He said, 'If you come on my land, I'll kill you'

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000land.htm ^

[Luis Gonzalez]

"You could clear it up with a simple yes or no but you continue to distract and divert."

Several people tried to get t to answer a few simple questions on anither threead; three thousand posts later, he's never answered one.

"You credibility is falling."

That happened quite a long time ago.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Luis Gonzalez insists that ~his~ rules over his property trumps our rule of law about carrying arms in vehicles."

No, you insist that your gun gives you the right to be on my propety against my wishes.

Something that most murderers, rapists, thugs and thieves agree witn you on.

[UpAllNight]

--You just can't post without resorting to insults can you?--

Nevermind. I see that you forget that you insulted me. I didn't insult you. I posted JR's (paraphased) position and you implied that I thought this formum supported Castro and other dictators. I posted JR's exact words and said only and idiot would think that this forum supported Castro. Now, how is that an insult?

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'll add my unanswered question to Up's...

t...what right do you have to be on my property against my wishes?

[from occupied ga]

I see that you forget that you insulted me

Where? I'm fairly certain that I didn't call you and idiot whatever I was thinking.

[UpAllNight]

I guess I shouldn't feel slighted when he posts to you that he is glad to have the chance to clarify to you but ignores my requests to clarify if he still approves of the GA bill after our discussions.

Not even a simple yes or no. Just insults. Does he have something to hide?

[tpaine]

durasell wrote:

The attitudes displayed on this thread will decide elections for a long time to come.

Yep.. -- Those absolutist attitudes ~have~ been deciding elections for far too long.
-- At one time this country was run by constitutional principles summed up by the golden political rule: -- 'Do not do onto others what you do not want done to you.'

I don't want my right to carry arms infringed upon by property rights absolutists.

[RobRoy]

>>The attitudes displayed on this thread will decide elections for a long time to come.<<

I disagree. I would say that the attitudes here REFLECT the results of past and future elections.

[durasell]

This isn't about firearms. It's about a guy in a simple property dispute with local authorities. What makes it notable from the hundreds of thousands of other similar disputes is the fact that he felt so powerless than he "fought back" in an unreasonable manner.

[UpAllNight]

--Where? I'm fairly certain that I didn't call you and idiot whatever I was thinking.--

Somewhere back implying something about supporting Castro. BTW, I didn't call you an idiot. I said IF you believed JR supported Castro, you were an idiot.

[from occupied ga]

Somewhere back implying something about supporting Castro.

You inferred the insult - I didn't imply one nor did I state it I simply asked you if you thought that armed rebellion was never appropriate, or just not appropriate at this time. To which you responded with some pompous irrelevant crap about FR not supporting rebellion -apparently to avoid a discussion. discussing something isn't supporting it.

[durasell]

I've never seen such support for a guy who took on the system and lost -- and make no mistake, he lost. He's not the patron saint of individualism, he's the patron saint of losers.

[RobRoy]

I agree. But this has nothing to do with my post.

[tpaine]

"-- Our existence carries a social contract that should be secured by the Rule of Law; whereas nowadays we progressively appear to be be enslaved by Mob Rule and survival of the fittest. --"

Well put. Our constitutional social contract should indeed be secured by the rule of law.

Watson insisted that ~his~ rules over his property trumped our rule of law.

Luis Gonzalez insists that ~his~ rules over his property trumps our rule of law about carrying arms in vehicles.

Upallnight agrees with luis.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my position fellas.

UpAllNight & luis counter:

No, you insist that your gun gives you the right to be on my propety against my wishes. Something that most murderers, rapists, thugs and thieves agree witn you on.

Nope, you absolutists insist that ~your~ rules about parking lots trump our constitutional rule of law about carrying arms in vehicles.

Dream on.

[UpAllNight]

--UpAllNight & luis counter:--

Please retract that. I did NOT say what you said I said.

[UpAllNight]

--I agree.-- OK.

--But this has nothing to do with my post.--

Which one?

[UpAllNight]

--Nope, you absolutists insist that ~your~ rules about parking lots trump our constitutional rule of law about carrying arms in vehicles.--

I don't understand. Please clarify. I support the same GA bill that you support? Does that make you an abolutist?

[UpAllNight]

--Upallnight agrees with luis.--

Please post where I agree with luis. I stated earlier that I have no idea what luis thinks nor have I asked him for his position. You originally asked me for my position and I gave it to you. Please refer to my stated positions when referencing what I think.

[UpAllNight]

If I were to use your type of debate, I might say something like:

"tpaine believes that he can come into your house armed even if you tell him not to."

But I wouldn't do that because that would be taking the argument out of the norm into the extreme.

[UpAllNight]

From you post:

---

UpAllNight & luis counter:

No, you insist that your gun gives you the right to be on my propety against my wishes. Something that most murderers, rapists, thugs and thieves agree witn you on.

---

I didn't counter with that statement. But, really, did you say that you have the right to be on my property against my wishes? That is trespassing! Beware, I am a firm believer in defending my person and property so I suggest you not try it.