rawr!

http://videosift.com/video/Free-climbing-400-feet-in-just-over-4-minutes

>> ^MarineGunrock:"okay, I'm reaching for my wallet and then just blast him.




lol!

>> ^PalmliX:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
If I'm shooting someone legally, it's not murder.>> ^PalmliX:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
@PalmliX: "They have no secondary use, except maybe target practice."
No, you're just wrong there. Guns, when carried legally, can stop someone who is using one illegally.

Right... that doesn't change the fact that they only have one use. If your shooting someone legally to stop them from using a gun illegally, are you not still using the gun for it's singular intended purpose?


You're just dodging my point... Wether or not your legally shooting someone just change the fact that as a tool, a gun only has one use.


a gun can be used to open locked doors or containers. a gun can be used as a blunt tool, particularly larger firearms such as rifles and shotguns. a gun can be used as a deterrent or as a tool of intimidation (without ever aiming at anyone or discharging i might add). need i continue?

you have just been enlightened. still think guns have one and only one use?

if your statements had been that guns have only one primary use, oh absolutely, no argument there. but your insistence that guns can only be used for one, and only one thing is absurd to anyone who is even remotely familiar with these weapon systems.

it is no different than me saying that cars have one and only one use: high speed transportation. I'd be dead wrong if that was my stance on automobiles

>> ^legacy0100:

>> ^Stingray:
I don't get why parents would leave their children in the car. I know it happens hundreds of times each year, but I still don't understand why.

Perhaps it's because the babies are heavy and physically tire out the mom. Strollers are an option but it's a bit of an hassle to load the babies if you're dropping off some mail or depositing a check for less than 5 minutes. Hence why parents choose to leave the kids behind in the car.
Leaving the kids behind the car for a short period of time isn't such a terrible thing, but being careless and rushing things often makes it much worse. The parent forgot to check her keys nor leave her windows cracked open.
I don't know who the parent was but I'm assuming they were rushing to complete a task in panic mode, forgot to take the necessary safety measures and locked the babies in the car. Then he/she came back to the car with the same mentality as he/she was dealing with his/her task. Perhaps the high-strung parent should take a chill pill and do things one at a time.


really? your reason to leave kids in the car is "because theyre too heavy and this will take just a minute"?! please dont have kids please dont have kids please dont have kids please dont have kids please dont have kids please dont have kids please dont have kids

>> ^MarineGunrock:

If I'm shooting someone legally, it's not murder.>> ^PalmliX:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
@PalmliX: "They have no secondary use, except maybe target practice."
No, you're just wrong there. Guns, when carried legally, can stop someone who is using one illegally.

Right... that doesn't change the fact that they only have one use. If your shooting someone legally to stop them from using a gun illegally, are you not still using the gun for it's singular intended purpose?



furthermore, insisting that guns serve one and only one purpose really just shows your complete ignorance of these tools.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^marinara:
...why would the police hold a gun on a teenager like they did in this video if he really wasn't a threat? Were they just acting?

Maybe. Why did some turn their back to the suspect after the crowd came up if he was a threat? Why did the cops lower their weapons? Why did that cop roll him over if he had a gun?
Video here of a guy that was shot 4 times for carving wood. Cop lets him bleed out while waiting for backup so they can approach the lifeless body of the carving-knife wielding man in a group formation.

you really dont know the first damn thing about security do you? just stop talking, hell

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

"if his intention of openly carrying a firearm is explicitly "because he fucking can", he is an idiot."
But you don't have any idea of what his intention is, do you?
"What discernable purpose does it serve to open carry"
How is that relevant?
"Openly carrying around a gun is not wise, cautious, or courteous."
Bare assertion.


did you notice the giant if that preceded that entire sentence? jesus mary and joseph you are fucking dense arent you?

"what discernible purpose...." if i have to explain how that is relevant to the point that i am trying to make, then you are dumber than a bag of smashed assholes. fucking hell. are you being impossible on purpose just to chap my ass or are you really just so inept at following a line of thought in debate?

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

"They're visually announcing to everyone within sight, "Hey look at me! I'm willing to kill someone!""
Horseshit. You can't apply an arbitrary message to someone's actions. I've carried a gun. Do you know if I'm willing to kill someone? Hint: You do not.
"what i am rebutting is this idea that any ridicule of this mans behavior, while it may be well within his rights, is objectionable on the sole premise that "because he fucking can"."
Walking around illegally showing a weapon is cause for alarm, but where this guy lives, it's legal. Ridicule is pointless.
"I have no problem with other people's right to open-carry if they have a valid need to do so. I have a problem with the idea that everyone should open-carry... just because we can."
But that's not what this conversation is about, is it? And it's a false dichotomy.


oh, so you have missed my point entirely. splendid. if i may put it in different terms: if his intention of openly carrying a firearm is explicitly "because he fucking can", he is an idiot. What discernable purpose does it serve to open carry because, and only because "you fucking can" besides announcing to everyone around you, "hey, check it out, ive got a gun, badass huh?" to which i would reply, "how small is your dick? do you drive a porche? whatever, Midlifecrisisasaurus".

what i am not fucking saying is he shouldnt be allowed to.

i open carry and conceal carry from time to time depending on the situation. however, every time i do carry its for a reason other than "because i fucking can". carrying, concealed or otherwise, all the damn time isnt all that smart anyway unless your day to day routine demands it. But if the only thing compelling you to carry is simply "because you fucking can" you are a fucking idiot douche and we will point and laugh at you

one of the primary reason i wear boxer-briefs. comfort of boxers without unnecessary penis peeks

HOLY HELL!!!!

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

He walked down the street legally with an item that he was legally allowed to walk down the street with. We don't know why Jeremy was walking around with his gun, and it doesn't matter. If you would like to walk around with a jar of cat piss, why would I give a fuck?


i couldnt tell you why you should "give a fuck" if i walk around with a jar of cat piss because there isnt any real reason you should "give a fuck". im not arguing that at all. what i am rebutting is this idea that any ridicule of this mans behavior, while it may be well within his rights, is objectionable on the sole premise that "because he fucking can".

imagine you see me walking down the street legally with a legal jar of cat piss. you dont know why i am walking around with a jar of cat piss and it doesnt matter. if i would like to walk around with a jar of cat piss, why should you give a fuck? but if you think im weird for it, youre a paranoid idiot.....now does that make any more sense than chiding me, or anyone else, for very reasonably thinking "jeremy" a douche pickle sandwich, given the context of the situation.

i dont really give a fuck that he was lawfully open carrying. but given the situation that unfolded and how he unnecessarily reacted to it, i am inclined to think he is a douche captain who had no real motive to open carry other than to instigate an awkward scene with the police with the hopes that he may capture video evidence of police brutality that he instigated in the first place to prove a retarded point

for all i care he can continue to act in this way as is his right. doesnt mean im not gonna stop calling him a douche for it though

oooooooh, gimme fucking five minutes with this dickshit, and we'll see who gets lumps.

>> ^blankfist:

Seems the real objection people have with other people's right to open carry is that they're afraid of that person even without provocation. Fear vs reason.


no the objection i have with this individual is his reason to carry is because he's a bag of douche. although that is merely speculation

to put it another way, if this guy was just shouting "all jews and blacks should burn". he's certainly not breaking any laws that i know of anyway, and he's certainly constitutionally protected to say those things, and im sure as hell not gonna stop or otherwise discourage him from doin so.........but he's still a giant asshole for saying those things

why should you eat your own excrement? because you can.