Douva

The schools haven't gotten THAT intolerant. I believe most still allow prop weapons in stage productions. When I was in 6th grade, we did a production of Robin Hood, and I brought two REAL swords to school for use as props. I'm pretty sure that would not fly anymore. };^) I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Thats just funny. One point for the ACLU IMO. Zero for the school I agree. Most "zero tolerance" policies have no place in reality. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

They still haven't figured out what killed all those birds, but some of the pictures are pretty damn disturbing. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

It's not just you. Guys like Brains are a rare find. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Well, I don't think we should ban a man from owning a gun because he once used one to defend himself. There are requirements to own a gun in America (of legal age, clean criminal record, etc.), and I think the same should be true for nations desiring nuclear weapons. If you got pissed at your neighbor a few years back and stabbed him with a knife, you're not going to be allowed to have a gun. Likewise, if you got pissed at your neighboring country a few years back and launched a SCUD missile attack on it, you're not going to be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. I could draw more parallels, but I'm sure you get my point. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I agree that the parallel is undeniable. I think the issues of both small arms and nuclear arms boil down to the same answer: We, as a community (both local and global), must agree not to allow people or nations with bad track records to be armed. One of the mistakes that lead to World War II was the global community's failure to enforce the prohibition against Germany rearming itself after World War I. The answer to this type of problem isn't to say, "Okay, we'll all disarm." The answer is to say, "You screwed up and forfeited some of your rights, and we're going to enforce the new restrictions placed upon you." Rogue nations will still get weapons of mass destruction, and criminals will still get guns, but the global and local communities will do their best to make sure this is kept to a minimum. Outside of a perfect world, that's really all you can do. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think Kallend's rebuttals are getting exponentially weaker with each post he makes? No point in wasting words over a repost. Oh, it's a repost. Well, I guess you got me there. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think Kallend's rebuttals are getting exponentially weaker with each post he makes? PS. Kallend, when something is described as "classic," you can usually assume it's not going to be original. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

One of those is a violation of forum rules and I did put "other" for alternative options. Like BDSM clubs in Remi's case. There's nothing in the forum rules about picking up high school students at funerals. Especially if they're over 18. Just ask Lindercles. A short clip of Lindercles trying to pick up girls in austin I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I don't understand this reasoning. We have banned driving through a red light, yet people still do it. Do you advocate not having laws against driving through a red light? Or stopping for a stop sign? For the fiftieth time, driving through a red light is inherently dangerous and qualifies as a bad act. The "logic" of a gun controller would say that we need to ban cars to prevent fatal crashes and people running red lights. No one is saying that there shouldn't be laws against assault, murder, etc. What we are saying is that it makes no sense to ban an object just because it might someday be used in a crime. (A) prior restraint is a bad idea and should not be part of laws (B) what objects don't fall into the category of 'might be used in a crime someday?' CLASSIC EXAMPLE: BAN DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE! Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death. Dihydrogen monoxide: *is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain. *contributes to the "greenhouse effect." *may cause severe burns. *contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape. *accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals. *may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes. *has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients. Contamination is reaching epidemic proportions! Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California. Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used: *as an industrial solvent and coolant. *in nuclear power plants. *in the production of styrofoam. *as a fire retardant. *in many forms of cruel animal research. *in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical. *as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products. Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer! The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I don't understand this reasoning. We have banned driving through a red light, yet people still do it. Do you advocate not having laws against driving through a red light? Or stopping for a stop sign? We have laws against running red lights because we need to be able to impose penalties on people who run red lights. We already have laws regarding assault and murder. A terrorist who is planning to commit murder isn't going to concern himself with a simple firearms violation. That's like expecting lower speed limits to make it harder for criminals to outrun police. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

The vast majority of firearms sold at gun shows are sold by dealers who are required to perform background checks. You can, however, legally buy a gun from an individual at a gun show or just about anywhere else, without a background check. The only legal requirements are that you be of legal age and be from the same state where you are buying the gun. The reason for this is that without gun registration, there is no way to keep tabs on the exchange of firearms between individuals. Despite the fact that it is so easy to legally trade firearms between individuals, most gun crimes are committed by illegally purchased firearms, suggesting that changing the way law abiding citizens are allowed to buy and sell guns would have minimal impact on the acquisition of firearms by criminals. When you see huge tables full of guns at a gun show, those are usually dealer tables. Individual deals are usually done on a smaller scale, so this isn't a practical way to try to stock up for a terrorist attack. It would be much easier and cheaper to purchase the guns in bulk on the black market. And if I were planning on killing a lot of people, I wouldn't go with an AR-15. I'd probably go with a semi-automatic pistol and a vest full of high capacity magazines, for killing at close range. For killing from a distance, I'd choose a quality hunting rifle with a really nice scope. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

What I said: Learn your coordinating conjunctions, dorbie. The word "or" in that sentence clearly indicates that one does not have to carry a gun in order to be prepared. You can't provide a quote showing where anybody in this thread said a person must carry a gun in order to be prepared, and you can't provide a quote showing where anybody in this thread said people who don't carry guns are more fearful than people who do, because nobody in this thread has said or alluded to either of those things. You and the rest of the anti-gun crowd have run out of logical arguments, so you're setting up transparent straw men that aren't fooling anybody, and now that you've been called on that, you've stooped to veiled insults that border on gibberish. I'm with Aggie Dave. I come to Speaker's Corner for intelligent debates, not straw man tactics and childish insults. I'll save my compelling arguments and irrefutable logic for the next gun thread that sparks my interest. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Well, you did write: Personally, I think you two are the ones who are fearful. Like a caveman fearing fire, you fear what you don't understand. You've never had much exposure to guns, and you know that they hurt people, so you simply fear them. Yes, and I specifically said, "you two," not "all people who don't carry guns." I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

You still haven't answered my question--Where did anyone in this thread say you have to carry a gun to be prepared or that you're fearful if you don't carry a gun? It wasn't a question it was you professing a memory lapse, and this is not an interrogation, the thread is there for anyone to check what's been written, I invite them to do so. Okay, let's try this another way. I challenge you to quote where anybody in this thread has said that a person must carry a gun in order to be prepared or that people who don't carry guns are more fearful than people who do. For those of you who have been struggling with the definition of a "straw man" argument, THIS is a straw man argument. "A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To 'set up a straw man' or 'set up a straw-man argument' is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent." --Wikipedia I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

You still haven't answered my question--Where did anyone in this thread say you have to carry a gun to be prepared or that you're fearful if you don't carry a gun? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I don't recall anybody in this thread saying that. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I think we all need to heed the advice of Blue Leader. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Absolutely. And to cover an area this large, whatever it is has to be a HUGE volume. We're talking millions of cubic meters of gas. And nobody knows the source. Please. Jersey smells, but New Yorkers are used to that. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, and you can bet the government is too. They're not going to make a big deal out of it, but they're looking into it, I'm sure. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

The spelling in the article is correct because it's referring to the capital city, not the capitol building. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Of course, my workplace is just barely outside of the shut down area. The building right next door to me is shut down, but mine isn't. So if you don't hear from me for a while, it's probably because I contracted avian flu. So this morning we've got a strange odor permeating Manhattan and a few dozen dead birds in Austin. That's interesting. On a side note, this hazmat suit itches like a mother fucker. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

So prove me wrong. What is the nature of your extensive experience with firearms? Enough. Based on what you wrote earlier in this thread, I had my first firearms training course 12 years BEFORE you were born! I've made over 1,900 skydives. I work on the south side of Chicago. I've walked alone and unarmed through some of the worst neighborhoods in the USA. What makes you think I'm scared of guns? I'd like to know the nature of your experience with firearms. Considering that you didn't have any firearms training until you were 22, I'm guessing guns weren't exactly present throughout your upbringing. The point I'm trying to make is that this is a cultural issue. Those who have always known guns and responsible gun ownership as part of their culture generally don't fear guns; they view them as tools. Those who have not always known guns as part of their culture tend to fear them. What makes me think you fear guns is the way you throw a fit every time someone mentions concealed carry. You obviously don't want the people around you carrying guns; yet, you've failed to give one rational reason why. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I read your comments as spirited debate with a bit of fun thrown in. Douva, unwind a bit, dude. As my dad used to tell me when I was a kid, if it's not funny to everybody, it's not funny. Accusing a group of people of being a bunch of nuts running around in tinfoil hats is not an intelligent rebuttal; it's a weak personal attack, and it's definitely not funny to the people being attacked. Suppose you were on a non-skydiving forum telling somebody about getting your "D" license, when a non-skydiver decided to jump into the thread and start talking about how asinine skydiving is and how there's no good reason for people to jump out of perfectly good airplanes. And then, after you intelligently answered his accusations, he ignored your response and made a wisecrack inferring that all skydivers are just whackos with death wishes. Would you consider that to be just "a bit of fun thrown in?" People should learn not to start a debate if they don't want/can't handle a debate. You don't slap someone in the face and then jump back and say, "Hey, back off--I was just trying to have some fun." I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

So prove me wrong. What is the nature of your extensive experience with firearms? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

You and Kallend have failed to show that those of us who carry concealed handguns harm you or anybody else in any way, shape, or form, so instead you've taken to making thinly veiled attacks, referring to "tinfoil beanies," and citing irrelevant statistics. If, statistically, a person is more likely to die of heart disease than in a car accident, should that person only wear his or her seatbelt if he or she first makes the effort to diet and exercise? The decision to carry a gun shouldn't be based on statistics. Well, if you feel they are attacks - let me apologise - they're not. Taking the piss a little? Yes indeed. In our culture, tinfoil hats are synonymous with paranoid delusions. Your tinfoil hat comments are blatant insults, as is Kallend's comment that I should go ahead and carry a gun if it makes me "less fearful about going out and about," following several posts by me where I stated repeatedly that carrying a gun is not about being fearful. The two of you can't argue against people carrying concealed handguns on the basis that doing so hurts anybody, and you can't argue against carrying handguns on the basis that doing so is completely useless, so instead you throw around irrelevant heart attack statistics and make disparaging remarks about the people who carry concealed handguns, questioning both our motivation for doing so and our state of mind. Not that it's at all relevant to the topic of carrying concealed handguns, but I'm twenty-seven years old, exercises nearly every day, and try to maintain a balanced died, so statistically, I'm MUCH more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than have a heart attack. So your defibrillator argument is not valid when talking to me. How about the two of you? I believe Kallend already said he's 61. How old are you Vortexring? How often do the two of you work out? How often do you carry a defibrillator? How often do you wear a seatbelt when driving or riding in a car? Statistically, you're more likely to be killed by a heart attack than a car accident, so if you're not going to take steps to prevent dying of a heart attack, why would you bother taking steps to prevent dying in a car accident? Personally, I think you two are the ones who are fearful. Like a caveman fearing fire, you fear what you don't understand. You've never had much exposure to guns, and you know that they hurt people, so you simply fear them. Not only do you feel justified in fearing guns, you feel justified in publicly ridiculing anybody who carries one. Kallend admitted a few posts back that he doesn't think carrying a concealed handgun hurts anybody. Assuming you feel the same way, Vortexring, why did the two of you feel the need to interject your opinions into this thread? The title of the thread isn't "Do you believe carrying a concealed handgun is worthwhile?" The title of this thread is "FINALLY!"--as in "I FINALLY got my concealed handgun license." It's this kind of flaunting of baseless opinions that makes it impossible for someone to make a simple statement like "I finally got my concealed handgun license" in the Bonfire. The anti-gun nuts, not the gun nuts, are the reason all gun threads end up in Speakers Corner. Like a couple of religious fanatics, you can't resist the urge to cram your opinions down people's throats, regardless of whether or not they're relevant or called for. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.