Messages

That camera view is not too high.  Not in the slightest.  You're just being effected by all this LEC talk but there's no need to fret.  Each person's design doesn't have to be ominous and towering above the player.   I think that screen is quite fantastic the way it is.

Congrats to all!

*AJA: wonderful game, this really did make my day more pleasant.   I had to stop playing games for a few minutes just to reflect on everything I liked about it.   Something that doesn't happen all that often

*MashPotato:  better luck next time but its not really about the awards!  I loved your game and hope you make many many more.  Very brilliant style. 

Those two were my favorite.   And then JBurger's Chatroom had some real effort put into it that I wish will revolutionize dialogue from here on out.   It wasn't just a text parser for me, I really went far to try to test its intelligence.  And I was very very impressed.  Well done!

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that criminals don't seem to care if you have your gun. They'll just keep on committing crimes, according to the evidence.

OK I'm not so sure I agree with you but maybe I'm not looking at the same evidence you are.   If I was a criminal selecting a target at random I would NOT rob the redneck with a hand in his jacket.    I'd probably go for the college professor with dreads.   All I know is that the citizens of the district of columbia were sitting ducks before the Supreme Court overturned this law.    Let's look at this as an opportunity to observe the crimerate in D.C. and see if it actually does increase or decrease in the upcoming years.    Should be pretty solid evidence for or against gun control.

But if guns are banned then the cost illegally traded weapons increases which also deters criminals, so that helps too.

Yeah that makes sense.  But the hobbyists want their guns and shame on them.   I hate that gun rights has been exploited to the point of individuals collecting a hundred guns.   Its fucking nuts to think how many murders they'd be responsible for should their collection get raided.   I hate those people how irresponsible they are.   

I concede that constitutional rights are not the driving issue, but merely an excuse, for people too selfish to admit to themselves they just like to play with guns.   I'm a liberal who has come to talk to many of these people, understand their position, and come halfway towards realizing the complexity of the issue.  This issue is never fully realized by the extreme left or extreme right, and I'm not sure it ever will be.

[yes]

You still haven't given me a concrete answer on this: if you can't rely on law enforcement in times of peril, do you think that validates the necessity of guns to deter criminals?

So now we get into the argument of "do legal guns supply the offenders as well as the defenders"?  Absolutely.    I don't argue that this country should be swimming in guns.    But the argument is simple on an individual basis.   This is what almost everybody I talk to says:   "I don't like that the criminals have guns, but here is what I DO know.   When they show up, I want MY gun."

So yes, the inadequacies of law enforcement validates the necessity of individual gun ownership.

In Australia, we've enforced various gun restrictions over the last decade and the number of firearm homicides and overall crime rates have declined over the last decade.

I'm sure gun control has been fantastic in other countries.  The USA is a country that has been oversaturated with guns since before the old west.   Many families have their grandfather's pistol from the war etc.     Antiques and also there are hobbyists who collect hundreds of guns like the dumbfucks they are (these people should be shot and its a wonder they haven't been already).   The guns get stolen, bought legally, bought illegally and end up in the wrong hands.    How long do you think it would take for the current supply of guns in the U.S. to fade away.

Most people would just hide them away anyways.  To be stolen, sold illegally etc.     So that guy hiding in his basement won't feel any safer.  Not for years and years after the policy has been in place.   He's going to want his own gun.

Not to mention,  what we've established about "militias" potentially overthrowing the government should gun rights be infringed. Its just not going to happen any time soon.

I'm not saying that crime rates are dependent on banning guns, but I am saying criminals seem to be deterred from crime in very pro-gun countries.

Am I reading this wrong or did you forget a "not"?   Anyways, I'd be interested to research how many Brazilian murders occur in domestic settings, or to civilians.  Because I imagine there's alot of criminals killing criminals in Brazil, what with all the south american dealings.

[Lets take one argument at a time.]

I've made no statement  that I should have been allowed to carry a gun as a 14 year old.   And I was legally old enough to dial 911.    The operator made some bogus shit up about finding an adult.   Because she was too lazy to deal with a potential prank.   ( the actual policy asserts that even prank calls must be checked out by an officer )

Imagine I was a 45 year old man going through the same bureaucratic bullshit while sitting in a darkened basement with my family.    Yes, I'll just pray my jujitsu keeps the multiple ransackers dazzled and amazed while the police are on their way.

Part of the argument for gun control is how organized is modern society guns have become unnecessary, what with the military, the FBI, and the police.  But my whole point, USING MY SITUATION AS AN EXAMPLE, is that those marvels of modern government are NEVER THERE WHEN YOU NEED THEM.

If you go on about this or that how *was I too young to pick up a hammer?* etc, I will go absolutely nuts.   Its absurd.   The point is that the security of the police is only credible WHEN THEY ARE PRESENT.    And they never are.  Lets take one argument at a time.   Forget jujistsu.   I'm talking about the unreliability of law enforcement in times of peril.

I was blocks and blocks away from home.   In a multistory house that I was house-sitting.   I had never been upstairs to know which way to look through doorways-  didn't know the layout.   No adults I knew were anywhere in the area.   As a kid I didn't carry around lead pipes with me.   I was all alone and felt helpless.    My best chance was to run away but I took the leap of faith in calling the police from the downstairs line.

And I was told not to call again.  Unless I found an adult.

All I'm saying is never count on the police unless you just want that scene in Big Lebowski where they ask you about your Creedance tapes.   That's honestly how it is.   I was terrified and there was nothing comforting about the system.   The system that everyone goes on about as if it's fail proof.   Its not.... its completely fail-ful.    Cops just show up and ask what happened.   They don't leap through windows and pull you from harm's way.  Unless you're extremely lucky.

U.S. gun control is a plausible argument... but don't tell me the reason is because I can count on the police.  It's not true.

Nonsense.

The point is that 911 ignored me & the police took several hours to arrive.   

I'll never know.   They had left but my heart was pounding thinking they were upstairs.

I didn't feel safe in the situation I described two posts up.     Many Americans have had similar situations where the police were an hour away.    Or their arrival was uncertain.

For most gun owners, having that cold steel in their own hands is all the safety they need.   And I don't blame them.   From the one experience I was shaking in fear...  looking through the hole the robbers had created when they kicked the door in.   You don't just feel safe knowing there is a police precinct in your city.   The officer actually has to be standing right next to you.

Movies glorifying the police aren't bad.    I'm certain someone has been deterred from committing a crime based on what they saw in movies. 

But that sure doesn't help you if a crime IS committed.   The sad reality of the police shows up at your door, and the one movie cliche that holds true is the fact they're eating a donut.   

OK, but what if your audience doesn't agree that its stupid?   I know some gun owners who would want to carry box cutters onto a plane. 

Anyone who doesn't believe in personal safety has OBVIOUSLY never dealt with American police.  I once called in a burglary and was told to hang up because I wasn't old enough.   The 911 operators themselves are unreliable.   I was just waiting around in a big house that had been broken into.   No police on the way.... and when I found an adult to make the call it took the police forever to arrive.  ( we told our friend who was also a 911 operator and she couldn't believe it.  What they said to me was against policy.)

The same argument that goes for "glorifying guns in movies"   also goes for "glorifying the police in movies"


You put YOUR life in their hands.  I'll be all right by myself.  Some of you are nuts to have any faith in them. When you need help - you need it now.   Know what I mean?

Here's a different view of your flawed logic (this is in the same context):
I think everyone on airplanes should have the right to bare box cutters.  You never know when a terrorist is going to be on that plane.

This way the people can out number the terrorists.


I hope that helped you realize how incredibly odd some of your arguments sound.

*Raises hand

"Uh yes, was that supposed to be mind-blowing sir?"

I don't get it.   A metaphor is a metaphor but it isn't an argument.  You still have to appeal to a person's logic.  Many americans DO prefer to carry knives on planes.   I've gotten so far as the airport security check, and remembered I was carrying a knife.   So I handed it off to my friend to mail to me.     Pocket knives used to be allowed until someone broke the precedent of overtaking a plane with one.    The blades themselves are not the issue but the *will* to overtake the plane.    What will we do when terrorists overtake a plane with a sharpened house key?   Ban keys from planes?

Everyone brings keys onto a plane so how do you regulate "no keys".   Keys are designed to open doors, just as boxcutters are designed to cut boxes.   Again, the wielder must have the *will* to turn the object into a threat.   This is more complicated then you make it out to be. 

I think everyone on airplanes should have the right to bare keys.  You never know when a terrorist is going to be on that plane.

This way the people can out number the terrorists... and open their cars when they get to the parking lot.


This post doesn't apply to gun rights.  Just to the poor example you provided.    Anything can be used as a weapon.   Banning that one object won't remove the will to do harm.   Keys, shoes, gatorade, popsicle sticks, magazines... can all be used as weapons.   I happen to think that seeing a weapon, in a store for instance, does not generate the will in a person to do harm.     If you felt violent upon seeing a gun - that reflects poorly on your own mental state.   The will to do harm does not generate itself within the weapon you are holding.  You bring the killing potential to that weapon.  Keys, shoes, gatorade, popsicle sticks, magazines. 

Hence, maximum security prisoners are restricted from gaining access to certain hard materials.

I listen to Pete Townshend quite frequently, so I won't be joining any sides one way or the other.   Eldkatt would be quite correct in the sense that you couldn't simply compare the musical talent of both bands.  At least, I think I'll choose not to.

boring and uninspired mess like Quadrophonia.

I don't know about "uninspired".... it might not be inspirational to you... but I'm fairly sure it was inspired.

