Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Times Have Changed Since 1963

January 9, 2013

To The Reader’s Forum: How times have changed. When I was a student at Jamestown High School I took a Retailing class, Russell Abbott was the teacher....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(201)

jamestownfan18

Jan-12-13 7:22 PM

Poor Seadog. His nonsense got clobbered, and he's all over the place now lol

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Jan-12-13 5:51 PM

nothing dog.

nevertheless the same invitation holds true for all the forum followers. i'd like to see the people debate face to face instead of anonymously via the internet.

i typically hold court (kidding) in the same setting our founding fathers did, as has already been mentioned. we should all meet up & discuss our differences of opinion amicably sometime.

just a suggestion.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jamestownfan18

Jan-12-13 4:12 PM

Seadog is having almost as bad a day as Steve has been having the past 3 days or so. And yes, his predictable change-of-subject-to-Obama-when-your-nonsense-is-called-out response was nicely foreseen by kristine lol.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

fredoniarocks

Jan-12-13 3:05 PM

hahahaha, this is almost TOO good to be true.

Read Seadog's comment directly below.

And then read Kristine's comment from Jan 11 at 12:00 a.m.:

"One other thing i've noticed about the conservatives in my life is that everytime you disagree with them about almost anything, they immediately associate you as an Obama lover, and bring up topics completely unrelated to what you are talking about and say "see what your hero Obama did this time..."....

LOL, oh...nonsense is fun to laugh at.

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

fredoniarocks

Jan-12-13 2:25 PM

lol.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jamestownfan18

Jan-12-13 12:28 PM

Notice the comical response to the facts of the FBI table that Seadog himself referred to:

"I have no idea what you are talking about"

Yup.

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jamestownfan18

Jan-12-13 12:26 PM

I know, the facts don't matter Seadog, even though the numbers in the 'interesting petition' you brought up are lies, we'll leave it alone, because its just something you thought was 'interesting' LOL

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

fredoniarocks

Jan-12-13 12:41 AM

lol

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jamestownfan18

Jan-11-13 10:17 PM

So the reality now is that we have Rifles plus unspecified guns causing 4 times the deaths in 2005 that ALL BLUNT OBJECTS did.

And guns overall caused almost TWENTY TIMES the number of deaths as compared to All Blunt Objects. lol.

This comes from the same chart SEadog's info comes from, remember.

Seadog, at this point, will become very angry and state that 'unspecified guns' could mean anything. Well, then I guess 'all blunt objects' can mean anything too, eh Seadog??

So its silly to call ALL 600 of those deaths from 'hammers' and 'baseball bats' eh Seadog??

LOL. Ouch. Thats gotta hurt.

w w w 2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jamestownfan18

Jan-11-13 10:14 PM

Smell that?

That smell is Seadogs last post. Doesn't it smell like nonsense?

Thats because it is.

Oh, this is gonna hurt, Seadog, just to warn you. Below is the fbi chart that Seadog's post originally stems from.

Notice, the overall gun deaths are actually 10,158 for year 2005. Rifles accounted for 445, as stated, and then there's 2 other 'pesky' little categories: 'other' guns, and 'type of gun not specified', which add up to over 2,000 deaths including 'rifles'.

Hmmmm..

But it gets worse: The 'hammer's and 'baseball bats' category that seadog framed really covers ALL BLUNT OBJECTS. Hammers and clubs [not bats] were just two examples...

Pesky....

So the reality is that rifles and unspecified guns caused almost FOUR TIMES the deaths of ALL BLUNT OBJECTS.

Must be alot MORE than 4 times if you single out just hammers lol.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jamestownfan18

Jan-11-13 6:11 PM

Cant tonite, I'm not in Jamestown right now. But who knows, sometime next week is just possible..;)

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Jan-11-13 2:28 PM

fan if you were serious about your previous post concerning a beer or two & sensible debate i'd love to take you up on that offer. i'll even buy. i'll be at miley's at about 11:15 tonight (don't get done workin til 11) if you wanna kick the can. 'til then i gotta go build some radiators. you all have a great friday & weekend!

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jamestownfan18

Jan-11-13 2:21 PM

Been answered Seadog. Is that your best tactic, to just keep repeating things already answered?

Common, doggie, you can do better.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Jan-11-13 2:20 PM

Colonial calibers were 69 and 75...

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jamestownfan18

Jan-11-13 2:19 PM

You asked "so can we "regulate more" free speech?"

And, as I showed you, in many cases, the answer is obviously yes, lol.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jamestownfan18

Jan-11-13 2:17 PM

Answer to my questions yet?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jamestownfan18

Jan-11-13 2:16 PM

LOL,what? You twisted my words to make it look as though i was defending them? Oh, your mom really needs to spank you philly.

My point was that their speech is some ways IS regulated. We can't say anything we cant, anywhere and anytime. I can't stand in front of your house screaming lies about you for hours. I'd be arrested.

Get the point now? So, now you should understand why its okay to regulate guns better ;)

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Jan-11-13 2:08 PM

sure they have to be *a certain distance* from..

sorry.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Jan-11-13 2:07 PM

& caliber?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Jan-11-13 2:07 PM

so you're saying what the w.b.c. is doing should not be considered harassment?

are you now defending a hate group?

sure they have to be a from the funeral. so if they're a hundred yards away it somehow makes their actions & language less offensive?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jamestownfan18

Jan-11-13 2:05 PM

Ever hear of the concept of libel? Slander? People get in big trouble for that. So......

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jamestownfan18

Jan-11-13 2:04 PM

"so can we "regulate more" free speech? people like the westboro baptist church have been allowed to protest military funerals."

No, they usually have a minimum distance from the funeral they are allowed to stand.

Of course we regulate some speech. Its called harassment laws. I can't stand in front of your house screaming insults to you all day. Eventually I'll me told to leave or get arrested.

Also, people are arrested for verbal 'harrassment' every day, so the 'idea' is hardly nullified. lol

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Jan-11-13 2:01 PM

i'm still waiting on a caliber..

but aside from that how is it funny that people when people back guns that didn't exist during colonial times. how is that comedy?

so can we "regulate more" free speech? people like the westboro baptist church have been allowed to protest military funerals. do you think the framers of the constitution intended to allow this as free speech? furthermore, do you think the framers of the constitution would defend this practice as an exercise of free speech? members of the w.b.c. have been affirmed by the supreme court to be within their legal rights, thus nullifying your "harassment" idea.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jamestownfan18

Jan-11-13 1:49 PM

Nope I clarified it. lol. Stating the 2nd Amendment is not the right argument is far from stating that we should ban all guns not existent in that time period, as you claimed my stance once. Is this hard.

We can see its not the right argument from your statement below, where you claim that if we 'nullify' firearms after BofR then we should nullify everything after.

But earlier you admitted that SOME types of guns are and should be banned. So, the fact that you admit some should be banned, shows you 2nd Amendment isn't correct defense, because then you run into problems deciding WHERE 2nd Amendment no longer applies. Help?

But anyway, I'm not even for banning those guns, just making them more regulated. Thats why its a straw man.

Oh man, can't wait to talk to your mom.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Jan-11-13 1:37 PM

fan (yes you get that, just this once, & only if you prove yourself worthy) i've practiced transparency. if/when you're ready for some detente & transparency you lemme know. but it's rather impossible to hold a logical debate with someone that doesn't address their own previously made (quoted) statements or is under the impression that they're never wrong.

& it's not a straw man. it may be a straw man & the only reason that it may be is because you've yet to clarify your previous comments regarding guns only around during the BofR.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 201 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web