Does the NRA have a stupid pill problem?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 541 - 560 of total 1081 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Dec 27, 2012 - 12:45am PT
Works for me. I got pussy 24/7 and have no problems with guns. :)

See? It's easy. The solution to the whole gun thing is to make M-to-F surgery available free of charge.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Dec 27, 2012 - 12:49am PT
you may want to move up on your schedule a bit there ghost
10b4me

Boulder climber
Somewhere on 395
Dec 27, 2012 - 01:00am PT
Pretty much sums up the whole wingnut vs reality scenario

pot calling the kettle black, joe

get over it. go out and climb, oh wait. . . . . . .
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Dec 27, 2012 - 01:01am PT
Check out a Marine supporting my poon tang theory. It pops up at about 90 seconds in.

"Lack of pussy is the root of all global instability."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y_mXLYh_PA
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Dec 27, 2012 - 01:02am PT
you may want to move up on your schedule a bit there ghost

Dude, when I moved to the big city back in '73 I gave all my guns away to a friend. It was almost 20 years later that I went to Germany for the M-to-F surgery. Not gun-related at all in my case.
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Dec 27, 2012 - 01:04am PT
Yep. I'm gonna flood this thread with the get more pussy theory.

Just think about it. Hell, religion leads to less pussy, so religion lends itself to more violence.

Get a horny girlfriend and save the world.

Either pussy or those psychedelic ponies that killed off the other thread....
Ksolem

Trad climber
Monrovia, California
Dec 27, 2012 - 01:53am PT
Wow Hedge you really have a thing about penis size.

In keeping with your criticisms of Ron, perhaps you should provide us with a link to a peer reviewed study which proves that men who support the right to responsible gun ownership actually have smaller penises??

I don't want to see some study which shows that a man could compensate for being deprived that way by liking guns, guys do lots of things to compensate for being unlucky in that way (buying Corvettes etc.,) I want to see real evidence which supports the broad generalizations you have been laying out here.

I won't hold my breath...
tradmanclimbs

Ice climber
Pomfert VT
Dec 27, 2012 - 09:17am PT
I am not worried about the govt takeing my freedom. I got my guns to protect my freedom from the teabaggers.
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Dec 27, 2012 - 09:34am PT
Joe said:
"I have no idea what that last sentence means - arsenals trump free speech, voting, and all the rest of the constitution?"



You should just re-read it, but I'll restate the point and talk slow for you. The clear point is I believe that the 2nd amendment is there to protect citizens from tyrany from the overlord class (making a joke and a point here with the word overlord). If you do some research you will find that subject hotly debated at the time, more than we can discuss here with a few quips and words. Here's Jefferson for example.
"When the people fear their government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. – Thomas Jefferson"

I agree: The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Dec 27, 2012 - 09:57am PT
or a similar sediment:
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.” – George Washington


So continue on with the "WHATS THAT MEAN WHAT THAT MEAN"....theme questioning the founders, or similar points....but hopefully there is something to quietly consider for you and others.
michaeld

Sport climber
Sacramento
Dec 27, 2012 - 11:09am PT
I don't get it. Liberals think we'll never need to use guns.

... So why have them?



Why do cops have them?
The Warbler

climber
the edge of America
Dec 27, 2012 - 11:20am PT
While I appreciate the "sediment" (in the context of post Revolutionary War in America) I'm sure you could find many quotes from those guys which have been made irrelevant by 200 years of changing times.


And hat's off to those with pussy 24/7
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Dec 27, 2012 - 11:26am PT
We're talking Arsenal? I'm sooo pissed off that they traded Van Persie to Man U.
Jon Beck

Trad climber
Oceanside
Dec 27, 2012 - 11:28am PT
The constitution authorizes an army and navy, no mention of an air force. Scalia should declare the air force unconstitutional under strict construction. He is only a strict constructionist when it is convenient for his agenda
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Dec 27, 2012 - 11:46am PT
If its really the Tyranny of your Overlords that you take issue with then you should forget about the 2nd amendment and introduce some new amendments that guarantee separation of Corporation and State. Fact is, so long as you get to cling to your guns and religion, clearly you don't mind the tyranny of Overlords much at all. You get what I'm saying? The religion and guns are their tools, not yours.

Don't get me wrong. As we speak Syria is demonstrating the need for a well armed citizenry, but thats Syria. If the Russians weren't such a bunch of authoritarian followers I bet they could put their guns to good use. Likely to get a bit messy either way. You guys are miles from all that mostly because your "Overlords" know just how to game the system enough to convince you its a democracy, throw you enough guns and american dream mythology to convince you you're all rugged individuals, throw you religion so you you can claim the moral high ground without the pain of looking in a mirror, and over time they'll have you just where they want you .... at the bottom of the pile, unable to afford anything but the crappiest cheap weaponry from Wallmart along with all the other crap you buy at Walmart which by then may well be manufactured in the USA again, thank god that the unions are extinct.

You're not a bunch of rugged individuals, you're a bunch of Rubes. No I'm not just being mean by the way. So are us Canadians by a long stretch!
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Dec 27, 2012 - 12:04pm PT
Very true Bruce... very true.

Unfortunately the corporate-government cancer seems to be in its final stages. When it all does fall apart, we'll see how absolutely meaningless all those slips of green paper are. The ones most of us worked all our lives for. For people without real skills, that's going to be a problem

Being well armed is just a tiny part of being prepared. A very tiny part.
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Dec 27, 2012 - 12:20pm PT
I don't agree with everything Ron Paul believes, but he seems to be an honest and sincere actual human being, unlike the recent crop of puppets we had in the elections.

From Ron:

The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place. Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on fully automatic, so-called “assault” rifles and gun-free zones.

Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government “do something” to protect us in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned. Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented. But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don’t obey laws.

The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence. If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we’re told, would-be school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped.

While I certainly agree that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings, I don’t agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence. Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets. We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws.

Let’s not forget that our own government policies often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality. The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home. U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody in America holds vigils or devotes much news coverage to those victims, many of which are children, albeit, of a different color.

Obviously I don’t want to conflate complex issues of foreign policy and war with the Sandy Hook shooting, but it is important to make the broader point that our federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against violence.

Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches? We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders. This is the world of government provided “security,” a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse. School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.

Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another. Government role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety.

Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Dec 27, 2012 - 12:49pm PT
Norton;




Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets. We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws.
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Dec 27, 2012 - 12:53pm PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#280789
locker

Social climber
state of Kumbaya...
Dec 27, 2012 - 12:54pm PT


"we believe that complete, unfettered access to full scale military assault weapons should not be so easy to get ahold of, and we think the guys who wrote the 2nd Amendment over 200 years ago would agree, especially considering the weapons back then were black powder single shot muskets"...


+1

Messages 541 - 560 of total 1081 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews