Unconstitutional law struck down after 32 years

[Kaldaur]

Yes, because when a gunman opens fire on a classroom and twenty people pull out their guns to return fire, they all know exactly who started the fight. There of course wouldn't be any shots fired at anyone but the gunman who started the violence. I'll point out to you that these gunmen won't have towels wrapped around their heads, so they won't be like the cutouts you use in the backyard.
I do hear that calling someone a retard instantly gives your stance more credence. Way to go! How's this instead? You're an idiot. I'll say again, when these kids are home, they are in a different sector of their lives and act a different way. When they are on campus or in social scenarios with peers and alcohol is involved, I don't want some jackass carrying a gun. What they do in their neighborhoods sober is one thing, and what they do at a party at 2am tanked off their ass is something else entirely.

[Spang]

Guns are stupid.

[Bagar-]

It is a shame you are so incredibly stupid. First of all, the teenagers CANNOT get concealed carry permits as you cannot buy or own a handgun unless you are 21. Second, most people who DO have concealed carry permits shoot more and are more proficient than your average police officer. Those same students you idiots think may be on some killing spree because they are concealed carrying ALREADY have their fucking permit, they are just not allowed to carry on the campus....so I guess they are just repressing that killing urge in school. None of you anti-gun retards can come up with any wild west scenarios that actually happened even after years of concealed carry being around.

Do you even read Kilmoll? I am not anti-gun. Just Anti-HANDGUN for anyone not a peacekeeper/soldier. Handguns, again, are by and far the weapon of choice for criminals in most scenarios. Compact, easy to use (in fact, ridiculously easy), concealable and deadly. I am not saying that Americans should ever give up their right to bare arms. It is too essencial as a security policy for us, and sadly, guns, for all thier ease of use and my own personal disdain for them, are in fact the weapon of the age. It is important people have them. However, a shotgun, a rifle, all deadly, but chances are you will be unable to get a larger firearm into a train station, or a community center, etc, without someone noticing. A lot easier to do so with a handgun.

As for teenagers with handguns, fuck that noise. Twenty one as a minimum requirement for a concealed weapon is fine, but realistically we should not have people need to carry concealed weapons whom are not with law enforcement, or the military. At all. Twenty one, fifty one, one hundred and one, it does not matter, I just think handguns are too dangerous to be trusted to the public. Besides, how many illegal handguns were legally purchased then stolen? Or "stolen"?

Consequently, you calling me incredibly stupid for having a differing opinion is not exactly opening up a receptive point to debate logically from. I dunno who you normally deal with here that allows you to believe that your offensive opening followed by witty banter which has nothing to do with my point leads you to believe you are countering anything, especially in my perspective, but I would try the carrot more and stick less.

I just wanted to quote this, because it pretty much exemplifies my own beliefs, and shouldn't be skimmed over.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Handgun violence is on the rise? Really? By legal gun owners? I'd love to see some statistics on this drastic rise in handgun violence by legal gun owners.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Going to break this down point by point.

Do you even read Kilmoll? I am not anti-gun. Just Anti-HANDGUN for anyone not a peacekeeper/soldier. Handguns, again, are by and far the weapon of choice for criminals in most scenarios. Compact, easy to use (in fact, ridiculously easy),

Ridiculously easy? Not exactly. I would put money down that most of you could not hit 3 out of 10 shots into a center mass at 10 yards. In fact, I would put cash on it right now if any of you would like to take me up on it.

concealable and deadly. I am not saying that Americans should ever give up their right to bare arms.

that would be BEAR arms unless you are for everyone tanning their arms

It is too essencial as a security policy for us, and sadly, guns, for all thier ease of use and my own personal disdain for them, are in fact the weapon of the age. It is important people have them. However, a shotgun, a rifle, all deadly, but chances are you will be unable to get a larger firearm into a train station, or a community center, etc, without someone noticing. A lot easier to do so with a handgun.

Are you being serious or just a tool here? Every kid on a campus carries a backpack. I could get a shotgun or assault rifle anywhere I wanted without being conspicuous just because of the proliferation of packs and bags people carry around today. The VT attacker carried everything in a backpack. Columbine they carried long guns in gym bags.

As for teenagers with handguns, fuck that noise. Twenty one as a minimum requirement for a concealed weapon is fine, but realistically we should not have people need to carry concealed weapons whom are not with law enforcement, or the military. At all. Twenty one, fifty one, one hundred and one, it does not matter, I just think handguns are too dangerous to be trusted to the public. Besides, how many illegal handguns were legally purchased then stolen? Or "stolen"?

