only to the tune of several hundred billion of your tax dollars,
a significant portion of which is currently lining the pockets of vermin lawyers,
most all of whom are completely deserving of whatever hate crime you'd care to contemplate ...
Posted on 10/06/2002 7:48:41 AM PDT by SheLion
Edited on 07/14/2004 12:59:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Most people cringe at the sight of a pregnant woman smoking. Some people feel strongly enough to say something in protest. But one local man took matters into his own hands early Friday when, according to police, he shot an expectant mother who refused to put out her cigarette.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
Nice try. Wrong answer.
This is a thread about smokers and their rights. It's not about guns.
Cigarettes don't abuse people. People abuse cigarettes.
Guns don't harm people. People harm people.
You implied it. Here's more proof:
" just that the freak shooting people is probably a member."
" I have several guns also, just not a member of that particular, sad, organization."
the organization, as I said before promotes Freedom. You do not, that's why you villify it. You claim to own guns. Well either you do, think you're special and other folks should submit to your particular scrutiny and requirements, or you don't and you just hate the fact that other folks have Freedom and the will and capacity to defend it against those that would have everyone bow to their demands.
LOL! Don't tell that to pinko nacho.
Oh, brother. Every crime is a hate crime. Don't tell me smokers are claiming victim status, now, too.
Well, yes, it does make sense now.
You think "The Omen" was a documentary and you have a Hollywood-inspired Satan obsession.
Your apparent inability to differentiate between fantasy and reality has caused you to conclude that this woman's smoking a cigarette was a sign of her consummate evil and that she deserved to be shot, since she was obviously carrying Satan's child.
Was that the point of your nearly incomprehensible post?
No, but it is an indicator that they are more likely to make silly statements... for example:
If I have the righ to bear arms, then I have the right to own a nuclear bomb - if you say no, then you are for gun control.
We've covered that ground a thousand times around here. (See? Directly as a result of your inexperience on FR.) Ping Lazamataz for a full education on that nonsensical argument. Read, lurk, learn, inquire, THEN make bold statements. There is no better site on the internet for getting educated than FR.
(Basically, it boils down to a right to modern weapons that can be used selectively, and not something whose use cannot be controlled on a specific target... but again, Laz will have the details, logical thought processes, supportive statements from the Founding Fathers, etc)
only to the tune of several hundred billion of your tax dollars,
a significant portion of which is currently lining the pockets of vermin lawyers,
most all of whom are completely deserving of whatever hate crime you'd care to contemplate ...
Didn't read much of it did you?
"A Montgomery County Police spokesman confirmed that the BOLO describes the suspects in the sniper slayings as "Hispanic."
But he cautioned that they could be another non-white race.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that smoking isn't the healthiest choice one can make, but I find social engineering more despicable than cigarette smoke. Then again, cigarette smoke doesn't bother me.
Back to the main point, I am all for people owning guns, but there needs to be a limit. If I have the righ to bear arms, then I have the right to own a nuclear bomb - if you say no, then you are for gun control.
"Possession of a gun is not a threat. Pointing it at someone is. The threat is not the gun itself but the act of pointing it at somebody.
"The same rule would apply to nuclear weapons. The device itself is not the threat. The threat derives from the act of pointing it at someone. Because weapons of mass destruction are indiscriminate, anyone in the blast radius is effectively having a weapon pointed at them. Unless they have consented to this condition, they may legitimately consider themselves threatened with deadly force and may respond accordingly. Prohibition of private ownership of such weapons could be morally justified on these grounds." -- Alan Chapman
I don't know that the boy intended to beat the other boy to death. The fact is that children fight all the time, and sometimes children are killed in those fights. Not every story makes the news, and not every beating of a child to death by another child is about cigarettes.
I too, am against abortion. But surely, you don't advocate violence against the Doctors and clinics??
My grandmothers smoked through all their pregnancies, and none of my aunts, uncles, or my parents received any ill effects.
Today, most consider it evil if you had a glass of wine before you even discover you are pregnant. God forbid they see you sipping a can of diet soda too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.