JoeWeber

I for one would fight registration with everything I have. It's step number one to confiscation. Have they confiscated your vote? Your car? Your Social Security? Your paranoia?

OK, I agree with the above. Have a wonderful day. What was wrong with this bit? "that unless you believe that you can not say it, hence". I get it that everything is going up and up with no relief in sight but, at least out here in Libland, the cost of cutting and pasting is still holding steady at zero. Some cynical bastard might think that you hold that you can say it and not believe it, hence your exclusion. Care to try again? Ron, do you hold that you can say something and not believe it and is that why you, apparently intentionally, excluded that bit when you quoted me in reply?

So, WTF is $130,000? It's not a Fibonacci number or the latest extension of PI and it sure as hell didn't come from Trumps Feng Shui Master. What it is, is too little. The Prez simply underpaid for the service.

Then I support your proposal. I'll be hiding my grenade launcher, though.

Don't give up on my post because I have to vent first. Herein lies the issue with the right's resistance to the left's we're scared and we want to do something, anything that makes us feel warm and fuzzy without talking to the experts. And, the reason for the 1994 insanity. So, at the end, I'm going to make it really easy. Lot of words, but again, you're all over the board. None of this matters. NONE of it. The military teaches all three based on situational factors. When to use single shot, when to use three round bursts, when to go full auto (we're talking standard M-16ish military weapons.) So now, this is where you should focus. I'm sitting in a nice dark poker room with a few of my liberal buddies (you guys) and the conversation is the usual gun control shit. I'm not saying anything as I listen to all the non-expert we need to ban rhetoric surrounding empty and proven useless legislation. Then, somebody leans over and says, "So, if you were a liberal how would you handle it?" That's easy. I'd make the legislative line of demarcation as ban Gas-Chambered weapons and allow no restrictions on Bolt-Action. "Why whatever do you mean, Mr. Maverick, sir?" Gas-Chambered - Basically, some of the expanding gas from a fired round is diverted from the barrel and used to thrust the bolt assembly rearward, ejecting the spent cartridge and stripping a fresh round off the magazine into the chamber on the return. NOTE: these are the easiest for the layman to add bump stocks, 3 round burst kits, little parts that someone with a little bit of machine shop knowledge could use to create a small device to slip over the internal side of the selector switch which when rotated carves over the sear and makes it fully auto. Those gas chambered weapons look like THESE. Bolt-Action - is a type of firearm action where the handling of cartridges into and out of the weapon's barrel chamber are operated by manually manipulating the bolt directly via a handle, which is most commonly placed on the right-hand side of the weapon (as most users are right-handed). When the handle is operated, the bolt is unlocked from the receiver and pulled back to open the breech, allowing the spent cartridge case to be extracted and ejected... Those bolt action weapons look like THESE. Sidebar: This is why your third point is moot. Take a look at the left side of the page. See all the different calibers? The .22 Long-rifle is famous for being used to teach farm/ranch kids how to shoot critters. And, then you have the awesomeness of the .308 Winchester and 7.62x51 NATO. A favorite among big game hunters and a long time sniper round. Here's the rub. Given the "situation" that .22 LR may be more effective in the hands of someone well trained; than that of the .308 in the hands of a winter-time game hunter. Gas Chambered vs. Bolt Action - This video will depict the difference between the gas & bolt weapons. Keep in mind; these gentlemen are Special Forces Weapons Experts with advanced training in target interdiction (sniper school) using standard non-modified gas & bolts. The gas one is your "scary" one that probably has a selector switch that is set to "single" but can be flipped up to "auto." In summary - if I were a tree-hugging liberal, gentlemen; I'd go for the legislation that proposes to ban gas-chambered rifles. Now, let's go back to playing some poker. Someone check on Rush. He's seems to have passed out. And, could someone pass me a beer, please. Holy Crap! Would I need to give up my Beretta Tactical? Maybe I'm not a Liberal.

