It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: budski
aww look, all the gun nuts are patting each other on the back.
It's just like a likkle club.
Well done you.
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
originally posted by: budski
aww look, all the gun nuts are patting each other on the back.
It's just like a likkle club.
Well done you.
So now we are gun "nuts"?
I have given you a very specific reason for my owning guns and it is far from a "nut" reason. People like you are the reason that people like me end up losing rights and I am VERY happy you are not in my country.
Try sticking to policies in your own country where they might care to take away more of your rights.
Ignorance abounds with this OP.
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
You have inside knowledge of a method of orbital insertion that's more efficient than chemical rockets?! Why are you here talking about guns when you should be at NASA or the ESA as head of development on this new, revolutionary, and more efficient rocket design! Go, man! Save humanity!
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
So now you're advocating against scientific advancement in order to keep people safe. I guess all those asteroid detecting telescopes are out the window too, since they're a direct result of man's discovery of gunpowder, which begat propulsion, which begat rockets, which birthed the space program, which eventually launched these potentially humanity-saving devices into space.
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: EternalSolace
originally posted by: budski
Some things society needs, some things some people just want.
I'm sure the citizens of Poland needed some firearms in 1939.
I'm sure that if guns hadn't been invented in the first place the people of Poland would have been OK.
Or do you WANT us all to die in a horrific meteoric holocaust?
You monster.
The original use of gunpowder was for fireworks.
They didn't have the chemistry in the earliest forms of gunpowder to make it viable for firing projectiles. That came later.
It says a lot that a quick burning chemical compound (which is what it originally was) has been co-opted by the inventors of guns.
There's also the fact that chemical rockets are hugely inefficient, and that alternative ways of getting into space have been ignored as man focuses on more efficient ways to kill each other.
As you lot are so fond of saying: FAIL.
There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.
You know it, I know it, but being facetious makes you feel clever.
I'm pleased for you.
Carry on.
So, you suppose that NO scientific endeavors are going on or have been going on to find an alternative to chemical rockets?
Who is being facetious here???
You are.
Are you trying to tell me that those same scientific endeavours would not be more advanced if the US had not spent hundreds of billions on procurement for a new plane that barely works?
Have a word with yourself.
There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.
originally posted by: budski
aww look, all the gun nuts are patting each other on the back.
It's just like a likkle club.
Well done you.
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
You have inside knowledge of a method of orbital insertion that's more efficient than chemical rockets?! Why are you here talking about guns when you should be at NASA or the ESA as head of development on this new, revolutionary, and more efficient rocket design! Go, man! Save humanity!
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
So now you're advocating against scientific advancement in order to keep people safe. I guess all those asteroid detecting telescopes are out the window too, since they're a direct result of man's discovery of gunpowder, which begat propulsion, which begat rockets, which birthed the space program, which eventually launched these potentially humanity-saving devices into space.
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: EternalSolace
originally posted by: budski
Some things society needs, some things some people just want.
I'm sure the citizens of Poland needed some firearms in 1939.
I'm sure that if guns hadn't been invented in the first place the people of Poland would have been OK.
Or do you WANT us all to die in a horrific meteoric holocaust?
You monster.
The original use of gunpowder was for fireworks.
They didn't have the chemistry in the earliest forms of gunpowder to make it viable for firing projectiles. That came later.
It says a lot that a quick burning chemical compound (which is what it originally was) has been co-opted by the inventors of guns.
There's also the fact that chemical rockets are hugely inefficient, and that alternative ways of getting into space have been ignored as man focuses on more efficient ways to kill each other.
As you lot are so fond of saying: FAIL.
There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.
You know it, I know it, but being facetious makes you feel clever.
I'm pleased for you.
Carry on.
So, you suppose that NO scientific endeavors are going on or have been going on to find an alternative to chemical rockets?
Who is being facetious here???
You are.
Are you trying to tell me that those same scientific endeavours would not be more advanced if the US had not spent hundreds of billions on procurement for a new plane that barely works?
Have a word with yourself.
Nah, I'll have another word with you.
There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.
You say we could have been. As if we haven't been actively pursuing them..... just because of an obsession with weapons. You wrote it...
Now if you wanted to say something else in the first place.... you should have said it.
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
originally posted by: budski
aww look, all the gun nuts are patting each other on the back.
It's just like a likkle club.
Well done you.
So now we are gun "nuts"?
