Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum

Jagneb

Forum Member
  • Content Count

    404
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Relatively Unknown

About Jagneb

  • Rank
    Unicorn
  • Birthday 08/06/1992

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    inside your monitor

About My Character

  • RuneScape Name
    Jagneb
  • RuneScape Status
    Member
  • RuneScape Version
    RuneScape
  • RuneScape God
    Don't Care
  • Favourite Skill
    Combat
  • Combat Type
    Melee
  • Combat Level
    87+
  • Overall Skill Level
    1413+
  1. Jagneb

    Flag Burning

    So, when Iraq was liberated from Saddam Hussian, and the Iraqis tor down his statue, they were not destroying the country's old values and beliefs? They must have just been trying to make room for a new parking lot. I know that that is not burning a flag, but it is the same concept. It's hardly the same concept, because Saddam Hussein committed crimes against humanity that wasn't exactly the most ideal representation. By taking down a statue of him, you remove his legacies. Down to some individuals again the statue may have mattered but it definitely didn't have an impact on Iraq/wherever because it's his "symbol". Both definite symbols with impact but not in the same context and both are only valid to individuals, a statue of him represents him. If you put up a statue of Gordon Brown in London would that be the very essence of the United Kingdom? I should hope not. It is basically the same concept. You keep saying that the flag is just a piece of cloth, so would a statue just be a polish stoned? However, by destroying the statue they were no killing him, they were destroying what he represents. It is exactly the same concept.
  2. Jagneb

    Flag Burning

    So, when Iraq was liberated from Saddam Hussian, and the Iraqis tor down his statue, they were not destroying the country's old values and beliefs? They must have just been trying to make room for a new parking lot. I know that that is not burning a flag, but it is the same concept.
  3. Jagneb

    Flag Burning

    Then I go back to this poem again. The US soldier is the one you is protecting your rights and your country. So, just my opinion but you could if anything show them some respect. It is the Soldier, not the poet Who has given us freedom of speech. It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer Who has given us freedom to protest It is the Soldier who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag, And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protester to burn the flag. It does not offend me because it is a symbol of myself it offends me because of what the flag itself stands for. The red signifies hardiness and valor. The white signifies purity innocence, and freedom. The blue signifies vigilance, perseverance, and justice. So, when you burn the flag you are not just burning a piece of cloth. You are burning everything that it represents.
  4. Jagneb

    Flag Burning

    It has been a long time since there has been a topic about this, and I thought it would be good to bring it back. To be completely honest I wouldn't have even thought about bring this up, but I read this poem by Charles M. Province and it made me think about it again.
  5. Jagneb

    Fishing Question

    I believe that the fishing spots reappear sooner, but you don't catch fish any faster.
  6. Jagneb

    Power Mining

    He said he was a skiller, so he going to have a low combat. He is f2p how does this help him any? Your best spot would be rimmington or the varrock east mine. The rimmington mine is south of falador. The varrock mine is just southeast of varrock.
  7. Jagneb

    Possilbe New Assault Weapons Ban.

    In the rest of civilised countries, they do. Why don't you actually read about the case? What you said would be like saying. Person 1: "We don't eat whale in the US." Person 2: "Well, they do in Japan." That means absolutly nothing to someone in the US. But a court case is not an universal truth set in stone forever and ever, is it? If the case is from the supreme court it is basically set in stone. The only way to overturn a supreme court decision is for the supreme court to hear a case regarding the same thing as a previous case and vote to over turn that previous case. So until that happens, Warren vs. District of Columbia's decision is set in wet cement so to say. Warren vs District of Columbia is to protect the state in case the police fail. Its not to say that the police don't have to do their job. Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."
  8. Jagneb

    Bank Options

    It sounds like a good idea to me. I support the idea. Now get to work on that fake Gonza. Every good suggestion must have a good fake.
  9. Jagneb

    Possilbe New Assault Weapons Ban.

    In the rest of civilised countries, they do. Why don't you actually read about the case? What you said would be like saying. Person 1: "We don't eat whale in the US." Person 2: "Well, they do in Japan." That means absolutly nothing to someone in the US. But a court case is not an universal truth set in stone forever and ever, is it? If the case is from the supreme court it is basically set in stone. The only way to overturn a supreme court decision is for the supreme court to hear a case regarding the same thing as a previous case and vote to over turn that previous case. So until that happens, Warren vs. District of Columbia's decision is set in wet cement so to say.
  10. Jagneb

    Question On A P2p Strength Pure

    If you have the money for a cannon and a lot of cannon balls then I would do that. If not then go with knives like cooleris said.
  11. Jagneb

    Possilbe New Assault Weapons Ban.

    In the rest of civilised countries, they do. Why don't you actually read about the case? What you said would be like saying. Person 1: "We don't eat whale in the US." Person 2: "Well, they do in Japan." That means absolutly nothing to someone in the US.
  12. Jagneb

    Possilbe New Assault Weapons Ban.

    We do not tolerate it because the government does not want us too. It is much easy to control an unarmed person then it is to control an armed person. Once again, I have to ask: why do you think that someone would kill you just for the hell of it? Isn't it MORE possible that said 'criminal' would shoot seeing you with a weapon? In 1985, the National Institute for Justice reported that: 60% of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime." Unless you sleep with the (loaded) rifle under your pillow, I don't see you having many chances of outmaneuvering the burglar - especially if you were sleeping. I am a very light sleeper. I happen to have 2 pistols, a 12 gauge, and my grandpa's M1 in my room. 1 of the pistol is load every night and put on the nightstand next to my bed. You aren't understanding my point. Guns are used to protect people, and times have changed in the sense that there are police officers when there weren't any then. It was put in place for actual DEFENSELESS people. You aren't speaking realistically. The use of a gun for self-defense is extremely rare. To take it away from the person attacking would only reduce numbers. Gun control laws work -- acknowledge it. Your argument is invalid if there weren't any guns on the street. You shouldn't need an assault weapon to defend yourself. Seriously, has no one read my post about Warren vs. District of Columbia. The police have no obligation to protect you.
  13. Jagneb

    Possilbe New Assault Weapons Ban.

    And why must law abiding citizens wield such weaponry meant for military operations!? U have not answered my question. What's wrong with a simple pistol? If we leave these guns only in the hands of the military and police then the level of crime involving them will decrease. It has been shown in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 when the U.S Department of Justice reported a gun murder drop of 11% and the level of gun violence involving assault weapons down by 66% This was successful because criminals were unable to easily purchase guns that otherwise lead to violence like these like semi-automatics and machine guns. It worked. now ask urself this, if u can defend urself simply using a pistol then why purchase such weaponry that if in the wrong hands could lead to heavy civilian casualties? Why collect such machinery when ur main purpose of defense is met with a simple Colt or Beretta? It makes no sense to me why u need an AK-47 or Uzi's just to ward of a common burglar. Okay, since everyone is saying that muskets are differnet then automating weapons. I agree. However, what was every army in the world using? They were using muskets. So even though muskets are different. The government still didn't infringe on 2A. Hmm why did the Government allow the citizens to have MILITARY weapons? I would say it is best put by James Monroe. "... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny." As for the assault weapon ban. You also have to look at all of the variables. For example, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was also passed in 1994. You are correct that a pistol can be used to defend yourself. I am not dening that. If I am on the street yes I would prefer a pistol. If I am at home I feel much safer with my M1. Would looks more intimidating to a robber a little pistol or an M1? I would prefer to be intimidating enough that the criminal wouldn't want to fight back. My hunting rifle is more powerful than my M1 and my 30 cal revolver is more mobile than my M1; However, the M1 is more intimidating. I hope that I would never have to pull the trigger, but if a day would come that a burglar does break in I know that I am safe.
  14. Jagneb

    Possilbe New Assault Weapons Ban.

    How does me owning an assault weapon infringe on someone's life? How is the second amendment so flawed? All I have heard so far is that the guns have changed. The printing press has changed. Does this make the first amendment flawed? With the patriot act, it is no longer required to have a warrant to search your home. Does that make the 4th amendment flawed? The value of 20 dollars has changed. Does that make the 7th amendment flawed? I would also like to note that your right to live argument works both ways. If you are being held at gun point, knife point, or any kind of weapon. Is that CRIMINAL not infringe on the RIGHT TO LIVE of that LAW ABIDING CITIZEN? So shouldn't that law abiding citizen have the right to self defense? I think that you have the idea that all guns are bought legally. This is not the case. Most guns that criminals use are stolen or bought illegally. So why do you want to take away someones ability to defend themselves, take away their RIGHT TO LIVE?
  15. Jagneb

    Possilbe New Assault Weapons Ban.

    Not really. A black powder muzzler loader can easily take down a deer. Just because it doesn't have rapid fire doesn't mean it is pathetic.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.