In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Yeah, I know (because I've heard it from you) I'm silly, I'm closed minded, I do not live in reality. Please add I don't give a crap to that list.Why Don, you may be accused of being afflicted with "group-think" as "The Brethren" often are, after your delivery of that well-aimed kick in the nuts. [8)]
Originally posted by Jim Rau
Well Shane, I don't need or want a pat on the back. Unlike you and your 'brethren' who live just to attack and put down people who do not see eye to eye with them then pat each other on the back for being a bully. I have been fighting with people like you and other 'union/bully' types my whole life and will continue the fight as long as there are those who like to think they are better the rest and get in your face about it![:(!]
I do not have a problem with your beliefs, as a matter of fact I support them, but I do have a problem with the way you and the 'brethren' treat people!!![V]
Apparently pot has met kettle and the introduction went over his head.
Fine, Jim, here's some realism for you. You are a compromiser, and are proud of that fact that and the fact that you will not change. You define closed-mindedness.
Attempts to engage you on specifics fall flat, as you retreat to the 'I am a realist mantra.'
The law of the land is 'shall not be infringed.' You support and defend laws that are infringements because 'it is reality'. If that sell-out is what it takes to be a realist, I want no part of it.
Yeah, I know (because I've heard it from you) I'm silly, I'm closed minded, I do not live in reality. Please add I don't give a crap to that list.
Is it you just do not listen or is it you can't hear?
I do not support ANY of the anti-gun laws I have seen in my life time. But to take any 'quote' out of context (time and place included) and rant about it is just plane stupid.
Now enter reality and human nature. You refuse to apply the reality test to your 'demands'. Like many in todays world who thing it 'should' be this way because it says so in the 'book'. Well when you add the human element to the equation it WILL not add up. People screw up everything they get involved in and you refuse to admit this. Your problem, not mine. Keep on living in LALA land if that is what you want to do. Don't keep ragging on me. I have been there and returned. I have told you a number of times I use to say the things, almost word for word you say. I then realized how unrealistic I was. You have not reached this point yet, so until you have been in my shoes don't be the 'holier than thou' judge.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Originally posted by Jim Rau
Well Shane, I don't need or want a pat on the back. Unlike you and your 'brethren' who live just to attack and put down people who do not see eye to eye with them then pat each other on the back for being a bully. I have been fighting with people like you and other 'union/bully' types my whole life and will continue the fight as long as there are those who like to think they are better the rest and get in your face about it![:(!]
I do not have a problem with your beliefs, as a matter of fact I support them, but I do have a problem with the way you and the 'brethren' treat people!!![V]
Apparently pot has met kettle and the introduction went over his head.
Fine, Jim, here's some realism for you. You are a compromiser, and are proud of that fact that and the fact that you will not change. You define closed-mindedness.
Attempts to engage you on specifics fall flat, as you retreat to the 'I am a realist mantra.'
The law of the land is 'shall not be infringed.' You support and defend laws that are infringements because 'it is reality'. If that sell-out is what it takes to be a realist, I want no part of it.
Yeah, I know (because I've heard it from you) I'm silly, I'm closed minded, I do not live in reality. Please add I don't give a crap to that list.
Is it you just do not listen or is it you can't hear?
I do not support ANY of the anti-gun laws I have seen in my life time. But to take any 'quote' out of context (time and place included) and rant about it is just plane stupid.
Now enter reality and human nature. You refuse to apply the reality test to your 'demands'. Like many in todays world who thing it 'should' be this way because it says so in the 'book'. Well when you add the human element to the equation it WILL not add up. People screw up everything they get involved in and you refuse to admit this. Your problem, not mine. Keep on living in LALA land if that is what you want to do. Don't keep ragging on me. I have been there and returned. I have told you a number of times I use to say the things, almost word for word you say. I then realized how unrealistic I was. You have not reached this point yet, so until you have been in my shoes don't be the 'holier than thou' judge.
JIm it sure is YOU that don't get it. Over and over and over, you say "I support the SAME believes as YOU guy", then from the OTHER side of your mouth, you holler "THE REALITY is, I accept infringments".
Uh, you either SUPPORT infringments or you don't. FOr all your blabbering and double talking, even when someone as CALM and POLITE as Mr. McManus points it out, you WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT infringments. You just abhor hearing it. Like it or NOT Jim, YOU are on the SAME side as the anti-gunners. You support infringments, even if they appear to be small.
You are what you are Jim. Speaking from both sides of your mouth changes nothing.
Yeah, I know (because I've heard it from you) I'm silly, I'm closed minded, I do not live in reality. Please add I don't give a crap to that list.Why Don, you may be accused of being afflicted with "group-think" as "The Brethren" often are, after your delivery of that well-aimed kick in the nuts. [8)]
[/quot
No Jeff he didn't even come close. But you can give a pat on the back for trying!!![;)]
quote:Originally posted by freemind
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Originally posted by Jim Rau
Well Shane, I don't need or want a pat on the back. Unlike you and your 'brethren' who live just to attack and put down people who do not see eye to eye with them then pat each other on the back for being a bully. I have been fighting with people like you and other 'union/bully' types my whole life and will continue the fight as long as there are those who like to think they are better the rest and get in your face about it![:(!]
I do not have a problem with your beliefs, as a matter of fact I support them, but I do have a problem with the way you and the 'brethren' treat people!!![V]
Apparently pot has met kettle and the introduction went over his head.
Fine, Jim, here's some realism for you. You are a compromiser, and are proud of that fact that and the fact that you will not change. You define closed-mindedness.
Attempts to engage you on specifics fall flat, as you retreat to the 'I am a realist mantra.'
The law of the land is 'shall not be infringed.' You support and defend laws that are infringements because 'it is reality'. If that sell-out is what it takes to be a realist, I want no part of it.
Yeah, I know (because I've heard it from you) I'm silly, I'm closed minded, I do not live in reality. Please add I don't give a crap to that list.
Is it you just do not listen or is it you can't hear?
I do not support ANY of the anti-gun laws I have seen in my life time. But to take any 'quote' out of context (time and place included) and rant about it is just plane stupid.
Now enter reality and human nature. You refuse to apply the reality test to your 'demands'. Like many in todays world who thing it 'should' be this way because it says so in the 'book'. Well when you add the human element to the equation it WILL not add up. People screw up everything they get involved in and you refuse to admit this. Your problem, not mine. Keep on living in LALA land if that is what you want to do. Don't keep ragging on me. I have been there and returned. I have told you a number of times I use to say the things, almost word for word you say. I then realized how unrealistic I was. You have not reached this point yet, so until you have been in my shoes don't be the 'holier than thou' judge.
JIm it sure is YOU that don't get it. Over and over and over, you say "I support the SAME believes as YOU guy", then from the OTHER side of your mouth, you holler "THE REALITY is, I accept infringments".
Uh, you either SUPPORT infringments or you don't. FOr all your blabbering and double talking, even when someone as CALM and POLITE as Mr. McManus points it out, you WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT infringments. You just abhor hearing it. Like it or NOT Jim, YOU are on the SAME side as the anti-gunners. You support infringments, even if they appear to be small.
You are what you are Jim. Speaking from both sides of your mouth changes nothing.
No you don't get it, I do. Reality will not allow idealism to prevail. Just a fact of life. I agree with the principles you preach, but I have seen enough reality to know 100%/perfect/exact ideals you want will never happen in practice in this world of ours. I never said I did not want them to not succeed because I would be happier than a pig in kaka if they did, but I also wish all people would 'just get along' too, but that is not going to happen either. So if you guys want to 'dream on' don't let me get in your way. But sooner or latter reality is going to smack you in the face and end your dream![:(]
By the way I have NEVER said I except the 'infringements'. Stop trying to put words in my mouth!![:(!]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Blah, blah, blah, blah.......
By the way I have NEVER said I except the 'infringements'. Stop trying to put words in my mouth!![:(!]
Not only do you have a reading comperhension problem, you also have a problem telling the truth.
YOU FLATLY stated, you belive ANYONE wanting a FULL AUTO, OUGHT to have background checks and such.
OH! Wait a minute..... In REALITY that isn't an infringment right?
You don't happen to work with TR at the mall do you? Perhaps the problem is the coffee you two are consuming from the coffee machine. It MAY be tainted Jim.. [}:)]
Well Shane, I don't need or want a pat on the back. Unlike you and your 'brethren' who live just to attack and put down people who do not see eye to eye with them then pat each other on the back for being a bully.
Jim,
That is a blatant distortion of the truth. At no time have I witnessed any of 'the brethern' attack unless they were provoked, neither have I commenced an attack on one without cause.
If you were expecting those of us who stand firm on the Constitution and individual liberty to sit idly by when it is attacked, and remain silent, then I am afraid you have set your expectations too high.
You see, Jim, when a man has principles which he beleives in to the core of his being, his integrity will not allow an attack on those principles to go unanswered.