I have given you a very specific reason for my owning guns and it is far from a "nut" reason. People like you are the reason that people like me end up losing rights and I am VERY happy you are not in my country.
Try sticking to policies in your own country where they might care to take away more of your rights.
Ignorance abounds with this OP.
I'm just yanking your chain, although you have to admit the way you guys all star each other is pretty sad.
Anyone would think they meant something.
And now I am not allowed to comment on anything except my own country.
I tell you what, you bring all your troops home, close all your overseas bases, stop invading countries and stealing their resources, stop exporting crap amerikana, and I'll keep my nose out of your business.
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
You have inside knowledge of a method of orbital insertion that's more efficient than chemical rockets?! Why are you here talking about guns when you should be at NASA or the ESA as head of development on this new, revolutionary, and more efficient rocket design! Go, man! Save humanity!
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
So now you're advocating against scientific advancement in order to keep people safe. I guess all those asteroid detecting telescopes are out the window too, since they're a direct result of man's discovery of gunpowder, which begat propulsion, which begat rockets, which birthed the space program, which eventually launched these potentially humanity-saving devices into space.
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: EternalSolace
originally posted by: budski
Some things society needs, some things some people just want.
I'm sure the citizens of Poland needed some firearms in 1939.
I'm sure that if guns hadn't been invented in the first place the people of Poland would have been OK.
Or do you WANT us all to die in a horrific meteoric holocaust?
You monster.
The original use of gunpowder was for fireworks.
They didn't have the chemistry in the earliest forms of gunpowder to make it viable for firing projectiles. That came later.
It says a lot that a quick burning chemical compound (which is what it originally was) has been co-opted by the inventors of guns.
There's also the fact that chemical rockets are hugely inefficient, and that alternative ways of getting into space have been ignored as man focuses on more efficient ways to kill each other.
As you lot are so fond of saying: FAIL.
There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.
You know it, I know it, but being facetious makes you feel clever.
I'm pleased for you.
Carry on.
So, you suppose that NO scientific endeavors are going on or have been going on to find an alternative to chemical rockets?
Who is being facetious here???
You are.
Are you trying to tell me that those same scientific endeavours would not be more advanced if the US had not spent hundreds of billions on procurement for a new plane that barely works?
Have a word with yourself.
Nah, I'll have another word with you.
There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.
You say we could have been. As if we haven't been actively pursuing them..... just because of an obsession with weapons. You wrote it...
Now if you wanted to say something else in the first place.... you should have said it.
Nope, I stand by what I said.
We could have been using the trillions spent on instruments of war.
We haven't.
Instead, the NASA budget got cut year on year on year.
We could have engineered an orbital factory to make ships to go to other planets and explore the solar system
Sadly, we didn't because the moon shot was just cold war PR about beating the Soviets.
We could have listened to people like Carl Sagan.
Instead, we built more weapons of destruction.
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
You have inside knowledge of a method of orbital insertion that's more efficient than chemical rockets?! Why are you here talking about guns when you should be at NASA or the ESA as head of development on this new, revolutionary, and more efficient rocket design! Go, man! Save humanity!
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
So now you're advocating against scientific advancement in order to keep people safe. I guess all those asteroid detecting telescopes are out the window too, since they're a direct result of man's discovery of gunpowder, which begat propulsion, which begat rockets, which birthed the space program, which eventually launched these potentially humanity-saving devices into space.
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: EternalSolace
originally posted by: budski
Some things society needs, some things some people just want.
I'm sure the citizens of Poland needed some firearms in 1939.
I'm sure that if guns hadn't been invented in the first place the people of Poland would have been OK.
Or do you WANT us all to die in a horrific meteoric holocaust?
You monster.
The original use of gunpowder was for fireworks.
They didn't have the chemistry in the earliest forms of gunpowder to make it viable for firing projectiles. That came later.
It says a lot that a quick burning chemical compound (which is what it originally was) has been co-opted by the inventors of guns.
There's also the fact that chemical rockets are hugely inefficient, and that alternative ways of getting into space have been ignored as man focuses on more efficient ways to kill each other.
As you lot are so fond of saying: FAIL.
There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.
You know it, I know it, but being facetious makes you feel clever.
I'm pleased for you.
Carry on.
So, you suppose that NO scientific endeavors are going on or have been going on to find an alternative to chemical rockets?