OK, I agree with the above. Have a wonderful day. What was wrong with this bit? "that unless you believe that you can not say it, hence". I get it that everything is going up and up with no relief in sight but, at least out here in Libland, the cost of cutting and pasting is still holding steady at zero. Some cynical bastard might think that you hold that you can say it and not believe it, hence your exclusion. Care to try again?

Nowhere in the thread did I take that position. I tried to explain but to no avail. Sure you did. Now, you are hard to nail down, I'll give you that, but not too hard. Read back to your replies to my questions. You gave it up, Ron, plain and simple. jcd11235 is right. Start writing directly, sans gobbledygook, and you'll avoid being misunderstood. Just read this obfuscating statement: Nowhere in the thread did I take that position. I tried to explain but to no avail. Why not say: I do not believe that. Arbitrary discrimination based on race, sexuality or religion is wrong and I am opposed to it. Period. But the problem is that unless you believe that you can not say it, hence the Ron Merry-Go-Round.

I am pleased to know you have reached a closure. An ancient saying, those who think they know do not know. Those who know they do not know do know. IOW, as soon as something is defined the secret is lost. I have no closure. I sit here simultaneously appalled and freaked the fuck out that people like you have so much influence in America today. You treat life as a virtual reality game that's all chock full of transitory moments of glee and fear and if a few unfortunates get tossed off the ride, mashed in the works or hit by the pinball along the way it's no worries mate, all Gods plan. Most confounding is how glibly you reconcile the tenets of your faith with your lack of concern for the misfortune of those not in your personal favor or sphere. That, I do not get at all. I understand your frustration. You have a high and honorable goals and ideas and it angers you that not everyone agrees with your well thought out plan. I believe that we should concern ourselves with our community and become involved elsewhere by sending missionaries to work in the other communities. When I viewed my place in the world similar to your concept I found that the anger required alcohol to find peace of mind. The more I drank the shorter the duration of peace. By turning over the problems I faced to a higher power, namely Jesus Christ, they dissipated to the point of near non-existence. The scriptures point us to and reinforce that understanding. God is on the throne. Life experience contains pain, sorrow, and suffering along with joy and happiness. Jesus is the focal point for understanding how the life energy process flows. In closing let me pose a question. Do you realize that you are disagreeing with my position that the restaurant owner had the right not to serve Sarah Sanders and therefore you are supporting who Sarah Sanders represents? It's not quite that Black and Gay. Reserving the right to refuse service is not only a good thing but can also be a necessary thing. If someone is loudly cursing and being an offensive ass because they enjoy being a jerk that's not the same as someone with Coprolalia suffering their condition and doing their best to fit in and enjoy their life as others do. Similarly, people with service animals deserve reasonable access. People gaming the system by pretending their woof buddy is a service animal deserve to be hounded out. Why? Well, they are lying, cheating, making a mockery of a necessary thing and by their actions harming innocent others. Now analogically, it's a hard parse to decide if Sanders or Trump is the dog but either way they are both despicable by their actions not by the color of their skin, perceived sexuality or by wearing a shtreimel at the buffet. The owner, as she and her staff saw things, did not need to wait for Sanders to do anything to be offended by her presence. True, she wasn't doing it there at dinner, and I don't think it was the best possible call to harass her, but I'm also sure that just like pushing a bully, it always feels pretty damn good right up until your ass whooping starts. Would I have exercised the right with Sanders? Not a chance. Getting into a fight with someone who speaks on national TV from a podium at the White House don't seem too bright, seems to me. On the other hand, if I recognized a KKK Grand Wizard coming through the door I might send him packing and just take the heat to follow. My problem with your stated position, as I understand it, is that it would allow for the exclusion of anyone for any reason and who up to that moment had done nothing more offensive than go out of their way to help line your pockets. Beyond being not too smart I think that is also just plain wrong.

