The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='IRHari']Looks like cfootball1 reported camoor for teh personal attacks.[/QUOTE]
nope.

[quote name='willardhaven']From his posts, Cfootball seems like he's on drugs or a little off.[/QUOTE]
No drugs for me, not after the incident.


Piers Morgan just tried to find the craziest guy he could find to make us look bad. Instead of someone that can have an inteligent debate, like Ted Nugent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMso12zeYDQ
 
[quote name='cfootball1']Piers Morgan just tried to find the craziest guy he could find to make us look bad. Instead of someone that can have an inteligent debate, like Ted Nugent.[/QUOTE]

You have an extremely unique definition of "intelligent debate." Provided you can actually spell it, I suppose.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']From his posts, Cfootball seems like he's on drugs or a little off.[/QUOTE]

It's because of the Canadian Football. The 110yd field just messes with people.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']please stop this canard. gun control = gun control.

gun control ≠ taking all of every gun you own.

we can't have a reasonable discussion until this bullshit stops. we may never agree on gun control at all, but you, at the very least, have to stop bullshitting about the position of those you disagree with.[/QUOTE]

I think we all know what position everybody is on and what gun control means. But we also all know that the gun control you want now is just the start of a slippery slope. Sure, all they want now is our assault rifles. But once they have those, they'll be asking to take away handguns, then all non-hunting rifles, etc.

We all agree with you that there shouldn't be idiots running around shooting up schools. But it kind of comes with gun ownership. We don't have a problem with safety, we have a problem with restricting the rights of the masses because of the actions of a few. Banning assault rifles because of these shootings would be like banning large vehicles because of these people.

There are dangers everywhere, we can't eliminate them all. If you want to be completely safe, lock yourself in an underground bunker. Because even if we ban all guns, somebody, somewhere is going to come up with a fucked up way of killing lots of people.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']But we also all know that the gun control you want now is just the start of a slippery slope.[/QUOTE]

1) um, no.

2) this is why we can't have an adult discussion.
 
Is this similar to not being able to have an adult discussion about health care reform because certian folks like to sum up the view points of others as "You just want poor people to die."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']1) um, no.

2) this is why we can't have an adult discussion.[/QUOTE]

Funny you say that since there's no possible way anybody could know one way or another. I'd rather be on the side of caution than have our gun laws be like England's in 20 years.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']1) um, no.

2) this is why we can't have an adult discussion.[/QUOTE]
Everything is a slippery slope, you ever notice that? We can't do A because if we do, then we might do B sometime in the future. It's all based on what could happen. Of course you get people saying "rather be safe than sorry....", well in that case, lets ban guns outright, all of them. Because wouldn't we be rather safe than sorry in banning them? If we only ban assault rifles again, someone might commit a crime with a handgun, better to ban them all and be sure, right? Right? RIGHT?

No, of course not, but for some reason they can't see that it's the same logic when it's used against them. The better safe than sorry argument is only valid when they're using it apparently.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Republicans want old people to die in the streets and everyone else to kill each other with assault rifles.[/QUOTE]

Ironically, people killing each other with firearms is a daily occurrence in major Democratic strongholds.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ernight-shootings-marquette-park-neighborhood

A 24-year-old man was killed and at least eight others were wounded in overnight gun violence on the city's West and South Sides, according to police.
Click to expand...

This is just August 9th.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/chicago-homicide-rate-alr_n_2433329.html

They are already taking away the guns. Perhaps it's time to look at the no-snitch code and then go from there.

McCarthy on Tuesday also pointed out that the city's police force has already confiscated 180 guns in the new year.

Last year, 506 homicides were logged in Chicago, only 25 percent of which were either solved, as of Friday, or cleared "exceptionally," according to DNAinfo. McCarthy blamed the low clearance rate rate on a pervasive "no-snitch code." Chicago police union president Michael Shields blamed an understaffed and overwhelmed city detective division.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Clak']Everything is a slippery slope, you ever notice that? We can't do A because if we do, then we might do B sometime in the future. It's all based on what could happen. Of course you get people saying "rather be safe than sorry....", well in that case, lets ban guns outright, all of them. Because wouldn't we be rather safe than sorry in banning them? If we only ban assault rifles again, someone might commit a crime with a handgun, better to ban them all and be sure, right? Right? RIGHT?

No, of course not, but for some reason they can't see that it's the same logic when it's used against them. The better safe than sorry argument is only valid when they're using it apparently.[/QUOTE]

No, the better safe than sorry argument is valid when we're choosing the less restrictive scenario. When you're looking to take away rights that we already have, then better safe than sorry doesn't work.

And to be honest, if you could suddenly eliminate every gun on earth today, I would be OK with that. (Somewhat sad, but OK with it.) But as Chicago has shown us, banning guns in just a part of a city/state/country doesn't do anything to cut down on gun crime.
 
You can't not do something because of something that could possibly happen in the future. You shouldn't at least. It's the same stupid argument that was used concerning opposition to health care reform.
 
"You can't not allow people to have weapons because of something that could possibly happen in the future. You shouldn't at least."
 
What about special guns or bullets designed to incapacitate with a reduced likelihood of being fatal?

Isn't there stuff like that?
 
Her's a fun one:
Cars kill more people than guns.

How long does it take to get a car? Drivers ed in a classroom, written test, road classes, road test, buy car for $10k+, insure car.

How long does it take to het a gun? Show up with cash at a private collector and bypass registration and background check.

Purpose of car? Transportation. Purpose of gun? Destruction.

Person killed by car? Accident. Person killed by gun? Accident?
 
Yes because you never hear stories about people without licenses driving cars and killing people, or driving drunk and killing people. Clearly it is very difficult to buy a car and every car costs 10k (other than every car on craigslist)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']please stop this canard. gun control = gun control.

gun control ≠ taking all of every gun you own.

we can't have a reasonable discussion until this bullshit stops. we may never agree on gun control at all, but you, at the very least, have to stop bullshitting about the position of those you disagree with.[/QUOTE]

Look at the timeline of any other country that has banned guns. You can have all the "gun control" you want, these things will still happen. You will still blame guns, and increase restrictions on them everytime until you ban them.

http://sbcoalition.org/2011/04/gun-violence-and-the-census-sobering-statistics/

Pistols are easily the biggest contributer(5 or 6 times over) to the death toll of guns. But go ahead and ban assault rifles... I am absolutely sure you won't be back for pistols. :roll:


[quote name='nasum']Her's a fun one:
Cars kill more people than guns.

How long does it take to get a car? Drivers ed in a classroom, written test, road classes, road test, buy car for $10k+, insure car.

How long does it take to het a gun? Show up with cash at a private collector and bypass registration and background check.

Purpose of car? Transportation. Purpose of gun? Destruction.

Person killed by car? Accident. Person killed by gun? Accident?[/QUOTE]

Except that most crimes committed with guns, are not legally licensed individuals who used their own guns. Not to mention, I haven't seen any evidence presented that people who use these guns in these atrocites have bought them at private collectors. Would you like to present this evidence?

Any Joe Schmoe can get into a car and do something terrible. You don't need a license, drivers ed, road classes, road tests, 10,000, or your own car.

Cars may be used for transportation and destruction. Why are cars made to go 120+ mph when there isn't a speed limit over 85 in America?

Protection, Hunting, Entertainment, etc are perfectly acceptable reasons to own a gun. They can also be used for destruction.

32,310 people died in car accidents last year. 8,583 murders were committed with firearms.

But 32K lives lost are ok, so long as the rest of us get transportation amiright?

I hope you can tell, that I am simply applying your logic to cars. I don't really believe cars are evil any more than guns. People do evil things. You can legislate every object they come up with to do evil things but in the end, people will still do evil things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='nasum']They often don't kill 20 at a time...[/QUOTE]

Did you not read the link i gave to mykevermin? If not, then read it now. Pistols lead firearms with number of murders 5 or 6 times over.

Your "more bullets = more killing power" reasoning is flawed. Blaming Assault Rifles makes sense in theory but in reality, these atrocities are few and far between in the scope of gun related deaths.
 
[quote name='nasum']Her's a fun one:
Cars kill more people than guns.

How long does it take to get a car? Drivers ed in a classroom, written test, road classes, road test, buy car for $10k+, insure car.

How long does it take to het a gun? Show up with cash at a private collector and bypass registration and background check.

Purpose of car? Transportation. Purpose of gun? Destruction.

Person killed by car? Accident. Person killed by gun? Accident?[/QUOTE]
I was talking about that witj a friend earlier. You know, plenty of people are killed by things other than guns, but that isn't the purpose of what they're killed with. Cars are transportation, not designed to kill people. A hammer is designed to hammer nails, yeah you could kill someone with it, but that's not the purpose. Firearms were designed as weapons, to kill, that's their purpose, it's what the dunderheads who use that argument seem to miss.
 
[quote name='Clak']I was talking about that witj a friend earlier. You know, plenty of people are killed by things other than guns, but that isn't the purpose of what they're killed with. Cars are transportation, not designed to kill people. A hammer is designed to hammer nails, yeah you could kill someone with it, but that's not the purpose. Firearms were designed as weapons, to kill, that's their purpose, it's what the dunderheads who use that argument seem to miss.[/QUOTE]

Firearms are made for collecting, shooting at ranges, hunting, protection, and killing people. It's what the dunderheads who use that argument seem to miss.

Just because you don't particularly care for four of those things, and think they aren't "needed" doesn't mean they are to be disposed of or that the Government can take away the right to do those things.

I am still waiting for the overwhelming evidence that gun murders every year are typically committed by legal licensed gun owners or that guns used in these murders are bought from these "collector auctions" that bypass background checks.

You are trying to take away the wrong type of gun from the wrong people. Why can you not look at the statistics and realize this? Are you so paranoid that people legally have guns? One look at that Connecticut map says a lot more people have guns than you think, and there are very very few incidents.
 
[quote name='Clak']I was talking about that witj a friend earlier. You know, plenty of people are killed by things other than guns, but that isn't the purpose of what they're killed with. Cars are transportation, not designed to kill people. A hammer is designed to hammer nails, yeah you could kill someone with it, but that's not the purpose. Firearms were designed as weapons, to kill, that's their purpose, it's what the dunderheads who use that argument seem to miss.[/QUOTE]

If cars are made for transportation then why are they capable of going two times the highest legal speed limit in this country?

Cars need 500+ HP engines capable of going 140MPH just as much as guns need clips or magazines that can hold 20+ bullets.

People who drive with caution and care don't end up in crashes (no such thing as an automobile accident) that kill people. People who own guns responsibly don't murder people.

Edit: Also how many times do you see "Speed/alcohol contributed to the [fatal] crash". That's an "accident" right????
 
Unless gun control is similar to what they do in Japan (holding a handgun is illegal), it won't do much to reduce gun crime. Of course, they are also a homogeneous society on an island.
 
[quote name='Clak']I was talking about that witj a friend earlier. You know, plenty of people are killed by things other than guns, but that isn't the purpose of what they're killed with. Cars are transportation, not designed to kill people. A hammer is designed to hammer nails, yeah you could kill someone with it, but that's not the purpose. Firearms were designed as weapons, to kill, that's their purpose, it's what the dunderheads who use that argument seem to miss.[/QUOTE]

Actually, many guns today aren't designed to kill. Much like the motivation for cars moved from transportation to racing (for some), many guns have gone from weapons to tools of sport (again, for some). I don't have any numbers, but I would say that most guns never kill anything. People just collect them and shoot targets. It's a hobby that many people enjoy. In fact, I would say that most people who own guns actually hope that they never have to kill anything.

EDIT: Also, I'd have to agree with Spokker. Again, look at Chicago for proof. It's all or nothing for guns. Making it harder to get guns won't do anything. You either have to let people have them, or make it impossible to acquire them.

EDIT: Again, as for the 'more bullets' argument, I'd like you to take a look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY0ufo8W8DU

More bullets may help in those rare circumstances, but anybody who spends a few weeks practicing can fire and reload just as quickly with a semi-automatic as a fully-automatic.
 
[quote name='Spokker']While Alex Jones and Piers Morgan are planning their boxing match, this guy is speaking some truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

If cable news was like this I would actually watch it.[/QUOTE]

Great video. If people would actually look into the statistics instead of taking headline stats, we wouldn't be having a gun debate. This was my problem with Piers Morgan. Alex Jones may be a nut, but Piers Morgan kept ranting about the gun used in recent shootings and when Jones finally calmed down and started listing real statistics, Morgan would set him off again with a misleading "michael moore" like statistic like 35 gun murders in England last year.
 
The UCR are pretty reliable, cancerman.

Crime has been on an overall decline the past decade, the video is largely correct. It is inaccurate in trying to peg the reduction as rural and the lack of reduction as urban (and borderline stoking racial tension in suggesting as much). It's not that clean or clear at all.

It also neglects to point out that the reduction, being a decade in the making, is therefore completely independent of gun restrictions. The reduction started years before assault weapons ban had expired, and continued after it expired. So no "side" to the gun control issue can point to the UCR and find any trend that unequivocally supports their argument.