Who is being facetious here???
You are.
Are you trying to tell me that those same scientific endeavours would not be more advanced if the US had not spent hundreds of billions on procurement for a new plane that barely works?
Have a word with yourself.
Nah, I'll have another word with you.
There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.
You say we could have been. As if we haven't been actively pursuing them..... just because of an obsession with weapons. You wrote it...
Now if you wanted to say something else in the first place.... you should have said it.
Nope, I stand by what I said.
We could have been using the trillions spent on instruments of war.
We haven't.
Instead, the NASA budget got cut year on year on year.
We could have engineered an orbital factory to make ships to go to other planets and explore the solar system
Sadly, we didn't because the moon shot was just cold war PR about beating the Soviets.
We could have listened to people like Carl Sagan.
Instead, we built more weapons of destruction.
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
You have inside knowledge of a method of orbital insertion that's more efficient than chemical rockets?! Why are you here talking about guns when you should be at NASA or the ESA as head of development on this new, revolutionary, and more efficient rocket design! Go, man! Save humanity!
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
So now you're advocating against scientific advancement in order to keep people safe. I guess all those asteroid detecting telescopes are out the window too, since they're a direct result of man's discovery of gunpowder, which begat propulsion, which begat rockets, which birthed the space program, which eventually launched these potentially humanity-saving devices into space.
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: EternalSolace
originally posted by: budski
Some things society needs, some things some people just want.
I'm sure the citizens of Poland needed some firearms in 1939.
I'm sure that if guns hadn't been invented in the first place the people of Poland would have been OK.
Or do you WANT us all to die in a horrific meteoric holocaust?
You monster.
The original use of gunpowder was for fireworks.
They didn't have the chemistry in the earliest forms of gunpowder to make it viable for firing projectiles. That came later.
It says a lot that a quick burning chemical compound (which is what it originally was) has been co-opted by the inventors of guns.
There's also the fact that chemical rockets are hugely inefficient, and that alternative ways of getting into space have been ignored as man focuses on more efficient ways to kill each other.
As you lot are so fond of saying: FAIL.
There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.
You know it, I know it, but being facetious makes you feel clever.
I'm pleased for you.
Carry on.
So, you suppose that NO scientific endeavors are going on or have been going on to find an alternative to chemical rockets?
Who is being facetious here???
You are.
Are you trying to tell me that those same scientific endeavours would not be more advanced if the US had not spent hundreds of billions on procurement for a new plane that barely works?
Have a word with yourself.
Nah, I'll have another word with you.
There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.
You say we could have been. As if we haven't been actively pursuing them..... just because of an obsession with weapons. You wrote it...
Now if you wanted to say something else in the first place.... you should have said it.
Nope, I stand by what I said.
We could have been using the trillions spent on instruments of war.
We haven't.
Instead, the NASA budget got cut year on year on year.
We could have engineered an orbital factory to make ships to go to other planets and explore the solar system
Sadly, we didn't because the moon shot was just cold war PR about beating the Soviets.
We could have listened to people like Carl Sagan.
Instead, we built more weapons of destruction.
originally posted by: budski
Nope, I stand by what I said.
We could have been using the trillions spent on instruments of war.
We haven't.
Instead, the NASA budget got cut year on year on year.
We could have engineered an orbital factory to make ships to go to other planets and explore the solar system
Sadly, we didn't because the moon shot was just cold war PR about beating the Soviets.
We could have listened to people like Carl Sagan.
Instead, we built more weapons of destruction.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
You have inside knowledge of a method of orbital insertion that's more efficient than chemical rockets?! Why are you here talking about guns when you should be at NASA or the ESA as head of development on this new, revolutionary, and more efficient rocket design! Go, man! Save humanity!
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
So now you're advocating against scientific advancement in order to keep people safe. I guess all those asteroid detecting telescopes are out the window too, since they're a direct result of man's discovery of gunpowder, which begat propulsion, which begat rockets, which birthed the space program, which eventually launched these potentially humanity-saving devices into space.
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: EternalSolace
originally posted by: budski
Some things society needs, some things some people just want.
I'm sure the citizens of Poland needed some firearms in 1939.
I'm sure that if guns hadn't been invented in the first place the people of Poland would have been OK.
Or do you WANT us all to die in a horrific meteoric holocaust?
You monster.
The original use of gunpowder was for fireworks.
