Thread: I really hate people

you have the freedom to speak until it becomes a threatening gesture


now if you want to go writin threatning gestures, go ahead be my guest. but dont expext me to just watch you and not do anything

Just another sign of the post S11 madness/paranoia/fear that has gripped the US (whipped up by irresponsible media like FOX).
Parents now suspect even their own children are turning into random killers (with only a shred of evidence).

Before you put the kid in goal (jail)...........

Did the kid have a gun/bomb ect?
Did the kid actually recruit/mention the plan to any others?
Is there ANY indication that this was more than a story (he was writting)?

>> prompting liberals to propose more "assault weapon" bans, which in turn prevent law-abiding citizens like me from owning them for sporting purposes.

Like shooting other hunters..........

You don't need an auto to go hunting.
You don't need a gun period.
You are not a member of a milita (so you do not have the right to bear arms)

I say he needs to be locked up indefinitely. When people are allowed to shoot up their school, it affects more than just the victims. The media will often wrongly identify the shooter's weapon, or put great emphasis on it, prompting liberals to propose more "assault weapon" bans, which in turn prevent law-abiding citizens like me from owning them for sporting purposes.

Yeah. It's not guns that kill people, it's killer kids playing video games that are the real threat. Wake up. No one needs an assault weapon for any other purpose than killing. And the times where you had to hunt yourself a mammoth for breakfast to survive are long gone.

From the article, all he ever did was write down his fantasies. He did not possess weapons or harmful materials. He did not have any training with weapons or explosives. All there is, is a written down fantasy he never showed anyone and never acted upon.

The pen is mightier than the sword, but really, without a weapon, what threat is he ? Coming into school one day, clad in black, hyped up on killer video games, listening to Ramstein, choking every single student to death in a 3 day marathon ? I'd say that's unlikely even for a frustrated teen.

Busting a teen for his private fantasies he never made public on his own while allowing normal people to legally own tools for mass murder is the most hypocritical thing I ever heard. But I'm just from "old" europe anyway, enjoy your freedom of speech and your right to shoot someone if you please and don't listen to me.


BTW: If I move to the US, can I own a tank for sporting purposes ?

Owning, studying, and shooting firearms is my hobby. It is great fun, and owning guns doesn't make me a killer.

Owning, studying, and detonating nuclear warheads is my hobby. It is great fun, and owning warheads doesn't make me a killer

Oh, if you move to the US, you could own a tank, but probably not with an active cannon on it.

Why no active cannon ? For sporting purposes, come on. I won't hurt anyone.
If I can't get an active cannon, why can you get an active assault weapon ?


In my opinion there is a line between tools which have a purpose other than killing and tools who were built for killing. A Knife for example is a useful tool. An M16 is a weapon. Both can kill people. However, the knife has a purpose that is helpful while the focus of the M16 is harmful. And it's the governments job to protect their people from harm.

If a story in your journal can get you arrested...

When will they start raiding the D&D conventions?

Its about time those evil little nerds pretending to be wizzards/elves/warriors got what they deserved (a real encounter with a 'troll' named Bubba in a very dank cell).

> Owning, studying, and detonating nuclear warheads is my hobby. It is great fun, and owning warheads doesn't make me a killer

Oh come on, that's a horrible analogy. I'm as left as they come, and even I think that the AWB is a stupid idea. I don't think people should own guns, but it's a constitutional right and the way the AWB determines what an "assualt weapon" is beyond retarded.

nvoigt, quit being so close-minded. You're dismissing the fact that Sturmwaffle never doubted the mental stability of others yet at the same time in the right hands, such as his, assult rifles can be fun.

Look at pyrotechnics and sirens. Both great hobbies with serious crime potential...but they're both very fascinating for some to study.

Shadow, you're dismissing the fact that I never doubted the mental stability of others yet at the same time in the right hands, such as mine, nuclear warheads can be fun.


I don't know how the US laws define assault weapons. For me, an assault weapon is any weapon that can automatically fire more than one bullet when you pull the trigger. I can see single shot shooting as sports, but I don't see a valid reason to spray a target with bullets for fun. Applying the same logic to my example, why can't I have a fully functional tank in the US ? Why is there a line between a tank and an assault rifle that I'm not allowed to cross ? What defines that line ?

Remember, if you outlaw tanks, only outlaws will have tanks


Don't get me wrong, Europeans have their own problems and school shootings. But here, if a guy had a gun, he had either a non-automatic weapon going through a lot of screenings to get it, or he stole it in some way. If people want to kill, you cannot stop them properly. Anyone can kill you at any time with any tool available. But I don't think we should give people the tools to do this easily without any additional benefit. If you like shooting, you don't need an automatic 7.62 or 5.56 for it. A normal low caliber rifle with high reload times is enough fun for a low risk in my opinion.

In the end, it's your ( the US American's ) choice how you want to live. But especially in this thread, I think that you value the laws you already have which are constructive ( free speech and thoughts ) not enough and put too much trust into laws that seem destructive ( right to arm bears... err... whatever ).

I'm more afraid of someone armed than someone fantasizing in his own home.

> I don't know how the US laws define assault weapons.

The weapons banned in the AWB are banned by very arbitrary things, like the ability to attach a bayonet or having a ported barrel (not sure on the last one, but I seem to remember it). It's got nothing to do with whether or not the guns are automatic - those have been banned for a long time already.

> Remember, if you outlaw tanks, only outlaws will have tanks

Tanks are prohibitively expensive. If there were a bunch of people actually buying them and using them, there would be laws in place (there are probably already laws about this, but I have never heard of a private citizen owning a tank).

> A normal low caliber rifle with high reload times is enough fun for a low risk in my opinion.

Your opinion of what's fun doesn't shape American firearms laws.

there are probably already laws about this, but I have never heard of a private citizen owning a tank

I'm sure that there are laws about it. I'm just curious where the majority of the US citizens draws the line between (little risk and much gain ) and ( too much risk for little gain ). I personally think that any tool that's primary purpose is killing other humans should be outlawed. For me, thats Tanks as well as shotguns, mps, mgs, flamethrowers, semi-auto rifles etc. Obviously Americans think differently. I'm interested where US citizens draw that line. A semi-automatic rifle seems fine. A Tank does not. What about a Humvee with a rocket launcher ? Humvee with MG ? MG without Humvee ? M without G ? Where is the line and why do you draw it where you do.

According to laws in place now, the line is drawn basically where you said it should be. Automatic weapons are illegal, semiautomatics are not (unless they fall under some of the AWB's dumber bans). All the other stuff you mentioned is already illegal.

I might be wrong here, but you sound like you think Americans can and do own everything under the sun that fires a projectile. That's simply untrue.

How so?