Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Shooting in Conn. School


  • Please log in to reply
1178 replies to this topic

#871 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 05:25 PM

I see flip flops within the NRA on expanding background checks and the overwhelming support within members of the gun owning public as well (running what ~80% support depending on sources) on that same subject.


The public face of the NRA has done anything but "flip-flop" on the issue.

God, I hate that phrase. Anyway.

Its implementation is where controversy may arise: Is the check going to be a simple background check on individuals or are we going to include serial numbers and types of weapons purchased, thus back-dooring registration and tracking (thereby explaining the rift between NRA board-members and the PAC's party-line)?


Is any of this, to you, a violation of the second amendment? If yes, please explain. If no, why are some against it?
Posted Image

#872 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 05:35 PM

Whoever Eddie Ray Routh is, he's more of a hero than Chris Kyle ever was. At least he took out a mass murderer instead of sniping women and children, writing a book about it, going on national TV media to brag about it, and profiting from it.


Wow, Chris Kyle was more of a hero than you, and the extent of your family will probably ever be. Keep being an obscure jackass, because that will be your significance.

#873 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 05:39 PM

http://www.wfaa.com/...-189536271.html

how many 'anecdotes' before some of you accept that something is a patterned problem?


You again?

Was it you or one of your cronies that stated how you don't see why people can't just shoot guns at ranges and stuff? Should they have to hold the guns for us just in case now too? Maybe only blanks at the ranges, just in case?

One side is disputing legitimate policy. Don't be obtuse.



I see you still haven't gotten around to defending your "ideas" huh? Taking a few pointers from the media on shocking us, and then aweing us with your "ideas" with no factual backup?


Is any of this, to you, a violation of the second amendment? If yes, please explain. If no, why are some against it?


Because of what it will eventually and inevitably lead to for one. It will be very ineffective in stopping the violence, and won't a list of all gun owners be handy if they decide confiscation is the only course of action that will stop the violence?

Edited by Knoell, 03 February 2013 - 05:51 PM.


#874 h3llbring3r

h3llbring3r

    Mecha Cocksmas 2 all

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 06:13 PM

Is any of this, to you, a violation of the second amendment? If yes, please explain. If no, why are some against it?


Again: The role of "registration" preceding confiscation is well documented in western societies, if it is something that must be conceded to prevent knee-jerk and unfounded prohibitions . . .so be it, but I'd still oppose it on those grounds.

Is it constitutional? Should one be afforded privacy in pursuing and applying a constitutional right? I've been enraged that anonymous free speech has being targeted on the internet. I think women choosing an abortion shouldn't be forced to have the state make their information public. It's certainly open to interpretation, and I'd be interested, but leery, to watch the courts test this.

As others have repeatedly stated in this thread, myself included, much of it has to do with the "legitimate sporting use" fallacy in regards to the 2A. Before the myrmidons respond with "muskets, polite society, this is the 21st century and other 'pablum'" most advocates follow the reasonably limited "arms in kind" prescription and interpretation (Scalia's vague dictem not withstanding).

The majority of gun owners willfully accept, endorse and already concede strict prohibitions on: AoW, NFA arms, suppressors, automatic weapons (read: what are by definition assault-rifles, via a de facto ban and the reasonable high hurdles of legal ownership for those ones that remain), and onerous constraints on the aforementioned and on all "destructive devices."

Yet despite all the above, opponents to this day still mindlessly scream "obstinance" and "you're a totalitarian who opposes all curbs and 'reasonable restrictions'" when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Those with significant experience and versed in arms become enraged at banning certain semi-automatics because of aesthetics (many of which actually make arms safer and simply more ergonomic) and prohibitions on mag capacities- it is just where a number of advocates draw the line, lest one accept the 2A doesn't really mean anything.

I know that in your choosen vocation you likely know the numbers, and are well aware that ~99% of gun realted crimes are not committed with what the opponent seek to prohibit/ban. You yourself have reflected on the poor impact (poor at best, according to flawed and debatable research) of the last AWB.

Sadly, the public at large has no political will to go after or otherwise constrain "uncle Willy's shotgun" and low capacity handguns. Despite the fact those arms constitute what is many times more significant role in homicides by firearms (but I assume you already know this from your previous statements). So the opposition uses panic to nip around the edges of the 2A and impact non-hunters and/or non "sporting firearms" (despite 3 gun sports being the most popular and fastest growing segment of target shooting) and instead goes after arms & that class of gun which it finds morally repugnant (since the numbers don't justify the rationale behind the AWB) and an uninformed and emotional public will give-up on in the ephemeral panic.

My Trade list:

http://www.cheapassg...ad.php?t=173460
Going dark on the internet for two weeks during move.


#875 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 07:14 PM

I can't wait until Obama is elected Dictator Fo Lyfe Yo! in 2014 so he can take away everybody's guns...maybe except black people because Hitler. I'm going to put that on my Shit That Won't Ever Happen List along with the government confiscating everyone's gun because of some semantic bullshit about a "backdoor" registry and slippery slope.

It's fairly obvious that gun fetishists have absolutely no interest in providing ideas for stemming gun violence when their entire defense is a nebulous concept of "tyranny" and superficial understanding of legislation as if gun control is about stopping every single event. Hell, if we can't cure cancer, then why the Fuck fight it or even treat it, right? It's goddamn looney tunes. There isn't even any interest in learning about what causes those crimes because they're treated like they exist in a vacuum.

Thanks to the PATRIOT Act, we already have a "backdoor" registry of firearms and it would only take a slight push to consolidate it into a a nationwide database because of "national security." And what were the gun nuts and conservatives doing back then? Jerking each other off about freedom fries, respecting the office of the president, and calling anyone that didn't want an all out war a traitor and/or treasonous. It's as if FFL logs are just around to kill trees and the Feds/ATF/Illuminati to put software on your computer to keep tabs on you. Does the saying, "If you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of" ring a bell? Well now you're going to have to eat it when shit you don't like gets served up. Just desserts and all that...

If the government was serious about confiscating guns, a vast majority of freepers would've been disarmed by now as all mechanisms to articulate "just cause" have been legally established and there'd be no way to keep it quiet.

#876 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 07:23 PM

I can't wait until Obama is elected Dictator Fo Lyfe Yo! in 2014 so he can take away everybody's guns...maybe except black people because Hitler. I'm going to put that on my Shit That Won't Ever Happen List along with the government confiscating everyone's gun because of some semantic bullshit about a "backdoor" registry and slippery slope.

It's fairly obvious that gun fetishists have absolutely no interest in providing ideas for stemming gun violence when their entire defense is a nebulous concept of "tyranny" and superficial understanding of legislation as if gun control is about stopping every single event. Hell, if we can't cure cancer, then why the Fuck fight it or even treat it, right? It's goddamn looney tunes. There isn't even any interest in learning about what causes those crimes because they're treated like they exist in a vacuum.

Thanks to the PATRIOT Act, we already have a "backdoor" registry of firearms and it would only take a slight push to consolidate it into a a nationwide database because of "national security." And what were the gun nuts and conservatives doing back then? Jerking each other off about freedom fries, respecting the office of the president, and calling anyone that didn't want an all out war a traitor and/or treasonous. It's as if FFL logs are just around to kill trees and the Feds/ATF/Illuminati to put software on your computer to keep tabs on you. Does the saying, "If you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of" ring a bell? Well now you're going to have to eat it when shit you don't like gets served up. Just desserts and all that...

If the government was serious about confiscating guns, a vast majority of freepers would've been disarmed by now as all mechanisms to articulate "just cause" have been legally established and there'd be no way to keep it quiet.


Shocker, the normal attack on the opposing side without mentioning why any of your ideas are good ones. Surprise!

So I am assuming you believe the "if you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of" situation now then? You pointing out people's hypocrisy is pointing out your own...dumb dumb.

#877 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 07:30 PM

Again: The role of "registration" preceding confiscation is well documented in western societies, if it is something that must be conceded to prevent knee-jerk and unfounded prohibitions . . .so be it, but I'd still oppose it on those grounds.

Is it constitutional? Should one be afforded privacy in pursuing and applying a constitutional right? I've been enraged that anonymous free speech has being targeted on the internet. I think women choosing an abortion shouldn't be forced to have the state make their information public. It's certainly open to interpretation, and I'd be interested, but leery, to watch the courts test this.

As others have repeatedly stated in this thread, myself included, much of it has to do with the "legitimate sporting use" fallacy in regards to the 2A. Before the myrmidons respond with "muskets, polite society, this is the 21st century and other 'pablum'" most advocates follow the reasonably limited "arms in kind" prescription and interpretation (Scalia's vague dictem not withstanding).

The majority of gun owners willfully accept, endorse and already concede strict prohibitions on: AoW, NFA arms, suppressors, automatic weapons (read: what are by definition assault-rifles, via a de facto ban and the reasonable high hurdles of legal ownership for those ones that remain), and onerous constraints on the aforementioned and on all "destructive devices."

Yet despite all the above, opponents to this day still mindlessly scream "obstinance" and "you're a totalitarian who opposes all curbs and 'reasonable restrictions'" when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Those with significant experience and versed in arms become enraged at banning certain semi-automatics because of aesthetics (many of which actually make arms safer and simply more ergonomic) and prohibitions on mag capacities- it is just where a number of advocates draw the line, lest one accept the 2A doesn't really mean anything.

I know that in your choosen vocation you likely know the numbers, and are well aware that ~99% of gun realted crimes are not committed with what the opponent seek to prohibit/ban. You yourself have reflected on the poor impact (poor at best, according to flawed and debatable research) of the last AWB.

Sadly, the public at large has no political will to go after or otherwise constrain "uncle Willy's shotgun" and low capacity handguns. Despite the fact those arms constitute what is many times more significant role in homicides by firearms (but I assume you already know this from your previous statements). So the opposition uses panic to nip around the edges of the 2A and impact non-hunters and/or non "sporting firearms" (despite 3 gun sports being the most popular and fastest growing segment of target shooting) and instead goes after arms & that class of gun which it finds morally repugnant (since the numbers don't justify the rationale behind the AWB) and an uninformed and emotional public will give-up on in the ephemeral panic.


So, then, it's constitutional.
Posted Image

#878 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 07:34 PM

Shocker, the normal attack on the opposing side without mentioning why any of your ideas are good ones. Surprise!

I'm still waiting for you to do that search. It takes less time than it took you to type up that sentence.

So I am assuming you believe the "if you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of" situation now then? You pointing out people's hypocrisy is pointing out your own...dumb dumb.

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Nothing gets by you!:rofl:

#879 h3llbring3r

h3llbring3r

    Mecha Cocksmas 2 all

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 07:36 PM

blah, blah, blah Hitler. never happen.

Blash, blah, race-bait. Blah, blah, fetishists . . . . have absolutely no interest in providing ideas for stemming gun violence (despite that fact that the proposed legislation has no demonstrable evidence that it would impact the numbers anything other than nearly immeasurably despite a disparate impact on many).

Thanks to the PATRIOT Act, we already have a "backdoor" registry of firearms and it would only take a slight push to consolidate it into a a nationwide database because of "national security." And what were the gun nuts and conservatives doing back then? (really, tracks individual ownership you say?)

Just desserts and all that...

If the government was serious about confiscating guns, a vast majority of freepers would've been disarmed by now as all mechanisms to articulate "just cause" have been legally established and there'd be no way to keep it quiet.

Fixed.

I love you DohDough you're wonderfully predictable and consistent.
:lol:

An emotional catalyst, individual registration and a level of political will (even if fleeting) is still needed.

Most 2A activist I know have really raged and lobbied against the NDAA and Patriot Acts and haven't been jerking themselves as you so eloquently put it.

So, then, it's constitutional.


Is it?

My Trade list:

http://www.cheapassg...ad.php?t=173460
Going dark on the internet for two weeks during move.


#880 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 07:44 PM

If you have to hem and haw about it the way you have, it's pretty evident that you haven't a leg to stand on in terms of claiming it is unconstitutional. you'd have some kind of legal precedent to fall back on, or more likely, some overwraught libertarian philosophy as to why it is. you presented neither; instead, you go on and on about, how since gun owners aren't fighting for unrestricted access to nuclear weapons, their opposition to current issues up for debate is somehow "reasonable."

