Transtic Nerve

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]Yes, I am biased. I tend to think right of center. We're all biased, some more than others. You're biased left of center Transtic Nerve, but you already knew that. As long as we present facts to support our arguments, I don?t see anything wrong with us sharing our opinions. I'd like to point out that almost every organization out there has political interests of some kind. That's why you ignore their analysis and go straight to the facts, and watch many different news sources. Compile the facts, and formulate your own opinion. However, if an organization publishes fallacies supporting one side or the other, it deserves to be ignored. This HRW group has done that, so I suggest they be ignored.[/color][/quote] Well yeah, but the point I was making was based on the way you said it. You implied, at least by the way it was written, that you thought everything with a strong bias should therefor be ignored because it is false. Now that you've cleared that up, I ask what proof you have that whatever this HRW group said was not true. I didn't read it, perhaps I should, but I was interested in why you wrote that they should be discredited because they were biased in your first post and now you claim they have "published fallacies"... which are, at least in my view, two different claims against the group. Why not just post they "published fallacies" in your first post. [color=green][quote]The way I interpreted it, the author meant that Nick Berg was executed by Russian mercenaries operating under coalition instruction.[/quote][/color] I thought it was clearly stated that these acts were done by russian mercenaries with coalition interest in mind. [i]"...coalition interests (most likely independent Russian mercenaries)"[/i] Mercenaries tend to do things on their own with their own interests in mind. Like states, they were russian mercenaries with coalition inerests in mind. Doesn't nessisarily mean they were hired by the US, Britain, Spain, whoeverr was in the Coalition, just means they did it with the interests in the coalition in mind. [quote][color=green]As for news organizations not feeling free to broadcast whatever they wish, how do you explain "Radio Free America"? Or Hollywood awards shows where multiple actors criticize the Bush administration? Or the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal? All of these things are put out there, and nothing restricts the freedom of the press. If a newspaper can print allegations that US soldiers raped Iraqi women (complete with pictures from a porn site), then this can certainly be printed, if it's true. The fact is, it isn?t credible. No reputable news agency will publish it for that reason, not because they're afraid of some government crackdown on their expression of free speech.[/color][/QUOTE] I'll agree with that, to a point. There is freedom of press, the point I was making was that anyone in such press wouldn't publish it because it is very political and scandalous. Alot of people working for the press won't do certain things because it might affect their reputation either politically or economically.... whatever. While they also might not publish it because of the fact, you're right, it doesn't have alot of credibility. It's just a conclusion, as I'm sure many were made, about the murder. It's an interesting one at that. I'm not saying I agree, but its certainly worth the read.

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']The "Human Rights Watch" site that you got your "facts" about Iraqi women being afraid to walk the streets is severely biased. I wouldn?t trust a word they say.[/quote][/color] How is that any different from the bias you obviously have for "Republicans." Judging by your "logic," I should not believe a word you say. You cannot discredit information because a group has a political bias, if that was the case, everything on "FOX NEWS" is not true and everything "you" say is just plain silly. [quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']and our economy is right back where it was in the 1990s.[/quote][/color] Yet strangely enough I still don't have near as much money in my money market as I did in the late 1990s. [quote=Boba Fett][color=green]As for the "evidence" presented in that last quoted post? It's a silly, untrue, conspiracy theory. If there was any truth to it, it'd be a major news story. I hope nobody here is stupid enough to believe that the US would execute one of it's own citizens for propaganda purposes?[/color][/QUOTE] Actually, the post said that it was Russian mercenaries with coalition ideas in mind who did it, not the US. How much of that did you actually read? Regardless, I'm not saying i believe anything, but if you were a news broadcasting corporation, would you broadcast a conspiracy to the death of Nick Berg during a time like this? Yeah right, you'd risk losing everything you ever had. No news corporation is going to report on a conspiracy to this degree. Not now at least. You may hear it several years from now.

I'm voting for Kerry, but I don't think thats any surprise to anyone. Bush and I just don't get along, lets just leave it at that.

