Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And they will be, if that ever happens. The second amendment is not in any danger whatsoever. That's why the ACLU isn't defending it.MachZer0 said:Exactly, and we the people need to be armed when the militia needs to be assembled
This is just (another) lie. The ACLU receives no government funding, you have not shown they do, and cannot show they do.MachZer0 said:Oh yes they do. I know folks don't like it, but it remains true, nonetheless
I'm not insulting you, Mach. Your false accusations are another story. If you don't wish to be ridiculed, stop making ridiculous statements.MachZer0 said:You seem to be hung up on two things, the length of the thread and insulting me.
My side of the aisle? LOL. What side would that be? The side of logic, reason and truth?Isn't tolerance something preached from your side of the aisle?
MachZer0 said:Schools are inanimate objects. They have no right
Banning guns would infringe on the right to bear arms. Since guns haven't been banned, no infringement has taken place. People still have the right to bear arms, as can be demonstated at any gun show. Regulating sawed off shotguns does not infringe on one's right to bear arms. If sawed off shotguns were equivalent to "all arms," then you'd have a case. They aren't. Other guns are legal and available. You lose the argument.MachZer0 said:Looks like they misinterpreted it to me. What part od shall not be infringed do some folks not understand?
Can you point to some cases they've filed in defense of the 2nd amendmentElectric Skeptic said:And they will be, if that ever happens. The second amendment is not in any danger whatsoever. That's why the ACLU isn't defending it.
Calling it a lie doesn't change the fact that I provided evidence otherwise. They receive federal funds to keep their agenda moving forwardThis is just (another) lie. The ACLU receives no government funding, you have not shown they do, and cannot show they do.
An obvious selfcontradictionnvxplorer said:I'm not insulting you, Mach. ... If you don't wish to be ridiculed, stop making ridiculous statements.
Infringe doesn't mean ban, it means encroach. Another ploy I've seen from the left is to redefine words in order to fit the argument. Thank goodness we have dictionariesnvxplorer said:Banning guns would infringe on the right to bear arms. Since guns haven't been banned, no infringement has taken place. People still have the right to bear arms, as can be demonstated at any gun show. Regulating sawed off shotguns does infringe on one's right to bear arms. If sawed off shotguns were equivalent to "all arms," then you'd have a case. They aren't. Other guns are legal and available. You lose the argument.
The moral of the story is, as demonstrated, that many on the left, in this case the ACLU, will support whatever cause or group that advances its agenda. This time, it is the ACLU coming out in support of Fred Phelps who is preaching an anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-America message. That seems to fit quite well with the ACLUBrimshack said:The moral of the story:
1) It is inappropriate to call someone (especially a conservative) on inappropriate behavior.
2) Sweeping generalizations about groups of people is however quite okay, at least if they are lefties.
3) If challenged for this behavior (number 2), then refer back to number 1.
To an extent what you say here has some truth.MachZer0 said:The moral of the story is, as demonstrated, that many on the left, in this case the ACLU, will support whatever cause or group that advances its agenda. This time, it is the ACLU coming out in support of Fred Phelps who is preaching an anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-America message. That seems to fit quite well with the ACLU
"Infringe" obviously does not mean, in a Constitutional context, an outright ban or a bare encroachment. By your liberal (pun intended) definition, preventing private ownership of atomic weapons and Abrams tanks is infringement.MachZer0 said:Infringe doesn't mean ban, it means encroach. Another ploy I've seen from the left is to redefine words in order to fit the argument. Thank goodness we have dictionaries
How I wish that were true. Communism seeks two things, early on. To attack religion and the family and to confiscate guns. The ACLU supports both of those in its law suits, or lack thereofJoyJuice said:To an extent what you say here has some truth.
The ACLU will support what ever cause that advances it's agenda. The agenda spoken here by "it's" is the ACLU's, which is upholding the constitution and it's freedoms, protections, and rights provided for its citenzy.
MachZer0 said:The moral of the story is, as demonstrated, that many on the left, in this case the ACLU, will support whatever cause or group that advances its agenda. This time, it is the ACLU coming out in support of Fred Phelps who is preaching an anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-America message. That seems to fit quite well with the ACLU
MachZer0 said:How I wish that were true. Communism seeks two things, early on. To attack religion and the family and to confiscate guns. The ACLU supports both of those in its law suits, or lack thereof
Would you care to address the topic here?Brimshack said:"Many" is a new qualifier for you, but I don't mind the shifting goalposts. What does strike me as odd here is that once again you make it clear that the sole point of your argument is an attack on the character of the ACLU. That your attack rests on falsehoods is neither suprising nor particularly relevant. The fact of the matter is that you yourself have made a number of shameless arguments in support of your own agenda during the course of this very thread. You could have simply argued against their stance, but you didn't. Instead you have fielded rediculous conspiracy theories, playground semantics, and a barrage of baseless accusations. That you would now talk about how the ACLU will do anything to advance its own agenda is irony of the tallest order. What you see in them is little other than a mirror of your own politics.
But of course, it is not against the rules to attack a group. It is against the rules to attack a person. So, you complain that people are attacking you personally. A further irony here is that your own conduct in this thread is demonstrably reprehensible. And the statements addressing this fact are no more personal attacks than those of any other person criticizing the behaviour of another. People here aren't trying to make you feel bad, they are trying desparately to get you to make an honest effort.
MachZer0 said:Communism seeks two things, early on. To attack religion and the family and to confiscate guns.
I never said infringe means to ban. I said if guns were banned, that would infringe on the right to bear arms.MachZer0 said:Infringe doesn't mean ban, it means encroach. Another ploy I've seen from the left is to redefine words in order to fit the argument. Thank goodness we have dictionaries
Those were two statements, which would make them contradictory, not self-contradictory.MachZer0 said:An obvious selfcontradiction
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?