Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

James Harrison says KC tragedy not a gun problem


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#91 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,566 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:40 AM

Atomic weapons can be easily detonated by one person. A crude atomic weapon could be built by one person as well.

The only reason they can't is...wait for it...governmental restrictions.

#92 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,566 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:42 AM

And the defeatist mantra of "we'll never get rid of gun violence" is the same as saying "we'll never get rid of traffic accidents". Both are true but it's absolutely insane not to do all within our power to limit them.

#93 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,687 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:56 AM

No...it would be more like comparing to we'll never get rid of weed.

#94 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,566 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:00 PM

Funny, as I find gun people's arguments just as inane and illogical as weed people's.

Smoking weed is good for you, man!

#95 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,980 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:36 PM

uhhh... there is a big difference in guns and bombs...

ever heard of a weapon of mass destruction? that is what a bomb is...

#96 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,566 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:14 PM

The guns/bombs comparison is extreme. It's less extreme than guns/scissors comparisons though.

#97 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,002 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:41 PM

Atomic weapons can be easily detonated by one person. A crude atomic weapon could be built by one person as well.

The only reason they can't is...wait for it...governmental restrictions.


I disagree. Atomic weapons require a great deal if technical expertise and specialized equipment.

A crude bomb is much easier to make than a crude firearm, but you still don't see a whole lot of bombing going on between private citizens in the US.

If you haven't noticed, the average American citizen isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. Even without government restrictions, I wouldn't worry about some nutjob building a crude atomic weapon.

#98 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,566 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:45 PM

Yet we still go out of our way to avoid giving them the opportunity.

But none of that matters since we've establish the killing capacity of the weapon is irrelevant.

#99 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,923 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:52 PM

Atomic weapons can be easily detonated by one person. A crude atomic weapon could be built by one person as well.

The only reason they can't is...wait for it...governmental restrictions.


Yea because everyone would try to build an atomic weapon to kill everyone with if it werent for gov't.

#100 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,923 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:54 PM

Funny, as I find gun people's arguments just as inane and illogical as weed people's.

Smoking weed is good for you, man!


Actually cannabis is the most beneficial plant on the planet...not to mention its medicinal qualities are far superior to the status-quo synthetic, cancer causing "cures" used by the medical establishment.

#101 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,923 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:58 PM

In order for someone to be killed by one of these man-made mechanisms, there has to be an operator, and an intent to do so by said operator. If there is no intent and no operator then there is no murder. Thats the bottom line in all this. The rest is semantics. I'm not even a fan of guns or weapons on any kind, however if they exist they must be accessible to everyone. Either everyone can get a gun, or no one can get a gun...it is imparative that the playing field is even. The absolute worst case scenario we could find ourselves in, is a situation where guns are illegal to the general public, but legal for law enforcement and military use.

#102 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,923 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:10 PM

then why can't iran have them?


Because once upon a time when the US was going to try and invade Iran, they wouldnt want to have to worry about them actually fighting back.

#103 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,923 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:18 PM

ok if that's the case then why can israel have them?

oh and speaking of certified crazy, why do we have them? we actually used the damn things to commit one of the greatest atrocities in human history.


Haha exactly. The Rothschild Zionist mob out of Israel are one of the main pullers of strings in the world today...or at least they were, haha. This planet has been run by criminal gangsters for a while now, which isnt exactly news to any of us...and is the reason behind the obvious hypocrisy you mentioned.

#104 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 01:24 AM

Just replying to Del again huh? Not talking about me... or following me around in a thread that I had already posted in multiple times before you starting jabbering even though you claim I was MIA?





See, this is the difference between you and nearly every other poster on this board...

The difference is this... my problem with Del is that he often uses extreme examples to make his points such as in this thread (and also a fair bit of trolling)... I find this a poor way of making a point, but I don't think Del is dumb... I just think some of the posts he makes are, so I say so. But I don't throw out childish antics and call him names.

I really don't think that you are dumb either, I just think you have extraordinarily poor social skills... and don't play well with anyone who even slightly disagrees with you. You claim to only call out people who's ideologies are "not well thought out..." but that's not true at all. You only call people out when they don't line up with your way of thinking and usually do so in a very childish and condescending manner.

If could stop being an socially retarded person and instead of calling people stupid or "literally retarded" and simply discuss the merits of the arguments being made, I probably would rarely comment about your posts. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me or anyone else. I'm not always right, and I realize that and I am fully capable of changing my position on issues, as I have done many times in my life, but I'm not always going to agree with you and that doesn't make me "literally retarded" or any other personal attack you can come up with...


tl;dr

My point is this... act like an adult and you'll be treated like one.


everything that is in bold in this post is on topic and relevant to the discussion

i don't see why you're so mad that i answered him when you wouldn't

#105 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 01:29 AM

oh and btw we do give individuals the power to use nuclear weaponry, which is ignorant as all hell

http://en.wikipedia....uclear_football


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com