1
   

SHUD MALES n FEMALES HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO ACCESS GUNS ?

 
 
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 02:15 pm
SHUD MALES n FEMALES HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO ACCESS DEFENSIVE GUNS ?

I believe that the answer is: YES,
in that government has been explicitly disallowed
any authority whatsoever to control this area of human interest
and no person shud be the victim of discrimination
as to whether he or she can defend his life or other property.




Does anyone dissent from this point of vu ?




David
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,094 • Replies: 56
No top replies

 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 02:29 pm
I don't think people who spell "shud" and "vu" thus should be allowed out without a nurse or guardian to mop up their drool.

I dissent from all anti-gun-control nuts.

Or were you being ironic?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 02:35 pm
It seems to me that the letter and spirit of the 2nd Amendment
even prohibit any government from collecting sales taxes
on any defensive gun or ammunition that is sold.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 02:41 pm
contrex wrote:
I don't think people who spell "shud" and "vu" thus
should be allowed out without a nurse or guardian to mop up their drool.

U prove your enmity against sound logic.
There simply is NO REASON to jab an L into wud, cud nor shud.





Quote:
I dissent from all anti-gun-control nuts.

The 2nd Amendment defends your 1st Amendment right to dissent,
and all of your other constitutional rights,
for instance: the right to have periodic elections,
regardless of whether government wishes to continue them or not.

David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 02:48 pm
No human right can be as basic
as the right to defend your life and other property
from violent depredations.

It seems sad that anyone, however depraved,
wud advocate discrimination as to who can or can 't have the means
to defend his life or that of his mother or child from the violence of man or beast.

David
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 03:06 pm
It is my considered opinion as a woman, and a woman who has never held a gun or even knows what a revolver is no less, that women are completely incompetent when it comes to firearms and should not be allowed near them.

First of all, we are the 'gentler' sex. Everybody knows that, right? We have no right to be holding guns, much less using them. They're heavy and I don't think they'd fit properly in our tiny, delicate, cream-covered and manicured hands.

Secondly, we all know women have terrible aim. We can't throw baseballs correctly, and Lord help us with frisbees and footballs. We're notoriously bad throwers, so what would we do with a gun?? Ack and eek, I shudder to imagine the innocent bystanders who'd be shot.

Thirdly, from the little gunplay I've seen on tv, I think you have to hold your arm out straight, point or aim, and then squeeze the trigger. Sadly, I don't think women can do all three at once. No, no, no. Definitely not. We are not that coordinated, you see. And definitely not strong enough. Certainly, I don't think little old me could hold my arm out straight long enough to aim and pull. My bullets would all be hitting the dirt, I'm afraid. And that would be completely pointless.

So, in conclusion, I give a resounding NO to whatever your question was.
0 Replies
 
urs53
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 03:23 pm
Very well said, Mame.

Although, as a European not believing in this whole gun thing, I should not comment at all...
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 04:12 pm
people ( cough cough.. wait.. )


peeple lyke this embarus me as an 'merican.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 04:15 pm
Annie Oakley wud probly agree with u. Corse, she made her livin with a gun. Bonnie Parker wud also probly agree. But it is clamed she never actualy fired one.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 04:31 pm
I can only echo the Canadian lady I met in Barcelona who said, "I daily thank the good Lord he didn't make me an American".
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 04:41 pm
Mame wrote:
It is my considered opinion as a woman, and a woman who has never held a gun or even knows what a revolver is no less, that women are completely incompetent when it comes to firearms and should not be allowed near them.

First of all, we are the 'gentler' sex. Everybody knows that, right? We have no right to be holding guns, much less using them. They're heavy and I don't think they'd fit properly in our tiny, delicate, cream-covered and manicured hands.

Secondly, we all know women have terrible aim. We can't throw baseballs correctly, and Lord help us with frisbees and footballs. We're notoriously bad throwers, so what would we do with a gun?? Ack and eek, I shudder to imagine the innocent bystanders who'd be shot.

Thirdly, from the little gunplay I've seen on tv, I think you have to hold your arm out straight, point or aim, and then squeeze the trigger. Sadly, I don't think women can do all three at once. No, no, no. Definitely not. We are not that coordinated, you see. And definitely not strong enough. Certainly, I don't think little old me could hold my arm out straight long enough to aim and pull. My bullets would all be hitting the dirt, I'm afraid. And that would be completely pointless.

