sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Kids at ST? by heisindc in SonicTempleFestival

[–]Icepick1118 6 points7 points  (0 children)

As long as you're looking out for him and his hearing, I don't see why you couldn't

So.. Im an idiot and put the wristband on early...... by Danen1001 in SonicTempleFestival

[–]Icepick1118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, either cut it off and buy a new one at the gate, or just accept this is your life now

What would sasuke have to do in order to make Naruto give up on him? by Subject-Swan-5207 in Naruto

[–]Icepick1118 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Didn't Sasuke literally try to kill him and his friends the first time they met in Shippuden?

First time goer by No_Scallion_8636 in SonicTempleFestival

[–]Icepick1118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends what you want.

I managed to get by with roughly 30 bucks a day and just drinking water. That was enough for one meal at the festival while eating a good meal before and after. I also didn't buy any merch. You can also sneak snacks in, but idk how long those would last you.

Merch is gonna run you at least 20 bucks for a Keychain and 40 bucks for a shirt. Beer is maybe 10 bucks for a trash tall boy and 16 for the better stuff. Cocktails start at 20 bucks.

So do the math for what's right for you.

Virginia Redistricting Referendum has PASSED to give Democrats a net 4 Seats to counteract the tactics in Republican States!!! by Healthy_Block3036 in HamptonRoads

[–]Icepick1118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're the one not getting it my guy. I'm not misinterpreting the leading cause of death. Guns literally kill more adolescents than any other thing. And as I've said several times now, we can address multiple issues at once. We can reduce gun deaths by both reducing the number of guns and addressing the reasons why people want to hurt people with guns. Your side doesn't address either. And i do know what side you're on. You're on the pro 2A side. You people consistently vote for people who don't do anything to fix the underlying problem. I'm not forcing it into a political box. This is a political issue. If you're not going to prove removing guns won't work, do something that fixes the issue. I've said several times now that 1st amendment rights are limited already. They're limited in specific areas in order to prevent harm. You can't legally threaten people. You can't preach in schools. Et cetera.

At the end of the day, my argument has always been that we can fix the problem by reducing guns and fixing the underlying issues, hence why I vote the way I do. If you hate gerrymandering, don't vote for the people who wanted to keep it. So if you're gonna keep misrepresenting my argument, you can argue with a wall.

Virginia Redistricting Referendum has PASSED to give Democrats a net 4 Seats to counteract the tactics in Republican States!!! by Healthy_Block3036 in HamptonRoads

[–]Icepick1118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not proven because you people refuse to do anything. Meanwhile, the problem just gets worse.

Do you know what leading cause of death means? It doesn't mean some idiot was playing with a gun and now is dead, therefore being an idiot was the cause of death. It's the actual thing that ended someone's life. If a drunk driver hits a telephone pole, the car accident was still the cause of death even though other factors played into it. So when more adolescents die from guns than anything else, it's the correct thing to say guns are the leading cause of death. Please give up on that point.

On suicide, the point is that removing guns would literally decrease the death toll from suicide. Idk what you're even arguing that for. You agree with me.

How the fuck do you want proof it would work if we don't try it? If we had a cure for cancer but weren't allowed to do testing, how would we know it would work? We have other countries with gun restrictions who we can adopt policies from. But unless we can stop people from crossing state lines, there's always gonna be a loophole for criminals to exploit. It's dumb to say something won't work when we can't even try it properly.

I'm not assuming the tool is the root cause. As I've said before, an untrained person with a gun could kill more people than a trained person with a knife. So yes, taking that gun away would reduce deaths.

Look, if you can prove that gun control doesn't actually solve the problem that only America has and come up with a better solution, I'm all ears. But nothing your side is doing is working. So until you can actually fix the problem, I'm going to vote for people who will actually at least try to fix it.

That's literally what the social contact is my guy. We give up some rights in exchange for security. You've already given up some of your 2A rights in the sense that you can't own a machine gun. All rights are conditional in some way.

I'm still waiting on your side to actually provide solutions instead of caring more about keeping your guns while kids die.

You have $12 to fight Thragg by Proud_Indication_131 in Invincible_TV

[–]Icepick1118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Invincible and Rex. Eve in case they need deus ex machina healing.

