That's an easy request to answer: no.

A bit more detail: the Forum isn't your personal soapbox, where you get to direct the conversation, and can expect management -- that would be me -- to make sure that your views aren't disagreed with.

I'm not sure what it is you think you're doing here, but you've got three choices:

1. Chill.

2. Go away.

3. Be sent away.

If it's the latter, and you go off and gibber about how you've been kicked off the Forum for disagreeing with me, or others, you won't be the first person to tell that sort of lie, and probably not the last. I simply don't care.

Got it?

You've gotten private admonishments before; here's your first public one from me. There won't be many more. Trust me.

Looks at the strange color of Andrews tag.... Chuckles.


On another note, and more to the point, legislating to the least common denominator (or making superfluous legislation, for that matter) isn't always the right thing to do. No matter how you choose to rationalize or justify it.

No, the rights expressed in the first 10 Amendments are either clear documentation and explicit protection of pre-existing inalienable rights (not given by man nor intended to be rationed thereby) or LIMITS on the state intended to protect the people and their rights.

The Declaration of Independence is very clear. It states that all men have unalienable rights that are bestowed by the creator. Those rights are not limited, so says the Declaration, to just life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is crystal clear that government does not create nor bestow those rights. The role of government is to ensure and protect those rights. The concept that government can create and abolish rights is "putting the cart before the horse", to put it mildly.

Through clever jurisprudence the Constitution, and the intent of the Declaration, has been compromised and worse. One of the most eggregious, in my opinion, is the infringement on the right to carry firearms and other weapons to be used to protect self and home.

In short, government does not create or distribute basic rights. To me, a person who would believe that our government has that power, is courting treason.

The Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms wasn't created by the 2nd Amendment. It existed prior to the ratification of the 2nd, and would continue to exist were the 2nd repealed.

Or, to quote the Supreme Court of Texas:

Thank you for this. I am also a young adult with my carry permit and have NEVER carried while under the influence. This is because of my instilled upon values and ability to determine right for wrong.

Uncle Harley- I'm also surprised that your links relating violence with college students were allowed to slide (unless I missed a post in there).

In your article http://www.bridgelandnews.org/7507 They chalked that shooting up to gang related activity, not a college kid who just got done at a bar on campus, or a college kid period, killing that relationship. Also the Halloween party was not campus related besides the fact of it's proximity to the University of Minnesota, and hosted by a fraternity at a private event center, but by that token you can also link it to anything else that's conveniently close I guess.

Also the soccer shooting you referenced, happened in Lima Peru, with no mention that it was carried out by college students. Just that they were college students who happened to get shot, so that obviously means that the shooters must have been students! I'm sure I could dig up articles from all sorts of countries referencing students of all ages being shot by criminals of all calibers, but the fact that the victims are students means that it is them perpertrating the violence, and should be branded as irresponsilble right?

It's all about right and wrong, and for those who have issues with that anyways, does adding additional text to the law or big fancy signs stop them? Personally, the worry on my mind when sitting in a bar in dinkytown while sipping my diet pepsi with my friends doesn't rest with irresponsible college town permit holders. But hey, that could be my youth, raging hormones, and immaturity interpreting the MN BCA's Permit to Carry reports.

Well played, young sir.

Woo! I'm glad you took my advice on pointless wordiness to heart. You're really winning hearts and minds now.


This word, "argumentation" -- I do not think it means what you think it means. "Pointless" is subjective, and, frankly, not your call to make. Just because you don't like my point does not mean I don't have one. So, sorry, fella. Suffer.


Wow, we're just making the rounds of logical fallacies, aren't we?

I've checked with the department of redundancy department, and, while, yes, ad hominem attacks are indeed personal, I haven't made any. The word you are looking for is ad argumentum. I'm not calling you ugly or stupid -- you seem smart, and may very well be Tom Cruise's better-looking younger brother, for all I know -- I'm calling you helplessly, hopelessly, totally wrong.



Nah. It furthers the debate just fine. You're wrong, and here's why is kind of what debate is about. Any scorn, ridicule, obloquy (good one -- I had to look that one up) and contempt you receive here is purely a result of your wrong-headed ideas.


Where "nonsense" = "disagreeing with Harley," sure. Not otherwise.


You sure are judgmental for a new guy. If you read a bit, you'll find that disagreement and debate are positively encouraged here. Ask our token liberals, Dick Unger or Jeremiah, whether that's true or not.

We are hardly a clique, but we do tend to agree, for the most part, on gun rights. When you attack those, don't be surprised that nearly everyone on a gun rights board disagree with you. You'd find much the same thing if you posted horsemeat recipes on an equestrian forum.


Once I parsed that sentence, removing the sixty or seventy double negatives, I concluded you are calling me a liar. That's a personal attack, and I'm going to tell you to a) support that allegation with evidence, b) retract it, or c) lose your posting privileges.


You don't get it, do you? We like ideals here. The top three are "Truth, Justice and the American Way." Just ask the owner.



Hmmm....

demagoguery
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times

Let's see, #1 is again an accusation of lying. We talked about that already.

Number 2 accuses me of being ancient. I'll have you know I am considerably younger, not to mention much better looking, than our host, Joel. You want to call someone old, call him old. If you're accusing me of being a leader championing the cause of the common people, well, then, mea maxima cupla.


I have nothing against you, Harley. It's your illogical, unworkable, rights-sapping, ill-considered policy ideas that I can't stand. I've made that clear.



That's a fair request. Granted, I am the management, but in this case, I'll defer to The Man. If Joel would like me to stop calling bad ideas bad ideas in this thread, I will.

I promise to only respond to your wrong or bad ideas. Stop posting those, and I won't say a word.

Diet Pepsi? Diet Pepsi?

Now I have to subject you to scorn, ridicule, obloquy and contempt. How do you drink that stuff?

For some reason if I drink normal cola I'll have a Coca-Cola, but with diet cola, diet pepsi tastes....less gritty to me? I'm odd like that.

Good Call.

That IS odd...

Uncle Harley,
If you look back, you'll see that I'm not necessarily the voice of the clique hereabouts. Andrew and I have occasionally had our disagreements as a matter of fact.

That said, you need to tone it down a few notches and stop playing the victim when your posts and style open you to vigorous reasoned disagreement. You came in here with a very strong introduction and have proceeded to wave your opinions about and exercise your thesaurus.

When Andrew vigorously refuted your allegations and debated you with fervor and skill, you sought to gag him and made several derogatory remarks regarding his character.



I think you're projecting. If you replace references to Mr. Rothman with your own name, you might start to see how you come across.

I'll emphasize Andrew's prior request:

I don't think so. I won't drink diet Coke or regular Pepsi, but regular Coke and diet Pepsi are both fine.

Token liberal reporting. I'm out of pocket for a few days, and look what sorts of fun creeps up.

Sure- we disagree all the time. There's a few posters hereabouts who make me utter obscenities at my laptop on a fairly regular basis, in fact. The key is this- we disagree without being disagreeable. Difference of opinion? Great. STRONG difference of opinion? Great. Personal attacks (including calling your counterpart in debate a liar, suggesting he go shrink his ego, etc.)? Not acceptable, and not tolerated.