Morals Thread

[Lavender Lilac]

Originally Posted by Zeze838

This is entirely off topic, but planning to move to London... does it suck for an American?

Probably does if you're into firearms.

[fuckbiscuit]

Originally Posted by mizled

The police in Edinburgh seem comfortable with H&K's...
Not sure about Scottish police judgement though.

Police carrying firearms in the UK entirely depends on the area and gun related crime. Mostly they're just used by special anti-gun crime task forces, it saves innocent people being unlawfully gunned down by a cop with an itchy trigger finger.

[fuckbiscuit]

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

During the 2010 Cumbria Shootings police were ordered to stay off the streets because it wasn't safe.

England is a nation of gigantic pussies.

They were ordered to stay off the streets as cumbria is a very low crime rate area, it's all peaceful countryside, they would have had to call in an armed task force to engage him with firearms.

Take your gun boner to a gym and learn to fight you scrawny faggot, then maybe you won't have to rely on firearms so much.

[mizled]

Originally Posted by fuckbiscuit

Take your gun boner to a gym and learn to fight you scrawny faggot, then maybe you won't have to rely on firearms so much.

Trayvon Martin was pretty good with his hands...

Fist fighting is for gunshot victims.

[5.56 SS109]

Originally Posted by fuckbiscuit

Police carrying firearms in the UK entirely depends on the area and gun related crime.

How is there any gun crime in the UK at all? Surely with all that gun control it is impossible for criminals to acquire firearms.

Originally Posted by fuckbiscuit

Take your gun boner to a gym and learn to fight you scrawny faggot, then maybe you won't have to rely on firearms so much.

So you think it's reasonable for someone to attempt to defend themselves against a knife or firearm weilding attacker with just their fists?

[Lavender Lilac]

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

How is there any gun crime in the UK at all? Surely with all that gun control it is impossible for criminals to acquire firearms.

Stop being facetious. Obviously there are some guns in the hands of criminals, that have likely been obtained illegally, but with the strict gun laws it's set up so that not every lunatic that wants a firearm can go run out and grab one.

Gun crimes of course still happen, but don't they happen less frequently?

[fuckbiscuit]

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

How is there any gun crime in the UK at all? Surely with all that gun control it is impossible for criminals to acquire firearms.




So you think it's reasonable for someone to attempt to defend themselves against a knife or firearm weilding attacker with just their fists?

Plenty of gun crime. Get a passport a travel a little, maybe even learn more about other peoples cultures.

Typical arrogant, ignorant american.

[5.56 SS109]

Originally Posted by fuckbiscuit

Plenty of gun crime. Get a passport a travel a little, maybe even learn more about other peoples cultures.

Typical arrogant, ignorant american.

So I guess all that gun control doesn't about to a damn thing then.

[fuckbiscuit]

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

So I guess all that gun control doesn't about to a damn thing then.

Guns aren't really that heavily moderated, if anyone wants to own a gun, all they need to do is join a gun club then apply for a license.

And black market weapons are everywhere, just like the rest of the world.

[Zombie Food]

We have a winner^

Criminals will always get guns. Gun control is only a matter of wanting to be able to defend yourself with one,

[Zombie Food]

fubi ninja post

[mizled]

Gun control is shooting tight groups.

[p6867]

So you have no method of exercising force against your government? To me that sounds frightening. If my government tried to take my freedoms away, i could shoot them, so they don't.
It must be weird to live in such a way that your personal abilities are so restricted and you are left with no recourse.

for me, no matter what happens, the government is balanced by my ability to kill members of the government. So they can't get too crazy with restricting my liberties, because i have a non legislative recourse.

[Rolf]

Originally Posted by p6867

So you have no method of exercising force against your government? To me that sounds frightening.

Most people outside of United States do not have paranoid fear of government and tend to be more concerned about other issues, notes Rolf.

Originally Posted by Lavender Lilac

Gun crimes of course still happen, but don't they happen less frequently?

