This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - challengerX
Pages: 1 ... 119811991200 12011202 ... 1397
35971
« on: December 21, 2014, 01:37:00 PM »
>fiction
What about it? How does Halo being fiction mean we can't have discussions about the things in the lore?
You can, it just cracks me up
So how does talking about the lore that makes up the series you play crack you up?
Just cracks me up how seriously you guys take it.
Like I said how do people that find a universe interesting were it's able to be talked about crack you up? What cracks me up are the people that are complaining about sprint being in Halo or the new zoom thing which is about the same as the old zoom.
Why are you so offended? I'm just saying it cracks me up. You guys talk all seriously about all this stuff that doesn't even exist. It's funny. Sprint doesn't belong in Halo and the new zoom is gay as fuck. And those are real things and gameplay elements to talk about. But I don't care, because I'm most likely not getting Halo 5.
35972
« on: December 21, 2014, 01:26:20 PM »
>fiction
What about it? How does Halo being fiction mean we can't have discussions about the things in the lore?
You can, it just cracks me up
So how does talking about the lore that makes up the series you play crack you up?
Just cracks me up how seriously you guys take it.
It cracks me up how seriously you guys take Halo's MP.
Matchmaking is srs bsns.
35973
« on: December 21, 2014, 01:22:23 PM »
>fiction
What about it? How does Halo being fiction mean we can't have discussions about the things in the lore?
You can, it just cracks me up
So how does talking about the lore that makes up the series you play crack you up?
Just cracks me up how seriously you guys take it.
35974
« on: December 21, 2014, 01:00:54 PM »
This thread is more traumatizing though.
35975
« on: December 21, 2014, 12:46:32 PM »
"Give me my pen"
LOL
35976
« on: December 21, 2014, 11:55:59 AM »
*sigh*
Great another fucking swf.
As with the last one, if this turns out to be NSFW I'm going to ban you into the next millennium.
Any thoughts before I click it?
KILL HIM PSYCHO DO IT
35977
« on: December 21, 2014, 11:34:14 AM »
The biggest flaw with private gun sale checks
So the fact that people who shouldn't have guns legally own guns isn't a problem because they might get one illegally? "Leave a broken system broken." -Kinder 2014
35978
« on: December 21, 2014, 11:31:46 AM »
So try and get it changed.
That's exactly what they're doing.
It seems to me they're pissed off that they can't do private sales without background checks. They can stomp their feet and call it tyranny, but it isn't. This is a good law. I don't think it needs any changes and you guys are just talking about something that won't happen to strike down a law that ultimately will hurt private sales.
35979
« on: December 21, 2014, 10:38:04 AM »
It also fucks up private sales by making them a big hassle. How are you supposed to run a background check for a private sale?
http://answers.usa.gov/system/templates/selfservice/USAGov/#!portal/1012/article/3350/Background-Checks
http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Universal_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Purchases,_Initiative_594_%282014%29
The measure was designed to require background checks to be run on every person purchasing a gun in the state of Washington, even those who do so via private sales. However, transfers of antique guns and those between immediate family members are exempt from the background checks. The measure also required that dealers who are facilitating gun transfers - whether they are through the licensed dealer or a private seller - receive confirmation in writing from the chief of police or sheriff that the purchaser in question "is eligible to possess a pistol [...] and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff." Furthermore, the initiative rendered it illegal to hand off a firearm to people outside a person's immediate family, though exceptions were mentioned, including situations in which people are at a shooting range or hunting.[1][2]
Ok.
What's the problem? The exceptions take care of potential misunderstandings. Otherwise, people should not be handling your firearm. If your friend wants to shoot your gun, he/she can legally do so at a firing range.
At the end of the day, all I see is people complaining background checks are now necessary for all sales, twisting the wording of the law to make it seem as if you hand your buddy your pistol for a second the secret police are going to take you both and torture you to death. More ignorance and fear mongering from the gun nuts. Shocking.
"hurrr muh gun nuts"
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know I had to be politically correct with you.
