Print

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

[Insanegame27]

Thank you, Strife, for demonstrating my case in a single point.
Which of these sounds worse? Being spat on for not wanting people to FUCKING DIE or being spat on for owning a machine which was designed for the sole purpose to KILL?

[Erkki]

Way to go Reelya.

Thank you, Strife, for demonstrating my case in a single point.
Which of these sounds worse? Being spat on for not wanting people to FUCKING DIE or being spat on for owning a machine which was designed for the sole purpose to KILL?

Because owning a firearm is totally the same thing as wanting to kill people.

I think overall its a good thing that the (mostly) Western world has lots and lots of people who cant imagine use for a firearm and at times even show signs of hysteria when discussing about them on an Internet message board. They've got to rise up and live in a world and societies with little to no existential dangers. Without war, violence, slavery, robbery, disease or famine. It's not something many individuals in the entire history of mankind have been able to enjoy.

[Sonlirain]

Being able to troll forums is something indeed new

[Cheeetar]

I am very glad we have wise internet strangers to tell us all about the dangers of the real world. They must have traveled the world, seen attack ships on fire, etc.

[Strife26]

Thank you, Strife, for demonstrating my case in a single point.
Which of these sounds worse? Being spat on for not wanting people to FUCKING DIE or being spat on for owning a machine which was designed for the sole purpose to KILL?

And thank you FOR demonstrating MINE.

[Sonlirain]

Thank you, Strife, for demonstrating my case in a single point.
Which of these sounds worse? Being spat on for not wanting people to FUCKING DIE or being spat on for owning a machine which was designed for the sole purpose to KILL?

And thank you FOR demonstrating MINE.

And YOU FOR demonstrating MINE!

And ME FOR DEMONSTRATING MINE!

[Cheeetar]

Thank you, Strife, for demonstrating my case in a single point.
Which of these sounds worse? Being spat on for not wanting people to FUCKING DIE or being spat on for owning a machine which was designed for the sole purpose to KILL?

And thank you FOR demonstrating MINE.

This is really nitpicky, but; Shouldn't you be capitalising 'you' in this sentence, rather than 'for'? You is what would naturally be emphasised.

[RedKing]

Can someone pop a cap in this thread's ass? Because it seems to have lost any connection to the actual events in Orlando and outlived its usefulness.

[Insanegame27]

Can someone pop a cap in this thread's ass?

Terminology is oddly fitting.

[Frumple]

I guess TBF could lock it until they notice some other bit of news of note? Or we could all agree to drop the current line of conversation. Or not and ignore RK, I guess :V

[RedKing]

Or not and ignore RK, I guess :V

Might as well, everyone else does. 

[Sonlirain]

What else can be added anyway?
It went the full mass shooting discussion cycle.

Shooting happened.
Identity of shooter revealed. (Some muslim)
Motivation of shooter revealed. (So deep in the closet that he snapped, also Islam.)
Debate over gun laws happened (and ended as usual with both sides playing squash and claiming victory from 2 separate rooms, buildings and possibly timelines)

There is literally nothing that can be added now unless something really big is revealed about the shooter but at this point who cares about him?
It's about the gun laws m8!

[Strife26]

Thank you, Strife, for demonstrating my case in a single point.
Which of these sounds worse? Being spat on for not wanting people to FUCKING DIE or being spat on for owning a machine which was designed for the sole purpose to KILL?

And thank you FOR demonstrating MINE.

This is really nitpicky, but; Shouldn't you be capitalising 'you' in this sentence, rather than 'for'? You is what would naturally be emphasised.

That was intentional. Throwing emotional emphasis on words with the capslock key does little to improve the discussion.

[Morrigi]

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Tell me, what militia are you a part of? Unless you answer that with the 'US armed forces' or 'military', the second amendment does not apply. The Army and Police fulfill the role of 'A well regulated militia'.

This is a willfully ignorant argument. The way it was intended to read, and the way the Supreme Court has interpreted it, means the following: A militia cannot function properly without arms, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Refusing to read plain English as it was written because of your political agenda is pathetic. You know things aren't about to change, so you just pretend that the rule of Constitutional law doesn't exist.

[Shadowlord]

A militia cannot function properly without arms, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That doesn't even make logical sense. "The people" is unrelated to "a militia."
Try some substitutions:
The military cannot function without tanks and warplanes, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear tanks and warplanes, shall not be infringed.
Mutually Assured Destruction cannot function without ICBMs, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear ICBMs, shall not be infringed.
The space program cannot function without ridiculously huge rockets, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear ridiculously huge rockets, shall not be infringed.