Jump to content

I would like to thank everyone who was able to make a donation for the purpose of obtaining new features for the forum. The donation goal was met rather quickly and we here at Kung Fu Fandom can not thank you enough for the support. The plan is once the new site is up and running, the focus will then turn to the forum on updating and adding these new features and we will continue to strive to make your time spent here on the forum as enjoyable as possible. _/|\_

Sign in to follow this  
Kwok Choi

.....AND OBAMA WON..............

Recommended Posts

Guest Markgway
The militia has already been formed. Try again...

Lol... you're a scary chap.

The Constitution can be AMENDED.

That's good. Not that any of us will be alive to see it. The NRA will still be masturbating over the rifles when we're all six feet under. Bless.

The constitution doesn't allow that, and if it did it would be more likely a socialist constitution in a place like England.

WTF? That's just an inane comment. "England" is the land of paedophiles is it? If you can't provide a better argument don't bother.

I would be against any constitution that included that.

But you can't be against the constitution; it's bread and butter remember? Without it American would wither and die. You HAVE to accept it. So again I ask you what if the constitution made provisions for drug dealers and child rapists? You would be against it, yeah? So why can't you accept that many people are against an ammendment that allows gun ownership?

Again you guess wrong. As I've said, you can't pick and choose what rights you want...you have to take the "good" with the "bad"-if you don't like all the right guarantees. If you think you can do anything else then you are naive.

Goes back to my previously unanswered question. If one of the ammendments favour paedophilia you would HAVE to accept it going by your own words.

The framers of the constitution were VERY educated people...they knew from history that no "democracy" ever worked in the long run and that political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

I'm certain they were educated... but even educated people sometimes make mistakes. Nothing is written in stone. A refusal to consider the possibility of change is an acceptance of ignorance. If I can be wrong and you can be wrong... the constitution can be wrong. And I'm not even talking about the whole just a part.

The American revolution was fought because of the very reason the citizens had their weapons-which were also used for hunting and commerce.

I don't approve of hunting myself but I can understand how things were different when the constitution was written. But in today's society does anyone REALLY need to hunt living creatures? Or is done just to make small men feel big? Give the animals guns and we'll see how brave these cowards truly are.

If the British police, and/or criminals came into your home right now and decided to rape and kill your family, what could you do?

Has this ever happened in America? Where The Police randomly break into the homes of innocent people to rape and kill? No? So why should it happen here? I really don't get where you're coming from on this. Should everyone own a gun on the 000.1% chance of this happening? Criminals are a different kettle of fish - and why you would ally them with cops I don't know - and the chance of armed raiders breaking into my house isn't a good enough reason to allow everyone to have a gun. Unfortunately a lot of the crime in the UK is down to repeat offenders because the so-called justice system fails to deal with the ones who get caught properly the first time round. Strict sentencing would vastly reduce the amount of violent crime in the UK (and very little of said crime is gun-related). Most gun crime is black on black but to deal with that in a robust fashion would be perceived as racist by the liberals. Oh noes!

guns kill people no more than cars. Here there are about 40,000 car deaths due to car accidents, drunk driving and the like

I'm not arguing about how dangerous cars are. And drink-drivers should have the proverbial book thrown at them. But cars are designed for transport. Guns are designed to tear through flesh and kill. You can't compare them.

Gun deaths are below 10,000.

Which is still shocking. That's a small town wiped out every year by firearms.

People get stabbed with knives by the thousands...people slit their own wrists with knives...why not advocate banning them?

Purpose. Knives, dangerous though they are, like cars, aren't designed to kill. That they can do so is a side effect. Unless you're talking about those big Ramboesque hunting knives in which case, yes, those should be banned. I could kill someone with a fountain pen (seriously): Should they be banned too?

But, then you could go to a liberal democrat or socialist Brit school where they teach you to just stand there and get stabbed or shot in order to "end" the violence. Lol!

I must've missed those "stand and be killed" classes. Effective law enforcement greatly reduces the need for weapons of self-defence. If Police are properly trained and deployed why would every individual need a gun?

Naaa...I think we need what you guys have...a gun control society which "stops" the IRA from getting guns and bombs <snicker> and Irish people are oppressed by Brit army people with guns.

The "Irish" were not oppressed by The British Army during "The Troubles". The British army was deployed in Northern Ireland to protect the Protestant majority from Catholic terrorists (ie. The IRA) who thought planting car bombs and kneecapping innocents was better than political discourse. Because of British failure in dealing with the IRA (whom they could've wiped out had they the balls) the Protestant side founded terrorist organisations of their own to terrorize the Catholic minority. Unfortunately innocents on both sides were terrorized and victimized. The whole situation was a badly handled mess. And Britain needs to accept their part in that. But if you think the idea was to oppress "The Irish" you've been watching too many bad Hollywood Oirish dramas.

Now where did I read that stabbings are up in Britain since super strict gun control?

The two are unconnected. Why? Because most stabbings occur in the street. And guns were NEVER allowed to be carried in the street. There is a moral decay in the UK and that's why knife crime has increased (along with overtly liberal and ineffectual justice policy). Nothing to do with guns. Whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny how only americans support Jingangchan... Coincidence? If the socialist american brainwashing machine is so effective, how come it seems to not work on these guys? They think for themselves? None of them dared to add anything to the discussion. All they do is say "Hi, my name is (fill the blank) and I approve of this message." Yep, the conservative machine is pretty well oiled.

Oh yeah, and I refer you to Marx, you refer us to... Kevin Trudeau... OH yeah, we are so schooled here. LMAO:p:p:p

If the only thing these Jingangchan "supporters" are saying is, "Hi, my name is (fill the blank) and I approve of this message," then how do you know they're only American? More socialist incoherent "thiking." As you have seen from the last election, probably 60% of the American public has been affected by socialist programming to some degree...it's just not like 80-90% as in places like Britain. And like most socialists do, they attack anyone who disagrees with them...

As for Karl Marx...I'd take Trudeau over that socialist pig Marx any day. Your fetish for Marx is most disturbing...and most enlightning...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude are you the Mel Gibson character in that film Conspiracy? You've still provided no evidence for any of your claims and I'm getting bored of the condescension when you are plainly talking gibberish. Right, I'm off for my MI-6 debriefing after brainwashing more gullible peasants into believing Hitler didn't lose the war on purpose.

Jingangchan: "OK here!" Slams stack of papers on Ironfistedmonk's desk. "Here's your proof!"

IronfistedMonk: "You had all of this forged with your Mafia connections!"

Next day...

Jingangchan: "OK here!" Slaps DVD on on Ironfistedmonk's desk. "Here's your proof!"

Ironfistedmonk: "You had all of this faked with your Mafia connections!"

Next day...

Jingangchan: "OK here!" Shows up with a bunch of historians, book authors, X-intelligence agents and politicians. "They'll tell you what you want to know."

Ironfistedmonk: "These are all imposters you paid off with money from your 401k!"

Jingangchan: Throws arms up in the air.

Ironfistedmonk: "You haven't shown me any proof!"

Jingangchan: "LOL!"

The point is that no matter what I do you'll claim I've provided no proof...you've proven that already. Like all brainwashed people, you will call anything that conflicts with your programming "gibberish." Continue to be part of the masses of asses...the sheeple if you want. That's why it's you guys in Britain that have limited "rights," not us...YET...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the only thing these Jingangchan "supporters" are saying is, "Hi, my name is (fill the blank) and I approve of this message," then how do you know they're only American? More socialist incoherent "thiking."

Elementary my dear Watson, it's wether written in their profile, or I know because they said it in the past. Yes, that's incoherent...

And you're right, Marx truly is enlighting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol... you're a scary chap.

Educated people who try to think for themselves are always scary to the manipulated masses and their controllers. Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR were so scared of us that they made special camps just for us! ;)

That's good. Not that any of us will be alive to see it. The NRA will still be masturbating over the rifles when we're all six feet under. Bless..
The only difference will be that you'll be 6 feet under if you oppose the orders that your MPs give you...we'll be 6 feet under for more natural reasons...

WTF? That's just an inane comment. "England" is the land of paedophiles is it? If you can't provide a better argument don't bother. .
Did you say this when your grade school teacher told you to spell Cat with a "C"?

But you can't be against the constitution; it's bread and butter remember? Without it American would wither and die. You HAVE to accept it. So again I ask you what if the constitution made provisions for drug dealers and child rapists? You would be against it, yeah? So why can't you accept that many people are against an ammendment that allows gun ownership?..
I'm for THIS constitution which is based on common sense and Christianity. Your constitution sucks compared to ours...so far.

Because the constitution is BASED on CHRISTIANITY it could never include provisions for child rapists. If a constitution included such things it WOULD NOT BE CHRISTIAN. Our constitution is CHRISTIAN AND ensures gun ownership. I would not be for any constitution if it included child molestation because-in part-it would thus by default not be Christian. Your example tries to marry two MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE CONCEPTS in order to simplistically make a bad point.

MY PROBLEM IS NOT PEOPLE DISAGREEING WITH CERTAIN PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION. MY PROBLEM IS PEOPLE TRYING TO FORCE THEIR VIEWS ON EVERYONE ELSE BY HOOK OR CROOK.

Goes back to my previously unanswered question. If one of the ammendments favour paedophilia you would HAVE to accept it going by your own words.
speaking of which, you've consistently avoided my questions on banning automobiles? Why don't you advocate that?

I'm certain they were educated... but even educated people sometimes make mistakes. Nothing is written in stone. A refusal to consider the possibility of change is an acceptance of ignorance. If I can be wrong and you can be wrong... the constitution can be wrong. And I'm not even talking about the whole just a part.
They did make a mistake...they realized there needed to be a bill of rights and they added one towards the end of the whole affair. There is nothing wrong with saying something is wrong and opposing it...but, that's assuming all the parties involved have looked at both sides of an issue with impartial minds. The difference here is that people who advocate what you do are 99.9% of the time onesidedly brainwashed by others who are manipulating them. Look at that one chick on here who won't believe that there are statistics showing how many times firearms were used to stop crime. She hasn't even tried to check out the other side of things before she's trying to make decisions for people. She's been programmed and has lost all ability to make an autotomous choice. People can be wrong...but, let them make their own mistakes...don't let brainwashed people make decisions like that for others.

I don't approve of hunting myself but I can understand how things were different when the constitution was written. But in today's society does anyone REALLY need to hunt living creatures? Or is done just to make small men feel big? Give the animals guns and we'll see how brave these cowards truly are.

Has this ever happened in America? Where The Police randomly break into the homes of innocent people to rape and kill? No? So why should it happen here? I really don't get where you're coming from on this. Should everyone own a gun on the 000.1% chance of this happening? Criminals are a different kettle of fish - and why you would ally them with cops I don't know - and the chance of armed raiders breaking into my house isn't a good enough reason to allow everyone to have a gun. Unfortunately a lot of the crime in the UK is down to repeat offenders because the so-called justice system fails to deal with the ones who get caught properly the first time round. Strict sentencing would vastly reduce the amount of violent crime in the UK (and very little of said crime is gun-related). Most gun crime is black on black but to deal with that in a robust fashion would be perceived as racist by the liberals. Oh noes!

I'm not arguing about how dangerous cars are. And drink-drivers should have the proverbial book thrown at them. But cars are designed for transport. Guns are designed to tear through flesh and kill. You can't compare them.

Which is still shocking. That's a small town wiped out every year by firearms.

Purpose. Knives, dangerous though they are, like cars, aren't designed to kill. That they can do so is a side effect. Unless you're talking about those big Ramboesque hunting knives in which case, yes, those should be banned. I could kill someone with a fountain pen (seriously): Should they be banned too?

I must've missed those "stand and be killed" classes. Effective law enforcement greatly reduces the need for weapons of self-defence. If Police are properly trained and deployed why would every individual need a gun?

The "Irish" were not oppressed by The British Army during "The Troubles". The British army was deployed in Northern Ireland to protect the Protestant majority from Catholic terrorists (ie. The IRA) who thought planting car bombs and kneecapping innocents was better than political discourse. Because of British failure in dealing with the IRA (whom they could've wiped out had they the balls) the Protestant side founded terrorist organisations of their own to terrorize the Catholic minority. Unfortunately innocents on both sides were terrorized and victimized. The whole situation was a badly handled mess. And Britain needs to accept their part in that. But if you think the idea was to oppress "The Irish" you've been watching too many bad Hollywood Oirish dramas.

The two are unconnected. Why? Because most stabbings occur in the street. And guns were NEVER allowed to be carried in the street. There is a moral decay in the UK and that's why knife crime has increased (along with overtly liberal and ineffectual justice policy). Nothing to do with guns. Whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at that one chick on here who won't believe that there are statistics showing how many times firearms were used to stop crime. She hasn't even tried to check out the other side of things before she's trying to make decisions for people. She's been programmed and has lost all ability to make an autotomous choice

:o:l

Are you talking about me? If yes, when did I say I was a chick Sherlock? You kept calling me my dear and honey... I thought you were a women...

By the way, you know who thought he was a free thinker... Hitler... lol

Oh, and you know who's another scholar you should read after Trudeau... David Icke. :P

You talked about shades of grey, but to you, everyone who's not on your side is a brainwashed socialist...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol... you're a scary chap.

Educated people who try to think for themselves are always scary to the manipulated masses and their controllers. Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR were so scared of us that they made special camps just for us! ;)

That's good. Not that any of us will be alive to see it. The NRA will still be masturbating over the rifles when we're all six feet under. Bless..
The only difference will be that you'll be 6 feet under if you oppose the orders that your MPs give you...we'll be 6 feet under for more natural reasons...

WTF? That's just an inane comment. "England" is the land of paedophiles is it? If you can't provide a better argument don't bother. .
Did you say this when your grade school teacher told you to spell Cat with a "C"?

But you can't be against the constitution; it's bread and butter remember? Without it American would wither and die. You HAVE to accept it. So again I ask you what if the constitution made provisions for drug dealers and child rapists? You would be against it, yeah? So why can't you accept that many people are against an ammendment that allows gun ownership?..
I'm for THIS constitution which is based on common sense and Christianity. Your constitution sucks compared to ours...so far.

Because the constitution is BASED on CHRISTIANITY it could never include provisions for child rapists. If a constitution included such things it WOULD NOT BE CHRISTIAN. Our constitution is CHRISTIAN AND ensures gun ownership. I would not be for any constitution if it included child molestation because-in part-it would thus by default not be Christian. Your example tries to marry two MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE CONCEPTS in order to simplistically make a bad point.

MY PROBLEM IS NOT PEOPLE DISAGREEING WITH CERTAIN PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION. MY PROBLEM IS PEOPLE TRYING TO FORCE THEIR VIEWS ON EVERYONE ELSE BY HOOK OR CROOK.

Goes back to my previously unanswered question. If one of the ammendments favour paedophilia you would HAVE to accept it going by your own words.
speaking of which, you've consistently avoided my questions on banning automobiles? Why don't you advocate that?

I'm certain they were educated... but even educated people sometimes make mistakes. Nothing is written in stone. A refusal to consider the possibility of change is an acceptance of ignorance. If I can be wrong and you can be wrong... the constitution can be wrong. And I'm not even talking about the whole just a part.
They did make a mistake...they realized there needed to be a bill of rights and they added one towards the end of the whole affair. There is nothing wrong with saying something is wrong and opposing it...but, that's assuming all the parties involved have looked at both sides of an issue with impartial minds. The difference here is that people who advocate what you do are 99.9% of the time onesidedly brainwashed by others who are manipulating them. Look at that one chick on here who won't believe that there are statistics showing how many times firearms were used to stop crime. She hasn't even tried to check out the other side of things before she's trying to make decisions for people. She's been programmed and has lost all ability to make an autotomous choice. People can be wrong...but, let them make their own mistakes...don't let brainwashed people make decisions like that for others.

I don't approve of hunting myself but I can understand how things were different when the constitution was written. But in today's society does anyone REALLY need to hunt living creatures? Or is done just to make small men feel big? Give the animals guns and we'll see how brave these cowards truly are.

Has this ever happened in America? Where The Police randomly break into the homes of innocent people to rape and kill? No? So why should it happen here? I really don't get where you're coming from on this. Should everyone own a gun on the 000.1% chance of this happening? Criminals are a different kettle of fish - and why you would ally them with cops I don't know - and the chance of armed raiders breaking into my house isn't a good enough reason to allow everyone to have a gun. Unfortunately a lot of the crime in the UK is down to repeat offenders because the so-called justice system fails to deal with the ones who get caught properly the first time round. Strict sentencing would vastly reduce the amount of violent crime in the UK (and very little of said crime is gun-related). Most gun crime is black on black but to deal with that in a robust fashion would be perceived as racist by the liberals. Oh noes!

