INTENT
-
Dying to know which rights of yours I am ignoring. And how does anyone have any more compelling rights than another. We all have the same rights.
Oh and pretty sure that the supreme court is looking into the gun ban in Chi-town and are expected to make a decision in June or July. Just like the one the recently overturned in D.C. Come to think of it kinda like a good part of the country that seems to be loosening there gun laws. But your right you will tell me all about constitutional law. I Don't follow it at all
Let me try to explain about the "compelling rights": If your "right to exercise your rights could cause harm to someone else who is exercizing their rights, and in the exercize of their rights they do no harm to you, then their rights are paramount to yours. It may in fact be a delicate balancing act, and that is why there is so much litigation over these things.
Just as an example which may not in fact be on point: Your so called right to bear arms does in fact stop at my doorstop if I choose to exercize either my right of privacy to not have guns on my property.
Also, a person's right to the free exercize of religion, which religion involves the ritual exposure to rattlesnake bite does NOT allow you to expose your children to the potentially deadly activity. The state's pre-eminent right to protect the health and welfare of minor's supercedes your religious rites. You, as an adult, may be allowed to make the free choice to expose yourself, but you cannont make that same choice for your kids. Same with the sects that refuse medical care for themselves, choosing to allow "God to protect me". All fine and good for yourself as an adult, but if you refuse appropriate medical care for your children, and they die, you can be prosecuted for manslaughter. So, you see, there are definitely restrictions. If you want to go into a building where the President is, or a candidate for President, you ain't getting in there toting a gun, and you can cry about the right to bear arms all you want.
Let me try to explain about the "compelling rights": If your "right to exercise your rights could cause harm to someone else who is exercizing their rights, and in the exercize of their rights they do no harm to you, then their rights are paramount to yours. It may in fact be a delicate balancing act, and that is why there is so much litigation over these things.
Just as an example which may not in fact be on point: Your so called right to bear arms does in fact stop at my doorstop if I choose to exercize either my right of privacy to not have guns on my property.
Also, a person's right to the free exercize of religion, which religion involves the ritual exposure to rattlesnake bite does NOT allow you to expose your children to the potentially deadly activity. The state's pre-eminent right to protect the health and welfare of minor's supercedes your religious rites. You, as an adult, may be allowed to make the free choice to expose yourself, but you cannont make that same choice for your kids. Same with the sects that refuse medical care for themselves, choosing to allow "God to protect me". All fine and good for yourself as an adult, but if you refuse appropriate medical care for your children, and they die, you can be prosecuted for manslaughter. So, you see, there are definitely restrictions. If you want to go into a building where the President is, or a candidate for President, you ain't getting in there toting a gun, and you can cry about the right to bear arms all you want.
Interesting points. I agree with all of what youâve just said (accept you used the word âritesâ in a couple places, and while perhaps appropriate for actions or ceremonies of particular religions, I think you meant the word ârightsâ.)
However, it is no longer a right of every American to refuse medical insurance.
-
Well, this is how Iâve seen this conversation go.
People are speculating, wildly in some cases, on the ramifications of Shaun Rogers carelessness.
You come on with your expertise and give us what you know of the law off the top of your head.
Nobodyâthe laymen or the expertsâhave been able to determine where Federal jurisdiction begins and the specific legal definitions required to make an informed speculation about this case.
Nobody has been able to determine for me if a Michigan conceal/carry permit is valid in Ohio. The reports are saying Rogers has a Michigan conceal/carry. Iâm going to guess that it is not valid in Ohio. Of course Rogers could also have one in Ohio that the media has not reported.
Then I see you getting condescending and a-hole-ish toward some of the laymen, for whatever reason. Perhaps because it irritates you that there are so many armchair lawyers who donât really know what they are talking about.
Now I have been trying to have an interesting discussion on a topic I donât know a ton about. Iâve thrown out what I see as common sense, or potential issues that need to be defined before I want to truly speculate on anything.
Then you start condescending to everyone. Rather than answering good, valid questions, you clam up behind, âYou gotta pay me to do that research.â Crap. Thatâs why I said you were being a dick. Because you start off by condescending to me, then clam up for calling you out on it.
You want to have an interesting discussion? Iâm all for that. But if you want to be a dick about it, then blame it on me, go F yourself.
Well now, here is the interesting part of the conversation. You say go F myself. I say that is a physical impossibility. Even though I have a legendarily big dick, it is still not big enough to utilize to F myself. First off, I do not possess a xxxx. If you say do it anally, well, I say, notwithstanding my enormity, I am still human, and it is impossible. Now, if you say, OK, don't F yourself, get Fed, then my reply is..."how thoughtful that you are interested my personal sexual satisfaction. I would love to get Fed. Do you have a particular young lady in mind"?
Well now, here is the interesting part of the conversation. You say go F myself. I say that is a physical impossibility. Even though I have a legendarily big dick, it is still not big enough to utilize to F myself. First off, I do not possess a xxxx. If you say do it anally, well, I say, notwithstanding my enormity, I am still human, and it is impossible. Now, if you say, OK, don't F yourself, get Fed, then my reply is..."how thoughtful that you are interested my personal sexual satisfaction. I would love to get Fed. Do you have a particular young lady in mind"?
Gipper, weren't you a court clerk or something. After reading the above bantar from you I see why your sitting home married to a message board. I feel embarrassed for you.
-
Well now, here is the interesting part of the conversation. You say go F myself. I say that is a physical impossibility. Even though I have a legendarily big dick, it is still not big enough to utilize to F myself. First off, I do not possess a xxxx. If you say do it anally, well, I say, notwithstanding my enormity, I am still human, and it is impossible. Now, if you say, OK, don't F yourself, get Fed, then my reply is..."how thoughtful that you are interested my personal sexual satisfaction. I would love to get Fed. Do you have a particular young lady in mind"?
Gipper, weren't you a court clerk or something. After reading the above bantar from you I see why your sitting home married to a message board. I feel embarrassed for you.
Gipper, weren't you a court clerk or something. After reading the above bantar from you I see why your sitting home married to a message board. I feel embarrassed for you.
Stop being a Ducher. If you dont like this forum then hit the road jack.
-
gipper first of all we were talking about public property and if you don't want guns on your property I get that. ie.. no weapons stickers. And I can patronize other places or go to buddies houses that don't care. apples and oranges my friend. Original conversation is about an airport/ public places.
Second of all I would say that just because the govt. oversteps its bounds and allows frivolous law suits doesn't mean that this country was set up in a more libertarian stance of (If I am not infringing upon your rights our harming[actually harming not possibility of]you than I should be able to do what I please. Until we get rid of the nanny state that wants to be our mother and protect us, and get back to what the founding fathers intended, then I guess you are correct. Like I said though that isn't how it is supposed to be and doesn't mean you are right
Oh and i still can't believe that you think that I cant explain to myself why I feel the need to carry a firearm
or understand what rights I was ignoring that are more important than mine for that matter, and most of all dying to more about guys like me .
ttyl buddy
Like Granny always said- "If you can't be good...Be good at It." -
Well now, here is the interesting part of the conversation. You say go F myself. I say that is a physical impossibility. Even though I have a legendarily big dick, it is still not big enough to utilize to F myself. First off, I do not possess a xxxx. If you say do it anally, well, I say, notwithstanding my enormity, I am still human, and it is impossible. Now, if you say, OK, don't F yourself, get Fed, then my reply is..."how thoughtful that you are interested my personal sexual satisfaction. I would love to get Fed. Do you have a particular young lady in mind"?
Yes, I can see that with the enormity of your Ego, you just donât get why I might be upset at the way youâve handled this conversation.
Yes, I can see that with the enormity of your Ego, you just donât get why I might be upset at the way youâve handled this conversation.
What I see is you demanding that I provide answers to you to on questions that you have on this subject. And I see when I perhaps don't have those answers on the tip of my tongue, where the answers you want would take anyone a significant amount of time to properly research, time that I cannot afford to spend, you get snippy about it.
I have provided you and everyone else on here with loads and loads of data that may apply to this situation. If that is not satisfactory to you, well, I am sorry. You are free to build on the data I have provided, to research these questions further, and to come up with your own answers to your own questions. Law is an art, not a science. There is no hard and fast rules to it. (There is another free lesson for you).
-
GUNZ! F'CK YEAH!
Just thought I would lighten things up a little.
-
Well now, here is the interesting part of the conversation. You say go F myself. I say that is a physical impossibility. Even though I have a legendarily big dick, it is still not big enough to utilize to F myself. First off, I do not possess a xxxx. If you say do it anally, well, I say, notwithstanding my enormity, I am still human, and it is impossible. Now, if you say, OK, don't F yourself, get Fed, then my reply is..."how thoughtful that you are interested my personal sexual satisfaction. I would love to get Fed. Do you have a particular young lady in mind"?
