Forum posts made by mrnudiepants

LMFAO...you really think people see you as a respectful person? Now I'm ROTFLMAO now. Like Lady X said time to move on...I'm done with you.




Well.... Bye.

I'm so glad we're all listening to LadyX's words.

I have the utmost respect for X. That doesn't mean that I have to follow her advice all the time.

I may have to modify my statement if a "Mediator" is different or has different powers than a "Moderator". If a mediator's jobs and powers are less than those of a moderator, and you can't close/delete threads or censure/remove posts, or warn or ban users, you have my sincere apology for any incorrect assumptions I've made. I'll gladly eat that crow.

If a "Mediator" is only supposed to mediate a thread, e.g. remind people to keep people in the rules and/or maintain civil dialog, you're still a bad one. "Responding in kind" is the antithesis of mediation, and you, NP, should not have those privileges or that title either.

Having a slight position of authority here does not mean that I can no longer have an opinion on the threads posted here. I ALWAYS treat people with the utmost respect in all of my interactions with them, here and in real life. Only after someone treats me with disrespect does my attitude change. As a person, I give back as I get. Would it be your preference that I just start deleting things and giving people time-outs? But then, I'd have everyone complaining about all the deleted posts.

Hmm. What's a fellow to do?

My point exactly, Monocle and Brooke. I don't know where Nicola came in with the quote that Brooke used cuz I can't find it in this thread but it's funny how Nicola admonished me to refrain from name calling (I did use an expletive) and to act like adults but when it comes to one of her mod's it's "This forum should be more or less self regulated."
Wow.
From the beginning of my involvement in these opinionated threads Nudie has been condescending not only to me but everyone he doesn't agree with. A lot of people walk away from such rude bullying. Thats how bullies thrive. They intimidate people out of their way.
I have a reflective personality...You're civil with me I'm civil right back. Act like a condescending, moist, smelly pile of liquid crap and you get BITCH right backatcha.
The only posters you treat "fairly and without rancor" is anyone who agrees with you, Sprite and I'm sure Nicola gets your respect.
You're a waste of anymore of my time, Mr Moderator...HA! Thats a joke.

And one more thing...I've got this moist, smelly pile of liquid crap on block and this isn't his thread so how does that work that he continues to see anything I do? I thought blocking scum like him made my posts invisible to him? Oh well, doesn't matter. He asks for and deserves all the disrespect he gets from people in here.



Anyone who cares to look back will see that my first posts to you showed nothing but respect and civility. In return, I got "Jellohead" and "Cellophanehead", and now I'm getting " smelly pile of liquid crap" and "scum".

And you wonder why I regard you as I do.

Grow the fuck up.

Take a breath of fresh air and treat people here as you would in person. Unless you are actually an ignorant dumbass I'm quite sure you wouldn't call someone "Sugar-Tits" for disagreeing with you in person!

In all honesty, Brooke, I think I've been more than patient with the aforementioned poster. I treated her fairly, and without rancor, even AFTER she called me those names. Now, I'm simply tired of her attitude, and I'm done with letting her address me any way she sees fit without responding in kind.

All she has to do is address me with the same respect she wants me to give her. Is that so hard for her to do?

Okay " Sugartits "? " Jackassish " and " assholishness "

Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you don't have it in you to have an adult debate. As I said in my earlier post, you do not demonstrate the skills to debate in a forum and once again you have proven me right. I may be very wrong about how much of that weapon was plastic but i sure didn't reduce myself to calling you names. In fact, I thought Lush didn't allow this kind of name calling on their site. And you are MrNudie are one of Lushes forum moderators? Christ, what is this forum becoming. First you delete posts and now this name calling. It surely isn't constructive debate.

And true to form...you provided not one single bit of substantiating proof to contribute to your argument. Which means that once again, MrNudiePants you did what you do best...sit in your God-like realm and bloviates...now in technicolor with name-calling. You talk to and treat people this way and you say, if calling you out on your jackassish nature is 'bullying', then so be it. I guess I'm just a big, fat, nasty ol' bully. At least you're beginning to see your colors.

Just more nastiness coming from a forum monitor.

Would you prefer "Jellohead" to SugarTits? "Cellophane head"? Maybe you just want to remember how "they shoot horses, don't they?"

