Orboknown
Smash Hero
Meh. Guns are aight
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Social DGames Social | V/LA |
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
#HBC | Nabe
Beneath it all, he had H-cups all along
typical americans
Maven89
Smash Master
I live in Texas. We have two hundred pound wild pigs that will kill your dogs and children and tear up your land. You got to shoot those things, and then you turn them into sausage because the meat isn't good for anything else.
Yeah. Nothing makes me feel more comfortable closing at night than the gun under the counter.Word, gotta be able to defend yourself against those creepy non-you guys carrying around guns all day.
Wait,... you live in Texas?
#HBC | Kary
Fiend of Fire
#HBC | Joker
Space Marine
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 3,864
- Location
- St. Clair Shores, Michigan
- NNID
- HBCJoker
- 3DS FC
- 1864-9780-3232
No place has more **** running around that will ****ing murder the **** out of you than Australia, and guns are super not legal there. Somehow they manage to survive.
Last edited:
#HBC | Kary
Fiend of Fire
TIL: Pigs not native to US.
Also not native: horses.
Also not native: horses.
Maven89
Smash Master
About fifteen minutes north of Dallas, so about two hours from pig country
I'm all in favor of gun control, I like Obama's proposals, but I still feel guns should be legal. Whether another country can survive their own turf or not is pretty irrelevant to me. A man might be able to fight off a man with a knife, and can argue that he can defend himself without a gun, but there's no way a woman could. Even tasers and mace aren't much of a guarantee. A gun can be.
I had a whole evolution on this, where originally I was against them but later changed my mind. I believe part of it was being around experienced gun owners and learning about requirements that already exist.
Also not native: Americans
I also think that everyone who owns a gun should be required to take some kind of a firearm safety class. I'm not sure about laws in Texas, but in NC we only require firearm safety classes if you want to get a concealed carry and a hunter safety course if you want to get a hunting license.
Huh. I'm in Dallas. I live in Flower Mound.
Last edited:
guns should be legal and I personally enjoy them a lot
but studies have also shown that someone without not only extensive training in shooting but extensive training for actual crisis situations are needed to actually wield a gun with competence in an emergency scenario. No amount of fantasizing about becoming John McClane when you find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's a physiological thing.
It's not even fear exactly. It could be. But it's more like nerves and adrenaline going to hell on you and making you freeze up. I remember years and years back when I first became a bouncer I figured I'd be a walk-on since I was a big dude that had been in a fair few scraps. Turns out confidence, size, strength and everything else just don't have anything to do with it. First fight that happened we were escorting a guy out and he took a swing at my coworker. I froze for a couple seconds in sort of disbelief like, did he seriously just do that what the hell. Imagine 9 billion times the level of surprise and darkness and screaming panicking people, and then you might have a good idea of why the people that said James Holmes wouldn't have killed those people if the people in the theater just had enough people with GUNS.
Choosing to act in a way that endangers yourself goes against your biological programming and is literally like the definition of easier said than done and that becomes more the case the newer the situation is to you and the more severe the danger.
what I'm trying to say is people should absolutely be able to own and use guns to protect themselves from wild pigs, bears, and yes even home invaders since why not it's your life and your property and your risk. but all those old saws you hear about people being killed with their own guns or killing a loved one in a flash of rage (Oscar Pictorius) are, well, old saws you hear about for a reason.
even as someone that was looking at a LE career for almost my entire life, has learned to shoot competently, and been in more stressful or combative situations than I can count, I can make virtually no guarantees on being able to act in a situation where I have a gun and somebody else goes apedongs. Cuz like seriously the "is this seriously happening right now???" factor is absolutely giant and somehow gets overlooked
but studies have also shown that someone without not only extensive training in shooting but extensive training for actual crisis situations are needed to actually wield a gun with competence in an emergency scenario. No amount of fantasizing about becoming John McClane when you find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's a physiological thing.
