Guys, I'm going to meet the president

[WiiCube_2013]

Well u need to understand the GLOBAL SHIT BAG that worthless donkey's Ass G.W. Bush left in his wake.....talk about white trash in its finest form.....Now of course people expected Roses n Sugar over night but Reality doesnt work that way He is only a Man not a Magic Imp and u need to also Understand that the real reason he hasn't been able to accomplish more is Due to the other Garbage know as Republicans.....bunch of Cock-Blocking Ingrates

The republicans are the problem? Sure! Sure they are!

That's like asking why people who vote Republican throughout their lives vote solely on Romney because he's Republican. People like things they can identify with simple as that. Fun fact: Yes Obama got 93% of the black vote but only 11% of all voters were black. So obviously a good chunk of Caucasians liked his policies too. Also, how can you say he brought nothing good to the US when you don't even live in the US? Your basing your opinion on what you see on tv/internet.

Obviously my source is the internet for news in US, besides getting the news on paper isn't any different heck, who buys newspaper any more?

I prefer RussiaToday as they tend to expose US for their flaws but while at it they're truthful unlike CNN/FOX or etc.

By the way, Prime Ministers in other countries in the beginning made promises but failed to deliver them when they were Prime Ministers so it's not just in US that this shit happens.

They're overall just puppets who get paid to put their act on and some people believe that's what it's going on (Obama believers).

 

[GamerSince83]

Yeah u would prefer Russia u Commie Bastard

People who don't actually live in the US have no say or opinion on the Matter........

 

[Chaosruler]

It's a mentality problem, Veho. Some Americans have a deeply ingrained belief that they have the constitutional right to live in the 19th century and open carry assault rifles for no reason other than "because they can".
Nintendo already provides you with a "good solution" to backup your 3DS software - buy games on the eShop and backup the files from your SD card or make a complete SD card image and store it for safekeeping. As for backing up cartridges, this has always been a problem.

well, arrest those people? illegal gun storage is illegal gun storage regardless of the reason, and counts as a violation of UN rules and support terrorism indirectly worldwide, I want to see the face of a guy charged with those and I want to see him near a weapon, even a cold one, after that... if there's no lead by example you won't get anything

 

[Foxi4]

well, arrest those people? illegal gun storage is illegal gun storage regardless of the reason, and counts as a violation of UN rules and support terrorism indirectly worldwide, I want to see the face of a guy charged with those and I want to see him near a weapon, even a cold one, after that... if there's no lead by example you won't get anything

There are several states in the U.S. where openly carrying a rifle is perfectly legal (even though it won't help you in a one-on-one self-defence scenario since it's too unwieldy - a handgun is far more well-suited for the purpose, rifles are long-range weapons and muggers don't mug from a long range) and some allow it for "traveling to and back from fishing or hunting grounds", so essentially if you're stopped by the police, all you have to do is convince the officers that you're coming back from a fishing trip. In other words, you can walk around with any kind of gun as long as you have a fishing rod with you as well.

 

[grossaffe]

I live in an open-carry state. It's perfectly legal to walk around with a gun that is in plain-sight (or a machete, for that matter). In order to legally carry a concealed firearm, you need a Concealed Carry Permit. Unfortunately such document does not apply to knives, so if I want to carry around a knife to defend myself (very handy for close-quarters combat), I have to keep it to 3" or shorter, or carry it out in the open where a potential attacker could see it and reach for it prior to the attack. Can't even carry around brass knuckles for hand-to-hand defense, either :/.

That being said, in the part of the state I live in, I pretty much never see someone openly carrying. I'm having trouble thinking of any time I've seen someone open carry.