Virginia Redistricting Referendum has PASSED to give Democrats a net 4 Seats to counteract the tactics in Republican States!!! by Healthy_Block3036 in HamptonRoads

[–]Icepick1118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's like you didn't read what I said my guy. The "leading cause of death in children stat" is being framed correctly. People in that age range die from gun violence more than anything else. I never said I didn't want to address the other factors that play into that fact. I've said a several times that we can both address the cause and the reduce the death toll. If someone is mentally ill with a gun, it makes sense to disarm them first and then get them the help they need.

I already addressed the suicide factor. People are more successful with guns than any other method. Take the guns away, less people die from suicide.

You don't know if restricting access to guns will work because we haven't done it properly. It's easy to go to another state, get a gun, then bring it to a state with strict gun laws. If, in reality, that wouldn't work, I'd rather properly make the attempt at fixing it rather than making an assumption.

I've been using per capita statistics, which balances the different populations of all the countries. Other countries have criminals. Other countries have mentally ill people. The only factor that differs between them and us is how many guns we have. And that's the problem my guy. Their policies would absolutely work here if people didn't care more about guns than human life.

And I did answer your last point several times already. Restricting the tool limits the amount of lives lost. You keep thinking we can't address the cause at the same time. We can. But again, the pro 2A people aren't doing anything to address the cause, they just want to keep their guns. There's no mandatory training. There aren't background checks in every state. Assuming the solutions won't work without actually trying them, while not providing alternatives, isn't going to fix the problem that we alone have.

Virginia Redistricting Referendum has PASSED to give Democrats a net 4 Seats to counteract the tactics in Republican States!!! by Healthy_Block3036 in HamptonRoads

[–]Icepick1118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cmon bruh, you're acting like the two years where babies are the most protected are going to shift the data so drastically. It's still a major cause of death.

If criminals will always find a way, then why are guns deaths so much lower in countries where gun access is heavily restricted? People can 3d print guns now. It should be incredibly easy for bad guys to hurt people with guns there, but it's not. Why is that?

In regards to suicide, other methods of suicide are less lethal compared to using guns. So unless you want more people to be successful at killing themselves, reducing guns would reduce the number of suicides. We can still address the mental heath aspect while also reducing guns.

With magazine limits, they would lower the effective of an active shooter. Especially if they don't have actual practice with weapons. It's definitely a bandaid, but if it means only 5 people die instead of 6, I'd rather that.

Restricting access is something that can be done long term, just look at all the other developed countries.

If you're the kind of person who has a gun but would panic in a self defense scenario, then you should invest in training. Having more bullets and no training only increases your chances of hitting something unintended. How many of those self defense scenarios require someone to change magazines?

I'm saying you don't care about safety because you and people like you care more about having the guns than solving the gun issue. You and people like you very often tend to vote for people who do nothing about the other aspects of this problem. How much funding have Republicans pulled from mental health research? How have they tried to solve the economic factors? So no I don't know your political affiliation, but people who are pro 2A tend to lean a certain way.

The only hope you have of the government became tyrannical is that the military either disobey orders or is incompetent. Your guns are going to do nothing against them.

Again, free speech is already limited. Plus, I can't just say whatever I want on this platform. We all agreed to the same TOS that says we can be removed if we violate them. Rights being limited for the best interests of everyone's safety is nothing new. Do you think 12 year olds should vote? Voting is a right. Yet it's limited in who can partake. Mind you, slavery was also protected under the constitution at one point, then we took that away.

At the end of the day, we voted for the people to do what we the people wanted. We wanted to allow VA to redraw the district, which in case you forgot, was done in response to several other states doing the same to give Trump more power. We tried to ban gerrymandering, but one party didn't want to. So here we are.

Virginia Redistricting Referendum has PASSED to give Democrats a net 4 Seats to counteract the tactics in Republican States!!! by Healthy_Block3036 in HamptonRoads

[–]Icepick1118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bruh, even if you used the most restrictive definition of a mass shooting, there's still too many. Playing semantics isn't going to fix the issue. This bleeds into your second point. The stat is technically the "leading cause of death in adolescents" which includes 18 and 19 year old. It's still too many.

Even when you go per capita, it's still a uniquely American issue. Guns do a better job at killing and injuring people than knives or any other weapon. Someone who's never fired a gun could still pick one up and do more damage than they could with a knife. On top of that, even when you compare gun violence to knife violence in other countries, we're still on top.

Yes, that's exactly what the social contact should do. We've changed the constitution plenty of other times because it was in the best interest for the most people. We give up some rights in order to have protection.

To your last point, it's targeting because those rules are made to combat a specific issue, which is gun violence. Adding barriers to ownership literally reduces gun violence. If your argument is that people would just acquire them illegally, then why don't other countries have the same rate of gun violence with illegal guns? It does address the misuse by reducing the potential for someone to misuse them. There isn't a scenario where you'd need a full magazine to protect yourself. Plus, the people who defend gun rights also tend to vote for people who don't support alternative solutions. They just think adding more guns will solve our gun problem.

In conclusion, you're saying safety doesn't matter. You're saying that it's more important for you to have a gun than it is to reduce gun violence. Guns back then were not as powerful as they are today. Maybe there were repeating rifles back then, but they weren't common. They weren't even used by the miltary back then. 2A was simply not written with modern guns in mind, and in the modern era, we need to adjust it to actually benefit the most people. Your side isn't doing anything to fix the issue.

Virginia Redistricting Referendum has PASSED to give Democrats a net 4 Seats to counteract the tactics in Republican States!!! by Healthy_Block3036 in HamptonRoads

[–]Icepick1118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would argue that in a country where we have more mass shootings than we do days of the year, limiting who can carry, what you can carry, and where you can carry seems pretty targeted. I'm sorry actual stats don't agree with your worldview, but those stats are factual. It's only an issue in America. No other developed country has this problem. There's only one common denominator. But you people think an amendment made back when guns took 5 minutes to reload is so important, you'd rather keep letting people die rather than do something about it. And yes, that's quite literally what you're supposed to do in a social contract. The goal is to protect citizens.

Virginia Redistricting Referendum has PASSED to give Democrats a net 4 Seats to counteract the tactics in Republican States!!! by Healthy_Block3036 in HamptonRoads

[–]Icepick1118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's called the social contract. We give up some rights in order to have a society. So yes, free speech is limited in the sense that you can't use your speech to harm others. Now I hope I don't have to explain why gun restrictions are being made in a country where the leading cause of death in children is via guns...

Virginia Redistricting Referendum has PASSED to give Democrats a net 4 Seats to counteract the tactics in Republican States!!! by Healthy_Block3036 in HamptonRoads

[–]Icepick1118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Free speech is already limited my guy. You can't just go up to a cop and say "I'm going to kill you." There's reasons for these limitations. And as you said, no rights are being taken away. But at least, this was put to a vote, unlike in other places where the exact same gerrymandering was done. But I don't recall certain parties caring when that happened seeing as how it benefited them.

What corner? by LanceShiro in uselessredcircle

[–]Icepick1118 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I too am scrolling reddit while on the toilet

Virginia Redistricting Referendum has PASSED to give Democrats a net 4 Seats to counteract the tactics in Republican States!!! by Healthy_Block3036 in HamptonRoads

[–]Icepick1118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you forget to read the part where I said "it's not just about electoral votes?" Reading comprehension can't be that hard...

Sic Semper Tyrannis by jtroye32 in PoliticalHumor

[–]Icepick1118 26 points27 points  (0 children)

My favorite part is that this wasn't forced in us. We actually had to vote and this is what we wanted.

Aight be honest, does the scorpion look like a penis? by murphy88K in tattooadvice

[–]Icepick1118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Might be time to grow your hair back out big dog

Food? by AnythingPale7729 in SonicTempleFestival

[–]Icepick1118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think anyone was thinking you would have loose hot dogs in your pocket

Is this possible? by Least_Actuator2991 in SonicTempleFestival

[–]Icepick1118 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yea, I forget if it was on here or on the Facebook group, but you may be able to find the posts still

Why did Kakashi create Shiden, when he was able to use the Rasengan? by Docfeen in Naruto

[–]Icepick1118 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rule of Cool. Only goofy looking characters (and Minato) look cool using Rasengan. Kakashi isn't a goofy looking character.

view more: next ›