What if I have a visitor in my home who would like to get a feel of the action of my new rifle, to see if he should get one himself? It is unloaded. Should this be a crime? No. I don't see how you'd get arrested for it either. Pigs aren't looking through your window, won't know if he's family or not, and would need a warrant to enter your home which they wouldn't get. There's also this awesome invention called "curtains". If I were you, I wouldn't tell people where I had my gun anyway. If they wanted to try it, I'd drive to a gun range and let him/her shoot it instead of holding it unloaded in my house.
This argument is pretty stupid coming from someone who claims not to like government interference. Background checks are extremely necessary. It's the good kind of government interference. Private sale or not, background checks need to be done. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
So instead of fixing a broken law, I'm supposed to commit a felony because nobody will ever know?
Maybe you shouldn't be letting strangers handle your gun unless you're in a shooting range?
And really, I doubt you're going to be arrested for letting somebody hold your gun for a minute because he wants to check it out not only that, you have the exceptions you can call back on, notably loaning it for hunting. What's the officer going to say? "I don't think that's true"?
I just don't see how you think you're going to wind up in prison when nobody will find out and you have these exceptions in the law.
Who said it was a stranger?
Or friend. This argument is really stupid. Should sodomy laws be kept in place too, because they can't be enforced? Why are you changing the subject? Background checks for sales are okay, but there is no reason to require one for physically holding a fucking gun.
So try and get it changed. But don't complain about background checks and applaud people whining about it calling it tyranny. Either way it won't be a problem.
35980
« on: December 21, 2014, 10:00:53 AM »
It also fucks up private sales by making them a big hassle. How are you supposed to run a background check for a private sale?
http://answers.usa.gov/system/templates/selfservice/USAGov/#!portal/1012/article/3350/Background-Checks
http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Universal_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Purchases,_Initiative_594_%282014%29
The measure was designed to require background checks to be run on every person purchasing a gun in the state of Washington, even those who do so via private sales. However, transfers of antique guns and those between immediate family members are exempt from the background checks. The measure also required that dealers who are facilitating gun transfers - whether they are through the licensed dealer or a private seller - receive confirmation in writing from the chief of police or sheriff that the purchaser in question "is eligible to possess a pistol [...] and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff." Furthermore, the initiative rendered it illegal to hand off a firearm to people outside a person's immediate family, though exceptions were mentioned, including situations in which people are at a shooting range or hunting.[1][2]
Ok.
What's the problem? The exceptions take care of potential misunderstandings. Otherwise, people should not be handling your firearm. If your friend wants to shoot your gun, he/she can legally do so at a firing range.
At the end of the day, all I see is people complaining background checks are now necessary for all sales, twisting the wording of the law to make it seem as if you hand your buddy your pistol for a second the secret police are going to take you both and torture you to death. More ignorance and fear mongering from the gun nuts. Shocking.
"hurrr muh gun nuts"
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know I had to be politically correct with you.
What if I have a visitor in my home who would like to get a feel of the action of my new rifle, to see if he should get one himself? It is unloaded. Should this be a crime? No. I don't see how you'd get arrested for it either. Pigs aren't looking through your window, won't know if he's family or not, and would need a warrant to enter your home which they wouldn't get. There's also this awesome invention called "curtains". If I were you, I wouldn't tell people where I had my gun anyway. If they wanted to try it, I'd drive to a gun range and let him/her shoot it instead of holding it unloaded in my house.
This argument is pretty stupid coming from someone who claims not to like government interference. Background checks are extremely necessary. It's the good kind of government interference. Private sale or not, background checks need to be done. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
So instead of fixing a broken law, I'm supposed to commit a felony because nobody will ever know?
Maybe you shouldn't be letting strangers handle your gun unless you're in a shooting range? And really, I doubt you're going to be arrested for letting somebody hold your gun for a minute because he wants to check it out not only that, you have the exceptions you can call back on, notably loaning it for hunting. What's the officer going to say? "I don't think that's true"? I just don't see how you think you're going to wind up in prison when nobody will find out and you have these exceptions in the law. And even then, people can ask for a clause to be put in so these misunderstandings don't happen. There's no need to break the law and conduct private sales because they're mad background checks are going to be put in place. This has nothing to with freedom. This is just spoiled little babies crying that their loophole is going to be closed.
