3 ms·
And continuing with the insults helps, how exactly? Seems your issue is with the "liberal" media and not the people they are quoting. But I disagree, it is dis
by talmand 13y ago
And continuing with the insults helps, how exactly?
Seems your issue is with the "liberal" media and not the people they are quoting. But I disagree, it is dishonest for you to claim your right to not quote the entire statement of the amendment due to laziness but require the opposing viewpoint to quote in full to prevent being labeled dishonest. In fact, I'm not even sure what your statement about the media and quoting the entire amendment have to do with each other.
I'm not sure how the Supreme Court is involved in a statement of how it is written in the Constitution of what the amendment process is. Have there been cases before the Supreme Court involving changing the amendment process? I'm not aware of any so I'm curious.
If you are in favor of creating laws to mess with a group of people you don't like, then that's just a sad fact. Because you are legitimizing the very idea of writing laws to punish people you don't like. If that's the case, then one day some group that doesn't like you will do the same and you'll have no credibility to complain about it.
- pstuart 13y agoYou're calling me dishonest for quickly mentioning a critical omission of a subject (the "well-regulated militia" bit) without quoting the full amendment? That is an insult in itself. <insert my muttered response to you here> I wasn't even taking a stand on the issue of "gun rights", simply that it's more than what its proponents make it out to be. The bit about messing with people is because any time I deal with pro-gun people they are almost invariably sanctimonious assholes who are unwilling to talk about the issue as a whole. People like that don't want dialog, so insults will have to do. No, the less laws the better. Let's just make sure they're good ones.