AstroProdigy Posted January 8, 2007 Report Posted January 8, 2007 Gees dude it's not about all Muslims being terrorists. It's about a general movement that will only stop with either a forced death or the domination of Islam in the world.
AceSpades Posted January 8, 2007 Report Posted January 8, 2007 I never said it was I just don't like biased people.
NBVegita Posted January 8, 2007 Report Posted January 8, 2007 Sometimes you can take being liberal way too far. I'm not at all religious, but what they've done to christmas makes me sick.
AceSpades Posted January 9, 2007 Report Posted January 9, 2007 It's the same over here. The "christmas lights" are now named "winter lights" and nativity performances have even been BANNED in some schools as to not upset the other religions. Which is quite sickening. Political correctness gone mad. It makes thing worse when Dubai (A muslim country) have their own christmas decorations on display, even better than ours! http://www.ghaeli.com/mt/archives/dubai1.jpg
X`terrania Posted January 9, 2007 Report Posted January 9, 2007 I was more sickened by the taunting that the executioners did before they dropped him.
Deathboy-evil Posted January 9, 2007 Author Report Posted January 9, 2007 I was more sickened by the taunting that the executioners did before they dropped him. That makes 2 of us, oh well, someone will avenge his death, their already planning it now as we .. hmm type.. lol
X`terrania Posted January 11, 2007 Report Posted January 11, 2007 Revenge? Death and more deaths? This world makes me sick. !@#$%^&* yo baby's mama,!@#$%^&* got drama.
NBVegita Posted January 11, 2007 Report Posted January 11, 2007 Sometimes you need to fight violence with violence. We have all of these hippies trying to praise peace and love, and that is fine and dandy, until someone bigger comes and uses violence. Perfect example, a bunch of liberals are trying to break the second amendment trying to take away our right to bear arms. The great big problem with this is that the people who have them legally would have to give them up, and the hundreds of thousands who have them illegal would still have them. Then you've got the good honest citizens who can't protect themselves, and the dishonest ones with all the weapons.
SeVeR Posted January 11, 2007 Report Posted January 11, 2007 The great big problem with this is that the people who have them legally would have to give them up, and the hundreds of thousands who have them illegal would still have them.NBV, you have to look at the big picture, it's not as simple as that. There are a number of ways in which criminals acquire firearms through their legality: 1. Straw purchases. The Columbine killers used this method to obtain firearms, they asked their friend to buy guns legally before buying the guns of her. This type of acquisition would not have been possible without guns being legal in the first place. Their choice to go down this route is testament to how easy it is to make a straw purchase. 2. Unlicensed purchases. Legal gun owners sell their weapons to whoever they want. These are your honest citizens. I heard a story of one "honest citizen" who got talking to someone about guns (who he'd just met) and offered to sell this relative stranger one of his rifles. 3. Theft. Probably the most common way criminals get their guns. This has a knock on effect where the black market becomes saturated with stolen guns making the price decrease. This then makes it easier for low-life druggies on the poverty line to buy one... probably the most dangerous type of criminal and the one you're most likely to meet and get mugged by on the street. 4. Dodgy dealers. You can buy guns at gun-shows, dealerships and so on with few or no background checks in some cases. The supposedly legal dealers do not always sell legally. 5. A criminal with no record can simply walk into a shop and buy one legally. It would be insane just to take away guns for the reason you stated in your post. The five methods of firearm acquisition in this post are the reason why some people want guns banned. The idea is to cut criminals off at the source. There is absolutely no way in !@#$%^&* you can remove guns from criminals, the only way is to remove their sources. Then you've got the good honest citizens who can't protect themselves, and the dishonest ones with all the weapons. You talk as if human beings, the most vicious of all animals, are unable to defend themselves without a gun..?