I am pleased to know you have reached a closure. An ancient saying, those who think they know do not know. Those who know they do not know do know. IOW, as soon as something is defined the secret is lost. I have no closure. I sit here simultaneously appalled and freaked the fuck out that people like you have so much influence in America today. You treat life as a virtual reality game that's all chock full of transitory moments of glee and fear and if a few unfortunates get tossed off the ride, mashed in the works or hit by the pinball along the way it's no worries mate, all Gods plan. Most confounding is how glibly you reconcile the tenets of your faith with your lack of concern for the misfortune of those not in your personal favor or sphere. That, I do not get at all.

"In today's litigious world you have to be very careful how you behave and what you say. There is always someone with an agenda looking to trap you in some way that could be costly, even if you are innocent. As a Libertarian thinker, I believe a business owner should have to right to do business with his choice of clientele. The liberal law puts restrictions on that practice. It is what it is." You are right, I can not believe I just typed, that we live in a litigious world and care must be taken lest one slander another or self incriminate. The good news is that you won't be sued for not being a racist, a homophobe or a randomly intolerant asshole. It's being one or the other or all that gets you in trouble. That you claim fears speaks loudly. All of this is an imaginary problem to me. I have been in the restaurant business, the banking business, the motel/hotel business, the professional parachuting business, and finally in the counseling business. In short, I have always been employed in some form of the service industries. I have never encountered these issues personally. I read about them here or in the news and I think it's a minor issue that someone is trying to make major. It is largely just a waste of mental energy. As a recovering alcoholic, I know that I can only maintain control over my life. I have no control beyond that. As a born-again Christian, I know that everything is in accordance with God's will. He is not surprised or troubled by anything that occurs in the world. My purpose in life is to seek His will for my life and draw closer to Him. The rest of this stuff is just that, the stuff of life. It is like watching a movie. What I have learned is that Christ is the focal point of my light beam in a field of infinite light beams. My purpose is to stay focused on the light and not become enmeshed in the illusory problems elsewhere. New American Standard Bible Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. "As a born-again Christian, I know that everything is in accordance with God's will. He is not surprised or troubled by anything that occurs in the world. My purpose in life is to seek His will for my life and draw closer to Him. The rest of this stuff is just that, the stuff of life. It is like watching a movie." So that's it. There is no need to be concerned with social justice because it's Gods world and if He doesn't give a fuck why should we? Any screams from those going through the meat grinder are not our concern. Viewed in it's proper context it's actually entertainment; just like going to the movies. Thank you. You've answered my question. I wanted to know how you reconciled your Christian faith with the circumstances of your fellow human beings who might be treated unfairly because of who they are or how they were born. Now I know.

By Golly, you do have the reading comprehension problem Kallend has observed. So, those little hash marks outside of the words are quotation marks. Those are used to identify a different persons words. And for the record I'm actually a Frisbeetarian.

"In today's litigious world you have to be very careful how you behave and what you say. There is always someone with an agenda looking to trap you in some way that could be costly, even if you are innocent. As a Libertarian thinker, I believe a business owner should have to right to do business with his choice of clientele. The liberal law puts restrictions on that practice. It is what it is." You are right, I can not believe I just typed, that we live in a litigious world and care must be taken lest one slander another or self incriminate. The good news is that you won't be sued for not being a racist, a homophobe or a randomly intolerant asshole. It's being one or the other or all that gets you in trouble. That you claim fears speaks loudly.