And this is all fine and good in a rosy ass utopia. You fail to miss the entire point of that NOT being the case. Your ideal situation would be making handguns illegal, but....this is the important part so please pay attention for the 1 billionth posting of this.....CRIMINALS DO NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR GAY ASS LAW.

Consequently, you calling me incredibly stupid for having a differing opinion is not exactly opening up a receptive point to debate logically from. I dunno who you normally deal with here that allows you to believe that your offensive opening followed by witty banter which has nothing to do with my point leads you to believe you are countering anything, especially in my perspective, but I would try the carrot more and stick less.

I find anyone incredibly stupid for ignoring reality...and that reality is that this is NOT utopian society and people are out there that are predators. They do not give a shit about your life and will take it just for kicks. If you idiots had your way, you would disarm every law abiding responsible person in the US and allow those predators free reign. The police are NOT there to protect you any longer. They are there to take statements after the fact and hope to find the people later that commit the crime. I take great offense to anyone telling me I should be an unarmed potential victim and yes I will call you a moronic sheep even to your face if you tell me different.

Yes, because when a gunman opens fire on a classroom and twenty people pull out their guns to return fire, they all know exactly who started the fight. There of course wouldn't be any shots fired at anyone but the gunman who started the violence. I'll point out to you that these gunmen won't have towels wrapped around their heads, so they won't be like the cutouts you use in the backyard.
I do hear that calling someone a retard instantly gives your stance more credence. Way to go! How's this instead? You're an idiot. I'll say again, when these kids are home, they are in a different sector of their lives and act a different way. When they are on campus or in social scenarios with peers and alcohol is involved, I don't want some jackass carrying a gun. What they do in their neighborhoods sober is one thing, and what they do at a party at 2am tanked off their ass is something else entirely.

This is just an absurdity. Just because you are not responsible you are painting everyone with the same brush. The concealed carry affects non-tradtiional students as well....or do you think everyone on a college campus is a 19 year old binge drinking pot smoking date rapist? You do realize there are profesors there? Maintenance staff? 25-35 yeard old students? Grad students? Visitors? The problem you people have is that you do not have the ability to distinguish law abiding citizens from criminals purely based on the fact that they own a handgun. You all call Midnyte some pretty bad shit for his retarded views, yet you are some of the absolute tunnel visioned people I have ever seen.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Some interesting stats.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.

Stats that are a little older

In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000
violent crimes. Handgun crimes accounted for about 13% of all
violent crimes.

Offenders shot at victims in 17% of handgun crimes, 1987-92
Shot at victim 16.6%
Hit victim 3.0

On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of
the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent
crime

[Sylvus]

I think the point that is being obfuscated (for lack of a better word) is where these so-called "illegal sources" get their handguns. I think I've pointed out the statistics in another thread, but I'm pretty sure most of those "illegal sources" buy them legally. Often times they buy a number of guns at one time, or go out of a county where they are difficult to find and and buy them somewhere less difficult, etc. That's why most of us here (i'm assuming) are pro-gun control. If someone couldn't go buy 30 guns at one time and drive them to downtown New Chitroit, D.C., there would be less proliferation of illegal guns on the street. I know that you say that making guns illegal will put them only in the hands of outlaws, but they have to come from somewhere. Please don't focus on this point in your reply, instead move on to the following question.

Kilmoll, I'm addressing this question specifically to you, since you are certainly the most outspoken pro-handgun person here: are you for or against limitations including background checks, wait periods, and limitations on how many guns a person can buy in a certain amount of time (let's say 1 per month, for a start)? If you're for them, then we really aren't on that different a page. I really have no problem with you having a CCW, as I'm assuming that you are a responsible gun owner. If you're against them, why? In what situation would it be bad for them to run background checks on you or make you wait for a few days before you buy a handgun?

That's all I'm really looking for. I understand that we can't get rid of all guns. I just want to make it as prohibitively difficult as possible for someone on the street to get a gun. And finally, I'd probably take you up on your 3 out of 10 challenge, and I think you'd owe me some money.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Kilmoll, I'm addressing this question specifically to you, since you are certainly the most outspoken pro-handgun person here: are you for or against limitations including background checks, wait periods, and limitations on how many guns a person can buy in a certain amount of time (let's say 1 per month, for a start)?

