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

Congrats, gun lovers, you've done it again Options · View
Buz
Posted: Saturday, May 04, 2013 8:31:51 AM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 7,345
Location: Atlanta, United States
If the government does repeal a constitutional amendment then maybe it is worth a bloody revolution. That's how our country came about in the first place. Can you imagine doing away with the amendments that abolish slavery (13th) or give women the right to vote (19th)? Doing that would also deserve a bloody revolution and I'd be ready to die in that cause. I also believe with all of my heart that the second amendment is worth fighting for. Liberty is well worth dying for. Is it better to die for freedom & liberty or live like a slave under the yoke of tyranny? I'd rather die in a losing cause for freedom and liberty.

I do not mind background checks. For every gun I've purchased they have run a background check on me. That is a lot of background checks and I know I will pass. Convicted felons and people with serious mental disorders should not have guns. Anyone that is in the USA illegally should not be able to purchase or possess a gun. That are just common sense. I don't even mind having to sign a form if buying large amounts of nitrogen based fertilizer or if I were to purchase dynamite. However, I do not currently need those products as I only own about 3/4 acre of property.

elitfromnorth
Posted: Saturday, May 04, 2013 9:18:53 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,635
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Buz wrote:
If the government does repeal a constitutional amendment then maybe it is worth a bloody revolution. That's how our country came about in the first place. Can you imagine doing away with the amendments that abolish slavery (13th) or give women the right to vote (19th)? Doing that would also deserve a bloody revolution and I'd be ready to die in that cause. I also believe with all of my heart that the second amendment is worth fighting for. Liberty is well worth dying for. Is it better to die for freedom & liberty or live like a slave under the yoke of tyranny? I'd rather die in a losing cause for freedom and liberty.

I do not mind background checks. For every gun I've purchased they have run a background check on me. That is a lot of background checks and I know I will pass. Convicted felons and people with serious mental disorders should not have guns. Anyone that is in the USA illegally should not be able to purchase or possess a gun. That are just common sense. I don't even mind having to sign a form if buying large amounts of nitrogen based fertilizer or if I were to purchase dynamite. However, I do not currently need those products as I only own about 3/4 acre of property.


As far as I know the removal of the 2nd ammendment would in any case be done by an elected congress voted by the American people. The base of a representative democracy is that the elected officials are voted in by the people, and thus the representatives in both houses represent the will of the people. Majority rules. Should the 2nd ammendment be removed then it is the will of the people, because no one will vote for a person that wants to change the constitution in a manner they oppose, regardless.

If you want to take up arms against the congress because the majority of the people made a choice you like, then you are at best a rebel, at worst a terrorist, and unless there are such overwhelming proof of electoral fraud that there can be no doubt that this is all rigged, then you are not fighting for democracy, you're against it.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Magical_felix
Posted: Saturday, May 04, 2013 9:25:25 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,303
Location: California
MrNudiePants wrote:


Good Lord. If you're going to refer to my previous posts, at the very least, you should try and stay truthful about them.

I never once brought up home invaders. (you have brought this up many times for months)

I never once brought up tyranny. (you may not have in this thread but you have before, countless times)

I never once brought up the Darwin Awards. (you did in this thread, you may not have said award but you brought up darwin, you are making it a semantics argument)

Stop lying. (You are the biggest purveyor of misinformation on this topic. You are a liar and an idiot)

As for all your hard work against American gun manufacturers helping out child fighters in third-world countries...

Do you honestly think American guns are going to Africa? If so, not only are you naive, but you're totally ignorant of the way the firearms industry works. ALL guns made in America have serial numbers and are tracked from manufacturer to distributor. Exporting a firearm to any country other than an ally permitted by our State Department to purchase it is a felony good for 25 years in the federal pen. Which leads me to ask the following questions:

1. Do you really think the executives at Colt are going to risk their multi-million dollar careers to illegally sell a few rifles to African warlords? (American guns mostly go to Mexico and south America in trade for money and drugs. If you think the worlds guns just appear out of thin air and not from the biggest source of guns, by far, on the planet you are naive and in denial)

2. Do you really think those warlords are going to fork over a thousand bucks apiece for M-4s or AR-15s when they can easily get Com-block surplus AK-47s and AK-74s for the equivalent of $45-$50 each right there in Africa? (this is actually right, holy shit... There are also knock off black market guns in the middle east and asia that make their way to Africa)

Get real. (LOL)




Magical_felix
Posted: Saturday, May 04, 2013 9:29:51 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,303
Location: California
elitfromnorth wrote:


As far as I know the removal of the 2nd ammendment would in any case be done by an elected congress voted by the American people. The base of a representative democracy is that the elected officials are voted in by the people, and thus the representatives in both houses represent the will of the people. Majority rules. Should the 2nd ammendment be removed then it is the will of the people, because no one will vote for a person that wants to change the constitution in a manner they oppose, regardless.

If you want to take up arms against the congress because the majority of the people made a choice you like, then you are at best a rebel, at worst a terrorist, and unless there are such overwhelming proof of electoral fraud that there can be no doubt that this is all rigged, then you are not fighting for democracy, you're against it.


That is what is so hilarious. The only thing they could do if they take all guns away, which they won't, is to wage a terrorist style war that has no intention of winning. Terrorist war against the US is just meant to drain our resources. The terrorists know they can't beat us. They just want to drain us. This segment of Americans are willing to wage this type of war over guns... It's really warped, especially because this segment of the population are the most gung-ho about waging war on terrorism in the first place. It's strange, bizarre and scary all at the same time.



Magical_felix
Posted: Saturday, May 04, 2013 9:36:54 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,303
Location: California
TheCrimsonKing wrote:


Ok, since sarcasm clearly doesn't work... you are a giant fucking moron if you actually can't see a difference. It's called hyperbole jackass. You'll notice that I actually did answer your question. Guns are used for defense and hunting. Although, I think it would be hilarious if a landmine blew up one of those watchtower society assholes about to knock on my door.


When the second amendment was written... Were there restrictions on what type of weapons we could acquire? No there wasn't. We could get the state of the art weaponry so we could defend ourselves against foreign and domestic threats. Now we cannot get the best weapons we can should we ever actually have to defend ourselves against foreign and domestic threats... So guess what genius? The second amendment has already been altered a bunch of times.

This goes out to all gun advocates. Were they infringing on your 2nd amendment rights when they banned fully automatic weapons for civilians? <-- serious question.

Quote:
I think it would be hilarious if a landmine blew up one of those watchtower society assholes about to knock on my door.


Also calling someone a giant moron then saying something like that is... I don't know... Laughable.



Magical_felix
Posted: Saturday, May 04, 2013 9:44:46 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,303
Location: California
Buz wrote:


I believe there will come a day when the US government does try and confiscate all the guns. That will be when the government has become so overbearing and oppressive that any semblance of democracy, liberty and freedom has ceased to exist. By then the government will also decide who will or will not be allowed to have children.


I don't think they should take handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns away. Anything else, yes.

BUT

Australia I think it was, banned all guns after a horrific mass shooting and they haven't had one since. I do not get any sense of what you are talking about when I speak to an Australian... There is no liberty or freedom in Australia and they live under the boot of the government? LOL



CleverFox
Posted: Saturday, May 04, 2013 10:52:42 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 484
Location: United States
MrNudiePants wrote:


You think? How about you do the research, so you actually know? US-made guns are not being found in child-soldiers' hands, period. That whole part of your argument is simply false.

And the point of this thread has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms, self defense, of any other points you've raised. Keep your strawmen out of it. Or, start yet another "Guns R bad, mkay?" thread, so you can promote those views, once again.


You know as well as I do that the executives of gun manufacturing companies would be happy to sell guns to every person they could to make as much money as they passably can. They are no better than tobacco companies or drug dealers.

