So where's the Dick Dynasty thread?

[magley64]

Yup....it has never happened to you or affected you personally, yet it is pretty clear that it is happening to somebody every single day. Not just in the big cities either, small towns and rural living gets it as well. I hope we can all avoid a bad situation like that, but I would rather be prepared with a tool then rely on my elbows or trying to talk my way out of it. So it is an incredibly rare occasion huh? I wasn't expecting that 3 punks were likely thinking of doing me harm at a gas station one night either, but you can bet your butt that I was ready for it. I have a feeling that the one knew I was armed, just a gut feeling. 

 

So what does my view, or the positions I support, have to do with you (a person with no criminal record) carrying a pistol in that situation?

 

You would easily pass a background check, you aren't carrying a concealed semi-auto rifle, and if your gun were registered to you as the owner, it wouldn't be any less effective at deterring a punk at a gas station...would it? 

 

 

The only trouble I've ever had at a gas station was from a territorial goat on the new mexico/arizona border.

 

 

of course, this has very little to do with the topics of censorship, homosexuality, or the value of segregation... 

Edited December 30, 2013 by magley64

[Pokey]

So what does my view, or the positions I support, have to do with you (a person with no criminal record) carrying a pistol in that situation?

 

You would easily pass a background check, you aren't carrying a concealed semi-auto rifle, and if your gun were registered to you as the owner, it wouldn't be any less effective at deterring a punk at a gas station...would it? 

 

 

The only trouble I've ever had at a gas station was from a territorial goat on the new mexico/arizona border.

 

 

of course, this has very little to do with the topics of censorship, homosexuality, or the value of segregation... 

 

I am against gun registration.

[magley64]

I am against gun registration.

 

I assumed as much, but if it were registered to you, would it make it any less effective at deterring punks at gas stations?

[magley64]

Magz, I hope you never have to eat your words. I really do mean that with utmost sincerity.

 

I know, and i appreciate that.

 

But, for me, the odds that I'll need a fallout shelter are pretty close to the odds that i'll need a gun, but again, the liability and cost make it not worth my time to persue either.

[Pokey]

I assumed as much, but if it were registered to you, would it make it any less effective at deterring punks at gas stations?

 

None of big brothers or anyone's business what firearms are in my possession. I have much less of a problem with registration on suppressor and fully automatic stamps, but even then I am still a bit leery. Background check says I am good to go, that is all that matters at this point in the "big scheme" of things. All emphasis needs to be put on those sick in the head, not the rest of us......and we are the majority.

 

And either A&E actually came to their senses for the right reasons "doubtful", or this was just all some public stunt. Of course all the organizations that cater to "victims" see things otherwise, freedom of speech needs to be upheld for everyone and not be a double standard.

[Tpoppa]

I prefer Freedom of Choice (link for the more interesting people on here)

 

"Freedom of choice is what you've got, freedom from choice is what you want."

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVGINIsLnqU

Edited December 30, 2013 by Tpoppa

[Pokey]

It's not a free speech issue. Why is that so hard for everyone to grasp?

 

Of course that was not the only issue/issues, but it was very much an issue none the less. 

[turnone]

Hard heads who still think it's free speech issue.

[rsvRidr]

I agree with IP, as I do not see this being a 1st Amendment issue.

I see it more of a butt hurt society that screams for 'tolerance'

Only as long as they are not the ones that have to be tolerant of others they do not agree with.

The free market has spoken as it did with chick-fil-a . Now we know Disney/A&E and Cracker barrel sides with rednecks and God and the other almighty ....$$$$

sent from a treestand on the back forty

[magley64]

I agree with IP, as I do not see this being a 1st Amendment issue.

I see it more of a butt hurt society that screams for 'tolerance'

Only as long as they are not the ones that have to be tolerant of others they do not agree with.

The free market has spoken as it did with chick-fil-a . Now we know Disney/A&E and Cracker barrel sides with rednecks and God and the other almighty ....$$$$

sent from a treestand on the back forty

Intolerance of intolerance is intolerance? Srsly?

[rsvRidr]

Intolerance of intolerance is intolerance? Srsly?

Boycott Disney and duck calls if you do not agree with their decision.

sent from a treestand on the back forty

[Pokey]

Explain to me how his right to say what he wanted was infringed by our government.

People are afraid of saying almost anything anymore, in fear of some kind of butt hurt lawsuit or various other retaliation, so yeah we very much have a freedom of speech problem.

[Tpoppa]

No. We have a nation of pussies. It has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. Freedom of speech still exists. When the government starts silencing the populace, then we have a problem.

 

 

Pussies...absolutely.  Each generation has become more pussified than the last...and most don't even realize it.  50 years ago, the American people would never have stood for the Federal Gov't monitoring their daily communications.  Sadly many people today barely seem to give a damn.

 

I agree that this is not a 1st Amendment issue, but I think 1st Amendment issues are coming soon.  The Feds and NSA are more than willing to stomp all over the 1st, just like the 4th.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Tpoppa

[redkow97]

It's not a free speech issue. Why is that so hard for everyone to grasp?

 

This has been driving me insane on facebook.

 

I may have even said it earlier in this thread:  The only portion of the constitution that says anything other than "the government shall not ________" is the 13th amendment which prohibits any individual from owning slaves.  Other than that, there are no Constitutional protections from private citizens or business entities. 

 

[redkow97]

People are afraid of saying almost anything anymore, in fear of some kind of butt hurt lawsuit or various other retaliation, so yeah we very much have a freedom of speech problem.

 

Unless that lawsuit comes from the government, that's not a freedom of speech issue.

 

Free speech is not consequence-free speech. You're describing a social problem where people think that a lawsuit is appropriate every time their feelings are hurt. 

[Gump]

Pussies...absolutely. Each generation has become more pussified than the last...and most don't even realize it. 50 years ago, the American people would never have stood for the Federal Gov't monitoring their daily communications. Sadly many people today barely seem to give a damn.

I agree that this is not a 1st Amendment issue, but I think 1st Amendment issues are coming soon. The Feds and NSA are more than willing to stomp all over the 1st, just like the 4th.

Media's to blame. It gives wackos a bigger voice. There's no story in being the American normal.

[Pokey]

Unless that lawsuit comes from the government, that's not a freedom of speech issue.

 

Free speech is not consequence-free speech. You're describing a social problem where people think that a lawsuit is appropriate every time their feelings are hurt. 

 

The consequences of doing such is what is total bullshit, and there is without doubt a double standard and hypocrisy in this country that is becoming sickening. People and or organizations look at any opportunity they can find or use to try and hurt somebody else for their own selfish benefit, and the pussies and thin skin folks just become more united. NOBODY should have to apologize for something they said, especially if they are being forced to do so and it is not genuine or at their own accord. If a person truly feels a certain way about something or anybody for whatever reason, then so be it.....but too many these days just cannot handle that. I can always respect honesty, but I do not have to agree with it.

[turnone]

No one has to apologize.

America has amazing free speech rights.

[Pokey]

No one has to apologize.

America has amazing free speech rights.

 

Don't agree with that anymore Chris, all I see hear or read about these days are people apologizing for something they have said. But I am glad that Phil is not apologizing, he stands by what he said because that is what he believes and lives by, but so many others become cowards and cave into the pressure of being politically correct. Not saying I agree with everything he said, but by golly I respect him for sticking to his guns and not back peddling.

[Gixxus Christ!]

Hooker and blow.

Edited January 1, 2014 by CrazySkullCrusher

[redkow97]

The consequences of doing such is what is total bullshit, and there is without doubt a double standard and hypocrisy in this country that is becoming sickening. People and or organizations look at any opportunity they can find or use to try and hurt somebody else for their own selfish benefit, and the pussies and thin skin folks just become more united. NOBODY should have to apologize for something they said, especially if they are being forced to do so and it is not genuine or at their own accord. If a person truly feels a certain way about something or anybody for whatever reason, then so be it.....but too many these days just cannot handle that. I can always respect honesty, but I do not have to agree with it.

You're completely missing the point. I can insult my boss's mother, and that is 100% good and legal. But you're claiming I shouldn't be fired, because it's my right to insult his mother, and he should respect that?

I completely disagree. I do have the right to say (nearly) anything I want to my boss, but I also expect him to react to what I say. At the very least, that would be reprimand, if not dismissal, and/or a punch in the nose.

I spoke. He spoke back when he fired me. We've both exercised our first amendment right, but you're not acknowledging his right to respond.

[Pokey]

You're completely missing the point. I can insult my boss's mother, and that is 100% good and legal. But you're claiming I shouldn't be fired, because it's my right to insult his mother, and he should respect that?

I completely disagree. I do have the right to say (nearly) anything I want to my boss, but I also expect him to react to what I say. At the very least, that would be reprimand, if not dismissal, and/or a punch in the nose.

I spoke. He spoke back when he fired me. We've both exercised our first amendment right, but you're not acknowledging his right to respond.

 

 

I am not misunderstanding anything you are saying, of course we are not free to say as we wish without repercussions. The problem "socially as you mentioned", is indeed at the heart of the matter, because so many cannot take any jabs or differing opinions or views if deemed negative to them. However when lawyers get involved and the judicial system then takes a role, THAT is a freedom of speech violation to me. Of course how many other countries sue somebody for everything like we do here, we have created a monster that is out of control and is leading to world humiliation.

[turnone]

You will find many other countries where you can be sued much easier for libel as compared to the USA. Of the freedoms we expect, this one remains strong.

[jporter12]

Too bad we don't embrace the philosophy of "live and let live". If we did, this conversation would be obsolete. If someone offends me, which mostly doesn't happen, I just ignore it. It's not my baggage to carry. It belongs to that other person. I don't let them dictate how I am going to react or respond. Why give someone with such insignificant opinions of you, or what you hold dear, so much control over you?

 

I think that's pretty much what Phil Robertson said!  HE doesn't believe it is right, and HE believes we should love all sinners and let God be the judge.  Just because he listed other types of sinners at the same time, people think that he ranks them the same, which he does, as something for God to judge, not him.  He did not say that WE should punish them the same here and now.  

[redkow97]

I am not misunderstanding anything you are saying, of course we are not free to say as we wish without repercussions. The problem "socially as you mentioned", is indeed at the heart of the matter, because so many cannot take any jabs or differing opinions or views if deemed negative to them. However when lawyers get involved and the judicial system then takes a role, THAT is a freedom of speech violation to me. Of course how many other countries sue somebody for everything like we do here, we have created a monster that is out of control and is leading to world humiliation.

 

it's true - you can attempt to sue for anything ...but that doesn't mean that your lawsuit won't be thrown out virtually immediately.

 

Where else are the courts getting involved?  Give me an example of where you think courts are over-stepping their bounds.  From what I have seen, I agree with your assertion that people are sue-happy when their feelings get hurt, but I do not agree that the courts side with those people and award damages.  On the contrary, I see courts dismissing such complaints and chastising the attorneys who file them for wasting the court's time with cases they know have no chance of succeeding.