Drew, thanks for the Bible lesson. But it doesn't change the fact that you initiated this thread and personally attacked Jim, Dave K., and myself.
You seem to have missed my point entirely, even though I took the time to put your new tag line at the very start of my post, and even put it in bold type. Here it is again:
"Personal attacks only reflect the inadequacy of the argument, and the character of the attacker."I don't get it. Are you saying that it was OK for you to personally attack me and Dave K. simply because we don't use our full names here? Or are you saying that it is OK to personally attack Jim just because you actually do know his last name, and even have hunted with him? The evidence would suggest that the knowledge of Jim's last name and the absence of knowledge of my last name made absolutely no difference to you when you singled us out for your personal attack. Incidentally, this thread was entirely off topic, having nothing to do with coming here as an escape from the madness of life to simply discuss doubleguns.
Of course I don't know the content of personal e-mails or messages between you and Jim or Francis (RWTF). But from the tone and tenor of Jim's reply within this thread, it sure doesn't sound as if he feels your prior personal contacts justify your personal attack on him. I don't think so either.
I can handle your personal attack, and I'm sure Jim can too. We've both taken far worse in stride. I just find it both amusing and hypocritical when you yourself have done exactly what your tag line is so critical of.
It is similarly amusing to see Dr. Wonko's comments suggesting a prohibition on political discussion when he posted this on the same day in another thread:
Unfortunately the actual motivation is nothing more than getting re-elected. Generally the most effective way is pandering to that misguided/misinformed/and usually semi-stupid base. People proper mean nothing since that is a malleable mass. Works in a general election as well as we now see with the incredibly stupid Trump base, responding to arm waving and high volume yapping about unrealizable generalities and totally devoid of any realistic connection to the current reality that the rest of the world seems to be experiencing.
have another day
Dr.WtS
His comments on the NRA promoting "the nutcase-with-a-gun image in so effective a way that I have to wonder who they really represent." was interesting too. Perhaps he can show us where they do such a thing. But I doubt it. We call them FUDDS's and Libtards because we are polite.
His comments also demonstrate the fallacy of Larry Brown's big tent. But Larry has to somehow justify his own support for the extreme anti-2nd Amendment candidate Hillary Clinton. In the "Down to One" thread this morning Larry said, "I don't know any liberal gun owners that are anti-2nd amendment." Larry Clown claims to IGNORE my posts. He obviously is IGNORING those made by his older brother King as well:
The Second is what originalists and others want it to be, the former seeing any variances as infringements. So it goes and ever will be. It is not inviolable and inalienable as some members want all of us to believe.
The roots I'm comfortable with are the radical---"to get to the root of"---and that's Jesus's teaching. The shame is how far the Christian community has drifted from it. We act irrationally from fear when the Christian message is to fear not, even death itself.We call ourselves Christian nations and stockpile ammunition, need concealed carry to protect ourselves and a regulated militia without regulations to protect us from our own governments, abandoning Jesus's teaching to defend it.
Democracies make choices. Americans accept mass murder to defend an individual right to bear arms in the name of personal freedom.
Ed, historically the individual "right" to bear arms is relatively new. I believe John Ashcroft in 2002 became the first federal attorney-general to proclaim that individuals should be able to own guns. The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned all mainstream legal and historical scholarship by ruling that there is an individual right to own firearms although with some limits. Obama said it again last week.
I believe that during the previous 218 years the Second meant what it said: firearms shall be held by "the People"---a collective and not individual right---insofar they are in the service of "a well-regulated militia." Was an individual right even mentioned at the Constitutional Convention or in the House when it ratified the Amendment or when debated in state legislatures? I don't think so.
Larry says he was a former CIA Intelligence Analyst. Given what he shows us here, it's a wonder that Putin isn't living in the White House.
A sure way to shoot yourself in the kneecaps is to permit Trojan Horse anti-gun trolls like King into your tent to undermine your rights.
