B
Bikenut
Guest
Actually I believe it would be wise for folks to carefully research anything and everything you post on the internet to verify the veracity thereof.
Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight
- Thread starter Ringo
- Start date
- Status
Blueshell
Banned
So you claim that this is a ploy by me to get sympathy:
Here I am making fun of myself and you think I'm trying to get sympathy. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I call your reading comprehension into question. EXACTLY. I roast myself and you think I'm going to get mad about it? HA! The only way to get along in life when you have something like this is to develop a sense of humor about it. I've learned to laugh at it, like how right now my laptop is exactly perfectly centered on my table as I type this, and the whole world stops if my laptop moves until I put it back.Mr. Yeager banned me from his Facebook page for calling him out over his "I'm gona kill people" video.
Granted I did it 32+ times over a year but he never responded so I regard it as valid.
I also go to these "militias" that take part in ******** like the Bundey Ranch and challenge them on their use of children, ask who is their commanding officer (they don't have one, which means they aren't a militia no matter how many times they print t-shirts with that word in their name).
I have clinically diagnosed OCD and I know how to use it
A disorder is just something that interferes with your ability to function within society. It's doesn't mean you're unstable or violent or unintelligent, it just means there's a significant disruption.
What I'm saying in the above quoted post is...I know how to use my OCD. It was a great strength in basic, for example, where your hospital corner has to be exactly 45 degrees (and yes the Drill Sergeant takes a tri-square and checks), where you're hangers have to be exactly evenly spaced, etc.
I learned that I can't work in a messy place, so I landed a job as a QC lab tech because in the lab and with most settings and specs everything has to be exactly perfectly so for the factory to produce the product correctly. I use my OCD at work and I'm very good at my job.
So yeah, James Yeager put out a video saying he was going to start killing people. That asshat put it on his YouTube channel and Facebook. It made the news. His carry permit was suspended over it. We was investigated over it. So later on after everything cools down he's back on his YouTube channel talking about Obama and gun control, and there I am Mr.OCD tossing his words right back in his face asking him why he won't do what he said. And then he blocked me.
So anyway....guns...I know this topic very well. In 15 years, no one has ever countered my argument by talking about my OCD, because I think my OCD is funny. If you want to out debate me then your going to have to use data.
Blueshell
Banned
That's as asinine as saying I advocate arson because I own a fire extinguisher.
You're such a ******* idiot guy, jesus christ :jester:
Blueshell
Banned
Well you sure didn't last long. Take care :smile:
B
Bikenut
Guest
You said:
The words I put in Bold (I added the bold for emphasis....) above are your very own words saying you would use a gun to do violence. (I sincerely hope you never have the need to use your gun since any prosecutor worth his salt would be very interested in using your stated motive for carrying a gun against you in court.)
But most folks understand that the right to keep an arm in a holster at their side as they bear that arm doesn't give them the right to do harm to another human being.
Blueshell
Banned
If you think carrying a gun for lawful self defense is advocating violence then you're anti-gun, because that's exactly what anti-gun'ers say.
Oh so there's limits?
B
Bikenut
Guest
Seems to me the words in your previous post that I put in bold for emphasis....
But then later in the discussion you post this:
.....imply that you are a member of some kind of "unit" that hunts people down.
But then later in the discussion you post this:
So which is it? Do you have a mundane job or are you a member of some elite unit that hunts people down or did you just post the part about the unit hunting people down to give the impression that you are some kind of Barny Bad Ass?
B
Bikenut
Guest
Carrying a gun for lawful self defense is not the same as carrying a gun to have the ability to do harm to a human being and your own words above are very clear as to why you carry a gun.
And calling me anti gun after your plethora of posts in favor of infringing on the right to keep arms in any way a person wishes including in tissue boxes not only shows your lack of integrity but your own posts show everyone just exactly who is anti gun in this discussion.
I'm still in this conversation for two reasons. To provide cites and links to facts so other people will be able to understand what the right to keep arms is and to let you out yourself with your own posts.
There should not be any limits on the right to keep and bear arms including how an arm is kept or borne.-snip-Oh so there's limits?
Are you really unable to comprehend the difference between having the right to keep (in a holster, in a safe, leaning in the corner, in a tissue box) and bear (carry) arms and not having the right to use keeping and bearing arms for the purpose of harming others?
I just have no interest in playing your game.
There is no way you can be stupid enough to even halfass believe this rubbish you are putting out here.
Blueshell
Banned
Yeah...truth hurts...I get it. By by
Blueshell
Banned
Hmm so some things fall outside the right, aye? It seems someone already said this...
Blueshell
Banned
Am I being accused of hiding something? Obviously I'm willing to offer personal info not otherwise in violation of the forum rules.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Sadly I think Mr. Blueshell actually does believe that limits are not infringements as long as the Supreme Court (part of the government) uses some kind of standard (that the government itself invented) to say that the limits (imposed by the government) are not infringements. If Mr. Blueshell actually does believe that then he does not understand what a right is and is arguing in favor of infringements just like any good anti gunner would do. The fact that Mr. Blueshell only wants limits that he agrees with doesn't negate the fact that he is in favor of infringing upon the right with limits.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Quite the contrary. You own posts shine a very bright light on what you believe.
B
Bikenut
Guest
It would appear you really are unable to comprehend the difference.Hmm so some things fall outside the right, aye? It seems someone already said this...
DavidWhite
Banned
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
Link Removed
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rhino
New member
Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.
--- Samuel Adams
.
I'm betting Adams was thinking of arms when he said defend in the best manner. So at least one person disagrees, and that's a pretty important person in my book.
Blueshell
Banned
Natural rights, by definition, are inalienable. Natural rights cannot be willfully surrendered nor forcibly taken away. If something cannot be taken away, there would be no law against taking it away. Such a law would serve no purpose given that the offence would be impossible to commit in the first place.
Ironically every law written to protect natural rights is a proof that natural rights don't exist.
Blueshell
Banned
If the right to life were a natural right, and thus inalienable, murder and suicide wouldn't be a thing. Murder and suicide would be literally physically impossible to accomplish. That life can be taken away proves that the right to life is a civil right, not a natural right.
If the right to liberty were a natural right, and thus inalienable, incarceration and slavery wouldn't be a thing. It would be literally physically impossible to arrest and imprison someone. That liberty can be taken away proves the right to liberty is a civil right, not a natural right.
If the right to property were a natural right, and thus inalienable, theft and damage wouldn't be a thing. It would be literally physically impossible to take anything from anyone, even with their consent. That property can be taken away proves the right to property is a civil right, not a natural right.
Samuel Adams was wrong.
- Status