I love Townshend's rock operas for the reason you mentioned.    I play them while I work... the music effects me but the lyrics aren't too overbearing to distract.      I end up listening to Psychoderelict about once a week on my ipod.   Townshend's rock operas are so awesome but I can understand if someone doesn't take to them.   His operas including Quadrophenia & Lifehouse were pretty ambitious, risky musical endeavors.  I think that's why I love Townshend so much. 

Also, check this out http://lotl.wikia.com/wiki/Limbo_of_the_Lost_Wiki

hahahahaha, the snow they just painted over looks such crap.

Yes, but what you're saying implies that public opinion is what drove the suspension of habeas corpus, which isn't the case. ..........

In fact, I don't think the average American at the time knew what habeas corpus was, which is all the more frightening. I mean, which is scarier: the government suspending a right because people are afraid, or the government suspending a right that people won't notice is gone because they don't know what it is?................

But if they're that concerned about protecting the foundation of the country, you'd think they'd do more to protect something like habeas corpus too. (And if they created a militia to storm the White House and uphold habeas corpus, the government can say, "You guys are enemies of the state!" and lock them up.)...................

That's part of the reason why I don't buy the arguments that people wanted a suspension of habeas corpus specifically. I think they just didn't know what is was, why it was important, or care less about it in any case. If they knew that it was as important as how much they felt about guns, I think the backlash would be bigger, similar to the NSA wiretap backlash. (And regardless, I think the government would have suspended habeas corpus anyway).............

You're right on the  money, DG.    I don't see where we are arguing at all.   Earlier you quoted me to say "the goverment takes a hands-off approach"  but in reality I said this merely about gun rights.     Maybe you think that I'm saying public opinion DRIVES the issues, but mainly I'm just saying public opinion has to be tampered with if the public actively opposes the issue.

There are LOADS of laws the government can (and has) passed that are unconstitutional but the public is ignorant to the fact.    IMO, this still counts as "public opinion"...  just in the form of apathy.

Apathy kind of does drive the issue when the result is restricting our freedoms.   Isn't that what so many books are about?  I actually find that the government STRIVES for apathy among its citizens, going so far as to turn us off from politics altogether.   The less we pay attention, the more power they can grant themselves.

However, there is no apathy toward gun rights, so public opinion would actively have to be changed.  I stand by my opinion that gun rights are an exception, caused by so many citizens serving as watchdogs to that one issue alone.


Is it ironic that they are losing their other constitutional liberties one by one?  Yes sir.

Weird response.   All I was trying to do was corner Eggie into saying "Nickleback" or "Creed".     And you are correct, that neither of those 2 bands can be said to be "worse than the Beatles".  *smirk*



Ultra-  I agree with you on the Who.   But the bigger point is that the Beatles are overrated.  Not that they can't write decent stuff.

Yeah the more monochromatic version appeals to my eye a little more too.

I don't mind other nations shaking their finger at us for our gun culture...  it's wholly understandable.   But most will never understand how ingrained gun rights are in the fabric of America.

It doesn't help that the most popular thesis on gun control, "Bowling For Columbine", is riddled with blatant propaganda.  I'm referring mostly to the Charlton Heston speech that was edited together from 2 separate speeches.   If you have a copy watch it, and keep an eye on the color of Heston's shirt.   Details are available in a documentary called "Manufacturing Dissent".

I was with these filmmakers a day or two after this interview.  They's good people and what they say during this interview is ABSOLUTELY true.  I love this interview... the fact that it actually happened on Fox News when fox was expecting these guys just to bash Moore.   It was a tiny glimmer of hope on an otherwise doomed network.

But these loopholes only work when public opinion follows suit.   Many Americans gave up their rights during all the Homeland Security shenanigans because they were convinced doing so was detrimental to their family's safety.   The government slipped one by us.

Yes most laws are ambiguous: The intent of the right to free speech is evident but is consistently being debated in this country over the definitions of "slander" and "libel".      The words slander and libel are probably some of the best words to use in the law because you could never replace the words with a passage such as "No person shall make a false claim with the intent of harming someone else".   We'd end up with court cases where wives are suing husbands over insults they made about their wardrobe.    I mean there is NO possible way to replace the word slander with its meaning, and cover all your bases.   The definition of slander will always need to be battled in the courtroom so that the law remains flexible enough to cover other instances.    (  Language itself is ambiguous, this is something my linguistics professor taught me  .)

Free speech and gun rights ambiguity are virtually identical but I see no need to redraft the law in an effort for clarity.   There will just be another word whose meaning will be equally scrutinized.  We live in a society run by words but many of those words have multiple meanings and loopholes within themselves.  If it helps a person's case he conjugates the word to the point of insanity, or holds power point presentations over the Latin root word in an effort to dodge the law.

Hell, this county had a president who argued what the definition of the word "is" is.   

Consensus was formed eh?   Call me when you guys write up the papers for the U.N. meeting.


Until then I'll be watching all these western films about Americans made by europeans. Great movies.

I'm such a goddamn topic killer.

How could those posts get NO replies?