# Guys, I'm going to meet the president



## Ubuntuの刀 (Mar 7, 2014)

He's coming to our school, Coral Reef Senior High in Miami, FL and I'd thought I let you all know.
Here's picture proof that I attend CRHS -snip- unneeded

My eyes are a little glossy from my allergies. I may do an IAmA on Reddit or just post video with more pictures instead.


----------



## mameks (Mar 7, 2014)

I like the fish


----------



## assassinz (Mar 7, 2014)

If you get to ask him a question, ask him why he thinks gun control is a good idea if the bad guys are going to have guns regardless of any laws or regulations. Why does he want Americans defenseless against criminals? It doesnt make sense.


----------



## Veho (Mar 7, 2014)

assassinz said:


> If you get to ask him a question, ask him why he thinks gun control is a good idea if the bad guys are going to have guns regardless of any laws or regulations. Why does he want Americans defenseless against criminals? It doesnt make sense.


Does "gun control" mean "absolute ban on guns"?


----------



## Gahars (Mar 7, 2014)

Will you be able to thank him for all the cruelties he's inflicted upon our nation's children?


----------



## Satangel (Mar 7, 2014)

Good luck!
Don't get trampled


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2014)

Right. Whatever you do, don't forget to tell him that _"it's all his fault"_ - he'll know what you're talking about. Thanks in advance!


----------



## osirisjem (Mar 7, 2014)

Tell him about the plight of GBATempers and the lack of a good solution for playing 3DS backups.
Gamers are Voters too !


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2014)

Veho said:


> Does "gun control" mean "absolute ban on guns"?


It's a mentality problem, Veho. Some Americans have a deeply ingrained belief that they have the constitutional right to live in the 19th century and open carry assault rifles for no reason other than _"because they can"_.


osirisjem said:


> Tell him about the plight of GBATempers and the lack of a good solution for playing 3DS backups.
> Gamers are Voters too !


Nintendo already provides you with a _"good solution"_ to backup your 3DS software - buy games on the eShop and backup the files from your SD card or make a complete SD card image and store it for safekeeping.  As for backing up cartridges, this has always been a problem.


----------



## Ubuntuの刀 (Mar 7, 2014)

So I'm going to our gym in about 2 hours(11:45am EST). I wonder what he's going to talk about.


----------



## mameks (Mar 7, 2014)

Ubuntuの刀 said:


> So I'm going to our gym in about 2 hours(11:45am EST). I wonder what he's going to talk about.


 
I almost guarantee that he's going to reveal his true identity as a fishman


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2014)

shlong said:


> I almost guarantee that he's going to reveal his true identity as a fishman lizardman.


FTFY, that's not funny shlong, get your conspiracy theories right! This is serious business!


----------



## Kouen Hasuki (Mar 7, 2014)

assassinz said:


> If you get to ask him a question, ask him why he thinks gun control is a good idea if the bad guys are going to have guns regardless of any laws or regulations. Why does he want Americans defenseless against criminals? It doesnt make sense.


 

Oh Boy...

anyways 

Can you ask him "Is it legal to eat a banana while fully clothed?"


----------



## Ubuntuの刀 (Mar 7, 2014)

I'm really hungry right now... Why didn't I take food -_-


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2014)

Ubuntuの刀 said:


> I'm really hungry right now... Why didn't I take food -_-


Thanks, Obama!


----------



## yusuo (Mar 7, 2014)

Ask him if all black people have huge penises or if you're an anomaly


----------



## shango46 (Mar 7, 2014)

Ask him about the HUVr board and what his take is on people making such a viral hoax.


----------



## grossaffe (Mar 7, 2014)

Obama's been quite inconvenient for me, politics aside.  My friend had to miss a Halloween party because Obama decided to make a last-minute trip to some country (friend was Secret Service).  He's gone to my University a few times.  One of those times he had the police completely block-off the road I take to get to school and I wound up stuck at the light to get onto the road for 30 minutes.  Guess who missed class that day.  Then more recently I was stuck waiting for a tow truck.  After two hours, it finally arrived, but when we tried to get out of the city, the police had blocked off all the roads we tried to take to get out so that Obama's motorcade could have the roads to themselves.

Thanks, Obama.


----------



## Nah3DS (Mar 7, 2014)

boy, If people had the chance to meet my fucking president...


----------



## Ubuntuの刀 (Mar 7, 2014)

Yo they just delivered food to my classroom.


----------



## Depravo (Mar 7, 2014)

Ubuntuの刀 said:


> Yo they just delivered food to my classroom.


 
You can't meet the president while hungry? Is that in case you're tempted to eat him or something?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2014)

Ubuntuの刀 said:


> I'm really hungry right now... Why didn't I take food -_-


Followed by...


Ubuntuの刀 said:


> Yo they just delivered food to my classroom.


There are only two possible explainations:

Obama reads GBATemp _(or minds)_, you were hungry and he fed you!
CORRUPTION WHEREVER YOU TURN! THIS IS A FILTHY BRIBE! DOWN WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT!


----------



## Ubuntuの刀 (Mar 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> There are only two possible explainations:
> 
> Obama reads GBATemp _(or minds)_, you were hungry and he fed you!
> CORRUPTION WHEREVER YOU TURN! THIS IS A FILTHY BRIBE! DOWN WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT!



Nah they told us they'd deliver food. I just wasn't sure if they were gonna deliver before I died.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2014)

Ubuntuの刀 said:


> Nah they told us they'd deliver food. I just wasn't sure if they were gonna deliver before I died.


Disgusting! Filthy and disgusting! Feeding privileged students instead of the needy! Despicable! You're eating fresh and delicious apples when Jimbo's starving by the dumpster just a couple blocks away, feeding on apple cores! 

Thanks, Obama!


----------



## Ubuntuの刀 (Mar 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Disgusting! Filthy and disgusting! Feeding privileged students instead of the needy! Despicable! You're eating fresh and delicious apples when Jimbo's starving by the dumpster just a couple blocks away, feeding on apple cores!
> 
> Thanks, Obama!









>mfw


----------



## grossaffe (Mar 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Disgusting! Filthy and disgusting! Feeding privileged students instead of the needy! Despicable! You're eating fresh and delicious apples when Jimbo's starving by the dumpster just a couple blocks away, feeding on apple cores!
> 
> Thanks, Obama!


Jimbo should get a job.  Damned hippy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> Jimbo should get a job. Damned hippy.


JIMBO WAS FIGHTING FOR YOUR FREEDOM IN 'NAM, BUT HE WAS BETRAYED BY THE SOCIETY UPON HIS RETURN! HE IS A WAR HERO WITHOUT A ROOF OVER HIS HEAD! 

Okay, I'll stop now.  Seriously though, have fun at the meeting!


----------



## Ubuntuの刀 (Mar 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> JIMBO WAS FIGHTING FOR YOUR FREEDOM IN 'NAM, BUT HE WAS BETRAYED BY THE SOCIETY UPON HIS RETURN! HE IS A WAR HERO WITHOUT A ROOF OVER HIS HEAD!
> 
> Okay, I'll stop now.  Seriously though, have fun at the meeting!


Heh I will 
I'll give you all pictures of the president and me with him if I can.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Mar 7, 2014)

Make sure you do something really stupid in front of Obama, and then scream "THANKS OBAMA" while crying and wiping your tears with an American flag and wiping your ass with a bald eagle


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Mar 7, 2014)

Veho said:


> Does "gun control" mean "absolute ban on guns"?



i agree..


----------



## Gahars (Mar 7, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> Obama's been quite inconvenient for me, politics aside. My friend had to miss a Halloween party because Obama decided to make a last-minute trip to some country (friend was Secret Service). He's gone to my University a few times. One of those times he had the police completely block-off the road I take to get to school and I wound up stuck at the light to get onto the road for 30 minutes. Guess who missed class that day. Then more recently I was stuck waiting for a tow truck. After two hours, it finally arrived, but when we tried to get out of the city, the police had blocked off all the roads we tried to take to get out so that Obama's motorcade could have the roads to themselves.
> 
> Thanks, Obama.


 

An apt visual metaphor for the burdens he has forced you to endure.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Mar 7, 2014)

Ubuntuの刀 said:


> Yo they just delivered food to my classroom.


 

I'd get out of there if I were you. Remember that Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episode where the teachers fattened up the kids and cooked them?


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 7, 2014)

assassinz said:


> If you get to ask him a question, ask him why he thinks gun control is a good idea if the bad guys are going to have guns regardless of any laws or regulations. Why does he want Americans defenseless against criminals? It doesnt make sense.


 
You know because it's not working so well in the UK, Australia, Japan, ect ect. He never suggested banning them, just trying to regulate them.
Now can we talk about the fact that our President is actually a lizard man? 

On topic: Either way congrats man!


----------



## VashTS (Mar 7, 2014)

tell him I said Hello


----------



## Ubuntuの刀 (Mar 7, 2014)

Yo check it. Official pass.


----------



## Ubuntuの刀 (Mar 7, 2014)

More pictures coming soon(signal is bad in here can't upload photos just yet)


----------



## Veho (Mar 7, 2014)

Did they tase you, bro?


----------



## Vengenceonu (Mar 7, 2014)

Ask him to put sanctions on Gateway, Ubisoft and Wii U as compensation for the pain and suffering people claim to have due to their delays.


----------



## Ubuntuの刀 (Mar 7, 2014)

Ok so my phone died... BUT THE GOOD NEWS IS MY GIRLFRIEND GOT PICS OF HIM(low quality. she doesnt have the superior iPhone)


----------



## Ubuntuの刀 (Mar 7, 2014)

Spoiler: OBAMA


----------



## GameWinner (Mar 7, 2014)

I remember when Obama came to my city. I was at work that day though.


----------



## Joe88 (Mar 7, 2014)

it seems all he did was talk about financial aid and left


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2014)

Ubuntuの刀 said:


> Ok so my phone died... BUT THE GOOD NEWS IS MY GIRLFRIEND GOT PICS OF HIM(low quality. she doesnt have the superior iPhone)


*>Implying the iPhone is good photo equipment in any shape or form*

Why yes sir, I do like photos taken with potatoes.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Mar 7, 2014)

My god, did you take those pictures during an earthquake with a potato?


----------



## GamerSince83 (Mar 7, 2014)

Obama was in LA a couple months back all I remember was the 405 Interstate being Jammed up.....more than usual   

!Chris Christy 2016!


----------



## assassinz (Mar 7, 2014)

Veho said:


> Does "gun control" mean "absolute ban on guns"?



Not yet.


----------



## Joe88 (Mar 7, 2014)

GamerSince83 said:


> !Chris Christy 2016!


I think his chances of presidency went out the window when the bridge scandal came out to the public


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Mar 7, 2014)

Ask him what he has planned to make unemployment decrease oh wait.. he's just another puppet.

I still find it odd that black or "African American" people solely voted for Obama based on his skin colour nothing else even though he brought nothing good to US, but rather make it worse.

Would I vote for Romney because I'm white? No (+ I'm not in US). It's what what they would plan to do in order to make the country a better but overall they don't really have power over what they can do anyway.


----------



## GamerSince83 (Mar 7, 2014)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> I still find it odd that black or "African American" people solely voted for Obama based on his skin colour nothing else even though he brought nothing good to US, but rather make it worse.
> 
> Would I vote for Romney because I'm white? No (+ I'm not in US). It's what what they would plan to do in order to make the country a better but overall they don't really have power over what they can do anyway.




Well u need to understand the GLOBAL SHIT BAG that worthless donkey's Ass G.W. Bush left in his wake.....talk about white trash in its finest form.....Now of course people expected Roses n Sugar over night but Reality doesnt work that way He is only a Man not a Magic Imp and u need to also Understand that the real reason he hasn't been able to accomplish more is Due to the other Garbage know as Republicans.....bunch of Cock-Blocking Ingrates


----------



## Social_Outlaw (Mar 7, 2014)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Ask him what he has planned to make unemployment decrease oh wait.. he's just another puppet.
> 
> I still find it odd that black or "African American" people solely voted for Obama based on his skin colour nothing else even though he brought nothing good to US, but rather make it worse.
> 
> Would I vote for Romney because I'm white? No (+ I'm not in US). It's what what they would plan to do in order to make the country a better but overall they don't really have power over what they can do anyway.


 
I'm African American mix with Indian, and I find what you said at the top somewhat the truth, I guess people wanted to see a Mixed person, since there (No offense) All whites, I guess we just wanted to have a mix, instead of having all Caucasians, *Even* *though*, the president doesn't make the rules, so they rather suffer worse with an African American knowing that he really can't make any rules than voting for somebody that may have options (Which is Caucasian) I'm sorry if anyone thinks other, but Racism still exist in the parties, and media.

Well some of the media portray Obama as a bad guy (Which he's not).remember when donald trump wanted to see his birth certificate. What was that really for?, that was kinda you know... unnecessary/racist at it's finest, and the worst thing about it was the fact the media was adding it's salt to the mix. I really like obama as president, but the fact that that has already happen is madness.


----------



## gamer765 (Mar 7, 2014)

I guess our playa wont have pics of him chillin and smokin a fatty wit da president and rockin wit der c0cks out.


----------



## zeello (Mar 7, 2014)

something I've been wondering lately.. instead of healthcare why not just raise minimum wage? Cause right you have people getting fired or having their hours cut just so the employer doesn't have to insure them. To quote Brass Eye: "This is the one thing we didn't want to happen."


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2014)

I'm sure that the opinions expressed above are educated, can be backed up with evidence and are not at all baseless assumptions. I'm also 100% sure that the colour of someone's skin determines whether he or she can be a good politician or not.


----------



## mameks (Mar 7, 2014)

how the god shit does this have 3 pages 

but cool story braaaaaaaaaaaaah, what wonderfully empty rhetoric did he spew today?
is he going to free the world of all inequality via nuking our entire species off the face of the planet, whilst claiming to be Keeping the Peace


----------



## Ubuntuの刀 (Mar 8, 2014)

Yo so like my friends were on the news... And I wasn't shown :'(
Whatevs tho. No one knows who they are and I do xD


----------



## zeello (Mar 8, 2014)

I was once at a protest but none of the photos had me in it.

its obviously a conspiracy to hide my existence.


----------



## K3N1 (Mar 8, 2014)

Was there a bomb threat?


----------



## Hells Malice (Mar 8, 2014)

assassinz said:


> If you get to ask him a question, ask him why he thinks gun control is a good idea if the bad guys are going to have guns regardless of any laws or regulations. Why does he want Americans defenseless against criminals? It doesnt make sense.


 
You're just pretending to be an ignorant stereotypical amurican, right?
...right?


----------



## Vengenceonu (Mar 8, 2014)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Ask him what he has planned to make unemployment decrease oh wait.. he's just another puppet.
> 
> I still find it odd that black or "African American" people solely voted for Obama based on his skin colour nothing else even though he brought nothing good to US, but rather make it worse.
> 
> Would I vote for Romney because I'm white? No (+ I'm not in US). It's what what they would plan to do in order to make the country a better but overall they don't really have power over what they can do anyway.


That's like asking why people who vote Republican throughout their lives vote solely on Romney because he's Republican. People like things they can identify with simple as that. Fun fact: Yes Obama got 93% of the black vote but only 11% of all voters were black. So obviously a good chunk of Caucasians liked his policies too. Also, how can you say he brought nothing good to the US when you don't even live in the US? Your basing your opinion on what you see on tv/internet.


----------



## osirisjem (Mar 8, 2014)

Vengenceonu said:


> Voter Demographics:  Republican vs Democrat








Demographics + Tea-party foolishness killing the Republicans = easy victory for the Democrats in 2016.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Mar 8, 2014)

GamerSince83 said:


> Well u need to understand the GLOBAL SHIT BAG that worthless donkey's Ass G.W. Bush left in his wake.....talk about white trash in its finest form.....Now of course people expected Roses n Sugar over night but Reality doesnt work that way He is only a Man not a Magic Imp and u need to also Understand that the real reason he hasn't been able to accomplish more is Due to the other Garbage know as Republicans.....bunch of Cock-Blocking Ingrates


 
The republicans are the problem? Sure! Sure they are!



