Todd#43

Jesus...I didn't know you were the O-R police. If you don't give a shit, why did you get your panties in a wad when I said I don't give a fuck about him? Personally, I don't care if anyone else gives a shit about how I feel about him. I'm not here to parrot everyone else's thoughts, ideas or least of all feelings. I'm here for me. Don't like it? I don't care. If you dont want to know how I feel about someone, Nick especially, then don't comment...pass my posts by and don't read them. Oh, and I'm hurt that you rescinded your friend request that you sent me earlier. I'm all broken up about it.

Yup - luck of the draw that we live in the best country on the planet. No other reason. Sure, there are plenty of ways to protect oneself, but when the Constitution was written, that was it. Its a right because it is the cornerstone on which all of our other "freedoms" are based. Without the ability to defend ourselves as individuals the freedoms we have could be taken away. We all have lots of things we don't need. You don't need a 1300cc motorcycle. The issue is how do you set the limits. For example, starting today, we ca only buy a bike with a 1000cc engine. You can keep your 1300cc bike, but you can no longer buy parts for it. People say, "ok, 1000cc's is still plenty of power, we're ok with that. Two years from now the powers that be decide that 1000cc's is too much. The average guy doesn't need it. In fact, on a 250cc bike you can still go plenty fast on the roads. "The people caved in when we dropped it before this will be easy - we'll drop the limit to 250cc's. And so it goes until everyone is riding around on electric scooters that only do 25mph and only on certain roads. The same thing can happen with guns, and to a large degree it alread has. Once you let them start taking away rights and freedoms they don't stop until they have everything and you have nothing. No choice left but to give in and let big brother run the show.

I've not ridden with or met Nick in person, though I've had a personal invitation to: 04-20-2008, 10:08 PM NinjaNick Tequila + free time = fun '08 Kawasaki Ninja ZX14 Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Dayton/Kettering Posts: 5,402 Diggs: 0 Hi Want to take this offline and talk about this over the phone and see what escalates from there? :wink: You are the biggest ass on the board and you need taught some manners boy. (shame,shame) As it turns out, I passed. Personally, I wouldn't want to hang out with anyone who acts that way - no matter who it was directed at. Tell Nicky I said "hi". Maybe mommy will let him come out and play again sometime.

I think the term birthright is what's tripping you up. We have a right to bear arms in this country because of where we are born, not just because we were born. Think of it as an inheritance from Uncle Sam. It's not so hard to understand why the founding fathers included that in the Bill of Rights. To them it was the most important "thing" - to be able to protect yourself from any type of uprising. Arming yourself is the only way to do that. I dont think hover cars would apply here.

Apparently' date=' you're too lazy to read what happened. Let me bring you up to speed Two reasons: No one really gives a fuck about Nick Someone questioned a quote from Barack Obama in someone's signature. Not too difficult, really.

You're not serious, are you? Do you think we fought the revolutionary war with sticks? It became a right when the constitution and the bill of rights was ratified.

Does it matter?

I disagree with your opinion. I believe that he saying, ok the constitution says you have an individual right to bear arms, but as the government, we know how best for you to exercise that right. I think if you look deeper into his stance on this issue you'll find that he agrees with the concept of limiting the second amendment. But it doesn't limit or keep me from being a member of that religion. This is a question of semantics. I can slander or libel you. No problem. However, I may be prosecuted for it. Religion, speech and assembly are freedoms. Keeping and bearing arms is a right. I believe that there is a fundamental difference between the two. The DC gun ban infringed on residents right to KEEP arms. The court was right in striking it down, and Obama is wrong if he thinks he can limit that right.

Since Obama's quote dealt with the second amendment, and I believe the context was the DC gun ban, lets keep it to that. Restricting my ability to carry a weapon into an establishment that doesn't want me to have it there doesnt constrain my second amendment right. It may keep me from patronizing that establishment, but it doesn't do more than that. The DC gun ban was totally different. The key to your statement here is "infringing on another's right". With each freedom comes responsibility. I have all of my rights as long as they don't violate another's. This also has nothing to do with constraint. I may not be able to say what I want "in your face", but that doesn't keep me from saying it. Certainly there are limits to what I can say - slander, libel, etc. - and how I can say it - menacing, assault, etc. But it doesn't forbid me from saying it. Every freedom has restrictions... Freedom does not have "restrictions". Freedom, by its definition, is a "lack of restrictions" There are definable limits to a particular freedom, and freedom most certainly comes with responsibility. You're confusing two concepts - a "right" (as in a birthright - we are all entitled to it because we are born free men) and a "freedom". For American Citizens the ability to bear arms is a right. Religion, press, assembly, etc., are freedoms. Two completely different concepts.

Care to explain how this is correct? As it applies to the second amendment, of course. ..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." and further: con·strain 1.to force, compel, or oblige: He was constrained to admit the offense. 2.to confine forcibly, as by bonds. 3.to repress or restrain: Cold weather constrained the plant's growth. Main Entry:constrain Part of Speech:verb Definition:force; restrain Synonyms:ban, bar, bind, bottle up, bridle, chain, check, coerce, compel, concuss, confine, constrict, cool off, cork, curb, deny, deprive, disallow, drive, hem in, hog-tie, hold back, hold down, hold in, immure, impel, imprison, incarcerate, inhibit, intern, jail, keep lid on, make, necessitate, oblige, pressure, pressurize, put half nelson on, shotgun, stifle, urge, withhold Based on the definitions, "constrain" seems VERY similar to infringe: in·fringe 1.to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule. 2.to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy. Main Entry:infringe Part of Speech:verb Definition:violate Synonyms:borrow, breach, break, contravene, crash, disobey, encroach, entrench, impose, infract, intrude, invade, lift, meddle, obtrude, offend, pirate, presume, steal, transgress, trespass Not trying to pick nits, but it would seem to me that to constrain a right guaranteed by the Constitution would also infringe upon that right, no?

My guess is that's Angrish and Nick.

Yeah...that would be one I'd refuse. It's really no secret that I don't care for the guy so much. If you're wondering why, I'd be happy to repost the 57 private messages he's sent me. What a tool....

Angrish? On any guy that happened to be around?

Nah... I'm just the kind of person that most people don't wanna be "friends" with. I mean even pretend "internet friends"

Ummmm....yeah. I don't do the myspace thing.

Ummmm....I'd like to buy a vowell?

Is someone trying to boost their post count?

That's really nice, but until I get some answers to my original questions I'm not "accepting" any request. My "list" has been empty for almost a year, why would I want to mess that up?

Actually, I have no friends in my "list", and I haven't received any additional requests. Just the one I got earlier yesterday. I'm thinking maybe someone did it by mistake? You might wanna ask your mom about that.

Awwww....isn't that sweet?

You could think of it as a tip, you know, for providing a "service". I'm sure the wages for being an "internet friend" aren't the greatest, and some of your acquaintances probably depend on that to get through.

Nah...I'm not taking this too seriously. A friendship shouldn't be entered into lightly. I have to figure there's SOME sort of responsibility that goes with it, otherwise there wouldn't be a process to become friends. If you're being a shiddy internet "friend" you better pick it up. Maybe buy a nice gift for everyone on your list - you know, "spread the wealth" around a little bit.

I got a "friend request" today from someone on the board. I'm not sure how to handle this. Where I come from, you kind of end up as friends with someone, or you dont. You don't have to ask, there isn't a formal "request" process to become someone's friend, it just sort of happens. Can someone explain this concept to me? I mean, if I "allow" this person to be my friend what ,if any, responsibilities come with that? Am I forever bound by some O-R code or something? What's the proper protocol for breaking up if and when I no longer agree with this person's opinions or posts? Help an old guy out here.... NOTE: If the person who requested my friendship reads this and is offended, I'd like to apologize in advance. My questions are in no way a reflection of my opinion towards you, and I don't want to sully our potential "friendship" in any way, prior to us actually being "friends".

Concerned? Thats funny....maybe the funniest thing I've heard all week....