Re: What your neighbors may not know, but maybe should:

Dr. Evil Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:06 pm

Jammer wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:You people have no clue what the word 'liberty' means, do you??

I go with a Lockean definition:

"All men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man."

Too bad the Libs don't subscribe to this vein of thought

Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same.

Well first off, that is not completely accurate. Second that is not consistent with the majority of your comments on this forum. And third, it comes nowhere near close to the actions that you see coming from liberals either on TV or on your street. Their behavior and beliefs are quite different from that definition. WHY IS THAT?

Did that stump you or is it that you perverted liberal ideology is indefensible?

Ummm, No. I'm actually working. Don't you have family you could be trolling right now?

Jammer Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:48 pm

Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:You people have no clue what the word 'liberty' means, do you??

I go with a Lockean definition:

"All men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man."

Too bad the Libs don't subscribe to this vein of thought

Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same.

Well first off, that is not completely accurate. Second that is not consistent with the majority of your comments on this forum. And third, it comes nowhere near close to the actions that you see coming from liberals either on TV or on your street. Their behavior and beliefs are quite different from that definition. WHY IS THAT?

Did that stump you or is it that you perverted liberal ideology is indefensible?

Ummm, No. I'm actually working. Don't you have family you could be trolling right now?

I guess you could be checking your EBT card balance, but most of us are suspicious that you are busy searching your George Soros funded website to find out how the answer that question. This should be interesting.

Dr. Evil Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:24 pm

Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:You people have no clue what the word 'liberty' means, do you??

I go with a Lockean definition:

"All men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man."

Too bad the Libs don't subscribe to this vein of thought

Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same.

Well first off, that is not completely accurate. How so? Second that is not consistent with the majority of your comments on this forum. Examples? And third, it comes nowhere near close to the actions that you see coming from liberals either on TV or on your street. Their behavior and beliefs are quite different from that definition. WHY IS THAT? I register as an Independent because I don't associate with bleeding heart liberals. No seriously, I've been on a few forums and they make me want to vomit almost as bad as you. But humor me with some examples if you must.

Jammer Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:15 pm

Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:You people have no clue what the word 'liberty' means, do you??

I go with a Lockean definition:

"All men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man."

Too bad the Libs don't subscribe to this vein of thought

Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same.

Well first off, that is not completely accurate. How so? Second that is not consistent with the majority of your comments on this forum. Examples? And third, it comes nowhere near close to the actions that you see coming from liberals either on TV or on your street. Their behavior and beliefs are quite different from that definition. WHY IS THAT? I register as an Independent because I don't associate with bleeding heart liberals. No seriously, I've been on a few forums and they make me want to vomit almost as bad as you. But humor me with some examples if you must.

Well it is obvious from that reply that you are clueless and your George Soros funded website has no answers for you. I will eventually get around to your question of “How so” later. Otherwise knowing how you operate, you will use that question as a deflection to get away from the tough spot that you are in.

So let’s begin with the examples. Rather than give you the very long laundry list of examples that I have, I will do it one at a time. Also, I hope some other conservatives jump in and give you their examples. They will probably come up with much better examples than I will. You are going to find out that YOUR past comments on this forum and the behavior of liberals is totally inconsistent with your statement.

Let’s start with where YOU wrote: Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same.

EXAMPLE #1: If that is an accurate statement, how can you or any liberals be opposed to my ability to own, possess or use any type of gun?

Dr. Evil Sun Apr 16, 2017 6:14 pm

Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:You people have no clue what the word 'liberty' means, do you??

I go with a Lockean definition:

"All men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man."

Too bad the Libs don't subscribe to this vein of thought

Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same.

Well first off, that is not completely accurate. How so? Second that is not consistent with the majority of your comments on this forum. Examples? And third, it comes nowhere near close to the actions that you see coming from liberals either on TV or on your street. Their behavior and beliefs are quite different from that definition. WHY IS THAT? I register as an Independent because I don't associate with bleeding heart liberals. No seriously, I've been on a few forums and they make me want to vomit almost as bad as you. But humor me with some examples if you must.

Well it is obvious from that reply that you are clueless and your George Soros funded website has no answers for you. I will eventually get around to your question of “How so” later. Otherwise knowing how you operate, you will use that question as a deflection to get away from the tough spot that you are in.

So let’s begin with the examples. Rather than give you the very long laundry list of examples that I have, I will do it one at a time. Also, I hope some other conservatives jump in and give you their examples. They will probably come up with much better examples than I will. You are going to find out that YOUR past comments on this forum and the behavior of liberals is totally inconsistent with your statement.

Let’s start with where YOU wrote: Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same.

EXAMPLE #1: If that is an accurate statement, how can you or any liberals be opposed to my ability to own, possess or use any type of gun?

As I've said numerous times, I have no issue with gun ownership. That includes whatever gun you want to own. I believe that you have the right to use that/those guns to protect your home in whatever way you see fit. I believe that you have the right to take your guns another person's private property, with their consent, and shoot them in a manner that is safe for the people on the property around you. I believe that you have the right to take your guns to an accredited facility and use them in a manner that is safe to those around you that are not in that facility. I believe that anybody who wants to carry a gun in public has the right to prove to their fellow citizens that they are capable of conducting themselves properly should, and this is a longshot, the situation arise that they would need to use it.

As per the Constitution these are all subject to regulation. The first three specifically should be dependent on the individuals history, and the fourth should also require ongoing certification.

A few things:

Any more mentions of Soros and this conversation is over.

I will let you by with not answering the "How so" for now, but only because you make me laugh.

Finally, and probably most importantly, I'm curious what you think is so natural about a gun? Nature seems to be the Right's litmus test for whether something is a natural right. Do guns grow in trees? At least many gay people are born that way, even though it may not be what you consider 'natural', but where do guns come from?

Jammer Sun Apr 16, 2017 6:47 pm

As usual, your comment almost completely contradicts things that you have said before. I will touch on a few things.

1 The first thing is that your comment demonstrates that you have ZERO IDEA on what Natural Law is.

2. You stated: "Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same." ------

But then you throw in the SUBJECT TO REGULATION comment, which is so typical of REPRESSIVE LIBERALS. People always have the right to do what they want UNLESS THE REPRESSIVE LIBERALS TELL THEM DIFFERENTLY, which they always seem to do. That is the hallmark of you liberals, you say one thing but mean something entirely different.

3. Your comments about guns is entirely different than what every liberal is demanding and legislating at every level of government. I am not going to take the time, but I know I can go back through your comments and find where you said something entirely different.

4. Your comment about the Constitution also demonstrates that YOU and all liberals have ZERO REGARD for our Constitution and the rights they protect. It is merely something that you have to go around so that you can REPRESS people.

Bottom-line, unless you can come up with a much better answer, you FAIL this first example, as I am pretty sure that you will fail any other examples. However, I am also pretty confident that you will weasel out of addressing them because you have no valid answers.

Dr. Evil Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:46 pm

Jammer wrote:As usual, your comment almost completely contradicts things that you have said before. I will touch on a few things.

1 The first thing is that your comment demonstrates that you have ZERO IDEA on what Natural Law is.

You mean being born a particular way isn't natural enough? Or that you don't think that a person has the right to spend their time or enter into a legal contract with a person of the same sex for whatever reason?

2. You stated: "Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same." ------
[color=#ff6600]
But then you throw in the SUBJECT TO REGULATION comment, which is so typical of REPRESSIVE LIBERALS. People always have the right to do what they want UNLESS THE REPRESSIVE LIBERALS TELL THEM DIFFERENTLY, which they always seem to do. That is the hallmark of you liberals, you say one thing but mean something entirely different.

I also said this which you conveniently left out. Like it or not it's a safety thing. Not to mention a due process thing.

3. Your comments about guns is entirely different than what every liberal is demanding and legislating at every level of government. I am not going to take the time, but I know I can go back through your comments and find where you said something entirely different.

I've been rock solid on this since way back in the GPV days when I schooled those guys on concealed carry on their gun thread. A few here may remember. That was the day we figured out "shall not infringe" doesn't mean what many think it means. I also clearly remember someone saying then that it didn't seem that my issue was with gun ownership, but instead where they carry their guns. I differ from most liberals in that I don't believe certain guns or accessories should be banned. I just think there needs to be more accountability.

4. Your comment about the Constitution also demonstrates that YOU and all liberals have ZERO REGARD for our Constitution and the rights they protect. It is merely something that you have to go around so that you can REPRESS people.

It's not a liberal thing, it's a Constitution thing. What's about "well regulated militia" is so hard to understand?

Bottom-line, unless you can come up with a much better answer, you FAIL this first example, as I am pretty sure that you will fail any other examples. However, I am also pretty confident that you will weasel out of addressing them because you have no valid answers.

