Quake3World

I think i'm buying this for when I get my CCW


Also because I have penis inferiority issues.

And brain cell deficiency.

You know what's funny tho? For all the bitching you and the euros etc. do, you don't mean shit. I consider my vote for Bush endless entertainment on my end as the rest of you shit your diapers crying over him the last four years. I think from now on I'm basing my vote on what will get the freedom fighters here the most riled up.

EtUL wrote:You know what's funny tho? For all the bitching you and the euros etc. do, you don't mean shit. I consider my vote for Bush endless entertainment on my end as the rest of you shit your diapers crying over him the last four years. I think from now on I'm basing my vote on what will get the freedom fighters here the most riled up.

Been drinking tonight?

EtUL wrote:You know what's funny tho? For all the bitching you and the euros etc. do, you don't mean shit. I consider my vote for Bush endless entertainment on my end as the rest of you shit your diapers crying over him the last four years. I think from now on I'm basing my vote on what will get the freedom fighters here the most riled up.

lol

You'd fuck up your vote to spite a bunch of cunts on the internet.

R00k wrote:

Nightshade wrote:Putting armories in high schools is a sickening concept to me. If it's a violent school, hire HIGHLY trained security officers and install metal detectors. Then, dedicate resources to fixing the underlying problems.

If you say a public campus is like a public square, then what legally separates it from a public high school campus? It sounds like you don't think we should legally be able to prevent 21 year old licensed students from carrying on public grounds - why is it okay to prevent adult teachers with permits from carrying on public grounds?

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, but the distinction seems important.

Think about what placing a small arsenal in a high school, or moreover someone feeling that it needs to be there actually means. What sort of horrible failure on so very many levels does that indicate? That's the difference right there. My point is one of law-abiding citizens of legal age exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear a firearm vs educators feeling so besieged that they must stockpile weapons within reach to protect themselves from loopy teenagers.

Peenyuh wrote:

EtUL wrote:You know what's funny tho? For all the bitching you and the euros etc. do, you don't mean shit. I consider my vote for Bush endless entertainment on my end as the rest of you shit your diapers crying over him the last four years. I think from now on I'm basing my vote on what will get the freedom fighters here the most riled up.

Been drinking tonight?

4 beers, you know me....wanna fuck?

GONNAFISTYA wrote: lol

You'd fuck up your vote to spite a bunch of cunts on the internet.

That's just a pleasant side effect. You call me a moron, but really I'm just a libertarian. Live and let live is what I feel. Unfortunately for me that usually means my views fall closer with the republican nutjobs than it does the bleeding heart libs. I'm not so naive as to think a third party has any chance, so there is where my vote goes.

EtUL wrote: 4 beers, you know me....wanna fuck?

Hey, look over there. Isn't that Liza Minnelli?

*runs away fast*

I read an article in the newspaper about Pittsburgh today, which is about the same size as Stockholm. Apparently they've had 87 killings by firearm so far this year.

Numbers of people killed by firearms in Stockholm this year: one

gg

i'm willing to guess that sweden's overall murder rate by any means is lower than that of the US, which if it were true (and i've no doubt it is) would undermine your point that firearms are somehow special and that being killed by one is a special kind of death that leaves you much more dead than being killed by any other means

Nightshade wrote:

R00k wrote:If you say a public campus is like a public square, then what legally separates it from a public high school campus? It sounds like you don't think we should legally be able to prevent 21 year old licensed students from carrying on public grounds - why is it okay to prevent adult teachers with permits from carrying on public grounds?

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, but the distinction seems important.

Think about what placing a small arsenal in a high school, or moreover someone feeling that it needs to be there actually means. What sort of horrible failure on so very many levels does that indicate? That's the difference right there. My point is one of law-abiding citizens of legal age exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear a firearm vs educators feeling so besieged that they must stockpile weapons within reach to protect themselves from loopy teenagers.

Like I said, I don't disagree with you.

But, legally speaking, how can you allow 21 year old students to carry guns on campus, and deny the right of adult teachers to carry theirs on public campus, if they have a carry permit?

EtUL wrote:4 beers, you know me....wanna fuck?

GONNAFISTYA wrote: lol

You'd fuck up your vote to spite a bunch of cunts on the internet.

That's just a pleasant side effect. You call me a moron, but really I'm just a libertarian. Live and let live is what I feel. Unfortunately for me that usually means my views fall closer with the republican nutjobs than it does the bleeding heart libs. I'm not so naive as to think a third party has any chance, so there is where my vote goes.

You don't know what libertarian means.

R00k wrote: But, legally speaking, how can you allow 21 year old students to carry guns on campus, and deny the right of adult teachers to carry theirs on public campus, if they have a carry permit?

You can't and that's not what I'm proposing. What you're saying in this post is not the scenario that you originally put forth, that of the school-maintained, select teacher accessible armory.
Personally, I don't think it's right for a mature adult to be carrying a weapon around children, as opposed to a mature adult carrying a weapon around other adults. Besides, in the grand scheme of things, school shootings are such isolated incidents that allowing teachers CC permits really does amount to surrendering to sensationalist paranoia.

R00k wrote:
You don't know what libertarian means.

Wrong.

R00k wrote:

EtUL wrote:4 beers, you know me....wanna fuck?
That's just a pleasant side effect. You call me a moron, but really I'm just a libertarian. Live and let live is what I feel. Unfortunately for me that usually means my views fall closer with the republican nutjobs than it does the bleeding heart libs. I'm not so naive as to think a third party has any chance, so there is where my vote goes.

You don't know what libertarian means.

eTooL may or may not know what libertarian means, but being in favour of private firearms ownership is perfectly consistent with libertarian principles. on the other hand, he thinks the republicans are more libertarian than the dems, so he probably doesn't know squat from jack about libertarian ideas

Nightshade wrote:

R00k wrote: But, legally speaking, how can you allow 21 year old students to carry guns on campus, and deny the right of adult teachers to carry theirs on public campus, if they have a carry permit?

You can't and that's not what I'm proposing. What you're saying in this post is not the scenario that you originally put forth, that of the school-maintained, select teacher accessible armory.
Personally, I don't think it's right for a mature adult to be carrying a weapon around children, as opposed to a mature adult carrying a weapon around other adults. Besides, in the grand scheme of things, school shootings are such isolated incidents that allowing teachers CC permits really does amount to surrendering to sensationalist paranoia.

Yea, I realize that's not what my proposal was earlier -- I was talking about where you mentioned earlier in the thread that teachers shouldn't be allowed to have weapons in high schools. (I'm pretty sure I read that, maybe I should double check)

seremtan wrote:eTooL may or may not know what libertarian means, but being in favour of private firearms ownership is perfectly consistent with libertarian principles. on the other hand, he thinks the republicans are more libertarian than the dems, so he probably doesn't know squat from jack about libertarian ideas

No, there's certainly nothing about gun ownership that conflicts with libertarian ideals

EtUL wrote:

R00k wrote:You don't know what libertarian means.

Wrong.

http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewto ... =1&t=36559

Dumbass

Its pretty idealistic to believe that you can keep and apply one set of political views to all world affairs and situations. You can be completely against murder, but if you are in a situation where your life is in danger and killing an attacker will end that, I think that view will change.

FFS that thread was laughing at the Human Rights group anyway. Of course I'm the moron tho.

killing someone in self-defence isn't murder

you got the moron point right

Fucking homicide then.

Christ lets pull out the dictionaries.

EtUL wrote:Its pretty idealistic to believe that you can keep and apply one set of political views to all world affairs and situations. You can be completely against murder, but if you are in a situation where your life is in danger and killing an attacker will end that, I think that view will change.

FFS that thread was laughing at the Human Rights group anyway. Of course I'm the moron tho.

I don't see how any of what you just said makes torture and unjustified imprisonment okay. So yea, you are the moron.

And now you've broadened that to imply that we shouldn't strive to maintain any common morals in the world, because no values are absolute.

So you sound more like an anarchist than a libertarian, on top of being a moron.

EtUL wrote: Christ lets pull out the dictionaries.

Sounds like it would do you some good.

R00k wrote: I don't see how any of what you just said makes torture and unjustified imprisonment okay. So yea, you are the moron.

And now you've broadened that to imply that we shouldn't strive to maintain any common morals in the world, because no values are absolute.

So you sound more like an anarchist than a libertarian, on top of being a moron.

What they did at GTMO wasn't torture, you pussy liberals. OH NO THERE ARE DOGS BARKING CLOSE TO THEM AND THEY ARE SLEEP DEPRIVED OH THE HUGE MANATEE!!!! I also support them detaining suspected terrorists and the like down there, but I agree with you they need to charge them in good time. Unfortunately we still haven't come to an agreement on how the fuck to try them, and even if you grant them POW status we can still hold them till the end of the war, which, sucks for them, could be a long time. It's a bit more complicated when the enemy soldiers aren't wearing uniforms.

What the fuck does anarchy have to do with morals? I don't think that we should strive to have common morals around the world, because I don't think you should push YOUR morals on someone else. I'll hope that other cultures and people will feel the same as I do on basic morals regarding things like murder, rape, stealing and the like, but if you push it on people where does it stop? If you can come to basic conclusions with other people and agree to abide by that, great. But say there is some culture deep in a jungle away from all of the present world that ritually sacrifices a child to whatever god they believe in. Who the fuck am I to go tell them that is wrong, when we've done partial-birth abortions and the like here?

Before I open up the shitstorm of abortion too I will say that I support it in the first term, but I'm openly a hypocrite because I believe it's life at conception. I'm okay with that.

I am glad that EtUL is here to remind us that at least we can all agree on one thing.

That one thing is that you're a fuckwit, eddie.