SoS

Mine was completely separate from others. Take it as you will. My apology was genuine either way. Democracy and capitalism are married as one. Yes or no is gonna have benefits to one financial position or another. The so called rich are little pimps to the power brokers I'm speaking of. Chump change. Obviously you don't have a clue how much money they just made. And they adjust to change so much better than the working/middle class.

Oh c'mon besides being the worst possible time and place, that was funny. If you're seriously offended by what was intended as a good natured joke, then I sincerely apologize. I'm not promoting defeatism. I'm just saying you're not going to find a solution in the choices they present to you. Like, Hillary never would have become president but they found a way to ensure her victory. You have to look past your fears and passions, because that is what they exploit. Small financial gains? Silly me I thought there were record moves on the market.

It's cute that so many think they won a victory over globalism. Dreaming that politics is anything less than a cost of doing business. This type goes back to the tea tax. Corrupting politics to effect law to turn a profit. Do you have any idea how much money and new advantages the globalists gained from this? While crushing the small investors. This happened only because the globalists wanted it to happen. Not the hippies and cucks you see as the face of globalism, but the power brokers who don't give a !@#$ about the aspirations of the left or the right. The idea that this results in real sovereignty and real change is an illusion. They're still owned by the same corporations that will still get the same results pushed through parliament by the politicians they own. They actually have fewer politicians to bribe now.

The narrative cucks want to create is that not all Muslims are guilty of murder. They're entitled to their beliefs however stupid or intolerant they may be. Just like any other religion.

It would be a fair topic, if it weren't just another way to say muslims are bad and liberals are cucks. Again, I think the liberals protect the broader Muslim community because damn it's tough being a decent Muslim with all this bad pr.

Yeah, after all we've only had like 20 Muslim and cuck topics in the last week. Not including the topics that turned into Muslim and cuck topics. I get it. I got it a long time ago, like 9:11 ago. Muslims will spoil your shit. Just like all other trashy people from all other races and religions. I'm a cuck for what, for not wanting to forcefully reform a religion? And not wanting to force people to desegregate? You realize these are fundamental rights? I get the problems that multiculturalism poses. Not even considering the whole NWO dimension. Doesn't mean you can impose a special set of laws on one race. Whatever you propose to change legal Muslim citizens must also apply to all. So, what do you propose? Or is this just populist nationalistic rhetoric?

I'm familiar with those lines and ashamed I can't remember the movie. Ok. Terrible movie with one good character. The eminent nothingness. If you're not a psychopath, it's not easy. It takes awhile for the fullness of it to really set in, too. You take every value you hold dear or that holds you hostage and you go out of your way to violate them, all the time. Doubt your opinions; argue against them. Become so objective that the world holds no constant meaning. Eliminate desire. This is hard to explain. You need to first learn the concept from Buddhism, then take it to the extreme. This leads to ultimate cynicism, nihilism, and fatalism. They will all be little ideas you hold 'til one day complete emptiness hits you like a brick. All the BS that makes life enjoyable and endurable will be gone. You'll see life without the facade. In a way you'll be free. Mostly you'll just destroy healthy emotional response.

We didn't want to talk about muslims and cucks again. I think libs just have more damage control to do on the Muslim side. They don't really prefer either or.

I don't think a .223 is all that great for big game. It was designed specifically to maim, not kill. Great for war, not so much for humane hunting. And .22 is cheap, probably cheaper than the BS of buying and changing the receiver. But yeah, they're nice light guns. I'd rather have an H&K, tho. That's my shit. I have a 33 and a full size .45. I want a 91, but that's costly. Tbqh, I was only playing the gun control side so we could have a different discussion than muslims and cucks. It's interesting to see how both sides twist the same set of statistics, tho. I really do believe something more to prevent massacres needs to be done. Hell if I know what that is. Mopping up after won't satisfy the public. Some strict countries require character references. That might help weed out some weirdos. All I know is in a nation filled with guns I refuse to go without.

Yeah but, the topic is gun violence. And, gun homocides account for more homicides in the US than all other methods combined. Source: Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States, 1997, 2007 and 2008; Crime in the United States 2011, 2012.

The first link you posted http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000 Japan was in there too and they have like no guns and low crime rates and nearly zero gun homocides.

It's my right to rape and plunder. The government infringes my rights. Arms were originally any damn weapon perod. (Heller) and whatever other case has watered that down. Eroded my rights. The 2nd amendment was intended to guarantee me a private army that could rival any other army, in terms of available armaments. If you accept that I can't have hell fire rockets and chain guns on a stelth helocopter, so I can reduce a stadium full of fans to a bloody ruin, then how far from the 2nd amendment is limiting mag capacity or the type of fire rate? I don't even get that??? How is that a response to me saying you claimed gun deaths were .04% of total deaths when you failed to mention the difference between natural causes and intetional injuries? Really, a single shot gun would be entirely adequate for self defense. Self defense doesn't really encompass a shootout and average people couldn't fare well in a shootout. Shootouts are just not necessary for self defense. One menacing bullet is generally enough.

