Bought a Russian Saiga AK47.

[Firehawk]

Originally Posted by dandjdad

Fair enough. Okay, I'll take your word for it. Still too cryptic an article to prove anything, tho...

What proof from an article would convince you? What exactly are you looking for?

[Firehawk]

Originally Posted by dandjdad

Dan, did you ever see the movie "Groundhog's Day"? That's what your post is like. You've repeated almost verbatim what Hawk has already said, right down to the "la la land" phrase. (This of course presupposes Dan and Hawk are in fact two DIFFERENT individuals. Has anybody ever seen the two of them together in the same room at the same time? Hmmmmm....) So anyway Dan, I've answered your post already. I will not do it again, and I don't really know how I can take you seriously from here on out. If you want my response, please read past pages. Somehow though, I suspect you don't really care.

So please Dan, and everybody else jumping in now, I implore you, read past posts. Repeating stuff that was written two pages previously just makes it look like the new poster is at best careless and at worst a plagurizer. And I know you don't want to be considered either of these, right Dan?

Okay, next...

Well, Luke knows Dan, and there's been heated arguments in the past between Dan and me, so I doubt we're the same, lmao. We were in quite heated debates over powerlifting some years ago now...I'm sure that if it were the case that we were the same person, I think there's plenty more to do with my/his time than to argue with ourselves...LMFAO.

Besides, I'll openly admit it right now that I do not have the balls to attempt a 40 rep set of squats like Dan.

Again I ask, what is it exactly that you're looking for in an article that would 'do it for you'?

[Firehawk]

Originally Posted by westside24

LOL Crack is good....

No I was just saying... You said it was a half assed attempt by the law to get drugs and weapons off the streets...

Then what do you propose needs to be done to be a full effort to get them off the streets???

Cause you are living in la-la-land if you think that theres a plan to collect every gun out there.

Im bout to go read my NRA magazine, and watch my NRA video of how the Gatlin gun was created and when it was made popular in warfare, and what it did in the ww's and how it helped defeat our enemies

War = population control, nuff said. LMFAO j/k

[westside24]

Originally Posted by Firehawk

War = population control, nuff said. LMFAO j/k

DUDE THANK YOU! its sad I kno... But I thought I was the only sick individual who thought like that!

if we didnt have war, we wouldve probably over populated the earth already... Nature or fate or god will have its way of making a balance again.
whether it be a gigantic meteor kill half the people on earth, or a bird flu pandemic, or an actual all out ww3, or a zombie/werewolf/alien attack...

theres too many people on earth, its comparible to forests that get overcrowded with trees... unfortunately those trees need burned down every now n then...

I feel like n asshole everytime I think about that.

One other thing though... there is a more ethical way to population control... china did or still employs this tactic... You arent allowed to have more than 2 kids! plain and simple. alot of countries could do that, or make it so they could only have 1 kid. I think this is something america needs to look into also to maybe let our economy catch up??

[dandjdad]

Originally Posted by westside24

LOL Crack is good....

No I was just saying... You said it was a half assed attempt by the law to get drugs and weapons off the streets...

Then what do you propose needs to be done to be a full effort to get them off the streets???

Cause you are living in la-la-land if you think that theres a plan to collect every gun out there.

Im bout to go read my NRA magazine, and watch my NRA video of how the Gatlin gun was created and when it was made popular in warfare, and what it did in the ww's and how it helped defeat our enemies

Now you're being a wise guy...pretty funny response, tho...

[dandjdad]

Originally Posted by Firehawk

What proof from an article would convince you? What exactly are you looking for?

Something with more detail, perhaps? How do we not know that guy didn't overreact? How do we know that if he just didn't slap those two punks across their heads, they wouldn't have run away like little snivelling idiots? You assume from that article, "Boy, it's a good thing that guy was carrying his gun. He would've been dead otherwise!" Can you really get all that from a fifty word snippet in the newspaper? Well, you're intuition is a hell of a lot better than mine and most every other human being. Please mention that to the judge that should you ever get called for jury duty.

[dandjdad]

Originally Posted by Firehawk

Again I ask, what is it exactly that you're looking for in an article that would 'do it for you'?

See my previous response. Also, just as an addendum, when submitting an article, please ask yourself "Could I prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the presence of a gun would have been a positive thing for the outcome of this story." That's why I think way to much was assumed with the "Sowers" submission. There's no way to say that this guy would have gotten to his gun quick enough. There's no way to say that those three punks wouldn't have disarmed him and gone on a three state killing spree of their own.

See how that works? I want you to find me evidence in which there can be no argument that the presence of a gun would have made a certain situation better--BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT.

And there, my friends, is the rub. It will be difficult, if not damn near impossible, to find a civilian circumstance in which the presence of a gun would have been the solution to a problem, rather than the cause of a problem or the beginning of a bigger problem.

