|
|
| Author |
Message |
pvn
|
|
Butt fucking and gun control.
| 
Jul 1 07:24 UTC 2003 |
Yeah. I admit it. I entered the title of this item to be a bit, how
shall we say it, unusual? Provocative?
Ok, so what about the recent SCOTUS ruling re butt fucking? It sounds
like good news to me (pollyanna) in that it clearly prohibits any gun
control laws. Clear as a bell and the weather at the time. All
community standards rules are out the window and in the dumpster. Its a
libertine free for all. Not to mention its close to the 4th of July.
Surely I can now enjoy all manner of fireworks in my own backyard -
2-inch festival balls rule! They are cheap and I have to hardly drive
more than a half hour to purchase them - in Indiana.
|
| 50 responses total. |
polytarp
|
|
response 1 of 50:
|
Jul 1 09:30 UTC 2003 |
IT really wasn't unusual for you, sir. I, as usual, picked out the AUTHOR
(IE YOU) just from the topic!!!!
|
other
|
|
response 2 of 50:
|
Jul 1 11:55 UTC 2003 |
The author of #0 is exhibiting incredibly poor grasp of legal logic. One
must wonder if his actual intent is no more than that indicated in his
first paragraph.
|
polygon
|
|
response 3 of 50:
|
Jul 1 12:48 UTC 2003 |
Provocative? Nasby?
|
flem
|
|
response 4 of 50:
|
Jul 1 14:28 UTC 2003 |
I'm amused (and a little disturbed) that when pvn thinks of butt fucking, the
first thing he thinks about is assault weapons and 2-inch festival balls.
Oh, and don't forget polyanna.
|
slynne
|
|
response 5 of 50:
|
Jul 1 14:31 UTC 2003 |
I think the recent SCOTUS ruling probably means that I can play lawn
darts in my bedroom...if I want to. ;)
|
other
|
|
response 6 of 50:
|
Jul 1 15:07 UTC 2003 |
JARTS!! :):)
|
gull
|
|
response 7 of 50:
|
Jul 1 15:47 UTC 2003 |
I remember those! They were fun, but they're also one of those toys
that you look at and wonder how anyone ever thought giving them to kids
was a good idea. ;>
|
other
|
|
response 8 of 50:
|
Jul 1 16:06 UTC 2003 |
Lay down over there and let me see how close I can get without hitting
you!
|
slynne
|
|
response 9 of 50:
|
Jul 1 16:20 UTC 2003 |
Sounds exciting!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 10 of 50:
|
Jul 1 17:35 UTC 2003 |
Not the least bit provocative - just dumb.
|
oval
|
|
response 11 of 50:
|
Jul 1 20:12 UTC 2003 |
curmudgeon.
|
bru
|
|
response 12 of 50:
|
Jul 1 21:48 UTC 2003 |
I never got hurt in a game of JARTS. OR shooting my bow and arrow Either.
|
tod
|
|
response 13 of 50:
|
Jul 1 22:03 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 14 of 50:
|
Jul 1 23:55 UTC 2003 |
I loved JARTS, but I definitely wouldn't have little children around.
|
other
|
|
response 15 of 50:
|
Jul 2 05:27 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, it was probably the combination of drunkenness and JARTS which
caused the end of JARTS. Too bad, because the really logical thing would
have been to end drunkenness. Of course, what's logical and what's
possible are not necessarily the same...
|
mvpel
|
|
response 16 of 50:
|
Jul 2 22:19 UTC 2003 |
Re: 15 - or they could have just let the law of natural selection take its
course and left everyone else out of it.
|
other
|
|
response 17 of 50:
|
Jul 3 05:08 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, but that would only select against people who play with people who
have really bad aim... (or really good aim...)
|
sabre
|
|
response 18 of 50:
|
Jul 5 13:36 UTC 2003 |
I guess all you faggots can now legally buttfuck each other.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 19 of 50:
|
Jul 5 14:39 UTC 2003 |
Hasn't buttfucking been legal for a while now in Michigan anyway?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 20 of 50:
|
Jul 5 14:42 UTC 2003 |
Technically, no. Michigan has a law barring "the detestable crime against
nature" or something like that, which is usually understood to mean buggery.
They just haven't been prosecuting people for it.
We have a Blasphemy statute too.
|
drew
|
|
response 21 of 50:
|
Jul 5 17:05 UTC 2003 |
I seem to remember reading in the handbook for a Michigan Con that the only
legal requirements for a sex partner were that they be at least 16 years old
and of ones own species.
|
remmers
|
|
response 22 of 50:
|
Jul 5 17:07 UTC 2003 |
I can understand why a Con would be concerned about that, considering
the number of extraterrestrials who attend such things.
|
jazz
|
|
response 23 of 50:
|
Jul 5 17:45 UTC 2003 |
... and furries.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 24 of 50:
|
Jul 5 18:10 UTC 2003 |
Re #21: Don't take legal advice from SF convention committees.
Re #22-23: Does make you wonder...
|