Posted on 02/20/2006 6:24:40 AM PST by Shalom Israel
The imagined part is the severity of problem, not whether the problem exist at all. A country the size of the U.S., there is no problem that doesn't exist on some level, the debate is always about the severity of each and which should be given priority.
"Must"? You mean, something bad will happen to them if they get dropped off, or take the bus, or walk?
This BS started at a paper mill in the sticks in Oklahoma izzy. You either got to work by driving, parked in the company lot [sans gun] or didn't work; -- but of course, a wise guy brady type like you could care less about our RKBA's.
and some of the employees are being fired for having a gun in their trunk. Those are the facts izzy.
That's perfectly within the property owner's rights. You don't have, and never did have, the right to bring a weapon onto my private property against my will. That you can't grasp this elementary fact is certainly troubling.
Thank you Ms Brady.
America doesn't need roads? -- You're getting weird again. - We're nearly finished.
"America" needs roads? You're anthropomorphizing again. "America" the piece of land has no needs, because it's inanimate. So what sentient being is doing this needing? You seem to think that America is itself an individual with needs. I deny the existence of this individual. People have needs. Many people will say they "need" roads--but not me: where I live, we travel by dogsled. Yet, amazingly, you are comfortable extorting money from me, who doesn't "need" any roads, and handing it over to other people, who want roads, and you justify it by claiming that "America" has a "need" for those roads. Once again, you're confused.
Ho hum.. You're got a pitifully limited 'line' of sarcastic patter izzy. Find some new ways of showing FR your idiocy.
And your individual neighbor may have the right to object, Constitutionally, about how you burn or bury your garbage izzy. -- Think about it.
He may, for example if my handling of garbage sends smoke or stink onto his private property.
Exactly my point izzy.
If I refrain from violating his private property rights with smoke, stink, etc., then he has no grounds to object. For example, he can object that I'm not being "environmentally friendly" all he wants, and it don't mean squat. But you appear to be claiming that this statement of yours justifies forcing me to pay for garbage collection I don't want. This is the heart of the problem: you don't actually believe in private property.
Absurd "yo momma" conclusion.
You believe that some cases justify your violating your neighbor's property rights, for example if you don't like his rules about guns on his land, or if you don't like his method of handling garbage.
Another absurd "yo momma" conclusion.
No, I took an oath to protect & defend the Constitution 51 years ago izzy, one I still honor. -- Obviously, you do not.
Ignoring your ad hominem--what else is new--
In our dialog here you've consistently scorned our Constitutional rule of law my boy. --- Obviously you do not honor many of its principles; -- thus there is no ad homiem in saying so.
I repeat, then that "we the people" passed Jim Crow laws. That makes them okie-dokie to you. Unless you retract your ridiculous claim that a law must be legitimate whenever "we the people" pass that law.
Yet another absurd, [and boring] "yo momma" type conclusion.
I've been a building contractor for 45 years izzy. -- So find someone else to post your BS lectures to about contracts.
Then you're either lying about your experience, or you're lying when you dispute what I say.
Absurd "yo momma" conclusion, that borders on personal insult.
Assuming you're an honest businesman, you know that you've done lots of things not specifically listed in the contract, because they were part of doing your job in a workmanlike manner. If you're a dishonest contractor--there's certainly no shortage of those--then you have done the opposite: you've failed to clean up the site when you finished, because the contract didn't say you had to; you've painted without proper surface preparation, because the contract said you'd "paint", but didn't detail the surface preparation required; you nailed cleats to the roof, straight through the shingles, because it was easier and the contract didn't specify roof jacks... and if all of that is true, then I know your real name, because you recently "painted" my house. Meanwhile, here's some reading to educate yourself on implied and oral contracts. You'll find it agrees with my summary, though my summary was clearer.
Dream on izzy. You really do think you're some sort of superior 'summarizer', don't you? Get help with such delusions.
You don't have a right to keep and bear arms into my house. Your lack of respect for private property rights speaks for itself.
The rest of your post contains no attempt at argument whatsoever. If you drop this final argument, you will have conceded the entire discussion. Do as you please, of course--but it's a shame. So many subjects have come up, and you seem to have learned nothing about any of them.
Got another email from VMI this morning. I suggest you might want to read this article (link below) to make your own assessment of the attitude of VMI towards government:
http://www.mises.org/story/2066
You'll note the author's kind words for the current state of affairs in Somali despite the loss of a million lives. After all there is no central government.
This BS started at a paper mill in the sticks in Oklahoma izzy. You either got to work by driving, parked in the company lot [sans gun] or didn't work; -- but of course, a wise guy brady type like you could care less about our RKBA's.
You don't have a right to keep and bear arms into my house.
How inane izzy. -- We are discussing the right to carry arms in your trunk, while at work.
Your lack of respect for private property rights speaks for itself.
I respect the property rights of those people that respect mine. It's my trunk & I have a right to keep a gun in it while at work.
The rest of your post contains no attempt at argument whatsoever. If you drop this final argument, you will have conceded the entire discussion. Do as you please, of course--but it's a shame. So many subjects have come up, and you seem to have learned nothing about any of them.
Another silly "Yo' momma" comment.
You are a piece of work kid.. Grow up.
"Let's say"? You mean, for the sake of argument, let's just pretend that my property is my property? Um, OK, let's just pretend...
As an employee forced to park in your lot...
Again with "forced". Frankly, pal, you aren't forced to do nothin'. You aren't forced to work for me, for that matter, if you find my rules so intolerable.
How inane izzy. -- We are discussing the right to carry arms in your trunk, while at work onto someone else's private property.
I fixed that for you. Now think about it. Slowly. Carefully. You can do it.
"Nonetheless, I don't think it would be any different than a sandlot game initially and would work its way into a team structure based upon the members of the team best suited to it calling plays and picking teams.'
