Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

These US gun control / law debates are pointless, here's my opinion why Options · View
Mazza
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 2:42:18 AM

Rank: Mazztastic

Joined: 9/20/2012
Posts: 2,848
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
angieseroticpen
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 2:50:35 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 594
Location: United Kingdom
Two bombs go off in Boston and US goes into meltdown.......
86 US citizens die every day from gun crime and hardly anyone bats an eyelid.............

Sums up why the gun debate is pointless

“When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us.”
asleep
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:59:40 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/30/2011
Posts: 2,810
Location: United States
SPRITE's comment is so "on target" (is there a pun there?) once again: "btw, i've heard plenty of Americans judging British and Australian laws. happens all the time. the days when we were such separate nations are long over, the world is moving more and more towards co-dendency as our technology keeps evolving. :) "




http://www.lushstories.com/stories/love-stories/exit-33-trust.aspx

Z1992
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:27:57 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 1/29/2013
Posts: 44
Location: United States
sprite wrote:


so... let me get this right... you believe we, as american citizens, have the right to own any type of arms we desire? gun, tank, figher jet, scud missle, drone, BOMB, etc? i'm just asking for clarification here, btw.

oh, and pretty sure we haven't had in issue with british tyranny for quite some time - also, it is the right of anyone to state their opinion (that whole free speech thing) about anything they wish, whether or not they are an american citizen. do they have the right to change US policy? no. but voicing their opinion is a HUMAN right, not simply an american right.

btw, i've heard plenty of Americans judging British and Australian laws. happens all the time. the days when we were such separate nations are long over, the world is moving more and more towards co-dendency as our technology keeps evolving. :)

another thing, i could nitpick the mistakes of British history as well... Vietnam. Iran. Iraq. oh, wait...


I don't just believe this, I know this because it is a fact. U.S. citizens have a right, under the United States Constitution, to own a gun, tank, fighter jet, submarine etc... And there are many citizens on U.S. soil who own such a thing - if they can afford it.

You misunderstand the entire concept. Not just British tyranny, but local as well - Battle of Athens 1946. I understand that it is a human right, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but I'm pretty sure Britain/Australia has some local problems they can be dealing with, and shouldn't be wasting their time on American issues. It's understandable as to why, but completely disrespectful. Especially if the foreigners have never visited the United States.

The days of separate nations are long over? What does that mean? Are you speaking about the "New World Order" conspiracy theory? Or are you speaking about the trade and treaties? Sure, treaties and trade are healthy for nations. But it's not healthy when nations that are in economic troubles ask the U.S. for a big check for a few hundred million U.S. dollars to bail out their economy - and that's basically all the world is right now. Stupid socialist programs that cause economies to collapse, and no politicians ever learns from these mistakes. I think it's humorous how we are the most hated country in the world, yet we are the one who has to save the ass of every nation in crisis. What would happen if the U.S. closed its borders, treaties and trade, and became self-sufficient? The U.S. would start to grow again, and the rest of the world would be in pure chaos. That's sad and funny all at the same time.

I won't even comment on your last statement. Your ignorance runs rampant.
Z1992
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:31:17 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 1/29/2013
Posts: 44
Location: United States
Kristind wrote:
First of all, Z1992...your interpretation of the second amendment sounds like it was translated by aliens...because that ain't close to what I have come to learn it means. Talk to a constitutional scholar, either lawyer or professor, and you'll find you are wrong. In fact it's just a weird interpretation.


Translated by aliens? xD That's too fuckin' funny. I'm not even going to comment on how fucking ridiculous you sound.

Jesus christ, what is wrong with schools these days?
sprite
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:04:45 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 13,608
Location: My Tower, United States
Z1992 wrote:


I don't just believe this, I know this because it is a fact. U.S. citizens have a right, under the United States Constitution, to own a gun, tank, fighter jet, submarine etc... And there are many citizens on U.S. soil who own such a thing - if they can afford it.


That kind of thinking scares me. so, you'd be ok with someone, as long as they have enough money to do it, with.... oh, let's say building a compound out in Texas along with a lot of like minded friends, laying down an airstrip, purchasing jet fighters, arming them with missiles and bombs, arming everyone with military grade weapons, throwing in some tanks, maybe have some surface to air missiles set up on the grounds. you'd be ok with that?

oh, and another thought. apparently you had no issue with the two guys who set off bombs a the Boston Marathon as well? right, they had every right to have bombs. it's in the constitution, after all. the right to run around with bombs in duffle bags. good god...


Z1992 wrote:


You misunderstand the entire concept. Not just British tyranny, but local as well - Battle of Athens 1946. I understand that it is a human right, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but I'm pretty sure Britain/Australia has some local problems they can be dealing with, and shouldn't be wasting their time on American issues. It's understandable as to why, but completely disrespectful. Especially if the foreigners have never visited the United States.



it's not 1946. it's 2013. what worked then would, today, probably be carried out through the medium of social media and, hopefully, peaceful intervention. if i understand you correctly, you seem to believe that citizens have the right to armed and violent protest. You'd have supported the Rodney King incited riots in '92? you think the confederacy was justified into going to war in 1861? how about the '99 world trade riots in Seattle? we cool with guns here? Civil rights? Stonewall? Just because it worked in '46 doesn't make it right nor does it apply to the world as it is today.

Z1992 wrote:

The days of separate nations are long over? What does that mean? Are you speaking about the "New World Order" conspiracy theory? Or are you speaking about the trade and treaties? Sure, treaties and trade are healthy for nations. But it's not healthy when nations that are in economic troubles ask the U.S. for a big check for a few hundred million U.S. dollars to bail out their economy - and that's basically all the world is right now. Stupid socialist programs that cause economies to collapse, and no politicians ever learns from these mistakes. I think it's humorous how we are the most hated country in the world, yet we are the one who has to save the ass of every nation in crisis. What would happen if the U.S. closed its borders, treaties and trade, and became self-sufficient? The U.S. would start to grow again, and the rest of the world would be in pure chaos. That's sad and funny all at the same time.



nope, i am so not a conspiracy theorist. in case you hadn't notice, our economies these days are very intertwined - the status of the euro affects the us economy, the us economy affects the global market, the situation in the mid east affects the oil market, china owns part of our debt, the list goes on.

on top of that, news access, media access is instant these days - very little happens that can't be transmitted around the world to a wide audience in a matter of seconds. if there's a gov't take over, or collapse, the entire world will know about it moments after it happens. btw, if we became a seclusionist country, don't forget we'll lose global trade as well, both imports and exports. prices will go up, companies relying on overseas distribution will go broke, all those who come to this country to make contributions will be shut out. how would that affect us? one example in many. Penicillin, while it was developed for sythisized mass production in the US, it was discovered by a Scot and developed for medicinal use in England and Austrailia.

Z1992 wrote:

I won't even comment on your last statement. Your ignorance runs rampant.


not sure why you felt compelled to go with the personal insults, but whatever. just pointing out that the British are not the only one with a run of tyranical decisions. please don't tell me that the Shah of Iran was put in place for the good of the Iranian people, that the Invasion of Iraq was justified, that the entire fiasco of Vietnam was something we should have been involved in. :)
sprite
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:10:17 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 13,608
Location: My Tower, United States
Z1992 wrote:


Translated by aliens? xD That's too fuckin' funny. I'm not even going to comment on how fucking ridiculous you sound.

Jesus christ, what is wrong with schools these days?


underfunded. funny, the NRA can pour $19 million dollars into political campaigns alone (2011-2012), and another $6 million into lobbying, all to assure that, when the time comes to vote on background checks for gun purchasers, it will fail, and yet they're not willing to put any into education. seems like the issue with schools these days is that people care more about the right to be armed than they do about the right to be educated. :)
Z1992
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:17:34 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 1/29/2013
Posts: 44
Location: United States
sprite wrote:


not sure why you felt compelled to go with the personal insults, but whatever. just pointing out that the British are not the only one with a run of tyranical decisions. please don't tell me that the Shah of Iran was put in place for the good of the Iranian people, that the Invasion of Iraq was justified, that the entire fiasco of Vietnam was something we should have been involved in. :)



Huh, not sure as to why this forum post is not letting me quote the whole thing (sorry, slightly new to Lush).

Yeah, looking back, I kind of felt bad and stupid for my last comment on that post. I apologize for that.

Anyway, I could continue to debate with you about this topic, but we missed the purpose of the original post, and I'm just too tired and bored with the same shit everyday to debate on this useless forum. Plus, you seem to be very engrained in your logic and understanding of the U.S. Constitution, which can be difficult to sway - but not impossible, as I have done it before with several people. I may disagree with your logic and point of view, but I will fight until my last breath to defend your right to preach it. :)
Ruthie
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 2:23:56 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,176
Location: United States
Z1992 wrote:


I don't just believe this, I know this because it is a fact. U.S. citizens have a right, under the United States Constitution, to own a gun, tank, fighter jet, submarine etc... And there are many citizens on U.S. soil who own such a thing - if they can afford it.


The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled many times that the right to bear arms has limitations. A U. S. citizen doesn't have the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons. If nuclear weapons aren't arms, what is? Why can't I backpack my own nukes everywhere I go, as long as I have a concealed carry permit anyway?

The U. S. Constitution wasn't written as a self destructive document. The founders didn't mean to give the country's citizens the right to blow up things at their leisure, or to overthrow the legally elected government. Many right winger seem to think that the exact purpose of the second amendment is to give them the right to violent revolution. It isn't. The second amendment is to insure a well regulated militia, staffed by U. S. citizens.

Do you really think that Benny Franklin and Sammy Adams had the private ownership of weapons of mass destruction when the 2nd came up for a vote? Arms in that century consisted of muskets and swords, with the occasional communal cannon. Even then, private citizens didn't keep and bear their own artillery.



Plunger
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:08:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/14/2012
Posts: 62
Location: Lansing, United States
The gun law debate is pablum for the masses on both sides of the debate. There are literally millions of guns in service, one thing we do well is build guns. I have several in a small collection, most over 100 years old, they work just as well today as they did when they were new! Restricting gun sales won't reduce availability of the product. But as a gun owner I have no problem with waiting periods and registration of firearms, as the right is fond of saying about reducing rights, what's the problem if you have nothing to hide!
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:36:43 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,189
Z1992 wrote:


Translated by aliens? xD That's too fuckin' funny. I'm not even going to comment on how fucking ridiculous you sound.

Jesus christ, what is wrong with schools these days?

Maybe nothing is wrong with schools today. Maybe the wrong lies in you. When it comes to matters like this I will err on the side of the educated. Works for me.
HotBttmInBriefs
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:04:06 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/6/2013
Posts: 1,520
Location: United States
What I don't understand about the gun law debate ever is that those on the side of limiting guns always seem to argue that the right to bear arms is all inclusive and should be limited. But if you even start talking about limiting the freedom of speech or limiting freedom of the press, etc. -- suddenly those are unbreakable and never should be limited.

All the talk about how much guns hurt, etc. Have any of you ever thought about all the damage that is done because people feel like they have the all inclusive right to say whatever they want or print whatever they want. Talk to a battered spouse and ask them what hurts the most -- all the insults hurled at them or the punches they take.

If one right is not all inclusive then none of them are. And if you start knocking away at one how long do you think it will take before the rest become fodder as well.

I personally stand in the middle of the gun law debate. I don't see anything wrong with the right to bear arms but I also have no problem with some guns being limited. But I also stand in the middle on the other. I don't feel every one should have the right to say whatever they want. And I feel hate speech should be limited and a person should be allowed to be charged for the harm they do with their speech. And not everything should be fodder for the press either. There should be limits. But then you get into the question of who gets to decide what is and what is not. And with that I definitely do not trust our government officials and for sure as hell I don't trust our justice system. So there you have it.

As far as honestly believing that making gun laws is going to stop gun violence I for sure as hell don't believe that is the answer. Look at all the things that are illegal folks. Number 1 being drugs. The laws there sure are working. The United States and the World have completely eradicated that problem with making them illegal. I'm sure making guns illegal will do the same.

Z1992
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:15:54 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 1/29/2013
Posts: 44
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled many times that the right to bear arms has limitations. A U. S. citizen doesn't have the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons. If nuclear weapons aren't arms, what is? Why can't I backpack my own nukes everywhere I go, as long as I have a concealed carry permit anyway?

The U. S. Constitution wasn't written as a self destructive document. The founders didn't mean to give the country's citizens the right to blow up things at their leisure, or to overthrow the legally elected government. Many right winger seem to think that the exact purpose of the second amendment is to give them the right to violent revolution. It isn't. The second amendment is to insure a well regulated militia, staffed by U. S. citizens.

Do you really think that Benny Franklin and Sammy Adams had the private ownership of weapons of mass destruction when the 2nd came up for a vote? Arms in that century consisted of muskets and swords, with the occasional communal cannon. Even then, private citizens didn't keep and bear their own artillery.





Yes, I know the second amendment does not constitute a nuclear weapon, nor chemical weapons or biological weapons.

And yes, the second amendment does not give citizens the right to violence with weapons. But it WAS intended for citizens to resist against corruption within local governments.

Times, weapons and technology has changed, and so must the citizens. I'm not saying that all people SHOULD be driving a tank, what I'm saying is that it is protected under the second amendment.
Z1992
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:17:25 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 1/29/2013
Posts: 44
Location: United States
Kristind wrote:

Maybe nothing is wrong with schools today. Maybe the wrong lies in you. When it comes to matters like this I will err on the side of the educated. Works for me.


Side with the educated? How is that even possible when you are THAT uneducated?

Read the Constitution properly before you make yourself look like a fool.
sprite
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:43:52 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 13,608
Location: My Tower, United States
Z1992 wrote:


Yes, I know the second amendment does not constitute a nuclear weapon, nor chemical weapons or biological weapons.

And yes, the second amendment does not give citizens the right to violence with weapons. But it WAS intended for citizens to resist against corruption within local governments.

Times, weapons and technology has changed, and so must the citizens. I'm not saying that all people SHOULD be driving a tank, what I'm saying is that it is protected under the second amendment.


yep, good old Ben Franklin said: you know, one day people will get the technology to build tanks and fighter plans, and dammit, we'd better make sure their rights are protected. it's a far cry from the freedom to own what are really primitive weapons and as much used for day to day survival as for anything else.
HotBttmInBriefs
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:23:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/6/2013
Posts: 1,520
Location: United States
Yes but did Ben Franklin and the like ever dream of television bringing about a new form of spreading hate speech and the like. Did ever dream that every reporter would think they have the God given right to report every little thing they felt was newsworthy. You can apply that logic to anything. There is no way they could have known about any of the technology that would come available. Do you think they ever dreamed that people would take fertilizer and use it to blow up buildings.

Do you think that they would have thought people would have taken the freedom of speech right to mean they could call anyone any name they wanted and use speech to incite others to beat and kill others they didn't like?



LOVES4PLAY
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:29:50 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/14/2010
Posts: 944
Location: JUST A CLICK AWAY, United States
Very well stated.
Ruthie
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:09:36 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,176
Location: United States
Z1992 wrote:


Times, weapons and technology has changed, and so must the citizens. I'm not saying that all people SHOULD be driving a tank, what I'm saying is that it is protected under the second amendment.


It is true that private ownership of tanks is allowed. By law, however, they must have their firing mechanism deactivated. You can even buy them online. We had this discussion on another thread earlier. The ATF designates tanks with firing capability as exotic weapons, so they can't be in private hands.

Good luck getting one licensed for the road.

sprite
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:24:22 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 13,608
Location: My Tower, United States
HotBttmInBriefs wrote:
Yes but did Ben Franklin and the like ever dream of television bringing about a new form of spreading hate speech and the like. Did ever dream that every reporter would think they have the God given right to report every little thing they felt was newsworthy. You can apply that logic to anything. There is no way they could have known about any of the technology that would come available. Do you think they ever dreamed that people would take fertilizer and use it to blow up buildings.

Do you think that they would have thought people would have taken the freedom of speech right to mean they could call anyone any name they wanted and use speech to incite others to beat and kill others they didn't like?



i'm honest enough to admit that those are all very good points, so i'll add to mine. when the second amendment was drafted, the idea was that the states didn't actually have a regular army and they needed the resources to put one, a militia, together at a moment's notice. that was why there is that line about the militia in there. now, we HAVE a regular army. if we go to war, we don't need to put together an armed militia from our citizens, we simply call in our army, marines, airforce, and navy to 'get 'er done'.
Z1992
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:48:39 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 1/29/2013
Posts: 44
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


Good luck getting one licensed for the road.



Exactly.
nicola
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:05:38 PM

Rank: Matriarch

Joined: 12/6/2006
Posts: 24,861
Location: Sydney, Australia
Z1992 wrote:
Anyway, I could continue to debate with you about this topic, but we missed the purpose of the original post, and I'm just too tired and bored with the same shit everyday to debate on this useless forum.


Just...wow.

I suggest you stay away from threads like this that cause you to write bitter, aggressive, and uninformed posts, you'll be mentally eaten alive.

I'm sensing a pattern though, your first story was rife with bitterness, aggression and an obvious disrespect for other people (particularly women) too.

I recommend counselling.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 5:00:53 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,213
Location: Cakeland, United States
'Now we know the rest...of the story.'

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 5:29:05 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,068
Location: United States
sprite wrote:


i'm honest enough to admit that those are all very good points, so i'll add to mine. when the second amendment was drafted, the idea was that the states didn't actually have a regular army and they needed the resources to put one, a militia, together at a moment's notice. that was why there is that line about the militia in there. now, we HAVE a regular army. if we go to war, we don't need to put together an armed militia from our citizens, we simply call in our army, marines, airforce, and navy to 'get 'er done'.


