What do you [Archive] - FRED Entertainment

Zens_7s

04-19-2004, 12:50 PM

Whirled Peas? [Said in her finest Miss America voice]

No, really I would like to see full integration with all our electronic devices.

I want a device that is a pocket PC with a 120 GB hard drive, Cell Phone, Palm Pilot, digital camera, Blackberry, movie player, and MP3 Player with top quality on everything and wireless enabled. I want it to be small enough that I can carry it all in a very tiny handbag and look cute while being efficient. The voice recognition software needs to work so I don't have to worry about typing what I want on a small keyboard.

I also want the world to become wireless enabled and have high speed access everywhere. My mom lives 5 miles outside the second largest city in Illinois and still has dial up.

I loved being able to sit in DFW airport the other day and post on the shoot. Entertainment as it's finest. Wire the world! It should be roaming, just like cell phone plans.

I want all cars to come with a MP3 compatible CD player standard. Either that, or start including ports so we can upload our songs right to the car. It would be great. Less CD's means less waste means good for the environment, right?

I want everything available online. I want to stop using cash completely. I want to not have to mail letters unless I am TRYING to be dramatically romantic. I want I want I want... /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

DarthMaulRat

04-19-2004, 01:28 PM

I'd like to see a man on Mars, more specifically the Man:
http://home.online.no/~anitat/english/Pulp09.jpg

Omaru

04-19-2004, 06:45 PM

Hamburgers WITHOUT ketchup or mayonaisse.

Can't think of much else, I always thought everything would be like the Jetsons.

I guess, also to have chips inserted into our hands but to be given concubines to enjoy our shortened lifespan.

marksiwel

04-19-2004, 08:16 PM

hamburgers wuthout ketchup and mayonaisse, what a bleak unhappy future. Isay we set the nukes off now so it will never happen.

Mighty_Wingman

04-19-2004, 08:33 PM

Microwavable Sushi
Dehydrated Water
My own Harem
Naked Womens Gymnastics
...And to be called by my Native American name, " Smells like Wingman."

Asteban

04-19-2004, 09:15 PM

I agree with Zens wireless idea. I only know two people who still have dial up, and I live in a tiny little town. One of those is me. Dammit.

I'd also like to see the Second Coming of . . . . Jimi Hendrix.

04-20-2004, 08:34 AM

I'm a cheap bastard- I still use dial-up, so don't feel like the Lone Ranger.

Efexeye

04-20-2004, 09:30 AM

Dude- aren't you a techie? How can you still be using dial-up? If I ever meet you and you're going bald, I'll know why... /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

jjcourtright

04-20-2004, 04:47 PM

I still have dial-up at the house. That's why I'm never on here at night, it is far too frustrating. I get my dial-up for free from school, so I can't see paying for it.

04-20-2004, 05:29 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
How can you still be using dial-up?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just can't see me spending an extra fifty to seventy bucks a month on something I only use for about five minutes every other day. Instead, I use the money to buy toys (hardware and software) for doing photos and videos.

FanGirl

04-22-2004, 09:00 PM

I would like to see a computer that never crashes, xerox machine that never jams, holodecks (ala Star Trek), comic books becoming respected and mainstream and having Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson's fifteen minutes of fame be over.

Mighty_Wingman

04-22-2004, 09:13 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
and having Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson's fifteen minutes of fame be over.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's my favorite part .

I'd also like to see "American Idol" cancelled for lack of ratings. I can't put into words how much I [CENSORED] hate that show and everything it stands for.

ratm1966

04-22-2004, 09:32 PM

I would like to see the Assault Weapons Ban expire, so the prices will drop and I can start stocking up on the ones I want.

I would also like to see a conservative run congress and conservative president until the day I die.

JIM

04-22-2004, 10:53 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I would like to see the Assault Weapons Ban expire, so the prices will drop and I can start stocking up on the ones I want.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm with You on that one Brother!
Thank God the '94 AWB is sunsetting on Sept. 14 th.!!!
I'll be getting an AK clone (SAM-7 which is already available) and possibly an uncastrated AR type from Bushmaster or Rock River Arms as soon as that thing dies. Oh yeah, and standard capacity pistol magazines, here I come!!! /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

Just have to get that other AWB to go away next. I believe that is the '89 one.

Besides that... Hmmm... I have to think about what I'd like to see happen in My lifetime.
Maybe seeing France getting it's ass kicked would be fun.
A free China and North Korea would'nt be too shabby.
Oh... and a clean burning, cheap energy source for all would be nice. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

ratm1966

04-22-2004, 10:56 PM

I think I would actually like to see France and Spain actually grow some balls and not run away like the cowardly countries they are.

Razorback

04-23-2004, 12:35 AM

marksiwel

04-23-2004, 01:08 AM

wow, your Republicans. I am too, but the gun thing blew my mind. I thought I was the only one looking forward to it.

Also isnt the AK heavily taxed due to the chinese flooding the market?

Also where do you get a good gun? I mean I dont mind paying alot, but It would be cool if I could pay in installments.
(Can you get a loan from the bank for a gun?)

Affleckie

04-23-2004, 01:15 AM

...the apocalypse.

Matt1

04-23-2004, 01:46 AM

I'm curious, what exactly is the appeal of owning a gun that fires off sixty rounds per second or whatever? I've had a twenty-two since I was eleven, and never really felt the need to move up the gun food chain.

Are your penises all really that small? /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

Matthew

04-23-2004, 02:18 AM

Actually Matt, the size of the gun is directly proportional to the size of the gonad's, not the penis itself. For example, a man with a 10 inch schlong can still own a .22, but he has nads the size of pebbles.

A Man who owns a .454 kasul has nads the size of grapefruits, and the owner of a Browning .50 cal has basketball size nads. Just the way it is.

Matt1

04-23-2004, 04:34 AM

Smaller balls just increase the illusion that I have a big package. And believe me kids, it is just an illusion.

Hey, waitaminnit...

Razorback

04-23-2004, 12:08 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
wow, your Republicans. I am too, but the gun thing blew my mind. I thought I was the only one looking forward to it

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a republican. I am just someone who doesn't allow bullshit to infect itself into my view of right and wrong. Assault rifles are used in something like 0.00000001% of all crimes. We should get rid of knives in the home first since they are used in thousands of assaults and murders every year.

Razorback

04-23-2004, 12:12 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I'm curious, what exactly is the appeal of owning a gun that fires off sixty rounds per second or whatever?

[/ QUOTE ]

These rifles are semi-automatic. They fire one round per trigger pull. There are far deadlier weapons legally available for purchase by anyone. But because they don't look like commonly considered military weapons no one bans them. This is more about aesthetics than killing power.

KingBison

04-23-2004, 12:28 PM

Flying cars and the Flux Capacitor!!!
http://www.jhallman.com/bttfprops/images/conventions/2002%20fx/booth06.jpg

Zens_7s

04-23-2004, 02:05 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
We should get rid of knives in the home first since they are used in thousands of assaults and murders every year.

[/ QUOTE ] Which brings me right back to my point 6 months ago. SPORKS! If we equipped all homes with sporks and took away the knives we would have world peace.

TomHarrington

04-23-2004, 02:33 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Assault rifles are used in something like 0.00000001% of all crimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting number, RB. Where did it come from? Just curious.

jjcourtright

04-23-2004, 02:49 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I am just someone who doesn't allow bullshit to infect itself into my view of right and wrong. Assault rifles are used in something like 0.00000001% of all crimes. We should get rid of knives in the home first since they are used in thousands of assaults and murders every year.

[/ QUOTE ] Does this mean that you think we should get rid of hand guns. They are used in many more crimes than rifles or assualt weapons.

Razorback

04-23-2004, 02:55 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Interesting number, RB. Where did it come from? Just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made it up. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif The number is pretty low though. I just didn't feel like looking it up. It is less than 1%.

Razorback

04-23-2004, 02:57 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Does this mean that you think we should get rid of hand guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny that you mention it... it makes more sense to ban handguns. However, the ban of weapons in the US will do nothing to keep them out of the hands of criminals. Since we can't fix that problem then I say arm every citizen to the teeth.

jjcourtright

04-23-2004, 03:02 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
...it makes more sense to ban handguns.

[/ QUOTE ]
I completely agree. I am not a big gun fan, I have one rifle that rarely gets used, but I am certainly not a gun control freak. That being said I don't think that a hand gun ban would be such a bad idea. I'd like to see a guy try to rob a bank with a rifle crammed down his pants!

Razorback

04-23-2004, 03:20 PM

That is one of the reasons why so few rifles (assault or otherwise) are used in criminal activity. They are nearly impossible to conceal. You can saw off the barrel but that really screws up the accuracy of a rifle. You can do it with a shotgun if you intend to use it only for close range... and I guess you could saw off the barrel of an AR-15 if you intend to only use it at a range of 5 meters. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

jjcourtright

04-23-2004, 03:26 PM

Exactly!

ratm1966

04-23-2004, 09:47 PM

I think we should ban automobiles, because they kill more and more people every year.

**DONOTDELETE**

04-23-2004, 09:50 PM

that isnt such a good idea then how are people supposed to get around we cant all take the bus there arent enough buses and...we cant walk or ride bike across the country! can we? i would die thats for sure!!

ratm1966

04-23-2004, 09:55 PM

Yeah, that is true. Travel would be more difficult, but automobiles are evil. They kill people every day. I think we should even start suing the automobile makers every time a drunk driver gets behind the wheel of a car and kills someone. Afterall, it is the cars fault, so that makes it the car makers fault. NOT THE FUCKIN' DRIVER!!!!

**DONOTDELETE**

04-23-2004, 10:03 PM

well well well then cars shouldnt be taken away from everyone just the dummys that choose to drive drunk it isnt always the cars fault sometimes its the weather sometimes its the person and sometimes its the car... so there is no way to fix these kind of problems just buckle up and drive safely /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

Omaru

04-23-2004, 10:06 PM

"and leave the crashing to us"
http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/games/coverg/65/614365.jpg

**DONOTDELETE**

04-23-2004, 10:07 PM

hahahahhahaha!!!! crash test dummies!!! when i was a kid i use to have those toys!! they were fun! lol!! hahahhaa

JIM

04-23-2004, 11:46 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Also isnt the AK heavily taxed due to the chinese flooding the market?

Also where do you get a good gun? I mean I dont mind paying alot, but It would be cool if I could pay in installments.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Chi-com" AK's(semi-auto by the way) have not been imported to the U.S. for a long time now. I believe that was due to the '89 AWB going into effect.
You can find them, but they are very expensive. They're really not any better either. One type of AK clone I'm looking at is the "Aresnal Inc. SAM-7" It's made here in the U.S. by bulgarians who have set up shop in Las Vegas.
It's a high quality AK clone made with a milled steel reciever, not stamped steel. There's others out there too. Most are pretty good. You can find foriegn made ones that have had the required "five U.S. made parts" installed in them per BATF rules.
As far as getting a "good gun", depends on where You live. For example, NYC is a joke as far as being able to express Your second amendment right. It's nearly impossible to own a longarm or pistol, and it's very expensive to keep a license. However...in Florida, it's quite different.
It's "The real America" in regards to firearms. I just picked up a combat/home defense shotgun this past weekend at a local gunshow. No fuss, no muss, no liberal city council/police department telling Me what's what.
In almost all cases, go to Your local gun shop and ask questions. Find a local range and talk to them. For the most part, there's a lot of "gun people" out there who will help You out.
If You're really serious and are of legal age to own, and are not a felon, P.M. Me, I'll point You in the directon of a good source of info.

