Victim Disarmament Zone; The Law Be Damned

The State of Oregon is somewhat unique among most “shall issue” states. Their statute specifically states that concealed handgun permit holders may carry on a university campus. ORS 166.370 states;

166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school. (1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony.

Simple enough. But as with pretty much every other statute ever written, definitions are important.

166.360 Definitions for ORS 166.360 to 166.380. As used in ORS 166.360 to 166.380, unless the context requires otherwise:…

(4) “Public building” means a hospital, a capitol building, a public or private school, as defined in ORS 339.315, a college or university,…

So, you can’t carry on campus, right? Well, just like every statute has definitions, they have exceptions too.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:…

(d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun. (emph. mine )

Now even a “functionally illiterate” redneck like myself can understand that.  So why am I boring you with this elementary lesson on Oregon law? Because even as simple as that law is, it appears it is a bit beyond the comprehension of the intellectual elite of Oregon academia. A Marine Corps veteran, and Oregon CHL holder, was arrested on the campus of Western Oregon University for “illegal possession” of a derringer.


LEBANON — Jeffrey Maxwell, a 30-year-old student at Western Oregon University who served in the Marines, always carries a loaded two-bullet derringer in his front pocket that’s so small it looks like it could be his keys.

He has a license to carry and conceal the gun, but he never takes it out or talks about it on campus because he doesn’t want to scare anyone. It’s only for protection, he says.

State law allows him to carry his gun in most public places. But the university says he can’t carry it on campus — license or no license. Maxwell’s case might finally settle the long-standing conflict in court for all seven public universities in Oregon.

Not much to settle. The law allows CHL holders to carry in public places, period. And not by oversight or exclusion, but through specific inclusion of an exemption. There can be no misinterpreting the wording. So any university administration which prohibits a CHL holder from carrying his firearm is not only infringing his civil liberty, they are breaking the law.

When Maxwell told officers he had the gun and knife in his pocket and an unloaded rifle in his truck, he was handcuffed and taken to the Monmouth Police station, where he was cited for possessing a firearm in a public building.

The Polk County district attorney later determined he had not committed a crime and didn’t charge him.

First off, sounds like the local PD cut him some slack by citing him rather than actually booking him into jail. Secondly, and more importantly, the DA knew the law and didn’t charge him. Remember pups, an arrest is one thing, having charges pressed is another. The university however feels it is above the law and knows better.

But a student judicial panel suspended him through the end of the spring term under a student conduct rule banning the possession or use of firearms and other weapons.

Yep, student handbooks carry more weight than state statute in these deluded little punks’ brainwashed skulls full of mush.

To re-enroll, Maxwell has been ordered to get a mental health evaluation and write a minimum 10-page paper on following the law, accepting responsibility for his actions and “recognizing the impact possession of weapons on college campuses has on others.”

A Marine Corps veteran must have a psyche eval for daring to exercise his God given civil right? Can you say “fuck you and the syphillic horse you ass raped on the way in” boys and girls? I knew you could.  As to following the law, it’s the snot nosed “student judicial panel” that is sorely in need of a basic course in the law and reading comprehension. I heartily suggest that they also ponder the “impact possessing weapons” has on the soft sensibilities of others. As in there being at least one non-victim available to save their worthless cowardly assess the next time a psyCho decides to pull a Virginia Tech. It is hard to argue with reasoned arguments and discourse such as this though;

Senior Alecia St. Germaine said her first reaction to the situation was fear.

“My stomach started turning and I wanted to leave,” she said.

In addition, knowing an armed person could just walk onto campus makes her feel a little uneasy.

Rest easy my sheltered little darling. Your university has ensured that you are completely safe helpless. No evil guns are allowed. Your delicate lil tummy can stop it’s churning, the big bad Marine and his scary gun (which you had no idea he had until the farce of a wrongful arrest) aren’t allowed here. They made him go away and now he has to go to sensitivity training so he won’t ever skeer you ever, ever again.

Maxwell had a valid permit for possessing concealed weapons; however, the permit does not allow people to bring weapons inside public schools, private schools or courthouses.

“Even if you have a concealed weapons permit, you can’t have a weapon concealed on your person if you’re going to be in any buildings on campus.” Dorn (Sergeant Kim Dorn with Monmouth PD) said. “In this instance, he just didn’t know.”

No Sgt. Dorn, in this instance you “just didn’t know” the law, as evidenced when the DA tossed your arrest. I could expect that from a rookie, but not from a sergeant who should at least have a working knowledge of a pretty important piece of legislation.

Hutchinson said Western firearm and munition policies are administrative and correspond to Oregon University System policies, which are not necessarily the same as state regulations.

“We go one step further and say, look, no weapons are allowed on campus, period,”Hutchinson said.

Regardless of what the law says; right, you arrogant piece of filth? This episode is a prime example of the arrogance epidemic in the liberal view of firearms. They don’t care what the law, or the Constitution, says. They are going to impose their will. If you don’t like it, or dare to have the temerity to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, they will see to it that you are ostracized (as in Mr. Maxwell’s suspension) unless you grovel and beg their forgiveness through a ten page written mea culpa showing you have been enlightened and “accept responsibility for your actions” and the impact on the “feeewings” of others.

In true Marine fashion, Mr. Maxwell is not bing kowtowed and has gone on the offensive. So is Oregon Firearms Federation, who are just a tad livid over the situation.

The WOU student who was falsely arrested and charged with possession of a firearm in a public building, had all his criminal charges dropped by the Polk County DA tonight.

The DA admitted no wrongdoing on his part, or on the part of the police who arrested Jeff Maxwell for a “crime” that does not exist.

In a statement released to OFF’s attorney, the DA said “I believe the Monmouth Police Department issued the citation in good faith and that there was an arguable violation. However, a careful reading of the statute and the facts led me to conclude the charge was not in the best interest of justice.”

“Not in the best interest of justice.”  There was NO CRIME. But it gets worse. Much worse.

The college still got to “try” Jeff Maxwell. And they did tonight.

The tribunal that tried Marine veteran Jeffery Maxwell laughed after suspending him from Western Oregon University and sentencing him to:

a “psychological evaluation stating he is not a threat to himself of others” and

a mandatory “ten page paper” ” with references, “citing, but not limited to:

1) the importance of following the law,even through civil disobedience.

2) the importance of accepting responsibility for one’s actions

3) and recognizing the impact possession of weapons on college campuses has on others.”

So, Maxwell has been told his lawful possession of a firearm on campus is evidence of mental illness and he must “confess his sins.”  Welcome to the new Politburo. Maxwell may as well been judged by the Hitler youth for his “thought crimes.”

Jeffery Maxwell’s “jury” were four unnamed students and one staff member of WOU.

The “prosecutor” was Patrick Moser moserp@wou.edu “Acting Coordinator of Campus Judicial Affairs”

Maxwell asked to have his “trial” open to the public, which is his right, but was denied.

The tribunal was told repeatedly that they lacked the authority to impose a rule dealing with firearms. But the children who sat in judgment of the veteran were not interested in the law or the facts. They were only interested in attacking and embarrassing a man who had committed no crime but had chosen to exercise his right to protect himself and others.

The “trial” was a sham. No one present even seemed to know what the “charge” was. When confronted by the fact that the school has no authority to make rules about firearms, they said that was “not relevant.” Then they said they were not charging Maxwell with having a firearm. When asked what they WERE charging him with, they seemed to not know. They then said they were charging him with having a “knife and a rifle in his car.”   When told they had no authority to make rules about guns in his car, they said THAT was not “relevant.”

The children who sat on Maxwell’s “jury”  and their staff advisors seemed to have no idea what they were actually charging Maxwell with. But they had no problem sentencing him. Gun owners, and all Americans should be outraged.

OFF is committed to continuing Maxwell’s defense. We are shocked and disgusted by the treatment he received by the staff and the students of WOU,

We ask your continued support of our legal battle for Jeff Maxwell. We promised Jeff what he promised the men he served with. We will not leave him behind.

OFF and Mr. Maxwell have been joined by some Oregon representatives in their legal fight against the university systems blatant assault on the lawful exercise of the 2nd Amendment. Just like the Heller case, the law is on the side of the lawful firearm owner. This case may be the cassus belli necessary to finally establish that a persons rights do not end when a Politburo of academicians say they do. University beaurocrats can not, and will not, override the law of the land. It is a fight long in coming, and one worth fighting.

(Massive h/t and much thanks to LC Mike M for the heads up and extensive background, as well as the link to the Oregon statutes.)

138 comments

  1. 101

    Can you say semantics? Technically speaking, I’m at a University, but the point holds for “Institution of Higher Learning” in general. Don’t pull College vs. University vs. Grad School, their all taught at the same place.

    Yes I can say semantics. I can also say antidisestablishmentarianism, but neither is really germane to the topic at hand. LC SkyeChild already has addressed what you coyly attempted to sidestep, and as a point of clarification, my first law school (the one where I earned the J.D.) was a stand-alone institution, and not a school under a larger university system…and in case you’re wondering, yes Virginia, it really does make a difference in the quality and tenor of instruction.

