BravoBravo

The 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, B.J. Porter said:

Have you consulted a physician lately? Have you taken a sharp blow to the head and experienced memory loss or other symptoms?

Because you've got this weird hard-on for me lately that has turned you into a COMPLETE fucking idiot willing to strain at any gnat to try to smear shit on me. I don't know how I shit in your Wheaties, but each of these periodic attacks you make on me is dumber than the last.

Answer these questions for me, then explain how this above ^^ doesn't make you look like a fool?

1) Do I ever post actual original WORDS?

2) What, approximately, would you suggest is my ratio of "posts with original thoughts with words" to "single drop memes someone else made"?

3) How often do I start threads with a batch of shitposted memes and never participate in them unless with more shitpost memes?

4) How often do I use memes as my entire argument, other than as simple snark or attempt at humor germane to the thread content?

Are you still with me, because this is the kicker:

5) Where did I ever suggest that memes were a completely inappropriate thing to post?

I'll answer them since you probably didn't read this far.

1) Yes
2) 100:1? 10:1? Who knows, but I write a lot of words and you know it.
3) Never
4) Never
5) I didn't

Do you see how me dropping a single meme is absolutely nothing like what BravoBravo and other shitposters do? These guys find memes that make them snicker then come pinch off a new thread here by dropping a couple in it. When pressed, they can not (or will not, but I'm not detecting a broad streak of literacy here) provide a coherent response or argument, they just drop more memes. Going hang out in some of the Trumpster/Alt Right places on Reddit & 8Chan if you want to see what life is like with these people in large numbers.

So -have you figured out how stupid you sound with your original comments on my "hypocrisy" now?

Don't bother answering.

 

Have you consulted a physician lately? Have you taken a sharp blow to the head and experienced memory loss or other symptoms?

Because you've got this weird hard-on for me lately that has turned you into a COMPLETE fucking idiot willing to strain at any gnat to try to smear shit on me. I don't know how I shit in your Wheaties, but each of these periodic attacks you make on me is dumber than the last.

Answer these questions for me, then explain how this above ^^ doesn't make you look like a fool?

  1. Do I ever post actual original WORDS?
  2. What, approximately, would you suggest is my ratio of "posts with original thoughts with words" to "single drop memes someone else made"?
  3. How often do I start threads with a batch of shitposted memes and never participate in them unless with more shitpost memes?
  4. How often do I use memes as my entire argument, other than as simple snark or attempt at humor germane to the thread content?

I'll answer them since you probably didn't read this far.

1) Yes
2) 100:1? 10:1? Who knows, but I write a lot of words and you know it.
3) Never
4) Never
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Way, way off. For most of US history the Right-Wing has maintained that the BOR only applied to the actions of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not states or localities. 

The latter could and did deny all sorts of freedoms. 

The slow and painful process by which the BOR was extended to the states is called "nationalization".  Read up on it  . . 

Here I am once more, doing your homework for you. 

http://faculty.smu.edu/jkobylka/supremecourt/Nationalization_BoRs.pdf

The constitution has no wings. Just one by one individual people. It was an effort to craft a MORE perfect union. 

Can you see how fucking poisoned you are by partisanship? "For most of US history the Right-Wing" 

Your mind is seriously polluted with bile laced Kool Aide

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

Have you consulted a physician lately? Have you taken a sharp blow to the head and experienced memory loss or other symptoms?

Because you've got this weird hard-on for me lately that has turned you into a COMPLETE fucking idiot willing to strain at any gnat to try to smear shit on me. I don't know how I shit in your Wheaties, but each of these periodic attacks you make on me is dumber than the last.

Answer these questions for me, then explain how this above ^^ doesn't make you look like a fool?

1) Do I ever post actual original WORDS?

2) What, approximately, would you suggest is my ratio of "posts with original thoughts with words" to "single drop memes someone else made"?

3) How often do I start threads with a batch of shitposted memes and never participate in them unless with more shitpost memes?

4) How often do I use memes as my entire argument, other than as simple snark or attempt at humor germane to the thread content?

Are you still with me, because this is the kicker:

5) Where did I ever suggest that memes were a completely inappropriate thing to post?

I'll answer them since you probably didn't read this far.

1) Yes
2) 100:1? 10:1? Who knows, but I write a lot of words and you know it.
3) Never
4) Never
5) I didn't

Do you see how me dropping a single meme is absolutely nothing like what BravoBravo and other shitposters do? These guys find memes that make them snicker then come pinch off a new thread here by dropping a couple in it. When pressed, they can not (or will not, but I'm not detecting a broad streak of literacy here) provide a coherent response or argument, they just drop more memes. Going hang out in some of the Trumpster/Alt Right places on Reddit & 8Chan if you want to see what life is like with these people in large numbers.

