i hope claeyt is ok

[TotalyMeow]

Don't worry, salt. Pretty much all the post that say things without anger, are ignored.
I would really know what happen if we switch the topic to the "do you trust in police" argument, but they are too busy to punch themselves with words to pay attention at anything else. XD

No, we don't trust our police or our government here in America. We don't trust them to be able to prevent the smuggling in of weapons for use in terrorist activities or other criminal activities. The TSA is very showy, but in truth our borders are pretty porous and private planes and boats don't have a huge problem smuggling tons of whatever they want to across our borders every day. Criminals who really want guns will continue to get them just as they do in all parts of the world.

There's also the matter of the second amendment. When the constitution was written, the people who wrote it had come from European countries that had histories of various forms of governmental oppression and the writers feared America could go the same route. The bill of rights was their answer to that and the second amendment was put in specifically to allow the people to protect themselves in a warlike situation of the USA being attacked on its own soil and to allow the people to stage an armed revolt against the government should it become too oppressive.

So, yeah, the constitution was specifically set up in such a way that people should be able to rule their own government and keep it honest through threat of actual armed revolution.

[Icon]

"do you trust in police"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKuMhpb1gOI

nsfw warning

[TotalyMeow]

it's kinda cute how you still think claeyt can be won over by logical arguments.

Does anyone believe this? I do not, I just like to argue.

However, I can say that I never thought that people should be allowed more than hunting and some hand guns until last night when I really really looked at the second amendment and put two and two together. I've known the intent of the second amendment since high school, but never actually realized what it means. Talking to Claeyt changed my mind.

Yet Republicans still want to check your birth certificate before you can go to the bathroom where you feel comfortable.

Yeah, I agree with that one, as I clearly said in the thread about it. This thread is not about bathrooms.

As for workplace rules there is no national protections for workplace firings for sexual orientation... period. You can flat out be fired by your company if they find out you're gay, no questions asked in most states and none by the federal government. The Republicans have blocked this over and over.

Yeah, and I was laid off once when they realized they weren't comfortable with a woman. They don't have to say it, they made up an incredibly lame, but legal, excuse. However, many states are instituting protective laws, though I see your state isn't one of them. Maybe you should do something useful and write your representatives.

You absolutely said that they shouldn't be proud of it or make it public. The opposite of not being proud is to be ashamed.

Your quote:

What annoys me a bit is the insistence that being gay is something that needs to be publicized and paraded about and be PROUD OF. It's just a personality trait and it's kinda a private one.

Why should they have to be 'NOT' proud of it or make it private if they don't want to?

I said it's not an accomplishment to be proud of... it's just a trait. I'm not saying hide it and I'm certainly not saying be ashamed. I'm saying it's just a thing, a normal thing that is no big deal.

No, you are wrong. Being gay is not like having red hair. Being gay is also a community. Being gay is more like being 'Irish'. Yes, you may have red hair but you also have 'Irish Bars' and 'St. Patty's Day Parades' and a special flag and other stuff that important to your community and when some religious nut job guns down a bar full of 'Irish People' and hunted the survivors because they're 'Irish' you feel it deep down and personally. And when you're friends with some 'Irish' people and have had some drinks and laughs with them in 'Irish Bars' on occasion you tell people that you sympathize with them and all 'Irish' people right now and think about your 'Irish' friends and how they feel.

And when some jackass says that your 'Irish' friends shouldn't be proud of being 'Irish' or says that they should keep their being 'Irish' private then you call them out for being anti-'Irish' in this especially bad time for the 'Irish'.

Irish is a culture. I suppose you can argue that being gay is both a genetic trait and a nascent culture... but I don't go around introducing myself as Irish and proselytizing about 'Irish Pride' and starting parades about it. Because that would be silly. I know some people probably do, and I think they too are silly. Now, I'm not saying that they can't be silly. Let them be silly. I reserve the right to find it annoying.

K, then you're NOW okay with gay people publicizing, parading and NOT keeping it private, because just 2 pages ago you said the opposite.

No, 2 pages ago, you deliberately misunderstood me... again.

I'm not Republican, actually, and I disagree with many things that both the Republicans and the Democrats have done.

Yet you're defending their gun law policy.

