@the-gipper said:

Well put your honor

@skinny said:

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

Actually, I think, overall, our government has done a pretty damn good job following those guidelines for the past 223 years since the Constitution has been implemented.

And, you know, the unfortunate part about your right, is that if your gun is to be used to kill or injure a person there is an 80% chance those persons will be you or Mrs. Skinny or Skinny Jr.

@the-gipper said:

Only if we got to King of Diamonds up here in Inver Grove Heights, MN. $10 lap dances unless you go to the VIP room. That you can pay for yourself.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

You know, that is an excellent idea. Thaak pays. After all, I should get some of that compensation we have been talking about.

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

@the-gipper said:

You guys should just go grab a beer and get a lap dance.

@thaak said:

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.

This thread should go to political discussions so we can move on to bigger and better things, I need something new to talk about

@the-gipper said:

"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 you’d already went off on us?

@the-gipper said:

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.

@skinny said:

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.

@thaak said:

But you condescended, and that is what upset me.

I don’t 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"

@the-gipper said:

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 you’d responded this way, I wouldn’t be upset.

But you condescended, and that is what upset me.

I don’t 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.

@bonedawg said:

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)

@skinny said:

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.

@ruban2 said:

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.

Just thought I would lighten things up a little.

@thaak said:

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).

I have shot a 21...not my favorite but oh well

I have a springfield xd 45 4" with the dark earth finish I love it man it is so smooth.

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

@ruban2 said:

Stop being a Ducher. If you dont like this forum then hit the road jack.

@the-gipper said:

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.

@the-gipper said:

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 you’ve just said (accept you used the word “rites” in a couple places, and while perhaps appropriate for actions or ceremonies of particular religions, I think you meant the word “rights”.)

However, it is no longer a right of every American to refuse medical insurance.