Of course telling someone 2+2 doesn't equal 5 is an insult. Worse, it’s an attack on a child’s self-esteem. He might not believe he had what it takes to be an accountant. That’s why the (for lack of a better term) educators in California would give gold stars for creative thinking for answers like that.

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

When feelings mattered more than facts? Well before you were born probably. With your vast knowledge about tests, shouldn't you also know that there is also an EQ test? (Emotional Intelligence Quotient Test)?

As far as the 2+2 comment, you should know that there is a fine line between constructive crticism and insults. You didn't insult me, but your comments were insulting in nautre.

__________________
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

- George Orwell, 1984

If you think that message boards are real life, then that disturbs me. I highly doubt that if we all sitting in a room in reality, that people on here would be as harsh.

Sometimes, I often post more than once at a time in a single thread.

I accept your apology. I expect the same respect from you about my opinoins as I respect gun-owners rights in the same. You need to understand that an opinion which is not rudely stated, should not be taken as rude, simply because you feel the concept violates your rights.

__________________
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

- George Orwell, 1984

I believe in the right to bear arms, and I'm a liberal. But I remember sending a letter to the Rocky Mountain News in the early 90's in response to a letter from a conservative in Littleton, Colorado, who said that he believed he had the right to own full-auto weapons of the type that are generally considered weapons of war.
I replied that I would agree, but only if the deer and elk were returning fire.

Gem

__________________
There is no political solution to our troubled evolution.

"Reality, the left-wing liberal conspiracy. "
Credited to Angry American.

So then you dont really support the right to keep and bear arms.


It isnt about hunting my friend. Never has been.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Whilst I'm quoting Eric (due to his comment about the right to bear arms) my response isn't directed to him, but to everyone on this thread. I'm curious about something; everyone quotes the Constitution to death on every matter, particularly in relation to gun control, but given that the document was written in the late 18th Century when guns were a necessity, I'm wondering what people think about revisiting the Constitution? Is a document well over 200 years old relevant today? Should there be a complete revisiting of it to make it relevant to the 21st century? Is the need to own a firearm - as was needed hundreds of years ago when people lived in predominantly unzoned, rural areas - a necessity in a predominantly zoned urbanised society?

A more important question is how has humanity changed? We may have computers and fancy technology, but man is fundamentally the same as we have always been, which means that many are out for themselves and willing to disregard others as the work to accomplish their goals. We today are the same as the founding fathers, old Europe, Rome, and all the way back to Babylon. Technological advancement is not at all related to the advancement of humanity in general.

Until humanity fundamentally changes the basic provisions to defend oneself will always be relevant.

That is true, but surely you'd agree also that society has evolved from the 18th century, particularly in the area of law enforcement, thereby possibly negating the need for such a high dependence on firearms?

Your question can be answered by looking at the amount of rape, muggings, murder and theft that goes on......If anything, we are worst off than back in the 18th century, because back then, crime was punishable whereas today's criminals are spanked on the ass and told to behave.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

Interesting how gun haters apply the asinine logic of times have changed to only one right, the 2nd amend.
Why haven’t times changed for the other rights? After all the gun haters are really crying about the so called invasion of privacy by the conservatives. What are the gun haters talking about if they do not want the government to listen to their conversations?
I have to jump through all kinds of bs to exercise my right to bear arms to make the gun haters feel safe. So why should not a gun haters have to fear a government man listening to them score their dope? After all my purchasing a firearm is legal and yet the gun haters demand I prove I am not a criminal.
Yet the gun haters want to talk about all kinds of illegal activities on their communications devices and not worry about the government man listening to them.

What is to stop some lame gun hater from surfing the net and finding out how to make a dirty bomb? I want to know if what these sick twisted gun haters mad at the world are doing. I have a right to know if these sick twisted gun haters are plotting to kill people in the name of a safer world.

Law enforcement cannot be there to protect you 24/7, and there can come a time when law enforcement becomes the oppressor. Look back at the corruption in New Orleans police department in the early 90's, or even more recently the many controversies surrounding the LAPD. Law enforcement should be respected, but it can the tool of a tyrannical government.

I don't believe society has evolved on bit. You may think we have moved beyond the times when romans watched people fight animals to the death, but what happens whenever a killing is caught on tape? People become glued to there T.V. screens. Humans have an inherent attachment to destruction that has not and will most likely never go away.

I don't advocate everyone packing in public, however, if a significant portion of civilians are armed in their home, it will be nearly impossible for a tyrannical government to enslave the population if they fight back.

The United States has a huge social problem that leads to our gun violence, and much of it stems from the war on drugs. the war on drugs makes drugs a high stakes and very profitable enterprise for those involved, but along with it comes the violence because it is not a legitimate business. Our war on drugs creates violent criminals. People go into prison on drug offenses and come out as hardened criminals because of it. Prohibition is insulting to our liberty and never works. We need only to look back to the 1920's to see that the situation today is exactly the same as it was then. Remove the war on drugs, and violence will be reduced.

Many people don't see this connection, but the war on drugs and our violent society are directly related. You need to go to the root of a problem to solve it, and that root is the war on drugs itself.

I actually dont have a problem with revisiting it. The Constitution was written to allow for changes - and there are two ways in which to legally and legitimatly do it.

1) The amendment process. In the case of the right to keep and bear arms, it would require repealing a very healthy chunk of the Bill of Rights to make any form of anti-gun legislation legal on a federal level - more than just the 2nd Amendment. You'd also be looking at repealing or amending the 5th (private property), 8th (due process), 9th and 10th (the catch-all amendments which remind the government that if the Constitution doesnt say they can do it, then they cannot). If 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the states say thats OK - then i guess i'd learn to deal with it.

2) A Constitutional Convention. This would allow for a complete re-write of our system of government. Also a legitimate process, the outcome of which i would accept as required.

Thing is though, neither of those solutions are being taken. What is attempting to be done is a complete end-run around the plain language of the law. This is simply not acceptable. The fact that the change is being attempted in such an underhanded manner is what makes many of us that much more vocal in our opposition. Those who advocate gun control know that what they are doing is wrong, and yet they do it anyway.

A better question to ask is, how come it is only the 2nd Amendment which people suggest is outdated and try to simply ignore it in such a manner?

I would submit to you this is because they know in truth it is NOT outdated, and were they to attempt the correct and legal process to make the change, they'd very rapidly discover just how much stomach this country has for the idea of disarming the populace.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I wouldnt agree with that at all. Not even close. In fact, I'd go so far as to say society has DE-evolved from the 18th century.

If law enforcement is so much better now, perhaps you could explain to me why the crime rate is exponentially higher?

Besides, the 2nd Amendment isnt about crime control and law enforcement. Its about something far more basic than that - the ability of the people to enforce their rights when the government no longer can or will, as well as the ability of the people to ensure they can change their government.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I wouldnt be paranoid to think the Dems will violate the right to bear arms. They need to arm themselves from the angry republicans who lost the majority.

Its not paranoia to believe that someone will continue to act in a manner consistent with prior behavior.

The Democrat party has a demonstrated history of supporting anti-gun policies and attacking the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, the way they have managed to shift the debate from "Where is government given the authority to restrict ownership" to "Why do you have a need to own {insert lead delivery system of choice here}" is an indication of how much they have acheived.

Make no mistake my friend - there are people in this country who very much wish to disarm the public. Do not ask yourself IF they want to do this, ask yourself WHY.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.