Gyrobob wrote on 12/30/12 at 19:01:19:


That's what a FREE country is supposed to be about; having the freedom to do/write what you want as long as you do not harm others.  Others are free to read or not read what/how I write.  It is their RIGHT to do that.

What's the harm?

1. Why do you need to see your posts bigger and clearer than anyone else's?  Are you more important?  Don't you care to read what others have posted just as easily?

2. I'm nearsighted, my old eyes don't focus on the computer while wearing my glasses anymore, so I do sympathize with needing larger text.  I resize the text on the screen so I can comfortably see it, that's all the text.  Yeah I could resize for every post but that pretty annoying.  I don't even like doing that for pictures.

srinath wrote on 12/28/12 at 19:57:47:


These decisions SHOULD be the choice of the individual.

If you want to be gay then go be gay.
If you want to get an abortion go right ahead.
If you want to worship whatever God(s) you want to feel free.

Who am I to dictate what you can and can not do?
Who is anyone else to dictate what I can and can not do?
(This isn't a vote for anarchy so don't twist it in that direction. I support a basic societal set of rules)

At a minimum there should be a general set of laws by state.
Imagine a theoretical situation:
If I favored religion and California was pro gay marriage, pro marijuana and against religion and Ohio was pro gay marriage, pro marijuana and pro religion I could pack up and move to Ohio.
If Florida was against marijuana but pro gay marriage and pro religion I could move there but would have to sacrifice smoking dope.

That's simply choosing where to live based on the options available to me, but at least I'd have options to pursue my desires.

Let's go a step further; back in time to when California first wanted to legalize marijuana.
Why not? Because the federal government says no.
Why not have used California as an example. If California, as a state, wanted to legalize marijuana then let them. See how their economy, production, employment, crime rates all change as a result. Other states could use them as an example and then dismiss, accept, or adapt the findings based off of California's little experiment all while remaining a control group isolated from the experiment.

That's such a great idea it should be an amendment.
Giving the state that power would contradict what the federal government has previously imposed however. If only someone came up with that "amendment" in or around 1795 before the feds illegally seized their power. It could've be the 11th amendment.

(It is the 11th amendment)


--Steve

Paraquat wrote on 01/02/13 at 09:21:20:



You say this ... but the same side that "wants guns so people have the freedom to do as they please" is all about restricting the rest of the rights as you have outlined.

You are a pro gun liberal looks like.
Cool.
Srinath.

I dont know what Bogus Bovine excrement this is webster ... but gun permits issued to people = permits issued to criminals and non criminals. Any one can get it, the NRA has made sure of that. Its what the NRA does.

Putting armed cops and security people around you = good guys carrying guns. Its what the NRA says.

Do as I say, not as I do ?

Its not hypocritical, its a reflection of the rather lax gun permitting/issual/sale process. Why doesn't it ever enter your head ... we want good guys to have guns ... we dont trust in the gun sale and permitting process to make that happen.

Cool.
Srinath.

They didn't say you are a bad person in the list of gun owners did they ?
If they did, they deserve the threats they got.

They put a list in the paper ... public record, much like the property owners lists and marriage records. If they got threats ... I think the people making the threats have made themselves to be what the paper's staff need protection from.

Cool.
Srinath.

srinath wrote on 01/02/13 at 12:54:53:

This is just totally flat out wrong in every way.  Not a spec of truth in it at all.

All permit processes have a background check.  Felons are knocked off.  Adjudicated metal deficits (Legally judged nutbags) are also denied.  In Texas, anyone behind in child support, state taxes or student loans is also blocked.  Local law enforcement is notified and they can ask for "extended investigation" in some cases. (People under investigation)  In New Jersey, you have to have written approval of the local police chief.

So once again, you are full of it.

srinath wrote on 01/02/13 at 19:44:44:



Dude, I say this not as part of the discussion on guns but just as a conversational comment; many of your comments are unintelligible.  I'm not trying to be mean or confrontational here at all...just saying it is often hard to understand what you are trying to say.