35981
« on: December 21, 2014, 09:52:39 AM »
It also fucks up private sales by making them a big hassle. How are you supposed to run a background check for a private sale?
http://answers.usa.gov/system/templates/selfservice/USAGov/#!portal/1012/article/3350/Background-Checks
http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Universal_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Purchases,_Initiative_594_%282014%29
The measure was designed to require background checks to be run on every person purchasing a gun in the state of Washington, even those who do so via private sales. However, transfers of antique guns and those between immediate family members are exempt from the background checks. The measure also required that dealers who are facilitating gun transfers - whether they are through the licensed dealer or a private seller - receive confirmation in writing from the chief of police or sheriff that the purchaser in question "is eligible to possess a pistol [...] and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff." Furthermore, the initiative rendered it illegal to hand off a firearm to people outside a person's immediate family, though exceptions were mentioned, including situations in which people are at a shooting range or hunting.[1][2]
Ok.
What's the problem? The exceptions take care of potential misunderstandings. Otherwise, people should not be handling your firearm. If your friend wants to shoot your gun, he/she can legally do so at a firing range.
At the end of the day, all I see is people complaining background checks are now necessary for all sales, twisting the wording of the law to make it seem as if you hand your buddy your pistol for a second the secret police are going to take you both and torture you to death. More ignorance and fear mongering from the gun nuts. Shocking.
"hurrr muh gun nuts"
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know I had to be politically correct with you. What if I have a visitor in my home who would like to get a feel of the action of my new rifle, to see if he should get one himself? It is unloaded. Should this be a crime? No. I don't see how you'd get arrested for it either. Pigs aren't looking through your window, won't know if he's family or not, and would need a warrant to enter your home which they wouldn't get. There's also this awesome invention called "curtains". If I were you, I wouldn't tell people where I had my gun anyway. If they wanted to try it, I'd drive to a gun range and let him/her shoot it instead of holding it unloaded in my house. This argument is pretty stupid coming from someone who claims not to like government interference. Background checks are extremely necessary. It's the good kind of government interference. Private sale or not, background checks need to be done. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
35982
« on: December 21, 2014, 09:43:13 AM »
Happy birthday.
35983
« on: December 21, 2014, 09:39:38 AM »
It also fucks up private sales by making them a big hassle. How are you supposed to run a background check for a private sale?
http://answers.usa.gov/system/templates/selfservice/USAGov/#!portal/1012/article/3350/Background-Checks
http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Universal_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Purchases,_Initiative_594_%282014%29
The measure was designed to require background checks to be run on every person purchasing a gun in the state of Washington, even those who do so via private sales. However, transfers of antique guns and those between immediate family members are exempt from the background checks. The measure also required that dealers who are facilitating gun transfers - whether they are through the licensed dealer or a private seller - receive confirmation in writing from the chief of police or sheriff that the purchaser in question "is eligible to possess a pistol [...] and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff." Furthermore, the initiative rendered it illegal to hand off a firearm to people outside a person's immediate family, though exceptions were mentioned, including situations in which people are at a shooting range or hunting.[1][2]
Ok. What's the problem? The exceptions take care of potential misunderstandings. Otherwise, people should not be handling your firearm. If your friend wants to shoot your gun, he/she can legally do so at a firing range. At the end of the day, all I see is people complaining background checks are now necessary for all sales, twisting the wording of the law to make it seem as if you hand your buddy your pistol for a second the secret police are going to take you both and torture you to death. More ignorance and fear mongering from the gun nuts. Shocking.
