Conquer Club

Pedronicus wrote:Answer the gun question.
You don't wanna mess with Terry Tibbs. He'll buy 10 minutes with yer mum before the phone call is over.




And you will pay what he wants.

He also may shoot you instead...

... Who is Terry Tibbs?

... Guns? What was the question?

...

Dancing Mustard wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:Dear Nobunagger,
How is it that giving everybody a gun will lower the amount of gun crime? Does the same reason apply to giving everybody a baseball bat with nails in it? Does the same reasoning apply to nuclear bombs? If not, why not?
Much Love,
Terry Tibbs

Dear Nounagger,
Why have you not answered the above question? Why aren't you sharing your views on the issue?
I remain,
Terry Tibbs

This gun question.

Am I on your ignore list?

He's asking questions!

"I thought this was a thread for Nobunaga to share his views, not a thread for pimpdave to answer questions. Now, if there was a thread I could read in which pimpdave answers questions, I would not be so confused."

Why do you hate America?

Nobunaga wrote:... I drink tea, and beer. That's about it....

mmmmmm............... beer........

I think you mean 'Bier'.

Mr. Nobunga,

Please share your views.



Toilet Paper: Why do conservatives try so hard to deny the obvious racist conspiracy to keep toilet paper white, which in turn WIPES AWAY brown poopies?

starting to see why this nobunaga character is so popular.

and i dont mean to answer mustard's "gun question" for him, but i would cite the failure of england's gun ban to reign in violence as a reason for allowing private citizens to have the freedom to purchase their own firearms. i like the u.s.'s 2nd amendment because it was created to allow for immediate protection against oppression.

i mean, although it is illegal to have drugs or guns or child porn in the EU, does the "law" really eliminate the availability of it on the underground market (and im not justifying child porn, just giving the argument some spectrum)? would you really disbelieve an armed mugger would shoot at you simply because an honest citizen can't invest in his/her own protection?

because yes, best intentions aside, big government does in fact suck.

Prestor Jack wrote:starting to see why this nobunaga character is so popular.

and i dont mean to answer mustard's "gun question" for him, but i would cite the failure of england's gun ban to reign in violence as a reason for allowing private citizens to have the freedom to purchase their own firearms. i like the u.s.'s 2nd amendment because it was created to allow for immediate protection against oppression.

i mean, although it is illegal to have drugs or guns or child porn in the EU, does the "law" really eliminate the availability of it on the underground market (and im not justifying child porn, just giving the argument some spectrum)? would you really disbelieve an armed mugger would shoot at you simply because an honest citizen can't invest in his/her own protection?

because yes, best intentions aside, big government does in fact suck.

Most governments suck, big and small.

^i would generally agree. but i like property rights and the ability to uphold an army, among a few other basics. hard to do without some level of government. the problem is when people want to turn my paycheck into their own because they've maxed out their credit cards and taken out one too many mortgages.

Prestor Jack wrote:^i would generally agree. but i like property rights and the ability to uphold an army, among a few other basics. hard to do without some level of government. the problem is when people want to turn my paycheck into their own because they've maxed out their credit cards and taken out one too many mortgages.

Ironically, our property rights are rather limited...

Also, you are very quick to generalize, much like me.

seems like every day is a new crisis in this country, or at least there's always a new economic woe on cnn/fox/msnbc or a helicopter view of a dead pregnant mother when i flip by nancy grace. tough to slow my generalizations with all these crazies making up their minds about what to do quicker than i can think.

Big government sucks, but sometimes it sucks less than what would fill the void it would leave behind were it not there.

too much government sucks

Prestor Jack wrote:too much government sucks

Too much of anything sucks.

i'd like to test that theory out with brunettes and red-heads

Prestor Jack wrote:and i dont mean to answer mustard's "gun question" for him, but i would cite the failure of england's gun ban to reign in violence as a reason for allowing private citizens to have the freedom to purchase their own firearms. i like the u.s.'s 2nd amendment because it was created to allow for immediate protection against oppression.

Contrary to what other "experts" might say. The banning of firearms really didn't affect the british crimerate so much. In fact, owning a handgun in the UK was never allowed in the same way the US had. The ban was nothing like a ban for US-citizens to turn in their handguns.

i mean, although it is illegal to have drugs or guns or child porn in the EU, does the "law" really eliminate the availability of it on the underground market (and im not justifying child porn, just giving the argument some spectrum)? would you really disbelieve an armed mugger would shoot at you simply because an honest citizen can't invest in his/her own protection?

For guns...yes. For child porn...not very.

Guns and child-porn are entirely unlike eachother because guns are a physhical thing whereas child-porn can be distributed in bits. You can't stop trucks with child-porn dvds on the border, simply because they wouldn't use such a silly thing as a border. Guns need to pass it, but porn merely needs to find a computer in the UK to prosper.

Simply put: Guns are far more easily held from entering the country than any kind of porn.

You can't stop gun-trade on online games though...

Snorri1234 wrote:Guns are far more easily held from entering the country than any kind of porn.

i understand your logic, i'm only saying that the ease of banning a physical object does not eliminate it from hitting the black market. all it does is ensure that an underground supplier, often a sinister one, will profit from bringing it into the country and dispersing it. whereas making weapons/drugs legal would make the trade impractical and not nearly as profitable for the devious seller if say, wal-mart or costco took interest in the challenge instead. then you cover two bases, more accurate regulation of quantity/quality and eliminating a source of income for detrimental elements in society.

Prestor Jack wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Guns are far more easily held from entering the country than any kind of porn.

i understand your logic, i'm only saying that the ease of banning a physical object does not eliminate it from hitting the black market. all it does is ensure that an underground supplier, often a sinister one, will profit from bringing it into the country and dispersing it. whereas making weapons/drugs legal would make the trade impractical and not nearly as profitable for the devious seller if say, wal-mart or costco took interest in the challenge instead. then you cover two bases, more accurate regulation of quantity/quality and eliminating a source of income for detrimental elements in society.

So now we've switched to drugs?


Anyway, the black market can only sell so much. I know I couldn't get any firearm using my extensive connections without getting killed. The difference between firearms and drugs is that the first is only practical for a small portion of society while the latter is in high demand from all sections of society. I know of a great many coke-sniffers and dealers who wouldn't know how to hold a gun in any way, the only reason that I do know is that I've been to the USA this summer. They're selling or using illegal drugs just for the profit/fun, and noone really cares.

But when you arm them, like in the US, you're encouraging a war for no reason.

Wait a second. I am confused. I thought this was a thread for Nobunga to share his views.



Mr. Nobunga,

Please share your views.

This Thread: Why aren't you sharing your views?

Snorri1234 wrote:Anyway, the black market can only sell so much.

the black market will sell whatever is in demand. that demand rises when there are fewer outlets, and that's where the danger stems from. like when the u.s. decided to ban alcohol in the early 20th century. good intentions, but what did it really do but provide incentives for organized crime? how many people needlessly died from causes unrelated to the health side effects of imbibing alcohol? the ends did not justify the means, and the proof is a terrible amendment (the 18th) and a later one to cancel it out (the 20th). and when that happened, the american mafia phased out their prime income in bootlegging and fell into work in the remaining illegal markets. to deny the same would happen should drugs be decriminalized is ignoring history.

Snorri1234 wrote:The difference between firearms and drugs is that the first is only practical for a small portion of society while the latter is in high demand from all sections of society. I know of a great many coke-sniffers and dealers who wouldn't know how to hold a gun in any way, the only reason that I do know is that I've been to the USA this summer. They're selling or using illegal drugs just for the profit/fun, and noone really cares.

But when you arm them, like in the US, you're encouraging a war for no reason.

there is a lot of reaching in this bit. for one, people are killed all the time for something as valuable as cocaine, and the motive isn't restricted to u.s. soil in the least. while the end-user is not as likely to want/need protection from theft of said property, to say that a dealer isn't going to protect a large investment in the stuff means you're not giving a fair look at the trade.

second, i'm not so sure you're giving your dealers a fair look, either. or really, the people above the dealers you know. crime is largely dependent on the proper mix of opportunity and desire. in the eyes of a criminal, desire is inherent in the presence of something of value like cocaine, but opportunity is ensured when the property is unprotected. if you are a connected criminal who is already content with breaking the rules, there is nothing stopping you from purchasing that protection but the funding; and you know people aren't going to stop buying coke.

third, the u.s. government cares quite a bit for both firearms and drug use. they have filled prisons with substance users to the point of monetary crisis and have unwittingly created fringe groups dedicated to stockpiling gluttonous caches of arms for fear of losing the right to bear. granted, some regulation needs to take place to ensure the government has an idea of scope, but i've already explained how mandates serve to perpetuate a problem. the u.s. rightly deals with a population of gun-owners by having the intuition to purchase the best guns in the world for their own army. the result: most americans know better than to assume a neighbor is undefended, and should the uncalled for occur, the innocent have the opportunity to protect themselves and their property. not as fair a shot in a "gun-controlled" nation.

Mr. Nobunga,

Please share your views.


McCain: How often does he let you kiss his ass, and do you put on Vaseline to do so?

Mr. Nobunaga,

Please share your views.


Moon Cheese: Yummy, right?