Jump to content

Longknife

Members
  • Posts

    990
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Longknife

  1. Is there such thing as Canadian accent? No. Everyone has an accent of course, my point being more that Canadian accents are virtually indistinguishable from the American States that they border. The one exception is Quebec for obvious reasons, and their french is notably different sounding from France French, of course. I'm sure there's other misc accents here and there, but 9/10 a Canadian can absolutely pass as an American and vice versa. There's a reason people joke about Canada not being a real country.
  2. Here's a song I like no so much for it's sound but rather for it's lyrics and meaning:
  3. To be fair, studying the Bible probably should be part of any literature class. There's a massive body of texts that engage with it one way or the other, where lots of nuance is lost if you don't have the same background information the writer assumes is default. Depends entirely on the context of the lesson. In my case I promise you that wasn't in the interest of traditional education, but an attempt to scum over the rules and attempt some religious indoctrination. If you think Theology should be an optional class students can elect to take and that all students reserve the right to not attend, with the classes themselves giving multiple religions an equal amount of coverage, sure. If you think Bible passages should be taught as English class curriculum, even if the curriculum itself is solid and fair, I promise you more religious communities will take that as an opportunity to teach Christianity in class.
  4. The scene where Dany became a fire mage was lame as ****.
  5. To me? An overzealous progressive individual that has developed such a warped view of progressive ideals so that the progressive stances themselves are less so about bringing about meaningful change or progress, and more about showcasing an opportunity for the speaker to be a self-indulgent, pretentious little **** that wishes to lord their perceived superiority over others. 15 years ago it was trendy to like Nsync. Today? Today it's trendy to be Martin Luther King Jr. In some ways I suppose that's progress, the problem being that you end up with all these self-indulgent little nitwits that are less focused on actually bringing about change and progress and more focused on their little fantasy world where the president invites them to speak in front of the nation on -INSERT PROGRESSIVE SUBJECT HERE- and then 50 years from now everyone looks back on how amazing and impressive they were and blah blah blah....it's like teenagers. As a teen I wondered why adults frown upon teens and I was curious to see what makes us different since technically adults and teens both have adult, matured minds. Now I know the difference: adults share info for the sake of sharing info and knowledge with one another so we can all grow as people, teens share info as a chance to lord their perceived superiority over others; it's not "you don't know the constitutional laws? Ok let me teach you," it's "Pffft...you don't know the constitutional laws...? lol...omg." That same difference in mindset is exactly the problem with SJWs and exactly why they're a blight on anyone even remotely interested in any actual progress.
  6. ...Right. Understandable retort considering what the media portrays. The shock of being treated better there than in most places in Europe took a while for me to accept. Wasn't intended as voicing skepticism, more like... sure, they'll be genuinely friendly, nice and polite to you as long as you look and behave like someone belonging to their in-group. But I'm also pretty sure they'll treat you with considerably more... let's say, distance, if you're not that keen on the whole God business, or - heavens forbid - happen to be non-white, non-straight, and visibly a foreigner. I'm guessing you have never visited the places you are casting incorrect aspersions on. He's right.* I lived in a small town in Oklahoma of 30,000. I lived in a neighborhood occassionally referred to as "N***erville" because it was where most of the black population was, and also one of the poorest neighborhoods. That same neighborhood had it's elementary school shut down when the school board decided they wanted to use some funding to get a cushy new office, even though it was logically more sound to shut down another elementary school (if any at all, I mean this was blatantly corrupt) that was closer to another, as shutting down this one in particular meant an entire neighborhood would lack direct access to a school and the costs of bussing those kids off to another school alone was gonna counteract any profits gained from shutting it down, given enough time. Same town also had a news story where some friends of mine went to jail because some known racist from our high school class openly provoked them by picking a fight and calling them the N-word until one broke his jaw. Shortly after the story broke out, the racist dude's parents made sure to delete his facebook and any other social website profiles that showed him standing proudly in front of a confederate flag or blatantly signed up with some white supremacy group. (KKK, Neo Nazis, you name it. That this kid was racist was the worst kept secret in town) My friends went to jail, broken jaw racist got out scot-free as the "poor innocent white guy" who did nothing wrong despite all attempts to archive his blatanty racist facebook page amongst other things. Another black friend who was a little more concious and clever about how targeted he was got pulled over as frequently as 4 times a week for driving while black