| .DeaconJohn. 12.02.2006 17:36 |
And we thought John Prescot was dangerous with his boxing antics.... link |
| deleted user 12.02.2006 18:20 |
I bet he's a Democrat...lol :) |
| Mr.Jingles 12.02.2006 18:26 |
Shhhh! Be bewwy quiet. I'm hunting wibberals. |
| Maz 12.02.2006 19:11 |
If there's any justice in the world, it will be a gun given to him by the NRA. |
| The Real Wizard 12.02.2006 19:20 |
Haha, you guys are hilarious! |
| beautifulsoup 12.02.2006 21:32 |
He's a Republican... |
| beautifulsoup 12.02.2006 21:32 |
double post. fucking computer! *#$&*&#% |
| That guy who digs energy domes 12.02.2006 22:31 |
Edit. HOLY SHIT! Thats funny! |
| jcrawford79 12.02.2006 22:46 |
Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Im sorry but I cant help laughing. What tabloid was that from now?Tabloid?? No. Try CNN, MSNBC, and all the other major news networks. Its been all over the news all day long. |
| Serry... 13.02.2006 11:24 |
He just wanted to bring democracy for that poor guy... |
| Micrówave 13.02.2006 16:09 |
He was aiming for weapons of mass destruction. He got one. |
| Crazy LittleThing 13.02.2006 16:12 |
What? He shot DAN QUAYLE? |
| Music Man 13.02.2006 16:26 |
Crazy LittleThing wrote: What? He shot DAN QUAYLE?Now THAT would have made for an interesting headline! |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 13.02.2006 18:13 |
It was just an accident. And Cheney has been extremely apologetic. He must feel absolutely awful. I'm just glad Mr. Wittington is okay. Cheney did everything expected of him and was reportedly right there helping Mr. Wittington every step of the way. |
| Mr.Jingles 13.02.2006 19:08 |
That guy could be dead right now. Of course the Bush Administration and the NRA will be more than ready to support each other on this issue, and remind Americans that guns are not dangerous. |
| yamaha 13.02.2006 19:09 |
The issue that all the media outlets seem to be whining about is the time that elapsed between the accidental gunshot and the time that it was reported to the media. My opinion is that the media didn't need to even hear about the incident as it was not of any importance to anyone other than Vice President Cheney, the Lawyer who was shot, and his family. The property owner that the hunting party was on was given the choice to releasse the news, and she decided to alert her local newspaper. |
| yamaha 13.02.2006 19:12 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: That guy could be dead right now. Of course the Bush Administration along with the NRA will be more than happy to say that it was an accident, and guns are not dangerous.Was it not an accident? Are you going to say that this is another right-wing conspiracy? Did anyone say that guns are not dangerous? <TedNugent> The best safety device for guns is a combination of respect and education</TedNugent> |
| Mr.Jingles 13.02.2006 19:17 |
Sorry, but the last person someone should be taking advice from is Ted Nugent. I don't care how much "education" he wants to put into the hunting issue, but the whole thought of someone shooting a living creature for the sake of leisure or entertainment is just sick. |
| yamaha 13.02.2006 20:16 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Sorry, but the last person someone should be taking advice from is Ted Nugent. I don't care how much "education" he wants to put into the hunting issue, but the whole thought of someone shooting a living creature for the sake of leisure or entertainment is just sick.Mr. Jingles, please don't think that I am attacking you in a few of these threads. You actually seem to be one of the good ones regarding honest and friendly debates. Thank you for making QueenZone one of the best places to discuss world/domestic politics. Ol Teddy always seems to take more from his kills than just giggles. Ted has made it clear the the animals that he hunts are used for food/clothing. At least where I'm from (Pennsylvania), there is a strict limit on the number of species that you may take at any one time. Taking more than the limit is punishable as poaching. For some species, it is illegal to take even one animal and others only one per hunting season. It may be a surprise to some people, but the laws and regulations regarding hunting are handled on a state by state basis, andare very thorough. If you are interested, here is a link the PA Game Commission ( link ). In the end, there are always going to be those who disagree with the idea of hunting. People should realize, however, that someone is at least giving some chance for the animals. That is what makes hunting a challange. The laws are enforced with fines and even jail time for offenders. |
| Mr.Jingles 13.02.2006 20:32 |
I'm very glad we can have a calm and respectful debate without taking things to extremes. Some people here have already made their choice to take things to a personal level. Now, the main reason why I'm personally against hunting is because this is a "sport" where there's a countless number of times when an animal is shot and left slowly agonizing to death. To me that's just incredibly cruel and heartless way to stop the life of a creature. It seems very hypocritical to me that there are laws against animal cruelty, but they only apply to farm animals, pets, and wild animals living in zoos. If it's a matter of population control, the job should be given to professionals who are capable of shooting animals with tranquilizers before being killed. Of course, it's much cheaper for the government and local authorities to let people do the killing themselves. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 13.02.2006 21:12 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: That guy could be dead right now. Of course the Bush Administration and the NRA will be more than ready to support each other on this issue, and remind Americans that guns are not dangerous.Accidents happen all the time. Two years ago my friend's sister broke her wrist closing a curtain for drama. That doesn't mean curtains shouldn't be used, it just means that, like everything, people should apply proper caution. Same with firearms. |
| Mr.Jingles 13.02.2006 21:20 |
This is just proof that any idiot can legally own a gun and cause an accident. Guns are a lot different from curtains in the sense that guns were created with the main purpose of causing harm and death. How often do we see cases of people being killed by the improper use of curtains. |
| That guy who digs energy domes 13.02.2006 21:35 |
Well, you think the crime rate would be lower if we werent armed to the teeth? |
| Mr.Jingles 13.02.2006 21:39 |
Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Well, you think the crime rate would be lower if we werent armed to the teeth?link Possibly |
| Music Man 13.02.2006 21:46 |
Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Well, you think the crime rate would be lower if we werent armed to the teeth?I, for one, think so. It's statistically proven that countries and areas with stricter gun control laws have reduced rates of violent and armed (duh) crime. |
| That guy who digs energy domes 13.02.2006 22:31 |
and they better not get that stupid "conceal carry" law passed. Why not just invite someone to shoot you? |
| yamaha 13.02.2006 23:41 |
Perhaps if there was a yearly registration for guns and knives over a certain length. Something similar to the way that cars are kept track of. It seems to me that if weapons were easily traced to owners, that would promote more responsibility in their use. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 14.02.2006 06:44 |
Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: and they better not get that stupid "conceal carry" law passed. Why not just invite someone to shoot you?Oh yeah, so in other words, women shouldn't have any right to protect themselves from being raped, and what about potential gay-bashing victims? (link If Matthew Shepard had had a gun on his person, that tragedy would NOT have occurred. It would have been: McK: We're not gay, and you're gonna get jacked. Shep: Well, I AM gay, and you're gonna get shot. (pulls .22) |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 14.02.2006 06:45 |
Music Man wrote:Washington DC has the most strict gun control, and also the highest crime rate.Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Well, you think the crime rate would be lower if we werent armed to the teeth?I, for one, think so. It's statistically proven that countries and areas with stricter gun control laws have reduced rates of violent and armed (duh) crime. |
| The Mir@cle 14.02.2006 07:17 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:What about Europe? Almost no shoot accidents. Isn't that because it's illegal to have weapons here?Music Man wrote:Washington DC has the most strict gun control, and also the highest crime rate.Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Well, you think the crime rate would be lower if we werent armed to the teeth?I, for one, think so. It's statistically proven that countries and areas with stricter gun control laws have reduced rates of violent and armed (duh) crime. You give an example, but there are plenty of examples who say the opposite. |
| great king rat 1138 14.02.2006 08:34 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:When you say strict gun control, do you mean that it's illegal to own a gun? Or just that you're not supposed to take it out in public and that you might have to wait a couple of days before getting your hands on a new one?Music Man wrote:Washington DC has the most strict gun control, and also the highest crime rate.Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Well, you think the crime rate would be lower if we werent armed to the teeth?I, for one, think so. It's statistically proven that countries and areas with stricter gun control laws have reduced rates of violent and armed (duh) crime. I simply can't understand how an entire nation (sorry for the generalisation) can have such a hard-on for guns then be surprised when the crime rates are high or when some nutter decides to take his hunting rifle on a little sniping practice like happened in DC a few years back, or even when a kid snaps and, instead of going out and smashing a couple of windows, takes an automatic rifle into school and starts shooting. These things won't change until the USA finally realises that the 'right to bear arms' meant something very different and a whole lot more important in 1776 than it does now, and that this ridiculous law needs to be changed, or better, abolished, no matter what the lobbyists and hillbillys and Charlton Heston (the most insensitive man in the entire world) might say. I just hope that whoever gets to live at the white house next has the balls to do something about it. |
| Haystacks Calhoun 14.02.2006 09:27 |
It is also idiotic to think for one minute that making guns illegal will keep criminals from using them at will...... |
| Janet 14.02.2006 11:16 |
The birds Cheney was "hunting" didn't have a chance in hell. Reportedly he shot over 70 pheasants that day, and some mallard ducks as well. It was at an exclusive hunting club where the birds are all pen-reared and then released to be shot by the patrons of this club. What is the challenge of shooting an animal reared in captivity with no way to escape? This club released over 500 pen-reared pheasants for the benefit of Cheney's hunting party. The group killed over 417 birds. That isn't sport, or a challenge. That is just killing for the sake of killing. Sickening. |
| john bodega 14.02.2006 13:56 |
Banning guns unilaterally wouldn't stop people from using them, DUH. But - remind me exactly how having less guns around hurts anyone? There's always some moron who keeps a gun in their house and then the kid gets a hold of it and BLAM - the next school shooting. If you ask me, there's always been arsehole criminals, since mankind first knew how to throw rocks at each other. There'll always be gun violence, but the idea of just handing out guns like showbags is completely moronic and says a lot about any nation's government that endorses it. I mean what *exactly* do you propose to do with your gun? Shoot someone in self defense? What if you completely misinterpret what they were doing, and they weren't attacking you at all? Chalk it up to 'bad luck'? Please. Let's not get started on when your kids say 'cool, neat toy gun' and start playing with the fucker, and don't tell me these things are child-proof because kids are better at getting through that kind of shit than one would think. If it means more elected officials will take potshots at each other while hunting, then I'd happily say guns should stay. Otherwise, this primitive shit has to go out the window. |
| .DeaconJohn. 14.02.2006 14:21 |
"thats about as stupid as taking a pencil away, because the potential of being stabbed in the eye! or nail clippers! yes lets take nail clippers away because it hurts if you cut te nail too low! oh the humanity! *grumbles*" - that's just wrong. Yes, a great deal of objects can be used to inflict harm, but are you seriously saying that a pencil is as lethal as a gun? When I hear of someone going on a killing spree using a pencil, then I will agree with you. |
| Sherwood Forest 14.02.2006 14:27 |
its a mistake that all the american comedians are going to love |
| .DeaconJohn. 14.02.2006 15:14 |
And now the guy that Cheney shot has had a mild heart attack: link |
| TheMiracle 14.02.2006 15:49 |
Such an embarassment. I look forward to 2008 when him and bush are gone... |
| Music Man 14.02.2006 15:56 |
Well, there was another, much bigger embarrassment during the Clinton administration - but to be honest, I don't think either embarrassment should have had any bearing on their Presidencies. |
| Mr.Jingles 14.02.2006 17:27 |