How have I failed? It's not my fault you don't like my answer.

Jammer Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:11 pm

Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:As usual, your comment almost completely contradicts things that you have said before. I will touch on a few things.

1 The first thing is that your comment demonstrates that you have ZERO IDEA on what Natural Law is.

You mean being born a particular way isn't natural enough? Or that you don't think that a person has the right to spend their time or enter into a legal contract with a person of the same sex for whatever reason?

2. You stated: "Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same." ------

But then you throw in the SUBJECT TO REGULATION comment, which is so typical of REPRESSIVE LIBERALS. People always have the right to do what they want UNLESS THE REPRESSIVE LIBERALS TELL THEM DIFFERENTLY, which they always seem to do. That is the hallmark of you liberals, you say one thing but mean something entirely different.

I also said this which you conveniently left out. Like it or not it's a safety thing. Not to mention a due process thing.

3. Your comments about guns is entirely different than what every liberal is demanding and legislating at every level of government. I am not going to take the time, but I know I can go back through your comments and find where you said something entirely different.

I've been rock solid on this since way back in the GPV days when I schooled those guys on concealed carry on their gun thread. A few here may remember. That was the day we figured out "shall not infringe" doesn't mean what many think it means. I also clearly remember someone saying then that it didn't seem that my issue was with gun ownership, but instead where they carry their guns. I differ from most liberals in that I don't believe certain guns or accessories should be banned. I just think there needs to be more accountability.

4. Your comment about the Constitution also demonstrates that YOU and all liberals have ZERO REGARD for our Constitution and the rights they protect. It is merely something that you have to go around so that you can REPRESS people.

It's not a liberal thing, it's a Constitution thing. What's about "well regulated militia" is so hard to understand?

Bottom-line, unless you can come up with a much better answer, you FAIL this first example, as I am pretty sure that you will fail any other examples. However, I am also pretty confident that you will weasel out of addressing them because you have no valid answers.

How have I failed? It's not my fault you don't like my answer.

You did not gain any ground with this. I will mention only a few of things.

1. Your statement was very clear: WITHOUT DEBATE Can you explain what you meant by that? It is pretty clear to me what WITHOUT DEBATE means. This discussion is about how liberals feel and behave as well as your previous comments on this forum. And it is not about whether I like what you said or not. You said WITHOUT DEBATE and there are literally BILLIONS of contradictions to that part of your statement as well other aspects of your statement. But I eagerly await your explanation on the WITHOUT DEBATE part.

2. You remain absolutely clueless on what Natural Law is.

3. As for a well REGULATED militia, this is another way you liberals try to circumvent the Constitution. Just like in a contract, you need to go to the meaning of words in 1787 (when the contract was written), not what they mean today or what you would like them to mean. REGULATED meant TRAINED.

Dr. Evil Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:15 pm

It means without a bunch of mindless bickering over things like what profession you choose, where you choose to vacation, whether you choose to fly a flag in your yard, or who you choose to marry. You know, personal stuff that doesn't effect anyone.

Jammer Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:48 pm

Dr. Evil wrote:It means without a bunch of mindless bickering over things like what profession you choose, where you choose to vacation, whether you choose to fly a flag in your yard, or who you choose to marry. You know, personal stuff that doesn't effect anyone.

REALLY???

Since you are always such a fan of dictionary meanings – here you go:

WITHOUT
1.
with the absence, omission, or avoidance of; not with; with no or none of; lacking:
without help; without shoes; without her helping me; without him to help.
2.
free from; excluding:

DEBATE
1.
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

It is pretty obvious that WITHOUT DEBATE means there can be NO DISCUSSION OF ANY LIMIITATIONS So all of the limitations you liberals want to put on rights is against your ideology. In other words your rights are your rights PERIOD (WITHOUT DEBATE).

Jammer Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:59 pm

Here is a pretty interesting video on the subject of liberty.

I think most conservatives will probably pretty much agree with all of what's in it. However, REPRESSIVE LIBERALS will want to argue with almost every point as it points out all of the REPRESSION OF LIBERTY THAT LIBERALS ARE BEHIND. Which is 100% contradictory to what you said in your statement of:

Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same.

So do you want to admit that your statement is in complete conflict with what liberals believe or do you want to agree with what Glenn Beck said in his video?

