US school shootings

[Optimus Prime Rib]

Quite off topic, but if you're walking through boar territory you only have yourself to blame if you get attacked/killed.

Statements like this only reaffirm why I rarely come around here anymore.

[The Last Autobot]

Swords are tricky, since they come in different sizes. I am sure there's some way of hiding them in a coat though. But yet again: they aren't really easy to kill people with.

You can hide one (I know ). If a guy can kill 30 people with a sword he would deserve an award. Ive practiced sword fighting and believe me you would need to be pretty skillful to do that (I guess that would be really an sport)

Al-queda, Osama bin Laden himself, and his entire cohort of generals could walk into a store, buy every gun.

But its their right! Maybe they want them for sport or to hunt a dinosaur.

[Obfleur]

Quite off topic, but if you're walking through boar territory you only have yourself to blame if you get attacked/killed.

Statements like this only reaffirm why I rarely come around here anymore.

Why? You want the right to defend your home with a gun. If someone breaks in to your home, you wanna shoot them.
The same goes for the boar. If you start walking around his home (the woods) he'll probably attack.
It's not rocket science.

(No, I am not saying that everybody should stay away from the woods but if you know that the woods are filled with angry boars, stay the [composite word including 'f*ck'] out or suffer the consequences).

[Yaya]

It's not the gun itself that is the danger, but the mind behind it.

You can't change the mind, in most cases.

But you sure as hell can stop selling the guns.

So do what you can do. It's not that hard to figure out. Other nations have, why the hell can't the US?

This whole infringement of freedom argument is something I have considered quite ridiculous. There must be limits to freedom in certain instances. The risks of having guns outweigh the benefit of them.

[BB Shockwave]

It's horrible...

The first thing that came to my mind, though, was "Why do shootings like this only happen in the USA?" Really, we cannot blame it on education and the media now as "thanks" to globalisation that's almost the same in all western countries now... really, why are so many psychos in the USA?

[BB Shockwave]

From this thread I have learned:

1) Boars are some mean-ass *************.

They are pretty harmless usually and avoid humans when possible. Unless you encounter a female who has lots of piglets. In this case, run like hell.

2) Guns don't kill people, but they were made to.

You know Megatron and you had to be told this?

3) Spears, swords, knives and other household objects that were once made to kill people have recently reformed, and,

I heard that a chakram is running for president in Malaysia.

4) I should never leave my house.

-It's the only way to avoid those pesky people out there. I mean, I live in my basement, weigh 200 kilos and have 4 mute midgets to feed me and carry me around. It's the only way to live. (kudos to the guy who finds out where I got that one from...)

Thank you, Transfans.

That's why it's the best place to hang out at! Thanks Primus for Transfans.

[BB Shockwave]

Guns are specifically designed to kill people.

So were knives, spears, swords, cannons and every other object that was used to kill people before guns came around. Whats your point?

I am so sick of this argument. The guy would not have killed 32 people with a knife, with a spear, with a sword, or with a cannon. Have you ever tried to stab someone to death? It's not easy. Even if you managed a few slashes on a few people, you would get tired LONG before the 30th body dropped. Same deal with a spear or a sword. With a gun, you squeeze the trigger and someone's dead. What is so difficult about this? People kill people, but guns allow them to kill MORE people.

I totally agree on this. Plus, with today's technological advancements, there are tons of non-lethal self-defense weapons that could be manufactured instead of guns- I'm thinking on stuff like long-range shockers (like the one used in Batman Begins), sonic devices, infra-cannons that cause horrible pain but no harm (I heard police will be using this for crowd control), gas guns, etc. If a little money was put into the research of non-lethal weapons, we'd have solved the gun problem long by now, and people would have Mr. Freeze's gun at home for self defense (I'm obviosly exagerrating here).

Of course, the weapon industry won't let this happen.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Yeah, if you have to live in a ****wit society that requires everyone to be paranoid, and carry a weapon, why not a stungun?
or
Just do what the rest of the world does, ban handguns and semi auto rifles. problem solved.

You know what I find amazing, they banned guns in NewYork, NY went from being one of the most dangerous cities on earth to one of the safest, with, and get this, almost no gun crime!!! - isnt that somthing?

So, apart from the world as a gleaming example, and NYC, a state inside the USA, the people of america still cant see the obvious nature of whats in front of them.

retarded.

