spindoctor02 @ 9/9/2016 13:33

Cool Girl @ 9/9/2016 5:04 ##shoot Christian Is this real?

Knowing Nofo, I'd say there is about a 1% chance this is real.

If anyone should get a daykill it's me. I'm not afraid to use them!

Wow. I don't even know what I tried to post last night. So drunk and hungover today.

Angi @ 9/9/2016 8:41

Wow. I don't even know what I tried to post last night. So drunk and hungover today.

Just a guess, but probably "something, something, cocks in all my holes, something something, ahoda's small member, something..."

spindoctor02 @ 9/9/2016 8:49

Angi @ 9/9/2016 8:41 Wow. I don't even know what I tried to post last night. So drunk and hungover today. Just a guess, but probably "something, something, cocks in all my holes, something something, ahoda's small member, something..."

Rude

Grimapple @ 9/9/2016 9:04

spindoctor02 @ 9/9/2016 8:49 Angi @ 9/9/2016 8:41 Wow. I don't even know what I tried to post last night. So drunk and hungover today. Just a guess, but probably "something, something, cocks in all my holes, something something, ahoda's small member, something..." Rude

Thin skin much?

Oh my god.

One of my old college roommates has sent me a friend request.

Do I accept it?

-dr @ 9/9/2016 9:10

Oh my god. One of my old college roommates has sent me a friend request. Do I accept it?

Which one is it?

Several interesting possibilities out there. I feel some are avoiding the topic at hand. So thinking back to what I know about the avoidance theory. Approach-avoidance conflicts occur when there is one goal or event that has both positive and negative effects or characteristics that make the goal appealing and unappealing simultaneously. For example, marriage is a momentous decision that has both positive and negative aspects. The positive aspects, or approach portion, of marriage might be considered togetherness, sharing memories, and companionship while the negative aspects, or avoidance portions, might include financial considerations, arguments, and difficulty with in-laws. The negative effects of the decision help influence the decision maker to avoid the goal or event, while the positive effects influence the decision maker to want to approach or proceed with the goal or event. The influence of the negative and positive aspects create a conflict because the decision maker has to either proceed toward the goal or avoid the goal altogether. For example, the decision maker might approach proposing to a partner with excitement because of the positive aspects of marriage. On the other hand, he or she might avoid proposing due to the negative aspects of marriage.

The decision maker might initiate approach toward the goal, but as awareness of the negative factors increases, the desire to avoid the goal may arise, producing indecision. If there are competing feelings to a goal, the stronger of the two will triumph. For instance, if a woman was thinking of starting a business she would be faced with positive and negative aspects. Before actually starting the business, the woman would be excited about the prospects of success for the new business and she would encounter (approach) the positive aspects first: she would attract investors, create interest in her upcoming ideas and it would be a new challenge. However, as she drew closer to actually launching the business, the negative aspects would become more apparent; the woman would acknowledge that it would require much effort, time, and energy from other aspects of her life. The increase in strength of these negative aspects (avoidance) would cause her to avoid the conflict or goal of starting the new business, which might result in indecision. Research pertaining to approach and avoidance conflicts has been extended into implicit motives, both abstract and social in nature.

I feel Vern is still a nice play for the day. I will check back in later to see if anymore evidence presents itself for an intelligent discussion

c'mon guys, the gun is obviously not real. he didn't shoot Buffy.

itsbrianyay @ 9/9/2016 9:52

c'mon guys, the gun is obviously not real. he didn't shoot Buffy.

That brings up a good point.

Actually, the Second Amendment is faaaar more complex than that and the "fighting a corrupt government" was actually a far smaller rationale (behind having an armed militia for hunting down escaped slaves). The key was, since the country did not have a standing army, the militia *needed* to be armed (thus the actual 2nd amendment discussing a well-regulated militia). The militia is actually defined earlier in the big C (Article I Section 8) and so that's where the concept comes from. The idea of if the government's britches get too big then we can gun them down was a side discussion, mainly among anti-Federalists who didn't want the big C in the first place.

I still support a Federal registration, licensing, and recurrent training system myself, specifically with endorsements allowing you to have additional weapons/capabilities based on additional training/potential medicals/psych evals, etc. Want to have full auto capability? Go for that endorsement. Concealed carry in any state? Federal preemption handles that little issue, as long as you have the CCW endorsement on your license.

The idea around this system is that registration and recurrent training changes the *culture* around guns. I was not allowed to touch a firearm until I had gun safety practically beaten into me- if my old Scoutmaster had seen how some of the Open Carry idiots act he'd be whooping their ass and taking their weapons from them for being unsafe dumbasses. A lot of accidental and intentional shootings would be reduced by the mere fact of changing how people think about and treat guns. Recurrent training would keep things fresh in people's minds and promote the culture. It would also as a side benefit provide a lot of jobs to gun trainers, which would be a great post-military job with decent pay.


in addition- those gang bangers with the guns (the so-called outlaws who have guns when they are outlawed) would have federal firearms violations tacked on to their cases- Al Capone wasn't taken down for the St Valentine's Day Massacre, but for tax violations.

I agree 100%

tl; dr

vlady:

oh men my post didn't post