16
   

8 year old accidently shoots himself with an Uzi

 
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 02:36 pm
@Intrepid,
You didn't read the link I posted either, did ya Terdly, or are you just ignoring it because you can't defend it?

Obama: Voted to ban sale and transfer of ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS (I own five, all common, all old). Obama: It was foolish for Bush to let the AWB expire (though the crime rate actually dropped after it did). Obama: Supports local gun laws restricting gun ownership (because his criminal homeboy's can't stop shooting each other, so, now, he wants them to be able to shoot me too, without worrying about resistance).
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 02:38 pm
@cjhsa,
I don't know this Terdly to whom you were posting, but I wonder why he should defend it.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 03:22 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

Both responses were so weak that I will not expend more time than
is necessary to type these words on a reply. It would be useless.

It blows my MIND, that u consider my response
qua the right to keep yourself alive from the violence of man or beast
to be "weak". The purpose of self-defense is for an innocent victim to be able
to use the necessary equipment to CONTROL THE SITUATION in a predatory emergency.
If u oppose that, then by so doing,
u affirmatively advocate the triumph of evil over good.

Richard, do u worship satan ?
Intrepid
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 05:02 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
If you got away from the gun threads for a moment you would realize who I worship. It is certainly not satan.

Also, we are not talking about self defence. We are talking about the idiocy of allowing an 8 year old child to fire a uzi. The child died as a result of it. Remember?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 02:09 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

If you got away from the gun threads for a moment
you would realize who I worship. It is certainly not satan.

The ethos of liberals is preference of evil over good.

Once, I posted (here or on Abuzz) that while watching
movies in which innocent victims (typically unarmed teenagers),
were being systematically slaughtered seriatim by a misanthrope
armed with implements of gardening; while watching the movie,
I used to yearn intensely for the victims to be armed with handguns
(ideally, submachineguns) so that thay coud CONTROL the emergencies.

Sitting in the audience, it pained me that thay were so stupid and irresponsible
as to walk around unarmed, helpless n vulnerable to pitchforks or trowels.
It woud have been a lot of FUN and very enjoyable
if one of the intended victims addressed the misanthrope
with a micro-submachinegun (like the 9mm MP5 KA4)
and unexpectedly put about 30 rounds into the bad guy.

ANYWAY, I posted my cinematic sentiments that the
teenage victims shoud be armed, and the liberals reacted with
SCORN. In other words, thay preferred the status quo
with the victims helpless and the only person being armed
(with various bladed agricultural tools) was the evil monster.
The liberals root for evil to prevail over good; that = satanism.


I have been fairly well armed since the age of 8; I don 't need additional guns
for my own personal security, but the concept of American citizens
walking around in a helpless, unarmed condition is obnoxious to me.
If the Canadians wanna do that, I guess I can live with that.





Quote:

Also, we are not talking about self defence.
We are talking about the idiocy of allowing an 8 year old child
to fire a uzi. The child died as a result of it. Remember?

FALSE. U characterized the argument of self-defense
as being "so weak" as to be unworthy of a response.

Additionally, the reason for driving a boy to a gunnery range
to fire submachineguns (in fulfillment of his desires) is more than
enjoyment; it is to support his knowledge concerning self-defense.


If he knows of submachineguns from personal experience,
he can, during all the months, years n decades to come,
propagate n disseminate the value of use of submachineguns.

Presumably, once he arrived, he 'd not limit his interest only to UZIs;
he 'd have the opportunity to explore use of many other
submachineguns (my personal favorite being the H & K MP5: sweet).
If I had sons, I 'd invite them to enjoy the felicities of gunnery practice,
not only with Uzis in particular, but with submachineguns in general.
Submachineguns are tons of fun, and excellent home-defense weapons.

HE was the ONLY boy who ever got killed in America from
a submachinegun out of the THOUSANDS,
including myself and my neighbors at that age, who were
perfectly OK in enjoying the glee of submachineguns.
That is like saying that if we find an 8 year old boy
in an old newspaper who got killed in a car, then we shoud
outlaw boys getting into cars. Many more multiples of children
have been killed on the rides of popular amusement parks.
This is the ONLY boy who ever got killed by a submachinegun
at a gunnery range, yet THIS is what u attack, not the
sources of greater death.

U simply exploit this as an excuse to propagate your philosophy
of helplessness for the citizens.






David


0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 02:13 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

If you got away from the gun threads for a moment
you would realize who I worship. It is certainly not satan.

Also, we are not talking about self defence.
We are talking about the idiocy
of allowing an 8 year old child to fire a uzi.
The child died as a result of it. Remember?



P.S.:
U wrote:
"We are talking about the idiocy
of allowing an 8 year old child to fire a uzi."

Idiocy is what comes from an idiot.

Lemme point out
that the father of the decedent, who drove him to the
gunnery range, after several months of eager anticipation,
is a practicing medical doctor. He is the Medical Director
of the Emergency Department at Johnson Memorial Hospital
in Stafford Springs, Conn.

Very, very few people have the raw power of intellect
to pass all of the tests that are necessary to get a doctorate
in medicine, in addition to successfully practicing medicine,
as he appears to be doing, and managing a department
of a hospital.

Q.E.D.: contrary to your allegation: HE IS NOT AN IDIOT,
except insofar as u define an idiot an anyone who disagrees with YOU.





David
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 05:01 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Again, you show your idiocy of thinking that just because the man is a doctor and a man of letters he is not an idiot.

A idiot does what he did, regardless of his education and standing in the community. I don't expect you to understand that with your narrow mindedness.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 05:14 am
Davids "power of intellect" argument must mean that Ted Kaczynski wasnt an idiot either. Educational achievement doesnt protect one from doing idiotic things, such achievement validates the choices to guys like DAve.
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 05:19 am
@farmerman,
I know several people with PhDs from Harvard who shouldn't be allowed to cross the street without an escort.

But I agree that we shouldn't post pejorative statements about unfortunate idiots by comparing them to the actions of this kid's father. Look up the etymology of the word 'idiot.' You'll find that it was once used as a legitimate medical term, meaning a certain level of mental retardation. People like that can't make rational decisions for themselves. That doctor and father was, presumably, capable of making such decisions. In spite of this, he made an idiotic one.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 06:36 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Davids "power of intellect" argument must mean that Ted Kaczynski
wasnt an idiot either. Educational achievement doesnt protect one
from doing idiotic things, such achievement validates the choices to guys like DAve.

It is more than OBVIOUS that he was not an idiot.

If he HAD been an idiot, he 'd not have been able
to build those bombs.

U r a FAKE, Farmer.
U know the correct definition of English words.
U only PRETEND to be stupid; I don t believe u.

TELL me that I 'm rong.



David
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 08:08 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Your reading comprehension certainly seems lacking.

Quote:
Educational achievement doesnt protect one
from doing idiotic things, such achievement validates the choices to guys like DAve.

It seems you want to argue that there is nothing wrong with the choice of building and sending bombs. Society would disagree with you and Ted. Ted is in jail for his choice.


Simple yes/no question, was it an idiotic thing for Ted to do when he built and sent bombs?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 08:22 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Your reading comprehension certainly seems lacking.

Quote:
Educational achievement doesnt protect one
from doing idiotic things, such achievement validates the choices to guys like DAve.

It seems you want to argue that there is nothing wrong with the choice of building and sending bombs. Society would disagree with you and Ted. Ted is in jail for his choice.


Simple yes/no question, was it an idiotic thing
for Ted to do when he built and sent bombs?

NO.
That which is idiotic is what comes from an idiot.

If it came from an idiot, then nothing woud have exploded.
It was murderous, evil, twisted, depraved and horrible,
but NOT idiotic.
It was NOT the work of an idiot.

I wish that Karl Marx, Ulyanov, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, the Kennedys
Castro and obama were idiots; thay 'd have been a lot less trouble,
if thay were and we 'd have never heard of any of them.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 08:37 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Really? So when you make "idiotic" statements it means you are always an idiot? OK.. I guess that explains everything with respect to you.




But here in the real world where we use words as listed in the dictionary...

I don't see anything in the definition of idiotic that requires restricting its use to just "idiots."
Quote:
idiotic -
adj.

1. Showing foolishness or stupidity.
2. Exhibiting idiocy.

idiotically id'i·ot'i·cal·ly adv.


Quote:
idiocy
1. Extreme folly or stupidity.
2. A foolish or stupid utterance or deed.
3. Psychology. The state or condition of being an idiot; profound mental retardation.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 08:49 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Really? So when you make "idiotic" statements it means you are always an idiot? OK.. I guess that explains everything with respect to you.




But here in the real world where we use words as listed in the dictionary...

I don't see anything in the definition of idiotic that requires restricting its use to just "idiots."
Quote:
idiotic -
adj.

1. Showing foolishness or stupidity.
2. Exhibiting idiocy.

idiotically id'i·ot'i·cal·ly adv.


Quote:
idiocy
1. Extreme folly or stupidity.
2. A foolish or stupid utterance or deed.
3. Psychology. The state or condition of being an idiot; profound mental retardation.


That supports MY position, not yours.
Folly comes from fools
and stupidity comes from people of low intelligence,
the way that idiocy comes from idiots; beat the dead horse some more.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 03:08 pm
@parados,
I am for the fun of it going to jump into the question of whether it is wrong to built bombs or kill police officers or little old ladies and state in all three cases it can depend on the society and the situation.

Let see you are not in the US but in Cuba for example where the state does not even pretend to gain it power from the will of it people but by applying force and terror instead.

Police officers are always the agents of the government they work for and are license to used deadly force it need be to enforce the laws and the will of the state.

If the laws of the state they are working for allow the imprisonment and or death of anyone who would dare to disagree with the government then I see little of a moral question with going to war against the police forces of that country.

Now in some countries such as Cuba is my understanding that the government recruit little old ladies to keep an eye on their neighbors and report anything that the government might not like. Something like a super neighborhood watch program. In Nazis Germany to report on hidden Jewish families for example.

Under that situation cutting the throats of a few little old ladies to fright the rest from reporting on their neighbors would be a moral if distasteful act of civil war.

Setting bombs off at military and government targets would also be a moral if once more distasteful part of fighting a underground civil war. As the bombing that attempt to kill Hilter in his headquarter.

Yes I see the danger that all the above rest with the opinion of the people fighting a civil war that the government is evil and the government might indeed not be evil but a fair and open society instead.

The police officers kill might be the protectors of it citizens and the little old ladies a useful crime watch and so on.

I guess once more it come down to whoever win the civil war declare who was moral and who was not as in any other war.

Ted was a one man civil war and he did not win so he is evil and a nut and mad killer and as I am a supporter of this society I agree with that share opinion of him however in another society in another time who know how Ted might had ended up being view.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 03:39 pm
@BillRM,
You might want to read his manifesto before you argue he could be seen differently under different social circumstances in the US.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 03:47 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Folly comes from fools

Nothing at all about that in the standard definitions of folly.
Quote:
fol·ly (fl)
n. pl. fol·lies
1. A lack of good sense, understanding, or foresight.
2.
a. An act or instance of foolishness: regretted the follies of his youth.
b. A costly undertaking having an absurd or ruinous outcome.
3. follies (used with a sing. or pl. verb) An elaborate theatrical revue consisting of music, dance, and skits.
4. Obsolete
a. Perilously or criminally foolish action.
b. Evil; wickedness.
c. Lewdness; lasciviousness.


Fool isn't mentioned anywhere in the definition of folly. Your use of words is similar to your spelling David. You make up how you think they should be spelled and used instead of using the accepted way. You could be called a fool for doing that.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 04:36 pm
@parados,
I am way ahead of you I had read his so call manifesto and even annoy his followers on the newsgroup fans of the unibomber.

What part of my statement that I share the view that he was a mad bomber and killer did you somehow not understand?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 08:25 pm
@BillRM,
When are you going to address the topic of this thread?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:08 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
Folly comes from fools

Nothing at all about that in the standard definitions of folly.
Quote:
fol·ly (fl)
n. pl. fol·lies
1. A lack of good sense, understanding, or foresight.
2.
a. An act or instance of foolishness: regretted the follies of his youth.
b. A costly undertaking having an absurd or ruinous outcome.
3. follies (used with a sing. or pl. verb) An elaborate theatrical revue consisting of music, dance, and skits.
4. Obsolete
a. Perilously or criminally foolish action.
b. Evil; wickedness.
c. Lewdness; lasciviousness.


Fool isn't mentioned anywhere in the definition of folly. Your use of words is similar to your spelling David. You make up how you think they should be spelled and used instead of using the accepted way. You could be called a fool for doing that.

Don t u even read your own posts ? Try 2A

I 'm starting to lose confidence in u, Parados.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/12/2024 at 10:00:13