How much do you know about the Second Amendment? A quiz. by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

How much do you know about the Second Amendment? A quiz.

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Sunday, November 21, 2021 07:03
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5436
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, February 1, 2013 10:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But then it doesn't really have much to do with your point about armed citizens holding back the forces of tyranny, does it?

My example was the former Soviet Union. I nation whose Constitution promised free speech, freedom of religeon, and most of the same rights our own does...more even, but lacking a right to bear arms.

The result...no freedom. It is an example of a disarmed people at the mercy of their govt.

Quote:

East Germany did a pretty decent job using peaceful protest to demonstrate civilian power in '89 because people wanted to resist. A lot of beneficial outside factors played into that, of course, but the big factor was that public dissatisfaction was wide-spread and had the will to speak up as a group.

East Germany had the most effective secret police in the world. They ruled by terror and routinely shot people trying to 'climb the wall.' What happened in 1989 was the product of the trasitional period of the 1980s that happened in every Warsaw Pact country. The old men died, the younger men did not have the same...zeal and relaxed their iron grip.

If that rebellion had been 1959 instead of 1989 they'd have been crushed by german tanks...or Soviet ones if the germans balked. This is not speculation...it happened. Don't forget, before Spring came to the Arabs, it came to Prague.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 1, 2013 10:32 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Niki....

Quote:
I explained why it's not about "inonvenience", and you totally ignored that, continuing to claim that on my behalf. THAT is why I feel the way I do about what you write, it has nothing to do with the issue itself. I have told you that it was you calling us all (which means me) LIARS for our position, at which I take serious offense, which put the first dent in my feelings toward you.

When facts have been deliberately misrepresented in order to support ones cause, yeah I tend to get a bit snippy about it, and yet instead of acknowledging this you tear into me on a personal level ?

Quote:
IT'S ABOUT YOU, not the issue.

I have a little trouble buying that, as it comes across to me as both.

Quote:
When you repeatedly claim that I believe what I believe because it is INCONVENIENT, it offends me because you are JUDGING me as a petty person, despite my having attempted to be honest about why I feel what I feel.

I am not trying to judge you, or be judgemental, but I do feel you are taking this very personally in a way that confuses the hell out of me - you know where I stand about rights, where I have always stood, and then you go advocating measures that essentially violate them, and become angry when that offends me ?

Quote:
And I have never "threatened" our friendship, I have told you how I feel. I don't like feeling that way, but you keep belittling me and attacking me, on this one issue.

I am not belittling you, nor attacking you, or at least that has not ever been my intention.
I do mock and attack, quite vigorously, attempts to step on peoples rights, especially when those attempts are rooted in deception and unsupportable assertions - to take a blanket statement in general as a directed personal attack is a bit much, although I do acknowledge I called you out on making one specific statement the facts did not support, but the facts did not support it.

Quote:
You went on and on about the issue itself, while the only negative thing I have said about you where it's concerned is that I believe your experiences have caused you to generalize them as existing everywhere, and that I think you are blinded about some realities.

Yeah cause that's not offensive at all is it ?
And no, I don't think my experiences apply everywhere - I state quite often this isn't the case and express a desire that they some day they not apply anywhere, hell that's half my motivation.
As for blind about some realities, one *MIGHT* take into account my track record of predicting certain abuses before saying so.

Quote:
You're not addressing me as a friend, you're addressing me as an enemy.

You are advocating for the infringements of rights I have sworn to protect, it's kind of a difficult situation there for both of us, especially when we are both emotionally invested in the matter to no small degree because of our own feelings and experiences.
This ain't no easier for me than it is for you.

Quote:
First, I'm not angry; I'm hurt. Second, it has nothing to do with what you will support; it has to do with the lack of respect you have shown me. It has caused me to lash out and show you a lack of respect at times, out of FRUSTRATION, never anger, but I have attempted over and over to put that frustration aside and again address you with respect. Not once have I seen you show me equal respect on this issue.

Huh?
Seems to me you're taking mere generalized snark as directed personal attack, which it ain't meant to be, but as you do seem to be pretty damn upset all I can do is *TRY* to not come off like that, but this bit here is far less easy for me....
I don't, you might be aware, share the same cogitative or thought processes as most people, I come at things from angles instead of straight lines and a lot of time there's a heap of translation FAIL going on there - there's at least one other person round this board with the same problem, and just cause I am a bit better at sorting out the differences doesn't always mean I completely comprehend what the hell is going on in someone elses mind or feelings, especially when and where there is defensive reflex stuff going on too.