over the course of ~6 months, one day he finally had enough raw evidence from the abnormal frequency of how often he was pulled over compared to how they never found **** on him with which to charge him with, and with that he was able to go to City Hall and basically get an unspoken immunity because if they didn't, they were gonna have a serious issue on their hands. I myself lost numerous friends who sniffed out that I wasn't a Christian until I finally figured out to keep my mouth shut about that, and the school system regularly tried to shoehorn religion into the criteria. One example is that while analyzing greek and roman mythology, they argued that's practically religion and thus this would be a great time for us to likewise study bible passages as part of the curriculum. I kept my mouth shut, my mom often didn't, and often after she'd speak up and force them to stop I would find myself targeted or alienated by students (the ones who had the parents and connections neccesary to figure out what went down) and faculty alike as "that kid who's the reason we can't teach Jesus in English class." Same way the above driving-while-black friend was the clever one, I consider myself the clever one because there were about ~4 other athiests/Democrats/minority opinion kids who didn't hide it, and you better believe they didn't have a friend in the world aside from each other. *The main thing to note is that no, being a southern state does not automatically mean blind bigotry and hatred. If anything, being a small rural town often (keyword often, not always) means blind bigotry and hatred, and I'd bet you could find small towns in New York and California that are just as bigoted, but in different ways. I've traveled through Dallas and Atlanta for example on multiple occassions and never got the sense that being black or non-Christian was a cardinal sin in those cities. Another German friend explicitly traveled through the South out of boredom with the standard travel locations (New York, California) and despite being very anti-religion, she was super pleased with her travels through Memphis, New Orleans and a couple other southern capitols/major cities. Small populations and little incentive to travel means people are less likely to encounter other ideas and thus they become bigoted because they view opposing ideals as "wrong" rather than attempting to understand them.. Small populations affects this far more than any singular religion or political stance, cause yeah wtf for example I actually know a Baptist Republican Christian from Oklahoma that I met here in my town here in Germany, and he and I get along great, often debating our different ideals in the most respectful way possible. Another example of how small populations and little travel can make a community bigoted, I was the *only* disabled kid in my town (aside from one dwarf, though being short lets you blend in til people stop caring) and that was quite an adjustment for me because San Francisco vs. random butt**** town act quite different in terms of the disabled. One of those didn't bat an eye because half it's population was already disabled, the other...? Distinctly recall a time as a teen where my prosthetic leg was falling apart and I needed either some tools (wrench etc) to fix it or I needed a phone so I could get to my doctor. This was in front of an elementary school on the way home. The faculty's response? They didn't come out to offer assistance, they came out to tell me to put my leg back on and to please leave the area because I was scaring the children. Bitch I would love to but that's kind of the issue right now, and hey here's a thought: how about instead of yelling at me for being me, you teach the god damned kids not to flip the **** out when someone's different.
  7. Has the FBI indicted Hillary and saved the planet yet?
  8. "-INSERT ENEMY FACTION HERE- have -kidnapped/killed/attacked/oppressed- someone's/your -INSERT LOVED ONE HERE- so I need you to travel to -INSERT MYSTERIOUS AND FAMED LOCATION HERE- to get revenge/save them/stop it from happening again." Little do you know that once there, you'll discover the sinister intentions of a major faction, forcing you to get involved with the local conflict for the good of the locals! That pretty much sums up Bethesda main plot writing for Fallout games in general.
  9. That's gonna be Brain's next plan for world domination: run as a candidate when the only other two alternatives are Trump and Hillary. Hell, I'd vote for him.
  10. I saw Zootopia after Laci Green stated it was a movie about Feminism and then some MRA (I guess?) guy responded saying she was exceedingly wrong and the movie is (the way he made it sound in my interpretation) more about rising above prejudice and standing up for yourself, sort of like an acknowledgement "yeah the world is **** but only you can look out for yourself." Watched cause with such different interpretations I was sure one of them had to be koo koo for cocoa puffs. It was k. Nothing phenominal, just k, but by no means bad or anything. The climactic conflict felt very forced though. Like it all sparks due to a conflict that didn't seem neccesary and seemed fully avoidable. Also it's about prejudice. It's about why you shouldn't be prejudice. It's against prejudice in general, but seeing as how the movie has different species, the common conclusion would of course be it's about racial prejudice. Laci Green is koo koo as the film had **** all to do with feminism, MRA guy might also be a little koo koo but couldn't quite tell cause his interpretation could VAGUELY fit it or his interpretation would make sense specifically in the context of countering Laci's.
