Better communications by police could have reduced gun-sales di...

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>It certainly wasn't me that judged your remarks as I agree with you on this one. GunNut doesn't like being argued with. He is much happier when everyone agrees with him.

Richard C Delp Jr wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree that private property is to be held sacred. I take issue with Zigmunn's statement that graffiti is a form of free speech. That may have been the case in uncivilized times,when no one really owned or earned anything,but in modern society that statement is laughable. Graffiti generally involves defacing property that is not your own. That constitutes a crime of vandalism,not free speech. Free speech does not cause tangible damage to another person's property. There is nothing free about grafitti,at least not for the victim.

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>I see once again you couldn't provide that post number. I think you've skipped actually posting a post number more often that you actually claim to have posted it. Just once liar. Why can't you provide a post number? Oh, that's right. Said post doesn't exist.

Boomer215 wrote:

<quoted text>
Another way to look at it.
It may be true that graffiti is a form of free speech.
However a 'right' to free speech isn't protected by the 1st amendment, a 'freedom' of speech is.
That 'freedom' is defined by the limit to which one may exercise their right free from government trespass.
And graffit exceeds that limit.

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>It certainly wasn't me that judged your remarks as I agree with you on this one. GunNut doesn't like being argued with. He is much happier when everyone agrees with him.

GunShow wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't necessarily agree with graffiti as well. Especially the "gang sign" variety. However, it is very well known that many of our founders employed it before and during the Revolution. It was intended to send a message LOUD and CLEAR. As well as advise neighbors about potential enemies within their midst. There is a time and a place for just about EVERYTHING under the sun.

Judged:

1

1

1

GunShow wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you're just making yourself look more and more like the cowardly and ignorant sycophant traitor that you REALLY are.

Judged:

1

1

1

GunShow wrote:

<quoted text>
Being the @ss that you are, don't you even dare to presume to communicate for me, punk.

Judged:

1

1

1

GunShow wrote:

<quoted text>
Go play your mental masturbation game somewhere else punk.

Judged:

1

1

1

Richard C Delp Jr wrote:

<quoted text>Trust me,I knew it was not you that marked my comment as incendiary. My comments are like Ghandi compared to some of the comments posted by you,Gunshow and others. LOL ! That is what cracked me up about it. There was nothing incendiary about that particular comment.

Tuco the Provacateur wrote:

<quoted text>Richard, if one wants to be Ghandi-esque, one should find a higher bar for comparison than the one set on this forum. Richard Phelps and his crazy gang of Baptists could actually compare favorably with some of what passes for 'debate' here.
Anywho.....Gunshow Censor, H.L., Tory II, Sofa King, missed you big galoots! I certainly hope intelligence, reason, nor common sense have begun to finagle their way into what is always one of Topix funnest threads!
Yours truly
Tuco

Judged:

1

1

1

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>It's speech, but not protected as free speech. If done on property other than yours, it is not free speech. It's vandalism. It is not your right to paint 'Zigmunn Rules' on a bridge or wall. There isn't a lawyer in the world that will argue that the act is an exercise of your right to free speech.
These people you used as an example I'm sure were not spray painting their own wall.

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>It's speech, but it's not free speech. When this 'speech' is painted on the wall not owned by the 'artist' the 'speech' intrudes on others. Therefore it is not protected as free speech.

Richard C Delp Jr wrote:

<quoted text>So let me get this straight. Someone spray paints graffiti all over my car and you consider me an "ignorant communist-socialist" because I think they should be prosecuted. WOW ! I am speechless.

Judged:

1

1

1

ZigmunnDroid wrote:

<quoted text>
The example illustrated the Gov attempts to turn every crime, irregardless of age, into a felony.
Unfortunately, you failed to grasp that point.
Perhaps when you get busted for malicious jay walking and charged with a felony you will understand. Of course, it will be far to late then.
Remember what the old German guy said.
When they came for me, there was no one left to protest.
And you have no idea what that means.

Judged:

1

1

1

ZigmunnDroid wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow. A common sense post.
if only you understood that the exact same thing applies to guns.
The right to bear arms should never be infringed until you infringe on others with that gun.
That would be the difference between exercising rights and misbehaving you seem unable to understand.

ZigmunnDroid wrote:

<quoted text>
That would be misbehaving. We have lovely laws that address misbehavior whether you have a gun or not.
Now, I could put graffiti on my house and even insult you at the same time.
However, i might get nailed for libel. Again, misbehavior.
The essential point was, though, that the Gov keeps adding new felonies and eventually all of us will be felons.
And the 16 year old was charged with the felony because he "enticed" 17 year olds to commit that crime. What the hell is up with that???????
If you don't understand that is a disconnect from reality, well, I don't think we can have a discussi9on.

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>The coward is the liar that 'claimed' to have posted his phone number and address, while trying to look tough for another internet tough guy. Then you couldn't back that claim up. Not once could you back it up liar.

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>A felon has already infringed on others. Not lightly. A felony is a serious crime. Bummer for them. Again. I'm not going to lose a wink of sleep over a felon. Think before you act.