The web you wove is far removed from the issue of constitutionality. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, indeed.
Posted Image

#881 h3llbring3r

h3llbring3r

    Mecha Cocksmas 2 all

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 07:46 PM

I presented neither? Strange.

So, in your reductive assessment, you posit the 2A amendment actually doesn't mean anything?

My Trade list:

http://www.cheapassg...ad.php?t=173460
Going dark on the internet for two weeks during move.


#882 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 08:18 PM

Fixed.

I love you DohDough you're wonderfully predictable and consistent.
:lol:

An emotional catalyst, individual registration and a level of political will (even if fleeting) is still needed.

Most 2A activist I know have really raged and lobbied against the NDAA and Patriot Acts and haven't been jerking themselves as you so eloquently put it.

Are you deathly allergic to context? I find it hard to believe that this is the first time you've encountered the subject matter of my satire...or maybe ironic usage of freeper tropes is just something you're offended by.

But seriously, what the hell kind of information do you think is on FFL paperwork anyways? Stick figures of someone shooting a gun?

#883 h3llbring3r

h3llbring3r

    Mecha Cocksmas 2 all

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 08:46 PM

But seriously, what the hell kind of information do you think is on FFL paperwork anyways? Stick figures of someone shooting a gun?


Allergic to context? Seriously? It's exactly and specifically in regards to that context that I harbor concern RE: back-ground check. (We know how opponents want a chain-of-custody, chain-of-custody, chain-of-custody.)

Again, was my statement clearly not just in relation to and clearly about background checks on private sales (in the context of them being not being currently traced via FFL transfer or available for a 3312.1) but in exactly how that would be executed?

How are those private sales tracked now? You just said they were & the Gov't had all the prerequisite knowledge and that mechanisms were in place for a total confiscation.

Now do you believe the new form, system or even app for a p2p sale under this amorphous and speculative legislation would be identical to an FFL 4473 or other transfer paper work? It need not do so if it intends to accomplish the single goal of a background check request. A form minus serial number and weapon make/type would work would it not? (And still allow for a degree of privacy).

This is the impetus for what seems to be the disparity in the community.

Same exact set of rules for p2p/private sales as a FFL licensee? Doubt that will happen, I don't see Uncle Willy holding an FFL log book and doing identical paperwork to sell his nephew a shotgun for a $1.

What's the goal and which do you think would have a better chance of passage?

I know many advocates would support the implementation background check, but possibly coupled with that form is the hypothetical all encompassing mechanism that you mock, which they readily fear and have watched in a single generation used to disarm others.

Aside: We love your tropes, ad-hominems, cliches, and catch phrases DD- you wouldn't be you without them. Always elevating the debate. :)

I do imagine you have a macro to autofill the word fetish. :bouncy:

My Trade list:

http://www.cheapassg...ad.php?t=173460
Going dark on the internet for two weeks during move.


#884 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 09:16 PM

I presented neither? Strange.

So, in your reductive assessment, you posit the 2A amendment actually doesn't mean anything?


I said nothing of the sort. I asked if you thought background checks or registrations were violations of the 2nd Amendment. You stuttered; ergo I'm detecting that you don't have a basis to argue on.

I think neither can be remotely thought of as violating the second amendment. No reasonable person would think so.
Posted Image

#885 h3llbring3r

h3llbring3r

    Mecha Cocksmas 2 all

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 09:22 PM

I said nothing of the sort. I asked if you thought background checks or registrations were violations of the 2nd Amendment. You stuttered; ergo I'm detecting that you don't have a basis to argue on.

I think neither can be remotely thought of as violating the second amendment. No reasonable person would think so.

Sorry from your context, I thought you were talking about an AWB in terms of constitutionality. I thought I was clear in the ambiguities and constitutional questions regarding registration.
Again, I would reiterate exactly what I said in that post: Do you have a right to privacy when you are invoking/pursuing another constitutional right?
Was that obtuse?

Even more simply put: Because you, I or anyone else wants to exercise our 2nd amendment rights must we forgo our 4th?

My Trade list:

http://www.cheapassg...ad.php?t=173460
Going dark on the internet for two weeks during move.


#886 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 10:22 PM

Every goddamned Libertarian thinks of themselves as a Wordsmith. An Oedipus complex for dear mother Ayn, perhaps?

