Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Geek Love > Totally Off Topic

» Sponsored Links


» Recent Threads
Liberals gone wild
Last post by SpectralThundr
Today 09:21 AM
2,267 Replies, 261,894 Views
Gear.Club Unlimited 2...
Last post by Scherge
Today 09:18 AM
2 Replies, 328 Views
DOOM Eternal Debut...
Last post by ashikenshin
Today 08:47 AM
11 Replies, 1,931 Views
Divinity: Original Sin...
Last post by Julio
Today 08:21 AM
3 Replies, 402 Views
Giant Shark Movie The...
Last post by Terran
Today 04:37 AM
9 Replies, 1,684 Views
New Fallout 76 Features...
Last post by vivafletcher
Today 01:14 AM
5 Replies, 721 Views
New Hitman 2 Trailer...
Last post by Laz
Yesterday 11:08 PM
1 Replies, 361 Views
Battlefield 5 –...
Last post by actusoul
Yesterday 10:24 PM
7 Replies, 664 Views
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-11-2018, 06:04 AM   #261
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazGalaxy View Post
Rewrite the past.
Project much? Here's a reality-based lesson on gun rights and history.



Also, the Civil War was indeed about far more than merely slavery. The splintering of the union was percolating and building for decades. You can trace the history of secession all the way back to Jefferson's and Jackson's presidencies and the anger of the South toward federal power. John C. Calhoun of South Carolina recognized, as I certainly do today and you probably do as well, that political power represents leverage that is used by those who wield it to forward their goals and purposes. He knew this included not only the eventual extinction of slavery, which we recognize as an unalloyed good to see it gone, but also the imposition of legislation he opposed with great ferocity, such as tariffs that harmed his state's particular interests while helping the North and the federal government. The U.S. very nearly broke apart numerous times over issues such as tariffs prior to the inevitable Civil War, because at its root the question decided in the Civil War was whether the United States would continue as a union of independent states with states largely individually in control of their destiny, or would bend to the will of an ascendant federal government wielding ultimate political power on behalf of the interests of coalitions of states.

Ultimately, and arguably wrongly, we decided through a terrible war that states would not actually be allowed to leave the union, as the Constitution actually allows, and that power would be wielded by the federal government to the detriment of individual states. So GOOD LUCK California on secession, lol.

Slavery was a trigger issue, but it was hardly the underlying root of what happened. It was a symptom of a philosophical chasm that was unbridgeable without a war to decide it. That war was decades in the making prior to its beginning, over issues far and wide that boil down to whether states or the federal government would be preeminent.

You, sir, are a moron.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2018, 10:51 AM   #262
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bawwston
Posts: 7,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazGalaxy View Post
I don’t trust you to read through this entirely, and I trust you even less to understand it, but here’s the problem with conservativism in general and especially the brand you practice:

Your brand conservativism tries to set itself up as being a version of political understanding that holds itself true to the past. Your brand of conserving likes to believe that you’re the real Americans. Because conservativism is the idea of not changing things, you believe that your understanding of politics is the real understanding of American politics. The problem with this is that change is inescapable. The world has changed. Conservative ideology has changed. So to smooth over this contradiction, the idea that conservatives believe the same thing they always have despite the world in their ideology having changed, They simply re-write the past and pretend that their new beliefed have simply always been this way.

You want proof? Look at the number of people arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery despite his Storico documents of the people involved saying that it absolutely was. But how can a conservative say slavery is wrong now, and still be right? Rewrite the past.

You are doing it right now.

You think the founding fathers agree with you? Newsflash, idiot, the founding fathers didn’t all agree with EACH OTHER. The fact that the Constitution was ratified to begin with was considered have the time to be a miracle. There were many groups you all feel differently about the subjects being covered by the Constitution and the only reason it was ratified because a certain group was promised that it would be immediately amended with the Bill of Rights.

You write a bunch of idiotic nonsense about how the founding fathers wouldn’t want welfare. Actually some of them did.

https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and...rican-founding

You want to know what the figures America’s past with think if it’s present? You think they would “curb stomp” me? Well you might be right since I’m black and rather successful. But you’re missing the fact that they would probably do the same to you.

You see, most people of that era believed that a man’s freedom wasn’t tragically tied to his ability to support himself agrarily. That’s a large part of the reason why “all men are created equal “ meant that all land owning white men were created equal. If you could not support yourself and your family but growing food on your own land and by protecting your own land, you weren’t really free. The forefathers never foresaw industrial revolution and they never foresaw a modern economy. Moreover many of them would reject it an absolute travesty. Did they have a dislike of government absolutely dislike about government was the fact the government had power over the individual. You know those giant corporations that go around making policies right now? They would have an equal amount of hatred for them. So the idea that the forefathers would be against modern government but somehow for modern consumerism and mega corporations is an insane misinterpretation of what
They actually believed.
Pick up a history book for the 3rd time. You're a fucking idiot and pretty much prove my point that liberals make it up as they go along. Oh and btw for that big chip on your shoulder regarding race? You support the party that wanted to keep it. Just wanted to let you know since you've obviously never read a history book in your fucking life.
SpectralThundr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2018, 11:04 PM   #263
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
Also, the Civil War was indeed about far more than merely slavery. The splintering of the union was percolating and building for decades. You can trace the history of secession all the way back to Jefferson's and Jackson's presidencies and the anger of the South toward federal power.
Actually you can trace it even further back to at least 1783. That's when the "3/5s compromise" was first bandied about in order to convince the Southern States to come to the table and join in with the new Constitution to begin with.

Right after the Revolution you had the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution. These were laughably enforced and all power was left pretty much to the individual states. The problem was that Congress couldn't get the individual states to come together on anything including things like paying off debts incurred by the nation as a whole over the course of fighting the Revolution.

For example the US owed France a lot of money but there was no real structure or teeth in the Articles of Confederation to get the states to contribute properly to repay that debt.

Speaking of France there were also huge problems on how to deal with foreign governments who didn't want to have to have agreements and different trade and tariffs with individual states. We needed some sort of centralized foreign corp with the ability to manage this stuff. Hence we ended up driving toward Federalism.

Anyway, long story short the Articles of Confederation were toilet paper and the drafting of the real Constitution started in the early 1780s. The states were troublesome to begin with because they liked the autonomy of their Statehood and a weak federal government.

That said the Southern states were particularly racaltraint due to how slaves were counted.

The 3/5ths compromise and the 10th amendment, in part, quelled these fears and resulted in everyone signing on in 1787. If the South had prevailed it would likely have been more that the US would have returned to something closer to what existed between the end of the Revolution and 1787; essentially a bunch of nation-states needing a way to figure out how to centralize trade and national debt management. Or not. We could have been the EU before the EU.

The More You Know(TM).
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2018, 11:20 PM   #264
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
Project much? Here's a reality-based lesson on gun rights and history.

Also, awesome speech. It triggered a huge number of progressives. This guy seems like he's got his shit together and I hope other folks where I can vote are paying attention to the points he brings up.

Of course so many points are sacred cows to the other side it will not result in any meaningful debate but it does point out a serious hypocrisy.
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 05:08 AM   #265
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Actually you can trace it even further back
And even further if you wish, and always to the issue of federal v. state power.

California thinks it can roll back the clock to a time when the states were preeminent and nullification was a thing...something Dems have a history with utilizing. Arizona lost a court battle with the feds related to Arizona imposing immigration rules and regulations. California will probably find a few friendly judges who rule based upon 'f33lz' rather than the law, but they will ultimately lose.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 09:08 AM   #266
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazGalaxy View Post
Bullshit.

The USA runs on a modified capitalist system. That is a system that teeters between being “socialist” or pure capitalist. Socialism isn’t even a concept that has a strict definition. What it DOESNT MESN, is “communism”, which is what right wing people like to pretend.
I don't think there is any chance that he will understand what you are talking about.

On the other hand, I promised Vallor or somebody, maybe Venom, that I would point out a gross misrepresentation of liberal ideology by somebody on the right, and I think this idea that I want the USA to be communist or ST's version of socialists, is pretty on the nose.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 09:54 AM   #267
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bawwston
Posts: 7,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I don't think there is any chance that he will understand what you are talking about.

On the other hand, I promised Vallor or somebody, maybe Venom, that I would point out a gross misrepresentation of liberal ideology by somebody on the right, and I think this idea that I want the USA to be communist or ST's version of socialists, is pretty on the nose.
Yeah we're not a socialists nation. Again there's plenty for you to move to. North Korea says hello.
SpectralThundr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 11:45 AM   #268
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpectralThundr View Post
Yeah we're not a socialists nation. Again there's plenty for you to move to. North Korea says hello.

OK, here is an easy question for you. Do you like the US Constitution? Because it grants me the freedom of speech in this country. Now, I have never said the things you pretend I did say and you have never been able to respond to an accurate representation of what I did actually say. But I will join you in fantasy land for a minute to pretend that I do want to make a "socialists (sic, again) nation." Where do you get off suggesting that I should leave because of that? Are you against my constitutional freedoms to say and think whatever I choose in my own country? If you are so against our constitutional rights and freedoms, then what do you feel like you are standing for as a political extremist?

I said that was an easy one, but I realize that you don't have the ability to respond rationally, so feel free to treat it as rhetorical.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 12:01 PM   #269
Chief Smash
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 3,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Where do you get off suggesting that I should leave because of that? Are you against my constitutional freedoms to say and think whatever I choose in my own country? If you are so against our constitutional rights and freedoms, then what do you feel like you are standing for as a political extremist?
I don't think he ever said that you have to leave. But if socialism is the preference, why is it that people want to take our nation and turn it into such a place when there are other fine choices around the world? And saying what you want and having what you want are too different things.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 12:22 PM   #270
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Do you like the US Constitution?
Now you're a constitutionalist? OMG, the hilarity. Progressives are well known for their view of the 'malleability' of the Constitution. It means whatever you all say it does at the moment, the same view you douchebags have of laws as well.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 12:26 PM   #271
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
I don't think he ever said that you have to leave. But if socialism is the preference, why is it that people want to take our nation and turn it into such a place when there are other fine choices around the world? And saying what you want and having what you want are too different things.
Hmmmm. I'm not sure how seriously to take this.

No, he did not say that I had to leave. Of course, it would have been about as absurd as everything else he says because he has no right to tell anyone else what to do, the thing he is inviting me to leave for is something he made up about me in the first place, etc. This crap started when I said I had stated my opinion about a hypothetical situation (based on the Washington law Valor was discussing) that I would be uncomfortable if I were out to dinner and noticed somebody with a gun staring at us through a window. ST claimed that I had a "marxists (sic) opinion incompatible with the constitution." He then moderated that to the idea that the US is not a socialists nation. Whatevs. I'm sure it makes sense to his way of looking at things.

There may be people on all sides who want various socialist components of our society strengthened or weakened, but I don't know anybody who wants a purely socialist society in the US. I would not say that this characterizes the left accurately. To be fair, I also don't think it would accurately characterize the right. Since I choose not to use my omnipotence, I think forcing the country to be whatever I personally want is off the table right now, so we are only really talking about the expression of ideas, no?

When you say there are plenty of fine socialist choices around the world, what are your top 5? Or was this just hyperbole?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 02:07 PM   #272
Chief Smash
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 3,495
To be fair Whimbrel, you spend a lot of time saying what you don't want and not a lot of time saying what you do want so people are going to take your history and patterns and extrapolate them out in order to get to the meat of the matter sometimes. And the patterns in what you say are remarkably similar to those of many of the leftists I (and I'm sure many others here on the right) have debated with over the years. I don't always see eye to eye with ST's way of saying things but I don't blame him for cutting to the quick here. You seem to either purposely obscure your real view of things or you're not very clear about your views. Either way, I'm not going to totally blame the guy for his lack of patience.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 02:16 PM   #273
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
To be fair Whimbrel, you spend a lot of time
lying. He spends a lot of time lying. Call a spade a spade. He's a lying douchebag progressive.

On the topic of the Trump tax breaks, Whimbrel lied and lied and lied until getting to his actual view:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
First it was "nice."
Then he was "fleeced."
Now it's not "genuine" aka 'lying.'
Lying progressive liars and the lies they tell.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 02:53 PM   #274
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
To be fair Whimbrel, you spend a lot of time saying what you don't want and not a lot of time saying what you do want so people are going to take your history and patterns and extrapolate them out in order to get to the meat of the matter sometimes. And the patterns in what you say are remarkably similar to those of many of the leftists I (and I'm sure many others here on the right) have debated with over the years. I don't always see eye to eye with ST's way of saying things but I don't blame him for cutting to the quick here. You seem to either purposely obscure your real view of things or you're not very clear about your views. Either way, I'm not going to totally blame the guy for his lack of patience.
Fair enough. My perspective is a little different. I try to answer direct questions about my own views with no ambiguity. When people mischaracterize the left in general, I might say something like, "from my experience, that does not characterize the left accurately, and it certainly does not fit with my views..."

But, what ST, Terran, and some others do is just out of the blue say something like "you want to confiscate all guns and you want all our elections to fail so you are a fascist, marxist, socialist." Now, maybe that is trolling, maybe that is what other people have said, but I think it is just how they see things that they imagine there is some kind of universal opposition to them that threatens them in some way and they can't compute that somebody who disagrees with them thinks differently than they expect. And, arguing about whether I do or don't think what they attribute to me bores the hell out of me, and you as well, apparently. I don't blame ST for his lack of patience, but I do blame him for making shit up about my views in direct contradiction to what I express. Not because I was vague or oblique. In direct contradiction.

A more relevant point though. I have stood up for Trump voters for 16 months for multiple reasons. I think it is crazy for the left to demonize Trump voters, regardless of what kind of president they think Trump is. But by that same token, I see people here who seem to absolutely despise the left. Where the hell did this come from? Is it the result of Bannon, internet extremists, etc? Sometimes when I hear these extremists talk about what they are so afraid of what the left wants to do to the country is almost comical, but it is really more just sad.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 03:42 PM   #275
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,041
Whimbrel, back on topic. You asked earlier what some of us thought about the moves toward gun control that were being made.

Some sellers making changes and the laws in Florida and suggested national laws (bump stocks, etc.). I've made my opinion pretty clear that these items will probably not make much impact and are window dressing rather than any solution. What do you think?

I feel like we're not really touching on any of the big three social changes which could make a bigger difference. Better mental health care (and no permanent stigma which is not currently the suggestion), adjusting attitudes toward gun free zones in an effort to minimize or eliminate these zones, and adjusting attitudes toward prohibition of carry (open and concealed) to allow more responsible people to be armed.

Of course there are the steps we've all mentioned to improve the technology for Gun Safety in general.

There are other core issues which can have long term societal impact like broken homes.
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2018, 11:47 AM   #276
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Well, I think mental health is a huge issue, but I don't necessarily see it as any easier to fix than gun violence, and of course, there is some overlap there.

3 points that I think every gun control advocate should state a lot more frequently.

1. Most gun owners are responsible, law abiding citizens who have done absolutely nothing to deserve to have their rights affected.

2. The constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court allows for an individual right to carry firearms for protection.

3. Gun control is not valuable per se, the actual goal is a decrease in victims of gun violence and death.

As for gun control, I am not one of those folks who thinks that easy access to guns has nothing to do with gun violence. So, anything that makes guns harder to get might have some impact. Yes, it is an inconvenience for lawful gun owners, but if it helped reduce impulse crime, then maybe some measures would be worth it. For the people who are law abiding, as long as they can get their guns, I think they would be willing to endure some minor inconveniences. Most already go through waiting periods, trainings, etc. But, I have no idea how many crimes these kinds of measures would ultimately prevent. The argument that laws only affect the lawful does make sense except in the case where guns are so plentiful and abundant that laws on purchasing new guns at retail are irrelevant, which seems to be where we are now.

I think the main thing that will reduce gun violence right now is to be able to sue the fuck out of gun manufacturers and retailers for violence related to those guns. As soon as that is allowed, gun manufacturers, retailers, and owners will make these things pretty scarce in a jiffy. If you have a pitbull and it attacks a neighbor, you are liable. If you have an ar 15 and somebody uses it to kill school kids, well, you should be equally liable. The rights are still there, but they are not separated from the same common sense responsibilities we associate with any other dangerous products and activities.

I think the biggest problem with the constitutional position on individual gun rights as they stand now, is that while individuals have a right to use guns, other individuals do not have a balanced right to live free from the risk of gun violence. In other words, if person A wants to buy a revolver, great. But where is the right for person B to take measures so that person A can't hurt them?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2018, 12:10 PM   #277
Mojopin
Evil Dead
 
Mojopin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: BEHIND YOU!!!
Posts: 840
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpectralThundr View Post
You're a fucking idiot and pretty much prove my point that liberals make it up as they go along.
..and you just proved his you fucking moron. You are a fucking joke inside of a joke that people are joking about being a joke...
Mojopin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2018, 12:34 PM   #278
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bawwston
Posts: 7,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Well, I think mental health is a huge issue, but I don't necessarily see it as any easier to fix than gun violence, and of course, there is some overlap there.

3 points that I think every gun control advocate should state a lot more frequently.

1. Most gun owners are responsible, law abiding citizens who have done absolutely nothing to deserve to have their rights affected.

2. The constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court allows for an individual right to carry firearms for protection.

3. Gun control is not valuable per se, the actual goal is a decrease in victims of gun violence and death.

As for gun control, I am not one of those folks who thinks that easy access to guns has nothing to do with gun violence. So, anything that makes guns harder to get might have some impact. Yes, it is an inconvenience for lawful gun owners, but if it helped reduce impulse crime, then maybe some measures would be worth it. For the people who are law abiding, as long as they can get their guns, I think they would be willing to endure some minor inconveniences. Most already go through waiting periods, trainings, etc. But, I have no idea how many crimes these kinds of measures would ultimately prevent. The argument that laws only affect the lawful does make sense except in the case where guns are so plentiful and abundant that laws on purchasing new guns at retail are irrelevant, which seems to be where we are now.

I think the main thing that will reduce gun violence right now is to be able to sue the fuck out of gun manufacturers and retailers for violence related to those guns. As soon as that is allowed, gun manufacturers, retailers, and owners will make these things pretty scarce in a jiffy. If you have a pitbull and it attacks a neighbor, you are liable. If you have an ar 15 and somebody uses it to kill school kids, well, you should be equally liable. The rights are still there, but they are not separated from the same common sense responsibilities we associate with any other dangerous products and activities.

I think the biggest problem with the constitutional position on individual gun rights as they stand now, is that while individuals have a right to use guns, other individuals do not have a balanced right to live free from the risk of gun violence. In other words, if person A wants to buy a revolver, great. But where is the right for person B to take measures so that person A can't hurt them?
So it's gun manufactorer's fault? How bout blaming the person pulling the trigger? Personal responsibility ever hear of it? Again if you don't like the rights the Constitution grants you're free to find your safe space elsewhere. Maybe try the UK where they now arrest and lock people up for having a negative opinion on Islam.

You know what would really reduce gun violence? Reduce the gun laws in cities like Chicago, Detroit, DC, etc, let those who follow the law arm themselves, and watch the issue clean itself up. Without those cities gun crime stats the US is actually pretty low on the scale of gun violence, while having some of the strictest and most gun laws on the books, it goes to stand that "regulation" doesn't do much of anything.
SpectralThundr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2018, 01:58 PM   #279
Chief Smash
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 3,495
If your dog bites someone, they sue you, they don't sue the breeder.

Your last paragraph is ridiculous. Look it over again. It's pure sentiment, dangerous sentiment at that, which could be used to curb or ban anything.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2018, 02:50 PM   #280
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
If your dog bites someone, they sue you, they don't sue the breeder.

Your last paragraph is ridiculous. Look it over again. It's pure sentiment, dangerous sentiment at that, which could be used to curb or ban anything.
You are right about the dog scenario, but it was just an analogy. If an Ikea bed kills a kid, who gets sued? If a bar serves too many drinks and a driver kills somebody because they were intoxicated, doesn't the bar lose it's license or face other liabilities? There are various scenarios for different types of products and markets. The point is that everyone who profits from this would bear some responsibility for the risks.

My last paragraph of pure sentiment. Right. It is my sentiment. The right to bear arms is not balanced by any right that provides protection against those who exercise the right to bear arms.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
What I think is immaterial
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:51 AM.