By the way, you brought up the child soldiers, not me.

And also, do you think the ammunition manufactures in the good ol' USA don't sell to everybody they can? Faking an end use certificate is not too difficult. Unfortunately beauracrats in other democracies are just as vulnerable to bribery as elected officials and beauracrats in the USA and the beauracrats in USA friendly dictatorships are even easier to bribe.
Buz
Posted: Saturday, May 04, 2013 11:47:32 AM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 7,345
Location: Atlanta, United States
elitfromnorth wrote:


As far as I know the removal of the 2nd ammendment would in any case be done by an elected congress voted by the American people. The base of a representative democracy is that the elected officials are voted in by the people, and thus the representatives in both houses represent the will of the people. Majority rules. Should the 2nd ammendment be removed then it is the will of the people, because no one will vote for a person that wants to change the constitution in a manner they oppose, regardless.

If you want to take up arms against the congress because the majority of the people made a choice you like, then you are at best a rebel, at worst a terrorist, and unless there are such overwhelming proof of electoral fraud that there can be no doubt that this is all rigged, then you are not fighting for democracy, you're against it.


Well so be it. I would be a rebel, a revolutionary. There was a time when the majority in the USA believed that slavery should be legal. That was the law of the land. IT WAS WRONG & EVIL! I in fact have an ancestor who was lynched for helping slaves escape to freedom. He was considered an evil criminal. I consider him a hero & martyr. The Nazis made wrong laws the legal law of the land in Germany. Was anyone who upheld laws requiring Jews to be turned in to the government, a law abiding citizen or a criminal? Remember that the Nazis came to power legally in Germany. The Roman majority believed it was okay and quite pleasurable for gladiators to slaughter each other in the arena. was that right and moral. I don't believe so. It was also quite popular with the citizen majority of Rome to conquer other nations, enslave their people and exploit their natural resources. Just because it was the will of the majority does not make it moral and right.

Where I stand is where I will remain! I would oppose changing the US Constitution. I would revolt against changing it to deny freedom and liberty. Many of the constitutional amendments are there to protect against the sometimes tyrannical will of the majority. The majority are NOT always right. The US government is democratic in nature but NOT a democracy. It is a republic.

How many governments bow in existence exist because of rebels taking up arms against their legal government?

I am a law abiding and very patriotic citizen of the USA. I believe in our constitution and upholding it as it exists today. i have no criminal record nor do i believe I ever will. (Maybe a few speeding tickets I've earned on my motorcycle, but those are just small misdemeanors and I paid my fine.)

Ruthie
Posted: Saturday, May 04, 2013 1:49:41 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,698
Location: United States
MrNudiePants wrote:




The whole point of this thread is to real against guns and gun manufacturers, when it's the fucking PARENTS that are to blame.


I agree that the ultimate blame is on the parents, but the gun manufactures who target gun marketing at children are also to blame. If they cared more about lives and less about profit, they'd aim their marketing exclusively at adults, and recommend that small children be kept away from guns altogether. Instead, they make and market kids guns. The gun used by the five year old to kill his little sister was a Crickett. Crickett makes guns especially for children.

Making guns look like toys isn't a safe way to market firearms to people anyway. It's really sort of stupid. Guns should look dangerous. Children should know what death is before they're allowed to handle a firearm of any kind.

ByronLord
Posted: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:20:44 PM

Rank: Forum Guru
Moderator

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 769
Location: Massachusetts, United States
Buz wrote:


Well so be it. I would be a rebel, a revolutionary. There was a time when the majority in the USA believed that slavery should be legal. That was the law of the land. IT WAS WRONG & EVIL! I in fact have an ancestor who was lynched for helping slaves escape to freedom. He was considered an evil criminal. I consider him a hero & martyr. The Nazis made wrong laws the legal law of the land in Germany.


