Thus is delivered a legal smackdown
-
Discussion of gun ownership, amendment rights and US politics, are not lounge material.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I do believe that posts about Americans being insane gun nuts, belong in the soapbox.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I do believe that posts about Americans being insane gun nuts, belong in the soapbox.
We're not "nuts", or "insane", and it really pisses me off when someone from another country refers to us that way.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
Discussion of gun ownership, amendment rights and US politics, are not lounge material.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I call bullshit.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
Can we discuss Gnu ownership?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
We may discuss a CCC ban. :-D
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
Christian Graus wrote:
I do believe that posts about Americans being insane gun nuts, belong in the soapbox.
We're not "nuts", or "insane", and it really pisses me off when someone from another country refers to us that way.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
We're not "nuts", or "insane", and it really pisses me off when someone from another country refers to us that way.
That must be how the Muslims feel in other countries when we call them fascist or rag heads, etc. Or maybe it's when we call people from other countries socialists like it's some sort of devil phrase. I hate to break it to you, but we like they are "nuts", and "insane" when blatant contradictions come up are excused away by the constitution or any other excuse to do something that is both illogical, irrational and destructive to our own self-interest or society as a whole.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
I call bullshit.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001It doesn't belong in the lounge because Christian isn't as comfortable insulting the entire population of a country while in the Lounge. That sort of juvenile behavior belongs in here. Apparently Christian isn't capable of discussing any subject even remotely related to guns without initiating an insult match more appropriate for kids. Far more revealing of his own prejudice than anything else, but whatever. I'm sure he's above reproach. [edit] grammar tweak [edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Friday, July 9, 2010 12:02 PM
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I do believe that posts about Americans being insane gun nuts, belong in the soapbox.
We're not "nuts", or "insane", and it really pisses me off when someone from another country refers to us that way.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001How about someone from your own country? I don't think you're insane, but I do think you're nuts! Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment creates some interesting contradictions within both parties. Granted, there are many ways to say what makes a Republican a Republican and what makes a Democrat a Democrat, but one of the ways is to define their views of the constitution. Traditionally, Republicans view the Constitution through the idea that it should be interpreted exactly as the framers would. While, on the other hand, Democrats traditionally view it as a "living document" that must be interpreted through the eyes of "modern" people. Except when it comes to the 2nd. The views get switched there. Democrats say that the framers needed the public to be able to "bear arms" because without a militia (note that it says "well regulated militia"), we would never have been able to raise an army large enough to defeat the British. Even with it, we couldn't without the help of the French. Personally, I don't feel the 2nd is useful anymore. We don't need a militia now. And removal of the 2nd also wouldn't mean that you would lose the "right" to bear arms. The 9th was written to ensure that someone didn't come along and say, "But the founders didn't say we had a right to own a laptop!". The 9th would still cover gun rights.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I do believe that posts about Americans being insane gun nuts, belong in the soapbox.
We're not "nuts", or "insane", and it really pisses me off when someone from another country refers to us that way.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001Don't bother getting upset about it. As long as there are more than one group of people, fingers will be pointed. I think every individual, regardless of nationality, is a potential nut case until proven otherwise.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
How about someone from your own country? I don't think you're insane, but I do think you're nuts! Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment creates some interesting contradictions within both parties. Granted, there are many ways to say what makes a Republican a Republican and what makes a Democrat a Democrat, but one of the ways is to define their views of the constitution. Traditionally, Republicans view the Constitution through the idea that it should be interpreted exactly as the framers would. While, on the other hand, Democrats traditionally view it as a "living document" that must be interpreted through the eyes of "modern" people. Except when it comes to the 2nd. The views get switched there. Democrats say that the framers needed the public to be able to "bear arms" because without a militia (note that it says "well regulated militia"), we would never have been able to raise an army large enough to defeat the British. Even with it, we couldn't without the help of the French. Personally, I don't feel the 2nd is useful anymore. We don't need a militia now. And removal of the 2nd also wouldn't mean that you would lose the "right" to bear arms. The 9th was written to ensure that someone didn't come along and say, "But the founders didn't say we had a right to own a laptop!". The 9th would still cover gun rights.