Dr. Evil Sun Apr 16, 2017 10:42 pm

Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:It means without a bunch of mindless bickering over things like what profession you choose, where you choose to vacation, whether you choose to fly a flag in your yard, or who you choose to marry. You know, personal stuff that doesn't effect anyone.

REALLY???

Since you are always such a fan of dictionary meanings – here you go:

WITHOUT
1.
with the absence, omission, or avoidance of; not with; with no or none of; lacking:
without help; without shoes; without her helping me; without him to help.
2.
free from; excluding:

DEBATE
1.
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

It is pretty obvious that WITHOUT DEBATE means there can be NO DISCUSSION OF ANY LIMIITATIONS So all of the limitations you liberals want to put on rights is against your ideology. In other words your rights are your rights PERIOD (WITHOUT DEBATE).

This has sure been fun. Now it's your turn to explain what you think liberty is.

Jammer Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:04 pm

Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:It means without a bunch of mindless bickering over things like what profession you choose, where you choose to vacation, whether you choose to fly a flag in your yard, or who you choose to marry. You know, personal stuff that doesn't effect anyone.

REALLY???

Since you are always such a fan of dictionary meanings – here you go:

WITHOUT
1.
with the absence, omission, or avoidance of; not with; with no or none of; lacking:
without help; without shoes; without her helping me; without him to help.
2.
free from; excluding:

DEBATE
1.
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

It is pretty obvious that WITHOUT DEBATE means there can be NO DISCUSSION OF ANY LIMIITATIONS So all of the limitations you liberals want to put on rights is against your ideology. In other words your rights are your rights PERIOD (WITHOUT DEBATE).

This has sure been fun. Now it's your turn to explain what you think liberty is.

Not so fast bucko, not until we finish this point. Which means you either have to admit that YOU as well as liberals in general are in opposition to your statement on what liberty is. In other words, your statement was complete bullshit. Or you still have a lot of explaining to do. I am sure once Darth, Clicker and Nightlight check in they MAY have some examples they would like you to address. However, even if they don't, I have a bunch more. I am also waiting for your response to the Glenn beck video.

Jammer Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:15 pm

And here is one more thing for you to address. How about this statement that you made?

https://justsayingit.forumotion.com/t1882-gotta-protect-yourself-right#20747

Some might call this an epidemic. Others may just call it a small price to pay for their Second Amendment rights. I would say that it proves that carrying a gun for safety is a sham.

It appears that is in complete conflict with what you said below. If not, we are all waiting for your explanation of this apparent bullshit statement.

As I've said numerous times, I have no issue with gun ownership. That includes whatever gun you want to own. I believe that you have the right to use that/those guns to protect your home in whatever way you see fit. I believe that you have the right to take your guns another person's private property, with their consent, and shoot them in a manner that is safe for the people on the property around you. I believe that you have the right to take your guns to an accredited facility and use them in a manner that is safe to those around you that are not in that facility. I believe that anybody who wants to carry a gun in public has the right to prove to their fellow citizens that they are capable of conducting themselves properly should, and this is a longshot, the situation arise that they would need to use it.

Dr. Evil Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:18 pm

Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:It means without a bunch of mindless bickering over things like what profession you choose, where you choose to vacation, whether you choose to fly a flag in your yard, or who you choose to marry. You know, personal stuff that doesn't effect anyone.

REALLY???

Since you are always such a fan of dictionary meanings – here you go:

WITHOUT
1.
with the absence, omission, or avoidance of; not with; with no or none of; lacking:
without help; without shoes; without her helping me; without him to help.
2.
free from; excluding:

DEBATE
1.
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

It is pretty obvious that WITHOUT DEBATE means there can be NO DISCUSSION OF ANY LIMIITATIONS So all of the limitations you liberals want to put on rights is against your ideology. In other words your rights are your rights PERIOD (WITHOUT DEBATE).

This has sure been fun. Now it's your turn to explain what you think liberty is.

Not so fast bucko, not until we finish this point. Which means you either have to admit that YOU as well as liberals in general are in opposition to your statement on what liberty is. In other words, your statement was complete bullshit. Or you still have a lot of explaining to do. I am sure once Darth, Clicker and Nightlight check in they MAY have some examples they would like you to address. However, even if they don't, I have a bunch more. I am also waiting for your response to the Glenn beck video.

In opposition to what?? I've explained and stood behind everything I've said and you are yet to show me one single example of an instance where I've contradicted myself. The ball is in your court. Put up or shut up.

