J. Clarke wrote:

You really want a gun ban don't you?

Me? Hell no! I carry a Glock 9mm and a .22 BUG (Back-up gun). I've
got either a Glock 10mm or .40 cal stashed in almost every room. We
won't even talk about the car. I've also got some armament that can
"reach out and touch someone."

I live in a fairly backward state (Texas) that won't allow open carry
or guns on campus.

I hold that all citizens should demonstrate acceptable marksmanship
before being allowed to vote or own taxable property and that the
laws on justifiable homicide be relaxed to include people who smell
funny.

If you don't want a gun ban then stop using inflammatory rhetoric
that makes you look like the sort of nutcake that the gun control
advocates want people to believe are typical firearms owners. You're
playing into a stereotype here.

Because I offered a hint about BUG SPRAY? You raised up on your hinder legs
over BUG SPRAY? You accuse me of outrageous pro-gun comments when we were
talking about BUG SPRAY? Guns weren't mentioned until you brought it up.
Listen up, slick, there's a big difference between a firearm and BUG SPRAY -
even a pro-gun nutter like me knows that. As to stereotype, I don't think
there IS a stereotype for exterminators. Well, Tom Delay excepted.


And before you say "freedom of speech" consider that every right
carries with it a duty to use that right responsibly.

First, every "right" I have imposes a "duty" on the government, not me. If I
have a right to worship as I please, the state has a duty not to interfere.
If I have a "right" to freedom of speech, the government has a duty to not
impose unreasonable restrictions. For constitutional rights, the methodology
is called "strict scrutiny."

Second, "freedom of speech" (actually the "duty" to not suppress) applies
only to a government entity, not newsgroups.

HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

You really want a gun ban don't you?

Me? Hell no! I carry a Glock 9mm and a .22 BUG (Back-up gun). I've
got either a Glock 10mm or .40 cal stashed in almost every room. We
won't even talk about the car. I've also got some armament that can
"reach out and touch someone."

I live in a fairly backward state (Texas) that won't allow open
carry or guns on campus.

I hold that all citizens should demonstrate acceptable marksmanship
before being allowed to vote or own taxable property and that the
laws on justifiable homicide be relaxed to include people who smell
funny.

If you don't want a gun ban then stop using inflammatory rhetoric
that makes you look like the sort of nutcake that the gun control
advocates want people to believe are typical firearms owners. You're
playing into a stereotype here.

Because I offered a hint about BUG SPRAY? You raised up on your
hinder legs over BUG SPRAY? You accuse me of outrageous pro-gun
comments when we were talking about BUG SPRAY? Guns weren't mentioned
until you brought it up. Listen up, slick, there's a big difference
between a firearm and BUG SPRAY - even a pro-gun nutter like me knows
that. As to stereotype, I don't think there IS a stereotype for
exterminators. Well, Tom Delay excepted.

No, because you continue to mouth off like Johnny Carson parodying a hunter.

And before you say "freedom of speech" consider that every right
carries with it a duty to use that right responsibly.

First, every "right" I have imposes a "duty" on the government, not
me. If I have a right to worship as I please, the state has a duty
not to interfere. If I have a "right" to freedom of speech, the
government has a duty to not impose unreasonable restrictions. For
constitutional rights, the methodology is called "strict scrutiny."

You have a duty to use your rights responsibly. Right now with all the
inflammatory rhetoric you are making a fool of yourself, which you are
welcome to do, but you are also serving as an embarrassment to others in
your own camp.

Second, "freedom of speech" (actually the "duty" to not suppress)
applies only to a government entity, not newsgroups.

Which is irrelevant to the point.

J. Clarke wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

You really want a gun ban don't you?

Me? Hell no! I carry a Glock 9mm and a .22 BUG (Back-up gun). I've
got either a Glock 10mm or .40 cal stashed in almost every room. We
won't even talk about the car. I've also got some armament that can
"reach out and touch someone."

I live in a fairly backward state (Texas) that won't allow open
carry or guns on campus.

I hold that all citizens should demonstrate acceptable marksmanship
before being allowed to vote or own taxable property and that the
laws on justifiable homicide be relaxed to include people who smell
funny.

If you don't want a gun ban then stop using inflammatory rhetoric
that makes you look like the sort of nutcake that the gun control
advocates want people to believe are typical firearms owners.
You're playing into a stereotype here.

Because I offered a hint about BUG SPRAY? You raised up on your
hinder legs over BUG SPRAY? You accuse me of outrageous pro-gun
comments when we were talking about BUG SPRAY? Guns weren't mentioned
until you brought it up. Listen up, slick, there's a big difference
between a firearm and BUG SPRAY - even a pro-gun nutter like me knows
that. As to stereotype, I don't think there IS a stereotype for
exterminators. Well, Tom Delay excepted.