Are background checks and/or registries constitutional or not? It's not a complex fucking question, I don't need a wanking attempt at literary genius. I'd like a "yes," a "no," or a "maybe" with some kind of elaboration in any case. You ain't Socrates Johnson, friend, so answer in terms of declarative statements.

Weren't you..oh, never mind, that was temporaryscars. Yep, nevermind.
Posted Image

#887 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 10:28 PM

Every goddamned Libertarian thinks of themselves as a Wordsmith. An Oedipus complex for dear mother Ayn, perhaps?

Are background checks and/or registries constitutional or not? It's not a complex fucking question, I don't need a wanking attempt at literary genius. I'd like a "yes," a "no," or a "maybe" with some kind of elaboration in any case. You ain't Socrates Johnson, friend, so answer in terms of declarative statements.

Weren't you..oh, never mind, that was temporaryscars. Yep, nevermind.



Still working on those facts besides emotional "we have to try something, won't someone think of the children!" to back up your legislation? You should be one to talk on answering people.

#888 h3llbring3r

h3llbring3r

    Mecha Cocksmas 2 all

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 10:54 PM

Every goddamned Libertarian thinks of themselves as a Wordsmith. An Oedipus complex for dear mother Ayn, perhaps?

Are background checks and/or registries constitutional or not? It's not a complex fucking question, I don't need a wanking attempt at literary genius. I'd like a "yes," a "no," or a "maybe" with some kind of elaboration in any case. You ain't Socrates Johnson, friend, so answer in terms of declarative statements.

Weren't you..oh, never mind, that was temporaryscars. Yep, nevermind.


So asking a question instead of being condescending or acting authoritative makes me what?

I'm not trying to hold Socratic class here, good Dr.

I'm asking an earnest unanswered question? A private person 2 person firearm sale is not transpiring via a business, and it's not legally occurring across state lines without an FFL intermediary? But you already know this.

Do you hold, as in my hypotheticals, that we forsake our forth amendment rights when we invoke or exercise another or not? Let's hope not.

So I posit most proponents support a back-ground check but as far as the constitutionality goes I plead, probably not but IDK. Still, one has to demonstrate harm to bring a challenge to it should it pass. Unless it is a clear violation, prima facia.

I'd argue that involuntary/mandated registration of a private party gun sale (in comparative terms of a protected right, unlike buying/selling a car) would be more so of a privacy breech than just a back-ground check alone- but the constitutionality would be untested? Am I wrong?

In the end, the arbiters of this won't likely be motivated by the constitutionality will they?

As for being a wordsmith, sorry if you have to read more and think more about what I am saying than what I normally read in this sub-forum.

I'm certainly guilty of skimming myself, no harm done unless someone refuses to admit it and then acts offended and lashes out over it.
__________________


Perhaps I can put something more in your wheelhouse since you don't want to read and address my thoughts.

What are your thoughts on Kleck and does he have anything new that's not behind an academic/pay-wall?

Most of what I find from him seems dated, but still relevant in relation to the AWB. I only ask as 1. He's local to me now and 2. Trying to decide on other stuff and found him through Heller and his influence there.

_________________

Or you could just call me a NAZI or imply I might be a racist . . . again. Finished skimming the Trayvon thread for any racist remarks on my behalf yet?

My Trade list:

http://www.cheapassg...ad.php?t=173460
Going dark on the internet for two weeks during move.


#889 thrustbucket

thrustbucket

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 11:21 PM

http://www.wfaa.com/...-189536271.html

how many 'anecdotes' before some of you accept that something is a patterned problem?


I'm glad you brought this up. Of course there is a patterned problem. We have more violent people committing more violent acts.

However, there were more guns per capita 50 years ago. There were far more guns per capita 100 years ago. Yet kids killing kids with guns was nearly unheard of until about the early 90's and it's become more and more frequent.

It's also interesting to note that gun ownership density is far greater outside the big cities, yet the big cities are where all these crimes happen.

So, if the mere existence or numbers of guns is not the problem, then what is? I'm not sure yet, but I sure wish our politicians were interested in finding out. Sadly, that probably won't happen as it might shed light on their own failed social policy at the same time.

