100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > AlphaRebel
|
|
|
True story. He stays clear of my neck of the woods, though here in SW Ga.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those are just 7 posted on youtube. It's easy to discern when this man is lying. His lips are moving. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Guns
Edited by
AlphaRebel
on
Sat 10/30/10 11:02 AM
|
|
A gun like fire is a tool of man for benefit or destruction. Like fire it is regulated. The issue is only the degree of regulation. There is no cut and dried correct answer to the question of how much regulation is necessary or desirable. Thus the debate. I disagree with that analogy. Fire cooks food, provides light and warmth. These are totally non destructive things. What non destructive things do guns do? Guns offer protection, make warning sounds and can be used for any number of desirable uses. Shooting down mistletoe, hunt food, scare off a bear, herd animals or self defense. Fire always destroys something else to make warmth or light or cook food. Sometimes it destroys the food. So the analogy is still spot on. 
Still disagree. In the definition of a gun is the word weapon. It was created as a tool of destruction while fire is just a force of nature that can sustain life or destroy it. Man as a species probably would have died off without "discovering" fire. We would have still made it if we didn't "invent" the gun. The invention of gun powder is the only thing that saved us from domination by hostile and ruthless forces of oppression like socialism and it's cousin, communism. Check your history book oh defiant one. When the enemy moves in to take over they don't use diplomacy. They use force! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on the individual. I lost my fiance' to suicide and it has taken me nearly three years to get a handle on that loss and move on.
Talking about it was helpful and today I have no problem with discussing it. I have not been in a dating situation though, because I was not ready for that. Now that I am, I have no problem talking about the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Guns
|
|
A gun like fire is a tool of man for benefit or destruction. Like fire it is regulated. The issue is only the degree of regulation. There is no cut and dried correct answer to the question of how much regulation is necessary or desirable. Thus the debate. I disagree with that analogy. Fire cooks food, provides light and warmth. These are totally non destructive things. What non destructive things do guns do? Guns offer protection, make warning sounds and can be used for any number of desirable uses. Shooting down mistletoe, hunt food, scare off a bear, herd animals or self defense. Fire always destroys something else to make warmth or light or cook food. Sometimes it destroys the food. So the analogy is still spot on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama is clearly a socialist with an agenda to fundamentally change this country. I didn't vote for him nor will I in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Guns
|
|
It's a shame that money buys votes in this country. I was taught that's bribery. I'm grateful for the NRA, but I have to say that they've misappropriated the issue regarding gun ownership at times.
The bottomline is that we have the right to own guns in this country because our constitution guarantees it. I think the issue is clouded many times by all of the "hunting" arguments. I am a hunter as well. But I don't need hunting to justify my right to own guns. Infact if we adopt hunting as a justification for gun ownership we fall prey to much of the political argument for the "kinds" of guns we can own. My position is this; If my enemy can get access to it, I should be able to own it to defend myself and my property. That goes from pee shooters to grenade launchers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Guns
|
|
Statistics are a real easy means of verifying the effects of "gun control" in our country.
Take for instance the states and municipalities that have the most oppressive regulations and even outright bans on firearms. Washington DC is a great example. There you have for all intensive purposes a ban on gun ownership. Check the violent crime and murder rate per capita in DC. It is one of the highest in the nation. You'd think that intelligent people could deduce from the statistics that regulating and controlling "legal" gun ownership INCREASES violent crime. Perhaps it's because where the honest law abiding citizens are stripped of their right to bear arms the criminals run rough-shod over them. I don't believe it's a issue of statistics or historical record or even current social conditions in this country. I believe the debate today hinges on intellectual dishonesty, emotionalism and media spin of the facts. The sad truth is that most people don't take the initiative to educate themselves on these issues. They simply watch tv and listen to the reports spoon fed to them by the media. Hence the vast majority of them are carried away in the sensationalism attributed to this important issue by the liberal media. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Guns
Edited by
AlphaRebel
on
Thu 10/28/10 08:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Guns
|
|
My point being that Bear arms doesn't mean own a gun. That was also the supreme courts opinion based on the language used in the 1700s. They even considered putting "for the common defense" after bear arms. I respectfully disagree.
You can disagree with my opinion. That's all well and good. The last two points are fact though Actually not. The supreme court decides the meaning of the constitution (a fact) and have ruled that it does indeed mean that the citizens have the right to gun ownership (another fact). That doesn't change the fact that the supreme courts opinion was different in United States vs Miller or the fact that the founding fathers considered putting "for the common defense" after bear arms. The supremem court can interpret laws but they cant rewrite history. History has shown, not only in this country but in others around the globe that a disarmed citizenry are defenseless and vulnerable subjects. Every culture taken by communism and socialism has begun with the ruling authority disarming the people. As I said before; "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
She
|
|
Thanks, Darlin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Guns
|
|
My point being that Bear arms doesn't mean own a gun. That was also the supreme courts opinion based on the language used in the 1700s. They even considered putting "for the common defense" after bear arms. I respectfully disagree.