Dr. Evil Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:21 pm

Jammer wrote:And here is one more thing for you to address. How about this statement that you made?

https://justsayingit.forumotion.com/t1882-gotta-protect-yourself-right#20747

Some might call this an epidemic. Others may just call it a small price to pay for their Second Amendment rights. I would say that it proves that carrying a gun for safety is a sham.

It appears that is in complete conflict with what you said below. If not, we are all waiting for your explanation of this apparent bullshit statement.

As I've said numerous times, I have no issue with gun ownership. That includes whatever gun you want to own. I believe that you have the right to use that/those guns to protect your home in whatever way you see fit. I believe that you have the right to take your guns another person's private property, with their consent, and shoot them in a manner that is safe for the people on the property around you. I believe that you have the right to take your guns to an accredited facility and use them in a manner that is safe to those around you that are not in that facility. I believe that anybody who wants to carry a gun in public has the right to prove to their fellow citizens that they are capable of conducting themselves properly should, and this is a longshot, the situation arise that they would need to use it.

Not a contradiction in any way shape or form. Try again.

Jammer Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:23 pm

Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:It means without a bunch of mindless bickering over things like what profession you choose, where you choose to vacation, whether you choose to fly a flag in your yard, or who you choose to marry. You know, personal stuff that doesn't effect anyone.

REALLY???

Since you are always such a fan of dictionary meanings – here you go:

WITHOUT
1.
with the absence, omission, or avoidance of; not with; with no or none of; lacking:
without help; without shoes; without her helping me; without him to help.
2.
free from; excluding:

DEBATE
1.
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

It is pretty obvious that WITHOUT DEBATE means there can be NO DISCUSSION OF ANY LIMIITATIONS So all of the limitations you liberals want to put on rights is against your ideology. In other words your rights are your rights PERIOD (WITHOUT DEBATE).

This has sure been fun. Now it's your turn to explain what you think liberty is.

Not so fast bucko, not until we finish this point. Which means you either have to admit that YOU as well as liberals in general are in opposition to your statement on what liberty is. In other words, your statement was complete bullshit. Or you still have a lot of explaining to do. I am sure once Darth, Clicker and Nightlight check in they MAY have some examples they would like you to address. However, even if they don't, I have a bunch more. I am also waiting for your response to the Glenn beck video.

In opposition to what?? I've explained and stood behind everything I've said and you are yet to show me one single example of an instance where I've contradicted myself. The ball is in your court. Put up or shut up.

Not really, only in your mind. And you have not even addressed the Glenn Beck video. Do you agree with his points? Do liberals believe in those things?

Dr. Evil Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:27 pm

Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:It means without a bunch of mindless bickering over things like what profession you choose, where you choose to vacation, whether you choose to fly a flag in your yard, or who you choose to marry. You know, personal stuff that doesn't effect anyone.

REALLY???

Since you are always such a fan of dictionary meanings – here you go:

WITHOUT
1.
with the absence, omission, or avoidance of; not with; with no or none of; lacking:
without help; without shoes; without her helping me; without him to help.
2.
free from; excluding:

DEBATE
1.
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

It is pretty obvious that WITHOUT DEBATE means there can be NO DISCUSSION OF ANY LIMIITATIONS So all of the limitations you liberals want to put on rights is against your ideology. In other words your rights are your rights PERIOD (WITHOUT DEBATE).

This has sure been fun. Now it's your turn to explain what you think liberty is.

Not so fast bucko, not until we finish this point. Which means you either have to admit that YOU as well as liberals in general are in opposition to your statement on what liberty is. In other words, your statement was complete bullshit. Or you still have a lot of explaining to do. I am sure once Darth, Clicker and Nightlight check in they MAY have some examples they would like you to address. However, even if they don't, I have a bunch more. I am also waiting for your response to the Glenn beck video.

In opposition to what?? I've explained and stood behind everything I've said and you are yet to show me one single example of an instance where I've contradicted myself. The ball is in your court. Put up or shut up.

Not really, only in your mind. And you have not even addressed the Glenn Beck video. Do you agree with his points? Do liberals believe in those things?

Good gawd you're an impatient little fukcer. I'm in bed now. Won't happen till tomorrow.