Look, if you feel I have been deliberately hurtful to you, personally, outside of the issue at hand, that was NEVER my intention, not one whit, and I am truly sorry if I kicked you in the teeth by mistake here and will without reservation apologize for that.
And I will *attempt* to not be threatening or insulting, but that comes damn hard for me when I ain't even sure of the mechanism by which things reach that point, right ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 2, 2013 2:55 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

I do know a lot about history. For example, unlike you I know that the history of the Soviet Union does not stop with Stalin taking power.

Ah, yeah I do know that.
Quote:
After WW2 the Soviet people's Democratic rights were exercised in exactly the manner I described. You may want to read something about the period between killing the Czar and that fella with the spot on his head betraying the revolution.

Except that it has nothing to do with the argument at hand, which is about armed civilions fighting tyranny and triumphing over evil. In the case of Russia, the revolution actually went the other way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 2, 2013 3:58 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Less a quiz about the 2nd Amendment than a quiz about court cases pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.

Meh.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 2, 2013 4:29 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

From the top here:

M52Nick
Quote:
Thing is the Supreme Court has weighed in on this and stated that some restrictions on arms are in fact constitutional. The right to bear arms, like all rights, has limits. The courts opinion on this is the one that matters. So to say that gun restrictions are unconstitutional is a fallacy.

Horse manure.
They can state that the sky is green, it does not make it so, and there is no proper check against this as there is with the other branches - something addressed in Antifederalist Papers #78-82.
Of course, given that Hamilton and Jay were apparently planning to use that loophole from the very start might have had a little something to do with it being there.

Nor is the Supreme Court in any way immune to some very... erm, "creative" re-interpretations of existing law, given the occasional ruling that some act means exactly the opposite of what is written, or by refusing to address very obvious cases of Unconstitutional acts because doing so allows them to stand - again, there is a flaw there in the checks and balances system.

There is no flaw. The Supreme Court can be overruled by constitutional amendment. Also if the court was ever to vote something so blatantly wrong Justices can be impeached.

Until one of those happen the Supreme Court rules state what laws are and what laws are not constitutional. The Court is the final arbiter of these issues.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 2, 2013 4:37 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
My example was the former Soviet Union. I nation whose Constitution promised free speech, freedom of religeon, and most of the same rights our own does...more even, but lacking a right to bear arms.

The result...no freedom. It is an example of a disarmed people at the mercy of their govt.

And yet you do little to address the point of widespread, coherent political dissent to this development. The reason this happened and endured was not first and foremost that the people were unarmed. THAT is the point. It's not like inserting guns into this situation would have meant - poof - freedom. You ignore the complexity of the situation, which is my entire beef with this comparison.

Quote:

East Germany had the most effective secret police in the world. They ruled by terror and routinely shot people trying to 'climb the wall.' What happened in 1989 was the product of the trasitional period of the 1980s that happened in every Warsaw Pact country. The old men died, the younger men did not have the same...zeal and relaxed their iron grip.

That is what I meant by beneficial outside factors, you know? My parents lived through it. I was born there. I was present at the mass protests. People were afraid they would get shot at even in the far more relaxed political climate of '89. And it didn't happen out of nowhere, either, there was a development of dissent and it grew and it had public backing. They wouldn't have dismantled the established order without those protests, without that popularly voiced dissent, either. The point was coherent public will to voice their protest en masse.

Quote:

If that rebellion had been 1959 instead of 1989 they'd have been crushed by german tanks...or Soviet ones if the germans balked. This is not speculation...it happened. Don't forget, before Spring came to the Arabs, it came to Prague.

They did try, and it happened in Germany, too, in '53. Tanks aplenty.

Apart from "Yes, we both know a little bit about history" I still don't see how this relates to armed citizens defending their democracy against tyranny. Successfully, at that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 2, 2013 5:18 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Frem:

Words are hard for me right now, and I'm too weary to keep trying on this issue. I'll try, one last time, to state my position.

Screw guns. That's one issue to me, little more. For all of us who are against assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, not just me, to be called liars flat out when we have tried to express our opinions honestly is offensive, period. They are our OPINIONS, just as yours are you opinions; none of them can be proven facts beyond doubt. You believe otherwise. You believe only you are 100% right.

When you speak of taking things personally, please look in the mirror. YOU have taken the discussion of this issue far more personally than anyone else here, as far as I can see.

Quote:
When facts have been deliberately misrepresented

I never deliberately misrepresent facts.

I tried to explain that "IT'S ABOUT YOU, not the issue. "

Quote:
I have a little trouble buying that, as it comes across to me as both.

So again you call me a liar, obliquely this time, but the end result is the same. As I said previously, NICK got it, but you can't seem to:

Quote:
It also seems that you don't get that the problem with Niki is more about your attitude than your stance.

Nick, at least, understands.

Quote:
I am not trying to judge you, or be judgemental

When you state TWICE that the issue is "inconvenient" for me, immediately after I have explained why it is not that, what is it but judging me?

Quote:
I am not belittling you, nor attacking you, or at least that has not ever been my intention.

I don't know how it cannot be your intent to belittle or attack when you call us all liars.

Quote:
attempts to step on peoples rights

We disagree. As has been stated, no rights are absolute in our country; you believe this one is. I disagree. I don't say it's "inconvenient" for you to want no limits on one right, I know how you feel. I try to make valid points to back up my stance, but rather than address them, you DO belittle me by saying I believe what I do because it's "inconvenient" for me to have any other reason for my stance.

Quote:
when those attempts are rooted in deception.

Again you call me a liar. Your post was directed at ME...what you wrote is therefore directed at ME. Of course I take that personally. I have never been deceitful.

Quote:
I am truly sorry if...

Good gawd, how many times have we heard that from politicians who aren't really sorry? "I'm sorry if I offended anyone", "I'm sorry if anyone was upset by..." That's what we call the "non-apology apology" I couldn't possibly make it more clear WHY I feel kicked in the teeth, and your response here is peppered with even MORE personal comments claiming I have deliberately misrepresented things, been deceptive, etc. How in hell am I NOT supposed to take those as offensive, judgmental and attacking?

Enough. I'm fighting a triggered depression. I've not been able to sleep much, my eating has been sporadic for days, I'm exhausted and my head hurts, and at the moment I'm sick to death of this forum, the petty bickering, the nastiness, stupidity, boring repetition of idiocy and personal attacks (none of those include you except the last, just in general the repetitiveness of some here and the general tone of "conversation"). This discussion is useless; you seem unable to grasp the points I try to make. I said clearly before that the issue is something we should agree to disagree on. That was my attempt to respect your opinion and ask you to respect mine. Yet you came right back after that, unwilling to even let it go. I'm outta here.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 2, 2013 8:41 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Fine, you want it this way, then it'll be that way.

Quote:
I never deliberately misrepresent facts.

Suuuuuuuuure you don't.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=54007#925027

Quote:
I don't know how it cannot be your intent to belittle or attack when you call us all liars.

I call what I see.
Like pretending an empty stinger tube was a live missle ?
Like using deliberately distorted information to present the false claim of someone being "Heckled", after it came out that this was not quite true ?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/01/30/msnbc-re
viewing-newtown-heckled-video/

Not by far the half of it, but whatever.
And I am all for agreeing to disagree, unfortunately that doesn't seem to be what you mean.
What you seem to want me to do is to SHUT UP - to STOP disagreeing with you.
I find that unacceptable.
You post here, I post here.
We both have an interest in the topic.
The topic comes up, I am going to discuss it, that's a fact - if you decide to take personal umbrage because I disagree, or with the MANNER of my disagreement, that's on you.

But expecting me to just sit down and shut up while you post screed after screed trying to justify what I feel to be an unwarranted assault on a human rights is ridiculous, offensive, even.
I *do* believe human rights are absolute, so long as one is willing to accept the consequences of misusing them, that has always been the case, and never before have you taken such personal issue with it, or me being so extreme about it, until it came down to a right you don't seem to like.
THEN all of the sudden it's all kinda personal ?