Even in nations like Finland, Switzerland or Czech Republic (where civilian gun ownership is very high, almost same level as US) there is far less gun crime when compared to USA. Rolf notes that shootings in USA has nothing to do with lack of gun control but more to do with violent culture.

[Lavender Lilac]

Originally Posted by p6867

So you have no method of exercising force against your government? To me that sounds frightening. If my government tried to take my freedoms away, i could shoot them, so they don't.
It must be weird to live in such a way that your personal abilities are so restricted and you are left with no recourse.

for me, no matter what happens, the government is balanced by my ability to kill members of the government. So they can't get too crazy with restricting my liberties, because i have a non legislative recourse.

I'm pretty sure that in such extreme circumstances, wherein a people feel a need to rebel against their government with force, they would be able to do so (or not) regardless of the gun laws in the nation. Civilians with legally purchased firearms don't bring about revolution in modern times, special interest groups and powerful (rich) friends do.

Really it's hard for me to wrap my mind around the redneck idea that they are capable of revolution against the United States military just because they have assault rifles. Like, what good is really going to come of that, even if the government becomes like an evil dictatorship that uses the souls of innocent kittens to fuel their mass-produced DeathStars? Revolution for the US means something entirely different than it does for third world countries, and in the event of an uprising I'd imagine most of you would have been disarmed before things escalated to that point, you would be completely unorganized in the face of a real military and you'd end up way dead.

A better bet would be to leave the country and join the other guys. Or are you thinking of like a civil war, where the country is split in two? The south will rise again, and all that? Maybe I'm an optimist, but I like to imagine the US as being more stable than that.

A quick google search shows me that Egypt has very strict gun laws, allowing their citizens to only own handguns.

[Rolf]

Originally Posted by Lavender Lilac

Really it's hard for me to wrap my mind around the redneck idea that they are capable of revolution against the United States military just because they have assault rifles.

Vast majority are incapable of assault rifle ownership, if one is to be against ownership of evil inanimate objects Rolf suggests at least having basic knowledge of firearm terminology.

[Lavender Lilac]

Originally Posted by Rolf

Vast majority are incapable of assault rifle ownership, if one is to be against ownership of evil inanimate objects Rolf suggests at least having basic knowledge of firearm terminology.

I'm not against firearm ownership. And if I made a mistake, you should correct me instead of acting haughty. I'm open to learning new things.

EDIT: Seriously, why does everyone think I'm some extreme anti-gun leftist? Guns are tools, they have practical applications, and average citizens should have access to them. As with certain other tools, though (cars), they can be quite dangerous in the wrong hands and there should be an application and testing process in order to own one. There should not really be a limit on how many firearms a person can own, but each different class of weapon should have its own application and testing process, and gun owners should have to retake their exams periodically in order to maintain legal ownership.

I do, however, believe that some weapons (if not assault rifles, then fully-automatic ones?) should in most cases be illegal to own for the average citizen. There is absolutely no practical purpose for such weapons. They are overkill for self-defense and hunting, and are weapons designed for war. Why would any citizen in the modern United States (or any first world country) be preparing for war?

[Rolf]

Originally Posted by Lavender Lilac

I do, however, believe that some weapons (if not assault rifles, then fully-automatic ones?) should in most cases be illegal to own for the average citizen.

Most law-abiding citizens in countries where firearms are legal do not have access to these weapons, as they are usually (if not always) illegal or extraordinarily expensive, notes Rolf.

Civilians do not need automatic firearms. Period.

[Lavender Lilac]

Originally Posted by Rolf

Most law-abiding citizens in countries where firearms are legal do not have access to these weapons, notes Rolf.

Sounds like something is being done right, then, doesn't it?

[Rolf]

Originally Posted by Lavender Lilac

Sounds like something is being done right, then, doesn't it?

Yes, in highly developed countries with low crime rates at least.

[5.56 SS109]

Originally Posted by Rolf

Most law-abiding citizens in countries where firearms are legal do not have access to these weapons, as they are usually (if not always) illegal or extraordinarily expensive, notes Rolf.

Civilians do not need automatic firearms. Period.

Even when fully automatic firearms were loosely regulated (before 1986) there was absolutely no crimes committed with legally owned machine guns by "normal" people.

The two instances where legally owned machine guns were used for murder, the perpetrator was a police officer, in the other it was a doctor. So even with today's heavy regulation and extremely high prices on fully automatic firearms, it really wouldn't have done anything too keep a police officer from being issued one and I'm sure a doctor would have enough money to afford one at current prices.

I'm sure more people have been killed with forks this year in the United States, than by legally owned fully automatic firearms in the last century.

[Lavender Lilac]

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

Even when fully automatic firearms were loosely regulated (before 1986) there was absolutely no crimes committed with legally owned machine guns by "normal" people.

The two instances where legally owned machine guns were used for murder, the perpetrator was a police officer, in the other it was a doctor. So even with today's heavy regulation and extremely high prices on fully automatic firearms, it really wouldn't have done anything too keep a police officer from being issued one and I'm sure a doctor would have enough money to afford one at current prices.

I'm sure more people have been killed with forks this year in the United States, than by legally owned fully automatic firearms in the last century.

Links? Not saying you're wrong or anything, just interested. Anyway, didn't that Aurora shooter use like an M-16? Why would civilians ever need military-grade firearms designed for war?

EDIT: No, not M-16. Still, a semi-automatic assault rifle. Why would a person need to own one of these?

[5.56 SS109]

What are these "semiautomatic assault rifles" that people keep bringing up?

The rifle used by James Holmes operates exactly the same as many, many hunting and target rifles that have been around for the better part of a century. It's not some high tech antipersonnel rifle.

And, even if it was, who cares?

Any amount of "massive firepower" he obtained didn't do him any good because he didn't know how to operate it.

Plus there are absolutely ZERO figures as to the amount of people who sustained injuries from the rifle as opposed to his simplistic hunting shotgun. Rifles can not be blamed for this at all.

Also, quick question, which rifle would you say is more deadly?

Rifle A:



Or...

Rifle B:

[p6867]

Originally Posted by Lavender Lilac

Links? Not saying you're wrong or anything, just interested. Anyway, didn't that Aurora shooter use like an M-16? Why would civilians ever need military-grade firearms designed for war?

EDIT: No, not M-16. Still, a semi-automatic assault rifle. Why would a person need to own one of these?

I keep mine in case i have to kill people, and despite being one of the most popular rifles in the united states, they are involved in only a tiny fraction of its gun crime.

Some people get shot. Some people get hit by cars. Shit happens and it's a dangerous world out there. it's sad when people die, but you don't need to legislate everything until we live in a nerf world.

[MAYOR]

What happens when you take a baseball bat to a British faggots head? Does he still keep quacking while he's twitching?

[Lavender Lilac]

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

What are these "semiautomatic assault rifles" that people keep bringing up?

The rifle used by James Holmes operates exactly the same as many, many hunting and target rifles that have been around for the better part of a century. It's not some high tech antipersonnel rifle.

And, even if it was, who cares?

Any amount of "massive firepower" he obtained didn't do him any good because he didn't know how to operate it.

Plus there are absolutely ZERO figures as to the amount of people who sustained injuries from the rifle as opposed to his simplistic hunting shotgun. Rifles can not be blamed for this at all.

Also, quick question, which rifle would you say is more deadly?

Rifle A:



Or...

Rifle B:

Both of those rifles look unnecessarily deadly to me. Why would either of these be needed in a self-defense or hunting situation? I could understand if you're going to somehow have to protect yourself from like a large group of armed individuals, but how often does such a thing happen? At any rate, I guess I could see how semi-automatic weapons could be utilized in non-immoral ways. I need to know more about these weapons, I suppose.

Originally Posted by p6867

I keep mine in case i have to kill people, and despite being one of the most popular rifles in the united states, they are involved in only a tiny fraction of its gun crime.

Some people get shot. Some people get hit by cars. Shit happens and it's a dangerous world out there. it's sad when people die, but you don't need to legislate everything until we live in a nerf world.

I don't think what I want could be considered a nerf world. Expecting people to meet some standards set by firearms experts in order to own a firearm seems quite reasonable, and it would do nothing to take guns away from the responsible users.

[5.56 SS109]

Originally Posted by Lavender Lilac

Both of those rifles look unnecessarily deadly to me. Why would either of these be needed in a self-defense or hunting situation? I could understand if you're going to somehow have to protect yourself from like a large group of armed individuals, but how often does such a thing happen? At any rate, I guess I could see how semi-automatic weapons could be utilized in non-immoral ways. I need to know more about these weapons, I suppose.

Both if those rifles (Rifle B even more so) are by far the safest and best choice for home defense.

Rifles such as the AR15 are lightweight and ergonomic so they are easy to use in a stressful situation. Since they are so easy to shoot accurately it is much safer to use where hitting innocent bystanders is a concern, you will be able to place bullets where they are mostly likely to stop a violent attacker, without the danger of missing and hitting someone you did not intend to shoot.

The AR15 also fires a very light, very fast bullet that tends to not penetrating house building material as much as a shotgun would. So a miss or a badguy pass through is not as much of a danger to innocent bystanders as much as a shotgun blast would be. Keep in mind that probably 90% of people who keep a firearm for home defense keep a shotgun.

I am not sure why you are so hung up on the 30 round bullet capacity of the rifle either. Just because it holds 30 rounds doesn't mean you will even use a tenth of that capacity. Using military specification 30 round magazines ensures that you rifle will operate reliably, because such magazine designs were heavily tested for reliability in harsh conditions. Bottom line, we use them because they work.

[p6867]

Originally Posted by Lavender Lilac

I'm not against firearm ownership. And if I made a mistake, you should correct me instead of acting haughty. I'm open to learning new things.

EDIT: As with certain other tools, though (cars), they can be quite dangerous in the wrong hands and there should be an application and testing process in order to own one. There should not really be a limit on how many firearms a person can own, but each different class of weapon should have its own application and testing process, and gun owners should have to retake their exams periodically in order to maintain legal ownership.

I disagree. I give my fellow citizens the benefit of the doubt until they have proven themselves unworthy of it. My state has these application and testing processes. They cost hundreds of dollars and your application is usually denied in my city because they don't want an armed populace. Sure, the mentally ill and felons shouldn't have firearms. That's why they scan your license when you buy them, but we shouldn't treat honest citizens like criminals just because some people are.

I do, however, believe that some weapons (if not assault rifles, then fully-automatic ones?) should in most cases be illegal to own for the average citizen.

I'd rather keep my rights intact. No group that was slaughtered ever wished for less technologically advanced armament. I've heard tyranny described as when the government has more rights than the people. I oppose anything that moves that bar further in the tyranny direction, not just on this issue, but on all.

I don't like having to depend on anyone else. With an M4, i'm the equal to a numerically superior force similarly armed and less well trained and fit. It's a tool, that gives me the ability to maintain my well being in the face of adversity, without having to depend on anyone else to come and save me.

There is absolutely no practical purpose for such weapons. They are overkill for self-defense and hunting, and are weapons designed for war.

and sports cars are unnecessary for commuting purposes, yet i have never heard anyone make the case that they should be criminalized despite the fact that they kill way more people than 'assault weapons'.

Also, there is no such thing as overkill in a gunfight, only winning and losing and having been in a few, i'll stack the deck in my favor anyway i can.

Why would any citizen in the modern United States (or any first world country) be preparing for war?

Because they happen all the time.
147 years ago men were drafted, untrained and terrified into a war that had nothing to do with them and sent to the slaughter yard. People who didn't want to go there were shot. 40 years ago they did the same thing, with the penalty of incarceration instead of execution, but the men who died in a pointless war they wanted no part of were no less dead.

If those same men had a rifle and the willingness to use it, the draft might have gone a very different way. I'll never be drafted, i'll die first, and any man who wants to conscript me can join me. Owning a scary looking rifle helps me do that.

That's why I defend the second amendment, because the government sometimes rounds up young men and forces them to march off to their deaths against their will. And if you kill the people that come to round you up, and i kill the people that come to round me up, eventually there's no one doing the rounding. You don't need to win, you just need to make the goal not worth it for the other side. It's my life, I'll fight to defend it from any cunt tries to interfere with that. The black rifle makes that easier.

[mizled]

Originally Posted by p6867

I disagree. I give my fellow citizens the benefit of the doubt until they have proven themselves unworthy of it. My state has these application and testing processes. They cost hundreds of dollars and your application is usually denied in my city because they don't want an armed populace. Sure, the mentally ill and felons shouldn't have firearms. That's why they scan your license when you buy them, but we shouldn't treat honest citizens like criminals just because some people are.

I'd rather keep my rights intact. No group that was slaughtered ever wished for less technologically advanced armament. I've heard tyranny described as when the government has more rights than the people. I oppose anything that moves that bar further in the tyranny direction, not just on this issue, but on all.

I don't like having to depend on anyone else. With an M4, i'm the equal to a numerically superior force similarly armed and less well trained and fit. It's a tool, that gives me the ability to maintain my well being in the face of adversity, without having to depend on anyone else to come and save me.

and sports cars are unnecessary for commuting purposes, yet i have never heard anyone make the case that they should be criminalized despite the fact that they kill way more people than 'assault weapons'.

Also, there is no such thing as overkill in a gunfight, only winning and losing and having been in a few, i'll stack the deck in my favor anyway i can.


Because they happen all the time.
147 years ago men were drafted, untrained and terrified into a war that had nothing to do with them and sent to the slaughter yard. People who didn't want to go there were shot. 40 years ago they did the same thing, with the penalty of incarceration instead of execution, but the men who died in a pointless war they wanted no part of were no less dead.

If those same men had a rifle and the willingness to use it, the draft might have gone a very different way. I'll never be drafted, i'll die first, and any man who wants to conscript me can join me. Owning a scary looking rifle helps me do that.

That's why I defend the second amendment, because the government sometimes rounds up young men and forces them to march off to their deaths against their will. And if you kill the people that come to round you up, and i kill the people that come to round me up, eventually there's no one doing the rounding. You don't need to win, you just need to make the goal not worth it for the other side. It's my life, I'll fight to defend it from any cunt tries to interfere with that. The black rifle makes that easier.

Great post!

[Lavender Lilac]

Sorry it took so long to respond, it's hard for me to stay interested in any one thing for long.

Originally Posted by p6867

I disagree. I give my fellow citizens the benefit of the doubt until they have proven themselves unworthy of it. My state has these application and testing processes. They cost hundreds of dollars and your application is usually denied in my city because they don't want an armed populace. Sure, the mentally ill and felons shouldn't have firearms. That's why they scan your license when you buy them, but we shouldn't treat honest citizens like criminals just because some people are.

One example (or even many, really) of a broken application and testing process is not reason enough to discredit the idea altogether. There is a right way and a wrong way to implement a program such as this. Obviously hundreds of dollars is way too expensive, especially if a person is denied, but in order to keep the process funded I'm sure they have to charge something. I'm curious, do you know how much of the system in your state is funded by tax dollars? Maybe it's unfair to poorer people who want to own guns, but I feel that if a person wants a gun they should help to fund the application process.

Going back to my driver license comparison, maybe there should be a small monthly insurance charge for each firearm a person owns. It would be like a weird state-funded insurance, and they could pay out in the case of like an accidental discharge, with someone requiring medical (or legal lol) attention. Bleeding money out of people slowly is always the best way to get as much as you can out of them, without hurting them much financially. And why shouldn't a gun owner pay insurance on a deadly weapon? It's illegal for me to drive my car without insurance, even though I have never been involved in an accident, drive defensively and always follow the rules of the road.

And yeah, it's totally wrong if people are denied for no good reason. The people making these decisions should not have an agenda.

Originally Posted by p6867

I'd rather keep my rights intact. No group that was slaughtered ever wished for less technologically advanced armament. I've heard tyranny described as when the government has more rights than the people. I oppose anything that moves that bar further in the tyranny direction, not just on this issue, but on all.

That's an interesting definition for tyranny, in these modern times especially. I don't really disagree with you about it, but I think maybe we should do it by going the other way: disarming the governments of the world. If I may be more ridiculous for a moment, how would you feel about nuclear weaponry being legal for the average person (billionaire) to purchase?

Originally Posted by p6867

I don't like having to depend on anyone else. With an M4, i'm the equal to a numerically superior force similarly armed and less well trained and fit. It's a tool, that gives me the ability to maintain my well being in the face of adversity, without having to depend on anyone else to come and save me.

Not to be mean or anything, but to me this reads as paranoia. I know you've done terrible things; you should probably be in therapy.

Originally Posted by p6867

and sports cars are unnecessary for commuting purposes, yet i have never heard anyone make the case that they should be criminalized despite the fact that they kill way more people than 'assault weapons'.

Also, there is no such thing as overkill in a gunfight, only winning and losing and having been in a few, i'll stack the deck in my favor anyway i can.

Sports cars are designed to be cool and flashy, firearms are designed to murder people. And honestly, as a murder weapon, I'm pretty sure most modern cars are about equally deadly.

Originally Posted by p6867

Because they happen all the time.
147 years ago men were drafted, untrained and terrified into a war that had nothing to do with them and sent to the slaughter yard. People who didn't want to go there were shot. 40 years ago they did the same thing, with the penalty of incarceration instead of execution, but the men who died in a pointless war they wanted no part of were no less dead.

If those same men had a rifle and the willingness to use it, the draft might have gone a very different way. I'll never be drafted, i'll die first, and any man who wants to conscript me can join me. Owning a scary looking rifle helps me do that.

That's why I defend the second amendment, because the government sometimes rounds up young men and forces them to march off to their deaths against their will. And if you kill the people that come to round you up, and i kill the people that come to round me up, eventually there's no one doing the rounding. You don't need to win, you just need to make the goal not worth it for the other side. It's my life, I'll fight to defend it from any cunt tries to interfere with that. The black rifle makes that easier.

Speaking of pointless deaths... :/

[Cunto McFadyen]

[bling bling]

Originally Posted by Lanny

Viper

WHOS UP CAUS THE WHOLE CREWS STAINLESS YOUR A BITCH HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT VIPER DIPER RUDEBOY HES A BUM WIPER

never never DUG NEVER NEVER TOUCH BUD NEVER TOUCH SKUNK

VIIIPPPERR ZIGGAFRIGGIDE ADA RUMBUM TOUCH HIS MUMSBUM MUMBO PUMPTO PUM BUM RUNG

UNDER ATTACK, YOUR BOYS WILL UNRAVEL YOUR BUMCRACK, YOUR BOYS WILL UNRAVEL YOUR BUMCRACK SKINZ REPIN THE YOUTH CAMP AND IM UNDER ATTACK YOULL GET SLAPPED, YOULL GETT JACKED, YOULL GET BACKHANDED YOULL GET SLAPPED, AND A BIT YOUR GYALS PUM PUM REEEK YOUR BOYS WILL START LICKING YOUR BUM CHEEK

[jheit8]

Originally Posted by bling bling

WHOS UP CAUS THE WHOLE CREWS STAINLESS YOUR A BITCH HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT VIPER DIPER RUDEBOY HES A BUM WIPER

never never DUG NEVER NEVER TOUCH BUD NEVER TOUCH SKUNK

VIIIPPPERR ZIGGAFRIGGIDE ADA RUMBUM TOUCH HIS MUMSBUM MUMBO PUMPTO PUM BUM RUNG

UNDER ATTACK, YOUR BOYS WILL UNRAVEL YOUR BUMCRACK, YOUR BOYS WILL UNRAVEL YOUR BUMCRACK SKINZ REPIN THE YOUTH CAMP AND IM UNDER ATTACK YOULL GET SLAPPED, YOULL GETT JACKED, YOULL GET BACKHANDED YOULL GET SLAPPED, AND A BIT YOUR GYALS PUM PUM REEEK YOUR BOYS WILL START LICKING YOUR BUM CHEEK

And the winner for Worst New Poster of 2013 is...

[5.56 SS109]

Originally Posted by bling bling

WHOS UP CAUS THE WHOLE CREWS STAINLESS YOUR A BITCH HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT VIPER DIPER RUDEBOY HES A BUM WIPER

never never DUG NEVER NEVER TOUCH BUD NEVER TOUCH SKUNK

VIIIPPPERR ZIGGAFRIGGIDE ADA RUMBUM TOUCH HIS MUMSBUM MUMBO PUMPTO PUM BUM RUNG

UNDER ATTACK, YOUR BOYS WILL UNRAVEL YOUR BUMCRACK, YOUR BOYS WILL UNRAVEL YOUR BUMCRACK SKINZ REPIN THE YOUTH CAMP AND IM UNDER ATTACK YOULL GET SLAPPED, YOULL GETT JACKED, YOULL GET BACKHANDED YOULL GET SLAPPED, AND A BIT YOUR GYALS PUM PUM REEEK YOUR BOYS WILL START LICKING YOUR BUM CHEEK

Gay.



I'll fuck ya whore and take ya cheddar, come through ya door like Bruce Willis with two Berettas.

[bling bling]

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

Gay.



I'll fuck ya whore and take ya cheddar, come through ya door like Bruce Willis with two Berettas.

SKINZ - SHEFF TOP BOY AGED 12 - YouTube

SKINZ - SHEFF TOP BOY AGED 12 - YouTube
Video: click to display

[Hydroponichronic]

Originally Posted by p6867

So you have no method of exercising force against your government? To me that sounds frightening. If my government tried to take my freedoms away, i could shoot them, so they don't.
It must be weird to live in such a way that your personal abilities are so restricted and you are left with no recourse.

for me, no matter what happens, the government is balanced by my ability to kill members of the government. So they can't get too crazy with restricting my liberties, because i have a non legislative recourse.

I like the idea of this post, but for me it's about protecting my rights from other civilians. If someone wants my stuff or thinks their life would be easier without me around, I can do something about it. I don't need to rely on their fear of the police, but rather their fear of me. Just seems more reliable.

[Ph0x]

Yeah, you're gonna fight off the federal government with small arms?

Two words.

Drone Strikes.

[kroz]

Originally Posted by p6867

So you have no method of exercising force against your government? To me that sounds frightening. If my government tried to take my freedoms away, i could shoot them, so they don't.
It must be weird to live in such a way that your personal abilities are so restricted and you are left with no recourse.

for me, no matter what happens, the government is balanced by my ability to kill members of the government. So they can't get too crazy with restricting my liberties, because i have a non legislative recourse.

lol if you shoot at them, then they will really come and take away your freedoms, you jaggoff

[reject]

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

How is there any gun crime in the UK at all? Surely with all that gun control it is impossible for criminals to acquire firearms.

This has probably already been said, but many are converted blank guns from eastern europe, stolen shotguns, guns imported via the IRA and Ireland, or guns which were around before tighter gun controls come in.

But yea, drugs are illegal too and we all know how much difficulty people getting hold of them have.

Dumb cunt.

[dephdiddy]

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

Gay.



I'll fuck ya whore and take ya cheddar, come through ya door like Bruce Willis with two Berettas.

4 syllables too many on the second line, we're going to need that advance back.