lol guys quit that talk you are creeping me out

We haven't covered the 'dirty bomb' yet. Probably the most sadistic type of weapon after landmines. btw, are you allowed to have landmines in america? If you want the government out of your territory, landmines are even better for this than machineguns, so i guess landmines are for sale at wallmart?

Hah polytrip no you can't buy landmines at walmart. But you can buy TNT in some states in the South(note: not at walmart). I remember driving through some state down there and seeing huge signs that read TNT for sale! Oh yea by the way those signs were on the same roads that had billboards saying "Most military friendly state". Fuck that dump.

OK, OK, my original point aside...

Although it's a bacteriaum and easier to kill, tularemia holds a lot of promise (something like only 10 bacteria needed to achieve a 90% infection rate) especially if one were to give it a hybrid genome.

Anyway, guns don't bother me. Some of the people who have them worry me but then again, so do many of the people who drive and many of the people who choose to reproduce...

When I was a kid I had a plastic gun and I went PEW PEW everywhere. then I got a sling shot, then a pellet gun, and various squirt guns and they were pretty good at PEW PEW. I had a cool nintendo game with a grey and orange pistol, really good PEW PEW. Got a shotgun and went to shoot clay disks at a range, got to fire an MP5 at a video-screen simulator too, both seriously fun PEW PEW. Call of Duty, Movies, video games, Apache helicopter, Frylock's contact lenses, girlfriends. All great sources of PEW PEW.

I see two seperate scales. One is the levels of experienced destruction, the other is the moral intent of the person pulling the trigger. X/Y graph maybe?

seriously, I really love shooting. I don't have a firearm but like knowing I could go hunt if it came down to the need or something. Mostly though, it's just fun! I once hit 45 out of 50 clsys. My shoulder was sore from holding the gun up. Then there's the ritual of cleaning the firearm (I don't know how people winding up dead doing this, it seems a challenging mistake to make during the cleaning procedure, maybe I don't know something).

The whole idea of allowing citizens to keep firearms was to allow them equivalence with the government military so they could 1. act as a militia and 2. be in a legitimate condition to challenge a malicious government body. None of our shotguns or rifles or pistols touch military prowess. They let us play with toys while they have the actual weapons.

Some people actually do provide months worth of meat for a whole family by hunting once a season.

The dirty bomb is certainly the most deadly fictional weapon in existence, maybe after the Deathstar and Thor's hammer.

For a radiological bomb (not a nuke by any means) to be remotely dangerous in the way most people think, a person would have to remain in the radioactive cloud for a full year.

That's not very likely, even by American standards of disaster response.

the dirty bomb is nothing more than a nuisance, not a serious threat at all.
as for the other...are you referring to the neutron bomb?

definitely obsolete compared to modern weaponry: satellite guided free-fall projectiles, something that was perfected by the early-mid 90s.

Wait, wait...are you telling me the deathstar isn't real?

I guess the thing in arizona is a perfect example of what the founding fathers would have wanted?

Oh, don't say that this is a bad example and that this was just some deranged nut. If that where so you should have clearly stated at the beginning that deranged nut's cannot use the 2nd amendement at will, AND what your perfect system does in order to prevent this.

If your perfect ideology requires 'the people' to keep the government in check with guns, then who's to say what arguments, in what ways, by wich people under wich circumstances can be used to keep what government in check?

These kind of things is exactly what all the fucked-up rightwing conspiracy talk is gonna lead us to.

Sarah palins condoleances and withdrawal of the gun-target map is extremely hypocritical, she and her fellow nazi-hillbillies have carefully paved the way to this sort of actions and this incident will not inspire them to any self-reflection or self-criticism since they're fully incapable of that. They will only go on with this hate mongering like they did before and worse.
They will blame the democrats for what happened and maybe in a few years from now even make a marter out of this loughner dude.

oklahoma bombing, arizona shooting...those are the only things all this 'keeping the government in check' talk amounts to.

This is all the second amendment said:



It doesn't say anything about shooting politicians if you don't like them. Or justify it. Its still murder. If the government was actively brutalizing and oppressing the people violence is more justified. But just shooting someone because you don't like their political ideology is murder.

Someone should tell that to the teabaggers who bring their guns with them at gatherings.

You'd have to be blind if you didn't see this thing coming. Or if you don't see the connexion between this and the rhetoric's of the far-right.

the guns have always been here, with the founding of this country. if you just take away that right, you have to consider the "shock" effect it will have. opponents of the second amendment should take that into consideration if they want to have a good set of arguments.

not to mention the logistics of removing millions of firearms from public ownership..

