Even Spock had to manage his boiling half Vulcan blood.)

You think Spock was real? Don't think I need say any more. Up to you to undo the damage you have just done to your argument and provide a study.

---

Even Spock had to manage his boiling half Vulcan blood.)

You think Spock was real? Don't think I need say any more. Up to you to undo the damage you have just done to your argument and provide a study.

You think I think Spock was real? :)
OK, well, I'll go conduct a study at Comic Con. :)

Such as when you find your spouse in bed with another person? Jealousy is a requirement for that. Not everyone is jealous.

P.S.-rut roh! Did you just make an argument for socialistic treatment of male/female relations?!?

P.P.S.-I think Scooby Doo is even realer than Spock. ;)

But seriously, I believe that perhaps I used allegory, and I find evidence on the web that you have before as well. Namely:

Such as when you find your spouse in bed with another person? Jealousy is a requirement for that. Not everyone is jealous.

P.S.-rut roh! Did you just make an argument for socialistic treatment of male/female relations?!?

P.P.S.-I think Scooby Doo is even realer than Spock. ;)

==================================================================

as to the spock scooby-doo argument I I say more scooby-snacks a.k.a.

ganja goo balls would lead to less violance.

---

The intent of the second amendment is very clear.

The first amendment is the freedom of speech. It was placed first for a reason. It was the first one taken by the King of England.

The second amendment was also placed for good reason. It's so we have the right to keep the first amendment. There are also many quotes from our founders that tell us that we have this second amendment to keep all of the amendments in our bill of rights from them being taken from us by forces outside of our Country as well as from within our Country.

Any other history being taught about this matter that does not point right back to the founders reasoning is revisionist history AKA a lie. Intent of law can only be found in the very founding of the law. Believing in the Bible is not needed to see the intent of our own law. Many read the Bible as a work of literature. Even I as a believer can also read the Bible as such a work of literature and gleen the intent of our law. The right to self-defense is clear in the Bible as it is with our Bill of Rights.

Never, not once has a firearm jumped up from a table and killed someone on it's own power. The firearm is not dangerous of it's own. When it is handled by someone with intent it can be a power for good or evil depending on the person handeling it.

The danger is wholly within the person mind. I believe in rights be of God/Designer. Being that as it is no one can take such rights from me unless I allow it. I also believe that I have the God/Designers right to defend myself even up to the point of the death of another. If someone or indeed the government itself tells me that I must give up my arms they collectively or singly have said they intend to take rights given freely by my God/Designer. This need not be thought of as such by the nonbeliever as God given, they can and many do accept rights as law written in stone/unbreakable and will also defend the rights as understood by the founders without a God/Designer.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Such as when you find your spouse in bed with another person? Jealousy is a requirement for that. Not everyone is jealous.

P.S.-rut roh! Did you just make an argument for socialistic treatment of male/female relations?!?

P.P.S.-I think Scooby Doo is even realer than Spock. ;)

==================================================================

as to the spock scooby-doo argument I I say more scooby-snacks a.k.a.

ganja goo balls would lead to less violance.

Ganja = bad.

ID, I ask what well regulated militia do you belong to? After all you proclaim to be a gun owner and 2nd amendment proponent!

---

An example of why laws need to be examined and revised if they no longer meet present day requirements.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/air-force-generals-reversal-of-pilots-sexual-assault-conviction-angers-lawmakers/2013/03/08/f84b49c2-8816-11e2-8646-d574216d3c8c_story.html?hpid=z1

ID, I ask what well regulated militia do you belong to? After all you proclaim to be a gun owner and 2nd amendment proponent!

=================================================================
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.[13]

1) part one to first coma an ability to form a militia is necessary to keep a free state.

2) after first coma the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,

a militia being formed of armed citizens, the citizens right to keep and bear arms

shall not be infringed.

if you read the federalist papers it is clear that the founding fathers felt

that an unchecked government was the greatest fear.

---

apparently Chris you do not read the news it is even more relivant now than it ever has been.

---

apparently Chris you do not read the news it is even more relivant now than it ever has been.

Unfortunately for you I do, and I do not like what I see. With a 60% turnout at the last election, you had a 50/50 vote on the new President. Your Electoral College which clearly does not represent the people, gave you Obama. Result 1/3 of the USA are unhappy bunnies. You also have gun atrocities in schools killing innocent children.

So let me get this quite unequivocally clear, are you saying that the current gun laws are relevant because

A. The people don't like the President and want the right to remove him from office at physical gunpoint, opening fire if neccessary?

B. By keeping the existing gun laws you accept the possibility of more kids being killed in the future?

So what is it that you see as relevant?

You--You also have gun atrocities in schools killing innocent children.

Me--Your logic is convoluted. The weapon did not jump from the table and kill people. A person who happened to be mentally unstable took human life.

No to A

No to B

I'm not going to let you set the questioning nor am I going let you set the tone.

The country is to be run by a certain set of rules. If I write checks that I cannot keep at the bank more then once I go to jail. Why can the government officials do so? Never was before, in our founding.

If I lie to the public, the public I have taken an oath to in court; I go to jail. Why can the officialsin government lie in court? And not go to jail?

If I cannot take a life unless in self-defense, why can the government drop a hell-fire missile on someones head with out the benefit of the Constitution?

Your logic isn't even close to being right. Your not equipped for the argument.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Well, I was talking to Dancer before you so rudely butted in, without so much as a by your leave.

You - I'm not going to let you set the questioning nor am I going let you set the tone.

Me - That means that as per usual you haven't got a coherent answer, and will just resort to blustering as usual.

OK, you have the floor, get on with it. I have much better things to do than argue with you.

Bye

We are a Constitutional Republic. Not a Dictatorship. Your welcome for the clarification. That is the reason for being armed.

Good day to you.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Well, I was talking to Dancer before you so rudely butted in, without so much as a by your leave.

You - I'm not going to let you set the questioning nor am I going let you set the tone.

Me - That means that as per usual you haven't got a coherent answer, and will just resort to blustering as usual.

OK, you have the floor, get on with it. I have much better things to do than argue with you.

Bye

Chris......
I consider you my friend.
Tell me if I am wrong in that regard.

I hold the 2nd amendment to our stateside constitution as almost gospel.
I have had a lifetime membership in the NRA, although do not currently carry.
I shall soon.

I have been called a redneck. Oh, s==t, yeah.

I am just a redneck ass444le. Dumbass wind blowing mindless dude in the midwest.. We blow our snow too......... Beer and cheese and freaking snow.

Chris..........anything else is just Pissin' in the wind.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Chris......
I consider you my friend.
Tell me if I am wrong in that regard.

Being a friend means that I can disagree with your views :-)

It also means I must set you right when you are wrong.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Chris......
I consider you my friend.
Tell me if I am wrong in that regard.

Being a friend means that I can disagree with your views :-)

It also means I must set you right when you are wrong.

But the stats must say your views are wrong. And with your health system it is no use saying it is a mental health problem, because in any one year ~30% of all people will have a mental health problem, most of whom cannot or will not go for treatment because they cannot afford the costs now or in the future.

Ya see........

This is where I diverge.


Correct me if I am wrong.
Except when I get stupid in my cups.

I generally just post the correct questions and let you others fight out the details. That's what I do.


I don't think there is much debate left in just who killed Kennedy, and why.

I cherish my friends here, although I have much abused them.

My past haunts me. There is nothing I can do to erase that.

God shall wipe it in the next life.

You all just remain my friends in this one, and I'll do OK.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Chris......
I consider you my friend.
Tell me if I am wrong in that regard.

Being a friend means that I can disagree with your views :-)

It also means I must set you right when you are wrong.

But the stats must say your views are wrong. And with your health system it is no use saying it is a mental health problem, because in any one year ~30% of all people will have a mental health problem, most of whom cannot or will not go for treatment because they cannot afford the costs now or in the future.

I will not separate people into classes. This has already been done without regard to the condition of being--human. I will not force people to get help, nor can I force people to get help.

There is no condition in the second amendment that says only people of a sound mind can have so called--rights. The Constitution covers ALL people of voting age. The younger people are covered by their parents. When you put conditions on this or that you divide people into a class you do not unite them. It is not up to the government to divide. This is pushed down to the one, the individual.

To say, "You sir cannot have this right because..." or "You sir can have this right, but..", you are not for the right in the first place. You divide. You place a condition. You force a person into this class or that one for reasons of your own.

In fact that is why we have laws. This person broke the law and now must pay for that very fact in treasure or in his life. The fact of a mental condition only mitigates in the treasure or in his life.

The fact that I'm armed also mitigates in the treasure or in his life. I have the right to defend myself from someone who refuses to get help for them self. This is the only time I can lawfully force someone.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

The right to bear arms was intended to bring strength to the forces of the common people of the time. And the common people of these times. We, as a people, had just escaped some who would take such rights from us.

Never freaking again, shall history betray us.

You want to take my 2nd amendment rights?

Come now to my home and try it.

I can teach you what it is about.

Try it.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

So after all the misinformation from the gun lobby it would seem that the majority of people buying guns and requesting permits are already gun owners. The actual figures for households with guns is declining from 50% in the 70's to 32% now.

Share of Homes With Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline

This is an article about a survey conducted by the General Social Survey which receives it's funding from the National Science Foundation, just like BOINC and Seti@Home.