Also, the title of the video is rather misleading; the vlogger seems to frame his video as "countering" some statistics, but doesn't mention what they are or where they came from. The whole thing is a strawman so far as I can tell.
 
Well the Republicans just cannot let rape go can they? Mind you this is a man who has been an OB-GYN since 1975. I will provide a link but also quote some of the better parts.

"Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey, an OB-GYN since 1975, said former Rep. Todd Akin was "partly right" when he said women's bodies can avoid pregnancy in cases of "legitimate rape.""

""And in Missouri, Todd Akin . was asked by a local news source about rape and he said, 'Look, in a legitimate rape situation' — and what he meant by legitimate rape was just, look, someone can say I was raped: a scared-to-death 15-year-old that becomes impregnated by her boyfriend and then has to tell her parents — that's pretty tough — and might on some occasion say, 'Hey, I was raped.' That's what he meant when he said legitimate rape versus non-legitimate rape.

"I don't find anything so horrible about that," Gingrey said. "But then he went on and said that in a situation of rape, of a legitimate rape, a woman's body has a way of shutting down so the pregnancy would not occur. He's partly right on that."

He made the comments to the Smyrna Area Council of the Cobb Chamber of Commerce, according to the newspaper.

Gingrey added that he has been an OB-GYN since 1975 and understands pregnancies.

"And I've delivered lots of babies, and I know about these things. It is true. We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, 'Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don't be so tense and uptight, because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.' So he was partially right, wasn't he?" Gingrey said. "But the fact that a woman may have already ovulated 12 hours before she is raped, you're not going to prevent a pregnancy there by a woman's body shutting anything down, because the horse has already left the barn, so to speak. And yet the media took that and tore it apart," the congressman said."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/republican-akin-partly-right-rape-comment

So he is saying if you get pregnant it is still one of two things.

1. Not a Legitimate rape or
2. Dumb luck you were ovulating 12 hours before your rape.

Also, adrenaline has no effect on ovulation but what are facts right?
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']posts that myke makes here sometimes give my beliefs doubts. posts like that make me glad I'm not a democrat, because who cares.[/QUOTE]

Not a surprise you would say that.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The UCR are pretty reliable, cancerman.

Crime has been on an overall decline the past decade, the video is largely correct. It is inaccurate in trying to peg the reduction as rural and the lack of reduction as urban (and borderline stoking racial tension in suggesting as much). It's not that clean or clear at all.

It also neglects to point out that the reduction, being a decade in the making, is therefore completely independent of gun restrictions. The reduction started years before assault weapons ban had expired, and continued after it expired. So no "side" to the gun control issue can point to the UCR and find any trend that unequivocally supports their argument.

Also, the title of the video is rather misleading; the vlogger seems to frame his video as "countering" some statistics, but doesn't mention what they are or where they came from. The whole thing is a strawman so far as I can tell.[/QUOTE]

The drop in the violent crime rate started in the early 80s, not sure why the video focuses on 10 years.
 
Idle hands are the devil's plaything, and the rising popularity of video games since the 1990s has kept these hands busy.

Subsidize video games.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Not a surprise you would say that.[/QUOTE]
His problem is that he thinks democrats would actually want him.:lol:

 
Should Congress impeach the President for knocking down the Second Amendment a few pegs? There are 27 amendments, a good deal of which involve the right to live as a human being, and I don't see how one trumps 26 of them every time.

Anyway, bring on the pitchforks and torches to the White House! How dare he stomp on our rights to buy our god given right to manhood!
 
Anyone happened to catch the daily show, think it was last night's episode? I never realized before just how neutered the ATF has become, but besides not having a permanent director for years, they barely have the power to enforce existing gun laws.

And we can thank http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/ for it too.
 
Not that anyone will probably be surprised by this, but Mrs. Batshit is in a little hot water.

The presidential campaign of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is refusing to pay five Iowa staffers and asking that they sign non-disclosure agreements, a former campaign aide has alleged.

Barb Heki, a former Bachmann staffer from Iowa, is suing the congresswoman and former senior aides over the misappropriation of a list of Iowa homeschoolers by the campaign. Heki, a Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators board member, alleges that Bachmann staff stole the list off her computer and then blamed her when the misuse went public. She also filed a criminal complaint in September.
Click to expand...
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323689604578220132665726040.html

BF-AE118B_05WIc_D_20130104192101.jpg


You've got to be fucking kidding me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top