They didn't have the chemistry in the earliest forms of gunpowder to make it viable for firing projectiles. That came later.
It says a lot that a quick burning chemical compound (which is what it originally was) has been co-opted by the inventors of guns.
There's also the fact that chemical rockets are hugely inefficient, and that alternative ways of getting into space have been ignored as man focuses on more efficient ways to kill each other.
As you lot are so fond of saying: FAIL.
There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.
You know it, I know it, but being facetious makes you feel clever.
I'm pleased for you.
Carry on.
So, you suppose that NO scientific endeavors are going on or have been going on to find an alternative to chemical rockets?
Who is being facetious here???
You are.
Are you trying to tell me that those same scientific endeavours would not be more advanced if the US had not spent hundreds of billions on procurement for a new plane that barely works?
Have a word with yourself.
Nah, I'll have another word with you.
There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.
You say we could have been. As if we haven't been actively pursuing them..... just because of an obsession with weapons. You wrote it...
Now if you wanted to say something else in the first place.... you should have said it.
Nope, I stand by what I said.
We could have been using the trillions spent on instruments of war.
We haven't.
Instead, the NASA budget got cut year on year on year.
We could have engineered an orbital factory to make ships to go to other planets and explore the solar system
Sadly, we didn't because the moon shot was just cold war PR about beating the Soviets.
We could have listened to people like Carl Sagan.
Instead, we built more weapons of destruction.
I agree with what you are saying. The only problem is what happens in reality and constantly throughout history is the big advanced bullies will conquer you if you can't defend yourself. So the arms race starts out as a defense and just keeps going with each side advancing weapons at a steady pace. When one gets superior is when the bad stuff happens. As sad as it is the arms race is what keeps people in check. If the us and Europe stopped building guns you would be conquered and forced into a different lifestyle or worse.
Unfortunately we can't evolve past this primitive way of thinking. But its the thinking part not the guns that has to change. Change the thought and the guns will be benign like they are in cultures like switzerland.
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
You have inside knowledge of a method of orbital insertion that's more efficient than chemical rockets?! Why are you here talking about guns when you should be at NASA or the ESA as head of development on this new, revolutionary, and more efficient rocket design! Go, man! Save humanity!
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
So now you're advocating against scientific advancement in order to keep people safe. I guess all those asteroid detecting telescopes are out the window too, since they're a direct result of man's discovery of gunpowder, which begat propulsion, which begat rockets, which birthed the space program, which eventually launched these potentially humanity-saving devices into space.
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: EternalSolace
originally posted by: budski
Some things society needs, some things some people just want.
I'm sure the citizens of Poland needed some firearms in 1939.
I'm sure that if guns hadn't been invented in the first place the people of Poland would have been OK.
Or do you WANT us all to die in a horrific meteoric holocaust?
You monster.
The original use of gunpowder was for fireworks.
They didn't have the chemistry in the earliest forms of gunpowder to make it viable for firing projectiles. That came later.
It says a lot that a quick burning chemical compound (which is what it originally was) has been co-opted by the inventors of guns.
There's also the fact that chemical rockets are hugely inefficient, and that alternative ways of getting into space have been ignored as man focuses on more efficient ways to kill each other.
As you lot are so fond of saying: FAIL.
There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.
You know it, I know it, but being facetious makes you feel clever.
I'm pleased for you.
Carry on.
So, you suppose that NO scientific endeavors are going on or have been going on to find an alternative to chemical rockets?
Who is being facetious here???
You are.
Are you trying to tell me that those same scientific endeavours would not be more advanced if the US had not spent hundreds of billions on procurement for a new plane that barely works?
Have a word with yourself.
Nah, I'll have another word with you.
There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.
You say we could have been. As if we haven't been actively pursuing them..... just because of an obsession with weapons. You wrote it...
Now if you wanted to say something else in the first place.... you should have said it.
Nope, I stand by what I said.
We could have been using the trillions spent on instruments of war.
We haven't.
Instead, the NASA budget got cut year on year on year.
We could have engineered an orbital factory to make ships to go to other planets and explore the solar system
Sadly, we didn't because the moon shot was just cold war PR about beating the Soviets.
We could have listened to people like Carl Sagan.
Instead, we built more weapons of destruction.
Where is the "We" in your post coming from. Your OP is based on the US. As far as I can tell, you are not "We".
You speak of NASA as if it is based out of your country....it isn't. You speak of the moon landing as if it had anything to do with your country.....it didn't.
So if we take away ALL the things the WE did, there wouldn't be much left for YOU to talk about would there?
Why the interest in US gun debates if you are not even in the US? I am here. I know the rules and what is actually going on in the US. I follow them. I own guns, and I own them for a reason.
originally posted by: howmuch4another
I see this as another circular argument based out of context.
If you have a jar of pickles the content is pickles but the context is the jar. You can't have a discussion around banning guns in the context of the US because it is a completely different context from the basic argument about gun hazard and what statistics they are part of. We chose to make ownership a right in this country and that train has left the station. Any argument at this point about banning for an American starts to cut deeper than just doing without guns. It starts to infringe on the sensibilities handed down from those who had an idea about tyrants, kings, despots and what responsible citizenry should look like. It doesn't mean we haven't dropped the ball on tyranny. We have. It doesn't mean guns aren't dangerous. They are when in the wrong hands. It means we have made a choice that many don't agree with. I get it. But at the end of the day...tough #. Nothing is going to change that. It has nothing to do with fear but more about responsibility and capability to defend.
originally posted by: budski
This is another issue.
People have this very funny perception of the military standing up for their rights.
The military follow orders and the orders come indirectly from their corporate paymasters.
You might have been right about this when the revolution occurred, but it's no longer the case I'm afraid.
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
You have inside knowledge of a method of orbital insertion that's more efficient than chemical rockets?! Why are you here talking about guns when you should be at NASA or the ESA as head of development on this new, revolutionary, and more efficient rocket design! Go, man! Save humanity!
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
So now you're advocating against scientific advancement in order to keep people safe. I guess all those asteroid detecting telescopes are out the window too, since they're a direct result of man's discovery of gunpowder, which begat propulsion, which begat rockets, which birthed the space program, which eventually launched these potentially humanity-saving devices into space.
originally posted by: budski
originally posted by: EternalSolace
originally posted by: budski
Some things society needs, some things some people just want.
I'm sure the citizens of Poland needed some firearms in 1939.
I'm sure that if guns hadn't been invented in the first place the people of Poland would have been OK.
Or do you WANT us all to die in a horrific meteoric holocaust?
You monster.
The original use of gunpowder was for fireworks.
They didn't have the chemistry in the earliest forms of gunpowder to make it viable for firing projectiles. That came later.
It says a lot that a quick burning chemical compound (which is what it originally was) has been co-opted by the inventors of guns.
There's also the fact that chemical rockets are hugely inefficient, and that alternative ways of getting into space have been ignored as man focuses on more efficient ways to kill each other.
As you lot are so fond of saying: FAIL.
There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.
You know it, I know it, but being facetious makes you feel clever.
I'm pleased for you.
Carry on.
So, you suppose that NO scientific endeavors are going on or have been going on to find an alternative to chemical rockets?
Who is being facetious here???
You are.
Are you trying to tell me that those same scientific endeavours would not be more advanced if the US had not spent hundreds of billions on procurement for a new plane that barely works?
Have a word with yourself.
Nah, I'll have another word with you.
There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.
You say we could have been. As if we haven't been actively pursuing them..... just because of an obsession with weapons. You wrote it...
Now if you wanted to say something else in the first place.... you should have said it.
Nope, I stand by what I said.
We could have been using the trillions spent on instruments of war.
We haven't.
Instead, the NASA budget got cut year on year on year.
We could have engineered an orbital factory to make ships to go to other planets and explore the solar system
Sadly, we didn't because the moon shot was just cold war PR about beating the Soviets.
We could have listened to people like Carl Sagan.
Instead, we built more weapons of destruction.
I agree with what you are saying. The only problem is what happens in reality and constantly throughout history is the big advanced bullies will conquer you if you can't defend yourself. So the arms race starts out as a defense and just keeps going with each side advancing weapons at a steady pace. When one gets superior is when the bad stuff happens. As sad as it is the arms race is what keeps people in check. If the us and Europe stopped building guns you would be conquered and forced into a different lifestyle or worse.
Unfortunately we can't evolve past this primitive way of thinking. But its the thinking part not the guns that has to change. Change the thought and the guns will be benign like they are in cultures like switzerland.
We (humans) think people wanting to put themselves above others is normal.
It's not, unless that person suffers from a psychiatric condition.