meazza Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 They seem to have disappeared. Maybe shot by a EBR [evil black rifle]? One can only hope.
3rdnlng Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Unless, of course, you read what he said rather than what you think he meant. Scalia's clearly stated that guns could be regulated. His answers were measured & rightly so. I love the way you guys interpret things. "We don't need more gun control" somehow means we need RPGs & automatic weapons. It would be like if you said "premarital sex should not be illegal" & I responded "why do you need to sleep with 8 year olds?" Yes Rob, they always take it to the extreme. I don't think any of the people here who are against the new regulations are blood thirsty and want to see anyone get hurt. They just have a better understanding of the Constitution and the ramifications of allowing non-sensical regulations to be made into law. Tasker has them all up in arms so to speak, (squealing like Ned Beatty in the woods) because he's telling them what he would be willing to do as a last effort. They don't understand that at some point in time a line needs to be drawn in the sand. In fact, Neville Chamberlain comes to mind here. He personifies our modern liberals.
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 One can only hope. Seeing what retards they where, I would more suspect walking into traffic without looking, but the end result is the same.
3rdnlng Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 I think they took Conner with them so they could have a twosome.
3rdnlng Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 I think I just had an epithany. Absent for some time is our most prolific poster, the guy from our nations Capital that would round out the threesome with Dick and Harry. A full 75% of his posts were simply calling someone an idiot. The question is, did he leave because the low hanging fruit was no longer here or did he have numerous aliases to pad that total, and Tom he is somehow incapacitated?
Rob's House Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 I think I just had an epithany. Absent for some time is our most prolific poster, the guy from our nations Capital that would round out the threesome with Dick and Harry. A full 75% of his posts were simply calling someone an idiot. The question is, did he leave because the low hanging fruit was no longer here or did he have numerous aliases to pad that total, and Tom he is somehow incapacitated? The same thing occurred to me, although I'm inclined to doubt it, but who knows. I must say, it was a little more interesting with old Tom around here.
meazza Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 The same thing occurred to me, although I'm inclined to doubt it, but who knows. I must say, it was a little more interesting with old Tom around here. He was banned.
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 He was banned. Possible. I got banned once for suggesting jr seau was a coward while all the other posters where reaching for extra hanky's over the tragedy.
3rdnlng Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 He was banned. He came back once or twice under the DC label and then did the schit throwing J6Pack monkey thing.
Rob's House Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 He was banned. I saw a post from him a few days back. Are you sure it isn't self-imposed exile?
meazza Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 I saw a post from him a few days back. Are you sure it isn't self-imposed exile? Maybe it is a self-imposed exile.
3rdnlng Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Maybe it is a self-imposed exile. It's possible that his wife told him that she wasn't going to be called an idiot and a !@#$ing moron ever again and he's trying to change his ways. Watcha think guys, is DCTom this pu$$y whipped guy that pretends to be a Napolian type?
dayman Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Everyone missing Tom. Live long enough...you live to see the day
Oxrock Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Defense Contractor Tom was posting from work mostly. Maybe someone in IT kindly reminded him of the agreement he signed to not be on a whole litany of places during the work hours. Maybe....
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Defense Contractor Tom was posting from work mostly. Maybe someone in IT kindly reminded him of the agreement he signed to not be on a whole litany of places during the work hours. Maybe.... I long ago noticed most posts on here are between 8am-5pm ET when most posters are at "work".
Nanker Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 I think its self-imposed. Also missing is OC. I shudder to think they're one in the same. OC I suspect was Smub's Dik, FFS, and a few other personas.
Alaska Darin Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 I think its self-imposed. Also missing is OC. I shudder to think they're one in the same. OC I suspect was Smub's Dik, FFS, and a few other personas. Nope.
GG Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Everyone missing Tom. Live long enough...you live to see the day Probably registering for his semi-auto purchase while he still can.
birdog1960 Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) Yes Rob, they always take it to the extreme. I don't think any of the people here who are against the new regulations are blood thirsty and want to see anyone get hurt. They just have a better understanding of the Constitution and the ramifications of allowing non-sensical regulations to be made into law. Tasker has them all up in arms so to speak, (squealing like Ned Beatty in the woods) because he's telling them what he would be willing to do as a last effort. They don't understand that at some point in time a line needs to be drawn in the sand. In fact, Neville Chamberlain comes to mind here. He personifies our modern liberals. taking it to extremes? did you even read the piece i linked? scalia really believes the second amendment, in todays world, is still about forming a miltia so that a recurrence of 17th century english tyranny can't happen again (while admitting that small arms are unlikely to accomplish much in the way of change of a modern government). this is just ridiculous, as the writer points out. democracies, in the modern world, are almost never overturned through force. armed regime change hasn't recently happened through small arms but through powerful military weapons provided by sympathetic superpowers. yet scalia gets bogged down by the word "bear" to define what arms should be available to the public. joking or not, discussing the legality of shoulder fired weapons that can bring down planes on fox news is extreme...especially for a supreme court justice. Edited January 17, 2013 by birdog1960
Recommended Posts