    You assume that I deny history if I read it as different then you.

    No, I observe that you deny history because you can read things such as :

    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    and yet you say things such as:

    …..exercise his God given civil right?

    hahahaha

    Bull shit.

    Men made the rules. Men can change the rules. You want to fight it, that’s fine. But god doesn’t have jack to do with it.

    Our law is a reflection of and direct result of these rights. If you cannot see divine providence in the gathering of so many pious and learned men of character and resolve who enshrined these rights in law with reverence and due respect of a creator of heaven and earth, then you are blind to the truth and the history that is there for the reading.

    You see the fact that murder has been outlawed in nearly every governing document as evidence that human beings have a built in moral block against murder. I see it as evidence of a logical conclusion of humans everywhere that, in the interest of self-preservation, it is prudent to outlaw murder; if there are repercussion against your neighbor for killing you and taking your land, then your neighbor is less likely to do so.

    This is what happens when you listen to sociologists rather than bother to seek out answers to some of the more interesting questions in life yourself. How do I know? Because before Christianity, and the inevitable path of improvement to the human condition that it set us on, life was nasty, brutish, and short. Christianity changed that because of the change in world view that it fostered, or as many Christians will say, because of the truths it reveals, the world changed. Perhaps when I haven’t spent the last four hours with screaming cub scouts, i can state it in a fashion that even you can easily understand.

    Additionally, we need only look to our Southern border to see that economic pressures have always played a part in the flood of immigrants to America (Although this site never seems to be terribly supportive of their slice of the pie). And dare I bring up African slaves? I’m just asking for trouble, but it seems that a fair portion of our current population are descended from unwilling immigrants.

    Jam-packed with all sorts of misdirection and strawmen…in order…
    “Our southern border” If you believe economics are the driving force, then you confuse the reason that they are willing to come here ILLEGALLY to work with the reason they want to come to stay. After all, that fine and fully functional society south of the border calls them back and only the money brings them here. As for us being supportive of “their slice of the pie”, there is a big difference between our placing a high value on citizenship and the rights it confers, and those who come here illegally and expect that they are entitled to the same rights and benefits that others have to wait in line for…sometimes for years.
    And dare I bring up African slaves? I guess you did. You’ll never catch me defending the practice. Everyone makes a mistake, and slavery would be this country’s biggest one. However, unlike the handwringing, hate America first left, I recognize two fundamental facts. One: Despite what the grevience peddlers and the race-pimps who have built their power bases on the modern day dependence of their own people, I fully understand that the price for slavery was paid in full with the blood of American Dead in the American Civil War. No other payment is necessary, regardless of what the Wrong Reverends Sharptongue and Jackson keep trying to tell me. Two: It wasn’t whites who enslaved the Africans to begin with. Members of other tribes were only too eager to take them captive and turn a buck. And those of slave descent have been offered several chances to depart these shores and return to Africa. Very few have found it to be an attractive option. That should tell you something.

    Finally, if you have to derive “separation of church and state” from the establishment clause, Article VI of the Constitution, and “Thomas Jefferson”, then you are straining to get a result that you desire. Yes, I know that there are decisions that have adopted this incorrect interpretation and I am perfectly confident in characterizing it that way. If the Courts had never been wrong, then Dred Scott would still be the law of the land. The people responsible for this nation being brought into existence never conceived of a government and leaders so ‘separated’ from religion as to be hostile to it. How do I know? They told us:

    “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” – George Washington

    “The Christian religion as I understand it, is the brightness of the glory and the express portrait of the eternal character of the eternal, self-existent, independen, benevolent, all-powerful, and all-merciful Creator, Preserver, and Father of the universe, the first good, the first perfect, and the first fair. It will last as long as the world. Neither savage or civilized man, without a revelation, could have discovered it or invented it.” -John Adams

    “Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free governments, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society. Science, liberty and religion are the choicest blessing of humanity; without their joint influence no society can be great, flourishing or happy.” – John Adams

    “A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district-all studied and appreciated as they merit-are the principal supports of virtue, morality, and civic liberty.” -Benjamin Franklin (I suggest you seek out the text ‘A Lecture on the Providence of God in the Government of the World’, by Franklin. You might find it instructive and directly on point regarding the turd you threw to start this ‘discussion’. )

    “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gifts of God? That they are not to be violated except with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that his justice cannot sleep forever.”-Thomas Jefferson

    I believe one of your sources for your non-existent ‘separation of church and state’ just pwned you. You might want to get that looked at.