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]I'm not asking you to bawl your eyes out, but I'd like to see some compassion. If you cant offer that, how about regret? Or respect for this man, at the very least. The way you've been talking about this man, it's as if you feel he got what he deserved. You fail to see the point of respecting human life? That says a lot about you TN?[/color][/quote] From the information I have heard, this man was in Iraq under his own will and under the obvious conclusions that Iraq and surrounding countries are not the most safe place in the world. As far as I'm concerned, he went there at his own risk. And that is complete stupidity. It's not that I'm happy he died, I never said that, I just don't think this is anything to get completely outraged about. I respect human life when human life deserves to be respected, but if he is going to go to Iraq, which is an obviously dangerous country, then he has no respect for his own life, why should I have respect for it. [quote][color=green]You've just stated that it doesn?t make a difference whether or not you target civilians or military forces during war.[/color] [/quote] There isn't a difference whether he's a soldier or not pretaining to MY POINT, not during a war. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. [quote][color=green]This man was an innocent civilian, who was killed brutally by some of the most disgusting people on this earth. His only crime was being American.[/color][/quote] And those 3 children who were murdered? Was their only crime being children. I don't see you crying over them. They were MURDERED byt heir mother. Three of them. Why isn't there a topic about that? [quote][color=green]No. This is not how war is fought. This is how terrorists attempt to scare the free world into letting them further damage a region of the world that has a real chance of forming a society that recognizes the rights of every person for the first time in decades. You've got an incredibly dark world view TN. Lighten up.[/color][/quote] I said this isn't how a normal war is fought. You can quote that above if you'd like. I said this is how a war on terrorism is fought. A war on terrorism is fought with terrorism. Hello? Did you miss that part of the definition? Terrorist do terrorism, therefor a war on terrorism is bound to bring out terrorist. If you wanted a war on terrorism, how can you not expect to have terrorist activities taking place? Thats just plain stupid. [quote]Thats all great about the definition of terrorism but it is you who obviously doesn't have the intellectual ability to completly understand the situation. First off all you contridicted yourself when you said your country doesn't supposrt you. Hello, the taxes americans pay are your support. The people is the country I wasn't refering to the government itself. THe reason you contradicted yourself in the very next sentence saying that the Bill of Rights says you can say what you want. Who makes that possible this country and it's people and the people before them. Go to any other country in the world and try and say anything you want. I tell you what go to Iraq start saying anything you want and guess what they will drive by shoot you in the head burn your body and danggle it from a bridge for display. Your country supports you more than you know it does. It saves lives everyday by fighting wars. It has probably even saved your life by fighting and putting up precautions. Yes our countries do stupid things sometimes I have no doubt about that. I'm not saying I'm a better person a better american or even a better patriot all I wanted to put across was my view. What I think is I see many people compplaining about what is going on and protesting and everything. That's fine because our country is fighting to defend the freedom of speech which you and I use right now and which you hold in highest regard. Great pull out your dictionary and tell me what terrorism is. I know what it is. It however can not apply in Ethics. Did we become terrorist to come and take Sadam out of power. You better believe we did. The point is not that. The point is we are helping these people the same people who Sadam sentence to death by the thousands and are radical muslim groups whom he disliked are now killing us. We did them a favor and now they want us to leave so they can take over and persecute others like Sadam did to them. Don't you find that a bit Ironic. As for they want us out that's not true we have the majority vote in poles that were taken all over the country and they want us to stay so that the radical groups don't persecute them and take over. Just a few thousand in a country of millions cause problems. If we pulled out of the war it would be like handing over the power to another sadam. Do I agree with the pictures taken no. I plainly said that. I might have missed a few facts that some of the prisoners were innocent and thats my bad ok I'll throw that one out. They are all being punished for a crime. In Sadam's governement and if these radicals were to take power would those people be punished for their crimes. We all know the answer is no. So better american no. Better person no. Better patriot no. I don't think that was what I was pointing out and I am sorry if it came across that way. I'm just glad I'm and American and at the end of the day wether I like you or not I'm glad you are one too.[/quote] I see what your point is and I repsect it. The reason I said that this country doesn't support me is because they don't on many issues, but they do on others. I could go to Canada or England and say what i want and probably wouldn't be shot or arrested. Depending on exactly what i was saying, but the same goes for America as well. Anyway, I understand your view.

