Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urleebird

It amazes me, sometimes, Ilija, where your words are emitted from.

---

This is a personal attack. Why not address the issues?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urleebird

I'm just trying to say you don't know as much as you think you do. Am I supposed to concede that all your years of wisdom override what anyone else has to say? Having over 3,000 posts doesn't give you all the answers, my friend.

---

Come on, let's stick to the subject. This is just picking a personal fight. Ilija complained about our bombing in His home state. We'll forgive you if you don't defend the Us honor and respond to the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLStorm

They are a cancer of the human race that believes in exterminating anyone who exists along with them, even if we want to leave them alone and have nothing to do with them. They are cowards who dont care to spare the lives of those who wish not to fight against them, I say screw them, end them, eliminate them in their entirety. They breed like rats as well. As I mentioned my suggestion isnt the perfect answer, but its the only thing I can think of that works.

---

This is starting to sound scary. I'm thinking about some of th nazi propoganda against jews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urleebird

Well, that was certainly delivered with confidence and authority. Except, it is still just another opinion. I really hope that when the time comes to decide what it really means that you are the one that is wrong.

Think there is a difference between a militia and a government operated standing army? just a thought.

---

Since there's no specific opinion, all you can give is opinions. Mine is given after studying constitutional law for 35 years. It represents the state of the law. It's what I would tell a client, except the law would be cited specifically and adressed to his particular issues.

There was no government operated standing army until after the civil war. What happened was the states had their own militia, and they were assembled into the US army. Notice, for example that in the civil war each unit came from a state.

What we call militia today is not what is meant by the Constitution.

Is this tone and attitude calculated to promote reasonable the discussion you were seeking? It was an in-kind animated response, even qualified with an admission of sarcasm. What's your excuse, Mr Lerch, for being an antagonist? You don't seem to be trying to educate or enlighten anyone with whatever knowledge you may have. It seems to me that this apparent condescension of yours is coming from a gleeful Democratic victory at the polls and intended to do nothing more than draw fire for it. I wouldn't get too comfortable with the success. It wasn't like they were overwhelming victories. Like, I already said. I'd like to see something that works, no matter who is in charge. Congratulations on the victory.

Let's just look at where we are now. We invaded and are occupying Iraq for whatever the latest explanation may be. Is this a statement that is intended to clarify anything? For someone so well versed in so many areas of expertise, I would have thought you might have a better handle on an answer. My pointing this out is no different than you challenging me over the intended tone of the thread. The fact is we were not invited and we have overstayed any possible welcome. 70% of the people want us out,Been there and talked to everyone, have you? and they're saying it's OK to kill Americans.I was under the mistaken impression that they thought this was ok before we even got there. Don't know what I could have been thinking. Some of the prisoners at Guantanimo are from Afghanistan and were fighting against us, but many others were just picked up in sweeps in Iraq. One was a Canadian citizen who is now suing us.I'm sure he would be served well being represented by you. From the things you say here, it sound like you are well versed enough to be qualified to do the job for him. Hundreds have been released without charges, and none have been tried for anything,Maybe because they are not being convicted and punished for anything yet. so it's not like they're all definitely terrorists. In fact none have been found to be terrorists. Privy to that possible classified information, are ya? Ahh... I forgot...why would you want to believe the ones in charge?

Now we have this law where Bush Does showing disrespect to President Bush make you feel better about yourself? can define you as an enemy combatant and the you lose habeas corpus rightsAre they entitled to a trial because you say so?, torture has been redefined,How do you possibly expect to garner any credibility on this or any other thread when you make a statement like that under the pretext that it is gospel truth? Do you think that being civil means you cannot be challenged regarding inflammatory language like this? and Cheney is joking about waterboarding. If some court doesn't declare that law unconstitutional, it'll be taken care of by the next Congress. Like Lincoln said, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Our voters have finally come to their senses and we will be restoring congressional oversight.Again, inflammatory, and of no value to any argument. Unless you think the new Congress will also get rid of the bogus assault weapons ban forever. Hopefully, we'll restore the strength and vitality of the Constitution (you know, that "quaint old document").Perfect, just perfect, Mr Lerch.

There have been a lot of differing opinions on this thread. I'm ok with that. But, I am becoming very confused by your intentions. Condescension towards those you feel superior to will certainly not keep things civil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feng_Li

That's a critical difference. The Constitution does not grant the right to free speech. It simply affirms that you already have it. Same with search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and keeping and bearing arms.

---

It doesn't even do that. The amendments tell the government what it's laws can't do, what it can't infringe. They have also been held to apply to state governments, but they're still regulating weapons. Does that tell you something about the extent of the right to bear arms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

Come on, let's stick to the subject. This is just picking a personal fight. Ilija complained about our bombing in His home state. We'll forgive you if you don't defend the Us honor and respond to the facts.

---

I got a question. Who appointed you hall monitor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urleebird

I got a question. Who appointed you hall monitor?

---

You have a strange way of responding to people that don't agree with you. Every response is a point of personal criticism, or taken as inflammatory or taken as some sort of personal affront.

I haven't seen anyone else reponding that way, except to you, and I was only trying to draw your attention to your statement that yu hoped to maintain civility. Go back and read the way you respond to people who disagree with you. Was that calculated to draw a civil response, or are you tying to bait people? If you found any condescension here, none was intended, nor was any criticism, until the personal attacks started.

If you don't want to stick to the subject but can only debate through personal attacks, then why pretend to want to maintain civility. Since you seem to have a lot to say, I would prefer to continue the discussion rather than start pointing fingers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

It doesn't even do that. The amendments tell the government what it's laws can't do, what it can't infringe. They have also been held to apply to state governments, but they're still regulating weapons. Does that tell you something about the extent of the right to bear arms?

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seem to be many instances of the state and federal governments assuming powers not granted to them. They are not granted the power, so far as I know, to ban the consumption of substances, for example. That's why banning alcohol required a constitutional amendment. No such similar amendment exists to allow the government to ban cocaine, but this has not stopped them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

You have a strange way of responding to people that don't agree with you. Every response is a point of personal criticism, or taken as inflammatory or taken as some sort of personal affront.

I haven't seen anyone else reponding that way, except to you, and I was only trying to draw your attention to your statement that yu hoped to maintain civility. Go back and read the way you respond to people who disagree with you. Was that calculated to draw a civil response, or are you tying to bait people? If you found any condescension here, none was intended, nor was any criticism, until the personal attacks started.

If you don't want to stick to the subject but can only debate through personal attacks, then why pretend to want to maintain civility. Since you seem to have a lot to say, I would prefer to continue the discussion rather than start pointing fingers.

---

OK... let me say this with sincerity. If I offended anyone with my usual rebuttal that was dressed with a smidge too much sarcasm, or you took it as a personal attack, I apologize to you. If I did personally attack you, my opinionated hard head was not aware of it because it wasn't delivered with a personal attack in mind. All my sharp comments were merely intended to respond to a comment made that I didn't agree with. I thought I was responding with equal verbage, not upping the ante. And just because I may think you are all wet, it doesn't mean that I would hold it against you. Maybe I need sensitivity training... :)

In the meantime, Mr Lerch, you have made it very clear from a multitude of condescending posts toward me or my beliefs in the past, that you despise people like me. That's ok, 'cause I don't much care for you, either. Even so, I will try not to point it out to you in the future.