It's not even fear exactly. It could be. But it's more like nerves and adrenaline going to hell on you and making you freeze up. I remember years and years back when I first became a bouncer I figured I'd be a walk-on since I was a big dude that had been in a fair few scraps. Turns out confidence, size, strength and everything else just don't have anything to do with it. First fight that happened we were escorting a guy out and he took a swing at my coworker. I froze for a couple seconds in sort of disbelief like, did he seriously just do that what the hell. Imagine 9 billion times the level of surprise and darkness and screaming panicking people, and then you might have a good idea of why the people that said James Holmes wouldn't have killed those people if the people in the theater just had enough people with GUNS.
Choosing to act in a way that endangers yourself goes against your biological programming and is literally like the definition of easier said than done and that becomes more the case the newer the situation is to you and the more severe the danger.
what I'm trying to say is people should absolutely be able to own and use guns to protect themselves from wild pigs, bears, and yes even home invaders since why not it's your life and your property and your risk. but all those old saws you hear about people being killed with their own guns or killing a loved one in a flash of rage (Oscar Pictorius) are, well, old saws you hear about for a reason.
even as someone that was looking at a LE career for almost my entire life, has learned to shoot competently, and been in more stressful or combative situations than I can count, I can make virtually no guarantees on being able to act in a situation where I have a gun and somebody else goes apedongs. Cuz like seriously the "is this seriously happening right now???" factor is absolutely giant and somehow gets overlooked
ranmaru
Smash Legend
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 13,297
- Switch FC
- SW-0654 7794 0698
I don't know how they do it. I'll never go there.
#HBC | Nabe
Beneath it all, he had H-cups all along
#HBC | Red Ryu
Red Fox Warrior
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2008
- Messages
- 27,486
- Location
- Milwaukee, Wisconsin
- NNID
- RedRyu_Smash
- 3DS FC
- 0344-9312-3352
I just want a way to protect myself, but word to EE on the freezing up and not knowing til you end up in that situation.
What people will say and do is honestly something you can't fully know until the situation happens.
What people will say and do is honestly something you can't fully know until the situation happens.
Currently seeking two replacements for Pamplona Point. 
This is completely serious. I've given every nonexistent the same level of prodding and patience, and the people I want to replace have been 100% noncommunicative. If you've been even 95% noncommunicative, consider yourself extremely lucky and still on my chopping block.
If you're out there and you want to play AND WILL ACTUALLY COMMIT TO THE GAME, AND NOT JUST SAY SO, I want you inside m...y game.
This is completely serious. I've given every nonexistent the same level of prodding and patience, and the people I want to replace have been 100% noncommunicative. If you've been even 95% noncommunicative, consider yourself extremely lucky and still on my chopping block.
If you're out there and you want to play AND WILL ACTUALLY COMMIT TO THE GAME, AND NOT JUST SAY SO, I want you inside m...y game.
Cheerilee
Smash Ace
- Joined
- May 24, 2013
- Messages
- 548
Maven89
Smash Master
Fixed it for you
#HBC | Kary
Fiend of Fire
every time I read a Spak post I feel old
July
Smash Apprentice
I just remembered that this place exists! Hi! I see that much has changed, yet much has stayed the same
That avatar combo.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Sanders being chosen in the democratic primary is a bad thing?
I would rather have Sanders in office than Clinton, but I honestly don't want either. It was more in reference to the fact that Trump won by about 19%.
Maven89
Smash Master
I think Sanders outlines a good decade (most like 2-3 decades) of work. My problem is he's saying he can do it in his first term. I don't believe that would be true even if the democrats controlled both chambers, and I'm not even sure I'd want all that to happen in four years. Free public college and single payer health care in a single term? I could buy one of those issues being a two term progress. Obama had to fight both terms just to get Obamacare through, and Obamacare, relatively speaking, barely did a damn thing. I'm also incredibly skeptical of Bernie Sanders when it comes to foreign policy. He recently gave an answer that the country he was most worried about was North Korea, which is pretty shocking to me. North Korea sucks, but compared to Iran and Russia they're not capable of affecting us in a way that threatens our global position or security. Russia/Iran are capable of interfering with that.
But, Clinton is a liar. Electing her would mean less accountability, less transparency, and the wrong people lining their pockets. Unfortunately though, I'm not convinced that this rides over Bernie Sander's problem.
This leaves me in a position of voting Republican, but it looks more and more likely that Cruz/Trump (probably Cruz) will be the nominee, and damn do I hate Ted Cruz. Cruz would probably run a Mitt Romney campaign (focus entirely on how bad Democrats are, focus little on how great Republicans are), which in most circumstances I believe would be beaten by the Democrats, but I don't know if Bernie could win against anyone, or if Clinton would do so. Trump I'm not going to acknowledge unless required to. Rubio looked awful in that debate, almost Rick Perry level, and with him gone that means the chance of any of these establishment candidates is slipping away.
...Bloomberg? I'd have zero reason to support him, and "well at least he's not the other kind of awful" isn't a good rallying cry
But, Clinton is a liar. Electing her would mean less accountability, less transparency, and the wrong people lining their pockets. Unfortunately though, I'm not convinced that this rides over Bernie Sander's problem.
This leaves me in a position of voting Republican, but it looks more and more likely that Cruz/Trump (probably Cruz) will be the nominee, and damn do I hate Ted Cruz. Cruz would probably run a Mitt Romney campaign (focus entirely on how bad Democrats are, focus little on how great Republicans are), which in most circumstances I believe would be beaten by the Democrats, but I don't know if Bernie could win against anyone, or if Clinton would do so. Trump I'm not going to acknowledge unless required to. Rubio looked awful in that debate, almost Rick Perry level, and with him gone that means the chance of any of these establishment candidates is slipping away.
...Bloomberg? I'd have zero reason to support him, and "well at least he's not the other kind of awful" isn't a good rallying cry
TL;DR the next 4 years are gonna be rough.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Ya Sanders is HELLA optimistic, I think he's counting on spawning a wave of progressivism that will affect all levels of government to the level that he can take a page from the tea party playbook and primary dems who push back. A fair number of sanders supporter are trying just that already actually.
Regardless my biggest concern right now is our economy. Too big to fail banks are the number one existential issue that faces america right now because they can literally bring down our entire economy through a single one's bad investments. At it's core are things like the glass steagall act but it doesn't go far enough. As a background necessary is likely campaign finance reform which requires either a super majority or appointment of new justices which the next term or two will likely decide.
Can Sanders necessarily accomplish this? No, he's the best person in office to accomplish it because non of the other candidates are remotely interested in dealing with it except Trump and well, we know what trump stands for.
Regardless my biggest concern right now is our economy. Too big to fail banks are the number one existential issue that faces america right now because they can literally bring down our entire economy through a single one's bad investments. At it's core are things like the glass steagall act but it doesn't go far enough. As a background necessary is likely campaign finance reform which requires either a super majority or appointment of new justices which the next term or two will likely decide.
Can Sanders necessarily accomplish this? No, he's the best person in office to accomplish it because non of the other candidates are remotely interested in dealing with it except Trump and well, we know what trump stands for.
Maven's thoughtpile reminds me of me every single election season. I try to vote, guys, I really do. And I just can't bring myself to support a platform. I just... can't. I've been eligible to vote three times ever and only voted once -- the party I voted for didn't pursue literally a single thing that I supported them for, other than perhaps the very generic "keep fighting in Afghanistan" back when. It's not that that soured me forever but it was pretty annoying to have not one single thing I supported happen and tons of **** I didn't care about helping the same special interests.
That was just the one time I ever generally supported someone's platform. And then they did all the dumb or less important things on it and none of the good ones. And I never saw a platform before or after it that I truly supported.
PS - I think Trudeau has finally been in office long enough that I can say I was completely right. He has yet to get the memo that he is no longer a high school literature teacher. He's a Prime Minister and it seriously feels like he's just interested in preening for "oh captain my captain"-esque accolades.
edit
I guess I should elaborate more. Preface: I had come to despise the incumbent government mildly by the time they were ousted, and didn't vote for them. So this is all about exposing hypocrisy, not partisanship.
They put the prior conservative government on total blast for not having an ambitious enough refugee import target for end of 2015, that being 10K. They ran on an election platform of letting in 50K by year's end. People said it was ridiculous and not realistic. Then November, aka the month of ISIL declaring war on ****in everybody, happened. And they still hemhawed around before finally adjusting to the more realistic, still ambitious target of 25K.
....they didn't even meet the original conservative target of 10K. Nice one.
They constantly put the past government on blast for lack of transparency. They've made some very... symbolic motions, like adding a Minister of Science after the prior government was criticized [rightly] for silencing the scientific community. Except they have seriously not been any more transparent. Literally every major decision or change of policy has been dithered and meandered around, and every question meant to get specifics and directness from them has been met with spin, pre-arranged answers, and rhetoric. Vagueries. Obfuscation. Sure sounds like a lack of transparency to me.
Hell, even the things he gets praised for are... not very forward or intelligent, if you really think about it. He did a gender-balanced cabinet. As I said in a prior post I actually think the highest offices should be more than exempt from affirmative action, but I was elated that every minister I'd read up on seemed quite qualified for their job, so that's chill. However, he was asked why he selected a gender-balanced cabinet by a reporter, and he replied "Because it's 2015", to uproarious applause.
...why? Does that actually make any comment on why there are frail connective fibers in gender relations? Or what his leadership can or would do about it? No, it doesn't. You're right, Trudeau, it is 2015, and logic and statistics say that we SHOULD have more women in positions of power. What, uh, what does your comment enlighten, though? Like at all? Literally nothing. He says things that he thinks will make for great soundbites that don't actually illuminate anything about either the issues being discussed, why they are as such, or what will be done to address them. And people eat it the **** up.
gogdammit he's literally the left wing version of donald trump
That was just the one time I ever generally supported someone's platform. And then they did all the dumb or less important things on it and none of the good ones. And I never saw a platform before or after it that I truly supported.
PS - I think Trudeau has finally been in office long enough that I can say I was completely right. He has yet to get the memo that he is no longer a high school literature teacher. He's a Prime Minister and it seriously feels like he's just interested in preening for "oh captain my captain"-esque accolades.
edit
I guess I should elaborate more. Preface: I had come to despise the incumbent government mildly by the time they were ousted, and didn't vote for them. So this is all about exposing hypocrisy, not partisanship.
They put the prior conservative government on total blast for not having an ambitious enough refugee import target for end of 2015, that being 10K. They ran on an election platform of letting in 50K by year's end. People said it was ridiculous and not realistic. Then November, aka the month of ISIL declaring war on ****in everybody, happened. And they still hemhawed around before finally adjusting to the more realistic, still ambitious target of 25K.
....they didn't even meet the original conservative target of 10K. Nice one.
They constantly put the past government on blast for lack of transparency. They've made some very... symbolic motions, like adding a Minister of Science after the prior government was criticized [rightly] for silencing the scientific community. Except they have seriously not been any more transparent. Literally every major decision or change of policy has been dithered and meandered around, and every question meant to get specifics and directness from them has been met with spin, pre-arranged answers, and rhetoric. Vagueries. Obfuscation. Sure sounds like a lack of transparency to me.
Hell, even the things he gets praised for are... not very forward or intelligent, if you really think about it. He did a gender-balanced cabinet. As I said in a prior post I actually think the highest offices should be more than exempt from affirmative action, but I was elated that every minister I'd read up on seemed quite qualified for their job, so that's chill. However, he was asked why he selected a gender-balanced cabinet by a reporter, and he replied "Because it's 2015", to uproarious applause.
...why? Does that actually make any comment on why there are frail connective fibers in gender relations? Or what his leadership can or would do about it? No, it doesn't. You're right, Trudeau, it is 2015, and logic and statistics say that we SHOULD have more women in positions of power. What, uh, what does your comment enlighten, though? Like at all? Literally nothing. He says things that he thinks will make for great soundbites that don't actually illuminate anything about either the issues being discussed, why they are as such, or what will be done to address them. And people eat it the **** up.
gogdammit he's literally the left wing version of donald trump
Last edited:
July
Smash Apprentice
Thank you, J!! <3
In reference to the upcoming presidential election, everyone has outlined great points. My thoughts (while acknowledging that I will absolutely be voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is):
Bernie Sanders - I generally agree with his platform, he has issues that he is passionate about and for which he has outlined his solutions (unlike most candidates), and he overall seems like a dedicated public servant who would act with the country's best interest if elected. However, as Maven and Adum pointed out, his goals are incredibly aspirational - if people were disappointed that the "Hope" for widespread change that the Obama campaign thrived on didn't meet expectations, I can only imagine what people will feel if Bernie is elected and comes up against the thousands of obstacles to implementing even one of his large-scale policies. I'm also worried that he's so set in his ways he won't accept any "middle ground" or compromises, which are of course not preferable, but sometimes necessary to work towards systems level change. I could very well see a Sanders presidency where absolutely nothing happens or progresses because he is completely unwilling to compromise over any of these massively complex issues. Finally, I'm worried that Bernie is too divisive to bring out the Democratic base like the Republican base will come out (regardless of who the candidate is on their side) and thus will lose if he's the nominee.
Hillary Clinton - I can agree with most of her platform (now), but her positions seem to shift quite easily and I can't tell what is a hard stance for her, which is discomforting. In particular, unlike Sanders who is clearly passionate about economic issues, Clinton doesn't seem passionate about much of anything other than getting herself elected. I don't think she'd have a revolutionary presidency; in fact, I predict it would be pretty mediocre. Yet if she does decide to get behind a certain policy issue, I could see her making more progress than Sanders because she seems willing to accept small progress and compromise as a political necessity, especially within the highly polarized political climate at the moment. I also think she is less divisive than Sanders and can get out the Democratic base in order to beat any of Trump, Cruz, or Rubio.
Trump is obviously a piece of **** and requires no further elaboration.
Cruz wants to Abolish the IRS, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Not only is that the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but my job is funded by HUD. I therefore completely reject him not only because I think he's trying to destroy our government, but also for the deeply personal reason of not wanting to lose my job.
Rubio - Seems like the best of the worst on the Republican side; while I still strongly disagree with his platform, I don't feel like he's as actively racist, xenophobic, sexist, or homophobic as many of the other candidates and isn't quite so hellbent on restructuring our government into a chaotic hellscape. However, his recent showings at the debate and while campaigning are just atrocious, like deeply cringeworthy. Which is good for people like me who want him to win the primary because he's a less horrifying option than other Republicans, but still want him to choke and lose to the Democratic nominee.
Jeb! - Is still a candidate, and seems like he could also be a "best of the worst" acceptable candidate, if he wasn't such a terrible dud at everything about campaigning.
tl;dr despite deep reservations, I feel most comfortable with the idea of Clinton winning the primary and facing off against the Republican nominee, and I can talk myself into being content with what is sure to be a mediocre presidency if it means not having one of the wackadoodles on the other side leading our country.
Sidenote - I'm very curious what the Democratic race would look like if Biden had decided to run. This counterfactual frequently crosses my mind when I consider the current options we're running with right now.
July
Smash Apprentice
For people in here who don't know me, I wall - even outside of Mafia games, I wall, and I am deeply sorry for this bad habit.
Sanders is actually 100% right about that one. His foreign policies are a lot smarter than anybody else's except non-interventionist dudes like Rand Paul, who of course have no actual chance of making it.
But yeah, neither Russia nor Iran really pose much of a threat to the USA [or any of its allies for that matter]. North Korea is the much bigger problem, no doubt.
The Man From Delamar
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2015
- Messages
- 206
What ever happened to Al Qaeda am I right?