You can't make threads like this, that's infringing on their freedom of speech to say whatever they want in THAT thread.

BAN PARODY THREADS.

I made a few typos. *threads that are supposed to honor...

I should have also used all caps, my bad.

You copied me.

*honour.

Damn Yanks.

sue me. It was a parody of your thread. Hence me calling it a parody thread.

@Rimmelastic: I know hot to spell, I am Canadian. I used honor since that is what Bo_Sox used

Oh, pardon me. Then please forward my patriotism to bo_sox. Sorry for the trouble.
On a more serious note in line with the thread... I think anyone who's ever lived in a major metropolitan area would agree that cars are hugely inefficient at moving people around cities, cause pollution and smog, and take up too much room with roads and parking. Not to mention they make cycling and pedestrian traffic more difficult and less safe.

Ban bicycles! They don't pay for the roads, the cars and trucks do with their annual registration fees. And pedestrians don't belong on the street. They just get in the way when the light turns green and some old fart hasn't finished crossing yet.

You can't troll me here, this is the internet!

You responded. Troll successful.

The main argument is that it causes 40 times as many deaths per year as guns, so if we are banning guns because they kill people, we should ban cars as well.

So how about we make people who don't have cars be exempt from paying road fees and maintenance. Pedestrians can pay for sidewalks (like everyone else will - you need a sidewalk to exit your vehicle) and cyclists can pay for their tiny bike lanes. Fair's fair, after all.

@ Fasces
I don't remember the last time a bike killed someone other than the rider.

There is no honor in attempting to ban guns.

WRONG THREAD.
(*Honour)

I don't see how the topic is at all funny. I get sick to my stomach thinking about the incident that provoked all these "parodies".

Also,
The logic:
Guns kill people, but can also have other purposes
Cars kill people, but can also have other purposes

Thus: he who favors a gun ban should also favor a car ban

is just as moronic as:

Guns kill people, but also have other purposes
Enriched uranium in nuclear weapons kills people, but also serves other purposes

Thus: he who favors that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed also favors that anyone should be allowed to own enriched uranium.

This kind of reductio ad absurdum will bring nothing productive, but I'm sure the parents of the children who died will be thrilled to hear this is the tone with which their fellow countrymen approach this (to me) dead serious topic.

@Rommel - You don't have a clue, do you... Generally speaking, except for highways (which don't have pedestrians on them, or better not as they are clearly marked as no pedestrians, roads are funded by auto and truck registrations. So gyuess what, pedestrians *don't* pay for them. Nor do bicyclist. But, to make matters worse, property owners pay for the sidewalks, not tax dollars. It is on the property owner to pay for any sidewalk maintenance required on their property and new sidewalks that get put in are paid for by the property owner. You must be a renter to not know this simple fact.

Yike Bikes and segways both seem an incredible alternative to cars for commuters. I do not think they could share road ways with large transport trucks, obviously.

BAN PARITY THREADS

"Guns kill people, but also have other purposes
Enriched uranium in nuclear weapons kills people, but also serves other purposes"

That's a false analogy. By adding "in nuclear weapons" you are expanding upon the second part. Enriched uranium serves lots of other purposes as does depleted uranium (often used in tank buster rounds). But the moment you put it into nuclear weapons, you are now talking about nuclkear weapons, not enriched uranium.

Your anaolgy should have been:
Guns have other purposes
Nuclear weapons have other purposes

But that fails because a nuclear weapon only has one purpose. Last I checked you can't go out and target shoot a nuclear weapon.

@ Draug.
So what you're saying is you like the status-quo then, kinda what I was getting at with the last line (with the exception of the bicycle lane idea...). This is a parody thread though, don't go getting trolled by your own troll.

I actually like what you present better. Let *all* taxpayers pay for the sidewalks and reduced the burden on the homeowner. I'm not the only one walks on the diewalk infront of my house (hell, I don't use it and it is a nuisance to have to edge and trim) so why should I be the one pay for it when some asshole dumptruck driver working across the street parks a set of wheels on it and cracks it?

Draugnar,
You can use nuclear weapons to get the enriched uranium out and stick it in a nuclear reactor. For a country that has lots of nuclear weapons but needs money (Russia being a possible example) selling it cheaply to an expert in dismantling would not be an unviable strategy. In that case, the expert would own a nuclear weapon for the purpose of generating energy.
Also, nuclear weapons are used not so much as a weapon, but as a deterrent for warfare.
Hypothetically, you could also use it to try and change the trajectory of an asteroid heading to earth or damage such asteroid.
Last, you could put it on display in a museum.
Sorry, you lose :(

Draugnar: Whoa, you have a sidewalk outside your house in the suburban United States? You're so privileged!

@JECE - Yes and I live on a *gasp* cul-de-sac. Granted my house and the street are more than 50 years old and within the city limits of Fairfield, so not truly suburban. I pay city taxes to the third largest city in Butler County (and as is constantly pointed out by our city council, the cleanest and wealthiest city in our county).

@red - No, you can't use weapons grade uranium directly. HEU is too much for most light water reactors, although it can be uysed in fast neutron reactors and in the production of medical isotopes. Most modern reactors use LEU, though. And then there is the plutonium which reactors don't use at all but is common in the primary stage of nuclear weapons now.

As far as putting on display, I do blieve the uranium and/or plutonium is removed so all you have on display is a casing, not an actual nuclear weapon. That fails the simple even-the-government-knows-better logic trest.

Hollywood not withstanding, changin the direction of an incoming asteroid would be unviable because we could not get the warhead up in time if a asteroid small enough to have it's trajectory altered were spotted. It would be to late. And for bigger ones, it would take a hell of a lot more than we could get up there. Even if Bruce Willis were in charge of the mission.

I won't argue the nuclear detterent except to say it only works as a detterent because it is a weapon. If it didn't have the ability to kill, it wouldn't deter shit. But that argument applies to handguns too which is why airsoft guns are kiddie toys and not used for home defense.

"Oh, pardon me. Then please forward my patriotism to bo_sox. Sorry for the trouble."

Blame Noah Webster. I agree with you, it's his fault.

bo-sox SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE!!!

Yes daddy.

Draugnar: No fair – I used to live on a cul de sac in Cincinnati and I didn't have a sidewalk. I guess you most live in a socialist town that cares about your health and well-being.

Fairfield, Butler County. And the sidewalks are almost as old as the houses. It's old farmland that got converted into a series of streets in 1960, but it's not a subdivision in the classic sense as there is no HOA and it isn't a single entrance to a bunch of streets. Most of the streets pass from one main road to the next or are cul-de-sacs directly off a main road like ours,

Bah. I used to live in Cincinnati as well. Anything that isn't across the river or closer to Dayton is Cincinnati. And yes, I know what you mean about there being no "HOA". (I had to Google that acronym.) I used to live right outside of Heitmeyer Farms in Sycamore Township.