 

[Chaosruler]

There are several states in the U.S. where openly carrying a rifle is perfectly legal (even though it won't help you in a one-on-one self-defence scenario since it's too unwieldy - a handgun is far more well-suited for the purpose, rifles are long-range weapons and muggers don't mug from a long range) and some allow it for "traveling to and back from fishing or hunting grounds", so essentially if you're stopped by the police, all you have to do is convince the officers that you're coming back from a fishing trip. In other words, you can walk around with any kind of gun as long as you have a fishing rod with you as well.

that depends, I will have more problems handling a situation in close combat using a sidearm than with rifle, remember at close combat rifle's only use is not only it's shooting power

I live in an open-carry state. It's perfectly legal to walk around with a gun that is in plain-sight (or a machete, for that matter). In order to legally carry a concealed firearm, you need a Concealed Carry Permit. Unfortunately such document does not apply to knives, so if I want to carry around a knife to defend myself (very handy for close-quarters combat), I have to keep it to 3" or shorter, or carry it out in the open where a potential attacker could see it and reach for it prior to the attack. Can't even carry around brass knuckles for hand-to-hand defense, either :/.




That being said, in the part of the state I live in, I pretty much never see someone openly carrying. I'm having trouble thinking of any time I've seen someone open carry.

I have seen kills by a inch long finger nail, simply google some knife training courses and you will see that anything sharp can at least disarm a person

 

[Foxi4]

that depends, I will have more problems handling a situation in close combat using a sidearm than with rifle, remember at close combat rifle's only use is not only it's shooting power

Self-defense is a piss-poor excuse to carry a loaded rifle in public, it's just begging for a tragedy. In a truly dangerous situation, there's a fair chance that you're going to miss and harm an innocent by-stander, and when not shooting, what are you going to do, use the butt of the rifle? The moment you use a rifle as a staff you know you're doing self-defense wrong. There's a myriad of weapons that are more well-suited for self-defense - tasers, pepper sprays, knives - you name it, and none of those endanger the crowd around you. In fact, chances are that you're not going to do anything with your rifle anyways when you already have a knife in your back. Rifles are simply unwieldy and they're rarely used in CQC situations, at least not their fully-sized versions - it's for this reason alone that SMG's and short versions of rifles were invented. Even worse, I've seen videos where people advocate openly carrying shotguns loaded with buckshot - ammunition that has the obvious characteristic of wide spread, meaning you'll harm the attacker and everything around him while at it, which is insane when you're in a crowd. A shotgun or a rifle is something you use for defense of structures - it's something a shopkeep can put under the counter in case someone tries to rob him, it's not something you carry on your back. It's the 21st century, we're not in the wild, wild west anymore.

 

[nando]

that's a lot of packaging for a single lunch. does obama not care about the environment?

 

[grossaffe]

I have seen kills by a inch long finger nail, simply google some knife training courses and you will see that anything sharp can at least disarm a person

Well almost anything CAN be a lethal weapon, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer a longer one. I know a thing or two about hand-to-hand combat and knife-wielding, but in a life-or-death scenario, I'd rather have better tools available to me. Of course the best tool to avoid being mugged is awareness of your surroundings. I hate walking around the city at night alone because as a smaller person I know I've got a bit of a target on my back, so I keep my head on a swivel and my hand on my knife (it's a folding knife, but it's a wave-open design so if I pull it out properly, it'll be ready to go as soon as I remove it from my pants pocket.

 

[TheCasketMan]

On the ticket it says: "All attendees will go through airport like security"
Have fun with the pat-downs or xray scanners.

 

[calmwaters]

It's a mentality problem, Veho. Some Americans have a deeply ingrained belief that they have the constitutional right to live in the 19th century and open carry assault rifles for no reason other than "because they can".

Yes, we do have a right to carry assault rifles because we can. It doesn't matter what century we live in: we've had the right to carry assault rifles since 1789. Our forefathers realized we had the right to defend ourselves from psychopaths and serial killers. And just because people are scared of them shouldn't take away our right to protect ourselves from psychopaths and serial killers. I even think you have this right in your country: to protect yourselves from psychopaths and serial killers. But some people think that owning a gun will make them trigger happy, which is really stupid. If I owned a gun, I certainly wouldn't develop an urge to go outside and shoot everything in sight. Then again, I'm not a deranged lunatic. But I'm sure you've noticed that most Americans are not very smart. We're a nation of people who rely on our phones instead of our brains.