William Winner wrote:
Granted, there are many ways to say what makes a Republican a Republican and what makes a Democrat a Democrat, but one of the ways is to define their views of the constitution. Traditionally, Republicans view the Constitution through the idea that it should be interpreted exactly as the framers would. While, on the other hand, Democrats traditionally view it as a "living document" that must be interpreted through the eyes of "modern" people.
Hey wait are you talking about the constitution or the bible? Pretty much the same argument. By the way I hate Fundamental Christian's literal interpretation of the old testament (medieval Hebrew war-god mythology).
-
How about someone from your own country? I don't think you're insane, but I do think you're nuts! Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment creates some interesting contradictions within both parties. Granted, there are many ways to say what makes a Republican a Republican and what makes a Democrat a Democrat, but one of the ways is to define their views of the constitution. Traditionally, Republicans view the Constitution through the idea that it should be interpreted exactly as the framers would. While, on the other hand, Democrats traditionally view it as a "living document" that must be interpreted through the eyes of "modern" people. Except when it comes to the 2nd. The views get switched there. Democrats say that the framers needed the public to be able to "bear arms" because without a militia (note that it says "well regulated militia"), we would never have been able to raise an army large enough to defeat the British. Even with it, we couldn't without the help of the French. Personally, I don't feel the 2nd is useful anymore. We don't need a militia now. And removal of the 2nd also wouldn't mean that you would lose the "right" to bear arms. The 9th was written to ensure that someone didn't come along and say, "But the founders didn't say we had a right to own a laptop!". The 9th would still cover gun rights.
William Winner wrote:
Democrats traditionally view [The US Constitution] as a "living document" that must be interpreted through the eyes of "modern" people.
They view it as an impediment. And considering what they want to do, it is.
Before .NET 4.0, object Universe = NULL;
-
How about someone from your own country? I don't think you're insane, but I do think you're nuts! Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment creates some interesting contradictions within both parties. Granted, there are many ways to say what makes a Republican a Republican and what makes a Democrat a Democrat, but one of the ways is to define their views of the constitution. Traditionally, Republicans view the Constitution through the idea that it should be interpreted exactly as the framers would. While, on the other hand, Democrats traditionally view it as a "living document" that must be interpreted through the eyes of "modern" people. Except when it comes to the 2nd. The views get switched there. Democrats say that the framers needed the public to be able to "bear arms" because without a militia (note that it says "well regulated militia"), we would never have been able to raise an army large enough to defeat the British. Even with it, we couldn't without the help of the French. Personally, I don't feel the 2nd is useful anymore. We don't need a militia now. And removal of the 2nd also wouldn't mean that you would lose the "right" to bear arms. The 9th was written to ensure that someone didn't come along and say, "But the founders didn't say we had a right to own a laptop!". The 9th would still cover gun rights.
William Winner wrote:
Traditionally, Republicans view the Constitution through the idea that it should be interpreted exactly as the framers would.
Actually, that's completely wrong - it's the Liberterians that believe that (and if I was forced to establish an affiliation, that's who I would side with). Neither the Democrats NOR the Republicans are interested in what was intended by the Constitution. Granted, Democrats are moderately more prone to "convenient interpretation" than the Republicans, but they're both guilty of it. It's pretty much a known fact that governments get real nervous when the populace is armed.
William Winner wrote:
Except when it comes to the 2nd. The views get switched there. Democrats say that the framers needed the public to be able to "bear arms" because without a militia (note that it says "well regulated militia"), we would never have been able to raise an army large enough to defeat the British. Even with it, we couldn't without the help of the French.
By my view, every abled-bodied citizen is already in the Militia, and are expected to come to the defence of the country when called upon to do so. In order to participate with the militia, they need to keep/bear arms. Early drafts of the amendment included a concientious objector clause to allow people to opt out if their religious views precluded the keeping/bearing of arms, but it was struck out before approval and ratification. In 1833, Joseph Story wrote this prophetic statement: The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over