[Professor Smooth]

One of my favorite pieces of logic used by gun owners is: I'll give up my gun when the criminals give up theirs.

Anyone else see the hole here? Criminals are ALWAYS going to have an unfair advantage over law obiding citzens.

I understand that if read a certain way, the constitution's second ammendment allows people to own guns so that if the government ever gets out of control, people will be able to overthrow that government. Personally, I disagree and believe that the 2nd ammendment went out the window right about the time the yearly military budget topped 50 billion dollars. But I digress. Let's say that you have the right to bare arms in case you need to overthrow the American government...

...You're ******. If the American government ever gets REALLY out of control (don't laugh), Johnny and his barn full of uzis is not going to do much against a government armed with tanks, jets, and very large explosive devices. To say nothing of all the top-secret tech that billions of tax dollars fund. You're not going to win a pissing match with a really corrupt government.

[sprunkner]

Quite off topic, but if you're walking through boar territory you only have yourself to blame if you get attacked/killed.

Statements like this only reaffirm why I rarely come around here anymore.

That's insensitive, Ob. There's a big wilderness park near my house called Cougar Mountain, for a good reason. There are cougars in there, along with coyotes that often roam around in the suburbs and kill people's cats. The people who created the park were trying to preserve all wildlife, make a good place for people to go and relax, and make some harmony out of the madness that is the Seattle suburbs. Cougar/coyote/whatever else is in there (I don't think there are wild boars here) attacks are one price of this compromise. It's just life.

Besides, anyone in a position to shoot a predator would likely carry a nonautomatic hunting rifle. I'm in favor of zero guns, but tighter control would at least eliminate the VA Tech weapons and leave hunting rifles.

I'm very sleep-deprived, but I don't want some of the minority viewpoints to disappear from Transfans because we disagree.

[IronHide]

I'm very sleep-deprived, but I don't want some of the minority viewpoints to disappear from Transfans because we disagree.

We all have our dreams.....

[Hot Shot]

I'm very sleep-deprived, but I don't want some of the minority viewpoints to disappear from Transfans because we disagree.

*cough*Seibertron*cough*

On subject: Has the death count risen any over the past few days?

[Professor Smooth]

I'm very sleep-deprived, but I don't want some of the minority viewpoints to disappear from Transfans because we disagree.

*cough*Seibertron*cough*

On subject: Has the death count risen any over the past few days?

Nobody forced the different viewpoint to leave Seibertron. Those people left of their own accord because they couldn't stand that the majority disagreed with them.

Anyway.

As for the death toll, not at that school. Though on average 30 people are shot and killed every day in the US, so...

[Hot Shot]

I'm very sleep-deprived, but I don't want some of the minority viewpoints to disappear from Transfans because we disagree.

*cough*Seibertron*cough*

On subject: Has the death count risen any over the past few days?

Nobody forced the different viewpoint to leave Seibertron. Those people left of their own accord because they couldn't stand that the majority disagreed with them.

Alex Kingdom left because they started deleting his posts for no reason. If I remember correctly, before he left, he made a topic stating that he was leaving because his posts being deleted in the movie topics was an act of silencing his opinion. Also, there were quite a few people that were frequently attacked and dogged about hating the new movie and personally attacked when they made a good reason why. I had quite a few people state that my opinion didn't matter because I was 14 and a certain someone put a certain fictional character's bloody head on a pole in their sig to try and scare me off. The best reason I got for getting the boot was that my opinion ticked-off a bunch of people or that "I didn't belong there". If that's not trying to force an opinion off, I don't know what is.

[Professor Smooth]

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/404676

You have got to be kidding me.

Pro-gun lobby strengthened following U.S. campus shooting
Monday, April 23, 2007 at 07:33 EDT

WASHINGTON — The powerful U.S. gun lobby, far from being weakened by last week's tragic college campus shooting, actually has emerged stronger, gun advocates said, stepping up calls Sunday for a better-armed citizenry to prevent future attacks.

Gun rights advocates said that following last week's massacre, in which 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui fatally shot 32 victims at Virginia Tech University, gun control forces will be hard pressed to make the case for tighter restrictions.

"This is a huge nail in the coffin of gun control," said Philip Van Cleave, president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League.

"They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves," he said.

"You want people to be able to defend themselves — always," he said.

Van Cleave said the tragedy could give a boost to a years-long effort in Virginia to pass legislation allowing students to carry weapons on campus — especially since existing laws failed to prevent Cho's murderous rampage.

