'Bout Time

[Christians4LessGvt]

PS....thanks C, for the assist

SIRS it's ugly to see dysfunction manifest itself....
this time we saw it calling you a "fucking dumb asshole".
You and 3DHS deserve better....but with his history it
comes as no surprise. He will probably keep "digging"
until he is banned/suspended once again. Hope he can
over-come his insecurity and be civil to those that
are civil to him but happen to have a different political
conclusion. We shall see....

ps: love the Reagan quote!

[Xavier_Onassis]

Can you ever get facts correct?
No one "demanded" anything,
but nice try at changing reality to fit your fantasy land.
==========================================
Demands, suggests, advises... it's all the same.

If a person apologizes for something, the urge to apologize should come from within the party doing the apologizing. Other wise the sincerity is questionable, and an insincere apology is worse than none at all.

[sirs]

Can you ever get facts correct?
No one "demanded" anything,
but nice try at changing reality to fit your fantasy land.
==========================================
Demands, suggests, advises... it's all the same.

No, not even close.  Even a "linguistics professor" would grasp the distinct differences

[BSB]

"USUALLY, danger is from a source, either a criminal or possibly a wild animal that is threatening me......"

Get threatened a lot by criminals and wild animals do you?

"I mean, I realize that's a really strange concept, the idea of defending oneself."

Sirs, I've had defend myself against more people in 30 minutes than most people would have to in 20 life times.


BSB

[sirs]

"USUALLY, danger is from a source, either a criminal or possibly a wild animal that is threatening me......"

Get threatened a lot by criminals and wild animals do you?

No, but if I am, I'll be able to defend myself.....THAT'S THE POINT. 

And I knew you'd pull in your military experience as some last ditch effort to rehabilitate your sorely illogical debate approach to this issue, and the 2nd amendment.  Your military history was never in doubt.  I can't count how many times folks like myself and Cu4 have commended your service and sacrafice for this country.  I'm confident you had to defend yourself more than I could ever dream of.  NOT THE DAMN POINT.  THE POINT IS THE IDIOCY OF YOU PROCLAIMING HOW OTHERS SHOULDN'T.  And the Consitution, backs that point up

Sirs

[BSB]

"And I knew you'd pull in your military experience...."

Yeah, lets not use any personal experiences here in 3DHs, that wouldn't be fair.

And speaking of personal experience. Your quote from Reagan? Lets not forget that the only one in here who actualy killed a commie is me. So, yes, it hits close to home.


BSB

[sirs]

Again, not the damn point.  But cudos on your x0-like deflection effort.  I once again also invite you to ignore the Reagan quote, if it gives you such distress

[BSB]

A) I didn't deflect jack-shit.

B) You see, what we have here, to give recognition to one of my favorite movies, is a failure to communicate. The writers of the Second Amendment are dead and gone. Therefore, obviously, they can't communicate their intentions. Now, even sirs MAY be bright enough to realize that it isn't the letter of the law that is all important, but rather, it is the intention of the law. So, what we find in the Second Amendment is the writers intention to arm certain well regulated militias thereby having a preparedness in place that doesn't constitute a standing army. Now while sirs might be a Minuteman, you'd have to asks his wife, he is definitely not a member of any recognized militia. Nor is Mr. Zimmerman, the alleged child killer/racist and probable homophobe/Christian/conservative/gun-nut, at the center of this controversy.

So while it is OK for me to order and take possession of such a marvelous custom revolver as this ( http://www.dustinlinebaugh.com/gallery_content/001.jpg ) it is not alright for just any uncouth member of the general population such as sirs, or Mr. Zimmerman, to do the same.

The Right Honorable BSB

[sirs]

I didn't deflect jack-shit.

Yea, you did.  You tried to make this about you having been in the military, and that somehow give you some uber authorty on how others should or shouldn't defend themselves.   Kinda like the asanine tact that someone can't criticize or comment on the military, unless they were in it.  Your military experence is just that, and nothing more.  We thank you for your service.  Now, keep your damn hands off my 2nd amendment right, to defend myself, to which the Supreme Court agrees......it's not about some "militia".  We, the people, not of the Government's armed services, is that "militia"  You want to amend it?  Well those "dead writers" put in place the precise mechanisms to do that.

Good luck with that

[Xavier_Onassis]

The need for guns in 1788 were very different from those of today. Hunting game and perhaps defending oneself from Indians and brigands was essential to a very large portion of the population, most of which did not live in cities.

I am 69 years old and have never had need of any firearm. I have shot and eaten rabbits, and shot rats for sport, but I was in no danger from either type of rodent.

For most gun nuts, gun ownership is mostly about something rather like a woman's desire to have many shoes and handbags that match.

[sirs]

Your opinion on what you find dangeous or your eating habits is duly noted, yet still trumped by BOTH the Constitution AND SCOTUS

But if you wish to highlight in the Bill of Rights, a Woman's right to possess a handbag, by all means, educate us

[Xavier_Onassis]

A woman's right to a handbag has never been questioned.

A woman with ten handbags will almost certainly get more from owning those handbags than a gun nut with ten guns.

Handbags require no ammo or permits.

The Constitution does not require anyone to own a handbag or a gun.

The US has virtually no accidental handbag deaths.

If Zimmerman had been packing a stylish handbag instead of a pistol, he would be a happier man today. Trayvon Martin would be much happier as well, or at least not deceased.
.
ONE gun could defend almost anyone. Owning TEN guns is not a self-defense issue: it is more like a style issue.

[Christians4LessGvt]

I am 69 years old and have never had need of any firearm.

so ya see SIRS
because he doesnt want or need one means
he wants to control whether you have one....
ControlFreakism 101

[BSB]

No one whose job doesn't require it, or isn't in Grizzly country, in these United States has any reason to carry a firearm. It's all in their head. And since we have the daily opportunity to see what's in sirs we know how strange the head of a gun nut can be.

It's like the saying, those who think they know, don't know, and those who know they don't know, know. Well, those who need to carry, like Zimmerman and sirs, shouldn't. And those of us who have no need or desire to carry, should be able to, but won't.

The Constitution wasn't written so that odd people can become even more odd.
Gun nuts are odd enough as it is, let them own their guns, but don't let them walk around with them.

BSB

[sirs]

A woman's right to a handbag has never been questioned.

And yet, you're the one questioning a right to a firearm, and that one is clearly referenced as such.  So if you're going to pull the ludicrous comparison, you're the one that's going to have to provide us the constitutional right for women to have handbags, as that's not referenced anywhere in the Constitution, that I'm aware of. 

Handbags require no ammo or permits.

Irelevent, since you do put things in them, which ironically could be ammo or some "permit"

The Constitution does not require anyone to own a handbag or a gun.

DANGER WILL ROBINSON...DEFLECTION ALERT.   Not hard to keep up with these effors by you and B, but it does make you 2 look pretty......desperate, when you pull it.  When, if ever, has anyone ever said anything about the Constitution "requiring anyone to own......ANYTHING"??

Ironically, on a related note, it's Obama and folks like yourself who are advocating that everyone is "required to purchase/own health care insurance".  While you attempt to argue a point never made, where in the Constitution do you get that??

If Zimmerman had been packing a stylish handbag instead of a pistol, he would be a happier man today.

Irelevent, as that's not what he was carrying, nor were you there to have witnessed what did happen

 

ONE gun could defend almost anyone. Owning TEN guns is not a self-defense issue: it is more like a style issue.

More like a Constitutional RIGHT issue, actually