This is from a gun discussion a couple of years ago. Now I would add the question of restricting ownership/possession for criminal and/or mental health background issues. There are some serious loop holes for protecting the public in these cases:

* Most mental health issues are private and cannot be considered unless someone has made overt threats or already hurt someone.
* When someone turns 18 their juvenile record is no longer considered unless they committed a capitol offense.

The US constitutions 2nd amendment is constantly being reviewed and challenged. The right to keep and bear arms is not a clear cut issue. When it was written flintlock muzzle loaders were the apex of technology, mass murder was not such an easy thing to accomplish, mental health issues were understood as a kind of voodoo.

More discussion will always be needed and the laws will be under constant review. I am a gun owner and enthusiast but I also see a need for many restrictions. It's very unfortunate that it can't be discussed without so much emotion.

[NLR] McFate wrote: While it may be true that some fringe groups are actually conspiring to ban firearms, the encroachment on the 2nd ammendment moves foreward on the mean of public opinion. Lots of money and effort is spent trying to influence public opinion and the parties who are most "fired up" about it will try to exploit any event in an attempt to sway things in their direction.

There is a tenuous balance which is always being challenged in courts. Here in the USA, with our legal system that will always be the case. There will always be those who believe the laws are too strict and those who believe the laws are too lax.

Where do you draw the line?

What is acceptable for the general population to have?:

-Handguns?
-Concealed Firearms?
-Open Carry Firearms?
-Automatic Firearms?
-Artiliary?
-Explosives?
-Assault rifles?
-Hunting Rifles?
-Hunting Shotguns?
-Assault Shotguns?
-Large Calibur Rifles?
-Silencers?
-Fragmenting Ammunition?
-Armour Piercing Ammunition?
-Tracer Ammunition?
-Non Lethal Ammunition
-Airplanes with 50 cal Machine guns?

-Does it matter how, where or when someone uses, stores, sells any weapons?

-Is it okay to discharge firearms in your own back yard? What if you live next to a school? A gas station? A Court House?


"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Some people just want to say that this single sentence says it all. But only the most obtuse freedom advocate would demand complete lack of restriction. It could be difficult to find two people who would give the same answers to all of these questions. Everything I listed has been, and will again, be considered by law.

Someone who is a 4th generation hunter and lives in rural Wyoming is going to have a very different background and experience about firearms than someone who grew up in a bad neighborhood in Detroit. They are both Americans and have the same right to be represented. Many careers are made representing either side of this issue. Big $$$. One big trouble is that people who feel strongly about the issues will often vilify those with an opposing position. When you vilify the opposition it can seem acceptable to use "dirty tricks" to try to influence things your way. Thats where things go bad.



BTW: I own several guns and have taught my kids to shoot, but I also don't really want to see citizens openly carrying, i'd rather they had training and went concealed if they want to carry. - But thats just my opinion. I neither have the interest nor the resources to legally represent my position.

[NLR] McFate wrote: This is from a gun discussion a couple of years ago. Now I would add the question of restricting ownership/possession for criminal and/or mental health background issues. There are some serious loop holes for protecting the public in these cases:

* Most mental health issues are private and cannot be considered unless someone has made overt threats or already hurt someone.
* When someone turns 18 their juvenile record is no longer considered unless they committed a capitol offense.

The US constitutions 2nd amendment is constantly being reviewed and challenged. The right to keep and bear arms is not a clear cut issue. When it was written flintlock muzzle loaders were the apex of technology, mass murder was not such an easy thing to accomplish, mental health issues were understood as a kind of voodoo.

More discussion will always be needed and the laws will be under constant review. I am a gun owner and enthusiast but I also see a need for many restrictions. It's very unfortunate that it can't be discussed without so much emotion.

[NLR] McFate wrote: While it may be true that some fringe groups are actually conspiring to ban firearms, the encroachment on the 2nd ammendment moves foreward on the mean of public opinion. Lots of money and effort is spent trying to influence public opinion and the parties who are most "fired up" about it will try to exploit any event in an attempt to sway things in their direction.

There is a tenuous balance which is always being challenged in courts. Here in the USA, with our legal system that will always be the case. There will always be those who believe the laws are too strict and those who believe the laws are too lax.

Where do you draw the line?

What is acceptable for the general population to have?:

-Handguns?
-Concealed Firearms?
-Open Carry Firearms?
-Automatic Firearms?
-Artiliary?
-Explosives?
-Assault rifles?
-Hunting Rifles?
-Hunting Shotguns?
-Assault Shotguns?
-Large Calibur Rifles?
-Silencers?
-Fragmenting Ammunition?
-Armour Piercing Ammunition?
-Tracer Ammunition?
-Non Lethal Ammunition
-Airplanes with 50 cal Machine guns?

-Does it matter how, where or when someone uses, stores, sells any weapons?

-Is it okay to discharge firearms in your own back yard? What if you live next to a school? A gas station? A Court House?


"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Some people just want to say that this single sentence says it all. But only the most obtuse freedom advocate would demand complete lack of restriction. It could be difficult to find two people who would give the same answers to all of these questions. Everything I listed has been, and will again, be considered by law.

Someone who is a 4th generation hunter and lives in rural Wyoming is going to have a very different background and experience about firearms than someone who grew up in a bad neighborhood in Detroit. They are both Americans and have the same right to be represented. Many careers are made representing either side of this issue. Big $$$. One big trouble is that people who feel strongly about the issues will often vilify those with an opposing position. When you vilify the opposition it can seem acceptable to use "dirty tricks" to try to influence things your way. Thats where things go bad.



BTW: I own several guns and have taught my kids to shoot, but I also don't really want to see citizens openly carrying, i'd rather they had training and went concealed if they want to carry. - But thats just my opinion. I neither have the interest nor the resources to legally represent my position.

Mac we have clear cut rules that address many of the things you mention . We are not allowed to have any type of hand gun unless stored in a club situation . Very hard to get a hand gun liscence and strict inspections if you have one . No firearms can be discharged in town limits espescially back yards in built up areas . We have a heavy liscencing process that can take months before requiring your firearm from time of purchase . Farmers in remote areas of Australia have the most rights in firearm aqusition . City people have the least . The law retains the right to inspect your property and your fire arms without a warrant if you are an owner of liscenced firearms . We live by this and abide by this .

[*M] CC RIDER wrote: Mac we have clear cut rules that address many of the things you mention . We are not allowed to have any type of hand gun unless stored in a club situation . Very hard to get a hand gun liscence and strict inspections if you have one . No firearms can be discharged in town limits espescially back yards in built up areas . We have a heavy liscencing process that can take months before requiring your firearm from time of purchase . Farmers in remote areas of Australia have the most rights in firearm aqusition . City people have the least . The law retains the right to inspect your property and your fire arms without a warrant if you are an owner of liscenced firearms . We live by this and abide by this .

Thanks for spelling it out CC. (The Australian version)

Some of those restrictions are here but others would be nearly impossible to implement in the US. It will always be a debate and there will never be full agreement.

Anyone else care to share their local laws?

[NLR] McFate wrote: Hey Ped,

I understand your sentiments here but I completely disagree about whether or not it is appropriate to talk about guns here. The way I see it is that this is a quasi-historical war game. Every moment you are in-game you have control of a "firearm" and you either use it against the enemy or the enemy uses one against you.

Saying that a discussion on the forum is out of place because it exposes anyone to guns is just silly. If this were a car racing game I might agree with you but not here. There are many opportunities to speak about weapons and the development of weaponry without going off topic. Even speaking about arms control is appropriate as many armistice laws went into effect at the end of the war. If you would like to make your points about media encouraging weapon use you are free to do so, but please understand that people are free to discuss weapons here and it is not off-topic to do so on this forum.


I had a comment to make about mental health and gun control:

One of my sons 19 year old friends is being sentenced tomorrow for murdering 2 members of his foster family and for greviously wounding two others. He was always very unstable and had a record of threats, petty crime and drug use. In spite of this he was not eligible for any mental health services but he was eligible to buy a gun. "Fortunate" hardly seems like the right word here but fortunately
He chose knives as his weapons instead of guns and in his spree of murder he stopped when he came face to face with the two teenaged girls in the house. I wonder if he would have had an easier time pulling a trigger than slitting their throats and stabbing as he did the others. This kid was one of the most polite of the kids who would come to our house. He spent many nights here and always thanked us for meals and just for letting him stay. We have since heard stories that he had lots of violent fantasies which were largely fed by playing high resolution killing games. Believe me, dogfight was far too tame for his interests. I thank whatever powers may be that he did not choose a gun as his murder weapon, I feel certain that more would have died if he had. Some of the conversations in the community have included the resistance from gun enthusiasts to allow any discussion of limiting gun ownership even in cases of mental instability. Whatever happens, more discussion is needed and clear heads are going to be required. Please make your points but don't try to silence others.

Mrs Mc just called from the court house. This kid just got sentenced to 65 years to life. As the sentence was read he gave a thumbs up. He gloated as the DA spoke about the impact this case had on the community, specifically how it impacts the way people may be willing to reach out to other kids who have been rejected by society. (He killed his foster brother and father).

He killed a 17 year old boy by slitting his throat as he slept. He thought he would be able to keep him silent as he died as it goes in the movies but the struggle woke up the rest of the house. He then killed the father with a knife to the heart, then slit the mothers throat and stabbed her visiting brother. Fortunately his fantasy nhe chose to play out was with knives instead of the classic akimbo 1911 pistols.

There really are people like this. He was at my house the day before. Always seemed like a nice kid. Thank god he didn't go for the guns.

Hey, gun apologysts, I am still waiting.

Repeat after me...

Gun laws in the Netherlands
RNW archive

This article is part of the RNW archive. RNW is the former Radio Netherlands Worldwide or Wereldomroep, which was founded as the Dutch international public broadcaster in 1947. In 2011, the Dutch government decided to cut funding and shift RNW from the ministry of Education, Culture and Science to the ministry of Foreign Affairs. More information about RNW Media’s current activities can be found at www.rnw.org/about-rnw-media.

Following a shooting spree on Saturday (edit: that was in 2012) by a lone gunman which has so far cost the lives of seven people, questions are bound to be asked about how the killer, who reportedly used a fully automatic weapon, got his gun and ammo. Outside the military, nobody in the Netherlands is allowed to own or shoot an automatic weapon.

So what are the rules governing gun ownership in the Netherlands? Dutch gun laws are actually quite strict. Gun ownership is seen not as a right, but a privilege, with hunting and target shooting the only two legitimate reasons for owning a gun.

Self defence is not regarded as a valid argument for owning a gun, and only the police are allowed to carry a weapon. The main purpose of Dutch gun laws is to create a clear division between legal gun owners and people who use guns for criminal purposes. So far, the Dutch have been fairly successful in accomplishing this objective.

Gun owner
Aspiring sport shooters must join a gun club. Application for gun club membership involves a trial period, allowing the club to find out who they are dealing with, and a background check by the Justice ministry. A criminal record - particularly one involving violent incidents –would disqualify the applicant. Currently, there are about 42,000 gun owners registered with the Koninklijke Nederlandse Schutters Associatie (Royal Dutch Riflemen’s Association). All gun clubs are registered with the KNSA, which maintains close contact with the Justice ministry.

After one year of membership – during which period the new member can practice with guns owned by the club – members can apply for a gun permit and, if granted, purchase their first gun. After the second year of membership, gun owners can buy more guns, to a maximum of five. Guns and ammunition kept at home must be stored in separate strongboxes. The police regularly make house-calls to check whether the guns registered in a person’s name are actually in his possession and whether they are properly stored.

Permit revoked
Members of shooting clubs are only allowed to own guns which are suitable for use in KNSA-approved shooting matches which, for instance, rules out short-barreled revolvers and all automatic weapons which are unsuited to competitive shooting. Also, gun owners can only legally transport their guns and/or ammunition either from their home to their gun club, to a licensed gunsmith, to the police station (for inspection) or to a shooting match they hold an invitation to. All of the above via the shortest possible route.

As gun ownership is regarded as a privilege, almost any violation of the gun laws will automatically lead to the shooter’s gun permit being revoked. Involvement in a violent incident, or even driving a car under the influence of alcohol, will also result in the permit being revoked.

Unnecessary suffering
Another category of gun ownership involves guns used for hunting. There are about 28,000 hunters in the Netherlands, who must take an extensive and quite expensive one-year training course to obtain their hunter’s diploma before they can apply for a hunting licence. This will only be granted if they can prove they actually have access to hunting grounds, which in the densely-populated Netherlands can prove quite difficult to find. Hunters are allowed to take their rifles out into the fields, but the rules regarding safe storage apply to all legal gun owners, and must regularly practice their shooting skills at a rifle range to avoid unnecessary suffering of their prey.

Of course, just like its neighbours, the Netherlands has a serious problem with illegal weapons, most of which are owned and used by criminals. Many of these illegal arms are alarm guns illegally converted to firearms. Reliable information on the number of illegal firearms in the Netherlands is – for obvious reasons – difficult to come by, but recent research suggests that each year thousands of illegal weapons are smuggled into the Netherlands.

(gsh/imm)

The phrase, anyone with guts to write it "outloud", proudly, like a "macho"? Still waiting...

Edit: just reminding, the phrase is:

"No, ped, I will not refrain from using a game-forum to make my gun-apology, and I don't care about what the kids of the rest of the world are going to read here."

Anyone? Tic-tac-tic-tac...

Ped do they wanna movies that show guns in Brazil?

Yup, but TV never listen to parents (for example, when they ask Tv to change the violent movies to a more propper hour, at night). There`s too much money involved...
But here, on this forum, I (naively) hoped people would be a little more whiling to help, and do some favor to the non-USA-kids from this game comunity.
But I see people prefer bump their chests and bully others than to be reasonable and do the HUGE SACRIFICE of making gun-apology elsewhere.
Lame.

.

.
.

Heff006 wrote: 11 year old shoots 8 year old because she won't let him play with her puppy!
Only in America!

So I guess it's "Bash America week"

Believe me, Heff, that is a sad situation that has more to do with the parents than the "Gun Culture"...

I wonder, since the figure was brought to the floor, in the 200+ countries around the world, where do the most mass-murders happen? Let's just keep it to the last 100 years...

How many countries around the world in the last 100 years have seen mass-murders? Not including legitimate war-casualties, how many millions of people have been killed? and where?

Spain 1937- Socialist forces of Franco along with Hitler's "Military Advisors" wipe out the non-combative town of Guernica. Thousands slaughtered, in a "Gun Free Zone"

Ethiopia 1937 - Socialist forces of Italy attempt to "pacify" numerous villages after hostilities have ceased.

USSR 1930's - Stalin dis-arms and displaces hundreds of villages from fertile lands to Siberia, Hundreds of Thousands die on the trek and while resettling.

Germany 1940 - Millions of "undesirables" are removed after being dis-armed 3 years earlier. They are sent to work camps and fed sub-starvation rations until they die. By 1942 the unarmed that are rounded up are disposed of in "Death Camps" as a "Final Solution."

USSR 1946 - after WWII is ended, Stalin imprisons millions of citizens that have been "infected with Naziism"... estimates of 25-40 Million are killed

China 1950s - Mao consolidates his government and faces a famine. He openly asks the population for suggestions on how he could improve the government. close to 100 million Chinese Citizens that only wanted to help improve their country are now viewed as "Enemies of the State" and are eliminated. The rest of the population is disarmed.

Cambodia 1976 - PolPot Murders over One Million Cambodians to solidify his Communist regime.

