties to the army or AF i would join those instead, even though i prefer the environment of Navy and marines, thanks for the insight sith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Yes the Navy. Stuck on a boat for several months with 2000 other men (talking about an aircraft carrier here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Stuck on a boat for several months with 2000 other men eheeheeheeheeheehe, the odds are in my favour! <_< >_> what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 I hate guns At what point do we say enough is enough? And more guns certainly isn't the answer. If more of those kids had had guns MORE people would be dead. She was about to turn 18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 And more guns certainly isn't the answer. If more of those kids had had guns MORE people would be dead. Hm. Guns don't help, but I think one should focus on eradicating the culture of fear in the US before you start limiting gun-ownership. Any measures to limit gun-ownership will naturally make those who own guns nervous. And that can't be a good thing. Rather worrying, in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 I dont necessarily think that banning guns is going to help. But when I hear of things like this and I hear people saying they need guns to protect themselves. Well, it makes me sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 I've been known to get severely depressed over the state of the world. In fact, sometimes I consider my life to be one long search for a way to change things. One long, hopeless road, paved with the dreams of the innocent, lined with the weeds of popular apathy, which are watered by the tears of the multitudes. Still, you have to laugh, don't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 To all the anti gun nutty hippies, who are obviously the minority according to the poll, I offer you this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-10-29-sword-death_x.htm Yeah, it's too bad we have violence of any sort. And that we have guns to help engage in violence. But those are the facts. We as a species are not able nor ready to lay down our arms. So we won't. It's that simple. With or without guns, people will engage in, and fall victim to violence. If you simply must have a big cause to champion and crusade against, try doing something about violence. Your chances of getting rid of that are as realistic as getting rid of guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 I don't think anyone here is saying guns are the only reason we have violence, it's just it's much easier to kill someone with a gun than it is a sword or knife. it's easier to live from a knife or sword wound than from a gunshot wound. Also swords and knives only work at short distance (unless you throw them <_<). And I'm not saying get rid of all guns, just the ones the average citizen DOES NOT NEED. What average citizen needs an assault rifle? Do you really need or have to have an AK-47? no. You can say I don't need models or a computer, but they are less likely to be used to kill someone or cause fatal injury. They've put restriction on alcohol, cigarettes, and cars. So why not guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 As usual, InsaneSith, you make good and valid points.The problem I have here seems to lie in a piss-poor definitions of terms. What you define as something the "average citizen DOES NOT NEED", I consider a harmless hobby, not unlike watching football, or playing softball, or countless other lawfull activities that are not needed and can possibly cause injury or even death. I'm not saying those activities are the same, or share statistics. Just that both are lawfull, and if done properly can be harmless. Also what you, and lots of ignorant people consider an "assault weapon", I call just a regular ol' gun with purely cosmetic changes. Keep in mind that the only difference in what keeps a rifle from being called an assault rifle is almost always APPEARANCE ONLY and the letter of the law. Not the intent of the law. Nothing about the functionality of the weapons is different. The rate of fire is the same, the same ammunition is used, and in most cases, the cosmetic changes made can actually reduce the level of accuracy, making them less lethal. My last comment regards yours. They've put restriction on alcohol, cigarettes, and cars. So why not guns? What restrictions on alcohol, cigarettes, and cars would you be talking about? Oh, you mean really ****ing high taxes? So if you can afford the weapons, you should be able to have what you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Originally posted by CapNColostomy What restrictions on alcohol, cigarettes, and cars would you be talking about? Oh, you mean really ****ing high taxes? So if you can afford the weapons, you should be able to have what you want? I mean age wise, and the kinds you can purchase. Certain kinds of Vodka are not able to be bought, atleast not in Texas, ones over a certain proof or size. Same with whiskeys. Certian features on cars are illegal, you can no longer smoke a filterless cigarette without being fined (wtf?). The common reference of assualt rifle would be your fully automatic high caliber rifle. Usually AK-47 or m16 or what have you. stupid people cause restriction and in the end the harmless people get punished for it, but it does help decrease the idiotic accidents that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Originally posted by InsaneSith you can no longer smoke a filterless cigarette without being fined (wtf?). WTF indeed. That's a new one on me. Originally posted by InsaneSith The common reference of assualt rifle would be your fully automatic high caliber rifle. Usually AK-47 or m16 or what have you. Yeah, I kinda gathered that. But I like to be nitpicky when it comes to this subject simply because lots of people assume the term assault weapon ALWAYS means automatic weapons. You've seperated yourself from that crowd, and I applaud you for that. I agree that there really is no practical use for the "average citizen" to have automatic weapons, although I can't say honestly that I wouldn't like to have one or two myself. Originally posted by InsaneSith stupid people cause restriction and in the end the harmless people get punished for it, but it does help decrease the idiotic accidents that happen. Well said, and I agree. It's a shame. Unfortunately it also causes people to make impromptu swords to behead their coworkers. I'm not sure there's a lesser of two evils to be found there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 But a coworker with an impromptu sword can be run away from, and he can do nothing if he can't catch you. A coworker with a fully automatic weapon can easily shoot you in the back Like I said, I don't want guns banned, but I do want more restrictions on guns. If we can't teach kids to be responsible with them, they shouldn't HAVE them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 it is interesting to see the gulf of understanding that exists on this issue. Those of us that have grown up in countries without guns just can't really imagine anyone wanting one, or any way that having MORE guns in circulation could make things better... but those of you that have grown up with a gun culture can't see any reason not to have guns. Most interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior But a coworker with an impromptu sword can be run away from, and he can do nothing if he can't catch you. Originally posted by CapNColostomy To all the anti gun nutty hippies, who are obviously the minority according to the poll, I offer you this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-10-29-sword-death_x.htm That's interesting. The guy with a nearly severed head might have something to say about how easy you seem to think it is to run from a sword weilding coworker were he alive and able to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 It certainly seems unusual that the other man wouldn't be able to escape, if all the OTHER employees got out....but at least in THIS case, the ONLY person who got injured was the man who was intended to be injured. How often do you hear of shooting crimes where some innocent 12 year old died from a stray bullet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Originally posted by kipperthefrog I say we should be allowed to have any weopon we want! we should have assault rifles and the best bullet proof armor availible! -the criminals have weopons WE need weopons and armor to defend ourselves! I think I'll just stay up here in Canada... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.