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green]First off, the complete lack of emotional response to such a barbaric act astounds me. [i]A twenty-six year old man was slaughtered like a pig in front of the whole world, and his corpse dumped near a bridge.[/color][/i'] [/quote] I'm terribly sorry, i didn't realize I was required to have an emotional responce to this. Did you know that a woman, near where I live, murdered her 3 children yesterday? Or that we average over 18,000 murders a year? Yet not all of you seem to be uterly outraged or having emotional responses to those. I fail to see your point. [quote][color=green]Secondly, [b]this man was not an American soldier[/b]. He was a civilian contractor who went to Iraq to assist in rebuilding a nation that'd suffered under a brutal dictator for decades. [/color][/quote] I appologize for assuming he was a soldier, not that it makes one bit a difference anyway. [quote][color=green]This isn't how war is fought. This is terrorism directed at innocent civilians. [/color][/QUOTE] This is not how a normal war is fough, this is how a war on Terrorim is fought. You all wanted this war on terrorism, and well look you all got it and now you're outraged that this happened. Give me an F-ing break. Did you actually think that terrorist weren't going to capture, hold hostage, and execute someone during all this? What did you expect? Us to waltz in their on our big giant horses and trample all who opposed without anything happening? Right, you can take the train back to fantasy world now, cause this is the real world. And int he real world, deranged killers exist. People who think destroying the US will lead them to 75 virgins in heaven exist. People who kill children and women exist. WHy is this any different? Why do all of you get upset all of the sudden. Nothing is different. Nothing is different except for the fact people are just now understanding what war means and people are now just realizing what the consequences of war are, and people are now just realizing how stupid they are.

[quote name='Liquid]I think Iraq can help itself. let them attack us. one more bomb and i say, heck, we bomb them all. It's not our fault that some of them are jackasses! We [I]Cannot[/I] stand for this! I really wish a compromise is possible, [I]but peace Cannot last forever, and never will![/I] Soldiers can be like others! They're not all the [I']Rurouni Kenshin type of hero! They can be drunk, screwed up perverted men! they can rape someone if they wanted! They aren't all perfect![/I][/quote] You need to cut down on your posting. You double posted and everything you've posted has been a reiteration of something someone else said. I know you want to make your point, but you're being immature about it int he way you're posts are written. Try to write more maturely. Don't double post, and in the case of your first two posts, try to post more than one sentence. Esspecially in a mature topic like this. And use the edit button. And you're not just a new member, you're also 11 years old and immature and not very smart like most 11 years old.

[quote name='Spike88][FONT=Impact']You people really have a lot of nerve. Every thing may be political be at least amercans go for humiliation rather than inhuman treatment of innocent people. ALl the news has the stuff about how harshly those people who took pictures of the Iraqi prisoners. Firsts things first the Iraqi's who we took pictures of were guilty thats why they were in jail. Secondly it was humiliating but it wasn't brutal murder. It was nothing short of imaturity. This has nothing to do with wether we wanted war or not. The majority of out population still want the war. I for one agree with it. Another thing is someone doesn't give up their 3.4 million dollar football contract for something that is a lost cause. We supposedly bring our wicked ways. I don't freakin think so. Taking pictures of naked Iraqis is one thing but brutally murdering a man who there to help clean up the mess the army made is not. You know all this will do is incite americans to want the war even more. So in my opinion watch the news read your history books and see what happened the last time stuff went on in a country like that was. You'll find out a guy ran it by the name of Hitler. Look what happened by sitting back and doing nothing. Sure we lose lives to regulate crazy leaders like Sadam but we same millions for the thousands we lose. Be a Partiot and supposrt your nation if not your nation won't supprt you. Well, that's just how I feel later folks.[/FONT][/quote] First off, many of the prisoners that had their picture taken weren't guilty and many of them have sense been released because they were imprisoned for the wrong reason. Second, your president wanted a war on terrorism didn't he? Well with that war on terrorism comes terrorism. Maybe you need a dictionary to what terrorism is, but let me explain it in simple terms for those of you who just don't seem to get it. Terrorism is senseless acts on usually innocent people in order to achieve a goal, want, etc. (If you want an exact dictionary definition: [i]The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.[/i]) You wanted a war you said, well this is your war. Since you want it, you have to accept the consequences of war and a war on terrorism has it's terrorist consequences. Did you just forget the meaning of war too? Third, I don't have to be a patriot because my country doesn't support me anyway. And its in my country's bill of rights it says I have the right to say what I want to say, and just because YOU don't like what I like to say, doesn't mean I'm not a patriot. It doesn't mean i'm not a good american, and it certainly doesn't mean you're someone who's better than me. You certainly have alot of nerve coming here an acting like you're the best american when it's quite obvious you lack the intellectual ability to completely understand the situation.