Central Africa (numerous countries) 1970-2015 - Millions of unarmed citizens terrorized by gangs of thugs with AK47s and machetes. The children of one tribe have their arms cut off, while the children of the other tribe are told to carry the rifles and made to shoot their own parents.

Bosnia-Herzogovenia, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania (Last 100 years) - Too many examples to name, but after the collapse of Yugoslavia upon the death of Marshall Tito, warlords reverted to using military units they controlled, to settle centuries-old scores, mostly upon the disarmed population. Mass-graves become the norm after the "cleansing" of an offending village.

Middle-East (Last 100 Years)- Religious differences are the reason for the mass-murders of entire populations...


Tell me again that the US is the main problem?

I will say this, the American Media have become the Cheering Section for the Socialist Democrats in the country. So any chance they have to politicize a story to make it seem like the problem is epidemic they are going to take.

Don't allow the emotion of the moment to cloud the judgment of common sense...

The subject is npt about war crimes. Its about mass-murders comited by civilians.

[LB] Pedrinho wrote: The subject is npt about war crimes. Its about mass-murders comited by civilians.

You're right ped...keep in mind these so called mass murders occur predominantly gun free zones.

Viking, what an unbelievably bizarre comparison!

Are you suggesting that the right to bear arms will prevent an impending genocide? Are the Canadian Mounties plotting to sweep south and slay all your beavers? Maybe the Mexican drug cartels are tunnelling north to wipe out Texas? Or perhaps the darned British redcoats are sailing up the Hudson to make a nice cup of tea and teach you proper English. Yes, every one of you should be armed if any of these scenarios was remotely plausible, but please don't drag out that old argument about protecting yourselves from your own unstable, corrupt and violent government - that is so 18th century. By the way, you wouldn't have a chance against a government that now has more than muskets. Last time I checked they had drones, attack helicopters and Abrams tanks. Good luck with your sexy fore grips, extended mags and red dot sights!

Yes, criminals can get guns in any country, but in Australia for example an assault rifle costs $35,000 on the black market. A deranged loser high school student doesn't usually have that kind of money, and of course he can't just pop around the corner to Walmart.

Guns are the tools of my trade. I love their precision and ergonomics. There are few things more satisfying then that (occasional in my case) perfect shot, which propels a small inert projectile over hundreds of metres to strike a place in time and space exactly as you want it to. I appreciate how weapons have shaped history and society. I understand the largely masculine motivation to possess firearms, and I understand how they inflate people's sense of invincibility and therefore reduce their threshold for violence. For that reason I firmly believe that they should be strictly controlled.

Ronnie Biggs wrote: Viking, what an unbelievably bizarre comparison!

Are you suggesting that the right to bear arms will prevent an impending genocide? Are the Canadian Mounties plotting to sweep south and slay all your beavers? Maybe the Mexican drug cartels are tunnelling north to wipe out Texas? Or perhaps the darned British redcoats are sailing up the Hudson to make a nice cup of tea and teach you proper English. Yes, every one of you should be armed if any of these scenarios was remotely plausible, but please don't drag out that old argument about protecting yourselves from your own unstable, corrupt and violent government - that is so 18th century. By the way, you wouldn't have a chance against a government that now has more than muskets. Last time I checked they had drones, attack helicopters and Abrams tanks. Good luck with your sexy fore grips, extended mags and red dot sights!

Yes, criminals can get guns in any country, but in Australia for example an assault rifle costs $35,000 on the black market. A deranged loser high school student doesn't usually have that kind of money, and of course he can't just pop around the corner to Walmart.

Guns are the tools of my trade. I love their precision and ergonomics. There are few things more satisfying then that (occasional in my case) perfect shot, which propels a small inert projectile over hundreds of metres to strike a place in time and space exactly as you want it to. I appreciate how weapons have shaped history and society. I understand the largely masculine motivation to possess firearms, and I understand how they inflate people's sense of invincibility and therefore reduce their threshold for violence. For that reason I firmly believe that they should be strictly controlled.

Genocide could have been averted in many of the few examples that I gave if the population were armed.

"When the people fear the Government, there is tyranny. When the Government fears the people, there is Freedom."

Besides, what is bizarre about comparing crazy people killing citizens in different countries? The main difference is that in many of the other examples, the crazy people had already dis-armed the populace. In America, the crazy people are taking advantage of the insane idea that a "Gun-Free Zone" keeps the people safer. Ironically, the "Gun-Free Zones" only advertise to those that mean to harm people that they can operate without opposition...

Exactly monster, if they are going to shoot people in a gun free zone they are breaking the law even before the first shot is fired. Banning guns will not stop criminals from having guns, it will only assure them that they can find unarmed law abiding citizens everywhere, not just in gun free zones. If guns were made illegal, the next mass shooting could happen anywhere. Once sombody decides to commit murder, they no longer care what the law says.

If you sacrifice freedom for safety, you will have neither.

[NLR]Jacob10000 wrote: Exactly monster, if they are going to shoot people in a gun free zone they are breaking the law even before the first shot is fired. Banning guns will not stop criminals from having guns, it will only assure them that they can find unarmed law abiding citizens everywhere, not just in gun free zones. If guns were made illegal, the next mass shooting could happen anywhere. Once sombody decides to commit murder, they no longer care what the law says.

LMAO! so let's just make sure the next mass shooting, which you acknowledge is inevitable, is confined to a school, movie theatre or church! I admit your logic is flawless, but it's based on what kind of premise? You can't stop determined criminals from having guns; I've already acknowledged that, but perhaps you can stop deluded crazies from casually mowing down their classmates or neighbours just because they're having a bad day.

Ban gun free zones. If there is even a small chance that there is even one law abiding, gun toting citizen being anywhere, all the time. Then the number of "easy targets" decreases for all the crazies.

Ronnie firstly an Assult rifle is not 35 thousand dollars on the black market . I aquired one for $1,700 dollars . Very easily . I used it for culling sheep during the drought as we were denied access to the guns for humane killing by our very own government . I smashed it up after I finished using it . The seller had about 40 of them at this price . That was in 2009 . He sold boxes of ammo at very low price also . The rifles came from out of europe . The only downfall was it leaves a lot of holes in the railing of your sheep yards . Australia is a very scary place at the moment as a lot of criminals have access to automatic weapons that after use they dont dispose of them very carefully . They tend to just throw them on the street after use . Gloves and balaclavas leave very little evidence . Trying to control gun laws it like trying to control the drug epidemic . Prohibition never works . Look at the alcohole trade . There is an Alcopone waiting in every prohibition trade . Sorry mate but it is like pushing crap up hill . There are too many arguments for both sides .

Gun free zones promote gun violence?

So let every parent send his kid to school with a gun, just to be on the safe side?

Guys........as the old saying goes:

There are small lies, big lies ant then there are statistcs. The internet is full of those gun violence statistics.

What about some common sence?

[*M] CC RIDER wrote: I aquired one for $1,700 dollars . Very easily .

That's about what they go for in the USA, at least in my neck of the woods. You can buy a cheaper one, but they are normally very stripped down.

Hey Ped, it would appear that your attempts to censor what folks chat about on this "worldwide" forum have failed, or are failing. Without taking one side or the other I would like to offer you, Pedrinho, a humble suggestion.

Since you are obviously anti-gun, and based on your postings cannot control what your children read on the internet, why not use this dialog to educate your kids, maybe open up some communication with them? At that point you can discuss your views and instill your values into your children as any reasonable person would like to accomplish. You seem fairly intelligent and should have no problem turning what you perceive to be a bad thing into a good opportunity to teach your children a valuable lesson. That will likely be way easier than trying to force folks to "repeat after me", because based on what I have read so far that isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

I am not trying to parent your children, please don't get the wrong idea. I am merely offering you an alternative to arguing what appears to be a lost cause any further which can give you some really good results if correctly approached.

Anyone who has children has had to explain awkward things to them from time to time. Kids are perceptive clever. They see folks behaving in public in a manner that is questionable, they see things on TV including sex, violence, and other adult things. Trust me all us parents have had to deal with things our children have seen, and explain them in a way which reflects our morals, beliefs, values, etc. An internet gun discussion can be one of those topics, at least for some, that would open dialog between you and your children.

It has been my experience that the children who are protected by their parents from all the "bad" things that are out there are the first kids to go wild when they finally leave their parents protection, so to speak. I don't want to brag but my kids seem pretty well adjusted, considering what a clown their father is.

Viper10{WP} wrote: Since you are obviously anti-gun, and based on your postings cannot control what your children read on the internet, why not use this dialog to educate your kids, maybe open up some communication with them?

Where you took this weird conclusion from?????

The first words are right: I am anti-gun. But what about the rest of that sentences? What made you reach the conclusion that "I can not control what my child read on the internet"? What made you conclude that I don't educate my kid? FYI, my only kid is going to make 4 in november, she is just beginning to learn to read, and when proper time comes, I won't put her on a buble, over-protecting her; good parents prepare their kids for the world, not for themselves.

But I know that even on the most powerful countrie in the world there are some kids that doesn't have this fortune (having parents with enough time and patience and dedication) to make them grow intelectualy and emotionaly healthy, and so I am trying to make my little, humble, part: trying to ask gun-apologists to stop making their apology on a forum about a simple game, where kids are supposed to participate.

If you believe having guns as a normal "tool" on everyone's houses are not going to do any harm to your people, it's not my business, it's yours and your country's. But since this forum is a worldwide forum, I humbly asked a simple favor, a little gesture of "giving", nothing too much hard to accomplish - but, sadly, people refuses to understand my point, and I am not interested anymore on trying to change some rocky-minds.

So, I decided just to keep harassing some of you, just to piss some jerks off (yeah, I am a douchebagistanian):

"Repeat after me..."

[*M] CC RIDER wrote: Ronnie firstly an Assult rifle is not 35 thousand dollars on the black market . I aquired one for $1,700 dollars . Very easily.

And to think I felt guilty when I bought a cheap, ilegal copy of a DVD of my favourite singer... lol

[LB] Pedrinho wrote:

Viper10{WP} wrote: Since you are obviously anti-gun, and based on your postings cannot control what your children read on the internet, why not use this dialog to educate your kids, maybe open up some communication with them?

Where you took this weird conclusion from?????

The first words are right: I am anti-gun. But what about the rest of that sentences? What made you reach the conclusion that "I can not control what my child read on the internet"? What made you conclude that I don't educate my kid?

You and your posts brought me to that conclusion. Your concern for the content of this, and any gun related thread, because "other countries children" might read it, well that would make any reasonable person conclude what I did. Your attempts to censor this thread and your reasoning behind your attempts to censor this thread would lead any reasonable person to the same conclusion. I took the situation as a whole.. your avatar, your banner, you concern for children.. A reasonable person would ask "what is at stake for him?" and draw the same conclusion.

Secondly, I never said you didn't educate your kid. What I said was use this, and any other what you perceive as questionable forum content, to educate your kid. You took that as you don not educate them, I meant it as you can educate them if you see the need. Do you understand the difference? You mistook what was intended to be assistance as an attack. It wasn't.

Finally, being completely neutral on the whole gun issue I will put this out there. "repeat after me" and "gun-apology" in my opinion is counterproductive. You are not going to have a whole lot of success trying to force people to type something, anything, just to placate you. That statement goes doubly for folks who don't agree with your position. Additionally I would be willing to bet not many of us who have been following this thread even understand what you mean by "gun-apology". This thread doesn't, and has never, seemed apologetic. Nor have any of the posts indicated any apology was required. At least not to this observer.

In conclusion my entire previous post still stands, as is, as my suggestion as an alternative to trying to censor what is discussed on a "worldwide" forum. Take it, don't take it, it matters not. Heck, you can even take it personal if you like. I can live with that. When you fail at censorship (or flying right up the middle for that matter) you can either a) keep trying the same exact tactic; or b) change tactics. It's your call my friend.

[LB] Pedrinho wrote:

[*M] CC RIDER wrote: Ronnie firstly an Assult rifle is not 35 thousand dollars on the black market . I aquired one for $1,700 dollars . Very easily.

And to think I felt guilty when I bought a cheap, ilegal copy of a DVD of my favourite singer... lol

Well Ped I have been watching your ranting and raving for acouple of days now wondering if you are plugged in or not . You have gone on and on about this thread even after declaring you had had your last say several posts back . You obviously are blind to Becks thread about Knives Guns etc . There are pictures of many guns that people are proudly displaying and declaring ownership . Not once have you posted your holier than thou crap on that thread . Are you totally tunnel visioned bloke . God forbid you pull your head out of the sand and read that one . Call the paramedics ......

To Viper:
My main language is not English. And the litteral traduction of words doesn't help. Some words are used, in Portuguese, in a different way than they are used on English. That's why, most of times, my text interpretation fails. I don't use Google or any other translation tool, it is time consuming, so I am sorry for that.

I now understand your point.

But the word "censoring", in Portuguese, remembers me of the 1970's brazilian ditactorial period, and I don't like it.
OK, it's semanthics (rethorics?), but I don't feel like censoring the thing, honestly. I just humbly asked a favor (to take this discussion elsewhere).
Censoring, from a brazilian point of view, it's a unilateral act, a dictatorial act, imposed by force, took against someone's will - what is not the case. I was simply asking. And no one else even answered "yes" or "no" - and then, I kept insisting on it, to see if there were any gun-apologist with enough GUTS to say "No, Ped, I am not refrain to do my gun-apology here, and damn the other countrie's kids that reads this forum".

Nothing yet...

But as I said, from a certain point on, I was just having fun pissing some bullies of. I don't mind what goes on here anymore.

Cheers from Douchebagistan!

====

to ccrider:

Yes, I did see that crap. I won't loose my time on that one. I spend some effort on this one, asking the thread author (Jacob) to avoid these kind of threads, cuz he is the only moderator here. But then, some idiots like you begun to make silly posts, and here we are.

Still waiting, repeat after me...

[LB] Pedrinho wrote: To Viper:
My main language is not English. And the litteral traduction of words doesn't help. Some words are used, in Portuguese, in a different way than they are used on English. That's why, most of times, my text interpretation fails. I don't use Google or any other translation tool, it is time consuming, so I am sorry for that.

I now understand your point.

But the word "censoring", in Portuguese, remembers me of the 1970's brazilian ditactorial period, and I don't like it.
OK, it's semanthics (rethorics?), but I don't feel like censoring the thing, honestly. I just humbly asked a favor (to take this discussion elsewhere).
Censoring, from a brazilian point of view, it's a unilateral act, a dictatorial act, imposed by force, took against someone's will - what is not the case. I was simply asking. And no one else even answered "yes" or "no" - and then, I kept insisting on it, to see if there were any gun-apologist with enough GUTS to say "No, Ped, I am not refrain to do my gun-apology here, and damn the other countrie's kids that reads this forum".

Nothing yet...

But as I said, from a certain point on, I was just having fun pissing some bullies of. I don't mind what goes on here anymore.

Cheers from Douchebagistan!

====

to ccrider:

Yes, I did see that crap. I won't loose my time on that one. I spend some effort on this one, asking the thread author (Jacob) to avoid these kind of threads, cuz he is the only moderator here. But then, some idiots like you begun to make silly posts, and here we are.

Still waiting, repeat after me...

So basically you admit to flaming the forum and those whom you deem worthy of entertaining you with intent to argue. One thing that is clearly stated in the user agreement as unacceptable within the forum community. I love the irony in the admission and clearly kiddo's, not an exemplary example to follow.