Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Heller Affirmed - SCOTUS Upholds 2nd Amendment Individual Right Determination

1246723

Posts

  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Umaro wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Seriously, you think Obama can push through a ban on semi-automatic weapons? At the national level? In the United States of America?

    We've already had a national semi-auto ban. It expired. So, it's certainly possible.

    What is the argument for ownership of a semi-automatic weapon, anyway? It's not like you're going to hunt with one, and keeping one in your home for self-defense purposes seems ridiculous. Their only practical application is killing.

    Zombies.

    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    It doesn't prevent anything, moniker. Just gives you a fighting chance, albeit small.

    Regarding some of the other random posts. Ad hominem, straw man, and appeal to popularity are all on the don't section of the rules page. Let's try to argue the point and not the redneck cliche.

    Going to lunch with some of my redneck colleagues, be back to argue later.

  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    The posts I was responding to weren't saying that there are better deterrents, but rather that guns weren't a deterrent.

    Right.
    Are you simply agreeing with what I said or reasserting that guns are not deterrents? Because your argument doesn't support the latter.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • jotjot Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Jot,

    Turkey 1915-1917
    Soviet Union 1929 - 1953
    Germany 1939 - 1945
    China 1948 - 1952
    Cambodia 1975 - 1977
    Guatemala 1964 - 1981
    Uganda 1971 - 1979

    gunfacts

    um, ok, that's kinda interesting. But I think that, at least in the first four examples guns weren't really common in those societies to have posed any problem to a determined government.
    I think we all agree that if a modern western society experimented with gun control, it wouldn't be a cunning plan to kill its citizens.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    It doesn't prevent anything, moniker. Just gives you a fighting chance, albeit small.

    Non-existent, really. Which means that everything else beyond gun control should matter a great deal.

    tea-1.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PeekingDuck, if a bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles and shotguns are going to be a problem for the U.S. military to handle with a dictator, explain why 80% of a country where basically everyone owns an AK-47 was a cakewalk for Saddam Hussein to control with a military that was entirely obliterated by the U.S. military?

  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Umaro wrote: »
    What is the argument for ownership of a semi-automatic weapon, anyway? It's not like you're going to hunt with one, and keeping one in your home for self-defense purposes seems ridiculous. Their only practical application is killing.

    Uh... lots of people hunt with semi-automatic rifles. Sure, more people prefer to use bolt action rifles for hunting, but using a semi-auto isn't uncommon. Semi-autos fire bullets just as well as pretty much any other action and they're great for target shooting as well. Full auto would be useless for hunting, but they're a fair bit harder to get.

    For self defense, a semi-auto on anything other than a shotgun is pretty much a requirement. Missing a deer with one shot isn't a big deal, but that doesn't apply when your life is on the line.

    Pony wrote:
    I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
    Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
  • UmaroUmaro Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Let's try to argue the point and not the redneck cliche.

    Going to lunch with some of my redneck colleagues, be back to argue later.

    Joke about you stepping outside with a spatula in search of roadkill.

    edit: keep mixing up my fucking gun terminology. I actually did take some classes on this shit but I didn't pay much attention. I'm going to go look at dicks.

    Dogs.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    It doesn't prevent anything, moniker. Just gives you a fighting chance, albeit small.

    Regarding some of the other random posts. Ad hominem, straw man, and appeal to popularity are all on the don't section of the rules page. Let's try to argue the point and not the redneck cliche.

    Going to lunch with some of my redneck colleagues, be back to argue later.

    Gun control contributing to genocide is ridiculous.

    I don't understand your notion of the other rights being "meaningless" without guns.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    And I'm not saying we should ban guns, I'm just saying that claiming that gun rights are more important than any other rights is fucking retarded, and exactly the kind of red herring the Republican party uses to distract you from the fact that they're trying to take away rights that actually matter.

    Besides, if we ever are taken over by a dictator, odds are that the people with the guns will be the ones helping him.

  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    Because that may not have been the case at the outset, for the military or the majority of the citizens. It usually isn't.

    But without military backing you and your gun aren't going to do much of anything, so ensuring gun rights isn't really preventing abuses of governmental power.

    Not to mention the fact that a few yokels with guns aren't going to "stand up to" or "overpower" or "overthrow" the US government. Last I checked, firearms in the US army in the late 1700's were on par with what civilians could have, ie flintlocks and muskets. This is as opposed to now were the differential in armaments between civvies and the Fed currently is a fucking joke. The law is outdated as shit given this context and anyone who doesn't realize this is either disingenuous, retarded, or just too fucking selfish to give up their gat for the good of society as a whole.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    It doesn't prevent anything, moniker. Just gives you a fighting chance, albeit small.

    Regarding some of the other random posts. Ad hominem, straw man, and appeal to popularity are all on the don't section of the rules page. Let's try to argue the point and not the redneck cliche.

    Going to lunch with some of my redneck colleagues, be back to argue later.

    Gun control contributing to genocide is ridiculous.

    I don't understand your notion of the other rights being "meaningless" without guns.

    FACT: Genocides didn't happen before guns.

    Also, ignore the ones that happened inside of the US, when the oppressed minority had guns and it didn't help them. That's irrelevant.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Because that may not have been the case at the outset, for the military or the majority of the citizens. It usually isn't.

    But without military backing you and your gun aren't going to do much of anything, so ensuring gun rights isn't really preventing abuses of governmental power.

    Not to mention the fact that a few yokels with guns aren't going to "stand up to" or "overpower" or "overthrow" the US government. Last I checked, firearms in the US army in the late 1700's were on par with what civilians could have, ie flintlocks and muskets. This is as opposed to now were the differential in armaments between civvies and the Fed currently is a fucking joke. The law is outdated as shit given this context and anyone who doesn't realize this is either disingenuous, retarded, or just too fucking selfish to give up their gat for the good of society as a whole.

    Well, people shouldn't be required to give up their gat. The reasoning behind that just doesn't have anything to do with preventing a home grown King George the 3rd. Which isn't to say that gun ownership shouldn't be regulated, either.

    tea-1.jpg
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Doc wrote: »
    Also, ignore the ones that happened inside of the US, when the oppressed minority had guns and it didn't help them.
    So they would have been better off without guns?

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    Bama wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Also, ignore the ones that happened inside of the US, when the oppressed minority had guns and it didn't help them.
    So they would have been better off without guns?

    I was half-joking when I said "that's irrelevant," because not only has it been ignored so far in discussions about genocide, but it actually is irrelevant to the thread, since the start of a genocide isn't going to be an issue in the US anytime soon.

  • DozingDragonDozingDragon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Doc, clearly you don't remember Waco! Or the continued war on Christianity in America. We give them an inch, and before you know it, and the Gay Death Squads enhanced with stem cells from aborted babies will be coming for every straight white male Christian.

    Is it too much to ask for effective laws that actually enforce the existing laws? Also, end the gun show loophole and I would be pretty content with the current level of gun control.

  • Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Richy wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Gooey wrote: »
    Yay! Maybe now we can start putting gun control laws in place that actually, you know, work to solve the problem of gun crime.

    Honestly I don't think that any gun control laws would limit crime because criminals don't care about the law. I would love to be proven wrong though.

    You won't be. See: Canada.

    Alright, let's see Canada.
    Spoiler:

    That said, gun control is of course not the only factor at play here, nor is it by itself a sufficient factor to reduce crime. But it certainly helps.

    I'd be curious to see the monthly stats and then compare the warmest months (say, June-July-August) year-to-year for the US and Canada. Anyone have those figures?

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    On that alone I am a single issue voter (or in this election, will abstain), because without it all the others mean nothing.

    If you really believe that, then you should ask your history teachers for your taxes back. Because they clearly failed to teach you anything.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe,

    I'm curious. How do you reconcile your voting for Obama with his ideas to ban semi-automatic weapons, as he answered in his political survey. Is this not a primary issue for you? Or do you think he is more of a happy figurehead with little actual power regarding civil liberty restriction?
    I'm going to hazard a wild guess here, and Jeffe can strike me down if I'm wrong.

    I think he might be voting based on more than a single issue, or even a set number of "primary issues" and is instead attempting to consider the candidates as a whole and who he thinks will do a better job. It may be that he agrees in some places more with McCain than Obama, but believes that Obama's policy decisions are on the whole a better direction for the country than McCains.

    This. I openly disagree with Obama on a lot of points, but overall I think he's the guy we need to have in power right now.

    OR he might be a giant hypocrite ninny but you never know.

    Well, that too. But mostly the above.

