Spring RTS Engine

Zpock wrote:

Theyre not retarded manicidial killers with assault rifles for fuck's sake, theyre men just like you. And theyre there to commit burglary, not murder.

rofl the burglar is a decent fellow just like the guy he's robbing, honestly earning his daily bread. GOD GAAAD if someone unwelcomely tries to stop him, depriving him of his right to make a living.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

I would not want to lose/see her raped because she was home alone defenseless when someone breaks in to steal a tv.

smoth wrote:I would not want to lose/see her raped because she was home alone defenseless when someone breaks in to steal a tv.

women are defenceless

is that what you're saying

you monster!!!

tombom wrote: women are defenceless

Not with this new anti-rape device!

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=2140

I actually hear that has become quite the thing in the BDSM community in some places.

Ok I know this is wired coming from a 14 year old but... This point varies froum state to state but in Washington you are aloud to use lethal fores if you or your family is thretend of bodily harm by an introder, if that means he has a crowbar or if he starts walking twords you with clench fists I beleave, that means you are in fear of bodily harm or your life, that gives you the right to use lethal fores. If he attacks you or is in your home eleagly he has given up the right of most of the U.S. Law, I belive. If he is steeling your stuff I beleave you my fisicly detain him but if he starts to attack you you may use lethal fores. If you are in a store and it gets held up than you have the right to defend anyone in that store if you are in that store.
I belive this is washington law if not, it's close. I have a right to talk because we live in one of the worst meth counties in Washington, U.S. and my brother is a gun smith and I own a rifle and a shotgun and I don't hunt.
I hope this has cleared up some stuff.

Florida has strong protections for property owners and for innocent victims of crime in general. In Florida, you may use reasonable force to prevent a criminal from being on your property or in your home, including use of firearms if necessary. Additionally, a "stand your ground" law was recently passed to protect innocent victims of crime from violent criminals. If you are threatened with violence or physical force - if, say, a man on the street pulls a knife on you and demands that you get into his car to go to the bank and withdraw all of the money in your account and give it to him (has actually happened to multiple people in my community), you are not required to attempt to reason with the man or attempt to escape before defending yourself with force, assuming you are somewhere where it is legal to carry a firearm.

I know you Eurosocialists wouldn't understand, but you're all full of love for criminals anyways. I can't understand how you value a criminal's rights over those of his victims. It totally boggles my mind...

Im a Euro, and I don't Felix, ciminals deserve everything that's coming to them, I wish the British government wasn't so easy going, a friggin burglar attempted to sue some guy he was trying to rob becaue he fell off his roof while trying to get into his house when he slipped on a loose roof tile. wtf!
If a guy pulls a knife on me in the street and it was legal for me to shoot him between the eyes and I had a gun, I would.
I've always been against armed societies though tbh, but I have to admit, all the violent crimes and home invasions I see on the news these days makes me wonder if having a gun might be a good idea, then I look at all of the 19 yr olds at the local bar who are 1 step away from an ameoba and imagine if they were all allowed to carry a gun. BAD IDEA.

Good home security and not putting yourself in a situation where you can be mugged / attacked... GOOD IDEA, then you don't need a boom boom.

I specifically said "Eurosocialists" for a reason.

I know i know, I guess I just wanted to add a "non wussy" euro opinion to the mix

Personally I dont think people should worry about the "Some retarded might use the gun he adquired legally to murder" matter then thinking if people should legally own guns or not. First because you dont need a gun to kill somebody and it is actual quite easy to do so if you plan it, and second because if the guy doesnt gets a gun legally he will probaly get it ilegally anyway...

Although i do not have any first hand experiece of real guns, but i would say that a gun helps in blind rage killing.
I'm pretty much with bigsteve on the matter; why should criminals be allowed to hide behind the law if they break it in the first place?

Felix the Cat wrote:I specifically said "Eurosocialists" for a reason.

I think you'll find Spiked's views on gun ownership interesting.

(Ok, so he's not european.)

Comp1337 wrote:I'm pretty much with bigsteve on the matter; why should criminals be allowed to hide behind the law if they break it in the first place?

Because of the equality before the law?
Who should decide who get protected by the law and who didn't
- You?
- Gun Lobby?
- Your Walther PPK 9mm?

i hate feminism, they thinks they are better than mens, that pisses me off.

Guns in america are NOT for everyone. Felons and many other types of criminals are specifically disallowed from carrying a gun. To legally purchase a gun, there is a background check process the gun shop must undertake, even if you are not a criminal.

Naturally, illegal gun purchasing is the problem in a number of cases (although not all of them). But that exists independent of the country. And although the system isn't perfect, it does mean that we'll have at least a few firearms for the next civil war =]


englishmen can bend over and take it from the queen and parliament's strapon like they always do

TradeMark wrote:i hate feminism, they thinks they are better than mens, that pisses me off.

I'm glad your opinion has no basis.

neddiedrow wrote:

TradeMark wrote:i hate feminism, they thinks they are better than mens, that pisses me off.

I'm glad your opinion has no basis.

Well, dont you all agree with me? And if not, i would like to see some basis.

Certainly, I'll get back to you on that point when I'm done with class.

Depends on the type of feminist we're talking about. Feminism is yet another movement hijacked by politicians for personal gain. When I think of feminism, I think Hillary Clinton and Rosie O'Donnell. That was of course not the original intent of the movement. But Mrs. Bill Clinton in particular pretends to be a strong woman for women's rights, and then whines and complains about being picked on when people ask her tough questions. The entire movement would be better off with an entirely different name, to distance themselves from the whackos.