  11. GOOD, this is hilarious and entertaining! Like if I stopped getting messaged I'mma be bored and sad. You don't think you'd find it entertainingly fascinating if out of the blue, somebody referenced a post your made a while back and attempted to piss you off in response, all while hiding behind an alt? That **** gets me like "HOT DAMN I gotta figure out these motivations."
  12. I ASKED HIM WHY HE BOTHERED MESSAGING ME AND LOL WHAT IS GOING ON: Like I'm laughing my ass off here but I'm likewise confused as ****. HOW DO PEOPLE LIKE THIS EXIST?? This is so weird, so malicious and so pathetic I don't even know what to say. He's spamming me now.
  13. Help me out here guys, I need to make sense of this: This message is referring to a "popular" discussion that took place (popular meaning it was the top discussion in the top thread of a certain day) where I commented on how disabled people can be spoiled or weird and no one acknowledges it cuz no balls to diss the cripple, and someone asked me if I get a lot of girls with a disability - they asked honestly and legitimately curious if it affected my chances. I said I've no idea because if I get stared at I never know if I'm being checked out or if they wanna know why I'm limping. That discussion must've been over a week ago now, and it took place in a community where I'm in no way of any significance or importance or anything, so no one there should have ANY motivation to like or hate me. Fast forward to now, I get this message with the clear intent of upsetting me, and the account that sent it isn't even trying to hide that it's an alt account and/or recently made. So in short, someone doesn't like me and tried to upset me....but they somehow delayed their efforts by a week. Like they only JUST NOW started going through my post history or something...? It's weird to me because ok let's say I have a psycho stalker that hates my guts. Such a person would message me almost immediately, no? This person has a reaction time delay of well over a week, yet they STILL have the motivation to go through all this trouble to try and upset me. LOL WHAT THE **** IS GOING ON This is honestly fascinating to me. I can never imagine myself doing this, and yet here it is. Hell man, I can't even make sense of their motivations here. Like in ALL of reddit I can name one guy that would have some motivation to dislike me, but he'd be weeeeell out of his "natural habitat" and he'd be reviving a dispute (a basic disagreement, nothing more) that was last year. Can anyone walk me through what on earth would drive someone to do this? I bring it up just because friends of mine have pointed out that when I'm online, I have this weird thing where people either love me or hate me. Nothing like that occurs in real life, but online? I constantly have people forming cults in my honor, and then I constantly have people that seem to be stabbing voodoo dolls in my liking every 10 minutes or so. Stuff like this is sadly a regular occurance for me. I actually find it hilarious (luckily...?), but I'm SUPER curious about all things psychology, and when I encounter someone acting a certain way that I can't wrap my head around, it drives my curiousity insane. So yeah, as of about 15 minutes ago, here I am sitting here trying to make sense of this person and their motivations. I cannot for the life of me put myself in their shoes.
  14. MASSIVE **** EDIT: Gee, Thanks forums for censoring that. Now people are definitely gonna think I wrote something completely different from what I actually wrote.
  15. THAT EPISODE SUCKED LOL
  16. Bruce has anyone ever told you that some of the most dangerous and warped individuals are those that give themselves the moral high ground or those that believe themselves to be doing the right thing?
  17. Good day, Bruce! What shall we debate? But to be honest I have been debating all night....I just need a break for a few hours so lets catch-up later ? What a shocking surprise!
  18. Yes, well, the 3 or 4 friends I have that are Germans and that live in Germany do not share your posting mannerisms...and the needless thoroughness and redundancy is making it impossible for the rest of us to read your posts. Your choice, though. Just clarifying since you missed it: I said law in Germany has that. It's something that gets hammered into you if you study law, and apparently had an effect on me. I am not suggesting something in German genes causes you to be outrageously thorough.