I do not. Is this a true happening? If it was written in Arabic how did the DZO know? Most DZO's are tools, you know, barely able in English I'm told. I have several Muslim friends outside of the US, mostly SE Asians, and I can't imagine any of them giving a rats ass. Is there a back story here? The incident was discussed here in SC at the time. DJL posted above that word was not infidel but some other term. Since I no longer jump, I only read about it here. I'll just trust you had fair or entertaining reasons for asking me the question and that I was legitimately open for the inquiry. A few pages back Billvon, an unlikely Ron FanBoy I thought, rose to your defense as I was pressing you for a clarifying response to your statement: "I believe strongly that any business person has the right to refuse service to anyone." I asked you: "Do you think a private business should be allowed to exclude anyone they like regardless of reason as a fundamental prerogative? For example African Americans, Homosexuals, Sikhs, Muslims, Liars or anyone else that makes the business owner feel uncomfortable?" Given that each and every member of those identified groups are anyones I thought the question fair. You replied: "I stated my belief regarding the rights of business owners above. It is my belief, it is not the law." Another of your saviors then accused me of attempting to put words in your mouth. I am not. I am asking you to put the words in your mouth instead of prevaricating as you often do. My reasons should be plain by now. Nonetheless. I'll spell it out: I think your political and social philosophies don't square with your stated Christian beliefs. I further believe that you know it and that's why you answer as you do. So, if you do believe ."any business person has the right to refuse service to anyone." then you must also believe they can do so for any reason. If so, that ain't very Christian. Reference John 13:34-35; 1 Peter 3:8; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11 for authority. As you have thus far answered and written it would seem that you are first a committed Social Conservative/Libertarian with being a follower of Christ coming in a distant second. Hence my question: "Do you think a private business should be allowed to exclude anyone they like regardless of reason as a fundamental prerogative? For example African Americans, Homosexuals, Sikhs, Muslims, Liars or anyone else that makes the business owner feel uncomfortable?" And if you do please explain how that squares with being a good Christian.

I do not. Is this a true happening? If it was written in Arabic how did the DZO know? Most DZO's are tools, you know, barely able in English I'm told. I have several Muslim friends outside of the US, mostly SE Asians, and I can't imagine any of them giving a rats ass. Is there a back story here?

He didn't. He said that he thought that any business person has the right to refuse service to anyone. That's not the same as "condoning racism." At most it is providing others with the opportunity to be racists. You think it should be legal to own guns. Does that mean you publicly condone murder? Not publicly. If Ron believes it's cool for a business to turn someone away for no other reason than the color of their skin, how is that not condoning racism? I never said that. It is your imagination. Then set the record straight with a direct and affirmative answer. Do you believe a business should be allowed to discriminate, as in deny services or goods to someone, on the basis of skin color, sexual orientation or religious belief? Why should he do that? Did he lose a bet or something and now he's obligated to you? Because he prevaricated instead of answering previous questions.

He didn't. He said that he thought that any business person has the right to refuse service to anyone. That's not the same as "condoning racism." At most it is providing others with the opportunity to be racists. You think it should be legal to own guns. Does that mean you publicly condone murder? Not publicly. If Ron believes it's cool for a business to turn someone away for no other reason than the color of their skin, how is that not condoning racism? I never said that. It is your imagination. Then set the record straight with a direct and affirmative answer. Do you believe a business should be allowed to discriminate, as in deny services or goods to someone, on the basis of skin color, sexual orientation or religious belief?

I asked Ron this: >Do you think a private business should be allowed to exclude anyone >they like regardless of reason as a fundamental prerogative? For >example African Americans, Homosexuals, Sikhs, Muslims, Liars or >anyone else that makes the business owner feel uncomfortable? He answered this: >I stated my belief regarding the rights of business owners above. It is >my belief, it is not the law. That was a reiteration of his stating this: >I believe strongly that any business person has the right to refuse >service to anyone. Now maybe you are right and I am reading too much into it but I don't think so. I think those are explicit statements condoning what he believes is a private businesses right to discriminate on the basis of skin color, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. Why not take a step back and let the old dog pee on his own bush? I'm sure he's following our back and forth with glee.

>You think it should be legal to own guns. Does that mean you publicly condone murder? You asked an absurd question and I answered "not publicly" as an off hand way of telling you. I do not condone murder and I do think it should be legal to own guns. Ron does condone racism and has done so with his own words.

It is condoning murder. I'm not sure there is disagreement here.

He didn't. He said that he thought that any business person has the right to refuse service to anyone. That's not the same as "condoning racism." At most it is providing others with the opportunity to be racists. You think it should be legal to own guns. Does that mean you publicly condone murder? Not publicly. If Ron believes it's cool for a business to turn someone away for no other reason than the color of their skin, how is that not condoning racism?

I am simply stunned, unlike more seasoned SC posters, that Ron would openly and in a public forum admit to condoning racism, homophobia, religious intolerance, bigotry or any other pretense, no matter how thin or unfair, as perfectly legitimate reasons to discriminate and yet in the same breath also claim to be a follower of Christ. This hurts my head. I think I need to be banned again.

I remember "colored only" in Tampa FL as a youngster. Since 1960 I have not seen nor have I heard anyone advocating that policy again. It may exist but not where I have resided. All of that is your imagined characteristic of all Southerners. I have been outside of GA and outside of the U.S.A. I am satisfied where my wife and I are because this is a spiritual center. This is the area where the Trail of Tears began. Later, in 1903, there was a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit near Murphy NC. Check out Fields of the Wood. We also have a strong contingent of Vietnam veterans as well as other patriots. Those are the characteristics that bind us together. Well, that and we all love Chick-fil-a along with McDonald's, Zaxby's, Fatz, Longhorn Steak House, and DQ to name a few. >I remember "colored only" in Tampa FL as a youngster. Since 1960 I have not seen >nor have I heard anyone advocating that policy again. It may exist but not where I >have resided. That's great but not an answer. Do you think a private business should be allowed to exclude anyone they like regardless of reason as a fundamental prerogative? For example African Americans, Homosexuals, Sikhs, Muslims, Liars or anyone else that makes the business owner feel uncomfortable?? >All of that is your imagined characteristic of all Southerners. I didn't state "all Southerners". I stated that racism is not unusual amongst Southern Christians. That, I believe, is a true statement. >I have been outside of GA and outside of the U.S.A. To what benefit? You do not write or think like any well travelled person I know. Travel and get to know the others, Ron. That's what I'm suggesting to you, not going to Tampa or expanding your junk food diet. Instead, try the food court in Singapore, or the carts in Penang, a bowl of Pho in Hanoi, the night market in Bangkok, a glass of Kolsh in Cologne or wine in Paris and talk to the locals. It's not too late. I stated my belief regarding the rights of business owners above. It is my belief, it is not the law. At this stage of life, the places we will visit are in America only. My wife wants to go to Alaska but I am reluctant. She also wants to get me on a cruise. I say no way. We'll see, she is persuasive. To be clear, it is this statement. Correct? >I believe strongly that any business person has the right to refuse service to anyone.

I remember "colored only" in Tampa FL as a youngster. Since 1960 I have not seen nor have I heard anyone advocating that policy again. It may exist but not where I have resided. All of that is your imagined characteristic of all Southerners. I have been outside of GA and outside of the U.S.A. I am satisfied where my wife and I are because this is a spiritual center. This is the area where the Trail of Tears began. Later, in 1903, there was a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit near Murphy NC. Check out Fields of the Wood. We also have a strong contingent of Vietnam veterans as well as other patriots. Those are the characteristics that bind us together. Well, that and we all love Chick-fil-a along with McDonald's, Zaxby's, Fatz, Longhorn Steak House, and DQ to name a few. >I remember "colored only" in Tampa FL as a youngster. Since 1960 I have not seen >nor have I heard anyone advocating that policy again. It may exist but not where I >have resided. That's great but not an answer. Do you think a private business should be allowed to exclude anyone they like regardless of reason as a fundamental prerogative? For example African Americans, Homosexuals, Sikhs, Muslims, Liars or anyone else that makes the business owner feel uncomfortable?? >All of that is your imagined characteristic of all Southerners. I didn't state "all Southerners". I stated that racism is not unusual amongst Southern Christians. That, I believe, is a true statement. >I have been outside of GA and outside of the U.S.A. To what benefit? You do not write or think like any well travelled person I know. Travel and get to know the others, Ron. That's what I'm suggesting to you, not going to Tampa or expanding your junk food diet. Instead, try the food court in Singapore, or the carts in Penang, a bowl of Pho in Hanoi, the night market in Bangkok, a glass of Kolsh in Cologne or wine in Paris and talk to the locals. It's not too late.

