This is why we can't have nice things

[NoSpam]

If you're trying to start some off topic argument that has nothing to do with the "tacticool geek" you complained about in the video, why not just go straight to "omg, do you think it means you can own nuclear bombs?". You can try to change the subject, but you're still an anti.
edit: And before you can come up with some lame comment about violent felons and guns again, I fully support government sponsored high speed bullet delivery to probably 90% of the violent felons out there. Unfortunately we just release them by the thousands instead.

why are you still trolling my thread? lol so you're saying that you want to infringe upon a violent felon's rights by shooting them first? Dude, I thought I knew you man....but you're starting to sound a bit anti

[NoSpam]

Because crime never happens in nice neighborhoods with fancy stuff like sidewalks

yeah you (everyone) would think movie stars lived in those houses.

[Merc1138]

why are you still trolling my thread? lol so you're saying that you want to infringe upon a violent felon's rights by shooting them first? Dude, I thought I knew you man....but you're starting to sound a bit anti

Apparently you've still got those reading comprehension issues to work on.

[chillincody]

We need to stop bearing arms or we will lose our right to bear arms!

I know, lets pass a law making it illegal to bear arms. Then people won't be scared by seeing people bearing arms and we won't lose our right to bear arms.

I hope your being sarcastic

[nick]

I never realized there were so many extremists on this board willing to make excuses and ignore anything and everything involving a gun just to smell their own stink. There's no law saying you have to wear deodorant, but if you want to raise a stink in your neighborhood, you will do just that to prove you can. This is why we can't have nice things.

I think, you put the issue on its head.

1. We can't have nice things because a lot of people (yourself included) have forgotten how to tolerate something that doesn't really affect them, and went on a banning frenzy. Most people are guilty of this, the only difference is in what they want to ban. It really doesn't matter what you do, there will always be people wanting to ban it. Do you like meat? Well, there's a plenty of people who want to ban you doing that. Are you gay? Well, there's a lot of people who want to cure you of this disease. Are you having a headache and want a painkiller? There are people who want you to only use the "natural" (as they understand it) cures, and to ban "chemical painkillers". Do you want to carry a rifle (while minding your own business and not REALLY affecting anyone)? Someone wants to ban that too, yourself included.

You gotta look into the root cause, and that's not doing something, but legislating one's dislikes, having no tolerance to the behavior of others that doesn't really affect you (blind irrational fear is not a good reason to legislate), and general desire to meddle in others' business and tell them how they must live THEIR lives is what causes the "we can't have nice things". Basically, people like you are what causes it.

2. You qualify everyone, who doesn't agree with you, as an extremist. I guess, like most people, you were just looking for a "bad enough" word, without really understanding what it means. It's people calling others "terrorists", "hitlers", "nazis", etc., without even trying to establish a logical link there, just because it "feels right".

An extremist, in this case, would be someone, whose views are far outside the average view of the collective. Which, in this case, is you.

With that said, being an extremist is neither a good quality, nor a bad one. It only means that one's views are outside of the mainstream view. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example, for a long time the mainstream view was that blacks were not fully human. Or that the Earth is flat.

Being an extremist only becomes an assuredly bad quality in a set of values, where collective is considered to be the ultimate good, thus anything deviating from it is bad. Is this the view you espouse? It looks like it to me.

Now, as to whether the opinion of those disagreeing with you here is good or bad, I'd have to refer you to #1. I think, they got it right, and you got it wrong. Basically, you blame the others (in this case, the "geek" in question) for something you're the root cause of.

[BKinzey]

I never realized there were so many extremists on this board willing to make excuses and ignore anything and everything involving a gun just to smell their own stink. There's no law saying you have to wear deodorant, but if you want to raise a stink in your neighborhood, you will do just that to prove you can. This is why we can't have nice things.

And with that statement, in this thread, you have joined the ranks of those you are complaining about.

Your statements are extreme and full of hyperbole. You have ignored the points others have made in this thread and you are making a big stink about it.

Welcome to Calguns.

[kotton]

what a stupid thread for a non issue.

[five.five-six]

does that comprehension include violent felons too?

Bawahahahaah!

[taloft]

Just my opinion of course, but the kid is just playing soldier in the street with live ammo. Again, I'm not saying that he has to join the armed forces. I'm asking why he doesn't join the arm forces if he likes to play soldier so much. Seems like he likes the power trip of being armed to the teeth. I draw the line at the 2nd Amendment when a citizen causes more terror in his community than a terrorist.

I draw the line at people who conflate BS with their argument to support an already weak position. Equating what this kid is doing to terrorism is just pathetic. Let me interject some facts into the discussion:

1. He is exercising his legal rights.
2. He isn't breaking the law.
3. He isn't hurting anyone.
4. He's actually improving the community on his walks.
5. It's none of your business.

It figures that NBC would be the one to carry this story. This reminds me of my favorite quote:

"The problem with 'post-modern' society is there are too many people with nothing meaningful to do, building 'careers' around controlling the lives of others and generally making a social nuisances of themselves. They justify their meddling by discovering social 'problems' and getting the media to magnify them out of all proportion."--Graham Strachan.

Sums up the whole topic for me.

[thomashoward]

Notice they interviewed the woman who was "scared" not anyone who was in favor

[NoSpam]

I think, you put the issue on its head.

1. We can't have nice things because a lot of people (yourself included) have forgotten how to tolerate something that doesn't really affect them, and went on a banning frenzy. Most people are guilty of this, the only difference is in what they want to ban. It really doesn't matter what you do, there will always be people wanting to ban it. Do you like meat? Well, there's a plenty of people who want to ban you doing that. Are you gay? Well, there's a lot of people who want to cure you of this disease. Are you having a headache and want a painkiller? There are people who want you to only use the "natural" (as they understand it) cures, and to ban "chemical painkillers". Do you want to carry a rifle (while minding your own business and not REALLY affecting anyone)? Someone wants to ban that too, yourself included.

You gotta look into the root cause, and that's not doing something, but legislating one's dislikes, having no tolerance to the behavior of others that doesn't really affect you (blind irrational fear is not a good reason to legislate), and general desire to meddle in others' business and tell them how they must live THEIR lives is what causes the "we can't have nice things". Basically, people like you are what causes it.

2. You qualify everyone, who doesn't agree with you, as an extremist. I guess, like most people, you were just looking for a "bad enough" word, without really understanding what it means. It's people calling others "terrorists", "hitlers", "nazis", etc., without even trying to establish a logical link there, just because it "feels right".

An extremist, in this case, would be someone, whose views are far outside the average view of the collective. Which, in this case, is you.

With that said, being an extremist is neither a good quality, nor a bad one. It only means that one's views are outside of the mainstream view. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example, for a long time the mainstream view was that blacks were not fully human. Or that the Earth is flat.

Being an extremist only becomes an assuredly bad quality in a set of values, where collective is considered to be the ultimate good, thus anything deviating from it is bad. Is this the view you espouse? It looks like it to me.

Now, as to whether the opinion of those disagreeing with you here is good or bad, I'd have to refer you to #1. I think, they got it right, and you got it wrong. Basically, you blame the others (in this case, the "geek" in question) for something you're the root cause of.

And the funnies keep on coming. Thank you for pointing that out. I thought things got pretty ridiculous the moment people started spouting the label "anti" so I used "extremist" as an example of those who immediately cry anti when someone disagrees with them. You missed the bus.

[TeddyBallgame]

Because crime never happens in nice neighborhoods with fancy stuff like sidewalks

whew, glad I was able to afford one of these fancy neighborhoods that have sidewalks

[NoSpam]

whew, glad I was able to afford one of these fancy neighborhoods that have sidewalks

Got any pics of that sweet sidewalk? I am embarrassed to say I don't have a sidewalk on my poor street. I gotta go a few blocks away to get some sweet cement action

[NoSpam]

.....

Dupe entry

[stormvet]

Die thread die. For gods sake just die!!! I wish that nice boy in NC with the rifle would come to California and shoot this thread.