I don't nessecarily have a problem with gun-ownership. I can see dozens of arguments, like if you live in a place where grizley's live and encounters with them aren't 100% avoidable, or if everybody already has gun's.

What i have a big problem with is the militant right-wing rhetoric's in terms of 'taking on the government' and comparisons of obama with hitler, etc.

I can only see it escalating. Glenn beck, palin, o'reily and others are 100% guilty of this assasination. They fed the public with extreme lust for violence, paranoia, fear and hate.

I mean, the political situation is totally fucked-up.

You often see people defending the right-wing extremists by saying that there are also extremists on the left.

But i don't see them being a real threat to american society at this point in time, simmilar to the threat coming from the right.

There are left-wing radicals indeed, but they're far less in numbers.
You see them at G8 or G20 summits in their black suits, out there to cause riot's, they send bomb-packages to foreign embassee's in italy and greece and assasinate policemen or rich business executive's in the streets of athens.
So they're on average maybe more militant than most of the right-wing radicals, but they're with so little that they're no serious threat to society.

The far-right on the other hand is dominant in both america as in europe. A very large percentage of americans sees fox-news as an objective and reliable source of information for instance and many, many people blindly supported the invasion in iraq, and i believe that a very large percentage of americans is also 'worried' about that islamic centre, planned a few blocks from ground zero.

The tone is becoming more and more radical, hatefull and xenophobic.
There is so much hate spread, that i honestly believe things can only escalate in a more negative way from here.

And the 2nd amendement is being misinterpreted deliberately to put political pressure on the democrats, like people turning up on demonstrations with gun's.

I honestly think it's almost a miracle that no-one has assasinated obama yet, with all the talk of death-panel's and such.
If i'm correctly informed, there so far have been more threats on obama's life even, than on the life of the former president.

Well we don't need guns to hunt so they're all just for fun or to kill humans so I don't like them too much. Wish humanity were evolved enough to get rid of them.

Hunting with bow in arrow is more cruel then with guns. Plus lots of people do need guns to hunt. Some people get a huge amount of their protein from meat they kill. Hunting is also important to replace big predators that have gone extinct or are rare because of human encroachment. Hunters are also some of the biggest pro conservationists around.



Polytrip I agree that the right wing rhetoric is totally out of control. I personally don't consider myself left or right but these people are completely warped and insane. Its going to get worse. I thought 8 years of Bush would be enough to wake people up to the tactics of fear and lies. Apparently though people got stupider. Way stupider. It really is infuriating. Its ruining the US and in the EU similar problems are ruining the situations there. It all comes down to stupidity and ignorance.

What about people who fly planes into buildings? Should we ban people who have pilots licenses?


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html


Humans until they are extinct will always find ways to kill one another, guns are a tool, and like any other they can be used for good or bad. Do we ban knives? What about hatches? Axes?

Sharp pointy rocks? If he REALLY wanted to kill her he could have taken a knife killed her especially with these town hall style meetings. These are the consequences of living in a "free" society, you give up a marginal amount of safety.

That was already argumented and counter-argumented before, proto-pax...

Loopy loopy

Point is that the 2nd amendement argument is just not such a good argument.
The only good part of it is that governments should at least act acording to their own constitution or they loose credibility.

But to say: people should be allowed to have guns so they can do 'good things' with them just doesn't make any sense, because who's to check whether this realy is the case?

To say that people should have guns so they can protect themselves against the government is realy asking for things like the incident in tuscon to happen, because who's to tell guy's like loughner that this doesn't mean that you can just shoot any politician you don't like?
Not anybody working for the government, because guys like him already believe they can shoot anybody from the government they disagree with.

So to say to people that they're allowed to use guns against the government is slippery territory, because you could only check whether the use of guns was justified if you would have a government organisation like a court of law to verify this...wich you're allowed to shoot at if you feel this is needed for your protection and i guess if they want to lock you up because they find you used a gun in an unjustifyable way, you could feel you need to protect yourself against them.

It's realy a dangerous argument, because even if the 2nd amendement wasn't meant to justify any act of violence unconditionally, you just have to assume that people will only act according to the right conditions.
It is literally like saying: you may have guns, but only to do good things with.
Well then you need a strong government to control whether this is realy the case and to see to it that people won't do bad things with them. But the on of the most elementary 'good things' assumed here is to overthrow a government that isn't good.

So you have to see that it just doesn't add up.