jfields

Actually, I think it is about the glass being empty because you forgot you drank it all after drinking too many glasses before that.

I just thought I would formally announce that my productivity at work has reached an all-time low. Anyone else?

Actually, I'm not worried about it. First of all, because I'm not going to Cancun. Tu ovejas? Mierda! Pero, no muy importante. Tu estas me oveja, amigo!

Yeah. The DZO will personally lead me around and be my personal translator for the day. And all I have to do is give him quarters for tiny boxes of Chiclets every now and then. Dumbass. I saw that, but wanted to know about the DZ as a whole. Whatever. It isn't like I'm worried about my Spanish skills: Donde esta el banyo. Me gusta su madre. Or, in your case: Me gusta su ovejas.

Does he like salad?

How much of a problem does the language barrier present there for us gringos with minimal spanish skills?

McRush, Check post #23 of this thread, back when it was still about ballistic fingerprinting. There are plenty of cases backing the anti-gun cause, and also some backing your side. As I said then, the courts are split, but it is certainly not clearly and unequivocably backing the NRA view. I appreciate that. As I learned while in the thread, I decided that the ballistic fingerprinting or whatever we call it, makes no sense if it is not generally accurate.

We'll just disagree on that one. There is a wide range of precedence in the other direction, including decisions of the Supreme Court. We could start quoting cases and citations at each other, but that has actually already happened in this thread and it doesn't accomplish anything.

I think you are onto EXACTLY the right approach. And after Clay has him, we can make him buy beer for the event.

Mike, I brought up the whole "Slippery Slope" issue way earlier in this thread, as did someone else. I agree with you that the whole issue is all about that, in both directions. I agree with you that the masses are being misled by a few elitists. We just disagree on who they are. In your interpretation of the second amendment and belief in gun ownership as a "god-given right", you are directly inferring that the supreme court are the conniving elitists, because they have a markedly different interpration from yours. I'd say that the elitists trying to swindle the public are the NRA and bought politicians. On a personal note, how did you manage to get firearm ownership as a "God-given right"? If you are religious, and that tight with God, there are a lot of other things I'd ask for instead.

Confused? Have a question?

So you requested she use a strap-on?

Steve, I'm not advocating more laws. I'm advocating better laws, and more uniformity of laws. Many of the laws on the books are probably dumb. Get rid of them. I'm not supporting an ever-growing bureaucracy. My ideal goal would be to make gun ownership a non-issue, because people were so safe and conscientious that it wouldn't make a difference. But I think human nature makes my ideal unobtainable. As long as they are carefully managed, I don't care whether you have one slingshot or an arsenal. The problem is the great number of gun owners who aren't as responsible as you. Kids do get their hands on their parents weapons, and that shouldn't happen. Guns do get stolen and used for crimes. Otherwise good people do lose their cool behind a weapon and succumb to the power they posess. They can annoy me too. But I'm more worried about the other direction. I'm not a fan of anarchy, and a post-apocalyptic scenario where our government fails is scarier. Yet I'm not willing to stockpile guns, convert my life savings to gold and build a bunker in my basement to prepare for that contingency. The sacrifice of quality of life and social exclusion are not justified to me by the slim chance of that occurring. But that is my choice, and other may choose differently. I have a great respect for our country's constitution and what it stands for. I was sincere when I swore to defend it upon enlistment in the Army. What I do dispute is the assertion that firearm ownership is a constitutionally-promised right, other than in a role in defense of our country. I don't think my view is a manipulation of the constitution. Neither does the Supreme Court. The writers of our country's essential documents new what they were talking about, but they also realized that they couldn't see every contingency that might ever come up in the future of an entire country. That is why they made it possible for the laws to be changed. They made sure that it wouldn't be easy, to help guard against mob-mentality changes being passed through. Gun control and private firearms ownership are hot-button issues right now. That is especially true where I live. You can't imagine it. Six of the sniper killings were within 5 miles of my home. It was allegedly done with a legally-purchased borrowed weapon. Many people are calling for complete and instant banning of firearms. I'm against that. I see it as an overreaction. Luckily for the gun owners, the laws will not change overnight, even though they'd probably pass a popular vote right now. In the same way, gradual changes to improve safety and responsibility would appease many gun control activists, save lives, yet still let people own firearms. I do not understand why safety and responsibility are opposed. I think our constitution and the principles on which it was founded give us a moral obligation to make firearm ownership safer, to guard the rights (and very lives) of all citizens.

Ah. Makes sense. After all, even condensed fonts and small print wouldn't help out with that situation.

Did you get the tattoo wrong, Skreamer? I know you worship her, but Jenn has two "n"'s. Or are you so brokedick poor that you couldn't afford another letter until your next welfare check arrived?

Forget to pay your electric bill?

Nope. I was specifically replying to Kennedy, who had said that he would willingly violate the law. I was looking for his explanation of how his mentality is different than that of a criminal if he believes the laws do not apply to him. Generally, I agree, but the constitution does specifically allow for gradual change in our laws. They are meant to be gradual to prevent overreaction, but the long-term flexibility is what gave women the right to vote and abolished slavery. I don't want to "take away" your right to own and bear arms. However, it would be nice if you'd acknowledge that unrestricted and anonymous ownership of an unlimited number of firearms is not a right guaranteed by the constitution. Starting with that common ground of understanding makes the whole debate more reasonable, as we have a mutual understanding of our starting point. We may disagree from there, but at least the foundation is clear.

As Kallend said, you declined to answer the question about what the "homicidal" was using. A gun. On the subject of unanswered questions, here are some from a previous post: And that separates you from the "thugs" you are worried about in what way? Isn't it the courts of our country that decide what is right and what is wrong for our country? We vote and serve on juries as our part of those decisions. Then you continued with: Bank robbers and rapists think the same way. If each person is entitled to act in any way they want, who is to judge if you refute the jurisdiction of our court system and laws? Nobody? Do you truly think anarchy is better than democracy? Please explain the discrepency between quoting the second amendment and professing your utter disregard for the law. If you feel that your personal value system makes you exempt, how is that different than a criminal's justification of their actions? Is it merely that your chance to act has not yet come up, while the criminal's did, making them a criminal? I'm not saying you are a bad person, or that you'll randomly go off shooting someone. But the underlying principles you state are directly in conflict with both the laws and the truth. I'm not saying that guns can't be used correctly in self defense on occasion. But you are attempting to explain away and negate every factual circumstance involving deaths to innocent people, misrepresenting opinion as fact and simply ignoring the body of evidence that contradicts your opinion. It would be much more forthright if you (and the other ardent firearm proponents) just said: I want my guns and I don't care if they are illegal. I don't care about anyone else's safety or rights, or how my gun ownership might infringe upon them. This is about me, my desire to own firearms and use them as see fit. There isn't a damned thing Kallend, BillVon or I could say to rebut that. It would be your opinion, and beyond dispute. It is also an honest acknowledgement of the scenario. End of discussion, time to go home. But so far, that honesty has been conspicuously absent. Instead, we've been subjected to biased statistics, incorrect assertions about the meaning of the second amendment, bogus analogies between guns and just every household object, and great heaps of baseless rhetoric. If this subject is worth discussing at all, it is worth discussing with honesty, rationality, and willingness to admit valid points of the opposing side. A hundred plus posts ago, after a presentation of facts, I said that if ballistic fingerprinting was inaccurate there was no point in doing it. I also said that I was far from expert on the technology behind it. That was purpose of this entire thread. I have yet to see a similar admission or concession relating to the errors or inaccuracies of the proponents of firearm ownership. From a sincere question (which was answered and acknowleged), this debate has degenerated to the level of toddlers screaming while their fingers are stuck in their ears. Let's stop yelling and start listening.

Using those guidelines, Hugh Grant certainly qualifies, for getting busted with that prostitute. Those silly Brits....

It sucks indeed. Sometimes shit just isn't right or fair. Every once in awhile, we all end up on the bad side of things. Knowing that it is both inevitable and shared doesn't make it any more fun though... Hope things get better for you.

I stand corrected. It also depends on the wench.

Attaching wenches NEVER helps.

Liberal Answer: Watch the crazed man shoot himself, because he obviously hasn't taken any helpful NRA gun safety courses to go along with the concealed pistol he is carrying. Go to patriotic picnic with family, while "thug" is taken to hospital then jail. Conservative Answer: Shoot at him. Miss. End up killing small poor child playing on street behind him. Get shot in the leg, because "crazed man" really wasn't crazed at all, but shoots to disable after you fire first. Go to jail for manslaughter, while your family lives in the poor house after getting sued by family of child you accidently shot. Ask a stupid leading question, get a stupid sarcastic answer.

wwwho?

I bet that in a secret government lab somewhere, we are trying to extract oil from steamrollered pimply teenagers.