Confessions

[Link]

Poor nature.

That about what i posted?

You must not realize, that if you do not kill the animal attacking your live stock, you lose money and time. We've had coyotes take out 10 turkeys in one night, THROUGH A FENCE. Not only that, but I live right on the back side of a mountain and it isn't uncommon for bears to traverse through destroying everything in their path. The ONLY thing that is kill on sight regardless of what it is doing is rattlesnakes, you do not want to be bit by one of those.

You city folk? Me? City? I'm not sure if I should laugh or facepalm, Link. Having a gun for survival is one thing. Having a gun just because is another. I was speaking of the latter.

The way you worded it was gave only one reason why to keep guns, which was to rise against the government not survival.

[Mercy]

The way you worded it was gave only one reason why to keep guns, which was to rise against the government not survival.

It's a generalized statement. Defense against the wilderness for those of us out in the boonies isn't a proper excuse for someone who lives in New York City, for example.

[Iridia]

It's a generalized statement. Defense against the wilderness for those of us out in the boonies isn't a proper excuse for someone who lives in New York City, for example.

There's bears in NY, I swear.

[CruleD]

Spoiler: Show

I'm sleepy.




























































































































































































And my eyes are sleepy.



















































































































































































I'm going to sleep.

[Mahati]

Hate does nothing for a state of depression. It is one thing to witness it. It is another to be the victim. Don't tell me you gain the right to judge someone because you witness it.

No, but if man doesn't lay judgement on man, who else? God? Wait 80 years for a murderer, a rapist, a child molester to die a normal death to be judged by God in the afterlife? Don't make me laugh. There should be MEN who would be allowed to judge, under the right conditions. That's why the law system was created. Now, it's full of corruption, the whole system, but originally it was created with good intentions.

If everything, all the evidence, witnesses, testimonies, points towards the criminal, there should be someone capable to judge him.

[Link]

It's a generalized statement. Defense against the wilderness for those of us out in the boonies isn't a proper excuse for someone who lives in New York City, for example.

Yes, however some of the arguments start to boil down to Mr. Redneck out here with his truck loads of guns, while he may not need all of those guns, he certainly will use all of those guns. Also, i did not know you lived in the boonies, i was hoping the probability of you living in a town was high enough for me to be correct.

You get taught it's a tool that should not be played with, while everywhere else views it as a weapon.

[Mercy]

No, but if man doesn't lay judgement on man, who else? God? Wait 80 years for a murderer, a rapist, a child molester to die a normal death to be judged by God in the afterlife? Don't make me laugh. There should be MEN who would be allowed to judge, under the right conditions. That's why the law system was created. Now, it's full of corruption, the whole system, but originally it was created with good intentions.

If everything, all the evidence, witnesses, testimonies, points towards the criminal, there should be someone capable to judge him.

I'll refrain from making a comment about your extensive use of "man" and "men", and assume that it is intended to be a generalization for "people".

People assume that judgement is required for anyone to know the difference between right and wrong. Everyone knows the difference between right and wrong. This "eye for an eye" business isn't ethical or "right". I won't argue about its necessity, since that is probably the most controversial aspect of the subject, but you cannot tell me that it is "right" in any way whatsoever.

The only person, from my point of view (religious views aside), that should have the right to judge such a person is the victim. And even then, it is not justified. No violence of any kind can ever be.

Also,
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Iridia]

I'll refrain from making a comment about your extensive use of "man" and "men", and assume that it is intended to be a generalization for "people".

Obviously sexist.

Bite the bait.

[Lawl]

Guns....GUNS AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE.....

[Juggertank]

I'd like to reference the Cold War; on the topic of the gun debate... My AP u.s. history and government class has talked about this a lot, and a we agreed that the balance they struck was what ultimately saved the world.

The Cold War was between two countries only remained cold because of the power balance and responsibility between the countries. This responsibility allowed the nightmare to fade, rather than escalate when one side lowered their weapons. (Figuratively)

In my eyes, firearms in homes form somewhat of a balance with the arms of possible invaders.
Like the Cold War; this balance will help protect the home. However, there's always going to be a lack of responsibility on the home invader's side, obviously. So this escalated "balance" cannot be thrown off, because crime will just escalate, the same way an irrational nation would respond to a sudden decline in enemy firepower.

[Mahati]

I'll refrain from making a comment about your extensive use of "man" and "men", and assume that it is intended to be a generalization for "people".

People assume that judgement is required for anyone to know the difference between right and wrong. Everyone knows the difference between right and wrong. This "eye for an eye" business isn't ethical or "right". I won't argue about its necessity, since that is probably the most controversial aspect of the subject, but you cannot tell me that it is "right" in any way whatsoever.

The only person, from my point of view (religious views aside), that should have the right to judge such a person is the victim. And even then, it is not justified. No violence of any kind can ever be.

Also,
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Isn't men the plural of man? (I saw a man / I saw 3 men) I used it to avoid using "humans" and make myself took like a divine being of vengeance :cool:

I never said that the "eye for an eye" notion is right or ethical. I know it isn't. No killing ever is. But, crime and Punishment. There MUST be a punishment depending on what crimes the offender did. It's not right for the victim and the whole society otherwise, no matter how "unethical" you or him or her may think it is. Children are taught that for every bad deed, there will be a punishment... at least parents did that in my years. Will you not punish your kid if he stole a chocolate from the store? Now, would you not punish that sick bastard that murdered that 10 years old and her mother?

[Link]

I'd like to reference the Cold War; on the topic of the gun debate... My AP u.s. history and government class has talked about this a lot, and a we agreed that the balance they struck was what ultimately saved the world.

The Cold War was between two countries only remained cold because of the power balance and responsibility between the countries. This responsibility allowed the nightmare to fade, rather than escalate when one side lowered their weapons. (Figuratively)

In my eyes, firearms in homes form somewhat of a balance with the arms of possible invaders.
Like the Cold War; this balance will help protect the home. However, there's always going to be a lack of responsibility on the home invader's side, obviously. So this escalated "balance" cannot be thrown off, because crime will just escalate, the same way an irrational nation would respond to a sudden decline in enemy firepower.

If you were in AP history, why did you not use the word "Deterrence" in that entire essay you just wrote? I mean just me writing

Deterrence Theory

Will summarize your entire essay. The story in MGS talks about it alot.

[Juggertank]

If you were in AP history, why did you not use the word "Deterrence" in that entire essay you just wrote? I mean just me writing

Deterrence Theory

Will summarize your entire essay. The story in MGS talks about it alot.

Well, the theory we came up with wasn't even mentioned in the book, we came up with it all on our own. But if that's an official name for it, sure.

The book had vet little generalization, we had to put it together ourselves. I guess we re-discovered the deterrence theory,

[Iridia]

Isn't men the plural of man? (I saw a man / I saw 3 men) I used it to avoid using "humans" and make myself took like a divine being of vengeance :cool:

Why not just use people? Not every human is male.

[Clovis]

Why not just use people? Not every human is male.

There's man as a gender and Man as a race. Mankind. I don't think people should be so sensitive to it.