26 Apr 15
Originally posted by Wajomasuch insight. such keen intellect.
A country doesn't 'think' so there is no country that thinks one way or the other on this issue.
it never occurred to me that a geographical area delimited by borders is inanimate and cannot think. because that's what i meant by country. not "country" as a group of people that share a nationality, a meaning that is commonly used to express something about the people of a country.
26 Apr 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziA group of people that share a nationality do not all think the same thing so you're wrong a second time now.
such insight. such keen intellect.
it never occurred to me that a geographical area delimited by borders is inanimate and cannot think. because that's what i meant by country. not "country" as a group of people that share a nationality, a meaning that is commonly used to express something about the people of a country.
26 Apr 15
Originally posted by Wajomayou can still say "the nation/country/people chose obama" and understand he didn't win by 100% vote.
A group of people that share a nationality do not all think the same thing so you're wrong a second time now.
i am done feeding you troll.
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziThat's probably something you might like to say but what would you really mean?
you can still say "the nation/country/people chose obama" and understand he didn't win by 100% vote.
i am done feeding you troll.
What percentage of eligible voters actually 'chose' obuma?
The point has been made, a country doesn't 'think'.
People think, individuals think.
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by Wajoma[b[People think, individuals think.[/b]
That's probably something you might like to say but what would you really mean?
What percentage of eligible voters actually 'chose' obuma?
The point has been made, a country doesn't 'think'.
People think, individuals think.
Some individuals do. Not Zahlanzi obviously.
30 Apr 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziNobody thinks you're even close to relevantly logical. The two activities are unrelated. You are comparing apples to cinder blocks.
i guess we're done here then.
apparently nobody thinks it's funny that you require 1000 hours of experience to apply hot wax to someone's bunghole but absolutely no training to get a gun.
30 Apr 15
Originally posted by normbenignthat's what i was saying. one requires training to do properly. the other one doesn't. because firing a gun is a natural right and we are all naturally awesome at it.
Nobody thinks you're even close to relevantly logical. The two activities are unrelated. You are comparing apples to cinder blocks.
30 Apr 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziThere is a natural right to self defense, which firearms provide. Nobody has a natural right to get their butt waxed. The two are not comparable, but I don't expect you to understand that.
that's what i was saying. one requires training to do properly. the other one doesn't. because firing a gun is a natural right and we are all naturally awesome at it.
30 Apr 15
Originally posted by normbenigntanks also provide self defense. since you consider that because of the right to self defense one should be allowed any tool, i would like a tank.
There is a natural right to self defense, which firearms provide. Nobody has a natural right to get their butt waxed. The two are not comparable, but I don't expect you to understand that.
of course, a tank might not be enough. i must also be allowed to place land mines on my lawn. it is my right to defend myself after all.
finally, i want several nukes. as a deterrent. i am not gonna use them irresponsibly, i promise, and you can rest assured that i know in how to use them. after all, they are a natural right.
30 Apr 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziArnold Schwarzenegger owns a tank, there are a number of them in private hands.
tanks also provide self defense. since you consider that because of the right to self defense one should be allowed any tool, i would like a tank.
of course, a tank might not be enough. i must also be allowed to place land mines on my lawn. it is my right to defend myself after all.
finally, i want several nukes. as a deterrent. i am not gonna use t ...[text shortened]... , and you can rest assured that i know in how to use them. after all, they are a natural right.
30 Apr 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou have strayed a bit from the Kansas law, haven't you? Have you bought a gun? If you have, you probably read the owner's manual. There are several dozen warnings included, including usually advise to get expert training, voluntarily.
tanks also provide self defense. since you consider that because of the right to self defense one should be allowed any tool, i would like a tank.
of course, a tank might not be enough. i must also be allowed to place land mines on my lawn. it is my right to defend myself after all.
finally, i want several nukes. as a deterrent. i am not gonna use t ...[text shortened]... , and you can rest assured that i know in how to use them. after all, they are a natural right.
01 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziI don't feel threatened by Arnold and his tank.
there you have it.
if you ahnuld comes at you with his tank, what can you do to defend yourself? now you MUST get one.
I do feel threatened by out of control goobermint, runaway buratcracy, thousands of pages of new regulation pooped out every year, increasing taxes, and the destruction of currency.
There ought to be a law against it.
01 May 15
Originally posted by WajomaHere, have a Kleenex.
I don't feel threatened by Arnold and his tank.
I do feel threatened by out of control goobermint, runaway buratcracy, thousands of pages of new regulation pooped out every year, increasing taxes, and the destruction of currency.
There ought to be a law against it.