Along that vein, the framers of our constitution hated the idea of their new country having a standing army. There are numerous quotes from our founding fathers stating that very fact. This is why it's actually in our Constitution that funding budgets for our armed forces MUST expire every two years, and MUST be re-authorized by an act of Congress. They feared the idea of a standing army and wanted the army to always be beholden to the civilian government for it's existence. They reasoned that as long as the general citizenry could be counted on to rise up and organize into an effective militia, armed with the most effective military weapons they could possess, the standing army could very well be dispensable.

'Strue.

sprite
Posted: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 5:33:29 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 13,608
Location: My Tower, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:


Along that vein, the framers of our constitution hated the idea of their new country having a standing army. There are numerous quotes from our founding fathers stating that very fact. This is why it's actually in our Constitution that funding budgets for our armed forces MUST expire every two years, and MUST be re-authorized by an act of Congress. They feared the idea of a standing army and wanted the army to always be beholden to the civilian government for it's existence. They reasoned that as long as the general citizenry could be counted on to rise up and organize into an effective militia, armed with the most effective military weapons they could possess, the standing army could very well be dispensable.

'Strue.


so would all the pro gun people here have an issue with this? you can buy anything you want, no limits, we disband our armed forces and, anyone who owns a gun, when we get into a conflict such as iraq or afghanistan will be enlisted and sent over seas to fight? i mean, that's what the founding fathers wanted, you know! glad to see Mr Nudie pants has come over to my way of seeing things :)
Magical_felix
Posted: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 5:43:20 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,543
Location: California
sprite wrote:


so would all the pro gun people here have an issue with this? you can buy anything you want, no limits, we disband our armed forces and, anyone who owns a gun, when we get into a conflict such as iraq or afghanistan will be enlisted and sent over seas to fight? i mean, that's what the founding fathers wanted, you know! glad to see Mr Nudie pants has come over to my way of seeing things :)


Are you fucking kidding me... Nudiepants, by his own admission, never misses a shot. You think Chuck Norris is a badass? This fucking nudiepants would pull a gun out of his ass and blow turbans off of motherfuckers left and right if they don't surrender. I'm all for it. Time that America pulls out it's secret weapon.



MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 6:07:04 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,068
Location: United States
sprite wrote:


so would all the pro gun people here have an issue with this? you can buy anything you want, no limits, we disband our armed forces and, anyone who owns a gun, when we get into a conflict such as iraq or afghanistan will be enlisted and sent over seas to fight? i mean, that's what the founding fathers wanted, you know! glad to see Mr Nudie pants has come over to my way of seeing things :)


If what you describe were the case, then I'm sure you'd have no shortage of volunteers. After all, our military forces already ARE all voluntary. Are you sure that's what you want, Beautiful?

Highwayman
Posted: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 7:46:42 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/10/2012
Posts: 1,498
"It's indoctrinated into the American culture and psyche, for people to think that owning a gun is the norm, "their right". There are around the same number of guns, if not more, in the US than people."

Same can be said about gun owners compared to the amount of guns existing and still being produced today. More guns please, viagra is an empty uplift without my cold hard steel in one hand and my other gun in the other.

And some wonder why the rest of the world laughs at us. Those that that still try to get in only do so cause they know how many suckers there are here. They've learned that liberty and freedom have been replaced with the con and doubletalk that is just a bit easier to manipulate than back home.

‎"The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible." --Wilde
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 8:19:14 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,068
Location: United States
Highwayman wrote:
"It's indoctrinated into the American culture and psyche, for people to think that owning a gun is the norm, "their right". There are around the same number of guns, if not more, in the US than people."

Same can be said about gun owners compared to the amount of guns existing and still being produced today. More guns please, viagra is an empty uplift without my cold hard steel in one hand and my other gun in the other.

And some wonder why the rest of the world laughs at us. Those that that still try to get in only do so cause they know how many suckers there are here. They've learned that liberty and freedom have been replaced with the con and doubletalk that is just a bit easier to manipulate than back home.


The rest of the world laughs at us? When did this happen? And on what do you base this accusation? Something factual, I hope...

Magical_felix
Posted: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 8:21:39 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,543
Location: California
MrNudiePants wrote:


The rest of the world laughs at us? When did this happen? And on what do you base this accusation? Something factual, I hope...


Something about you tells me that you would not be able to tell who is laughing at you... Just a hunch...

laughing8





Highwayman
Posted: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 8:43:57 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/10/2012
Posts: 1,498


And, our founding fathers believed in slavery. Some changes, and amendments are done for the greater good.

Please Felix, stop making sense.

p.s,

Facts and actual debate are pointless I've found, with those that believe they already know everything.



‎"The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible." --Wilde
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.