Dr. Evil Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:29 pm

Jammer wrote:And here is one more thing for you to address. How about this statement that you made?

https://justsayingit.forumotion.com/t1882-gotta-protect-yourself-right#20747

Some might call this an epidemic. Others may just call it a small price to pay for their Second Amendment rights. I would say that it proves that carrying a gun for safety is a sham.

It appears that is in complete conflict with what you said below. If not, we are all waiting for your explanation of this apparent bullshit statement.

As I've said numerous times, I have no issue with gun ownership. That includes whatever gun you want to own. I believe that you have the right to use that/those guns to protect your home in whatever way you see fit. I believe that you have the right to take your guns another person's private property, with their consent, and shoot them in a manner that is safe for the people on the property around you. I believe that you have the right to take your guns to an accredited facility and use them in a manner that is safe to those around you that are not in that facility. I believe that anybody who wants to carry a gun in public has the right to prove to their fellow citizens that they are capable of conducting themselves properly should, and this is a longshot, the situation arise that they would need to use it.

Let's get back to what would possibly make a supposedly same person think I was contradicting myself in these two statements. Please be specific.

Darth Cheney Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:11 am

How about if you don't want to bake a cake for a couple of faggots because it is against your beliefs?

How about if you don't want mentally unstable misfits who are "transgendering" or "self identifying as" to go into the same bathroom as your young daughter?

How about if you don't feel your hard earned dollars should go to fund an abortion factory?

How about you don't want you tax dollars going to some liberal slug that is too lazy to work and claims they are disabled?

Do those deal with my liberty?

Jammer Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:05 am

Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:And here is one more thing for you to address. How about this statement that you made?

https://justsayingit.forumotion.com/t1882-gotta-protect-yourself-right#20747

Some might call this an epidemic. Others may just call it a small price to pay for their Second Amendment rights. I would say that it proves that carrying a gun for safety is a sham.

It appears that is in complete conflict with what you said below. If not, we are all waiting for your explanation of this apparent bullshit statement.

As I've said numerous times, I have no issue with gun ownership. That includes whatever gun you want to own. I believe that you have the right to use that/those guns to protect your home in whatever way you see fit. I believe that you have the right to take your guns another person's private property, with their consent, and shoot them in a manner that is safe for the people on the property around you. I believe that you have the right to take your guns to an accredited facility and use them in a manner that is safe to those around you that are not in that facility. I believe that anybody who wants to carry a gun in public has the right to prove to their fellow citizens that they are capable of conducting themselves properly should, and this is a longshot, the situation arise that they would need to use it.

Let's get back to what would possibly make a supposedly same person think I was contradicting myself in these two statements. Please be specific.

Well once again let’s begin with YOUR favorite choice of definitions, the online dictionary.

SHAM

1 Something false or empty that is purported to be genuine:
2. a thing that is not what it is purported to be.
"the proposed legislation is a farce and a sham"

Synonyms for SHAM:

bogus
fictitious
fraudulent
phony
fake
misleading
pseudo

So, when YOU said:

Some might call this an epidemic. Others may just call it a small price to pay for their Second Amendment rights. I would say that it proves that carrying a gun for safety is a sham.

Essentially what you meant was that you thought the Second Amendment could not be justified by people wanting to carry a gun to protect themselves. And that is contradictory to what YOU then said:

As I've said numerous times, I have no issue with gun ownership. That includes whatever gun you want to own. I believe that you have the right to use that/those guns to protect your home in whatever way you see fit. I believe that you have the right to take your guns another person's private property, with their consent, and shoot them in a manner that is safe for the people on the property around you. I believe that you have the right to take your guns to an accredited facility and use them in a manner that is safe to those around you that are not in that facility. I believe that anybody who wants to carry a gun in public has the right to prove to their fellow citizens that they are capable of conducting themselves properly should, and this is a longshot, the situation arise that they would need to use it.

Jammer Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:17 am

Darth Cheney wrote:How about if you don't want to bake a cake for a couple of faggots because it is against your beliefs?

How about if you don't want mentally unstable misfits who are "transgendering" or "self identifying as" to go into the same bathroom as your young daughter?

How about if you don't feel your hard earned dollars should go to fund an abortion factory?

How about you don't want you tax dollars going to some liberal slug that is too lazy to work and claims they are disabled?

Do those deal with my liberty?

Darth, those are all very good and some were on my list to get to. Now let's see if the REPRESSIVE LIBERAL will address those along with the items that Glenn Beck brought up in his video. My guess is that he will try to deflect and ignore most if not all of them as he sees that he is against a wall. He has been caught in a lie and there is no way out for him. We will know that is the case unless he can successfully argue his way out of ALL the points you and Beck bring up. And I may have another one or two to add later. However, I doubt if that will be necessary as he is not even going to address those issues already presented.

This guy's beliefs, behavior and ideology is 180 degrees opposite of his earlier statement of:

Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same.

Dr. Evil Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:21 am

Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:And here is one more thing for you to address. How about this statement that you made?

https://justsayingit.forumotion.com/t1882-gotta-protect-yourself-right#20747

Some might call this an epidemic. Others may just call it a small price to pay for their Second Amendment rights. I would say that it proves that carrying a gun for safety is a sham.

It appears that is in complete conflict with what you said below. If not, we are all waiting for your explanation of this apparent bullshit statement.

As I've said numerous times, I have no issue with gun ownership. That includes whatever gun you want to own. I believe that you have the right to use that/those guns to protect your home in whatever way you see fit. I believe that you have the right to take your guns another person's private property, with their consent, and shoot them in a manner that is safe for the people on the property around you. I believe that you have the right to take your guns to an accredited facility and use them in a manner that is safe to those around you that are not in that facility. I believe that anybody who wants to carry a gun in public has the right to prove to their fellow citizens that they are capable of conducting themselves properly should, and this is a longshot, the situation arise that they would need to use it.

Let's get back to what would possibly make a supposedly same person think I was contradicting myself in these two statements. Please be specific.

Well once again let’s begin with YOUR favorite choice of definitions, the online dictionary.

SHAM

1 Something false or empty that is purported to be genuine:
2. a thing that is not what it is purported to be.
"the proposed legislation is a farce and a sham"

Synonyms for SHAM:

bogus
fictitious
fraudulent
phony
fake
misleading
pseudo

So, when YOU said:

Some might call this an epidemic. Others may just call it a small price to pay for their Second Amendment rights. I would say that it proves that carrying a gun for safety is a sham.

Essentially what you meant was that you thought the Second Amendment could not be justified by people wanting to carry a gun to protect themselves. And that is contradictory to what YOU then said:

As I've said numerous times, I have no issue with gun ownership. That includes whatever gun you want to own. I believe that you have the right to use that/those guns to protect your home in whatever way you see fit. I believe that you have the right to take your guns another person's private property, with their consent, and shoot them in a manner that is safe for the people on the property around you. I believe that you have the right to take your guns to an accredited facility and use them in a manner that is safe to those around you that are not in that facility. I believe that anybody who wants to carry a gun in public has the right to prove to their fellow citizens that they are capable of conducting themselves properly should, and this is a longshot, the situation arise that they would need to use it.

"Essentially what you meant" Quit wasting my time you low life POS.

1. Pointing out the statistical fact that a gun purchased for the defense of your home is far more likely to kill someone you are trying to protect than an intruder is in no way a condemnation of your right to do so, at least in your own home. It just proves you're stupid. And you have the right to be stupid, which is what liberty is all about.

2. Getting back to my comment about your own personal liberty as it pertains to the safety of others. Just because you have the right to accidentally kill your own family doesn't mean you have the right to kill mine. So your liberty in this case ends at your property line, and you are subject to the rules agreed upon by those around you at the point.

Jammer Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:57 am

YOU are the one who called it a SHAM. Your choice of words, not mine. As for your second point, that is a property rights issue more than anything else. I wouldn't want a liberal on my property whether they were carrying a gun or not.

You have shown that you are going to avoid directly addressing this issue, so get on to the issues raised in the Glenn Beck video and also the issues raised by Darth. You are once again on the wrong side of all of them.

Dr. Evil Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:08 am

Jammer wrote:YOU are the one who called it a SHAM. Your choice of words, not mine. As for your second point, that is a property rights issue more than anything else. I wouldn't want a liberal on my property whether they were carrying a gun or not.

You have shown that you are going to avoid directly addressing this issue, so get on to the issues raised in the Glenn Beck video and also the issues raised by Darth. You are once again on the wrong side of all of them.

How am I avoiding anything?!? Just because I'm not giving the answer you want me to give doesn't mean I'm avoiding the question. You're retarded.

What's up with your hard on for my using of the word sham?? Again, as I've said several times, the fact that your justification is a sham bears no relevance to your right to do something.

Sponsored content