The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to stop the northern states from ending slavery by stopping the states from organizing the slave patrols necessary to catch runaway slaves.

The purpose was to maintain a police state and keep people in slavery. That is your second amendment.

I used to have to listen to Margaret Thatcher bleating on about freedom and how bad communism was. Then when it came to actually ending communism in Europe she was off begging Gorbachev to put down the demonstrations with tanks.

I have learned that the more people talk about freedom the less they mean it.

The NRA and its supporters have blood on their hands.

Buz
Posted: Saturday, May 04, 2013 7:21:49 PM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 7,345
Location: Atlanta, United States
ByronLord wrote:


The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to stop the northern states from ending slavery by stopping the states from organizing the slave patrols necessary to catch runaway slaves.

The purpose was to maintain a police state and keep people in slavery. That is your second amendment.

I used to have to listen to Margaret Thatcher bleating on about freedom and how bad communism was. Then when it came to actually ending communism in Europe she was off begging Gorbachev to put down the demonstrations with tanks.

I have learned that the more people talk about freedom the less they mean it.

The NRA and its supporters have blood on their hands.


The main problem with your theory Byron is the timeline. The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791. That predates the era you are talking about.

It is very unfortunate that an amendment abolishing slavery was not also created by 1791.

PS. I think its very heinous to design guns to look like toys and appeal to children. Of course only a few companies have done so. Children should be taught how dangerous guns are and never to touch one, and to tell an adult if they see one lying about where they could get to it.

ManInNewHampshire
Posted: Saturday, May 04, 2013 8:50:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/23/2013
Posts: 140
Location: Under the radar, United States
People wanting more legislation regulating gun ownership talk as if guns were easier to get today than, say, even 50 years ago. But in fact guns were much easier to get then than now. Yes we had problems. We even had gangs. But back then even the gangs met face to face. Not drive bys.
What we did have was a stronger moral and ethical standard. We weren't afraid to say "God" in public. We did believe in taking personal responsibility, not suing our way out of it. We believed in hard work, not hand outs.

I may sound angry. But I'm not. I am glad to be an American. I believe in the founding principals. I believe we should be very careful what we wish for.
ByronLord
Posted: Saturday, May 04, 2013 9:03:56 PM

Rank: Forum Guru
Moderator

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 769
Location: Massachusetts, United States
Buz wrote:


The main problem with your theory Byron is the timeline. The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791. That predates the era you are talking about.

It is very unfortunate that an amendment abolishing slavery was not also created by 1791.


There were runaway slaves from the first time settlers came ashore and enslaved the indians.

Abolition of slavery was one of the causes of the civil war. The taxes thing is just a fable told to hide the ugly truth. It was the Mansfield declaration and the Canada act that led to the Boston Tea Party. The colonists were witholding their taxes because they wanted their interests to be represented in London. They were afraid that the Mansfield declaration would be applied in the colonies, abolishing slavery at a stroke and that the Canada act would block westward expansion.

The tipping point came when the crown managed to alienate the colonial abolitionists, most importantly Franklin and his allies.

The Federal constitution was written with the primary goal of avoiding a war between the slave and free colonies. The aim was to kick the can far enough down the road that they could avoid a civil war. They failed.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, May 04, 2013 9:49:31 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,210
Location: United States
CleverFox wrote:


You know as well as I do that the executives of gun manufacturing companies would be happy to sell guns to every person they could to make as much money as they passably can. They are no better than tobacco companies or drug dealers.

By the way, you brought up the child soldiers, not me.

And also, do you think the ammunition manufactures in the good ol' USA don't sell to everybody they can? Faking an end use certificate is not too difficult. Unfortunately beauracrats in other democracies are just as vulnerable to bribery as elected officials and beauracrats in the USA and the beauracrats in USA friendly dictatorships are even easier to bribe.


