posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 11:40 PM
(Hint to the wise: Don't drink unopened 3 week old HG800. Even sitting refrigerator, unopened, it sours. But it's all I got. Now to other forms of
Blackjackal opens with hugs all around. He immediately latches onto the constitution, saying that the Old White Guys said to keep your guns. He makes
the good point that great gun control keeps guns out of the hands of band guys. Not you or I, law abiding Joe Moes. So we have something of an ideal
focus being set up.
He goes on to define the scope of his second amendment argument by pointing out that we use common sense when applying it. Murderers can't have guns,
etc. He points out that many amendments are restricted. We can't yell fire in a movie theatre.
Then he points out that sure not very many people die from gun violence, in relation to other things, but does that make those lives any more
meaningless? This places an interesting personal scope on his argument. No one's going to say that 123 people don't matter.
Then he throws a pretty Burke quote out.
Does JB1 bite? Yes he does. Kinda. At the end.
Jb1 opens with a somewhat weak environmental argument. Much like the Death world trilogy, in America you never know what's going to pop out at you.
Gang bangers, rabid deer or rednecks, you need smith&wesson to keep your heart warm.
JB1 points out an interesting twist that the topic has presented him: that the US laws aren't strict enough. But US laws are always changing. Oh yes
they are. Look at the Patriot Act. He then goes on to say that it's a good thing to have one basic foundation (federal law) and various state
He points out that American history is a large reason for this development. Then JB1 leaves us with several things: People who want to kill themselves
will do it without a gun. People will kill others w/o a gun. And criminals don't' care about laws. So he's saying that whatever legal barricades
you put on guns, they aren't real and people can do just fine ignoring them or using something else.
Alrighty. Then the debate begins to rev up. Diesel Harley? Jackal comes back for the second round.
Good gun control is when the criminals can't get guns and kill people but you can. Blackjackal points out that current legislation sucks. That other
methods are needed.
Then, strangely enough, he says that the laws for murder are to weak. Then he says that 1,225 people die each year, from people failing to take
Now he comes to the real solutions, which I like. He says that there is a direct co-relation between gun violence and education. So, what we should do
is educate these people. And, also, we could raise the gun buying age to 25.
JB1 charges back, bull style ... and the first thing he points out is a technical error. I'm not sure what it was. Did Black Jackal go over the word
limit or post a picture? I don't' know. JB1 moistens the tissue a bit going on about the breadth of the subject (I'm just joshing ya...!)
JB1 twists Blackjackals foot by using citing his admission that making firearms illegal would be a bad thing. And it looks like the pot was sprinkled
with some extremism. We get stuff like, "that the worst kind of law, and thus tyranny, is to take away the right of the individual to defend
themself." Lol, JB1 comes one witty in telling Jackal to drop the array of topics to discuss. Very funny. Can I have my debate please?
And he serves, with two points. He asks Blackjackal to answer the fact that gun laws or not, a criminal will always get a gun if he wants one. And, if
that fails, he'll kill someone with something else. Sounds like the Bull is charging that gun laws don't have much point, here.
Alrighty. More wrangling over the topic. What does it mean?
Whoops. Blackjackal slipped. He says that, somehow, a law that restricts everyone under the age of 25, will "only remove the guns from the
criminals." Impossible. Say, I'm 24, not a criminal, and I want to buy a gun. What's not in my hand? I'm not a criminal. He goes on about harsher
Ah, it ain't pretty. But we must get through this. Damn I'm only half through this thing. Must pour more alcohol into my mother. Of the HG800 nasty
ass variety. Whoa. I mean, must pour more alcohol into my mouth. Alrighty.
(Intermission; peanut butter sandwich entering my mouth)
Okay. Blackjackal goes on to say that we should limit the amount of guns that can be brought in bulk order. Ban wimpy weapons. Place background checks
at gun shows.
JB1 pokes a funny stick in Blackjackals eye by calling his solutions Utopia. Then he reiterates his points, which Blackjackal hasn't directly
addressed. Momma have mercy. Jb1 fires off almost a direct insult (the first I've seen from the Bull): "Come on Black Jackal ! You're going to have
to do a lot better than that if you want to win this debate. You haven't laid a glove on me yet."
Shiver me timbers. What happens next in this movie!?
Wow. It's like Blackjackal woke up or something. He comes back with a lengthy exposition with fact and pretty pictures. I was properly impressed.
Hmm, jb1 crawls back, well, walks back with a another semi wet tissue about the scope and weight of the debate. Jb1 points out that gun control
doesn't work in Britain. People murder people, which is true. Wow. Jb1 strikes again with another insult. Will the judges be affected? Maybe Jb1 is
getting more violent along with Britain. The facts predict an upward trend.
Jb1 one closes that round with good points 60 million guns aren't going to disappear over right. Criminal will use them. They ignore gun laws.
Man. I'm going to summarize at this point. Blackjackal fires off one more round, that gun problems in this country are like a disease. Jb1, man, give
this guy some valium or something, rags on Blackjackal. I think he pushes it to a un-sportsmanship like level. If Blackjackals side was so poorly
played then why didn't he eat wheaties for breakfast and win the debate? Big talk is easy from behind a keyboard.
Man. So who won? Blackjackal came alive, somewhat, towards the end. I don't know if JB1 was using slick British propaganda, but it sounded like his
points were never directly answered. Blackjackal brought forth a decent case, but he didn't "breach Jb1s position." But does he need to? No.
Honestly, I don't think this debate answered the topic. And I really can't say who will win. It was a decent debate though and pats on the back for
[edit on 22-7-2004 by ktprktpr]