No one care what or who you voted for. You sound like an idiot in this thread
![1nsp5f.jpg](/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F1nsp5f.jpg&hash=2d7ce5053bf56574bdd0eb0aaa315e1d)
No one care what or who you voted for. You sound like an idiot in this thread
Not really. Just trying to get a condescending blowhard to admit he’s a condescending blowhard. It’ll be worse for my e reputation but better for the Greg overall
Yeah. Both parties suck. I find that the issues I care about more align with Pubs but here they are with the majority everywhere and can't do dick.I feel ya. I am center left on most things but get called a Pub at every turn. May be our deliveries that send the wrong vibes out there.
Not really. Just trying to get a condescending blowhard to admit he’s a condescending blowhard. It’ll be worse for my e reputation but better for the Greg overall
Wow. Hits me right in the feels. Feel free to let it all out man, had no idea you felt this way about me.Not really. Just trying to get a condescending blowhard to admit he’s a condescending blowhard. It’ll be worse for my e reputation but better for the Greg overall
Yeah. Both parties suck. I find that the issues I care about more align with Pubs but here they are with the majority everywhere and can't do dick.
Gotta be honest here on the GREG, I love you both.... but MITS sounds like jgt here bashing you like this. No offense MITS.Wow. Hits me right in the feels. Feel free to let it all out man, had no idea you felt this way about me.
I said I like you, but that doesn’t mean you’re above reproach. I could say plenty of criticisms about everyone on this board just like they could equally do to me.Wow. Hits me right in the feels. Feel free to let it all out man, had no idea you felt this way about me.
It doesn't really bother me too much, other than confusing me. Oh well, I'll still by a shirt from him if he'll ever get any XLs in.Gotta be honest here on the GREG, I love you both.... but MITS sounds like jgt here bashing you like this. No offense MITS.
It’s nothing personal. I think both sides have been fairGotta be honest here on the GREG, I love you both.... but MITS sounds like jgt here bashing you like this. No offense MITS.
Look gang, most of my best friends are people I disagree with. Apologies if anyone took some stuff personally. But let’s please not deal in quora facts
You said you'd never tell anyone you ****flake.Just figured you were the dude that went to bars with the intent to get drunk and throw hands. Never let it bother me a bit. If you start DM your personal feelings and shit then it will be over. Fair warning![]()
There's a difference in disagreement and just being an asshole. You seem to not understand where that line is but I still accept you as my e-brother.Look gang, most of my best friends are people I disagree with. Apologies if anyone took some stuff personally. But let’s please not deal in quora facts
True that and I agree. But part of the beauty of the Greg is there are no sacred cows here. You say something stupid, then someone will tell you it’s stupid. No offense to the bozos who think they’re being authoritatively intelligentLet me first say I'd mouth kiss everybody in this thread save Charlie and Penya, both of whom I don't care for and wouldn't be here if not for Shorts' outburst.
Anyway, I stopped reading after page three. Pretty simple stuff here, folks. The second amendment was written in the 1700s when automatic weapons didn't exist. Had they existed at the time, I have to believe the founding fathers would've had the good sense to make a few exceptions.
"The right to bear arms" was as much (or more) about sharp sticks and pitchforks as it was about muskets. We're dealing with completely different situations now.
The spirit of the amendment is to keep government from becoming oppressive, and there are better ways to do that in 2017 than making damn sure that everyone (including the mentally ill) has access to weapons that are made for no reason other than killing lots and lots of people all at once.
Let's not be dipshits.
Getting berated on the internet every once in awhile is good for the soul.True that and I agree. But part of the beauty of the Greg is there are no sacred cows here. You say something stupid, then someone will tell you it’s stupid. No offense to the bozos who think they’re being authoritatively intelligent
The 2A is designed to be timeless so I don't think they would omit the amendment because crazy people could get guns. The founding fathers would beef up the well regulated militia part and acknowledge the civic duties associated with gun ownership that are required by a citizen to undertake, including proper training and being assessed to ensure they are mentally and physically fit to own a gun. That means annual physicals, rigorous mental health assessments and getting certified by LEOs. It's overdue for this shit to happen. There are way too many people who abuse the 2A and do not need to own guns.Let me first say I'd mouth kiss everybody in this thread save Charlie and Penya, both of whom I don't care for and wouldn't be here if not for Shorts' outburst.
Anyway, I stopped reading after page three. Pretty simple stuff here, folks. The second amendment was written in the 1700s when automatic weapons didn't exist. Had they existed at the time, I have to believe the founding fathers would've had the good sense to make a few exceptions.
"The right to bear arms" was as much (or more) about sharp sticks and pitchforks as it was about muskets. We're dealing with completely different situations now.
The spirit of the amendment is to keep government from becoming oppressive, and there are better ways to do that in 2017 than making damn sure that everyone (including the mentally ill) have access to weapons that are made for no reason other than killing lots and lots of people all at once.
Let's not be dipshits.
I agree. Omission would've been a bad idea. We were distancing ourselves from an operative government after all.I don't think they would omit the amendment because crazy people could get guns.
Definitely. If I know the four fathers like I think I do, they were smart enough to four see that society would go through this period where weapon technology rapidly advances but the advent of social media turns us into retards and we slowly devolve back into an agrarian society but in our last accomplishment before going full retard, we also somehow finally figure out lightsaber technology. In that scenario, we should not be denied lightsabers.I agree. Omission would've been a bad idea. We were distancing ourselves from an operative government after all.
I long for an agrarian society. Figure out how to grow your own food or die.Definitely. If I know the four fathers like I think I do, they were smart enough to four see that society would go through this period where weapon technology rapidly advances but the advent of social media turns us into retards and we slowly devolve back into an agrarian society but in our last accomplishment before going full retard, we also somehow finally figure out lightsaber technology. In that scenario, we should not be denied lightsabers.
Sorry if none of that made sense.
I long for an agrarian society. Figure out how to grow your own food or die.
It will be glorious
If it happens, can I watch you ban @Boisgreat from the cubbard?
Just wanted to say hey before he bant you againWhy bring me into this PoRe board crap? @Harvey Specter bands me weekly.
Just wanted to say hey before he bant you again
Something I heard this morning from a psychiatrist who specializes on mass shootings: he basically said there are two common types of motivations for mass killers. 1) Cause related (essentially a political or religious motivation) similar to the GOP baseball shooter or terrorists. 2.) Spectacle related (basically looking to be remembered for the incident) James Holmes type
The Dr. went on to say that when you look at these situations you have to examine the victim. What is the relationship of the killer to the victims? How does that influence the cause? In this situation, the victims have no direct relationship to the killer. Other forms of mass killings tend to have a victim/killer relationship like workplace shooters or school shooters or even gang-on-gang violence.
Back to the motivations, there appears to be no overt cause related to this incident. No overt messages about political or religious connections.
And according to the Dr., this doesn't fit the spectacle killing because that is traditionally a younger, more immature person that thinks killing will link to notoriety. This doesn't seem to be the case either.
This was a methodical and ruthless attack. So the idea that something just "snapped" doesn't seem to fit either. The dehumanizing quality is apparent as well. Something is not adding up.
Exactly. This guy has invented a new category of mass killing, and the lack of identifiable motivations or indicators is chilling.