And the 'patting on the back' you referred to is nothing more than us coming together in defense of a common cause; you know, loyalty. Loyalty to not only one another, but above that, to the Constitution of the United States.
I have been fighting with people like you and other 'union/bully' types my whole life and will continue the fight as long as there are those who like to think they are better than the rest and get in your face about it!
I do not have a problem with your beliefs, as a matter of fact I support them, but I do have a problem with the way you and the 'brethren' treat people!!!
Well Jim,
If you and others would give the Constitution it's due respect, you would have no reason to be concerned about 'attacks' from us. If liberty is attacked, and no one comes to it's defense, then it will surely cease to exist. I know of a few folks who refuse to see liberty disappear beneath the waves without jumping in to keep it afloat.
quote:Originally posted by freemind
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Blah, blah, blah, blah.......
By the way I have NEVER said I except the 'infringements'. Stop trying to put words in my mouth!![:(!]
Not only do you have a reading comperhension problem, you also have a problem telling the truth.
Told ya'll that months ago.
Don't understand why you guys still waste energy and bandwidth on it, could be more gainfully used elsewhere.
quote:Originally posted by freemind
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Blah, blah, blah, blah.......
By the way I have NEVER said I except the 'infringements'. Stop trying to put words in my mouth!![:(!]
Not only do you have a reading comperhension problem, you also have a problem telling the truth.
YOU FLATLY stated, you belive ANYONE wanting a FULL AUTO, OUGHT to have background checks and such.
OH! Wait a minute..... In REALITY that isn't an infringment right?
You don't happen to work with TR at the mall do you? Perhaps the problem is the coffee you two are consuming from the coffee machine. It MAY be tainted Jim.. [}:)]
That is not an infringment. And I will not respond to any more of your posts.
You called me a liar. If you consider me such we are no longer going to try and discuss things.
By see ya, AH![}:)]
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by freemind
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Blah, blah, blah, blah.......
By the way I have NEVER said I except the 'infringements'. Stop trying to put words in my mouth!![:(!]
Not only do you have a reading comperhension problem, you also have a problem telling the truth.
Told ya'll that months ago.
Don't understand why you guys still waste energy and bandwidth on it, could be more gainfully used elsewhere.
What I told unfreemind goes for you as well AH![}:)]
YOU FLATLY stated, you belive ANYONE wanting a FULL AUTO, OUGHT to have background checks and such.
That is not an infringment.
[:0]How can reality be your mantra, and you make a fool of yourself with that statement? You are a long long way from reality. Wow! An infringement is not an infringement=reality??? Oookayyyy Jimmmm.
Changing things back to what they were is what I want, it is possible, and that possibility is reality. What is unrealistic is using the current irretrieveably broken system to get there, as you advocate. But if you're gonna dream, dream big I guess.
By the way I have NEVER said I except the 'infringements'.
Oh yes you have, Jim, yes you have.
In addition to attacks on liberty, do not expect dishonesty to go unanswered, either.
Good by Shane![}:)]
Suit yourself, Jim.
You should not be suprised when someone calls you on the carpet for 'double-speak'.
Supporting any type of restriction on the RTKBA, including those on selective fire weapons, is supporting infringement.
You see, Jim, just as oil is immiscible in water, so it is with 'rights' and 'regulation'. They do not mix.
Here ya go, Jim:
Posted - 08/27/2008 : 2:17:55 PM
Aside from all the personal attacks and name calling. What he said is the reality of our world. Right or wrong, like it or not. The laws have been allowed to stand for along time and they can only be changed in two ways.
1. Judicial review.
2. Legislative action.
Unless, as I ask before, you are willing to start shooting.
We need people/voters and ALOT of money to accomplish this.
And if you want to start a shooting war you will need even more of the same.
By the way I have been under the gun from full auto fire both in RVN and CS, and I am damn glad there is a restriction on full auto weapons. Not everyone is as responsible as those on this site!
Mean Ol' Jim hurt mah feelin's. Whatever AM I TO DO? [boo hoo]
If you can't stand the fire Jim, stay on the porch with the REST of the ant-gunners.
Your stance is laughable. You support restrictions through and through. In your mind, because you are scared to death of people, you justify the NEED for infringments.
When Savage said LIBERALISM was a mental disease, I can clearly see where he is coming from.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Yeah, I know (because I've heard it from you) I'm silly, I'm closed minded, I do not live in reality. Please add I don't give a crap to that list.Why Don, you may be accused of being afflicted with "group-think" as "The Brethren" often are, after your delivery of that well-aimed kick in the nuts. [8)]
Jim:
I once thought you were capable of independent thought and actually were worth engaging. As pointed out by others, I was incorrect. There was no intent at a 'kick in the nuts', I was merely resigning myself to the fact that your mind is closed and that your battle cry of 'Compromise First' will never change.
