assault weapons/burst fireing arms should not given to the public. People cant handle the responsibility
Don't project. Could you stop spamming that answer, please? aka  People in general can't handle responsibility of much simpler things. |
|
|
|
|
Also why top 500 and not every single supercomputer combined?
|
|
|
|
Or any Microsoft operating system since DOS.
xp was ok 7 was very nice 8 is extremely nice, so i call bollocks on your statement |
|
|
|
|
А я уже греюсь немножко. Холодает все таки.
|
|
|
|
Only difference you could possibly make would be to shoot some army guy in a bullet-proof vest, before they take you down using superior firepower.
Look at Afghanistan for an example of how well superior firepower serves the US. M The genocide piece is somewhat held at bay as long as we retain our gun rights. Without them, it'd be one helluva scary place.
M
But there's no genocide in question. If they would like to massacre everyone, they would do fine. Also it's a foreign country. Imagine if US decided to crackdown on it's own citizens. Nowhere to hide. And finally do your gun rights allow you to carry an rpg or some grenades, and would you strap a suicide vest on yourself and blow some tank? |
|
|
|
|
Only difference you could possibly make would be to shoot some army guy in a bullet-proof vest, before they take you down using superior firepower.
|
|
|
|
With just a few battleships and people inside U.S. intelligence leaking their positions it might not be wise to strike.
The question is: Can America afford attacking Syria with more than that?
Drones are relatively inexpensive. They already blew a lot of money feeding rebels and their spies. You don't just walk away. What it boils down to is, when do America's lenders cut them off? America doesn't have squat anymore, and they won't ever have it again until they literally collapse and start society over again. America's entire military is borrowed from people who expect them to repay them someday, or perhaps are knowingly fueling America until they destroy themselves--anyway, America hasn't been able to afford any war for quite some time, and the more wars they get into, the more debt they accrue, the faster their demise, so of course it's in the interest of other nations to continue fueling America's war games. So, yes, America can always 'afford' more wars, until other nations agree that it's time to pull the rug from under them, and then it's game over. If America won't use more of its military against Syria, it's because they're saving it for bigger fish, and so Syria is just a distraction at that point. But remember all those nuke-carrying submarines America has across the globe in unknown spots of the ocean; wonder if they'll use those in a last-ditch effort to retain control once the rug is pulled, or if that's one reason why the rug hasn't been by now. If everyone pulls the rug, they will not get any of their money back. Nukes are a good point too. |
|
|
|
With just a few battleships and people inside U.S. intelligence leaking their positions it might not be wise to strike.
The question is: Can America afford attacking Syria with more than that?
Drones are relatively inexpensive. They already blew a lot of money feeding rebels and their spies. You don't just walk away. |
|
|
|
Assault weapons should not be banned.
Here in Nigeria, you can buy all weapons.
Just make sure you don't buy American semi auto assault weapons but full auto assault weapons.
That works for you nicely, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
I personally would love that. People would be still oppressed, but there would be no shitstorm of current proportions today. BUT, I'm guessing those rebels did not get their weapons from shops  Ak47's, RPGs, FN-Fals, Steyers, and explosives. Now imagine you are living there, and loyalists or rebels break down your door, to entrench in your apartment. If you have a gun in your hand, you're pretty much dead. Is there a limit to the oppression that you see as acceptable for others, or ought there be some arbitrary limit, such as "genocide" or one of the other lines like "WMD"? Any country can change it's course in nonviolent way. Gandhi way maybe? If you gather for a demonstration, and stones and molotovs start flying - someone's bound to be hurt shot. But that's the way of these protesters, especially towelheads. That's a provocation, caused by protester leaders, who in turn are paid to ignite this passion, and instigate hate. Among rebels are soldiers of fortune, coming from other countries. They are very well armed. Armed citizens would never oppose those rebels, maybe only join, adding instability. Also every war like this, is not just about citizens vs government. It's about other countries secret services, about political infighting, and mostly about tribal feuds. Sunnis vs kurds, poor vs rich, etc. Imagine Obama has turned into an evil oppressor, with senate and other on his side. Big brother. Even if anyone had guns up to that point, how much would rebel and use them? 1% 5%? What would be the point? Your guns will not protect your freedom. Only if (following their own interests) Mexican druglords, Cuban army, local republican rednecks, Somali pirates and other rubbish with Europe's intelligence help, and weapons supllied from Russia and McCain as their leader suddenly emerge. |
|
|
|
soldiers are using YOUR tax money to slaughter people all over the world, thus you could be held responsible for that. You are financing them. Some of those soldiers are probably your very neighbors.