"Gun control failed. That student under university rules was not to have a gun," Van Cleave said.

"Come legislative season, which is in January, we're going to be fighting to get a bill put in again — the third year in a row now and hopefully this time it will pass — that would let students that are over 21 with a permit ... carry concealed self-defense," he said.

The bill, which would also allow any faculty member possessing a concealed carry permit to carry a concealed weapon, has a "greatly enhanced" chance of passage following the Virginia Tech shooting, Van Cleave said.

The southeastern state where the shootings took place allows anyone 21 years of age or older and holding a concealed handgun permit to carry a weapon.

That is not true, however of college campuses, where most universities have a strict prohibition against carrying guns — much to the chagrin of the state's pro-gun activists.

Other gun rights advocates echo Van Cleave's view that had even one Virginia Tech student or faculty member been armed, last week's carnage might have been prevented.

"The only person who is responsible to defend you is you — the police are incapable of defending each and every one of us all the time," said Mike Stollenwerk, 44, co-founder of OpenCarry.org, a Virginia-based gun-rights networking group.

"Citizens have an inherent right to be able to defend themselves," he said, speaking last week to The Washington Times newspaper.

"You can't always have a policeman on every street corner to take care of you. Whenever you have a bunch of gun-control laws that prohibit people from carrying, the ones with the guns are the criminals."

Many had expected that the Virginia Tech rampage would be a rallying cry for gun control activists, but that has not turned out to be the case.

Even the mass killings at Colorado's Columbine High School in 1999 failed to result in gun-control legislation, despite the emotional outcry over those shootings.

The reaction has been even more muted following last week's tragedy, the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history.

Politicians have shown little inclination to introduce new gun control legislation in a country where an estimated 40% of U.S. households own a gun and where for many the constitutional right to bear arms is seen as sacred.

Reports that Cho's past brush with mental health authorities should have prevented him from being able to purchase a firearm is prompting a legislative reaction, however.

Sen Chuck Schumer and Representative Carolyn McCarthy on Sunday announced plans to introduce federal bill requiring states to send critical mental health information to the federal government, which will allow them to screen out those who don't qualify to own firearms.

U.S. media reported Sunday that a similar proposed bill in California impose mandatory background checks for buyers of handgun ammunition, require a face-to-face purchase instead of by mail, and require gun shops to store ammunition behind counters.

Schumer said about his bill that federal gun laws are only as the records provided by states.

"Our legislation, had it been in place last week, may well have stopped last weeks unspeakable tragedy," Schumer said in a statement.

[sprunkner]

So the solution is for everyone to get a gun. Of course. More potential violence makes things better.

And if we just bomb Iraq a little harder, they would have given up, too.

[Hot Shot]

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/404676

You have got to be kidding me.

Pro-gun lobby strengthened following U.S. campus shooting
Monday, April 23, 2007 at 07:33 EDT

WASHINGTON — The powerful U.S. gun lobby, far from being weakened by last week's tragic college campus shooting, actually has emerged stronger, gun advocates said, stepping up calls Sunday for a better-armed citizenry to prevent future attacks.

Gun rights advocates said that following last week's massacre, in which 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui fatally shot 32 victims at Virginia Tech University, gun control forces will be hard pressed to make the case for tighter restrictions.

"This is a huge nail in the coffin of gun control," said Philip Van Cleave, president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League.

"They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves," he said.

"You want people to be able to defend themselves — always," he said.

Van Cleave said the tragedy could give a boost to a years-long effort in Virginia to pass legislation allowing students to carry weapons on campus — especially since existing laws failed to prevent Cho's murderous rampage.

"Gun control failed. That student under university rules was not to have a gun," Van Cleave said.

"Come legislative season, which is in January, we're going to be fighting to get a bill put in again — the third year in a row now and hopefully this time it will pass — that would let students that are over 21 with a permit ... carry concealed self-defense," he said.

The bill, which would also allow any faculty member possessing a concealed carry permit to carry a concealed weapon, has a "greatly enhanced" chance of passage following the Virginia Tech shooting, Van Cleave said.

The southeastern state where the shootings took place allows anyone 21 years of age or older and holding a concealed handgun permit to carry a weapon.

That is not true, however of college campuses, where most universities have a strict prohibition against carrying guns — much to the chagrin of the state's pro-gun activists.