So -have you figured out how stupid you sound with your original comments on my "hypocrisy" now?

Don't bother answering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shitposting

image.thumb.png.6cc9cf1b56a12b74381e00682d5eb03c.png

Wow, talk about going off the top ropes in a rebuttal overkill.  Of course you can post memes and no I don't think you're anywhere near as bad as some here.  However, I just found it amusing and more than a little ironic that barely a few posts after you bitch-slap BB for posting memes instead of using his adult words, you drop a meme on him.  

And don't worry, I'm not stalking you or anything.  You barely register in my daily thoughts as I skim PA to waste time.  It's just when I run across that level of hypocrisy literally like a few posts apart, I can't help myself from pointing it out.  It's one of my flaws...... I enjoy watching train wrecks.  

All good brother, peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So actually I find myself totally gobsmacked by the responses I'm seeing that there are no such things as "natural" or inherent human rights from my "libbyrul" collegues, as Steamers would say.  I would never have guessed that in a million years and instead assumed all you SJW's would be the first on the bandwagon of human rights being the natural state of the planet.  And I'm not talking about "god given rights".  I'm talking about rights which are universally accepted as "it just is" rather than a right that is conferred onto us by some benevolent leader or gov't.  

So far I have on record as saying that human rights are not inherent and only given down from on high by man:

What about the rest of you libs?  I can't believe a dyed in the wool conservative like me has a more liberal view of human rights than the lot of you.  You should seriously be ashamed of yourselves.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Laker said:

Liberties and rights come from within a cultural framework.  If you were a hermit, you would have all the rights and freedoms in the world. As soon as you live with others, a culture develops.  This culture determines an economy.  It also sets a framework of rules to work with others.  Our rights and freedoms are the set of rules that develop around this culture.  There is no inherent right to life, liberty and happiness within the context of others.  The culture may be to kill you on sight. An unworkable culture, but worked against the Tasmanian aboriginals for instance.  So, the concepts of peace, justice and good governance, as you can see are cultural constructs.

Interesting.  So there is no inherent right to life?  That any rights you have are relative and are given down based on the cultural framework that you happen to be in?  And that whatever that culture deemed to be your right or not right on any given day or year is OK?  

So let's say that the culture in Germany changed back to Pre-WW2 nazi era and the vast majority of the Germans believed in and supported that new culture - then it would be OK to exterminate the jews there again?  I mean if the culture says its ok and you have no inherent right to live, it would be fine, right?  Or let's say all the whites in the US got together in lockstep before they lost their majority and amended the Constitution to expressly allow slavery.  As long as the laws and the culture supported that, it would be OK to re-enslave the blacks and put them to work in the fields, right?  Because they didn't actually have any rights not given to them by man, according to you and your elk.  And man can giveth and man can taketh away. 

Laker, I never figured you for a person who would support genocide and slavery as long as the culture and the laws say it's ok.  I learn something new everyday.  

Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

So you're saying that your right to liberty, justice, speech, self-defense, assembly, etc are not inherent?  And that they only exist because they've been "granted" to you by a gov't?  

Yes.

What the organising committee giveth, they also take away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

So actually I find myself totally gobsmacked by the responses I'm seeing that there are no such things as "natural" or inherent human rights ....    ...   ...

What about the rest of you libs?  I can't believe a dyed in the wool conservative like me has a more liberal fantasy-world view of human rights than the lot of you.  You should seriously be ashamed of yourselves.  

Tried to explain earlier, apparently you rejected.

Go play with a gun

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

Interesting.  So there is no inherent right to life?  That any rights you have are relative and are given down based on the cultural framework that you happen to be in?  And that whatever that culture deemed to be your right or not right on any given day or year is OK?  

So let's say that the culture in Germany changed back to Pre-WW2 nazi era and the vast majority of the Germans believed in and supported that new culture - then it would be OK to exterminate the jews there again?  I mean if the culture says its ok and you have no inherent right to live, it would be fine, right?  Or let's say all the whites in the US got together in lockstep before they lost their majority and amended the Constitution to expressly allow slavery.  As long as the laws and the culture supported that, it would be OK to re-enslave the blacks and put them to work in the fields, right?  Because they didn't actually have any rights not given to them by man, according to you and your elk.  And man can giveth and man can taketh away. 

Laker, I never figured you for a person who would support genocide and slavery as long as the culture and the laws say it's ok.  I learn something new everyday.  

Just saying.

In reality Jeff, I don't think we end up being very different in end behaviour, but I think we get there in different ways.  

This explanation is of course much abridged and open to a lot of discussion;

Starting off with the basis of Hellenic philosophy that has come down to us as a basis of Judeo-Christian practice.  When I define my hand, I also then define what is not my hand.  Thesis and Antithesis.  When I define good, I also define evil.  The concept of original sin then comes along from this.

We can take a metaphor to a "free market"  Because of the inherent "sin" (market failures) of a free market it is not really possible, even if you try to have a free a market as possible .  Lets go back to the monks trying to live a sinless life.  We also have the concept of the best of all possible worlds.

In the same way, the Rousseauan concept of the inherent right of the individual gets hard to support as the population and therefore the number of interactions between people, each with their own inherent rights life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, increases.  I just saw a video of a protester against the coronovirus lock down invade the space of a reporter and saying that everything was OK because he took hydroxychloroquine.  He was faithful in this belief because Mr. Trump told him it worked.    The person approaching the reporter was defined in his inherent rights as was the reporter in his.  Obviously a problem.

I believe that we have inherent rights, it is just not that they are not defined as the rights of an individual, more that the inherent rights are defined in terms of interactions within a society or the culture of that society.  For this reason, I am much more comfortable with the rights to peace, justice and good governance, a societal compact, than defining an inherent right in terms of the best possible world of the individual.

It is in this way that the culture of a bounty on the Tasmanian aboriginal is an abrogation of the Tasmanian's right to peaceful interactions with others rather than his inherent right to self determination.  Our culture says that you must cover your loins in public.  Under a Rousseauan construct, this would be unacceptable, but culture requires it in terms of interaction with others.  Slavery, serfdom, bound servants and onerous and dangerous work situations have many dimensions, but I think it falls within the bounds of social interaction rather than the concept of individual freedom.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

human rights being the natural state of the planet. 

Actually, many of us are simpatico with this . . 

It's just that your thinking is so shallow, that we are unable to  concur. 

Gunz as a natural right is just stupid beyond belief. 

Read up on your Aquinas, Locke, Hobbes,

Kant (note to self: got to read some more of that guy) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Actually, many of us are simpatico with this . . 

It's just that your thinking is so shallow, that we are unable to  concur. 

Gunz as a natural right is just stupid beyond belief. 

Read up on your Aquinas, Locke, Hobbes,

Kant (note to self: got to read some more of that guy) 

 

Is freedom of speech a natural right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:
20 minutes ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

Is freedom of speech a natural right?

No.

How about self-defense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

Is freedom of speech a natural right?

What are these "natural rights" of which you speak? 

You have no idea - 

do your flippin' homework 

Don't make me give you a grade of "incomplete", the next step is perdition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

No.

 

Let's take a look at self defence under stand and deliver laws.  I think it was in Georgia, a foreign student dressed in costume comes to someone's door because he is lost.  The homeowner shoots him. Is this defensible under justice and equity? It is under a perceived threat to life. It is the homeowner's property after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Laker said:

Let's take a look at self defence under stand and deliver laws.  I think it was in Georgia, a foreign student dressed in costume comes to someone's door because he is lost.  The homeowner shoots him. Is this defensible under justice and equity? It is under a perceived threat to life. It is the homeowner's property after all.

Self defence is a reaction. How can a reaction be considered "inherent"?

If you want to put it in to context re rights, it would be the right to not get attacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Self defence is a reaction. How can a reaction be considered "inherent"?

If you want to put it in to context re rights, it would be the right to not get attacked.

Yes, but culture says that the homeowner's rights prevail on his property under life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is not neutral territory or the student's property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America still hasn't graduated from the wild wild west.

I guess all of us humans in the rest of the world can wait and watch for another 100 or so years.

good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Laker said:

Yes, but culture says that the homeowner's rights prevail on his property under life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is not neutral territory or the student's property.

Property is irrelevant to the discussion. It's an inanimate object......

For self defence to be  consideration, there has to be something to be defended against. Absent that who is attacking who?

Then there's the concept of proportional force.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Keith said:

America still hasn't graduated from the wild wild west.

I guess all of us humans in the rest of the world can wait and watch for another 100 or so years.

good luck.

100 years? At the current rate, they won't last another 20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Property is irrelevant to the discussion. It's an inanimate object......

For self defence to be  consideration, there has to be something to be defended against. Absent that who is attacking who?

Then there's the concept of proportional force.....

 

I agree with you.  I am presenting the argument based on the rights of the individual.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to a very famous man there are no rigths only priviledges! watch below about your god given rights:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

Why are you even talking about your views on dogballs over in CA?  

I never have, but that doesn't stop triggered Canucks from doing it. So I left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pun Slinger said:

"in Order to form a more perfect Union"

Hahahahaaaaa.

