Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Allan from Fallbrook
Participantmarion: My advocating a legalization of marijuana makes me a pothead? Wow, you are all for being open-minded and encouraging discourse, aren’t you? Thank goodness you’re not judgmental or anything.
I can boil all of this down quite simply: It comes to down to a matter of choice, and accepting responsibility for that choice. If I choose to own a gun, then I accept the responsibility for that choice. If I choose to own a car, and then drink and drive, I accept responsibility there as well.
What you are saying is this: If I don’t like your choices, then I am reserving the right to deprive you of them. Well, Marion, that isn’t your right, and that sort of thinking leads to authoritarianism and despotism, the very things that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted to avoid.
Whatever I do in the privacy of my own home is my choice. So long as it does not hurt another person, or infringe upon their rights, that is. Beyond that, you should mind your own business and, more importantly, make your own choices and leave me to mine.
Borat: Good call on Switzerland. Israel is also armed to the teeth, with a very low crime rate. Well, aside from the Palestinian suicide bombers.
Participantmarion: My advocating a legalization of marijuana makes me a pothead? Wow, you are all for being open-minded and encouraging discourse, aren’t you? Thank goodness you’re not judgmental or anything.
I can boil all of this down quite simply: It comes to down to a matter of choice, and accepting responsibility for that choice. If I choose to own a gun, then I accept the responsibility for that choice. If I choose to own a car, and then drink and drive, I accept responsibility there as well.
What you are saying is this: If I don’t like your choices, then I am reserving the right to deprive you of them. Well, Marion, that isn’t your right, and that sort of thinking leads to authoritarianism and despotism, the very things that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted to avoid.
Whatever I do in the privacy of my own home is my choice. So long as it does not hurt another person, or infringe upon their rights, that is. Beyond that, you should mind your own business and, more importantly, make your own choices and leave me to mine.
Borat: Good call on Switzerland. Israel is also armed to the teeth, with a very low crime rate. Well, aside from the Palestinian suicide bombers.
Participantmarion: My advocating a legalization of marijuana makes me a pothead? Wow, you are all for being open-minded and encouraging discourse, aren’t you? Thank goodness you’re not judgmental or anything.
I can boil all of this down quite simply: It comes to down to a matter of choice, and accepting responsibility for that choice. If I choose to own a gun, then I accept the responsibility for that choice. If I choose to own a car, and then drink and drive, I accept responsibility there as well.
What you are saying is this: If I don’t like your choices, then I am reserving the right to deprive you of them. Well, Marion, that isn’t your right, and that sort of thinking leads to authoritarianism and despotism, the very things that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted to avoid.
Whatever I do in the privacy of my own home is my choice. So long as it does not hurt another person, or infringe upon their rights, that is. Beyond that, you should mind your own business and, more importantly, make your own choices and leave me to mine.
Borat: Good call on Switzerland. Israel is also armed to the teeth, with a very low crime rate. Well, aside from the Palestinian suicide bombers.
ParticipantTG: The Pats are vulnerable to the run. The Jags bring a very strong run game, and a hard-hitting defense. I like Jack Del Rio, and I like his mentality (former middle linebacker), which has translated to the team at large.
I still think you are over-rating the Patriots. Indy is better than they are given credit for, and the Chargers might surprise you (yes, this is a Raiders fan saying this). One thing to consider about Norv Turner: In both DC and Oakland, he was not given a team as talented as this one. As much as I enjoyed gaffing he and Cottrell earlier in the year, it seems like both the offense and the defense are picking up the schemes and playing well.
Sorry, Enorah. Shutting up about football now.
ParticipantTG: The Pats are vulnerable to the run. The Jags bring a very strong run game, and a hard-hitting defense. I like Jack Del Rio, and I like his mentality (former middle linebacker), which has translated to the team at large.
I still think you are over-rating the Patriots. Indy is better than they are given credit for, and the Chargers might surprise you (yes, this is a Raiders fan saying this). One thing to consider about Norv Turner: In both DC and Oakland, he was not given a team as talented as this one. As much as I enjoyed gaffing he and Cottrell earlier in the year, it seems like both the offense and the defense are picking up the schemes and playing well.
Sorry, Enorah. Shutting up about football now.
ParticipantTG: The Pats are vulnerable to the run. The Jags bring a very strong run game, and a hard-hitting defense. I like Jack Del Rio, and I like his mentality (former middle linebacker), which has translated to the team at large.
I still think you are over-rating the Patriots. Indy is better than they are given credit for, and the Chargers might surprise you (yes, this is a Raiders fan saying this). One thing to consider about Norv Turner: In both DC and Oakland, he was not given a team as talented as this one. As much as I enjoyed gaffing he and Cottrell earlier in the year, it seems like both the offense and the defense are picking up the schemes and playing well.
Sorry, Enorah. Shutting up about football now.
ParticipantTG: The Pats are vulnerable to the run. The Jags bring a very strong run game, and a hard-hitting defense. I like Jack Del Rio, and I like his mentality (former middle linebacker), which has translated to the team at large.
I still think you are over-rating the Patriots. Indy is better than they are given credit for, and the Chargers might surprise you (yes, this is a Raiders fan saying this). One thing to consider about Norv Turner: In both DC and Oakland, he was not given a team as talented as this one. As much as I enjoyed gaffing he and Cottrell earlier in the year, it seems like both the offense and the defense are picking up the schemes and playing well.
Sorry, Enorah. Shutting up about football now.
ParticipantTG: The Pats are vulnerable to the run. The Jags bring a very strong run game, and a hard-hitting defense. I like Jack Del Rio, and I like his mentality (former middle linebacker), which has translated to the team at large.
I still think you are over-rating the Patriots. Indy is better than they are given credit for, and the Chargers might surprise you (yes, this is a Raiders fan saying this). One thing to consider about Norv Turner: In both DC and Oakland, he was not given a team as talented as this one. As much as I enjoyed gaffing he and Cottrell earlier in the year, it seems like both the offense and the defense are picking up the schemes and playing well.
Sorry, Enorah. Shutting up about football now.
Participantmarion: The 2nd Amendment is very clear on the topic, and the founding fathers understood quite well that the only way to avoid the despotism they fled in England was to have a well-armed citizenry as a counterweight. Adams, Jefferson, and Paine all wrote of the need, and understood it’s importance (which is why the only Amendment that pre-dates the 2nd Amendment is the 1st Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech, religion and peaceful assembly).
There are those who conflate the two parts of the 2nd Amendment with each other, saying that the founding fathers meant the right to bear arms is tied to the formation of a militia. This is nonsense. The right to keep and bear arms is an essential part of the Bill of Rights, and an essential part of what makes America the country it is.
You cite certain circumstances where you find it acceptable to “allow” people to have guns. What if I were to cite certain circumstances where I were to decide how you were to use your body (using your argument with respect to freedom of choice)? Answer? It is not up to me, any more than you possess the right to tell me where and when I can own a gun.
You speak of only the police having guns. That idea horrifies me. This is the sort of thinking that leads to an authoritarian police state. You think I’m kidding? Look at the first thing every despot goes for when he/she grabs power. The guns. Followed by the modes of free communication (press, radio, TV, etc). You want an eye-opener? Read what Mahatma Gandhi had to say about gun ownership under the British Raj. Yeah, that Mahatma Gandhi.
You want to impose training for safety and proper use? You bet. I am all for that, as well as a thorough background check prior to purchase. But, under no circumstances will I allow anyone to infringe upon my rights to own a gun. Ever. Anymore than I would allow someone to infringe upon my rights of free speech, religion or franchise.
You feel comfortable having the police protect you? That is your choice. However, I trust the police about as much as I trust the government, which is to say very little.
Remember Lord Acton’s admonition: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Be very careful about giving your liberty and your rights away, you might never get them back.
On another note, I am all for the legalization of marijuana. I am probably too Catholic to go for legalizing prostitution, but a person’s choice of professions should be their own, regardless of nature.
Participantmarion: The 2nd Amendment is very clear on the topic, and the founding fathers understood quite well that the only way to avoid the despotism they fled in England was to have a well-armed citizenry as a counterweight. Adams, Jefferson, and Paine all wrote of the need, and understood it’s importance (which is why the only Amendment that pre-dates the 2nd Amendment is the 1st Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech, religion and peaceful assembly).
There are those who conflate the two parts of the 2nd Amendment with each other, saying that the founding fathers meant the right to bear arms is tied to the formation of a militia. This is nonsense. The right to keep and bear arms is an essential part of the Bill of Rights, and an essential part of what makes America the country it is.
You cite certain circumstances where you find it acceptable to “allow” people to have guns. What if I were to cite certain circumstances where I were to decide how you were to use your body (using your argument with respect to freedom of choice)? Answer? It is not up to me, any more than you possess the right to tell me where and when I can own a gun.
You speak of only the police having guns. That idea horrifies me. This is the sort of thinking that leads to an authoritarian police state. You think I’m kidding? Look at the first thing every despot goes for when he/she grabs power. The guns. Followed by the modes of free communication (press, radio, TV, etc). You want an eye-opener? Read what Mahatma Gandhi had to say about gun ownership under the British Raj. Yeah, that Mahatma Gandhi.
You want to impose training for safety and proper use? You bet. I am all for that, as well as a thorough background check prior to purchase. But, under no circumstances will I allow anyone to infringe upon my rights to own a gun. Ever. Anymore than I would allow someone to infringe upon my rights of free speech, religion or franchise.
You feel comfortable having the police protect you? That is your choice. However, I trust the police about as much as I trust the government, which is to say very little.
Remember Lord Acton’s admonition: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Be very careful about giving your liberty and your rights away, you might never get them back.
On another note, I am all for the legalization of marijuana. I am probably too Catholic to go for legalizing prostitution, but a person’s choice of professions should be their own, regardless of nature.
Participantmarion: The 2nd Amendment is very clear on the topic, and the founding fathers understood quite well that the only way to avoid the despotism they fled in England was to have a well-armed citizenry as a counterweight. Adams, Jefferson, and Paine all wrote of the need, and understood it’s importance (which is why the only Amendment that pre-dates the 2nd Amendment is the 1st Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech, religion and peaceful assembly).
There are those who conflate the two parts of the 2nd Amendment with each other, saying that the founding fathers meant the right to bear arms is tied to the formation of a militia. This is nonsense. The right to keep and bear arms is an essential part of the Bill of Rights, and an essential part of what makes America the country it is.
You cite certain circumstances where you find it acceptable to “allow” people to have guns. What if I were to cite certain circumstances where I were to decide how you were to use your body (using your argument with respect to freedom of choice)? Answer? It is not up to me, any more than you possess the right to tell me where and when I can own a gun.
You speak of only the police having guns. That idea horrifies me. This is the sort of thinking that leads to an authoritarian police state. You think I’m kidding? Look at the first thing every despot goes for when he/she grabs power. The guns. Followed by the modes of free communication (press, radio, TV, etc). You want an eye-opener? Read what Mahatma Gandhi had to say about gun ownership under the British Raj. Yeah, that Mahatma Gandhi.
You want to impose training for safety and proper use? You bet. I am all for that, as well as a thorough background check prior to purchase. But, under no circumstances will I allow anyone to infringe upon my rights to own a gun. Ever. Anymore than I would allow someone to infringe upon my rights of free speech, religion or franchise.
You feel comfortable having the police protect you? That is your choice. However, I trust the police about as much as I trust the government, which is to say very little.
Remember Lord Acton’s admonition: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Be very careful about giving your liberty and your rights away, you might never get them back.
On another note, I am all for the legalization of marijuana. I am probably too Catholic to go for legalizing prostitution, but a person’s choice of professions should be their own, regardless of nature.
Participantmarion: The 2nd Amendment is very clear on the topic, and the founding fathers understood quite well that the only way to avoid the despotism they fled in England was to have a well-armed citizenry as a counterweight. Adams, Jefferson, and Paine all wrote of the need, and understood it’s importance (which is why the only Amendment that pre-dates the 2nd Amendment is the 1st Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech, religion and peaceful assembly).
There are those who conflate the two parts of the 2nd Amendment with each other, saying that the founding fathers meant the right to bear arms is tied to the formation of a militia. This is nonsense. The right to keep and bear arms is an essential part of the Bill of Rights, and an essential part of what makes America the country it is.
You cite certain circumstances where you find it acceptable to “allow” people to have guns. What if I were to cite certain circumstances where I were to decide how you were to use your body (using your argument with respect to freedom of choice)? Answer? It is not up to me, any more than you possess the right to tell me where and when I can own a gun.
You speak of only the police having guns. That idea horrifies me. This is the sort of thinking that leads to an authoritarian police state. You think I’m kidding? Look at the first thing every despot goes for when he/she grabs power. The guns. Followed by the modes of free communication (press, radio, TV, etc). You want an eye-opener? Read what Mahatma Gandhi had to say about gun ownership under the British Raj. Yeah, that Mahatma Gandhi.
You want to impose training for safety and proper use? You bet. I am all for that, as well as a thorough background check prior to purchase. But, under no circumstances will I allow anyone to infringe upon my rights to own a gun. Ever. Anymore than I would allow someone to infringe upon my rights of free speech, religion or franchise.
You feel comfortable having the police protect you? That is your choice. However, I trust the police about as much as I trust the government, which is to say very little.
Remember Lord Acton’s admonition: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Be very careful about giving your liberty and your rights away, you might never get them back.
On another note, I am all for the legalization of marijuana. I am probably too Catholic to go for legalizing prostitution, but a person’s choice of professions should be their own, regardless of nature.
Participantmarion: The 2nd Amendment is very clear on the topic, and the founding fathers understood quite well that the only way to avoid the despotism they fled in England was to have a well-armed citizenry as a counterweight. Adams, Jefferson, and Paine all wrote of the need, and understood it’s importance (which is why the only Amendment that pre-dates the 2nd Amendment is the 1st Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech, religion and peaceful assembly).
There are those who conflate the two parts of the 2nd Amendment with each other, saying that the founding fathers meant the right to bear arms is tied to the formation of a militia. This is nonsense. The right to keep and bear arms is an essential part of the Bill of Rights, and an essential part of what makes America the country it is.
You cite certain circumstances where you find it acceptable to “allow” people to have guns. What if I were to cite certain circumstances where I were to decide how you were to use your body (using your argument with respect to freedom of choice)? Answer? It is not up to me, any more than you possess the right to tell me where and when I can own a gun.
You speak of only the police having guns. That idea horrifies me. This is the sort of thinking that leads to an authoritarian police state. You think I’m kidding? Look at the first thing every despot goes for when he/she grabs power. The guns. Followed by the modes of free communication (press, radio, TV, etc). You want an eye-opener? Read what Mahatma Gandhi had to say about gun ownership under the British Raj. Yeah, that Mahatma Gandhi.
You want to impose training for safety and proper use? You bet. I am all for that, as well as a thorough background check prior to purchase. But, under no circumstances will I allow anyone to infringe upon my rights to own a gun. Ever. Anymore than I would allow someone to infringe upon my rights of free speech, religion or franchise.
You feel comfortable having the police protect you? That is your choice. However, I trust the police about as much as I trust the government, which is to say very little.
Remember Lord Acton’s admonition: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Be very careful about giving your liberty and your rights away, you might never get them back.
On another note, I am all for the legalization of marijuana. I am probably too Catholic to go for legalizing prostitution, but a person’s choice of professions should be their own, regardless of nature.
ParticipantSDR: Couple of quick observations. First, I’ve played and coached a lot of football, and I will tell you that God shows up an awful lot. More games than you would believe are decided by calls (bad and good), as well as those plays that seem either impossible or unbelievable (Vinatieri ganking that kick against the Chargers). I had a coach tell me one time that football games are won by the team making less mistakes and with the refs on their side.
Second, I am believing less and less in the Patsie’s invincibility. I think Billick and Baltimore really exposed the age and durability of the NE linebacking corps when they dosed them heavily with McGahee and that running attack. Against either the Jags or the Chargers, I think NE has a problem. I think Belichick has gotten into a lot of coaches’ heads this year, and I honestly think Indy had them cold earlier this year, but blew it late in the game. I also think that San Diego has Indy’s number, and you guys match up better than you realize, especially if you can rattle Manning.
On an unrelated note, Rivers needs to grow up. That nonsense with Cutler during last night’s game was childish. I understand the AFC West rivalry (I am a Raiders fan, after all), but what was that?
-
AuthorPosts
