- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Meet 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken who took down the shooter last night
Posted on 7/19/22 at 9:58 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 7/19/22 at 9:58 am to AggieHank86
You can argue what you "think" all you want over this, but at the end of the argument, it is what you think and nothing more.
0
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:04 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The extent of “burden” imposed upon someone who wishes to obtain entry on my property is absolutely irrelevant.
So you hiring illegals is the same as you being a coyote for 100k of them a year. The extent of the "burden" on the nation is irrelevant.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:05 am to LB84
quote:
Is that Amish?
Could very well be. He’s from the Columbus, IN area and there’s a fair amount of Amish in that area.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:06 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I am not asking you to cut and paste. I am not asking you to parrot someone else’s opinion. I’m asking you to analyze subsection (c)(2)
I analyzed it and decided that you were wrong, tar baby.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:07 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Standing alone, it would be correct to argue that the statute does so, but federal preemption makes it unenforceable in that instance.
I'd also ignore signs that said "no blacks allowed" although you could probably make an argument that this statute allows for that, given no other context.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:10 am to AggieHank86
quote:
it would be correct to argue that the statute does so
:guffaw:
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:12 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Standing alone, it would be correct to argue that the statute does so, but federal preemption makes it unenforceable in that instance.
So you're saying that nuance and context matter? Yeah, I'd agree there.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:15 am to Flats
quote:Well?
So, if you trespass on my property and I do not kniw it, you have not violated my rights?quote:
I'll respond if you'll respond to my questions.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:19 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Always.
So you're saying that nuance and context matter? Yeah, I'd agree there.
I am still waiting for someone to show the “nuance “ in this issue.
The second amendment prohibits GOVERNMENTAL interference. It says nothing about private property owners. Where is the nuance?
To be very honest, I have seen nothing here more sophisticated in the way of argument than “I want to carry my gun, whereever I want, and your property rights be damned.“ (stomps foot)
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:19 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Well?
You didn't answer. If you took your wife to the movies, and you got there and they had a no boxer shorts sign, would you abide by it? You just called it silly; I'm wondering if you would respect their property rights in that silly instance.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:22 am to Bobby OG Johnson
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:22 am to Flats
quote:No, I called it “silly,“ and also specifically said that it was the absolute RIGHT of the property owner to impose silly restrictions.
You just called it silly; I'm wondering if you would respect their property rights in that silly instance.
Would I violate the boxer shorts restriction? Well, probably so, but I would do so with the full knowledge that I was committing a trespass.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:24 am to AggieHank86
quote:
To be very honest, I have seen nothing here more sophisticated in the way of argument than “I want to carry my gun, whereever I want, and your property rights be damned.“ (stomps foot)
Tar baby.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:28 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Would I violate the boxer shorts restriction? Well, probably so
Then you understand why I do so with a gun.
There are two aspects to this and you keep beating the absolute hell out of the legal one. No, the burden doesn't matter from a legal aspect. From a practical and ethical aspect it absolutely does, which is why you have no problem hiring illegals or wearing boxer shorts even if the theater owner asks you not to.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:28 am to the808bass
quote:If I used this terminology, we would have 50 posters screaming “racist.”
Tar baby.
You can “let go” any time you wish.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:29 am to Flats
quote:
So you hiring illegals is the same as you being a coyote for 100k of them a year.
He will ignore this.
He is very hypocritical when it comes to his own ox being gored.
He's admitted his Daddy hires illegals to work on his farm, but he's a strict textualist and respects the Laws of the land!
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:29 am to Flats
quote:Go back and read. I said from the beginning that this kid will not be facing prosecution and should not. I specifically stated that the question of whether a trespass exists was simply an academic one.
There are two aspects to this and you keep beating the absolute hell out of the legal one. No, the burden doesn't matter from a legal aspect. From a practical and ethical aspect it absolutely does, which is why you have no problem hiring illegals or wearing boxer shorts even if the theater owner asks you not to.
Anyone that wishing to participate in that academic analysis was not required to do so.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:30 am to oogabooga68
quote:
He will ignore this.
He already has for 9 pages; I'm hardly the first one to mention it.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:32 am to Flats
quote:No. The law specifically treats those circumstances very differently.
So you hiring illegals is the same as you being a coyote for 100k of them a year. The extent of the "burden" on the nation is irrelevant.
The law does NOT state that a one-miniute or one-meter trespass is less serious than a one-month or ten-acre trespass.
Posted on 7/19/22 at 10:32 am to Flats
Liberaltarian elephant in the room....
Of course, given his TENACIOUS defense of groomers and predators, his interest in illegal aliens MAY be more nefarious than just protecting Daddy's farm.
Of course, given his TENACIOUS defense of groomers and predators, his interest in illegal aliens MAY be more nefarious than just protecting Daddy's farm.
Page 9 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News