  19. Good day, Bruce! What shall we debate?
  20. Law in Germany has a "Gutachtenstil," where you are expected to let nothing slip through the cracks. Basically, when addressing a case, you're expected to both attack the stance of your opposition on all points while simultaneously mentioning everything that supports your case. Mentioning support gets you the sweet grades, failing to even acknowledge or attack a point can flunk you. This is likely what you're seeing and lamenting, because yeah, I understand I can write more concisely, but I much prefer to get all my points and thoughts out. After all, if you or anyone else doesn't care to read, you don't have to, I'm just making my stance available, nothing more. Also you're implying Bruce has points. You're full of ****.
  21. When did I ever claim your guns were going to shoot you? That's a blatant strawman. I said that you proposed guns are neccesary to protect the people from a tyrannical government, should that day come. I'm arguing that if a tyrannical government should arise, your guns won't save you because A.) The most common issue would be an idiot cop with a gun that can't wait to shoot it tries to shoot you, you luckily shoot him first, but then every cop in the county hears "officer down" and the likelihood you get shot by one of them is ridiculous, and B.) We live in a world of economic sanctions and political pressure. Any president or government that would try to act tyrannical towards the American people would be the subject of international pressure, because the USA is powerful and influential enough that half the world has an interest in our business. Attempting to install a tyrannical government would be suicide and highly unlikely, and even if it were to happen, could be resolved without a need to fire a shot. If you want a pistol on the premise of self-defense, go nuts. However, if we're talking about some sort of realistic demand for a right to bear arms...? I think you are blatantly missing the issue. If anything, the USA needs better police training and less stress on the importance of a standing military when we've not suffered an attack on our own soil sans Pearl Harbor for aaaaages. A culture that calms the **** down will help the USA become safer, NOT more assault rifles. @Bartimaeus This is my favorite part of your complaint. Makes me laugh. And if you're curious, that's likely because of ****ing reddit needing an extra, so now I've grown stupidly paranoid with the damned things. Still find it hilarious it bothers you so much though. @Valsuelm How ****ing convenient for you and your stance on the matter!
  22. Please explain how guns make you safer by naming one significant situation in American history in the last 100 or so years where someone (a private person rather than an officer) owning a gun was to everyone's benefit and helped defuse a dangerous situation. The only situations I can think of involve a home owner shooting an intruder who did or did not have a weapon, and I believe I recall one news story about a mass shooter being shot first. This is dwarfed by all the accidental shootings, the cases similar the Trayvond Martin, mass shootings themselves, or even cases where a citizen ACKNOWLEDGED owning a firearm but a scared as **** cop shot them dead anyways with the attitude of "ask questions later." Here's the thing: the government or government entities are not a danger to you via sheer force, they are a danger to you politically. If the government truly has a vendetta against you, then brandishing a gun is about the stupidest thing you can do. It's going to give the government an excuse to defame you and label you as dangerous. Imagine if Edward Snowden were a gun owner and the government had photos of him with an M16. Imagine if Snowden had a gun...do you think he would've shot anyone that tried to label him a traitor or terrorist and then everything would be sunshine and rainbow farts...? Hell no, that would've been used against him if he shot people while making his brave escape, and he'd probably be dead by now as Russia would have even more difficulty making a case to house him without serious reprocussions. If not, I'd imagine we'd have overzealous fans of him saying "HE USED A GUN SO I SHOULD TOO," and then you just have dead bureocrats for no god damned reason. In the society we live in today, brute force without any degree of thought will get you absolutely nowhere. Trying to fight tyranny with gun ownership rather than evidence or the wits to oppose slander and propaganda? That's far more dangerous to you than any cop with a gun. If you wish to make a case for the people having a right to basic firearms so as to be able to defend against any situation where the government or government bodies go nuts and start trying to slaughter their own people, so be it. However, I would stress how insanely unlikely this situation is. Let's say tomorrow we elect a new president and this president says we need to kill all black people. You now have armed black citizens vs. every police force that goes along with the President's orders. Anyone that stands against the police would be branded a criminal, and what you now have is a war between citizens and the police/anyone that sides with them. This is going to be a slaughter. Thousands will die, if not millions. Comparatively you could do a protest at the White House and, with enough social pressure, the President must bend. Economic sanctions from other supportive countries, a crowd so large that it's the