But that's the problem. We're not talking 'sandlot'. We're talking about the military making war where people die and nations cease to exist. Pretty big stakes to gamble on sandlot amateurs.
"In fact, it's usually well-balanced teams that are advantaged on the field ..."
That was my point. Centralized player selection results in 'balanced teams'. Allowing different contractos to select players based upon their individual preferences and predjudices may result in 'unbalanced teams'. Want to risk your life, your kids life, our your country on that?
I guess there's just nothing good to be said about not having enough government, and nothing bad to said about having too much.
Can you give an example of a lawsuit in which two parties' "rights" come "into conflict".
Let's say you claim the 'right' to ban arms in your company parking lot. As an employee forced to park in your lot, I claim the right to have a gun in my car trunk. --
"Let's say"? You mean, for the sake of argument, let's just pretend that my property is my property? Um, OK, let's just pretend...
You asked izzy.. Did you 'forget'? --- Or is it possible you need 'rest' again? [about this time last night you made the same weird mistakes]
As an employee forced to park in your lot...
Again with "forced". Frankly, pal, you aren't forced to do nothin'. You aren't forced to work for me, for that matter, if you find my rules so intolerable.
We've went over this before. --
--- This BS started at a paper mill in the sticks in Oklahoma izzy. You either got to work by driving, parked in the company lot [sans gun] or didn't work; -- but of course, a wise guy brady type like you could care less about our RKBA's.
You don't have a right to keep and bear arms into my house.
How inane izzy. -- We are discussing the right to carry arms in your trunk, while at work.
-- We are discussing the right to carry arms in your trunk, while at work onto someone else's private property. I fixed that for you. Now think about it. Slowly. Carefully. You can do it.
No need to think about your idiocy izzy; -- you demonstrate it with every post.
Now why don't you be a good boy and get lost? I think I hear "yo' momma" calling.
I invoke Israel's law and declare you the loser. However, I will leave you with one thought you'll apparently find mind-blowing: that parking lot is your boss's land. It isn't yours. He's in charge of it. You aren't. Very simple, really.
"I guess there's just nothing good to be said about not having enough government, and nothing bad to said about having too much."
Do you think a million deaths would be a 'small price to pay' for doing away with government? Remember, Somali has a far smaller population than the US. Wonder what the percentage of deaths would be too large to pay for VMI?
What do you think the price would be for making all your decisions based on strawman arguments?
Alaska anti-gun-control law goes into effect Wednesday
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1503545/posts
"-- Gun owners will be allowed to keep their firearms in their vehicle, even if the car is parked on private property where the owner has a no-gun policy. --"
Hooray. Yet another advance for property rights in America. You should be pleased, comrade.
Every statist communitarian on FR somehow wants to use 'property rights' to trump our right to carry arms. -- And you agree.
"-- My leanings are libertarian, generally speaking. --" [ my leanings on guns? don't ask]
On the contrary, comrade, I will die to protect your right to bear arms. I will also die to defend your neighbor's right to kick you off his land for any reason he wishes, whether it be your arms, your race, your ugly mug, or his secret passion for your wife. Your rights and his are compatible. If you insist on violating his rights, he has the right to defend himself using deadly force, and I hope he does.
I will die to protect your right to bear arms.
Except when I'm bearing them in my car trunk in the company parking lot. -- Bold words, but obviously specious.
I will also die to defend your neighbor's right to kick you off his land for any reason he wishes, whether it be your arms, your race, your ugly mug, or his secret passion for your wife.
Gotta love your 'defense' of irrationality.
Your rights and his are compatible.
They should be, but he irrationally wants me disarmed at work.
If you insist on violating his rights,
My gun in my trunk in no way violate his rights; and you cannot show such a violation. -- Can you try?
he has the right to defend himself using deadly force, and I hope he does.
Straw man. -- No one here has questioned his right to self defense, as you well know.
In other words, you don't believe in private property rights. You are comfortable imposing your will on the property owner whenever it seems like a good idea to you. Which is exactly the trouble. You probably believe in "limited" government, but when you come right down to it, the difference between you and a dictator is only one of degree.
They should be, but he irrationally wants me disarmed at work.
Apparently nothing will get it through your head that "your" work is actually his property. You have no rights to dictate how he uses his property. The problem is that you believe you do.
My gun in my trunk in no way violate his rights; and you cannot show such a violation. -- Can you try?
My sleeping in your house whenever I please in no way violates your rights. I welcome you to try to prove otherwise.
Straw man.
No. If you attack him and he kills you, that's self defense. If you trespass on his property and he kills you, that's self defense. If he invites you onto his property under certain conditions, and you violate those conditions and attempt to force your way onto his property anyway, then he has the right to kill you in self defense. It's his property.
Something tells me you'd suddenly lose all your thick-headedness if you invited me to your house, where your wife is allergic to peanuts, and I insist on entering with a big bag of them; of if you simply don't like smoke, but I insist on smoking a cigar in your living room; or if you're raising young children, but I insist on bringing dirty movies with me; or if you hate rap, but I insist on playing it loudly in your guest room. Your head will suddenly clear, and you'll realize that it's your house, and in your house, you make the rules.
Your rights and his [the employer] are compatible.
They should be, but he irrationally wants me disarmed at work.
If you insist on violating his rights,
My gun in my trunk in no way violates his rights; and you cannot show such a violation. -- Can you try?
My sleeping in your house whenever I please in no way violates your rights.
Thats it? -- Thats your "try"?
-- Like the rest of your comments in that post, you make no rational arguments to counter.
On the contrary: the answer to my example, as to yours, is it's the owner's private property. You don't believe that the owner is in charge of his own property; you think you are. The burden is on you to prove that you're in charge.
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.