I think it's pretty obvious what to think. They aren't afraid to sacrafice themselves to kill other american soldiers, why would they feel guilty about beheading one? Bush wanted war, he got it. It's how war is done.

[quote name='bogger3k']let me set a few things strait. It has been proven that LHO was able to shot tree time in an 8 second margin not a 5.6. Alos LHO was in reality a former Marine sharpshooter. The rumors about him not being able to shoot well are all false. Also the exit wound was out the front of his head not the back. He was also shot through the back of the troat and he had no wound in his back. I'm not sure how that rumor even started.Kennedy also went back and to the left because, as gun tests will show us, when a bullit hits you you don't go in the same direction as when it hits you, sometimes yes, all of the time no. As for Governor Connally he was shot with the smae bullit that struck Kennedy in the throat. The absolute truth about all of this is we won't know until they allow a proper autopsy to be preformed on President Kennedy's brain, which I believe our government doesn't even know where it is located. Sorry to all the conspiricy fanatics, but I've done much research on this and have sorted much fact from fiction and this is what I know.[/quote] The whole idea behind a conspiracy is to shrowed the truth. Therefor any research you may have done could be falsified. I'm not to doubt you, for I'm sure you're a credible historian. The rumor of Kennedy being shot in the back is from the video which shows him suddenly lean over. I've not known anyone or anything to be shot in the head and have their head move in the direction they have been shot first. For a body part that only has a supporting structure on one side, it tend to be moved in the direction in which force is applied. For you to be saying that being shot with high powered rifle acurately from such a far distance, the bullet would be moving at tremendous speed. For JFK's head to move backward, toward the impact of the bullet.... that defies the whole notion of the Laws of Motion. In fact the whole murder defies the laws of Gravity and Motion. What about the bullet fragment found by the overpass that struck a bystander there? There's too many what ifs in this case that can't be proven, even by yourself as much as you want to say you can. Too many what ifs provide a high chance of conspiracy. If what the government was saying was true and they indeed have nothing to hide, then why couldn't they perform a proper autopsy, why can't they produce the evidence that is 100% accurate, and how do they lose the brain of the president? Seems to me like they are hiding something. I dunno what that something is, but they are hiding it. And is it so much a coincidence that Robert Kennedy was shot just a few years later, and then JFK Jr. dies in a mysterious plane crash a few years ago. Looks like someone has it out for the Kennedys, or maybe God just doesn't like them. Can you produce documents from which you did this research, I'm interested in seeing them. Maybe it'll make me "believe."

[QUOTE=DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Remember Occam's Razor: if there are multiple explanations for an event, the simplest one is moat likely the correct one. John F Kennedy died because Lee Harvey Oswald shot him in the head. The reason the Conspiracy abounds is that many people have a hard time accepting that the President they liked so much was killed by LHO, who was basically a loser. from everything I've seen about him, it looks like Oswald only did one thing right in his life, and that was learn to fire a gun over long distances. Now, if we want to talk about an interesting and actually true conspracy, I want to know who Deep Throat is. [/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE] Actually, compared to his freinds and other men int he armed forced for which he served, Oswald wasn't that good with a rifle. Esspecially not better than any FBI and CIA sharp shooters. It's hard to believe Kennedy was shot by LHO because of the story given by the government. Magic bullet? How does Kennedy have an exit wound in the back of his head if LHO shot him from the book depository, which was behind Kennedy? Shouldn't that be an entrance wound? He shot 3 times in 5.6 second, you know about guns, is that even possible with a rifle that takes a minimum 2.3 seconds to reload? I don't think LHO was a loser either. Oswald might have been one of the men to have shot Kennedy, however, I don't believe he was alone and I don't believe the fatal head shot could have physically come from the 6th floor of the book despository like the government wants us to believe. If you look at the video tape that day, you can see Kennedy being shot several times, once in the neck by someone in front of him, once in the back by someone behind him and once in the head by someone to the right of him. (not to mention the front seat passenger, Governor Connally, who also shot) LHO simply cannot be in a minimum of 3 places at one time. Thats what I find hard to believe. Anyway, I think Deep Thraot is probably Henry Kissenger. I wouldn't doubt it if it was. It all makes sense. Although we'll never know. Untill he dies that is. The two people that wrote the article about Watergate and Deep Throat swore they would never give away who he was till he died, and last I checked Kissenger was still alive. However, one man doesn't make a conspiracy... It's a mystery, not a conspiracy.