clear majority and the country is actively suffering from the amount of people protesting rather than working, or even the simple ability to - as a giant protest group directly in D.C. - at least get to the doorsteps of the White House before fighting breaks out, are all going to afford you better odds for progress than every citizen openly brandishing a gun and demanding change. To say that guns are the solution is insanely shortsighted and in denial of the world we live in today. I think you'll find that Martin Luther King, Ghandi and Malala Yousafzai all did not own guns, and yet their messages are heard and they brought about/are bringing about change. Interestingly, all three of them were shot, only one of them survived (for now). Even now, Russia is being punished for their actions in Ukraine not with all out warfare, but with economic sanctions that are absolutely crippling it's economy. Times are indeed changing. You want change? This is how you do it. Stop worshipping the words of the founding fathers unconditionally. Ask why they said what they said and ask if it applies to today. They were insanely intelligent, but there's only so much foresight one can have for 200+ years. The police force and the military need better screening and training. The police training program in the USA is an absolute ****ing joke. You know why there's so many cases of police brutality? It's nothing to do with the government trying to control the people and everything to do with every yahoo on planet earth being viable to become a cop. Wouldn't you know it, a lot of the nutjobs out there who REALLY want an excuse to shoot a gun go and sign up to be cops. Lo and behold after their 6 week/month/whatever abysmally small length of time the US demands training course at the police academy, the FIRST sign of any potential threat and they've shot someone, guilty or not. Suddenly you and a good portion of the nation want to own a gun, but what you fail to realize is that even if a bat**** crazy officer pulls a gun on you and you shoot him, the very first word the other officers are gonna hear is "officer down," and you're gonna be standing there with a gun. Do you truly believe your gun has made you safer now? No, you were royally ****ed regardless, and not because you did or did not own a gun, but because the police force in the USA is a joke that's often more dangerous to the people than it is helpful. The police training is the issue, NOT gun ownership. Second, after you train those guys? Lock their damned guns in place. In Germany, cops have to unlock their pistols. If I pull a gun on a cop here? I'll win. He's dead for sure. GOOD. That's how it should be. Just like a firefighter accepts that he will put his life at risk by running into fires, a cop should understand it's their own ass on the line, not the ass of every citizen they talk to. Ever been pulled over in the USA? Then you know the song-and-dance: they walk up to your car with sunglasses on so you can't see their eyes or their expression, and the whole time they have a hand on their holster like they're Clint ****ing Eastwood. **** this crap. That's so unneccesary and does so much to escalate the tension between a cop and every person they speak to. Get these action hero wannabes out of the police force by making it impossible to pull a Quick Draw McGraw on citizens, and you'll find suddenly the only cops left are the ones that act like responsible human beings. Third, the US needs to admit that a lot of the people who sign up for military service are ****nuts insane. Not all of course, but yes a decent percent. You know who shot Martin Luther King? Ex-military. You think most shootings involve illegally acquired firearms...? I would theorize that part of what allows for this is that a lot of people are getting access to firearms through the military, then they either use legally owned firearms irresponsibly, or they deal firearms they have access to to others who are less trustworthy themselves. But no, this is the USA. How DARE anyone ever question the honor of a US soldier!?! They risk their lives for our freedoms!! No, **** that, some of these guys are looney tunes. Let's acknowledge that. You want weapons of the streets? I promise you the military and our liberal recruitment of soldiers has something to do with it. What's truly tragic here is that there are screening processes in place to try and keep dangerous people out, but clearly it's not working and there's only so much they can do. Why? Well having been invited to join the military myself, I can say it's probably because the US military targets young kids in high school and actively has the right to recruit in high schools. If I am being approached and persuaded to join when I have a prosthetic leg, do you think these recruiters give two ****s about the morals of the kids they recruit? Hell no. The attitude of recruitment and the age of recruitment is the problem here: recruiters are just expected to get results, the QUALITY of said results is irrelevant. And when we recruit in High school...? Yeah, damned right the nutjobs slip through. They're too young to have done anything bad yet. Sadly, that point I think is a tragic side affect of being a warhawk nation. If we've got tons of guns and tons of soldiers, yeah, I expect some of that stuff to trickle back home. This, I feel, would be the hardest point to address when trying to kill off America's gun culture. If you accomplish the above three, I think you'll find you have little