BartsDaddy 7 #51 March 19, 2013 QuoteQuoteSo in other words, you concede .... So I guess you feel .... Putting words in someone's mouth so that you can then argue against those "words" is about the most amateur and ineffective method of debate - about at the same level as "Oh, yeah? Well... shut up." So I guess you think wife-beating is OK. Real nice. Sort of like the poster I was replying to that you happen to leave his remarks out of your reply. So does your reply go for only thoose with differing views then you? Or would they go for the original posters reply to me also? Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #52 March 19, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo in other words, you concede .... So I guess you feel .... Putting words in someone's mouth so that you can then argue against those "words" is about the most amateur and ineffective method of debate - about at the same level as "Oh, yeah? Well... shut up." So I guess you think wife-beating is OK. Real nice. Sort of like the poster I was replying to that you happen to leave his remarks out of your reply. So does your reply go for only thoose with differing views then you? Or would they go for the original posters reply to me also? Hm, it's true, he did it, too. Yeah, it goes for both of you. May I grab you both by the ears and bang your heads together, or would that be arrogant? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #53 March 19, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo in other words, you concede .... So I guess you feel .... Putting words in someone's mouth so that you can then argue against those "words" is about the most amateur and ineffective method of debate - about at the same level as "Oh, yeah? Well... shut up." So I guess you think wife-beating is OK. Real nice. Sort of like the poster I was replying to that you happen to leave his remarks out of your reply. So does your reply go for only thoose with differing views then you? Or would they go for the original posters reply to me also? Hm, it's true, he did it, too. Yeah, it goes for both of you. May I grab you both by the ears and bang your heads together, or would that be more arrogant than normal? FIFY"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BartsDaddy 7 #54 March 19, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Quote So in other words, you concede .... So I guess you feel .... Putting words in someone's mouth so that you can then argue against those "words" is about the most amateur and ineffective method of debate - about at the same level as "Oh, yeah? Well... shut up." So I guess you think wife-beating is OK. Real nice. Sort of like the poster I was replying to that you happen to leave his remarks out of your reply. So does your reply go for only thoose with differing views then you? Or would they go for the original posters reply to me also? Hm, it's true, he did it, too. Yeah, it goes for both of you. May I grab you both by the ears and bang your heads together, or would that be arrogant? Then you might now understand why I picked thoose phrases or maybe not. I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #55 March 19, 2013 Joe Rogan said something pretty brilliant: "This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem." I think he nailed it. Check out how many liberties have been curtailed in the name of "security." How many more are being looked at in the name of security? Safety? Liberty and tyranny cannot coexist peacefully. The 2nd Amendment recognizes that. Note: I'll also state my thoughts on "original intent." Divining "intent" is something that is always subject to debate. "Well, what they meant to say was..." We see people's motives twisted all the time on here. I like to look at the words and give them a plain meaning. Thus when something says, "shall not be infringed" I don't think "well, they meant to say, 'shall be infringed in cases that government leadership sees fit.'" Nor do I think that it "lives and breathes" - it only does so by Amendment. Don't like what the Constitution says? Amend it. Think people shouldn't have handguns? Amend the Constitution. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie 3 #56 March 19, 2013 which is as it should be, interpret the words. i have said this for years. the original intent thing is something i had to throw in there due to some quips i have heard on debates and in in forum discussions. some of the things i have revisited lately are amazingly applicable to today...considering they were written over 200 years ago. that's also why i believe every legal citizen should have the same rights and responsibilities as every other legal citizen, until they forfeit those rights. gay marriage, abortion, gun ownership, voting, driving, etc. the abortion thing i struggled with for a long time, but hey, there's too many people around anyway.http://kitswv.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #57 March 20, 2013 QuoteJoe Rogan said something pretty brilliant: "This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem." I think he nailed it. Check out how many liberties have been curtailed in the name of "security." How many more are being looked at in the name of security? Safety? Liberty and tyranny cannot coexist peacefully. The 2nd Amendment recognizes that. Note: I'll also state my thoughts on "original intent." Divining "intent" is something that is always subject to debate. "Well, what they meant to say was..." We see people's motives twisted all the time on here. I like to look at the words and give them a plain meaning. Thus when something says, "shall not be infringed" I don't think "well, they meant to say, 'shall be infringed in cases that government leadership sees fit.'" Nor do I think that it "lives and breathes" - it only does so by Amendment. Don't like what the Constitution says? Amend it. Think people shouldn't have handguns? Amend the Constitution. Amending the Constitution. What a novel idea! Why do that when it takes less time and hassle to simply pass laws that are basically unconstitutional. Look the Supreme Court just turned down hearing a class action case against Goldman Sachs for fraud. If they do that why would they care about a state denying people from owning guns? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #58 March 20, 2013 QuoteAmending the Constitution. What a novel idea! Why do that when it takes less time and hassle to simply pass laws that are basically unconstitutional. Look the Supreme Court just turned down hearing a class action case against Goldman Sachs for fraud. If they do that why would they care about a state denying people from owning guns? The Supreme Court already showed a willingness to do that in DC v. Heller. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