You can disagree with my opinion. That's all well and good. The last two points are fact though Facts don't impress me. Truth does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Guns
|
|
My point being that Bear arms doesn't mean own a gun. That was also the supreme courts opinion based on the language used in the 1700s. They even considered putting "for the common defense" after bear arms. I respectfully disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
She
|
|
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Guns
|
|
I don't think it requires a degree in rocket science to interpret the simple language and intent of our founding fathers and the documents that serve as the basis of our great nation. The only ones who wish to complicate the issue are those who wish to oppose the precepts and principles in our constitution. I disagree. Its a historical fact that the meanings of words change over time. The founding fathers put this right in because England (their former country) was disarming their citizens so they could not rise up against the throne. Our founding fathers wanted us to be able to rise up against the government if the need arose. That was the purpose of this right. It was not to defend yourself against other citizens. With todays technology its practically moot. We can't rise up and defend ourself against the government if they went totally corrupt. Your interpretation is odd to say the least. The supreme court has ruled that the original intent of the "right to bear arms" is the right of self protection by keeping (owning) and bearing (using) guns. It doesn't matter if that is from robbers, terrorists, or the US government. The military has sworn to uphold the constitution so it would be unlikely to turn against citizens reacting to a corrupt takeover. In fact, it would be obligated to join in on the citizen's side. Other supreme court cases have ruled that it is the right to have guns in a militia. That is why I cited The United States vs Miller. I am not saying I am against owning guns. I am merely arguing the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Yes the militia would fight on the citizens side. That is my point. Citizens with guns would not be able to take on the US military. Our Supreme court has made plenty of rulings that are clearly in opposition and defiance of our Constitution. There is not supposed to be any legislating from the bench in this country. The courts are way out of control and the citizens need to take a stand against it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Sexist? Vote Democrat.
|
|
Christine O'Donnell, like most of the other tea party candidates represent a refreshing change to politics as usual. She has been demonized and insulted by the mainstream because she, like other tea party candidates are a threat to career politicians. In my view, the mere fact that a candidate is NOT a career politician puts them head and shoulders above the rest. Our founders never intended for public office to be a career. It was supposed to be a service and a sacrifice to our country made for a short time, after which the person would resume their own profession or call in life. Career politicians should ALL be ousted! What is refreshing about Christine O'Donnell? She seems to stick her foot in her mouth more often than not. She's said/done nothing that would make me think she'd be a good candidate. Perhaps you can shed some light on why she's so refreshing. Watch the linked video in my post, she was easily the winner of that debate. Edit: And she focused on the issue, while Coons couldn't stop talking about his opponent's past and claiming that she was incoherent or lying, while he was the only one caught in a lie. I've already seen it and I don't see what you see. Coonst is clearly a career politician with his head up the arse of the current administrations liberal agenda, bent on bringing this country to a socialist state. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Guns
Edited by
AlphaRebel
on
Thu 10/28/10 05:32 PM
|
|
Your interpretation is odd to say the least. The supreme court has ruled that the original intent of the "right to bear arms" is the right of self protection by keeping (owning) and bearing (using) guns. It doesn't matter if that is from robbers, terrorists, or the US government. The military has sworn to uphold the constitution so it would be unlikely to turn against citizens reacting to a corrupt takeover. In fact, it would be obligated to join in on the citizen's side. Alas, a voice of reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Sexist? Vote Democrat.
|
|
Christine O'Donnell, like most of the other tea party candidates represent a refreshing change to politics as usual. She has been demonized and insulted by the mainstream because she, like other tea party candidates are a threat to career politicians.
In my view, the mere fact that a candidate is NOT a career politician puts them head and shoulders above the rest. Our founders never intended for public office to be a career. It was supposed to be a service and a sacrifice to our country made for a short time, after which the person would resume their own profession or call in life. Career politicians should ALL be ousted! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
She
|
|
I know where she is....on somewhere's mist,
she stays an ever changing mystery. Her presence lingers, teasing my attention as she leaves ...elusive like her smile. My desire, her kiss...unrestrained togetherness. Her touch, my skin.....uninhibited tenderness. She and I, and I am quiet...peace to a raging sea. Dreams in her heart, she believes in my soul passion breathes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Guns
|
|
I don't think it requires a degree in rocket science to interpret the simple language and intent of our founding fathers and the documents that serve as the basis of our great nation. The only ones who wish to complicate the issue are those who wish to oppose the precepts and principles in our constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
