delirium

Depends on the context really. Most people who respond here respond to constructive criticism in immature ways so it makes it easy to weed out the less than level headed people. Plenty of examples of people replying to clarify as singular persons perception.

yee yee ass all lives matter answer bro.

Impregnate as many women as possible and become this century’s ghengis khan

That’s actually quite generous. I would have flunked him.

I’m pretty sure gentoo is actually at the root of this issue. His refusal to remove ttt_highschool has led to the indoctrination of countless children.

@Gentooyou going to let @lynxietalk to you like that?

@Gentoothoughts? Women giving other women rights. SMH.

If you’re not going 20 over in DFW you’re getting ran over. regularly cruising at 100 in a 70

If someone is at the point of killing themselves or others can you really say that that person is in a normal state of mind? How is that not a mental health issue? A bulk of the second paragraph assumes I'm a republican based off of my responses to a gun control thread. I have no issue with free healthcare and there are plenty of models working currently in other areas of the world. I think the issue there is just how large the pharmaceutical industry has gotten in the US. A lot of the worlds R&D comes through the revenue generated here in a privatized market where money just isn't an issue. I'm aware mental health is an issue in other countries as well. If you're single and only carrying yourself on your insurance then you're getting fleeced. Parenting in the age of technology can be summed up as emotional neglect in most households as babysitters like gaming consoles and the internet has largely raised most of gen z. Not sure how to solve this issue without getting into completely radical or authoritarian territory. Maybe more funding to social workers or something I don't know. Incarceration in the US is modern day slavery. That's another discussion in itself though. I wasn't trying to attack you specifically, I was responding to the hyperbolic statement you laid out. I still stand by my statement though. I'd rather have people who are well versed in the subject they're making decisions on than people who have no idea what they're talking about. Assumed you have a warped view on guns based on the way you're posting. Guns are inanimate objects. The issue is societal which is nothing that any one individual can control; It takes a community to raise a well balanced group of individuals that will adhere to the social contract. If your end goal is to eradicate gun violence how does making guns heavier achieve that? Mag size limits? Okay maybe less people dead or you just carry more magazines with you? Lets not forget all of the now banned attachments that are already in homes around the nation are now a hot commodity and budding black markets break out and now people still have access. it's either all or nothing in my opinion. in the improbable event that I would ever have to take up arms I would like to have the most efficient tools for the job. Gun control activist will not stop until its all banned so why concede ground freely? Seems pretty asinine to nitpick a post that was made well before the graphs referenced. Would like a little more context with the data presented but have generally tried to stay out of these threads as people get upset when I post in politics.

Thank you for admitting that you're uneducated on the subject. While I understand people are still allowed to have opinions on subjects they have little to no understanding of; I think subject knowledge still plays a huge part in most debates or persuasive arguments in general. Mental health is a huge factor in any homicide that was not out of self defense and that's a hill I'll die on. Not being able to catch 100% of the population predisposed to murdering children doesn't really negate anything said in favor of increasing restrictions and evaluations. Imposing security theatre restrictions will do nothing to achieve your end goal, just makes it slightly more inconvenient. I believe the most effective home defense tool is a firearm. Do I believe my rifles will do anything to a APC that the local PD got off surplus, much less a military drone? Absolutely not. Will I still defend my right to possess the most effective tools in protecting the unalienable rights granted to me by citizenship in this country? Absolutely.

And your posts are reasonable and well thought out on the issue. Just wondering where some of the perspectives are coming from. I've lived in areas where the police only show up to clean up the mess and being able to be my own first responder in any scenario that warrants that kind of escalation is a whole lot more comforting than the opposite. Crux of this issue is "guns bad" by anyone who doesn't have experience with firearms because of the content and numbers that get blown up in their face anytime something like this happens. You get a portion of generally left leaning people advocating for laws which they have no understanding of as the majority of people who call for bans have never operated or taken safety courses for the subject matter they would like to impose bans on. I'm all for more in-depth background checks, psychological evaluations, raising the minimum age, ect... as mentioned in the previous thread, however, none of that or any legislation introduced will change the fact that people with ill intent will still be able to get their hands on a weapon. Hell, I've had friends that were running around with (very much illegal) MAC-10s in our early 20s on some dumb shit. If the retards I knew could get weapons like that why should I not be able to arm myself legally?

Does anyone who has responded to this thread so far even own a gun? Just wondering... (and no its not to shoot gentoo; i promise.)

as long as the rest of the world thinks there's a gun for every man, woman, and child in every household here the prospect of a ground invasion in the United States is slim to none. The government probably uses this to their advantage and thus probably cares very little about security theatre legislation.

This is what it looks like when appeals to emotion is the foundational basis in a discussion for an issue as nuanced as gun ownership in America.

Honestly expected this thread to be closed

Not arguing, just clarifying.

Don't need a license to purchase or carry a rifle in texas. Open/concealed carry for handguns okay without a license as well but age requirement is 21 instead of 18.

Somewhat agree. I’m all for psychological evaluations, raising the age limit on rifle purchases from 18, more in-depth background checks, ect. completely banning firearms in America should not be on the table though. Guns are not the problem, people who have issues or that have been radicalized will inflict as much damage as possible with the tools they have available to them, banning guns only hurts law abiding, responsible gun owners.

The scariest take away from this post is that lynxie wants to be a teacher. obligatory guns don’t kill people, people kill people. unfortunate situation and no amount of words will ever return these children to their respective families.

@John thoughts on losing money with risky investments/options?

thread so old harry wouldnt touch it -Jazzy

Clearly. Always the same names on the thanks list when shit like this gets posted. Y'all need a new hobby, this shit played the fuck out.

Don't forget to get his balls too guys

Clearly touched a nerve. Crazy how I don't have to photoshop photos of you for you to look goofy as fuck. Imagine looking like salvadore ramos's twin and having the audacity to poke at other peoples appearances. Also, nice emotional response bud. might wanna control those.

What makes conception the cut off for it to not be morally repulsive? Sperm are potential lives in motion every time you as a male orgasm. Literally living organisms that die out if they do not reach a female egg. You've probably killed more unborn babies this week than abortions that have been preformed since the initial roe v wade ruling. Consider the sentiment an oversimplification all you want, but as someone who actually paid attention to history this is actually how things used to work. See: Initial laws banning distribution of contraceptives and other lewd materials - 1873 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws Courts finding prohibiting married couples access to contraceptives as unconstitutional -1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut Finally legalizing contraceptive use for unmarried persons - 1972 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenstadt_v._Baird This is exactly what the GOP is trending towards with the reversal of Roe v Wade. They wont stop at abortion. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/16/abortion-republicans-supreme-court/ "Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R) recently refused to rule out the possibility that his state would ban certain forms of contraception. Several Republican lawmakers and candidates for elected office have openly questioned Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court case that granted married couples access to contraception without government restrictions — and that undergirds Roe and other decisions. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) has called the Griswold decision “legally unsound.” Blake Masters, a GOP Senate candidate in Arizona, says on his website he would “vote only for federal judges who understand that Roe and Griswold and Casey were wrongly decided.” In Texas, for example, those covered by the state Medicaid program are not allowed to receive contraception from any clinic that provides abortion care or that could be affiliated with one that does. Missouri lawmakers last year attempted to exclude coverage for IUDs and emergency contraception from their Medicaid program, an effort that ultimately failed." While I love a good virtue signal and all, cut the bullshit bro. What other people do with their own bodies is none of your or the governments business.