D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional!

Abookamongstthemany

jeffbr wrote:

I NEVER said that they didn't have a right to assemble or protest. I said they were silly for walking up to the cops with their hands behind their backs. You must have completely missed my point.

You belittled their efforts in standing up for their rights and actually trying to use them as meaningless.

jeffbr

angelica wrote:

"Square brackets are used to enclose explanatory or missing […] material, especially in quoted text. For example, "I appreciate it [the honor], but I must refuse". Or, "the future of psionics [See definition] is in doubt"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracket

The intent of the square bracket is not to distort the original meaning to the editor's purpose. That you are defending your ethical mis-step and directing your hositility at others is disappointing.

Thank you for the grammar lesson. I'll keep this in mind next time. My point was simply to illustrate the danger of dismissing rights simply because we don't understand them or chose to exercise them. Your point would have some merit if he gave me the quote in private, and I twisted his words in public. As it is, his quote was quite visible for everyone to see. In no way can what I did be construed as trying to pull a fast one, unless the audience is exceedingly slow on the uptake.

jeffbr

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You belittled their efforts in standing up for their rights and actually trying to use them as meaningless.

I belittled that particular action, yes. I didn't belittle their right to protest.

floyd1975

jeffbr wrote:

Thank you for the grammar lesson. I'll keep this in mind next time. My point was simply to illustrate the danger of dismissing rights simply because we don't understand them or chose to exercise them. Your point would have some merit if he gave me the quote in private, and I twisted his words in public. As it is, his quote was quite visible for everyone to see. In no way can what I did be construed as trying to pull a fast one, unless the audience is exceedingly slow on the uptake.

You are getting berated on the same board that has a thread calling a clip montage from the Huffington blog as interesting.

This place amazes me.

angelica

jeffbr wrote:

Thank you for the grammar lesson. I'll keep this in mind next time. My point was simply to illustrate the danger of dismissing rights simply because we don't understand them or chose to exercise them. Your point would have some merit if he gave me the quote in private, and I twisted his words in public. As it is, his quote was quite visible for everyone to see. In no way can what I did be construed as trying to pull a fast one, unless the audience is exceedingly slow on the uptake.

Still justifying the unjustifiable, I see. Lack of ownership/responsibility is unbecoming of you.

jeffbr

angelica wrote:

Still justifying the unjustifiable, I see. Lack of ownership/responsibility is unbecoming of you.

You must have spent the morning stretching. Your reach is amazing.

Abookamongstthemany

jeffbr wrote:

I belittled that particular action, yes. I didn't belittle their right to protest.

They were using a right that they were unconstitutionally being denied. If it meant being arrested, so be it. I think it takes guts not to just turn around and give up. They saw their rights as more important than being arrested...if only we all cared so much.

Collin

jeffbr wrote:

I did belittle their right to protest.

:eek:

I'm shocked!

angelica

Collin wrote:

jeffbr wrote:

I did belittle their right to protest.

:eek:

I'm shocked!

LOL!!

jeffbr

Collin wrote:

:eek:

I'm shocked!

Touche!

floyd1975

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

They were using a right that they were unconstitutionally being denied. If it meant being arrested, so be it. I think it takes guts not to just turn around and give up. They saw their rights as more important than being arrested...if only we all cared so much.

Maybe that's how law abiding gun owners should have worked to get the DC ban overturned.

callen

getting little more than he deserves on the changing quote mistep. I understood what he was trying to say..express..even though probably poor way of doing it.....no on his positions on gun control....well that needs adjustment. (-:

Derrick

jeffbr wrote:

The point is, he doesn't care about a particular right. Why care about any of them?

WRONG...DEAD WRONG. The implication you are making is wrong.

I care about rights. I just feel this particular "right" is outdated and no longer relevant in today's society.

I care about your right to free speech. I care about your right to make idiot statements that clearly show your intellectual capacity. I care about your right to get a job and have fun with life and go to pearl jam concerts.

I care about your right to vote. I care about your right to vote and not have to worry your vote won't count because you voted against the brother of your governor. I care about your right to a fair trial...I would have cared about Cheney's right to a fair trial when HE SHOT SOMEONE IN THE FACE but he WALKED AWAY SCOT FREE.

But if you ask me, you INDIGNANT MISQUOTING SLIME, if I care about your right to bear arms... the answer is plain and simple, NO. No, you do not have the maturity nor the common sense to BE IN A POSITION to instantly end someone's life with such ease. You sir, are an idiot, and people like you are the prime reason the Second Amendment, as it stands now, should be rewritten and forgotten about.

Did I make myself clear? Did I make myself crystal clear?
Or are you going to misquote this one too?

Abookamongstthemany

zstillings wrote:

Maybe that's how law abiding gun owners should have worked to get the DC ban overturned.

Peacefully assemble and protest? I like doing that myself. It's not breaking any laws.

floyd1975

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Peacefully assemble and protest? I like doing that myself. It's not breaking any laws.

Or willfully breaking a law to prove its absurdity.

onelongsong

looks like i missed a lot. i guess the bottom line is that different people value different rights. gun owners value that right. you may value another. the only way to change the first 10 ammendments is with revolution. the founding fathers protected the constitution with the second ammendment because the people will not give up those first 10 ammendments. thus; they have the means to protect those rights. hitler had to disarm germany in order to become a dictator. if you look back in history you'll find every dictator had to.

so we can debate the issue until we're blue but the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed without a fight. if the government doesn't protect it; there's at least 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 citizens ready to protect it.

jeffbr

Derrick wrote:

WRONG...DEAD WRONG. The implication you are making is wrong.

I care about rights. I just feel this particular "right" is outdated and no longer relevant in today's society.

At least you recognize it as a right. I just get annoyed when people start asking for my rights to be taken away from me.

Derrick wrote:

I care about your right to free speech. I care about your right to make idiot statements that clearly show your intellectual capacity. I care about your right to get a job and have fun with life and go to pearl jam concerts.

I care about your right to vote. I care about your right to vote and not have to worry your vote won't count because you voted against the brother of your governor. I care about your right to a fair trial...I would have cared about Cheney's right to a fair trial when HE SHOT SOMEONE IN THE FACE but he WALKED AWAY SCOT FREE.

But if you ask me, you INDIGNANT MISQUOTING SLIME, if I care about your right to bear arms... the answer is plain and simple, NO. No, you do not have the maturity nor the common sense to BE IN A POSITION to instantly end someone's life with such ease. You sir, are an idiot, and people like you are the prime reason the Second Amendment, as it stands now, should be rewritten and forgotten about.

Did I make myself clear? Did I make myself crystal clear?
Or are you going to misquote this one too?

I thank you for caring about the rest of my rights. You've shown yourself to be quite a caring and compassionate young man.

onelongsong

jeffbr wrote:

At least you recognize it as a right. I just get annoyed when people start asking for my rights to be taken away from me.

I thank you for caring about the rest of my rights. You've shown yourself to be quite a caring and compassionate young man.

you handled that great. i think that post was way out of line and clearly against the rules of the board. it was the perfect argument for repealling the first ammendment.

Derrick

jeffbr wrote:

At least you recognize it as a right. I just get annoyed when people start asking for my rights to be taken away from me.

I think it is an absurd right. I get annoyed when people misquote me and imply things I've clearly not stated.

I thank you for caring about the rest of my rights. You've shown yourself to be quite a caring and compassionate young man.

I really don't care for you as a person, based on the opinions you've expressed here. I have zero compassion for you. I don't even know you. That said, I do care about your rights as a citizen. I hope you can make that distinction.

Collin

onelongsong wrote:

hitler had to disarm germany in order to become a dictator.

Got any proof whatsoever for this?