I can't bring myself to focus on slavedom too much today. I'm too busy celebrating the outcome of the Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller.Iolaus wrote:But what if you're an unwilling slave? (like me)
I didn't write that. Sue did. As for being unwilling and still a slave, well, I'd say that on some level you must be still willing.Iolaus wrote:Carl,
But what if you're an unwilling slave? (like me)For one thing, we know that you can’t possibly be a willing slave and an individual at the same time.
Well, that is a fucking lie.First, as the overwhelming majority of circuit decisions conclude, the text and history of the Second Amendment establish that it protects weapons possession and use only in connection with service in state-regulated militias.
Exactly. Even though a man knows he would enjoy doing other things with his life, he willingly enslaves himself to the rat-race in order to afford a wife and a family. He persuades himself that life with them is far superior than any other life. But every now and then he remembers the ambitions and dreams he had before he married, and before the mortgage meant he was locked into having a job - as in the story below.As for being unwilling and still a slave, well, I'd say that on some level you must be still willing.
Freeloading off your friends, eh, Sue?Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Quite a while back, I caught up with an old school friend who was married with three children under seven years old. I was with them for one week, and during that time I had a few conversations with her husband
This "old school friend" is gracious enough to put you up for a week, and how do you respond? You start making trouble by filling her husband's head with your nonsense. You just can't help it. You always have to be right. Even if it means disrupting an otherwise happy family.He decided to approach his wife with his idea. He began by reassuring her that his feelings for her and the children had not changed at all, and that his plan wouldn't greatly affect them financially. She listened quietly, and then responded calmly that it was an impossible idea because he was needed at home. And when he suggested that it could be a good idea for her to also have some time away from the family. She replied that he wouldn't be able to cope by himself.
He must have re-buried his idea, for he went off to work the next day as usual
Hey Dave - I wikied this case yesterday and they already were updated with the decision!DHodges wrote:I can't bring myself to focus on slavedom too much today. I'm too busy celebrating the outcome of the Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller.Iolaus wrote:But what if you're an unwilling slave? (like me)
A small victory, perhaps, but significant nonetheless.
They found that the 2nd Amendment should be read in the obvious way, that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed refers to a right an individual has, just like the rest of the Bill of Rights, so yeah, you can have a gun, and a complete ban on guns is unconstitutional.Iolaus wrote:Which way did it go?
I was visiting at their request.Freeloading off your friends, eh, Sue?Sue: Quite a while back, I caught up with an old school friend who was married with three children under seven years old. I was with them for one week, and during that time I had a few conversations with her husband
At that time I'd recently sent my daughter to live with relatives so that I could spend time considering my future. My friend's husband knew of my action; later confiding that he found the idea equally inspiring and frightening. Privately he spoke to me about his own desire to have time to consider his life. He described how the desire to freely explore his thoughts had been simmering in him for some time. My being there prompted him to speak to his wife about it. But I had no part in their discussion.This "old school friend" is gracious enough to put you up for a week, and how do you respond? You start making trouble by filling her husband's head with your nonsense. You just can't help it. You always have to be right. Even if it means disrupting an otherwise happy family.He decided to approach his wife with his idea. He began by reassuring her that his feelings for her and the children had not changed at all, and that his plan wouldn't greatly affect them financially. She listened quietly, and then responded calmly that it was an impossible idea because he was needed at home. And when he suggested that it could be a good idea for her to also have some time away from the family. She replied that he wouldn't be able to cope by himself.
He must have re-buried his idea, for he went off to work the next day as usual
Oh, good. You know, the idea that it refers to the right of a well regulated militia to bear arms is pretty silly on the face of it. If it did mean that, then we would be going to all the trouble to have a constitutional right for our army to be, well, armed.They found that the 2nd Amendment should be read in the obvious way, that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed refers to a right an individual has, just like the rest of the Bill of Rights, so yeah, you can have a gun, and a complete ban on guns is unconstitutional.
Your above wallowing tirade comes about because you cannot tolerate being questioned. If Diebert and I had not questioned you, but instead joined you in your little fantasy, you would have welcomed us with open arms. But question we did, for it is the responsibility of any rational human to do so.
mikielDear Ms. Logic,
I welcome sincere questioning. What part my posts above do you consider "fantasy," and based on what information about the actual reality of the situation?
Doesn't a rational criticism require some actual information to expose the lie of the fantasy and bring forth the Truth of the matter, if this is the "resonsibility" you take on in this situation?
It seems you have already answered yourself. Cool how that works out always.mikiel wrote:Your post, and all your pathetically dramatic posts are unworthy of serious response