#890 thrustbucket

thrustbucket

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 11:27 PM



An immigrant shows up at a hearing about guns. I'd elect this guy.

#891 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 February 2013 - 03:59 PM

Every goddamned Libertarian thinks of themselves as a Wordsmith. An Oedipus complex for dear mother Ayn, perhaps?

Are background checks and/or registries constitutional or not? It's not a complex fucking question, I don't need a wanking attempt at literary genius. I'd like a "yes," a "no," or a "maybe" with some kind of elaboration in any case. You ain't Socrates Johnson, friend, so answer in terms of declarative statements.

Weren't you..oh, never mind, that was temporaryscars. Yep, nevermind.

Doesn't that just drive you up the damn wall? When you ask someone a question to which a yes or no answer would suffice, and they go babbling on and STILL do not answer the question. Worst part is that you can usually tell they're doing this simply because they don't know the answer.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#892 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 February 2013 - 04:17 PM

they're doing this simply because they don't know the answer.


disagree; they don't want to admit the answer, or, rather, they don't want to admit that the premise they ideologically disagree with is a thoroughly plausible interpretation.

epistemic closure, my friend.
Posted Image

#893 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 February 2013 - 04:31 PM

disagree; they don't want to admit the answer, or, rather, they don't want to admit that the premise they ideologically disagree with is a thoroughly plausible interpretation.

epistemic closure, my friend.

I just meant in general, not necessarily in a debate or argument situation. Just as an example, last week was asking someone a question about policy here at work, couldn't give me as straight answer. Was a yes or no question, still couldn't answer. Not wanting to admit the answer may be true, I suppose it depends on what you're asking someone and whether they even can answer the question. Of course in that case it would make more sense to simply say "I don't know".
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#894 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 February 2013 - 04:31 PM

"Epistemic closure" LOLZ...I always loved that term.

#895 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 February 2013 - 04:48 PM

Isn't that more or less just confirmation bias? Seems like it entails a bubble either way.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#896 Feeding the Abscess

Feeding the Abscess

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:37 PM

Wow, Chris Kyle was more of a hero than you, and the extent of your family will probably ever be. Keep being an obscure jackass, because that will be your significance.


I'd proudly be an obscure jackass over sniping women and children from a mile away as part of an occupying and invading force, then calling them savages and wishing I'd killed more of them in a book that brought me fame and fortune.

Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market

 

ThroneofSeth.png


#897 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 February 2013 - 08:17 PM

He certainly sounds like the typical thick headed heroes we've been given lately.

edit- I'd also like to point out how absolutely stupid it is to take a guy known to be suffering from PTSD to a motherfucking shooting range.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#898 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 04 February 2013 - 09:05 PM

I'd proudly be an obscure jackass over sniping women and children from a mile away as part of an occupying and invading force, then calling them savages and wishing I'd killed more of them in a book that brought me fame and fortune.


Why do you hate America? :roll:
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#899 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 04 February 2013 - 09:11 PM

Why do you hate America? :roll:


I'd proudly be an obscure jackass over sniping women and children from a mile away as part of an occupying and invading force, then calling them savages and wishing I'd killed more of them in a book that brought me fame and fortune.


He does make a valid point..

Whether you murder for fun or murder on orders, you are still a murderer

#900 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 05 February 2013 - 01:33 AM

He certainly sounds like the typical thick headed heroes we've been given lately.

edit- I'd also like to point out how absolutely stupid it is to take a guy known to be suffering from PTSD to a motherfucking shooting range.


You are neither a doctor, nor have you suffered from PTSD. Nor have you helped people who had PTSD. You have no basis for your opinion here. As usual you take a scenario and apply your own brand of "common sense" to it, and believe it is so obvious why someone should or shouldn't do something because you read a single newstory. It is beyond irritating.

As for the rest of you jackasses, keep it up. You make everyone proud. :roll:
Please inform me of specific situations in which he should be deemed worthy of such little respect when he was murdered?

Mykevermin, still haven't gotten those statistics, or something, ANYTHING backing up your proposed legislation...tough to find them huh? Maybe if you give it enough time, we will all forget the flawed points you were trying to make, and you can start fresh.