  2. 102
    Princess Natasha, Uber-Whore of Zion says:

    OK… ClogMeister may be a liberal, for now… But please be good to him, he is on the right track. At least he majors in Engineering, not Interpretive Clog Dancing, as I thought before. That means, rational thinking will come to him, with time. This one is probably going to be one of the most hardcore capitalists, just give him a few years.
    BTW, ClogMeister, Mechanical Engineering is FUN!! May not be as fun for you as it is for me, since you are not in the Army. I get to blow shit up, to prove the equations are correct. There is nothing like watching some big-ass explosion go off just the way you planned it and built it, as you feel the goddamn earth shake…

    As to the right to life… Dude, read some Ayn Rand. Not just her fiction. Her philosophical works. As reviled as she is, the lady has some valid points. Pay attention to how she defines a “right”.

  3. 103
    Interpretive Clog Dancer says:

    Darth Bacon sez:

    You argue for the influence of both genetics and environment.

    I did, and I stand by it.

    The point- your avoidance notwithstanding- was that our rights (what you might even call ‘human rights’) exist as distinct from any mere statutory construct. They are our due, and are immutable.

    I suppose I did avoid this point, but I’m afraid I can’t concede it. You say that our rights are immutable, but I say that, despite the fact that I support them, there is nothing about these rights that exists outside of man. I can’t imply that they are solely constructs of law; I do admit that they are not. But the general idea of having these rights comes from man himself, and that’s why we feel its necessary to build government. If every man really did have these rights built in (as opposed to simply believing in them) there wouldn’t be any need for government; we’d just live and let live.

    You may have noticed- but I wouldn’t be surprised if you had not- that rather than the Constitution and Bill Of Rights proscribing certain things, they are in fact affirmative documents. Affirmative of man’s immutable rights. How those rights are described, and which are given primacy, is in fact an act of man. But the rights themselves are external to governments and legislatures.

    They are external, but they are still constructed by men. That is why other people feel that different rights exist. Prior to the 20s, women couldn’t vote. At the time, men didn’t extend certain rights to women. Our idea of what these rights are has changed over time, and will continue to, because they are man-made constructs and not all of what we take for granted has always existed.

    There’s a lot more to cover, as I can see, but I have a class.

  4. 104
    LC Xealot says:

    and dare I bring up African slaves?

    Not this again. I’m tired of this “guilt trip America for slavery” crap. Seriously. Okay so yes we imported slaves. Most of that occured BEFORE America even became a nation in its own right. The importing of slaves or “unwilling immigration” was banned not long after the country was formed. And might I remind you, we learned the “peculiar institution” from Europe, and from Africa itself where such behavior was commonplace.

    Yeah. Slavery sucked. But if that’s the worst that America has to offer, then maybe we should consider ourselves fortunate. Germany has the Holocaust, Russia has communism, gulags and mass-killings, Britain has the memory of global empire and the French… well they know how to lose wars better than anyone. Yet they presume to judge us harshly for our mistakes. What a heap of elephant dung. And as politically incorrect as it may be to say… it was probably a lot better to be a slave in America than a slave in Africa. Oh… what did you THINK the Africans would have done with their slaves if they didn’t sell them to us? Did you think they would magically be set free?

    Hell. This nation is the only nation I know of that actually fought a bloody civil war to END slavery. As was said before. Slate clean. Paid in full. Blood debt settled. If suffering is the gauge by which we must measure our payment, the civil war certainly caused enough of it to the enslavers.

    So seriously. Lay off the slavery. It’s not a crutch to bring to a debate.

  5. 105
    Princess Natasha, Uber-Whore of Zion says:

    LC Xealot… You know, these dumbass cock-smoking libtard cunts whine about slavery in the US, so goddamn long ago, yet not one of them will utter a fucking PEEP about slavery that is socialism or communism. The whole “Americans had slaves” bullshit argument is so old and so weak… Poshli oni vse na hui, yobanniye shesterki. (I need stronger curse words than English has to offer, sorry).

  6. 106

    Interpretive Clog Dancer sez:

    …..exercise his God given civil right?
    hahahaha
    Bull shit.
    Men made the rules. Men can change the rules. You want to fight it, that’s fine. But god doesn’t have jack to do with it.

    Here is a bit of advice from one atheist to another: Laughing at someone else’s deeply held beliefs is never useful, unless your intention is to make a permanent enemy.

  7. 107

    LC CiSSnarl5.7 Chariot Builder sez:

    You stumble into the empire here, drunk on your own misconceived “intellect” and breathlessly start pointing out inanities like “God doesn’t have jack to do with it”.