Gipper, weren't you a court clerk or something. After reading the above bantar from you I see why your sitting home married to a message board. I feel embarrassed for you.
Gipper, weren't you a court clerk or something. After reading the above bantar from you I see why your sitting home married to a message board. I feel embarrassed for you.
I AM a court magistrate and have been for 20 years.. And here is a clue for you: this forum is not a courtroom, it is more of a barroom. And, I am a person of personality. I do not have to live up to your expectations of me. Some of my weird twists have a purpose. Sometimes that purpose is to entertain, sometimes it is to put others off, and sometimes they are for the purpose of remonstration . It is called being gregarious, mature and enlightened to the moment. I know when to be serious and when not to be. THIS is not the time or the place that I have to be serious. You know the saying "f**kem if they can't take a joke"? Use your own judgment on whether or not that should apply here.
-
gipper first of all we were talking about public property and if you don't want guns on your property I get that. ie.. no weapons stickers. And I can patronize other places or go to buddies houses that don't care. apples and oranges my friend. Original conversation is about an airport/ public places.
Second of all I would say that just because the govt. oversteps its bounds and allows frivolous law suits doesn't mean that this country was set up in a more libertarian stance of (If I am not infringing upon your rights our harming[actually harming not possibility of]you than I should be able to do what I please. Until we get rid of the nanny state that wants to be our mother and protect us, and get back to what the founding fathers intended, then I guess you are correct. Like I said though that isn't how it is supposed to be and doesn't mean you are right
Oh and i still can't believe that you think that I cant explain to myself why I feel the need to carry a firearm
or understand what rights I was ignoring that are more important than mine for that matter, and most of all dying to more about guys like me .
ttyl buddy
gipper first of all we were talking about public property and if you don't want guns on your property I get that. ie.. no weapons stickers. And I can patronize other places or go to buddies houses that don't care. apples and oranges my friend. Original conversation is about an airport/ public places.
Second of all I would say that just because the govt. oversteps its bounds and allows frivolous law suits doesn't mean that this country was set up in a more libertarian stance of (If I am not infringing upon your rights our harming[actually harming not possibility of]you than I should be able to do what I please. Until we get rid of the nanny state that wants to be our mother and protect us, and get back to what the founding fathers intended, then I guess you are correct. Like I said though that isn't how it is supposed to be and doesn't mean you are right
Oh and i still can't believe that you think that I cant explain to myself why I feel the need to carry a firearm
or understand what rights I was ignoring that are more important than mine for that matter, and most of all dying to more about guys like me .
ttyl buddy
I am not sure I follow you exactly on all your points, but let's ask this: Why in fact should we "get back" to the way society was in the 1700s?
I mean, our founders were enlightened men, but I don't think they could have foreseen a nation that went coast to coast and beyond, or a nation of 300 million people with the technological advances that we have made. While no one should advocate abandoning our founders principles, only a fool would not know that those principles have to adapt. (and overall, they were genius at putting forth principles that were adaptable)
Let's also note this: I personally am not opposed to gun ownership. I own a gun, like I said, an heirloom gun. My Dad had probably 25-30 guns in my house growing up. He was a hunter and a responsible user. My brother has many guns. For some time he was actually an Outfitter in Wyoming and guided peple on what you would call "big game" hunts for elk, deer, bear, etc.
Because of that, it is the irresponsibility of so many of these people in the use/abuse of their guns that is galling to a true sportsman.
-
GUNZ! F'CK YEAH!
Just thought I would lighten things up a little.
So? What? You think this guys guns are for elk, deer, or bear? (may just rabbit, squirrel, and ground hog)
-
Yes, I can see that with the enormity of your Ego, you just donât get why I might be upset at the way youâve handled this conversation.
What I see is you demanding that I provide answers to you to on questions that you have on this subject. And I see when I perhaps don't have those answers on the tip of my tongue, where the answers you want would take anyone a significant amount of time to properly research, time that I cannot afford to spend, you get snippy about it.
I have provided you and everyone else on here with loads and loads of data that may apply to this situation. If that is not satisfactory to you, well, I am sorry. You are free to build on the data I have provided, to research these questions further, and to come up with your own answers to your own questions. Law is an art, not a science. There is no hard and fast rules to it. (There is another free lesson for you).
What I see is you demanding that I provide answers to you to on questions that you have on this subject. And I see when I perhaps don't have those answers on the tip of my tongue, where the answers you want would take anyone a significant amount of time to properly research, time that I cannot afford to spend, you get snippy about it.
I have provided you and everyone else on here with loads and loads of data that may apply to this situation. If that is not satisfactory to you, well, I am sorry. You are free to build on the data I have provided, to research these questions further, and to come up with your own answers to your own questions. Law is an art, not a science. There is no hard and fast rules to it. (There is another free lesson for you).
If youâd responded this way, I wouldnât be upset.
But you condescended, and that is what upset me.
I donât mind doing a little research on my own.
But you got snippy with me because I asked questions, which is when I demanded you answer them. The timeline shows you clearly being a jerk prior to any demanding on my part.
-
What I see is you demanding that I provide answers to you to on questions that you have on this subject. And I see when I perhaps don't have those answers on the tip of my tongue, where the answers you want would take anyone a significant amount of time to properly research, time that I cannot afford to spend, you get snippy about it.
I have provided you and everyone else on here with loads and loads of data that may apply to this situation. If that is not satisfactory to you, well, I am sorry. You are free to build on the data I have provided, to research these questions further, and to come up with your own answers to your own questions. Law is an art, not a science. There is no hard and fast rules to it. (There is another free lesson for you).
If youâd responded this way, I wouldnât be upset.
But you condescended, and that is what upset me.
I donât mind doing a little research on my own.
But you got snippy with me because I asked questions, which is when I demanded you answer them. The timeline shows you clearly being a jerk prior to any demanding on my part.
If youâd responded this way, I wouldnât be upset.
But you condescended, and that is what upset me.
I donât mind doing a little research on my own.
But you got snippy with me because I asked questions, which is when I demanded you answer them. The timeline shows you clearly being a jerk prior to any demanding on my part.
Absolutely not true, and here is the evidence: recall that I posted the federal statute, and gave several notes of information about that statute. You then responded, and in your final sentence you said this:
"don't know what the legal definition is. But before you go off on us, you better be damn sure you understand ALL the legal implications and definitions. If I remember correctly, you are, or have been a lawyer. If so, you know that these things are important
Ergo, if things were set off, you have only yourself to blame"
-
hell, I doubt seriously that you or he or anyone can truthfully explain it to yourself
And if you really think I cant explain to myself why I feel the need to carry a gun then my friend you are a lot more ignorant than I thought
And if you really think I cant explain to myself why I feel the need to carry a gun then my friend you are a lot more ignorant than I thought
I AM ignorant of what your motivations are. That is completely true. In fact, I am ignorant of the motivations of about 299,999,999 people in this country.
So, to enlighten me, and everyone else, please feel free to give us a treatise on the emotional status of Mr. Skinny (but remember, be truthful to yourself), then we can all engage in some amateur pschychiatry when you are done.
-
Well, this is how Iâve seen this conversation go.
People are speculating, wildly in some cases, on the ramifications of Shaun Rogers carelessness.
You come on with your expertise and give us what you know of the law off the top of your head.
Nobodyâthe laymen or the expertsâhave been able to determine where Federal jurisdiction begins and the specific legal definitions required to make an informed speculation about this case.
Nobody has been able to determine for me if a Michigan conceal/carry permit is valid in Ohio. The reports are saying Rogers has a Michigan conceal/carry. Iâm going to guess that it is not valid in Ohio. Of course Rogers could also have one in Ohio that the media has not reported.
Then I see you getting condescending and a-hole-ish toward some of the laymen, for whatever reason. Perhaps because it irritates you that there are so many armchair lawyers who donât really know what they are talking about.
Now I have been trying to have an interesting discussion on a topic I donât know a ton about. Iâve thrown out what I see as common sense, or potential issues that need to be defined before I want to truly speculate on anything.
Then you start condescending to everyone. Rather than answering good, valid questions, you clam up behind, âYou gotta pay me to do that research.â Crap. Thatâs why I said you were being a dick. Because you start off by condescending to me, then clam up for calling you out on it.
You want to have an interesting discussion? Iâm all for that. But if you want to be a dick about it, then blame it on me, go F yourself.
Well now, here is the interesting part of the conversation. You say go F myself. I say that is a physical impossibility. Even though I have a legendarily big dick, it is still not big enough to utilize to F myself. First off, I do not possess a xxxx. If you say do it anally, well, I say, notwithstanding my enormity, I am still human, and it is impossible. Now, if you say, OK, don't F yourself, get Fed, then my reply is..."how thoughtful that you are interested my personal sexual satisfaction. I would love to get Fed. Do you have a particular young lady in mind"?
Well now, here is the interesting part of the conversation. You say go F myself. I say that is a physical impossibility. Even though I have a legendarily big dick, it is still not big enough to utilize to F myself. First off, I do not possess a xxxx. If you say do it anally, well, I say, notwithstanding my enormity, I am still human, and it is impossible. Now, if you say, OK, don't F yourself, get Fed, then my reply is..."how thoughtful that you are interested my personal sexual satisfaction. I would love to get Fed. Do you have a particular young lady in mind"?
OK, just out of curiosity, when did the V word (rhymes with Carolina), which is a perfectly acceptable scientific term become censorable on here while I have seen the P word (rhymes with hussy) go through unscathed? I can see the C word (rhyme with punt). That was in George Carlin's list, but the V word? How bizarre.
-
If youâd responded this way, I wouldnât be upset.
But you condescended, and that is what upset me.
I donât mind doing a little research on my own.
But you got snippy with me because I asked questions, which is when I demanded you answer them. The timeline shows you clearly being a jerk prior to any demanding on my part.
Absolutely not true, and here is the evidence: recall that I posted the federal statute, and gave several notes of information about that statute. You then responded, and in your final sentence you said this:
"don't know what the legal definition is. But before you go off on us, you better be damn sure you understand ALL the legal implications and definitions. If I remember correctly, you are, or have been a lawyer. If so, you know that these things are important
Ergo, if things were set off, you have only yourself to blame"
Absolutely not true, and here is the evidence: recall that I posted the federal statute, and gave several notes of information about that statute. You then responded, and in your final sentence you said this:
"don't know what the legal definition is. But before you go off on us, you better be damn sure you understand ALL the legal implications and definitions. If I remember correctly, you are, or have been a lawyer. If so, you know that these things are important
Ergo, if things were set off, you have only yourself to blame"
Actually, I think you proved my point with that quote. Note how I was communicating as though youâd already went off on us?
-
You guys are still arguing about this.
This thread should go to political discussions so we can move on to bigger and better things, I need something new to talk about
-
Absolutely not true, and here is the evidence: recall that I posted the federal statute, and gave several notes of information about that statute. You then responded, and in your final sentence you said this:
"don't know what the legal definition is. But before you go off on us, you better be damn sure you understand ALL the legal implications and definitions. If I remember correctly, you are, or have been a lawyer. If so, you know that these things are important
Ergo, if things were set off, you have only yourself to blame"
Actually, I think you proved my point with that quote. Note how I was communicating as though youâd already went off on us?
Actually, I think you proved my point with that quote. Note how I was communicating as though youâd already went off on us?
No, I think I prove my point with that quote. Besides, just who TF are "Us", And How TF did I go off on "us"? If I "went off" on anyone, it was Shaun Rogers, and this thread has been nothing but "going off session" on Shaun Rogers.
-
Actually, I think you proved my point with that quote. Note how I was communicating as though youâd already went off on us?
No, I think I prove my point with that quote. Besides, just who TF are "Us", And How TF did I go off on "us"? If I "went off" on anyone, it was Shaun Rogers, and this thread has been nothing but "going off session" on Shaun Rogers.
No, I think I prove my point with that quote. Besides, just who TF are "Us", And How TF did I go off on "us"? If I "went off" on anyone, it was Shaun Rogers, and this thread has been nothing but "going off session" on Shaun Rogers.
You guys should just go grab a beer and get a lap dance.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.â - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
Its ok to agree to disagree. Thats what makes this country so great is the fact we can voice our opinions as long as we are not pulled over or in front of Gipper.
-
gipper not saying that we should live like it was 1700. Saying that the principles of yesteryear should be the same as today. There were provisions in the Constitution that allowed for those changes to take place. My wish is that Govt. would follow those guidlines. It is the One and only thing that they swore to uphold. You would think they would respect it a little more.
As far as why I carry a gun
-attempted robbery
-Truck broken into in driveway
-tried breaking into my house
-Mrs. Skinny and Skinny Jr.
plus its my right
That is all. Im done with this thread
Like Granny always said- "If you can't be good...Be good at It."
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better đ
Register Login