That fucking takes the cake.

"more perfect"

oXKcSgN.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:
15 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

How about self-defense?

No.

So you're telling me I have no inherent right to self-defense?  So if I am out hiking in the woods minding my own business and some crazed axe-wielding lunatic comes running at me, I have no right to pick up a stick and defend myself?  I have to stand there peaceably and let him take off my head?  Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:
15 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

Is freedom of speech a natural right?

No.

So you're saying you do not have the right to freedom of expression unless someone gives it to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Property is irrelevant to the discussion. It's an inanimate object......

For self defence to be  consideration, there has to be something to be defended against. Absent that who is attacking who?

Then there's the concept of proportional force.....

 

Proportional force only comes into play if I am allowed to use self-defense in the first place.  You said SD is not an inherent right.  Therefore, it must be a conferred right someone has given you.  Which just as easily can be taken away.  

So let's say you live in a country where self-defense, of any kind - lethal or non-lethal, is explicitly forbidden.  So if a gang of murderous bikers breaks into your house with your wife and children and are going to kill all of you - do you stand there and fight back or do you meekly comply with the law that says you cannot defend yourself - even if it's with a mild slap on the attacker's face?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

So you're saying you do not have the right to freedom of expression unless someone gives it to you?

I think someone skipped his philosophy classes at school.  Maybe start with Kant and Paine while you have some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I think someone skipped his philosophy classes at school. 

Well, yeah, there is a long tradition of natural law theory. Some start with Aquinas, some with the stoics . . 

then there are Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes , ,  

Not to mention the lefty versions which emphasize social rights (as in Eleanor Roosevelt/UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights) 

@Female Canine Firestorm  that is your homework; don't be put off by all the names. You can get a handle on the basics in two or three months. 

And you can do it on your own; no fancy uni needed. I know truck drivers who are way more knowledgeable about this than I am. 

But for you to babble on nonsensically about it w/o homework is a total waste of everyone's time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AJ Oliver said:

But for you to babble on nonsensically about it w/o homework is a total waste of everyone's time. 

Responding to my posts is totally voluntary.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I think someone skipped his philosophy classes at school.  Maybe start with Kant and Paine while you have some time.

Ah look, it's the elitist sooper-genus trotting out his education credentials right on cue.  I had a very well grounded liberal arts education with plenty of philosophy studies.  I'm well familiar with the various theories out there.  But as usual, you attack my education rather than actually addressing the points I make or questions I pose.  This is not a lecture hall or seminar, it's adults discussing an issue.  So go shove your Kant up your Kunt and have an actual debate like adults do.  Or not, I frankly don't care.  But you show your own failings when you won't engage the issues without your snarky personal attacks.  But given this is an intellectual discussion, Alan - maybe you should instead go sit over at the kids table with your little buddy Miss Jibsey.  The adults are talking here.  So just shush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Laker said:

Yes, but culture says that the homeowner's rights prevail on his property under life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is not neutral territory or the student's property.

Post Declaration of Independence, pre Constitutional Convention, several states passed bills of attainder to seize loyalist property. Notably New York https://www.nypl.org/blog/2016/09/19/loyalist-property-confiscation

the constitutional prohibition is an explicit reaction to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

Ah look, it's the elitist sooper-genus trotting out his education credentials right on cue.  I had a very well grounded liberal arts education with plenty of philosophy studies.  I'm well familiar with the various theories out there.  But as usual, you attack my education rather than actually addressing the points I make or questions I pose.  This is not a lecture hall or seminar, it's adults discussing an issue.  So go shove your Kant up your Kunt and have an actual debate like adults do.  Or not, I frankly don't care.  But you show your own failings when you won't engage the issues without your snarky personal attacks.  But given this is an intellectual discussion, Alan - maybe you should instead go sit over at the kids table with your little buddy Miss Jibsey.  The adults are talking here.  So just shush.

This is like when you bullshitted about Maslow, innit?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

This is like when you bullshitted about Maslow, innit?

What did I BS about Maslow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

What did I BS about Maslow?

You said you understood, then demonstrated you didn’t have a clue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

So you're telling me I have no inherent right to self-defense?  So if I am out hiking in the woods minding my own business and some crazed axe-wielding lunatic comes running at me, I have no right to pick up a stick and defend myself?  I have to stand there peaceably and let him take off my head?  Really?

Depends, are you wearing a hoodie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Post Declaration of Independence, pre Constitutional Convention, several states passed bills of attainder to seize loyalist property. Notably New York https://www.nypl.org/blog/2016/09/19/loyalist-property-confiscation

the constitutional prohibition is an explicit reaction to this.

From the article:

Quote

New York’s most aggressive confiscation law was passed in October of 1779, entitled “An Act for the Forfeiture and Sale of the Estates of Persons who have adhered to the Enemies of this State, and for declaring the Sovereignty of the People of this State, in respect to all Property within the same,” though it is commonly called the Forfeiture Act (New York Laws, 3rd session, Ch. 25). It included a list of New Yorkers who remained loyal to Great Britain and provided that these “offenders” had forfeited their right to property and were banished from the state. It also empowered the state to seize and sell their forfeited property.

That idea hasn't really gone away. If your property is suspected of committing a drug crime, get ready to lose it. And if some people commit crimes with guns, that means all gun owners are responsible and should have their property banned and confiscated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, roundthebuoys said:
9 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

So you're telling me I have no inherent right to self-defense?  So if I am out hiking in the woods minding my own business and some crazed axe-wielding lunatic comes running at me, I have no right to pick up a stick and defend myself?  I have to stand there peaceably and let him take off my head?  Really?

Depends, are you wearing a hoodie?

If his hat's on backwards he's fucked. May as well take off your clothes so they don't get all messy for the next user.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

So you're telling me I have no inherent right to self-defense?  So if I am out hiking in the woods minding my own business and some crazed axe-wielding lunatic comes running at me, I have no right to pick up a stick and defend myself?  I have to stand there peaceably and let him take off my head?  Really?

Correct, you have no right to self defence. By all means blast away. And your blasting away could even be encouraged by law.

That doesn't make it a right.

Any more than the attacker has a right to attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

Proportional force only comes into play if I am allowed to use self-defense in the first place.  You said SD is not an inherent right.  Therefore, it must be a conferred right someone has given you.  Which just as easily can be taken away.  

So let's say you live in a country where self-defense, of any kind - lethal or non-lethal, is explicitly forbidden.  So if a gang of murderous bikers breaks into your house with your wife and children and are going to kill all of you - do you stand there and fight back or do you meekly comply with the law that says you cannot defend yourself - even if it's with a mild slap on the attacker's face?  

Why can there not be laws around self defence?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

Ah look, it's the elitist sooper-genus trotting out his education credentials right on cue.  I had a very well grounded liberal arts education with plenty of philosophy studies.  I'm well familiar with the various theories out there.  

No, sure, that comes across really well in your writing.  It does.  

 

Does that feel better?

 

Or do you want to rehash debates from 11th grade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Correct, you have no right to self defence. By all means blast away. And your blasting away could even be encouraged by law.

That doesn't make it a right.

Any more than the attacker has a right to attack.

So I have no inherent right to protect my life or my family from harm unless the gov't grants that right to me?  Seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Why can there not be laws around self defence?

 

You didn't answer the question.  If the law very clearly said you have zero right to self defense and a gang of bikers kicked in your door and planned to kill you and rape your wife and daughters - are you saying that you would sit there passively while that happened because you don't have the right to defend them??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

 a gang of bikers kicked in your door and planned to kill you and rape your wife and daughters - are you saying that you would sit there passively while that happened because you don't have the right to defend them??

My nomination for the stupid post of the week . . 

It's logical slap-stick 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

how did you get that from that?

He thinks he's still on HotGurls4YourFantasies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

If your property 

And by “your” property Tomballs means “the land stolen from native Americans that white people laid claim to and passed down title to”. Property confiscation matters ..... sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strangely enough, I was just thinking of the Canadian anthem.

O, Canada, our home on native land...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

You didn't answer the question.  If the law very clearly said you have zero right to self defense and a gang of bikers kicked in your door and planned to kill you and rape your wife and daughters - are you saying that you would sit there passively while that happened because you don't have the right to defend them??

Do you have a right to drive? A right to sail?

Because you can and do, don't you?

Do you think laws making assulting,  raping and killing illegal are not laws promoting self defence?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

And by “your” property Tomballs means “the land stolen from native Americans that white people laid claim to and passed down title to”. Property confiscation matters ..... sometimes.

Remember that the "native americans" in many cases took their lands from other "native Americans"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

You didn't answer the question.  If the law very clearly said you have zero right to self defense and a gang of bikers kicked in your door and planned to kill you and rape your wife and daughters - are you saying that you would sit there passively while that happened because you don't have the right to defend them??

I've worked in something north of 20 countries that if I bothered to look up probably represent 3 odd billion people.  

And nowhere else in the world have I ever heard such fucking horseshit over the populace's 'rights'. Any cunt would thing you're  that repressed that even the medieval serfs had lifestyles emulating the roman gods.  

I mean seriously, what gives?