I'm not arguing about how dangerous cars are. And drink-drivers should have the proverbial book thrown at them. But cars are designed for transport. Guns are designed to tear through flesh and kill. You can't compare them.

Which is still shocking. That's a small town wiped out every year by firearms.

Purpose. Knives, dangerous though they are, like cars, aren't designed to kill. That they can do so is a side effect. Unless you're talking about those big Ramboesque hunting knives in which case, yes, those should be banned. I could kill someone with a fountain pen (seriously): Should they be banned too?

I must've missed those "stand and be killed" classes. Effective law enforcement greatly reduces the need for weapons of self-defence. If Police are properly trained and deployed why would every individual need a gun?

The "Irish" were not oppressed by The British Army during "The Troubles". The British army was deployed in Northern Ireland to protect the Protestant majority from Catholic terrorists (ie. The IRA) who thought planting car bombs and kneecapping innocents was better than political discourse. Because of British failure in dealing with the IRA (whom they could've wiped out had they the balls) the Protestant side founded terrorist organisations of their own to terrorize the Catholic minority. Unfortunately innocents on both sides were terrorized and victimized. The whole situation was a badly handled mess. And Britain needs to accept their part in that. But if you think the idea was to oppress "The Irish" you've been watching too many bad Hollywood Oirish dramas.

The two are unconnected. Why? Because most stabbings occur in the street. And guns were NEVER allowed to be carried in the street. There is a moral decay in the UK and that's why knife crime has increased (along with overtly liberal and ineffectual justice policy). Nothing to do with guns. Whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol... you're a scary chap.

Educated people who try to think for themselves are always scary to the manipulated masses and their controllers. Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR were so scared of us that they made special camps just for us! ;)

That's good. Not that any of us will be alive to see it. The NRA will still be masturbating over the rifles when we're all six feet under. Bless..
The only difference will be that you'll be 6 feet under if you oppose the orders that your MPs give you...we'll be 6 feet under for more natural reasons...

WTF? That's just an inane comment. "England" is the land of paedophiles is it? If you can't provide a better argument don't bother. .
Did you say this when your grade school teacher told you to spell Cat with a "C"?

But you can't be against the constitution; it's bread and butter remember? Without it American would wither and die. You HAVE to accept it. So again I ask you what if the constitution made provisions for drug dealers and child rapists? You would be against it, yeah? So why can't you accept that many people are against an ammendment that allows gun ownership?..
I'm for THIS constitution which is based on common sense and Christianity. Your constitution sucks compared to ours...so far.

Because the constitution is BASED on CHRISTIANITY it could never include provisions for child rapists. If a constitution included such things it WOULD NOT BE CHRISTIAN. Our constitution is CHRISTIAN AND ensures gun ownership. I would not be for any constitution if it included child molestation because-in part-it would thus by default not be Christian. Your example tries to marry two MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE CONCEPTS in order to simplistically make a bad point.

MY PROBLEM IS NOT PEOPLE DISAGREEING WITH CERTAIN PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION. MY PROBLEM IS PEOPLE TRYING TO FORCE THEIR VIEWS ON EVERYONE ELSE BY HOOK OR CROOK.

Goes back to my previously unanswered question. If one of the ammendments favour paedophilia you would HAVE to accept it going by your own words.
speaking of which, you've consistently avoided my questions on banning automobiles? Why don't you advocate that?

I'm certain they were educated... but even educated people sometimes make mistakes. Nothing is written in stone. A refusal to consider the possibility of change is an acceptance of ignorance. If I can be wrong and you can be wrong... the constitution can be wrong. And I'm not even talking about the whole just a part.
They did make a mistake...they realized there needed to be a bill of rights and they added one towards the end of the whole affair. There is nothing wrong with saying something is wrong and opposing it...but, that's assuming all the parties involved have looked at both sides of an issue with impartial minds. The difference here is that people who advocate what you do are 99.9% of the time onesidedly brainwashed by others who are manipulating them. Look at that one chick on here who won't believe that there are statistics showing how many times firearms were used to stop crime. She hasn't even tried to check out the other side of things before she's trying to make decisions for people. She's been programmed and has lost all ability to make an autotomous choice. People can be wrong...but, let them make their own mistakes...don't let brainwashed people make decisions like that for others.

I don't approve of hunting myself but I can understand how things were different when the constitution was written. But in today's society does anyone REALLY need to hunt living creatures? Or is done just to make small men feel big? Give the animals guns and we'll see how brave these cowards truly are..
I see your points to a small degree but, as usual people who are programmed don't know the other side of the story. Some people here are still sustenance hunters...and hunting is a tool used by our conservation officials to help the environment. For example if we have a mild winter and the wild life populations explode then they begin to destroy the habitat because the population is too dense. In the long run this will hurt the animals because once they've eaten and destroyed everything the habitat will not be able to support future generations of wildlife. Then the wildlife will starve. Hunting is used for population control so the wildlife doesn't destroy itself in this way.

Has this ever happened in America? Where The Police randomly break into the homes of innocent people to rape and kill? No? So why should it happen here? I really don't get where you're coming from on this. Should everyone own a gun on the 000.1% chance of this happening? Criminals are a different kettle of fish - and why you would ally them with cops I don't know - and the chance of armed raiders breaking into my house isn't a good enough reason to allow everyone to have a gun. Unfortunately a lot of the crime in the UK is down to repeat offenders because the so-called justice system fails to deal with the ones who get caught properly the first time round. Strict sentencing would vastly reduce the amount of violent crime in the UK (and very little of said crime is gun-related). Most gun crime is black on black but to deal with that in a robust fashion would be perceived as racist by the liberals. Oh noes! .
See Waco before you say this thing has never happened. There are bales of stories where the ATF murdered and attacked people. Ever hear of Rodney King? True, this doesn't happen every other minute but, it does happen every so often...and the very reason it doesn't happen more is because the police here know people can shoot back-as the ATF discovered when they had 4 agents killed in Waco. There is a 000.1% chance of my home catching fire but, that doesn't mean I don't keep a fire extinguisher...There is a 000.1% chance of me getting into a big car accident but, that's no reason NOT to wear a seat belt. If you get into one accident in your life then it makes wearing a seat belt every day for 80 years worth it.

I'm not arguing about how dangerous cars are. And drink-drivers should have the proverbial book thrown at them. But cars are designed for transport. Guns are designed to tear through flesh and kill. You can't compare them..

Yes you can compare them. So you are saying that if you saw an old lady about to be hit by a bus you wouldn't try to save her because "the bus isn't made to kill?" No. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER SOMETHING IS MADE TO KILL OR NOT...IF YOU ARE REALLY AS CONCERNED ABOUT SAVING LIVES AS GUN CONTROL FANATICS CLAIM, THEN YOU TRY TO SAVE LIVES NO MATTER WHAT. SOMEONE KILLED BY A CAR IS JUST AS DEAD AS SOMEONE KILLED BY A GUN. Nice try though...

Which is still shocking. That's a small town wiped out every year by firearms..
Whats even more shocking is how you seem to think it's okay for four small towns to be wiped out by cars just because theyre "designed for transport." Lol!

Purpose. Knives, dangerous though they are, like cars, aren't designed to kill. That they can do so is a side effect. Unless you're talking about those big Ramboesque hunting knives in which case, yes, those should be banned. I could kill someone with a fountain pen (seriously): Should they be banned too? .
Tell that to the bloke who got killed by the Bus, car, steak knife or fountain pen. Dead is dead. The guy who got killed by a car is no more or less dead than the guy killed by a bayonet or gun. The point is that this proves people aren't as concerned about lives as they claim to be...that's just a smoke screen...people are just socialists who want to control peoples' lives...and they just hate to see the good guy come out on top when criminals strike...

I must've missed those "stand and be killed" classes. Effective law enforcement greatly reduces the need for weapons of self-defence. If Police are properly trained and deployed why would every individual need a gun?..
Ahhh...the naivete of socialism...you remind me of those people who said WWI was the war to end all wars. Lol! If a bull frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's ass on the ground hopping. When you find the perfect police department staffed by a bunch of Jesus Christs, let me know. Also police are reactionary. Someone gets stabbed and THEN you call the cops....someone torches your house and then you call the authorities...someone beats you up and then you call the police...someone kills you and then you...you...you...you learn the hard way why socialist arguments that police preclude the need for personal protection are specious. Dude...it would be nice if the world was the nice little utopia that all you socialist naively think it can be but, get real. Reality check. This is the real world pal, not a fantasy land where everyone has free healthcare (even if he's a fat smoking slob), there's no crime and everyone eats Big Macs for dinner every day. Until that day comes, the wise man sleeps next to his gun...

The "Irish" were not oppressed by The British Army during "The Troubles". The British army was deployed in Northern Ireland to protect the Protestant majority from Catholic terrorists (ie. The IRA) who thought planting car bombs and kneecapping innocents was better than political discourse. Because of British failure in dealing with the IRA (whom they could've wiped out had they the balls) the Protestant side founded terrorist organisations of their own to terrorize the Catholic minority. Unfortunately innocents on both sides were terrorized and victimized. The whole situation was a badly handled mess. And Britain needs to accept their part in that. But if you think the idea was to oppress "The Irish" you've been watching too many bad Hollywood Oirish dramas.
No, what I was partly saying is that your outlawing weapons sure didn't stop the "criminals" from getting them...only the "innocents" were disarmed and as you said they got kneecapped. That's the reality of gun control. It doesn't mean the bad people will end up with no guns...it means just the good people will end up with no guns, while the bad guys have them...and kneecap defenseless innocents...

Again, the reality is a lot different form the unrealistic utopia that communist have always dreamed of...

The two are unconnected. Why? Because most stabbings occur in the street. And guns were NEVER allowed to be carried in the street. There is a moral decay in the UK and that's why knife crime has increased (along with overtly liberal and ineffectual justice policy). Nothing to do with guns. Whatsoever.
Please...stabbings happen everywhere. Here though people are allowed to carry guns in many places...in those places all violent crime on the streets has been statistically shown to go down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jingangchan: "OK here!" Slams stack of papers on Ironfistedmonk's desk. "Here's your proof!"

IronfistedMonk: "You had all of this forged with your Mafia connections!"

Next day...

Jingangchan: "OK here!" Slaps DVD on on Ironfistedmonk's desk. "Here's your proof!"

Ironfistedmonk: "You had all of this faked with your Mafia connections!"

Next day...

Jingangchan: "OK here!" Shows up with a bunch of historians, book authors, X-intelligence agents and politicians. "They'll tell you what you want to know."

Ironfistedmonk: "These are all imposters you paid off with money from your 401k!"

Jingangchan: Throws arms up in the air.

Ironfistedmonk: "You haven't shown me any proof!"

Jingangchan: "LOL!"

The point is that no matter what I do you'll claim I've provided no proof...you've proven that already. Like all brainwashed people, you will call anything that conflicts with your programming "gibberish." Continue to be part of the masses of asses...the sheeple if you want. That's why it's you guys in Britain that have limited "rights," not us...YET...

Your saying an awful lot and still no proof, where are these papers and books your slamming in front of me in our hypothetical conversation above? Do I have to ask the Mafia for them?! (this is so bizarre I can't believe I'm involved in a thread like this!) You have absolutely no argument whatsoever and I can't believe people have posted on here about you schooling us! Scientists provide facts to back up their theories, scientists who can't prove their theorems are discredited.

Like all brainwashed people I like to make up my mind from the facts in front of me, I am aware of texts which you claim are "socialist", show me the texts you are referring to so I can make an informed opinion. And I don't mean hidden healthcare agendas, I mean the one where Hitler worked for MI-6, was related to Stalin and Churchill and lost the Second World War on purpose, I keep asking and you keep dodging.

I think you are sitting behind your computer and laughing your ass off, no one on Earth could possible believe all the things you are coming out with, all this is a big joke right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elementary my dear Watson, it's wether written in their profile, or I know because they said it in the past. Yes, that's incoherent...

And you're right, Marx truly is enlighting...

If they wrote it in their profile...and if they're telling the truth...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:o:l

Are you talking about me? If yes, when did I say I was a chick Sherlock? You kept calling me my dear and honey... I thought you were a women...

By the way, you know who thought he was a free thinker... Hitler... lol

Oh, and you know who's another scholar you should read after Trudeau... David Icke. :P

You talked about shades of grey, but to you, everyone who's not on your side is a brainwashed socialist...

I've read David Icke...and I formed my own opinions AFTER I read his stuff...I wasn't brainwashed to hate him first. And if I thought you were a chick and you are not...then that doesn't bode well for how you come off...;)

Everyone thinks they are a free thinker...just like no one in hollywood admits to being on the casting couch. ;)

I never said everyone not on my side is a brainwashed socialist, that's just you obfuscating. It just so happens that several people here that are disagreeing with me are brainwashed...:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your saying an awful lot and still no proof, where are these papers and books your slamming in front of me in our hypothetical conversation above? Do I have to ask the Mafia for them?! (this is so bizarre I can't believe I'm involved in a thread like this!) You have absolutely no argument whatsoever and I can't believe people have posted on here about you schooling us! Scientists provide facts to back up their theories, scientists who can't prove their theorems are discredited.

Like all brainwashed people I like to make up my mind from the facts in front of me, I am aware of texts which you claim are "socialist", show me the texts you are referring to so I can make an informed opinion. And I don't mean hidden healthcare agendas, I mean the one where Hitler worked for MI-6, was related to Stalin and Churchill and lost the Second World War on purpose, I keep asking and you keep dodging.

I think you are sitting behind your computer and laughing your ass off, no one on Earth could possible believe all the things you are coming out with, all this is a big joke right?

LMAO!!! You're half right...I am laughing my ass off but, not for the reasons that you think. How about you PROVE ME WRONG? WHY DON'T YOU SHOW ME PROOF WHAT I SAY IS WRONG? See, anyone can play that romper room game. Why don't you prove to me there were no WMDs? Show me the concentration camps...PROVE to me that American went to the moon...because if you don't that means you're just making it all up and have no argument whatsoever! LMAO!

The people who've appeared and agreed with me know some if not all of what I'm talking about and need no convincing. There is no convincing you because, you've already been programmed. If you really want to know, go out and bring some research back...then I will know you are serious...then maybe I'll speak more...but, for now you stay part of the sheeple...the lemmings...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We should be promoting goodwill between each other rather than putting down each other's countries and histories on here. All that breeds is hate. :(
I don't hate any country...but, I don't have as much respect as I could for people when they don't use the free will they've been given. I don't hate France, or Iraq or Russia or Mexico. But, if they speak on our constitution without the necessary knowledge then I tell them the real deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People are willing to talk about race in controlled situations where it's "sanctioned." Even then it's reluctant and people don't come out with what they really think.

True. That is part of the problem, people black and white are afraid to discuss this issue with one another.

Yes he would be gun shy. If the criminals were white, the victim-whether black or white-would be gun shy about that too.

No. He wouldn't be. There are people out there who have had these very things happen to them by people of there own race. But, they wouldn't group there own race into one category.

No, she answered it. If you ask me if I have experience in Hong Kong movies and I say I worked with Samo Hung on several projects, it's not my fault if people can't (or won't) figure out that means I have HK experience. Working with Samo Hung implies the answer. If she said she can see Russia, then that's enough for me. That is different from saying she has foreign policy experience.

Never said she didn't answer, I said she bumble the question because didn't have an answer, didn't want to say no, and could only come up with the I can see Russia line. I watched the interview in its entirety, she wasn't asked a stupid question, but yet came up with a stupid answer.

I was talking about how Alaska governorship can be a good prep for presidency. The NRA is a legitimate lobby group. It represents a lot of normal people. And any amendments were intended to be made based on legitimate facts and debate-not lies. Also, the amendments process is there for the adding of new rights, NOT the revocation of previous ones.

First, I agree that being govenor of Alaska is a good way of saying I have some experience, but she has not dealt with any real pissues during her one term. Second, there is no such thing as a legit lobby group, not even the NRA, they are all out for themselve, therfore corrupt. Third, the constitution has been changed several times. We're talking Guns, they changed that, maybe not 100% but they changed it so the guns can't be loaded. Amend means to change.

The ATF is a socialist terrorist group. Keep in mind how to use stats. If a legal gun is present when a guy gets arrested in his own home for disorderly conduct, then technically by ATF standards a "legal gun" was used in a crime-even though it was locked up in the attic and had nothing to do with what happened two floors down. Guns are accounted for. They have gun registration and you have to fill out all kinds of forms when you buy one. The point is that this same list can be used to round up all gun owners in the future if the government decides to go NaZi or something.

NO, the stats were reffering to the gun owner, not a gun that was purchased and in the house during a crime, in court a legal gun that wasn't used in a crime just sitting there wouldn't be brought up anyway.

The problem is that the gun is not registered to the actual criminal. It is usually stolen from someone else or at least the serial numbers have been destroyed so it can't be traced effectively.

Check the numbers, only 10-15% of gun crimes are using stolen guns.

What...me not spoon feeding you, or you not wanting to put down your bucket of chicken, get up and take responsibility by going and researching for yourself?

No. Peri is not asking to be spoon fed, he is saying that he is not seeing any proof from you. I live in America, so I don't need to understand where you come from, I hear it almost everyday. I just don't agree, and I don't think i'm socialist in thinking, not everyone who disagrees with you is.

Dude are you the Mel Gibson character in that film Conspiracy? You've still provided no evidence for any of your claims and I'm getting bored of the condescension when you are plainly talking gibberish. Right, I'm off for my MI-6 debriefing after brainwashing more gullible peasants into believing Hitler didn't lose the war on purpose.

I don't know what your saying with this, but in this country I love so much, our government is dirty. Jing pointed out the Tuskegee expirement as one example, it is not to be disputed because it happened. The deaths of JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Lincoln, and many more; these are just the biggest names i'm sure everyone is familiar with. I brought up Katrina and it's similarities to Hurricane Pam a year before. The US government ii and has been involved in some underhanded shit. Far from innocent, a lot of this stuff is documented, not even hidden.

LOL...don't panic because there are others out there who can think for themselves.

Okay...I'll give you a light start. Even though other researchers had already done research on this...Kevin Trudeau's book "Natural Cures They Don't Want You To Know About," is a good introduction to the uninitiated. It talks about the greed and corruption of the healthcare system in everyday terms people can understand. There are better sources but, those may shock the uninitiated. I've discovered that you need to wean people off of brainwashing slowly. You need to read the book yourself however...

I agree that the government suppresses a lot of information, they allow doctors to prescribe drugs to patients that will negate one another. Allow these same drug companys to again sale the most expensive drug to a patient who believes its the cheapest on the market. There are books I could mention, but we don't need books for this.

Has this ever happened in America? Where The Police randomly break into the homes of innocent people to rape and kill? No?

Yes. It happens all the time, people trust the police. There are two cops in a neihboring town here in Delaware serving time for using there badges to break into young single womens houses and raping them. The State police and FBI recently arrested a few more cops who were soliciting sex from underage girls, and when I say underage I MEAN underage. I'm talking 16 and under, I believe the youngest was 14.

Most gun crime is black on black but to deal with that in a robust fashion would be perceived as racist by the liberals. Oh noes!

Even though violent crime is equal across the board, gun crime is higher among Blacks here in America, but there is reason that is true. But, we also need to know the reason. Same as we need to know the reason why malt liquor is only sold in black neighborhoods here in America

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Show me the concentration camps...

OK... Yeah, the people who initially agreed with you might begin to regret that now all your rambling anti-semitic holocaust denying what nots are starting to fly... Any takers still fully agreed now all his ideas are coming out to play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as long as jingangchang is not quoting david irving (and if you don't know, you don't wanna know), then i can agree with him to a certain degree, and i do agree that my comment earlier should be directed at everyone on this thread.

love

billy "we didn't start the fire" joel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We should be promoting goodwill between each other rather than putting down each other's countries and histories on here. All that breeds is hate. :(

Yeah, you're right. I think i'll step aside from this debate if it continues to be filled with insults towards my country or anothers. No country is pefect, they are all flawed, far from perfect. It did start out fun, but now people have started the name calling and that is why I don't like debating politics, or expressing my opinion. Specifically, when people who I don't agree with tell me i'm brainwashed or haven't formed my own opinion. When I do come with facts, it is normally ignored. Not just talking about here, but in conversations with folks around me.

Too much putting down here, and not enough trying to understand why people don't feel the same way. I've read a lot of books, from Marx to Vidal, from the Bible to the Koran. I like knowing different thoughts and being able to understand other countries histories and not just my own American history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK... Yeah, the people who initially agreed with you might begin to regret that now all your rambling anti-semitic holocaust denying what nots are starting to fly... Any takers still fully agreed now all his ideas are coming out to play?

