cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I merely rewrote my interpretation of your thoughts. If I was off base in my assumptions maybe your approach could have been more tame? I'm not usually one to attack people like you, cb. You'll know when I'm doing that. - That being said, I interpreted your position as "extreme" as you were the one to denote that intention. -- I wasn't attempting to be snooty, I apologize for coming off that way. Let's let that one go, and move forward.
Is it corrupt? Or is it rather dysfunctional and requires attention? I'd argue dysfunctional. Have you seen or lived under a corrupt government? I have for a couple years, I am far better off here in the United States, even with all its dysfunction.
I believe due process works most of the time. But again, there are times the judicial system is dysfunctional.
So you're taking to "slippery slope" argument? My position is close to yours on this. I believe certain politicians and political hack Judges are taking a far extreme approach to gun rights. And I don't agree with them, which is namely why I won't be voting for Hillary this election, I'll write in Bernie. -- That point aside, I do feel there is a common sense approach to gun legislation and oversight, and it certainly ain't, "fuck it, let everyone have a gun, at least i know im a better shot".
I hope I've squared up as best I could in the few minutes I have at the moment. Be back soon.
I'll reply by inspecting your previous post.
No reference ... the minimal answer. Uninformative and thus a n overt display of disrespect. Without going back and seeing where the reference was, you saw to it that I could not judge the source. In educated circles that is one of the big insults.
I never dismissed the possible other interpretations. My attitude is "show me". That requires a reasoned response and preferably citations for the supporting material.As UB pointed out, the 2nd Amendment was not meant specifically for defending against a tyrannical government. Of which by the way, you will have a very hard time convincing me we are so ruled. By simply dismissing all other interpretations,
This is what interests meyou've left this discussion about why the 2nd Amendment exists
Right there ... demonizing my argument, equating me to a Bible Belt Republican. With others gathering for a good heel-nip, I recognize this as pouring gravy on my argument, exhorting them to keep nipping.and why we should or should not all have a "God given" right to bear arms
The adjectives are rhetorical tools to make my argument ridiculous. The real question is: am I wrong? If so, a counterdatum would be more welcome and classier than a denigrating rephrase. These points are not subtle minutiae; they are the basis of decent discourse.Straying from the point you've pivoted your focus more on establishing our current form of government is tyrannical and that one Associate Justice is working tirelessly day and night to make that happen, under our blind innocent noses.
I understand that. I do not understand your belief that our votes matter at all. Who here voted to drone the Middle East? to blacklist Snowden? to extend the Homeland Security Act? to hyperempower bankers and insurers?Until majority opinion actually has real political traction on such topics, I am unwilling to take your word that the system works. Show me that the rule of law is still real enough to make the corporations subject to it, and the Executive Branch more than a figurehead. I see no difference between Obama and his predecessor in their impact upon my and my family's life.I reject that notion completely.
I see your saying "like my use of swath? lol" as a nod to the folks who ganged up on my for my word choices. There is no way that was not a plain, large-scale gesture of contempt.I would have also liked to stay on topic. I'd like to discuss more, but I've got meetings to attend today. I may stop in and try to debate a little, but it may resort to one liners or swaths of thought. Like my use of swath? lol