quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Everyone that has posted on here (besides myself), may wish to go back to the original post and reread things a bit closer. The nature of this thread is not about firearms directly. Its not about suicides, depression, drugs, the 2nd amendment, or which color socks the President wears on Tuesdays. This is about an elected official whom states we are better off with anarchy rather than responsibility with our form of government.

I'll even post the line, which will be bold a second time:

Bruce also said he believes it will be what he calls a "non-event" because he said criminals don't try to get the proper licenses anyway.

The more lawless we become, the freer are the criminal minds to operate with impunity. Granted, we must also weigh laws we placed on the books with contemplation, study, and hopeful, wisdom. If one wishes to remove a law, it is up to them to show with solid evidence, that our government, our society, and yes, our individual lives will be better off. If one wishes to add a law, they must also, show solid evidence that things will improve. Either to promoting a positive behavior or mitigating a negative one.

For instance, in my state, we issue driver's licenses. States a particular individual has met the minimal requirement for this document. That if later they do any number of bad behaviors, it will be taken away. The driver's licence has become more than just a tool for imitating bad behavior. That it is use to purchase objects and services in society, as a form of identification that is legitimate, and a means to acquire employment (all positive behaviors for the most part). Imagine if the person did not have to carry their driver's license around?

Carrying the Concealable Carry permit around works the same way. It tells others "this person has performed the minimal requirements needed to obtain this note from the state they live in". Would the individual carry around a concealable weapon without the permit? Since in some altercation involving law enforcement, that person could be in cuffs or a body bag before its known they had the permit to carry the weapon. The point of carrying the permit may help avoid tragedy.

What this individual, Mr. Bruce states, should not have been stated. It was wrong to do. That is the nature of this thread.

So this thread is about what a simpleton, who doesn't know the definition of anarchy (or a lot of words he uses), thinks people should be prohibited from saying....

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

The more lawless we become, the freer are the criminal minds to operate with impunity. Granted, we must also weigh laws we placed on the books with contemplation, study, and hopeful, wisdom. If one wishes to remove a law, it is up to them to show with solid evidence, that our government, our society, and yes, our individual lives will be better off. If one wishes to add a law, they must also, show solid evidence that things will improve. Either to promoting a positive behavior or mitigating a negative one.

Kansas doesn't require a permit for open carry, so this means that they are just promoting a form of carry that is less likely to cause problems.

Based on his argument that we can only discuss what he wants to maybe I should start a thread where the only thing we can discuss it stupid statements by anti gun nuts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

The more lawless we become, the freer are the criminal minds to operate with impunity. Granted, we must also weigh laws we placed on the books with contemplation, study, and hopeful, wisdom. If one wishes to remove a law, it is up to them to show with solid evidence, that our government, our society, and yes, our individual lives will be better off. If one wishes to add a law, they must also, show solid evidence that things will improve. Either to promoting a positive behavior or mitigating a negative one.

Kansas doesn't require a permit for open carry, so this means that they are just promoting a form of carry that is less likely to cause problems.

Based on his argument that we can only discuss what he wants to maybe I should start a thread where the only thing we can discuss it stupid statements by anti gun nuts.

In a free society, one needs a good reason to make something illegal. They do NOT need a good reason to "make something legal" (Especially something that was never supposed to be infringed upon, anyway).

This is the same argument I used for legalizing weed so the dopeheads could fill their boots; even though I detest the use of intoxicants.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Everyone that has posted on here (besides myself), may wish to go back to the original post and reread things a bit closer. The nature of this thread is not about firearms directly. Its not about suicides, depression, drugs, the 2nd amendment, or which color socks the President wears on Tuesdays. This is about an elected official whom states we are better off with anarchy rather than responsibility with our form of government.

I'll even post the line, which will be bold a second time:

Bruce also said he believes it will be what he calls a "non-event" because he said criminals don't try to get the proper licenses anyway.

The more lawless we become, the freer are the criminal minds to operate with impunity. Granted, we must also weigh laws we placed on the books with contemplation, study, and hopeful, wisdom. If one wishes to remove a law, it is up to them to show with solid evidence, that our government, our society, and yes, our individual lives will be better off. If one wishes to add a law, they must also, show solid evidence that things will improve. Either to promoting a positive behavior or mitigating a negative one.

For instance, in my state, we issue driver's licenses. States a particular individual has met the minimal requirement for this document. That if later they do any number of bad behaviors, it will be taken away. The driver's licence has become more than just a tool for imitating bad behavior. That it is use to purchase objects and services in society, as a form of identification that is legitimate, and a means to acquire employment (all positive behaviors for the most part). Imagine if the person did not have to carry their driver's license around?

Carrying the Concealable Carry permit around works the same way. It tells others "this person has performed the minimal requirements needed to obtain this note from the state they live in". Would the individual carry around a concealable weapon without the permit? Since in some altercation involving law enforcement, that person could be in cuffs or a body bag before its known they had the permit to carry the weapon. The point of carrying the permit may help avoid tragedy.

What this individual, Mr. Bruce states, should not have been stated. It was wrong to do. That is the nature of this thread.

So this thread is about what a simpleton, who doesn't know the definition of anarchy (or a lot of words he uses), thinks people should be prohibited from saying....

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Based on his argument that we can only discuss what he wants to maybe I should start a thread where the only thing we can discuss it stupid statements by anti gun nuts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Based on his argument that we can only discuss what he wants to maybe I should start a thread where the only thing we can discuss it stupid statements by anti gun nuts.

I'm sure it'll be retaliated with a thread devoted to stupid pro gun statements. Its a exponentially a large amount!

...And that's just the comments from this forum. Taken from the rest of the internet? That's a few billion comments. I suppose we could have a thread on 'dumbest pro gun comment of all time'. That might be tough, since there are a few hundred million tied for first place!

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Everyone that has posted on here (besides myself), may wish to go back to the original post and reread things a bit closer. The nature of this thread is not about firearms directly. Its not about suicides, depression, drugs, the 2nd amendment, or which color socks the President wears on Tuesdays. This is about an elected official whom states we are better off with anarchy rather than responsibility with our form of government.

I'll even post the line, which will be bold a second time:

Bruce also said he believes it will be what he calls a "non-event" because he said criminals don't try to get the proper licenses anyway.

The more lawless we become, the freer are the criminal minds to operate with impunity. Granted, we must also weigh laws we placed on the books with contemplation, study, and hopeful, wisdom. If one wishes to remove a law, it is up to them to show with solid evidence, that our government, our society, and yes, our individual lives will be better off. If one wishes to add a law, they must also, show solid evidence that things will improve. Either to promoting a positive behavior or mitigating a negative one.

For instance, in my state, we issue driver's licenses. States a particular individual has met the minimal requirement for this document. That if later they do any number of bad behaviors, it will be taken away. The driver's licence has become more than just a tool for imitating bad behavior. That it is use to purchase objects and services in society, as a form of identification that is legitimate, and a means to acquire employment (all positive behaviors for the most part). Imagine if the person did not have to carry their driver's license around?

Carrying the Concealable Carry permit around works the same way. It tells others "this person has performed the minimal requirements needed to obtain this note from the state they live in". Would the individual carry around a concealable weapon without the permit? Since in some altercation involving law enforcement, that person could be in cuffs or a body bag before its known they had the permit to carry the weapon. The point of carrying the permit may help avoid tragedy.

What this individual, Mr. Bruce states, should not have been stated. It was wrong to do. That is the nature of this thread.

So this thread is about what a simpleton, who doesn't know the definition of anarchy (or a lot of words he uses), thinks people should be prohibited from saying....

1 ) Never stated I didnt know the definition of the word 'Anarchy'.
2 ) I never said Mr. Bruce can not state what He stated. HOWEVER, someone in his position advocating anarchy would be...STRICTLY...against the concept of the US Constitution. Ever heard of that document?
3 ) A 'simplton' is one that answers to a discussion with just a sentence....like yours....

Perhaps you should get your facts straight, before replying to a thread....

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Everyone that has posted on here (besides myself), may wish to go back to the original post and reread things a bit closer. The nature of this thread is not about firearms directly. Its not about suicides, depression, drugs, the 2nd amendment, or which color socks the President wears on Tuesdays. This is about an elected official whom states we are better off with anarchy rather than responsibility with our form of government.

I'll even post the line, which will be bold a second time:

Bruce also said he believes it will be what he calls a "non-event" because he said criminals don't try to get the proper licenses anyway.

The more lawless we become, the freer are the criminal minds to operate with impunity. Granted, we must also weigh laws we placed on the books with contemplation, study, and hopeful, wisdom. If one wishes to remove a law, it is up to them to show with solid evidence, that our government, our society, and yes, our individual lives will be better off. If one wishes to add a law, they must also, show solid evidence that things will improve. Either to promoting a positive behavior or mitigating a negative one.

For instance, in my state, we issue driver's licenses. States a particular individual has met the minimal requirement for this document. That if later they do any number of bad behaviors, it will be taken away. The driver's licence has become more than just a tool for imitating bad behavior. That it is use to purchase objects and services in society, as a form of identification that is legitimate, and a means to acquire employment (all positive behaviors for the most part). Imagine if the person did not have to carry their driver's license around?

Carrying the Concealable Carry permit around works the same way. It tells others "this person has performed the minimal requirements needed to obtain this note from the state they live in". Would the individual carry around a concealable weapon without the permit? Since in some altercation involving law enforcement, that person could be in cuffs or a body bag before its known they had the permit to carry the weapon. The point of carrying the permit may help avoid tragedy.

What this individual, Mr. Bruce states, should not have been stated. It was wrong to do. That is the nature of this thread.

So this thread is about what a simpleton, who doesn't know the definition of anarchy (or a lot of words he uses), thinks people should be prohibited from saying....

1 ) Never stated I didnt know the definition of the word 'Anarchy'.
2 ) I never said Mr. Bruce can not state what He stated. HOWEVER, someone in his position advocating anarchy would be...STRICTLY...against the concept of the US Constitution. Ever heard of that document?
3 ) A 'simplton' is one that answers to a discussion with just a sentence....like yours....

Perhaps you should get your facts straight, before replying to a thread....

Hey Bama, have you seen me or anyone else say that joether has said, "he doesn't know what anarchy means"? He has demonstrated that he doesn't, multiple times. You would think he would bother to check with a dictionary for these words he uses, then he wouldn't seem quite as stupid.

And he seems to think that one, "answers to a discussion ". Do you think English is his 3rd language or that he is just dumb?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Based on his argument that we can only discuss what he wants to maybe I should start a thread where the only thing we can discuss it stupid statements by anti gun nuts.

I'm sure it'll be retaliated with a thread devoted to stupid pro gun statements. Its a exponentially a large amount!

...And that's just the comments from this forum. Taken from the rest of the internet? That's a few billion comments. I suppose we could have a thread on 'dumbest pro gun comment of all time'. That might be tough, since there are a few hundred million tied for first place!

As usual you missed the point entirely. The fact that you started the thread does not mean you can dictate what people are or are not allowed to talk about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
I still want to know where Kanasas is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


~ FR ~

I still want to know where Kanasas is.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Based on his argument that we can only discuss what he wants to maybe I should start a thread where the only thing we can discuss it stupid statements by anti gun nuts.

I'm sure it'll be retaliated with a thread devoted to stupid pro gun statements. Its a exponentially a large amount!

...And that's just the comments from this forum. Taken from the rest of the internet? That's a few billion comments. I suppose we could have a thread on 'dumbest pro gun comment of all time'. That might be tough, since there are a few hundred million tied for first place!

As usual you missed the point entirely. The fact that you started the thread does not mean you can dictate what people are or are not allowed to talk about.

Ever notice how....EVERY....thread on here starts off on topic, and after a dozen posts is not? That we could be talking about the banana supply and then a dozen posts later the topic is on muffler exhausts. That I am focusing the thread down a direct line of thinking to keep things 'on topic'. I never stated you cant ramble off topic. I'm stating to keep it on topic. The topic here isnt about anything most people can handle, but something specific. A viewpoint held by a person in elected office that unwise in every very point. Its not that he supports firearms or not. Its that he feels that since criminals arent going to follow the laws of the land, why should anyone else?

Since when should we allow criminals, tyrants, and terrorists to dictate how we live and operate in this nation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
I still want to know where Kanasas is.

In a place you have not visited....

So rather than deal with the topic, its 'attack the poster' over petty shit. Seriously you have no redeeming value as a poster on these forums. Go crawl back under the rock to where hence you originated from!

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g
Hey Bama, have you seen me or anyone else say that joether has said, "he doesn't know what anarchy means"? He has demonstrated that he doesn't, multiple times. You would think he would bother to check with a dictionary for these words he uses, then he wouldn't seem quite as stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g
And he seems to think that one, "answers to a discussion ". Do you think English is his 3rd language or that he is just dumb?