Let's put it another way. Remember the two examples I presented earlier? The three year old girl who was paralyzed by a stray bullet and the highway sniper? Well, before I posted that, I asked myself "If there had been a nationwide moratorium on guns in the US like there is in the UK, or even if guns had been more difficult to acquire, is it likely that this situation would never have happened at all? Would the absence of guns, rather than the presence of guns, have made this a better ending BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT?"

The answer for both these questions for both these instances is a resounding "YES". There is no refuting that. (A 3 yr. old girl is crippled because of guns, and some drivers drove ther cars off the roads because of guns. Neither of these situations would have ever, ever, EVER happened were it not for guns. Period. Having additional guns wouldn't have solved a damn thing.) I know people tried when I initially posted it, but there really is no possible way to contradict the above conclusion.

So now what you have to do, Hawk, is find a situation, and ask yourself THE EXACT OPPOSITE QUESTIONS that I asked myself above. That's what I'm looking for...so good luck with that--you're never gonna find anything.

And as an aside, I bet you could do a 40 rep squat if you really put you're mind to it...

[dandjdad]

Originally Posted by westside24

DUDE THANK YOU! its sad I kno... But I thought I was the only sick individual who thought like that!

if we didnt have war, we wouldve probably over populated the earth already... Nature or fate or god will have its way of making a balance again.
whether it be a gigantic meteor kill half the people on earth, or a bird flu pandemic, or an actual all out ww3, or a zombie/werewolf/alien attack...

theres too many people on earth, its comparible to forests that get overcrowded with trees... unfortunately those trees need burned down every now n then...

I feel like n asshole everytime I think about that.

One other thing though... there is a more ethical way to population control... china did or still employs this tactic... You arent allowed to have more than 2 kids! plain and simple. alot of countries could do that, or make it so they could only have 1 kid. I think this is something america needs to look into also to maybe let our economy catch up??

I'm unsure about the war thing, but I'm totally on board with the overpopulation thing and the China thing with you guys here.

There was a cartoon in the paper a number of years back; the backdrop was a bumper to bumper congested, hazy highway in front of a smoggy, blackened background. To the left were two deer next to a sign reading "Deer Season Starts Today". One of the deers was speaking to the other, and the caption read, "Why don't they try to thin out THEIR OWN DAMN HERD for a change?"

I'm probably not doing it justice, but hopefully you get the gist.

[Firehawk]

Originally Posted by dandjdad

Something with more detail, perhaps? How do we not know that guy didn't overreact? How do we know that if he just didn't slap those two punks across their heads, they wouldn't have run away like little snivelling idiots? You assume from that article, "Boy, it's a good thing that guy was carrying his gun. He would've been dead otherwise!" Can you really get all that from a fifty word snippet in the newspaper? Well, you're intuition is a hell of a lot better than mine and most every other human being. Please mention that to the judge that should you ever get called for jury duty.

Been called twice...

It was on the news as well, went into a little more detail.

[Firehawk]

Originally Posted by dandjdad

See my previous response. Also, just as an addendum, when submitting an article, please ask yourself "Could I prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the presence of a gun would have been a positive thing for the outcome of this story." That's why I think way to much was assumed with the "Sowers" submission. There's no way to say that this guy would have gotten to his gun quick enough. There's no way to say that those three punks wouldn't have disarmed him and gone on a three state killing spree of their own.

See how that works? I want you to find me evidence in which there can be no argument that the presence of a gun would have made a certain situation better--BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT.

And there, my friends, is the rub. It will be difficult, if not damn near impossible, to find a civilian circumstance in which the presence of a gun would have been the solution to a problem, rather than the cause of a problem or the beginning of a bigger problem.

Let's put it another way. Remember the two examples I presented earlier? The three year old girl who was paralyzed by a stray bullet and the highway sniper? Well, before I posted that, I asked myself "If there had been a nationwide moratorium on guns in the US like there is in the UK, or even if guns had been more difficult to acquire, is it likely that this situation would never have happened at all? Would the absence of guns, rather than the presence of guns, have made this a better ending BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT?"

The answer for both these questions for both these instances is a resounding "YES". There is no refuting that. (A 3 yr. old girl is crippled because of guns, and some drivers drove ther cars off the roads because of guns. Neither of these situations would have ever, ever, EVER happened were it not for guns. Period. Having additional guns wouldn't have solved a damn thing.) I know people tried when I initially posted it, but there really is no possible way to contradict the above conclusion.

So now what you have to do, Hawk, is find a situation, and ask yourself THE EXACT OPPOSITE QUESTIONS that I asked myself above. That's what I'm looking for...so good luck with that--you're never gonna find anything.