I just got done watching the movie [i]JFK[/i] which is about the murder and conspiracy to kill J.F.K. Its really great, you all should watch it. Brigns some new insight to the death of John F. Kennedy if you already haven't seen alot of what evidence has been provided. Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone here actually believes the "official" story on the death of JFK? Does anyone believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy from the 6th floor of the book depository in Dallas Texas? Or do you believe that it was indeed a conspiracy put on by the government and whatever other associations might have been involved? I have no doubt in my mind that the murder of JFK was indeed a conspiracy. I'm not sure who was involved, but I have no doubt that the story given by the government is nothing more than a cover-up for actually happened that day, whatever that may be.

You wouldn't be a successful politician if you didn't lie...

[quote name='DeathBug']If you're not going to bother to understand the positions already taken in an argument, don't expect anyone else in the argument to take your position seriously.[/quote] I understand perfectly. Just because i didn't read your post doesn't mean I don't understand what you mean. It's quite obvious what you mean, just as it's quite obvious what I mean. There's no middle line with our positions. [quote]Are you so arrogant to believe that we are immune to history? America and most of Europe have been very fortunate with stable government systems for the past half-century. Are we to assume that we will always be? Yes, and I'm sure chopping up the Bill of Rights is a great way to ensure that happens.[/quote] Correction, chopping up the second amendment will essure that happens. I have no want to chop up the bill of rights, I like to use my first amendment thank you. I only think that the second amendment should be gotten rid of. I think it has no purpose in the way we live life today and I think we would be a much better people without such useless words. [quote]More unrest and turmoil is caused by the expression of free ideas than anything else in the country. Why not just do away with the First Amendment while we're at it? It would sure save a lot of trouble.[/quote] Yes, because people like me, who want a better life, try to change the way this country is run for the better. But people don't want change and then turmoil and unrest is created. It's actually the people who want to keep things the same that causes turmoil and unrest, not the ones who want to change it. So getting rid of the first amendment wouldn't change anything. \ [quote]86 million people in the US own a combined 200 million guns, yet only 30,000 guns are involved in deaths each year. That's .015%. Seems like a lot more people use them responsibly than not. A whole lot more people.[/quote] Thats 30,000 to many. Ok smarty pants, whats your plan to save the 30,000 people that die each year from your precious weapons? Also, not all those 86 million people USE their guns. Like I said before about banning bullers, this would allow to keep your gun, which I have no problem with, but you couldn't use it. I don't mind if you have a gun (it can be a very artistic thing actually), it's how you use it I'm worried about. If you wanna put it in a frame and on a shelf above your TV, be my guest. But I don't want to be walking down a street next to some lunatic with a gun in his pocket. [quote]In 2002, gun crimes in England and whales increased by 35%, despite the fact that the citizens cannot own firearms. Apparently, no one told the criminals.[/quote] We're not talking about "gun crimes," we're talking about "gun deaths." [quote]I didn't say you had to; I assumed you would. I sure wouldn't stay in a country where I disagreed with a fundamental right granted to its citizenry.[/quote] Unfortunantly I don't have much of a choice whether or not to leave. It would be better for me to try to change what I have then to start over. [quote]I wasn't being a smart-arse, he of the belly-button lint remark. The Constitution was envisioned as a living document that could adapt to the changing times. THe use of the word 'arms' was specifically used to keep the Amendment valid despite changes in technology.[/quote] Yeah, that was a smart *** remark by me, and it was good too. Very proud of that. It prooved my point though, not everything is dangerous when used incorrectly [quote]An 18th-century musket is no longer a reliable means of self-defense. you figure out why.[/quote] Why the hell isn't it? Cause it's dated? Takes 20 minutes to reload? Doesn't have the greatest accuracy? Can't shoot 200 bullets a second? Which one of these is the reason? I'd like to know. What possibly in those questions could lye a reason that an 18th century musket cannot be a reliable means of self defense. People were born with hands and feet back in the paleolithic era, hands and feet are still reliable means of self defense, why can't an 18th century musket be? [quote]So, people shouldn't have what has been a basic right for over two-hundred years because you don't think they're smart enough to deserve it? [/quote] Part of me wants to say absolutely, but the other part says no because they don't deserve it period. You don't have to be smart to use a gun, I would hope smart people would figure out they SHOULDN'T use guns. [quote]We are talking about here, but you are the one who mentions Canadia and England?[/quote] Well yeah, I'm in favor of strict gun control, therefor I need some basis for my argument and I certainly can't find it here. [quote]Ever hear the saying, 'Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it'? The basic principles that held true in the 1700's regarding peoples and their governments still hold true today. As I explained to Godelsensi, the first step to oppressing a society is to disarm them. This is ture in the world right now, just as true as it was during the Second World War, the American Revolution and the Roman Empire. [/quote] This question applies to both comments here. Yeah I've heard of that saying, but where in American history were we as a people ever disarmed? What history in America shows that certain things will happen when you disarm us? England has been disarmed... I don't see them rising up against their government. There's some history right there for ya. I'm confused by you're whole logic here. America didn't rise up against England int he American Revolution because they disarmed us or anything like that. They rose up because Americans felt that they were being mistreated through tax regulations and certain other limits put upon them, disarmorment was not one of them. (or certainly we would not have had the weapons to fight them to begin with) [quote]It's a shame that this issue is so devisive, really. I don't want people to be shot with guns any more than you do, but the difference is that you're willing to trade one of your basic rights to achieve a minimal measure of safety. you know what they say about those willing to trade freedom for liberty, don't you?[/quote] I don't have a gun now. Nor will I ever. I'm not trading any freedom in. I will never envoke the second amendment onto myself, therefor I have no problem trading it away for what i see as more security. [quote]And, again, you're only keeping guns out of the hands of people who'd use them responsibly[/quote] I don't think this comment was geared towards me but I would like to ask exactly what is the responsible way to use a gun? [quote]TN, you can drop the act.[/quote] What act, Petey? Oh so you think you can act under a new username and fool me? I don't act, this is me. This is how I am. You wouldn't know that cause you're an egomaniac who think he knows everything about everyone. You don't know me, all you know if what I tell you. And heres something for you, I don't care what you say "Anime Gurl' (Couldn't come up with anything better than that?) cause I'm not listening to you cause from your prior posts I know how you'll respond. And quite frankly I don't want to listen to it. So you can talk all you want, you're just talking to a brick wall. I will not read your posts and I will not repsond to them. That isn't because you're against my opinion, it is because you lack all fundamental logic in your opinion and it is a waste of my time, and yours, to even bother comprehending anything you write. Thank you for your time. At least Deathbug provides some sort of logic, which I can respect. That's something you don't possess.