Other gun rights advocates echo Van Cleave's view that had even one Virginia Tech student or faculty member been armed, last week's carnage might have been prevented.

"The only person who is responsible to defend you is you — the police are incapable of defending each and every one of us all the time," said Mike Stollenwerk, 44, co-founder of OpenCarry.org, a Virginia-based gun-rights networking group.

"Citizens have an inherent right to be able to defend themselves," he said, speaking last week to The Washington Times newspaper.

"You can't always have a policeman on every street corner to take care of you. Whenever you have a bunch of gun-control laws that prohibit people from carrying, the ones with the guns are the criminals."

Many had expected that the Virginia Tech rampage would be a rallying cry for gun control activists, but that has not turned out to be the case.

Even the mass killings at Colorado's Columbine High School in 1999 failed to result in gun-control legislation, despite the emotional outcry over those shootings.

The reaction has been even more muted following last week's tragedy, the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history.

Politicians have shown little inclination to introduce new gun control legislation in a country where an estimated 40% of U.S. households own a gun and where for many the constitutional right to bear arms is seen as sacred.

Reports that Cho's past brush with mental health authorities should have prevented him from being able to purchase a firearm is prompting a legislative reaction, however.

Sen Chuck Schumer and Representative Carolyn McCarthy on Sunday announced plans to introduce federal bill requiring states to send critical mental health information to the federal government, which will allow them to screen out those who don't qualify to own firearms.

U.S. media reported Sunday that a similar proposed bill in California impose mandatory background checks for buyers of handgun ammunition, require a face-to-face purchase instead of by mail, and require gun shops to store ammunition behind counters.

Schumer said about his bill that federal gun laws are only as the records provided by states.

"Our legislation, had it been in place last week, may well have stopped last weeks unspeakable tragedy," Schumer said in a statement.

They are actually stupid enough to think that handing out guns will reduce gun fatalities? WTH? That's like handing out wolves to civilians to fight dog attacks!

Not to forget this wonderful quote:

"The only person who is responsible to defend you is you...

Wait...then what are the police and the military paid to do?

— the police are incapable of defending each and every one of us all the time"

Then why do the american tax dollars go to the police if they can't protect us? Why do we have the number "911" memorized? Plus, since when has everyone been held at gunpoint at the same time? Or when has one person been in need of police assistance all the time? Cops are called to assist and arrive fairly quickly, not to mention that there are always cops on duty to respond. Don't most people have a cell phone?

"You can't always have a policeman on every street corner to take care of you. Whenever you have a bunch of gun-control laws that prohibit people from carrying, the ones with the guns are the criminals."

Wouldn't a ban on guns slim down the opportunity of a criminal getting their hands on a gun dramatically? A criminal would have to find an illegal gun dealer on the street, and if they couldn't find one, wouldn't they just give up eventually?

"Our legislation, had it been in place last week, may well have stopped last weeks unspeakable tragedy,"

No, it would've been deadlier. A gun fight would've broken out, and a lot more people would've been killed in the crossfire.

Honestly, the sheer ignorance of gun-rights advocators is sickening.

[Obfleur]

Quite off topic, but if you're walking through boar territory you only have yourself to blame if you get attacked/killed.

Statements like this only reaffirm why I rarely come around here anymore.

That's insensitive, Ob. There's a big wilderness park near my house called Cougar Mountain, for a good reason. There are cougars in there, along with coyotes that often roam around in the suburbs and kill people's cats. The people who created the park were trying to preserve all wildlife, make a good place for people to go and relax, and make some harmony out of the madness that is the Seattle suburbs. Cougar/coyote/whatever else is in there (I don't think there are wild boars here) attacks are one price of this compromise. It's just life.

I'm all for creating parks, taking a walk in the woods, preserving the wildlife and relaxing.
But taking a gun with you when you are walking through the woods doesn't seem relaxing. It seems dangerous and stressful.
And if you put yourself in such a dangerous situation that it makes you think "I gotta bring my gun, otherwise I might die" then, IMO, you only have yourself to blame if you get injured.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that everyone who gets attacked by an animal is an idiot.
A lot of animal attacks are freak occurences - but, as I said, if you have to bring a gun then you know that you are putting yourself in a potential dangerous situation.

And I agree that animal attacks is "just life" if you live in a rural area.

