Lurker > Stupid Pirate Guy

And those big guys were like, "we're vegetarians" but five minutes earlier he mentioned that they had fishermen. So which is it?
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

Also why did that girl call the white guy colonizer for no reason? Racist much?
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

Nightengale posted...

I know what you're talking about I'm saying you're literally just wrong.

Then why didn't you justify it whatsoever in your last post? Instead you just summarized the plot.

I'm just making a nitpick, you don't need to fly off the handle because you can't explain it.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

Nightengale posted...

Stupid Pirate Guy posted...

I liked the movie, but you have to admit that that is just stupid. I guess the movie wouldn't have had it's main conflict if MBJ weren't able to take over simply by showing up and smacking black panther down. It's just lazy writing. Still a top tier Marvel movie though.

Mmmm... nope, sorry. T'Chaka was the last king to seriously cling to the old ways. N'Jadaka wanted to break away from that, but he wanted to be a conqueror, and it was his undoing. T'Challa's main conflict as the king is making the choice between the old and the new.

If you think all of that is lazy writing when it was kind of the whole thing then I think you weren't paying attention.

I'm literally just talking about the wrestling part. I got the theme of the movie it was pretty hammered in.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

RCtheWSBC posted...

Stupid Pirate Guy posted...

I liked the movie, but you have to admit that that is just stupid.

Nah

So if this were real life, you are in favor of modern politics being decided this way?
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

I liked the movie, but you have to admit that that is just stupid. I guess the movie wouldn't have had it's main conflict if MBJ weren't able to take over simply by showing up and smacking black panther down. It's just lazy writing. Still a top tier Marvel movie though.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

Most advanced society on the planet.

Decides its leader through a wrestling match.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

I don't like Trump so do whatever you want when it comes to that. I never insulted anyone in this topic. If you take offense to my standing on the graves of children remark then that's on you.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

I believe the first thing you said to me was "fuck you"
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

Far-Queue posted...

Stupid Pirate Guy living up to his username in this topic.

It's funny how you leftys insult people who disagree with you. Shows how shallow your ideals are.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

I proposed an actual solution to make schools safer you propose nothing but good intentions. Bad guys will get guns whether it's legal for them to do so or not.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

It is common sense though that security decreases violence.. how much of the Kool-Aid have you been drinking seriously?
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

No schools are getting shot up in Israel where this is a mandatory practice. There you have my evidence now
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

I was thinking more along the lines of ignoring common sense in order to push along your agenda
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

And that is why the government sucks at everything and I can never get anything effective accomplished
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

I've already explained this and it's fairly basic. If somebody wants to get their hands on a gun whether it be legal or illegal they will manage to get it. Then on the other side security is certainly attributed to decreasing violence on premises where there is a strong presence of Defense. This is something that you are missing here that you arent understanding?
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

Evidence-based means like, some level of scientific method attached to it. When I read, "Increased security to protect our children will be more effective than any of those propositions," I took it as you making a statement of a hypothesis--which can usually be tested.

If security didn't work then it wouldn't be a thing anywhere. This claim doesn't need a hypothesis because it's a blatant fact.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

But you also agree that this alone shouldn't be a deterrent to implement new laws related to firearm access and gun violence?

Of course. It's just a sad reality
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

RCtheWSBC posted...

Stupid Pirate Guy posted...

So....no evidence? >__> Just can't implement new laws because people will always try to break the laws?

You asked why I believed increased security would be more effective and I answered you. I never claimed to be against new laws.

You made it sound like a definitive statement, so I asked if you had evidence-based reasoning to support it.

I guess I'll just have to repeat myself to you. People can get guns even if they are illegal. In the case of Parkland the shooter was carrying illegal smoke grenades. I'm not sure how you equate that to not being evidence.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

So....no evidence? >__> Just can't implement new laws because people will always try to break the laws?

You asked why I believed increased security would be more effective and I answered you. I never claimed to be against new laws.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

RCtheWSBC posted...

People keep trying to drive drunk so DUI laws are pointless I guess

Interesting point because in those cases we tend to blame the driver. Maybe we should ban assault cars.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

RCtheWSBC posted...

Stupid Pirate Guy posted...

Most of that stuff is fairly reasonable aside from mandatory buyback. But everyone needs to come to terms that there are many more factors at play in these scenarios than access to guns. Increased security to protect our children will be more effective than any of those propositions.

Can you explain why you believe this? I will admit, I am not well-read in firearm policy and gun violence research. Do you have any evidence to support that bolded statement?

Because no matter what the law may be people will be able to get their hands on guns. The shooter had smoke grenades so he knew where to buy arms illegally.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

lmao we're going to have to agree to disagree

You're welcome to leave if it's such a terrible oppressive place.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

Jen0125 posted...

why will you not say how you think that would get funded? is it possibly because you'd have to RAISE TAXES to do it and everyone is creaming over the buzz phrase "tax cut?"

Raising taxes for something like this would certainly be ok with me.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

Jen0125 posted...

triple post but it truly boggles my mind that people would actually prefer to turn a school into a prison for learning instead of enacting some gun control laws.

what an ass backward country we live in.

Actually the United States is the best country there has ever been and it's not even close.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

Most of that stuff is fairly reasonable aside from mandatory buyback. But everyone needs to come to terms that there are many more factors at play in these scenarios than access to guns. Increased security to protect our children will be more effective than any of those propositions.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

RCtheWSBC posted...

Stupid Pirate Guy posted...

There are 300 millions guns in this country. Tell me how you plan to get rid of all of them,

You definitely didn't read my post. I haven't called for banning all guns.

What are you even calling for? Gun control is a vague term, but that's all I hear dems saying.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

Jen0125 posted...

Stupid Pirate Guy posted...

Jen0125 posted...

Stupid Pirate Guy posted...

Kids wouldn't get shot if there were people paid to protect them. It's the ultimate deterant. Make guns illegal people will find a way to get them illegally. The hypocrisy is hilarious. You want kids to not get shot but you're opposed to having the protected.

do you realize that a lot of schools have a police officer assigned to them already? and this particular school in florida had an armed guard? it didn't deter anything.

Well I hope he gets fired. If he were checking every person that entered the building as I proposed then it wouldn't of happened.

that's just not even feasible. you want one person to search hundreds if not thousands of students before they can enter? how much longer do you want to make the school day? and again how do you want to fund this endeavor?

I said at least two, so there would be multiple people doing checks. This is a norm in many countries.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

RCtheWSBC posted...

It isn't hypocrisy. I think it's a bandaid placed on a larger societal problem. I can't believe people would rather encourage an armed police presence in public spaces in the sake of freedom, rather than trying to seriously undergo a cultural shift in firearm possession and gun violence.

I haven't called for banning all guns. I don't think I'm stating anything extreme. Whatever we're doing right now obviously isn't enough, and we have to stop being so stubborn about that. Laws can change. Cultures can change.

There are 300 millions guns in this country. Tell me how you plan to get rid of all of them, because I can damn near assure you that many people will fight back if you try to take their guns.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

Jen0125 posted...

Stupid Pirate Guy posted...

Kids wouldn't get shot if there were people paid to protect them. It's the ultimate deterant. Make guns illegal people will find a way to get them illegally. The hypocrisy is hilarious. You want kids to not get shot but you're opposed to having the protected.

do you realize that a lot of schools have a police officer assigned to them already? and this particular school in florida had an armed guard? it didn't deter anything.

Well I hope he gets fired. If he were checking every person that entered the building as I proposed then it wouldn't of happened.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

Kids wouldn't get shot if there were people paid to protect them. It's the ultimate deterant. Make guns illegal people will find a way to get them illegally. The hypocrisy is hilarious. You want kids to not get shot but you're opposed to having the protected.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

My solution, have at least two cops or armed security personnel on every school at all times when the school is open. Have only entrances open that a guard is present at. Every person who enters the building needs to be cleared for entry and has to pass through a metal detector.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

RCtheWSBC posted...

Stupid Pirate Guy posted...

RCtheWSBC posted...

Stupid Pirate Guy posted...

Secondly I just find it in bad taste to turn a tragedy to push a political agenda.

Why? That's the only way actual changes on an institutional level can be made. It is a policy issue, a cultural issue, a health and safety issue. When the fuck is the "right" time to address it?

Because using death as a tool to your benefit is despicable.

Gabby Giffords was a victim of a shooting. Why is she not allowed to advocate for stronger responses to a societal concern?

She is allowed. My point is that democrats only take issue with guns in the wake of a tragedy like this and never take action to make a difference even when they have all their cows in a line to get something passed. I have yet to see a single proposal brought forth from dems on how they plan to change this issue. They just yell gun control without any idea of what they actually want to do. Do they want to remove all guns? Do they want to ban certain types of guns? I have no idea what dems actually mean when they say gun control because they don't even know.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

RCtheWSBC posted...

Stupid Pirate Guy posted...

Secondly I just find it in bad taste to turn a tragedy to push a political agenda.

Why? That's the only way actual changes on an institutional level can be made. It is a policy issue, a cultural issue, a health and safety issue. When the fuck is the "right" time to address it?

Because using death as a tool to your benefit is despicable.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

First of all the gun show loophole is a myth.

