Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
this is the great debates forum, not the rant&vent forum.
why don't we get back to the issue: gun control.
aaron out.
Thanks, stycotl. As you've seen, he still avoids answering simple questions. I suspect he's incapable of it, having failed miserably in "Simple de-bait-ing" in middle school. With each successive failure, his stature shrank until he began lashing out without logic or civility. Just name-calling or baiting.
In Holland, referring to such mystery posters as Tricky D (not his "real name", you know! I'm frankly surprised because, well...) they say...
Hij is slechts koppig en onnozel!
(Translation on request. Perhaps you need one TD? Just ask, I'll let you and everyone know).
PS: I wonder if the mod has been keeping track of how many times TD has directly insulted our country and its citizens in his toxic posts, calling us idiots, bullies, stupid, ignorant, criminal, and On And On Ad Infinitum (AOAOAI)???? I might again suggest an embargo? Mod?
Last edited by rifleman; 12-10-2008 at 08:25 PM..
Reason: typos
I was thinking, after my last post above.... what, exactly, could a foreign Trickster be attempting to achieve here? Certainly and apparently NOT an open discussion with one of two outcomes: either (1) we or (2) he would change our points of view after careful consideration of the other's logical, respectful and well-thought out presentations. We, certainly, have fulfilled our responsibilites in that area.
The (3)rd possible goal would be to make us Yanks truly ashamed of our country through endless brainless unsupported insults and proclamations of our failings. And how does this person do this? By using the wonder micro-chip computer our Mr. Gates or Jobs designed, on the Internet which our military (no, not Gore™..) invented, whilst enjoying life's freedoms in Holland that our supposedly brutish military provided when we routed the Nazi thugs from his country? Not to mention the rest of Europe?
We should be ashamed of, say, Patton or Eisenhower, those v. capable gentlemen who saved his forefathers' butts, and who he perhaps feels should be considered in the company of such great Dutch generals and military men as.... as.... (help me here, would yah, I'm drawing a bit of a blank... oh rats! You know, the Dutch generals who so successfully intellectually resisted the German invasion with dialogue before failing their citizens and subsequently begging for our help? Those ones?). Well, you get my point.
So, should we turn tail and skulk off, truly ashamed of ourselves? Are you boys and girls truly ashamed of yourselves because of the enlightening conversation TD has provided?
NFL. (Not a Football Franchise, either, boyyo!).
Well, you decide if it's worth the ongoing Sh%t Flinging he apparently enjoys.
I'm just sayin...
P&L2A riflmn™ Out for the nacht! Goodnight TN. Goodnight Sty. Goodnight Bear! And GD, Pilot, p-l and Weed! To most, a good night.
Last edited by rifleman; 12-10-2008 at 08:57 PM..
Reason: typos
So many people find it easier to blame a country, a society, a community, (even one other than their own) than themselves for their own failings. People are a product of their own accomplishments. If they have none, then it is everyone else's fault, in their mind.
That is frequently the basis of criminals' selfish attacks on other peoples' rights, not just the source of virulent postings to forums. The world (inclusive of Holland, the US, Great Britain, and the citizens therein) does not give them what they demand and feel that they deserve for simply existing, so they feel permanently insulted and obliged to take it, as well as to make others pay for it, and to insist that it is the world's fault that they 'have' to.
if you want to try to extrapolate that from what i was saying, then be my guest. but that is not what i said. and you know that as well as i do.
No I did not, which only proves that you presume too much.
Most 2-year olds are egocentric, simply because they don't know any better.
Quote:
you were the one that made the presumption that the dutch army is better because:
I never said the Dutch army is 'better', I only stated that we don't accept people who have a criminal record.
Quote:
fact: the sword proved to be a more effective weapon than the fist. the sword ruled for a long time.
Fact: a sword, like the fist, is a melee weapon and a gun is not a melee weapon, but a ranged weapon.
The thing is that every ranged weapon uses ammo, which you can run out of.
Originally Posted by Weedsnake
Quote:
Tricky - care to elaborate on what is a semi-automatic machine gun?
In the army my personal weapon was an Uzi.
Being in communication we were only armed with a Uzi which was not considered an 'offensive' weapon although you could shoot more than 1 bullet with just squeezing the trigger.
What I don't want is a gung-ho colleague standing behind me emptying his clip in my general direction.
FYI my 'favourite' weapon is the LAW a Light Anti tank Weapon, not because of the damage, but simply because the aim was perfect and it can only be used once.
We were also armed with a LAW to disable the tracks of the 1st tank in a column so we could try to escape.
Originally Posted by rifleman
Quote:
The (3)rd possible goal would be to make us Yanks truly ashamed of our country through endless brainless unsupported insults and proclamations of our failings.
The 4th possibility is that I'm just posting my opinion.
I already believe that humanity in general is plain stupid instead of intelligent.
Quote:
Hij is slechts koppig en onnozel!
Funny ( as in ironic) that people only see in others what they can only recognise in themselves, because if they couldn't recognise it in themselves they can't notice it in others.
I am not a conservative, but I do believe in the right to own a gun. I notice that guns rights were no restricted until the 20th century starting with restricting what kind of gun you can own. It then went to other things. Some people believe curtailing gun ownership would keep murder rates down. I don't see that working too well. Atfer Washington D.C. restricted handgun access, DC went into a severe crimewave. Look at Moscow,Russia. One of the most violent cities in the world and you can't get a gun if you need to protect yourself. Tell me your opinions.
I don't think the arguement can be made that gun ownership has any effect on crime rates. We have very strict gun control here and I don't think it makes any difference. If people are violent freaks, they'll find a way....and why would a criminal avoid braking one law to commit another?
Personally I don't like guns.I think if you have one around it has to increase that chance of an accident occurring no matter how careful you are. But if the laws of the land permit and you have no such fears yourself then go for it I say.
I don't think the arguement can be made that gun ownership has any effect on crime rates. We have very strict gun control here and I don't think it makes any difference. If people are violent freaks, they'll find a way....and why would a criminal avoid braking one law to commit another?
Personally I don't like guns.I think if you have one around it has to increase that chance of an accident occurring no matter how careful you are. But if the laws of the land permit and you have no such fears yourself then go for it I say.
There was a study that I posted a link to, it mentioned the crime rates in Australia within it. When your gun ban went into effect Violent crime rates went through the roof, the only kicker is they started using weapons other than guns along with the illegal guns already owned by criminals. Same happened in Chicago and D.C. the statistics showed in states or areas where legal gun ownership and CC laws (Conceal Carry) Violent crime dropped. Criminals are going to think twice before committing the crime if there is a possibility that the person they wish to victimize may have a means of protection.
There was a study that I posted a link to, it mentioned the crime rates in Australia within it. When your gun ban went into effect Violent crime rates went through the roof, the only kicker is they started using weapons other than guns along with the illegal guns already owned by criminals. Same happened in Chicago and D.C. the statistics showed in states or areas where legal gun ownership and CC laws (Conceal Carry) Violent crime dropped. Criminals are going to think twice before committing the crime if there is a possibility that the person they wish to victimize may have a means of protection.
I don't remember there ever being time when Australia didn't have gun restrictions. But I'll take your word for it because it's something I haven't investigated.It would depend on when this occured to know if it had anything to do with guns. For example on each wave of immigrants the western suburbs of Sydney get a little rougher because people divide themselves into their own ethnic groups and continue the battles they were fleeing from in the first place.When unemployment rises you get more crime. Nobody I have ever known (except farmers, they're allowed to have them) has expressed a wish to own a gun and I've never known anyone to feel so unsafe that they need one for protection.I have never personally felt like that either. Maybe I would feel differently if I lived in the US, I don't know.That's why I would never say that I think you guys shouldn't have them.
Funny ( as in ironic) that people only see in others what they can only recognise in themselves, because if they couldn't recognise it in themselves they can't notice it in others.
(TD ref's my beginner's attempts at speaking Hollander: Hij is slechts koppig en onnozel!*)
How true. This quote came from a Dutch friend of mine (lots of them up in Vancouver, B.C., growing flowers and all. Which, BTW, they are quite good at!). He read your quotes, recognized the characteristics reflected in the quote, and further suggested I post it as being "heel geschikt"**.
And BTW, ref'ing the color-coded quote from you above, is that why you clearly recognize so much to distain about Americans? If so, by your own admission then, you must be quite the arrogant fellow, neh?
(* "He is only stubborn and foolish" and, ** "very appropriate")
Back at yah, my stubborn friend! But to my own suggestion above, and with the agreement of the crowd, I'm done with you. Responding to stubborn-ness hurts the forehead. Bye now.
Last edited by rifleman; 12-12-2008 at 04:46 AM..
Reason: typos
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On further consideration....
No I did not, which only proves that you presume too much.
I never said the Dutch army is 'better', I only stated that we don't accept people who have a criminal record.
Fact: a sword, like the fist, is a melee weapon and a gun is not a melee weapon, but a ranged weapon.
The 4th possibility is that I'm just posting my opinion.
Funny (
as in ironic) that people only see in others what they can only recognise in themselves, because if they couldn't recognise it in themselves they can't notice it in others.
