ZigmunnDroid

Link to Global Warming Hoax Confirmed

General Products Hulls. Gotta love em. I must say, on the one hand, technology is probably our only hope, on the other hand, will we ever grow up enough to use it properly, on the 3rd hand, technology is like stupidity, it can be used for good and evil, and you don't want to get any on your hands. Nice sharing the KNown Universe with you. I am sure we will be arguing about sumtin later. (21 hrs ago | post #173)

AHH, but a well regulated militia is merely a description of the best use of an armed societty, being "necessary to the free state", because, as we all know, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Well, it was the armed people that make up a militia. Did you know that a few of the early State constitutions required "men" to purchase and maintain their own arms? Perhaps, like others, you wish to debate the definition of "infringed " as it was used back then. Plus, it was Wilson's own "non infringed firearms" that he and his 5 buddies used to stop the unruly mob. Which was for the most part, not armed with guns. Are you trying to say that Wilson did not believe in his own firearms. The ones he used to protect himself from the unruly mob. Hopefully, you are not trying say that Wilson believed what was good for the goose WAS NOT good for the gander. (Wednesday | post #642)

Well, damn, name calling is the refuge of futility. I never learn that you cannot confuse a believer with facts. Good Luck in your travels, but never fear, all roads lead to God! (Wednesday | post #1880)

Well, since no one wants to marry into your familty, what business is it of yours. PLus. your values stink! If only the Romans had discriminated against you guys more effectively way back when, we would not have all these problems. (Wednesday | post #1879)

Damn. Poignant! It explains everything. (Wednesday | post #1877)

If this country was invaded. Would you defend it?

It is amazing how much incompetence we suffer no matter who is president. Nixon, kept me from going to nam and was a crook. And opened China. Ford, tumble King, pardoned Nixon (good idea at the time). Carter, whew, got Egypt and Israel together, only succeeded in getting Sadat assassinated, enemies bold, took over Iran, bungled rescue. Ronnie, rebel without a clue, trickle down very mixed bag, with Gorby brought down the wall (name one Democrat who could ever do that) reached across the aisle. Bombed Quadafi. Bush, last time Pres listened to the Generals, kicked le butt in Iraq. did not get economy, Clinton, whew, major assault on 2nd and 4th Amendments(at least against US citizens), only launched cruise missiles to retaliate multiple terrorists attacks against US during Lewinski scandal, channeling Carter at this time, enemies get bold again, but did nothing to screw up economy. Bush JR, dear God, had a chance to make a real difference and went off and ran a war like a Democrat. Assaulted the 4th Amendment (mostly against "feriners "). Economy collasped under his watch, however, there are nice videos of Repubs, from 2001 to 2006, including Bush, warning Barny Franks to rein in Freddy Mac and Fanny May before they cause a housing collapse. You can watch the bum call them alarmists and that everything is fine, and that worthttp://www.top ix.com/forum/post/ reply#hless POS still heads that committee. They all suck, Chuck. It is time to Nip IT. Join The No Incumbent Party. They are the problem in this country. If we can relect a new group each election, then they will cause less problems, they will be working for our vote the WHOLE term. As soon as those bums run for re election, they are working for themselves. No, they are there to work for me. Not for special interests, not for PAC's, and not for their constituents. Their job is to take care of the country and let the states take care of their own people. Can't take care of our country if you suck federal dollars back to home. Feds have to much monetary power. How about HALF of our Fed income tax stays in our state. Managed by our state. The Feds can be a lot less involved. They have NO constitutional Authority to do anything but ensure and protect our rights, our borders and our seas. And interstate commerce. (Tuesday | post #223)

Sorry Irwin, I have been reading the rest of your posts and again realize that you are an example of what is wrong in religion today (and history for that matter). Far to many of you tiny tiny people try to shackle God in your pathetic little embrace and he is far to great for any mere individual to presume they are a speck on his ass. You restrictions of his power and grace do nothing to diminish him. You have great conceit when you say that only your pissant little road is the way to God. You and all the unbelievers out there. Muslims, Christians, Hindus, all of you. The God of this universe has the will to bring you to him no matter what road you take, you thundering moron. You have no choice!!!! Believe what you want. Cause it don't matter to the creator of this universe. Jesus you egotistical little bassards burn me up. As if you think you are worthy to say what God thinks. And you use a BOOK, for God's sake, written by other egotists that think they knew too. Delusions of significance. You will need more than that to have delusions of grander! OOPs Sorry to other folks that may read this. (Tuesday | post #1869)

Dam, Irwin found hisself a pulpit. Must have gotten thrown out of the local church. Good luck with your new church. (Tuesday | post #1868)

Link to Global Warming Hoax Confirmed

By any other name. I bow to your superior knowledge (this time). I still think jaunting is best (Tuesday | post #171)