[quote name='DeathBug]Good gravy, did you read anything I said? The right to bear arms is the [b]second[/b] Amendment on the Bill of Rights. It's second only to free speech. The original Ten Amendments were listed in order of importance. Freedom of expression was first, followed by the right to keep and bear arms. so, yes, it [i]is[/i'] one our most important constitutional rights.[/quote] Actually, no I didn't read anything you said except the last part, which is what I commented on. I wasn't commenting on anything else you said, if I was, I would have quoted it. Good gravy, did you read anything I said? Anyway, yeah they were listed in order of importance, back in the late 1700s. This is the year 2004 incase you haven't noticed. Things have changed.... alot. In fact, did you know there were MORE amendments added! Can you believe how much things change. Owning a firearm should not be important to anyone, I can't even believe that crap is still an amendment. [quote]Guns are not dangerous if used respoinsibly.[/quote] Perhaps you don't understand the fact that VERY FEW people use them responcibly, therefor they are dangerous. [quote]Everything is dangerous if used irresponsibly.[/quote] I highly doubt if I used a piece of bellybutton lint irresponcibly it would be dangerous. [quote]And, if you ban guns, you will only take them from citizens responible enough to actually obey the law, leaving them in the hands of those who don't heed the law.[/quote] Hmm, England and Canada, two countries who have strict gun control, don't seem to have that big of a problem. Again i say that there were approximately 20 deaths resulting in firearms in England in 2001. That doesn't seem like alot of people using guns for bad purposes. [quote]So, when will you be leaving, then?[/quote] Who said I was leaving? Just cause people are stupid doesn't mean I have to leave. [quote]But the Constitution doesn't say musket. It says 'arms'. [/quote] Ok smart ***, fine. You have the right to carry 18th century ARMS.... you do not have the right to carry anything else. [quote]I do not support ownership of semi-automatic weapons, as they are really not necessary to fulfill the tasks intended by the fathers.[/quote] Neither are any other guns, except those 18th century arms... (which I'm sure you are loaded with) [quote]And, had the Fathers known the types of ordinence availible today, they [i]still[/i] would have put that Amendment in, because history taught them, as it should teach us, that unarmed populances will be opressed by their governments. Do I have to list my examples again?[/quote] No they wouldn't. Anyone with any sort of intelligence would never give a population of stupid people the right to carry any sort of weapon. Again I point out that Canadians and the English are not oppressed by their government anymore than we are. [quote]For someone with such a negative view of the current administration, I would think you'd understand what the fathers had in mind when they spoke of 'oppressive governements'.[/quote] I know exactly what they meant by oppressive governments, but again, that was back in the late 1700s. You really need to step out of your time machine and start living in the year 2004. Oppressive governments are dealt with by the populous with arms in America anymore. Maybe this is the case in other countries, but not here, and we are talking about here. [quote]You can not believe it, but you would still be wrong.[/quote] It's a shame I am too.

[quote name='DeathBug']You seem to stand on the side that wants to errode one of my most important constitutional rights, on the possibility of increased security.[/quote] Owning a firearm is one of your most important constitutional rights? lol.... I'm sorry, i thought you were being serious there for a second... Guns are a huge killer in American society, so why would anyone want to keep them? I mean it's like "hey, there's a big plague going around thats killing everyone, let's just keep it and not try to get rid of it." It's silly. Why would anyone want to keep something that has a possibility of killing themselves, their family, or their friends? I could never understand that. But then I remembered what country I live in and the people I deal with on a daily basis, and it all seems to make sense. Stupidity runs rampid in this country and it's seen in every aspect of life, even gun control. If you want to read and interpret the constitution as it was, and I'll say this again, I'll gladly support you're right to own an 18th century musket. However, the founding fathers never would have foreseen automatics and semi-automatics in American society or else theyw ould have never put that amendmet in. Therefor I don't believe anyone has the right to carry any other weapon. It's a danger to society and it's a danger to yourself

To some people, sexy and slutty would be synonymous. She's certainly both on certain occations. Not quite as slutty as Lil' Kim or Christina Aguwhatever... but still none-the-less.

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green]Gun control does exist in America, and is pretty much in line with the rest of the world in this regard. In fact, there are more guns per capita in Canada than there are in the United States. However, there are fewer gun deaths per year per capita in Canada than there are in the United States. (This statistic is from [u]Bowling for Columbine[/u'] by Michael Moore)[/quote] Thats because there are much fewer people per capita in Canada. If I have two people per capita and one of those people owns a gun, i now have more people per capita which own guns than in the US. Not to mention, they use their guns for hunting alot. Theres more forest per capita in Canada than the US too. [quote]It sounds cheesy, but guns don?t kill people, people kill people.[/quote] Yeah it does, but guns certainly don't help in the situation. If I was a robber and I didn't have a gun, my chances of killing someone would be far less than if I did have a gun. [quote]Our Problem is not with gun control, but with gun education. American society, for whatever reason, is more violent than other countries. We need to better educate the public about safe gun use, and the consequences of gun use.[/color] I think it's quite simple to understand. Gun + Bullet + head = death. I think Americans know perfectly well what the outcome of a gun fight would be, which is why we have so many deaths per year dealing with firearms. If Americans don't know that guns are bad, jesus.... what else can't we know. How dumb can we be? [quote][color=green]Guns do serve a purpose. Gun ownership is protected in the Constitution as a method of self-defense. While it is obvious that the Founding Fathers of our nation couldn?t have imagined our high-powered automatic weapons of today, controls and restrictions are [I]already in place[/I] to prevent combat weapons from being owned by private citizens. Take the assault weapons ban for instance, and bans on highly dangerous types of ammunition (explosive bullets, etc.)[/quote] Apparently those restrictions don't work cause we still have people obtaining these weapons illegally. Like I said, if you want to carry an 18th century musket I will stand beside you in your right to bear those arms. [quote]So I guess by quoting one of the most heralded documents of the free world, I?m now an idiot in your book TN?[/quote] I wouldn't say that.... [quote]If you have an issue with gun ownership, call your local representatives. They?ll listen.[/color][/quote] No they won't. My local representative is an advocate of gun usage. He's pro gun and anti-gun control. He only won the election because he beat out some other lady who spent alot of money on some statue of a frog (I swear to you, that was his whole campaign and it worked and it was sad) [quote][color=green]If you?re going to ban bullets, but not guns, that?s silly. You either allow gun (and bullet) ownership, or you take both of these rights away. There?s no middle ground.[/quote] Sure there is. Banning bullets is like banning guns, just easier. People run out of bullets, they don't run out of guns quite as easily. Therefor the solution is simple. There is no midle ground, ban bullets or ban guns. Either or works for me. [quote]I?d think this issue would hold special significance to you, as a gay man. Unfortunate as it is, there are bigots out there who would beat up and possibly kill gay people. Take the Matthew Shepard case, for instance. He wasn?t a large man, and was beat up and killed by several more physically able persons. If he had carried a gun, he?d have been able to save his life.[/quote] I think that issue lies within the killers of Matthew Sheperd. If they didn't have this useless hatred for gay people, Matt might still be alive.... [quote]Guns aren?t ?p---- weapons?, they?re a method of self-defense for people who aren?t able to defend themselves in other ways.[/color][/quote] Maybe those people should learn better ways to defend themselves. I once saw a blind woman beat up 4 guys attacking her, who weren't blind. She didn't seem to need a gun, why would anyone else?

Gun Control does not exist in America, you can see that plainly by looking at the death rates involving guns of countries that do have gun control. In 2001, America has over 11,000 deaths involving firearms, England had approx. 20. Let see which option is better?.... yeah I think it's quite obvious. Gun control should exist because guns are like drugs, they serve no purpose what-so-ever and we have no problem banning drugs.... And before one of you idiots that defend the second amendment come blabbering in, take into consideration that the high powered weapons of today did not exist in the late 1700s. If you would like, i would be more than happy to support your right to carry an 18th century musket, but any other gun, sorry. I believe the US government should ban bullets. This would easily solve the gun problem without having to make Billy Bob over there give up all his precious weapons. Guns are for people who can't fight anyway... they are a p----y weapon. Guns serve one purpose, to kill. As Americans, we're trying to cut down on that, therefor there seems to be only one reasonable outcome for guns, yet... still it hasn't happened.... what exactly goes through the minds of americans? I can't figure out how so many people in one country can be so incredibly stupid.

[quote name='HOTpage2004']Yeah, so I'm pretty popular now too, mainly cause I got arrested in school for doing something on the streets (nothing serious, mainly just involved a few fire crackers ) But every teenager thinks its cool to be arrested, and mine so happened in school, so, thats why. Nothing much, but cool. ^_^[/quote] Yeah.... so cool to be arrested.... is it also cool to be thrown in jail and be raped by some guy who's been in there for 30 years? Sounds to me like it's not cool at all to be arrested, in fact it's pretty f-ing stupid. And just for the fact, when I was a teenager, I didn't think it was cool to be arrested. I guess that shows how much you actually know.

Just cause you're popular doesn't make you "cool" either.

If it is meant to scare you, in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, then by definition it is a "horror" movie.... the definition of horror is that what is meant to or does scare. Slasher flicks scare some people, therefor they are horror. I don't see why anyone should debate over whether or not movies, which usually are crappy, are considered horror.

I did help you. I told you that you spelled "mess" wrong. And you fixed it... It's not that you don't know english, it's just you can't spell certain words. Like the majority of english speaking people.

Thats not ironic.... thats unfortunate.

[QUOTE=PiroMunkie][size=1]I was severely disappointed in that movie. I went in there fully expecting a decent alien sci-fi film and ended up with a "keep the faith alive" message grotesquely beaten into a sci-fi plot. The movie had nothing going for it except the suspense. They could not even make the final alien look real. If I would have known beforehand that "signs" was meant as in "Signs from Heaven" instead of "Signs from outer space," then I would not have gone to see it. There are some things that just do not mix; religion and science being one of them.[/size][/QUOTE] You have to understand that M. Night Shyamalan doesn't create normal movies. Just the fact Signs was made by him should have clued anyone in that this movie was not going to be a typical sci-fi movie and that it would be something different, new, and very unique. After all he did Sixth Sense and Unbreakable before that. Shyamalan has a new movie coming out called "The Village" and I'm interested in seeing it.

shikamaru Q1: Why can't you read the rules? Q2: Did you know you spelled "MESS" wrong in your signature? Lets put it this way, this topic.... is spam...