U.S.is exporting crime and terror to Canada

[slim 1,530]

Still you Slim. Fact remains that you misused a horrible phrase, yet still dont' realize that it changes your purported position on the subject.

You don't have to agree with me either.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

I didn't say so. Someone else did. Oh, and so did the evidence.

You guys can continue to ignore that in favor of your own opinions. I really could care less. Amuse yourselves!

Who? If you aren't actively soliciting opinions, who are you consulting on the matter?The evidence consists of what exactly?

Edited August 9, 2011 by IR5FORMUMSIE

[The_Dude 1,142]

You don't have to agree with me either.

Doesn't matter if I agree or not, the language you used to make your point would indicate a position contrary to that which you were trying to make. I couldn't care less if you agree with me or not, it's still how language works. (See how you use the phrase now?). Maybe take some learning annex courses to clear such an easy misconception up. This does however further my point that you have a fundamental reading comprehension problem.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

The Founding Fathers (ironically, talking about literal reading of the Constitution...) should have plainly written it... every citizen bears the right to possess arms as needed for the defense of the nation against itself when tyranny, if it arises, arrives.

Ironically they do not write this in... but I will defer to the Supreme Court in their interpretation, thankfully so, as this makes firearm ownership by individuals a right in the US. Stipulating that these individuals be of sound mind wouldn't necessarily contradict this right, as not having a sound mind is a peril to the common good and public safety when a firearm is involved.

We commonly see the 'the gun isn't bad'- its the people that are bad argument to defend gun ownership. Well... they will have to make up their mind. If they condemn people for carrying out acts of violence using guns, they have to stand prepared to be a little more proactive about following the wording of the Constitution in ensuring the welfare of the people of the United States by limiting the firearms violent people can access. That is the only point of contention here. I wonder why they defend a lunatic's right to access a firearm, when the results many a times of these instances are painfully obvious.

It may boil down to innate paranoia, as displayed by common threads of distrust of the very government entrusted over the generations to defend those Constitutional freedoms enshrined in the document they want to take literally, yet without any realistic context.

Yous soundz like an Activisionist jurge.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Is that what you would tell the Supreme Court too? You care less what their (apparently) incorrect assumptions about the legal and judicial framework of what the Constitution establishes as pretty much our entire system of governance and its tributary precepts?

Free Man, Free Mason, Free Willy...

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Indeed, slim. The 2nd Amendment isn't what is being debated. Its allowing insane, violent individuals the same access to weapons obviously used for purposes far beyond deterring crime.

Don't mess with Texas.

Unsound mental state is not too hard to fathom.

Then you've been to Texas.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

It's interesting that their decisions do become the byproduct of that debate and the foundation for future decisions.

Putting the ####### in Obiter Dicta.

Edited August 9, 2011 by IR5FORMUMSIE

[Zero Sum 305]

Don't mess with Texas.

Then you've been to Texas.

For the weekend...

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

For the weekend...

[slim 1,530]

Who? If you aren't actively soliciting opinions, who are you consulting on the matter?The evidence consists of what exactly?

You can read up through the thread and you'll see. You can also take into account the fact that scotus' rulings are along the same lines as my beliefs.

Doesn't matter if I agree or not, the language you used to make your point would indicate a position contrary to that which you were trying to make. I couldn't care less if you agree with me or not, it's still how language works. (See how you use the phrase now?). Maybe take some learning annex courses to clear such an easy misconception up. This does however further my point that you have a fundamental reading comprehension problem.

So, you don't understand what I post and I'm the one with comprehension problems?

Putting the ####### in Obiter Dicta.

Not the first place I've stuck it. Probably won't be the last.

[The_Dude 1,142]

So, you don't understand what I post and I'm the one with comprehension problems?

Right slim, so you misuse a phrase which would indicate a point of view contrary to your actual point, and I'm the one who has a comprehension problem? Put your football helmet back on slim.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

You can read up through the thread and you'll see. You can also take into account the fact that scotus' rulings are along the same lines as my beliefs.

Not the first place I've stuck it. Probably won't be the last.

Strict constructionalist judges like Scalia MIGHT agree with you on some points but you were the one who discounted their opinions. As for the placement of little Slim, the Constitution will never be the same.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Strict constructionalist judges like Scalia MIGHT agree with you on some points but you were the one who discounted their opinions. As for the placement of little Slim, the Constitution will never be the same.

I love the irony of Slim's 2nd amendment beliefs. He is against activist jurists, except now when the heller decision strips the 2nd amendment of it's initial intent and context.

[slim 1,530]

Right slim, so you misuse a phrase which would indicate a point of view contrary to your actual point, and I'm the one who has a comprehension problem? Put your football helmet back on slim.

You're going to get to a real post by the end of the day I just know it!

Strict constructionalist judges like Scalia MIGHT agree with you on some points but you were the one who discounted their opinions. As for the placement of little Slim, the Constitution will never be the same.

I didn't discount their opinion I said I don't fully agree with it.

The constitution doesn't specify where I can and can't put it.

I love the irony of Slim's 2nd amendment beliefs. He is against activist jurists, except now when the heller decision strips the 2nd amendment of it's initial intent and context.

Please explain how heller stripped the 2A of it's initial intent and context.

Be careful, you're on that slippery slope where you're about to say keeping arms is a deterrent to tyranny.

[The_Dude 1,142]

You're going to get to a real post by the end of the day I just know it!

Should I use smaller words and shorter sentences? maybe then they will be real posts in your opinion.

Please explain how heller stripped the 2A of it's initial intent and context.

Be careful, you're on that slippery slope where you're about to say keeping arms is a deterrent to tyranny.

I've said it before, I'm not going to repeat myself. However, if you had actually read the Heller decision, and understood it, you would know. I suspect you havent' and you don't.

Edited August 10, 2011 by Rob & Mel