Gravitymaster

Childish... I would expect a more mature response from a moderator.

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Doesn't surprise me that you and others took it that way. Fantasize much? I think so.

That's a good thing. If a woman can pass the physical and mental trainng, they should be required to serve on the front lines it should not even be an option.

And your little story has what to do with women, in general, being less capable, physically than men?

You'd better explain to him you don't mean Ozzie Nelson. I'd better explain to him I don't mean Ozzie Osbourne. Yet you are the one who immediately thought of both.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=M_blOQEu9ws&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DM_blOQEu9ws Here boys, your fantasy woman.

I'll take a 200lb male next to me over a 95 lb woman. The rest if you can continue your Wonder Woman Fantasy an continued belief that all men in combat are out of shape gasbags and all women are lean mean fighting machines.

Shhhhh...you are trampling on their fantasy of the Amazon Women being their saviors from the comic books they read when they were children.

Blue symbolizes depression.

Then you missed the 3 posts I made saying if a woman can pass the physical and mental requirements the I have no problem as pond as the standards aren't lowered. Or perhaps reading comprehension isn't you strong suit. No, I didn't miss those. You asked a question, the premise of which I was simply illustrating was flawed -- especially in light of your insistence that standards not be lowered. I comprehended that loaded question just fine. No, what you were doing is illustrating one of the things I have always found so laughable about many of the people who pst here. That is the ability to find a remote exception (if we are to believe you) and then attempt to portray it as the norm. The they snort away feeling self justified and self righteous. I find people like that highly entertaining. Thanks for the laugh.

But your question was a distortion of reality anyway, so what's the problem? Are you arguing against women in combat, or just anyone who weighs less than 200lbs? I just enjoy watching you get confused.

If you're in a foxhole, you're in a defensive position with others all around you and probably in the spot you wouldn't want to be dragged from until it's secure. Second - picture more like a 135 pound woman. Or a 150 pound woman. It's more of what we see. Third - they've done a fantastic job so far in combat so far. All you have done is twist my question to one that better suits your thinking. So lets try it another way. Suppose you are on patrol with a 135lb woman and you weigh 265lbs. You get wounded by a sniper but are still alive as long as you can get medical treatment within 15 minutes. Would you rather have a 135lb woman to drag you to safety of a 220lb male? Why not just answer the question instead of twisting it? (I know you lawyers like to do that but this isn't a Court) That 135-lb woman would be me. And yes, I can carry a 265-lb injured man. Next question? Then you missed the 3 posts I made saying if a woman can pass the physical and mental requirements the I have no problem as pond as the standards aren't lowered. Or perhaps reading comprehension isn't you strong suit.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/01/world/europe/turkey-embassy-explosion/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Revolutionary People's Liberation Party–Front http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_People's_Liberation_Party%E2%80%93Front Seems they've been rather active lately. Turkey needs to go background checks on anyone trying to purchase bomb making materials. They also need to increase the penalties for blowing ones self up.

Yes. Cute. You gave him an out He will take it every time I prefer to call it "weaseling."

You forgot. Plant thermite in the World Trade Center and tell them it was terrorists who flew planes into them.

Yes. Cute.

Can you provide a link to all these times they have ruled on these restrictions?

With the termination of a large troop deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's pretty much a no brainer. Do you support using the money to pay down the debt or pissing more of it away in social programs and welfare payments to large corporations?

"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." Paul Simon?

No, no. They are claiming "Obama " is not trying to take your guns.

So you are claiming the Supreme Court has banned assault weapons?

I would have to agree.

Owning a weapon is a constitutional right. A drivers license is not. It is a privilege that we enjoy and can be taken away for a number of reasons. So I cant see the comparison being valid. Owning "a" weapon might be. Owning every type of weapon is not. Where in the Constitution does it say that? "keep and bear arms" not "keep and bear all arms" Which is why SCOTUS has upheld other restrictions of the 2nd amendment. Where does it say "only keep and bear the arms the government says you can keep and bear"

Owning a weapon is a constitutional right. A drivers license is not. It is a privilege that we enjoy and can be taken away for a number of reasons. So I cant see the comparison being valid. Owning "a" weapon might be. Owning every type of weapon is not. Where in the Constitution does it say that?

Could be because people who carry, do so for their own personal protection, Not to protect others. If you pull a gun and shoot someone who is not a direct threat to you, one could find themselves the target of either a criminal prosecution, or a civil lawsuit, thanks to the scumbag lawyers who dominate our political and legal systems.