The Official: "Things that piss you off" Thread!!

origin unknown · Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:00 pm

I just mean in general so all the non mac guy can understand, windows ain't an OS either, Windows Vista is

Kaiser Bill · Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:34 pm

people who are pedantic

Kaiser Bill · Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:36 pm

and make short posts

rl93 · Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:29 pm

Dang 71 pages. There are a lot of pissed off people here.

Modderxtrordanare · Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:57 pm

Kaiser Bill wrote:and make short posts

You just made two short posts. Short posts and double posts piss me off. Use the forking edit button for Pete's sake.

paaiyan · Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:03 pm

Kaiser Bill wrote:people who are pedantic

and make short posts

Ok first things first, quit trying to show off you ostentatious little bugger.

Next, you're a hypocrite. Don't be that guy, everyone hates that guy.

THird, there's an edit button, use it.

So in conclusion, don't be an idiot.

beebs111 · Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:14 pm

i think he was trying to be funny.....

Modderxtrordanare · Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:59 pm

beebs111 wrote:i think he was trying to be funny.....

Not a very good run at it then.

Kenny_McCormic · Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:29 pm

People who want to ban "assault rifles" piss me off becasue they dont even know what the hell they are talking about.

rednecktatertosser · Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:59 pm

People who ban any guns, its against the bill of rights.

Kaiser Bill · Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:30 pm

paaiyan wrote:
Kaiser Bill wrote:people who are pedantic

and make short posts

Ok first things first, quit trying to show off you ostentatious little bugger.

Next, you're a hypocrite. Don't be that guy, everyone hates that guy.

THird, there's an edit button, use it.

So in conclusion, don't be an idiot.

sorry i was going more for irony than comedy

Specialist · Tue Jul 31, 2007 6:35 pm

well im mad because im too lazy to rant about macs...

beebs111 · Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:54 pm

i hate people who try to ban anything for the "good of the people" its assinine that governments think people cant make descisions for themselves. an "assault rifle" is jsut a term given to certian "scary guns" that politicans think kill people more than other guns. like dubbing an illegal substance a "Drug" people say "dont do drugs!" and then they go pop 3 advil for their headache with their iced coffee. its not like anti-gun/drug laws will stop anyone, people will always find a way to get guns and drugs, wether it it making them themselves or buying them on a "black market" and legislation wont stop them

Kenny_McCormic · Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:35 pm

beebs111 wrote:i hate people who try to ban anything for the "good of the people" its assinine that governments think people cant make descisions for themselves. an "assault rifle" is jsut a term given to certian "scary guns" that politicans think kill people more than other guns. like dubbing an illegal substance a "Drug" people say "dont do drugs!" and then they go pop 3 advil for their headache with their iced coffee. its not like anti-gun/drug laws will stop anyone, people will always find a way to get guns and drugs, wether it it making them themselves or buying them on a "black market" and legislation wont stop them

QFT!!!

joannaardway · Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:32 pm

rednecktatertosser wrote:People who ban any guns, its against the bill of rights.

I'm not going to go into it too far, because I'm sure that I'll annoy someone, but the "right to bear arms" was given long before the development of automatic weaponry, so it could be necessary to make later changes to cover the facts of the present the writers were not clairvoyant enough to see.

No-one can be blamed for not seeing the future of 200 years of weapons advancement.
Perhaps the writers would completely agree with an assualt weapons ban if they had been aware of the dangers of them. We can never know.
(Well we can, but you're not borrowing my flux capacitor, so there.)

The constitution is over 2 centuries old, which leaves two options:
1) It will have to contain passages that are no longer relevant to today.
2) Society will have to regress back to make those passages relevant.

And as you no longer need to rely on "arms" to defend yourselves... no, seriously, hands up. How many of you have ever needed a firearm for defence, in such a way that no other means could have let you escape?
I assure you that I have never needed such a handgun in eighteen and a half years, and that's in the UK where, I am assured everytime this debate comes up, there is a much higher rate of violent crime. My bare hands have sufficed fine.
Developing in a bit further, how many legitimate situations are there when you had to have an assault weapon? None, I guess.
Flipping that over, how many illegal situations occur with assault arms each year? Many more.

My point exactly. The passage is no longer wholely relevant, so the politicans of today will have to tweak it to make it harder (though not impossible of course) for wrongdoers to get the weapons that are only of practical use to them.
If a bank robbery or mass shooting occured with legally prodcured assault weapons, can you imagine the uproar that would ensue?
There would be pandemonium and probably an outcry for a ban (at least, from some of the world)

That's what would happen they made the weapons available to all. When they put them under lock and key, they get people complaining to them about what the bill of rights says.
It's not easy for the people in government. All of these paradoxes people want, like "More services, less taxes".

Perhaps you should cut them some slack. Politics is harder than you can possibly imagine.

The Official: "Things that piss you off" Thread!!

Donating Members

Donating Members

Donating Members

Donating Members

Donating Members