Do you remember why you were banned from the forums last time? This time will be for the same reasons too.
1st. Aaron Alexis then Attacks on the 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
Again? By you? LMAO! By the time you can respond to this you'll be on ignore, so don't waste band width.
LOL he's got me on ignore too.. he/she/it loves to dish it out and insult everyone, but he/she/it/whatever can't take it back..
Typical loser Troll.. :roll: :lol:
Pretty cocky for a "Johnny come Lately" isn't he? -
Nothing I read in the rules says a person must accept gratuitous insults until they cross a magic line. Petros spent the evening tossing insults then asked me if I wanted to be banned. If he did have that power and used it, the site would not be worth using. If I backed down from such an insult I would have no self respect. I can't see what he posted after I told him to leave me alone and not waste band width, but hopefully he'll waste his time on somebody else.
Why would I repost the entire exchange that's on this page.... you admitted that you weren't joking, that you were insulting.
And yes, I berated you, for insulting another poster. You get what you have coming.
I find it interesting that your best comeback seems to be to point out I'm a woman. It's laughable.
Nobody suggested that you repost an entire exchange. I denied your insult and challenged you to post the evidence of it. Like Alzheimer's Ronny Reagan said, trust but verify. Of course the evidence doesn't exist so you won't be posting it.
You're going to have to prove that one too. I did no such thing. You butted in where you weren't being addressed, and even then I ignored the offensive post and let it go. If you hadn't kept it up on this thread it would all be water under the bridge by now.
It sure got you going, didn't it? But again you are incorrect. The best comeback was to post your insult and let it speak for itself. The gender reference would be water off a duck's back if you were not trying to use gender to manipulate. It was a test. The results have been spectacular.
Note - nary an insult, a direct response to what was written and verifiable facts only.
"The gender reference would be water off a duck's back if you were not trying to use gender to manipulate."
That's not a fact, it's a conclusion.
Not even close. What I have done is ignore the established pecking order. I don't knuckle my forehead to people who think I should bow to them. I speak up even though I "just got here", Objectively speaking there is nothing particularly offensive about my posts. Many are anti-American, but I usually back them up with fact.
You keep telling yourself that.
"I'm good, I'm special, and gosh darn it, people like me."
If you ever feel like coming around and discussing the meat of the matter without flying off the handle at every little bit of sarcasm or perceived slight, the forum is an awesome place. You'd fit right in. Take care tober.
"I'm good, I'm special, and gosh darn it, people like me."
If you ever feel like coming around and discussing the meat of the matter without flying off the handle at every little bit of sarcasm or perceived slight, the forum is an awesome place. You'd fit right in. Take care tober.
Even when I was modding, I never bounced someone for locking horns with me JLM
I know that and you know that! I was just trying to give you a weapon.-
Totally agreed that that was the purpose of the 2nd. It was the express purpose as I wrote above - to prevent state governments from disarming the federal militia. Nothing in the law, as opposed to some political rhetoric, permits Americans to arm for the purpose of rebelling against their government. If that was the case there would be a remedy under the law to protect those who assert their 2nd Amendment rights. Timothy McVeigh claimed that he thought the US government was tyrannical, because of Ruby Ridge and Waco. At his trial no such defence was raised. When a man goes to his death instead of raising an available legal defence that should tell you something about the availability of the defence. The defence does not exist because there is no such right under US constitutional law.
There are no regulations to the 2nd Amendment, although perhaps I'm being too technical. As a matter of fact I know of no regulation to any section of a constitution.
I doubt that very much, but we'll never know until the SCOTUS speaks to it. But answer this - if banning military weapons is unconstitutional what about the ban on private nukes? You can't say it's different because we are talking legal interpretation. Either US law does or does not permit the regulation of weapons, and the SCOTUS has always said it does.
Looks like we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.
Jefferson was just a politician. His word is not the law. It doesn't work like that. We know that Yanks have an extraordinary reverence for their politicians for a supposedly "free" democracy, but the common law does not work like that and the US is a legal system based on the British common law.
Bounce him/her, Karrie -
Well lookee here, JLM is hiding behind a woman's skirts to snipe at me. Karrie has more courage than that and more honour. I caught her out when she forgot a sniping on another thread, and I think she should at least have said, 'Oops, sorry,' but she hasn't hidden behind anybody else to fight her battle.