Lol! This is really quite pathetic...now you're reduced to begging someone else to agree with you based on some shallow threat of being called an anti-semite? Lol! Yeah...I'm sure you're one of those types who thinks someone's a racist if he doesn't tell a minority his fart smells good. Hey Perin, I don't like Israeli rockets killing Arab kids. How "anti-semitic" am I now? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the problem with this thread... seems a good microcosm of a general consensus that afflicts us all in part/is implied or in many our personal ill-thought generally superficial immediate attitudes - the, a different viewpoint/belief system... there must be something wrong with them attitude, possibly a plausible lack of want to find the similarities in views opposed that also could fit our own in part/understanding; ...the they must be insecure, brainwashed etc. defence. Well, no, not always really; we all are. Regional/complacent thinking, a lack of willingness to recognise this, to relinquish opinions strongly held that could be wrong or even perceive that possibility, and open up investedly to all other opinions' relative viabilities, in part, not as totally defining, as full will always waver every single case; not blaming or casting aspersion on all those attributes you can superficially label/title/box people without full knowledge all facets, selves included, into would probably serve us all better a little in part. Finding the similarities between strongly opposed viewpoints or recognising the possibility of our own fallibility with all perception. We're all these people. We're all human, recognise to forget conceivably unwarranted patriotism to degree. We're all crippled in some manner, even if the odds are in our favour. All our attitudes are there to be wonky. All our brains are broken. Jingangchan's especially, psyche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol! This is really quite pathetic...now you're reduced to begging someone else to agree with you based on some shallow threat of being called an anti-semite? Lol! Yeah...I'm sure you're one of those types who thinks someone's a racist if he doesn't tell a minority his fart smells good. Hey Perin, I don't like Israeli rockets killing Arab kids. How "anti-semitic" am I now? ;)
I'm not begging, they can agree with you if they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn... Remember what Voltaire said "Although i disagree with what you say, I will defend until death your right to say it." Anyways, this debate is an example how this egotistical touchy-feely crap promoted by society nowadays inhibits its intellectualness.

Now, I will end with some stuff supporting my arguements about health-care and gun control.

http://http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081103.EMERGENCY03/TPStory/National

"It's like a Third World country. And this is not unique to Edmonton. This is right across the country."

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/10/more-gun-totin.html

"After passing their concealed carry law, Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average. In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second. Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year. In fact as the number of firearms owned by citizens has been increasing steadily since 1970, the overall rate of homicides and suicides has not risen. Crime has decreased faster in the 47 states that have CCW permits"

And some thoughts about one poster's quotes..

The militia has already been formed. Try again...

Are you vaguely implying to the Michigan Militia?:o

Because the constitution is BASED on CHRISTIANITY

False. Christianity did contribute to the idea of liberty under law and this leads to the Bill of Rights. However, I believe it most of the constitution is based on a variety of sources including Greco-Roman forms and ideas of government and checks and balances, the Magna Carta and etc.

As for sumptuary laws, those were left out of the constitution since the government has no right in deciding people's private views on morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Markgway
I'm for THIS constitution which is based on common sense and Christianity.

What if you're not a Christian?

Your constitution sucks compared to ours...so far.

I don't see how it can since we don't have one.

Because the constitution is BASED on CHRISTIANITY it could never include provisions for child rapists.

Obviously. I was posing a hypothetical question. I picked something extreme for a reason.

Our constitution is CHRISTIAN AND ensures gun ownership.

My favourite chapter of The Bible is when Jesus cuts down the disciples with a uzi.

MY PROBLEM IS NOT PEOPLE DISAGREEING WITH CERTAIN PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION. MY PROBLEM IS PEOPLE TRYING TO FORCE THEIR VIEWS ON EVERYONE ELSE BY HOOK OR CROOK.

Like decrying anyone who disagrees with you as an evil or ignorant socialist/communist/nazi, etc...?

speaking of which, you've consistently avoided my questions on banning automobiles? Why don't you advocate that?

I answered that thoroughly. Maybe you missed it? I wouldn't ban cars or kitchen knives because they serve a purpose and aren't designed for killing.

There is nothing wrong with saying something is wrong and opposing it...

Unless you agree with it? In which case any suggested change is socialist bullshit.

The difference here is that people who advocate what you do are 99.9% of the time onesidedly brainwashed by others who are manipulating them.

Again... you're right and everyone else is brainwashed. You cannot accept that anyone else has a different point of view. You talk about impartiality when you yourself have none.

Look at that one chick on here who won't believe that there are statistics showing how many times firearms were used to stop crime.

I don't doubt that some lives have been saved by gun use. But to me that's not good enough. Chances are those lives were put at risk in the first place by other guns. Getting rid of guns won't get rid of criminals but it will reduce the number gun crimes. Most petty criminals don't have access to a network of Russian Mobster imported AK-47s. You'll find that countries with the tighest gun laws have the least gun crime. Common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Markgway
I see your points to a small degree but, as usual people who are programmed don't know the other side of the story. Some people here are still sustenance hunters...and hunting is a tool used by our conservation officials to help the environment. For example if we have a mild winter and the wild life populations explode then they begin to destroy the habitat because the population is too dense. In the long run this will hurt the animals because once they've eaten and destroyed everything the habitat will not be able to support future generations of wildlife. Then the wildlife will starve. Hunting is used for population control so the wildlife doesn't destroy itself in this way.

I'll accept that argument as reasonable. But the idea of killing for fun or sport makes me sick. And this isn't an anti-American jibe in case you're wondering... hunting goes on in the UK too and it disgusts me.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER SOMETHING IS MADE TO KILL OR NOT...

To me it does.

Dead is dead. The guy who got killed by a car is no more or less dead than the guy killed by a bayonet or gun.

It's the difference between accident and murder. The number of homicides committed by bayonet or car or fountain pen is a fraction compared to those committed by guns. You are the one who cares more about your individual rights than anyone else's right not to get shot. You like guns therefore you justify this by unreasonable comparisons. Where do you draw the line? Land mines in the back garden? A missile launcher on top of your roof? I've already said that non-kitchenware knives should be banned. I'm not inconsistant.

people are just socialists who want to control peoples' lives...and they just hate to see the good guy come out on top when criminals strike...

That's definately not me. I've been criticized for being too harsh on criminals and anti-social behaviour. I believe in hard justice and have been accused of being right wing because of it. Obviously I have nothing on you. You see everything as a socialist comspiracy. Right wing paranoia perhaps?

I think we should stop pretty soon. Neither of us is going to budge and maybe some other posters would like to offer their thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×