Health Reform Supporter Shows Up At Protest With Revolver

[natty bumppo 297]

The law only makes things moot. You still have to have a sense of what is appropriate for a given situation. If you don't then by all means go to the grocery store in the buff, go to work wearing a strap on or with your ####### sticking out of your open fly. That kind of rebellion won't get you very far.

you're into the realm of indecent exposure and exhibitionism. check you local laws before you buff out.

and please ... no pics

[_Simpson_ 250]

So, as far as you are concerned Charles, what is legally allowed is more important than any notion of what is customary or common sense? The more you present yourself as totally unable to define any circumstances when the rights of gun owners don't trump everything else, the smaller the man you appear to be. Careful now, you might disappear entirely if you are not careful

so what the law allows means nothing to you? very interesting. once again, you bray about things you know nothing about. how amusing.

Only you could come out with such an absurd conclusion based on the things I have actually posted.

you're the one with a problem about what's allowed under the law. carry on, i do so enjoy watching you spin in circles.

Er, no Charles, I am clearly stating that DESPITE what is allowed under the law, there are things that it is prudent to not do, particularly if one is acting in a responsible and respectful manner.

It was respectful for the Minister to release that terrorist because it was within the law right? What this town hall guy did was stupid, legal but stupid. What the minister did was legal but stupid.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So should I assume that if it were not a matter of these things being illegal that they would be commonplace?

Again the fact that its illegal to walk naked in public or what have you isn't the main reason that people don't do it.

Its because its accepted that sex stuff is a behind closed doors thing.

Edited August 25, 2009 by Private Pike

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So, as far as you are concerned Charles, what is legally allowed is more important than any notion of what is customary or common sense? The more you present yourself as totally unable to define any circumstances when the rights of gun owners don't trump everything else, the smaller the man you appear to be. Careful now, you might disappear entirely if you are not careful

so what the law allows means nothing to you? very interesting. once again, you bray about things you know nothing about. how amusing.

Only you could come out with such an absurd conclusion based on the things I have actually posted.

you're the one with a problem about what's allowed under the law. carry on, i do so enjoy watching you spin in circles.

Er, no Charles, I am clearly stating that DESPITE what is allowed under the law, there are things that it is prudent to not do, particularly if one is acting in a responsible and respectful manner.

It was respectful for the Minister to release that terrorist because it was within the law right? What this town hall guy did was stupid, legal but stupid. What the minister did was legal but stupid.

Let's not muddy the waters any more than we need to please

[_Simpson_ 250]

We need to recognize that the man was within his legal rights like we realized that the minister was well within the law when he made his decision, right?

Well after seeing MC thoughts and whatnot about the Ministers decision and the terrorists legal rights I thought she would be a little more understanding about this town hall guys legal rights.

Edited August 25, 2009 by -Simpson-

[SMOKE 1,426]

how did this go from healthcare to guns, church, dildos, & dicks out of the zipper?

[Peikko 1,575]

We need to recognize that the man was within his legal rights like we realized that the minister was well within the law when he made his decision, right?

Try again, we have recognized that he was within his legal rights - we moved on to question whether it is in fact appropriate to always exercise your legal rights no matter what the social context. Coupled with this 'appropriateness' is the notion that common sense dictates that there are situations where carrying a gun is legal but ignorant to other people who choose not to do so. I don't think there are many christians who would argue that carrying a gun into church is appropriate and something that they are comfortable with but those who are at the extremes on this issue appear to feel that any context is appropriate, including that one.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The only way that that makes any kind of sense is if you ignore the ethics of the ministers decision.

Its a tenuous connection at best, given what we're talking about.

There is little parity between individual behaviour and judicial process.

Its specious in other words.

[natty bumppo 297]

how did this go from healthcare to guns, church, dildos, & dicks out of the zipper?

pike was just airing it out ....

Edited August 25, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[Peikko 1,575]

how did this go from healthcare to guns, church, dildos, & dicks out of the zipper?

This is VJ smoke

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its quite obvious really. The point surely is to illustrate that certain behaviours aren't practiced simply because of what the law says.

[SMOKE 1,426]

how did this go from healthcare to guns, church, dildos, & dicks out of the zipper?

This is VJ smoke

i know & its funny as hell.

[natty bumppo 297]

Its quite obvious really. The point surely is to illustrate that certain behaviours aren't practiced simply because of what the law says.

have you checked the laws for indecent exposure and exhibitionism yet? for your area?

why don't you just hit the streets/ stores in the nude ... report back on your finding (okay or busted).

[_Simpson_ 250]

We need to recognize that the man was within his legal rights like we realized that the minister was well within the law when he made his decision, right?

Try again, we have recognized that he was within his legal rights - we moved on to question whether it is in fact appropriate to always exercise your legal rights no matter what the social context. Coupled with this 'appropriateness' is the notion that common sense dictates that there are situations where carrying a gun is legal but ignorant to other people who choose not to do so. I don't think there are many christians who would argue that carrying a gun into church is appropriate and something that they are comfortable with but those who are at the extremes on this issue appear to feel that any context is appropriate, including that one.

Yes this guys decision was a bad one, legal but still bad IMO. As was the Ministers when he released this despicable terrorist, he had wiggle room and he could of not granted this terrorists release(its happened before). The Scottish law wouldnt of gone to hell had he decided not too and well it happened 7 other times right?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its quite obvious really. The point surely is to illustrate that certain behaviours aren't practiced simply because of what the law says.

have you checked the laws for indecent exposure and exhibitionism yet? for your area?

why don't you just hit the streets/ stores in the nude ... report back on your finding (okay or busted).

The point being that even if it wasn't illegal I wouldn't do it...

We need to recognize that the man was within his legal rights like we realized that the minister was well within the law when he made his decision, right?

Try again, we have recognized that he was within his legal rights - we moved on to question whether it is in fact appropriate to always exercise your legal rights no matter what the social context. Coupled with this 'appropriateness' is the notion that common sense dictates that there are situations where carrying a gun is legal but ignorant to other people who choose not to do so. I don't think there are many christians who would argue that carrying a gun into church is appropriate and something that they are comfortable with but those who are at the extremes on this issue appear to feel that any context is appropriate, including that one.

Yes this guys decision was a bad one, legal but still bad IMO. As was the Ministers when he released this despicable terrorist, he had wiggle room and he could of not granted this terrorists release(its happened before). The Scottish law wouldnt of gone to hell had he decided not too and well it happened 7 other times right?

That's nutty reasoning.