NROL-39 - Nothing is Beyond Our Reach

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Daynel wrote:

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Seriously, though, guns are for pussies. If you want to hunt for the 'sport' or whatever, do it with a bow.

Also illegal.
We got too many hunting laws..

Also we don't hunt for sport, we hunt for food. Like 85% of all the meat I eat comes from the moose we kill in autumn.

Suuuuuuure it does. I completely believe that hunting your own meat is the most efficient way of gaining sustenance available to you.

Maybe not the most efficient, but you gotta do something with the moose you kill right?

Hunting with a bow isn't illegal at least where I use to and the place where do right now it isn't.

And yes it might make it difficult to mow down people with guns yes even pistols it not impossible.

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Prototype wrote:

Daynel wrote:

Prototype wrote:

Daynel wrote:

Fleet Admiral Error wrote:

2. Guns? Eliminate any firearms not used by the military or police. suddenly, no one has them = no one needs them.

But... hunting?

Use your bare hands like a real man.
Guns are for pussies

Sorry but I am almost certain that's illegal.

So its illegal to hunt and kill stuff with your bare hands, but it's totally ok to shoot it from a distance?

What the actual fuck?

Barehanded fishing is illegal in some places because they got tired of having to deal with people getting their fingers bitten off, but I've never heard of it being illegal to hunt anything else that way. Also, what kind of policeman would want to try to arrest someone who was willing to fight a bear with his hands?

EDIT: Seriously, though, guns are for pussies. If you want to hunt for the 'sport' or whatever, do it with a bow. Not a crossbow, those are also for pussies. A real bow. Or better yet, a sling. Not a slingshot, a sling. Or a spear. Although something did go by on Failblog not that long ago about a guy who killed a bear by biting its throat out. That method gets the Official LJS Seal of Approval:   

Totally agree with you here. Hunting is one of those activities where the journey is in itself a large portion of the reward, at least when done for sport. It's not practical at all to spear deer who'll run at the slightest crunch of a twig, but one would imagine it'd also be that much funner!

Tiel+ wrote:

Totally agree with you here. Hunting is one of those activities where the journey is in itself a large portion of the reward, at least when done for sport. It's not practical at all to spear deer who'll run at the slightest crunch of a twig, but one would imagine it'd also be that much funner!

Ideally you should be fast enough to run them down and kill them with a single blow from the thighbone of an antelope, but that works better in places with fewer trees.

Better yet, go hunting with a sword, preferably a katana.

That would be fun, practical(ish) and pretty badass.

I agree with Fenway, the problem is society, not guns. And I'm not libertarian anymore.

LeEpicMemester wrote:

I agree with Fenway, the problem is society, not guns.

Agreed.

LeEpicMemester wrote:

And I'm not libertarian anymore.

Traitor.

I'm an American. I like guns. :l
And it was the generals that were fired that came out and told why they were fired, and what the nukes were for. Damn. If Obama himself admitted to it on the news you guys probably still wouldn't believe him.

Besides, guns are important. They lower crime rates drastically. Even if guns are illegal, criminals don't really care about the law. They'll find ways to get guns. Gun control = only criminals have the weapons.

OBAMA is gonna nuke the States! Yusshe is! JUST you WAIT! GUUUUNS are the only thing keepin' crimiminals out fr'm under mah bedsheets, yussthey are! I NEED an M-4 for protection 'n' huntin' buffalo wit!
THE GOBEN'MINT'S COMIN' FER US ALL!

MercurySteam wrote:

OBAMA is gonna nuke the States! Yusshe is! JUST you WAIT! GUUUUNS are the only thing keepin' crimiminals out fr'm under mah bedsheets, yussthey are! I NEED an M-4 for protection 'n' huntin' buffalo wit!
THE GOBEN'MINT'S COMIN' FER US ALL!

You people imho

Commander Kobialka wrote:

I'm an American. I like guns. :l
And it was the generals that were fired that came out and told why they were fired, and what the nukes were for. Damn. If Obama himself admitted to it on the news you guys probably still wouldn't believe him.

Besides, guns are important. They lower crime rates drastically. Even if guns are illegal, criminals don't really care about the law. They'll find ways to get guns. Gun control = only criminals have the weapons.

That's actually good. That means you won't take the law into your hands and let you police take care of stuff for a change - like disarming those who thing the law is theirs and would refuse to submit guns or those criminals. If done right it is not impossible and in fact really advisable. Again every time they say "Lowers crime rate" I ask how the fk other countries deal with crime without guns all around ? As said before there are better ways to deal with criminals than guns, especially if you don't know how to use that crap.

And no matter what part of the argument you are on you just have no excuse for keeping automatic weapons such as assault rifles and machine guns (There are ppl with freaking MGs in their houses ... ).