Considering you have this topic seemingly front and centre of every waking thought pattern, are you secretly invaded every month by bezerkers that break into your house to rape your entire family and pets then steal off with all your worldwide possessions?

FFS get out of your head and stop prattling on and on about your bullshit rights. You must be a fucking riot to have over for a bbq and few beers, I think I'd last half an hour before I lost all will to live and topped myself.  

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, shaggybaxter said:

I've worked in something north of 20 countries that if I bothered to look up probably represent 3 odd billion people.  

And nowhere else in the world have I ever heard such fucking horseshit over the populace's 'rights'. Any cunt would thing you're  that repressed that even the medieval serfs had lifestyles emulating the roman gods.  

I mean seriously, what gives?

Considering you have this topic seemingly front and centre of every waking thought pattern, are you secretly invaded every month by bezerkers that break into your house to rape your entire family and pets then steal off with all your worldwide possessions?

FFS get out of your head and stop prattling on and on about your bullshit rights. You must be a fucking riot to have over for a bbq and few beers, I think I'd last half an hour before I lost all will to live and topped myself.  

 

 

 

With all due respect, Mr Baxter, he's from Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

So if I am out hiking in the woods minding my own business and some crazed axe-wielding lunatic comes running at me

 

2 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

a gang of bikers kicked in your door and planned to kill you and rape your wife and daughters

Maybe you have to question what sort of person you are if all this keeps happening to you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, shaggybaxter said:

I've worked in something north of 20 countries that if I bothered to look up probably represent 3 odd billion people.  

And nowhere else in the world have I ever heard such fucking horseshit over the populace's 'rights'. Any cunt would thing you're  that repressed that even the medieval serfs had lifestyles emulating the roman gods.  

I mean seriously, what gives?

Considering you have this topic seemingly front and centre of every waking thought pattern, are you secretly invaded every month by bezerkers that break into your house to rape your entire family and pets then steal off with all your worldwide possessions?

FFS get out of your head and stop prattling on and on about your bullshit rights. You must be a fucking riot to have over for a bbq and few beers, I think I'd last half an hour before I lost all will to live and topped myself.  

 

 

 

I came to the conclusion years ago that these people are scared.  Mostly they are scared of black people.

The NRA has succeeded in scaring the living fuck out of them, buy more Gunz or you will be fucked.

Sad.  How could you live permanently frightened shitless?

image.png.d668f0db6fe48e6e55034b6927020cc9.png

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

So I have no inherent right to protect my life or my family from harm unless the gov't grants that right to me?  Seriously?

Don't act so surprised. The animus against self defense is the source of things like banning stun guns, and we saw in the SCOTUS case about Caetano's Body, Caetano's Choice that preventing self defense is important enough to justify taking patently absurd arguments all the way to the highest court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2020 at 5:06 AM, Not for nothing said:

According to a very famous man there are no rigths only priviledges! watch below about your god given rights:

 

Famous? Loved the hippy dippy weatherman. "Tonight's forecast, dark, turning to widely scattered light by morning." 

Hearing that piece I'm sad he became so bitter and angry. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zonker said:
19 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

So if I am out hiking in the woods minding my own business and some crazed axe-wielding lunatic comes running at me

 

8 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

a gang of bikers kicked in your door and planned to kill you and rape your wife and daughters

Maybe you have to question what sort of person you are if all this keeps happening to you

My mind boggles at how much terror one must live in to have all these weird fantasies about why you need to be armed to the teeth to function in society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Do you think laws making assulting,  raping and killing illegal are not laws promoting self defence?

No they do not promote self-defense.  A law against murder or rape has zero to do with self-defense.  Because the right to self-defense is already assumed to exist.  Show me one law anywhere where it simply says you have the right to defend yourself against attack.  You won't find one I'm betting because it is an inherent right.  Instead any laws dealing with SD will prescribe the methods you can and cannot defend yourself and set some restrictions on when and where those methods can be used.  But there will be nothing written down that gives you that basic right to self-defense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, shaggybaxter said:

I've worked in something north of 20 countries that if I bothered to look up probably represent 3 odd billion people.  

And nowhere else in the world have I ever heard such fucking horseshit over the populace's 'rights'. Any cunt would thing you're  that repressed that even the medieval serfs had lifestyles emulating the roman gods.  

blah blah blah

 

The current topic has nothing to do with gunz, it has moved on.  Try to keep up.  The question is "Do you have the right to defend yourself from personal harm or imminent threat"?  That right to SD can be exercised with your hands, feet, a cricket bat, whatever.  

If yes, then who gave that right to you?  If no, then I assume you will sit there passively while your head gets crushed in by an attacker with a baseball bat.  Right?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B.J. Porter said:

My mind boggles at how much terror one must live in to have all these weird fantasies about why you need to be armed to the teeth to function in society.

