Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Lucid last won the day on September 3 2016

Lucid had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,570 The F'n Man!

About Lucid

  • Rank
    Turn Like a Wheel Inside a Wheel.
  • Birthday April 21

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Lucid


  2. I apologize OSU fans. But every time I watch the Buckeyes it seems like they lose. Which is odd, because they are one of the winningest teams in the country.
  3. I think it has a more rough around the edges look. I think the new movies are all a bit too "shiny" for lack of a better word.
  4. This is looking like it could be really good. It looks to have more of that original series feel to it than the other more recent movies.
  5. Apparently you haven't been reading any of my posts, perhaps past the first paragraph. The only time I mentioned banning by model names was when I said this: The only reason I even mentioned the AR15 is as an example..
  6. Who said anything about banning specific models?
  7. Way to spit on my opinion by labeling it "an emotional response" and a soap box. Pistols kill more people than bombs and I don't think people should be able to buy/own them either. Most people are murdered by someone they know or because of activity they are involved in. What gets people about these mass shootings is that they are random and indiscriminate. And that they cost large amount of lives all at once and in a short period of time. You aren't going to convince me that people have a right to own machine guns or other high rate of fire, high impact weaponry of the modern battlefield, but you also don't see me trying to belittle your position or make you look foolish for disagreeing with me. Hopefully law enforcement and law makers wake up and we do something about this because quite frankly it's beyond absurd.
  8. You seem really stuck on the "purpose" of these weapons. Like I said before, the only reason I brought that up was because you said killing people wasn't necessarily the purpose of an assault rife, and it clearly is. Listing other things that are also meant to kill people doesn't really change that. Neither does listing things that can also kill people but weren't necessarily designed to. Regardless, that had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I proceeded to list as ACTUAL things I felt were relevant to whether something was appropriate to be sold to the general public. I'm not sure why you have chosen to ignore this aspect of my post and focus on the less relevant aspect of what the design purpose of these weapons are. The reason I listed the tank example is because it is something that society in general has determined to be unacceptable and is illegal for a reason. Obviously this line has been drawn somewhere already, and for a good reason. I think it's very much time that we take a look at personal firearms to determine whether modern technology has made them so destructive as to merit restrictions. Personally I am in favor of some sort of legislation to restrict them which is based on the technological aspects of these weapons, and not something based on model names or aesthetics. This isn't a black and white issue, and there are many opinions that have merit. Personally I don't think mass scale murder in minutes is an acceptable trade off so someone can shoot some tin cans with an AR15. It seems you have a different opinion, which is fine. That's why we are talking about this, and I think it is a good discussion we are having as a society.
  9. Interesting, accept you are the one who stated that killing people wasn't necessarily the intended purpose of these weapons (which by definition, a weapon is meant to kill people), the only point I was making was that that it was. I then went on to list several things that I thought were relevant to determining whether a weapon should be sold to the general public, all of which had absolutely nothing to do with "perceived intent". And to your last point on the 1st amendment, I don't believe it is clear that people shouldn't have those things. Are you attempting to argue that people should have a fully weaponized modern tank?
  10. Assault rifles ie: weapons made for the battlefield are clearly made with the intended purpose of killing as many people as possible in as short amount of time as possible. That is clearly what they were designed to achieve, and not shooting tin cans. You can shave with a bastard sword, but that doesn't change the fact it was designed to cleave people's head off. As far as the second amendment goes, clearly the framers couldn't have foreseen the state of weapon technology as it exists today. There is clearly a reason we shouldn't let people have a fully weaponized Abrams tank. The question is, where do we draw that line? I think what needs to be looked at is how many rounds can this thing put down range in 1 minute, can it be easily modified to significantly increase that (ie, making a semi automatic into a full auto by tweaking a spring, etc). What is the "cartridge" or load amount, and how easily is it reloaded? What is the caliber of the round and the charge? I strongly believe in the 2nd amendment. I don't think we should restrict people from having hunting rifles, standard barrel shotguns (that aren't magazine fed) and small to medium size pistols (.38 is all you need for self defense). And I know pistols are by far the most often used in street violence and crimes. But that's not what I am addressing here. The ability for someone to walk into a crowded space and murder 50 people in less than a minute (a fully automatic AR15 has the ability to fire as much as 25 rounds in 2.5 seconds) needs to be addressed. For the record, I don't think the government should have the ability to curtail our rights by simply putting us on a "list" without having to go through the judicial process and letting the accused face their accuser and defend themselves against any charges. It should be the onus of the state to prove this person is a threat of some sort. If we allow the state to take our rights simply because they want to, what's next, locking people up because they have "dangerous" thoughts?
  11. God how I wish she had run this time around. Bernie was my runner up consolation prize, but who I really want is Warren.
  12. Took the words right out of my mouth.. So unless you want to do away with the standing army, public police force, public fire, public roads, the mail system and everything else the government does for us you too are a socialist. The question as you point out is; How much of a socialist are you?
  13. Just to emphasize, for the record, nothing was deleted, it was simply removed from view of the general populace. The thread in it's entirety or in whatever edited form the mods and admins see fit could potentially be re-instated or it may simply remain hidden forever. This is an ongoing conversation and anyone who feels strongly about it has the opportunity to make their voices heard and appeal to higher powers if need be. Which is why we don't delete threads. Nothing that cannot be undone, or gone back and done differently has happened.
  • Create New...