Another thing that bothers me is this whole "I have a right to defend my home! I have a right to kill anybody who enters my home!" - then going out in the woods (not your home) and shooting a boar in the face (for defending its home).
(I know that this sounds silly )

[KingMob]

*cough*Seibertron*cough*

On subject: Has the death count risen any over the past few days?

Nobody forced the different viewpoint to leave Seibertron. Those people left of their own accord because they couldn't stand that the majority disagreed with them.

Alex Kingdom left because they started deleting his posts for no reason. If I remember correctly, before he left, he made a topic stating that he was leaving because his posts being deleted in the movie topics was an act of silencing his opinion. Also, there were quite a few people that were frequently attacked and dogged about hating the new movie and personally attacked when they made a good reason why. I had quite a few people state that my opinion didn't matter because I was 14 and a certain someone put a certain fictional character's bloody head on a pole in their sig to try and scare me off. The best reason I got for getting the boot was that my opinion ticked-off a bunch of people or that "I didn't belong there". If that's not trying to force an opinion off, I don't know what is.

I'm not entirely certain this is a suitable thread to bring up other-site baggage? There's enough silly posts and light posturing as it is IMHO. I don't see that as advocating censorship, just good manners, although I am curious as to your experience at seibs. If by any chance you feel like talking about such things with AK and others, the link in my sig may prove interesting?

Smooth, I hope you don't include me in the people that statement references. If you do, let me know via PM so we can have some words, there's a good chap. Ta!

Sorry for the threadrot.

[Best First]

I'm not entirely certain this is a suitable thread to bring up other-site baggage?

i would agree - less of this please.

[Yaya]

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/404676

You have got to be kidding me.

Pro-gun lobby strengthened following U.S. campus shooting
Monday, April 23, 2007 at 07:33 EDT

WASHINGTON — The powerful U.S. gun lobby, far from being weakened by last week's tragic college campus shooting, actually has emerged stronger, gun advocates said, stepping up calls Sunday for a better-armed citizenry to prevent future attacks.

Gun rights advocates said that following last week's massacre, in which 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui fatally shot 32 victims at Virginia Tech University, gun control forces will be hard pressed to make the case for tighter restrictions.

"This is a huge nail in the coffin of gun control," said Philip Van Cleave, president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League.

"They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves," he said.

"You want people to be able to defend themselves — always," he said.

This can all mean only one thing:
Gordon: And what about escalation?
Batman: Escalation?
Gordon: We start carrying semi-automatics, they buy automatics. We start wearing Kevlar...they buy armor-piercing rounds.
Batman: And?
Gordon: And you're wearing a mask… and jumping off rooftops. Now, take this new guy. Armed robbery, double homicide. Got a taste for the theatrical. Like you. Leaves a calling card. [hands Batman a Joker playing card

Yes, folks.

The Joker is coming.

[Professor Smooth]

I'm not entirely certain this is a suitable thread to bring up other-site baggage?

i would agree - less of this please.

Apologies all around.

That news link is sickening. The solution to gun violence is more guns? Perhaps the solution to drug abuse is more drugs! The solution to domestic violence perhaps is everyone should beat their spouses?

I know! Let's just make murder legal! After all, if shooting people were legal, it wouldn't be a crime! Gun crime would drop to 0 percent!

[Professor Smooth]

I have thought of a simple way to keep these shootings from happening while allowing people to keep their precious guns.

When you encounter another person (someone you know, someone you don't know, it doesn't matter), you are presented with several actions to choose from.

Action number one: Walk past them.

Action number two: Walk past them, perhaps nod in their direction.

Action number three: Bump them roughly and say "s'up faggot?" then keep walking.

By eliminating action number three, I can definately see the murder numbers coming down. You don't necessarily have to be nice to every person you come across, but some level of politeness doesn't seem like so much to ask.

I brought this up on another forum and somebody said that I this would "create a nation of pussies." Is that true? Is excercising some level of politeness going to create a nation of pussies? Because if you honestly want to hold on to both your right to own a gun and the right to treat total strangers with utter contempt, then there isn't a whole lot that can be done for you.

I'm not blaming the victims, but I am also saying that there seems to be a pattern with these kids who come to school and blast their classmates. You don't usually see the Prom King, the Football Captain, or even the kid who sits at the back of math class laughing with his friends on the news with the subtitle "Killed dozens of people" under their picture.

Again, I'm not saying that you should go out and kill people who are mean to you, but I am definately saying that it happens. As has been pointed out before, the mind is a strange thing and when its very angry it causes the body to do some really strange things.