JIM

04-24-2004, 12:09 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I'm curious, what exactly is the appeal of owning a gun that fires off sixty rounds per second or whatever?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it does'nt do it for You, then it just does'nt.
All firearms are serious, but there is an appealing aspect in being able to lay down a nice rapid string of fire that's coming from a semi-auto. Full-auto is even better.
For those who enjoy firearms, it's fun to collect them.
More imoprtant is the fact that a law abiding citizen can not only defend one's self from an attacker or group of attackers, but having the ability to defend one's country from attackers that are foreign or domestic. To do that, a .22 rimfire rifle is not enough.

The second amendment is not about hunting, one of the things it's about, is citizens like You and Me being able to keep it's own government in check.
It's also about freedom, It's about the basic human right to have the ability to defend one's self, family, property, and country with the best available equipment.
The founding fathers saw this need and it's possible need in the future. History has taught us what happens to an unarmed populace.

Unamred Men and Women are subjects.
Armed Men and Women are citizens.

JIM

04-24-2004, 12:26 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
That being said I don't think that a hand gun ban would be such a bad idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, with all due respect, it is a bad idea on many fronts.
For instance, All states that have concealed carry weapon(CCW) laws that favor the issuance of permits to citizens have much lower crime rates.
Handguns fill a variety of roles. Personal defense, home defense, target shooting, hunting, competition, etc. Which, by the way, I'm going to the range tomorrow morning with My S&W 9mm pistol for some target practice. No harm done there.
Most crimes are commited with knives, baseball bats, and fists than handguns or other types of firearms. Handgun/firearm control laws just hurt the law abiding Man and Woman.

ratm1966

04-24-2004, 10:02 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
well well well then cars shouldnt be taken away from everyone just the dummys that choose to drive drunk it isnt always the cars fault sometimes its the weather sometimes its the person and sometimes its the car... so there is no way to fix these kind of problems just buckle up and drive safely.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, so it isn't the car's fault that people use them to kill other people? I guess then, it isn't the gun's fault that people use them to kill other people. I am glad you can see through the bullshit of this argument that is put forth by gun control advocates and those that sue gun manufacturers.

Most people just can't see through the bullshit unless you put the same argument used by gun control advocates to common every day items, such as an automobile. Then they see how ludacris the argument really is.

Mighty_Wingman

04-24-2004, 10:38 AM

Guns don't kill people. RATM does.

No really, it's the bullets. Actually it's not the bullets it's the holes they leave in vital organs.

"Despite recent scientific advancements , death continues to be our nations #1 killer."

I'm all for "law abiding citizens" being able to have guns, but therein lies the paradox. Sometimes just having a gun is enough to turn a law abiding citizen into a murderer.

And the gun dealer says.
" Well yesterday, when I sold him the gun he hadn't killed anybody , his record was clean."
When I was doing research for a story, I bought my 9. I was amazed by how easy it was. No seven day waiting period, no thumbprint. Just a twenty minute wait while they called whatever agency they get their background checks from. I'm not a criminal and I will never use my gun on another human.

But what if ? /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif

Matthew

04-24-2004, 10:40 AM

Do you need to have one of those handgun permits that you get at the courthouse ?

Mighty_Wingman

04-24-2004, 11:19 AM

This is Texas Dude .

Pawn shop = Courthouse

Matthew

04-24-2004, 11:20 AM

Har Har!

Now, you guys can carry a gun, but it has to be shown, right? You can't conceal ?

**DONOTDELETE**

04-24-2004, 02:05 PM

cars dont have a brain they cant think guns cant think either so its the person controlling the gun that or car that makes the mistake sometimes cars are hard to control and crash...but cars dont think!! so how can it be their fault? cops are dying to put someone in jail after car accidents so they dont blame the car they blame the person!!

Gillan

04-24-2004, 04:00 PM

In the future cars will have brains but not human brains just computers that control the car and the person will only have to tell it the destination and at that point there will be no more crashes and that means more money for high tech guns which will kill the people who should of died bringing the death percentages back to what we have today.
MWAH HA HA HA
i think int he future i jsut have my hightech car and do lots of drive bys with my high tech laser guns and shit jsut for a laugh and ill be a drug lord with many many bitches. but we have to wait and see what happens dont we. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

Matthew

04-24-2004, 04:14 PM

Shut the fuck up, go away, don't come back.

ILovePapaSmurf

04-24-2004, 06:20 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I guess then, it isn't the gun's fault that people use them to kill other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not, but the gun manufacturers know the risk of what can happen when making these guns. As well as those who sell them do. They just look at the money making aspect of the situation.

JIM

04-24-2004, 07:54 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
No, its not, but the gun manufacturers know the risk of what can happen when making these guns. As well as those who sell them do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can You please expound on this Smurfy?

By the way, as You know, there is a thing called accountability. But these days it is'nt in fashion or "P.C." to be held accountable for one's own actions in this "modern" society we live in...
It's always the gun's fault, or it's the makers fault, or it's My mommy and daddy's fault, or it's "the Man's" fault 'cause they're always keeping Me down, and blah, blah, blah.
In regards to firearms, the maker should not be held accountable. The scumbag who commited the crime should. Thankfully, most every judge feels the same way, and has thrown out cases brought against the industry.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
As well as those who sell them do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so You know, profit margins on firearms for the most part, are razor thin. Especially for gun shop owners.
Many firearms manufacturers produce other things besides things that go bang. Firearms are tools that can last forever. They don't become obsolete in twelve to sixteen months the way computers do. Makers are in it for money, they are after all, a business. But, You will find it is'nt the sole reason for their being. Most are very, very patriotic, and do believe in the second amendment.
Just figured I'd bring that fact to light.

ratm1966

04-25-2004, 11:17 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
No, its not, but the gun manufacturers know the risk of what can happen when making these guns. As well as those who sell them do. They just look at the money making aspect of the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, what another bullshit liberal argument. You think the automobile manufacturers and dealers don't know the risks involved with the product they put out there? Give me a fuckin' break. I know they aren't really trying to make that buck either, eh, because we all know that automobile manufacturers are making them just for the betterment of our nation. They aren't really trying to make money.

Instead of bullshit arguments that have more holes in them than John Kerry's integrity, try coming up with a valid argument. Like...If we inacted gun control like Australia did, our crime rate would drop too. Oh wait, theirs didn't drop. As soon as law abiding citizens were restricted, the crime rate against them skyrocketed. Especially, in the area of home invasion type crimes. Yeah, I think that can persuade me to give up my guns.

JIM

04-25-2004, 05:03 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Like...If we inacted gun control like Australia did, our crime rate would drop too. Oh wait, theirs didn't drop. As soon as law abiding citizens were restricted, the crime rate against them skyrocketed. Especially, in the area of home invasion type crimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.
Same thing with S. Africa and England.
/forums/images/icons/frown.gif

That crap does'nt fly here in Florida.

Matt1

04-26-2004, 04:06 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Oh, what another bullshit liberal argument. You think the automobile manufacturers and dealers don't know the risks involved with the product they put out there?

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with comparing cars to guns is that cars are designed to get people from place to place. They can be used to kill or hurt people, but that is not their purpose. The only purpose of a gun, however, is to hurt or kill people, or other living creatures. Death is inherent in its design.

That being said, I think there are plenty of instances where it is perfectly acceptable to hurt and/or kill someone. So, why not use a gun?

ratm1966

04-26-2004, 04:18 PM

Yes, I know that guns are made for killing or just shooting at targets and that cars are not specifically made for killing people. I am just attacking the argument, because it is a bogus argument. We can use that argument on anything that has been used to injure or kill people. A law abiding citizen can own hundreds of weapons and never go out and kill a person. Just as a law abiding citizen can own hundreds of cars in their lifetime and never use them to kill a person. It isn't the guns or the cars we have to worry about. It isn't even the law abiding citizens who own them that we have to worry about. It is the criminals, in both cases, that we have to worry about and deal with and until the day comes when a gun can be kept out of the hands of every person who breaks the law, we can't restrict them from those who obey the laws. They must have a way of defending themselves.

The idea as set forth in the Second Amendment is not a new idea which started in this country. It goes as far back as The Roman Empire, when Marcus Tullius Cicero stated, "There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which comes to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right. When weapons reduce themselves to silence, the laws no longer expect one to await their pronouncements. For people who decide to wait for these will have to wait for justice too-and meanwhile, they must suffer injustice first."

jjcourtright

04-26-2004, 04:19 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That being said I don't think that a hand gun ban would be such a bad idea.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, with all due respect, it is a bad idea on many fronts.
For instance, All states that have concealed carry weapon(CCW) laws that favor the issuance of permits to citizens have much lower crime rates.
Handguns fill a variety of roles. Personal defense, home defense, target shooting, hunting, competition, etc. Which, by the way, I'm going to the range tomorrow morning with My S&W 9mm pistol for some target practice. No harm done there.
Most crimes are commited with knives, baseball bats, and fists than handguns or other types of firearms. Handgun/firearm control laws just hurt the law abiding Man and Woman.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point was that a ban on hand guns makes more sense to me than a ban on assualt weapons. It is easier to use a hand gun to commit a crime than a rifle.

Razorback

04-26-2004, 04:22 PM

Though, a ban on any weapon would only leave the criminal with that weapon and not the law abiding citizenry.

jjcourtright

04-26-2004, 05:02 PM

Absolutely. It just seems to me that if there is going to be a banning, use common sense when doing said banning.

Razorback

04-26-2004, 07:22 PM

I would rather see no banning of legal ownership of firearms and instead see a banning of banning. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

Dr3vil

04-26-2004, 08:04 PM

Legal gay marriage, I just find bigotry annoying, especially comming from politicians with theocratic ambitions.

Razorback

04-26-2004, 08:08 PM

I am opposed to gay marriage! I am also opposed to depressed marriage! I only support marriage.

Dave

04-26-2004, 08:16 PM

that arguement makes me want to scream. (http://www.khaaan.com/)

Razorback

04-26-2004, 08:21 PM

Why? Did I leave you stranded somewhere?

Matt1

04-27-2004, 01:28 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Yes, I know that guns are made for killing or just shooting at targets and that cars are not specifically made for killing people. I am just attacking the argument, because it is a bogus argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm just saying your attack of a "bogus argument" is a bogus argument in itself because you're comparing two things that are really incomparable.

ratm1966

04-27-2004, 11:54 AM

Why is the comparison wrong? Both are tools that are made with a specific legal purpose, and both are used illegally to kill and injure people. My point is that if you use the argument on one, you must use it for the other. However, those people that use it for weapons, won't apply it to anything else because it will hurt their way of life and may make it take longer to get to the mall. There in lies the hypocracy of the whole thing. As long as it has no effect on them, it is okay to start banning things like guns.

Matt1

04-28-2004, 12:36 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Both are tools that are made with a specific legal purpose, and both are used illegally to kill and injure people.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm not mistaken, the legal purpose of a car is to get people around from place to place. The legal purpose of a gun is to kill/maim things. Unless of course, you only intend to defend yourself against glass bottles and paper targets.

Just read the following and tell me if it makes any sense:

If you want to outlaw cyanide because when people eat it they die or get sick, you might as well outlaw oranges because people can choke on them and die.

ratm1966

04-28-2004, 12:46 AM

Nope, those comparisons are completely different. Sure, a person who eats cyanide and dies is using the product illegaly, because it is illegal to commit suicide, but a person who eats an orange and chokes to death, wasn't using the orange illegally.

The point I have been trying to make is the illegal use of a legal product to kill someone illegally.

If I hop in my car and intentionally go out and run over and kill 10 people, what is the difference than if I go out with my shotgun and intentionally shoot and kill 10 people. Nothing, in both, I have used a legal product in an illegal fashion. Neither situation warrants banning either product from use, because they were intentionally used illegally. Why should we deprive persons who own and legally use both items, from owning them, just because their are criminals out there using them illegally. We shouldn't. By keeping cars and guns out of the law abiding citizens hands, we will only be hurting them, because only the criminals will have them because they won't give them up.

It isn't the comparison of the two items, it is the comparison of how they can be used illegally.

Razorback

04-28-2004, 01:03 AM

Ban knives.

Matt1

04-28-2004, 02:10 AM

Now that would be a valid comparison.

ratm1966

04-28-2004, 02:17 AM

Oh geez...thats it.....I quit.....you still aren't getting it and probably never will.

Matt1

04-28-2004, 02:21 AM

Yes, and you quite obviously are not getting what I'm saying. I guess neither of us can be gotten to. We're kind of like the Untouchables, in that respect. Minus of course, the cool thirties clothes and tommy guns. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

ratm1966

04-28-2004, 03:24 AM

No, I understand where you are coming from.....you are saying we shouldn't compare to different types of objects. I agree, but I am not comparing the object, I am comparing the illegal act the object was used in.

Let me try one last time.....but from a different view point....

1. In 2000, 16,653 people died and over 300,000 were injured in alcohol-related traffic crashes in the United States. This means people intentionally got behind the wheel drunk and use a perfectly legal tool to kill over 16,000 people.

2. In 2000, 11,071 people in the United States were victims of homicides committed with firearms. Yeah, people went out and intentionally used a perfectly legal tool to kill just over 11,000 people.

You tell me what the difference is other than some were cars and others were guns? All of those people died because someone committed a crime? Do we ban cars from everyone because drunk drivers kill people? No, we take away the drunk driver's ability to legally drive. Why then should we take away everyone's right to bear arms just because people go out and kill others? Why not just prevent those lawbreakers from being able to legally buy a gun. Oh, and don't say that a person can still go out and buy a gun illegally, because I can then say, a convicted drunk driver can still go out and drive illegally. People will do what they want to do, and we shouldn't punish law abiding citizens because of it.

Lastly, don't get tied up in saying I am comparing two different object, because I am not say a car is the same as a gun, it is the criminal acts that are basically the same. We can not blame the tool that is used to kill people. We can only blame the people wielding that tool.

Razorback

04-28-2004, 04:13 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Do we ban cars from everyone because drunk drivers kill people?

[/ QUOTE ]

We should ban the alcohol!!! Oh my God! I see the light. To stop people from drinking and driving we must ban alcohol! Sure, when alcohol was banned before the consumption of alcohol actually increased, but we must ban it!

Matthew

04-28-2004, 04:22 AM

Here is another thing to think about....

Machine guns are banned, yet look at how many criminals have them!

Marijuana is banned, yet how many people smoke it ?

Banning would only take it away from law-biding citizens.

Matt1

04-28-2004, 04:43 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
We can not blame the tool that is used to kill people.

[/ QUOTE ]
We seem to be going around in circles and you also seem to be misunderstanding my stance on this issue. I don't want to ban guns and I don't hold guns responsible when people use them to kill. I'm just saying killing someone with a gun isn't a misuse of that tool. It is it's use. That's what's it's designed to do. Killing someone with a car is a misuse of that tool. That is not what it is designed to do. So from now on when you make the argument, "If you're going to ban guns you might as well ban _________," insert knife in the blank or some other valid comparison.

I think this is one of the funniest weird arguments I've ever been in. Let's call it quits while it's still amusing, shall we?