Quake3World

Peenyuh wrote: Yer only mad cause Airborne beat jarhead any day on the range.

LawL wrote:What's the point. Like I said it's a pretty easy post to understand, yet an IQ over 80 is needed to comprehend it. Try not to think about it too much as your bald head might explode from the confusion.

Nightshade wrote:I was sort of hoping that Gramps would fall into that 'people that are smart enough to own a gun' category, but he's not really helping his case much here. Peenyuh shouldn't even be allowed to look at pictures of guns.

YourGrandpa wrote:

LawL wrote:What's the point. Like I said it's a pretty easy post to understand, yet an IQ over 80 is needed to comprehend it. Try not to think about it too much as your bald head might explode from the confusion.

Nothing, again.

YourGrandpa wrote:

Nightshade wrote:I was sort of hoping that Gramps would fall into that 'people that are smart enough to own a gun' category, but he's not really helping his case much here. Peenyuh shouldn't even be allowed to look at pictures of guns.

You were all over the place in the post I questioned. Were you drinking?

Between buying up rare car/bike parts I need and buying up all the firearms and ammo I want before Obama and the Dems ban them all - and it's coming, trust me on this - my cash flow is looking a little ill.

Nightshade wrote:

Peenyuh wrote: Yer only mad cause Airborne beat jarhead any day on the range.

Yes, that must be why the Marines have the reputation as being the best shots among all the services.

And two words to put you in your place: Chosin. Reservoir.

Nightshade wrote: I think I was pretty clear and the fact that others are getting it validates that. Time to sell your guns?

Nightshade wrote:lol, not surprised to see this thread turn into a gun ownership debate. I haven't held forth on this subject for a while, so why not? There's no need for the average person to have a gun, and they most likely don't understand the "constitutional grounds" on which they claim the right to own one. IIRC, you have a more legitimate reason to own an "assault rifle" than a handgun, and if you think you need an AK, you're a fucking idiot. You can want one all day long, but if you think you need one, that's enough reason for you to not have one.
I've lived in some shitty areas, and the only time I was confronted with gun violence was in my lily-white hometown in VT. I do support people carrying guns if they feel that they're likely to be mugged, or if they have been mugged, I just don't support idiots. Until we can ban morons IRL, I guess we're kinda fucked.
Anyways, fuck all you hippies and fascists alike.

MKJ wrote:I think what NS was saying is that the Constitution moreso states that you can own an assault rifle than a handgun, and if you feel you do] need an assault rifle (i.e. for assaulting purposes).. well then you are an idiot.

Nightshade wrote:I think I was pretty clear and the fact that others are getting it validates that. Time to sell your guns?

Peenyuh wrote: Reputation isn't certain knowlege.

Bastogne.

I win

YourGrandpa wrote:How do you get that from his post? NS says you have a more legitimate reason to own an "assault rifle" than a handgun. But then says that if you think you need an AK, you're a fucking idiot. Well an AK is an assault rifle. NS says he does support people carrying guns if they feel they need to. But goes on to say that if you think you need one, that's enough reason for you to not have one. The only thing clear was his opinion on idiots owning guns (in which I happen to agree). But the only way you keep a gun out of an idiots hand is to completely ban them and then go house to house collecting them. Thus my previous comment, "It looks to me like he's trying to make some type of perfect world point about how only a select group of people should have guns."

[...]

MKJ "thinks" he understands (though his post was a bit incoherent) and LawL is obviously not capable of verbalizing his understanding. So I don't think you were that clear. Sorry.

R00k wrote:The constitutional reason for keeping and bearing arms is to prevent a situation where a tyrannic government has a monopoly on use of them -- it's a check against tyranny. In that sense, an assault rifle seems to fit constitutional purposes better than a pea shooting pistol (in comparison).

So people who can articulate the constitutional grounds on which they have the right to possess these actually have a leg to stand on when it comes to owning them.

But people who say they NEED an AK-47 are just complete fucking idiots. And they're also missing the point completely.

How hard is that to grasp?

YourGrandpa wrote: I think NS was drunk and venting random thoughts about gun control.

Nightshade wrote:

YourGrandpa wrote: I think NS was drunk and venting random thoughts about gun control.

There were no contradictions in my post, you're just so thick you believe that I was drunk when I posted it.
R00k pretty much nailed what I was talking about, I just threw in the hippies and fascists remark to throw off the 'tards. Looks like it worked.

It's definitely time to sell your guns.

Dark Metal wrote:I genuinely think Gwamps is unintelligent and a slack jawed yokel.

Dark Metal wrote:There are many intelligent, educated, well spoken members here at Quake 3 World. The ones I generally point out, or the ones I enjoy speaking of the most, are those like you. Small minded, ignorant, individuals who mistakenly believe they're better than what they obviously are, and who believe that their opinion is the way things should be and have incredible difficulty dealing with criticism.

Dark Metal wrote:I genuinely think Gwamps is unintelligent and a slack jawed yokel.