Music Man wrote: Well, there was another, much bigger embarrassment during the Clinton administration - but to be honest, I don't think either embarrassment should have had any bearing on their Presidencies.I thought Iraq was our biggest embarassment. Besides, nobody died because an intern sucked the president's cock. Personally I'd much rather hear about Clinton's DNA milkshake stains on a blue dress than hearing about another innocent person who died on an unjustified war. |
| Mr.Jingles 14.02.2006 17:38 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:I second that!Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: and they better not get that stupid "conceal carry" law passed. Why not just invite someone to shoot you?Oh yeah, so in other words, women shouldn't have any right to protect themselves from being raped, and what about potential gay-bashing victims? (link If Matthew Shepard had had a gun on his person, that tragedy would NOT have occurred. It would have been: McK: We're not gay, and you're gonna get jacked. Shep: Well, I AM gay, and you're gonna get shot. (pulls .22) Everybody in America should own a gun because it's the best way to protect ourselves. Let's stop teaching our kids how to read and write and let's give the little rascals something they can use to let everybody else know not to mess with them. That will for sure put an end to bullying and abusive parenting. |
| jcrawford79 14.02.2006 18:03 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:You're always manipulating facts to support your point. DC has had one of the highest crime rates in the nation for many, many years. Long before the gun ban of 76 (or whatever year it was). So please do not try to make it appear as if DC's crime rate has only become a problem since the ban. Your facts are always subjective....I don't think your brain is capable of objective thought. Pull your head out of Charlton Heston's asshole and find some unbiased info.Music Man wrote:Washington DC has the most strict gun control, and also the highest crime rate.Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Well, you think the crime rate would be lower if we werent armed to the teeth?I, for one, think so. It's statistically proven that countries and areas with stricter gun control laws have reduced rates of violent and armed (duh) crime. |
| Haystacks Calhoun 14.02.2006 18:15 |
Nice language.... Why does everything like this have to go in the gutter? Are some folks simply unable to sustain a conversation without name calling, bullying, and general boorish-ness? Amazing. |
| jcrawford79 14.02.2006 18:41 |
Haystacks Calhoun wrote: Nice language.... Why does everything like this have to go in the gutter?If by "in the gutter", you are referring to the fact that I used the word "asshole" in my post, this thread first went to the gutter around 7 posts into it when the f-bomb was dropped, and not by me. And there was no name-calling in my post. And if I misunderstood your post or it wasn't directed towards me, allow me to apologize in advance. |
| Music Man 14.02.2006 20:38 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Well, the justifiability of the war is at least debatable.Music Man wrote: Well, there was another, much bigger embarrassment during the Clinton administration - but to be honest, I don't think either embarrassment should have had any bearing on their Presidencies.I thought Iraq was our biggest embarassment. Besides, nobody died because an intern sucked the president's cock. Personally I'd much rather hear about Clinton's DNA milkshake stains on a blue dress than hearing about another innocent person who died on an unjustified war. Either way, the main point was that certain things should be relevant to a person's presidency, and other things should not. The war belongs in the former category. A quail hunting mishap belongs in the latter. |
| Mr.Jingles 14.02.2006 20:52 |
After looking back at the posts on this thread I realized something. Both Clinton and Cheney had their most embarassing moments after shooting someone in the face. |
| Haystacks Calhoun 14.02.2006 21:49 |
jcrawford79 wrote:I am referring to the same group of people here who cannot have a politically tinged debate without dropping f-bombs, etc....Haystacks Calhoun wrote: Nice language.... Why does everything like this have to go in the gutter?If by "in the gutter", you are referring to the fact that I used the word "asshole" in my post, this thread first went to the gutter around 7 posts into it when the f-bomb was dropped, and not by me. And there was no name-calling in my post. And if I misunderstood your post or it wasn't directed towards me, allow me to apologize in advance. We all know who they are. They should either post something reasonable without losing their minds, or keep their yappers shut. |
| That guy who digs energy domes 14.02.2006 22:53 |
Its not that guns should be illegal, its that they should be less available. and for FreddiesGhettoTrench, there are many ways to defend yourself without a gun or, without a weapon for that matter- but why cant you defend yourself with a screwdriver or car key? |
| The Real Wizard 14.02.2006 23:17 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Or - we could encourage people to accept gays as being human beings just like anyone else, and in the end, neither the prejudice nor the retaliation will be necessary. Right?Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: and they better not get that stupid "conceal carry" law passed. Why not just invite someone to shoot you?Oh yeah, so in other words, women shouldn't have any right to protect themselves from being raped, and what about potential gay-bashing victims? (link If Matthew Shepard had had a gun on his person, that tragedy would NOT have occurred. It would have been: McK: We're not gay, and you're gonna get jacked. Shep: Well, I AM gay, and you're gonna get shot. (pulls .22) Mr.Jingles wrote: After looking back at the posts on this thread I realized something. Both Clinton and Cheney had their most embarassing moments after shooting someone in the face.Hahahahahaha!!! |
| Music Man 14.02.2006 23:47 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Uh, if Matthew Shepard had a gun, we might have just had a tragedy in the other direction.Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: and they better not get that stupid "conceal carry" law passed. Why not just invite someone to shoot you?Oh yeah, so in other words, women shouldn't have any right to protect themselves from being raped, and what about potential gay-bashing victims? (link If Matthew Shepard had had a gun on his person, that tragedy would NOT have occurred. It would have been: McK: We're not gay, and you're gonna get jacked. Shep: Well, I AM gay, and you're gonna get shot. (pulls .22) |
| Ian R 15.02.2006 02:08 |