I agree with things that both the Republicans and Democrats have to say too. It annoys me to no end that we have only two major political parties and that they are divided the way they are. There is never anyone who agrees with me entirely that I can vote for. I have to usually just pick the one closest and hope for the best. For example, I disagree with the 'right to life' argument, though that is a big old topic all it's own. Point is, I'm smart enough to make my own decisions of what I agree or disagree with, I don't just vote a party line because my ancestors did or whatever.

It does not say that at all. Only in the most loosely interpreted Republican wet dreams does this:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
mean unregulated unlicensed unchecked gun sales, and ownership of modern weaponry and firepower undreamed of by the founding fathers.
The constitution does NOT tell us that completely unregulated gun ownership is a guaranteed right...

It says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. And I know that many others have made this argument, but infringed means 'limit, undermine, or encroach on', which seems fairly clear. That gun ownership should not be limited. At all. Now, I'm not saying that I disagree with any and all limitations, but that's what the amendment says.

I know, people who want governmental regulations of gun ownership like to point out the beginning of the amendment, but look at it again. It's talking about a Militia. Not the militia, and not specifically guns. In this case, 'well regulated' means 'working properly, correctly maintained' and it's not saying 'government regulated militia'. It's not saying who does the regulating. It means we have the right to organize ourselves to train and regulate ourselves into a militia. That part of the amendment has nothing to do with governmental gun regulation.

It happened like I explained but I guess someone's going to have to go dig it up. I'll leave that to you.

I bet you will. You're hoping everyone else will be too lazy to look it up. Except who cares? Everyone but you remembers accurately how it ended.

No, as I've said in this thread many, many times now people who are going to commit a crime are going to find a way. Let's make it as hard for them to do that as possible by making it as hard as possible for them to get a gun. Fortunately that also means that it'll be harder for all of us to get a gun including all those abusive husbands who shoot their wives and kids, or those right wing nut jobs who want to take over nature centers.

You just argued one thing, and concluded the opposite. And how, really, is an abusive husband shooting his family any different from beating them to death? Your argument truly pisses me off. If someone who is going to commit a crime is going to find a way, trying to keep guns out of their hands is irrelevant.

[Flame]

Thank you, meow. :3

[Claeyt]

As if YOU have the right to say that, ignoring 90% of things people point out to you.

I notice now there is a trend where he picks the bits and pieces he wants and leaves the bits he can't cope with ignored. Of course now, if he actually has something to say on the subject of killings in which firearms are not involved then I'm guessing this forum is all ears. I'm willing to bet it will go ignored again though.

I ignored it because it's stupid. Saying that murders will stay the same if murderers can't use guns is just dumb. Of course they go down. You can't injure 103 people with a knife.

Cleaty could you stop saying high capacitiy "clips". There is no such thing.

You're right. I should use magazine.

No, we don't trust our police or our government here in America. We don't trust them to be able to prevent the smuggling in of weapons for use in terrorist activities or other criminal activities. The TSA is very showy, but in truth our borders are pretty porous and private planes and boats don't have a huge problem smuggling tons of whatever they want to across our borders every day. Criminals who really want guns will continue to get them just as they do in all parts of the world.

There's also the matter of the second amendment. When the constitution was written, the people who wrote it had come from European countries that had histories of various forms of governmental oppression and the writers feared America could go the same route. The bill of rights was their answer to that and the second amendment was put in specifically to allow the people to protect themselves in a warlike situation of the USA being attacked on its own soil and to allow the people to stage an armed revolt against the government should it become too oppressive.

So, yeah, the constitution was specifically set up in such a way that people should be able to rule their own government and keep it honest through threat of actual armed revolution.

This is absolutely False and you're about to learn why you never, NEVER argue the Constitution with anyohne from Madison WI. My city is named for the man who organized and help write the Constitution. Our downtown streets are named after every single signer of the constitution. That being said I'll keep it simple for our foreign Salemites.

This is not why the Bill of Rights was written at all. You really need to read some history about how and why the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation in 1789 after 8 years.

The Articles of Confederation, the first form of laws governing the United States created a weak federal government that left much of the power of governance to the States. Individual States began to ignore the treaty with Britain protecting loyalists and their property and Shay's Rebellion (the exact sort of armed rebellion of the people Tmeow's talking about) convinced the early government that a stronger Federal government was required. So the Constitution was created to form federal control over and superseding State law, along with other stuff like forming an army... etc.

