Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Post New Thread Reply

Register GFY Rules Calendar
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed.

 
Thread Tools
Old 06-29-2008, 04:03 PM   #151
Dirty F
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
Dirty F's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith View Post
Some posts just need to be pulled onto the next page, for maximum effect.
Too bad you are the one quoting them so any effect is instantly gone.
Dirty F is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2008, 06:40 PM   #152
CDSmith
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
CDSmith's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: May 2001
Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am *I* located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :)
Posts: 51,460
My name is Franck.

I insult people on a message board.





Talk to me about credibility.
__________________
Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!

ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!!

Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket.
ICQ me at: 31024634
CDSmith is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2008, 10:01 PM   #153
Porno Dan
Court Jester
 
Porno Dan's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Budapest
Posts: 6,342
I was born in Washington DC and lived there almost all my life, the gun ban was a joke.

All it did was keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
Porno Dan is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 03:37 AM   #154
pocketkangaroo
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmateurFlix View Post
for the same reason that the general public - and the world's militaries - should not be permitted to possess germ warfare capabilities.

those type of weapons kill indiscriminately.

when our nation was founded weapons technology was limited mainly to projectile weapons (yes, armor piercing ones in some cases, if the gun was big enough) and cutting instruments, so we can assume those are the type of arms they were referring to, weapons that a person is able to control and direct towards a particular target. modern firearms may look a bit different, however they function based on essentially the same principles as used back then.

the nightmare that is germ warfare and nuclear annihilation was inconceivable at that time, and is of little practical use in a battle of any nature on land that one intends to occupy after using it. it serves no purpose in the interest of preserving the republic against a rebel government and would provide no benefit in peacetime.

now please quit trying to be a smart ass
The funny thing is, the same argument you made about why more powerful weapons should not be allowed under the 2nd Amendment is the same argument Washington D.C. made about handguns.

And this isn't part of the discussion, but germ warfare wasn't inconceivable. It's been used since ancient times when one side would catapult dead people infected with bubonic plague onto the other sides territory during battle. It even took place on our own land when Indians would poison lakes with sick, dead, animal hides. British soldiers near the time of our independence would hand blankets ridden with small pox over to the Native Americans. None of this was inconceivable, especially since many of the writers of our Constitution has dealt with close family members being infected with smallpox.
pocketkangaroo is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 03:40 AM   #155
pocketkangaroo
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseFrog View Post
Right. And just as in the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, the 2nd wouldn't reasonably allow you to own a nuclear weapon.
Actually using the "clear and present danger" argument is actually something that would favor the dissenting side in this opinion. It can be argued that a handgun in the wrong hands can cause a "clear and present danger" to other individuals. Just as yelling fire in a theater can cause a "clear and present danger".
pocketkangaroo is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 04:10 AM   #156
After Shock Media
It's coming look busy
 
After Shock Media's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn".
Posts: 35,299
Pew Pew Pew Bang! Bang!

Ok just seeing if this thread was still going. Proceed to debate the problems of guns in America.
__________________

[email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]
After Shock Media is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 04:13 AM   #157
nico-t
emperor of my world
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: nethalands
Posts: 29,903
every single argument by gun owners here is not why the US government won't ban guns... they don't give a shit about your 'freedoms' etc. Dont you realize every decision is about money? Arms is one of the biggest businesses in the US, that's why they will never ban them. Governments don't give a shit about the people, every decision they make is based on money. So you're just lucky guns are too important for the economy otherwise they wouldn't hesistate a second to ban them.
nico-t is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 04:30 AM   #158
After Shock Media
It's coming look busy
 
After Shock Media's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn".
Posts: 35,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by nico-t View Post
every single argument by gun owners here is not why the US government won't ban guns... they don't give a shit about your 'freedoms' etc. Dont you realize every decision is about money? Arms is one of the biggest businesses in the US, that's why they will never ban them. Governments don't give a shit about the people, every decision they make is based on money. So you're just lucky guns are too important for the economy otherwise they wouldn't hesistate a second to ban them.
Partially flawed as both sides have oodles of money. Plus both sides have masses voting power that can put people in office where they can make money.

Yes the US loves dealing in arms. Though the government tries to not be to keen on its people having arms. Well not always the government but the elected officials and special interest groups sure in the hell do. Yet at same time dealing them outside of our borders is not an issue and is indeed big business.
__________________

[email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]
After Shock Media is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 07:54 AM   #159
Kevsh
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: TO
Posts: 8,619
Clearly there are a few things that even the staunchest pro-gun advocate can admit:

- The majority of guns used in committing crimes were, at one point, legally purchased.
- That the likelihood of someone in your home being killed or wounded by a handgun increases dramatically if you keep a gun in your home.
- That the ability for people to own firearms without at least some firearms and safety training can lead to careless and sometimes wreckless use.
- The right to defend your home is certainly a strong argument, but owning a small arsenal is not a necessity for home defence.

So for every gun legally bought by and individual, the odds that someone, somewhere will be shot increases. It's simple logic.

But since guns are everywhere, I completely agree that that stopping the legal sale of guns would (at least in the short term) leave home owners and citizens defenceless. In the long term, there would be no guns and then you wouldn't have any valid excuse to need them to defend your home (that is, in countries with gun control they don't suffer from home invasions nearly enough to be concerned about it).

So as a bit of a compromise, why not at least force people who buy a gun to:
1) Be interviewed by an agent (likely of the police) for a basic evaluation of the individual
2) Be required to take a gun safety course
3) Be issued a licence (very simple, just showing they completed the course, etc.)
3) Register the firearm with the police and check back, perhaps once a year, with the gun (basically renewing the licence)

A pain in the ass? Sure it is. But to drive a car, look what you have to go through - and although cars can be dangerous, lets be honest, a gun is designed to shot people and yet it's easier to get one than a licence to drive a car, truck or 18-wheeler?

Hey, agree or not but as someone is certainly pro-gun control, at least I'm reaching across the aisle

Last edited by Kevsh; 06-30-2008 at 07:55 AM..
Kevsh is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 07:57 AM   #160
AmateurFlix
Confirmed User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo View Post
The funny thing is, the same argument you made about why more powerful weapons should not be allowed under the 2nd Amendment is the same argument Washington D.C. made about handguns.
You're twisting my words, I have said nothing about 'powerful' weapons.

I spoke merely of weapons of precision as opposed to weapons which cannot be controlled or directed and that kill indiscriminately. Those are two very different topics, do not confuse them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo View Post
And this isn't part of the discussion, but germ warfare wasn't inconceivable. It's been used since ancient times when one side would catapult dead people infected with bubonic plague onto the other sides territory during battle. It even took place on our own land when Indians would poison lakes with sick, dead, animal hides. British soldiers near the time of our independence would hand blankets ridden with small pox over to the Native Americans. None of this was inconceivable, especially since many of the writers of our Constitution has dealt with close family members being infected with smallpox.
I think it's safe to say that catapulting corpses infected with common and naturally occurring illnesses is a bit different than the exotic man-made or refined strains of extremely weird and deadly shit that scientists have cooked up in modern labs So yes, modern germ/chemical warfare would have been inconceivable to them. The framers of our constitution were no doubt brilliant men, but I don't think they could easily predict 150+ years of scientific "advancement" into a field which did not even exist during their lifetimes.
__________________
AmateurFlix is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 09:16 AM   #161
CarlosTheGaucho
Confirmed User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevsh View Post
Clearly there are a few things that even the staunchest pro-gun advocate can admit:

- The majority of guns used in committing crimes were, at one point, legally purchased.
- That the likelihood of someone in your home being killed or wounded by a handgun increases dramatically if you keep a gun in your home.
- That the ability for people to own firearms without at least some firearms and safety training can lead to careless and sometimes wreckless use.
- The right to defend your home is certainly a strong argument, but owning a small arsenal is not a necessity for home defence.

So for every gun legally bought by and individual, the odds that someone, somewhere will be shot increases. It's simple logic.

But since guns are everywhere, I completely agree that that stopping the legal sale of guns would (at least in the short term) leave home owners and citizens defenceless. In the long term, there would be no guns and then you wouldn't have any valid excuse to need them to defend your home (that is, in countries with gun control they don't suffer from home invasions nearly enough to be concerned about it).

So as a bit of a compromise, why not at least force people who buy a gun to:
1) Be interviewed by an agent (likely of the police) for a basic evaluation of the individual
2) Be required to take a gun safety course
3) Be issued a licence (very simple, just showing they completed the course, etc.)
3) Register the firearm with the police and check back, perhaps once a year, with the gun (basically renewing the licence)

A pain in the ass? Sure it is. But to drive a car, look what you have to go through - and although cars can be dangerous, lets be honest, a gun is designed to shot people and yet it's easier to get one than a licence to drive a car, truck or 18-wheeler?

Hey, agree or not but as someone is certainly pro-gun control, at least I'm reaching across the aisle
On the other hand, US itself posseses more handguns in private propriety than any other country in the world, with more than one third of households reporting gun posession you have estimated around 70 millions of handguns in the streets already.

So if you have 70 mil. guns owner beeing comfortably sold and companies being comfortable selling them ammo / accessories and new models.

It's a situation that's kind of tough to solve even if someone had the best intensions.
CarlosTheGaucho is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 11:05 AM   #162
Kudles
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Here There and Everywhere
Posts: 5,477
Guns are bad
Kudles is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 11:56 AM   #163
pocketkangaroo
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmateurFlix View Post
You're twisting my words, I have said nothing about 'powerful' weapons.

I spoke merely of weapons of precision as opposed to weapons which cannot be controlled or directed and that kill indiscriminately. Those are two very different topics, do not confuse them.
A laser guided missile can be controlled. So can most new age rocket launchers. A target for a grenade can be chosen just as much as one using a gun. An IED has more precision and accuracy as a gun as you can choose your target beforehand.

A lot of these weapons don't kill indiscriminately. The technology has advanced to a point that they can be used to eliminate individual targets just as well as other guns. In fact, probably better in some cases. Take buckshot for example which can indiscriminately hurt/kill people within the vicinity. As well as handguns with armor piercing bullets which can go through walls and kill unintended targets (happens in Chicago all the time with drive-bys).


Quote:
Originally Posted by AmateurFlix View Post
I think it's safe to say that catapulting corpses infected with common and naturally occurring illnesses is a bit different than the exotic man-made or refined strains of extremely weird and deadly shit that scientists have cooked up in modern labs So yes, modern germ/chemical warfare would have been inconceivable to them. The framers of our constitution were no doubt brilliant men, but I don't think they could easily predict 150+ years of scientific "advancement" into a field which did not even exist during their lifetimes.
Smallpox and the bubonic plague killed millions of people around the world. The plague killed a large percent of Europe while smallpox took out a ton of Native Americans. I don't know how much more "deadly" you want a virus to be. I agree that technology has advanced on germ warfare, but if you get smallpox today, you're most likely going to die.
pocketkangaroo is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 11:58 AM   #164
Peaches
Old broad
 
Peaches's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Away
Posts: 13,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevsh View Post
1) Be interviewed by an agent (likely of the police) for a basic evaluation of the individual
2) Be required to take a gun safety course
3) Be issued a licence (very simple, just showing they completed the course, etc.)
3) Register the firearm with the police and check back, perhaps once a year, with the gun (basically renewing the licence)
I wouldn't disagree with any of those except the first one - all you need is to be able to BS a policeman and be a psycho and get a gun.

I know in order to get my carry permit they supposedly checked "3 databases" but I wish the state would require a gun safety course. Texas does, IIRC.
Peaches is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 12:42 PM   #165
AmateurFlix
Confirmed User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo View Post
A laser guided missile can be controlled. So can most new age rocket launchers. A target for a grenade can be chosen just as much as one using a gun. An IED has more precision and accuracy as a gun as you can choose your target beforehand.
you clearly have no idea what you are talking about if you think a weapon (firearm) capable of making a tiny hole in an exact location from 100's of yards away, almost instantly, has a controlled kill radius comparable to missiles, hand grenades, and bombs. Likewise your claimed knowledge of the spread characteristics of buckshot, which seems to have been gleaned from a Yosemite Sam cartoon or something, varies somewhat from Hollywood special effects and cartoons as opposed to reality.
__________________
AmateurFlix is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Post New Thread Reply
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >

Bookmarks



Advertising inquiries - marketing at gfy dot com

Contact Admin - Advertise - GFY Rules - Top

©2000-, AI Media Network Inc



Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000- Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.