DaVinci

Hence the *question* to a mod: "Just trying to figure things out... Isn't that a PA?" You replied "No", but you are not the ones that get to make those kinds of calls (unless you are a double secret mod of some type). And you don't think a Mod should set a better example?

No, but that is what you read and think. Your reality is not matching what was said. Making up stuff your opponent never said is a sure sign of not having anything to debate with. You have still not provided one bit of data to prove your claim... and you are still not man enough to admit you just pulled it out of your ass. But if I did "shoot the internet"... You would just blame the gun. Your logic is not. You attempts to make up things has been called.

rushmc is not a mod. 1. Quade replied to rushmc and did not call it a PA, so no reason for me to ask about rushmc's post. 2. He is a mod, so he knows what would be considered a PA. Am I wrong that the green indicates a mod? I am wrong that a mod should be leading by example?

Still waiting... you keep saying that the SC is the final say here in the US. Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool. But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. You have not been able to counter that claim. United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well.

I asked Kallend a question... When he answer we will see if I am done.

No, shouldn't you be playing the ball and not the player?

Yet it is still a plane, which makes your point moot. You can have a double standard... just expect to get called out for having it.

Funny... I thought you were supposed to play the ball, not the player.... Oh well, I guess I will never fully grasp the rules of this place.

Just trying to figure things out... Isn't that a PA?

Have you admitted that you made up your claim? Yes, it actually does. Tell you what.... Either: 1. Show where I said mental patients should be allowed weapons or 2. Admit you made that claim up And we can continue. Until then, there is very little reason for me to answer your questions if you are just going to ignore them and make up your own claims of my answers.

Well, he attacked me... Not my argument. I provided quotes from SC cases, he accused me of being bad at math.

The SC has ruled it said that... Read Miller. Yes, "shall not be infringed" should have been enough for most people without an agenda. This would be like you wanting civil rights for same sex couples, and me supporting only girl on girl and me claiming, "I support civil rights for gays". Not anymore logical than me saying that gay people have the right to marry, but do not have the right of joint ownership of property or survivor-ship. They would still be allowed to marry, but would have no rights.

You do know the intent of the 2nd was to allow the individual to be able to stand up to the Govt, right?

Yes. Weapons that are issued to individual troops should be allowed to the average citizen. Weapons that are issued to individual troops should be allowed to the average citizen.

Yes, after they have been through due process.

I would be VERY interested in your experience and knowledge about FA weapons.

The best you can do is insults? Or trying to discount something as your only defenses shows how weak your position is.... Remember, not long ago people wanted to discount a black man by claiming he was not a "full" person. You are doing the same type of thing here. Fact is a embryo is alive. In that case you claim it would be fine to kill something that was 20 years old. So now you claim that only a person with *experiences* should be protected... Next you will try to limit WHAT experiences should provide protection. This is the road that takes us to killing mentally ill people just because they are not 'real' humans. Yes, having a tooth pulled is less mentally damaging than having an abortion.... Yet you don't think a child should have to notify a parent to get an abortion. Yes, I think a life is a life. Yes, I think that if it requires parental consent to get a tooth pulled, then other medical procedures should as well. It is called CONSISTENCY. You have none.

No, YOU are passed that issue since you cannot defend on it and would rather focus on the gun than the real issues. I said fine ONE example of where I said mental patients should have guns... You replied with: So you are unable to back up your claims and instead try to distract.... Back up your words or admit you are unable and are making that claim up. I do not think the right to self defense should be limited by a line on a map. There will be occasional mass murders with or without firearms. McVeigh killed 168 with a Ryder truck, fuel and fertilizer. Strict gun laws did not help 183 people in Mexico. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-04/27/c_13847907.htm

Still waiting... you keep saying that the SC is the final say here in the US. Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool. But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. You have not been able to counter that claim. United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well.

Look more personal attacks from a Mod. I thought these were not allowed? Do you have a problem understanding the phrase "Shall not be infringed"?

Still playing the player I see.

But they are still an airplane according to *definition*. I was thinking the same thing about you.

Waiting to hear what YOU say. And still take the water gun to a school and show it and let me know what they tell you. Point is that you took a position that is not sustainable and now are dancing around to avoid looking silly.

How is that not playing the player?

That several from the left were blaming Bush last time gas prices were up and are now silent since Obama is in office. Fact is that several (including people on here) blamed Bush for the high gas prices and they are now quiet.