Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 62
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by duane1969 View Post
    First off, calling someone ignorant is unnecessary. I did not insult you or be unreasonable with you. If the only way you can debate is to be insulting then I suggest you duck out now.

    Second, I was generalizing with 200 MPH to make a point. Good job of arguing semantics tho.

    Third, nuclear warheads are encased in lead, so no being around them would not result in death, and again that is a sematic and is not the point. You have gone off subject and still not shown how there is a legal basis against them. You continue to argue social aspects.
    I told you the legal basis for all your points in my first reply to you... you are the one going all over the place here. You stated getting HIV results in death "most of the time".. this is ignorant. I'm not insulting you, I am using the word in its proper context lol. We aren't in 1982 anymore.. HIV is not a death sentence, its a kin to getting diabetes now. What you said was... ignorant lol. Sorry you took it as an insult, but there is no other synonym I could use here.
    For an updated look at what I have for sale or trade please click my eBay User ID.... usually thousands of items available in all genre's

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Wickabee View Post
    Hold on a second here. You claimed that public safety and disease were in no way legal issues and only social ones. HIV makes that argument crap on the road. The LAWS surrounding HIV are to prevent the spread of the DISEASE in the name of PUBLIC SAFETY.

    So please, tell me again how public safety and disease do not come into law anywhere.

    Way to move the posts, good buddy.
    Although everyone wants to argue tangents and semantics, my point is simple. Laws against owning a nuke, having sex with animals, etc. are based on social aspects. They are not purely legally based. Every single response to my post by everyone has been based on the social impact. There is no purely legal basis for not owning a nuke or not having sex with animals. My point was that the OP expects people to defend their social opinions with only legal facts, which is virtually never the case in law.

    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content
    "Amidst the uncertainties of war, every soldier is entitled to one certainty...that he will not be forgotten.
    Poor is the nation that has no heroes, shameful is the one that, having them...forgets."


  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Wickabee View Post
    If they sit in a collection and don't get used, then yeah, they're for looking at, not for cutting.
    What a stupid question.
    *smacks forehead*.. so there is no practical purpose to a weapon other than being collected??? We shouldn't regulate lethal weapons because people collect them?!
    For an updated look at what I have for sale or trade please click my eBay User ID.... usually thousands of items available in all genre's

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by duane1969 View Post
    Although everyone wants to argue tangents and semantics, my point is simple. Laws against owning a nuke, having sex with animals, etc. are based on social aspects. They are not purely legally based. Every single response to my post by everyone has been based on the social impact. There is no purely legal basis for not owning a nuke or not having sex with animals. My point was that the OP expects people to defend their social opinions with only legal facts, which is virtually never the case in law.
    if you think rape, spreading disease, and putting others lives in danger (or killing them) are all "socially based"... then there's no getting to you. You just don't get it
    For an updated look at what I have for sale or trade please click my eBay User ID.... usually thousands of items available in all genre's

  5. #45
    Then what the hell kind of issue is it Jay ?
    If it wasnt a legal one we wouldnt be addressing the SCOTUS
    my concern was not a legal one
    Jay Shrewsbury
    Hidden Content

  6. #46


    Wickabee's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    17,364
    Country
    Card Cash
    250.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    2
    Transferred Feedback
    Beckett (66)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Quote Originally Posted by Imac7065 View Post
    *smacks forehead*.. so there is no practical purpose to a weapon other than being collected??? We shouldn't regulate lethal weapons because people collect them?!
    *smacks forehead* Show me where I said that. You said there is no other purpose for guns and I gave you another purpose. I didn't say they aren't weapons for that reason. I wasn't speaking in terms of all or nothing, you are.

    I want to try something. Tell me what this says to you:
    Purple monkey dishwasher

    I'm assuming it will be something about French art.
    Patiently waiting for someone to bring back sax solos and keytars non ironically.

  7. #47


    Wickabee's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    17,364
    Country
    Card Cash
    250.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    2
    Transferred Feedback
    Beckett (66)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Quote Originally Posted by duane1969 View Post
    Although everyone wants to argue tangents and semantics, my point is simple. Laws against owning a nuke, having sex with animals, etc. are based on social aspects. They are not purely legally based. Every single response to my post by everyone has been based on the social impact. There is no purely legal basis for not owning a nuke or not having sex with animals. My point was that the OP expects people to defend their social opinions with only legal facts, which is virtually never the case in law.
    Public safety IS a legal matter. If it wasn't, driving 200mph would be legal. How do you not understand this?
    Patiently waiting for someone to bring back sax solos and keytars non ironically.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Wickabee View Post
    *smacks forehead* Show me where I said that. You said there is no other purpose for guns and I gave you another purpose. I didn't say they aren't weapons for that reason. I wasn't speaking in terms of all or nothing, you are.

    I want to try something. Tell me what this says to you:
    Purple monkey dishwasher

    I'm assuming it will be something about French art
    .
    Simpsons episode....so is it art!?

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Wickabee View Post
    Public safety IS a legal matter. If it wasn't, driving 200mph would be legal. How do you not understand this?
    Yeah, I don't get how owning a nuke is a social issue...

    But Duane, I understand the final point you were making.

  10. #50


    Wickabee's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    17,364
    Country
    Card Cash
    250.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    2
    Transferred Feedback
    Beckett (66)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Quote Originally Posted by Monsterx View Post
    Simpsons episode....so is it art!?
    I don't know. I say people collect guns and I that means I think guns aren't weapons, so who knows how his brain interprets purple monkey dishwasher.
    Patiently waiting for someone to bring back sax solos and keytars non ironically.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •