Calax

Because AR's have no self defense purposes or hunting purpose.

The first refund is usually met with an "Ok, but only this time!" It's how I got at least one of my games, because I bought it and within 6 hours it was like 75% off.

This was really a bad video. It went nowhere and there was nothing objective in this video, it was largely just right v. left BS. Though a few clips were doozies. Such as the Fox News anchor calling an automatic handgun a 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' as well as implying the weapons were made for law enforement and military primarily. Propaganda propaganda propaganda, and BS BS BS. Really? You're going to say that a .223 buschmaster that was used in the attacks in Connecticut is a weapon NOT designed for a military? Even though others in this thread have pointed out that the gauge isn't conducive for self defense (nor is the size of the weapon), nor is it conducive to hunting. And what purpose does an automatic handgun serve anyway? In general I'm pretty sure most people will say that they understand the intentions of what the other party want, and even agree with what they're trying to do. It's just that how they go about doing it is entirely counter to what they want. I mean, you're falling into your own trap, where anyone who is "pro-gun" is correct, and anyone who is "anti-gun" is incorrect. Even though several of the people on the "Anti-gun" side aren't really anti gun. They're against guns that can be used to cause these sorts of massacres with ease. Your only solution to the problems presented (inadequate mental health care, lack of training, lack of restrictions, ease of modification etc) seems to be "THROW MORE GUNZ AT IT! If everyone is armed, then when one yahoo starts shooting, 12 people will kill him dead yeeeeha!". Guns have their place. Handguns are for self/home defense, as has been recognized by the supreme court. Rifles have a specific role as hunting weapons (same with shotguns), and these are recognized too. Where people get uncomfortable is that .223, and it's siblings who are built to put a lot of rounds out in a short amount of time, are mid-ranged, and aren't built for either of the two above roles. Same thing with a .50 cal sniper rifle. Realistically, if your worst nightmare[dream] comes true, and your home is under attack by the United States Army, you know what's gonna happen? You'll attack with your little AK47, wound two guys, then have a tank round shoved down your throat for your trouble. There is no feasible way that you can say that the weapons that people are asking for a ban and controls on, are going to save you from what you're stating is their reason. After all, it's not like other amendments aren't limited by the government and legislatures on what you can do with the powers they grant. Examine all the limitations on "Free Speech", as protected by the first amendment.

Also, From a Lawyer of the ACLU we have a discussion on guns/gun control.

Those two things can be easily deactivated (and outright deleted, if necessary). I remember hearing about that girl that killed herself, after the sad video she posted online about being tormented and people followed her via online. At one point should someone (and more importantly, a child's parents) interject? It's also trivial to prevent access from unwanted individuals on both Twitter and Facebook. Heck, one of my best friends only allows me to see her "mutual friend" list. I'm skeptical that this is actually an unavoidable issue. I'm not saying that it's unavoidable, jsut that it's there and schools have slowly become more rough because ofi t. Also, did a guy on the day of the shootings really say "I wish the principal had an M4 in her office to just blow the guys head off"? How is having a gun in the hands of an educator who's got no emotional protection going to save anyone? ... Is PTSD from killing somebody covered by the health plan the principals have?

... Me in 15 levels. Also NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I DIEDED!

Except that before you could get away from the bullying schtick by changing locations, now you're still followed via internest. How are they followed, exactly? Facebook & Twitter mainly. It also allows them to figure out who the persons new friends are and start badmouthing them.

Well, removing the stigma from having a mental health issue is a good first shot.

Except that before you could get away from the bullying schtick by changing locations, now you're still followed via internest.

IMO, that might be because schools have slowly become more vicious over the years, in terms of bullying and social status, due to the increase in social media and the level of social interaction. No longer can a kid being bullied at one school swap to another and remake himself. Instead he still gets nasty emails and fb posts and "trolololololol" via the 'net.

which is exactly what I was saying. The phrase "Going Postal" comes from before 20 years ago.

Not on most who were alive back in the 80s when the events that lead to the term becoming part of the American vocabulary happened. I imagine some younger folks who weren't or were but were still pooping themselves might look at the term differently as slang tends to morph meanings over time. Usually the term is used in a dark humor context, and there were some comedians back then who used it in their routine which helped popularize it. How is this relevant though? GD's post Or can you just not even read?

Thats the main problem of Dishonored. Very little backstory. When the player knows practically nothing about the world and characters, it's kinda hard to care. It is fun stealth game, but could have been much better than that. I think the characters is the biggest problem. They obviously set up a relationship between the Royals and the player, but you dont' get ANYTHING to describe that until MUCH later. Part of me hopes that the franchise will be picked up by another company that can flesh it out more.

Been playing dishonored. It feels more like Assassins Creed the FPS than anything, and I'm 6 hours in, but I'm getting the feeling I'm nearing the end of the game. Kinda short if you ask me. I'd say the pacing was off (with one of the major villains from the intro being offed as the first official mission as the "Masked Man"). And that the world you're thrust into needed more set up. *shrugs* if I were magically a designer of the game, I'd have had you start the game by having a few "world explanation" tutorials before you became "Dishonored".

Then I punch him in the soul with my 18 str.

Has the reason "Going Postal" was even invented been lost?

I feel like this needs a BOOSH but I'm not sure. Boosh being at about 4 minutes into this they do that about four times in the game.

Illegal modifications that take all of 1 power drill to complete (at least for the 47's) And it was more going towards the point that people were trying to make that somehow we should all be trying not to have AR's banned or remotely close because "there haven't been any massacres from assault rifles/automatic weapons!" Those two guys could have easily been the gun toting yahoos from India. Or this guy Or this one And that's just from 10 minutes on google. Yes some were illegally modified, but it doesn't seem like the modification to become fully automatic takes to much to do.

So you're saying that Machine guns ARE protected by the specific ruling in question? As I understand it, Scalia specifically says that while handguns (which were the point of the DC case) are fully protected by the 2nd amendment due to their reliability as a protective institution, and the proliferation within america, there are still limits. Namely Concealed weapons issues and the requirment to have a license for the weapon, to prevent it from falling into the hands of somebody liable to use it for the wrong purposes His point about Machine guns and M16's (which his opponents have torn apart) is that they're to big to be strictly home defense weapons, and they aren't nearly as widespread as the handguns. Thus they aren't protected as to hold those would be to cause more danger than the number of lives they'd save. He points out that the part of the amendment (about militias) is being divorced from the rest of it (right to bare arms) because when the amendment was written, the same weapons were used for warfare and hunting and, well, everything. Now, handguns are used for most defensive postures, and rifles are used for hunting etc, but a machine gun or other rapid fire weapon has no place in the home as a defensive weapon, nor would it ever be used to hunt and thus, not protected while in the hands of a common citizen. His dissenters in (one of) their opinions stated that he was making a circular argument. Hand guns are prevalent, thus they're protected as the most common form of defensive firearm. If something were to magically change the dynamics of the system, making automatic weapons and machine guns the standard form of defense, would the court then reverse it's decision and make automatic weapons constitutionally protected because they were prevalent? On the subject of what has been discussed here in thread, The defenders of Assault Rifles and military grade weapons in the hands of civilians have cited 2 major factors to support their side of the argument: A)That these weapons have not been used in a shooting massacre (in America) B) That these weapons are not ideal for killing anything due to ammunition size and amount of damage done to the target. Issue is that the second of those items rules out the weapons as purely home defense weapons. If they aren't the best option over a .45 you got for 90 bucks at a swap meet, why do you have it? Same with hunting. These weapons serve no purpose outside of a military environment (or para-military). And as Scalia pointed out, the Militias of ye-olden days have been phased out by government organizations that draw their memberships from the population at large. As to the first? That depends on what you mean by "Massacre", and the time frame you choose to look at it. The early part of the previous century was rife with tales of bank robbers running around with Military grade weapons (BAR's and Thompsons with Drum magazines) and being able to outgun the police sent after them. Also, these yahoos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout Who, in 1997 carried AK47 and AR15 rifles into a gun battle with the LAPD. The AR15, in particular, is of interest because posters are saying that they should be allowed to wield it, when in this particular case, the AR15 was made fully automatic with a MASSIVE magazine. The only reason this wouldn't fall into "massacre" territory is because the only deaths were of the perpetrators, and there were "only" 18 injured as the area had been cleared of civilians and blocked off.

Those words I quoted are from Scalia's decision. And the source is from Cornell Law. Care to try again? *sigh* we said you didn't quote wiki the second time... good for you. (more bad reading on your part) unfortunately, you didn't bother to read the case. Scalia mentions m-16 specific numerous times. please read the case w/o adding your own preconceptions into the text. maybe ask self why m-16 is identified and not other weapons would help you. ... we could give you answer, but then you wouldn't learn nothing. HA! Good Fun! Go to the document, hit ctrl f, type M16 and M-16 and count how many times it pops up. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Those words I quoted are from Scalia's decision. And the source is from Cornell Law. Care to try again?

I think the majority of WOT'ers are significantly tighter knit than most forums. And we've all been here a few years for the most part (I WON THE LOTTERY! WOOOOO!)

Sincerely http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html#25ref Yeeesssss???? He's deliberately saying that M16's and other military grade weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment because the fall under the title of "dangerous and unusual weapons". *smacks gromnir with a shotgun*

is no real fence worth straddling at the moment. 2nd Amendment precludes much in the way o' meaningful gun control options. times and weapons have changed since founders penned the Bill o' Rights. that not change the fact that the founders were no doubt wanting private citizens to have weapons with which to defend themselves not only from foreign armies, indians (our relatives insist that indians is the pc term nowadays for native americans... so confusing) and the infrequent rabid possum, but also to defend self from the US government. option is to change 2nd Amendment... which currently seems unlikely. never forget that what we gots here in the US is a revolutionary government and a Bill o' Rights that were revealing a very deep lack o' faith that the fed powers would effective protect our freedom and liberty. these infrequent tragedies, such as one in CT, are wonderful for getting folks riled up 'bout gun control, but is all sound and fury. change 2nd Amendment. oh, and keeps in mind that gun control laws in norway is relative strict. didn't keeps anders breivik from killing... we forget how many. more than 70? HA! Good Fun! ps we personally think it is stoopid for folks to have handguns and ak-47s n' such. this ain't personal. this is the law. the Constitution gots a process for being changed. gonna have to change to do something meaningful. The problem is that the second amendment is maddeningly unclear, undefined and unhelpful. It can be twisted to fit any whim and in fact constantly is - I'm pretty sure that less than a percent of people defending it have ever read it and those who have still don't have an understanding of the word "regulated". the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller would seem to disagree with you, and is the Court that interprets the Law. and again, regardless of whether you think the Amendment is outdated or outlandish, it is the Law... and there IS a process to change such laws. HA! Good Fun! Speaking of that AR's are not provided with 2nd amendment protections.

Worth noting that it was a human who managed to take down Sovereign (which I think was alluded to in the ME2 reaper's reveal)