And as an aside, I bet you could do a 40 rep squat if you really put you're mind to it...

I think if there was evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt then nobody would debate this heavily debated topic that doesnt' stop here on this board. If there was evidence like that, we wouldn't be debating it...

I'm still waiting for your evidence...it's clear that there isn't any that you can find to support your claim (and yes I think you at least half-ass attempted to google dsomething to find it, despite your continued statements about not caring enough to find any". I mean, you could seriously shut everyone up if you could find overwhelming, without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt evidence, to support your claim. Which, you cannot. And that statement you made about that little girl likely not catching a stray bullet...that CAN be refuted, key word is 'likely'. Obviously taking guns off the streets will increase chances of it not happening, but "likely" not happening? You can't say that, and there's nothing to back the fact that you can come to that conclusion, because as Dan stated already, you take the guns out of the responsible ciitizens and leave them to the criminals...how does that make any situation safer?

I doubt many people would disagree with you that if there was a way to get every single gun off the streets, from bad guys and good guys, that would be the ideal situation. Unfortunately that just won't ever happen. Are we still in Kansas, Toto?

[Gooseneck]

Originally Posted by Firehawk

War = population control, nuff said. LMFAO j/k

As gungho as I am, I'm going to have to disagree with you here, even though it is just an opinion. Casualties of war is an unfortunate thing and to a degree it does "tame" the population, however it is more rational to say that population control is manipulated by natural disasters and cataclysmic events. Tsunami's, Hurricanes, volcano's, meteor's etc etc. The amount of people that die in world wide conflicts is a minuscule fraction of the billions who roam the earth. That's like taking a cup of water out of a swimming pool and saying you lowered the water level.

[Firehawk]

Originally Posted by Gooseneck

As gungho as I am, I'm going to have to disagree with you here, even though it is just an opinion. Casualties of war is an unfortunate thing and to a degree it does "tame" the population, however it is more rational to say that population control is manipulated by natural disasters and cataclysmic events. Tsunami's, Hurricanes, volcano's, meteor's etc etc. The amount of people that die in world wide conflicts is a minuscule fraction of the billions who roam the earth. That's like taking a cup of water out of a swimming pool and saying you lowered the water level.

I was just joking

[Gooseneck]

I noticed that, I was really just directing that at the people who really do believe that. Sorry bro.

[dandjdad]

Originally Posted by Firehawk

I think if there was evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt then nobody would debate this heavily debated topic that doesnt' stop here on this board. If there was evidence like that, we wouldn't be debating it...

I'm still waiting for your evidence...it's clear that there isn't any that you can find to support your claim (and yes I think you at least half-ass attempted to google dsomething to find it, despite your continued statements about not caring enough to find any". I mean, you could seriously shut everyone up if you could find overwhelming, without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt evidence, to support your claim. Which, you cannot. And that statement you made about that little girl likely not catching a stray bullet...that CAN be refuted, key word is 'likely'. Obviously taking guns off the streets will increase chances of it not happening, but "likely" not happening? You can't say that, and there's nothing to back the fact that you can come to that conclusion, because as Dan stated already, you take the guns out of the responsible ciitizens and leave them to the criminals...how does that make any situation safer?

I doubt many people would disagree with you that if there was a way to get every single gun off the streets, from bad guys and good guys, that would be the ideal situation. Unfortunately that just won't ever happen. Are we still in Kansas, Toto?

"Phil? Phil Connors? I thought that was you!"

***

Thanks for your comments. Really. Not only are they much appreciated, but they're also fresh, exciting, and prove a ton. I mean that. I do. From the very bottom of my heart. Seriously.

But, for the tenth time, I will reiterate: (*BROKEN RECORD ALERT*), I don't know why you find it so hard to believe that guns can be completely removed from a society. Look to other countries, my friend, look to other countries...last time I heard, the UK had never experienced a drive by shooting in its history. And what, I ask you, is a drive by shooting a by-product of? Hold on a sec, I bet you'll need a hint...

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

You ready?

Ok, here it is...

"Well, you've never heard of a drive by stabbing, have you?" (*BAH-DUM-CHA*)



Thank you! Thank you very much! Good night, folks, you've been just a wonderful audience! Remember, tip your waitresses well, and please be sure to get yourselves home safely.

{Curtain closes}
{Spotlight dims}
{Credits roll}

THE END

"No matter. Neither of us will change the other's opinion. So be it."--Andy

[westside24]

Im still waiting to hear how the government would go about getting the guns off the streets? you said there attempt was half assed to get drugs off the street, it would be the same attempt to get guns off the street.... point being that no matter how hard the law tries, the guns wont get off the streets (making it a half assed attempt according to you) So I wanna hear what you propose they would do to make a full fledged effort?


please I just want n answer.... an answer for me would be like AA from this thread.