Vengenceonu said:


> That's like asking why people who vote Republican throughout their lives vote solely on Romney because he's Republican. People like things they can identify with simple as that. Fun fact: Yes Obama got 93% of the black vote but only 11% of all voters were black. So obviously a good chunk of Caucasians liked his policies too. Also, how can you say he brought nothing good to the US when you don't even live in the US? Your basing your opinion on what you see on tv/internet.


 
Obviously my source is the internet for news in US, besides getting the news on paper isn't any different heck, who buys newspaper any more?

I prefer RussiaToday as they tend to expose US for their flaws but while at it they're truthful unlike CNN/FOX or etc.

By the way, Prime Ministers in other countries in the beginning made promises but failed to deliver them when they were Prime Ministers so it's not just in US that this shit happens.

They're overall just puppets who get paid to put their act on and some people believe that's what it's going on (Obama believers).


----------



## GamerSince83 (Mar 8, 2014)

Yeah u would prefer Russia u Commie Bastard   

People who don't actually live in the US have no say or opinion on the Matter........


----------



## Chaosruler (Mar 17, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> It's a mentality problem, Veho. Some Americans have a deeply ingrained belief that they have the constitutional right to live in the 19th century and open carry assault rifles for no reason other than _"because they can"_.
> Nintendo already provides you with a _"good solution"_ to backup your 3DS software - buy games on the eShop and backup the files from your SD card or make a complete SD card image and store it for safekeeping.  As for backing up cartridges, this has always been a problem.


 
well, arrest those people? illegal gun storage is illegal gun storage regardless of the reason, and counts as a violation of UN rules and support terrorism indirectly worldwide, I want to see the face of a guy charged with those and I want to see him near a weapon, even a cold one, after that... if there's no lead by example you won't get anything


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 17, 2014)

Chaosruler said:


> well, arrest those people? illegal gun storage is illegal gun storage regardless of the reason, and counts as a violation of UN rules and support terrorism indirectly worldwide, I want to see the face of a guy charged with those and I want to see him near a weapon, even a cold one, after that... if there's no lead by example you won't get anything


There are several states in the U.S. where openly carrying a rifle is perfectly legal _(even though it won't help you in a one-on-one self-defence scenario since it's too unwieldy - a handgun is far more well-suited for the purpose, rifles are long-range weapons and muggers don't mug from a long range)_ and some allow it for _"traveling to and back from fishing or hunting grounds"_, so essentially if you're stopped by the police, all you have to do is convince the officers that you're coming back from a fishing trip. In other words, you can walk around with any kind of gun as long as you have a fishing rod with you as well.


----------



## grossaffe (Mar 17, 2014)

I live in an open-carry state. It's perfectly legal to walk around with a gun that is in plain-sight (or a machete, for that matter). In order to legally carry a concealed firearm, you need a Concealed Carry Permit. Unfortunately such document does not apply to knives, so if I want to carry around a knife to defend myself (very handy for close-quarters combat), I have to keep it to 3" or shorter, or carry it out in the open where a potential attacker could see it and reach for it prior to the attack. Can't even carry around brass knuckles for hand-to-hand defense, either :/.

That being said, in the part of the state I live in, I pretty much never see someone openly carrying.  I'm having trouble thinking of any time I've seen someone open carry.


----------



## Chaosruler (Mar 17, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> There are several states in the U.S. where openly carrying a rifle is perfectly legal (even though it won't help you in a one-on-one self-defence scenario since it's too unwieldy - a handgun is far more well-suited for the purpose, rifles are long-range weapons and muggers don't mug from a long range) and some allow it for "traveling to and back from fishing or hunting grounds", so essentially if you're stopped by the police, all you have to do is convince the officers that you're coming back from a fishing trip. In other words, you can walk around with any kind of gun as long as you have a fishing rod with you as well.


 
that depends, I will have more problems handling a situation in close combat using a sidearm than with rifle, remember at close combat rifle's only use is not only it's shooting power


grossaffe said:


> I live in an open-carry state. It's perfectly legal to walk around with a gun that is in plain-sight (or a machete, for that matter). In order to legally carry a concealed firearm, you need a Concealed Carry Permit. Unfortunately such document does not apply to knives, so if I want to carry around a knife to defend myself (very handy for close-quarters combat), I have to keep it to 3" or shorter, or carry it out in the open where a potential attacker could see it and reach for it prior to the attack. Can't even carry around brass knuckles for hand-to-hand defense, either :/.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have seen kills by a inch long finger nail, simply google some knife training courses and you will see that anything sharp can at least disarm a person


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 17, 2014)

Chaosruler said:


> that depends, I will have more problems handling a situation in close combat using a sidearm than with rifle, remember at close combat rifle's only use is not only it's shooting power


Self-defense is a piss-poor excuse to carry a loaded rifle in public, it's just begging for a tragedy. In a truly dangerous situation, there's a fair chance that you're going to miss and harm an innocent by-stander, and when not shooting, what are you going to do, use the butt of the rifle? The moment you use a rifle as a staff you know you're doing self-defense wrong. There's a myriad of weapons that are more well-suited for self-defense - tasers, pepper sprays, knives - you name it, and none of those endanger the crowd around you. In fact, chances are that you're not going to do anything with your rifle anyways when you already have a knife in your back. Rifles are simply unwieldy and they're rarely used in CQC situations, at least not their fully-sized versions - it's for this reason alone that SMG's and short versions of rifles were invented. Even worse, I've seen videos where people advocate openly carrying shotguns loaded with buckshot - ammunition that has the obvious characteristic of _wide spread_, meaning you'll harm the attacker and everything around him while at it, which is insane when you're in a crowd. A shotgun or a rifle is something you use for defense of structures - it's something a shopkeep can put under the counter in case someone tries to rob him, it's not something you carry on your back. It's the 21st century, we're not in the wild, wild west anymore.


----------



## nando (Mar 17, 2014)

that's a lot of packaging for a single lunch. does obama not care about the environment?


----------



## grossaffe (Mar 17, 2014)

Chaosruler said:


> I have seen kills by a inch long finger nail, simply google some knife training courses and you will see that anything sharp can at least disarm a person


Well almost anything CAN be a lethal weapon, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer a longer one. I know a thing or two about hand-to-hand combat and knife-wielding, but in a life-or-death scenario, I'd rather have better tools available to me. Of course the best tool to avoid being mugged is awareness of your surroundings. I hate walking around the city at night alone because as a smaller person I know I've got a bit of a target on my back, so I keep my head on a swivel and my hand on my knife (it's a folding knife, but it's a wave-open design so if I pull it out properly, it'll be ready to go as soon as I remove it from my pants pocket.


----------



## TheCasketMan (Mar 17, 2014)

On the ticket it says: "All attendees will go through airport like security"
Have fun with the pat-downs or xray scanners.


----------



## calmwaters (Mar 17, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> It's a mentality problem, Veho. Some Americans have a deeply ingrained belief that they have the constitutional right to live in the 19th century and open carry assault rifles for no reason other than _"because they can"_.


Yes, we do have a right to carry assault rifles because we can. It doesn't matter what century we live in: we've had the right to carry assault rifles since 1789. Our forefathers realized we had the right to defend ourselves from psychopaths and serial killers. And just because people are scared of them shouldn't take away our right to protect ourselves from psychopaths and serial killers. I even think you have this right in your country: to protect yourselves from psychopaths and serial killers. But some people think that owning a gun will make them trigger happy, which is really stupid. If I owned a gun, I certainly wouldn't develop an urge to go outside and shoot everything in sight. Then again, I'm not a deranged lunatic. But I'm sure you've noticed that most Americans are not very smart. We're a nation of people who rely on our phones instead of our brains.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Mar 17, 2014)

somehow, i always have to laught when i see people talking about close quarter combat and how you definitely need weapons to protect yourself at all times.
we people in the west have never lived in a more peaceful and quiet time than today. we've literally never been as statistically safe as today. and yet people claim they need knifes, tasers and at least 3 guns to feel safe outside.. when pretty much the only reason not to feel safe outside, is the large amount of people who see the need to walk around town armed to the teeth.

all i carry around is a cheap wooden kubotan. its basically a pointy piece of wood which is enough to defend myself if anyone was ever to assault me, drunk or because i 'looked at them funny'
its also about as much as your average person is able to control in a sudden and stressful situation. its almost impossible to take away from you because you have a strong hold on it and unlike a knife or a gun, it can be carried around loosely and doesnt need any preparation, again unlike a knife that you usually carry in a holster or need to flip or draw out at least somewhat carefully not to injure yourself etc.
make it a reinforced umbrella or cane for the elderly for that additional range.
as it has been pointed out, a gun or even a knife ends up becoming significantly more dangerous for any bystanders and yourself, than it is to your assailant.

if people were just going to accept that there will never be 100% certainty to safety and that a gun doesnt affect your safety level in a significant way, but generally affects everyone elses safety level negatively (not to mention that every gun carried around by an idiot or by some old dude is pretty much a gun that ends up in the criminally wrong hands eventually) we'd all life much safer lives.
and no, just because theres not a gun in every house wont mean that suddenly, criminals will rise from the shadows like they would if batman bites the dust. maybe for a little while. but with excessive gun control and regulation, that would eventually fade. and it would be worth it.


ps: to the comment above, i believe that, statistically, a gun owned is a gun fired. how many people do you think died during unofficial 'gun practice'? psychologically, people think way to simple. theres a gun in my house > i feel remotely insecure > grab gun > cause tragedy > shouldn't have grabbed the gun when I knew my son would come back from university sometime this week > ooops
thats not every case. but its the big majority. if psychology has taught us anything, its that people are inherently irrational (to the point where even in the few times where they seem to act rationally, they're actually acting irrational and the irrationality just happens to cancel out itself between many people) even when everything is normal and ok.

also, believing that a law, any law, could be universally true for all eternity, is ridiculously irrational too 19th century gun laws apply best to 19th century circumstances (though probably not even back then)


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 17, 2014)

calmwaters said:


> Yes, we do have a right to carry assault rifles because we can. It doesn't matter what century we live in: we've had the right to carry assault rifles since 1789. Our forefathers realized we had the right to defend ourselves from psychopaths and serial killers. And just because people are scared of them shouldn't take away our right to protect ourselves from psychopaths and serial killers. I even think you have this right in your country: to protect yourselves from psychopaths and serial killers. But some people think that owning a gun will make them trigger happy, which is really stupid. If I owned a gun, I certainly wouldn't develop an urge to go outside and shoot everything in sight. Then again, I'm not a deranged lunatic. But I'm sure you've noticed that most Americans are not very smart. We're a nation of people who rely on our phones instead of our brains.


Please don't be ridiculous. The reason why your forefathers included legislature that allows everyone to openly carry firearms in the constitution is that at the time the U.S. was actually under threat of foreign invasion, not to mention domestic threats. The circumstances in which these laws were established are no longer present and completely invalid, which is why the law should be revised to better fit the present state of matters. By your logic, we should still uphold slavery since _"the forefathers thought it was a good idea"_ or castrate gay men because Thomas Jefferson specifically said so. Times change and the law has to reflect that, otherwise it becomes completely outdated. The country was instable so people owned guns - plain and simple. These days I heard every single story from self-defense _(which is a sensible right, but it has to be responsibly executed)_ to _"protecting oneself from an injust government and being able to overthrow it if it becomes tyranical"_ which is downright insane.

I have nothing against gun ownership - in fact, I encourage it. Thing is, gun owners have to be responsible people who are fit to use the weapons they own. Sitting in Starbucks with an AR-15 over your shoulder or walking around a neighbourhood with it does not protect you in any shape or form - all you're causing is distress to other civilians who simply don't know if you're a nutter or not. You want to own a firearm? Go ahead - pass psychological, physical, theoretical and practical tests, that's good grounds to give you a license, and then pass them at regular intervals to make sure that you are still fit in body and mind to own one.

Just _"being American"_ shouldn't give you the indispensible right to own a gun - we've seen dozens upon dozens of cases where an irresponsible parent left a gun right there in the open, their irresponsible child took it and accidentally _(or worse, on purpose)_ shot someone with it - if that weapon was in a safe as it should be, a tragedy probably wouldn't happen. We're not talking about _"taking away yer guns"_, we're talking about responsible gun ownership which is regulated for the benefit of all citizens, not just Jimbo who wants to walk around with a semi-automatic.


----------



## calmwaters (Mar 17, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Please don't be ridiculous. The reason why your forefathers included legislature that allows everyone to openly carry firearms in the constitution is that at the time the U.S. was actually under threat of foreign invasion, not to mention domestic threats. The circumstances in which these laws were established are no longer present and completely invalid, which is why the law should be revised to better fit the present state of matters. By your logic, we should still uphold slavery since _"the forefathers thought it was a good idea"_ or castrate gay men because Thomas Jefferson specifically said so. Times change and the law has to reflect that, otherwise it becomes completely outdated. The country was unstable so people owned guns - plain and simple. These days I heard every single story from self-defense _(which is a sensible right, but it has to be responsibly executed)_ to _"protecting oneself from an injust government and being able to overthrow it if it becomes tyrannical"_ which is downright insane.


Threat of foreign invasion? By whom? King George was leveling unfair taxes on us and then sent soldiers to ensure those taxes were paid. And when we sent a document requesting these taxes to be repealed, he hired foreign mercenaries to bring us back under his subjection. Domestic threats? Perhaps you're referring to the Tories, who insisted King George was looking out for us and that the presence of the soldiers kept us safe from the French. About the country being unstable: do you think we are more stable than we were 300 years ago? And about the slavery issue: why don't you watch 1776 and get back to me on this one? It should be available through your movie streaming service. Also, King George became a tyrant, so we were forced to revolt against him. We sent him and Parliament a list of our grievances and he did nothing. I suppose that is crazy, but it was the right thing to do.


> I have nothing against gun ownership - in fact, I encourage it. Thing is, gun owners have to be responsible people who are fit to use the weapons they own. Sitting in Starbucks with an AR-15 over your shoulder or walking around a neighbourhood with it does not protect you in any shape or form - all you're causing is distress to other civilians who simply don't know if you're a nutter or not. You want to own a firearm? Go ahead - pass psychological, physical, theoretical and practical tests, that's good grounds to give you a license, and then pass them at regular intervals to make sure that you are still fit in body and mind to own one.


Indeed. If you're going to own an AR-15 or a sniper rifle, then use some common sense in what you do with it. There's no need to take it to the mall unless it's a gang'sta mall and it's just the thing to carry guns around there.


> Just _"being American"_ shouldn't give you the indispensible right to own a gun - we've seen dozens upon dozens of cases where an irresponsible parent left a gun right there in the open, their irresponsible child took it and accidentally _(or worse, on purpose)_ shot someone with it - if that weapon was in a safe as it should be, a tragedy probably wouldn't happen. We're not talking about _"taking away yer guns"_, we're talking about responsible gun ownership which is regulated for the benefit of all citizens, not just Jimbo who wants to walk around with a semi-automatic.


It's not my fault an irresponsible parent left their gun in reach of a 6 year old. This is a really bullshit excuse to say I shouldn't have the right to own a gun. I'm not stupid enough to leave a semi-automatic weapon where a four year old can have access to it. I wish I could say the same for other adults. It is also my belief that if the citizens don't (or won't) regulate what they do, then some third party will have to step in and regulate it for them. And you know what happens when a third party comes in and regulates the way you live your life? No thank you: my life won't be regulated because of some lazy dipshits' inability to look out for themselves.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 18, 2014)

calmwaters said:


> Threat of foreign invasion? By whom?


 
You know, England, France, only the two biggest, most ambitious powers of the time. Considering that Napoleon was fully intending an invasion of the Americas, and that England invaded not 25 years after the ratification of the Constitution, these were pretty well justified fears.



calmwaters said:


> King George was leveling unfair taxes on us and then sent soldiers to ensure those taxes were paid. And when we sent a document requesting these taxes to be repealed, he hired foreign mercenaries to bring us back under his subjection. Domestic threats? Perhaps you're referring to the Tories, who insisted King George was looking out for us and that the presence of the soldiers kept us safe from the French. About the country being unstable: do you think we are more stable than we were 300 years ago?


 
You're focus on the Revolutionary War; the Constitution was made 9 or so years after it ended under very different circumstances.

As for Domestic Threats - well, ignoring the Native population (some of whom weren't all that friendly, understandably), there was also great fears of insurrection. I mean, we had the Whiskey Rebellion just 2 years into Washington's Presidency. The rebellions may have been relatively containable, but revolt was a serious threat.

As for the stability question... duh? Come on, try and think a little here.



calmwaters said:


> And about the slavery issue: why don't you watch 1776 and get back to me on this one? It should be available through your movie streaming service.


 
Yes, because kitschy musicals are a reliable academic resource.

I mean, I quite enjoy Jesus Christ Superstar, but that doesn't mean it holds any weight for Bible studies.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 18, 2014)

calmwaters said:


> Threat of foreign invasion? By whom? King George was leveling unfair taxes on us and then sent soldiers to ensure those taxes were paid. And when we sent a document requesting these taxes to be repealed, he hired foreign mercenaries to bring us back under his subjection. Domestic threats? Perhaps you're referring to the Tories, who insisted King George was looking out for us and that the presence of the soldiers kept us safe from the French. About the country being unstable: do you think we are more stable than we were 300 years ago? And about the slavery issue: why don't you watch 1776 and get back to me on this one? It should be available through your movie streaming service. Also, King George became a tyrant, so we were forced to revolt against him. We sent him and Parliament a list of our grievances and he did nothing. I suppose that is crazy, but it was the right thing to do.


You're actually proving my point here, I'm not sure if you've noticed. I'm well-aware of the pre and post colonial history of the United States, after all, I study it. By immediate external threat I did mean a possible invasion by the British, the French or even the Spanish and by internal threats I meant _"Indians"_, or to be politically correct, Native Americans who were increasingly pissed off at the colonizers, the slews of outlaws and other bandits as well as any internal disputes which followed shortly after _(in historical terms)_ in the form of the American Civil War.

The fact that the United States of America were not even a country prior to signing the declaration of independence aside _(meaning that the all problems related to unjust taxation, the Tea Trade Act, the Townshend Acts, the Stamp Act or the Quartering Act are all invalid arguments since they refer to colonies, not to the United States and they're the immediate causes of the revolutionary war but have little to do with the country formed later)_, the country is _infinitely_ more stable now that it's not a territory of dispute between serveral colonizing powers. You are under no threat of the United Kingdom, France, Spain or any other nation trying to reclaim the colonies, nor are you under any threat of a civil war since the U.S. is not a young state anymore, nor are you under the threat of a sudden and unexpected uprising of Native Americans, nor is going to the grocery store _*cough cough* "General Store" _a momentous adventure during which you might get jumped by Billy Kid anymore, so _clearly_ brandishing firearms in broad daylight is no longer a requirement.


> Indeed. If you're going to own an AR-15 or a sniper rifle, then use some common sense in what you do with it. There's no need to take it to the mall unless it's a gang'sta mall and it's just the thing to carry guns around there.


At least here we agree.


> It's not my fault an irresponsible parent left their gun in reach of a 6 year old. This is a really bullshit excuse to say I shouldn't have the right to own a gun. I'm not stupid enough to leave a semi-automatic weapon where a four year old can have access to it. I wish I could say the same for other adults. It is also my belief that if the citizens don't (or won't) regulate what they do, then some third party will have to step in and regulate it for them. And you know what happens when a third party comes in and regulates the way you live your life? No thank you: my life won't be regulated because of some lazy dipshits' inability to look out for themselves.


I'm not saying that you shouldn't have the right to own a gun - I'm saying that gun ownership should be monitored and regulated. You need a license to drive a car, I don't see why you shouldn't need a license to own and use a firearm, and to obtain said license, you should meet certain criteria.


----------



## calmwaters (Mar 18, 2014)

Gahars said:


> You know, England, France, only the two biggest, most ambitious powers of the time. Considering that Napoleon was fully intending an invasion of the Americas, and that England invaded not 15 years after the ratification of the Constitution, these were pretty well justified fears.


Part of the reason England was taxing us was to support the war they were having with France. That was of no concern to us; we were more upset about the taxes they forced us to pay. Napoleon might've considered invading our country, but fortunately England stopped him. The War of 1812 wasn't related to our struggle for independence... we'd already won it.


> You're focus on the Revolutionary War; the Constitution was made 9 or so years after it ended under very different circumstances.


Let me put it this way: if we hadn't won the Revolutionary War, we would've been subjected to tyrannical rule for the rest of history. And in addition to the Declaration of Independence, we also had to have a way of governing ourselves should we win our independence.


> As for Domestic Threats - well, ignoring the Native population (some of whom weren't all that friendly, understandably), there was also great fears of insurrection. I mean, we had the Whiskey Rebellion just 2 years into Washington's Presidency. The rebellions may have been relatively containable, but revolt was a serious threat.


I don't get what you're trying to say with this. Drinking whiskey was a sin in the Northerners' eyes, but the South depended on it for their income. The South also depended on slaves. To this very day, Southerners are still very backward. I should know: I lived there. They hide their contempt for outsiders by their shows of religion.


> As for the stability question... duh? Come on, try and think a little here.


My point exactly. We weren't very stable then; we aren't very stable now.


> Yes, because kitschy musicals are a reliable academic resource.
> 
> I mean, I quite enjoy Jesus Christ Superstar, but that doesn't mean it holds any weight for Bible studies.


 
Now you're just being silly. Have you ever heard of movies that are based on real life events? Well, here's one. And since you have such a good understanding of our history, why don't you try watching it and see how closely it reflects what actually happened? Then we can have a meaningful discussion about it instead of mindless bashing.


----------



## grossaffe (Mar 18, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm not saying that you shouldn't have the right to own a gun - I'm saying that gun ownership should be monitored and regulated. You need a license to drive a car, I don't see why you shouldn't need a license to own and use a firearm, and to obtain said license, you should meet certain criteria.


The first step in disarming the populous is registering them.  The state of California passed a law banning assault weapons (side note, the use of the term assault weapon is pretty dumb as what separates them from other rifles is pretty much that they look scarier) with a grandfather clause that if you already owned one, you could keep it if you registered it.  Shortly thereafter, they passed a law completely abolishing them, and this time they had a nice list of where to find all of them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 18, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> The first step in disarming the populous is registering them. The state of California passed a law banning assault weapons (side note, the use of the term assault weapon is pretty dumb as what separates them from other rifles is pretty much that they look scarier) with a grandfather clause that if you already owned one, you could keep it if you registered it. Shortly thereafter, they passed a law completely abolishing them, and this time they had a nice list of where to find all of them.


Today in Conspiracy Theory Monthly: _"Anecdotal Evidence Proves My Point!"_, a charming story about little Jimmy who couldn't buy an AK47.

Seriously though, by this logic, the United States government plans on taking away all your cars because they require you to have a driving license. Before you know it, Obama will liberate your fishing rods because fishing permits are required to legally fish.


----------



## Mr.Kattykat (Mar 18, 2014)

So hey guys how about that Obama bloke then


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 18, 2014)

calmwaters said:


> Part of the reason England was taxing us was to support the war they were having with France. That was of no concern to us; we were more upset about the taxes they forced us to pay. Napoleon might've considered invading our country, but fortunately England stopped him. The War of 1812 wasn't related to our struggle for independence... we'd already won it.


That was his entire point. The War of 1812 was a conflict between the newly-formed United States and Britain, this is where the whole _"threat of invasion"_ bit comes in in the context of a newly-established state. Conflicts prior to establishing the United States of America as an independent country were not conflicts between the U.S. and external powers, they were internal conflicts between the colonizers and the governing bodies or between two different governing bodies.


> Let me put it this way: if we hadn't won the Revolutionary War, we would've been subjected to tyrannical rule for the rest of history. And in addition to the Declaration of Independence, we also had to have a way of governing ourselves should we win our independence.


Tyrannical rule of which the Constitution says nothing about because King George was the King of Britain, not a president of the United States.


> I don't get what you're trying to say with this. Drinking whiskey was a sin in the Northerners' eyes, but the South depended on it for their income. The South also depended on slaves. To this very day, Southerners are still very backward. I should know: I lived there. They hide their contempt for outsiders by their shows of religion.


That's pretty much his point as well - this tension between the North and South brewed an _internal conflict_, which is exactly what we were talking about.


> My point exactly. We weren't very stable then; we aren't very stable now.


Wow... no.


> Now you're just being silly. Have you ever heard of movies that are based on real life events? Well, here's one. And since you have such a good understanding of our history, why don't you try watching it and see how closely it reflects what actually happened? Then we can have a meaningful discussion about it instead of mindless bashing.


Or you could just read a history book. Probably a better source of information than a movie or a musical, since the primary purpose of those two is entertainment, not education. Unless we're talking about documentaries, but those often leave important bits out due to running time constraints.


----------



## grossaffe (Mar 18, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Today in Conspiracy Theory Monthly: _"Anecdotal Evidence Proves My Point!"_, a charming story about little Jimmy who couldn't buy an AK47.
> 
> Seriously though, by this logic, the United States government plans on taking away all your cars because they require you to have a driving license. Before you know it, Obama will liberate your fishing rods because fishing permits are required to legally fish.


That's quite the straw-man you're building there.  Unlike cars, there is quite the vocal group out there that _is_ trying to ban guns, and they've been at it for a long time.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 18, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> That's quite the straw-man you're building there. Unlike cars, there is quite the vocal group out there that _is_ trying to ban guns, and they've been at it for a long time.


Not really a straw-man, no - your point was that _"the first step to disarming the nation is to register who owns guns"_, wheras I merely wanted to point out that I don't see a correlation between disarming anyone and registering. Structly speaking, the state can ban any _kind_ of weapon via legislature if the votes are there to push it through, registered or unregistered. Registration itself has nothing to do with this.

Long story short, everything's for the people, but certain things are only for those who have the physical and mental capacity as well as knowledge to properly make use of them. The way I see it, the only way to make sure that only capable people own guns is to introduce a licensing system.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 18, 2014)

Foxi beat me to a lot of the main points here, so I'm just going to focus on the particularly galling parts.



calmwaters said:


> Napoleon might've considered invading our country, but fortunately England stopped him.


 
England didn't "stop" Napoleon from invading the Americas, he gave up the idea after the Haitian revolution and instead negotiated with Jefferson for the Louisiana Purchase.



calmwaters said:


> The South also depended on slaves. To this very day, Southerners are still very backward. I should know: I lived there. They hide their contempt for outsiders by their shows of religion.


 
I'm as yankee as you can get without playing on the field and even I know this is bullshit. Generalizations are kinda bad, ya know?



calmwaters said:


> My point exactly. We weren't very stable then; we aren't very stable now.


 


Gahars said:


> Come on, try and think a little here.


 
I see you didn't take my advice.



calmwaters said:


> Now you're just being silly. Have you ever heard of movies that are based on real life events? Well, here's one. And since you have such a good understanding of our history, why don't you try watching it and see how closely it reflects what actually happened? Then we can have a meaningful discussion about it instead of mindless bashing.


 
You realize that "Based on" in no way means "factually accurate," right? For the love of God, please tell me yes because you really worry me.



			
				My main man Benjamin "The Danklin" Franklin said:
			
		

> We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.


 
You can say that again, Ben.


----------



## grossaffe (Mar 18, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Not really a straw-man, no - your point was that _"the first step to disarming the nation is to register who owns guns"_, wheras I merely wanted to point out that I don't see a correlation between disarming anyone and registering. Structly speaking, the state can ban any _kind_ of weapon via legislature if the votes are there to push it through, registered or unregistered. Registration itself has nothing to do with this.
> 
> Long story short, everything's for the people, but certain things are only for those who have the physical and mental capacity as well as knowledge to properly make use of them.


Registration has everything to do with actually getting the guns.  Do you think gun owners would all rush in to turn in their guns if they were to be outlawed?  Hell no.  By registering them, though, they're giving the government a nice map of where to find them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 18, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> Registration has everything to do with actually getting the guns. Do you think gun owners would all rush in to turn in their guns if they were to be outlawed? Hell no. By registering them, though, they're giving the government a nice map of where to find them.


Now this is really getting into Conspiracy Theory Monthly territory. We're not talking about putting stamps on guns, we're not in primary school and guns are not Sheriff Woody's boot - we're talking about actual licenses you have on you that permit you to purchase, carry and use firearms and ammunition. You're making it seem like an establishment of a police state when it's really a pretty simple matter.

All I'm saying is that there should be a certain _(hopefuly high)_ set of standards which a gun owner should meet, not because the evil government is out there to make someone's life miserable but for everyone's safety. If Jimbo wouldn't be able to pass the tests required for a firearm license then thank goodness that his weapons would be confiscated _or_ rendered inoperable because Jimbo was a walking loose cannon in more ways than one. Conversely, if Jimbo meets all the requirements, stores his guns in a safe fashion, adheres to safety regulations and does not cause an immediate threat or any disturbance to anyone around him, I give him my blessing to buy a tank for all I care.

I really don't understad why a requirement of a driving license is a _"d'uh"_ matter for everyone while a license for owning firearms is a no-go - driving licenses are issued so as to make sure that drivers know how to properly operate a vehicle on the road and by proxy don't cause an immediate danger to everybody on said road by being a liability, aka a dumbass. Firearms are exactly the same in this regard - if you don't know how they operate, how to store them and how to safetly use them then by God, you shouldn't own one and the state should be overlooking this, not to disarm the populace but simply for the safety of other citizens.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Mar 18, 2014)

disarming the population is actually what should happen.

collect every gun there is and then we can talk about redistributing them on a basis of being a responsible adult who is not driven by fear and panic. one who feels that spending some time on getting a license (that deserves the name license) to carry a gun, is, while maybe a bit of work, not a reason to take your guns out to the street to fight for your right to save said time.


----------



## grossaffe (Mar 18, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Now this is really getting into Conspiracy Theory Monthly territory. We're not talking about putting stamps on guns, we're not in primary school and guns are not Sheriff Woody's boot - we're talking about actual licenses you have on you that permit you to purchase, carry and use firearms and ammunition. You're making it seem like an establishment of a police state when it's really a pretty simple matter.
> 
> All I'm saying is that there should be a certain _(hopefuly high)_ set of standards which a gun owner should meet, not because the evil government is out there to make someone's life miserable but for everyone's safety. If Jimbo wouldn't be able to pass the tests required for a firearm license then thank goodness that his weapons would be confiscated _or_ rendered inoperable because Jimbo was a walking loose cannon in more ways than one. Conversely, if Jimbo meets all the requirements, stores his guns in a safe fashion, adheres to safety regulations and does not cause an immediate threat or any disturbance to anyone around him, I give him my blessing to buy a tank for all I care.


 
It should also be worth noting that we do have background checks.  There does need to be a conversation about mental illness and including that in our background checks, but this still does not require a registry.

I guess I'd also be getting into Conspiracy Theory Monthly if I said the government was tracking all of our movements through our cellphone metadata.  Surely they wouldn't search through our emails.  Or all the Internet traffic that passes the country's border.