reservation with gun restrictions. As I said, if a nutjob police officer pulls you over and for whatever reason wants an excuse to shoot you, then having a gun...? Dude it's gonna buy you a chance to run to Mexico, that's it. The first thing the officers will likely hear is "officer down," and if history/statistics are any indication, they'll be taking you dead, not alive. Guns have not made you any more or less safe, the true variable is the quality of the cop. So listen, I can fully respect any stance where gun ownership should exist to dissuade tyranny, but total reverence for the Amendment without any thought? A lack of acknowledgement for the world we live in today...? The fact of the matter is that if the USA were to become a tyrannical state, it would be slapped with so many economic sanctions it's not even funny. We are not in a position where the rest of the world simply wouldn't care if the people were mistreated. Hell no, the USA is far too powerful and influential for that; the interest in this election by foreigners is a testament to that. I mean we're not even in the primaries and other countries are commenting. And the idea that guns will bring peace...? This happened once in our history. It was called the American Revolution, and it gives credit to the case the founding fathers make. Everything since, from the Civil war to WWII, would've been the same without private gun ownership. But this is not 1776, it's 2016. The most influential revolutionaries that brought about real, tangible change were not wielding guns to make their case. Hell, they were the ones that got shot. If you wish to argue we'd have enjoyed MLK or Ghandi longer had they had guns, this is again in blatant ignorance of the cases. (not to mention their philosophies) If someone wants you dead, they'll get you. MLK would've been shot whether he had a gun or not, Ghandi would've needed to be quickdraw mcgraw to be alive. Long range rifles and concealed carry are actual factors. A case can be made both for "give everyone weapons" and "give no one weapons," depending on the circumstances in play. It would be foolish to consider either of these stances to be absolutely correct 100% of the time. If I view the circumstances of the world we live in however? It's painfully obvious that the USA needs to make efforts to restrict gun ownership and usage, both amongst the private citizens and legal bodies/forces and authority figures, because in the end, our government bodies are composed of normal people like you and me, and you better believe dangerous individuals are gonna be willing to sign up with the police force or the military if it means they get to shoot some people.
  23. No need for an essay when a clause will do. Succinct, to the point and gets the important take home message across as quickly and easily as possible. I'm stubborn. I like to imagine that if, someday, someone has a bit of inner reflection during a difficult time, realizes there's a problem and then starts reflecting on things people have said to them in the past to try and find an answer as to what the issue may be, I want to provide that person with as much explanation as possible. Naive as ****, I know, but meh, I'd rather waste my breathe than not try at all.
  24. “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” ― John Adams In any case, blame Hamilton and Jefferson for the US having two parties I like how we missed that one BUT BY GOD GUYS THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID WE NEED GUNS IN AN ERA WHEN THE RIFLES WERE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FULLY AUTOMATIC 30-BULLETS-IN-THE-CHAMBER ASSAULT RIFLES WE HAVE TODAY. NOPE, NO NEED TO REGULATE THAT AT ALL! The public had access to more powerful weapons than those issued by the army back in the day when the declaration of independence was a quite new piece of paper, completely legally of course. So things haven't changed that much, relatively speaking. But the objective situation matters a great deal. In 1776 you murder a child for walking on your lawn and now you spend half an hour reloading while all your armed neighbors get a shot at you or have time to alert the authorities. In 2016, you murder half the room before the remaining half pulls their own assault rifles out, with enough shots between them to kill you and perhaps wound a couple more with some misfiring. The purpose behind the 2nd Amendment is self defense. You can absolutely protect yourself with a pistol, rifle or shotgun. An assault rifle is, quite frankly, a terrible weapon for self-defense. You're at far greater risk of hitting someone you didn't intend to hit, or if you're shooting at an intruder in your home, you'll now have several holes in the wall behind him while you're also paying more for the use of the weapon itself. Why not just use a damned pistol? People who buy assault rifles are either those that want it for recreation or those that are truly nutty. I'm sorry, but recreation doesn't hold a lot of value in the face of deadlier mass shootings.
  25. “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” ― John Adams In any case, blame Hamilton and Jefferson for the US having two parties I like how we missed that one BUT BY GOD GUYS THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID WE NEED GUNS IN AN ERA WHEN THE RIFLES WERE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FULLY AUTOMATIC 30-BULLETS-IN-THE-CHAMBER ASSAULT RIFLES WE HAVE TODAY. NOPE, NO NEED TO REGULATE THAT AT ALL!
×
×
  • Create New...