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. This is what interests me 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. 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. 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 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.
Dag nabit, the quote jumbled up your carriage returns. I will try my best to respond to each point.
Yes, I gave you a minimal answer. The information you are looking for is on fbi.gov, I have point it out several times in the past. I assumed you were being coy. But to that end, using that set of information, unfortunately for you argument isn't a good one to hold on to. Since the 1986 weapon ban, there has been a dramatic decrease in gun related crime. So you may want to avoid using that particular piece of information in this argument. Nevertheless, I wasn't intending to be insulting.
Your attitude is show me. Which is quite convenient. You make a claim, but then "we" have to provide evidence to counter. How about you state a claim that is supported by your own evidence to the fact?
No, I was not implying you were a Bible thumper. However I was illustrating the extreme nature you are taking with gun rights, as with most Bible thumpers, they feel everyone should have a gun, even their 3 year old daughters on their way to Sunday school. Again I wasn't implying you were a Bible thumper, I was merely putting you in the same circle. If I have misunderstood your position, I apologize, you may need to explain again, sorry.
Yes, I think you are wrong, our government is not tyrannical. You've made the claim, I'd like you to prove your premise.
Who here voted for drones, Homeland Security, et al? I didn't, I voted for Gore in 2000. I vote for representatives who vote in favor of many of my principles. And I vote for them knowing that not all my principles will be voted on, as I understand I live in a democracy with 340,000,000 other individuals.
"
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." -- What does that have to do with gun rights? But since you brought it up, I agree, our dysfunctional government needs to do more about corporate welfare, I think it's a disgrace that money [and religion] are in politics.
No, you misunderstood my use of my last sentence. And I likely misused the word swath in this case. My comments to you have nothing to do with the other comments made in this thread. In fact, I haven't read much else since we've began our discussion. Swath - meaning a broad strip or area of something; I meant to use it to say, "broad generalization of thought". Relax cb, I'm not trying to attack you.