Josh Grant Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 was watching the news last night and already b4 guyforks there has been some minor accidents...but jeeze ppl are wanting them banned. fireworks dont kill people. people kill people (with fireworks) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Known One Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 I see that this year they don't sell Sparklers by themselves... too many sparkler bombs getting produced... lame Made some pretty good sized Jar-bombs before fo sure... defaced property with them sure... but apart from the shenanigans and the carbon footprint, fireworks are embedded into my culture. Childhood memories of fireworks is something every nz kid should have... and not the public display kind... I mean the try out-do your neighbours kinda shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the code Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 I love fireworks and my dad has always had them around. None of us ever got hurt, other then my sister touching a hot sparkler once. Fireworks are awesome. Stupid people should be banned from buying them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_weazel Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Stupid people should be banned from life. EFT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pakage Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Fireworks are awesome. Stupid people should be banned from buying them. IQ test on purchase, standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reform Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Fireworks are awesome. Stupid people should be banned from buying them. IQ test on purchase, standard. I've seen smart people do some pretty dumb shit, don't think the above criteria would work... Can you imagine 'The Warehouse' staff organizing an IQ test??? Me? I'm loading some skyrockets up with BZP,,, Gonna fire em at Jim Andertons house and swap Jaqui Deans tampons with BZP bangers. Gotta get the most out of tings before the nay-sayers ban em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merge Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 who were the dicks tht clicked yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 well, it seems that not ONE fucking person in the whole country has raised this argument over the whole fireworks debate. It's called "Guy Fawke's" for a reason. He was the feller who'd had enough of his fucking government and their corrupt ways and took a drastic, last ditch action to wake up his own populace. blowing up parliment. (for years as a kid i thought it was the beehive... but yeah, the idea has stuck) we, as a nation of Subjects, still under commonwealth law, and under Treaty to HerMajesty The Queen of England, need to REMEMBER, this man, Guy Fawkes'. For his resolve, his intent, and the complex truth that governments dont rule the country, we the people, do. we choose. we decide what laws are wanted and what arent. when the time comes that we are no longer a part of this governing process, our liberties are lost. and thats when the time comes to take *other* forms of action. It seems a little coincedental, at this time of "anti-terrorism" in NewZealand, that the media should focus on the negative, and try quash our celebrations, surrounding an occasion which marks the rememberance of a historic event, which keeps alive the spirit, the idea, and the man who stood up against a corrupt and domaneering government. And, tonight, when you're setting off your pretty, sparkly, dainty mini EXPLOSIVES, remember that shit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 who were the dicks tht clicked yes. i reckon, come on you pussies. stand up for what you believe in. and at least give us your treaty as to why you think they should be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merge Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 it is quite laughable that to this day we celebrate a failed act of terrorism. I agree that it was intended to send a message to citizens of london, strange that we can distinguish between an honourable act of terror and one that is not...? ps. V for Vendetta is terrible. '1984' FTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merge Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 boom-sticks! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXcBDasCsY4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_weazel Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 (edited) It seems a little coincedental, at this time of "anti-terrorism" in NewZealand, that the media should focus on the negative, and try quash our celebrations, surrounding an occasion which marks the rememberance of a historic event, which keeps alive the spirit, the idea, and the man who stood up against a corrupt and domaneering government. Oh come on dude, there's no coincidence here whatsoever, EVERY year at Guy Fawkes they bring this shit up, you're stretching unbelievably hard to come up with a link there. Agreed that we need to remember Guy Fawkes and what he stood for, but do we REALLY need to do it by blowing up small children and animals? I have to admit I was "over" Guy Fawkes years ago... watching my money go up in smoke is no fun if I'm not getting high off it. Edited November 4, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merge Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 but the flashing colours and big flower blooms are so purty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Known One Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Agreed that we need to remember Guy Fawkes and what he stood for, but do we REALLY need to do it by blowing up small children and animals? Under that logic we should ban cars because idiots drive like morons and kill children and animals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzp Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Thers only a few that fuk it up each time - in saying that, theres a few who fuk up everything else also... If your going to ban fireworks because theyre dangerous, you may as well ban vehciles, knives, fuk knows what else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 yeah, i was streching it for sure... every little thing a conspiracy theoy nowadys massers. "blowing up little kids and animals"...///gee, i've been using fireworks for over twenty years and i aint never blown an animal. although, ive never magnifying-glasssed ants either. people do that, and start fires with them too. should they be banned? as for the icident with the kids, that was purely an accident. sure, there could have been better crowd control/safety measures organisied, and maybe thats something the Lions clubs, and anyone else using dangerous stuff for public display purposes need s to sort out so this sort of shit doesn't happen. although, when that person was killed by a rogue speedway wheel, they didnt ban speedway did they?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_weazel Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 ive never magnifying-glasssed ants either. I have. It's great fun. But they fucking stink when they burn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_weazel Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 i aint never blown an animal. I dunno bro, I've heard stories... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 it is quite laughable that to this day we celebrate a failed act of terrorism. I agree that it was intended to send a message to citizens of london, strange that we can distinguish between an honourable act of terror and one that is not...? ps. V for Vendetta is terrible. '1984' FTW no, it was not an act of TERORISM, it was fucking ACTIVISM for the sake of GOD. literally. and it was not intended to send a message, it was part of a war being fought by persecuted people against their oppressors, and he wanted to KILL THEM, to remove their rule from the country and allow a world to exist of multi-secular religious(albeit Christian) beliefs. for anyone interested in what really happened check out ; http://www.lexi.net/bonfire/chronology.php to sum it up though, Guy(guido)fawkes was devoutly alligned to a group of people(Catholics) who were at the time being persecuted by the rulers of his country,King James and The Church of England. theres an officially produced book that was put out by the government at the time called something like; The King James Book; a true and perfect account of the evenets... blahblah. note the "true and perfect" part of the title. most of the details in this book have been disputed. even in the 1600;s propaganda was alive and well.[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 wait, are trannies animals? :| lol, okay, so you got me there, needs more thinking about the typing and preview and edit before post. also worth noting on this issue, is what started the war and persecution of catholics, is that King James authorised a translating of the Holy Bible from latin into English. A few sects of the christian church didnt quite agree with all of HisMajesties named version of the translation. thus starting people who protested, and fought against the church of england taking control of their country. this war was being fought in numerous countries, including spain, and the church of england decided the best way to convince people that their enemies were heretics was to start executing non-beleivers and "resucants".(basically todays equivalent of a dissdent). bring on the men in black masks with axes chopping off the heads of anyone who wouldnt swear the the anglican church their fealty to the king. or something like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merge Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 (edited) no, it was not an act of TERORISM, it was fucking ACTIVISM for the sake of GOD. literally. and it was not intended to send a message, it was part of a war being fought by persecuted people against their oppressors im sorry but disregarding the recently bush-allocated connotations of terrorism, this IS essentially an act of chaos. sure it may have been the right thing to do in hindsight, but what on earth distinguishes activism from terrorism? its simply a p.o.v. ask any "terrorist" why they are fighting and im sure your quote above would be their reply. perhaps the gunpowder plot was purposeful, but lets not sugarcoat it, it was an assasination attempt just as any other in the thousands of civil wars and guerilla battles around the world. Protestant rule may indeed have been unfavoured and I for one agree with the inclusion of multi-secular expression in society, but there is a fine line between terrorism and activism. Edited November 4, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_weazel Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 wait, are trannies animals? :| lol, okay, so you got me there, needs more thinking about the typing and preview and edit before post. also worth noting on this issue, is what started the war and persecution of catholics, is that King James authorised a translating of the Holy Bible from latin into English. A few sects of the christian church didnt quite agree with all of HisMajesties named version of the translation. thus starting people who protested, and fought against the church of england taking control of their country. this war was being fought in numerous countries, including spain, and the church of england decided the best way to convince people that their enemies were heretics was to start executing non-beleivers and "resucants".(basically todays equivalent of a dissdent). bring on the men in black masks with axes chopping off the heads of anyone who wouldnt swear the the anglican church their fealty to the king. or something like that Black Masks?? Nah... red robes: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shucks Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 but the flashing colours and big flower blooms are so purty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 yes your right. it is all about point of view. if you had an oppressive executing government after you for your beleifs, i'd say you'd be forced to ACT. in a TEROR-ble way, maybe. so i guess the difference comes when we as a society decide what is an acceptable level of action and what isnt. obviously the taking of human life is not good, but as you say, it was an assasination attempt. as far as terrorism in modern society, we are lucky that we are not hanged for not adhering to our governments standings,so acts of violence are not tolerated. but if it came to an armed conflict situation, and the opposing sode had better weaponry, you're only options would be to escalate the nature of your tactics(ie;suicide bombers etc...) im still vehemently against real terrorist acts, such as politically based sects sarin gassing subways full of innocent people etc... but when it comes down to a reactionary type of incident, in response to a force or rules which cant otherwise be reversed using dialgue or official channels due to a corrupted nature of those channels, then thats the point where i would still call it activism. a people or group with no other hope or form of resolution, either defending against an armed force, or acting out against a corrupt ruling government or dictator. to use an analogy, war is essentially a game of chess. two sides involved in battle. your oponent makes an action, you make either a defensive reaction, or take your own offensive action. the ultimate goal being to either force the oponent into submission, or take out their leader, the king. to put this chess game analogy into the context of the gunpowder plot (and indeed many of todays current conflicts), its like the white side on the chess board is moving about with no intention of causing any of the black side any harm, then one day the black king starts making rules like, ok, you white siders can no longer move more than four squares a week, or, you must paint yourselves black now to play freely on this chess board. the white siders would at first argue against this new rule, maybe protest here and there, spitting in the faces of bishops etc... maybe make a petition to reverse these new rules. but when it seems that the ones who wont paint themselves black are being dragged off the board by knights on horses, eventually they have no option but to form ranks and battle the black siders, and the ultimate goal is to take down the nasty rule making black king. the faster the better... so, a plot is made against him, and carried out, or a chaotic massacre is fought all across the board with numbers on both sides depleted. or maybe you understand hollywood logic a little better... were the scots who fought along side william wallace terrorists? they did after all sack and burn down quite a few forts and stuff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Grant Posted November 5, 2007 Author Share Posted November 5, 2007 i accidentaly pressed yes, so disregard one yes and change that to a no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now