Janet wrote: The birds Cheney was "hunting" didn't have a chance in hell. Reportedly he shot over 70 pheasants that day, and some mallard ducks as well. It was at an exclusive hunting club where the birds are all pen-reared and then released to be shot by the patrons of this club. What is the challenge of shooting an animal reared in captivity with no way to escape? This club released over 500 pen-reared pheasants for the benefit of Cheney's hunting party. The group killed over 417 birds. That isn't sport, or a challenge. That is just killing for the sake of killing. Sickening.Agree completely. |
| jcrawford79 15.02.2006 02:37 |
Haystacks Calhoun wrote:Again, my apologies for misunderstanding your statement.jcrawford79 wrote:I am referring to the same group of people here who cannot have a politically tinged debate without dropping f-bombs, etc.... We all know who they are. They should either post something reasonable without losing their minds, or keep their yappers shut.Haystacks Calhoun wrote: Nice language.... Why does everything like this have to go in the gutter?If by "in the gutter", you are referring to the fact that I used the word "asshole" in my post, this thread first went to the gutter around 7 posts into it when the f-bomb was dropped, and not by me. And there was no name-calling in my post. And if I misunderstood your post or it wasn't directed towards me, allow me to apologize in advance. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 15.02.2006 07:06 |
Music Man wrote:Oh, and the loss of Henderson and McKinney would have really destroyed this nation. [/sarcasm]FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Uh, if Matthew Shepard had a gun, we might have just had a tragedy in the other direction.Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: and they better not get that stupid "conceal carry" law passed. Why not just invite someone to shoot you?Oh yeah, so in other words, women shouldn't have any right to protect themselves from being raped, and what about potential gay-bashing victims? (link If Matthew Shepard had had a gun on his person, that tragedy would NOT have occurred. It would have been: McK: We're not gay, and you're gonna get jacked. Shep: Well, I AM gay, and you're gonna get shot. (pulls .22) |
| Fenderek 15.02.2006 07:21 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: After looking back at the posts on this thread I realized something. Both Clinton and Cheney had their most embarassing moments after shooting someone in the face.You cheeky... :) LOL- good one... What is absolutely unbelievable to me is the fact that starting the war and killing many people by a president is fine- but having sex with intern is a crime against humanity and embarassment... amazing... |
| Erin 15.02.2006 08:22 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: After looking back at the posts on this thread I realized something. Both Clinton and Cheney had their most embarassing moments after shooting someone in the face.Oh gross!! ;-D |
| deleted user 15.02.2006 08:39 |
QUOTE]Janet wrote: The birds Cheney was "hunting" didn't have a chance in hell. Reportedly he shot over 70 pheasants that day, and some mallard ducks as well. It was at an exclusive hunting club where the birds are all pen-reared and then released to be shot by the patrons of this club. What is the challenge of shooting an animal reared in captivity with no way to escape? This club released over 500 pen-reared pheasants for the benefit of Cheney's hunting party. The group killed over 417 birds. That isn't sport, or a challenge. That is just killing for the sake of killing.
Sickening.
That is probably the most disgusting thing I have heard....aside from Bush getting a second term..... Big bad hunter Cheney. What a dumb son-of-a-bitch. |
| john bodega 15.02.2006 10:42 |
Janet wrote: The birds Cheney was "hunting" didn't have a chance in hell. Reportedly he shot over 70 pheasants that day, and some mallard ducks as well. It was at an exclusive hunting club where the birds are all pen-reared and then released to be shot by the patrons of this club. What is the challenge of shooting an animal reared in captivity with no way to escape? This club released over 500 pen-reared pheasants for the benefit of Cheney's hunting party. The group killed over 417 birds. That isn't sport, or a challenge. That is just killing for the sake of killing. Sickening.Why doesn't the fucking idiot just buy a copy of Deer Hunter for fucks sake? He can probably afford a computer that'll run it nice and good. |
| Haystacks Calhoun 15.02.2006 11:38 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Let me ask you this, regarding the gays being equal thing.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Or - we could encourage people to accept gays as being human beings just like anyone else, and in the end, neither the prejudice nor the retaliation will be necessary. Right?Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: and they better not get that stupid "conceal carry" law passed. Why not just invite someone to shoot you?Oh yeah, so in other words, women shouldn't have any right to protect themselves from being raped, and what about potential gay-bashing victims? (link If Matthew Shepard had had a gun on his person, that tragedy would NOT have occurred. It would have been: McK: We're not gay, and you're gonna get jacked. Shep: Well, I AM gay, and you're gonna get shot. (pulls .22)Mr.Jingles wrote: After looking back at the posts on this thread I realized something. Both Clinton and Cheney had their most embarassing moments after shooting someone in the face.Hahahahahaha!!! At Miami University, in Oxford, OH, there is a lawsuit being filed to stop gay partners from being able to receive health benefits from the school. In other words, they are allowing the bf/gf of the employee, provided they are of the same sex, to receive full benefits. That said, they are not doing the same thing for the hetero couples. The lawsuit states, and I think rightfully so, that if you are going to give the benefit to unmarried couples, you have to do it for ALL unmarried couples, on not at all. In other words, you cannot discriminate against the straight unmarried couple and NOT give them the same benefits that you are giving GAY unmarried couples. Of course, liberals are up in arms that someone would actually take this poilicy to court. I seems simple to me. You cannot give different treatment with regards to benefits to unmarried couples based on orientation. |
| Music Man 15.02.2006 15:27 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Uh, are you implying that Matthew Shepard's death destroyed the nation? Where the hell was I!? Anyway, what would have happened if more people had guns? I'm sure situations like this happen all the time, with the exception of homocide. Now the assailants will have guns. And the victims will have guns. What you will witness, and I'm no expert, is a lot more death - on both sides of the coin. It's simple logic.Music Man wrote:Oh, and the loss of Henderson and McKinney would have really destroyed this nation. [/sarcasm]FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Uh, if Matthew Shepard had a gun, we might have just had a tragedy in the other direction.Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: and they better not get that stupid "conceal carry" law passed. Why not just invite someone to shoot you?Oh yeah, so in other words, women shouldn't have any right to protect themselves from being raped, and what about potential gay-bashing victims? (link If Matthew Shepard had had a gun on his person, that tragedy would NOT have occurred. It would have been: McK: We're not gay, and you're gonna get jacked. Shep: Well, I AM gay, and you're gonna get shot. (pulls .22) <font color=000000>Fenderek wrote:You fail to understand that one of the main responsibilities of a government is warfare. The preparation for it, the declaration of it, the engagement of it, and the resolution of it. It's not a very difficult concept.Mr.Jingles wrote: After looking back at the posts on this thread I realized something. Both Clinton and Cheney had their most embarassing moments after shooting someone in the face.You cheeky... :) LOL- good one... What is absolutely unbelievable to me is the fact that starting the war and killing many people by a president is fine- but having sex with intern is a crime against humanity and embarassment... amazing... Anyway, no one said that having sex with an intern is a crime against humanity, but no one can truly deny that it is an embarrassment. |
| Haystacks Calhoun 15.02.2006 15:54 |
Clinton did not catch hell for getting a Hummer from an intern....if he had admitted it, instead of hiding it, it would have been forgotten. Clinton caught hell for lying under oath. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 15.02.2006 15:59 |
Music Man wrote:Uh, are you implying that Matthew Shepard's death destroyed the nation? Where the hell was I!?It didn't destroy the nation, but it DID destroy an innocent college student who was doing nothing wrong to anyone. Shepard was an innocent, Henderson and McKinney were thugs. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 15.02.2006 16:01 |
Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Its not that guns should be illegal, its that they should be less available. and for FreddiesGhettoTrench, there are many ways to defend yourself without a gun or, without a weapon for that matter- but why cant you defend yourself with a screwdriver or car key?You can if you have the strength to back it up. With either of those you can be overpowered. If you're 6'5 and 300 lbs, you don't need a gun. For the rest of us, that's not an option. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 15.02.2006 16:02 |
Or - we could encourage people to accept gays as being human beings just like anyone else, and in the end, neither the prejudice nor the retaliation will be necessary. Right?If the world worked that way, that would be lovely, but it's not going to happen. You can't force people not to be pricks, unless you execute them, but then we have a liberal backlash. |
| Sherwood Forest 15.02.2006 18:06 |
speaking of which anyone see The Daily Show last night?? |
| Mr.Jingles 15.02.2006 19:09 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:The more I read your posts, the more I realize that you're an extremist.Or - we could encourage people to accept gays as being human beings just like anyone else, and in the end, neither the prejudice nor the retaliation will be necessary. Right?If the world worked that way, that would be lovely, but it's not going to happen. You can't force people not to be pricks, unless you execute them, but then we have a liberal backlash. Guns and the use of violent force are not the solution to all the problems in the world, you know? |
| That guy who digs energy domes 15.02.2006 19:51 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Im not advocating carrying things like this but you could easily hide a pen knife or switch blade. And why cant you just use the old barfighting tactic and ram your carkeys into their temple?Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Its not that guns should be illegal, its that they should be less available. and for FreddiesGhettoTrench, there are many ways to defend yourself without a gun or, without a weapon for that matter- but why cant you defend yourself with a screwdriver or car key?You can if you have the strength to back it up. With either of those you can be overpowered. If you're 6'5 and 300 lbs, you don't need a gun. For the rest of us, that's not an option. |
| Music Man 15.02.2006 21:27 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Basically, if this type of incident happened 1000 times when the victim was unarmed, 900 times would see that no one would die. Most, if not all, of the 100 deaths being the victim.Music Man wrote: Uh, are you implying that Matthew Shepard's death destroyed the nation? Where the hell was I!?It didn't destroy the nation, but it DID destroy an innocent college student who was doing nothing wrong to anyone. Shepard was an innocent, Henderson and McKinney were thugs. However, if the victim were armed, the number would probably be more like 300. However, with a gun involved, it's likely that of the 700 incidents reporting deaths, many would be deaths of the aggressor, but many of them would also be that of the victim. Of course these are made up statistics, but anyone can see how they make sense. Either way, to be honest, regardless of who dies, I prefer the first scenario. |
| Music Man 15.02.2006 21:31 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Same thing with a gun. Odds are, when a gun becomes involved in anyone's possession, your chances of being severely injured or killed will skyrocket.Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Its not that guns should be illegal, its that they should be less available. and for FreddiesGhettoTrench, there are many ways to defend yourself without a gun or, without a weapon for that matter- but why cant you defend yourself with a screwdriver or car key?You can if you have the strength to back it up. With either of those you can be overpowered. If you're 6'5 and 300 lbs, you don't need a gun. For the rest of us, that's not an option. Maybe you're an exception, but to point a gun at a person is very difficult, let alone being able to pull the trigger. Odds are, the person attacking you would be much more comfortable in that situation. |
| Music Man 15.02.2006 21:32 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:The world does work that way. Give it time.Or - we could encourage people to accept gays as being human beings just like anyone else, and in the end, neither the prejudice nor the retaliation will be necessary. Right?If the world worked that way, that would be lovely, but it's not going to happen. You can't force people not to be pricks, unless you execute them, but then we have a liberal backlash. |
| That guy who digs energy domes 15.02.2006 22:52 |