    Two simple words, Prove it.

    No one ever has to prove a negative. I don’t have to prove that elves don’t exist, or that Elvis is dead. If you insist that God exists, that’s fine by me … but if you try to us something other than faith to support your beleif, you run afoul of logic and the scientific method.

    If you claim that logic and evidence supports the existence of God, then you are the one who has to create a repeatable and verifiable experiment that summons or manifests this “God”. If you claim God only shows his face when he wishes to, then I would suggest sticking to faith.

    ( Yes, ICD is a rude ass, and deserved to get hammered for that. Thanks for taking on that chore. )

  8. 108

    Darth Bacon sez:

    What you’re unable or unwilling to understand is that even though our laws are undeniably Judeo-Christian in nature and origin, that it’s not because of anyone’s allegiance to a religion that they would uphold those things.

    Undeniable? Not a correct statement.

    I deny that. ( see, I was able to do it )

    Our laws are actually Roman-Greco in origin. The question of whether or not Europe would keep to the traditional laws of the western european civilizations was decided at a place called Thermopylae. The laws in the old testament are basically Babylonian/Assryian … Sparta put an end to that nonsense in the west.

    We had a short period of Christian law during the Dark Ages, but that was rolled back during the Reformation.

  9. 109
    Sir Fresh Sign says:

    this is getting too highbrowed… how about some naked fat chicks, or stories of dead Pali rocket teams? Even Sheets Byrd is taking Jugears to task over his clearly apparent power grab

  10. 110
    AyUaxe says:

    I am troubled by the idea that the guy carries a derringer. I would greatly prefer that he carry something in .40 or larger and at least 6 rounds.

  11. 111

    Kristopher, LC sez:

    Laughing at someone else’s deeply held beliefs is never useful, unless your intention is to make a permanent enemy.

    Words of wisdom.

    LC CiSSnarl5.7 Chariot Builder sez:
    You stumble into the empire here, drunk on your own misconceived “intellect” and breathlessly start pointing out inanities like “God doesn’t have jack to do with it”.
    Two simple words, Prove it.
    No one ever has to prove a negative. I don’t have to prove that elves don’t exist, or that Elvis is dead. If you insist that God exists, that’s fine by me … but if you try to us something other than faith to support your beleif, you run afoul of logic and the scientific method.
    If you claim that logic and evidence supports the existence of God, then you are the one who has to create a repeatable and verifiable experiment that summons or manifests this “God”. If you claim God only shows his face when he wishes to, then I would suggest sticking to faith.
    ( Yes, ICD is a rude ass, and deserved to get hammered for that. Thanks for taking on that chore. )

    Not so fast Christopher, you’re making a dangerous leap here simply because, the truth of the matter is I’m agnostic.

    I simply told him to prove (it) that “God doesn’t have jack to do with it”. I did in no way shape or form in my post argue that GOD DOES IN FACT EXIST.

    The “Prove it” is a direct challenge that God (or the concept of a God) has nothing to do with the laws as we know them, not whether or not God is a verifiable thing. Perhaps that’s not clear enough in my post.

    I would argue in fact like others here have, with verifiable history to back me up, that even though I don’t choose to practice religion or have faith in “God” the simple fact of the matter is “God” or at least the concept of one has a VAST amount to do with our laws as written.

    Where our young scholar idiot savant is utterly wrong is, his delivery method and antagonizing others based on his own belief system, total lack of respect of those who do have faith, and the misconceived notion that he has the right to force that system on others.

    I’ll stomp his ass every time for it. I don’t suffer ignorant people well, however judging from the drubbing he’s taken thus far…No stomping needed, much better written prose and sharper minds than mine are making a nice display of showing Clog for what he is…a Clod.

  12. 112
    anonymous hourly worker says:

    I don’t know. You’ve got to admit that ICD has some staying power. Especially for someone so young and engineerish.

    And before you jump on me for that, I’ve married nothing BUT engineers.

  13. 113

    I don’t know. You’ve got to admit that ICD has some staying power.

    Inasmuch as closing your eyes, sticking your fingers firmly in your ears, and saying “LALALALALALALAICAN’THEARYOULALALALALALA!!!!!” constitues staying power, I guess I can conceed that.

  14. 114
    Cricket says:

    I think ICD did what he wanted to do. Get attention.

  15. 115
    Interpretive Clog Dancer says:

    Alright, let’s see if I can come up with a quick summary of what I’ve learned, and what I still think.

    Learned:
    1. God/Christianity played more of a role in the formation of the Constitution and this country then I would like to admit.
    2. Humans have more built-in morality and deference to the “rights of man” then I originally thought.
    3. I can type until my fingers fall off, it doesn’t do any good. (Although I’ve already learned that a fair few times)

    Retained Beliefs:
    1. Humans developed their morals and deference to the “rights of man” as a defense mechanism to perpetuate their survival.
    2. Laws and a stable society that condemns infringement on the “rights of man” are still required to create an environment in which those rights can be protected. That is to say that I don’t trust individual humans to govern themselves.

    Sorry AHW, guess I ran out of staying power on this one.

    Cricket sez:

    I think ICD did what he wanted to do. Get attention.

    At least I’m not in here posting random outrageous statements that I don’t even believe in. If I was a real attention-whore I’d be arguing in every single thread saying that all we need to do is switch to Communism. Besides, I like to think I keep things more interesting around here. And my posts are legible, always a plus.

    Closing Notes:
    Shouting LALALALALA while holding your ears is a widely accepted debate tactic.

    I’m done. I’ll try another thread in a couple days, maybe a week.

  16. 116

    At least I’m not in here posting random outrageous statements that I don’t even believe in.

    Did you have someone in mind, or are we all supposed to take that as a general criticism?

    And my posts are legible, always a plus.

    An interesting comment form someone who has repeatedly bitched about an attitude of superiority he perceives in others who post here.

    I’m done. I’ll try another thread in a couple days, maybe a week.

    That’s quite a leap from:

    There’s a lot more to cover, as I can see, but I have a class.

  17. 117
    Interpretive Clog Dancer says:

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere sez:

    Did you have someone in mind, or are we all supposed to take that as a general criticism?

    No, its not referring to anyone here, but that kind of thing is prevalent on the Internet, and I’m pointing out if I was really here just to get attention, that’s the kind of thing I would post. Geez, that was my concession post, lay off.

  18. 118
    LC TerribleTroy, Imperial Centurion says:

    All you need to know about ICD is in the way he lumps illegal immigrants and legal immigrants into the same class by calling them all immigrants.

    The rest of this … mans inalienable rights ….. what was the genisis of the laws? .. Religion..

    One reason ICD has no faith in humanity is because deep down inside he has no faith in his humanity. And inorder to be Ok with that… he has to presume that everybody is “like” him.

    Seems the concept of “doing the right thing” because its the right thing.. is lost on him…. and where is it that we learn to do the right thing because its the right thing? ……

    And there in lies the essence of the founders and the creation of nation…. without thier “religious” humanity this nation wouldnt exist. Without thier religious humanity the laws respecting those “inalienable rights” wouldnt exist.

    Maybe Im offbase….. getting to the party a bit late…..

  19. 119
    Lc ORWN says:

    Ok I know i’m late to the party on slapping CLOT around but one question.

    What do you find so offensive in the ten comandments?

    1&2 don’t worship false idols i.e baseball players singers movie stars they are human

    3 don’t say the lords name when you are going into some swearing tirade

    4 don’t work on sunday

    5 honor your father and mother

    6 don’t murder someone

    7 don’t cheat on your wife or husband

    8 don’t steal

    9 don’t lie and tell stories about someone

    10 don’t covet things that belong to your neighbor but work hard to attain those things for yourself

    sounds like some pretty good rules to live by

  20. 120
    LC Gonzman says:

    Kristopher, LC sez:

    LC CiSSnarl5.7 Chariot Builder sez:
    You stumble into the empire here, drunk on your own misconceived “intellect” and breathlessly start pointing out inanities like “God doesn’t have jack to do with it”.
    Two simple words, Prove it.
    No one ever has to prove a negative. I don’t have to prove that elves don’t exist, or that Elvis is dead. If you insist that God exists, that’s fine by me … but if you try to us something other than faith to support your beleif, you run afoul of logic and the scientific method.
    If you claim that logic and evidence supports the existence of God, then you are the one who has to create a repeatable and verifiable experiment that summons or manifests this “God”. If you claim God only shows his face when he wishes to, then I would suggest sticking to faith.
    ( Yes, ICD is a rude ass, and deserved to get hammered for that. Thanks for taking on that chore. )

    Um – incorrect. Lord I hate amateur logicians, especially the ones who repeat the same rudimentary falsehood they heard from a playground argument.

    An assertion of any stripe has to be proved. If I say “There is a God” or if I say “There is no God” I have still made an assertion; thus, the burden of proof falls upon me, as the asserter.

    Second, you get into things like symbolic logic, and you find that there is not really any negative claim. If I say “A” I am also saying “Not (Not A).” The two values are fungible, though usually simplified to “A.”