No, because you continue to mouth off like Johnny Carson parodying a
hunter.


Johnny Carson is dead.



And before you say "freedom of speech" consider that every right
carries with it a duty to use that right responsibly.

First, every "right" I have imposes a "duty" on the government, not
me. If I have a right to worship as I please, the state has a duty
not to interfere. If I have a "right" to freedom of speech, the
government has a duty to not impose unreasonable restrictions. For
constitutional rights, the methodology is called "strict scrutiny."

You have a duty to use your rights responsibly. Right now with all
the inflammatory rhetoric you are making a fool of yourself, which
you are welcome to do, but you are also serving as an embarrassment
to others in your own camp.

Inflammatory rhetoric? I offered a hint about BUG SPRAY. Nothing
inflammatory about it, unless you want to light up the chemicals. You're the
one who tried to veer the conversation toward guns and duty and rights and
freedom of speech (the last three items about which you evidently know
little).

Now if you are in the same "camp" as I, and you are embarrassed, I suggest
you own the problem, not me.




Second, "freedom of speech" (actually the "duty" to not suppress)
applies only to a government entity, not newsgroups.

Which is irrelevant to the point.

Jeeze! YOU'RE the one who brought up "freedom of speech." Now you're saying
a topic you initiated is irrelevant!

Since you're so keen on offering unsolicited advice, let's see if you can
take some. Don't torment the alligators.

HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

You really want a gun ban don't you?

Me? Hell no! I carry a Glock 9mm and a .22 BUG (Back-up gun). I've
got either a Glock 10mm or .40 cal stashed in almost every room.
We won't even talk about the car. I've also got some armament
that can "reach out and touch someone."

I live in a fairly backward state (Texas) that won't allow open
carry or guns on campus.

I hold that all citizens should demonstrate acceptable
marksmanship before being allowed to vote or own taxable property
and that the laws on justifiable homicide be relaxed to include
people who smell funny.

If you don't want a gun ban then stop using inflammatory rhetoric
that makes you look like the sort of nutcake that the gun control
advocates want people to believe are typical firearms owners.
You're playing into a stereotype here.

Because I offered a hint about BUG SPRAY? You raised up on your
hinder legs over BUG SPRAY? You accuse me of outrageous pro-gun
comments when we were talking about BUG SPRAY? Guns weren't
mentioned until you brought it up. Listen up, slick, there's a big
difference between a firearm and BUG SPRAY - even a pro-gun nutter
like me knows that. As to stereotype, I don't think there IS a
stereotype for exterminators. Well, Tom Delay excepted.

No, because you continue to mouth off like Johnny Carson parodying a
hunter.


Johnny Carson is dead.



And before you say "freedom of speech" consider that every right
carries with it a duty to use that right responsibly.

First, every "right" I have imposes a "duty" on the government, not
me. If I have a right to worship as I please, the state has a duty
not to interfere. If I have a "right" to freedom of speech, the
government has a duty to not impose unreasonable restrictions. For
constitutional rights, the methodology is called "strict scrutiny."

You have a duty to use your rights responsibly. Right now with all
the inflammatory rhetoric you are making a fool of yourself, which
you are welcome to do, but you are also serving as an embarrassment
to others in your own camp.

Inflammatory rhetoric? I offered a hint about BUG SPRAY. Nothing
inflammatory about it, unless you want to light up the chemicals.
You're the one who tried to veer the conversation toward guns and
duty and rights and freedom of speech (the last three items about
which you evidently know little).

So you're going to shoot them between the eyes with .44 caliber BUG SPRAY
wink wink nudge nudge?

Now if you are in the same "camp" as I, and you are embarrassed, I
suggest you own the problem, not me.

Many who make fools of themselves think that the foolishness is on the part
of those who are laughing at them. When the government decides to repeal
the First Amendment I _will_ be saying "I told you so".

Second, "freedom of speech" (actually the "duty" to not suppress)
applies only to a government entity, not newsgroups.

Which is irrelevant to the point.

Jeeze! YOU'RE the one who brought up "freedom of speech." Now you're
saying a topic you initiated is irrelevant!

No, its applicability to government, not newsgroups, is irrelevant.

Since you're so keen on offering unsolicited advice, let's see if you
can take some. Don't torment the alligators.

When an alligator shows up I'll bear that in mind.

J. Clarke wrote:

Inflammatory rhetoric? I offered a hint about BUG SPRAY. Nothing
inflammatory about it, unless you want to light up the chemicals.
You're the one who tried to veer the conversation toward guns and
duty and rights and freedom of speech (the last three items about
which you evidently know little).

So you're going to shoot them between the eyes with .44 caliber BUG
SPRAY wink wink nudge nudge?

You're the one who brought up guns. I don't think I can be fairly criticized
for expanding the topic you initiated. If you don't want to be subject to
contrarian views, don't create molehills.


Now if you are in the same "camp" as I, and you are embarrassed, I
suggest you own the problem, not me.

Many who make fools of themselves think that the foolishness is on
the part of those who are laughing at them. When the government
decides to repeal the First Amendment I _will_ be saying "I told you
so".



So now it's humor, not embarrassment? You have the attention span of kitten
in a box of packing peanuts. You keep switching emphasis trying, without
hope, to find a topic on which your logic can prevail. Give it up.


Second, "freedom of speech" (actually the "duty" to not suppress)
applies only to a government entity, not newsgroups.

Which is irrelevant to the point.

Jeeze! YOU'RE the one who brought up "freedom of speech." Now you're
saying a topic you initiated is irrelevant!

No, its applicability to government, not newsgroups, is irrelevant.

Pay attention, slick, the concept of "Freedom of Speech" applies ONLY to the
government. Should you want to express the view that one is unrestrained to
post personal views somewhere, use that phrase, not one owned by the
Constitution.


Since you're so keen on offering unsolicited advice, let's see if you
can take some. Don't torment the alligators.

When an alligator shows up I'll bear that in mind.

And I will continue to deny your allegations and damn the alligator.

HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Inflammatory rhetoric? I offered a hint about BUG SPRAY. Nothing
inflammatory about it, unless you want to light up the chemicals.
You're the one who tried to veer the conversation toward guns and
duty and rights and freedom of speech (the last three items about
which you evidently know little).

So you're going to shoot them between the eyes with .44 caliber BUG
SPRAY wink wink nudge nudge?

You're the one who brought up guns. I don't think I can be fairly
criticized for expanding the topic you initiated. If you don't want
to be subject to contrarian views, don't create molehills.


Now if you are in the same "camp" as I, and you are embarrassed, I
suggest you own the problem, not me.

Many who make fools of themselves think that the foolishness is on
the part of those who are laughing at them. When the government
decides to repeal the First Amendment I _will_ be saying "I told you
so".



So now it's humor, not embarrassment? You have the attention span of
kitten in a box of packing peanuts. You keep switching emphasis
trying, without hope, to find a topic on which your logic can
prevail. Give it up.


Second, "freedom of speech" (actually the "duty" to not suppress)
applies only to a government entity, not newsgroups.

Which is irrelevant to the point.

Jeeze! YOU'RE the one who brought up "freedom of speech." Now you're
saying a topic you initiated is irrelevant!

No, its applicability to government, not newsgroups, is irrelevant.

Pay attention, slick, the concept of "Freedom of Speech" applies ONLY
to the government. Should you want to express the view that one is
unrestrained to post personal views somewhere, use that phrase, not
one owned by the Constitution.


Since you're so keen on offering unsolicited advice, let's see if
you can take some. Don't torment the alligators.

When an alligator shows up I'll bear that in mind.

And I will continue to deny your allegations and damn the alligator.

You clearly are incapable of following a conversation and when it is
suggested to you that your style of argument does more harm than good you
simply go on the attack. I find reviewing your posting history that you
have made one post in the past six months that actually has anything to do
with woodworking. That being the case I'm not wasting any more time on your
bombastic drivel, slick.

plonk

J. Clarke wrote:

You clearly are incapable of following a conversation and when it is
suggested to you that your style of argument does more harm than good
you simply go on the attack. I find reviewing your posting history
that you have made one post in the past six months that actually has
anything to do with woodworking. That being the case I'm not wasting
any more time on your bombastic drivel, slick.


True, I've not made many (if any) posts on woodworking. I follow the
conversations here and learn from my betters on the subject. Still, when
some ELSE posts something that is absurd, wrong, or just plain insane, I'm
not about to let it stand unchallenged. I'm sure your research recognized
that.

Now the original topic started off with methods for protection. Someone
suggested bug spray. I agreed. Then, in succession, you brought up guns,
embarrassment, humor, freedom of speech, and the inability to follow a train
of thought. Then, either in a fit of pique or an example of ADD, you
interject that I'm an idiot in a completely unrelated thread.

After knocking on several doors and unable to gain entry to the halls of
knowledge, you give up an retire. Sorry to see you go; it's been fun.