Interesting. A couple pages back you wrote:

CleverFox wrote:
I do something I doubt you have ever thought of doing. I try to regulate the weapon manufactures here in the good old USA that export weapons to the war torn areas. Did it ever occur to you that the gun manufacturers make a nice tidy profit by keeping those conflicts alive?



So prove to me that:

-- American gun manufacturers are actively at work "keeping these conflicts alive".
-- American gun manufacturers are "making a tidy profit" by "exporting weapons to these war torn areas"
-- American gun manufacturers are "faking ... end use certificate(s)"
-- American gun manufacturers are bribing elected officials in the USA and in these other (presumably war-torn) countries.

I'll not be holding my breath.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, May 04, 2013 10:04:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,210
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


I agree that the ultimate blame is on the parents, but the gun manufactures who target gun marketing at children are also to blame. If they cared more about lives and less about profit, they'd aim their marketing exclusively at adults, and recommend that small children be kept away from guns altogether. Instead, they make and market kids guns. The gun used by the five year old to kill his little sister was a Crickett. Crickett makes guns especially for children.

Making guns look like toys isn't a safe way to market firearms to people anyway. It's really sort of stupid. Guns should look dangerous. Children should know what death is before they're allowed to handle a firearm of any kind.



It's an accepted fact that far more children drown each year than die of accidental (or intentional) gunfire.

I have a proposal for you:

First, let's make it illegal for anyone with children to own a house with a pool.

Then, let's make anyone who does want to own a pool undergo strict, government-run pool-safety-awareness training before they're allowed to have a pool installed.

While we're at it, let's make anyone who wants to have a pool installed go through a thorough background check to see if they've ever had any pool-related incidents in their past.

Let's make sure that anyone who markets so-called "pool toys" to children is made to cease and desist. These lethal "pool toys" are much too dangerous for anyone except adults to own and handle responsibly. If they cared more about lives and less about profit, they'd aim their marketing exclusively at adults, and recommend that small children be kept away from "pool toys" altogether.

Let's also make it a serious felony for any adult to even allow a child near a pool, let alone in a pool. All previously-installed pools should have hard locking covers installed so no child will ever be able to inadvertently be allowed to access the deadly pool.

Last, let's put strict limits on how many and what kind of pool chemicals are able to be purchased, with high taxes in place, in order to discourage pool ownership. We may not be able to outlaw pool ownership outright, but all we really need to do is discourage pool ownership. As years pass, and more and more pools fall out of use, the issue of pool safety will become less and less important, until private pool ownership becomes a thing of the past. After all, if anyone wants to go swimming, they can always just use their local community pool, under the watchful eyes of proper supervision. We'll work on hot tubs, Roman tubs, and claw-foot tubs once we've dealt with the menace posed by these evil privately-owned swimming pools.

After all, if it saves only one child, it'll be worth it...





bootyshake



evil4
Buz
Posted: Saturday, May 04, 2013 10:18:37 PM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 7,345
Location: Atlanta, United States
ByronLord wrote:


There were runaway slaves from the first time settlers came ashore and enslaved the indians.

Abolition of slavery was one of the causes of the civil war. The taxes thing is just a fable told to hide the ugly truth. It was the Mansfield declaration and the Canada act that led to the Boston Tea Party. The colonists were witholding their taxes because they wanted their interests to be represented in London. They were afraid that the Mansfield declaration would be applied in the colonies, abolishing slavery at a stroke and that the Canada act would block westward expansion.

The tipping point came when the crown managed to alienate the colonial abolitionists, most importantly Franklin and his allies.

The Federal constitution was written with the primary goal of avoiding a war between the slave and free colonies. The aim was to kick the can far enough down the road that they could avoid a civil war. They failed.


I agree that there were runaway slaves. Who wouldn't do everything possible to escape the evil of enslavement?

As far as your other theories, I do disagree with most of that. Yes, the colonist wanted to withhold taxes without being represented in Parliament, that was a major factor in the American Revolution. I do not believe at all that it was a fable. In fact I've never even heard that theory ever presented and do not believe it has many who give it serious consideration. I shall disagree with you on that point. I also do not believe that the primary goal of the constitution was to avoid a civil war. At that point in history the Articles of Confederation were too weak to permanently hold the colonies together and in fact did not have the binding authority nor popularity to cause war should some colonies decide to separate. In fact each state printed and distributed its own currency. The purpose of the constitution was to create a stronger federal alliance with binding powers and strengthen unification of the states.

Oh by the way, slavery was not abolished in the British Empire until 1833.

But I know we will not agree on all of this. You have your theory and I have mine. I do think we agree that slavery was a terrible evil and possibly on just a few things such as background checks to purchase guns.

Guest
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:20:33 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 672,114
Magical_felix wrote:


You were a teacher? Was it P.E.? Wait, that's a coach... Was it crafts?


What makes you so special AUTO CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh BTW I was a music teacher 5th most difficult curriculum in existence but then you wouldn't know anything about that!!!!!!!!!!!!
CleverFox
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 5:22:42 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 484
Location: United States
MrNudiePants wrote:



So prove to me that:

-- American gun manufacturers are actively at work "keeping these conflicts alive".
-- American gun manufacturers are "making a tidy profit" by "exporting weapons to these war torn areas"
-- American gun manufacturers are "faking ... end use certificate(s)"
-- American gun manufacturers are bribing elected officials in the USA and in these other (presumably war-torn) countries.

I'll not be holding my breath.


Why don't you prove to me that gun and ammunition manufacturers don't like making a profit by selling guns to anybody they can. You have to admit that marketing guns for children certainly does make me think they are more than happy to sell weapons and ammunition to war torn third world countries.

Like I said, they are no better than the tobacco industry or drug dealers.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 9:11:48 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,210
Location: United States
CleverFox wrote:


Why don't you prove to me that gun and ammunition manufacturers don't like making a profit by selling guns to anybody they can. You have to admit that marketing guns for children certainly does make me think they are more than happy to sell weapons and ammunition to war torn third world countries.

Like I said, they are no better than the tobacco industry or drug dealers.


You made the statement-back it up with facts.
CleverFox
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 9:34:35 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 484
Location: United States
MrNudiePants wrote:


You made the statement-back it up with facts.


That may be true that I can't prove it but it has also never been scientifically priven that tobacco products cause cancer in humans. I put nothing past weapon dealing thugs.

By the way the subject of this thread proves that they love selling death dealing weapons for children. Why not sell to oppressive governments and warlords?
Magical_felix
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 1:09:41 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,303
Location: California
Angie57 wrote:


What makes you so special, AUTO CORRECT?



I'm a snowflake, you dunce.

Angie57 wrote:


Oh, by the way, I was a music teacher. Fifth most difficult curriculum in existence but then, you wouldn't know anything about that! (one exclamation point will suffice)


Are you saying that the music classes are the fifth hardest amongst the rest of the subjects at your school? I would agree if there are only five subjects. Like, if I had five subjects to learn like: math, history, science, english and music. Then yeah, music would be the fifth hardest.

Or are you saying your particular music curriculum was the fifth hardest in the world amongst music curriculums? Let's pretend that that can actually be measured... Good thing they got rid of you. Why would they have the one-billionth best teacher on the planet teaching the fifth hardest curriculum? Makes no sense.



Magical_felix
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 1:26:18 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,303
Location: California
MrNudiePants wrote:


It's an accepted fact that far more children drown each year than die of accidental (or intentional) gunfire.

I have a proposal for you:

First, let's make it illegal for anyone with children to own a house with a pool.

Then, let's make anyone who does want to own a pool undergo strict, government-run pool-safety-awareness training before they're allowed to have a pool installed.

While we're at it, let's make anyone who wants to have a pool installed go through a thorough background check to see if they've ever had any pool-related incidents in their past.