    Third, you can indeed prove a negative. For instance, if you say “It’s raining” and I say “No it isn’t” my proof is that if it were raining, my car which is parked outside, would be wet. It is not. Ergo, it is not raining. I can also say “No cats have green fur.” While it would be hard to do, one could examine all cats (or have examined all cats) and reprt that, sooth, there are no verdant-furred felines. (One need not prove all cats have fur, though. Being felnes, they are mammals. Being mammals, they are furred. It’s a tautology)

    What you are talking about is a GLOBAL negative, and even tat is only impossible to do if you limit yourself to strictly deductive reasoning, and throw out the inductive and abductive, as well as anything which might be reported observation (Often wrongly and blithely dismissed with such terms as “subjective” or “ancedote.” Really. All reported observation is “Ancedote”) . And to that I say, if one is foolish enough to assert a global negative to which proof is impossible, one is indeed a moron.

    As for the scientific method, it refers merely to testability. To conflate this with logic is absurd, as it throws out “Eureka!” moments, those flashes of insight which don’t really come by a system of Aristotelian syllogisms. (And such syllogisms are the baby steps of logic.)

  21. 121
    LC Gonzman says:

    And yeah, I do know a few big words, besides “Fucktard” and “Douchenozzle.” I just generally don’t waste them on Liberals.

    Pearls before swine, and all that. And since I know they can’t be reasoned out of a position they were never reasoned into in the first place, I just like to skip straight to the abuse.

    More fun for me that way.

  22. 122

    I dunno, Gonz. Sometimes its fun to play out the rope so they have more than enough to hang themselves with, or watch them paint themselves into a corner, and then break the bad news to them. Occassionally, you get one with character who can admit that they screwed the pooch. More often, it is the poo-flinging monkey, though.

  23. 123
    LC Gonzman says:

    At times – lately I’ve just grown bone weary of the soul-dead stupidity that liberalism is.

  24. 124
    LC TerribleTroy, Imperial Centurion says:

    And that is why I dont even communicate with them anymore…keeps my homocidal urges to a minimum

  25. 125

    By all means Gonz, skip straight to the abuse. More fun for us that way, too.

    Note to ICD. Don’t argue philosophy with someone who has a degree in that shit unless you are a) wanting to learn or b) really, really needing an intellectual ass-kicking.

  26. 126

    LC Gonzman sez:

    For instance, if you say “It’s raining” and I say “No it isn’t” my proof is that if it were raining, my car which is parked outside, would be wet. It is not. Ergo, it is not raining.

    Sorry, but this doesn’t necessarily hold true, either.

    It may very well be raining, just not where you are. Perhaps it’s raining down the street (we’ve all had that happen). All you can say for certain is that it is not raining where your car is, or where you are.

    LC Gonzman sez:

    One need not prove all cats have fur, though. Being felnes, they are mammals. Being mammals, they are furred. It’s a tautology)

    Even the Mexican Hairless? (or whichever it is that has no fur or hair)? Not all mammals have fur, either. We have hair.

  27. 127

    Ack. I goofed up that one. THe Mexican Hairless is a dog. I was thinking of the sphynx cat. *sigh.* It’s late. I should go to bed.

  28. 128
    Ten-Ten says:

    To the “There is no God.” set:

    Boy, are you gonna feel silly one day.

    (not to mention screwed…..eternally. Have a nice day.)

  29. 129
    seagoon says:

    Even the sphinx cat has some hair. (whiskers) link

    Hair and fur are just different terms for the same basic thing. link

    I know that link is from the kiddie section of the Smithsonian, but it took too damn long to load and I’m supposed to be bedridden now.

  30. 130
    LC Gonzman says:

    LC SkyeChild G.L.O.R., Imperial Grammar Hun sez:

    LC Gonzman sez:
    For instance, if you say “It’s raining” and I say “No it isn’t” my proof is that if it were raining, my car which is parked outside, would be wet. It is not. Ergo, it is not raining.
    Sorry, but this doesn’t necessarily hold true, either.
    It may very well be raining, just not where you are. Perhaps it’s raining down the street (we’ve all had that happen). All you can say for certain is that it is not raining where your car is, or where you are.

    Cavilling. You are attempting to make something a global affirmative which cannot be a global affirmative.

    LC SkyeChild G.L.O.R., Imperial Grammar Hun sez:

    LC Gonzman sez:
    One need not prove all cats have fur, though. Being felnes, they are mammals. Being mammals, they are furred. It’s a tautology)
    Even the Mexican Hairless? (or whichever it is that has no fur or hair)? Not all mammals have fur, either. We have hair.

