TheGreatGamble

57 minutes ago, Comet said:

Like I said in the other thread, he was on suicide watch and this happened? Someone fucked up or something is fishy. 

Depends on what happened. You can kill yourself really quickly if you cut off the carotid artery. But it sure seems fishy

This should be interesting.

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

The worst part is the cops will say they really believed it was cocaine (and cocaine certainly doesn't look or stick to a car like bird shit), and get away with this shit, when in fact they 100% knew they were just fucking with someones life for fun. 

just take a break from gaming till you crave doing it again....

58 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

Definitely in line with him pardoning people for things he thinks he should be excused from though.

Yup. "I would have done it, so it should be legal". 

12 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Man, that’s twisted. A newborn political prop.

17 minutes ago, legend said:

 

I argued that the reasoning that led to the first amendment is still valid under the current conditions, but the reasoning that led to the 2nd is not still valid under the current conditions.

 

 

 

Also, you realize we're talking about amendments, right? One of the very reasons for amendments to exist is because the circumstances in which a law was originally written are subject to change, rendering the original law no longer reasonable and in need of amendment.

Yes, but not easily, and the last thing anyone should want is a constitutional convention. That opens up a ton of other cans of worms.

2 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

And bombs of all kinds, tanks, jets, attack helicopters, rockets and launching platforms, weaponized chemical and biological agents. 

There’s a line drawn between arms and weapons of mass destruction. Also, many attack helicopters and jets, and tanks are in private hands, just without their heavy weapons systems.

4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

You aren't entitled to every form or type of weapon, and even depending on where you live there would be some guns that are and are not legal.

Yup, and those bans are being litigated in the Supreme Court, and so far, they have all been struck down when taken on.

2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Which means they exist as "privileges" that have been granted by "authority" and not "rights" that exist outside of that authority.

That’s fair, and I agree it’s an esoteric term, not unlike laws.

2 minutes ago, legend said:

 

I didn't say it only applied to year it was written... I even explicitly described how there are times when it is just as valid today with our new technology as it was when it was written. Did you even read what I said?

But you are arguing it’s more valid than the 2nd, or at least that’s what I understood you typed.

The left hunting the right is a hilarious idea. It’s only a movie. It’s not like the left is catching up in weapons capacity anytime soon.

5 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

The fact that grown adults actually believe that "rights" exist and use that as a seemingly valid argument is embarrassing.

They exist in the framework of the law as it stands.

1 minute ago, legend said:

 

Except that would be stupid and gun regulation isn't.

 

 

If you're going to insist on clinging to the amendments as some arbiter of good policy, you should at least cling to what the reasoning was when the amendment was made and under what conditions it was considered useful, rather that what the literal words say, because it's the reasoning that actually matters. The reasoning for freedom of speech applies just as well to mediums back then as it does to computers of today.

 

The reasoning for the second amendment and its conditions, on the other hand, does not apply to our modern situation.

But it does apply. The constitution doesn’t just apply to the year it was written.

1 hour ago, Emblazon said:

No where in the 2nd amendment is there a mention of "ammo". So that would be a hilarious solution. 

It says arms, also, not guns. That includes ammo, I’m pretty sure.

26 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I only see the one first amendment. What constitution are you reading? 

Oh, stop with the pedantic shit, you know what I meant.

1 hour ago, Emblazon said:

No where in the 2nd amendment is there a mention of "ammo". So that would be a hilarious solution. 

I have enough brass to reload for years to come.

5 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

They probably felt bound to getting to some of the conclusions Martin told them about but didn't have the same pathways set up to get there and thus had to do . . . what you saw. But it really should have been better.

It feels like they got to the end and said, “this is hard”, and gave up. 

Cutting yhe the episode counts was moronic, especially when hbo wanted more.

8 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Try the buyback first then confiscate if necessary. 

No, we are not going to ignore our second amendment rights and allow our weapons to be taken.

2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I think one of the largest differences is that the majority of guns in Canada are farm/rural-based, as well. Not unusual for a farmer to have 2-3 guns for hunting, etc. Also a higher % of long guns vs pistols, compared to the states.

Personally, I still believe it’s culture. The hate at both extremes of the political system in the USA is driving this terrorism, imo. Young white men are finding a community they BELIEVE cares about them in these groups, and feel empowered by it. Hate is a most powerful motivator.

im sure Canada has some hate, but not near the flood of it the USA has right now.

5 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

It's not a buy-back, it's confiscation.  You can call it that if you want to be honest.

 

 

Not if it’s voluntary. 

If it was involuntary, there would be mass outrage. Either way, I’d never comply with an order to turn in my guns. Not going to happen. My guns are not a danger to anyone. Never have been. 

10 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

But dead old people’s guns then go to not dead not old people. Who knows where they go?

I have no problem with it, I’m just saying, very few are giving up their guns willingly.

1 hour ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

https://outline.com/ZPqaXs?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

 

I'm sure it's a coincidence they shut down the service during summer blockbuster season

I’m surprised they weren’t sued by people who paid months in advance for denial of service 

24 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

My understanding is that it was cancelled as well. I still have a lot of faith in this writing team despite how mediocre/bad off-book Game of Thrones mostly was.

It’s so weird that they had two years to do the final season and it still seemed rushed.

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

Shall not infringe and shall not silence!

Those ARE the two first amendments.

11 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

People do, though. In previous efforts, they sell to their local police department. But a fat lot of good it does when you can just turn around and buy more.

Very few people, and usually the elderly who are no danger to anyone and need some extra cash. Those aren’t the people who are going to kill anyone.