United States of Earth

Remove all ads!

Strip-club hater....

 

Speaking with a slightly smirky and superior tone:

There is a special group of highly trained marksmen who are responsible for those ice cubes. They keep under wraps abut were a special silver beret and are know by those who know as the Ice Berets. I can divulge no more because even saying this I may be called up for breaking my pledge of silence.

 

For the record I never said I hated strip clubs. In truth I have never been to a "real" strip club (it's somewhere on my bucket list). There is one that I know of in Geneva but I've only been there during the day so I didn't get to see any stripper.

My point is that if I had to choose and indulge the American way of life then I'd rather go to a strip club than visit a shooting range.

 

Amen to that! Bring lots of singles(a.k.a. one dollar bills....), drink before you go, as the prices are much higher once inside and, on topic , don't bring your gun. The bouncers at thes places are usually HUUUGGEE and will pound you for trying to sneak one in.

 

You've never been to a strip club?!?! Ooooh....can I take you? Please, please, pleeeeease?

 

Or if you do, and they suspect something, say "No, I'm just happy to see you!"

 

Strip clubs are rubbish. I've never understood it. It's just teasing. When I've got some girl flashing her bits allover me, I want to get on that tang. If I wanted to just sit and look at **** without touching 'em, I can do that for free at home on the internet, and be less teased!

EDIT - Was posting this before I saw dmc's backhand

 

I'm struggling to identify the point of the the topic being discussed here

 

Something about how everyone in the world needs to own a gun to hold off the commie pinko bastards ... except the Swiss because they have really cool knives.

HAH! And Mrs Bruno complains that I don't pay attention.

 

ROTFLMAO Can't give you another rep point for that.

@dmc, I believe the original topic was which of those many countries clamoring to join the USA union should be allowed to join. We are now discussing just why there do not actually seem to be any countries begging us to be allowed in.

 

Most of the posts in this thread have been personal attacks against me and accusations that I'm "trolling." I fully admit that I'm not innocent in this either, but you have openly calling me and my heroes "backwards racists." With few exceptions, such as Gaear's posts, I have been heavily attacked with virtually no real discussion or debate being generated in this thread. If your purpose was to disagree with the opinion expressed in my original post, then that would have been great and most likely would have led to an interesting and civilized discussion; instead some of you have resulted in harassing me and posting one-line posts saying things like: "This guy is a troll, surely?"

You're more than happy to accuse me of being a "fascist" and "racist," yet when Nakia openly advocates for a government crackdown on peaceful protestors, you say nothing. When Nakia advocates for disarming law abiding citizens, you say nothing. When Nakia advocates for arresting people for "questionable speech," you say nothing. When Nakia advocates the banning of opposition parties, you say nothing. You have been more than happy to make unsubstantiated claims that I'm a "racist" and a "fascist," yet you welcome someone who is openly advocating for the policies you accuse me of supporting with open arms. Do you see the hypocrisy here?

 

I had read all of Nakia's posts in this thread previous to this, but after reading this paragraph I went back and did a review of what she said. No where did I see her saying that the government should take everyone's gun away, arrest people for speaking out or holding peaceful protests, banning certain political parties, or anything else on your litany of items.

I mean.... she just didn't. If you got that out of what she said, then you interpreted Nakia's statement in a highly unusual way, and certainly not as intended. Nakia obviously disagrees with your views, but she is not saying that the first two amenedments to the Constitution should be abolished. You couldn't get such an interpretation even from an online poll.

 

The problem as I see it is that AD's spin on other people's comments is what we see all the time from Republicans:
Dems: We want to limit clip size.
GOP reaction: The Dems want to repeal the 2nd Amendment!!!

Granted, Dems can be guilty of it too, but to a lesser degree. But regardless of who is doing it, it doesn't exactly lend itself to a productive debate.

 

My mistake, it was 8people and Barmy Army who advocated for such policies, not Nakia.

---------- Added 0 hours, 8 minutes and 15 seconds later... ----------

We the people are never going to stand for a ban on standard capacity magazines, not anymore than we will stand for a ban on imaginary "assault weapons." And it's not like that's the only thing they've proposed, you cannot ignore the recent gun ban introduced by Feinstein or the handgun ban in Chicago. We're not going to stand for any of this, the government is supposed to be to defend and promote freedom, not strip it away.

Hell the liberals aren't even trying to hide their hatred of guns and the Second Amendment anymore. You've got morons like Feinstein and Bloomberg calling for a ban imaginary "assault weapons," handguns and magazines with more than 7 rounds. To make matters worse, you've got garbage like this promulgating throughout the liberal media: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process

 

The Netherlands have been a republic from 1581 to 1806 and some of us would be happy to become one again. Most of us love our royals too much, though. Other than that, I think we would see it as a compliment if you invited us to become a state (the third to allow pot for non-medical reasons and the 10th that allows same-sex marriage iirc), but we would politely decline (and chuckle, probably).

For concerns like freedom, I guess we rather remain part of the United Nations and support organisations like Amnesty International.

 

I'm not convinced that positions on gun rights are so narrowly drawn along party lines. For example, my longtime congressman (long as in hundreds of years apparently ), John Dingell, has been a pretty firm Second Amendment advocate throughout his entire hundred-years-long career, and he's a staunch democrat.

I generally dislike any "the Dems!" or "the Libs!" (as well as "the Neo-cons!" or just "Republicans" as Splunge says - as if they've cornered the market on hyperbole ) references, because they are pejorative in nature and generally promote only defensive responses, which makes me dubious about what the speaker was really after all along. What good does it really do to say "the liberals this, that, and the other!" but to identify your views as politically partisan and inspire people to dismiss you out of hand because of it? You're kind of just announcing that you're entrenched and won't be moving. Might as well not have the discussion.

 

Change that to "We a portion of the people" and I would agree. It really comes down to the question of what the majority supports. Right now I would say the US population is divided 50:50 on limiting weapon types and ownership -- which may be enough to introduce laws but certainly not enough to make a change to the second amendment (ultimately those law would probably be overturned in the Supreme Court -- probably, not absolutely). The definition for assault weapon does exist in many forms but has several features in common.

In general, an assault weapon is a weapon with some, but not necessarily all, of the following characteristics:

- Easily detachable magazine to allow for fast reloading.
- Collapsible stock for adjustment to the length of pull to the shooter's preference.
- Folding stock reducing the total length of the firearm, making it easier to transport.
- Pistol grips (on rifles).
- Bayonet mounts.
- Flash suppressor.
- Threaded barrel for the mounting of flash suppressors, compensators and muzzle brake.
- Barrel mounted grenade launcher mount.
- A barrel shroud designed to limit transfer of heat from the barrel to the supporting hand, or to protect a shooter from being burned by accidental contact.
- Magazines greater than 10 rounds.
- Semi-automatic, functionality meaning that they can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next round without additional human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger.​

This does seem like a reasonable, albeit ambiguous, description of an assault weapon. Connecticut's definition is more specific. I think a simplier definition would be better such as:

1. Any operable weapon that was primarily designed as an anti-personnel weapon for law enforcement or the military.
2. Any operable weapon that was primarily designed as an anti-vehicle weapon for law enforcement or the military.
3. Any operable weapon that is a modification of a weapon listed in 1 or 2 above.
4. Any operable weapon that can fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger.
5. Any operable weapon designed or modified for use with a sound suppression device.​