Act like a big girl, and you'll get treated like one. Act like a spoiled bitch, and guess how you'll get treated...

Okay, gang. Be ready to invest in tin foil futures. This is definitely not normal - not for our times, not for anybody's times.


From the Long Island Press:


The manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects offered the nation a window into the stunning military-style capabilities of our local law enforcement agencies. For the past 30 years, police departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the government’s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training, incentives offered in the ongoing “War on Drugs.” For the average citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully outfitted police SWAT teams and the military.

The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:

Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.

Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”


One of the more disturbing aspects of the new procedures that govern military command on the ground in the event of a civil disturbance relates to authority. Not only does it fail to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders.” According to the defense official, a commander is defined as follows: “Somebody who’s in the position of command, has the title commander. And most of the time they are centrally selected by a board, they’ve gone through additional schooling to exercise command authority.”

As it is written, this “commander” has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn’t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.) In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”

“These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” says Afran. “It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution . It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”

What does this mean to you? To me, it means just another infringement. It means just another power taken by the federal government that will never be rescinded. This power may never be used, or some general somewhere may decide the time is right to stage a coup, using these powers as his means of effecting change.

After all, twenty-nine percent of registered voters think that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years in order to protect liberties, according to a Public Mind poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University. (link)

Opinions?

So, "not only is automatic impossible, semi-automatic is impossible also. I posted two videos that challenged this in hopes that posters, like you MrNudie, would take the time to watch. It is obvious that you didn't take the time to view either of these in the same way that you didn't read or respond to any of the supporting arguments from my earlier posts. I'll make it real easy for you MrNudie...Scroll the second video to the 21:20 mark of the video and start counting. Wait. Counting might be too difficult for you and take too much time. So, just watch the video from the 21:20 mark. You will hear the two guys tell you how many bullets they shot. If their count is wrong, I believe we can at least agree that more than two shots were fired, right? Can we agree that more than ten shots were fired? How about more than ten? Can we agree on more than ten? This with a plastic, 3D weapon.

My point here is NOT that these guys made a 3D AR-15 weapon out of plastic. It isn't that they fired more than 10 rounds. that is obvious. The video doesn't lie.

My point is MrNudie, you don't watch or read anybody's posts of supporting evidence which means your are NOT debating. You are bullying. My evidence supporting this statement? Easy. If you had you watched the video you would argue the facts. You didn't argue facts, MrNudie. You sat in your cloud, your God-like realm, and shot down my statement when, in fact, there is a video that clearly shows what I stated...two guys who made a weapon out of plastic and shot numerous rounds out of the weapon. God, how simple can a position be?

Bullying is not a debate. It is condescending. It is belittling. Bullying makes a debate frustrating and boring. But I have faith in you MrNudie. While you exhibit poor debating skills you do show an intelligence capable of debating FACTS. Now, I'm sure you will, true to form, shoot down this attempt to get you to engage in legitimate debate based on facts and backed up with facts. In this case there is the video...for your eyes and mine to see and you said (read your quote provided above) it can't be done.

Please MrNudie debate the FACTS or, respectfully, stfu. People here want a debate on the facts. We don't want a debate based on your bullying...better than thou opinion. Give us backed up facts and debate our facts or don't debate at all.

But, as the PM's have been telling me, thats just how you roll. It is beyond me why that is tolerated here on Lush since Bullying is as bad, in my opinion worse, than using a common expletive to emphasize ones point.

What's scary is that there are people who are convinced the same as you are, and those people write our laws (and vote on them). Backatcha Bloviator! For those who don't know...bloviator is NOT an expletive.





Okay, SugarTits. Since you want to act all jackassish, I'll match your jackassery and general assholishness.

YOU don't seem to understand the feats produced in that video that you're offering up as "proof" of your superior internet wizardry.

It's not your fault that you're ignorant of how a firearm works and what components a firearms is made of. It absolutely IS your fault, though, that you remain ignorant when you have the entire internet waiting to teach you. Those guys manufactured magazines and a lower receiver. Two components of the rifle that bear absolutely NONE of the stresses of firing. They did NOT make a rifle. They didn't even make the important parts of a rifle. The didn't make the barrel, the chamber, the buffer, upper receiver, firing pin, recoil spring, buttstock, buffer tube... In short, they did NOT make the rifle that you seem so stupidly intent on saying that they built.

