Brazil relaxes gun laws, Homicide drops 34%

[GlockSpock]

8 hours ago, Daniel said:

You think I like Russia?  Are you mental?

TheLulz is no longer a member here so don't wait too long for a response.

[GlockSpock]

23 hours ago, GlockSpock said:

Methinks he is doing it for the lolz.

 

8 hours ago, Grayfox54 said:

Interesting. I checked The Lulz profile and under "Military" he said NO. Yet he uses military terms. Probably learned playing Call of Duty.  Also "I'ma" is social media slang mostly used by the younger crowd.

I also looked up Lulz in the urban dictionary: "lulz 1. A corruption of 'lol' or a purpose misspelling of 'lol'. 2. An idiotic excuse to do ANYTHING offensive or disturbing (and as such, funny) used mostly by Chantards (4chan, IIchan, etc.) Gaiafags, or any usual member of Encyclopedia Dramatica. 3. Something funny that is caused at the expensive of others.

 

File these under things that make you go Hmmmmm.  

 

[Chucktshoes]

8 hours ago, Daniel said:

Framed in that manner the argument has merit in that as you say it does limit the tools with which you CAN defend yourself.  Saying you cant defend yourself just in general though isnt accurate.  

The whole start voicing support for JB my misinterpretation of support for JB just rubs me the wrong way because the guy has voiced his support of the military dictatorship in Brazil and for dictators all over South America.

 

 

The Lulz is no longer going to be joining this conversation, ever. His thoughts on FP aren’t in play anymore. We can leave talk of Russia and Bolsonaro to the side.

———————

If it is prohibited to use a firearm for self defense even when the criminals have them, then yes, one’s right to self defense has been effectively removed. Maybe not in name, but definitely in practice. It’s a semantic dodge to pretend otherwise. This is the norm around the world. The US is one of the few countries that explicitly recognizes the right, but there is no way you don’t already know that. 
 

If one is limited to fists or melee tools to defend one’s person than the winner of any confrontation will almost always be the person who is bigger, stronger, and more skilled. Unless one party has a firearm in which case they will win nearly always. 
 

In an example of the practical outcome of this, to remove the ability of someone to use a firearm for self defense is to condemn almost all women to be the victims of almost any man that wishes to do them any sort of harm. 
 

Or different, non-firearm example. In the Jim Crow era poll taxes, literacy tests and other obstacles were in place to prevent black folks from voting. Sure, they had the right, in theory, but did they in practice? Not in the least. Nobody pretends otherwise. 
 

So to answer the question I posed rhetorically earlier, yes. If you remove someone’s ability to effectively exercise a right, then you have removed that right.

 

[Snaveba]

So JT basically wants to make it law in Canada that you have to “bring a knife to a gun fight”. SMH

[Chucktshoes]

2 minutes ago, Snaveba said:

So JT basically wants to make it law in Canada that you have to “bring a knife to a gun fight”. SMH

As far as he’s concerned, that is the law.

[Snaveba]

What an idiot. Again, criminals don’t care about the law. As the old saying goes, when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. 
 

 

[Moped]

3 hours ago, Snaveba said:

So JT basically wants to make it law in Canada that you have to “bring a knife to a gun fight”. SMH

I actually don't think the JT cares about criminals having guns (well he does, but that's not who their gun laws are aimed at). He is looking to control his fellow Canadian citizens, after that little spectacle they experienced in Ottawa with the COVID Truck Convoy. I believe that shook him and the liberal party up, in Canada and they had enough power to take action.

Quite honestly, had the Democrats had the numbers here, after January 6th, I think we would have seen the same thing here.

 

[RED333]

2 minutes ago, Moped said:

Quite honestly, had the Democrats had the numbers here, after January 6th, I think we would have seen the same thing here.

 

That has been their Agenda for many years. Miss Feinstein out of commieforna said it out loud if she had the votes she would take them all. That was years ago.

[FUJIMO]

25 minutes ago, RED333 said:

That has been their Agenda for many years. Miss Feinstein out of commieforna said it out loud if she had the votes she would take them all. That was years ago.

Pretty sure that was during the march to pass the Brady bill in the 90s. Back when she was a sexy 70

Edited July 7, 2022 by FUJIMO

[Snaveba]

[Moped]

3 hours ago, RED333 said:

That has been their Agenda for many years. Miss Feinstein out of commieforna said it out loud if she had the votes she would take them all. That was years ago.

She did. It was a 60 Minutes interview, as I recall. Here’s a clip of part of that interview. And I think if they had those 51 votes this time, we’d be in the exact same boat.

 

[E4 No More]

23 hours ago, GlockSpock said:

Looks like someone took the slow train from Philly. 

WTF is that supposed to mean?

[GlockSpock]

2 hours ago, E4 No More said:

WTF is that supposed to mean?

TheLulz was already banned when you called for his banning, and "Looks like someone took the slow train from Philly" was a quote from The Office, although after posting the quote I remembered Angela didn't mean it the way it sounds (hint: it isn't inferring lack of intelligence/whit).

It was a bad joke that I screwed up.

[FUJIMO]

7 hours ago, GlockSpock said:

TheLulz was already banned when you called for his banning, and "Looks like someone took the slow train from Philly" was a quote from The Office, although after posting the quote I remembered Angela didn't mean it the way it sounds (hint: it isn't inferring lack of intelligence/whit).

It was a bad joke that I screwed up.

Damn i love that show. An endless supply of quotes .

[gregintenn]

Ya’ll banned Lulz before he even got a chance to get warmed up.

[GlockSpock]

11 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

Ya’ll banned Lulz before he even got a chance to get warmed up.

I'm pretty sure none of us were excited to see what he meant by "I'ma pop smoke here".

Edited July 8, 2022 by GlockSpock

[E4 No More]

12 hours ago, GlockSpock said:

TheLulz was already banned when you called for his banning, and "Looks like someone took the slow train from Philly" was a quote from The Office, although after posting the quote I remembered Angela didn't mean it the way it sounds (hint: it isn't inferring lack of intelligence/whit).

It was a bad joke that I screwed up.

I looked for the banned banner and there was none, and there still isn't:

Edited July 8, 2022 by E4 No More

[Garufa]

58 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

Ya’ll banned Lulz before he even got a chance to get warmed up.

There was a lot of potential for entertainment with that one.  A shame really.  

Edited July 8, 2022 by Garufa

[GlockSpock]

2 hours ago, E4 No More said:

I looked for the banned banner and there was none, and there still isn't:

Interesting/good observation. How about now?

[Snaveba]

So when you get the BanHammer, do your posts all disappear? 

[E4 No More]

12 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

Interesting/good observation. How about now?

No banner and not appearing at all now.

[gregintenn]

5 hours ago, GlockSpock said:

I'm pretty sure none of us were excited to see what he meant by "I'ma pop smoke here".

I don’t know. I was a bit curious.