I am all for background checks. I personally think they should go a tad further than what they do and have flags for people that have had certain pyschiatric issues they have been treated for in the past....at least for handgun sales. The whole sealing of records and such is complete bullshit in the current state. Juvenile records should also be taken into account. Hell, if it was solely up to me, you would have to take a drug test as well.

Waiting periods I am pretty much against for a couple reasons. 1) They have shown absolutely zero results. 2) They have instant background checks whereas in the past it took several days to get done 3) I can go and buy explosive ordnances and other much more dangerous items without a background check. Basically they really are just pointless now except to hassle people that want to make a purchase. So I want to buy a gun, I drive 15-20 miles to go buy it, then wait 7 days to drive 15-20 miles again when the background check was done in 15 minutes. Does that truly make sense to you?

Limits on buying is kind of mixed for me. The problem is there are a lot of private collectors out there and people that do competitive shooting that this would destroy. Obviously it would be nice to eliminate illegal purchases but there is no easy way to do it. These strawman sales could only be gotten rid of if you tried to prosecutethe middle man in those deals which would be super sticky. What I would not be totally against (personally) would be to require a notarized receipt of private sales and require private sellers to keep the sales record so serials can be tracked through owners. I would also tack on a bonus 5 year prison term for anyone who is found guilty of firearm theft.

In all reality, MOST gun owners are all for common sense regulations, but they cannot publicly state anything like that or allow it to happen because the gun grabbers would be foaming at the mouth to continue until they took everything.

That's all I'm really looking for. I understand that we can't get rid of all guns. I just want to make it as prohibitively difficult as possible for someone on the street to get a gun. And finally, I'd probably take you up on your 3 out of 10 challenge, and I think you'd owe me some money.

Awesome.....but if you think it would be a stress free, resting on a bench shoot, you would be wrong!

[Canelek]

I'll also agree with Noysy on the silly CA laws regarding firearms. Pistol grips and folding stocks, oi vey.... much of that was fallout from the Brady Act, if I remember correctly. I will disagree a bit on the range of the .223, but tbh, I have not fired a AR-15 for some time, so will not talk out my ass on projected range. I do know that even though it is pretty much a M16-1A, it can not be easily converted to select fire, if at all.

As to the "why" in why would someone own one.... it is simple--target shooting is a fucking hoot.

And I am all for raising national minimum for driving age. Of course, DMV is a crooked organization, so they would lose money by doing this.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

The AR-15 platform has become a pretty common varmint type rifle. The .223 is the perfect size for people in rural areas like Oregon to hunt groundhogs and coyotes. With it sharing the specs with a military weapon, surplus ammo makes them much cheaper to target shoot as well. AR-15 has an effective range of about 600 yards. Many of the bolt action rifle rounds have an effective range of 1200.

[Canelek]

Well, you are correct there. This state is quite rural, if you discount the blue electoral spots. Varminting is pretty popular in the high desert area. I could see using the AR, but if I was a fan, I would go with a faster, better ranged caliber.

However, I think that the sport is a waste...

If I was still a hunter, I think I would be more inline with 7mm magnum for the Roosevelt elk. Or .270 if I wanted to go after blacktail as well.

Right again on the .223. Surplus ammo is dirt cheap, and can be bought in bulk online even. Think it is a GA Arms, but it has been a while.

[Noysyrump]

As to the "why" in why would someone own one.... it is simple--target shooting is a fucking hoot.

Amen to that brother!

[Sylvus]

Though 'it's "a fucking hoot"' isn't a very good argument for why something should be a Constitutionally protected right.

[Canelek]

I don't have my copy of the constitution in front of me. I was paraphrasing.

From memory....

"We the People, striving our very best to bring you quality, fresh ingredients-- 100% of the time. Hooray! It is a fuckin' hoot!"

Think that is how it goes.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Though 'it's "a fucking hoot"' isn't a very good argument for why something should be a Constitutionally protected right.

Maybe for the same reason they appealed Prohibition. How pissed would you be if they went after your beer?


Edited to add the following:

Fact: In 2005 there were 12,352 homicides by firearms. In 2005 there were 16,885 alcohol-related fatalities.

[Sylvus]

Though 'it's "a fucking hoot"' isn't a very good argument for why something should be a Constitutionally protected right.

Maybe for the same reason they appealed Prohibition. How pissed would you be if they went after your beer?

I can tell you I'd start exercising my 2nd Amendment rights soon after that. Would you join my militia?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I think the point that is being obfuscated (for lack of a better word) is where these so-called "illegal sources" get their handguns. I think I've pointed out the statistics in another thread, but I'm pretty sure most of those "illegal sources" buy them legally. Often times they buy a number of guns at one time, or go out of a county where they are difficult to find and and buy them somewhere less difficult, etc. That's why most of us here (i'm assuming) are pro-gun control. If someone couldn't go buy 30 guns at one time and drive them to downtown New Chitroit, D.C., there would be less proliferation of illegal guns on the street. I know that you say that making guns illegal will put them only in the hands of outlaws, but they have to come from somewhere. Please don't focus on this point in your reply, instead move on to the following question.

Read up on prohibition. The criminals WILL have guns. Your dream scenario where all sources of guns will be shut down is as delusional as the war on drugs.

Kilmoll, I'm addressing this question specifically to you, since you are certainly the most outspoken pro-handgun person here: are you for or against limitations including background checks, wait periods, and limitations on how many guns a person can buy in a certain amount of time (let's say 1 per month, for a start)? If you're for them, then we really aren't on that different a page. I really have no problem with you having a CCW, as I'm assuming that you are a responsible gun owner. If you're against them, why? In what situation would it be bad for them to run background checks on you or make you wait for a few days before you buy a handgun?

That's all I'm really looking for. I understand that we can't get rid of all guns. I just want to make it as prohibitively difficult as possible for someone on the street to get a gun. And finally, I'd probably take you up on your 3 out of 10 challenge, and I think you'd owe me some money.

I'm for a good 7 day wait period and tons of background checks. Hell, make it 14 days.

[Bagar-]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hCxc ... gD91KMM180

ATLANTA (AP) — The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year — gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.

Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court on Thursday struck down a handgun ban enacted in the District of Columbia in 1976 and rejected requirements that firearms have trigger locks or be kept disassembled. The ruling left intact the district's licensing restrictions for gun owners.

One public-health study found that suicide and homicide rates in the district dropped after the ban was adopted. The district has allowed shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks.

The American Public Health Association, the American Association of Suicidology and two other groups filed a legal brief supporting the district's ban. The brief challenged arguments that if a gun is not available, suicidal people will just kill themselves using other means.

More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies.

"Other methods are not as lethal," said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.

The high court's majority opinion made no mention of suicide. But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer used the word 14 times in voicing concern about the impact of striking down the handgun ban.

"If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence," Breyer wrote.

Researchers in other fields have raised questions about the public-health findings on guns.

Gary Kleck, a researcher at Florida State University's College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, estimates there are more than 1 million incidents each year in which firearms are used to prevent an actual or threatened criminal attack.

Public-health experts have said the telephone survey methodology Kleck used likely resulted in an overestimate.

Both sides agree there has been a significant decline in the last decade in public-health research into gun violence.

The CDC traditionally was a primary funder of research on guns and gun-related injuries, allocating more than $2.1 million a year to such projects in the mid-1990s.

But the agency cut back research on the subject after Congress in 1996 ordered that none of the CDC's appropriations be used to promote gun control.

Vernick said the Supreme Court decision underscores the need for further study into what will happen to suicide and homicide rates in the district when the handgun ban is lifted.

Today, the CDC budgets less than $900,000 for firearm-related projects, and most of it is spent to track statistics. The agency no longer funds gun-related policy analysis.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Is that a pro-gun article? Seems so to me.

[Zaelath]

Is that a pro-gun article? Seems so to me.

It's possible it's a neutral article... I know, shocking.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Is that a pro-gun article? Seems so to me.

It's possible it's a neutral article... I know, shocking.

Coming from Bagar it would be. I'm not sure the article says anything either way. Very nuetral indeed. Good call Zae.

[Fash]

What's wrong with suicide?

What do you expect people to do, hang themselves?

[Boogahz]

[urlhttp://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/1492580811.html?dids=1492580811:1492580811&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jun+10%2C+2008&author=TOM+ZUCCO&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&edition=&startpage=B.4&desc=DEADLY+DATA+ON+TEEN+DRIVERS]DEADLY DATA ON TEEN DRIVERS[/url]

Among the other national statistics compiled by Allstate:

-Car crashes are the top killer of teenagers in America, resulting in nearly 6,000 deaths and 300,000 injuries each year.

-Despite safer cars, better roads and decades of safe-driving programs, the rate of teen driving fatalities has not changed significantly in more than a decade.

-In 2006, 62 percent of teen passenger deaths occurred in vehicles driven by another teenager.

