Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → American Freedom Alert
123
American Freedom Alert
2009-11-05, 8:37 PM #41
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/taxreturns.asp
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Lassev: I guess there was something captivating in savagery, because I liked it.
2009-11-05, 8:40 PM #42
Yes Sarn, that was in the original link.
nope.
2009-11-05, 8:42 PM #43
Originally posted by BobTheMasher:
Edit: How is a truck much different from an SUV? In theory, an SUV is just a truck with seating or enclosed cargo (or both) instead of an external bed.


1) front/back weight distrubution. Why trucks require sand bags in the back in the winter.

2) most SUV's these days no longer use truck frames like they used to.

baco:

was it? I didn't see any URLs unless it was in that HTML crap that I skimmed over. M y point is that snopes does *not* confirm this. It labels it as false.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Lassev: I guess there was something captivating in savagery, because I liked it.
2009-11-05, 8:47 PM #44
Originally posted by BobTheMasher:
Where'd you hear that? I have problems with the NRA for other reasons, but I'm preeeetty sure they're not white supremacists.


Bowling for Columbine and a friend of the family have seriously mislead me. Ignore my former statement.
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
2009-11-05, 8:50 PM #45
Originally posted by Sarn_Cadrill:
1) front/back weight distrubution. Why trucks require sand bags in the back in the winter.

2) most SUV's these days no longer use truck frames like they used to.

baco:

was it? I didn't see any URLs unless it was in that HTML crap that I skimmed over. M y point is that snopes does *not* confirm this. It labels it as false.

It was in the original snopes article posted that mention the true thing - The actual version of the email in the first post is a combo of false information and a real bill.
nope.
2009-11-05, 9:19 PM #46
Originally posted by ELITE WARRIOR:
chainmail


:carl:
I can't wait for the day schools get the money they need, and the military has to hold bake sales to afford bombs.
2009-11-05, 9:22 PM #47
Originally posted by DSettahr:
You've obviously never lived in a remote northern high elevation town that has winter conditions 5-6 months out of the year


I haven't. Just like the majority of people in the country.

There are reasons and places to own large vehicles just like there are reasons and places to own guns.

Why would I call it the douchebag tax? Just look at this ****.
:master::master::master:
2009-11-05, 9:32 PM #48
Originally posted by stat:
I haven't. Just like the majority of people in the country.

There are reasons and places to own large vehicles just like there are reasons and places to own guns.

Why would I call it the douchebag tax? Just look at this ****.


If you place a blanket tax as a result of misuse of something that some people have a legitimate use for, that's really not very fair.
2009-11-05, 9:48 PM #49
Originally posted by Admiral Zarn:
:carl:

I often wonder if even the guys who write these take it seriously.
2009-11-05, 9:51 PM #50
Originally posted by stat:
There are reasons and places to own large vehicles just like there are reasons and places to own guns.


Who are you to decide that?
2009-11-05, 9:53 PM #51
What? It's obvious that some places (E.G Artic, Desert, Places without road) would require a heavy duty vehicle, and places that are dangerous would probably benefit from a gun.
2009-11-05, 10:20 PM #52
Quote:
Musicians don't use 4x4s, they use vans. Same with every other profession you listed.


I'm not talking about touring musicians I am talking about for your own personal ****. I am a drummer and I would be royally screwed without my SUV, period.
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
2009-11-05, 10:24 PM #53
Originally posted by Baconfish:
Most vans are lighter and get better mileage than 4x4s, plus they tend to be bare essentials compared to the mountain of crap you get in a 4x4.

And every single contractor or trade worker I know owns a van. :P


I like my heated mirrors. Pfft. :colbert:

Oh, and my stepdad is a general contractor. He has a truck. A buddy of mine is a plumber. He has a truck too. I bought my first truck from a friend of mine (electrician) - he replaced it with a bigger truck. Just sayin'.
woot!
2009-11-05, 10:31 PM #54
Originally posted by JLee:
I like my heated mirrors. Pfft. :colbert:

Oh, and my stepdad is a general contractor. He has a truck. A buddy of mine is a plumber. He has a truck too. I bought my first truck from a friend of mine (electrician) - he replaced it with a bigger truck. Just sayin'.