So, in conclusion, I give a resounding NO to whatever your question was.



What about PMT? Nobody mentioned that.

Ladies should hand in their guns, if any, for a few days each month.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 05:34 pm
PMT? Whatever happened to plain old PMS?
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 05:41 pm
Intrepid, I think he means Pacific Mountain Time... time when ladies shouldn't bear arms


Laughing
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 05:46 pm
David, law and grammar are similar in many ways. They are both public consensus, the 'rules of the game'. Why are you so strongly favoring one (constitution and law) and completely disregarding the other (grammar)? Just curious, because it makes absolutely no sense to me.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 10:57 pm
dagmaraka wrote:
David, law and grammar are similar in many ways.
They are both public consensus, the 'rules of the game'.
Why are you so strongly favoring one (constitution and law)
and completely disregarding the other (grammar)?

Just curious, because it makes absolutely no sense to me.

I take it that u r probably referring to my fonetic spelling, Dag.
( If I fell into some different error of grammar, please indicate that with greater specificity. )

My loyalty is to sound reasoning, including efficiency, rather than to tradition.
For many decades, I used conventional spelling, and corrected the spelling of my secretaries,
( this was before computers with spell check )
giving the matter little thought. I had other concerns.

Of more recent years,
I became aware ( as did Teddy Roosevelt ) of the inefficient foolishness
of continuing to support and perpetuate an orthografic paradime
that is ( in some small measure ) non-fonetic,
simply out of respect for wasteful tradition;
( i.e., that we shud CONTINUE making this mistake because our forefathers made this mistake ).
No sale.
Enuf is enuf.
I am aware of the simplicity of fonetic spelling in Spanish.
Thay teach their children to spell the natural way.
The Spanish shud not have a monopoly on good sense.

Ever hear of the Edgar Caycee story, of how his father
was emotionally tormenting him into learning to spell the rong way ? the unnatural way ?
I think that 's child abuse.

NOW is the time to subvert the old norm,
to the extent that it deviates from sound reasoning.


It is alien to reason to put an L into wud, cud or shud.
There is no reason to add the letters UGH to the word tho,
and no good comes from doing it.

The convenient shorthand of text messaging is helping to accelerate
the adoption of logical spelling, realizing Teddy Roosevelt 's desires.
I believe that our species is tiring of carrying the useless wate
of non-fonetic spelling, and will soon lay it down.
It wud do so if I never existed, but I like to help the good side win
by showing another, easier, alternative; a blessing of ease
n convenience to American children of the future.

I feel like a passenger in a car with many other people and a flat tire.
I suggest that we change the tire; I argue in favor of doing so.
I am confronted with indignant challenges that we have gone a long way
in these circumstances, and it is the consensus that I shud not be so radical
( nor so disrespectful of tradition )
as to suggest what I claim to be a more efficient way to travel.

I behold my fellow man persisting in error, for years n for decades.
I think that I shud ring the alarm bell LOUDLY enuf to get attention
and then tear down the consensus and get the tire changed.

I am sure that better foneticists will come along and polish
the result up. I don 't claim that my version is necessarily perfect.

Thanx for asking.


David
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 11:14 pm
Analyst. Danger Money.


PMT, that time every month when a women acts like a man does all the time.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 11:24 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:

There simply is NO REASON to jab an L into wud, cud nor shud.

"Cud" is certainly not prounounced like "could."

You should be spelling them "wood," "cood," and "shood."
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 11:37 pm
DrewDad wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:

There simply is NO REASON to jab an L into wud, cud nor shud.

"Cud" is certainly not prounounced like "could."

You should be spelling them "wood," "cood," and "shood."

I disagree.
The oo sound rhymes with shoot or shoe; it is a U sound,
that is not represented in the word wood.
Additionally, in service of convenience and efficiency,
I adopted a usage that requires fewer keystrokes.
As the centuries roll by, many keystrokes will be saved and obviated.

C my point of vuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ?


David
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 12:06 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:

I disagree.
The oo sound rhymes with shoot or shoe; it is a U sound,


U as in d*mb c*nt?
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 12:46 am
There is no such thing as a defensive gun. All guns are aggressive by their very nature.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » SHUD MALES n FEMALES HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO ACCESS GUNS ?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/23/2021 at 10:18:34