57
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
High Seas
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 10:31 am
@Robert Gentel,
I'm not "selling", Mr. Gentel - besides, you have confused me for someone interested in your opinion of an explanation addressed to someone else, who appears to have had no problem grasping it.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 10:33 am
@dyslexia,
I would edit in this case, for clarity - and generally I think it's customary to correct typos and grammatical errors even in direct quotes. Of course any major rewrite would preclude using the original as a direct quote, but that's not the case here.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 10:49 am
@Advocate,
"Advocate" wrote: (in part)

Quote:
BTW, why Heller put to bed any support for the DC gun ban,
it did leave open, in my view very clearly, the right of the govt.
to ban assault weapons. . . .

Well, it left it open in the sense that that issue was NOT before the Court,
but some of its dicta suggest that the Court may well respect
a pro-freedom, anti-government position.

". . . It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service"M-16 rifles and the like"may be banned,
then the Second Amendment right is completely detached
from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service
, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right
. "
[All emphasis has been added by David.]
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 10:52 am
@OmSigDAVID,
nobody, who isn't a member of the military needs an M-16 or other assault rifle in their home

get that through your head you ******* gun loving douchebag
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 10:52 am
Currently, my favorite rifle is this All American MK14 EBR.
It makes the M16 look like a squirt gun and the sight of it
makes liberal douche bags lose control of their bodily functions Cool

http://www.athenswater.com/images/MK14-EBR-18.jpg
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 10:54 am
@H2O MAN,
congratulations you're a ******* gun loving douchebag, your family must be proud
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 10:58 am
@djjd62,


djjd62: a freedom hating douche bag.
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 11:01 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

congratulations you're a ******* gun loving douchebag, your family must be proud


What business is it of yours what manner of man H2O is? Even if you can show cause for your concern about him and his family, did YOUR family always express itself in such abysmal language? Keep in mind this thread was started by a lady - and other ladies can, and do, read posts here.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 11:04 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



djjd62: a freedom hating douche bag.

I am free of him; I have him on Ignore.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 11:07 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Currently, my favorite rifle is this All American MK14 EBR.
It makes the M16 look like a squirt gun and the sight of it
makes liberal douche bags lose control of their bodily functions Cool

http://www.athenswater.com/images/MK14-EBR-18.jpg

Is that related in its design to the M-14 ?





David
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 11:07 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:



djjd62: a freedom hating douche bag.

I am free of him; I have him on Ignore.


Thank you for reminding me of that option Very Happy
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 11:12 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

Currently, my favorite rifle is this All American MK14 EBR.
It makes the M16 look like a squirt gun and the sight of it
makes liberal douche bags lose control of their bodily functions Cool

http://www.athenswater.com/images/MK14-EBR-18.jpg

Is that related in its design to the M-14 ?


David


David,

You have a good eye! It is a civilian M14 modernized with an 18.0" barrel and bolted into a SAGE EBR stock.
I have been building, shooting and collecting EBRs ever since they became available to the public in 2004.

This web page documents the history of the M14 EBR
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 11:13 am
wimps, ignore me, talk about freedom hating
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 11:19 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

wimps, ignore me, talk about freedom hating

Dude, get out of here.

This is their masturbation thread now.
K
O
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 11:30 am
Diest TKO is also IGNORED Very Happy
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 11:55 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

....... I looked up the off of construction in Bryan Garner's Modern American Usage (Oxford University Press 2003). Although it labels off of as "much inferior to off", it doesn't say that off of is incorrect. This doesn't rise to the level of an egregious error, which I would correct in a quote.

I got curious, and looked it up in the Urban Dictionary >
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=off+of
> which does say it's incorrect. The way this thread is going, a link to the Urban Dictionary might come in handy.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 12:09 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
I'm not "selling", Mr. Gentel - besides, you have confused me for someone interested in your opinion of an explanation addressed to someone else, who appears to have had no problem grasping it.


He's being nice. He's even going out of his way to help you find an excuse for your lie. But he doesn't believe it either.

See, it's not possible to edit your post and change the parent post. So it's not possible for you to have done what you claimed to have.

You wrote something that Thomas quoted accurately, then realized your mistake and changed it. That's not a big deal, but you then had the temerity to ask how Thomas could "dare" claim you wrote it (when you did) and made up a convoluted lie about initially wanting to respond to Gunga and then redirecting the post to Thomas.

That's just not possible to do with the software, anyone else here who cares to give it a try can confirm it.
High Seas
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 12:15 pm
@Robert Gentel,
"See, it's not possible to edit your post and change the parent post."

I've no idea what that means - and the corollary "it's not possible to do what was actually done" makes even less sense.

Didn't you use to hang out at Ethel's Cafe, wearing a propeller beanie, while wholly befuddled by illegal drugs? Maybe you should go back and visit.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 12:20 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

"See, it's not possible to edit your post and change the parent post."

I've no idea what that means - and the corollary "it's not possible to do what was actually done" makes even less sense.


Ok, I'll spell it out for you. You first tried to claim that you didn't make a post that you did make. Then you claimed that what you'd done is reply to Gungasnake and then edited your post to be a reply to Thomas.

Thing is, this is not possible. Your post is addressed to Thomas' post because you clicked the reply on Thoma's post, not Gunga's post, and this initial selection can't be edited after the fact. The text you claim not to have written is obviously yours, and your convoluted lie trying to disown it is obviously false, because it claims functionality the site doesn't have.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 12:22 pm
@H2O MAN,
Im sorry that I taught you (squirty )the word sdouche bag. You are overusing it so much that your'e making it trite.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 02/24/2025 at 10:28:31