Thanks Captain Pedantry!
I was pointing out that he seems so ridiculous that it's hard to believe it's *not* parody.

This is a well known corollary to poes law:

“”It is impossible for an act of Fundamentalism to be made that someone won't mistake for a parody."

Everyone seems to have got this but you

Good points all around. I consider myself to be a part of that minority, which seems to be the smallest minority of them all, and frankly, the loneliness of it kills. I meet others, here and there, but they are few and far between. I don't think society can be defined by them.

I also very much enjoy, and agree with, the example you added. It's the natural consequence of the inherently clannish structure of police forces, and it's exacerbated by many completely needless factors, such as a cultural leaning towards paranoia (considering modern, post-9/11 America in this case) and the fact that most cops are uneducated schmucks. Because of the constant climate of fear and the fact that its members just don't know any better, the group becomes close-knit, but antagonistic against outsiders, and extremely inflexible in its dealings with them.

Even worse, morals become highly relative as those who are outside the group are automatically dehumanized and thus do not become worthy of the groups regard. Especially when one of its members is perceived to be in danger. This is why it's so ridiculous to let the police police themselves. Put a cop on the stand and he's extremely unlikely to tell the truth if he thinks the truth might be against the interests of the police department because at this point him and the group he is a part of is functioning at a very primitive level, and at this level, the truth is perceived to be highly relative.

But then again, this is more or less true for all social groups. Human beings are a lot less advanced than we give ourselves credit for, and we constantly have to keep ourselves from slipping back into more primitive mindsets.

haha. I remember seeing this in the underground mall in Georgia. So ridiculous

I loved this movie, so awesome and so ridiculous in just the right parts.

OMFG LMFAHS

I'm crying laughing so hard at this it's so ridiculous. I love it.

Can't find the video, but it reminds me of that game where you have to control a guy running a race, but it's so difficult that his body always ends up flopping around.

*quality

Yeah, I'm not sure - there's some kind of channel for this kind of idiocy, but it's so ridiculous it would probably sully its very nature... ah yes, *viral.

Welcome to Ameriguns!
Puns set aside..
You all seem to miss (If my short memory recalls correct) that the old man was a vietnam vet. So he's probably not dera.. oh wait no war can quite fuck you up, and make you paranoid. And he was old, oh.. probably not a suitable gun owner. And he used to shoot foreigners like them in his youth so perhaps it was a "flashback" moment he had and just pulled the trigger.
Blahblah, I would more like to reply to dirk.
1. Emergencies requires speed. (That inclued both ambulance & private)
2: I think the discussion to regulate torque/horsepower has come up somewhere before. But if you think long about it.. it ends up quite uneccesary (if you follow the next points) to limit this
2.1 Just see to the whole history and scale of motor vehicles. There's probably alot of engineering, problem of controlling, bad fuel consumtion (low gear vs high gears etc) that makes implementation of limits a bad idea. Cars are, much more than guns, an actual symbol of mans (modern) freedom. Freedom to travel, move, explore and work, transport and evolve. It's also a passion for so many people. Racing and amateur racing.
2.2 So no chance people would obey or accept somthing limiting their horsepowers.
2.3 Not really a big problem. Yes, some people speed and some die as a result. Atleast to be qualified for a license you HAVE to learn, pass an exam and have a license.
2.4 The US state does alot to "nanny" the traffic and highways already.
-----Reply to your second segment----
First I think comparing guns to any other item of possesion is just going down a route of stupid argumentation. I'd rather see 99% of all arguments and discussion stay on-topic instead oft taking the try-to-win-a--point-with-farfetched-comparisons turn.
But. Already said, vehicles and cars most often requires licenses, are monitored, regulated, taxed and enforced etc. Also, could I turn this steak over 180? As cars are taxed, registries are of them and police can force you to show license/revoke/stop you when drunk etc. Shouldn't all the same things they do here also apply to guns?
--Third segment--
A. Removing all guns would be great, but not possible as that just is not the world we live in (Or as for USA, the country they live in). So the question is rather: Who shall be allowed to buy them? B (to answer the actual and sole question I could read): They Kill people, alot easier than cars (and what dangerous hobbies are you thinking of?), so we are less inclined to ban fast cars. But sure, we could ban fast cars as well, which leads to
C: Invalid argument. Let's just say the actual sequence of events would be: "Yes, now we are banning guns, and you are right about fast cars as well. They are to be forbidden next month. Oh, I see some argue that if no fast cars, then why sharp knives - they kill as well. That's correct, next month they will be banned as well." And then it just rolls on.. down to forks and metal cutlery. See the fallacy?
--Final part--
I'm not going into what I believe a state should, or should not do. And how ignorant and missing the point of the point of having a state in the first place, there is to ... saying that it should either completely be THIS - or completely do THAT. It's not a do-or-don't; black-and-white way, that state, laws and regulations work (or is meant to work).
I will go on your "OR we have to accept" since that's more sensible way to have a society. Then I have
To be clear: My opinion is that I see no point in civilian ownership of HIGHLY lethal weaponry. Guns are not comparable to anything else (almost) that exists. Everything else that is as potentially lethal is already forbidden or reduced. A gun can so ridiculously easy destroy so much, so fast. I simply see no point in any-one and everyone able to own one. Yes, hunters (limited to rifles) and hobby marksmen (limited to X mm gun/rifle - controlled and licensed and trackable etc) I believe should be able to use or practice their livelyhood or passion. But as easily as it is now, no way.