F150 or GTFO :colbert:
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
2009-11-05, 10:43 PM #55
Originally posted by Onimusha:
I'm not talking about touring musicians I am talking about for your own personal ****. I am a drummer and I would be royally screwed without my SUV, period.


my friend fits his drumkit in a toyota corolla
[01:52] <~Nikumubeki> Because it's MBEGGAR BEGS LIKE A BEGONI.
2009-11-05, 11:27 PM #56
Originally posted by stat:

There are reasons and places to own large vehicles just like there are reasons and places to own guns.


yeah, like both are fun. fun to drive, and fun to shoot.

also probably near 75% of contractors, electricians ect... that i have met... and i have met a LOT (i used to work in a tire shop and at least 4 a week would come in needing tires.) used a truck as opposed to a van.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2009-11-06, 1:03 AM #57
This doesn't sound bad at all, those laws sound the same as laws involving cars..
2009-11-06, 1:21 AM #58
It's not what the bill would actually do... it's what they'll be able to do in the future with the information it's asking.
2009-11-06, 1:34 AM #59
Originally posted by JediKirby:
Bowling for Columbine and a friend of the family have seriously mislead me. Ignore my former statement.


Bowling for Columbine made my p**s boil. I wanted to agree with Moore, because the US has some serious problems with its gun laws but he completely curled one off over the memories of people hurt or killed at Columbine. His "documentary" was one-sided crap of the highest order. His other stuff may have won awards, but I really can't bring myself to look at his smug face.

:mad:
2009-11-06, 1:37 AM #60
Originally posted by Martyn:
Bowling for Columbine made my p**s boil. I wanted to agree with Moore, because the US has some serious problems with its gun laws but he completely curled one off over the memories of people hurt or killed at Columbine. His "documentary" was one-sided crap of the highest order. His other stuff may have won awards, but I really can't bring myself to look at his smug face.

:mad:


i actually totally agree with you there

moore thinks hes more important than the topic which is stupid
2009-11-06, 2:23 AM #61
The British guy telling us we have problems with our gun laws? You guys can't even own ****ing guns...
2009-11-06, 2:41 AM #62
Err... the shotgun at my dad's house would disagree.

The point is your gun laws are too lax in places, allowing things like Columbine to happen. By all means, have your guns - it's too late to take them back now, just consider that you should probably make it more difficult for loonies to get hold of firearms.

(And yes I realise since Columbine there have been reforms, yet such tragedies keep occurring.)
2009-11-06, 2:50 AM #63
The problem with the current gun laws is they don't make it harder for loonies to get guns. They make it harder for honest, decent people to get guns. The loonies 9 times out of 10 bypass those systems put in place by the laws anyway.

It's like having a real tall gate with security guards and cameras and road spikes and all that, but only having a 2 foot tall fence.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Lassev: I guess there was something captivating in savagery, because I liked it.
2009-11-06, 3:21 AM #64
Aye, I imagine it's somewhat like the DRM argument: DRM hurts the legitimate buyers of products, but barely affects the pirates.

That said, just because it's hard to do something, doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried.
2009-11-06, 3:47 AM #65
There's also the problem where the US has taken firearms from registered owners in the midst of a crisis (see: New Orleans), completely defeating the purpose of owning a gun for personal safety.

Martyn: I found BfC to have partial validity and partial stupidity. I get really bored with anti-gun people because they're only being sticks in the mud and have never had fun with a rifle in their life. Hunting is amazing, and we're still animals that need to eat. They also don't seem to understand the history of the firearm in the united states, either. Both the north and the south have various stories about land owners and even slaves defending themselves.
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
2009-11-06, 3:54 AM #66
Oh yeah Kirbs, I'm (probably surprisingly to most of you guys) quite sympathetic of gun owners in America. Using guns for sport happens here too, and I'm perfectly content with 99% of you chaps having them, using them responsibly and generally having fun. It's just that last 1% who need to have them taken away and clearly there's a large problem because they're such a small minority.

Like I said, clearly the problem is loonies with guns, but as Sarn rightly points out it's very hard to stop them getting weapons, especially without making it a pain for normal people. I suppose you've got to weigh up where inconvenience to non-loons becomes the right level to counterbalance the outrage of high school shootings. It's very hard to look at such things objectively really.
2009-11-06, 5:16 AM #67
I just have to interject, sorry: Guns for sport is fun, but that's not what they're for. They didn't add an amendment into the constitution to clarify our right to play a sport. Guns are for protection.

