Chucktshoes

Is this about soccer? :shrug:

MVB hit a home run with that one.

IIRC it was folks that attempted to file but were late and missed the deadline.

[quote name="sigmtnman" post="1116227" timestamp="1393295798"]Service unavailable?[/quote] Crap, it isn't working for me right now either. The article was about the state of CT sending out letters to late filers telling them to get rid of their prohibited items.

http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=11186

[quote name="bersaguy" post="1116133" timestamp="1393285999"]I don't think they will allow him back in. They have seen all the trouble he caused here and they have enough problems already............jmho[/quote] He doesn't want to go back because if he does he will be forced to answer some unresolved questions about a phone hacking scandal.

Exactly. Anything the fed.gov can force the states to allow today, they can force the states to prohibit tomorrow.

You make a pretty valid point. I prefer my bigots (whatever stripe they may be) to be out in the open so I can avoid them altogether.

Maybe I should have used the /sarcasm tag. I figured the quotation marks (as in I was quoting someone else if not in word, but attitude) and the whistle smiley would have imparted that was my intent. I guess not, my bad. If you read the other CT thread it is more than obvious what my stance on this is and what I think is the proper solution to correct it as well.

I'm calling shenanigans as well. 

Waiting for it to complete then I will binge watch it. I have a hard time keeping up with TV shows. The advent of the streaming and the ability to binge watch an entire season over the course of a week has been a godsend for me.

"it'll never happen here."  :whistle:

I got the Liberator as well. Usually a virtue, your single-mindedness can blind you to what is around you. Sometimes crude, you don't put up with formalities and don't need the finer things in life, just the things you really want, like nachos.

  YES!

I would suggest that you should read some more Old Testament. Specifically everything prior to Kings. It was the people of Israel that beseeched God for a king and he gave them one, only after telling them of the sorrow it would bring them. A very strong argument exists that He desires for us to live directly under His rule.       Prior to God giving Israel a king, he sent them Prophets and Judges at the specific times that they needed them. They chose instead to reject Him for a king and political solutions.     Edited to add: I am not attempting to actually make the argument that God endorses my political views. My real point is that the scriptures are large and varied and one should be very careful before claiming He endorses ANY man made solution as God likely has His own ideas.

Nice job slightly altering your language there but it doesn't fool me. I still don't think you actually understand the words you are using. Your civics teacher gets an F.   What has been proven time and time again is that men of baser instinct are attracted to government because of the power it wields and then use that power to control, steal from and murder their fellow man by the millions. Once again, I ask of you the question Frederic Bastiat asked nearly 200 years ago.  

Mark, you are half right. I am not looking for definition B, but would be very  happy with A. The strain of anarchism that I most closely identify with is Anarcho-Capitalism. This would be the system I would choose if it were up to me, but it isn't. As I mentioned before, I can accept a semi-minarchist style of government which would very closely resemble the very small federal system our government initially resembled, not the many tentacled leviathan that seeks more and more control that currently exists. So while I do advocate ultimately moving towards a voluntary based society, I also advocate returning to the constitutionally limited republican form of government this nation once had as a more immediate method of restoring individual liberty. I can start a thread about Anarchism/ Voluntaryism and we can discuss its merits and flaws as it may provide a nice illuminating discussion. I'm going to leave that subject here with this quote on the supposed rampant violence of anarchy folks love to bring up.       All of that aside; Now to Robert.   You did an admirable job of deflecting the subject away from your own confusion of democracy with the republican form of government that our nation was intended to and at one time did have. The founders of this country viewed democracy with the same sort of revulsion that most of us here today view communism. They understood that democracy was nothing more than mob rule. Here are a few quotes from John Adams and Thomas Jefferson on the matter.      Just to throw this in as a bonus, make what you will of these quotes from Jefferson and Adams.  

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1113878" timestamp="1392913739"]Yes...do look at the context. The US. IS a representative democracy and always has been it is also a Constitutional republic in that we are guided by a constitution. As to the "property rights"; yes..I believe people have a right to voluntarily come together and set rules and standards for themselves...that's part of freedom of choice or the right of the individual which you claim to hold dear...[b]I suspect, however, that you are only for free choice/individual rights for people if they make the choices you want them to make[/b].[/quote] :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: <--regarding the bolded portion. Do you even read or comprehend anything I have posted here? For that matter, do you understand the words that you are using? I'm really not sure you do. As far as the property rights debates, I'm not gonna rehash those arguments for the umpteenth time, but yeah, you just contradicted almost everything you have ever written here on the subject of property rights. :rofl:

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1113841" timestamp="1392910040"]I have never said anywhere or even hinted that a democracy is better than a representative democracy or that "majority vote trumps the rights of the individual".[/quote]Look at the words you used and compare them to the ones I used because the terminology matters. Control the language and you control the mind. The difference between a democracy and a representative democracy is that in the latter you send representatives to engage in mob rule in your place as opposed to doing it directly. The rights of the individual still have no protection from the whims of the masses. A constitutional republic with individual liberty as its core principle protects the rights of the individual to their life, liberty and property from the whims and desires of others. As far as the second point goes, all anyone has to do is look at any debate I or JayC has had with you on the subject of property rights to see that contrary to your present denials, you absolutely view the whims of the masses as superior to the rights of the individual.

I love the honesty about how the only real use is to piss off the gun grabbing legislators. :lol:

Still not answering how if people can't be trusted to govern themselves, they can be trusted to govern others. That's okay as there isn't an answer that actually has any logical consistency. On the other hand, I am not surprised by your elevation of democracy (like we have now) over a constitutional republic (like our founders instituted) as time and time again you have stated a belief that majority vote trumps the rights of the individual. To paraphrase a famous sci-fi character "the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the one".

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1113525" timestamp="1392850933"]Some people can but as a whole, people can't be trusted - people have proven that for as long as we've had recorded history. If people always did the right thing by others we wouldn't be in the mess we are in...we wouldn't have men kidnapping and killing (and who knows what else) to 10 year old little girls like the guy just arrested today.[/quote] Read the quote from Bastiat again, Robert. I will absolutely agree with you that people can't be trusted. So why do we trust them with the power to govern others if they can't be trusted to govern themselves?

:rofl: Well played. :rofl:   I hadn't thought of it like that before, but I can't necessarily deny it either.

Yes, because people that can't be trusted to rule themselves should instead be given the power to rule over others.     

I'm all for ditching DST. Never made much sense to me.