----------



## calmwaters (Mar 18, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> That was his entire point. The War of 1812 was a conflict between the newly-formed United States and Britain, this is where the whole _"threat of invasion"_ bit comes in in the context of a newly-established state. Conflicts prior to establishing the United States of America as an independent country were not conflicts between the U.S. and external powers, they were internal conflicts between the colonizers and the governing bodies or between two different governing bodies.
> Tyrannical rule of which the Constitution says nothing about because the Constitution in no way refers to King George - King George was the King of Great Britain, not a president of the United States.
> That's pretty much his point as well - this tension between the North and South brewed an _internal conflict_, which is exactly what we were talking about.
> Wow... no.
> Or you could just read a history book. Probably a better source of information than a movie or a musical, since the primary purpose of those two is entertainment, not education. Unless we're talking about documentaries, but those often leave important bits out due to running time constraints.


 
Before I go any further, I'd like to say that we're not arguing; we're having an intelligent conversation (you know what I'm saying). Right, the grievances in the Declaration of Independence were directed at Parliament. The Constitution didn't house those grievances, anyway.
I live in this country: I think I'm a pretty good judge of how stable it is. We didn't have school shootings or terrorist attacks in the early 1800s. Or people moaning and groaning about how we're destroying our environment. Or our position in the Vietnam Conflict (Congress never officially declared war).
Well but history books might leave out important bits due to space constraints. I don't think there is a history book which is comprehensive of pre- and post colonial history. Or a documentary for that matter. And just like there is a large selection of books, there are also large selections of movies. But movies are generally made for entertainment purposes and books are not. Well some people find books entertaining and soak up thousands of pages of knowledge.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 18, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> It should also be worth noting that we do have background checks. There does need to be a conversation about mental illness and including that in our background checks, but this still does not require a registry.


That is good, however it'd be nice if background checks and testing didn't end immediately prior to someone buying a gun and instead continued onwards at regular intervals. Just because I'm not a nutter on monday doesn't mean that I won't snap five years later, and here registrations help keep track of things.


> I guess I'd also be getting into Conspiracy Theory Monthly if I said the government was tracking all of our movements through our cellphone metadata. Surely they wouldn't search through our emails. Or all the Internet traffic that passes the country's border.


I see that we're touching upon the whole NSA debacle, to which I say _"no comment"_ since it doesn't directly relate to the matter at hand. National security isn't exactly one of my concerns. That said, I can post this as comic relief:



I quite enjoyed that episode.


----------



## calmwaters (Mar 18, 2014)

Gahars said:


> *snip*


England didn't "stop" Napoleon from invading the Americas, he gave up the idea after the Haitian revolution and instead negotiated with Jefferson for the Louisiana Purchase.[/quote]
It seems the money he got from that purchase didn't help out a lot.


> I'm as yankee as you can get without playing on the field and even I know this is bullshit. Generalizations are kinda bad, ya know?


Maybe you missed the part about where I said I'd lived there. It's funny you should call yourself a yankee; I won't go into much description.


> I see you didn't take my advice.


We're unstable in this country? I give up.


> You realize that "Based on" in no way means "factually accurate," right? For the love of God, please tell me yes because you really worry me.


Yes. I would worry myself if I'd said no. But maybe I should just say no and have you constantly worry. Nah, I'll say yes.


> You can say that again, Ben.


He said it.[/quote]


----------



## Gahars (Mar 18, 2014)

Part Deux, Electric Boogaloo



calmwaters said:


> Before I go any further, I'd like to say that we're not arguing; we're having an intelligent conversation (you know what I'm saying).


 
You two are having an "intelligent conversation," but all the intelligence is on Foxi's side.



calmwaters said:


> I live in this country: I think I'm a pretty good judge of how stable it is. We didn't have school shootings or terrorist attacks in the early 1800s. Or people moaning and groaning about how we're destroying our environment. Or our position in the Vietnam Conflict (Congress never officially declared war).


 
OH BOY

-"We didn't have school shootings." We barely had any schools to shoot.
-"Terrorist Attacks" No, instead there were outright revolts and rebellions. When some idiot tries to light up fertilizer today, there's no danger of the entire government collapsing. That was a very real concern back then. And hey, if you want to stretch the time span here, there were plenty of acts that constituted honest to God terrorism. Read up on John Brown.
-"Or people moaning and groaning about how we're destroying our environment." Clearly you've never heard of the Transcendentalists.
-"Or our position in the Vietnam Conflict" Nope, but there were still plenty moaning about the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and so on.

It's fundamentally ludicrous to say that the United States today, _the_ global superpower, is less stable than a backwoods republic that won its independence by the skin of its (and, mostly, France's) teeth. Minor discontent does not equal instability.



calmwaters said:


> Well but history books might leave out important bits due to space constraints. I don't think there is a history book which is comprehensive of pre- and post colonial history. Or a documentary for that matter. And just like there is a large selection of books, there are also large selections of movies. But movies are generally made for entertainment purposes and books are not. Well some people find books entertaining and soak up thousands of pages of knowledge.


 
The medium does not matter. A book/film/show/etc. created solely for entertainment purposes is generally not going to be a very credible, academic source of historical information. A book written for pleasure holds no more weight than a movie made for pleasure.

A musical is not going to be an accurate source for anything because it is entertainment first and educational tool a very distant second; creative liberties are inherently necessary to make it work as a piece of fiction.

I mean, if you want to cite 1776 in a serious setting, be my guest, but don't be surprised when you're laughed out of the room.

EDIT: Seemed to have missed this...




calmwaters said:


> Drinking whiskey was a sin in the Northerners' eyes, but the South depended on it for their income.


That's not what the Whiskey Rebellion was about. At all.


----------



## Pleng (Mar 18, 2014)

calmwaters said:


> I live in this country: I think I'm a pretty good judge of...{anything}


 
Living in a country doesn't automatically qualify an authority on any specific aspect of it. Honey boo boo also lives in your country. Would you trust her as an authority on the stability of the country? (I'm kind of dreading your answer to this question already!)


----------



## calmwaters (Mar 18, 2014)

Pleng said:


> Living in a country doesn't automatically qualify an authority on any specific aspect of it. Honey boo boo also lives in your country. Would you trust her as an authority on the stability of the country? (I'm kind of dreading your answer to this question already!)


 
I would not.


----------



## CJL18 (Mar 18, 2014)

When u meet him tell him how's does it feel to be known as the worst president in  history and yes that even includes being worst than bill clinton


----------



## tHciNc (Mar 18, 2014)

assassinz said:


> If you get to ask him a question, ask him why he thinks gun control is a good idea if the bad guys are going to have guns regardless of any laws or regulations. Why does he want Americans defenseless against criminals? It doesnt make sense.


 
Why do americans think you need guns to protect youself from criminals, brainwashed with propaganda i say , criminals have guns here, yet less than 0.1% of the general population do and we are fine... But then again we aren't gun toting trigger happy overweight rednecks, that think nothing of shooting people left right and center to protect themselves... But i suppose America has to be like that when they think they are the bully... opps i mean big brother to the rest of the world.


----------



## calmwaters (Mar 18, 2014)

Gahars said:


> Part Deux, Electric Boogaloo
> 
> You two are having an "intelligent conversation," but all the intelligence is on Foxi's side.


Funny how I was replying to Foxi and not you.


> OH BOY
> 
> -"We didn't have school shootings." We barely had any schools to shoot.
> -"Terrorist Attacks" No, instead there were outright revolts and rebellions. When some idiot tries to light up fertilizer today, there's no danger of the entire government collapsing. That was a very real concern back then. And hey, if you want to stretch the time span here, there were plenty of acts that constituted honest to God terrorism. Read up on John Brown.
> ...


What I'm trying to say is that, well with all the wars and political factions, we have never been truly stable. I thought that was what this is about. And discontent, however minor it is, brings unstability. It's a challenge to the established order and some people resent it.


> The medium does not matter. A book/film/show/etc. created solely for entertainment purposes is generally not going to be a very credible, academic source of historical information. A book written for pleasure holds no more weight than a movie made for pleasure.


Have you ever seen a picture which is based on historical events? And if you have, did you find it enjoyable to watch? Might I recommend Schindler's List? Stop generalizing: books/movies/shows/etc. fall into different categories. Fiction, fantasy, romance, the kinds Foxi reads, etc. I watched this movie the other night which detailed the founding of this hospital and thought it was an excellent comedy. Try and guess what the name of the movie is.