SeVeR Posted January 11, 2007 Report Posted January 11, 2007 NBV: We wronged the Muslims who joined Al-Qaeda, or we wronged the people who educated them. As an organisation we helped them alot, a big mistake. AceSpades: I also know plenty that do. How about the Muslims that refuse to follow English rule and want an Islamic alternative to everyday life. They refuse to fit into society and instead want to build there own little private territory in the middle of our major cities. Did you not see the "Alternative Christmas Message" on channel 4? Some islamic woman in a full head-dress addresing the nation on a Christian holiday. You make me sick with you biased opinions.I agree with you on this point. If Muslims want to live in this country they should attempt to fit in and learn the language. I did not see the Alternative Christmas message, but not being a Muslim, why would i want to watch it? I'm flattered that i make you sick, how are my opinions biased?... at least in comparison to yours? It's the same over here. The "christmas lights" are now named "winter lights" and nativity performances have even been BANNED in some schools as to not upset the other religions. Which is quite sickening. Political correctness gone mad. Again, i agree. Political correctness has gone too far. In America it appears to be even worse as they've had the whole slavery issue in the past and their is some malformed public guilt-trip about that. The governor of New Orleans said he wants a chocolate city and gets away with it when a white man saying anything similar would have had his political career left in tatters. X'terrania: I was more sickened by the taunting that the executioners did before they dropped him.Back on topic. I wouldn't be surprised if the US orchestrated the whole thing. Exactly how do they let people in the exectution room with video filming equipment without knowing about it? The US wants a film out there showing Saddam dying and as a corpse so that there is no doubt about his death among the people of Iraq. They want the taunts for a very public show of hate to Saddam, strengthening the only case they have left for going into Iraq in the first place (to free Iraqis from Saddam). Lastly the "shock" was softened quite obviously by the first release of the taunts, followed by the more recent releases showing Saddams corpse. The men who were arrested (apparently) will likely never see a trial-room. NBV: Sometimes you need to fight violence with violence. Until everyone's dead? Better to reach an understanding. Although i'm sure they've got you believing an understanding is impossible.
NBVegita Posted January 11, 2007 Report Posted January 11, 2007 If some guy walks into your house and has a .357, and you've got your louisville slugger...well lets see who wins that fight... But honestly people will always be able to get illegal guns...just like how people will always be able to get illegal drugs. I don't know about any other state, but in NY state you have to be 21 years old, you must past a background check and must wait a minimum of 1 week from time of purchase and time of retrieval for a hand gun. Laws on rifles and shotguns are not as strict because its !@#$%^&* difficult to walk down the street hiding a shotgun in your pants. Anyone can conceal a hand gun. Its like anything else, if you legally own a gun, and sell it to someone else. Unless you go through the proper channels, if they do something with it, you are held responsible. If they commit a murder with it, you are considered an accomplace. By our cons!@#$%^&*ution we are allowed to arm ourselves, there is no reason to take that away.
AstroProdigy Posted January 11, 2007 Report Posted January 11, 2007 Perfect example, a bunch of liberals are trying to break the second amendment trying to take away our right to bear arms. The great big problem with this is that the people who have them legally would have to give them up, and the hundreds of thousands who have them illegal would still have them. Then you've got the good honest citizens who can't protect themselves, and the dishonest ones with all the weapons.No...as is well proven by European systems, the criminals get the guns from the same places the honest citizens do. You take the gun shops away and eventually the criminals will no longer have guns.I'm sure there are people who can get around it, but for the most part it will end gun violence. I wholly agree with Sever's post on guns. By our cons!@#$%^&*ution we are allowed to arm ourselves, there is no reason to take that away.We arm the good guys AND the bad guys in the process so we end up creating a wild west where the victims are innocent people caught in the middle. It's the 21st century. NBV: We wronged the Muslims who joined Al-Qaeda, or we wronged the people who educated them. As an organisation we helped them alot, a big mistake.No we helped train them to fight the Soviet Union and then they turned around and attacked us. They hate us because we are not Islamic extremists like them. They get pissed off when we liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein because we are "infidels" even though we were invited to help by Saudi Arabia, the mother of all Muslim countries. I also know plenty that do. How about the Muslims that refuse to follow English rule and want an Islamic alternative to everyday life. They refuse to fit into society and instead want to build there own little private territory in the middle of our major cities. Did you not see the "Alternative Christmas Message" on channel 4? Some islamic woman in a full head-dress addresing the nation on a Christian holiday. You make me sick with you biased opinions.Just because they should learn to fit in doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help them fit in. That's Europe's problem and that's why they have home grown terrorists. Political corectness can go too far here, but bigotry is wrong too. When someone says Merry Christmas I should not care, but when someone says Merry Xmas i should not care either. It's a two way street.
NBVegita Posted January 11, 2007 Report Posted January 11, 2007 I know off the top of my head 4 area shops where they sell guns...if you mention the right name to the owner. Otherwise they're just antique/pawn shops. How many gang members in the united states legally have guns? Or got them by legal means? Only 60-70% of guns are sold by federal means. That varies by state. So you remove that, and there are still 30-40% of guns out on the market.
SeVeR Posted January 11, 2007 Report Posted January 11, 2007 No...as is well proven by European systems, the criminals get the guns from the same places the honest citizens do. You take the gun shops away and eventually the criminals will no longer have guns.Exactly, its not an argument for pro-gunners to say "they'll import them illegally anyway". Yes this is true but its blindly obvious from looking at any other country that the number of guns in the hands of criminals will be lower. The price will also go up making it more difficult for the druggy-muggers to afford one. I'm glad we agree on something Astro. The only problem is America is already saturated with guns. Over time the amount of guns will decrease but there is nothing that can immediately be done to take those guns away from them. I recommend tazers for home defense, i don't care much if criminals get ahold of them... at least i wont bleed to death in an alley if i'm attacked. No we helped train them to fight the Soviet Union and then they turned around and attacked us. They hate us because we are not Islamic extremists like them. They get pissed off when we liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein because we are "infidels" even though we were invited to help by Saudi Arabia, the mother of all Muslim countries. We helped train them 25 years ago. Whether they were grateful or not, we are not fighting the same people we armed back then. The people that have joined Al-Qaeda since then hate America for it's continued support of Israel, its war in Iraq, and its foreign policy in general.
NBVegita Posted January 11, 2007 Report Posted January 11, 2007 You're also the same guy that thinks the best way to solve the drug problem in america is to make all drugs legal and open up clinics, and people will "miraculously" think they have a disease and go to the clinics and stop doing drugs. Europe isn't the graceland people make it out to be. And notice we are not europe. If we put stricter controls on the other 30-40% of non federal regulated firearms, that would help the issue, while not taking away the second amendment.
SeVeR Posted January 11, 2007 Report Posted January 11, 2007 Funny you brought up one of my more outlandish opinions right now, its completely unrelated but i must counter. Legalising drugs and supplying them to users through the government will remove every drug dealer in America overnight, it will remove all drug-user related crime and will remove the drug-running gangs and the crime that comes with them. Every drug-user in the country would become known to the government allowing them to all be offered help with their addictions. It will obviously be interpreted as an illness, just like nicotine and alcohol addiction is, i don't see why you have an issue with that. The only leg you have to stand on is the one telling you all people are idiots and the only thing stopping them from turning into crack-!@#$%^&*s is drugs being illegal... even though drugs are at every party being romanticised for that very reason. Amendments are not sent down from God, there shouldn't be any laws that are impervious to change. Stricter controls might help a bit... but looking at those 5 points, it might make a dent in "4" but thats about it..
NBVegita Posted January 12, 2007 Report Posted January 12, 2007 Drugs are addictive. Most of them that is. You can become physically addicted to cocaine after one hit. You would have thousands of people trying drugs that they never did before because A> they're legal, and B> you can get it. Drug use would skyrocket due to the fact that most of the now illegal drugs are extremely addictive. People don't waste hundreds of dollars smoking and breathe in that gross smoke because they like the smell of smoke. They're addicted. Electronics are legal, but people still push those illegally to byp!@#$%^&* taxes and other things. And of course over half of the country would cut their left nut off before they'd let the government know what they're doing. Specially if it came down to drugs. But as you said different topic. No amendments are not religious based, unlike those 10 commandments that no one follows any more... If they take away one amendment where does it stop? "The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Cons!@#$%^&*ution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its ins!@#$%^&*ution" A passage right from the bill of rights. I'm all for not letting the government take away any of the rights that our country was founded on. As soon as they start restricting our cons!@#$%^&*utional rights we will no longer be the United States of America. We will no longer be the land of the free. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
SeVeR Posted January 12, 2007 Report Posted January 12, 2007 Drugs are addictive. Most of them that is. You can become physically addicted to cocaine after one hit. You would have thousands of people trying drugs that they never did before because A> they're legal, and B> you can get it.OK, i'll now explain why this is a really good plan. You can test for drug-use. You can therefore only supply to existing users. The dealers lose all their best customers and any new customers would be lost immediately, they'd go out of business and the number of new users would drop to near zero. So no, they wouldn't be legal and available (A and B are the same point...) for anyone who isn't already addicted to buy. If you think drug-use would skyrocket then you'd have to be getting these new users from somewhere. You'd also need plenty of dumb!@#$%^&* idiots to find a way around the system to get themselves addicted, condemning themseves to pain and death... i'm sure those existing users are going to want to share their drugs... right? No amendments are not religious based, unlike those 10 commandments that no one follows any more... But they're treated as such, which was my point. Its just a law, no more important than the any recently changed law. If they take away one amendment where does it stop?It stops at a reasonably acceptable place deemed appropriate for society. Do you think they'll take away freedom of speech next? We will no longer be the land of the free. You don't have the right to do alot of things in the USA, they're called laws, all countries have them. America probably has fewer rights now as a result of the patriot act. The Netherlands and Denmark deserve the !@#$%^&*le 'land of the free' more than the USA does. You call these things rights when they are technically laws that have been deemed unchangeable. But think about this, if the people democratically decide that society will be safer without firearms then their freedom to live in the society they want will be denied. Your rights will become an oppression of the people. To remain the land of the free, amendments/rights have to be subject to change. Democracy is more valuable. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Ugh, not this idiotic statement again. Yes its true, but why state the obvious. Guns don't load themselves and shoot people. The problem anti-gunners have is "People with guns kill other people easier than people without guns". Your statement is not replying to anything anyone actually believes, its merely an attempt to push the opposing argument to a ridiculous extreme. It doesn't really work on anyone with an education, i suggest you preach to the Africans on guns, they seem to be lapping up Christianity afterall.