Again, BJ - my question has nothing to do with guns.  Look, I get that all these Pusstralians are scared sheeple who only do what their gov't allows them to do and thinks only what big brother tells them to think.  But I'm a bit surprised that you, a card- carrying, bleeding heart librul 'Murican would buy into this BS that there are no inherent rights and that the only rights that exist are those the gov't deems fit for you to have.  That seems counter to EVERY tenant of the American concept of freedom and goes against every notion of what it means to have liberty.  

America has always been the shining beacon on the hill NOT because we wrote laws that gave down basic freedoms like speech, religion, assembly, due process, etc but because we flipped the conventional wisdom around and said NO, those freedoms have always been there.  All the US Constitution does is Protect those rights, not give those rights.  Look at the wording of the 1st Amendment:  Congress shall make no law..... prohibit the free exercise thereof.... or abridge.  ALL of those words are about protecting an already existing right, not giving you that right in the first place.  

But even more basic than that..... there are those here who have stated categorically that you do not have the right to live.  Do you subscribe to that as well?  And of course a Gov't can rescind that right if you do something bad enough to warrant it, so we're not talking about the death penalty.  I'm talking about a basic right to live your life.  What about a child?  Does it have the right to live?  If so, where does that right come from?  Show me a document anywhere that gives that right to that child to be alive.  If a gov't came down with a law that said that every 5th child born on a tuesday was to be taken by the gov't when it reached age 10, then that would be legal, correct?  Because in the fantasy world that many seem to be living in here - only a gov't gives you the right to live and can also take it away at anytime and for any reason it wants.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

America has always been the shining beacon on the hill NOT because we wrote laws that gave down basic freedoms like speech, religion, assembly, due process, etc but because we flipped the conventional wisdom around and said NO, those freedoms have always been there.  All the US Constitution does is Protect those rights, not give those rights.  Look at the wording of the 1st Amendment:  Congress shall make no law..... prohibit the free exercise thereof.... or abridge.  ALL of those words are about protecting an already existing right, not giving you that right in the first place.  

So, clearly I was right you were bullshitting about philosophy. And bullshitting with ignorance of other traditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

So, clearly I was right you were bullshitting about philosophy. And bullshitting with ignorance of other traditions.

Clearly you were not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

Clearly you were not.  

So, your argument is the values of the drafters were radically different than the prevailing views of the Enlightenment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

The current topic has nothing to do with gunz, it has moved on.  Try to keep up.  The question is "Do you have the right to defend yourself from personal harm or imminent threat"?  That right to SD can be exercised with your hands, feet, a cricket bat, whatever.  

If yes, then who gave that right to you?  If no, then I assume you will sit there passively while your head gets crushed in by an attacker with a baseball bat.  Right?  

:D Nobody mentioned guns except you you Jeff. Again.

I thought you were talking about your precious rights? Again.

"Do try and keep up' .... pot meet kettle. Again.

There are 7.8 billion people in the world, so a fair estimate is billions of new ideas morphing into conversations every single day, but dear old Jeffy has just one, blah blah.. rights...blah blah...rights. I can just picture a 16yr old drive through attendant smiling at you through gritted teeth wishing you'd just take you shit and leave as you lecture them on your precious myopic boring 'rights'.  

Here ya go sport, here's a bone to help you get out of your rut. All that desert is depriving you of intelligent thoughts, it's a big world mate, you need to stretch your mental capacity somewhat. 

Regards,

Rights ignorant and blissfully better off because of it Pusstralian 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

America has always been the shining beacon on the hill NOT because we wrote laws that gave down basic freedoms like speech, religion, assembly, due process,

Feedumb for 'other people' to die mother fuckers.

Everyone is jealous of the Freedumb and wants to be in Merica!!!!

image.png.33e0dc874da0cf7fbe9dbc1b3f5b89b4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

That seems counter to EVERY tenant of the American concept of freedom and goes against every notion of what it means to have liberty.  

d_ov_afam_guns_170508.focal-760x428.jpg

“I know people who keep AR-15’s buried because they’re afraid one day the government might come for them,” he wrote on Twitter. “I know others who are stockpiling them. It is not a stretch to say there’d be violence if the [government] tried to confiscate them.”

“There would be violence” neatly elides what’s actually being claimed: Some gun-rights activists would murder government officials who try to enforce a duly passed law. This isn’t an extreme viewpoint among such gun enthusiasts. If anything, it’s one of their central tenets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, astro said:

d_ov_afam_guns_170508.focal-760x428.jpg

 

ok what's wrong with that picture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Not for nothing said:

ok what's wrong with that picture?

