I didn\'t wanna bring it up, BUT...

Ritual

New member
Originally posted by supervike
We (the Brits, and the US) fought and won the war together, and to say otherwise is poppycock and revisionist history.
And has got nothing to do with what was discussed here in the first place!
 

Ritual

New member
I think a \"gat\" is a shotgun. At least I got that impression from all the gangsta rap I listened to in the 80s. :D

EDIT: Did some searching and apparently it\'s just slang for gun. Comes from gatling gun originally and was used during the prohibition era as slang for the Thompson. Nowadays it just means gun.
 

supervike

Super Moderator
Ok, I Wikipedia\'ed it....

It can be many things, including a tank from Star Wars...but I think this definition does it.

Slang term for a gun, derived from \"Gatling gun\"[3]

So, any gun can be a Gat, I guess?
 

Talion

New member
I love these love/hate gun threads.

Everyone knows my thought on gun laws.

I will say one thing.......if it wasn\'t for the easy accessability of the guns, NONE of this wouldn\'t have happened. 30mins the news said it took for him to walk out the store with a fully loaded, prepared gun.

People throw in the comments, about he could\'ve used a knife, or a fork, or a board with a nail in it, But if he did 30+ people wouldn\'t have been killed. The fact that you can kick open a door, stand in the doorway and kill everyone in side with out taking a step is the problem with guns. If he had to get up close and personal then he would\'ve been disarmed long before he\'d killed 10.

As for the WW1, WW2 comment thats utter uneducated bullshit, and not worthy of a decent response.
 

DrEvilmonki

Active member
The idea that Americans need the right to arms to protect against their government is spurious in the modern world.
Someone bought up the IRA, where do you think they got all their weapons from - now the local hunting club?

The reality is that if you ever had your governmental system collapse so far that you needed armed resistance to fight it then weapons would be available.

The constitution is a document written in a certain climate, most of it is fantastically visionary stuff, some of it is dated dross.
 

Swordwind

New member
Originally posted by supervike
I think its safe to say Britain would NOT have lasted through WW2 without the help of the US. The converse is true as well. To say America did it only for the money is probably one of the most insulting things I\'ve heard on this board. Japan declared war on the US, and Hitler followed suit several days later.

We (the Brits, and the US) fought and won the war together, and to say otherwise is poppycock and revisionist history.

I think we\'re forgetting someone
redflag.gif

;):D
 

Shawn R. L.

New member
Originally posted by reverend
Originally posted by Shawn R. L.
Bad form or not, you use the line frequently here. I don\'t regret what I said as you\'re quite happy to flash it around.

If you cruise around throwing around thorny hand grenades I may just say something about it. It does tend to reduce the validity of what you say when you sink to cheap shots. If you cant distinguish between me discussing my disability and what is being discussed here....well cant help you there.

Now you\'re beginning to get under my skin. Are you suggesting that someone who suffers from depression doesn\'t lean towards dark thoughts? I didn\'t take any cheap shot other than point out that your well-advertised issues, coupled with a worldview that would see every civilian armed just in case, causes concern in me. I\'m not going to invalidate your viewpoint in light of your condition - I\'m arguing against it, so I\'ve clearly acknowledged it.

And I think to try and make me look a bit of a monster for even raising your condition smacks of preciousness. You bring it up frequently, yet when I attach it to an argument against your viewpoint I\'m deemed to be playing to bad form. Bullshit frankly. Cheapshot, my arse.

You tend to attach crassness and simple brutishness with your comments.......the point is really simple Phil, learn some adult decorum and decency.




Originally posted by vincegamer
Originally posted by Shawn R. L.If even a few had been armed at VT this thread might not have even started.
Possibly true, but a red herring argument.

It assumes some of the students shot would have WANTED to carry guns.
It\'s a right to bear arms, not a requirement.

Actually a student who was concerned for safety at VT applied for a C&C permit and was turned down........I never said anything about it being a requirement.
 

No Such Agency

New member
Originally posted by Swordwind
I think we\'re forgetting [the Soviets]
And the free French and the Polish and the Canadians and the Indians (how many people know that Indian troops fought in Europe?) and so on. It wasn\'t called a \"World\" War for nothing ;)
 

supervike

Super Moderator
Originally posted by No Such Agency
Originally posted by Swordwind
I think we\'re forgetting [the Soviets]
And the free French and the Polish and the Canadians and the Indians (how many people know that Indian troops fought in Europe?) and so on. It wasn\'t called a \"World\" War for nothing ;)


Oh yes...definitely so. The contributions of all those countries helped win the war. I wasn\'t trying to insinuate otherwise...My apologies if I did.:beer:
 

Nexus17

New member
I think these threads are pretty repetitive. There\'s a similar one going on at TMP (well, was, I think Bill has deleted it now, the tyrant :eek:!). Admittedly, there are more weekend warrior types taking part in that one and their debate is less tasteful.

I\'m not convinced these extensive discussions get us anywhere.

Incidentally, Recoil, do you buy Old Glory miniatures?
 

supervike

Super Moderator
Originally posted by Nexus17

I\'m not convinced these extensive discussions get us anywhere.

You are right...it is a circular argument at times, but, they may not get us anywhere but it is very nice to see opposing viewpoints. Very rarely (at least in the circles I run in) do \'heavy\' topics get discussed...I guess its not considered polite conversation.
 

Hiliter

New member
My opinion

To preface:

Im a college student at a university a state away from Va-tech. (UNCC, University of North Carolina at Charlotte)

The schools are of similar size (20,000 to 26,000 students UNCC to Va tech respectively). Land foot print Va tech is about twice as large as uncc (1200 acres to 2600 acres)

My thoughts:
I feel no amount of planning could have stopped this from happening. At Va tech, my school, or other public enviroment not under extreme security.

This entire incident basically grounded me and scared the crap out of me for a few days.

I guess I might be considered one of those \"gung-ho\" types as the first thought I had when this happened was if even a fraction of the people were armed, could they have stopped him?

After thinking about it more, I realized that this would have happened no matter the state of Gun laws in the US or on College campus\'.

If he took college level chemistry and had a walmart near by, he could have just made simple bombs pretty easily and 32+ people would have still died.

If handguns were banned, a short model assualt rifle like the Russian Beta Spetnaz (shortened AK-47) which is much more powerful and carries double+ the ammuntion that of a 9mm pistol. Just as easily used in building etc.

After the run through the news crews did on our campus asking people if they felt safe. And interviewing campus police etc. I realzied that the campus police aren\'t ever the same. You rarely see familar faces for long as most leave to go to city,county, or state level departments. The ones that are there just stay for job experience and then follow the others. So most are not prepared for what happened or anything similar.

Even after all of this, I have little doubt that this exact situtation could be easily repeated in any major city or university campus anywhere in US without much problem on the Attackers part.
 
Back To Top
Top