Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

[PLC1]

As for the "insults", when someone insists on perpetuating a lie as you have throughout this discussion, and willfully refusing to accept facts, they deserve to be insulted, harshly, and publically.

When someone insists on perpetuating an opinion contrary to yours, then that person must expect to be belittled and talked down to, of course.

If you really think that anyone who doesn't share your rather narrow point of view is stupid, why bother to post on a forum shared by those stupid people who don't share your opinions?

But you never specified a State that had a law on the books specifically designed to protect a womans right to own property, you said, repeatedly, that women were not allowed to own property in America, which I clearly demonstrated was an incorrect statement.

The United States of America in the beginning of the republic did not allow women to own real property. That means all of the states, every last one. I already showed that Missouri was the first, and that California was the first to have allowed women to own property without their husband's permission.

So, why would you ask me to specify a state that had a "law on the books specifically designed to protect a woman's right to own property"?

Not everyone in the 18th century shared that idea, and by saying it the way you did is intellectually disingenuous.

I didn't say that they did.

Not really. But then again, the fact that Barry Obliviot can be selected President even though he's not even an American citizen, a self avowed doper, who's parents weren't legally married, and came from a broken home after his bigamist Kenyan father abandoned he and his mother to go back to Kenya and his other wives pretty much proves that anything can happen in America today.

That's balony and you know it.

Obama was born in Hawaii, he was elected to the presidency despite having a political position different from your own.
[/QUOTE]

 

[top gun]

And once again you demonstrate the undeniable truth that you don't have the first clue WTF you're talking about. The metal detectors are there because FEDERAL LAW makes in a crime to carry a firearm into a courthouse. It's not up to the States, the Counties, or the Cities any longer because the Federal government took it upon themselves to once again USURP THE RIGHTS OF THE STATES AND OF THE PEOPLE! Of course the entire concept of Liberty and Freedom are completely lost on a "nanny stater" like you, who expects the government to take care of you from the cradle to the grave because you're entirely too much of a loser to take care of yourself...

Barney Barney Barney... your "states rights" issue is one that could be debated if you'd just stick to that and not go off into insult land.

But the issue we have is that a Law Enforcement Officer that you posed to be would not be in favor of guns in the courtroom. They might well want it to be a State decision and not a Federal one. BUT THEY WOULDN'T WANT THEM THERE REGARDLESS!

You said you wanted it. Which is just one of the many bust outs that you lied about being a Cop.

If you'd just stop the insults we might be able to discuss states rights.

But until you do we have no basis for open & honest discussion. I continue to hope you'll consider just going back and forth with your opinion vs mine. It appears you are afraid to to that... I'm ready anytime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob the Builder
In 20 years as a Deputy every courtroom I've ever been in has AT LEAST 3 armed Bailiffs, why can't I carry a gun into the courthouse, I mean you can ALWAYS use a gun to defend another person, I mean why can't you own a nuke, I mean...

when I was an astronaut we drank Tang, I mean I'm so ashamed of my little inadequate Bob the Builder self that I'm a poser.

Bob the Builder lied to us all and said he was a Cop to try & gain some undeserved credability... but we nipped it in the bud!

 

[PLC1]

Barney Barney Barney... your "states rights" issue is one that could be debated if you'd just stick to that and not go off into insult land.

But the issue we have is that a Law Enforcement Officer that you posed to be would not be in favor of guns in the courtroom. They might well want it to be a State decision and not a Federal one. BUT THEY WOULDN'T WANT THEM THERE REGARDLESS!

You said you wanted it. Which is just one of the many bust outs that you lied about being a Cop.

If you'd just stop the insults we might be able to discuss states rights.

But until you do we have no basis for open & honest discussion. I continue to hope you'll consider just going back and forth with your opinion vs mine. It appears you are afraid to to that... I'm ready anytime.


when I was an astronaut we drank Tang, I mean I'm so ashamed of my little inadequate Bob the Builder self that I'm a poser.

Bob the Builder lied to us all and said he was a Cop to try & gain some undeserved credability... but we nipped it in the bud!

In fact, there seems to be a regular little insult-a-thon going on between TG and Bob.

Seems to me that it is getting a bit tedious.

It also seems to me that, as I've said before, the loser of an argument is the first to stoop to the level of personal insult.

So, which one lost first? It's hard to tell.

 

[top gun]

In fact, there seems to be a regular little insult-a-thon going on between TG and Bob.

Seems to me that it is getting a bit tedious.

It also seems to me that, as I've said before, the loser of an argument is the first to stoop to the level of personal insult.

So, which one lost first? It's hard to tell.

Hey I've tried to stop it several times now. Go back and look at my last several posts I keep saying in every post let's just drop it and talk issues.

But the only thing I can get is... you stop and I'll continue exactly as I am.

Try this and you'll see who's perpetuating this whole thing. You go to Bob the Builder and ask him if he'll stop the personal insults and the personally baiting signature lines and just go back to arguing issues.

I'll be glad to do that the second I'm not being attacked... see how far you get.

 

[PLC1]

Hey I've tried to stop it several times now. Go back and look at my last several posts I keep saying in every post let's just drop it and talk issues.

But the only thing I can get is... you stop and I'll continue exactly as I am.

Try this and you'll see who's perpetuating this whole thing. You go to Bob the Builder and ask him if he'll stop the personal insults and the personally baiting signature lines and just go back to arguing issues.

I'll be glad to do that the second I'm not being attacked... see how far you get.

I did try it. Check out this very thread.

I think I showed remarkable restraint.

 

[top gun]

I did try it. Check out this very thread.

I think I showed remarkable restraint.

There's 59 pages to this thread!

Seriously though... I PM'd you.

 

[Bob the Builder]

When someone insists on perpetuating an opinion contrary to yours, then that person must expect to be belittled and talked down to, of course.

No, only when they insist on perpetrating a LIE, after they've been told it's a lie time and time again.

If you really think that anyone who doesn't share your rather narrow point of view is stupid, why bother to post on a forum shared by those stupid people who don't share your opinions?

"Preaching to the Choir" doesn't do any good. I'm here to try to educate those who are willing to be educated. Those who choose to remain willfully ignorant (that means stupid) deserve to be ridiculed for their stupidity.

The United States of America in the beginning of the republic did not allow women to own real property. That means all of the states, every last one. I already showed that Missouri was the first, and that California was the first to have allowed women to own property without their husband's permission.

Asked and answered repeatedly, and proved to be a patently false statement. AGAIN, if you wish to say that "in 'X,Y,and Z' States, women weren't allowed to own property between 17xx and 18yy" and had evidence to support your statement, THEN you might have an argument, but as it is, your statement as written is still patently false.

I didn't say that they did.

Then why do you insist on fomenting the lie that "women weren't allowed to own property", especially after I've shown that they could???

That's balony and you know it.

Obama was born in Hawaii, he was elected to the presidency despite having a political position different from your own.

No he wasn't. Even the State Attorney General of Hawaii has stated that the "certification of live birth" that he showed everyone isn't good enough to get a kid signed up for T-Ball! He has repeatedly refused to provide the Vault Copy of the LONG FORM "CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH". In case you missed it, a "certification of live birth" and a "certificate of live birth" are two entirely different forms, having two entirely different sets of authority under the law. Back in the late 50's and early 60's Hawaii was handing out their "certification of live birth" to just about anyone and everyone who showed up at the hospital with a baby claiming that they had been born at home, thereby granting automatic citizenship to people who were born in most of the Pacific Islands, which is specifically why the "certification of live birth" isn't accepted as evidence of citizenship.

Then there's his paternal grandmother who has testified that she was there, IN KENYA, at his birth (OOPS!), and it's not like that's something that she would just make up now is it, especially since it would preclude him from not only being eligible to serve as President, it would make him an ILLEGAL ALIEN!

So, the question still remains, if he really WAS born in Hawaii, why hasn't he simply authorized the hospital to release the Certificate of Live Birth instead of that silly little certification of live birth? What's he trying to hide? For that matter, why has he worked so hard to block every suit that has been filed asking for nothing more than the Vault Copy of his Certificate of Live Birth in order to prove that he IS a "Natural Born American Citizen"? During the campaign when the question of John McCain being qualified to serve as President arose, because he was born in the Canal Zone, he had NO problem presenting ALL of the evidence that PROVED that even though he was born in the Canal Zone, because BOTH of his parents were American citizens, and because his father was a serving Naval Officer, stationed at a US Naval facility (which is sovereign US territory by Treaty), and he was born in the US Naval Hospital on the nearby Naval Base (also sovereign US territory by Treaty), under Title 8 of the US Code, he IS in fact a "Natural Born American Citizen", so what's so different about Obliviot?

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Guns will disapear when the circumstances that led to thier creation disapear. Till then, this is not much of an issue.

 

[Hanno]

Inmates during their incarceration maybe. I think it's a property owner's right to decide what gets brought on his/her property. Other than that, nobody who wants to obtain a piece of plastic and metal should be prevented from doing so. Much less should anyone be deprived a means of self preservation.

The thing with ex-cons not getting them is a symptom of one of the failings of the system - we've got too many laws to give everyone due process, and hence too many laws and too little due process to hold on to everyone we convict. I say, if someone pays their debt, it's settled, if not, I defer to the wisdom of 12 or his/her peers.

 

[Demosthenes]

Ah! Good! People here half know what Ignorant means! (Being unaware of pretty common knowledge, or simply not knowing knowledge of importance) But yes. Criminals who've had violent tendecies shouldn't have guns, alon with drunk drivers and people who have used illegal substances. Also, if the person just isn't careful, then don't give him/her a gun. If the person is cross-eyed, don't give them a gun. If they have no arms, you get my meaning.