The road to hell is paved with good intentions. There have been an awful lot of very bad things inflicted on people by those who meant well and figured that doing something and meaning well was enough.
The “10 year use or lose” part of VA educational benefits has been in force far longer than 98 or 99. It’s unfortunate that you weren’t aware of that It was a part of your enlistment contract.
Cite please? Looks like I’m not the only one who’s guilty of trolling.
(underlining mine --DG)
So, because some people see a different solution than you, they’re not really concerned about child deaths? Their motives are evil while yours are pure? And who are 'they?" Those evil (gag! choke!) Liberals? Of course! And all decent people know that we liberals don’t really care about children. We have no interest in doing what’s right. We only care about taking guns away from the righteous, perhaps so we can practice our nefarious deeds in relative security.
Before getting on the boards with you I thought argument was fun. Mental exercise. Believe it or not, I’ve learned something from almost every thread I’ve participated in. I’ve even begun to see from your reasoned arguments that you make some good points. But you lose me when you resort to personal rancor. I know that I don’t know everything, but like most people I have opinions on everything. The argument is just a starting place, not the destination. I made some statements early on that needed softening, if not changing. But you won’t even let me back off (if only a little) gracefully. Okay, you have the last word. That is you will have when you answer this.
First of all, I want to admit to something: I have been DELIBERATELY scrolling past any and all posts that were longer than 5000 words…geez, people!!
Here’s something that I have never seen proposed by either side on this issue, pro- or anti-gun control (and if I have missed it somewhere, I’d love to see a cite):
Since it seems that there is so much confusion over what the 2nd Amendment means (militia? well-regulated?) why not put forth a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to the Constitution? Then the voters of this country could choose what meaning they want to put on the 2nd Amendment…
Whaddya think?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by DesertGeezer *
But, of course, as soon as it turns out that there are ‘good points’ against every single one of the laws you support, you turn tail and run. Once we’d dealt with ‘cop-killers’, ‘assault weapons’, the ‘assault triggers’ ad, ‘fingerprint resistant handles’, and a host of other myths, you decided to use the fact that we responded to the ‘personal rancor’ of your posts in kind as an excuse to bail out of the discussion. If you were really so opposed to ‘personal rancor’, you might want to look at your responses about 30-day waiting periods, target shooting, and several other places where it was most definately present.
And if you enjoy mental excercise, using actual facts to argue with people instead of spending 2 paragraphs going on about ad copy might be a good place to start.
If you were backing off, why did you (in the big post my post was a response to) continue to insult and belittle the opposing side? You continued to spout blatant disinformation about ‘assault weapons’ despite having had the correct information presented to you repeatedly, impugned the honesty of people who argued against the bans (your ‘don’t try to tell me’ comment, for example), implied that anyone engaging in target shooting with the popular AR-15 was just preparing to kill someone, and did a bunch of other obnoxious things I don’t feel like categorizing right now.
It’s a common pattern; someone comes in and arrogantly insults everyone who supports gun rights, stops just shy of saying that they’re preparing to shoot up a classroom, keeps accusing their opponents of lying and being criminals, and then uses the response to their rudeness as an excuse to turn tail when they’re hit with the weight of the cold, hard facts.
Why did you even bother to post direct questions to me if you’re not going to participate in the thread anymore?
Compare the accident statistics from the CDC and the crime statistics from the DOJ. Other people have compiled them, but the only people who are going to put the comparison online will simply be dismissed as ‘biased’ even though no one can point out holes
When they advocate solutions that do nothing to prevent child deaths while opposing solutions proven to reduce child deaths, then the only reasonable conclusion one can come to is that they actually don’t care about child deaths.
I haven’t as much as used the word “liberals” in this thread before now, so you might want to take your own words about knees jerking to heart. And, like I said above, anyone who proposes solutions that do nothing for or even increase child deaths while opposing solutions that have been shown to reduce child deaths simply doesn’t really care about child deaths, no matter how much they may cry otherwise.
People who propose ‘solutions’ that either have nothing to do with the problem they allegedly solve
Hey, why not put all our rights up to popular review? It’ll be fun!
Yeah, I want a bunch of rabid soccer moms determining what my rights are.
** SenorBeef**
Well, see…that’s what voting is all about.
** SenorBeef**
Well, see…that’s what voting is all about.
Riboflavin, you are right. Given what I’ve written before you may believe that this post is insincere, but I have been wrong, and I’m sorry. I realize that I’ve been arguing emotionally (just as I accused you and others of doing), and I apologize to you and everybody else in this thread. I have never had a shortage of opinions, nor been shy about “sharing” those opinions with others. I always think I’m right, but I know that I’m not always. It is very hard, when invested so deeply in an argument, to abandon it, even when it is more and more obviously a mistake (especially then).
I can’t promise I’ll never get carried away again, but I will try to argue more from brains than from guts.
And, in case anyone thought of it (because it just this moment occurred to me), it’s now April second. This isn’t a joke. I
mean it.
Not at all. Our rights are not up for vote, to be determined by the whim of the majority.
See: The US Constitution © 1787.
SenorBeef
Good thing that you didn’t have control when the Civil Rights Act was put into place, or women getting the right to vote, etc.
These WERE rights that were put up for vote, determined by the “whim” of the majority.
And if a Constitutional Amendment were proposed (as allowed by said Constitution), we WOULD be voting on our right to bear arms. Again, as allowed by the Constitution. Personally, I feel the phrase …shall not be abridgedwill carry the day, but at least we might be able to clear the air about what was meant by “militia”.
**
There’s a lot less danger in giving people more freedom and rights than deciding to take away someone’s rights, which is what this would be.
The Constitutional Amendment method would be a hell of a lot more honest than just writing legislation that ignores the Constitution. It might do good, it might not. But it’s our rulers, who have an interest in disarming us, who are making the votes.
SenorBeef
Ummm…from the very beginning, I WAS writing about a Constitutional Amendment, not just “writing legislation”. Please re-read my post. And what do you mean by “our rulers” “who are making the votes”? What rulers? Our senators, etc? Making the votes? Do you mean that our legislators would be the only ones voting on any proposed Constitutional Amendment? If so, that’s not the case; any such propose amendment must be passed by a certain number of states (I forget exactly how many, sorry), where the amendment is voted on by the people…like you and I.
Ah, sorry, I didn’t realize you were talking about a Constitutional amendment at first.
Also, there’s no point in the amendment process where it’s directly voted on by the people, I’m pretty sure.
Constitutional Amendments are voted on by Congress. They must then be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. The people, of course, vote for their state legislators as well as Senitors and Representatives, but that’s as close to a plebiscite as it gets.
Constitutional Amendments are voted on by Congress. They must then be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. The people, of course, vote for their state legislators as well as Senators and Representatives, but that’s as close to a plebiscite as it gets.
Apology accepted, for what it’s worth in what appears to be a dead thread.