Obviously, you have access to the same stats I do. Crime rates and gun violence rates are apples and oranges. You cited cultural differences yourself, so you can't claim any kind of causation. Japan has the absolute strictest gun regulations. And they have easily the lowest gun death rates in the world (2-3 per year). And, from your own sorce above, among the lowest crime rates in the developed world. How many attempted rapes do you suppose are thwarted by armed women? That would be an interesting stat. The best I can find is that someone with an agenda imagines there are 1.2 million rapes per year and further imagine that 3600 rapes are never attempted due to the would be (not rapist) fearing that the woman may be armed. All dreamed up numbers. Factual numbers are that women who own guns are 3x more likely to be murdered. And, most rapes are commited by someone they know, in such a manner that the victim probably wouldn't use a gun against. But, that and the whole thing is speculation.

There are countless laws which restrict my rights to do what I might want to do. Originally, the 2nd amendment allowed private citizens to own artillery and later gatling guns. Those rights have been eroded. If you're a purist, you would support my right to RPGs and WMDs. Originally, the 2nd amendment was intended to allow for private armies to defend America. That's defunct today. Should we encourage "a well regulated militia" today? The only conceivable enemy is the government, so good luck with that. Back in the day war was everywhere and constant with the natives and the neighboring colonies. After the civil war, I imagine they reasonably wanted to curb private armies. Stats are readily available. And, it's just common sense that 2.25 million of the 2.5 million American deaths you cited were from natural causes. Intentional and unintentional injuries account for a tiny fraction of annual deaths. At least I don't give stats that are twisted to fit my talking points.

NK has agreed to give me a nuclear weapon as a gift. It is my right to bear arms. What could go wrong?

Gun deaths in UK were 0.23/100k compared to 10.56/100k in US in 2011.

We do restrict rights. "Arms"...so I can have nuclear weapons? Obviously, we don't want everyone to have any type of arms they please. The stats on death rates are highly disingenuous they way you presented them. 99% of deaths were from natural causes. What percentage of deaths caused by intentional injuries were from guns? Not an insignificant number.

The numbers show the rule works there, so I don't see the wisdom in citing the exception.

Well, at least he's banned from guns there

Yeah, I've been blessed with friends and family that hold licenses to own automatic weapons. I fired an fully automatic uzi when I was 10 thanks to my uncle. My dad and his brothers had enough firepower to arm a respectable company. My uncle had a gun store, so I guess a few companies could've been armed by the family. We were actually never allowed to use auto fire in the military, since I was more of a cop than combat. I fired a .50 machine gun there. Cool, but not nearly as cool as a mini-gun. Nothing like shooting a month's income in 2 minutes. We were actually educated on the 1st ammendment. If you will recall that "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater". Schools never did tell us under what circumstances to use deadly force. Funny. We have a fundamental right to own muskets. Future military grade weapons were never specified as a right. For that matter, I used to have a right to own people. Don't you think some things change that change what's considered a reasonable right? People generally kill themselves in pools, not other people. There are safety laws regarding pools. If ten of thousands were being killed by other people with pools there would be more regulations against the possession and/or use of pools. The lack of pool lobbyists would make it easy. The real place where the government is out to get you is in bread and circuses. They don't need to repress anyone. They just make them passive. Yes, I would become a criminal if guns were outright banned.

He's just an ignorant kid, so let's just not talk about killing him under any circumstances.

Yeah, I am. But, the gun was privately, legally owned. I don't know the history of my friend's gun. But, the fact that he had it must mean that at some point someone was selling mini-guns to private citizens. Regulating the operation of cars is the most effective way to reduce the harm they cause, due to the nature of how cars are used. Regulating the operation of guns is ineffective, bcs of the nature of how guns are used. Cars are always visible and operated in public. They're only dangerous under those conditions. So, you only police them under those conditions. Guns are not always visible when in public and they're just as dangerous (reportedly moreso) in the owners' home as they are in public. We really can't regulate guns effectively in the same way we do cars. Unlike cars, we must (and do, but need to increase) restrictions on who may own guns. Would such a restriction be ineffective? Maybe, but that's no reason to not enact a law. If a minor inconvenience to decent people could prevent even one tragedy it's worth it. I don't want a blanket ban on guns. So, I want the !@#$ing NRA to accept some meaningful restrictions.

Ok, then I'm back to admiring your fluency of English.

Omg, are you an american? I always assumed English was your second language. My point is I like guns, but they're not suitable for everyone.

Oh, I actually love guns. I've fired some that would make you cream your pants. Best of all time was the mini-gun. 5,000 rounds in 90 seconds. I own and will always own guns, regardless of the law. I also believe it should be a privilege, a "right" you must earn, to own weapons. No one complains that they have to take training, written, and driving tests to get a drivers license. It should be equally difficult to prove that you are responsible enough to own something that you can use to murder 100 people with in a few minutes. Then again, I believe people should have a license before being allowed to procreate. There's a lot of irresponsible people out there. We make them buy insurance and buckle up and not text n drive. They can't do those simple things unless they're forced to. You really think it's a good idea that anyone and everyone should have a deadly weapon?