“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#1268 Jan 22, 2013
Force Majeure wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. But wasn't some sort of ID (like birth certicate) necessary that would prove one's age?
<quoted text>
I don't remember what my preferrence was. I'm sure it was either the Marine Corps or the Air Force. The Army wasn't my first choice anyway, but because 2 of my friends sighned up for the Army, I did too. We all went in on the "buddy plan", as stupid as we were. What I didn't know was that it was also possible to "volunteer for the draft" which would have been only 2 years - instead of 3.
<quoted text>
I met a whole lot of Italian-Americans when I was living in the U.S. Most of them loved to say they "met on the boat". I got the impression it was considered the most romantic thing one could do. Is it true in your parents' case? They also liked to say that when the family "came over from It'ly" half the family went into the Mafia and the other half not. I heard that so many times. There's actually a guy living here from New York (Italian parents) and he told me the very same thing!
yes , a B/C was used , along with a diploma ... and you were sent home with papers for your parents to sign ,, some times someone else signed them ...

FOOTNOTE: wop a derogatory remark towards Italians
meant immigrants who came here " With Out Papers"
Force Majeure

Stockholm, Sweden

#1269 Jan 22, 2013
REDNECK HIPPIE wrote:
<quoted text>
... Your right to your beliefs and viewpoint does not give you the right to belittle the opposition, or berate them or use derogatory terms to describe them ...
That's ripe coming from you.

I've known you for a year or 2 now and you've just described your own M.O. You need to take a long, hard, very close look at yourself.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#1270 Jan 22, 2013
Pappasmurf2252 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who built an excuse?
where I come from: "people means all in general"

if you fit then you as well , I sorta apologized once , I thought

“ASPIRE 2 INSPIRE B4 U EXPIRE”

Level 8

Since: Jul 08

USA

#1271 Jan 22, 2013
tallyho wrote:
Redneck is a derogatory slang term used in reference to poor, uneducated white farmers, especially from the southern United States
Hippie a person who opposes and rejects many of the conventional standards and customs of society, especially one who advocates extreme liberalism in sociopolitical attitudes
great sobriquet ..... fits you well
And your feeble attempt to denigrate me is germane to the discussion on this forum.
Oh, that s right, I forgot that when the great and all knowing Tally comes down from the mount and delivers his sermon, we mere mortals must quake in our boots and genuflect in his presence and accept his word as holy scripture, or face his wrath. How dare anyone have an opposing viewpoint, don't we know that is sacrilege.
Force Majeure

Stockholm, Sweden

#1272 Jan 22, 2013
REDNECK HIPPIE wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, I don't care who said it ...
What???

You're using his rank as an "ace" to booster his credibility above and beyond the wisdom of "gun-controll" supporters. But now that he's been debunked you say it doesn't matter?

So how much credit do you give a gun-controll supporter who's been unemployed ever since he stumbled into the curb during a drunken binge and broke his hip?

It's time for you do another back-peddle and eat crow.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#1273 Jan 22, 2013
Denny Crain wrote:
<quoted text>Lots of schools districts are considering teachers with CCL to be allowed to carry. Would you rather have one cop in school or no one knows how many armed CCL folks :)Just the idea that there might be people there with guns will stop the mass shootings.
Crain- you lied and said gun shows were safe havens. The truth is people are NOT allowed to carry loaded weapons in gun shows...BECAUSE IT'S DANGEROUS!!! You've got a lot of nerve showing your lying face around here!

Level 1

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#1274 Jan 22, 2013
Force Majeure wrote:
<quoted text>As I've already told you ..... there is no answer to an absurdly based question. If you cannot find your way to being more sensible then we are through here.
You are proving my point. You say that we should not own firearms yet you cannot tell me why when you break it down to a person. You have no leg to stand on with your argument. If you are against me owning a gun you should be able to supply an answer as to why I shouldn't. You want to act like we are terrible for owning weaponry when the truth of it all is you don't know why you feel that way. Like I said earlier, I'm not a terrible person and wouldn't use my gun on anyone unless it was an ABSOLUTE last resort. Don't try to treat those of us who do good with our it firearms as if we are bad people.
Force Majeure

Stockholm, Sweden

#1275 Jan 22, 2013
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
... sent home with papers for your parents to sign ,, some times someone else signed them ...
I got the hint - loud and clear!
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>FOOTNOTE: wop a derogatory remark towards Italians
meant immigrants who came here " With Out Papers"
Yes, and the term "Dumb Polak" also has its explanation: "DP" - also based upon an immigration stamp meaning "Displaced Person".

By the way, many Americans don't know this very interesting bit of fact but calling someone from Poland a "Polack" IS NOT degragatory (other than its deragatory intention). Pollack is the Polish word for a Pole. That's the correct term, not an insult at all.

Level 1

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#1276 Jan 22, 2013
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>where I come from: "people means all in general"

if you fit then you as well , I sorta apologized once , I thought
No, you misunderstood me. I didn't mean my post in an objective stance, i apologize for the confusion.

My question was was simply to allow you to expound what you mean my excuses. I know plenty of people who have excuses and the main one being the "war that's about to break out". That's just absurd. I do not have more guns than I need nor do I have more ammunition than I need for each firearm. I believe there is a balance that one should have when owning a firearm.
Force Majeure

Stockholm, Sweden

#1277 Jan 22, 2013
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>Crain- you lied and said gun shows were safe havens. The truth is people are NOT allowed to carry loaded weapons in gun shows...BECAUSE IT'S DANGEROUS!!! You've got a lot of nerve showing your lying face around here!
You see Ferrerman, it's not impossible for you to say something I can agree with.

You're right. Loaded guns are not allowed at guns shows for the very reason you say.
Force Majeure

Stockholm, Sweden

#1278 Jan 22, 2013
Pappasmurf2252 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are proving my point.
Hold on to that misconeption and cherrish it.

“ASPIRE 2 INSPIRE B4 U EXPIRE”

Level 8

Since: Jul 08

USA

#1279 Jan 22, 2013
Force Majeure wrote:
<quoted text>
What???
You're using his rank as an "ace" to booster his credibility above and beyond the wisdom of "gun-controll" supporters. But now that he's been debunked you say it doesn't matter?
So how much credit do you give a gun-controll supporter who's been unemployed ever since he stumbled into the curb during a drunken binge and broke his hip?
It's time for you do another back-peddle and eat crow.
I did not use his rank, I merely posted it as it was written. If you chose to give it more credence because of the author, that is your problem, not mine. It still does not negate the power of the words.

Level 1

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#1280 Jan 22, 2013
Force Majeure wrote:
<quoted text>Hold on to that misconeption and cherrish it.
You would make a damn good politician the way you're avoiding the question. You have no answer so you rely on smug comments. You've been called out Force Majeure. I asked for an answer and you cannot give one. You're argument is completely invalid.

“ASPIRE 2 INSPIRE B4 U EXPIRE”

Level 8

Since: Jul 08

USA

#1281 Jan 22, 2013
Correctly attributed. Does the author of a piece change the validity of the argument.
For Horse Manure and Tally

March 23, 2007 by Marko Kloos
why the gun is civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#1282 Jan 22, 2013
Force Majeure wrote:
<quoted text>
I got the hint - loud and clear!
<quoted text>
Yes, and the term "Dumb Polak" also has its explanation: "DP" - also based upon an immigration stamp meaning "Displaced Person".
By the way, many Americans don't know this very interesting bit of fact but calling someone from Poland a "Polack" IS NOT degragatory (other than its deragatory intention). Pollack is the Polish word for a Pole. That's the correct term, not an insult at all.
My ex-wife is Polish, I just call her dumbass.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#1283 Jan 22, 2013
REDNECK HIPPIE wrote:
<quoted text>
And your feeble attempt to denigrate me is germane to the discussion on this forum.
Oh, that s right, I forgot that when the great and all knowing Tally comes down from the mount and delivers his sermon, we mere mortals must quake in our boots and genuflect in his presence and accept his word as holy scripture, or face his wrath. How dare anyone have an opposing viewpoint, don't we know that is sacrilege.
you really haven't read me on a nay/aye but just pointing out facts ... while as some of your info is pointed out to you to be in error ... you go into a self-pity ..........

you are getting very Heavy fed

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#1284 Jan 22, 2013
Force Majeure wrote:
<quoted text>
You see Ferrerman, it's not impossible for you to say something I can agree with.
You're right. Loaded guns are not allowed at guns shows for the very reason you say.
Who are you again?
Force Majeure

Sweden

#1285 Jan 22, 2013
REDNECK HIPPIE wrote:
<quoted text>
.... it is still a very compelling argument ....
Rating a nation "civilized" by the general possession of guns by the population is "a very compelling argument"? Sheeze!

I think one of the reasons why this "arguement" is seldom heard is because that all through history "civilized" has been partly defined by "non agression" between men. Owning a gun "for protection" is an admission by its owner that agression/physical confronation is not only alive, but that it is prevalent and on the rise.

In other words, the increase of gun ownership is the "antithesis" to "civilized".
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
hippie redneck .....good thing that isn't derogatory
You even have an excellent sense of humour!
Force Majeure

Sweden

#1286 Jan 22, 2013
Pappasmurf2252 wrote:
<quoted text>
You would make a damn good politician the way you're avoiding the question. You have no answer so you rely on smug comments. You've been called out Force Majeure. I asked for an answer and you cannot give one. You're argument is completely invalid.
Oh, it's an answer to your absurd question that you want? No problem. Just answer mine first. Is it a deal? Good.

Why did you flush the american flag down the toilet last 4th. of July? Are you dissatified with your country and its constitution?
Force Majeure

Sweden

#1287 Jan 22, 2013
Still waiting.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 4 min mr goodwrench 8,383
*Sad music/sad themes Thread* 6 min Sad Classics 177
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 min messianic114 163,817
Commander-in-Chief 14 min Sucks 2
News Cremains wash up on Scotland shoreline and you ... 15 min Prosperity Fundie... 6
News A head scratcher: 9 brains found next to train ... 30 min RingoStarr 8
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 41 min _FLATLINE-------- 3,491
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 48 min RCAF 40,683
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Poop 162,835
Poll Middle East Solutions 4 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 26
More from around the web