-Adding just one passenger to a teen driver's car doubles the risk of a crash, and that risk increases proportionally with the number of teenage passengers.

Ban all teen drivers!

[Bagar-]

Is that a pro-gun article? Seems so to me.

It's possible it's a neutral article... I know, shocking.

Coming from Bagar it would be. I'm not sure the article says anything either way. Very nuetral indeed. Good call Zae.

That means a lot, fuckstick.

Anyhow, it wasn't nessecarily meant to be pro or anti gun, because although your presumptious assanine attitude implies that you think i'm anti-gun, i'm actually not. Thanks for playing, now try again.

I simply found it to be an interesting read.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Is that a pro-gun article? Seems so to me.

It's possible it's a neutral article... I know, shocking.

Coming from Bagar it would be. I'm not sure the article says anything either way. Very nuetral indeed. Good call Zae.

That means a lot, fuckstick.

Anyhow, it wasn't nessecarily meant to be pro or anti gun, because although your presumptious assanine attitude implies that you think i'm anti-gun, i'm actually not. Thanks for playing, now try again.

I simply found it to be an interesting read.

Calm down anger-boy. I acknowledged that in my reply to Zae, that you even quoted.

[Noysyrump]

Is that a pro-gun article? Seems so to me.

It's possible it's a neutral article... I know, shocking.

Coming from Bagar it would be. I'm not sure the article says anything either way. Very nuetral indeed. Good call Zae.

That means a lot, fuckstick.

Anyhow, it wasn't nessecarily meant to be pro or anti gun, because although your presumptious assanine attitude implies that you think i'm anti-gun, i'm actually not. Thanks for playing, now try again.

I simply found it to be an interesting read.

Calm down anger-boy. I acknowledged that in my reply to Zae, that you even quoted.

anger boy? I still see a huge flabby titied ogre...

[Nick]

Oh aye, just in case anyone's missed this important point: Guns, and the people who own them, are fucking retarded.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

And this just proves why you are the absolute dumbest waste of sperm on the planet. The liberals wants you to shut up because you make them look bad.....and the rest of us just want you to die before you infect anyone else with what is such a rabid case of stupidity that it has to be contagious.

Do you ever realize the history of the people on the planet? Do you even have one shred of a clue who you include in that retarded ass blanket statement? You have finally done it and forced me to actually put someone on ignore. Gratz.

[Toshira]

Well.....they DID find a way to reduce violent crime by allowing law abiding citizens to conceal carry, but your hero Obama thinks that is bad so he has vowed to eliminate it on a national level. Go go libs! The only true way to reduce crime in this country will not happen because of bleeding hearts who don't have the stomach to eliminate people from our society permanently.

I'm a bleeding heart liberal with the stomach.

So, when are you gettin the boat?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Well.....they DID find a way to reduce violent crime by allowing law abiding citizens to conceal carry, but your hero Obama thinks that is bad so he has vowed to eliminate it on a national level. Go go libs! The only true way to reduce crime in this country will not happen because of bleeding hearts who don't have the stomach to eliminate people from our society permanently.

I'm a bleeding heart liberal with the stomach.

So, when are you gettin the boat?

Don't you worry about us Tosh. Spend your time getting other bleeding heart libs to get in your boat.

[Spang]

What was the last thing George Washington said before crossing the Delaware?












Alright, get in the boat!

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Shouldn't you hate George? He was a gun owner you know.

[Aslanna]

I'm also pretty sure he was a member of a well regulated militia!

[Ashur]

Technically while he was indeed a member (leader) of a militia, neither the Bill of Rights which contains the amendment under discussion, or the Constitution itself had been authored at the time (and wouldn't be for many years).

[Spang]

Shouldn't you hate George? He was a gun owner you know.

I'm not a big fan of guns. My opinion of gun owners would vary from person to person.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

I'm also pretty sure he was a member of a well regulated militia!

There was no militia at all until the gun owning colonists formed one to overthrow a corrupt government. The one good thing about the US is that the liberals are anti-gun and would have trouble overthrowing anything unless it was with lawyers and whining. Even then it would take an act of (name omitted due to atheistic views of the Semi-united Liberal Front) to get them to actually not cockblock each other in recognizing a leader of the group.

[Aslanna]

Actually they existed before that to protect from frontier attacks!

In September 1755, George Washington, then adjutant-general of the Virginia militia, upon a frustrating and futile attempt to call up the militia to respond to a frontier Indian attack:

"...he experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troups, perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper support. And what added to his mortification was, that the laws gave him no power to correct these evils, either by enforcing discipline, or compelling the indolent and refractory to their duty" ... "The militia system was suited for only to times of peace. It provided for calling out men to repel invasion; but the powers granted for effecting it were so limited, as to be almost inoperative."

[miir]

Hel Kilmoll, in the real world not everything is black and white (or liberal/conservative).
I'm sure every sinbgle one of the people you label as liberals (in a derogatory manner) have conservative views on a lot of issues.

I'm willing to bet that you have liberal views on many issues.



I personally don't follow any set of rules (liberal/conservative/etc) regarding my beliefs or opinions on any issues. I'm mature enough to think for myself.

[Canelek]

You may be right. I am fairly liberal yet do indeed have somoe conservative views. Also, Kilmoll continues to request pictures of me wearing assless leather chaps. Should such photos exist, I am not sure if I want to share them. However, he is rather liberal with the requests.

Miir, I concur with your argument.

[Funkmasterr]

Hel Kilmoll, in the real world not everything is black and white (or liberal/conservative).
I'm sure every sinbgle one of the people you label as liberals (in a derogatory manner) have conservative views on a lot of issues.

I'm willing to bet that you have liberal views on many issues.



I personally don't follow any set of rules (liberal/conservative/etc) regarding my beliefs or opinions on any issues. I'm mature enough to think for myself.

And I think you are wrong in your assumptions. I think many people (even a lot here on vv) do just follow a party because their parents did/do or because P Diddy told them to rock the vote. I also give humanity as a whole almost no credit or benefit of the doubt..

[miir]

I think many people (even a lot here on vv) do just follow a party because their parents did/do or because P Diddy told them to rock the vote

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Funkmasterr]

I think many people (even a lot here on vv) do just follow a party because their parents did/do or because P Diddy told them to rock the vote

What the fuck are you talking about?

You said that you are smart enough to not just be a liberal and believe everything liberals believe. I am stating I think many (or most) people are just the opposite, and for stupid reasons. Not sure why I must always repeat myself for you guys, I think I was pretty clear.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Hel Kilmoll, in the real world not everything is black and white (or liberal/conservative).
I'm sure every sinbgle one of the people you label as liberals (in a derogatory manner) have conservative views on a lot of issues.

I'm willing to bet that you have liberal views on many issues.



I personally don't follow any set of rules (liberal/conservative/etc) regarding my beliefs or opinions on any issues. I'm mature enough to think for myself.

Ziame has promised me bikini pics of Sylvos' HOT sisters if I can wrangle a pic of you in assless chaps. I find I can live with seeing your leather clad furry mancheeks for that!

[miir]

I think many people (even a lot here on vv) do just follow a party because their parents did/do or because P Diddy told them to rock the vote

What the fuck are you talking about?

*****

Why the fuck can I still not ignore you and your worthless posts?

[Canelek]

Hel Kilmoll, in the real world not everything is black and white (or liberal/conservative).
I'm sure every sinbgle one of the people you label as liberals (in a derogatory manner) have conservative views on a lot of issues.

I'm willing to bet that you have liberal views on many issues.



I personally don't follow any set of rules (liberal/conservative/etc) regarding my beliefs or opinions on any issues. I'm mature enough to think for myself.

Ziame has promised me bikini pics of Sylvos' HOT sisters if I can wrangle a pic of you in assless chaps. I find I can live with seeing your leather clad furry mancheeks for that!

Double points if there is a caribou, canoe or ski-doo in the picture! =D

[Bagar-]

anger boy? I still see a huge flabby titied ogre...

So then you're aware I played a human paladin, right?

I assume you were refering to everquest ,at any rate.

I do remember there being an ogre warrior with a distinctively similar name to mine, though.

[Canelek]

Think that was Baguet or somesuch.

[Funkmasterr]

anger boy? I still see a huge flabby titied ogre...

So then you're aware I played a human paladin, right?

I assume you were refering to everquest ,at any rate.

I do remember there being an ogre warrior with a distinctively similar name to mine, though.

There was an ogre with a very similar name.. and he/she wasn't a vicious, retarded prick like yourself so I know it had to be someone else.. I'm trying to remember the name but it's evading me. I think canelek is off too.. this is gonna bug me.

[Xatrei]

I remember seeing a Baguette around. Wasn't it a female ogre shaman or something like that?

[Demags]

Pretty sure it was baget, female ogre mangina I believe. Was the first ogre I ever saw in eq, hanging out in blackburrow.