Register now to remove this ad.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1976 Brohoofs

Recent Profile Visitors

20717 profile views

About BronyNumber42licious

  • Rank
  • Birthday

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic

  • Best Pony
  • Best Pony Race

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Personal Motto
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
  • Interests
    My Little Pony, video games, cartoons, Dungeons & Dragons, board games, Star Trek, power metal, guns, math, physics.

MLP Forums

  • Opt-in to site ads?
  • Favorite Forum Section

Contact Methods

  • Skype
  1. Can Men Be Beautiful?

    "but women are basically aloof, can take us or leave us, and need to be convinced or "won over", or "wooed" in some way. And then there's the stereotype that no woman, anywhere, ever, since the dawn of time, has ever wanted to have sex with a man. " My research shows that is is true. The only time women have sex is to get pregnant or because they have to in order to keep a man.
  2. Want to help each other get a bunch of brohoofs? Let's respond to this thread of updates and brohoof them.

  3. Gun

    Here is a fact I learned yesterday. Brazil had 15,000 murders in 2015. In Brazil it is very difficult to legally get a gun, there is no way to carry for self defense. The NRA was created to teach people marksmanship. Today the NRA is the largest promoter of gun safety. Gun accidents are at a historic low while gun ownership is at a high. The problem is not people not knowing how to use a gun. There just aren't a lot of those stories. Making it harder for law abiding people to get a gun does not stop the criminals. The government has already said that there are certain weapons that aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment. The 1936 Miller case, challenging the 1934 National Firearms Act, said that machine guns (which has a technical definition) are not covered. This case has a lot of back story, and the ruling itself is self contradictory and wrong. Either way, things like explosives and grenades are not covered. These are things that do excessive damage and wouldn't be useful for self defense. Although they would be useful for national defense. "what if grandma mistakes me for a villain because she can't see very well, panics, and shoots me? " The logical fallacy here is to make up a scenario that could happen and using that as the one and only thing to base a decision on. Is this really likely? Guns are used in self defense thousands of times a year, but you don't hear those stories. Every single day NRA news reports on a self defense story. Sure, there is some possibility that someone might accidentally shoot someone else. I'm sure you can find those stories if you dig deep enough. But how often does it really happen? Are you aware that there are many states that are "constitutional carry" or permitless carry where you can carry a gun without a license. I myself open carry almost every day. We were told that these places would become the wild west, but it hasn't happened. "What if grandma wasn't all there mentally?" There is something called due process, which is the foundation of a free society. The government cannot arbitrary take away your rights without due process, which means you have your day in court. There are different levels of standard, good cause, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. When the government wants to curtain the exercise of a constitutionally protected right then it must do so in a very limited way. There are provisions for taking guns away from people who are deemed mentally defective, but this process still means the person has legal representation. " Do ALL people have this same right to guns?" By default, yes. But you can have that right taken away if you are a criminal, or found by a court to be mentally defective. "his is my fear of living in a world where everyone is armed." This is the straw man argument created by anti gun people. It is not true that everyone is armed, or that everyone has the ability to be armed. "gun inside their home for defense, but if everyone walking around in public was armed, I believe that accidental and premature shootings would skyrocket. " A recent court case, it might have been Heller or Mcdonald, pointed out that a person is more likely to be attacked out in the streets than in their apartment. This is not speculation, it is proven fact. Millions of people are already carrying guns in public. Some of them in states that don't require a license. Yet we just don't see the carnage that people said would happen. Go look up the rates at which legal gun owners commit crimes. It is extremely low. "I think that that would be a terrifying dystopian scenario to live in" Mexico, China, Brazil, Venezuela, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea. All countries in which it is impossible or very difficult for civilians to get a gun. Depending on the state you live in, you probably pass someone who is carrying a gun every day and don't know it. " nationwide marijuana legalization because it seems to me that the only thing that would change is that cops' time would be better freed up" There is a lot of money to be made by keeping drugs illegal. The government doesn't want to lose the federal money they get to fight the "war on drugs." Asset forfeiture laws mean that the government can take your property as part of a drug investigation. This is tyrannical. Government does not like to give up power. Banning alcohol did not stop crime. Banning drugs made it worse. Go look up how many deaths there are due to opium over doses. If the government can't even keep illegal drugs off the streets, then how does it make sense to give up our guns and put our lives in the hands of government? Storage requirements don't keep guns out of the hands of bad people. The vast majority of gun owners are safe and responsible. The DC v Heller case said that the government cannot require you to lock up your gun at home, because it makes it inaccessible for self defense. Gun accidents or issues pertaining to lack of training are such a tiny problem compared to gangs and drugs. It makes no sense to create more paperwork, with the corresponding penalties to go with it. It is easier go after the low hanging fruit and make it harder for law abiding people. Comparing this to cars, how many people are driving right now without a license? Do you really think passing a simple test one time is the whole reason why you know how to drive a car? That is saying that government is the be all and end all of what is good in the world. There are 30,000 car accident deaths every year in the USA. What if the government required more training for driving? Do you think people would be outraged?
  4. Boop a snoot, any snoot