So, SugarTits, instead of railing on and on about how nobody understands the issue, and nobody watched your "proof", maybe you should try and learn a thing about the subject you're "bloviating" about instead of remaining ignorant. Or, maybe you should just shut the fuck up your own self. (No, I'm not gonna use the initials, like typing 'STFU' makes it less insulting.)

And hey, if calling you out on your jackassish nature is 'bullying', then so be it. I guess I'm just a big, fat, nasty ol' bully.

I've never seen a magazine, so I can't say whether you can actually see how it is made, or whether you just see the outside of it. In that, I'm at a disadvantage. But, whether or not you can see that it is "just bent sheet metal," that still does not mean that someone knows how to bend sheet metal to specific specifications. (A magazine, which will fit his or her particular gun) If I take my computer apart, I can see that the circuit board is "just metal laid out on plastic," but it doesn't mean that I would know how to actually make it. So does that mean that I don't know how to use a computer? You may think that you have proven that he knows nothing about gun use. To me, at best, you have proven he doesn't know anything about gun manufacturing. And he never said he knew how to make a gun, or a magazine, or even ammunition.

And the last point, I don't even know what to say. You want to make people think, to consider the opposite side, but refuse to do the same yourself. You shoot down every attempt at a compromise, admit that limiting magazine sizes would delay someone, either by forcing them to create a larger magazine themselves, or by forcing them to change magazines more often; and yet, still don't believe that there is a benefit to that. I asked you what you thought was a step in the right direction, as a way to help us understand how we could bridge the gap between us. That's always a good way to get a compromise started, if the other side is willing to move. Which you are not. I shouldn't have even responded to this, knowing that you are only looking to tell people they are stupid, naive, or flat out lying, when they have a viewpoint that's different than your own. But hey, I'm stubborn and reckless sometimes, and figure I just might be able to bite the troll before he bites me.

That's fair. Given the opportunity, I'd show you an assortment of magazines for different firearms, some metal, some plastic, and you could see for yourself how easy it would be to turn a ten-round magazine into a twenty, thirty, or forty-round magazine. It's not like a computer where all the work is done by invisible electrons, and hidden away from sight. And that's my point. ANYONE who has fired as many rounds through a magazine-fed firearm as is required to graduate basic training would know the exact same thing. What simple machines the magazine part of a firearm really is.

Limiting magazine size isn't a "compromise". It's an exercise in futility. It will only result in three things: creating criminals of people who are unwilling to turn in the ones they own, creating a black market in standard capacity magazines, and artificially raising the prices on the new, low-capacity magazines, as the demand skyrockets past the infrastructure's ability to supply. If doing these things are the actual goal of this new theory, then it'll work. If the goal is to reduce crime then it'll be a dismal failure, because not only will it NOT reduce crime, it'll actually spur an outbreak of a whole new class of criminal: the illegal magazine possessor.

What an old Beatles song has to do with anything, I don't know.

Of course there are deranged people in the world. There always has been and possibly always will be. Wayne LaPierre and his co-horts just defeated a bill that would have helped keep guns out of those deranged people's hands. That is equally deranged. Perhaps more so, as Wayne Lapierre is supposedly sane and legally responsible for his own actions.

The fact is, guns can be withdrawn, and murder rates - especially mass murder rates, can fall dramatically as a result. Australia has done it.

Will there always be something that can be used as a weapon, by someone intent on harming others, or by some deranged person? Of course. The point is to lessen the destructive power of weapons madmen can use, not to increase it. Mutually Assured Destruction only ensures one thing.

Right now, Iran is using a version of Stuxnet - a computer worm we unleashed on their nuclear facilities - to probe the internet security of our power grid. Pretty stupid of us, huh?



What a discussion on computer worms has to do with anything, I don't know.

Fact is, the bill that was up for a vote wasn't defeated by "Wayne LaPierre and his co-horts", it went through the legislative process and failed to garner enough support to be made into law. it was a stupid bill anyway. It deserved to die an ignominious death. Most of the provisions it contained were unenforceable, and those that were enforceable were already covered by preexisting law.

Lol i neither want or need to move you. And again you are trying to say i dont know about politics just because my opinion defers from yours. If you ask me insulting someones inteligence in the think tank its the lamest way to disagree with someone.


That's his favorite way of arguing. He's like Rush Limbaugh. He spins things, claims you said things you haven't, and then claims that you're just not intelligent enough to see why you're wrong. It's actually kinda funny, if you look at it the right way.

They were singled out for review as to their tax exempt status. There is a sound reason for singling out political groups who are applying for tax exempt status. Their non-profit status wasn't been reviewed, the review was to determine whether or not there were groups abusing their tax exempt status.

The article, on The Blaze , is full of obvious right wing talking points. Hidden away in the article is this, "Lerner stressed during her talk that the practice was not motivated by political bias." It is only conservatives that insist that it was.




Uh huh. Then why the big apology? Something's fishy, and because it's going to end here, we'll never know how fishy it is.

And isn't 75 out of 300 a quarter? 75 x 4 = 300...

This makes me even more suspicious of Lerner. Wouldn't someone who was on the up-and-up have stood by her math, instead of just agreeing with her naysayers, and hoping everything will just blow over?

Why wouldn't the IRS flag organizations with the names, "Tea Party," or "Patriot," in their applications for tax exempt status. Both of these are names often used in political organizations, some tax exempt groups are prohibited from participating in politics if they are to maintain their tax exempt status. What were the other groups flagged? Were they political groups as well? There really isn't enough information here to make a case that the IRS was targeting conservative groups. Who were the other 225 groups that weren't conservative? Try to provide more facts.




The only way those groups matter is if they were singled out because of their goals, or ideological beliefs. We don't know who they are. We DO know that the IRS singled out at least 75 groups because of their political beliefs. That's not bothersome to you? If some of those other groups came forward and demonstrated a pattern of even more IRS malfeasance, we still shouldn't care who they were. What we should care about is the fact that the IRS was being used as a tool to do some shady business. Used by whom, how high up the orders came from, whether it truly was a local affair... we'll probably never know that, either. It could have been just as Lerner said. Or it may not have been.

So just because I think that something could be done about 5, 6, 7, years getting shot for no reason, you think that I am not a gun person, and that I haven't spent time in the deserts of Iraq? Damn when are you going to tell God that he can come back from vacation cause your doing a pretty shitty job at judging people! Its cool though, you go on playing something that your not, while I go out and try to make a difference!

Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. If you've served, then it was in some outfit that had zero interaction with small arms or ordnance, and I know of no military branch that fits that description. Either way, since you've posted things here as fact when they're just flat-out wrong, and claimed to be experienced in such matters, it certainly brings the truth of your posts into question.

I'm not a gun person, but I have been around a few shops in my life. First off, I find it intriguing that you went from saying it would take a "halfway decent metal worker a few hours," to saying that you could do it right here, right now with tin snips, and a vice. If a half-way decent metal worker is going to take a couple hours to do it, I'm assuming the bends and cuts have to be done right, or else the ammunition will get stuck. Secondly, even if "tin snips and a vice" is all the equipment you need to do it, how many people actually have those? So, as Yoda mentions, they would have to go out and buy that, and then develop the skills to complete a "couple hours" task.

After talking about that, I have one big question: What does anyone's knowledge and skill in bending metal have to do with whether they are a gun person? Are you saying that all people who fire guns automatically know how to bend metal to exact specifications? That seems like a pretty big leap of logic.

And given the ferocity with which you jumped all over that compromise, I have to ask: How exactly are you trying to bridge the gap between gun advocates and those who want tighter controls? Is there one suggestion you have seen from the other side that you would be willing to consider?




I never said "halfway decent". You did. I said "halfway competent". A vital difference which you're not understanding, either by accident, or deliberately. Which is it? And the point, which you're pretending to be too obtuse to understand, is that if it only takes a little learning to circumvent a magazine capacity ban, then what good does that ban do? None at all.

No, I never said "all people who fire guns automatically know how to bend metal to exact specifications", either. You're pretty good at trying to put words in other people's mouths. The point is, when a man introduces himself as a person technically competent in firearms, and I can prove he's not, he should either disqualify himself from the argument, or admit that he's lacking as any kind of expert.

The bridge I'm trying to build is to get people to think for a moment, about just what the laws they're proposing will actually do to fight crime. So far, the answer is nothing. If anyone can come up with a new law that actually will help, I'm all ears.

If you wanted a plastic gun, wouldn't it just be easier to make a plastic mold and reproduce them? I remember seeing an article about 3D printers and the things took hours or even days to print something. If you made a mold, you could make them much faster. To put it more clearly, if you can make a weapon out of plastic that can't be detected with a metal detector, it could just as easily, or perhaps more easily, using a mold. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Of course it would be horrible that people could make a weapon that could foil our security measures. I may be wrong, but it seems a gun is useless without bullets. Are they firing plastic bullets too? If so, seems to me the best solution would be to outlaw plastic. I mean, what would be next? Someone printing tanks, battleships, stealth bombers, etc.



They would have to make plastic bullets, plastic shell casings, plastic primers, and a plastic barrel strong enough to hold in all that pressure. Plus, they'd have to make a propellant that can't be detected by either the explosives trace-detection portal machines, or the bomb dogs. And bomb dogs can smell the gunpowder in a conventional round. It may be possible to fool them, but it would be difficult. It would be a helluva lot easier to just get a mole employed in whatever venue you wanted to attack, and let him smuggle some real guns in.

I guess the action wasn't in automatic mode. It was single shot. What I wanted to address was that you said a rifle had too many parts and would melt. I wanted to show you that in fact they do have a rifle that shot 30 bullets and the weapon didn't melt down. With technology sailing this far I 'd bet automatic is not far off.

The state of the art in plastics today isn't good enough to make an entire rifle. The barrel, springs, upper receiver, gas tube, bolt carrier group, recoil buffer - in short, all the components of a firearm that have to withstand the thousands of CUP of pressure the act of firing produces have to be made of metal. If you tried to make them of plastic, the whole thing would explode in the shooter's face.

Not only is "automatic" impossible, "semi-automatic" is impossible also.

What's scary is that there are people who are convinced the same as you are, and those people write our laws (and vote on them).

What about all the people that have been ridiculed for thinking that the government is simply getting too comfortable with overstepping their bounds? Could it be said that maybe those people have a right to fear an overbearing government?

Not a gun person? Really do you even know me? No I guess not. I have been firing guns all my life, I spent time in the fucking desert so you could rest your little head on your pillow at night safely. Ok think of this one! A magazine for a assault rifle is next to the chamber in which firing 30 rounds in less than a min would fucking weld the sheet metal to the inside of your gun, so you have you to use a special carbon metal that will not get so hot in those conditions to weld itself in place.


Sorry, dude. Not buying it. I don't know you, but I know you by your statements here.

Unlike their military cousins — which have three-round burst settings — commercially available AR-15 type rifles like Bushmaster’s are semiautomatic, meaning one bullet per trigger pull. But a little searching on YouTube turns up numerous videos showing how quickly AR-15 type rifles can unload dozens of rounds and even one example of how to turn a “semi-auto into a full-auto machine using a household rubberband.”

if someone plans on shooting people, i doubt they'll be concerned with breaking a law modifying a gun. how about if we just make it a little more difficult to kill large numbers of people? is that really such an issue with you?

Then they won't be concerned with making magazines that hold more than 5 rounds, either. How is any of that going to make anything more difficult for anyone intent on doing harm?




i have NO ideas what any of the above has to do with gun control. as for the IRS targeting groups with 'gay' or 'pride' in their names, to be quite honest, i'm not so paranoid to think that it will be an issue. i'm more concerned with getting shot by intolerant bigots than i am about being unfairly taxed, quite honestly.

You're entitled to whatever fears you want to have. I was just making a point, and you're deliberately pretending to misunderstand. You're a lot smarter than you're pretending to be.

It is painfully obvious she's asking why you'd need weapons of a particular kind, and her question about government overreach is to head off one of the classic answers. That you conflate it into something so completely other is really pretty damn twisted.


"Need" has nothing to do with it. When the government gets to dictate what private citizens can purchase based on "need" then everybody will be driving around in Yugos and eating Ramen noodles for dinner. Because why would you "need" a car with more than 84 horsepower? And why would you "need" a Porterhouse Steak?

lol - i really should delete this post, seeing as it broke your own rules - really, name calling? threatening to shoot monocle? damn, where's KirstinD when you need her - oh, right, she's a hypocrite, so she gets censored. got it.

I didn't call anybody any names. I asked him if he's an idiot. Didn't call him one. Certainly better treatment than I've gotten on here of late.

thought we already had this conversation. it's sprite. i'm not a lap dog to be patted in the head and called "beautiful". it's demeaning in my eyes.

oh, and ok, too personal. ok, how about if you cite how you perceive the writer of the editorial was discriminated against due to his pro-gun stance?


You would have to ask him. And I don't mean to sound demeaning. I mean it as a compliment. You have my apology.

So we are going to let him run around with a clip that holds an excessive amount of ammo? Or do we put him off for at least a couple hours? Matter of hours can be the difference in a school full of kids and a empty school. Plus, unless they have the machine to do it at their house, you would figure the owner of the company will wonder why there was a shortage of production in his area and come asking questions.




Now I know that you're not being truthful about being a "gun person." Because a "gun person" knows that a magazine is just bent sheet metal, and it doesn't take any kind of special machine to do it. Fuck, I could do it right here with a pair of tin snips and a vice. Only someone equally as unlearned about guns as you are would take your word for anything.




In what part of that did I say release the medical records to every Tom, Dick and Harry? That's right, I didn't. In order to perform these test they would have to go in to a psychologist, all the would have to do is put down in your background a stamp or label that says "Do not allow to purchase firearms." No medical reason has to be promoted. You complain about this but yet do you complain about a website that says people are sex offenders? Pedophiles have a mental condition, but yet its ok for them to be plastered all over billboards but future murderers aren't?


So all gun owners are "future murderers"? Or just the ones that fail your test? Who designs the test, and who ensures that it's impossible to game the test? I feel a guy like Monocle could easily lie his way through it.

You didn't bring it up? First mention of the IRS in this thread is you, NP.


Good God, you'd have to be a total, bloomin' idiot to not be able to understand the link between one person saying that the government won't ever infringe on a person's rights, and a rebuttal post showing the government doing just that. Are you a total, bloomin' idiot, Mon? if you are... well, they shoot horses, don't they?

ok... was there a point to this? Think tank is about editorial discussion - in other words, make a statement for discussion, don't just put up an article. really, what are you looking for? was what happened wrong? by their own admission, yes - pretty sure you won't get anyone disagreeing with that.


So what do you think about agents of our government "stomping on people's rights?"

specifics please: events of discrimination based on your pro-gun stance. to help you out:

1. Bias or prejudice resulting in denial of opportunity, or unfair treatment regarding selection, promotion, or transfer. Discrimination is practiced commonly on the grounds of age, disability, ethnicity, origin, political belief, race, religion, sex, etc. factors which are irrelevant to a person's competence or suitability.

2. Unequal treatment provided to one or more parties on the basis of a mutual accord or some other logical or illogical reason.

3. Differences in two rates not explainable or justifiable by economic considerations such as costs.




Nah, sorry Beautiful. I've already gone way too far into my personal life as it is. You'll just have to take my word for it. Or don't. Choice is yours.

I fail to see how your or anyone's possession or lack of possession of any particular firearm would have prevented or in any way at all affected the IRS actions or sped their apology. The IRS situation has absolutely nothing to do with the topic or discussion of this thread. It's a complete non sequitur.


I didn't bring it up. I guess this one's aimed at you, Sprite.

I guess it's OK for the original poster of a thread to diverge completely from the thread's original subject while chastising other people when he thinks they're drifting off topic. God job demonstrating the concept of 'double standard'.

As for the IRS, pretty dumb of them. Unprofessional and partisan. Your insinuations about who could have 'ordered' them to do it a *perfect* example of tin-foil hattery.

My friend made a statement insinuating that one would never need fear the government "stomping" on one's rights, but here government workers are, stomping away... I fail to see how that was unclear to you.