1st. Aaron Alexis then Attacks on the 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
After doing a few tests.....I came to the conclusion that it's the DNS server.....I can't access it with any of the three PC's in the house or any of the two IPods but I can using my IPhone on 3G, but not on wifi if I clear the cache..... I can after I have accessed it on 3G because the phone will then use the DNS server in it's memory.
After doing all those tests, I called my internet provider and dumped it in their lap.......I'm not gonna go into my PC's internet protocol settings and make a DNS server change just for one web site......
Tsk tsk. My own ***? You chucked a sarcastic response at me and now you're getting nasty? Sorry, I don't believe in gender exceptions. Welcome to true equality. Women shouldn't take things serious that are poked at them in fun.
If it had been funny in any way shape or form, I'd have taken it in context. I participate in plenty of such banter on this forum, with people who are genuinely crafting jokes, not crappy insults.
You have referenced a periodic listing of current US federal laws - read the link. That is no answer to my description of the historical origins of one section of the US Constitution. You're mistaking history for law.
I don't doubt you, for the purposes of this argument. We can argue what it means if the discussion arises. The section you quoted which describes "militia" has nothing to do with how the Constitution is interpreted. The Constitution is the superior law. Statutes are interpreted in accordance with the Constitution, the Constitution is not interpreted in accordance with statutes. Your quote is irrelevant.
Why? If you think that is what I wrote, you're wrong again. I said that the US gun crowd could never defeat the US governments, a totally different concept.
You sent the first crappy insult. I just waited a couple of posts then sent one back. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.
I simply pointed out that you're not making a convincing argument. If you are so personally tied up in your arguments that you view that as a personal attack, then perhaps you're the one who needs to think about being here.
But, thanks for manning up and admitting it was an insult.
100% correct.
Now it's time for the government to pay back the Black Panthers and other 1960s "radicals" for deprieving them of their rights, disarming, and killing their officials. And it's time for the New Panthers and others like them to stop the criminal actions of police in NYC and punk Arpaio in Arizona.
Let's have everyone who believe in 2d Amendment rights post their strong endorsement of this statement.
I'll let Petros, who did good work, answer to the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights...................
BTW, Benjamin Franklin once raised a militia against the wishes of the pacifist leaders of Pennsylvania, for the purposes of fighting pirate raiders on the coast. They openly purchased arms, including cannon, as was their right as English citizens. You have absolutely no understanding of the mindset of an eighteenth century American colonialist.
The second amendment is very clear, as is revealed in its wording, by the words of the authors, and in the regulations that followed it. The people have the right to keep arms so they can defend themselves, and so they can show up at a fight against invaders or tyrants bearing their own weapons. Therefore the bans on fighting guns are unconstitutional.
And yes, an armed revolt in the USA could succeed, because the vast majority of the armed forces would go over to the rebels, in the remote chance any such popular uprising were to happen.
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
― Thomas Jefferson
Argue with Tom.
No you did not just submit your own position. On another thread you wrote this:
#156
Re: September 11, 2001 Anniversary
1 day ago
Quote: Originally Posted by toberDoesn't mean that at all.
In post #156 in the thread September 11, 2001 Anniversary I corrected something that misquoted me. You replied by belittling my explanation, saying that because I am new here my posts are not to be accepted. I could have responded immediately but I decided to wait. Apparently you don't like it either when you feel blindsided? In the post above you denied zinging me and say I was honest enough to admit I zinged you. Do you understand what just happened? Capice?
Oh give us a break. If you want to worship long-dead American politicians feel free. We in Canada are much freer than that and have never felt the need felt by Americans to worship political leaders. Do I feel all those ancient US politicians would enact laws to benefit themselves? Of course. History is full of examples and doing so was the norm in 1776, but that is not the topic. I was referring to the modern day 20th Century public relations and marketing people who repeat the mantra that the 2nd Amendment was enacted to encourage people to buy guns to attack their own governments. It is pure bull**** and has never been stated by the US Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means.
Like in Ft. McMurray, Newfoundland?
Sure hope I haven't missed you. Is there a rule that a person must not offend the sensitivities of Yanks, gun owners, right wingers and women at first, and how long is this handicap supposed to last? Or is it imposed until Yanks, gun owners, right wingers and women "get it"? I thought right wingers respected equality, or is that just when they think they're ahead? If a person cannot tease that group who is left?
Last edited:
No you did not just submit your own position. On another thread you wrote this:
Re: September 11, 2001 Anniversary
1 day ago
Quote: Originally Posted by tober
In post #156 in the thread September 11, 2001 Anniversary I corrected something that misquoted me. You replied by belittling my explanation, saying that because I am new here my posts are not to be accepted. I could have responded immediately but I decided to wait. Apparently you don't like it either when you feel blindsided? Except that so far you admitted that I was honest enough to admit I zinged you while have tried to deny that you zinged me. Capice?
?
Oh, you mean after you'd been sniping at SoL based on how often he posts? Yeah, funny that, you will find that posters here will stick up for one another. I never said your posts are not to be accepted, I was saying that your assertions and implications about other posters aren't to be trusted. See, when you stick to the meat of a political discussion, instead of slinging insults, trying to discredit posters using post counts, gender, country of origin, or whatever petty and small thing you dream up, no one razzes you nearly as hard.
But in the last few days, you've drawn a lot of attention. For very clear reasons.
No you did not just submit your own position. On another thread you wrote this:
#156
Re: September 11, 2001 Anniversary
1 day ago
Quote: Originally Posted by tober
In post #156 in the thread September 11, 2001 Anniversary I corrected something that misquoted me. You replied by belittling my explanation, saying that because I am new here my posts are not to be accepted. I could have responded immediately but I decided to wait. Apparently you don't like it either when you feel blindsided? Except that so far you admitted that I was honest enough to admit I zinged you while have tried to deny that you zinged me. Capice?
Oh give us a break. If you want to worship long-dead American politicians feel free. We in Canada are much freer than that and have never felt the need felt by Americans to worship political leaders. Do I feel all those ancient US politicians would enact laws to benefit themselves? Of course. History is full of examples and doing so was the norm in 1776, but that is not the topic. I was referring to the modern day 20th Century public relations and marketing people who repeat the mantra that the 2nd Amendment was enacted to encourage people to buy guns to attack their own governments. It is pure bull**** and has never been stated by the US Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means.
Like in Ft. McMurray, Newfoundland?
EXCUSE ME???
I guess you also don't understand the essential basics of constitutional law. The Constitution is a dead document, and must be interpreted in the light of what it's authors intended.....or it is useless.
Canada is not nearly as free as the United States. We are denied our ancient right to keep arms, we have no right to free speech (ask Whatcott) and we are saddled with a useless Charter of Rights enacted by a egotist as a shrine to his own greatness, and riddled with idiotic requirements in interpretation (multiculturalism), and escape clauses (nothwithstanding)
And we were debating the USA, ....as a short glance at the top of the page will remind you.
Yes, worship Pierre Trudeau and fight for everything he stood for, being one of our constitution's founding fathers.
Back to guns for a second, it seems every mass shooting isn't the result of someone getting their hands on black market guns, they're bought at the local gun shop. What some are trying to do is tighten up that source. I don't see Obama or any other politician arguing for grand banning, just some common sense tightening up of existing processes. The 2nd ammendment was never intended to be for gun distribution to mass murderers.
Back to guns for a second, it seems every mass shooting isn't the result of someone getting their hands on black market guns, they're bought at the local gun shop. What some are trying to do is tighten up that source. I don't see Obama or any other politician arguing for grand banning, just some common sense tightening up of existing processes. The 2nd ammendment was never intended to be for gun distribution to mass murderers.
Are you retarded or just stupid?
Hate to break it to you but PEI is on the wrong side of the country to be gods country. I live in BC
I generally only attack what people say - their positions, including poking fun at awkward and poorly thought out positions. If I sometimes move too close to the line, so what? You do too and don't seem to be able to tell the difference. You and others here don't seem to know how to differentiate between attacking the argument and attacking the person. You just got caught lying by the way, and haven't even the decency to say, "Oops, sorry." Don't you understand that, or don't you care?
A lot of attention? Some site Yanks and a few sympathizers have tried to gang up is all. In every political forum on the Internet US conservatives gang up. Often they suck up for moderator positions then run off everybody who they think is not one of them. How many Americans who post here are "liberal"?
It sounds to me like you are used to people deferring to your gender. Do you know my gender? I have given no personal information here that would prove my gender either way. I guess we're just going to have to post as equals, eh sistah? Sounds unfair, doesn't it?
Quote:Originally Posted by toberfile:///C:/Users/Bruce/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif
You didn't answer the post, ts. Nothing about working as a long-hair at CFB Comox gives you insight into this shooting. Kindly explain how a crowd of unassociated armed civilians in a naval base would have been able to concentrate on an unknown shooter while recognizing and coordinating with each other? Explain how a naval base full of uncontrolled unknown armed civilians would be safer than a base where firearms are strictly controlled? Explain how basic military security needs would be met on a base where anybody could enter armed - talk about a sitting duck for jihad?
You claim to be from Vancouver Island. Let's Canadianize the post - explain how much safer CFB Esquimalt would be if anybody any time could enter the base or dockyard bearing their own firearms with no control? Explain what arms would have to be carried by duty personnel in such a case, and what the casualty rates would be compared to the present state given navy policy on arming watchstanders? Be specific on what is present policy then compare it to what would happen if there were no controls and armed military and civilians were on base without restrictions?
Cat got your tongue?
Can't answer the post, eh? By the sounds of it you are not only unknowledgeable about guns but also about the Canadian Forces. The questions are pretty simple for anybody with any military or shooting knowledge, and any knowledge of the Vancouver Island Canadian Forces. I'm not asking Mensa questions. If what you said about yourself is true, you could answer the questions in less time than it took me to type them. Are you in to the BC Bud?
Wouldn't that be one in the same??
Tober.
1st gopher is American and is very Liberal.
2nd you seem to have a strong animosity towards "yanks" as you call them, and you are entitled to your opinion..
However, I think you're smart enough to know Canada is what it is because of our geography to the United States.. our economy and culture is closely tied to our neighbor to the south ..
Generally the folks I know with your kind of hatered towards the United States are Muslim, or recently got barred from entering the USA for bad choices in the past. (Criminal conviction)
Which one are you?? If you don't fit the profile, can you explain why you have so much animosity toward "yanks" and the USA??
I didn't get caught lying about diddly squat. You admitted to trying to pretend it wasn't a dig, when it was. I explained why I said what I did in another thread. Pretty simple.
Yeah, because *I* brought gender into this. Yup. lol.
and ew, stop posting from your porn collection. We don't need to see that.
I admitted what? Post it, like I posted proof of your lie.
You denied attacking me. That was untrue. That makes you a liar. The fact that I waited then nailed you on another thread made you think you could get away with lying, it doesn't change the fact that you lied. Deny it all you want, the evidence is posted where you can't duck it.
Hurts to get caught sucking up to the Yanks, eh? Please feel free to put me on ignore, Sis.