Bullshit. I was robbed, and then the money that the robbers stole from me was used to kill others. Against my wises I might add. I hear you. My point is that being the US a place where there are so many individuals self-conscious of their rights and armed with guns precisely to protect themselves from the abuse of Government thugs, you would expect a reaction if the government just milks his citizens, outright stealing from them to commit mass murder. That's a pretty big attack to your freedom, isn't it? Still, population having guns doesn't stop the US government, they keep stripping you naked of your rights, milking you, and using your money (which they are outright stealing, right?) to commit horrendous murders. Look at Obama now, he is saying "Syria is not similar at all to Iraq, we will just bomb them to protect civilians"... Its clear that the best way to avoid civilians to be murdered with Syrian chemical weapons is to murder some civilians with American drones and tomahawks. I know many of you agree this is ludicrous, and that most of you are informed and know that those weapons came from Saudi Arabia and thus this was probably a "rebel" action... But still, you say guns protect you from your Government, but I see no reaction to this awful situation. What would you say about that? Do you recommend that Syria do a better job of gun control? Making sure that no one there (except the government, military, police) has anything that could be considered a weapon? I personally would love that. People would be still oppressed, but there would be no shitstorm of current proportions today. BUT, I'm guessing those rebels did not get their weapons from shops Ak47's, RPGs, FN-Fals, Steyers, and explosives. Now imagine you are living there, and loyalists or rebels break down your door, to entrench in your apartment. If you have a gun in your hand, you're pretty much dead. |
|
|
|
I almost forgot about booze. What about drunk people doing stupid things? Mostly accidents of course. And on a side note - that thing in the news, about a kid shooting his grandma and GTA being to blame? How the fuck did he get his little hands on a gun? Any updates? EDIT: I would find a fact of someone raping my daughter as a threat on her life and act accordingly. Later I would put a knife in hands of dead rapist . |
|
|
|
@BunworthBanshee: only uninformed retards believe the chemical weapons attack was launched by Assad. You know, even the ONU said there was no proof that he did it...
For him to use those weapons would be so fucking illogical, yet some will believe that. Or pretend to believe that, does not matter really. I see it like that: mercenaries rebels are losing too much money their ground so their masters resort to staging a chemical attack, maybe even pay some loyalist soldiers to do that. And the shitstorm begins. |
|
|
|
About a criminal entering your house - I think most of you would be nervous/anxious/scared enough to pull a trigger first, rather than ask questions. Imagine a burglar next to your daughter room. And also they would not stand there waiting for you to call the police, best case scenario they would run off in other direction, worst case - in yours. I have nothing against shooting a criminal on your property, even if he dies, he kinda deserves that. But there's a problem, where someone might shoot an innocent person in their house and claim it as robbery attempt. If scientists did a study and wrote it down for their peers to review that said you should stop using cryptography, including bitcoin, because criminals and terrorists that use cryptography often use Bitcoin, would you try to pass a law forcing yourself and your compatriots to do that?
Would you advocate to those of whom you have a low opinion, that they should not be allowed to use it, and that they should ask their governments to stop them?
That's a very good point there, I must admit. Still, population having guns doesn't stop the US government, they keep stripping you naked of your rights, milking you, and using your money (which they are outright stealing, right?) to commit horrendous murders.
And this one is my favorite. |
|
|
|
|
I'm most likely to be hit by a stray bullet while in a city, that any other projectile, if guns/bullets were not present. Also a gun is easier to conceal, and is much more deadly.
EDIT: My main beef with any gun holder - why should he have said advantage over anyone else?
If he goes berserk - he will inflict a lot of harm. If someone tries to rob him, he will inflict more harm, than it is worth. If I am in some heated dispute with a person carrying a gun, he will have a psychological advantage, a confidence boost. If he feels threatened, he will take that gun out as an extra argument on his side. You do not even need to take it out, just open your jacket a little, so they can see your holster as intimidating sign. These examples sure are dumb, but you get the idea.
Either it's noone having those guns, or everyone having one. Older citizens, kids, whatever.
|
|
|
|
Hola folks, I recently bought myself one of those Manhattan 28 port monhubs to run my 20 Block Erupter USBs and I noticed the 5vdc power supply just can’t pump out enough electrons to feed my hungry farm (no sh!t right??). So as I quaffed my adult malted beverage and scratched my head I wondered what I might do to feel better about buying a 28 port hub where I can only run at MAX 8 Block Erupters and in reality, 6 for full stability (off of my Ras PI as the controller). What to do??? What to do??? Oh yea, a while back I converted a salvaged 200watt ATX power supply to a +-12VDC +-5VDC bench top power supply The specs on the power supply say it can push 30 amps out the +5VDC channel. If I do my math correct that seems like I could cut the barrel connector line on my Manhattan hub and connect it to my converted power supply’s 5VDC binding posts and VIOLA … power my 20 USB Block Erupters connected to a single Ras Pi on a *SINGLE* F-ing USB hub (instead of multiple Frankenstein looking USB hubs). You folks see any badness in this idea? If you find yourself interested in doing a PSU conversion here’s a banging article that should lead you to the land of PSU conversion success -> http://www.instructables.com/id/Convert-an-ATX-Power-Supply-Into-a-Regular-DC-Powe/ . Thanks in advance for your reply and/or thoughts. pics or it didn't happen |
|
|
|
|
How much cheaper is your average camwhore vs a prostitute?
|
|
|
|
|
Is that a pomegranate topping in that stock image?
|
|
|
|
PrimeDice user:sodaxhg
17dh8xVXmxCLtGoZFjQkfmMR47DyUa3MQN
 Did you read the original post? They never do, it's like that damned ripple begging thread |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