    Fur IS hair.

    Fur is a body hair of any non-human mammal, also known as the pelage. It may consist of short ground hair, long guard hair, and, in some cases, medium awn hair.

    Mammals with reduced amounts of fur are often called “naked”, as in The Naked Ape, naked mole rat, and naked dogs.

  31. 131
    PromptCritical says:

    Nice to see such a good synopsis of this bullshit making it world wide.

    Surprised to see Mike M. hasn’t commented…

    As the holder of a CHL and student at Oregon State University (Beavers, not Ducks), I find it idiotic that I am not allowed to carry here.

    On this subject, (and a related one) I spoke with our director of campus safety. While he stated that the position of OSU is similar, he would be more moderate in his actions regarding similar situations. He stated that anyone found to be carrying a weapon would be asked to leave campus or lock the weapon in a vehicle. Refusal would mean trespassing. While I still disagree with the rules, at least our campus’s reaction won’t be as boneheaded as the fruitcakes at WOU.

    I might add that I am currently coordinating the OSU College Republican’s annual 2nd Amendment Week. Gonna get some exposure to the Crazy Uncle upstairs amendment everyone seems to ignore (especially those fuckwits at the ACLU). I have been in contact with Mr. Maxwell about him participating with us. WOU is doing theirs this week (and raffling off a nice Savage .17HMR with a Leupold scope).

    Just figured I would weigh in on this since I am somewhat involved by proxy and am somewhat close to the action.

    -PromptCritical

  32. 132
    Mike M says:

    PromptCritical @ 131:

    Surprised to see Mike M. hasn’t commented…

    Oh, he’s commented all right. It’s just that you’re looking at the second page. Go to the top of the thread and click on “Older Comments”.

    It’s good you’re taking on those extracurricular activities in addition to keeping your nose in the books because they’re important, but don’t forget you’ve got some electrical engineering of sorts to do at home this weekend.

  33. 133
    LC Rurik says:

    Immature Clog Dumper @:

    Bunk. Laws are different all over the world. There’s no reason why any law is more inherently natural or inalienable than any other. Laws against murder and the like were made in the interest of self-preservation.

    Congratulations. You have just justified chattel slavery, human sacrifice, the Nazi holocaust, the purges of Josef Stalin, the Iranian executions of homosexuals, and many other governmental crimes of the past thousand or so years. All of these acts were done under the authority of stautory laws in place in those various regimes.
    BTW – You have also justified the “worst of all atrocities” ever commited on earth, segregated busses and schools in parts of America; It was constitutional under Plessy v. Ferguson, until the reversal of Brown v. Board.

    Quite an accomplishment for someone performing an intellectual exercise. :em01:

  34. 134
    LC TerribleTroy, Imperial Centurion says:

    Well Said Rurik! Well said :em04:

  35. 135
    madtom says:

    Interpretive Clog Dancer sez:

    Alright, let’s see if I can come up with a quick summary of what I’ve learned, and what I still think.
    Learned:
    1. God/Christianity played more of a role in the formation of the Constitution and this country then I would like to admit.
    2. Humans have more built-in morality and deference to the “rights of man” then I originally thought.
    3. I can type until my fingers fall off, it doesn’t do any good. (Although I’ve already learned that a fair few times)
    Retained Beliefs:
    1. Humans developed their morals and deference to the “rights of man” as a defense mechanism to perpetuate their survival.
    2. Laws and a stable society that condemns infringement on the “rights of man” are still required to create an environment in which those rights can be protected. That is to say that I don’t trust individual humans to govern themselves.
    Sorry AHW, guess I ran out of staying power on this one.
    Cricket sez:
    I think ICD did what he wanted to do. Get attention.
    At least I’m not in here posting random outrageous statements that I don’t even believe in. If I was a real attention-whore I’d be arguing in every single thread saying that all we need to do is switch to Communism. Besides, I like to think I keep things more interesting around here. And my posts are legible, always a plus.
    Closing Notes:
    Shouting LALALALALA while holding your ears is a widely accepted debate tactic.
    I’m done. I’ll try another thread in a couple days, maybe a week.

  36. 136
    madtom says:

    Make it a millenium, PLEASE!madtom @:

  37. 137
    madtom says:

    Oops. Still getting the hang of this here thingy.

  38. 138
    PromptCritical says:

    LC Cheapshot911, Dept. of Redneck Tech sez:

    Mechanical engineers build weapons, Civil engineers build targets

    Electrical engineers build guidance systems…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.