 

[Clydefrosch]

somehow, i always have to laught when i see people talking about close quarter combat and how you definitely need weapons to protect yourself at all times.
we people in the west have never lived in a more peaceful and quiet time than today. we've literally never been as statistically safe as today. and yet people claim they need knifes, tasers and at least 3 guns to feel safe outside.. when pretty much the only reason not to feel safe outside, is the large amount of people who see the need to walk around town armed to the teeth.

all i carry around is a cheap wooden kubotan. its basically a pointy piece of wood which is enough to defend myself if anyone was ever to assault me, drunk or because i 'looked at them funny'
its also about as much as your average person is able to control in a sudden and stressful situation. its almost impossible to take away from you because you have a strong hold on it and unlike a knife or a gun, it can be carried around loosely and doesnt need any preparation, again unlike a knife that you usually carry in a holster or need to flip or draw out at least somewhat carefully not to injure yourself etc.
make it a reinforced umbrella or cane for the elderly for that additional range.
as it has been pointed out, a gun or even a knife ends up becoming significantly more dangerous for any bystanders and yourself, than it is to your assailant.

if people were just going to accept that there will never be 100% certainty to safety and that a gun doesnt affect your safety level in a significant way, but generally affects everyone elses safety level negatively (not to mention that every gun carried around by an idiot or by some old dude is pretty much a gun that ends up in the criminally wrong hands eventually) we'd all life much safer lives.
and no, just because theres not a gun in every house wont mean that suddenly, criminals will rise from the shadows like they would if batman bites the dust. maybe for a little while. but with excessive gun control and regulation, that would eventually fade. and it would be worth it.


ps: to the comment above, i believe that, statistically, a gun owned is a gun fired. how many people do you think died during unofficial 'gun practice'? psychologically, people think way to simple. theres a gun in my house > i feel remotely insecure > grab gun > cause tragedy > shouldn't have grabbed the gun when I knew my son would come back from university sometime this week > ooops
thats not every case. but its the big majority. if psychology has taught us anything, its that people are inherently irrational (to the point where even in the few times where they seem to act rationally, they're actually acting irrational and the irrationality just happens to cancel out itself between many people) even when everything is normal and ok.

also, believing that a law, any law, could be universally true for all eternity, is ridiculously irrational too 19th century gun laws apply best to 19th century circumstances (though probably not even back then)

 

[Foxi4]

Yes, we do have a right to carry assault rifles because we can. It doesn't matter what century we live in: we've had the right to carry assault rifles since 1789. Our forefathers realized we had the right to defend ourselves from psychopaths and serial killers. And just because people are scared of them shouldn't take away our right to protect ourselves from psychopaths and serial killers. I even think you have this right in your country: to protect yourselves from psychopaths and serial killers. But some people think that owning a gun will make them trigger happy, which is really stupid. If I owned a gun, I certainly wouldn't develop an urge to go outside and shoot everything in sight. Then again, I'm not a deranged lunatic. But I'm sure you've noticed that most Americans are not very smart. We're a nation of people who rely on our phones instead of our brains.

Please don't be ridiculous. The reason why your forefathers included legislature that allows everyone to openly carry firearms in the constitution is that at the time the U.S. was actually under threat of foreign invasion, not to mention domestic threats. The circumstances in which these laws were established are no longer present and completely invalid, which is why the law should be revised to better fit the present state of matters. By your logic, we should still uphold slavery since "the forefathers thought it was a good idea" or castrate gay men because Thomas Jefferson specifically said so. Times change and the law has to reflect that, otherwise it becomes completely outdated. The country was instable so people owned guns - plain and simple. These days I heard every single story from self-defense (which is a sensible right, but it has to be responsibly executed) to "protecting oneself from an injust government and being able to overthrow it if it becomes tyranical" which is downright insane.