Edit: (Removed rant.)
Compromise respects the power of government to impose restrictions that they choose to impose. One can have any laundry list of what one is allowed to own and how one is allowed to purchase, but the bottom line is the recognition of that government power. This provides for the potential of any future government to change what is allowed.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Yeah, I know (because I've heard it from you) I'm silly, I'm closed minded, I do not live in reality. Please add I don't give a crap to that list.Why Don, you may be accused of being afflicted with "group-think" as "The Brethren" often are, after your delivery of that well-aimed kick in the nuts. [8)]
Jim:
I once thought you were capable of independent thought and actually were worth engaging. As pointed out by others, I was incorrect. There was no intent at a 'kick in the nuts', I was merely resigning myself to the fact that your mind is closed and that your battle cry of 'Compromise First' will never change.
Edit: (Removed rant.)
Compromise respects the power of government to impose restrictions that they choose to impose. One can have any laundry list of what one is allowed to own and how one is allowed to purchase, but the bottom line is the recognition of that government power. This provides for the potential of any future government to change what is allowed.
I am certainly more capable of 'independent' thought than any of the people here who have 'closed' their mind to anyone else's believes/opinions/conclusions!
But I have given up on the CA's (Clueless *'s)! Trying to have an intelligent discussion with MOST of them is total waste of time.
But I have given up on the CA's (Clueless *'s)! Trying to have an intelligent discussion with MOST of them is total waste of time.
Well, Jim, have you ever considered that maybe it's YOU? You see, when one makes it a practice to compromise their principles, they most likely will not get along well with those who refuse to. Not a personal attack Jim, just stating the facts.
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
But I have given up on the CA's (Clueless *'s)! Trying to have an intelligent discussion with MOST of them is total waste of time.
Well, Jim, have you ever considered that maybe it's YOU? You see, when one makes it a practice to compromise their principles, they most likely will not get along well with those who refuse to. Not a personal attack Jim, just stating the facts.
What could the common denominator to this situation of intelligent discussion and a waste of time be?[:)][:I][8)]
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by lt496
What could the common denominator to this situation of intelligent discussion and a waste of time be?[:)][:I][8)]
All I know is I want my money back! I came here specifically to debate Jim Rau.
[/quote][:D]
A thumbnail sketch, if I may.
One group, the much belittled Brethren, consistently argues the easily defended position of individualism, The Constitution, its Bill of Rights and the Principals of the Republic. "The Brethren" consistently use these documents, ideals and principals as a yardstick, to measure certain government actions and certain positions espoused by various posters, this to illustrate how these gov't actions and certain posters positions "stack up".
Another loose-nit grouping, blathers about radicals, tin-foil hat wearers, armed insurrectionists, those inciting revolution etc. Those of this group dart in occasionally, similar to a small "ankle-biter" dog, to toss those barbs, slings and arrows at the first group.
Another third 'unorganized' group, of several members, consistently take up the argument of compromise, reality, reason, common sense, moderation, etc; this to attempt to lure others over to their view and outlook, which is purportedly the proper, "safer" and "more realistic" view and approach. It is pointed out frequently that we all should know that expecting and insisting that government follow the Supreme Law of The Land, is somehow, foolish and unrealistic. At least, so says the soft, comforting voices whispering in the ear of The Brethren.
A thumbnail of the 'general' camps, with a smattering of other individuals scattered throughout.
Originally posted by Don McManus
I am certainly more capable of 'independent' thought than any of the people here who have 'closed' their mind to anyone else's believes/opinions/conclusions!
But I have given up on the CA's (Clueless *'s)! Trying to have an intelligent discussion with MOST of them is total waste of time.
Very well, Jim. I would disagree with your assessment, as you refuse to answer the simplest of questions. The one you have refused to address is:
My position is that laws against yelling 'fire' in a theater are the same as those against shooting a pistol in theater.
Your position is that the laws against yelling 'fire' in a theater are restrictions to free speech rights similar to restrictions on the owning and carrying a firearm.
You said this comparison is silly, and refused to explain why, claiming you live in 'reality'.
I only ask that you exercise that independent thought process to show me why this position is silly. If you do not want to address the question, that is obviously fine, but 'silly' and 'reality' are certainly not answers of an independent thinker.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by lt496
What could the common denominator to this situation of intelligent discussion and a waste of time be?[:)][:I][8)]
All I know is I want my money back! I came here specifically to debate Jim Rau.
[:D]
A thumbnail sketch, if I may.
One group, the much belittled Brethren, consistently argues the easily defended position of individualism, The Constitution, its Bill of Rights and the Principals of the Republic. "The Brethren" consistently use these documents, ideals and principals as a yardstick, to measure certain government actions and certain positions espoused by various posters, this to illustrate how these gov't actions and certain posters positions "stack up".
Another loose-nit grouping, blathers about radicals, tin-foil hat wearers, armed insurrectionists, those inciting revolution etc. Those of this group dart in occasionally, similar to a small "ankle-biter" dog, to toss those barbs, slings and arrows at the first group.
Another third 'unorganized' group, of several members, consistently take up the argument of compromise, reality, reason, common sense, moderation, etc; this to attempt to lure others over to their view and outlook, which is purportedly the proper, "safer" and "more realistic" view and approach. It is pointed out frequently that we all should know that expecting and insisting that government follow the Supreme Law of The Land, is somehow, foolish and unrealistic. At least, so says the soft, comforting voices whispering in the ear of The Brethren.
A thumbnail of the 'general' camps, with a smattering of other individuals scattered throughout.
[/quote]
Jeff,
We WILL have that debate over some barley pop in person someday. This is on my 'bucket list'!!!
Stay safe![8D]
The same goes for Bret! He has my curiosity peaked!!![;)]
quote:Originally posted by lt496
A thumbnail sketch, if I may.
One group, the much belittled Brethren, consistently argues the easily defended position of individualism, The Constitution, its Bill of Rights and the Principals of the Republic. "The Brethren" consistently use these documents, ideals and principals as a yardstick, to measure certain government actions and certain positions espoused by various posters, this to illustrate how these gov't actions and certain posters positions "stack up".
Another loose-nit grouping, blathers about radicals, tin-foil hat wearers, armed insurrectionists, those inciting revolution etc. Those of this group dart in occasionally, similar to a small "ankle-biter" dog, to toss those barbs, slings and arrows at the first group.
Another third 'unorganized' group, of several members, consistently take up the argument of compromise, reality, reason, common sense, moderation, etc; this to attempt to lure others over to their view and outlook, which is purportedly the proper, "safer" and "more realistic" view and approach. It is pointed out frequently that we all should know that expecting and insisting that government follow the Supreme Law of The Land, is somehow, foolish and unrealistic. At least, so says the soft, comforting voices whispering in the ear of The Brethren.
A thumbnail of the 'general' camps, with a smattering of other individuals scattered throughout.
quote:Originally posted by Little-Acorn
quote:Originally posted by lt496
A thumbnail sketch, if I may.
One group, the much belittled Brethren, consistently argues the easily defended position of individualism, The Constitution, its Bill of Rights and the Principals of the Republic. "The Brethren" consistently use these documents, ideals and principals as a yardstick, to measure certain government actions and certain positions espoused by various posters, this to illustrate how these gov't actions and certain posters positions "stack up".
Another loose-nit grouping, blathers about radicals, tin-foil hat wearers, armed insurrectionists, those inciting revolution etc. Those of this group dart in occasionally, similar to a small "ankle-biter" dog, to toss those barbs, slings and arrows at the first group.
Another third 'unorganized' group, of several members, consistently take up the argument of compromise, reality, reason, common sense, moderation, etc; this to attempt to lure others over to their view and outlook, which is purportedly the proper, "safer" and "more realistic" view and approach. It is pointed out frequently that we all should know that expecting and insisting that government follow the Supreme Law of The Land, is somehow, foolish and unrealistic. At least, so says the soft, comforting voices whispering in the ear of The Brethren.
A thumbnail of the 'general' camps, with a smattering of other individuals scattered throughout.
You left out a group. Unsurprisingly.
Hey, it's MY thumbnail, so I guess I'll sketch it how I want. That okay with you?
I never claimed it was all inclusive. It merely served my purpose at the time. Again, that okay with you?
Comments
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Blah, blah, blah, blah.......
By the way I have NEVER said I except the 'infringements'. Stop trying to put words in my mouth!![:(!]
Not only do you have a reading comperhension problem, you also have a problem telling the truth.
YOU FLATLY stated, you belive ANYONE wanting a FULL AUTO, OUGHT to have background checks and such.
OH! Wait a minute..... In REALITY that isn't an infringment right?
You don't happen to work with TR at the mall do you? Perhaps the problem is the coffee you two are consuming from the coffee machine. It MAY be tainted Jim.. [}:)]
Jim,
That is a blatant distortion of the truth. At no time have I witnessed any of 'the brethern' attack unless they were provoked, neither have I commenced an attack on one without cause.
If you were expecting those of us who stand firm on the Constitution and individual liberty to sit idly by when it is attacked, and remain silent, then I am afraid you have set your expectations too high.
You see, Jim, when a man has principles which he beleives in to the core of his being, his integrity will not allow an attack on those principles to go unanswered.
And the 'patting on the back' you referred to is nothing more than us coming together in defense of a common cause; you know, loyalty. Loyalty to not only one another, but above that, to the Constitution of the United States.
I have been fighting with people like you and other 'union/bully' types my whole life and will continue the fight as long as there are those who like to think they are better than the rest and get in your face about it!
I do not have a problem with your beliefs, as a matter of fact I support them, but I do have a problem with the way you and the 'brethren' treat people!!!
Well Jim,
If you and others would give the Constitution it's due respect, you would have no reason to be concerned about 'attacks' from us. If liberty is attacked, and no one comes to it's defense, then it will surely cease to exist. I know of a few folks who refuse to see liberty disappear beneath the waves without jumping in to keep it afloat.
Oh yes you have, Jim, yes you have.
In addition to attacks on liberty, do not expect dishonesty to go unanswered, either.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Blah, blah, blah, blah.......
By the way I have NEVER said I except the 'infringements'. Stop trying to put words in my mouth!![:(!]
Not only do you have a reading comperhension problem, you also have a problem telling the truth.
Told ya'll that months ago.
Don't understand why you guys still waste energy and bandwidth on it, could be more gainfully used elsewhere.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Blah, blah, blah, blah.......
By the way I have NEVER said I except the 'infringements'. Stop trying to put words in my mouth!![:(!]
Not only do you have a reading comperhension problem, you also have a problem telling the truth.
YOU FLATLY stated, you belive ANYONE wanting a FULL AUTO, OUGHT to have background checks and such.
OH! Wait a minute..... In REALITY that isn't an infringment right?
You don't happen to work with TR at the mall do you? Perhaps the problem is the coffee you two are consuming from the coffee machine. It MAY be tainted Jim.. [}:)]
That is not an infringment. And I will not respond to any more of your posts.
You called me a liar. If you consider me such we are no longer going to try and discuss things.
By see ya, AH![}:)]
quote:Originally posted by freemind
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Blah, blah, blah, blah.......
By the way I have NEVER said I except the 'infringements'. Stop trying to put words in my mouth!![:(!]
Not only do you have a reading comperhension problem, you also have a problem telling the truth.
Told ya'll that months ago.
Don't understand why you guys still waste energy and bandwidth on it, could be more gainfully used elsewhere.
What I told unfreemind goes for you as well AH![}:)]
By the way I have NEVER said I except the 'infringements'.
Oh yes you have, Jim, yes you have.
In addition to attacks on liberty, do not expect dishonesty to go unanswered, either.
Good by Shane![}:)]
What I told unfreemind goes for you as well AH![}:)]
And who gives a hoot?
YOU FLATLY stated, you belive ANYONE wanting a FULL AUTO, OUGHT to have background checks and such.
That is not an infringment.
[:0]How can reality be your mantra, and you make a fool of yourself with that statement? You are a long long way from reality. Wow! An infringement is not an infringement=reality??? Oookayyyy Jimmmm.
Changing things back to what they were is what I want, it is possible, and that possibility is reality. What is unrealistic is using the current irretrieveably broken system to get there, as you advocate. But if you're gonna dream, dream big I guess.
Originally posted by wsfiredude
By the way I have NEVER said I except the 'infringements'.
Oh yes you have, Jim, yes you have.
In addition to attacks on liberty, do not expect dishonesty to go unanswered, either.
Good by Shane![}:)]
Suit yourself, Jim.
You should not be suprised when someone calls you on the carpet for 'double-speak'.
Supporting any type of restriction on the RTKBA, including those on selective fire weapons, is supporting infringement.
You see, Jim, just as oil is immiscible in water, so it is with 'rights' and 'regulation'. They do not mix.
Here ya go, Jim:
Posted - 08/27/2008 : 2:17:55 PM
Aside from all the personal attacks and name calling. What he said is the reality of our world. Right or wrong, like it or not. The laws have been allowed to stand for along time and they can only be changed in two ways.
1. Judicial review.
2. Legislative action.
Unless, as I ask before, you are willing to start shooting.
We need people/voters and ALOT of money to accomplish this.
And if you want to start a shooting war you will need even more of the same.
By the way I have been under the gun from full auto fire both in RVN and CS, and I am damn glad there is a restriction on full auto weapons. Not everyone is as responsible as those on this site!
Anyhow Jim, bye.
Mean Ol' Jim hurt mah feelin's. Whatever AM I TO DO? [boo hoo]
If you can't stand the fire Jim, stay on the porch with the REST of the ant-gunners.
Your stance is laughable. You support restrictions through and through. In your mind, because you are scared to death of people, you justify the NEED for infringments.
When Savage said LIBERALISM was a mental disease, I can clearly see where he is coming from.
quote:Yeah, I know (because I've heard it from you) I'm silly, I'm closed minded, I do not live in reality. Please add I don't give a crap to that list.Why Don, you may be accused of being afflicted with "group-think" as "The Brethren" often are, after your delivery of that well-aimed kick in the nuts. [8)]
Jim:
I once thought you were capable of independent thought and actually were worth engaging. As pointed out by others, I was incorrect. There was no intent at a 'kick in the nuts', I was merely resigning myself to the fact that your mind is closed and that your battle cry of 'Compromise First' will never change.
Edit: (Removed rant.)
Compromise respects the power of government to impose restrictions that they choose to impose. One can have any laundry list of what one is allowed to own and how one is allowed to purchase, but the bottom line is the recognition of that government power. This provides for the potential of any future government to change what is allowed.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Yeah, I know (because I've heard it from you) I'm silly, I'm closed minded, I do not live in reality. Please add I don't give a crap to that list.Why Don, you may be accused of being afflicted with "group-think" as "The Brethren" often are, after your delivery of that well-aimed kick in the nuts. [8)]
Jim:
I once thought you were capable of independent thought and actually were worth engaging. As pointed out by others, I was incorrect. There was no intent at a 'kick in the nuts', I was merely resigning myself to the fact that your mind is closed and that your battle cry of 'Compromise First' will never change.
Edit: (Removed rant.)
Compromise respects the power of government to impose restrictions that they choose to impose. One can have any laundry list of what one is allowed to own and how one is allowed to purchase, but the bottom line is the recognition of that government power. This provides for the potential of any future government to change what is allowed.
I am certainly more capable of 'independent' thought than any of the people here who have 'closed' their mind to anyone else's believes/opinions/conclusions!
But I have given up on the CA's (Clueless *'s)! Trying to have an intelligent discussion with MOST of them is total waste of time.
Well, Jim, have you ever considered that maybe it's YOU? You see, when one makes it a practice to compromise their principles, they most likely will not get along well with those who refuse to. Not a personal attack Jim, just stating the facts.
But I have given up on the CA's (Clueless *'s)! Trying to have an intelligent discussion with MOST of them is total waste of time.
Well, Jim, have you ever considered that maybe it's YOU? You see, when one makes it a practice to compromise their principles, they most likely will not get along well with those who refuse to. Not a personal attack Jim, just stating the facts.
What could the common denominator to this situation of intelligent discussion and a waste of time be?[:)][:I][8)]
What could the common denominator to this situation of intelligent discussion and a waste of time be?[:)][:I][8)]
[/quote]
All I know is I want my money back! I came here specifically to debate Jim Rau.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
What could the common denominator to this situation of intelligent discussion and a waste of time be?[:)][:I][8)]
All I know is I want my money back! I came here specifically to debate Jim Rau.
[/quote][:D]
A thumbnail sketch, if I may.
One group, the much belittled Brethren, consistently argues the easily defended position of individualism, The Constitution, its Bill of Rights and the Principals of the Republic. "The Brethren" consistently use these documents, ideals and principals as a yardstick, to measure certain government actions and certain positions espoused by various posters, this to illustrate how these gov't actions and certain posters positions "stack up".
Another loose-nit grouping, blathers about radicals, tin-foil hat wearers, armed insurrectionists, those inciting revolution etc. Those of this group dart in occasionally, similar to a small "ankle-biter" dog, to toss those barbs, slings and arrows at the first group.
Another third 'unorganized' group, of several members, consistently take up the argument of compromise, reality, reason, common sense, moderation, etc; this to attempt to lure others over to their view and outlook, which is purportedly the proper, "safer" and "more realistic" view and approach. It is pointed out frequently that we all should know that expecting and insisting that government follow the Supreme Law of The Land, is somehow, foolish and unrealistic. At least, so says the soft, comforting voices whispering in the ear of The Brethren.
A thumbnail of the 'general' camps, with a smattering of other individuals scattered throughout.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by lt496
What could the common denominator to this situation of intelligent discussion and a waste of time be?[:)][:I][8)]
All I know is I want my money back! I came here specifically to debate Jim Rau.
[:D]
A thumbnail sketch, if I may.
One group, the much belittled Brethren, consistently argues the easily defended position of individualism, The Constitution, its Bill of Rights and the Principals of the Republic. "The Brethren" consistently use these documents, ideals and principals as a yardstick, to measure certain government actions and certain positions espoused by various posters, this to illustrate how these gov't actions and certain posters positions "stack up".
Another loose-nit grouping, blathers about radicals, tin-foil hat wearers, armed insurrectionists, those inciting revolution etc. Those of this group dart in occasionally, similar to a small "ankle-biter" dog, to toss those barbs, slings and arrows at the first group.
Another third 'unorganized' group, of several members, consistently take up the argument of compromise, reality, reason, common sense, moderation, etc; this to attempt to lure others over to their view and outlook, which is purportedly the proper, "safer" and "more realistic" view and approach. It is pointed out frequently that we all should know that expecting and insisting that government follow the Supreme Law of The Land, is somehow, foolish and unrealistic. At least, so says the soft, comforting voices whispering in the ear of The Brethren.
A thumbnail of the 'general' camps, with a smattering of other individuals scattered throughout.
[/quote]
Jeff,
We WILL have that debate over some barley pop in person someday. This is on my 'bucket list'!!!
Stay safe![8D]
The same goes for Bret! He has my curiosity peaked!!![;)]
We WILL have that debate over some barley pop in person someday. This is on my 'bucket list'!!!
Stay safe!
The same goes for Bret! He has my curiosity peaked!!!Deal Jim. Sounds good to me and i'll even buy.[;)]
A thumbnail sketch, if I may.
One group, the much belittled Brethren, consistently argues the easily defended position of individualism, The Constitution, its Bill of Rights and the Principals of the Republic. "The Brethren" consistently use these documents, ideals and principals as a yardstick, to measure certain government actions and certain positions espoused by various posters, this to illustrate how these gov't actions and certain posters positions "stack up".
Another loose-nit grouping, blathers about radicals, tin-foil hat wearers, armed insurrectionists, those inciting revolution etc. Those of this group dart in occasionally, similar to a small "ankle-biter" dog, to toss those barbs, slings and arrows at the first group.
Another third 'unorganized' group, of several members, consistently take up the argument of compromise, reality, reason, common sense, moderation, etc; this to attempt to lure others over to their view and outlook, which is purportedly the proper, "safer" and "more realistic" view and approach. It is pointed out frequently that we all should know that expecting and insisting that government follow the Supreme Law of The Land, is somehow, foolish and unrealistic. At least, so says the soft, comforting voices whispering in the ear of The Brethren.
A thumbnail of the 'general' camps, with a smattering of other individuals scattered throughout.
You left out a group. Unsurprisingly.
Please elucidate.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
A thumbnail sketch, if I may.
One group, the much belittled Brethren, consistently argues the easily defended position of individualism, The Constitution, its Bill of Rights and the Principals of the Republic. "The Brethren" consistently use these documents, ideals and principals as a yardstick, to measure certain government actions and certain positions espoused by various posters, this to illustrate how these gov't actions and certain posters positions "stack up".
Another loose-nit grouping, blathers about radicals, tin-foil hat wearers, armed insurrectionists, those inciting revolution etc. Those of this group dart in occasionally, similar to a small "ankle-biter" dog, to toss those barbs, slings and arrows at the first group.
Another third 'unorganized' group, of several members, consistently take up the argument of compromise, reality, reason, common sense, moderation, etc; this to attempt to lure others over to their view and outlook, which is purportedly the proper, "safer" and "more realistic" view and approach. It is pointed out frequently that we all should know that expecting and insisting that government follow the Supreme Law of The Land, is somehow, foolish and unrealistic. At least, so says the soft, comforting voices whispering in the ear of The Brethren.
A thumbnail of the 'general' camps, with a smattering of other individuals scattered throughout.
You left out a group. Unsurprisingly.
Hey, it's MY thumbnail, so I guess I'll sketch it how I want. That okay with you?
I never claimed it was all inclusive. It merely served my purpose at the time. Again, that okay with you?