Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

Sorry if I go on a bit about gun control (or lack thereof), it's just that I think that the ability to defend ourselves is important, especially since the courts have ruled that the police are not legally obligated to protect us.

Wait... If your police aren't there to protect you, why have them?

[Leafsnail]

From the current topic in the thread I take it that North Korea is planning to take our guns?

[Descan]

Sorry if I go on a bit about gun control (or lack thereof), it's just that I think that the ability to defend ourselves is important, especially since the courts have ruled that the police are not legally obligated to protect us.

You're chock full of reason.

Actually, he's right about that. Certain courts have ruled that police did not have an obligation to help in the circumstances that they went to court with.

HEDGING!

[tahujdt]

Sorry if I go on a bit about gun control (or lack thereof), it's just that I think that the ability to defend ourselves is important, especially since the courts have ruled that the police are not legally obligated to protect us.

You're chock full of reason.

Actually, he's right about that. Certain courts have ruled that police did not have an obligation to help in the circumstances that they went to court with.

HEDGING!

In the case I'm  thinking of, the circumstances were assault, rape (in the victims home, mind you), and several slight variations of those. According to one of the witnesses (soon to become a victim), after she called the police, she snuck out on to the roof to watch for the police. She just saw one squad car drive slowly by. And this was to a "Priority One" call, mind you. The point is that the police cannot always be counted on.

[Max White]

In the case I'm  thinking of, the circumstances were assault, rape (in the victims home, mind you), and several slight variations of those. According to one of the witnesses (soon to become a victim), after she called the police, she snuck out on to the roof to watch for the police. She just saw one squad car drive slowly by. And this was to a "Priority One" call, mind you. The point is that the police cannot always be counted on.

No seriously, why do you have police at all then?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The court ruled that the priority of the police is to enforce the law, not to protect citizens.

[tahujdt]

In the case I'm  thinking of, the circumstances were assault, rape (in the victims home, mind you), and several slight variations of those. According to one of the witnesses (soon to become a victim), after she called the police, she snuck out on to the roof to watch for the police. She just saw one squad car drive slowly by. And this was to a "Priority One" call, mind you. The point is that the police cannot always be counted on.

No seriously, why do you have police at all then?

To take care of criminals, it's just that they can't always get there in time, and you have to defend yourself. Also, for actual policing work, detective work, traffic monitoring, etc.

[Max White]

Anybody else see the ethical issues involved in the idea of 'Own a gun and protect yourself?'

[tahujdt]

Anybody else see the ethical issues involved in the idea of 'Own a gun and protect yourself?'

Nope. It's worked fine since 1776. Give or take a few years.

[Max White]

...
Ok, have fun with that then. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Anybody else see the ethical issues involved in the idea of 'Own a gun and protect yourself?'

Nope. It's worked fine since 1776. Give or take a few years.

Oh no you don't. No infinitely circular arguments about gun ownership that will never be resolved because Americans and Australians have radically divergent views and cultural attitudes on it in this thread!

[tahujdt]

Anybody else see the ethical issues involved in the idea of 'Own a gun and protect yourself?'

Nope. It's worked fine since 1776. Give or take a few years.

Oh no you don't. No infinitely circular arguments about gun ownership that will never be resolved because Americans and Australians have radically divergent views and cultural attitudes on it in this thread!

I believe the original derail was about a JFK/Elvis two-headed clone. Please don't change the subject.

Also edited my earlier post to reflect the suggestions.

[tahujdt]

O.K., guys, here's the new conspiracy theory: The bomber in Boston was actually a two-headed clone of Elvis and JFK created by the United Nations One World Order, then taken sent back in time a hundred years to fake the moon landing. While he was at it, he programmed a computer to fake Obama's birth certificate. He was working for The Illuminati, but then bribed by North Korea's alien overlords.

My updated conspiracy theory.

[Sirus]

9/10. Much better!

[tahujdt]

O.K., guys, here's the new conspiracy theory: The bomber in Boston was actually a two-headed clone of Elvis and JFK created by the United Nations One World Order, then taken sent back in time a hundred years to fake the moon landing. While he was at it, he programmed a computer to fake Obama's birth certificate. He was working for The Illuminati, but then bribed by North Korea's alien overlords.

My updated conspiracy theory.

He will also be responsible for programming Friend Computer.

Sorry, rereading some old Paranoia books right now.