I have nothing against gun ownership - in fact, I encourage it. Thing is, gun owners have to be responsible people who are fit to use the weapons they own. Sitting in Starbucks with an AR-15 over your shoulder or walking around a neighbourhood with it does not protect you in any shape or form - all you're causing is distress to other civilians who simply don't know if you're a nutter or not. You want to own a firearm? Go ahead - pass psychological, physical, theoretical and practical tests, that's good grounds to give you a license, and then pass them at regular intervals to make sure that you are still fit in body and mind to own one.

Just "being American" shouldn't give you the indispensible right to own a gun - we've seen dozens upon dozens of cases where an irresponsible parent left a gun right there in the open, their irresponsible child took it and accidentally (or worse, on purpose) shot someone with it - if that weapon was in a safe as it should be, a tragedy probably wouldn't happen. We're not talking about "taking away yer guns", we're talking about responsible gun ownership which is regulated for the benefit of all citizens, not just Jimbo who wants to walk around with a semi-automatic.

 

[calmwaters]

Please don't be ridiculous. The reason why your forefathers included legislature that allows everyone to openly carry firearms in the constitution is that at the time the U.S. was actually under threat of foreign invasion, not to mention domestic threats. The circumstances in which these laws were established are no longer present and completely invalid, which is why the law should be revised to better fit the present state of matters. By your logic, we should still uphold slavery since "the forefathers thought it was a good idea" or castrate gay men because Thomas Jefferson specifically said so. Times change and the law has to reflect that, otherwise it becomes completely outdated. The country was unstable so people owned guns - plain and simple. These days I heard every single story from self-defense (which is a sensible right, but it has to be responsibly executed) to "protecting oneself from an injust government and being able to overthrow it if it becomes tyrannical" which is downright insane.

Threat of foreign invasion? By whom? King George was leveling unfair taxes on us and then sent soldiers to ensure those taxes were paid. And when we sent a document requesting these taxes to be repealed, he hired foreign mercenaries to bring us back under his subjection. Domestic threats? Perhaps you're referring to the Tories, who insisted King George was looking out for us and that the presence of the soldiers kept us safe from the French. About the country being unstable: do you think we are more stable than we were 300 years ago? And about the slavery issue: why don't you watch 1776 and get back to me on this one? It should be available through your movie streaming service. Also, King George became a tyrant, so we were forced to revolt against him. We sent him and Parliament a list of our grievances and he did nothing. I suppose that is crazy, but it was the right thing to do.

I have nothing against gun ownership - in fact, I encourage it. Thing is, gun owners have to be responsible people who are fit to use the weapons they own. Sitting in Starbucks with an AR-15 over your shoulder or walking around a neighbourhood with it does not protect you in any shape or form - all you're causing is distress to other civilians who simply don't know if you're a nutter or not. You want to own a firearm? Go ahead - pass psychological, physical, theoretical and practical tests, that's good grounds to give you a license, and then pass them at regular intervals to make sure that you are still fit in body and mind to own one.

Indeed. If you're going to own an AR-15 or a sniper rifle, then use some common sense in what you do with it. There's no need to take it to the mall unless it's a gang'sta mall and it's just the thing to carry guns around there.

Just "being American" shouldn't give you the indispensible right to own a gun - we've seen dozens upon dozens of cases where an irresponsible parent left a gun right there in the open, their irresponsible child took it and accidentally (or worse, on purpose) shot someone with it - if that weapon was in a safe as it should be, a tragedy probably wouldn't happen. We're not talking about "taking away yer guns", we're talking about responsible gun ownership which is regulated for the benefit of all citizens, not just Jimbo who wants to walk around with a semi-automatic.

It's not my fault an irresponsible parent left their gun in reach of a 6 year old. This is a really bullshit excuse to say I shouldn't have the right to own a gun. I'm not stupid enough to leave a semi-automatic weapon where a four year old can have access to it. I wish I could say the same for other adults. It is also my belief that if the citizens don't (or won't) regulate what they do, then some third party will have to step in and regulate it for them. And you know what happens when a third party comes in and regulates the way you live your life? No thank you: my life won't be regulated because of some lazy dipshits' inability to look out for themselves.

 

[Gahars]

Threat of foreign invasion? By whom?

You know, England, France, only the two biggest, most ambitious powers of the time. Considering that Napoleon was fully intending an invasion of the Americas, and that England invaded not 25 years after the ratification of the Constitution, these were pretty well justified fears.

King George was leveling unfair taxes on us and then sent soldiers to ensure those taxes were paid. And when we sent a document requesting these taxes to be repealed, he hired foreign mercenaries to bring us back under his subjection. Domestic threats? Perhaps you're referring to the Tories, who insisted King George was looking out for us and that the presence of the soldiers kept us safe from the French. About the country being unstable: do you think we are more stable than we were 300 years ago?

You're focus on the Revolutionary War; the Constitution was made 9 or so years after it ended under very different circumstances.

As for Domestic Threats - well, ignoring the Native population (some of whom weren't all that friendly, understandably), there was also great fears of insurrection. I mean, we had the Whiskey Rebellion just 2 years into Washington's Presidency. The rebellions may have been relatively containable, but revolt was a serious threat.

As for the stability question... duh? Come on, try and think a little here.

And about the slavery issue: why don't you watch 1776 and get back to me on this one? It should be available through your movie streaming service.

Yes, because kitschy musicals are a reliable academic resource.

I mean, I quite enjoy Jesus Christ Superstar, but that doesn't mean it holds any weight for Bible studies.

 

[Foxi4]

Threat of foreign invasion? By whom? King George was leveling unfair taxes on us and then sent soldiers to ensure those taxes were paid. And when we sent a document requesting these taxes to be repealed, he hired foreign mercenaries to bring us back under his subjection. Domestic threats? Perhaps you're referring to the Tories, who insisted King George was looking out for us and that the presence of the soldiers kept us safe from the French. About the country being unstable: do you think we are more stable than we were 300 years ago? And about the slavery issue: why don't you watch 1776 and get back to me on this one? It should be available through your movie streaming service. Also, King George became a tyrant, so we were forced to revolt against him. We sent him and Parliament a list of our grievances and he did nothing. I suppose that is crazy, but it was the right thing to do.

You're actually proving my point here, I'm not sure if you've noticed. I'm well-aware of the pre and post colonial history of the United States, after all, I study it. By immediate external threat I did mean a possible invasion by the British, the French or even the Spanish and by internal threats I meant "Indians", or to be politically correct, Native Americans who were increasingly pissed off at the colonizers, the slews of outlaws and other bandits as well as any internal disputes which followed shortly after (in historical terms) in the form of the American Civil War.

The fact that the United States of America were not even a country prior to signing the declaration of independence aside (meaning that the all problems related to unjust taxation, the Tea Trade Act, the Townshend Acts, the Stamp Act or the Quartering Act are all invalid arguments since they refer to colonies, not to the United States and they're the immediate causes of the revolutionary war but have little to do with the country formed later), the country is infinitely more stable now that it's not a territory of dispute between serveral colonizing powers. You are under no threat of the United Kingdom, France, Spain or any other nation trying to reclaim the colonies, nor are you under any threat of a civil war since the U.S. is not a young state anymore, nor are you under the threat of a sudden and unexpected uprising of Native Americans, nor is going to the grocery store *cough cough* "General Store" a momentous adventure during which you might get jumped by Billy Kid anymore, so clearly brandishing firearms in broad daylight is no longer a requirement.

Indeed. If you're going to own an AR-15 or a sniper rifle, then use some common sense in what you do with it. There's no need to take it to the mall unless it's a gang'sta mall and it's just the thing to carry guns around there.

At least here we agree.

It's not my fault an irresponsible parent left their gun in reach of a 6 year old. This is a really bullshit excuse to say I shouldn't have the right to own a gun. I'm not stupid enough to leave a semi-automatic weapon where a four year old can have access to it. I wish I could say the same for other adults. It is also my belief that if the citizens don't (or won't) regulate what they do, then some third party will have to step in and regulate it for them. And you know what happens when a third party comes in and regulates the way you live your life? No thank you: my life won't be regulated because of some lazy dipshits' inability to look out for themselves.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have the right to own a gun - I'm saying that gun ownership should be monitored and regulated. You need a license to drive a car, I don't see why you shouldn't need a license to own and use a firearm, and to obtain said license, you should meet certain criteria.

 

[calmwaters]

You know, England, France, only the two biggest, most ambitious powers of the time. Considering that Napoleon was fully intending an invasion of the Americas, and that England invaded not 15 years after the ratification of the Constitution, these were pretty well justified fears.

Part of the reason England was taxing us was to support the war they were having with France. That was of no concern to us; we were more upset about the taxes they forced us to pay. Napoleon might've considered invading our country, but fortunately England stopped him. The War of 1812 wasn't related to our struggle for independence... we'd already won it.

You're focus on the Revolutionary War; the Constitution was made 9 or so years after it ended under very different circumstances.

Let me put it this way: if we hadn't won the Revolutionary War, we would've been subjected to tyrannical rule for the rest of history. And in addition to the Declaration of Independence, we also had to have a way of governing ourselves should we win our independence.

As for Domestic Threats - well, ignoring the Native population (some of whom weren't all that friendly, understandably), there was also great fears of insurrection. I mean, we had the Whiskey Rebellion just 2 years into Washington's Presidency. The rebellions may have been relatively containable, but revolt was a serious threat.

I don't get what you're trying to say with this. Drinking whiskey was a sin in the Northerners' eyes, but the South depended on it for their income. The South also depended on slaves. To this very day, Southerners are still very backward. I should know: I lived there. They hide their contempt for outsiders by their shows of religion.

As for the stability question... duh? Come on, try and think a little here.

My point exactly. We weren't very stable then; we aren't very stable now.

Yes, because kitschy musicals are a reliable academic resource.

I mean, I quite enjoy Jesus Christ Superstar, but that doesn't mean it holds any weight for Bible studies.

Now you're just being silly. Have you ever heard of movies that are based on real life events? Well, here's one. And since you have such a good understanding of our history, why don't you try watching it and see how closely it reflects what actually happened? Then we can have a meaningful discussion about it instead of mindless bashing.

 

[grossaffe]

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have the right to own a gun - I'm saying that gun ownership should be monitored and regulated. You need a license to drive a car, I don't see why you shouldn't need a license to own and use a firearm, and to obtain said license, you should meet certain criteria.

The first step in disarming the populous is registering them. The state of California passed a law banning assault weapons (side note, the use of the term assault weapon is pretty dumb as what separates them from other rifles is pretty much that they look scarier) with a grandfather clause that if you already owned one, you could keep it if you registered it. Shortly thereafter, they passed a law completely abolishing them, and this time they had a nice list of where to find all of them.

 

[Foxi4]

The first step in disarming the populous is registering them. The state of California passed a law banning assault weapons (side note, the use of the term assault weapon is pretty dumb as what separates them from other rifles is pretty much that they look scarier) with a grandfather clause that if you already owned one, you could keep it if you registered it. Shortly thereafter, they passed a law completely abolishing them, and this time they had a nice list of where to find all of them.

Today in Conspiracy Theory Monthly: "Anecdotal Evidence Proves My Point!", a charming story about little Jimmy who couldn't buy an AK47.

Seriously though, by this logic, the United States government plans on taking away all your cars because they require you to have a driving license. Before you know it, Obama will liberate your fishing rods because fishing permits are required to legally fish.

 

[Mr.Kattykat]

So hey guys how about that Obama bloke then