[Hot Shot]

I have thought of a simple way to keep these shootings from happening while allowing people to keep their precious guns.

When you encounter another person (someone you know, someone you don't know, it doesn't matter), you are presented with several actions to choose from.

Action number one: Walk past them.

Action number two: Walk past them, perhaps nod in their direction.

Action number three: Bump them roughly and say "s'up faggot?" then keep walking.

By eliminating action number three, I can definately see the murder numbers coming down. You don't necessarily have to be nice to every person you come across, but some level of politeness doesn't seem like so much to ask.

I brought this up on another forum and somebody said that I this would "create a nation of pussies." Is that true? Is excercising some level of politeness going to create a nation of pussies? Because if you honestly want to hold on to both your right to own a gun and the right to treat total strangers with utter contempt, then there isn't a whole lot that can be done for you.

I'm not blaming the victims, but I am also saying that there seems to be a pattern with these kids who come to school and blast their classmates. You don't usually see the Prom King, the Football Captain, or even the kid who sits at the back of math class laughing with his friends on the news with the subtitle "Killed dozens of people" under their picture.

Again, I'm not saying that you should go out and kill people who are mean to you, but I am definately saying that it happens. As has been pointed out before, the mind is a strange thing and when its very angry it causes the body to do some really strange things.

I don't think it'll create a nation of pussies. I think it would make the nation stronger. If everyone was a lot nicer to others, we would get along better and strive. Fewer would be picked on, therefore fewer would be a victim of bullying and suffer the mental problems that lead up to school shootings. Also, the number of people who join gangs for friends would be down, weakening gangs. As an effect of this, parents will let their kids outside more and shrink the number of obese kids in the US. Not to sound like a hippie, but can't we all just get along?


As for the latest derailment for this thread, I'm sorry. My first statement was ment to be a witty joke. Nothing more, nothing less. I'll try to watch my mouth/hands next time.

[Professor Smooth]

Dropping some of the collective weight would be good. Since this board is populated mostly by people from outside the United States, I'm sure you know that the reputation of Americans is not great.

Not great, but fairly accurate.

[Shanti418]

Let me throw something out to play devil's advocate slightly, a viewpoint articulated by a professor I have:

America is a nation of immigrants. Immigrants that often were escaping from oppressive social institutions, often government.

As such, the collective conciousness of America is fundamentally against big government. On a macro level, Americans want the power in their states, not the nation. On a micro level, they want personal responsibility, not rules handed down by people in DC. We are a conservative country that had a slight hiccup of liberalism from the 40s to the 60s and the only reason THAT even happened was because of the extenuating circumstances of the Great Depression/WW II.

So, viewed in that perspective, while having the type of freewheeling gun laws may not be prudent, it certainly is what Americans want and is certainly in line with our historical tendancy. Americans would rather have their guns and have people shot up every so often than have the federal government impose laws upon them just people some OTHER people can't handle their weaponry.

And, also viewed in this state's rights perspective, it makes total sense and it's totally cool for NYC to say no guns and for Virginia to go guns for everybody.

On a fundamental level, it gets back to, "Is the government there to control/guide the population it represents, or is it supposed to reflect it?"





But on another point, I totally have to disagree with you, Smooth. Americans would TOTALLY kick our military's ass. We've got some crazy gun nuts. Not only do I personally hold an idealistic viewpoint that the military (especially at this juncture in its history) is not brainwashed enough to fire upon US civillians, but on a sarcastic national pride level, I'm like, "Hold on a second, you're telling me that our crazy gun loving militia forming bomb making nutsos that are born and bred right here in the USA can't do as well as the "insurgency" in Iraq? Pssh. I can already see the crazy white militia guys blending into the population, sending unmanned car bombs into security checkpoints, and making RPGs out of household ingredients. lol

[The Last Autobot]

Not only do I personally hold an idealistic viewpoint that the military (especially at this juncture in its history) is not brainwashed enough to fire upon US civillians

Too idealistic, I think.

[Shanti418]

Probably why I qualified it with the word idealistic. I still believe it to be so, though.

[sprunkner]

I brought this up on another forum

I think we have proven that the rest of the internet is a scary, scary place.

[Professor Smooth]

I personally hold an idealistic viewpoint that the military (especially at this juncture in its history) is not brainwashed enough to fire upon US civillians...

Ever heard of Kent State?