-Demosthenes- Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 There should be a way to keep guns away from criminals and potential criminals and not affect the good people who own them or wish to own them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 MishMish said in post # :Do not understand your insistence on why one needs guns. There is precious little in this world one needs, most revolves around wants. It's a silly question to ask, and sillier to demand an answer. That was kind of the point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :There should be a way to keep guns away from criminals and potential criminals and not affect the good people who own them or wish to own them. Sorry, but ahahahahhahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :3) what the smeg are you on about???? "I swore an oath to uphold the law, would you expect me to ignore such an oath because you have a pretty face?" Suprisingly it means just that, I swore an oath. It's not a complex statement. You will meet and have met many people who take the same oath, dredge your memory. Even the scouts take the oath. If you were connected to the military, as you have stated before, you will have taken a version of the same oath. I`f you`re going to tell lies then make sure it can`t be verified by others reading your posts and making references to other peoples posts, when you are clearly to ALL wrong! Be wary of that logic John, if you think everyone is wrong and out to get you, there may be a simpler solution. I won't insult you with references to defense, repression and aggressive propensities; but there is an issue here with a conflict of what you perceive and what the other members see. as for antagonism, ROFLOL! Indeed. The tone of your replys of late vears strongly towards that. I'm worried you don't seem to notice it. You'll notice my posts are deliberately open, offering my opinions, the letter of the law and routes for resolution, I am not giving closed statements that offer you no options. There is no duplicity in my posts, this type of reply is simply the community in which you are a member responding to an increase in hostilitys from yourself. If you wish to continue with insulting me, and the others, you have that option. We consist of the community in which you decided to reside, it is not a healthy frame of mind that chooses to alienate itself from it’s own community. Be careful of venting frustrations at the ghosts in the machine. None of this is real life, do you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 "Suprisingly it means just that, I swore an oath. It's not a complex statement. You will meet and have met many people who take the same oath, dredge your memory. Even the scouts take the oath. If you were connected to the military, as you have stated before, you will have taken a version of the same oath." Everyone who's predged the Pledge of Allegiance has also. About my earlier reply: Why can't we? There should be some way, maybe it'll use lots of money, but there should be a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 You're the bee's ankles, you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 well I never stated once ever on here having taken an "!oath" of any sort, hence my surprise when it was rellated to me in anyway what so ever!!????? me thinks someone was tripping or trying to CREATE a situation AGAIN!. Atinymonkey: the last part of your post has bearing on WHAT??? other that talking out your backside and making things even more confused, you`ve also done little better than waste keyboard ink and several K`Bytes of server space. I flatly refuse to even comment on the tripe . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :well I never stated once ever on here having taken an "!oath" of any sort, hence my surprise when it was rellated to me in anyway what so ever!!????? He said he took an oath. Is it that hard to READ? atinymonkey said in post # : I swore an oath As to the last part of your post, quite a few people can see it, even if you can't. A good example would be the rather paranoid responses to his tomfoolery in that thread about your computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 WTF??? are you on about? do YOU even know? and other posts have nothing to do with this one, please state the rellevence (if there is any). paranoid? NOW you`re makin me laff at you! as there is one single salient point that you and few others have overlooked! and it`s that simple you should weep on knowing it! will I tell you now? LIKE HELL I WILL! carry on wise guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :will I tell you now? LIKE HELL I WILL! Fermat's Last Forum Post. Furthermore, I don't see any reason that would promote someone to make other people think ill of them, except maybe some distorted arrogance. YT2095 said in post # :and other posts have nothing to do with this one, please state the rellevence (if there is any). The same people are posting them. That's a pretty big connection. For instance, if I called you a slathering moron repeatedly in another thread, I doubt you would take my posts the same way as if I had said something complementary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :well I never stated once ever on here having taken an "!oath" of any sort, hence my surprise when it was rellated to me in anyway what so ever!!????? me thinks someone was tripping or trying to CREATE a situation AGAIN!. Atinymonkey: the last part of your post has bearing on WHAT??? other that talking out your backside and making things even more confused, you`ve also done little better than waste keyboard ink and several K`Bytes of server space. I flatly refuse to even comment on the tripe . The oath was something I took. Not you John. Me. I'm trying very hard to assuage your paranoia/bile/hate/whatever, but you still thing there is some kind of plot to create a situation of some form here. It's a forum John, pubic and non-profit, nobody can force you to do anything you don't want to. I'm intrigued. Why are you taking the time out of your day to reply to a paragraph that you think is a waste of time? You don’t feel your being antagonistic, yet you happily lash out without a modicum of retrospect, respect or rationality? I’m interested to know what you perceive me/us/the thread to have done to earn what I assume you think is a contemptuous, biting counterpoint. It obvious your not discussing or even reading the posts, I tried to explain in a way you can understand what the issues we have consist of. So what is at issue here for you, why the insults? To put it simply, ignoring your ramblings about not telling the forum about your toys, and explain what your problem is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 I think he means public, not pubic, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 I know what I meant dammit. I meant pubic. No wait, I mean publik. Yes...excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 I think that this is spiraling out of control. It looks more like it belongs in the debate forum. How about we get on topic ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 "You're the moth's ankles, you know?" What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :"You're the moth's ankles, you know?" What? I meant bees. (Demosthenes sounds similar to 'The Moth's Knees', and 'The Bee's Knees' is an expression meaning exceptional) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post # :I think that this is spiraling out of control. It looks more like it belongs in the debate forum. How about we get on topic ? Ok, on topic then. We can't agree between us (as the poll shows) if guns should be allowed in the civilian population. So how about a change of tack:- Do you think that gun will have a role in the continuing evolution of society? If you can't see a utopian society carrying a weapon, at what point would you agree to outlaw guns? Bear in mind that America is almost civilized at the moment, how much more developed would it need to be to afford the peace of mind to outlaw guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 It certainly would have to be developed far. We'd need more money for the police force. Some towns require people to own guns, and the crime rate is virtually nil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Yes, so we are told. And some towns have never had a firearm cross the boundary since it was founded, and the crime rate is still virtually nil. Someday, someone will stop quoting one example as the absolute rule. Do you consider the other countries in the west as far more developed than America? After all, they all operate without armed population, and almost all have a lower murder rate than the US. Take Japan as a case study, if you like. Near zero murder rate, every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 well made guns are work of art and a pleasure to have around and use and look after, if there`s silly dickheads out there that wish to abuse this pleasure, then it`s not our fault! the same can be said for cars! if you goto a local scrap yard and pick a car fender, and belt someone around the head with it and kill them you`ll do life for murder!, now if you take the precaution of attatching it to a car 1`st and do the same, you MAY get 6 months or less! it`s the law, NOT the GUNS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Guns don't kill people, people kill people. That's what I think. If people were brought up better, than they wouldn't want to murder people as much. That's the problem. Eliminating guns leaves knives, ropes, axes, and other assorted weapons. Saying places that don't have guns have no crime is stupid, people still have all the other weapons. It's their pyschology! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post # :Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 No, no, no. People with guns, knives, ropes, axes, hatchets, lead pipes, big sticks, cars, bombs, or their bare hands kill people. Not just guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 People with guns do kill people. I made no assertions about all killings being perpetrated with guns, or all people with guns undertaking killings. The phrase "guns don't kill people, people do" gets on my tits because it is worse than a truism - it's a retard's truism that chooses between two potential factors, each of which have equal validity, just to emphasise the chosen position without any justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 That was nice of you to say. Just kidding. It is true, actually. The gun doesn't say, "Hey, let's kill someone!" No, it's the person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts