So even if you get 90% of the people to vote that all gays should be put to death on a funeral pyre the law STILL wouldn't pass because the 10% voting against it would include the gay people and because they are only ones affected, and the way they are affected is so extreme
Really? So, you'd be in favor of the government making sure they know who is and who isn't gay in order properly run skewed elections and referenda? How about simply having a clause in your constitution that says (as ours does) that everyone is treated equally under the law? Isn't that simpler than getting the government involved in keeping lists of who is on which part of a given spectrum of sexual orientation or skin color, etc?
Why is 8GB overkill? I put at least 16 in anything I have control over.
Headshots take that right out.
Jed and Jethro practiced ricochet shooting in the 60's; using a Barett 50cal makes it a bit harder, but what else do we have to do all day?
Am I supposed to be offended that you call me a "statist"? I think you need to define the term, because what I'm seeing there is "someone who thinks there's a role for the state in protecting an individual's rights". In which case, you are right.
From Webster's:
statism noun \st-ti-zm\ : concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry
That's how it's been used since 1947 (it's not something newly made-up), and seems to fit your viewpoint. I only use it because there are totalitarians on the left and the right, and it seems to be the only term to fit both. It also implies the view that there should be no hard limits on the authority of the central state (like the Constitution was intended to impose), and that also seems to fit your viewpoint ("compromise" means the state wants control of 100% of your time, and when you object they "compromise" by allowing you to have some free time).
Most of us practice head shots for hours at a time.
People in the South tend to have guns within reach at all times; what could possibly go wrong?
No, just NO. No one has a "right" for protection from insults, whether open, subtle, or anything else..
Totally agree, insults cause no harm and are therefore free speech. Even when someone insults children who have cancer by calling them "fails at life" (which I do often on internet forums), I'm expecting you to find that totally acceptable.
I find your statement disgusting and completely unacceptable. But I will defend to the death your right to say it. You'll probably have to start your own forum that nobody visits in order to say things like that though, as you will be summarily banned from forums owned by others. Exercising a right does not absolve you from responsibility or consequences.
You want to know who also agrees with you, terrorists agree with you, which is why they use terror to force people to do things that the terrorists want them to do.
Really? You equate our constitutional system of checks and balances to terrorism? Terrorism is the simple majority deciding that they can tell you what to do. Are you OK with 51% of the population deciding that you no longer get to speak freely, because they don't like what you have to say? That's democracy. A constitutional republic (which we are, that's not really open for debate, even when you confuse it with something else, like a monarchy - and you're very confused, here) has tools in place to prevent people like you from rallying 51% of the people who vote to do things like have the other 49% enslaved, or killed, or whatever you'd like to see done in the name of your having the majority of simple votes on the matter.
Democracy ie representing the majority
The majority is not always right, and the people who wrote our constitution knew that. It's why the country isn't run like one bit PTA meeting or a dog club. We have three branches of government, and the legislative branch is broken up in to two houses specifically to blunt the tyranny of the majority. You either haven't ever studied the basics of how the constitution is structured, or you have, and your pretending you haven't so that you can make your really bad analogies. Please try to get it straight.
With your bare hands?!?