Secondly I just find it in bad taste to turn a tragedy to push a political agenda. There are so many ways that this horrific act could have been prevented and taking away the right to legally purchase firearms is not one of them. If he couldn't get a gun legally he would have found another way. The shooter had smoke grenades on him. Do you think he purchased those legally?

Third I pointed out that democrats had house majority and the potus in 09 to 11. They had their chance to make changes if they wanted to. So why didn't they?
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

I wasn't talking about the students I'm talking about the adult liberals who do this cycle every time there's a school shooting. Grandstand on the graves of dead kids for a week then do nothing.

Why didn't your modern messiah Obama make gun control changes when he had the house majority from 09 to 11?
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

Liberals standing on the graves of dead children to push their agenda, more at 11.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

Sarcasthma posted...

I sit on the button.

This and set up a tv and console on the other side of the room.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

Cool stuff, have fun running this.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

Doctor Foxx posted...

Stupid Pirate Guy posted...

My bad I meant this thing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

It was made in 1718 it was basically just an early Gatling gun

Nine round per minute with 6 to 11 shot capacity

Not really comparable to anything that exists in use

Just pointing out that the argument that all firearms when the constitution was drafted were one shot muskets is absolutely false. Firearm technology was evolving, another poster linked to the guns given to the Lewis and Clark expedition which were capable if fire an entire magazine of ammo in 30 seconds. To claim that the founding fathers hadn't accounted for advancements in gun technology when writing the amendment is rather ignorant.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

My bad I meant this thing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

It was made in 1718 it was basically just an early Gatling gun
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

With that said i do think we need a much more scrupulous process to legally purchase a firearm. There were dozens of accounts for how yesterday's shooter showed blatant red flags of violent tendencies and mental illness. Someone like him should certainly not be allowed to buy a gun.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

Cannons and gattling guns existed when the constitution was drafted. There is no clause forbidding people to own those in the amendment. The founding fathers wanted the people to be on an even playing field with a tyrannical government that was taking away the rights in which the nation was founded
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

RCtheWSBC posted...

You're not giving any more detail or rationale behind your perspective. If a state has to sue another state over an interstate highway disagreement, both states' taxpayers would lose out.

This is true. That would give incentive to those local communities to get involved and what is going on in their local governments. The people have more of a say in smaller communities and if they were being forced to pay higher taxes due to disputes they could put pressure on their local governments to come to a resolution. I find it to be a much better solution do I have people get involved in their communities then to have the federal government oversee and make all the decisions for everyone which will cost everyone money in turn
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

RCtheWSBC posted...

Again, I posit a cost-benefit analysis: is the cost-savings from fewer regulations worth the risk of inter-state disagreements, potential lawsuits, contractual disputes?

It isn't always a 1+1=2 kind of decision.

To the individual Federal taxpayer it absolutely does. Those disputes would be handled on a local level
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

I know that's not how things get decided. I merely presenting a hypothetical situation. You don't have to be an expert to know that fewer regulations equals less cost.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

RCtheWSBC posted...

You aren't explaining why it'd be so much easier for local municipalities to govern interstate commerce. Just saying, "it'd be easier" isn't really justification. Why do you think it would be easier?

It would lower federal taxes. It's that simple.

Also without Federal oversight it will eliminate a lot of red tape making it more efficient for things to get done if they are handled locally. It will still be the same workers doing the work potentially.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

RCtheWSBC posted...

Stupid Pirate Guy posted...

RCtheWSBC posted...

I mean... it's in the name interstate. These systems reach across the country and affect millions of taxpayers. I don't know if you're confusing interstate roads with local roads or what.

This is a silly point to make. Interstates don't need federal oversight, just local governments communicating with one another.

It isn't a silly point. That's one of the roles of federal government. Commerce Clause, dude.

Yes it's a role, that's not my point. It's unnecessary and should be relegated on a local level. Why do you love giving the feds your money so much?
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

RCtheWSBC posted...

I mean... it's in the name interstate. These systems reach across the country and affect millions of taxpayers. I don't know if you're confusing interstate roads with local roads or what.

This is a silly point to make. Interstates don't need federal oversight, just local governments communicating with one another.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.

RCtheWSBC posted...

Stupid Pirate Guy posted...

Infrastructure has traditionally been a liberal point of interest.

Which is stupid. It is in everyone's interest to have updated infrastructural systems in place. Our highway, bridge, and rail systems are in drastic need of repair. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Some of these projects haven't been repaired in nearly 60 years.

That's why I said it should be relegated to local and state governments as needed. The fact that I have to pay for a road in Kansas when I live in Maryland is moronic.
---

Guybrush is my homeboy.