It's great to be able to help with ideas.

Right now, I'm broke, so I don't have any money to put together a larger scale project like this. I wonder if anyone else has any ideas on material components. Another idea that I was thinking for the casings was to make it out of full metal. It would be interesting to see someone come out with something like that.

According to my research, I believe that the Studio Creations design is the simplest and cheapest vacuum form table to make. I haven't bought the Lindsay book on vacuum forming, but that may also have some great ideas in there.

That resin stuff sounds cool. Great idea to use them for Lego pieces! I wonder how you can mold, say larger Nerf parts with it.

You can make a small vacuform table for about $20 (I did). But the pieces you can make on it will be brittle and thin.

I think the durability of vacuumformed plastic may vary depending on the thickness of the plastic and how the table and mold are used.

I think it may be a better idea to come up with both better designs and materials to make the guns, than to make direct copies of stuff. Making your own original guns would be a kickass idea. If you are looking to sell it though, you should first find out what concepts and designs are patented, and which ones are not. As far as most of us know, the designs for Nerf guns may be patented, but the internal mechanisms may not be. Has anyone heard of any lawsuits filed between Lanard and Hasbro?

Actually, I acquired a book on making a small, tabletop homemade injection molding machine. Lindsay Publications prints it, and you can buy it directly from them. They also have some other cool books.

The injection machine book is here: http://www.lindsaybk...ject/index.html

With my job and stuff, I haven't gotten around to building the injection machine, but I think it may prove useful in making smaller parts.

For the larger parts, it may be more of a challenge. One idea that I can think of is to vacuum form plastic to a plaster mold. Vaccum forming is used by movie prop makers. (one of the most well-known uses is for Stormtrooper Armor) Basically, a vacuum form unit is a table with a hole in the middle. Under the table, a vacuum hose is hooked up, and the mold is placed over the hole. When molding, the softened plastic is sucked onto the mold by the vacuum.

Edit: I just found out that Lindsay also prints a book on vacuum forming, which is at this link: http://www.lindsaybk...vacf/index.html

Looking at the pictures of this Vacuum Forming machine, I think that some of the other prop making places on the internet have ideas for making a simpler and cheaper vacuum forming table.

One of my favorite prop sites has a good section on vacuum forming, which is here: http://www.studiocre...able/index.html

Another idea that I was thinking about would be to somehow make parts from metal or other materials. If only I had easier access to metal machining equipment.



UPDATE: Speaking of patents, if Hasbro had anything patented on their Nerf guns, they would have the patent information listed on the box or the gun itself. Looking at all the Nerf guns that I own, I do not see anything marked for this. The only thing that I see is a copyright date. I even checked on the box for the Nite Finder, and all I see is a copyright date. This probably explains why Lanard has not gotten into trouble for reverse engineering Nerf guns, since they don't slap the Nerf label on their stuff.

Mystic's right. Most of the guns have a simple firing mechanism. I think it would be interesting if someone came up with making a Nerf gun using parts other than PVC, though.

That new Quizno's commercial has scarred me for life...........................most annoying thing I have ever seen on TV or online. The marketing execs are not supposed to DRINK the bongwater. sheesh.

If I remember correctly, back in the days of Nerf Online, there was some troubleshooting threads on the PC, but those are now long gone.........

When I had a PC, I had a similar problem. Try checking all the air hosing and connections. Also, try lubing up the insides of the firing cylinder with Vaseline. This cylinder piece is mounted right behind the clip itself.

I'm sorry, it's hard for me to fully visualize fixing the Powerclip. I used to have one, but it went beyond repair. Now, after getting more experience modding, I know I can fix it. I regret throwing it away. At least I still have the clip.

Anyway, I am not sure what else can be done to get the advance working again. Anyone else have ideas to help Oompa out?

Hey, Cx, it may be a good idea to require all new users to watch this vid before they are able to post. Doing this should reduce the amount of useless posts, but on the other hand, it can be pretty fun watching people being stupid and then get flamed for it.

