sees_all1

Heh huh, heh huh, Some, heh huh, Somebody please. Heh huh, link me to the heh huh forum games forum. TNPW review my list of worst songs and pick their favorite.

Not unless you remove your shoes. Standard operating procedure for someone that removed their shoes means they planned on going to sleep, and they are off limits. Their shoes, however, are fair game.

Go for it MacGyver.

The Internet is srs bsns. Make sure to use proper grammar, esp. if you want to win!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/13/3d-printed-gun-makes-it-through-transportation-security-undetected/ Plastic gun smuggled through "airport style" security. Wonder what Australia and the UK will do now, ban 3d printers? :rolleyes:

Doubt anyone actually believes that, and if they do I doubt they'd post it on facebook. I've seen too much satire of those "kooky" tea partiers and right wing "nut jobs" to trust a sourceless wall of text on the internet. Hey, you know what would be fun? To dress up like my political opposite, join their protest and pretend to be racist idiots to try and tar them all.

I'm going with songs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qN72LEQnaU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39YUXIKrOFk TNPW let me know what I missed.

Since it's printed, I wouldn't think rifling would be too much of a challenge. They might have been concerned with the forces involved and left that to a later prototype. I'd also think you'd have a hard time smuggling a bullet through a metal detector. Certainly other materials could be used instead of lead, but you're getting into more customization that is more involved than 3d printing.

1st handgun made from a 3d printer, out of ABS plastic: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/06/wiki-weapons-fires-first-100-3d-printed-handgun/

That's a convenient argument you've got. But you're horribly wrong. http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

Dax is the best because of this ten word essay. TNPW describe their most hated video game.

If the person wanted to slash their throats instead of cut off their fingers, I'd imagine it would've taken less effort. Well then find me 26 people dead by having their throats slashed in one incident, I guess. Stab wounds aren't as damaging as gun shot wounds. That's how they aren't comparable. It's not hard to understand. (source) 26 is a lot by any measurement, only a handful of killing sprees have more. Most of those are bombings. Primarily using an ax: http://en.wikipedia....ki/William_Unek Using a paring knife and sickle: http://en.wikipedia....arsari_massacre http://en.wikipedia....rampage_killers EDIT: and let's not forget [hide] 9/11 was perpetrated using box cutter knives. [/hide] In that sense, they aren’t. Misandrist is right if you’re comparing on his terms but they’re still built as offensive weapons. Do you have any form of homicide statistics where we could compare them e.g. guns and knives? I don't need any form of homicide statistic when your argument is "guns are weapons and should be banned." Guns are banned, another weapon becomes a criminal's favorite. http://frontpagemag....-end-stabbings/ EDIT: And lets not forget all of history before gunpowder, shall we?

If the person wanted to slash their throats instead of cut off their fingers, I'd imagine it would've taken less effort.

We're shown time and again that someone on a rampage with a knife is able to do just as much damage as someone with a gun. In Texas earlier this month, 14 people were stabbed with an exacto knife; the only reason he stopped was because his knife broke. On the same day as Sandy Hook, 22 children were slashed in China, where the assailant was cutting off fingers and ears instead of slashing throats. The only reason these stories are buried several months later is because no one has the agenda to try and ban knives.

Explain to me why slingshots, bows and arrows, spears, swords, clubs, crossbows and bolts, switchblades, darts, blowguns, catapults, daggers, shields or flails are any different.

I'd like to understand why anti-gun arguments are exclusive to guns. Why are guns so special?

Oh Shiv, not that gang!

The Boston Bombers used what appeared to be suicide vests to rob a convenience store and steal a car in the same way that many people would use a knife or handgun. edit: Certain knives are designed first and foremost as weapons, such as switchblades. Others are designed first and foremost as tools, such as meat cleavers or machetes. Also, the major difference between a spear and a knife is a pole.

My views on the 2nd amendment are primarily about tyranny, and secondly self defense. The "solution" presented above really just reinforces my view. I'll concede the point that guns are designed to kill. But so are slingshots, bows and arrows, swords, spears, knives, poison, and many other weapons. The argument keeps getting brought up after mass shootings, but why aren't we calling to ban all these weapons? They're only designed to kill. There's also the argument that only large amounts of people are hurt with guns, which is far from accurate. Just two weeks ago a crazy in Texas stabbed 14 people, and would've stabbed more if his knife didn't break. That argument also conveniently ignores that improvised explosives can be made from common household items pretty easily, as be even more devastating as shown in Boston last week. Liked this article a lot: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/guns_are_designed_to_kill.html

African of course. TNPW write out "A Well Thought-out Englilsh Paper"

TNPW do the previous request.

TNPW make an easy request.

I'm not defining you as anything, I'm explaining why I thought Bill Maher's point was relevant.

I'm not claiming otherwise, but it's worth pointing out how the immediate reaction to the bombing is "I hope it's not a Muslim!" After we learn it's a Muslim, the reaction is, "Well, there are religious fanatics under every denomination." Bullshit. When the bomb goes off on April 15th, tax day and patriots' day, typical liberal speculation was, "It's probably some tea party right wing nut job protesting the federal government." When we find out the perpetrators are Muslim, the liberal response was, "We need to look deeper than their religion to find their motivation for doing this." Bullshit. Trying to be politically correct and "sensitive" about the issue while covering our ears screaming "na na na na i'm not listening na na na" isn't going to solve any problems in about the same way that claiming all Muslims are evil won't solve any problems. Tarring all religions with the same violent fanaticism brush isn't helping either, because not all modern religions are the same.

Maher's point wasn't that all Muslims share that same world view, his point was that Islam is the religion that has a monopoly on violence. When Piss Christ debuted, you didn't have Christians attempting to assassinate the artist, burn down the gallery, or even riot in the street and kill atheists. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/328747/piss-christ-causes-bloody-riots-manhattan-charles-c-w-cooke When Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons of the prophet, there was large scale rioting and attacks on Christians and Danish people everywhere in the middle east, and eventually the attempted assassination of one of the artists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Westergaard