NBVegita Posted January 12, 2007 Report Posted January 12, 2007 As stated drugs are a different topic, I'll continue the debate if you'd like to open a separate topic. Guns are not the problem, the people are the problem. The gang bangers will always have their guns. Notice how strict our gun exporting laws are and how dozen of third world countries get guns from us every day. And not even counting the ones the government hands out. If someone wants to kill someone they're not going to be like "oh well I don't have a gun...guess I'll go get ice cream instead" I fully support the right for americans to own guns, and in most states you can carry concealed, with the correct permit. I grew up in a neighborhood where I've seen over a dozen people shot and killed. And I still support guns. I've lost friends to gun violence, and a cousin. But you know what? They would have been killed no matter if there was a gun involved or not. And if they had guns themselves, they might still be alive today. Gang violence is so rampant in todays day and age that if you take away guns from people using them to protect themselves that would be a travesty. When I was 4 and my brother was 6 a drunk man broke into our house, with a hunting knife, in the middle of the summer. 3pm in the afternoon, just followed my brother right down the drive way, broke the window to the side door and let himself in. My father was at work, and my mother is only 5'2". He was over 6' and drunk. He came running after my brother and guess what stopped him? My mom ran in with her .357 magnum. scared him right out of the house. I called 911 as soon as he broke in like my mom told me to do. The cops didn't show up for 45 minutes. The man was a convicted fellon, and he had a warrant out for his arrest on 5 accounts of manslaughter. If not for that gun, we don't know for sure, but with 45 minutes alone with a drunk murderer with a hunting knife, we might not be alive today. I have dozens of stories from family and friends about how a gun, not even shooting it, just having it has saved their lives. In the city, on a subway, camping, ect. I'm sorry you will never be able to tell me that the world is a safter place without guns. More than once one has saved my life.
candygirl Posted January 13, 2007 Report Posted January 13, 2007 A bunch of liberals are trying to break the second amendment trying to take away our right to bear arms. So you cant protecting your self from big brother (the government)
Falcoknight Posted January 15, 2007 Report Posted January 15, 2007 I love how this topic has been derailed off the subject of Saddam Hussein's execution and is now focused on gun control. Perhaps arguments about Saddam's execution would be more clear and accurate if the writers did not start debates about other topics at the same time.
Greased_Lightning Posted January 16, 2007 Report Posted January 16, 2007 Guns arent the problem. Guns didnt kill Saddam Hussein. That f'kin rope did it. We must all join together to stem the illegal purchase of nooses. Only you can prevent forest fires, but everybody has matches.
SeVeR Posted January 16, 2007 Report Posted January 16, 2007 Funny how that guys head came off. They should reattach it and redo the whole thing with the other guy too. The executioners thought he'd escaped in some elaborate magic trick at first.
larrythehamster Posted January 30, 2007 Report Posted January 30, 2007 Hmm... I personally think his death merely made him into a martyr for his followers... However, I do see where people are coming from about it showing his loyal followers there is no chance he can come back... Meh I think death is too easy a way out for him
11___________ Posted February 12, 2007 Report Posted February 12, 2007 I will try to sum it all up! (dumdumdum) Torture gets what the torturer wants to hear, possible not the truth Osama should NOT get tortured because he is setting an example that Iraq can be made "normal" and that torturing isnt ok. Not getting tortured is also a right you are born with. Political Correctness has gone off the deep end. I do not need warnings for 3\4 of the stuff i buy. I do not need instructions in German, Itailian, Spanish, Chinese, or any other language, while i am in the US. Firearms are a second Amendment Right. Taking away all the guns would violate that, therefore breaking the Bill of Rights, then you get a court case. Example:San Fransisco banning firearms, impossible in the USA. Guns dont kill people, husbands that come home early do-Larry the Cable Guy Christmas is a holliday ONLY about spending big money. It was moved twice by presidents to make more money=more taxes=richer government. Ok there u go. The complete guide to Sad-!@#$%^&*
Recommended Posts