    [While watching popcorn in the microwave]
    Maddie: "Look Riley, the bag's as big as your head now!"
    Riley: "Hahaha, yeah!"
    Maddie: "Look, now it's as big as your butt!"
    Riley: "Omigosh, it looks just like my butt!"
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    And I'm not saying we should ban guns, I'm just saying that claiming that gun rights are more important than any other rights is fucking retarded, and exactly the kind of red herring the Republican party uses to distract you from the fact that they're trying to take away rights that actually matter.

    Besides, if we ever are taken over by a dictator, odds are that the people with the guns will be the ones helping him.

    The fact that the people who liked saying that gun rights are the basis of all others tended to support Dubya sort of leads credence to your point, Than.

    (sigh) You know, I sorta liked stare decisis.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Gooey wrote: »
    Yay! Maybe now we can start putting gun control laws in place that actually, you know, work to solve the problem of gun crime.

    Honestly I don't think that any gun control laws would limit crime because criminals don't care about the law. I would love to be proven wrong though.

    As much as gun control laws are indeed of uncertain usefulness in actually reducing crime, this is the silliest argument that is frequently used in this discussion. Does any law have any theoretical effectiveness based on this criteria? After all, criminals won't care! Why bother having a law against breakng into someone's home? I was robbed last year and the criminals didn't even care about the law. Obviously, it's ineffective.

    Now, you could argue that the reason strict regulation would be ineffective is because significant illegal channels exist and anyone with even a moderate criminal connection would find getting a gun easy unless you imposed absolutely draconian controls, that would make some sense.

    Fine, I admit it, I was lazy.
    My thought is, all gun control laws are infringing upon the ability to legally obtain a gun. We primarily want gun control to reduce crime. Since the criminal is already committing a crime, why should he care about the gun law?
    Gun laws are special in this case because they are designed to be 100% redundant, adding an additional crime onto the crime or attempted crime already committed.
    Also, everything that you said about illegal connections stands.
    Finally, I hate hippies and wish they would die.

  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Man, part of me really wants to see the US Military vs Jackasses With m4s.

    That said, the list of genocides amuses me because it assumes all the groups would have been heavily armed and able to turn back a military had there not been gun control laws.

    The Armenians were known for their marksmanship after all.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Fine, I admit it, I was lazy.
    My thought is, all gun control laws are infringing upon the ability to legally obtain a gun. We primarily want gun control to reduce crime. Since the criminal is already committing a crime, why should he care about the gun law?
    Gun laws are special in this case because they are designed to be 100% redundant, adding an additional crime onto the crime or attempted crime already committed.
    Also, everything that you said about illegal connections stands.
    Finally, I hate hippies and wish they would die.

    A large part of why criminals have access to weaponry is the sheer amount of it being put out by the manufacturers. This is one of the "dirty little secrets" of the gun industry, and it's the big reason the GOP has tried to do everything they can to get the industry retroactive immunity.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Umaro wrote: »
    ptsf_ammo.jpg

    God bless America.

    That would be really funny if it didn't work.
    Edit: See Mutually Assured Destruction.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    It doesn't prevent anything, moniker. Just gives you a fighting chance, albeit small.

    Non-existent, really. Which means that everything else beyond gun control should matter a great deal.


    forgot I could lime stuff

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Fine, I admit it, I was lazy.
    My thought is, all gun control laws are infringing upon the ability to legally obtain a gun. We primarily want gun control to reduce crime. Since the criminal is already committing a crime, why should he care about the gun law?
    Gun laws are special in this case because they are designed to be 100% redundant, adding an additional crime onto the crime or attempted crime already committed.
    Also, everything that you said about illegal connections stands.
    Finally, I hate hippies and wish they would die.

    A large part of why criminals have access to weaponry is the sheer amount of it being put out by the manufacturers. This is one of the "dirty little secrets" of the gun industry, and it's the big reason the GOP has tried to do everything they can to get the industry retroactive immunity.

    Lovely, I agree entirely, lets go after them then. Oh wait, the gun lobby is too big to take on. I know, lets pass useless bans and pretend like we're doing something, that'll show them!
    What I heard from you is that gun bans wont do squat because the gun companies are pumping out too many guns. Did I understand that right?

    Just to put it out there, the reason I think gun control laws are useless is specifically because they don't reduce gun crime. If they did, then I would love it, but gun control laws in America wont work for demographic reasons (IE we don't give a shit about the poor).

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Umaro wrote: »
    ptsf_ammo.jpg

    God bless America.

    That would be really funny if it didn't work.

    It doesn't.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Fine, I admit it, I was lazy.
    My thought is, all gun control laws are infringing upon the ability to legally obtain a gun. We primarily want gun control to reduce crime. Since the criminal is already committing a crime, why should he care about the gun law?
    Gun laws are special in this case because they are designed to be 100% redundant, adding an additional crime onto the crime or attempted crime already committed.
    Also, everything that you said about illegal connections stands.
    Finally, I hate hippies and wish they would die.

    A large part of why criminals have access to weaponry is the sheer amount of it being put out by the manufacturers. This is one of the "dirty little secrets" of the gun industry, and it's the big reason the GOP has tried to do everything they can to get the industry retroactive immunity.

    Lovely, I agree entirely, lets go after them then. Oh wait, the gun lobby is too big to take on. I know, lets pass useless bans and pretend like we're doing something, that'll show them!
    What I heard from you is that gun bans wont do squat because the gun companies are pumping out too many guns. Did I understand that right?

    Seriously, have you ever heard of supply and demand?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    kildy wrote: »
    Man, part of me really wants to see the US Military vs Jackasses With m4s.

    That said, the list of genocides amuses me because it assumes all the groups would have been heavily armed and able to turn back a military had there not been gun control laws.

    The Armenians were known for their marksmanship after all.

    I'd wager it depends on how modernized the military is. If they're limited to jeeps and some M-16s and a bunch of machetes (I'm thinking Rwanda, here), then I can see how a people armed with handguns might dissuade them a bit. It's not that the military couldn't wipe them all out if it really wanted to, it's that when you know you're going to lose a couple soldiers guaranteed at every house you hit, you might not want to after all.

    But that requires a very well-armed populace and a comparatively limited military. If the US government really decided it wanted to kill all the Jews, for example, it would be able to, gun control or no. In a place like Iraq, though? We've seen how hard it is stabilizing that area when the people have a shit-ton of guns. I don't think attempted genocide against Sunnis or Shiites would fare well.

    [While watching popcorn in the microwave]
    Maddie: "Look Riley, the bag's as big as your head now!"
    Riley: "Hahaha, yeah!"
    Maddie: "Look, now it's as big as your butt!"
    Riley: "Omigosh, it looks just like my butt!"
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    And I'm not saying we should ban guns, I'm just saying that claiming that gun rights are more important than any other rights is fucking retarded, and exactly the kind of red herring the Republican party uses to distract you from the fact that they're trying to take away rights that actually matter.

    Besides, if we ever are taken over by a dictator, odds are that the people with the guns will be the ones helping him.

    The fact that the people who liked saying that gun rights are the basis of all others tended to support Dubya sort of leads credence to your point, Than.

    (sigh) You know, I sorta liked stare decisis.

    Eh it was due for a new interpretation. From what I've seen so far it's not a terrible one, either. But I haven't read the whole opinion.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    You know, in a rather funny way, this could end up being a rather Pyrrhic moment for the GOP.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    kildy wrote: »
    Man, part of me really wants to see the US Military vs Jackasses With m4s.

    That said, the list of genocides amuses me because it assumes all the groups would have been heavily armed and able to turn back a military had there not been gun control laws.

    The Armenians were known for their marksmanship after all.

    But that requires a very well-armed populace and a comparatively limited military. If the US government really decided it wanted to kill all the Jews, for example, it would be able to, gun control or no. In a place like Iraq, though? We've seen how hard it is stabilizing that area when the people have a shit-ton of guns. I don't think attempted genocide against Sunnis or Shiites would fare well.

    The reason stabilizing Iraq is such a clusterfuck has more to do with the fact that the U.S. military has to maintain some semblence of caring about the populace despite the fact that most of the populace doesn't really want them there. If our military wanted to just kill EVERYBODY I doubt they'd have a very hard time.

    It'll be interesting to see if the Democrats fight this. If not the GOP might have just lost a talking point.

    ezek1t.jpg
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Fine, I admit it, I was lazy.
    My thought is, all gun control laws are infringing upon the ability to legally obtain a gun. We primarily want gun control to reduce crime. Since the criminal is already committing a crime, why should he care about the gun law?
    Gun laws are special in this case because they are designed to be 100% redundant, adding an additional crime onto the crime or attempted crime already committed.
    Also, everything that you said about illegal connections stands.
    Finally, I hate hippies and wish they would die.

    A large part of why criminals have access to weaponry is the sheer amount of it being put out by the manufacturers. This is one of the "dirty little secrets" of the gun industry, and it's the big reason the GOP has tried to do everything they can to get the industry retroactive immunity.