I just tend to think that the problem isn't guns, it's loonies. We can't stop 'em from doing something crazy, no matter what we try to take away from them.
Warhead[97]
2009-11-06, 5:26 AM #68
I'll clarify: I wasn't saying you should limit your gun use to sport - I was using it as an example.
2009-11-06, 5:44 AM #69
Yeah, I got the impression that you were just using it as an example, I just thought I'd take the opportunity to make that point for anyone reading. :)
Warhead[97]
2009-11-06, 5:56 AM #70
Coolios :)

The obvious other use for guns besides sport and protection is shooting Michael Moore in his big ugly face but that sort of goes without saying :ninja:
2009-11-06, 7:33 AM #71
Originally posted by Onimusha:
F150 or GTFO :colbert:


My plumber friend had an F350 quad cab long bed turbodiesel. Your F150 is pansytruck in comparison. :colbert:

Originally posted by Martyn:
Err... the shotgun at my dad's house would disagree.

The point is your gun laws are too lax in places, allowing things like Columbine to happen. By all means, have your guns - it's too late to take them back now, just consider that you should probably make it more difficult for loonies to get hold of firearms.

(And yes I realise since Columbine there have been reforms, yet such tragedies keep occurring.)


Maybe we should make it more difficult for loonies to get ahold of cars, too. Pesky thing, freedom...
woot!
2009-11-06, 7:40 AM #72
FACT : If VA has stricter gun laws, JLee would never have been Murdered .
2009-11-06, 7:45 AM #73
Originally posted by JLee:

Maybe we should make it more difficult for loonies to get ahold of cars, too. Pesky thing, freedom...


Maybe you should just give up trying to control guns? Just give them away unregulated? How about in party bags at kids birthday parties?

:suicide:

I understand the arguments, but really there's no excuse for not even attempting to control who has guns.
2009-11-06, 8:14 AM #74
Yeah you may be able to use shotguns and other sport rifles, but the point I'm trying to make is that the 2nd amendment was put in our constitution to allow us to protect our homes, and protect ourselves from a corrupt government if it were ever to occur. Your grandpa's shotgun wouldn't allow American citizens to do that if an unsavory situation were ever to occur. I agree. We need to prevent 'loonie's from obtaining rifles, but 'how' is the question. How do you prevent someone from using their 2nd amendment rights -- when they haven't previously committed any offenses or crimes?
2009-11-06, 8:23 AM #75
That's the $64,000 question. If I had the answer, I'd be a rich politician instead of a poor engineer ;)
2009-11-06, 8:27 AM #76
Originally posted by Martyn:
Maybe you should just give up trying to control guns? Just give them away unregulated? How about in party bags at kids birthday parties?

:suicide:

I understand the arguments, but really there's no excuse for not even attempting to control who has guns.


If you believe there's no attempt to control who has guns, you're either mind-numbingly stupid or so out of touch that it's not even worth arguing..

Yes, I'm tired, a little edgy and way overdue for bedtime. Take nothing personally, k? :P
woot!
2009-11-06, 8:30 AM #77
I don't believe that, but it looked like you were saying "we can't stop them: why bother?"

That's why I was sarcy ;)

But yeah, my point is there should never come a point where your government says "right lads, we've done all we can on gun control, who wants pizza?" I'm not saying they should never stop tightening control, but they should be constantly striving to improve it little by little.
2009-11-06, 8:56 AM #78
mARTYN Come live iwth me
2009-11-06, 9:06 AM #79
Originally posted by Martyn:
I don't believe that, but it looked like you were saying "we can't stop them: why bother?"

That's why I was sarcy ;)

But yeah, my point is there should never come a point where your government says "right lads, we've done all we can on gun control, who wants pizza?" I'm not saying they should never stop tightening control, but they should be constantly striving to improve it little by little.


Some people consider "improve" to be the same as "tighten". Strict enforcement of existing laws is fine with me.
woot!
2009-11-06, 9:06 AM #80
Well now that's the problem. We don't need tighter gun control. Ordinary, good people who own firearms suffer when new rules are introduced. The people who are actually the problem don't buy their guns from Bass Prop Shop. They don't get subjected to a DROS or a fingerprinting or a background check. They don't follow the rules.

They buy their firearms from the trunk of a car behind Mr. Woo's dry cleaning off of Normandie Ave and Martin Luther King Jr Blvd. Gun regulations don't stop that guy, and he's the problem.

Rather than addressing the non-existent problem of law abiding citizens owning guns and ammo, they should attempt to curb gangs, put tougher sentences on firearms related crimes, and put more effort into prevent firearms from being stolen or smuggled into the country.
123

↑ Up to the top!