The report released by the Defense Department inspector general revealed that in fiscal 2023 there were 183 allegations of extremism across all the branches of military.
Or you can just think they’re cool like a car. Saying something is too dangerous to own is fucking stupid, we sell dynamite commercially and anfo by the ton. Bombings just aren’t common because they’re are reasonable licensing and registration requirements.
Without a license. You’re being a dope, I’m for licensing and registration not a total ban. I’m not quite sure why you chose such a sequitous route good such a stupid point.
I’m having a little fun poking at you because you called another poster fucking stupid while missing their point entirely, and you called me dope while being completely unable to see the contradiction I was laying out in front of you.
I’ll stop here, but you’ll have better conversations online if you engage with people sincerely rather than jumping straight to insults about others’ intelligence.
I didn’t call anyone fucking stupid I said saying guns are too dangerous to own is fucking stupid. Someone can hold an ideal that is idiotic without being an idiot, don’t be so thin skinned on sometime else’s behalf. There is no contradiction dude, you were/are being a dope.
I’m trying to figure out your logic here. You seem to be trying to defend an undefendable position. Cars, afaik, typically require a license to actually own one, yet we don’t consider them too dangerous for someone to own. Are they too dangerous for an unlicensed individual to own? Yeah, but most people can get a license for one.
On the other hand, anyone can own a sword or a crossbow, or (afaik) build a maser out of a couple microwaves if they want to (or until recently, build and own a flamethrower), so those must be perfectly safe to own. I can pull the electron guns out of old CRTs and build a device pretty much guaranteed to cause melanoma in anyone I point it at. I’m sure the people who end up with skin cancer would be happy to know that the hacked-together cancer-beam I created is perfectly safe because it doesn’t require a license to own.
So I’m trying to figure out what your point is. You seem to be trying to say that if something is restricted, then it is “too dangerous to own” but that’s obviously not true. Yet for some reason, you’re trying to cling to this argument.
Or you can just think they’re cool like a car. Saying something is too dangerous to own is fucking stupid, we sell dynamite commercially and anfo by the ton. Bombings just aren’t common because they’re are reasonable licensing and registration requirements.
Don’t you think the reason there are licensing and registration requirements for dynamite is because it’s too dangerous to own?
It’s clearly not too dangerous to own, it’s dangerous enough to license… That was my point.
And if you don’t have a license, you are not allowed to ___ it?
Purchase or possess, yes… You’re taking a real slow route to a very obvious point.
Register, license and own whatever the fuck you want.
So… own.
Without a license. You’re being a dope, I’m for licensing and registration not a total ban. I’m not quite sure why you chose such a sequitous route good such a stupid point.
I’m having a little fun poking at you because you called another poster fucking stupid while missing their point entirely, and you called me dope while being completely unable to see the contradiction I was laying out in front of you.
I’ll stop here, but you’ll have better conversations online if you engage with people sincerely rather than jumping straight to insults about others’ intelligence.
I didn’t call anyone fucking stupid I said saying guns are too dangerous to own is fucking stupid. Someone can hold an ideal that is idiotic without being an idiot, don’t be so thin skinned on sometime else’s behalf. There is no contradiction dude, you were/are being a dope.
That’s great advice, you should take it.
I’m trying to figure out your logic here. You seem to be trying to defend an undefendable position. Cars, afaik, typically require a license to actually own one, yet we don’t consider them too dangerous for someone to own. Are they too dangerous for an unlicensed individual to own? Yeah, but most people can get a license for one.
On the other hand, anyone can own a sword or a crossbow, or (afaik) build a maser out of a couple microwaves if they want to (or until recently, build and own a flamethrower), so those must be perfectly safe to own. I can pull the electron guns out of old CRTs and build a device pretty much guaranteed to cause melanoma in anyone I point it at. I’m sure the people who end up with skin cancer would be happy to know that the hacked-together cancer-beam I created is perfectly safe because it doesn’t require a license to own.
So I’m trying to figure out what your point is. You seem to be trying to say that if something is restricted, then it is “too dangerous to own” but that’s obviously not true. Yet for some reason, you’re trying to cling to this argument.
Congratulations. You figured out my point in your first paragraph.
guns are for addle-brained fools who can barely string two thoughts together
Yes yes, bigoted hyperbole solves everything and isn’t at a projection of your insecurities.
and unsurprisingly guns are for people who like to defend themselves by projecting
How am I projecting anything? I’ve not said an ill word about or to you.
you hang onto those guns, son, i’m sure they help you
Oo and you assume I’m younger, want to project a bit more?