    Lovely, I agree entirely, lets go after them then. Oh wait, the gun lobby is too big to take on. I know, lets pass useless bans and pretend like we're doing something, that'll show them!
    What I heard from you is that gun bans wont do squat because the gun companies are pumping out too many guns. Did I understand that right?

    Seriously, have you ever heard of supply and demand?

    So, wait, the reason gun control laws are useless is because people want the guns despite the law? I'm sorry, I'm really not following you.

  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Umaro wrote: »
    ptsf_ammo.jpg

    God bless America.

    That would be really funny if it didn't work.

    It doesn't.

    See: edit. Then again, that only works on a world destroying scale, so I guess in regards to guns the image is rather funny.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    The reason stabilizing Iraq is such a clusterfuck has more to do with the fact that the U.S. military has to maintain some semblence of caring about the populace despite the fact that most of the populace doesn't really want them there. If our military wanted to just kill EVERYBODY I doubt they'd have a very hard time.

    Well, yeah, killing everyone is pretty easy. You just bomb the fuck out of everything.

    Genocide is usually meant to be more targeted than that, though.

    [While watching popcorn in the microwave]
    Maddie: "Look Riley, the bag's as big as your head now!"
    Riley: "Hahaha, yeah!"
    Maddie: "Look, now it's as big as your butt!"
    Riley: "Omigosh, it looks just like my butt!"
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    The reason stabilizing Iraq is such a clusterfuck has more to do with the fact that the U.S. military has to maintain some semblence of caring about the populace despite the fact that most of the populace doesn't really want them there. If our military wanted to just kill EVERYBODY I doubt they'd have a very hard time.

    Well, yeah, killing everyone is pretty easy. You just bomb the fuck out of everything.

    Genocide is usually meant to be more targeted than that, though.

    Still, military forces amoral enough to commit systematic genecide are probably not going to worry about combatant status or harming civiliians. If you feel you really absolutely must kill an entire race offing anyone who gets in your way or doesn't instantly obey probably isn't going to weigh on your mind much.

    On that note, if the U.S. government was cruel enough to warrent armed rebellion, the only chance the civilian population would have would be getting the military on their side. One of the problems with better military tech and tactics is it makes the military that much more untouchable by yahoos with shotguns.

    ezek1t.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    You know, in a rather funny way, this could end up being a rather Pyrrhic moment for the GOP.

    I don't see how. Democrats are still going to want regulations over individual gun ownership so they can still frame it as 'they want to take yer guns!' The only thing this really solved was the individual or militia question, and correctly in my opinion, all the more delicate questions still exist and can still be exploited.

    tea-1.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    Still, military forces amoral enough to commit systematic genecide are probably not going to worry about combatant status or harming civiliians. If you feel you really absolutely must kill an entire race offing anyone who gets in your way or doesn't instantly obey probably isn't going to weigh on your mind much.

    I'm unaware of any precedent for a genocide that ruthless, though. Killing outright supporters of the targets, or those who protect them, sure. But if the military comes in and starts just blowing the fuck out of everything, the support for genocide pretty much tanks.

    Genocide doesn't really just spring up one day out of the blue, where some group is all, "Hey, you know what? Let's kill all of group X!" You need to have some fierce grievances, made up or no, between the targets and the others. You need to foster a sense of kinship amongst those not targeted, so that the targets are established as "Others" that need to be removed. That's not really compatible with just killing everyone and letting God sort 'em out.

    See, I'm an expert on genocide because I've seen both Hotel Rwanda and Schindler's List. I know what I'm talking about.

    [While watching popcorn in the microwave]
    Maddie: "Look Riley, the bag's as big as your head now!"
    Riley: "Hahaha, yeah!"
    Maddie: "Look, now it's as big as your butt!"
    Riley: "Omigosh, it looks just like my butt!"
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    See, I'm an expert on genocide because I've seen both Hotel Rwanda and Schindler's List. I know what I'm talking about.
    His credentials check out; I say we listen to him.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    You know, in a rather funny way, this could end up being a rather Pyrrhic moment for the GOP.

    I don't see how. Democrats are still going to want regulations over individual gun ownership so they can still frame it as 'they want to take yer guns!' The only thing this really solved was the individual or militia question, and correctly in my opinion, all the more delicate questions still exist and can still be exploited.

    But not as easily. Look at what happened with feminism and Roe v. Wade.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
Sign In or Register to comment.