In fact the only times I recently can recall bringing up gun control into a non gun thread are these:
At the risk of derailing the thread, this is quite similar to the bullshit suits against the firearms industry for gun crime.
In the 'Moms sue Coors, WTF' thread.
and I also had a long exchange on the issue with Mike in the "Bush Opinon Poll" thread on why I can't support Kerry. I would assume that if there was a problem with the discussion of the subject in that thread, the owner of the board wouldn't taken part in the exchange.
So what's with the "I'm sick of you coming into threads and then saying, "This is exactly like gun control ..."?
[/quote]
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
I think the question of whether most Americans want a theocracy or not is a bit of a false dilemma. Most Americans do want some bullshit laws based in their religious beliefs. That ranges from banning gay marriage or prostitution, to putting the ten commandments in courts, to jailing homosexuals and Atheists.
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Your advocating the shooting of a cop because the COURT he serves follows the letter of the law with total disregard of logic and destroying the spirit of the law in the process is extremely asinine, repugnant, and IMO worthy of a Ban! Fuck you Asshole!
In most cases (this included) I agree. But there is a point past which a cop knows he doesn't have the right to enforce the law. For instance, back when we were dragging Japanese off to concentration camps. Any cop following that order deserves high velocity lead poisoning.
The juror said he voted guilty to avoid being the lone holdout.
Okay, that just fucking hurts. He was unanymously voted to 25 years of prison because one fucking juror did not have the balls to vote his conscious. Excuse the fuck out of me you mindless, bandwagon jumping, zombie, but I would *not* condemn an innocent man to 25 years of hell (oh yeah, and that will really cure him of his drug problem, ya know. I mean, I'm not even getting on the fact that the prison system is totally fucked as a whole) just because I didn't want to be the only one who wasn't 'part of the group'. Fuck you, you apathetic shit-for-brains.
*sighs*
For whatever reason, I feel a System of a Down song coming on...
"Minor drug offenders fill your prisons, you don't even care, all our taxes paying for your war against the new young rage"
-Damien
That's exactly how I feel. What the FUCK ever happened to our fiery spirit of independence and freedom? We as Americans are supposed to demand our freedoms, not accept the (obviously psychopathic, self-interested, and BLOODTHIRSTY) government's extreme eagerness to violently rape us and our Constitutional Freedoms with a spinning razor-sharp tungsten pinecone attached to a 500-horsepower engine! Fuck the government, they don't care about us in the slightest! All they want is power for power's sake and their kickbacks from the lawyers, fundies, and corrupt megacorporations for keeping us controlled and permanently up to our eyeballs in debt anyway.
I'll trust the government when it's a thing of the past...
*giggles* I always seem to bring out the latent anarchist in people. It must be a hidden talent of mine. Maybe I could use it to incite a prison riot after I get arrested under the multiple charges of being an atheist, being bisexual, having that horrible drug ibuprofen, being a terrorist (since I disagree with the infallible government), and anything else they can try and bring against me.
-Damien
Gaian Paradigm: Because not all fantasy has to be childish crap. Ephemeral Pie: Because not all role-playing has to be shallow. My art: Because not all DA users are talentless emo twits. "Phant, quit abusing the He-Wench before he turns you into a caged bitch at a Ren Fair and lets the tourists toss half munched turkey legs at your backside." -Mr. Coffee
Glocksman wrote:Don't like guns being being discussed in this thread? Take it up with him seeing as he introduced the subject.
Don't let yourself get baited. You don't have to come running to the defense of gun-owners everywhere every time someone makes an off-hand comment about them.
Glocksman wrote:So what's with the "I'm sick of you coming into threads and then saying, "This is exactly like gun control ..."?
You've done it multiple times recently, including this time. Where is the problem with my analysis?
Rogue 9 wrote:It sure as hell would bother me. Unification of church and state is never a good thing, not for the state or the church. Anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of history or politics knows that.
Of course most people would say that. The problem is that most people can't properly recognize what constitutes a violation of the establishment clause. The outlawing of victimless crimes like prostitution and to a lesser extent, drug use, should make that abundantly clear. In short, people may pay lip service to the establishment clause, but that doesn't mean that they know what the separation of church and state truly implies.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
Don't let yourself get baited. You don't have to come running to the defense of gun-owners everywhere every time someone makes an off-hand comment about them.
True. Point taken.
You've done it multiple times recently, including this time. Where is the problem with my analysis?
Using the search, the only times I could find I did it recently were the two I mentioned in my previous post and the one with Mike was a result of answering questions on why I couldn't support Kerry.
Are you confusing me with someone else, perhaps?
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
Of course most people would say that. The problem is that most people can't properly recognize what constitutes a violation of the establishment clause. The outlawing of victimless crimes like prostitution and to a lesser extent, drug use, should make that abundantly clear. In short, people may pay lip service to the establishment clause, but that doesn't mean that they know what the separation of church and state truly implies.
Are you saying that the prostitution laws are in violation of the establishment clause?
If so, please expand on your reasoning.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
Howedar wrote:I rather doubt that, Durandal. Unless you have some actual data on that, I'd just have to say that of all the religious people I know, none of them would want a theocracy.
Really? So they're obviously appalled that victimless crimes like prostitution are illegal, right?
Lord MJ wrote:
I would submit to going to the police station, but I would not submit to standing trial, and I certainly would not submit to going to prison if a court convicts me..
I dont see how you would have any choice but to submit to whatever the police decided to do to you once you are at the station.
Its not like you can bring a gun(should you chose to carry such a thing) to the police station.
Would you be kicking and screaming through the whole thing? I dont think that the court would care either way if you did.
Perhaps you have another definition of submit than I do.
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Be interesting to watch though.
Interesting for you Brits. I might just have to move to England if it did happen; I wouldn't know what side to take and wouldn't want to be caught in the middle. (Ah, the dilemmas of centrism.)
Come to my place in Canada. We'll network our computers and play X-wing vs Tie Fighter
While I agree the guy should have gotten some sentance with minimal penalty, he did behave quite stupidly. One aught to call the old doctor, have him call the new doctor, transfer medical files, and then go about getting prescriptions. Dicking around with invalid prescriptions is a stupid idea, with the quantities this guy was consuming it was impossible for him NOT to be caught. This should not have been problem, I've seen it done before.
What I want to know is did his defense lawyer screw the hell up? A case like this is pretty much open and shut (based on how these laws read) and any defense lawyer had better understand how minimum sentenances work. Going to trial was a terrible decision based on known information.
As far as American theocracy, the majority of theocratically inclined Americans only want a theocracy when it is their particular sect which supplies the theocrats. The protestants don't trust the catholics and neither of them trust the Jews, Muslims, Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses. The US is one of the least likely places to be a true theocracy because nobody could ever agree on which doctrine to base the state upon. Certain laws which have broad support across multiple sects and religions can get passed, but a true theocracy will never happen ... too many people who want to run the place.
Fuck you Asshole! 