Lack of salad and vegetables?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Female Canine Firestorm said:

No they do not promote self-defense.  A law against murder or rape has zero to do with self-defense.  Because the right to self-defense is already assumed to exist.  Show me one law anywhere where it simply says you have the right to defend yourself against attack.  You won't find one I'm betting because it is an inherent right.  Instead any laws dealing with SD will prescribe the methods you can and cannot defend yourself and set some restrictions on when and where those methods can be used.  But there will be nothing written down that gives you that basic right to self-defense.  

So a group of people that get together and decide certain rules regarding permissible actions in their group are not acting in the interests of self defence?

And there is no "right" to self defence......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So a group of people that get together and decide certain rules regarding permissible actions in their group are not acting in the interests of self defence?

And there is no "right" to self defence......

Legal right 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, shaggybaxter said:

Nobody mentioned guns except you you Jeff. Again.

I thought you were talking about your precious rights? Again.

"Do try and keep up' .... pot meet kettle. Again.

There are 7.8 billion people in the world, so a fair estimate is billions of new ideas morphing into conversations every single day, but dear old Jeffy has just one, blah blah.. rights...blah blah...rights. I can just picture a 16yr old drive through attendant smiling at you through gritted teeth wishing you'd just take you shit and leave as you lecture them on your precious myopic boring 'rights'.  

Here ya go sport, here's a bone to help you get out of your rut. All that desert is depriving you of intelligent thoughts, it's a big world mate, you need to stretch your mental capacity somewhat. 

Regards,

Rights ignorant and blissfully better off because of it Pusstralian 

Reading my posts is a completely voluntary act.  If you don't want discuss rights or read about rights, go fuck off somewhere else and ignore me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So a group of people that get together and decide certain rules regarding permissible actions in their group are not acting in the interests of self defence?

WTF does that even mean?  I assume they do speak Engrish in Sheep fucking land, right?  

Quote

And there is no "right" to self defence......

None whatsoever?  Really?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Not for nothing said:

ok what's wrong with that picture?

What is that gun designed to shoot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, astro said:

What is that gun designed to shoot?

bullets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

WTF does that even mean?  I assume they do speak Engrish in Sheep fucking land, right?  

None whatsoever?  Really?  

So you've got nothing.

 

Well apart from "Rights! Because!"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So you've got nothing.

I asked you a question.  Here it is again:  Are you saying there there is absolutely no right to self-defense under any circumstance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

I asked you a question.  Here it is again:  Are you saying there there is absolutely no right to self-defense under any circumstance?

No.

Does something have to be a right for it to be legal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

No.

Does something have to be a right for it to be legal?

No.  

Is it a right of man to not be a slave?  Or is slavery simply just illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

No.  

Is it a right of man to not be a slave?  Or is slavery simply just illegal?

There are no natural "rights" unless you believe in a god. Nature just is. Sometimes it sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

No.  

Is it a right of man to not be a slave?  Or is slavery simply just illegal?

Slavery is just illegal....

How do you force a person to be a slave?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

Reading my posts is a completely voluntary act.  If you don't want discuss rights or read about rights, go fuck off somewhere else and ignore me.  

Unless you believe communication is simply one way, hike the fuck up petal and take on board criticism like the rest of mature adults do. You must work internally in your organisation, your org wouldn't have any clients left if Jeffy's  communication methodology is the modus operandi. 

You wanna talk rights or any other subject ? Sharpen up your reading skills and clean out your ears , you have a shocking habit of applying your own interpretation to the other party in the conversation.

Or fuck off and continue to bang your head against the wall bitching about the "level of stupidity" or "why people don't understand my POV". You're turning into a bit of a soft cock Jeff.

"Just saying." 

Regards ,

Pusstralian

  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

I asked you a question.  Here it is again:  Are you saying there there is absolutely no right to self-defense under any circumstance?

Not if your name is Trayvon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Slavery is just illegal....

How do you force a person to be a slave?

Who says it's illegal??  If a country's laws said that slavery was legal, how is it "illegal"???  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roundthebuoys said:
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I asked you a question.  Here it is again:  Are you saying there there is absolutely no right to self-defense under any circumstance?

Not if your name is Trayvon.

Sure he did.  He just didn't have the right tools or mindset.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

Sure he did.  He just didn't have the right tools or mindset.  

And he was black and wearing a hoodie, right Jeff?  I mean he shoulda been packing to go get the skittles lest there be a racist gun nut prowling a stand your ground state looking for trouble.  He just lost the fight, right?  Sure you can fight the axe wielder, but when you're dead does it really matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites