I have seen the light, Republicans ARE EVIL...

[Beretta92FSLady]

[snip]

And there are miles between statements and actions. By your own admission, you were not harmed in your encounter with who you claim was a homophobe (Was he really afraid of you? Probably not, by your description).

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

I wonder if you have ever looked a person in the eyes, and pulled the trigger. You are right, physically, I was fine, fortunately.

He wasn't afraid of me nor my handgun. All he seen was a female *** with their partner and kids.

You believe that words and action are far apart but they aren't. You degrade individuals by using terms that are intended to undermine their person, you are much closer than you think to creating a situation where someone is going to get hurt.

I don't know about anyone else here but I am standing somewhere minding my own business and a person comes up to me calling me a "***" or aggressively harassing and intimidating my partner and me, well, I know how to deal with that type of situation.

I wonder if I was standing there conversing with others at a OC BBQ, if you would walk up and call me a Deviant or a Queen. I also wonder how you would expect me to respond to that sort of behavior that in many unfortunate cases ends up with the Gay person having their a$$ kicked or even killed.

 

[georg jetson]

The Great Compromise was the beginning of a perpetual compromise.

SNIP

Of course that was not the intention. We must begin to take back what was never intended to be given.

 

[spiderjohn]

I desire a mandate that only South Carolina BBQ style sauce be made available. If you do not like SC style BBQ sauce, the sanction is a bland plate of pulled pork....a fate worse than death in my view.

Though, you have a point, mandates without sanctions for non-compliance are not anti-liberty. If the state does nothing due to non-compliance the state can not deny liberty.

Ain't nothing right about mustard in a BBQ sauce.

 

[PrayingForWar]

We don't agree on much but I do agree with you on this...if the charity organizations were not bias. Not all are but there are some. If these organizations are going to offer assistance to individuals who are poor, mentally ill or whatever else, they have to be required to treat all individuals equally. This may not seem like a big deal but it is, trust me.

Unfortunately, the Government is the only alternative to assuring that organizations who help individuals are living up to their end of the deal, which is to help individuals who are in need of help.

I can offer an example of why I am stating this, although, I likely won't publically but I can elaborate more on this through private message if you are curious as to why I have taken this position.

I'm hard line enough to say that if Catholics only want to support Catholics, the United Negro College Fund only supports black people (it does I think), MALFDEF only supports liberal mexicans...(which it does) You get my drift. The bottom line is private enterprises will be forced too be more effective in their assistance based on a competeitve market for donations. At best government could monitor the finances with a skeleton staff to ensure advertised ratios are true, but that's it.

The government MADE ITSELF the only alternative, because even before the "new deal" there were provisions in place that prevented the famines that would have happened and still happen even today, because third world governments interefere and steal from international charity.

I am interested in why you've taken the position that only government can make things "equal".

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Of course that was not the intention. We must begin to take back what was never intended to be given.

The issue is we have to agree as a society what the intent was, or at least generally what the intent was. At the end of the day all you will have is another great Compromise whether it is war first then talking, or talking then compromise.

We are treading a line in this Country that is dangerous. I hope that it ends with compromise first or we will have a Nation of brothers and sisters (just like during the Civil War) shooting one another, and still at the end of the day havening to sit down at the table together, and come to a compromise.

 

[ManInBlack]

I wonder if you have ever looked a person in the eyes, and pulled the trigger. You are right, physically, I was fine, fortunately.

He wasn't afraid of me nor my handgun. All he seen was a female *** with their partner and kids.

You believe that words and action are far apart but they aren't. You degrade individuals by using terms that are intended to undermine their person, you are much closer than you think to creating a situation where someone is going to get hurt.

I don't know about anyone else here but I am standing somewhere minding my own business and a person comes up to me calling me a "***" or aggressively harassing and intimidating my partner and me, well, I know how to deal with that type of situation.

I wonder if I was standing there conversing with others at a OC BBQ, if you would walk up and call me a Deviant or a Queen. I also wonder how you would expect me to respond to that sort of behavior that in many unfortunate cases ends up with the Gay person having their a$$ kicked or even killed.

Oh my God, are you people all this overly dramatic?

This is the internet. Get over it.

Drake interjected himself, a conscious adult, into a forum debate. He assumed the risk of getting his whiny pro-PC crap blown out of the water.

That is quite different from a situation where a person randomly approaches you in public and calls you a name.

Which, I might add, is not grounds for any type of use of force, despite your obvious insinuation.

Until and unless a person's actions (NOT MERE WORDS) lead to you reasonably fear for your safety, you better just leave it in the holster, cool your jets, and re-read the First Amendment.

Hey, guess what? Many thousands of Poles, shortly after being called derogatory names, were shot dead by Soviet and German soldiers during WW2. This doesn't give any Pole the right to shoot a Russian or German who calls him "Polack."

ETA: I'd also like to point out that while I wouldn't approach anyone I didn't know in public and randomly call him/her a derogatory name, if I were to do such a thing, I certainly wouldn't do so to one who was visibly armed...which makes me seriously doubt the veracity of your story.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I'm hard line enough to say that if Catholics only want to support Catholics, the United Negro College Fund only supports black people (it does I think), MALFDEF only supports liberal mexicans...(which it does) You get my drift. The bottom line is private enterprises will be forced too be more effective in their assistance based on a competeitve market for donations. At best government could monitor the finances with a skeleton staff to ensure advertised ratios are true, but that's it.

The government MADE ITSELF the only alternative, because even before the "new deal" there were provisions in place that prevented the famines that would have happened and still happen even today, because third world governments interefere and steal from international charity.

I am interested in why you've taken the position that only government can make things "equal".

Negro College fund ought not be permitted to only help Negros. All ought to be required to not have bias against any other.

I am not stating that only Government can make things equal; I am stating that unfortunately Government is the only alternative since Organizations won't, they are incapable, unfortunately.

 

[PrayingForWar]

It's a start - if our agenda is-> a Country that is based in Constitutional Law? Which to date doesn't seem to be a priority for either party in my honest opinion.

Our agenda is then, I stand by my assertion the repuke party more closely represents it and it seems to me Ron Paul agrees. It's up to us to force the politician to bend too our will. For a long time the dems were the most vocal anti-communists. The commies took it over anyway. We can do that with the repukes, and it should be easier.

 

[georg jetson]

The issue is we have to agree as a society what the intent was, or at least generally what the intent was. At the end of the day all you will have is another great Compromise whether it is war first then talking, or talking then compromise.

All that is needed is the ability to read. The US Constitution gives authority to the 3 branches to do certain things. It's very simple.

We are treading a line in this Country that is dangerous. I hope that it ends with compromise first or we will have a Nation of brothers and sisters (just like during the Civil War) shooting one another, and still at the end of the day havening to sit down at the table together, and come to a compromise.

The Constitution WAS the compromise so...

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Which, I might add, is not grounds for any type of use of force, despite your obvious insinuation.

Actually, in the State of Washington, it is. Words, and posture are a prelude to action.

Until and unless a person's actions (NOT MERE WORDS) lead to you reasonably fear for your safety, you better just leave it in the holster, cool your jets, and re-read the First Amendment.

***Can't find the cite. Will update when I find the cite. (Wrong again. In Washington State you can display your sidearm to avert a potential threat. Someone here has the link; can some link us up on this? The Law is only a couple of years old.)

Hey, guess what? Many thousands of Poles, shortly after being called derogatory names, were shot dead by Soviet and German soldiers during WW2. This doesn't give the any Pole the right to shoot a Russian or German who calls him "Polack."

I didn't state that mere name-calling gives a person a right to shoot.

Although, walking up to someone (within 21 or so feet) and calling them a fa**ot is, as I stated a justification to draw you sidearm and prepare for an attack.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

All that is needed is the ability to read. The US Constitution gives authority to the 3 branches to do certain things. It's very simple.



The Constitution WAS the compromise so...

Wrong. What is needed is the ability to first Read, and most significantly, Reason.

 

[ManInBlack]

Actually, in the State of Washington, it is. Words, and posture are a prelude to action.

Cite please?

Wrong again. In Washington State you can display your sidearm to avert a potential threat. Someone here has the link; can some link us up on this? The Law is only a couple of years old.

Even if true, a mere incident of name-calling is not a threat.

I didn't state that mere name-calling gives a person a right to shoot.

Although, walking up to someone (within 21 or so feet) and calling them a fa**ot is, as I stated a justification to draw you sidearm and prepare for an attack.

I'd love to hear that one go down in court.

"I brandished my sidearm because he called me a mean name! Waaaahhhh!"

P.S.: If you were justified, why didn't you brandish at the alleged homophobe in your convenient story about someone getting in your face and calling you mean names?

 

[georg jetson]

Negro College fund ought not be permitted to only help Negros.

SNIP

Fire ought not be permitted to burn things... let's see the government fix that one.

Wait... Burn things?? Ahhh... another page coming off the printer. Have a good night.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Cite please?



Even if true, a mere incident of name-calling is not a threat.



I'd love to hear that one go down in court.

"I brandished my sidearm because he called me a mean name! Waaaahhhh!"

P.S.: If you were justified, why didn't you brandish at the alleged homophobe in your convenient story about someone getting in your face and calling you mean names?

I am not sure what you are referring to about a convenient story.

Found it ***actually, this might not be the RCW***:

RCW 9.41.230 Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons.

(1) For conduct not amounting to a violation of chapter 9A.36 RCW, any person who:

(a) Aims any firearm, whether loaded or not, at or towards any human being;

(b) Willfully discharges any firearm, air gun, or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place, or in any place where any person might be endangered thereby. A public place shall not include any location at which firearms are authorized to be lawfully discharged; or

(c) Except as provided in RCW 9.41.185, sets a so-called trap, spring pistol, rifle, or other dangerous weapon,

although no injury results, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

(2) If an injury results from a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person violating subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to the applicable provisions of chapters 9A.32 and 9A.36 RCW.


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

 

[ManInBlack]

I am not sure what you are referring to about a convenient story.

Found it:

RCW 9.41.230 Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons.

(1) For conduct not amounting to a violation of chapter 9A.36 RCW, any person who:

(a) Aims any firearm, whether loaded or not, at or towards any human being;

(b) Willfully discharges any firearm, air gun, or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place, or in any place where any person might be endangered thereby. A public place shall not include any location at which firearms are authorized to be lawfully discharged; or

(c) Except as provided in RCW 9.41.185, sets a so-called trap, spring pistol, rifle, or other dangerous weapon,

although no injury results, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

(2) If an injury results from a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person violating subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to the applicable provisions of chapters 9A.32 and 9A.36 RCW.


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

Convenient Story: You know, the yarn you spun a few posts above in which you claimed someone who was supposedly afraid of homosexuals got up in your face and "went beyond homophobic terms" while you were armed.

And the statute you posted has nothing to do with what I asked for, which was a cite for your assertion that

That is quite different from a situation where a person randomly approaches you in public and calls you a name.

Which, I might add, is not grounds for any type of use of force, despite your obvious insinuation.

Actually, in the State of Washington, it is. Words, and posture are a prelude to action.

Please don't try to weasel out of this through your favored tactic of playing to fool and pretending not to remember what you just wrote. What in the cite you posted says anything about defining words and posture as a prelude to action for the purposes of self-defense?

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Convenient Story: You know, the yarn you spun a few posts above in which you claimed someone who was supposedly afraid of homosexuals got up in your face and "went beyond homophobic terms" while you were armed.

And the statute you posted has nothing to do with what I asked for, which was a cite for your assertion that





Please don't try to weasel out of this through your favored tactic of playing to fool and pretending not to remember what you just wrote.

I didn't state the person was not afraid of homosexuals. **You will have to quote me because I went back, and have no idea what post you are referring to where I stated that.**

I updated my post to reflect that it isn't correct. I just didn't want to delete it because I wasn't sure who might be responding to it.

 

[ManInBlack]

I didn't state the person was not afraid of homosexuals.

You called him a mean word: homophobe. This means that he was afraid of homosexuals. I am the one saying he obviously was not, because he approached you when you had visible handgun. Again, I ask, if you say that under Washington law, you would be justified in brandishing at someone who calls you a mean name, why didn't you do it. Or do you just want to admit now that the story didn't happen?

I updated my post to reflect that it isn't correct. I just didn't want to delete it because I wasn't sure who might be responding to it.

Not only was it incorrect, it has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.

You won't find any RCWs supporting your baseless assertion, because there aren't any.

Get with the program.

 

[PrayingForWar]

Negro College fund ought not be permitted to only help Negros. All ought to be required to not have bias against any other.

I am not stating that only Government can make things equal; I am stating that unfortunately Government is the only alternative since Organizations won't, they are incapable, unfortunately.

I vehemently disagree. If a private enterprise seeks to elict funding to support only aspiring black scholars, so be it. I don't have to fund it. I'm actually more inclined to fund it though, if it actually provides assistance to that specific portion of society and does so in a manner that individuals benefit from it and become independent.

If some asshat group comes up and only wants to fund hardcore islamic fundamentalist hell bent on jihad... Oh wait, CAIR already exists. Anyway, they have a right to pursue that agenda, and they're doing so.

Those of us who oppose the radical jihadist agenda that would circumcise (or just kill) you, force you into a burqa and strip you of your driving privileges among other things should have the right too oppose that agenda.

As things stand now, the libs would have you believe such endeavors make you a racist guilty of hate crimes and the DOJ would be looking into your sources of funding and having your organization audited.

That's why there's no place for gvovernment to regulate charity, because politics clouds free expression and suppresses common sense.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

You called him a mean word: homophobe. This means that he was afraid of homosexuals. I am the one saying he obviously was not, because he approached you when you had visible handgun. Again, I ask, if you say that under Washington law, you would be justified in brandishing at someone who calls you a mean name, why didn't you do it. Or do you just want to admit now that the story didn't happen?

Now I see what you were referring to. The term Homophobe is much broader than that:

Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people who are identified or perceived as being homosexual. Although the suffix -phobia normally refers to irrational fear, definitions of homophobia have expanded to refer also to antipathy, prejudice, contempt, and aversion, as well as irrational fear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

You won't find any RCWs supporting your baseless assertion, because there aren't any.

There is. I stated that I am looking for it, and I will find it.

I found it, this time:

RCW 9.41.270 Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:

(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;

(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;

(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or

(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.



http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270

Additionally:

[h=2]RCW 9A.16.050[/h][h=1]Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.[/h]

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

 

[PrayingForWar]

Fire ought not be permitted to burn things... let's see the government fix that one.

Wait... Burn things?? Ahhh... another page coming off the printer. Have a good night.

Stick too pot dude, we've seen what the wrong chemicals can do to people's synapses.