---
I think alot of this problem is simply the fact that it's written clearn in your constitution - the right to bear arms. Was written very long ago, or more so: so much has gone so fast and evolved since then. It's not a necessity now; as it was then, they were sure not as effective then as now, and several other things that has evolved and made the reasons for bearing arms (lacking a huge law enforcement agencies as no#1) seem good then: just be stupid theese days.

I have no problem with using sex to sell. Hey, it works. It gets our attention. The problem I have with "objectifying" women (and men) in advertisement these days, as @UsesProzac says, they're not real people. Airbrushed, photoshoped freaks of humans. It's become so ridiculous that it'd be comical if it wasn't so pathetic.

Awe, I watched this stupid movie so much when I was a kid. Over and over again. It's so ridiculous, but even today this song comes up in my mind whenever it's raining and I'm a bit sad.

Y'know what I mean, Vern?

>> ^quantumushroom:

This laser-like focus on election fraud should be centered on Illinois, where it turns out some of the dead people voting three times or more aren't even American citizens!


Strange...I've heard voting fraud hasn't been much of a problem and that's what makes this attempt to stop it so ridiculous. You have any proof saying otherwise?

You know whats bad swedish, I've been on dates where the girl has actually acted like this and I've wanted to shoot myself the entire time. Why people think they have to be accommodating to the other person to a point that they are just like a little puppy following you around is dumb. You're right. Be yourself. Eventually they'll find out anyway.

Unless she's so ridiculously hot that you can pull it off in one date and never have to see her again...but other than that..

>> ^dag:

Screen shot if possible, please. That shouldn't be happening either.>> ^paul4dirt:
i now get a popup-ish one that immediately starts playing sound and is hard to close (you first have to close the popup and then look for the video in it's non popup state and stop the sound... very annoying.
got it a couple times now (here but also on other website), already spoke to the complaints department of the company the ad was for (mediamarkt, a dutch company) cause i found it so ridiculously annoying



I get this one, too.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Screen shot if possible, please. That shouldn't be happening either.>> ^paul4dirt:

i now get a popup-ish one that immediately starts playing sound and is hard to close (you first have to close the popup and then look for the video in it's non popup state and stop the sound... very annoying.
got it a couple times now (here but also on other website), already spoke to the complaints department of the company the ad was for (mediamarkt, a dutch company) cause i found it so ridiculously annoying

i now get a popup-ish one that immediately starts playing sound and is hard to close (you first have to close the popup and then look for the video in it's non popup state and stop the sound... very annoying.

got it a couple times now (here but also on other website), already spoke to the complaints department of the company the ad was for (mediamarkt, a dutch company) cause i found it so ridiculously annoying

Between this and Neocons demanding to hear what they like, rather than what's true, I despair for American politics and by extension, Western politics and beyond.

How do you debate with people who just plain don't care about reality? How can a country elect any kind of worthwhile politicians when a section of the voters, too large to be ignored, seem to have no idea about how things are now and have no idea about what either party stands for?

They want another Reagan, yet what they want is nothing like what Reagan did. They want tax cuts, but no cuts on defence, medical aid or the other big federal expenses. They demand the government stay out of health care, yet demand that Medicare and Medicaid aren't cut. They want the government to bring in less money, spent about as much (cutting insignificantly small bits here and there) - yet somehow stop operating on a deficit.

There are so many contradictory demands and demands made on fantasy. And they won't compromise, no, because compromise is for people who are wrong.

I'm starting to think that the answer is Glenn Beck and his ilk. The solution may be for people like Glenn Beck who, intentionally or otherwise, radicalise and mislead these nutters so much that they become more isolated and increasingly irrelevant. Then this lunatic fringe might see their numbers dwindle from just being so ridiculous. When they won't listen to anyone who speaks about reality, what else is there?

You know a situation is FUBAR when Glenn Beck is the answer!