Iv121 wrote:

Commander Kobialka wrote:

I'm an American. I like guns. :l
And it was the generals that were fired that came out and told why they were fired, and what the nukes were for. Damn. If Obama himself admitted to it on the news you guys probably still wouldn't believe him.

Besides, guns are important. They lower crime rates drastically. Even if guns are illegal, criminals don't really care about the law. They'll find ways to get guns. Gun control = only criminals have the weapons.

That's actually good. That means you won't take the law into your hands and let you police take care of stuff for a change - like disarming those who thing the law is theirs and would refuse to submit guns or those criminals. If done right it is not impossible and in fact really advisable. Again every time they say "Lowers crime rate" I ask how the fk other countries deal with crime without guns all around ? As said before there are better ways to deal with criminals than guns, especially if you don't know how to use that crap.

And no matter what part of the argument you are on you just have no excuse for keeping automatic weapons such as assault rifles and machine guns (There are ppl with freaking MGs in their houses ... ).

Yes. Also any argument that contains numbers (e.g. lowers crime rates) is to be backed up by numbers (e.g. statistics) and so far I've not seen anyone argumenting FOR guns use those. Also, the chance of you having a gun at you when being attacked by a criminal is just as high as having a gun at you when snapping. since snapping happens more commonly than being assaulted, guns might not be the best idea after all.

Ivan2006 wrote:

Iv121 wrote:

Commander Kobialka wrote:

I'm an American. I like guns. :l
And it was the generals that were fired that came out and told why they were fired, and what the nukes were for. Damn. If Obama himself admitted to it on the news you guys probably still wouldn't believe him.

Besides, guns are important. They lower crime rates drastically. Even if guns are illegal, criminals don't really care about the law. They'll find ways to get guns. Gun control = only criminals have the weapons.

That's actually good. That means you won't take the law into your hands and let you police take care of stuff for a change - like disarming those who thing the law is theirs and would refuse to submit guns or those criminals. If done right it is not impossible and in fact really advisable. Again every time they say "Lowers crime rate" I ask how the fk other countries deal with crime without guns all around ? As said before there are better ways to deal with criminals than guns, especially if you don't know how to use that crap.

And no matter what part of the argument you are on you just have no excuse for keeping automatic weapons such as assault rifles and machine guns (There are ppl with freaking MGs in their houses ... ).

Yes. Also any argument that contains numbers (e.g. lowers crime rates) is to be backed up by numbers (e.g. statistics) and so far I've not seen anyone argumenting FOR guns use those. Also, the chance of you having a gun at you when being attacked by a criminal is just as high as having a gun at you when snapping. since snapping happens more commonly than being assaulted, guns might not be the best idea after all.

Really, someone's much more likely to be near a gun when they snap than when they need to defend themselves.

It's been within state and federal power to restrict and regulate firearms since the Cruikshank case 1876, these powers were widened in 1939, US v Miller. It's not a new concept.

MercurySteam wrote:

Ivan2006 wrote:

Iv121 wrote:

Commander Kobialka wrote:

I'm an American. I like guns. :l
And it was the generals that were fired that came out and told why they were fired, and what the nukes were for. Damn. If Obama himself admitted to it on the news you guys probably still wouldn't believe him.

Besides, guns are important. They lower crime rates drastically. Even if guns are illegal, criminals don't really care about the law. They'll find ways to get guns. Gun control = only criminals have the weapons.

That's actually good. That means you won't take the law into your hands and let you police take care of stuff for a change - like disarming those who thing the law is theirs and would refuse to submit guns or those criminals. If done right it is not impossible and in fact really advisable. Again every time they say "Lowers crime rate" I ask how the fk other countries deal with crime without guns all around ? As said before there are better ways to deal with criminals than guns, especially if you don't know how to use that crap.

And no matter what part of the argument you are on you just have no excuse for keeping automatic weapons such as assault rifles and machine guns (There are ppl with freaking MGs in their houses ... ).

Yes. Also any argument that contains numbers (e.g. lowers crime rates) is to be backed up by numbers (e.g. statistics) and so far I've not seen anyone argumenting FOR guns use those. Also, the chance of you having a gun at you when being attacked by a criminal is just as high as having a gun at you when snapping. since snapping happens more commonly than being assaulted, guns might not be the best idea after all.

Really, someone's much more likely to be near a gun when they snap than when they need to defend themselves.

It's been within state and federal power to restrict and regulate firearms since the Cruikshank case 1876, these powers were widened in 1939, US v Miller. It's not a new concept.

Also the principle of a gun as defense basically is to shoot someone before that person can shoot you.
If you are under surprise attack (as in propably 90% of all attacks) you wil not have drawn your gun when the bad guy already has his aimed at you.
Drawing a gun then would just provocate him to shoot.
Not really the best strategy if you ask me...