Chocolate is not the worst kind of hellhole.
We can thank the Tennessee republicans for not funding the testing of rape kits. And they call themselves "Christians"- only if Charles Manson is the Pope. Let us not forget it was these same republicans who tried to pass a bill that would have re-defined rape to make it legal. Vote republican and you vote to support rape of women and children.
It's a communist chocolate hellhole, and I'm here to stop it from ever happening.
I do believe I'm gonna listen to me some green onions!
Wyatt Earp was totally gun control, didn't allow firearms in his town. Just a heads-up.
Unless you retreat state boundaries to just outside you barcolounger. You'll have to learn how to work with people who disagree with you. The dichotomy of bicameral interaction
is what you and the Tea Party will have to adapt to eventually, it's a force of nature.
MB, Congrats !!! Keep It Up !!
If there are rural communities and counties that want to play "Wyatt Earp," then let them have it; simply let the rest of us know which areas they are so the rest of us can avoid them like the plague. But for the counties and/or municipalities that don't want to play the urban version of the OK corral, don't try to force a wild west mentality on those who don't want it. The Tennessee GOP doesn't seem to get it.
If you want to believe that objects are "rights," then go for it.
Thanks for the personal references, cyber or not, I'll take you at your word. You should have heard the howls of protest from the good folks in housing projects when San Francisco tried to ban handguns.
Hadji's stories are like many others I know or am told by friends. It's a urban concern, less so rural. And as a state, urban, suburban and rural opinions, counts. Like when those urban freedom rider types imposed their beliefs on rural communities.
But if I ain't being robbed at the moment, living and working with and among people coming in and out, all carrying tools that would blow off my head makes me wonder if there ain't something a little more practical.
But then that would cost money and time.
I believe it is you that remains incorrect. Just because a gun is an object doesn't mean it isn't within the realm of a right. A news paper is an object. So is any other written object. My person is an object. So is yours. A printing press is an object.
The right to peaceably assemble. This concept also contains within it a right to an object, that being space and time. Smething that is visible, tangible, and relatively stable in form. Anything that can be apprehended intellectually is a object.
Objects can actually exist only in your mind, or they can exist outside of it.
If we take the meaning of right to contain no objects, the how would we enumerate. If we can't do that, voting doesn't mean anything.
You don't have to like it. That's your right. But it is the way things are. When the constitution says "keep and bear arms", that phrase includes within it weapons. Weapons are rights.
All of the anecdotes in the world won't change the fact that the Tennessee state GOP is trying impose what their rural constituents like and impose those preferences on the urban areas--and it isn't enough that they want to make it law for their own districts, they want to prevent the urban areas from being able to opt out. No matter how you slice it, that is the GOP acting like "big government."
I've had guns pointed at me. I've had them fired at me. I once was attacked because I refused to give a man two dollars. I've also been attacked because I told a man I didn't have any "extra" cigarettes. One of my family died right in front of his house from a gunshot wound. I once took a pistol away from someone that was trying to rob me. (I became angry because I literally had nothing of value. At all. So I took her pistol.) a group of young men tried to take my "boom box" as I walked thru a parking lot. That happened in Pamona. I once had a hunter point a rifle at me and tell me to get off of his land. It is my land. Admittedly not street crime. When I lived in the hood, no one ever tried to break into the house while I was in it. Guess why.
Thank you Terry,
We depend upon the kindness of strangers.
".....Jesse Jackson, whom I still find admirable"
There's a lot of loosy goosy with the topic here, But that's just nuts.
Yeah; well good luck with that.
Terry Scott and CL Mullins,
We prefer the term National Socialist, except we are multi-national and don't like to share.
Chris, since you persist in changing the subject:
“If we’re going to go after folks who are here illegally, we should do it smartly and go after folks who are criminals, gang bangers, people who are hurting the community.” That was Barack Obama, presumably a fellow dispenser of “nonsense,” during an eloquent patch of his second presidential debate with Mitt Romney. (That’s the one he won, remember?)
And here’s the Dictionary of Contemporary Slang: “Gangbanger, n American: a loyal and committed member of a street gang. This 1980s term is used by and about the members of street gangs in Los Angeles….”
As for “black-on-black” crime, here’s a link to remarks made that sane year by Jesse Jackson, whom I still find admirable: http://usat.ly/1hB6AI4. The article is entitled : “Column: Jesse Jackson rallies to stop black-on-black carnage.”
You’re way ahead of me on something Fully 95 percent (if not 100 percent) of the uses of the term “black-on-black crime” that I’ve encountered derive from African-American leaders like the Rev. Jackson, concerned with crime in their communities. Unlike you, I’m unaware of any systematic use of “black-on-black” by racist whites. I’d be pleased to receive any citations you have to that effect.
Only, please: I would ask you to communicate them to me privately. You’ve made your feelings about me and about this article clear, and I think readers would be bored silly by any more references to either one of us. Or to Rep. McDaniel, for that matter.
Whether you’re right or wrong about the “botching” and “bullshit” portions of the article, I do believe you could make a substantial contribution to a dialogue on the article’s main thrust. Strike that: intended main thrust.
Here's a good time to throw in you reality based experience with street crime and your need for a gun.
Personally I've gotten by with the old westside of Midtown approach for dealing with the street. I wish my wife would carry a gun, but she won't. She has used shoes and art portfolios as weapons on the street. (can I say how hot I find that image).
Again, you are incorrect. A gun is NOT a "right." A gun is an object. As poots indirectly but correctly pointed out, the "right" enumerated in the second amendment is the right to "bear arms;" and as is the case with those other rights you've mentioned, none of those rights are absolute. But again, this detracts from Mr. Baker's point regarding the Tennessee GOP's agenda.
A gun is a right. So is speech. As is press. And religion. We have the right to live in a city. Or not. As we choose. It's not a matter of perception. Neither is gravity.
That sounds about right.
The "red herring" of racism is usually on the other foot. What's astounding to me is that you introduce it, and then discard it, soooo easily. Almost as if it were nothing more than an adjective. Gosh.
By Toby Sells
download this issue
click here to see more »