You asked a dumb question, obviously with a particular slant. Once everyone called you out for how self-evidently stupid it was, you tried to walk it back “oh, it was a thought question”, “I just wanted to know”. Now, in your response, you A: fail to note any possible positives from your plan, B: fail to refute any…

Uh. You do realize that the salary cap is in place SPECIFICALLY to limit the success of teams willing to pay for it, and make sure that poor teams are able to keep up? So a thing entirely designed because paying for talent confers an advantage to an organization, and is trying to mitigate that, is the example you use…

Ah, right, of course, YOUR pay is absolutely fair. It’s that other asshole. Her pay is bullshit. Because... well, I’m sure you have reasons.

Yes. It’s called “economics”.

$10k plus depending on location. They hold their value like crazy.

SHE. LOST. TO. DONALD. FUCKING. TRUMP.

This. I tend to lean libertarian, but Sanders was my first and second choice, because he seemed like the only one who gave a shit about anybody but themselves- and I’ve talked to quite a few that agree with me.

Is it part of soccer official rules that every highlight video has the same Alvin and The Chipmunks music along with it?

I agree with most of your points (although trophy hunting is too complex to be purely “shitty”), but I would like to correct one point- bows are just as capable of humane kills as rifles. Poor hunters/shot placement cause slow and horrible deaths, with both rifles and bows. I’ve seen plenty of hunters with crazy nice…

Funny thing about that though... the pickup wreck happens after Mr. NeighborhoodWatch puts his cones out. It changes... nothing. Almost like the drivers aren’t driving safely for the conditions.

And those are all absolutely fair points. I feel that every person has their own level of what is or isn’t responsible daily kit. Some people carry a first aid kit with them. Some a gun. I’m not really one to judge those decisions. Obviously if you commit a crime, including negligent harm to another, you should face…

I’m sorry, I’m still just not understanding your point. I’m sure that if you use just a few more personal insults, you can prove yourself correct, and finally end the gun-control debate in America.

Please, continue to explain to me how I’ve proven myself irrational. Use your ad-hominem attacks to prove your moral superiority.

Have I stated whether or not I carry a firearm? Have I stated I agree with someone’s decision to do so? So far, I haven’t stated my views at all- merely noted that you have used insults in lieu of points. And for that I am called a “stupid coward”. Possibly (just possibly), that was my point.

I learned long ago not to assume anything about the intentions of someone on the internet I’ve never met, and take their comments at face value. However, since you’ve proven to be willing to discuss this and consider opposing sides, I will apologize for my passive-aggressive response.

It’s so nice to find someone willing to approach this from a reasonable standpoint, who is able to view the other side as rational human beings, and form a coherent, fact-based argument, not having to resort to ad-hominem attacks.

Of course, you have evidence to back up that nobody has ever once bought a handgun for reasons other than shooting other people? That people don’t use handguns for hunting, target shooting, varmint control, miscellaneous “truck gun” duties? 

My goodness, with facts, statistics, and other in-depth evidence like that, I can only wonder why there is even still debate on the subject.

Thank you for your well thought out, considerate opinion “everyone who does something I don’t agree with is a stupid coward” that of course will elevate and rationalize the gun control discussion in this country.

It’s pretty awesome. I went back to the DZ for the first time in a couple patches this week.