next »

[News]

News: Tell your friends!

We are a growing comunity. We can use all the help spreading the word that we can get!

[Scraseface]

But dont you know that america is allowed to have WMDs because it is one of the most powerful(and recent) nations i the world? besides, they are always right, and always the good guys... hahaha!

Yeah, because Hiroshimo and Nagasaki were sooo justified.

whay if iraq DID have wmd's, and we had never checked?

Then... the US would still have had like, thousands upon thousands more WMDs than them?

if saddam had NOT been stopped, ouldnt he have become another hitler? he had all the resources.

No he couldn't, and no he didn't. Hilter had been working for a long time to convince his people that they needed more "living space", and they actually invaded Poland before any war was declared. I don't recall Iraq invading anywhere recently. And also, IRAQ DIDN'T HAVE ANY WMDS! It's a third world country! Germany was a country with a whole bunch of others backing it; Iraq is one little porper nation that most people hadn't even heard of before the war. These days, basically anywhere that dosen't have nukes has no chance against the US, and even if they had them, America has vastly more A-bombs than anyone else in the entire world, despite being probably the biggest target, size wise.

Sure Saddam was a bad dude, but he was a big fish in a small pond. Him against the US woulda been a shrimp VS a sperm whale. Besides, since when did the US care about world wars? You showed up late to BOTH and only because somebody pissed you off, America don't give a shit about nobody else until they got something to gain from it.

yes, we really screwed up. but its not like this was the first time that we have had negative run ins with iraq. 10, 15, 20 years ago, he was a threat. maybe bush was remembering when he was younger and his dad was the president. trying to finish something off?

Even if things are too tough for the new president to handle, regardless of who gets picked, don't you think it would be good for the US to have a black or a female president for a change? Remember; all presidents in the past have been white males, so really, we don't even know what anybody else would be like.

[sharxbyte]

But dont you know that america is allowed to have WMDs because it is one of the most powerful(and recent) nations i the world? besides, they are always right, and always the good guys... hahaha!

Yeah, because Hiroshimo and Nagasaki were sooo justified.

whay if iraq DID have wmd's, and we had never checked?

Then... the US would still have had like, thousands upon thousands more WMDs than them?

if saddam had NOT been stopped, wouldnt he have become another hitler? he had all the resources.

No he couldn't, and no he didn't. Hilter had been working for a long time to convince his people that they needed more "living space", and they actually invaded Poland before any war was declared. I don't recall Iraq invading anywhere recently. And also, IRAQ DIDN'T HAVE ANY WMDS! It's a third world country! Germany was a country with a whole bunch of others backing it; Iraq is one little porper nation that most people hadn't even heard of before the war. These days, basically anywhere that dosen't have nukes has no chance against the US, and even if they had them, America has vastly more A-bombs than anyone else in the entire world, despite being probably the biggest target, size wise.

Sure Saddam was a bad dude, but he was a big fish in a small pond. Him against the US woulda been a shrimp VS a sperm whale. Besides, since when did the US care about world wars? You showed up late to BOTH and only because somebody pissed you off, America don't give a shit about nobody else until they got something to gain from it.

okay, then let me remind you. ever heard of a place called kuwait? iraq WAS invading, and no, its an oil rich nation. the problem is that the only people benefiting is the government.(kinda like most of germany as middle or low class).
and theres a movie i want you to watch. its called "beyond the gates"

that is what happens when the US/UN/Anyone else just pulls out and does a half ass job.

the point is, that Yeah, the US sticks its nose into lotsa junk, but once its in there, its even less responsible to pull out just because lotsa people think you were wrong in the first place. yes, iraq had not just a buck of others backing it, but other nations that are in a similar situation, with more power.(north korea, china, many other comunist nations)if he had gone much further, he COULD, AND WOULD have been the next hitler.
hes been a bad dude for a LONG time. about hiroshima and nagasaki: it stopped a war. imagine  what would have happened if it stretched on for another 10 years?

and i never said that it was impossible for a black or female president, or that i didnt like obama(hilarys a different story, i just dont like her...) i just dissagree with some of obamas ethics.(anti gun law, abortion, etc.)

o, and that was just COLD saying "you"

-.-

sharxbyte- just a little ticked off(maybe because im sick and i just watched a very graphic movie...)

[Scraseface]

The fact that Iraq is a third world country kinda makes me think that America's been trying scrape the barrel as much as possible to make them seem like a threat, when really at this point in time there isn't a single country in the world that could hope to challenge the US.

Hirosimo and Nagasaki may have ended the war early, but at the cost of killing millions of innocent people , and causing thousands more to suffer the effects of massive fallout. There's also the blatant fact that America only used their nukes because they wanted to see what they could do to a real live target. Yup, well done guys, as usual you keep making what you make best; death, suffering and destruction.

Also, guns make crime easier. Sure criminals will still have guns if guns are illegal, but only the big players, like bank robbers, gangs and car jackers. If you actually think you're important enough for a bugular or mugger to risk getting their hands on an illegal weapon just so they can rob you, and then possibly even becoming a murderer over it, you think you're far more important than you are.

[sharxbyte]

the fact is that i(and many other people) feel allot more secure being able to own a gun legally to defend myself against somone who may one one illegally. let me give you an example.

i live in an area that pretty decent, but theres a "bad side of town" about 3 miles away(where i used to live). so i was selling a laptop to this guy, and he buys it. it doesnt do something that he wants it to so he was giving me lotsa bs about it, and eventually threatened to "shoot my house up" with his homies, if i didnt let him come over "right now" to get his money back. both of my parents are gone at this point in time, and i asked for him to give me an hour. he started cussing me out, then hung up. so i called the police(for the second time that day, first he just said i was going to regret it, "which could mean he will come in front of you house and start singing" said the stupid cop on the other end of the fone...) so i called 911, and explained it to them. it took them 2 hours to get to my house!!! and i could have walked to the station(on the other side of the block) the loooong way 5 times and back before they got there. if that guy had come to my house with his homies to party, all the cops woulda found would be an empty or bloody house.

and when was the last time you heard about a person using his or her own legally owned gun to commit a crime? people that have liscences are the only ones who can legally have guns, and the people that dont have liscences are breaking the law anyway. so an anti gun law will only penalize the legal population.

[Scraseface]

Man, whether you'd had guns or not, if he had "brought his homies" it would be you vs several people all armed with balstics, so you'd be dead either way. Plus there's the fact that killing someone is a lot harder than it actually sounds.

Oh, and maybe the pros aquire their guns illegally so that they're harder to trace, but guns being legal makes it much easier for the "little guy" of the crime world. See, the thing is, if you're going to commit a petty crime like mugging, you might be looking at a little bit of time on the inside, but add to that possesion of a weapon that you aquired on the black market, and you could be looking at a hell of a lot more.

Just picture that guns are illegal in your country and you try mugging someone with a gun you got on the black market. So already by mugging someone with a gun, you are commiting armed robbery, that's serious enough as it is, but add to that the fact that you paid a lot of money to aquire a gun illegally (here a gun on the black market that actually works will run you up about £200-£300) which will take a lot of petty crime to pay off, and the fact that having an illegal weapon is also an extremely serious offence, just bothering to aquire a gun to mug someone makes no sense. Mugging is all done close quarters anyway, so why not just get yourself a nice legal, but equally deadly ordinary kitchen knife to pull the job off with. It's still armed robbery, but it's much less expensive, and less risky, because you won't get in as much trouble if you get caught.

The same applies to just about every crime that is likely to affect an average Joe citizen. An individual victim is by no means a goldmine, so why bother taking bigger risks by using illegal weapons? Illegalising guns works because of this rule.

The only crime I can think of that might affect an individual where using guns would always be preferable is carjacking, since you can't exactly stop a car if all you've got is a switchblade. But to be honest, having a gun for self protection in this situation is useless, because by definition you will be driving at the time, so to protect yourself you'd actually have to root around in your car for your gun, and aim (while still moving I might add) at a target who already has you in their sights. There is no way that you could use a gun to help you in this situation.


Also, I should add; if own guns for protection, it makes absolutely no sense to do so unless you regularly train with them. You should also clean them and perform other maintaince if required, on a regular basis, and have an in-depth knowledge of their specific capabilities, and how they work. Otherwise you may find them jamming at a crucial moment.

Disapline is required for self defence. You cannot buy safty. Even those with hired bodyguards must develop a communication system for their services to be usefull.


Oh, and by the way, if you find yourself in a simular situation as the one you mentioned, a wise move would be to pull all the drapes in your house. That way they wouldn't have been able to see you, making shooting you a lot harder. Rational thinking always makes a better defence than a large arsenol.

[abby_ann93]

lol I don't really follow politics at ALL.
=P
But it's fun to watch you guys argue.

[Karma]

Hmm, considering the fact that so many people in the usa own guns and use them for purposes such as self defense and hunting and whatnot, a lot of people are going to be very angry should a firearm ban be passed. While guns make killing a lot easier, it won't exactly drop the crime rate drastically either. Where I live, guns are illegal. But hell, that doesn't stop criminals. They improvise by using knives and blades so many victims die of stabbing. And the yakuzas smuggle in firearms so it's not that hard to get your hands on an illegal firearm here if you have the right contacts. Anyhow, the point of what I'm trying to say is that regardless of whether guns should be illegal or not in the usa can't be an issue that will lead to good ends. If the ban is passed, then criminals will devise other ways of killing people and obtain smuggled guns anyway while on top of that, the good willed people who own guns will be pretty pissed, leading to perhaps more crime. But if things are the way they are, then things like VT and columbine will continue to happen. Crime is inevitable. It's like playing whacka-mole. You can bop one mole but another one's gonna come out. You can bop that one but another one's going to come out and you can't block all the holes. I suppose the only thing law enforcement can do now to make themselves feel better or to please the anti gun community is to put stricter regulations for owning guns like implementing more of the pshyc stuff into background checks of each indivudual and such.

[Scraseface]

It's no where near as easy for a knife to hurt someone by accident as it is for a gun to fire when it's not supposed to. Also although I admit big time criminals will always be using guns, but petty criminals won't, because believe it or not, most of them would rather pull off a job whilst breaking as few laws as possible, because when you're doing something you know you won't get much money from, you don't want to take unnesscary risks.

People who feel the need to keep guns to protect themselves should learn the value emergency drills and thinking on one's feet. Those who want to hunt should have to apply for a special liscence and have to keep their guns and ammo seperately whilst not in use.

[sharxbyte]

there was somethign i heard about florida that when they passed a gun ban, the crime rate skyrocketed...
either that or they removed it and it dropped to an all time low...

[Scraseface]

Are you talking about street crime or corperate crime? Corperate crime is bound to increase with bans because making something illegal will mean that there is something new to be sold on the black market, or that thing will be of higher demand on the black market.

Rates of crime are insignificant when compared to how crime effects the individual. Bank robbers and gang members will always carry guns, but banks are insured and gangs do not make a habbit of randomly attacking civilians. As long as firearms are inaccessable to those who pose a potential threat to civilans, who cares what the big times are doing? That's for the police to worry about, not you.

Also, do not think for a second that just owning a gun makes you safe. I can't really speak for anyone else, but I could easily kill an untrained, scared civilian, regardless of whether they were armed or not, with my bare hands. Actually shooting a person is a little bit more difficult than just pointing and clicking.

[sharxbyte]

Are you talking about street crime or corperate crime? Corperate crime is bound to increase with bans because making something illegal will mean that there is something new to be sold on the black market, or that thing will be of higher demand on the black market.

Rates of crime are insignificant when compared to how crime effects the individual. Bank robbers and gang members will always carry guns, but banks are insured and gangs do not make a habbit of randomly attacking civilians. As long as firearms are inaccessable to those who pose a potential threat to civilans, who cares what the big times are doing? That's for the police to worry about, not you.

Also, do not think for a second that just owning a gun makes you safe. I can't really speak for anyone else, but I could easily kill an untrained, scared civilian, regardless of whether they were armed or not, with my bare hands. Actually shooting a person is a little bit more difficult than just pointing and clicking.

lol almost edited yours accidentally... anyways, you and me are 2 of a few civilians that have that ability... besides the fact that we have weapons usually readily available(within arms reach)

[Karma]

Alright, well we all have a basic idea of how the elections are gonna play out in November.
The Democratic nominee, Barack Obama vs the Republican nominee, John McCain.
Only one will emerge victorious. Your thoughts?

[Scraseface]

It's gotta be Barrack maaaaan, white people suck ass.

[Karma]

Lol dude, you're stoned aren't ya.

[Scraseface]

Well I was, but that dosen't change the fact that whities are punk ass bitches.

Edit: So I can say punk ass bitches but I can't say badwordn? Now that dosen't make any sense.