Positions, eh? Hehe, well......Shit, I need to get my mind out of the gutter.

When I play, we usually don't assign certain "Positions" except when we play certain scenarios. The other day, we played a game around my house where one person was designated as a defender, who was armed to the teeth with several guns, while the "attackers" had only a single pistol with 2 darts.

I guess positions such as "loser", "trooper", "heavy weapons", etc. can be used in certain games, depending on how you play, but we try switching the positions around to add variety to our nerfing. It's not like a certain person always plays the same position every single round.

Mmmmmm porn...

Hey, that's just a guy smashing his computer!

You suck.

That's what I initially thought, but the web address gives it away. If someone really wants pr0n, they can just do a google search or something.

I don't mean to be offensive or anything, but I believe that many churches are taking it too far in their fight against pr0n. In my personal beliefs, the reason why pr0n is such a sketchy ordeal is because it sometimes causes people (mainly those with mental disorders) to commit certain acts such as diddle. As long as you view pr0n responsibly (i.e., keeping sexual urges to yourself and/or your significant other if they have no problem with it) I don't see anything wrong with it. People have natural desires, and the churches will be damned if they let it slip past them.

I still don't get why sex is such a taboo discussion within many christain groups. Like drinking, sex should be taken responsibly. For many people, their church is their deepest spiritual connection, and yet they seem forced to feel guilty just because they saw someone naked. "Oh no! I saw a breast! I'm going to HELL!" It's certain forced moral spins like these that keep me from being affiliated with any organized religion.

Edit: About the movie, that was probably the worst reaction to pr0n that I have ever seen. Good luck trying to explain to your boss that you smashed the company PC because you saw a pr0n popup. I can see it now:




Boss: Johnson, could you please explain to me why your workstation was destroyed? It looks like you were using your PC for target practice. Did you just had a hard day at work yesterday?

Johnson: All those popups advertising naked girls! I had to do something to destroy the evils.

Boss: Have you heard of the little "x" button on the top of the popup? Why didn't you just close it? I had it with you destroying company property! You're fired!

I agree with you that people who look at that stuff aren't evil but it not a good habit. I would kinda agree wiht hte station in giving people the impression that he is perveted, but not very much. Vewing pr0n is a bad habit and is not right.

But It's not my decision to tell people whats right and wrong, just stating my opinion.

I also agree that there are people out there who overdo it. You made some excellent points in your opinion, moosenukem.

I wouldn't say all churches are taking it to the extreme, just a small portion of some churches. I go to church every Sunday and am a Christian. I think that there mihgt be a few churches and groups that do this. I personally think its crazy.I think pr0n sucks and gives people bad impressions and is not good for the brain. But belaive what you want, thats just me.

Mooser

I'm not encouraging people to view pr0n, I am just stating about how pissed off I am how certain churches think people are evil because of their personal habits. My parents are christain, and the last time I came over, my mom had the TV tuned to one of the religious channels. I remember they had an interview with a married couple with the husband who had a pr0n habit. It seemed to me that his habits were very mild (not even as bad or just as bad as most of 20ish guys I know) compared to some of the more extreme cases I have heard about, and they seemed to give him this perverted asshole image on the interview.

My point is just because someone likes to see naked pictures of women does not make them an evil person, unless they go out and actually do certain terrible things such as diddle, pedophilia, sexual harrassment, etc.

The reason why people think of Iraq as Vietnam is not because of the number of troops killed, but the fact that the administration chose a bad time to invade without widespread UN support, not to mention the reasons to invade.

I remember reading that France was actually planning to send troops to Iraq, but they were only going to do so if diplomacy was not going to work. If we would have waited at least a month or so to invade, I think that Bush would have been able to create a more powerful "Coalition of the Willing", instead of one consisting of the US, the UK, Spain, and a crapload of nations that did not have any significant military to begin with. So looking at that, Bush did have a few big leaders on his side, but he could have done better.

If you look at the numbers of coalition troops in Iraq, about 90% of them are American, but the other 10% are from the UK. I don't see that much in terms of variety for this coalition, so I find it hard to believe people's arguments that we have thousands of troops from several other countries fighting in Iraq.

Kerry's policy was domestically far better, as biollionaires Warren Buffet and George Soros have already endorsed Kerry.

I knew that George Soros was endorsing Kerry this year, but I haven't found out about Buffet until now. Any other billionaires like them supporting Kerry?

Now, I have a new question: Why are there political parties? They just allow biases in elections. Does anyone else agree with that? I seriously think everyone would be better off if there were no political parties. Or if all the people who were unable to think truly about who they are voting for (and not just saying "That candidate is a Democrat/Republican") didn't know about elections.

My theory on why we only hear about Democrats / Republicans is the fact that they are both heavily backed by larger corporations. If you look at the largest campaign contributors for the election, you will notice that some corporations contribute to both parties.

Europe and Canada: I envy you and your governments. Why can't Americans stop the partisan spin bullshit and run as independents for a change? That alone would help level the playing fields in future elections, therefore letting the leaders with actual brains take office.

I find it sad that a majority of the American people blindly only vote for these two parties, but I am afraid that this will keep up for the years to come until something major happens to our nation (i.e. the public pulling their heads out of their asses and THINKING FOR THEMSELVES). I hate having to admit that I plan to vote partisan this election, however the reason why I am voting for Kerry this year is because he has the best chance at beating Bush. Although the Republians claim that Kerry is a "flip-flopper," He has repeatedly explained his reasoning behind his voting patterns in the senate, which does seem to make sense.

Getting to the "Clinton not doing well in office" argument: How can you say someone is a horrible president, yet we enjoyed some of the best economic growth while he was in office? Bush Sr.'s main campaign promise was not to make new taxes, but he lost his re-election. The current Bush in office is flaunting about his tax cuts helping the economy. Do you start to notice a pattern here? As history has shown us, it is not a good idea to cut taxes in a time of war. Thanks to Bush, our unemployment rates have reached record highs, prior US allies have gotten pissed off at us, and our defecit is taking a huge ass-pounding. I still don't understand what people see in Bush.

Yep, voting is voluntrary in the US. Usually about half of the eligible citizens vote in the presidential elections. I don't understand why so many people here don't even vote at all. I mean, millions of people vote in that shitty American Idol show, so why not put that effort into better use? Which is better: Choosing a recording "artist" (I use that term loosely when I refer to that pukebag of a show) that we'll probably forget about in a year or two, or getting the chance to choose our own leadership for the next 4 years, whose actions (good and bad) will be remembered for years to come?

As an aside: Is it just me, or is Simon Cowell just begging to get kicked in the balls? All he does is rip on Idol contestants for their singing, and get paid shitloads of money doing it. What the fuck else is he famous for? I never heard of this spawn of satan before Idol first came out. Then again, I am ranting too much about an entry on my list of celebrities who I think deserve to be banished to the moon.

For those of you who can, get out and vote in this election. You could also help achieve a better turnout by taking a friend with you who wasn't planning to vote. It only takes about 10 minutes, and you get that feeling that you are making a difference for our country.

And you're comment about people who don't "think for themselves" being kept unaware of elections. Yeah, let's keep the ignorant from voting. At the polls you'll have to take a test before voting. It sure as hell worked wonders from keeping the blacks from voting in the south. Most of your statements have been chicken shit and I'd like it if you could present some logical, realistic arguments.

I think that it would help if the government funded a decent program to promote informed voting. Hopefully, that would help people have more confidence as well as make better decisions. Also, I am in favor of changing the rules of electing officials. If we went by popular vote alone, instead of the "winner takes all" bullshit the Electoral College came up with, I think the elections would be more fair in general.

In the political world, it is debatable as to what constitutes as "life" in a pregnancy, but I really do not want to go there because I believe that it is a mess, both on a legal and moral standpoint. In many ways, I do not like to see abortion as a sole rightous birth control method, however I still do not feel right about taking the other extreme and banning it altogether.

Julie, I had a chance to read the article about why Christains should not vote for Bush. I highly recommend that anyone read it, especially those that oppose abortion. The other links that Julie posted also has some excellent information.

Reading what others had to say on this thread has inspired me to write to our political leaders, and that includes both Senator Kerry and President Bush (assuming he does get another term, which I really hope doesn't happen), and to call for a different approach on helping solve the abortion issue. One that promotes prevention and unbiased education among our youth, adoption and foster care reform, government support for family planning, and any other encouragement for abortion alternatives. If any of you feel that those ideas should be supported by our government, I invite you to do the same. We all have our First Ammendment Rights, and writing to our government is one of the best ways to exercise that.

Even though abortion is an important issue, we also need to think about the other issues for the coming election. I am sorry if I took the focus of this thread too far off topic, but I felt that the abortion issue was necessary to address.

Going back to the Bush/Kerry debate, I believe that Kerry would be most ideal for helping take care of our domestic problems, such as health care and our job market, however he should make sure that he makes good, informed decisions when it comes to foreign policy. Being a Vietnam vet, I am sure that he can relate to how our men and women in the military are going to react to certain decisions being made. I think that if Kerry can make our country better, clean up the mess Bush made in our country, and to make amends with our foreign connections, he will truly have my respect.

Looking at Bush's current budget, I feel that he is not working it up to proper efficiency, which is one of the primary reasons why I feel he is weak as a president serving the American people. I do realize that the 80 billion he proposed for spending on the military is a necessary evil not just because of the war on terrorism, but to cover our asses if something does go wrong. What I think Bush's administration (or Kerry's administration if he gets elected) should do is audit all of the government's programs and spending, patch up the leaks, get rid of the useless programs, and use the saved money to strengthen our important programs, or pay off the deficit. Our government has aged quite a bit, and doing this could make for a great facelift.

If our government can't audit and overhaul all spending, I think the least they can do is find more intelligent ways to spend our tax dollars. Like Merlinski said, we can't just increase spending, reduce taxes, and blame the deficit on something that has no real direct effect on it. We shouldn't be having a deficit every year in the first place. This makes me wonder: Some of the higher government positions are held by uppper class who supposedly know how to properly take care of financial management, yet they still find ways to foolishly spend more than what the government makes in tax revenue. I haven't done too much research on this, but does anyone know what type of budget Kerry plans to propose if he takes office?

Yes, people do tend to look at the negative in every candidate, but I think that isn't a bad way to do it. We vote on who we think would be the best candidate for the presidency. When you compare the faults of each, you then have to make a decision.

Since I am a Christian, I vote for a president who reflects my morals and values. Anyone who votes for a candidate must be willing to accept his morals and values. You shouldn't criticize Bush for promoting the morals that made this county great. You can decide not vote for him, but his beliefs don't restrict him from candidacy.

If someone supports the taking of life as a legitimate decision, then I can't vote for him. You keep talking about choice and decision as if we are talking about what clothes to put on in the morning. This is life we are talking about.
If someone really doesn't want children, the real decision should be abstinence. Sex is procreation. Don't have sex unless you like the life that comes with the package.

Also, if the US does ban abortion, women will resort to more dangerous methods to terminate pregnancy, such as using a coat hanger. Legalized abortion helps prevent things like this from happening.

There will always be people who will take the life of someone no matter what the government tries to do to stop them. If a women absolutely hates her child, she will resort to a coat hanger. I don't believe she has the right to do that with her body. Consider suicide. If abortion is legal, why isn't suicide? If you are legally allowed to kill the life within you, why can't you take your own life?

Does the phrase "Separation of Church and State" mean anything to you?

Yes, it does mean alot to me, but that is another large debate. I believe that morals (not Christianity) should be used in law and government. Without morals, prostitutes would roam the nation, murder would be rampant, and life would be hell.

If you look around the previous threads, politics usually do not go around well in a Nerf Forum, but whatever.

I know, and I am sorry I strayed your minds off Nerffy thoughts. As I said earlier, I only started on politics after cxwq irritated me by his "Got Punk" thread. Guess it's time to go back to work on my mods and homemades...

~Vintage

My question is how do you define morals? Who decides what truly is the right thing to do? I think that it is the mind of the individual person, not the government. I do not like to see abortion in a truly positive light, however I think that people should have the right to think for themselves. We do not need the government stepping in and telling people what is "morally right". I believe that they have done enough of this in the past.

On a religous note, doesn't the Bible say that God gave humans the gift of free will anyway? If someone does something that is "morally wrong" I believe that it is their problem alone to deal with. After all, they made the decision in the first place.

It's great to find someone who agrees with your values, but since everyone is unique, it does not mean that your vision or opinion is going to be for everyone. Since religious beliefs should not have anything to do with government in the first place, I do not support candidates who want to change our country because of religous-based morals. I want someone in office who is not going to make changes in the government to tell people what is "morally wrong". People should follow their own morals and values.

Edit: When I was typing this post, I did not notice Vintage's latest post until after I refreshed the thread. I admit, politics are not exactly the best topic of choice for Nerfers, but I am all for a good healthy debate anyway. It helps us learn the points of view of many people, however if you do have biased opinions, and do not listen with an open mind, there is no point in debating.

Also, I should have mentioned this before, but I do agree with every point Merlinski listed when he started this thread.

I try my best to make my posts intelligent, and I appreciate your compliment, Merlinski. Vintage, even though several of us do not agree with some of your views, I think you have been doing a pretty good job in putting in your point, and I am sure you will continue to improve.

Nello, you made an excellent point to counter my argument, and I resepct that. I have said this many, many times in this thread: Even though I personally am mainly Pro-Choice, I still feel that abortion used just to simply get rid of the child is wrong, and I even have my own religous limits when it comes to that. That is why if I were to get my girlfriend pregnant, we would still care for and raise the child ourselves (we have been together happily for over 2-1/2 years now, and yes, we have discussed this scenario together). If you look at Julie's posts (as well as several of mine), I think that our country needs to reform several things in society before we consider putting a law down to ban abortion entirely. Pro-choice means that you favor CHOICE. It does not mean that you have to approve of all forms of abortion. One of the reasons why I favor choice is that since I am a guy, I feel that I have no right to tell women what they can or can't do to their bodies. Another reason why I do not favor banning abortion now is partially due to a few personal reasons, as well as possible negative consequences to society if it does happen.

Abortion is a very sensitive issue, especially for those who have morals that may differ from other people. I did my best in trying to reason with everyone, and I'm sorry if I've offended anyone. Even though this is an important issue to debate, there are many other important issues that we should not forget about in this coming election. I think that it would be best if we could throw aside our moral differences about abortion for a bit, and talk about the other things that affect us in the world today.

I'm sorry that I don't know where to start on this to bring this debate into a higher gear. Anyone care to share some thoughts about some other issues, or do you guys just want to keep on this topic?

Funny, I thought that one of the big selling points of this country was being free to question the government. These days anybody who does that is called "unpatriotic".

I hate people who say others are "unpatriotic" for speaking out for what they believe in. Isn't speaking out for freedom what our founding fathers did when this country was created in the first place?

And we return to the time-honored Republican slander... How in the world am I turning my back on soldiers who gave their lives by saying that the war is wrong? How, exactly, am I branded unpatriotic for working within the system of my great country by voicing my opinions, writing my representatives, and planning to elect a new leader because I disagree with the actions of the current one?

I also support our troops and what they do to defend our freedoms. They are only doing their jobs, and I respect that. The real problem are the beaurocrats wearing suits, sitting in their offices, telling those in the military what to do. I find it sad that a middle-aged white guy has the power to send a young person to die. Another thing that I am afraid of is the government imposing a draft if Bush stays in office.

Going back to the moral issue I have previously discussed, why not come up with a good comprimise instead of a total decision for a certain side? If someone wants to get rid of abortion, wouldn't it be a better idea to press for legislation to encourage alternatives instead of banning the procedure altogether? Then people will still have the freedom to make their own decisions, and also work to reduce the problem.

Here's the current budget summary.

Just in case anybody wants some numbers.

If you're really a glutton for punishment, the whole thing is here.

I'd love to see some elaboration on what programs people consider to be unnecessary.

Right now, I can't think of anything in particular that may be unnecessary. I guess that may depend on how everything is audited.

My personal feelings on abortion are this:

Pro-life is equivalent to saying "My beliefs are right and yours are wrong. Why? Because I said so."

I agree. I have been trying to say this, but I guess I took the long, more complicated way of trying to explain it.

I challenge others to open their minds and look at both sides of the issue before coming to conclusions. I know that some people cling to their religous beliefs as their reasoning behind certain arguments, but they need to understand: Not everyone agrees on a universal set of morals or beliefs. People need to make sure that their opinions are explained properly so that people can understand what they are trying to say.

I do my best to respect the beliefs and views of others, but I feel that some people feel compelled to try shoving their moral agenda down people's throats.

Piney, you made some very good points on morality. Even though I am Pro-Choice, there are still things about abortion that I feel is indeed wrong.

As I said before, instead of just banning the subject of the issue, why not get our government to pass legislation that encourages alternatives to abortion? I believe that this will be a better way to help solve the problem. Also, there is more to my reasoning and position on this issue, which I previously discussed with Vintage. If anyone wants to hear about and discuss it, just PM me and I will be happy to talk to you.

Actually, Vintage, most of the tax cuts Bush did was for larger corporations and higher class individuals, so I don't really think any of his tax cuts affected the rest of the US. Even if the government was to get rid of the tax cuts, I wouldn't mind, as long as they spend the money wisely.

I am aware that millions of people do agree with Bush's position on those issues, but there are also millions who don't agree with them. Because of the things that Merlinski mentioned, I do not want Bush running our country for another 4 years.

Kerry seems to have a better balance for the moral-type issues, and I believe that the negative things that have been said about him are irrelevant for him becoming president.

The ending of slavery is different, because it is dealing with people who lived within our country that deserved the same rights as the rest of us. When I listed a few "Moral Crusades" in history, I was talking about the ones that had more of a negative effect on society rather than a positive one. Not all "Moral Crusades" are bad, and I never said that all of them were.

I'm not advocating moral relativism. I believe that there are certain rights that can be considered to be absolute, but these rights are beyond religion. They are basic natural rights, such as the right not to be murdered, the right not to have stuff stolen, etc. Basically "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". However, I do not believe that this moral standard comes from religion. I believe it comes from the basic rules that are necessary to maintain order in a human society. Anything above these rules is personal opinion. That's why I believe that the "right to life" of an organism dependent on another human is not necessary to maintain. When abortion is allowed, we don't see a cataclysmic downfall of human morality, or a collapse of society. That's why, for me, it's not a issue of a right essential to humanity. The morality in this case is entirely a matter of personal opinion. Obviously, our country makes laws above and beyond those basic natural rights. However, those laws are a product of majority rule, and do not by any stretch mean that the morality behind them is right and any contradicting morality is wrong.

This is partially why I still do not feel that abortion is entirely morally wrong, and why I do not support banning it. Threre are absolute morals our society and government follows, however issues such as the rights of an organism dependant on another human were never covered when this country started. Also, I never read anything in the Bible stating that abortion and contraception as wrong.

Because of this, I believe that many of the Pro-Lifers are going the wrong way in solving their concern with this issue. Since the basic rights and morals off of which this country was founded are to help give people the freedoms to reasonably make choices in life, and to be able to have their basic human needs met, we should instead fight for government reform to make our foster care and adoption systems better instead.

Unwanted pregnancy is usually caused by a lack of education and improper contraception use. To help take care of this, our government needs to have better family planning programs, as well as better sexual education programs for our youth. When my parents forced me into Catholic school as a kid, our sexual education consisted of the basics "When a man and a women love each other very much........." and then ended with "Do not have sex until after you are married." As far as I remembered, that was pretty much it. In my opinion, abstinence based sexual education programs are biased and ineffective. Telling a bunch of kids that "It's cool to wait until you are married" is not going to stop them from having sex, especially if they do not know the consequences. Abstinence sexual education may have worked before more effective contraception came out, but nowadays young people need to be educated of their other options instead in case something does happen.

In the political world, everyone seems to look at the negative points of every candidate.

If you look around the previous threads, politics usually do not go around well in a Nerf Forum, but whatever.

Bush, in my opinion, is a rather mediocre president, and seems to want to change the US into a more Christain-based nation (his stances on abortion and same-sex marraige are probably two of the biggest issues that show this). Because the US is supposed to be a nation where people are free to have any religous belief, it is our moral obligation as Americans to uphold and protect this right. Tell me this: in many of Bush's decisions on certain issues, do they hold any grounding that does not significantly include a personal Christain religious belief?

I really only need one reason to not vote for Kerry:

His killing of unborn children.

So, if you have no problem with that, you deserve him.

~Vintage

Vintage, just because someone supports Abortion rights does not mean that you can label them a killer. Personally, I am Pro-Choice, because people should have the freedom to think for themselves in choosing whether they should bear a child. If I were to get my girlfriend pregnant, we would still decide to raise the child. But if someone else wants to get an abortion, it is their choice. Also, if the US does ban abortion, women will resort to more dangerous methods to terminate pregnancy, such as using a coat hanger. Legalized abortion helps prevent things like this from happening. Being Pro-Choice means that you support having a decision in the matter, and I do not think that the government should step in and tell us that it is wrong. Does the phrase "Separation of Church and State" mean anything to you?

You know, I think many of us have made several excellent points on either side, and I thought that the issue was cleared, but I guess I was wrong. It seems like all that has been going on lately is pointless arguing, instead of intelligent debating.

For those who are looking at this issue from a religous standpoint, think about this: If breakthroughs in scientific research are made and they piss off a group of people, then why did the discovery take place? Why did God (for those that believe in him) allow abortion to become available? I believe that things in this world can be used for positive things, even things that others may view as evil. Yes, I do feel that it is wrong if someone wants to get an abortion if they simply do not want the child, but I feel that I have no right to say that because I am not a woman. If we do get rid of abortion entirely, it will cause several problems that were previously mentioned on this thread (rising populations, foster care overcrowding, dangerous medical problems, etc.) Also, as Rawray said,

on the whole abortion thing, i'm prochoice because at 49 weeks, when vintage claims most abortions are done, that baby doesn't stand a chance of living on it's own. it is still completely dependent on it's mother and i believe that the host (the mother) should not be told by her government that she can't rid herself of that dependent organism (human, if you insist). people make mistakes, often it's not even the women's fault. they have to carry the burden of bearing young, and if you don't let that burden come with responsibility and choice, you're basically forcing 1/2 your population to be housewives, homemakers, etc...and we spent that last 45 years getting over that issue.

I mean, if we do make it illegal, this is going to piss off or affect one of the largest demographics in our country: women. If you are going to take a side and press for a certain legislation, look at the possible consequences first. Our constitutional rights were created for a reason, and I would hate to see the whole thing fucked up just because a bunch of ignorant people don't know what they are doing because they were going on a "moral crusade."

A few of the most notorious "moral crusades", including eco-terrorism, prohibition, and recent terrorist attacks (if you have been reading up on your current events, terrorists like Bin Laden claim to be fighting what they think is "morally wrong") ended up causing more problems than anything else. Study your history, and you will see what kinds of problems conflicting religous beliefs can cause.

Also, I am interested in hearing this from the Pro-Lifers out there: If you are fighting for making abortion illegal, what positive things are you going to accomplish in doing this?

I am sorry for labeling all Pro-Lifers as religous fanatics, however it seems that every single one that I talk to seems to follow this political stance based on just that: religious morals and beliefs.

Excellent points, Julie! Thank you for helping further explain the point of view of many Pro-Choice people. I do not want to force people to always agree with me on issues like this, however I do feel that it is important for them to look at the ENTIRE issue and find reasonable ways to solve it.

I find it sad that many people out there are not willing to open their minds and learn new things about the world around them. I know it can be hard sometimes, even if you cling to certain beliefs, but it is better to be informed instead of ignorant.

In educating their children about sex and other issues nowadays, parents need to be open, supportive, and understanding of what their children do, how they feel, and to guide them through hard times. They should be made aware of the possible dangers and consequences of choices made in life. If a son or daughter is not properly educated on what kind of options they have, it is possible that they could run into a situation where serious problems arise (teen pregnancy being a strong example). Communication is the key to having successful relationships and a strong, solid family, and that is how I intend to run a family when I do have one.

I have a different stance on abortion: I'm against abortion, but for killing babies. That way everyone loses, and I win.

I know where you got that quote. I do think that many of Maddox's articles are humorous, but he usually does it for satirical and sarcastic purposes. I think he was merely pissed off about hearing too much about the abortion issue. I never take everything he says seriously, and neither should anyone else. Even Maddox said that if people take his site too seriously, they are truly stupid.

Also, I find it funny that in that same article, he states that if he ran the world, Vampire Hunting would be a government sanctioned profession. Now I have a use for that cross, holy water, and stake that I have been keeping in my closet for the last 10 years.

Edit:

Just to let those Kerry-haters know, I finally got around to watching the "Winter Soldier" video, and I found it to be the most absurd, biased, and shitty piece of propaganda that I have ever seen, which seriously lacks credibility in their points.

They sure did a great job photoshopping pictures and ripping off Metallica for their little video that labels Kerry as "unpatriotic". The next person I see labeling others as "unpatriotic" without having any true grounding is going to have my steel-toed boot buried deeply up their ass (*cough* Bill O'Reilly *cough*). People like that make me sick.

I also find it funny that they mentioned Heffner publishing anti-war articles in Playboy. Yes, I am one of those few guys that actually read Playboy for the articles. A lot of their articles are excellent writing, and I view Heff as a genious to make a good, lasting statement on the face of America. I remember reading the 50th anniversary issue that came out a few months ago, and found that they published a condensed version of the "Playboy Philosophy". When I read this, I agree it does make sense, and has much, much more to it than just sex and publishing pictures of naked women.

That may explain a few things. His nerf sales and business practices seemed questionable to me. I kept on emailing him, and I never even received a legitimate response. I hope shit like this never happens on NH again. Scammers like that deserve to have their asses kicked.

The reason why I think it may be too far is because I have a feeling that the pic there is probably not the person's real pic anyway. I don't have a real problem with people posting pics like this, but I think that people can be really stupid sometimes. Once I get around to posting my pic, I also intend to use a real pic of myself.

I think that's going a little too far.

I don't know American law, but I think that maybe voiding that little agreement may have something to do with how your actions are percieved by a figure of authority. Over here, in the north, things probably are different.

Basically, don't run your mouth like that, because you may not have all the information you need to make a valid statement. It may not be "illegal" but once you've modified that blaster, and you hurt someone, Hasbro takes no responsibility, you do. It's just not good practice by law to modify something that was made not to be modified, and to ignore the warnings.

I'm ranting now...

I love Nerf modifying, fuck the laws that may be against it, I don't Nerf at school so I don't need to care. Yay!

It legally doesn't matter if you modify the guns, however Hasbro is not responsible if something happens, hence the warnings on their stuff. I have never heard of any police crackdown on modified foam toys. The only part of the "warning agreement" that Hasbro has is mainly for liability issues so that they won't get sued for anyone getting hurt by a modified gun.

My main argument on the legality of modified Nerf guns is that the police are not going to come into your house Gestapo-style, and put you in jail for possessing a modified toy. Possessing a modified Nerf gun is like possessing an aluminum bat: the police will not fine you or put you in jail for having it, however if it is deliberately used to inflict physical harm (i.e., adding poison needles to the tips of the darts), then you can get in trouble.