Let's make sure that anyone who markets so-called "pool toys" to children is made to cease and desist. These lethal "pool toys" are much too dangerous for anyone except adults to own and handle responsibly. If they cared more about lives and less about profit, they'd aim their marketing exclusively at adults, and recommend that small children be kept away from "pool toys" altogether.

Let's also make it a serious felony for any adult to even allow a child near a pool, let alone in a pool. All previously-installed pools should have hard locking covers installed so no child will ever be able to inadvertently be allowed to access the deadly pool.

Last, let's put strict limits on how many and what kind of pool chemicals are able to be purchased, with high taxes in place, in order to discourage pool ownership. We may not be able to outlaw pool ownership outright, but all we really need to do is discourage pool ownership. As years pass, and more and more pools fall out of use, the issue of pool safety will become less and less important, until private pool ownership becomes a thing of the past. After all, if anyone wants to go swimming, they can always just use their local community pool, under the watchful eyes of proper supervision. We'll work on hot tubs, Roman tubs, and claw-foot tubs once we've dealt with the menace posed by these evil privately-owned swimming pools.

After all, if it saves only one child, it'll be worth it...





bootyshake



evil4


You can't accidentally shoot your neighbor with a pool you idiot.



stickmancqb
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 1:32:30 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 3/6/2012
Posts: 91
Location: Texas, United States
Magical_felix wrote:


You can't accidentally shoot your neighbor with a pool you idiot.


But they drown when they climb over the fence and trespass you idiot!
Buz
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 1:35:12 PM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 7,345
Location: Atlanta, United States
Damn! I'm looking to put a pool in my back yard. I guess I'll be on some crazy watch list for gun & pool owning libertarians. I think I see a white van out front and someone in a dark suit & sunglasses taking pictures of my house.
dontknow

sprite
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 1:36:28 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 16,637
Location: My Tower, United States
stickmancqb wrote:


But they drown when they climb over the fence and trespass you idiot!


that's why you shoot them when they climb over the fence, you idiot! clown

Live, love, laugh.
Magical_felix
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 1:46:47 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,303
Location: California
stickmancqb wrote:


But they drown when they climb over the fence and trespass you idiot!


Yeah, let me plan a mass murder by luring a bunch of people into my pool you idiot.



Magical_felix
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 1:56:48 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,303
Location: California
Buz wrote:
Damn! I'm looking to put a pool in my back yard. I guess I'll be on some crazy watch list for gun & pool owning libertarians. I think I see a white van out front and someone in a dark suit & sunglasses taking pictures of my house.
dontknow


Were they infringing on your 2nd amendment rights when they banned fully automatic weapons for civilians? <-- Why do the pro-every-type-of-gun-being-available people avoid this question?



sprite
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:02:27 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 16,637
Location: My Tower, United States
serious question - recently, the back ground check was voted down. how do pro gun people feel about that? today, i see what's his face, Pierre ranting about how Obama is trying to take everyone's guns away - seems to be that the NRA thinks the real victims of Newton were the guns, not the kids killed.

Live, love, laugh.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:03:24 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 672,114
Magical_felix wrote:


Are you saying that the music classes are the fifth hardest amongst the rest of the subjects at your school? I would agree if there are only five subjects. Like, if I had five subjects to learn like: math, history, science, english and music. Then yeah, music would be the fifth hardest.

Or are you saying your particular music curriculum was the fifth hardest in the world amongst music curriculums? Let's pretend that that can actually be measured... Good thing they got rid of you. Why would they have the one-billionth best teacher on the planet teaching the fifth hardest curriculum? Makes no sense.


what I am saying and I was surprised to learn this Music is consistently ranked in the top ten of curriculum behind medicine, law, certain types of engineering, and architecture
Magical_felix
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:10:34 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,303
Location: California
Angie57 wrote:


What I am saying is that I was surprised to learn that music is consistently ranked in the top ten curriculums behind medicine, law, certain types of engineering, and architecture.


Ok.



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.