Whatever.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 2, 2013 3:22 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh, Jezus Criste, can we please stop this?? I will try one more time, only one. The mere fact that I keep trying to get through to you should illustrate the value I have placed on our friendship, if nothing more. So here it is:

The link that took me to had you writing

Quote:
As for calling people liars, welll.....
You did just try to draw a false conclusion from a perspective where there was not sufficient data to support it, and you *knew* there was not sufficient data when you said it.
What the hell else could I possibly call these things ?
And I find it laughable that you state discussing the matter with ME is logically futile, when it was logic that just tore your contrived and unsupportable conclusion to shreds.

had you calling me a deliberate liar, personally this time. You wrote that you were "quite, quite tanked" at the time, AND ALSO WROTE that we should agree to disagree. I did so, and said the same, either later on or in another thread, and you went right on attacking me.

I was debating; you claimed you had negated my point. I responded

Quote:
Your statement and mine are a wash; ergo, that doesn't "prove" your negating the studies. For example, if a woman (or a wife) is raped at gunpoint but doesn't report it (many women don't report rape),or someone is robbed at gunpoint but doesn't report it because he lives in an area where he knows the police will never find the robber, it doesn't make the stats either, or someone is murdered with a gun but the body is never found, or a gang member is injured by a gun but doesn't seek treatment or report it, etc. In other words, not all uses of a weapon are reported, either.

In other words, neither of us had sufficient data to absolutely support our positions, but what I posted has been stated in numerous studies with the best data possible. I drew a conclusion from data that has been offered by valid sources, such as the American Journal of Epidemiology:

Quote:
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

From the Oxford Journals, by the way, and there is much, much more in just that one study, which they went to great lengths to verify, and accompanied with cites, information on their materials and methods, measures and analysis. If you choose not to believe ANY studies, you cannot claim you know more than they do and thus can refute the data. You've done no personal studies and have offered no valid sources of any.

The material I originally presented, and the conclusions to which it came, can be found in myriad studies, like the one above, as well as Medscape http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058], which I have long trusted when it comes to mental illness and which I have never found to be wrong, among many others, including http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/5/6/502], reviewed at http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-a
mbiguity/ , Princeton http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/12_02_Exec
Summary.pdf , New England Journal of Medicine, http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 and on and on. You CHOOSE to reject any and all studies, but nowhere can I find any valid studies showing the opposite.

NONE of that is "misrepresenting facts", it is offering the best facts I can find.

As to the stinger missle, I DID NOT pretend "an empty stinger tube was a live missle."
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=54128 I posted a story; I posted the title of that story as the title of my thread, period! It also states: "the launcher is a controlled military item and that's not available to civilians through any surplus or disposal program offered by the government". That's a valid point, whether the item was working or not. I POSTED A NEWS STORY, for gawd's sake! Refute it, but to say I "pretended" something...!

As to "using deliberately distorted information to present the false claim of someone being "Heckled", after it came out that this was not quite true ?" -- again, I POSTED A NEWS STORY! The story was printed on January 16, 2013; the story you linked was posted JANUARY 30, 2013. I put up the thread about the story on JANUARY 17, not "after" it had been refuted. You want to refute a story I put up, NO PROBLEM, I want to know about updates, corrections, etc. myself. But to claim I " using deliberately distorted information to present the false claim" is patently untrue and very offensive.

You still don't get it, obviously.
Quote:
What you seem to want me to do is to SHUT UP - to STOP disagreeing with you.

I've tried to state it clearly again and again. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me. The problem I have, and this last post of yours just goes right on doing it, is that you have not treated me with respect OR civility, have claimed I've done things I have NOT, and one last time before I give up completely, as Nick said--and this is the crux of the WHOLE thing:
Quote:
It also seems that you don't get that the problem with Niki is more about your attitude than your stance.

It's not even the "manner" with which you disagree, it's that you simply do not call a friend a liar and expect them not to be offended, especially when you don't even bother to apologize. THAT IS THE PROBLEM; maybe you still don't get it, maybe you CAN'T get it, but that's what it's all about.
Quote:
expecting me to just sit down and shut up

I NEVER suggested any such thing, nor did I ever desire it. Look back at the quote from Nick. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE RIGHT. IT'S NOT ABOUT GUNS! It's about you calling us liars, then calling ME a liar, then all the things you've called me ever since I told you calling me a liar hurt me. You have:

--Called me a liar...three times now;

--Claimed I pretended something which was not true; that is not true.

--Accused me of using DISTORTED information to make a false claim which was proven false BEFORE I posted a story; I've just shown that accusation is completely false.

--Called my "conclusions" CONTRIVED and unsupported. In other words, once more calling me deceptive and a liar. The conclusions weren't MINE, and they were supported; I've just cited several other studies which made the same conclusions.

--Said I deliberately misrepresent things. I have never deliberately done so, nor would I!

--Repeatedly claimed that the only reason I believe as I do is that it's "inconvenient" for me. I have responded to that accusation, which you ignored and again made the same claim.

BACK OFF FREM. Take some time, think about it, look up the links, and you'll see that your accusations against me are wrong. Even the stories I posted, I made little or no comment about, I merely posted them, as I do almost everything here, in the hopes they would spark a discussion.

Lastly:
Quote:
never before have you taken such personal issue with it, or me being so extreme about it, until it came down to a right you don't seem to like.
THEN all of the sudden it's all kinda personal ?

One last time: It's not about the right. It's not about guns. YOU have never called me a liar before; YOU have never made ugly accusations about me before. Disagreeing is one thing, saying ugly things about someone who believes you to be their friend is a COMPLETELY different thing. That's what it's all about, absolutely nothing else.

If I could find the statement where this all started, it wasn't just that you called us (therefore, me) liars. You went on in a rather nasty way to say WHY we were liars (not just why you might think that, but distinctly and irrevocably why WE were LIARS). That started all of this, and everything you have written since then has just dug you in deeper. If one cannot simply apologize for hurting a friend and say simply that they were wrong, then there is no way to repair the damage. If you can't see that, then I've truly never known you at all.

That is the END of this for me. If you can't re-read all of this and see the truth, then it is futile to go on. If you must keep making this about an issue that was debated, and cannot see the reality of what has happened, then it is not worth my trying further. As I said in the beginning, if it weren't for the friendship I thought we had, I wouldn't have tried this hard, or even tried at all, to sort it out.

Please note that in all this I have done my very best to not call you names, but to explain the situation as clearly as I can in an attempt to solve the problem. I wish I could say the same in reverse. The ball is in your court; if you can't step back and see what has happened, that's the end of it.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 2, 2013 4:11 PM

BYTEMITE

Niki: Oh, I was just teasing you. And being self-deprecating. Trying to lighten the thread a bit, foster some unity. Failed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 2, 2013 5:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Ayep, that's it, oh well.

Quote:
you went right on attacking me.

Went right on DISAGREEING with you, you mean.

Lemme make this abundantly, absolutely clear from my perspective.
You have essentially demanded a I *take a dive* on the cause of a human right I feel very strongly about and held your respect and our friendship hostage to that demand - regardless of what you say, seems to me that ANY act of disagreement with you on this is too much, apparently.

And now you want me to back off, back down, under the pretense that it has nothing to do with the issue at hand, and expect me to actually believe this when never not once have you had any "issue" with my rabidity on human rights, on me calling folk out, till it came round to this one issue.
I find that more than a little hard to swallow.

Quote:
I've truly never known you at all.

No, I guess you haven't.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 2, 2013 5:18 PM

CHRISISALL

11 of 15 here...wow, I've missed one hell of a firefight, verbally speaking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 3, 2013 7:18 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Chris, it hasns't been a firefight on my part, it's been a sincere and time-consuming attempt to solve a problem. We disagreed about the gun issue for quite some time civilly, as I attempted to do with everyone, and I agreed with him on numerous points. It was when he called us all liars and said clearly that what we were saying wasn't what we meant, or wanted, or something, that this all went haywire. It was like that sentence came flying out at me and hit me like a brick in the face, and I reacted.

Now it's gotten to the point where he seems totally unable to grasp that I'm quite happy to debate guns with anyone and have never asked anybody to take a dive, back down, back off, under some "pretense", it's that he's said some really horrible things, now about me and to me which aren't true and which are like dumping raw sewage on my head, and I was hoping he would retract those things when I showed they were wrong, and apologize for having called me a liar and said all those other things. It's like we're having two completely different arguments, and it's been pretty painful, for me at least.

I have to give up, obviously I have no choice. But it was never a fight or a battle to me, it was an attempt to keep from losing what I've thought of as a respectful friendship, which was vastly more important to me than any single issue of any kind.

