Do you think Colonel Peters is correct?

At least he has the balls to come out and tell us exactly where he stands on the issue. Others avoid answering direct questions because it might show a chink in their armor. If they agree that a person under a certain age should not be allowed to carry a handgun in public, they are supporting gun control. Perish the thought!! Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Based on his "analysis" I'm comfortable in believing that YouRong feels discriminated against for having been denied the right to vote as a child .... I would suspect his comment:

"It's a CHILD THING!!!"

[QUOTE=WTF;1056266851]All I did was post the results of a study. [QUOTE]

"Actually" ... no that is NOT ALL YOU DID.

You were "running around the board" (figuratively of course) whining that I and others were racists, and when we denied it, you claimed that EVERYONE was a racist (which included you), so why didn't we just "admit it." Like I have said so many times before ...

YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

I will now add: You are a RACIST who is FULL OF SHIT.

See how your "tactics" come back to haunt you. Don't feel bad the "smartest guy" in the whole world does the same thing.

That would be YOUR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

No, LLIdiot, you're an ASSHOLE.

if you're not a racist, then start a thread (like you do so often) on why racial and ethnic comments are such a large part of your repertoire.

Its really not about racism, though so many of your ilk post blatantly racist and ethnocentric stuff... More talking points. No at the root of it is that you and your whole fucking Klan. Err, Clan, are just too lazy to make a logical argument, or participate in an honest debate.

In fact, you and your minions spew hate talk to engage those who your behavior distasteful and embarrassing. Then we devolve into personal attacks.

I dont know what danger is imminent from a fat, old, lumpen mass of personal disappointment and frustration who never gets off the couch.

And then there's the predictable and convenient circle back to bash the president.

All gamesmanship aside, you're just a miserable ASSHOLE.

... then start a thread (like you do so often) .. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

How many threads have I started ... ? You really are "off your meds"!!!!

When someone is entering someone else's private home, I believe that the person should have the courtesy of informing the homeowner that he is carrying a handgun and if that entering the home with the handgun is okay with the homeowner.

Simple enough for you? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Absolutely they should. But what if they don't?

Quote:
Originally Posted by boardman
Originally Posted by WTF
It is what we all do LL being the best or worst , depending on your slant. But none on here are innocent from it. That includes you.



I asked a question....I did not make a judgment.

Do you think we should have laws or not in this regard? No, I think there are way too many laws on the books which obscures and dilutes the entire criminal justice system. Make parents responsible for their children, period. That should be all the law you need. Or do you consider that to be unreasonable? How do you make parents responsible for their children without a law stating so? Did you even read what I said? Please say you didn't because the alternative represents a serious lack of reading comprehension. I said making parents responsible for their children is all the law you should need.

That was my question. I already know what I think, I was asking your opinion. Tell us what you think. I think the devil is in any laws' details.






So are we to assume that all parents are reasonable? Yes, until they prove themselves to be otherwise. But if they prove not to be how then do you proceed to hold them accountable without law(s)? If not then my question was not directed at this so called "reasonable parent" theory ....but at what boardman seems to consider unreasonable. Tell me what I consider to be unreasonable.
As it pertained to this discussion , kids toting guns! At least that is what I understood you to post, I could be wrong.
In other words , I am now asking the two of you to venture back to reality and answer what should society do , if anything , about kids carrying around handguns? Should there be laws against it or not in you two opinion)s). The Devil always seems to be in the details. I'm asking details. Not slogans or "reasonable parent" theory ....



You're asking us to venture back to reality?
Who's reality? Yours?


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha haha


!

Yes reality as in details. Originally Posted by WTF

You do understand how piling laws on top of existing laws is self serving on the part of the lawyers who write and pass them. It perpetuates their kind because a layman cannot decipher the intricacies and find the loopholes.

To repeat -- that is your OPINION as to what the 2nd Amendment states. As shown in the links below, the word "infringed" is simply not what you would like it to be.

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/cliffsnot...s-constitution

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/i...is-a-misnomer/

In the second article, please read the paragraph starting "Getting back to the 2nd Amendment". Then read the statement by Justice Scalia, who is considered a conservative justice, appointed by Ronald Reagan.

"Getting back to the 2nd Amendment, if it isn’t already clear–despite the fact it says “shall not be infringed,” just like the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law,” and the 4th Amendment says “shall not be violated,” it can in reality be infringed. What is or is not considered an unconstitutional infringement is determined by the Supreme Court, not by the people. “Shall not be infringed,” does not mean that any law respecting firearms is an infringement. Rather, it means that the law(s) must do more than merely contravene the right. - See more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/i....mXMJ1wSJ.dpuf" Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Again, you are incorrect. You make an assumption as t what the 2nd Amendmant means. I stated to you exactly what it says. I did not state my opinion in quotations. I did state: " The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Do you think we should have laws or not in this regard? No, I think there are way too many laws on the books which obscures and dilutes the entire criminal justice system. Make parents responsible for their children, period. That should be all the law you need. Or do you consider that to be unreasonable? How do you make parents responsible for their children without a law stating so? Did you even read what I said? Please say you didn't because the alternative represents a serious lack of reading comprehension. I said making parents responsible for their children is all the law you should need.
And I said the Devil is in the details. So say some 17 year old or a 15 year old kills their parents... Sounds like with your only law there is no problem. The responsible party is dead!


!

You do understand how piling laws on top of existing laws is self serving on the part of the lawyers who write and pass them. It perpetuates their kind because a layman cannot decipher the intricacies and find the loopholes. Originally Posted by boardman

Yes I do, that is why I keep saying the Devil is in the details. LexusLover and the like may try and explain how their kind....by extracting money from these burdensome laws are a necessary evil. Or are you going to try and twist yourself in a knot LL and say we are a nation of to damn many laws!

"Actually" ... no that is NOT ALL YOU DID.

You were "running around the board" (figuratively of course) whining that I and others were racists, and when we denied it, you claimed that EVERYONE was a racist (which included you), so why didn't we just "admit it." Like I have said so many times before ...

YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

I will now add: You are a RACIST who is FULL OF SHIT.

See how your "tactics" come back to haunt you. Don't feel bad the "smartest guy" in the whole world does the same thing.

That would be YOUR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Reread wtf I posted LL. Yes we all are , including you. You are just one of those fools that do not understand that you are and as I posted, understanding is half the battle. And understanding is half the battle against it

And for the record, GWB was your and my President, just like Obama is both your and my President unless of course you have renounced your citizenship. Are you ISIS now LexusLover?

Are you trying to impress your LE friends with these lies? Do you understand that understanding is half the battle? Or are you still oblivious?




http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-the-gap/201110/prime-and-prejudice-why-we-are-all-little-bit-racist-0
One conclusion from this study is clear. For most of us, the racist/sexist/ageist inside us may not be a monster of our own making; s/he is not a reflection of who we are, but a reflection of where we've been. Being faster to associate ‘black' with ‘violence' doesn't imply that you are a hardcore racist, it sadly just means you're American.
This conclusion is both reassuring and sad.
Reassuring, because now we can understand why we are all a little bit racist (and sexist, and ageist). And understanding is half the battle against it Originally Posted by WTF

I went back and added "unlimited" to my question to make it broader. I don't think it is a difficult question to understand. I'll make it easier for you. Should there be an age limit as to when someone should be allowed to walk down the street with a handgun strapped to his/her side? That is gun control.

The second question is also a simple one but again I'll make it easier for you. Not allowing people to carry handguns into establishments (a home is an establishment) such as some movie theaters, military bases, and any other establishment that chooses to ban them, is gun control. In past threads you and YOUR ilk have consistently argued against gun free zones. Right now there is a proposed bill in the Texas legislature asking that certain establishments allow concealed gun license holders to carry their handguns into those establishments. Also, there will be a proposed bill forcing public colleges in the state of Texas to allow those with CHLs the right to carry their handguns anywhere on campus. So don't tell us that government cannot control where people can carry handguns.

On the 3rd point, I didn't want to turn this into a discussion on which weapons are automatic, semi-automatic, and which should or should not be banned from the general public. I fully expected you to support the right to purchase M-16s. The question was would you support the right of ANYONE to purchase and carry an M-16? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Your response shows a serious problem with this whole argument, what does the term "gun control" mean. It has a different meaning for every person. You zig into the ridiculous to sell your argument. Should children have the right to carry a gun "strapped on their side". Really? Is that your best? Tell me what a child is? Sound easy but think about it. You're including everyone from a toddler to, according to Obamacare, someone who is 26 years old. Want to qualify that a bit? If not, I'll do it for you. Number one, anyone who is of an age to join the military should have the rights of an adult so that gets us to 17 years old. How about a "child" who is the sole protector of a household. We have had cases where a 13 year old has used a weapon to protect family members in their home. Maybe even younger. We're talking law though and not a case by case. First caveat, anyone who takes up the responsibility of carrying a weapon (concealed or otherwise) must also take up the responsibility of it's use as an adult. If you can't control your weapon then you're better off not having it around. So we can't decide on a lawful age unless we change the laws on what is adult behavior.

You know what? I don't care about your home. If I choose to carry a concealed weapon into your home and you don't know about it. Then no one is harmed. If, like an old west saloon, they require you to check your weapon before you enter then that is okay. Private property rights and all. Then you swerve into public venues which is a different matter. Number one, it becames difficult to check everyone completely to see if they have a weapon. Two, what constitutes a weapon. You can take away everyone's gun or knife but a bottle is a weapon. An umbrella is a weapon. Some people even have hands that are considered weapons. Should we shackle the hands of every MMA fighter when he, or she, goes out. They are certainly more dangerous than me.

I know you don't want to get into a discussion about what weapon does what because you will have your ass handed to you again. Refer to answer one for the answer to question three. Also, go back and review my original answer. The truth is there.

Yes we all are , including you. Originally Posted by WTF

"we" includes you, right? Just getting a confirmation, but moving on.

You are beginning to remind me of that overweight whore, who claimed she thought I was LE, before she claimed she didn't accuse me of being LE, who shortly thereafter, explained that she had already apologized for calling me LE, which was a long time ago under a different screen name on Eccie, and then denied she called me LE again, then claimed she only did it because it pissed me off. Remember?

I believe you had asked why she would accuse someone of that without any evidence.

That's all a paraphrase of the dialogue over several days of bullshit on the Houston board, but I do believe it is a reasonable description of the bullshit.

And for the "record" she IS OVERWEIGHT, and also lied on P411 about her weight, which she quickly changed before the next day when it brought it to her attention. Sound like your "ArabrianPrincess" ... BTW: Have you EVER met a girl who lost 40 pounds and left up advertising pictures from the time when she was pushing 170? She's overweight also.

I wish them both the best in their business. I'm personally not into "bait and switch" ... using misleading photos ... and lying to entice people to engage in business with others ... of course, I'm not a house builder, so that may be why you don't agree.

You don't think it's "racist" to make profit off illegal aliens who can't defend themselves from the oppression of labor forced upon them by their circumstances?

"we" includes you, right? Just getting a confirmation, but moving on.

? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yes...the article included all.

"

You are beginning to remind me of that overweight whore, who claimed she thought I was LE, before she claimed she didn't accuse me of being LE, who shortly thereafter, explained that she had already apologized for calling me LE, which was a long time ago under a different screen name on Eccie, and then denied she called me LE again, then claimed she only did it because it pissed me off. Remember?

I believe you had asked why she would accuse someone of that without any evidence.

That's all a paraphrase of the dialogue over several days of bullshit on the Houston board, but I do believe it is a reasonable description of the bullshit.

? Originally Posted by LexusLover

You continually accuse me of hanging out with and trying to impress ''bimbos''. You say I exploit illegal immigrants. Both lies, yet you are crying me a river because I said you are trying to impress your LE buddies? Look bud if you can't take it, don't dish it. You knock off some of your outlandish comments and you may just be shown the same courtesy.

"
You don't think it's "racist" to make profit off illegal aliens who can't defend themselves from the oppression of labor forced upon them by their circumstances? Originally Posted by LexusLover

First off you sound like Al fucking Sharpton.

Second , please tell me who forced any labor on anyone?

Lastly do you understand that consumers like yourself that demand quality products at a reasonable price are the one's spurring the demand. So look in the mirror if you have a problem with buying things not 100% American made.

....yet you are crying me a river because I said you are trying to impress your LE buddies? Look bud if you can't take it, don't dish it. You knock off some of your outlandish comments and you may just be shown the same courtesy. Originally Posted by WTF

Now you are sounding like an overweight whore who got her feelings hurt, because I called her out on the TRUTH .... she was advertising she weighed 130 on P411, but tipped the scales at AT LEAST 160 ... and looked like porky with her clothes off. TRUTH HURTS. So then you attack.

[SIZE="3"]You are a vicious little hypocritical miserable racist, just like the little whore. As the saying goes, which fits you to a "T" .. "Hell hath no more fury than a woman scorned."

And just so I can have PROOF: Give me the link where YOU POSTED I was "trying to impress" anyone with my posts, much less LE? Go ahead, big boy. Give it up.

Absolutely they should. But what if they don't? Originally Posted by boardman

In all my life I have never had anyone come up to my door and force their way into my home. How about you? I would expect a law-abiding person with a handgun to honor my request to not enter my home with a handgun. We are talking about law-abiding citizens, not criminals.

Again, you are incorrect. You make an assumption as t what the 2nd Amendmant means. I stated to you exactly what it says. I did not state my opinion in quotations. I did state: " The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Originally Posted by rioseco

Did you read any of the articles I cited, including the Supreme Court decisions on the subject? YOU ARE WRONG -- as determined by the rulings of SCOTUS. My statements are NOT assumptions. Your statements are how you believe things should be in your mind. Simply NOT true in the real world.