    I'm gonna boop all yall!
  5. Guess this song. 

    Do, do do do do, do, do do do do

    Dee Dee Dee Dee 

    Dee Dee Dee Dee 

  6. Spoiler Questions About Equestrian Power Structure

    Princess Of Friendship is a position with no power. It was created as a political pay out to Twilight. Regardless, it is the definition of tyranny for a political leader to arbitrarily dictate what will and won't happen, with no regard to law or due process. Equestria must have a bureaucracy with reasons for doing things. We really don't know how much power these agencies have. What is the appeals process? Is there a separation of powers? It is very dangerous to put all the power in the hooves of an oligarchy and hope that it remains benevolent. Will Flurry Heart become ruler of the Crystal Empire just because of her mother?
  7. Gun

    Self preservation is meaningless without the real means to do it. A gun is the great equalizer. It is by far and away the most effective way to defend yourself. Nothing else comes close. No amount of karate will let a woman fend off two large men. Rights are not earned, they are inherent, and they are fought for. When self defense becomes a priveledge from the government then your life becomes their property. They decide if and when you are allowed to live. True story, the supreme court ruled that the police are not responsible if they fail to save you if you call 911. So the government takes away your right to self defense and doesn't claim responsibility for it either. So who is responsible?
  8. Gun

    It is not true that people aren't doing anything. There are already schools with armed teachers and more states are doing that. You don't want to live in a world where everyone is armed? I don't want to live in a world where a woman can get raped. But that is the world we live in. There is no such thing as utopia and there never will be. You have to be realistic about what can be achieved, and what the costs will be. I know a lot about the issue and if you want to learn more I would be happy to educate.
  9. General Appreciate a fellow pony!

    Hi to @Babyyoshi309
  10. Is Equestria the world, or is it a contenant.

    I think it is just the pony Principality, not the entire continent. It is what ever Celestia has control over.
  11. Gun

    " Some people seem to want guns to work like candy bars; go into any store, buy any kind you want, " " a certain variety of American often seems to talk about the second amendment as if it did" There are no people like that. "ban all assault-type weapons, bump stocks, high capacity mags, etc." What is an assault type weapon? Who defines what high capacity is? 30 rounds is, in fact, standard capacity. The term assault rifle was made up to make guns sound scary. The AR 15 is the most common type of gun sold, owned by millions of people. It is semi automatic, whereas the military uses the fully automatic M4. California has a ban on assault rifles, and they have changed the definition 3 times. The real definition of assault rife is "gun I want to ban." "Also, we should raise the minimum age for all guns, across the board, to 21." Why can someone go to war and vote, but can't own at gun at 18? That means if a 20 year old commits a crime with a gun then they should be tried as a child not an adult. It makes no sense to say someone is old enough to be tried as an adult but not old enough to own the gun. Or they are old enough to go to war, or become a police officer. I suggest we raise the voting age back to 21 then. The rest of Part I was not even an argument, just name calling. The fact is people have used and do use semi automatic rifles in self defense. The FBI crime statistics show that hands and fists are used more often to commit murder than all rifles. Part II "log a certain number of hours of shooting at the range." Then why do all anti gun advocates oppose the opening of gun ranges? Here are some facts: There are no public use gun ranges in Washington DC. The Chicago city council banned the ability to open a gun range. The court struck down this ban. Anti gun people talk about "gun safety" but the never ever support any kind of safe gun use. Another fact: The NRA trains firearms instructors and has a program for children called Eddie Eagle that teaches children to not play with guns. The problem is not law abiding citizens who are not getting training. The problem is the criminal who gets the gun illegally and does not care. All of the bureaucracy and paperwork in the world will not affect the people who bypass the law. "After all, you cannot buy a car without having proven that you know how to drive one." False. You can buy a car without needing a license. But you can't drive one on public roads without a license. Does this law mean that nobody ever drives without a license? THere are 30,000 car accident deaths every year in the USA, Center For Disease Control. If we are going with the car analogy, then a driver's license is valid in all states. Therefore, a concealed carry license should be valid in all states. I can drive my car in downtown Washington DC, New York City, or Baltmore. I can take my car to a church or school. Therefore, according to you, if I have a gun license that proves I am trained then I should be able to take my gun in these places. " The licensing process would filter them out, and make it extremely difficult for them to acquire guns" Does this work in Mexico? "It would also include an eye exam," So an older person with poor eyesight does not have a basic, fundamental right of self defense. If someone breaks into his home, he's basically screwed. “The DF would look very similar to the DMV inside” So, incompetence? “ No firearms would be allowed inside the DF. “ This point needs special attention. There is NO SUCH THING as a gun free zone. They do not exist. A sign does not keep a criminal from taking a gun into a place. And setting up a security perimeter with metal detectors would always have armed security to enforce that law. “It would not be a place for shooting--only a department for the licensing.” Then let’s make the whole world a gun free zone. Problem solved. “With great power comes great responsibility” I would say with great FREEDOM comes great responsibility. “We put up with it, because we understand that it's necessary.” No, we put up with it because, if we don’t, someone from the government, carrying a gun, will force you to do it. That is the definition of government. “Upon expiration, the user would need to renew. “ Fact: New Your SAFE act required hundreds of thousands of gun owners, who already registered their guns, to re register. Most people have not yet re registered and are now felons. The state has decided not to round up hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers, who simply failed to file some paperwork. Do you believe that the full power of the state should arrest hundreds of thousands of people? Meanwhile, there are thousands of gang members who don’t care about the law. “just like a car--you can still keep it, but you can't drive it.” Like I said, so you are contradicting yourself. “I don't foresee law enforcement kicking in doors to confiscate guns.” I remember a little incident in Lexington in 1775. I forget how that turned out. “lso--and this should go without saying--but if you ever commit a violent crime, even once, you're banned for life from ever obtaining a firearm license. Period.” Great, because criminals always follow the law. All of Part II is more of the same we have heard for years. Making more laws to make it harder and harder for law abiding citizens to exercise their basic rights. Does it really make sense to prosecute people for paperwork violations, yet allow career criminals to plea bargain their crimes? How about go after the criminals and leave the good people alone? The problem with these “universal back ground checks” is they are unenforceable. Nevada passed such a law but it was so poorly written that the state can’t enforce it. Even in theory, these laws mean that if you go into the woods to shoot a gun then you can’t loan that gun to a friend. It means that if you have to leave town for a while and you want your friend to hold your guns then you both have to find an FFL just to fill out some paperwork. How does any of this prevent crime? If more paperwork means less crime, then we would have eliminated crime a long time ago. This licensing program is similar, actually more restrictive, than Canada’s licensing program. But if these laws prevent gun crime then why does the RCMP wear body armor? Shouldn’t it be impossible for a criminal to have a gun? If you try to point to Canada’s (or pick your favorite country) gun crime is lower, then why can’t I point to Russia, Brazil, or Mexico, all of which have higher gun crime and more restrictive laws? Part III “then all guns and ammunition would be completely banned except for police and military.” Just like every dictatorship in history. Brilliant. But wait, if this phaser is so great then why do the police still get to carry a real gun? “unless I hear a better idea” Here’s one: “A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The problem is not law abiding people who forgetting to file paperwork. The problem is not going after gang members and letting criminals go free on plea deals. The problem is not allowing people to carry in self defense. I could find cases of women who were murdered by exboyfriends who they had restraining orders against. “find a new sport. Isn't that a fair price to end gun violence forever?” This idea is more unrealistic as your phaser. It is a logical fallacy to offer only one solution to a problem and declare that it will for sure work. I would just as easily, and have a better case for, saying “arming law abiding citizens is a fair price to pay to drastically increase their ability to defend themselves.” But I guess that’s not idealistic enough. “Here's what you do: stun the animal with a phaser, then kill it with a knife.” My god… Ok, if these were a thing, then wouldn’t a criminal do the exact same thing to his victims? What you really need is a gun that only kills animals. “ I think the payoff would be worth it” I also remember a gun ban for Jews in 1938 in Germany. I forget how that turned out. “It is, in my opinion, a necessary expense, however. “ With many states already bankrupt and the national debt, how is this supposed to be funded? “the border wall is just like flushing money down a giant toilet.” Exactly. All we need is a sign at the border that says “Please don’t smuggle guns and drugs into this country. Thank you.” In Spanish, of course. “Should we have training courses and licensing to buy a fricking kitchen knife?" The UK passed severe knife laws, and you have to be 18 to buy some kitchen knives. Yet they have a high violent crime rate. When someone is being murdered by a knife I’m sure it is no consolation to them that at least the gun crime is low. “Should we require licenses for pencils, then too?” By your logic, yes we should. “ there are more deaths from knives than guns. This seems to me to be dodging the issue” No, these are the facts. “he point is that a lone knifeman can't kill dozens of school students, or movie goers, or concert goers, or night club goers, or church goers. Common sense, dude.” 33 Dead, 130 Injured in China Knife-Wielding Spree School attacks in China (2010–12)–12) This is just China, should we look at other countries? “decrease the number of guns in the wrong hands, while leaving the good hands relatively untouched.” As it is now, the vast vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Adding more bureaucracy does not stop criminals from getting the guns illegally. You might marginally keep a few guns from some mentally ill, but what are the unintended consequences? Are you going to put people in prison for forgetting to file paperwork? Are you going to thousands of more people to administer this? Are you going to tell police to stop patrolling the gang infested neighborhoods, and instead stake out the gun range just in case someone let their teenage son shoot their gun? Why is it that cities and states with tougher gun laws have higher crime? “ I think it's time to stop thinking of guns as an inborn right, and start thinking of them as a privilege that must be earned.” Replace “gun” with “speech.” The USA was founded on the idea that human beings are free, sovereign people. Our rights come from God (or nature if you prefer) and not from government. The government only has the authority to do things that we the people give them. The government does not have the authority to do those things that an individual person can’t do, with some exceptions like war. You can never have a perfect society. The Soviet Union tried that. Human nature is what it is. I read your previous blog entry, and you seem to think it is possible to simply stop hurting each other. That is not the world we live in. You cannot legislate morality. What is the cost of freedom? Is it mass shootings? On the other hand, the Holocaust is the cost of gun control. I’m more worried about a tyrannical government than I am about gangs and rapists. We can go after those criminals. But remember that a government that provides everything to you is a government that can take everything away. There is a myth that simply passing more laws will solve all out problems. Guns are used in self dense more often than to commit crimes. But you don’t hear those stories. Let us assume that sweeping gun control would reduce these high profile murders, the unintended consequence is that people are left defenseless against the “every day” crimes of rape, robbery, and murder. States and counties that had gun guns, and had those gun bans struck down (think District of Columbia v. Heller or McDonald v. Chicago ) these places saw a rise in people trying to get a gun license once it became legal to do so. This is also true for counties in California, where some sheriffs will issue a license, and some won’t. Similar to Hawaii, New Jersey, and New York. People know there is no point in even trying to get a gun because the government won’t issue a license. Recently, Washington DC was challenged in court again regarding their required to show good cause. The court ruled that such a cause was unconstitutional. The city decided not to challenge the ruling because they were afraid of losing at the Supreme Court level, and such a ruling there would have jurisdiction across the entire country. The city decided to take one for the team and drop their good cause requirement. This means people in DC now have the ability to apply for a gun license. Meanwhile, the criminals continue to not care. I can site dozens of cases of people being prosecuted for mere paperwork violations. New York, New Jersey, Illinois. Do you really think the problem is not enough paperwork? What are the penalties for violating these laws? Will this really stop gang members from stealing their guns? If I have to get permission from the government to exercise my basic human right, and if I have to go through all of this training, then does that mean I can carry my gun any place that a police officer can? The fact is that these proposals are only a first step down the road to a total gun ban. Maybe you honestly believe that people should be allowed to own guns as long as they go through these steps, but there are people who want to ban all guns for everyone. It seems to me that you aren’t as well versed on the subject as I am. I learn about this issue every day. I’ve heard all of these proposals before and I know why they won’t work. I could go on but I have to keep it short.
  12. Happy Pi Day! 3.14

    I'm posting here while it is still timely. See you next year.
  13. I preordered a PS4 Pro God of War edition. I've been meaning to get a PS4 Pro and that seemed like a good time. But now I will need a new hard drive for it.

    1. Alexshy


      Go for WD then, lief!

    2. pinkypie13


      yha i think that a good idan

    3. BronyNumber42licious


      I was just looking at a 8 TB external.

      I will then have Xbox One, Xbox One S Gears of War Edition, Xbox One X Scorpio, PS4 with 6 TB upgrade, and PS4 Pro God of War.

  14. The Undateables

    There is a British TV show called The Undatables where people with physical or mental disabilities are trying to find a date. It’s kind of sad and I feel sorry for these people because I know what it’s like. Specifically, there are a few people who were good looking but then they had some kind of accident or illness that left them disfigured or disabled. These people talk about how they had no trouble getting dates until their illness. There was one woman who was beautiful, then she had most of her nose and lips removed. Then should couldn’t get dates any more. This proves that looks do matter. I am so sick of people saying that looks don’t matter and it’s all about personality and “confidence.” The people in this TV show have the same personality before and after their accidents. So then why can’t they get dates after? It is an insult to tell someone that they can have a girlfriend/boyfriend if they just had “confidence.” That is the word I would hear all the time. It insults my intelligence. I am going to assume that there are men who feel the same way I do. Maybe some women too, but I’m not sure. I think most people who are unattractive know that they are unattractive. I know I am. I’m not stupid. I know what I look like. I know what good looking men look like, and they don’t look like me. I know the kind of guy that women go for. Good looking men get good looking women. That’s how it works. Don’t lie to me and tell me that I can have that attractive woman if all I do is blah blah blah. Like there is some magic word I have to say and that is going to trick this woman into falling in love with me. Some people are attractive, some people are not. That is the reality. Good looking people have the luxury of sitting on a high horse and claiming that they chose their bf/gf based on personality. But whenever I say that I want a good looking woman, I’m accused of being shallow. We are all shallow. Sure, you can find some examples here and there that go against my theory, but the vast majority of cases are exactly how I’ve described it. Don’t insult those of us who are “aesthetically challenged.”