I like comic book movies, and sometimes, people make fun of comic books, and comic book fans. It kind of stings a little. I think I'll equate it with racism, and drop the n-bomb to show how offended I am. People will really get what I'm laying down. If not, then I'll just never back down, because apologies are for homos.
Why apologize, even if you do, some people here will still throw it in your face every opportunity they get. No matter how much time passes.
So what if a gay person shoots up a school while being gay? What caused the shooting? The gay, the guns, or the gay guns?
When did the gay part show up in this thread? I used to give people the benefit of the doubt when it came to "responsible gun ownership." I'm over it.
It's not about "how much time passes," you retard, but whether you've learned to not be a dumbass. I don't keep pissing on Liet over that Oreo comment way back when because he not only apologized to me for he, he never said anything close to that again. You OTOH continue to be a whiny fucking toolshed. You're the Chris Brown of Wordforge: an idiot manchild who keeps showing his ass and never learns anything. But Chris Brown has good looks, loads of money and possibly hung like a horse, so he can continue to be a jackass until he's inevitably found unresponsive after a night of coke and booze. What's your excuse?
I would've gone with "when Forbin started sucking off the barrel using his male tears as lube." More lulz.
it was not a reference to feelings, it was a reference to an often offered no, on the contrary. The remark was not "all gun owners will eventually go nuts and shoot people" - indeed 99% or so won't. Rather, it points out that many of those who do WERE "law abiding" before they committed the crime in question (i.e. were not "gang bangers" or whatever) and THUS arguing that certain gun possession and use restrictions "punish law abiding gun owners" is not a valid argument. Gun regulations do not punish people, they limit THINGS in EXACTLY the same manner that we regulate the possession and use of vehicles. There may well be OTHER valid arguments against gun regulation, but "law abiding gun owners" isn't one, because we cannot know in advance which are and which are not.
INDEED! But no one else is offering the "quit picking on law abiding innocents!" to defend their position. Just the gun lobby. Albeit, since he brought it up, if we DO take the "law abiding" argument as completely valid, then the exact same logic defeats every "bathroom bill" argument ever.
I think you missed the point that I was trying to make a point. I'm no more homophobe than you are, but I was trying the shock value to show Nova what she said could be as offensive as what I said.
... You're truly fucked in the head if you think comparing sexuality that no one chooses is in any way an even remotely appropriate analogy to gun ownership that you *do* choose. Stop defending any part of this. You're wrong. That doesn't even merit any kind of commentary.
If you can't understand why someone wouldn't want their daughter to share the bathroom with a grown man who's a complete stranger, then I can't help you.
It's not like everyone is peeing in front of each other; there are stalls with doors in women's restrooms.
To the innocent person, it's every bit as offensive and insulting. Yes, I choose to be a gun owner. It is my right to be. And I have done absolutely nothing unlawful, imprudent, or destructive with that right. And that's true of MILLIONS and MILLIONS of gun owners. And to be regarded as mass murderers just waiting to be triggered is hugely offensive and insulting.
Nova, on a personal me-to-you level, I apologize - like I said, just trying (clumsily apparently) to make a point.
Also the 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments have something to say here. It's a fine argument, you just don't like when it's applied to the 2nd.
I've brought up lawn darts before. They were a thing, and then some kids lost an eye, and then they weren't a thing. Everyone got on with their lives. No one wept for the responsible lawn dart owners. No one tried to compare lawn darts to religion. No one tried to compare lawn darts to sexual identity. Just "wham", no more fucking lawn darts. Just like that. And as I said earlier in the thread, IMNSHO, guns not meant for killing are also toys. No one can explain to me how putting holes in your yard with a giant dart, and holes in a paper target of a fake human are so radically different activities. You can try, but I'll laugh at your efforts. Nope, the only thing different between a lawn dart, and a gun meant for recreational play, is you're backed by an amendment. Which is fine, but don't give me the "it's an ideology/religion/identity", shit. That's just fucking pathetic. I'm sure on some sad corner of the internet, it worked on really stupid people, and you got all excited, and popped a chub, and ran it over here for a test drive. Whelp, sorry, fail. Try another one.
Fucking A. Twitty did someone mention David & Goliath and the "slingshot" again? It was a fucking SLING! They didn't have "slingshots" in the bible era because they didn't fucking have rubber. It was a sling - it's a long piece of cord with a pouch. You put a rock in it and hold one end of the cord between your thumb and finger and other end is held firmly around your wrist, for example. You spin the rock in circles. The centrifugal force develops velocity and you release one end of the cord, and the rock goes insanely fast. Watch videos of protesters using them - it's the same classic design from the bible days. Some hunters use them out west to throw rocks into far away brushy areas to drive out deer into the open. Regardless it wasn't a SLINGSHOT David used in the bible.
