Ginger_Warrior

One of the things that used to wind me up back when I played MK:DS religiously was how people disconnect when they start losing. Then they just reset their online record so no one would know they disconnected all the time. You'd be half way through Race 3, two players out of four have already disconnected and you'd be a good 20 seconds ahead of the remaining guy... when he just logs out. Pathetic. -.- Thankfully, on the Wii you don't have to stay for 4 whole races and there's now 12 people instead of 4. ;)

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

Well Antonin Scalia and I would agree that the second amendment protects an individuals right to own a gun. It's pretty clear wording. And they can't really appeal the second amendment because that would be unconstitutional. So you might be waiting a while to have a party. I can't understand your argument here. A constitutional right's existence is justified by its... existence? Why can't you altar the constitution? It's been done on many an occasion in US history.

That's funny. I voted in our May Local Elections and there was no army standing outside. Ironically enough, the anti-war candidate won too.

Why it so important to you to get Bin Laden? Someone else will just take over. Fighting on three fronts would be a logistical nightmare, not to mention it would cost you more money than it already is.

al-Qaeda are in Pakistan but you don't have any troops there.

You responded to my perfectly valid point by sarcastically replying exactly what I said? :?

There has been a reduction in violence. There is little evidence to suggest this is due to the surge. You're just taking two coincidents and presuming they have some sort of link. A rise of living standards, economic opportunies and improved infrastructure will also reduce violence in a country as turmoltuous as Iraq. Your presumption is cast further into doubt by the fact Basra has had a reduction in violence, and we haven't had a surge. That was 2 years ago. Has anything changed since? No. What Darfur needs is international involvement to bring about a resolution to stop the conflict, not some promise of food aid. The food won't go very far when they're gonna be shot in the head for little reason anyway.

Nice sig... since when were you F2P? :o

Cooking cape is ownage, yes? : Keep it up.

The current instability in global economics has nothing to do with illegal immigrants, drug dealers or gays. Once again you are attempting to scapegoat others for your own shortcomings. Such blame does not lead for a stable economic policy. The current situation is caused by a drought in Australia, oil prices going through the roof as demand increases, and irresponsible lending by Western (mostly American) banks forcing people into debt and increasing the rate of re-possessions. Neither of these factors has anything to do with gays, being gay, or gays holding pride festivals.

Anyone noticed he's not banned anymore? :lol:

We don't think it's OK. We don't, however, think it's OK that Christianity discriminates against homosexuals either. You can't claim homosexuals are being disrespectful to you whilst your church holds prejudice against them. What is it about other people that makes your blood boil so much, jack, that you can't bare to see them celebrate the fact they are different and have their own separate identity to you?

OK, let me more more explicit. In 2005/06, the homicide rate in the UK was 1.4, with only 6.6% of these homicides committed by a firearm. In contrast, in 2000 the homicide rate was 5.5 in New York (which while having tighter gun control laws, it is still not illegal to privately own a gun there), with some 70% of these homicides involving a firearm. It isn't so much that owning a gun is illegal in this country, it is that it is culturally unacceptable to own a gun in this country. As you say, legislation has had little impact on our gun crime statistics - but even before the outright ban in 1997, only 0.1% of the UK's population owned a firearm. There is not the same "What if?" paranoia in this country as there is in America. If you say to a criminal "You can own a gun, and because of our constitution, we have no right to take it away from you", you will have higher homicide rates involving guns. It is plain common sense. The way to reduce crime is to make it socially and culturally unacceptable to use a weapon in any other circumstance than self-defence. Amending the constitution will have to be a part of that.

I find it strangely hypocritical you ask me for a source, and then fail to provide any to back up your own 'stats', snipersas. Small point, but wrong. Immunisation protects from infections, antibiotics cure them. Except for a few hypothetical scenarios, where is the evidence for this? On the contrary, homicide rates are higher in countries with least gun control. Switzerland has Europe's least restrictive firearms laws, and has one of the highest corresponding gun murder rates. The homicide rate for the United States currently stands at 5.70, where private ownership of guns is allowed, and yet in England and Wales where private ownership of guns is outlawed, the homicide rate is 1.62. Now obviously, there are more factors than simply gun control. Capital punishment and cultural differences are also partially to blame. However, it is evident that when a country has lower gun control, its citizens feel more free to settle their differences, or achieve their goals using such weapons. It is quite simply not good enough to blame the individual for their actions, and then continue to allow these criminals free access to such dangerous weapons.

I'm going to bed, so this is a congratulations from the future... Grats on 99 Strength! :thumbsup:

Explain to me how putting a half inch of hot lead into the brain of someone trying to kill you is counter productive and stupid? With pleasure. Who says you would be able to pull the trigger first? If, as in the case I was responding to, the person threatening you in so unable to make a rational decision, and (s)he sees you reaching for a weapon of your own, there's every chance that person will shoot you long before you even have a chance to shoot them. In reaching for a weapon, you've also removed any chance of verbal dialogue, and forced the burglar to take more threatening measures. Thus, you've made the situation worse than it already was and quite possibly endangered your own life. The bright thing to do, and the police in near every developed nation agree with this, is to not provoke the burglar, and phone the police at the earliest available safe opportunity. Your contents are (at least should be if you've any sense) insured. They are the ones who are trained to deal with gunmen, not you. Also, if you are deemed to have used disproportionate force to 'defend' yourself, you can very well face prosecution. So yes, it's a very counter-productive and stupid thing to do. FACT: You are more likely to be a victim of crime if you carry a weapon on you. It is not rocket science to realise it only places you in more danger, not less. I live in a country which outlaws the use of guns completely, and I'm pretty damn happy about knowing when I go outside there won't be some guy with a gun wrapped round his belt. Yes, I might get mugged, and a gun might help defend me. However, I also might catch pneumonia. I might get run over by a bus. If we took safeguards against every single risk we are exposed to, civilisation would grind to a halt. In my view at least, there is a trace amount of justification for needing a gun.

Did you ever consider some of them stay indoors where you can't see them, like heterosexual couples do? Of course the more extrovert of them will go out dressed up. Again, I fail to see how this should offend you. Are they grabbing your head and forcing you to stare at their jeans? In fact, I don't know why I'm spending so much time arguing with you. It's becoming apparent you have a blind fear of anyone different to yourself. It's clear this mentality has been ingrained into your mind since you were a little boy. Therefore, even attempting to reason with you is like talking to a brick wall. Except I am asking myself, if you have this mentality, why did you bother coming onto a public forum with a proudly diverse range of opinions anyway?

Indeed. Which is why fighting back or provoking them further would be an immensely stupid thing to do. Therefore, having a gun is counter-productive.

Yes of course, it could have absolutely nothing to do with the fact they're trying attract other gays. Just like you sing The Banner to antagonise Iran, as opposed to expressing a love for your country.

That is a completely baseless generalisation. I suppose you're acquainted with convicted armed robbers, and would obviously know what they were on at the time? For the matter, my house has also been robbed. They robbed my family when we were out of the house. Although obviously, a gun would have deterred the robbers, and prevented my imminent death. -.-

It was a perfectly reasonable comparison. I don't come on here to prove my smart-i-ness either. That's what college exams are for. Exactly. No gay *has* to act in the way you describe either, yet you seem to think it's OK to see some gays acting like that, and instantly label them as weird. At least I've the respect to recognise someone is different to me, and actually be happy for them. It's their identity - what right have I got to judge them for it? Moreover, why should I even care?

Why did blacks need to have their Civil Rights protests? Was that "shoving it down your throat" too? I mean, I feel like you would have been one of those people like, "Look, Lincoln freed you already, will you just stfu about this already? You're free, now leave us alone!" Careful, your homophobia is showing. That is stupid. There is a difference between protesting for civil rights and parading around the streets half naked just because you can. Oh my God! Why do you Americans have to sing your national anthem? There's just no need! Do you guys have to shove it down my throat? :roll:

Hey, want to practice on me a bit? I would if I could. My sister's cooking what smells to be one great Lasagne. ;)

I've been to several gay pride parades. I've even been on demos protesting against anti-homosexual discrimination. I'm not a homosexual either. There was no difference, believe me. I felt completely at ease being around the gays in such events. Is it so hard for you to just look away?