35984
« on: December 21, 2014, 09:34:54 AM »
From the same page I linked earlier Reasonable Exceptions – background checks are not required for:
Gifts between immediate family members
Antiques and relics
Temporary transfers for self-defense
Loans for lawful hunting or sporting activities
35986
« on: December 21, 2014, 09:29:47 AM »
It's about background checks for all sales. Why would anybody be against that?
It would be nice if that was actually what it did, but they fucked the wording up so bad that it basically means you need a background check to hand a gun to another person.
Would you like to prove this? I briefly read it, and from my understanding this is about sales and closing the gun show loophole.
35987
« on: December 21, 2014, 09:24:49 AM »
It's about background checks for all sales. Why would anybody be against that? http://wagunresponsibility.org/about-594/Criminal and public safety background checks dramatically reduce access to guns for criminals, domestic abusers and other dangerous people from buying firearms. But in Washington State, only guns bought from licensed dealers are subject to a background check. This is a loophole in our law that allows criminals to buy guns from strangers – in parking lots, on the Internet, and at gun shows – with no questions asked.
Initiative 594 closes this loophole in Washington State by requiring that private sales and transfers —including those at gun shows or on the internet— go through the same background check process as sales through a licensed gun dealer.
35988
« on: December 21, 2014, 09:15:19 AM »
Can't they just speed this up and get it over with by making it a federal law?
This. I can't believe this still isn't a thing in the US yet.
It's incredible how gay folks need to fight tooth and nail just to change one state at a time. The Republicans will do anything to keep America stuck in the 50's. "LOL DEMOCRATS ARE JUST AS BAD" No. No they're not.
35989
« on: December 21, 2014, 09:11:40 AM »
>fiction
What about it? How does Halo being fiction mean we can't have discussions about the things in the lore?
You can, it just cracks me up
35990
« on: December 21, 2014, 08:33:58 AM »
Can't they just speed this up and get it over with by making it a federal law?
35991
« on: December 21, 2014, 08:33:06 AM »
But how are we supposed to remember of what we forgot ö.ô
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
35992
« on: December 21, 2014, 06:59:09 AM »
>fiction
35993
« on: December 21, 2014, 06:14:12 AM »
You make a thread tellng about a leaked trailer but don't link the trailer itself? What kind of forum goer are you? You sick bastard.
The link was destroyed. I'm sure it will resurface in a few days. I'll link it if I find it.
Did you find it?
35994
« on: December 21, 2014, 06:12:44 AM »
K
35995
« on: December 21, 2014, 04:39:31 AM »
okay fellow gorgonzola
join my clan fellow garden
together we can protect the john travolta
and fight the blackness
35996
« on: December 21, 2014, 04:36:58 AM »
okay fellow gorgonzola
join my clan fellow garden
35997
« on: December 21, 2014, 03:10:20 AM »
Happy birthday.
35998
« on: December 21, 2014, 02:09:46 AM »
Can we just stop talking about this shit?
You can stop if you want. I won't.
You realize you can't stop corruption by whining on the internet?
We can though. See, advertisers are not fans of controversy. And you need advertisers if you want to run a website.
Take serious and legal action. Otherwise this is just laughable.
hue
Actually, all this shit has just given these losers publicity and page views.
Seriously, this is a joke.
Clearly you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. They're bleeding advertisers. We hit Gawker so hard they're trying to hide their advertisers (which is illegal).
And? These people still hold their ridiculous opinions and will continue to be in bed with developers.
We can't fix their delusional minds, but we can make it career suicide to associate with them.
But you're giving them all the ammunition and justification they need for their little justice crusade. In the long run, these people will be replaced by similar people and nothing will have been gained.
It's nice that you have a magical time machine and know the future, but I'm gonna keep going anyway.
No, I just know how these things end. If you guys think you're going to stop developers from bribing game reviewers by throwing a tantrum on the Internet, you're sorely mistaken.
35999
« on: December 21, 2014, 02:06:41 AM »
Nice.
36000
« on: December 21, 2014, 02:04:34 AM »
>reading western propaganda
You making a joke or are you really this ignorant?
Pages: 1 ... 119811991200 12011202 ... 1397
|
Show Posts