Bignugget

i wouldn't know anything about wandering a battlefield unarmed and high, but i did do a night combat drop with the 82d one time where myself and most of the plane were trippin'. talk about a time...trying to run off a parachute at about 500 feet in total darkness is hard enough when you're straight, almost impossible while trippin'. i think my chute reinflated at around 50 feet. i just had time to drop my equipment and plf. Id watch this episode too.

Ohio gun safety instructor accidentally shoots student. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/13/us/gun-safety-class-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 The student was probably bigger and stronger.

Yes And believe it or not, Yes. So what are we disagreeing about? We agree more nukes makes us safer, like more guns make us safer. That's why North Korea, Botswana, Burma, Vietnam, The Isle of Man, Chile, Ecuador, etc etc all need nukes. I think we are on the same page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation#Arguments_for_and_against_proliferation According to Wiki we are the "Total Proliferation" guys. "In embryo, Waltz argues that the logic of mutually assured destruction (MAD) should work in all security environments, regardless of historical tensions or recent hostility. He sees the Cold War as the ultimate proof of MAD logic – the only occasion when enmity between two Great Powers did not result in military conflict. This was, he argues, because nuclear weapons promote caution in decision-makers. Neither Washington nor Moscow would risk nuclear Armageddon to advance territorial or power goals, hence a peaceful stalemate ensued (Waltz and Sagan (2003), p. 24). Waltz believes there to be no reason why this effect would not occur in all circumstances." The same applies to guns. Lets proliferate our asses off!

If you really mean what you say in this post, you should take Old Glory off your profile. You shame what it means to be American. If you didn't, then it's trolling as usual. What does it mean to be American to you? More specifically, what about my statement makes me unamerican in your mind?

A) Is there a class called nuclear non-proliferation? B) If so, is the lesson that more nukes makes us safer?

I agreed with you and said you made a great salient point. I am sure that MANY MANY MANY fewer weak people are now taken advantage of because of guns. That is why I am arguing for giving weak, small, relatively defenseless countries nuclear weapons. North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, etc etc. It makes everyone safer if the weak, small, defenseless have means to defend themselves. Amen brother, Amen.

You couldn't be more wrong with this statement. If no one had guns then the physically weak would be subject to the physically strong. That is because the weaponry available would knives, swords, bludgeoning weapons and bow and arrows. Other then the bow and arrow or crossbow, the others require physical strength and agility. The firearm doesn't. Although the bow and arrow or the crossbow do require more strength then a firearm. Many bows require quite a bit of upper body strength as do crossbows. Agreed. Thank god for guns, now hardly anyone takes advantage of the weak. Back when all they had was Bow and Arrow, lots more weak people got taken advantage of. What a salient point. P.S Has anyone seen my 300 Megaton Nuke, I have it you know....to protect myself against the strong! Just watched a really interesting documentary about the Nuke race. Funny most of the arguments you guys use to justify why more/bigger/deadlier weapons are 'needed' is the same reason they have for building more/bigger/deadlier bombs. You guys must be right. I know the consensus is that thousands of nuclear weapons makes the world safer.

I'm pretty good with peaceful freedom. Hahahah, keep dreaming. Fuckin rainbows and unicorns again.

Oooh, look! another uninformed and inaccurate post by nugget. Have you ever interacted with law enforcement officers when they weren't enforcing the law? Have you ever tried talking to them like human beings? Have you ever gone to a community meeting or taken citizen educations courses with your jurisdiction? Have you ever gone on a ride-a-long? (side note, if you don't like the laws, complain about legislators, not law enforcers) You misunderstand me. I am all about the bullshit laws. That's what the useless cops use against the people they profile, so that I may be left alone. Have you ever interacted with law enforcement officers when they weren't enforcing the law? Yes. Have you ever tried talking to them like human beings? I don't know how else to talk to people....is there one? Have you ever gone to a community meeting or taken citizen educations courses with your jurisdiction? Definitely not. Have you ever gone on a ride-a-long? Nope, I am not poorly educated so I chose a different career path. Going out and spending a night sitting in a cop car sounds less than appealing as a hobby.

Ill take that label. "I know this guy who thinks the USA would be better off with 0 guns, what a fuckin extremist" I can wear that hat. On a second note, BEER. I do believe that you admit it was the F word. I am now a part of your relationship with your gf forever. I hope shes cute.

As a white male sitting pretty much in the middle of all characteristics....I always thought profiling was a good idea. Kept those useless, mindless cops off my back. Face it, cops for the most part are poorly educated, gun loving alphas who like to play 'my dick is bigger than yours'. (obviously not ALL, but I would say its a decent **profile**) I for one have never thought it a large leap that they simply target a few profiles to fuck with. Easier than actually trying to fight crime, and there are enough bullshit laws these days that the majority of people can get caught up for SOMETHING. And of course the boss man has to put a pretty label on it and try to dress it up. Its nice the court acknowledged it.

The answer should be pretty much never. The LEOs seem to like to dress up like soldiers, but enforcing the laws on a nation's citizens should be nothing like how a soldier acts in combat. Totally different missions. When was the last time you were shot at? What escapes me is, if all the people walking around on the streets are armed, and the police are armed, where the hell could the crimes be? The whole idea of walking around strapped is to keep crime at bay. With cops and civilians all packing, should be crime free and no need to stop and frisk people for criminal shit. WTF?

I'd watch this episode for sure. actually, Cheetos were never invented. But Twinkies are still in existence and are slightly tastier - wacky stuff Getting a little less believable now. How can twinkies taste BETTER than they already do?

I'd watch this episode for sure.

Legit. You really do believe in rainbows.

Hah, what a douchebag clerk. Cool dude though. I had a dude at Kohl's one day in front of me and he had all these coupons and gift cards. He just randomly put them towards my stuff, saved me like 100 bucks. Pretty cool. To answer the original ?: No. What a douche bag idea to carry around.

Cmon now, you seem like a relatively intelligent guy. You think the president is the one arranging what flies where and with whom inside it? I bet its a bit more likely they say, "go get on this or go get on that Mr President, oh yea and don't worry we got the dog coming as well."

Only heartless gun loving homicidal maniacs dislike rainbows. My favorite is a rainbow getting danced on by a unicorn. (unicorn is unarmed obviously except for his pointy stick)

Tell that to the people in Luby's Diner. Or the students at VaTech. Or the folks at Hartford Dostributors in Mass. Or the victims of Fort Hood. Educate yourself. It'll save you embarassment. Agree totally. Thats why there should be 0 guns. Not just no AR-15s. Well said Kennedy. It would be a lot harder to hurt 71 people with a pointy stick or nunchucks.

Damn, You got me on the ways/means thing. I have revised my position and now feel more guns is the answer.

It's ok. My mom wouldn't have chuckled at it either. She tried her best but she still shakes her head at me the same way sometimes.

I will ignore the crazy bigoted tirade you went on.... I stand by my statement that 280 million fewer ways to kill each other is a good thing. I am not sure what you are trying to say regarding sucking knowledge from people.

Sure, I realize it. Didn't make me chuckle any less though.

You can't skip step 1.

Or four simply outmatch the other. It happened to Bernard Goetz. A man who was always physically outmatched. He equalized it. Yes, life sucks for the runt. The crippled. The elderly. The weak. Women. Goetz was denied a permit for a gun because he couldn't demonstrate sufficient "need." Fundamentally, self-protection against death or great bodily injury is not considered a "need." Get the shit beaten out of you. Hope someone calls the police and enjoy the hospital stay. Guns are an equalizer. The small and meek are equals with the large and strong. When you've got "victim" written on you from birth and cannot afford security or escorts 24/7, a weapon is nice to have. Note: I saw the discussion earlier about banned weapons. Brass knuckles are a good example of a widely banned weapon that does not wreak mass destruction but is banned, anyway. Switchblades are another weapon that are no more harmful than another typ of knife. They do, however, present an advantage as a defensive weapon due to the speed in which they can be deployed. Of course, they present little to no offensive advantage. (Note: I, myself, think that a weapon with a spring is bound to fail when a person needs one). So why are switchblades banned? I cannot think of a legitimate reason other than to find a reason to arrest the type of people who would carry a switchblade. Or brass knuckles. Probably based on the Hollywood presentation of gansters and criminals as carrying switchblades. Get rid of switchblades and get rid of criminals. Ban nunchuks. Ban throwing knives. Why? Think of some decent reasons. I can get on board with this. We as human beings have a social responsibility to give the weak an ability to defend themselves against the strong (evil?) . So allow me to pose this hypothetical. Instead of lethal guns, we have the technology to make semi automatic weapons that shoot immobilizing tranquilizers (instantly effective drugs). You can keep a 9mm tranq gun under your pillow for use during home invasions etc. but no one dies. Do we still have the same demand (need?) for lethal weapons that we do now (to defend the defenseless)?