> A musical is not going to be an accurate source for anything because it is entertainment first and educational tool a very distant second; creative liberties are inherently necessary to make it work as a piece of fiction.


Citation needed. (If you think I'm worth it...)


> I mean, if you want to cite 1776 in a serious setting, be my guest, but don't be surprised when you're laughed out of the room.


So I take it you're not going to watch the movie. Well, be my guest; but I must say a little entertainment is good for you. And I'm telling you this movie is historically accurate; whether you want to believe me or not is your business.


> EDIT: Seemed to have missed this...
> 
> That's not what the Whiskey Rebellion was about. At all.


 
I've also heard that alcohol has been called the "devil's drink"; wonder where that came from... they made whiskey in the South too; but okay, my memory of history isn't perfect (but it is pretty good). I've obviously gotten you upset since you don't ordinarily talk like this and I'm sorry for that. Maybe; just maybe; we can ignore this and get on with our lives without having to use the "ignore" option the 'Temp provides us.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 18, 2014)

CJL18 said:


> When u meet him tell him how's does it feel to be known as the worst president in history and yes that even includes being worst than bill clinton


Bill Clinton was a bad president? You mean the guy whose administration is responsible for:

The longest recorded uninterrupted economic growth
Reduction of the deficit to the point of the largest recorded budget surplus
Decreasing the unemployment rate to below 5%
Spearheading medical research, implementation of computer technology and education by:
Doubling the funding for the National Institutes of Health
Tripling the funding of Community Technology Centers
Increasing the funding of the National Science Foundation by 30%
Subsidizing Internet access for schools and libraries
Paving the road to college for students from underprivileged areas by starting the GEAR UP programme
Increasing federal funding of primary and secondary level education

...among other things? Wow, that sounds like a terrible president indeed! Arguably the worst thing that happened to Clinton as a president was the Monica Lewinsky scandal, his actual presidency was top-notch.


calmwaters said:


> Funny how I was replying to Foxi and not you.


This is a public forum, y'know - anyone can throw in their two cents when they feel it's appropriate.


> What I'm trying to say is that, well with all the wars and political factions, we have never been truly stable. I thought that was what this is about. And discontent, however minor it is, brings unstability. It's a challenge to the established order and some people resent it.


There is no immediate threat that the state will dissolve, wheras back then it could plundge into total chaos at any given moment - I'd say that's a big difference. It took a while for the United States to solidify itself as both a country and a nation, but now that it's gone through that process and actually became a superpower, things are far more stable than at the times of the founding fathers.


> Have you ever seen a picture which is based on historical events? And if you have, did you find it enjoyable to watch? Might I recommend Schindler's List? Stop generalizing: books/movies/shows/etc. fall into different categories. Fiction, fantasy, romance, the kinds Foxi reads, etc. I watched this movie the other night which detailed the founding of this hospital and thought it was an excellent comedy. Try and guess what the name of the movie is.


If you're talking about _"Patch Adams"_ starring Robin Williams, Patch Adams himself commented upon it saying _"I hate that movie"_. Yeah... A couple interesting tidbits:


> *How old was the real Patch Adams when he ended up in a mental hospital?*
> The film depicts a mid-life Patch (Robin Williams) staying at a mental hospital. In reality, Patch Adams endured three different mental hospitalizations when he was much younger, during the time when he was 17 and 18-years-old.
> 
> (...)
> ...


This is the definition of _"historical inaccuracy"_ and _"fiction"_.

As Gahars mentioned, there are movies and books that are written with the express intent to document history... and others which are made with the express intent to provide entertainment value. The latter take certain liberties which is why they're not considered viable sources of historically accurate information.


> So I take it you're not going to watch the movie. Well, be my guest; but I must say a little entertainment is good for you. And I'm telling you this movie is historically accurate; whether you want to believe me or not is your business.


Again, this his not Gahars's point. His point is that there are sources out there that could be used in a debate and a movie made specifically to entertain is possibly the least accurate you could choose.




> I've also heard that alcohol has been called the "devil's drink"; wonder where that came from... they made whiskey in the South too; but okay, my memory of history isn't perfect (but it is pretty good). I've obviously gotten you upset since you don't ordinarily talk like this and I'm sorry for that. Maybe; just maybe; we can ignore this and get on with our lives without having to use the "ignore" option the 'Temp provides us.


I don't think he was suggesting you to ignore him or threatening to ignore you - I think he was just setting the record straight in terms of what the rebellion was actually all about. Similarily the Boston Tea Party had very little to do with actual tea and everything to do with taxation and imposing monopolization of the previously free market, as well as a variety of different causes completely unrelated to tea.


----------



## Costello (Mar 18, 2014)

I think you're arguing with people who are perfectly indifferent to economical and financial policies  
but good on you for trying though!


----------



## Densetsu (Mar 18, 2014)

So...

Ubuntu no Katana met the President 

Ubuntuの刀, did the Secret Service rough up any of the students? I mean, they apparently pull 7th graders out of class to interrogate them about their Facebook status updates. They'd probably take notice if anyone _looked_ at the President the wrong way


----------



## Ryukouki (Mar 18, 2014)

Densetsu said:


> So...
> 
> Ubuntu no Katana met the President
> 
> Ubuntuの刀, did the Secret Service rough up any of the students? I mean, they apparently pull 7th graders out of class to interrogate them about their Facebook status updates. They'd probably take notice if anyone _looked_ at the President the wrong way


 

You've been full of comedy these days!  It wasn't even for looking at him though, it was for breathing near him in a way that was considered wrong!


----------



## Densetsu (Mar 18, 2014)

Ryukouki said:


> You've been full of comedy these days!  It wasn't even for looking at him though, it was for breathing near him in a way that was considered wrong!


You'd better watch what you say. If you talk about breathing wrong near him on a gaming forum, the FBI might flag you as a terrorist.


----------



## Ubuntuの刀 (Mar 19, 2014)

You know, I didn't think this thread would hit 6 pages, but...

So a teacher was refused the right to see the President and said that the Secret Service told the administration to tell him that he wasn't allowed. That teacher called bullshit and asked them to have the Secret Service come to him directly and tell him he was a threat if that was the case. They didn't.

Now, he's gonna press charges against the very school he works with. I'm glad I'm graduating this year. He said if all of administration went to him and publicly apologized, he won't press charges. They haven't yet -_-

He hates liars and being lied to, so I feel he's justified in suing the school.


----------



## SickPuppy (Mar 19, 2014)

Veho said:


> Does "gun control" mean "absolute ban on guns"?



Yes, Obama is very much against private citizens owning guns. Look up his voting record when he was a senator.


----------



## Densetsu (Mar 19, 2014)

Ubuntuの刀 said:


> You know, I didn't think this thread would hit 6 pages, but...
> 
> So a teacher was refused the right to see the President and said that the Secret Service told the administration to tell him that he wasn't allowed. That teacher called bullshit and asked them to have the Secret Service come to him directly and tell him he was a threat if that was the case. They didn't.
> 
> ...


Why did the administration tell him that he wasn't allowed to see the President?


----------



## assassinz (Mar 20, 2014)

Yep, always some kind of BS going on. I wonder what the admins' explanation will be




Ubuntuの刀 said:


> You know, I didn't think this thread would hit 6 pages, but...
> 
> So a teacher was refused the right to see the President and said that the Secret Service told the administration to tell him that he wasn't allowed. That teacher called bullshit and asked them to have the Secret Service come to him directly and tell him he was a threat if that was the case. They didn't.
> 
> ...


----------



## Flame (Mar 20, 2014)

Densetsu said:


> Why did the administration tell him that he wasn't allowed to see the President?


 
yeah what Densetsu said ..this is the good part.. tell us more..

*grabs popcorn*


----------



## Ubuntuの刀 (Mar 22, 2014)

Yo, he's suing the school. I don't think the administration cares. Certainly our principal doesn't care, as she is retiring this year anyway lmao.


----------