So it's perfectly fine to refuse service to people because of their sexual orientation (for example the baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding), but it's not OK to refuse service to someone who advocates hurting children to send a message to their parents? Don Did you read this Ron? I'll bet you felt all warm and fuzzy when the baker beat the gays. I expect you'll deny it but no one will believe you. And I'll also bet you were immediately outraged that SS was pitched out of a restaurant for what she believes and does and who she does it with. Because that's different, right? I believe strongly that any business person has the right to refuse service to anyone. Ambulance companies? Private utilities? Airlines that make you swear you aren't Christian prior to boarding? What about "Colored Only" bathrooms? If that's what a private business person wants are you good with it? Your way, unfettered, would lead to homogenous enclaves of petty and self satisfied racists, homophobes and religious extremists and confused nincompoops. Everyone deserves the same fair shake as the 14th amendment intended. The difference between the cake baker and Sanders is that the gay couple were simply being who they are without lying or causing harm to anyone. Sanders can make no such claim. Ambulance Companies and Public Utilities are public services. Airlines and restaurants have to deal with competition. Let them do what they want. The marketplace will determine the final outcome. Of course, it is what it is but that does not change my beliefs. You missed the point, again. Moving on, Ambulance companies are often private concerns. AMC is big and provides both emergency and non-emergency transport. If your wife needed transport you wouldn't want some libtard Oregonian driver denying transport for Christians. Any claim that you think it would be free market cool is flat bullshit. Nor would you let her sweat it out while you called another company if, against luck, I was the driver and wanted to spend the entire trip asking you to defend your insistence in being so obtuse. There are private utilities and there are private water systems just as there are privates behind your zipper. The first two, were they throttled, might have serious and detrimental effects on the users were some asshat bigot who had control so minded. That is contrary to our values as a people, even including you. The last is yours to throttle. No arguments from me. That you did not bristle at the implication that "Colored Only" facilities could be imposed by a private business advertises for all to see that you are a racist. That is not at all unusual for Southern Christians so it's no surprise that you lighted where you did. Ron, before you transition get off your beliefs and go somewhere. Anywhere. Well, not a Chick-fil-A. I mean Kuala Lumpur or Jakarta or Bangkok or any of a shitload of places that are multicultural. Just sit and talk to people. Not about what you want them to believe but about what they are thinking. Listen to their lives. Try to see things as they see them just to understand. Or end your days in nowhere Georgia with a bag over your head, plugs in your ears and an ancient book of unerring truth in your hands.

So it's perfectly fine to refuse service to people because of their sexual orientation (for example the baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding), but it's not OK to refuse service to someone who advocates hurting children to send a message to their parents? Don Did you read this Ron? I'll bet you felt all warm and fuzzy when the baker beat the gays. I expect you'll deny it but no one will believe you. And I'll also bet you were immediately outraged that SS was pitched out of a restaurant for what she believes and does and who she does it with. Because that's different, right? I believe strongly that any business person has the right to refuse service to anyone. Ambulance companies? Private utilities? Airlines that make you swear you aren't Christian prior to boarding? What about "Colored Only" bathrooms? If that's what a private business person wants are you good with it? Your way, unfettered, would lead to homogenous enclaves of petty and self satisfied racists, homophobes, religious extremists and confused nincompoops. Everyone deserves the same fair shake as the 14th amendment intended. The difference between the cake baker and Sanders is that the gay couple were simply being who they are without lying or causing harm to anyone. Sanders can make no such claim.