Ahh ahh ahh. We can only use deadly force when we think our life (or loved one) is in danger. And it usually does require some legal speak somewhere. However, you would deny the prey the right to choose their means to stop the predator. You would de horn the steer. That is alien thinking to me. We have this saying, you may have heard before. I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. And if the predators recognize that, they go for easier prey. Now, if you choose to be helpless, well, damn. But do not excpet other prey to behave as you. I behave like there are predators out there and feel very safe in the knowledge that if I need insurance, my plan is with me. If you can walk around and pretend there are no predators out there, well, damn. God for you. But self defense was such a given when the framers wrote the USC that the 2nd Amendment is only there as a final check and balance of a tyrannical Gov. Which every Gov on this planet has succumbed too eventually. Hard to argue with history. (Tuesday | post #628)

Nowadays they are called conscientious objectors (or at least in ww2) These were folks that were not required to bear arms. IN the military, they could do other things. What they speak of in your example is that even though they expected all citizen to bear arms, as a responsibility (and a right) that some folks did not like arms, d/t religion, and should not be required. At no time are they implying that any should NOT have the right to a gun. Just that the Gov had no legal authority to make them. Interestingly enough, there is a town in GA that requires all citizen to have a gun in the house. I have mixed feelings about that. But I do miss any point in that example of how anything in that document could construe any denial of the right to bear arms. (Tuesday | post #627)

Nice quote. Seen from another eye. Uniformity of arms. Interestingly, way back then, gun smithyng was art, and each gun was hand made. Eli Whitney fixed that, but later. The writer spoke of logistics, training and rabble. It was hard enough back then to get a large number of rifles the same calibre. When it came to repair, if the unit was lucky, they had a smith or apprentice that could hand make pieces that broke in the field. Gunpowder was easy, any gun used it. A rabble had no chance in any long run. Mass firepower was key back then so training was needed to teach everyone to shoot at once, reload quickly, repeat. Plus, learning to listen to some weak chinned aristocrat required beatings and executions. One thing the Brit aristocrats learned was they got shot first (probably some rabble influence) when they came over here. James also did not like rabble. in 1779, he was rescued from rioters, that attacked his house, by some Philadelphia regulars. What you seem to be unaware of: Wilson and his friends were armed with guns!!! I understand you were able to "cherry pick" that little plum, but does illustrate some opportunity for you to read a little more about the history of guns. Your think red line was an amazing concept when it came about. Anyway, neat little piece, send me another. I have a question for you. Which single individual is most responsible for "causing " the War between the States, and is also the same individual that guaranteed the North would win? This great story! (Tuesday Dec 1 | post #626)

Better communications by police could have reduced gun-sales di...

I just heard this on Fox News, interesting. This touches on it. http://www.gilderl ehrman.org/teacher s/scholars/HSP04.A H3.Buckman.pdf Anyway, Mr Beck say that the original life liberty and property was changed to "happiness " to prevent the slave owners form using that to "keep" their slaves. Plus, slavery was very accepted back then, and not just black slaves. Kind of like separate water fountains were accepted not to long ago and "finally " lost USC muster. Plus, A Hamilton was a founder of "The Society" which advocated abolishing slavery. Even today, people make "deals" with unsavory characters to "get the job done". And those guys were trying to get a country of individuals to join together. Herding cats is easier. Did not have time to check out the G Beck angle, but it is plausible. (Tuesday Dec 1 | post #18650)

Better communications by police could have reduced gun-sales di...

Thoughtful post. Thanks. I see the USC and B of R's as the limiting factor on what "the people" and any Gov can impose upon others. Just because the people vote to "allow" violation of :born with rights" in no way diminsish's that document multiply declared intent. It "limits" the authority of others to impose their will or value on others. Far to may people think they have the authority to do that. If the majority decide that we should ban guns, how is that "constitution al". If the majority decide that we can buy black people once again, how is that constitutional. The USC is indeed there to prevent the tyranny of the majority, and the framers knew that. The only time we have successfully made an "improvement " to that document was when "more" rights were "discovered ". Everytime we diminish a right we have made things worse. I do not understand people that think they can use the USC to diminish anyone's rights. What you call a benign dictatorship is actually the antithesis of a dictatorship. The founding fathers grew up with that and produced a form of Gov to prevent it in the future. And the Johnny come lately's who think they understand tyrants and mob rule better than the guys who had to live thru it and fight it are filled with hubris. People have not changed and will gather power at others expense. It is what we do best. And with the 2nd Amendment, it is the last check and balance on any group hell bent on destroying the USC. I assume you have read an abundance of correspondence that the framers wrote, after the USC, explaining their intent. How is it possible you do not agree with them? (Tuesday Dec 1 | post #18648)