Music Man wrote:But, if you get decked with something like that, your chances of living are severley higher.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Same thing with a gun. Odds are, when a gun becomes involved in anyone's possession, your chances of being severely injured or killed will skyrocket. Maybe you're an exception, but to point a gun at a person is very difficult, let alone being able to pull the trigger. Odds are, the person attacking you would be much more comfortable in that situation.Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Its not that guns should be illegal, its that they should be less available. and for FreddiesGhettoTrench, there are many ways to defend yourself without a gun or, without a weapon for that matter- but why cant you defend yourself with a screwdriver or car key?You can if you have the strength to back it up. With either of those you can be overpowered. If you're 6'5 and 300 lbs, you don't need a gun. For the rest of us, that's not an option. |
| Music Man 15.02.2006 23:11 |
Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote:I'm going to be honest - I have no idea what you're talking about. Why aren't you still in your corner?Music Man wrote:But, if you get decked with something like that, your chances of living are severley higher.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Same thing with a gun. Odds are, when a gun becomes involved in anyone's possession, your chances of being severely injured or killed will skyrocket. Maybe you're an exception, but to point a gun at a person is very difficult, let alone being able to pull the trigger. Odds are, the person attacking you would be much more comfortable in that situation.Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Its not that guns should be illegal, its that they should be less available. and for FreddiesGhettoTrench, there are many ways to defend yourself without a gun or, without a weapon for that matter- but why cant you defend yourself with a screwdriver or car key?You can if you have the strength to back it up. With either of those you can be overpowered. If you're 6'5 and 300 lbs, you don't need a gun. For the rest of us, that's not an option. |
| FreeSpirit328 15.02.2006 23:17 |
.DeaconJohn. wrote: And we thought John Prescot was dangerous with his boxing antics.... linkIf a person can't tell the difference between a man and a bird, perhaps that person should get their eyes checked...and then when the doctor tells him how his eye sight has gotten worse, he should have his permit revoked. Seriously |
| Music Man 16.02.2006 00:26 |
I doubt the accident occurred due to a misconception that a human was a bird. And even if it were that way, anyone who believes this problem to be an ocular problem really needs to have their brains checked. |
| That guy who digs energy domes 16.02.2006 08:21 |
Music Man wrote:You choose- Get knocked out with a screwdriver or get shot in the chest. One of those two has a future.Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote:I'm going to be honest - I have no idea what you're talking about. Why aren't you still in your corner?Music Man wrote:But, if you get decked with something like that, your chances of living are severley higher.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Same thing with a gun. Odds are, when a gun becomes involved in anyone's possession, your chances of being severely injured or killed will skyrocket. Maybe you're an exception, but to point a gun at a person is very difficult, let alone being able to pull the trigger. Odds are, the person attacking you would be much more comfortable in that situation.Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Its not that guns should be illegal, its that they should be less available. and for FreddiesGhettoTrench, there are many ways to defend yourself without a gun or, without a weapon for that matter- but why cant you defend yourself with a screwdriver or car key?You can if you have the strength to back it up. With either of those you can be overpowered. If you're 6'5 and 300 lbs, you don't need a gun. For the rest of us, that's not an option. And you keep telling me to go to my corner, yet, do you ask if I know where it is? |
| PieterMC 16.02.2006 10:26 |
For anybody that has not heard this yet: link Listen to Cheney's Got a Gun |
| no one but you 28112 16.02.2006 15:41 |
oh please,have some understanding, like you have never replaced human with a bird?! |
| no one but you 28112 16.02.2006 16:04 |
<font color=FF0099>Linda Of The Valley wrote:no that wasn't directed to you, I was just kidding... :-) who is so stupid to shoot a man instead of a bird???no one but you wrote: oh please,have some understanding, like you have never replaced human with a bird?!eh? was that directed to me? I don't get it :S |
| Crazy LittleThing 16.02.2006 23:35 |
Janet wrote: The birds Cheney was "hunting" didn't have a chance in hell. Reportedly he shot over 70 pheasants that day, and some mallard ducks as well. It was at an exclusive hunting club where the birds are all pen-reared and then released to be shot by the patrons of this club. What is the challenge of shooting an animal reared in captivity with no way to escape? This club released over 500 pen-reared pheasants for the benefit of Cheney's hunting party. The group killed over 417 birds. That isn't sport, or a challenge. That is just killing for the sake of killing. Sickening.Does this mean that when hunters get tired of birds they can start in on the lawyers? |
| no one but you 28112 17.02.2006 07:57 |
Crazy LittleThing wrote:lolJanet wrote: The birds Cheney was "hunting" didn't have a chance in hell. Reportedly he shot over 70 pheasants that day, and some mallard ducks as well. It was at an exclusive hunting club where the birds are all pen-reared and then released to be shot by the patrons of this club. What is the challenge of shooting an animal reared in captivity with no way to escape? This club released over 500 pen-reared pheasants for the benefit of Cheney's hunting party. The group killed over 417 birds. That isn't sport, or a challenge. That is just killing for the sake of killing. Sickening.Does this mean that when hunters get tired of birds they can start in on the lawyers? |
| .DeaconJohn. 17.02.2006 11:36 |
I don't think I've ever started a topic that got so many replies. So at least something good came out of Cheney's trigger-happy finger. |
| Maz 17.02.2006 12:38 |
.DeaconJohn. wrote: So at least something good came out of Cheney's trigger-happy finger.Oh, it was worth it just for Jon Stewart and the Daily Show's response: link |
| .DeaconJohn. 17.02.2006 16:34 |
"the hunter then gets out of his car, aims his shotgun at slow moving birds 3 feet away....and then the hunt is ON..." |
| Forever88 17.02.2006 23:50 |
this is all too funny. |
| The Real Wizard 17.02.2006 23:59 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: You can't force people not to be pricks, unless you execute them, but then we have a liberal backlash.Wow, a human being in a first world country actually said and believes these words. There really is no reply. Music Man wrote: The world does work that way. Give it time.Ultra-conservative extremists unfortunately disagree. The rest of us are optimistic, though. |
| Music Man 18.02.2006 00:08 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: The rest of us are optimistic, though.While I respect your opinion, which is often wise and thoughtful, I must disagree and say that many of you are anything but optimistic. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 18.02.2006 10:01 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:What I'm saying is, if people hate gay people and want them dead, there's no way you can stop them from going out and attacking gay individuals. Hate crime laws, etc., only work AFTER THE CRIME HAS ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED. That's not helping the victim anyway. Therefore, the only way to stop these crimes from happening is to teach prospective victims not to be victims - to be able to defend themselves using, for example, firearms.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: You can't force people not to be pricks, unless you execute them, but then we have a liberal backlash.Wow, a human being in a first world country actually said and believes these words. There really is no reply. People just aren't safe any more. I mean, I live in a town where just recently THIS happened. -> link |
| Music Man 18.02.2006 14:34 |
Alex Solan wrote:You really have no sense of humor, do you? Come on, this is hilarious. Why do you think I still come here?Forever88<h6>I AM John Cleese</h6> wrote: this is all too funny.No. |
| The Real Wizard 19.02.2006 02:50 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:This post and the one I quoted aren't even remotely synonymous.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:What I'm saying is, if people hate gay people and want them dead, there's no way you can stop them from going out and attacking gay individuals. Hate crime laws, etc., only work AFTER THE CRIME HAS ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED. That's not helping the victim anyway. Therefore, the only way to stop these crimes from happening is to teach prospective victims not to be victims - to be able to defend themselves using, for example, firearms. People just aren't safe any more. I mean, I live in a town where just recently THIS happened. -> linkFreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: You can't force people not to be pricks, unless you execute them, but then we have a liberal backlash.Wow, a human being in a first world country actually said and believes these words. There really is no reply. And again, no, violence is not the only method of crime prevention. Maybe if you took your "Bush Blinders" off, you could entertain some other possibilities. Now, you can choose to attack me personally, or you can objectively entertain these statements as possibly being true. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 19.02.2006 10:45 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:I'm not saying violence is the only way. What I'm saying is that in cases of people who are physically unable to defend themselves against larger and stronger persons, firearms work as a good equalizer.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:This post and the one I quoted aren't even remotely synonymous. And again, no, violence is not the only method of crime prevention. Maybe if you took your "Bush Blinders" off, you could entertain some other possibilities. Now, you can choose to attack me personally, or you can objectively entertain these statements as possibly being true.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:What I'm saying is, if people hate gay people and want them dead, there's no way you can stop them from going out and attacking gay individuals. Hate crime laws, etc., only work AFTER THE CRIME HAS ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED. That's not helping the victim anyway. Therefore, the only way to stop these crimes from happening is to teach prospective victims not to be victims - to be able to defend themselves using, for example, firearms. People just aren't safe any more. I mean, I live in a town where just recently THIS happened. -> linkFreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: You can't force people not to be pricks, unless you execute them, but then we have a liberal backlash.Wow, a human being in a first world country actually said and believes these words. There really is no reply. |
| .DeaconJohn. 19.02.2006 12:04 |
"What I'm saying is that in cases of people who are physically unable to defend themselves against larger and stronger persons, firearms work as a good equalizer." - so are you suggesting we have a system where people who are old and/or disabled can apply for a firearm to protect themselves against attackers? |
| Music Man 20.02.2006 00:15 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Wow, you must be the same kind of person who supports affirmative action in American higher education. EQUALIZATION DOES NOT MEAN TURNING THE SITUATION AROUND TO THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:I'm not saying violence is the only way. What I'm saying is that in cases of people who are physically unable to defend themselves against larger and stronger persons, firearms work as a good equalizer.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:This post and the one I quoted aren't even remotely synonymous. And again, no, violence is not the only method of crime prevention. Maybe if you took your "Bush Blinders" off, you could entertain some other possibilities. Now, you can choose to attack me personally, or you can objectively entertain these statements as possibly being true.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:What I'm saying is, if people hate gay people and want them dead, there's no way you can stop them from going out and attacking gay individuals. Hate crime laws, etc., only work AFTER THE CRIME HAS ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED. That's not helping the victim anyway. Therefore, the only way to stop these crimes from happening is to teach prospective victims not to be victims - to be able to defend themselves using, for example, firearms. People just aren't safe any more. I mean, I live in a town where just recently THIS happened. -> linkFreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: You can't force people not to be pricks, unless you execute them, but then we have a liberal backlash.Wow, a human being in a first world country actually said and believes these words. There really is no reply. 1 < 5, right? If you add twenty-four to the left side, you are quite mistaken if you think that's "equalization." |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 20.02.2006 07:56 |
.DeaconJohn. wrote: "What I'm saying is that in cases of people who are physically unable to defend themselves against larger and stronger persons, firearms work as a good equalizer." - so are you suggesting we have a system where people who are old and/or disabled can apply for a firearm to protect themselves against attackers?Yes, and free classes to train them to use them properly and safely. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 20.02.2006 07:57 |
Music Man wrote:But the fact is, when a 300 lb man is trying to rape a 100 lbs girl, he has the advantage. If the girl pulls a .22, now she has enough of an advantage to get away from him.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Wow, you must be the same kind of person who supports affirmative action in American higher education. EQUALIZATION DOES NOT MEAN TURNING THE SITUATION AROUND TO THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE. 1 < 5, right? If you add twenty-four to the left side, you are quite mistaken if you think that's "equalization."Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:I'm not saying violence is the only way. What I'm saying is that in cases of people who are physically unable to defend themselves against larger and stronger persons, firearms work as a good equalizer.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:This post and the one I quoted aren't even remotely synonymous. And again, no, violence is not the only method of crime prevention. Maybe if you took your "Bush Blinders" off, you could entertain some other possibilities. Now, you can choose to attack me personally, or you can objectively entertain these statements as possibly being true.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:What I'm saying is, if people hate gay people and want them dead, there's no way you can stop them from going out and attacking gay individuals. Hate crime laws, etc., only work AFTER THE CRIME HAS ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED. That's not helping the victim anyway. Therefore, the only way to stop these crimes from happening is to teach prospective victims not to be victims - to be able to defend themselves using, for example, firearms. People just aren't safe any more. I mean, I live in a town where just recently THIS happened. -> linkFreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: You can't force people not to be pricks, unless you execute them, but then we have a liberal backlash.Wow, a human being in a first world country actually said and believes these words. There really is no reply. |
| Mr.Jingles 20.02.2006 08:48 |
I guess for once you don't realize that someone who doesn't have enough training to handle shooting a gun is very likely to miss the target, and that lost bullet could easily end up hitting someone else? Ever heard of PEPPER SPRAY, Sarajane? |
| FreeSpirit328 20.02.2006 09:28 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:So if someone is trying to kill me, a blind woman in a wheelchair, it's okay for me to shoot him before he succeeds in murdering me?.DeaconJohn. wrote: "What I'm saying is that in cases of people who are physically unable to defend themselves against larger and stronger persons, firearms work as a good equalizer." - so are you suggesting we have a system where people who are old and/or disabled can apply for a firearm to protect themselves against attackers?Yes, and free classes to train them to use them properly and safely. Not to bring up another topic, but I believe you said in your "death penalty" thread that all people who kill another person should be given the death penalty, even if that person only killed in order to save their own lives. So you're saying that it's okay for me to kill someone in self defense, but no matter what the reason, I'll be put to death for it. How is that justice? Sounds to me like you're talking out of both sides of your head...unless of course I didn't understand what you said; but I think I understand exactly what you're saying. |
| Mr.Jingles 20.02.2006 10:00 |
FreeSpirit328 wrote: So you're saying that it's okay for me to kill someone in self defense, but no matter what the reason, I'll be put to death for it. How is that justice?That's because Sarajane is quite possibly the most politically biased person on this message board. |
| deleted user 20.02.2006 11:32 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:How about politicaly uneducated....or brainwashed.FreeSpirit328 wrote: So you're saying that it's okay for me to kill someone in self defense, but no matter what the reason, I'll be put to death for it. How is that justice?That's because Sarajane is quite possibly the most politically biased person on this message board. |
| Music Man 20.02.2006 13:44 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Or to fatally wound him. Or to fatally wound herself. Or to fatally wound another bystander. Or to have him take the gun, and get an even larger advantage.Music Man wrote:But the fact is, when a 300 lb man is trying to rape a 100 lbs girl, he has the advantage. If the girl pulls a .22, now she has enough of an advantage to get away from him.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Wow, you must be the same kind of person who supports affirmative action in American higher education. EQUALIZATION DOES NOT MEAN TURNING THE SITUATION AROUND TO THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE. 1 < 5, right? If you add twenty-four to the left side, you are quite mistaken if you think that's "equalization."Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:I'm not saying violence is the only way. What I'm saying is that in cases of people who are physically unable to defend themselves against larger and stronger persons, firearms work as a good equalizer.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:This post and the one I quoted aren't even remotely synonymous. And again, no, violence is not the only method of crime prevention. Maybe if you took your "Bush Blinders" off, you could entertain some other possibilities. Now, you can choose to attack me personally, or you can objectively entertain these statements as possibly being true.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:What I'm saying is, if people hate gay people and want them dead, there's no way you can stop them from going out and attacking gay individuals. Hate crime laws, etc., only work AFTER THE CRIME HAS ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED. That's not helping the victim anyway. Therefore, the only way to stop these crimes from happening is to teach prospective victims not to be victims - to be able to defend themselves using, for example, firearms. People just aren't safe any more. I mean, I live in a town where just recently THIS happened. -> linkFreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: You can't force people not to be pricks, unless you execute them, but then we have a liberal backlash.Wow, a human being in a first world country actually said and believes these words. There really is no reply. This situation honestly does not happen enough for your remedy to be practical. |