I'm totally confused at this point as to why he cannot make the leap to what it's been ABOUT, and keeps insisting it's about the issue; which it's not and never has been. I just can't grasp why we can't communicate on this. I just wanted to say for me it's never been a firefight or any other kind of fight, and by now it's gotten so hurtful, what with him accusing me of ugly things which are totally false, that I am forced to accept his anger and personal attacks and let there be an end to it.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 2:49 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Wow, if things don't cool down soon Byte will come in here and post pictures of puppies pooping out rainbows or something. :)))

I think Frem and Niki will "cool down" and get back to being friends. When people have things they are passionate about sometimes disagreements can get real serious. I think though that you guys can still be friends, agree to disagree. Just know that if you're trying to change each other's minds it probably won't, changing one's mind usually is something gradual, something that steals in quietly, if it occurs at all. And its not necessary anyways for a friendship I think, at least not a casual friendship. If you guys were best friends then this might be a bigger situation, but I always agree to disagree with my casual friends and it usually works out okay.

I feel sorry for Mantai Teo, poor sap. Getting romantically involved with someone you've never seen in real life is pretty lame, but it happens a lot so he probably thought it would be okay. I feel bad when people have been sorely taken advantage of like that. It makes Mantai sound dumb, but it was a very elaborate hoax and I do feel kind of sorry for him.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 4:36 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Frem

While your knowledge of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers is commendable, please note that many of those positions didn't actually make it into the Constitution. And it's the Constitution that counts.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 4, 2013 5:21 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Wow, if things don't cool down soon Byte will come in here and post pictures of puppies pooping out rainbows or something. :)

pfffffft where's my google? I need to get on this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 20, 2021 10:26 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

Kamala Harris says Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal shows justice system not 'equitable'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10224371/Kamala-Harris-says-K
yle-Rittenhouse-acquittal-shows-justice-not-equitable.html

I don't have a say in this I'm not an American but I guess I find the talk interesting

don't give a fuck for internetz friends much

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Quote:
You're not addressing me as a friend, you're addressing me as an enemy.

You are advocating for the infringements of rights I have sworn to protect

-Frem

I don't get why people always go so hung up on these fake interwebs friendships

You are his enemy

Remember FREMDFIRMA the Anti-American Faggot is nobody's friend, he even likes to suck the dick off the mohammedans and politically takes it up the ass from islamos, he even defended the terrorists that bomb pop concerts and guys who make threats to attack South Park cartoonists.
An 'Anarchist' is what he claims to be but I think he could be something even worse.
If peope did not see past this fake Marxist Anti-American faggot fucker
Then Let me quote some of his best some time, before the 2016 election when he posted Death Threats against people who MIGHT vote for Trump.

Back to the news...

Four Distinguished And Retired FBI Agents Warn About the Marxist Revolution in America and Within The DOJ And FBI

https://www.worldviewweekend.com/tv/video/four-distinguished-and-retir
ed-fbi-agents-warn-about-marxist-revolution-america-and-within

Jury finds Rittenhouse not guilty in Kenosha shootings
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Rittenhouse-jury-to-return-f
or-4th-day-of-16633858.php

Evading Accountability: Kenosha jury’s acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse just the latest miscarriage of justice
https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/syndicated/evading-accountability
-kenosha-jurys-acquittal-kyle-rittenhouse-just-latest-miscarriage-justice/

Kenosha Protesters ‘Confused’ and ‘Pissed’ After Rittenhouse Verdict
https://www.thedailybeast.com/kenosha-protesters-confused-and-pissed-a
fter-rittenhouse-verdict

Jury finds Rittenhouse not guilty of all charges in Kenosha shootings
https://whdh.com/news/jury-finds-rittenhouse-not-guilty-of-all-charges
-in-kenosha-shootings/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2021 7:03 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

Head Of American Militia Freedom Forces: The Victory For Kyle Riddenhouse Is A Victory For The Constitutional Militia

https://gunsinthenews.com/head-of-american-militia-freedom-forces-the-
victory-for-kyle-riddenhouse-is-a-victory-for-the-constitutional-militia/

Former Rittenhouse attorney hails jury’s verdict: Second Amendment is about ‘right of self-defense’

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rittenhouse-attorney-robert-barnes-jury-
verdict-second-amendment-right-self-defense-ingraham-angle

‘Disappointed but not surprised’: Carbondale crowd protests Kyle Rittenhouse verdict
https://thesouthern.com/news/local/disappointed-but-not-surprised-carb
ondale-crowd-protests-kyle-rittenhouse-verdict/article_58b3b725-21f9-5c36-a9dc-118d3c133d04.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE