Syco21

Sometimes, unfortunately, reform really does only come at the barrel of a gun. The last successful armed rebellion in America was in 1946. That's right. Nineteen. Forty. Six. Look it up, it's called the Battle of Athens.

Magazine capacity doesn't change anything, neither does caliber size. The VTech massacre proved this. With a .22LR and a maximum magazine capacity of 10 rounds, the highly touted magical number that will reduce gun deaths in a mass shooting, managed to achieve the deadliest school shooting in American history. He's a prohibited person, which means he can not legally purchase weapons in the U.S., he tried and was denied. So he stole the guns. Gun control doesn't work. Apparently neither do those latest anti-depressants, which turn people into maniacs. What this country needs is healthcare reform, not gun control. It actually needs less gun control, but we'll come back to that later. As for the bit about an unarmed person not being able to kill 20 people... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%932012%29#March_2010 Deadliest school massacre in American history was perpetrated using explosives, not guns. It is fully possible to create powerful explosives with crap you can buy at whatever England has for a Wal-Mart. It is incredibly easy to create explosives, incendiaries and chemical weapons using even house hold items. Hell, you can create thermite with nails and soda cans. Damn right, if anyone thinks they're going to mosey on through my front door with intent to steal my handgun, they've got another thing comin, all they're going to leave with is some extra holes and added weight. All it took was one armed man to stop Luke Woodham from carrying on with his killing spree at a second school. The armed gentleman didn't even have to shoot Woodham, all it took was for Woodham to stare down the barrel of the gentleman's handgun. Woodham was about unstable as they come, prior to the school shooting, he brutally murdered his own mother. It's not easy to obtain a gun in America. You have to fill out paper work and pass a background check. There are exceptions, no paper work and no background check for private sales. But there are strict rules regulating those sales. If you even so much as suspect that the buyer might be a prohibited person, then you're on the hook if you sell them a gun. There's paper work but no background checks in some states at Federal Firearms Licensed dealers(FFL) if you have a state issued carry permit. But these can't be passed out either. The state has to meet all the requirements set out by the fed, the state also has to allow it, some don't and others don't meet the requirements. Back to gun control and why we should have less of it: I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Armed citizens have saved lives in numerous shootings. Armed students provided cover fire along side police officers allowing a police officer and two deputized citizens the opportunity to kill Charles Whitman. An armed educator prevented a second shooting at a Junior High by capturing Luke Woodham using his handgun. There are many, many more I can't remember right now.

Tight fitted jeans. I Can't Stand Them On Women, But When I Man Wears Them, It'sJust So Much Worse. They Are Ugly And Tacky. They're Almost As Bad As Those "Jeans" That Are Made With Some Sort Of Stretchy Material. What's Worse Is When Someone Wears Them With Boots...

I Am Very Pro Rights, As In The Right To Own Weapons. but IThink You Should Take A Few Breaths. You seem Emotional. I Mean You No Disrespect NOr Insult, I Just Don't Wanna See This Topic Get Locked.

Well I am in this situation and if you know of a way to stay current on my licenses, do please tell. You can not use a P.O. box to establish residency. You have to establish residency to register your vehicle and apply for a driver's license. I can not maintain a Texas resident CHL without permanent residence in Texas,I can not switch to a nonresident license without a permanent residence. I can not buy a gun in Louisiana with a Texas ID. Except long guns. These are just a few issues I am faced with. And this isn't just an issue for me and my friend. There are thousands like us. And yes, our being screwed by the system is evidence that the system is bad.

Here's one for you: I'm now a nomad. I can not get an ID or any license because I do not have a permanent physical address. I can't use a family member's address either, because none live in this state. I'm now caught between the cracks and through no choice of my name. Do not confuse nomad with homeless. I simply live out of hotels for work. I'm not the only person in this situation. My best friends is right here with me. There are countless others as well.

You forgot to mention the people who are claiming government assistance under multiple names, people who falsify documents to gain employment, or any number of other illegal activities to exploit the system. Just because there are problems, does not mean they are particularly common, or any more frequent than any other sort of bureaucratic cockup. But that's a problem with the agencies who run such a system, not the nature of the system or the reasons why it exists. In a bag of microwave popcorn, there will always be a handful of kernels which don't pop; does that mean that you should denounce popcorn completely, or just accept that about 0.4% of the bag will not meet your expectations and enjoy the rest? For the most part, the majority of the problems only happen at the beginning of implementation since there are very few who actually know what to do about it all, or when there is some substantial change in how this information is used (see Patriot Act). But, as the world continues to move toward an importance of credit and credentials, almost every country will need to establish some way of recording their population at the individual level. Personally I would prefer to carry a card around with me that I need to renew and take a bad picture for, than have a microchip or barcode on my body, or have to submit myself to frequent retinal scans so that I can do anything within society. 1. Your analogy fails because if a kernal or ten fail to pop, no one is harmed by it. When f*** ups happen with an ID system, people get royally screwed. 2. Your argument relies on the nation that can only choose between an ID card or some other form of identification. That is not our only options. We still have the option of rejecting these tracking systems and we damn well should.

Vagrant stated that his IDs haven't caused him any grief, he's lucky! Hundreds of thousands of other people, not so much. What kinds of problems can arise from errors in government databases? Being arrested for car theft after buying a new car.Being issued someone else's tickets.Being arrested for a suspended license that isn't suspended.Being charged for some else's toll violation.Duplicated ID numbers in the same system.Reporter monitored for public objection to traffic cams.Infants on No Fly List due to suspected terrorism. These are just a few examples, there are many, many more.

Papers please.

Revolution Season 1 Episode 8 I'm a bit conflicted about this show. In one hand, I do enjoy it. But in the other hand, the show is based on a premise that is impossible.

There can only be illegal immigration if immigration is illegal. There can only be a problem with illegal immigration if there exists illegal immigration. How dare those dirty rotten immigrants come to America with their evil work ethics and work hard! They need to be lazy little bastards so they wont compete with my lazy, good for nothing child/self! :rolleyes: If the issue is that immigrants are willing to work hard and do their jobs better than the citizens, then that's an issue with the citizenry, not immigrants. Do we not demand our service providers provid us with quality service? I don't know about you, but when I have trouble with my internet/phone/cable/whatever, I call up my provider and *censored* at them. If they are unwilling or on unable to resolve the issue(s), then I switch providers. I've done that two or three times since I moved. I did it about a billion times at my last residence. So why shouldn't my boss expect me to work hard and be on time? If I can't, why shouldn't my boss cut me loose and hire someone that will? Why is it somehow worse if it's an immigrant that takes my former position? This is not to say that I think employers should be able to run roughshod over their employees like Wal-Mart loves to do. I actually rejoiced when I heard that over thirty Wal-Mart stores had gone on strike and I hope and pray that the plans for the labor day strike come to fruition and it's far more successful than they had hoped. If the argument is that illegal immigrants allow their employers to walk all over them. Well, what choice do they have? If they want to work, they have to deal with it because no one else will hire them. If their employer abuses them, then who can they complain to? If they go to the authorities, they're just going to be deported and find themselves worse off. The solution isn't to deport these poor people, that's like throwing a rape victim in prison because they fought their attacker. No, the solution is to make them legal and educate them on employee rights. It's no different than the law congress was attempting to pass where women that were mail order brides could receive asylum if they were in an abusive relationship. The solution isn't to deport those poor women, nor should it be to deport the other immigrants.

Personally, I'm completely fine with open borders for the US. Only thing our borders should be used for is keeping foreign government out. As for immigrants working low paying jobs that no one else will work. Well, they ain't got much choice. For illegal immigrants in the US, that's the only places that'll hire them. So already that's a problem. But then you add other issues as well. For example, a person that only speaks Spanish is going to have a hard time finding a job that deals with customers/clients anywhere other than on the border. Someone that speaks only German or French or some other language is simple SoL because they can't even go to a border town to get a job. I don't think it's an issue of immigrants being willing to work for less as much as it's an issue of immigrants only being able to find jobs that pay less. If someone doesn't speak English, they can't very well work as a cashier in white America. But they can be a laborer.

I disagree. I can't vote because I had the displeasure of moving to another district shortly before registration ended and couldn't change my current registration in the previous. The net effect is that I have to drive 160 miles if I want to vote. Not possible.

I know it's not fair, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. For one, I have seen more trust worthy sites accidentally allow a bad advertisement through than I have seen them get hacked and a virus embedded into them. But even so, while viruses and the like are the number 1 reason I use adblock, they aren't the only reason. When it comes down to it, ads are just plain obnoxious. In short: Malicious ads are the reason why I enabled it to begin with, the annoyance and constant threat of a malicious ad are why I keep it enabled on all sites. They did, it's called TiVo/DVR and for older shows, there's Netflix. :tongue: In case you're wondering, DVR service can be expensive. But fortunately there are other options outside of pricey DVR services from service providers. Your computer is one great option. You will, sometimes, pay more upfront for a capture card, but after a while it'll cost less than the service. You also wont be forced to watch the videos on your computer. Personally I don't like watching videos on my computer, so I stream them to my TV through my PS3/Xbox. But there are TVs and Blu-Ray players now that can play video files too. Some can even stream from the computer. So you didn't see the Skyrim trailer and immediately think: "OMG YES!" ??? I certainly did. There are also other ads that have made me want something. For example, the glorious Bacon Bacon Cheeseburger from Jack in the Box. I see this had for this amazing, holy hamburger loaded with bacon and I think to myself what a wonderful world. :tongue: I think you missed the point, which was that advertisers aren't getting that information from your computer, but from the credit card company you applied for.

Absolutely not. Among many reasons, the primary being that advertisers have shot themselves in the foot with the terrible ads, flooding you with ads and ads containing malware. I block ads because they're the number one security threat for me. Sure there are places where the ads are mostly safe, but mostly don't cut it and even 100% guaranteed safety, I just don't care.

You can't just arbitrarily pick and choose which definitions you wish to apply and ignore the inconvenient ones. Truth of the matter is, by the very definition of the word, anyone on welfare or the like is a parasite. But that doesn't change the fact they're still people. The argument that an unborn child isn't an independent person is also bunk, because many people living on welfare or through the generosity of others is a dependent, just as much as that unborn child. Like I have stated, without my care and the care of my family, my grandmother would have died. Because she didn't have insurance nor the money to pay for hospital care. Hospitals wouldn't have taken her, they would have sent her back out to die. I can say this with 100% certainty, because that's exactly what they did. Even if there was universal healthcare, she would have still been living off the money of other people that the government has taken and appropriated for her healthcare. She was not an independent person. She was dependent on me and the rest of my family. As for the argument that it's the woman's body and she should be free to do with it as she pleases, this is also bunk. As I have stated time and time again, I support early term abortions. There is also contraceptives available that can be used by a woman before, during or after sex. If she wishes not to be pregnant, she has about 5 months to make that decision. If she refuses to decide upto that point, then that is her own damn problem. A woman, under my ideals, would not lose control over her body. All that would happen is that she would be expected to be responsible, and failing that she would be expected to live with the consequences. She has total control over her body. But there comes a time in a pregnancy when it isn't just her body. Trying to apply the parasite label to a fetus is simply trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Dutch, I believe, brought up the parasite issue. He was the first to refer to anyone as a parasite. My subsequent responses were aimed solely at pointing out how offensive it is and how it doesn't make any real logical sense. As I was doing, but it's still completely offensive. I don't think I made it very clear, so here goes: I don't think people living off of welfare are parasites or bad people, not as a whole. They are just people that are having very rough moments in their life and need some support to survive. They aren't parasites and they aren't bad people. But if we're going to start discussing the strict definition of the word, then it can be applied to them as well. @Nintii: Thanks!

Google'd, that's the attack on the embassy that killed some people, right? I didn't know where it happened or that people were referring it to the "Bengzhai incident." All I know is that someone, somewhere attacked some American embassy and killed some American people things. Also, I think some people may have been playing some cartoon or something. I hope this has adequately summed up my understanding of this incident. :biggrin:

@BlackBaron2 & GinnyFizz: Great! Take offense! I think it's offensive to refer to unborn children as parasites. I find the complete disregard for them appalling. But fact of the matter is, those groups of people do fit under the definition of parasite. My entire argument has been that just because someone can be considered a parasite, doesn't mean they should have no rights. Whether you contribute more than you take, you are still human and you still have those basic human rights. Just like an unborn child. Personally, I feel people ought to take responsibility for their actions. Now as I have stated earlier, I am fine with early term abortions. It is the late term abortions I feel should be outlawed with a very few exceptions. If you have sex, but don't use condoms, don't use the pill, don't use the morning after pill and wait 4-5 months to have an abortion, well that's your own damn fault. I can't remember if the debate about government footing the bill for female contraceptives was in this thread or another. But I'm going to address it here. Should the government buy me condoms? Should they pay for the snip? No, they shouldn't. So why the hell should they cover female contraceptives? If a woman wants to go out and have sex, let her buy her own contraceptives. Same as men. Now, I fully support things like unemployment, universal healthcare, food stamps and housing assistance etc. But I don't think the government should be paying for abortions because a woman decided she doesn't want to be pregnant. If it is medically necessary or if it was a rape, then sure. By all means, they should pay for it.

Overly publicized incident I've never heard of. Fox News ain't alone in making s*** up, or have the lot of you already forgotten how the media drug George Zimmerman through the mud, making s*** up, editing audio recordings and photos to make him look bad?

You have not explained anything, you have only found new ways of repeating your original statement. I have asked repeated now, what difference does it make whether the parasite is feeding from within or remotely. I have repeatedly explained that someone like my grandmother is 100% dependent upon the care of another person, not unlike an unborn child within the womb. The only difference being that one is physically separated and the other is not. So you state that an unborn child is fully dependent upon it's mother for sustenance, and that this is, in your opinion, a harmful relationship. So you say women ought to have the right to abort a child at any point during the pregnancy. You use the physical aspect of pregnancy(the baby living within the womb) to justify that idea. So again, why does physical separation matter when all other factors remain the same?

I'm still waiting for a logically sound reason for the difference between an unborn child and the other examples I have given. All you keep saying is that an unborn child is inside it's mother as though this were some sort of crime. Once again, whether the parasite is feeding on, in or remotely is irrelevant. The affect remains the same: feeding off it's host in order to survive.

Right, and the sick, the poor, the disabled etc etc are all depriving sustenance from their host society. So why is one parasite given rights and protections and the other isn't? They're both parasites, they both deprive sustenance from their host and one even moreso than the other(hint, it's not the fetus). Yet, you're ignoring the basic definition of parasite. Again, this is an arbitrary distinction lacking a logically sound reasoning. Whether the parasite is living inside, on or feeding remotely does not change the fact the parasite is still feeding off the host. But hey, let's use another example. When my grandmother was dying of cancer, she was a massive burden on me. I had to take off of work, which deprived me of money, which deprived me of groceries, I had to take her to the hospital, which deprived me of gas. I had pay for doctors and nurses, which was money that would have been spent on gas, groceries and bills. Would I have been justified in killing her without her consent? She was not an independent person. She was a DEPENDENT, reliant on me and my family for survival. There was no significant difference between her situation and that of an unborn child.

It's already been explained to you. Actually you're not. You're adding a caveat. The most strictest sense of the word would be an entity that feeds off of another living entity in order to survive. This is what all three definitions share, it is the origin of the word. Again, I am NOT talking about euthanasia. You're just wasting time typing about it. So basically, you're assigning unborn children the label of parasite without any justification, no logical reasoning based on science to back up your opinion. Essentially it's "unborn children are parasites because I say so, but other parasites are not parasites because I say so" So I go back to the very beginning. What magic takes place at birth that makes an unborn child suddenly a living, breathing human? The fact that a child inside the womb is living within another person is irrelevant. The poor, people that require life support for any duration and others all benefit by depriving other people of sustenance. Be it money, food, organs etc. When a person gets a heart transplant, they are preventing another person that also needs that heart from receiving it. Prisoners, the sick, the mentally ill and welfare recipients are provided housing, food, healthcare and clothing by depriving other people of money. Some of these people are provided for at the detriment of others. Take for example Social Security in the US. SS takes out a large portion of my income, money that I can't afford to lose. Social Security benefactors are benefiting to my detriment. So again, what magic differentiates the unborn from the other parasites of society?

I'm not talking about euthanasia. K? 2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others. 3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc. The other definitions you have neglected. The poor, the sick and prisoners are also parasites by definition. So again, why not make it legal to kill them when it's most convenient?