The Anti-Federalists/Pro-State government supporters were able to pass the 'Bill of Rights' or the first 10 amendments to the constitution AGAINST the wishes of the majority of the founding fathers. Anti-federalist founding fathers such as John Hancock and Sam Adams rightly feared an imperialist federal government controlled by a strong president. They viewed States as the proper balance to opposing this. They viewed the Bill of Rights amendments to the constitution as defining the relationship of the Federal government to the State governments and specifically the protection of individual rights through the State governments and the common inclusion of individual rights within their State constitutions.

The Second amendment was specifically taken from the 'Virginian Declaration of Rights'.

So this section from the 'Virginia Declaration of Rights':

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

became this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Anti-Federalist/Radical Anti-Government strain unique to America and now housed in the Republican party has warped this to mean that any person can buy any gun at any time. They were able to get the supreme court to install this as interpreted law in 1875 as a direct anti-government reaction by southerners to the 'Reconstruction Period' and federal occupation of the south following the Civil War. In fact it stands as a milestone to beginning of the Apartheid era of 'Jim Crow' repression of Black southerners and used as a justification for southerners to arm themselves personally against the imagined threat of Black violence. It's been maintained since with no changes to account for modern weapons, or modern ideas about safety of the commons over individual rights.

[Claeyt]

if i thought claeyt would have actually shown up (and followed the format for mutual combat rules instead of trying to sue me or press charges) instead of sitting on the other end of the country deluding himself into thinking hes clever and "tricking" me to go to some gay bar he was never at to fight a female ( ) and waste my time for a laugh at my expense i would have certainly gone and simply ignored the spectacle of assless chaps and the sea of limp wrists pawing at me as i sent his chin sailing through the ceiling.

I gave a time and place where you said you'd show and you pussed out. You're so frightened of actually being seen I doubt you'll ever even put up a RL pic on these forums much less meet any of us out in the world. So keep cluckin' chicken and let the noobs see you for what you are. A gutless internet troll who feels empowered by the anonymity to spew racist and homophobic rants..

[Heffernan]

just gonna leave this here

oh and btw..... 'Murica

http://abc10.com/news/local/sacramento/ ... /243211965

[HPLovecraft]

gif removed. You can post a link, but not put it directly here.

People like you are why the 80s died. The reason we can't go to a gas station at 1AM and no one thinks you will rob it. Your mind set and the idiotic principles degrade our country's morals and puts down its working people. Ever done any contractor work? Ever work in Section 8? I doubt it. You would see why people hold such opinions if you could walk in their shoes; as we've already walked in yours. Before you go off and call me racist like you call everyone else here I want you to guess how many of the people in those places, worked in many of these areas mind you, had good honest working people. Hint: it is not above 5.

The difference is my work boots build America. Your work boots are non existent. When Trump takes over people like you will have no voice, and I'm just fine with that even if he burns the nation to the ground.

[Inotdead]

I ignored it because it's stupid. Saying that murders will stay the same if murderers can't use guns is just dumb. Of course they go down. You can't injure 103 people with a knife.

In most cases you ignore posts because they get your hypocritical ass cornered though. But keep on struggling.
Everyone knows what you are, may be some day you get to realize it yourself.

So keep cluckin' chicken and let the noobs see you for what you are

Everyone here except you sees who is who. How can you yourself be as delusional as to not realize how you make yourself look by bringing this up is beyond me.

[Darwoth]

claeyt: hey racist homophobe you wouldn't dare speak the truth irl only on the internet because you would get your ass kicked!!

darwoth: hmm, well no.

claeyt: coward! x 10 pages

darwoth: hmm, well no

claeyt: coward! x 20 pages youll get your ass kicked if you ever said that irl!!!

darwoth: ok, well if your in california one day and want to meet up or go to a gym or something so we can have the conversation and you can kick my ass let me know.

claeyt: oh, ummm. well. ho ho ho it JUST so happens that in a few days i will be 3000 miles away at a GAY BAR in los angeles AND i have some lesbian who is fight you! y... yo.. you coward you!!

darwoth: uh, yeeeeah, ok.

claeyt: coward!!!! x 30 pages and 12 months




darwoth: