Gun permit allows quick access to Texas Capitol

@parados,

parados wrote:

POM says she wants to amend the constitution to change it.
David attacks POM claiming the only legitimate way to change the constitution is amendment.

I think you are the one guilty of mendacity David.
It's either that or a reading comprehension problem.

WHAT mendacity is that, Parados ??
Please reveal that.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

You quote it and then ask to see what you quoted?

I really have to wonder about you David and your claim to belong to MENSA.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Actually, it is possible to like someone or to love someone without knowing it. I've known of several cases where people thought they hated another person only to discover their true feelings were the opposite. Shakespeare created Beatrice and Benedick, in his comedy Much Ado ABout Nothing who initially fought their mutual infatuation.

But, I always knew . . . is an expression that offers an intensified way of expressing admiration, in this case, to a poster with whom I have agreed and whose style and intelligence I long admired.

0 Replies

I just think we should have the right to have arms for either protection or sports purposes. I personally don't think the 2nd amendment covers that but I understand others do, I don't want to debate it.

On another hand there should reasonable precautions and rules and guns and/or other weapons should be checked and removed at the door at the door of public buildings through medal protectors just to protect those inside of it. It could be terrorist coming through the doors with guns. I thought conservatives were all worried about security of our nation?

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

You have said that you believe the 2nd amendment is archaic, and unneeded in todays society.
So tell us, are there any other amendments that you think are archaic?

And if someone believes any of the other amendments are archaic, would you have a problem with eliminating those amendments?

0 Replies

Why hasn't anyone asked if there is an existential need for "quick access to Texas Capitol?"

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

You quote it and then ask to see what you quoted?

I really have to wonder about you David and your claim to belong to MENSA.

Parados, u appear to be confused about what u r posting; EITHER that,
or u r simply uninformed by having failed to read your own thread,
to which u r posting, so that only foolishness & chaos issue from u
and u just thought that it 'd be a good idea to sling mud at me
because of my love of personal liberty and your liberal abhorence thereof.

I 'll try to make it simple for u to follow:

1. I posted (in part, and I here re-iterate)
that "The foundation of liberalism (i.e., deviation) is mendacity, deception, and cheating."
Mendacity means lying; maybe u r ignorant of that fact ??

2. U posted (in part) that: "I think you are the one guilty of mendacity David."
That means that u accused me of lying about something,
but it fails to identify WHAT it is that I now stand accused of lying about.

3. Therefore, I asked u to TELL ME, what lie
u accuse me of having perpetrated.

4. Instead of your identifying the alleged lie in question,
u vaguely impugned my intelligence. That is where we stand now.

I 'm not sure, but I suspect, that u have no lie in mind,
but rather just wish to express mindless hatred toward advocacy of personal liberty.

Again, I request that u identify the lie
that u have accused me of having perpetrated, if that 's not too much trouble.

David

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Why hasn't anyone asked if there is an existential need for "quick access to Texas Capitol?"

Because it doesn 't MATTER.
The point is that if it is perfectly legal to possess a licensed gun there,
then there is no logical reason to have license-holders stand in line to be checked.

Follow the reasoning, Plain:

1. armed license-holder waits in line to be checked.

2. It comes his turn, he shows his license and his gun, and he is passed thru
to go cheerfully along, on his way. WHAT PURPOSE has been served by delaying him in that line??

Will u explain that to me, Plain ?
I wish to be enlightened.

David

2 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

I just think we should have the right to have arms for either protection or sports purposes.
I personally don't think the 2nd amendment covers that but I understand others do, I don't want to debate it.

If u don 't wanna debate it, then we won 't debate it.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Perhaps you should read my ENTIRE statement David. It clearly tells you what you asked.

But since you seem to be having a problem.. here you go...

OMSigDavid wrote:

Article 5 of the Constitution designates the only legitimate means
of amending the Constitution. The liberals simply want to lie about it, USURP power,
degrade freedom and fake it; pretend that its OK.

"it" by standard English usage would refer back to your first sentence about "amending the constitution"
The problem is that POM didn't lie about it. She stated

Quote:

Chose the right word. Deviation has to do with statistics or morals and not with the Constitution
which can and should be amended. Let's take the Second Amendment out!

Your accusation of 'liberals lying' in response to POM is itself factually untrue David. Mendacity on your part or an inability to comprehend what others have written which are the choices I gave.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Perhaps you should read my ENTIRE statement David. It clearly tells you what you asked.

But since you seem to be having a problem.. here you go...

OMSigDavid wrote:
Article 5 of the Constitution designates the only legitimate means
of amending the Constitution. The liberals simply want to lie about it, USURP power,
degrade freedom and fake it; pretend that its OK.

"it" by standard English usage would refer back to your first sentence about "amending the constitution"
The problem is that POM didn't lie about it. She stated

Quote:
Chose the right word. Deviation has to do with statistics or morals and not with the Constitution
which can and should be amended. Let's take the Second Amendment out!

Your explanation relating to confusion qua the pronoun "it" is plausible and is logically acceptable.
When I said "it" I was referring to deviant interpretations of the Constitution
for the purpose of achieving the goals of the perpetrators.

parados wrote:

Your accusation of 'liberals lying' in response to POM is itself factually untrue David.

O, really? I will not be so unreasonable as to ask u to prove a negative,
but I 'll leave it to any reader hereof to decide whether THAT is plausible.

Article 5 of the Constitution sets forth the only legitimate means of amending the Constitution.
My point, is that use of deception to justify deviation from the agreement (the Supreme Law of the Land) is cheating.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Your explanation relating to confusion qua the pronoun "it" is plausible and is logically acceptable.
When I said "it" I was referring to deviant interpretations of the Constitution
for the purpose of achieving the goals of the perpetrators.

That makes almost no sense in replacing "it" with what you claim the meaning was. Why did you say anything about how to amend the constitution? That makes no sense with your meaning either.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I believe that when guns have no restraints put on them, every psychopathic, violent asshole will have one and the streets will not be safe.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Besides, "existential need" is a commonly used piece of sarcasm.

1 Reply

@parados,

David wrote:

Your explanation relating to confusion qua the pronoun "it" is plausible and is logically acceptable.
When I said "it" I was referring to deviant interpretations of the Constitution
for the purpose of achieving the goals of the perpetrators.

parados wrote:

That makes almost no sense in replacing "it" with what you claim the meaning was.
Why did you say anything about how to amend the constitution?
That makes no sense with your meaning either.

My point is that altho it is possible to amend the Constitution legitimately,
it can also de facto be amended by judicial cheating; toward that end, deception is employed
by judges who wish to deviate, substituting their desires for the Constitutional law established by the Founders.
That is what liberal judges DO; if thay don 't deviate, then thay r not liberal.

David

3 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

I believe that when guns have no restraints put on them,
every psychopathic, violent asshole will have one and the streets will not be safe.

I can offer u logical assurance that your fear is not justified, to wit:
before "gun control" was instituted the streets were not different
than thay r now, in terms of safety. It is not part of American history that
the streets ran red with blood until the advent of gun control.

Even as we speak, there is no gun control in Vermont,
nor has there ever been any. That State 's streets have been safe.
Vermont has always been among the very safest, least crime States
according to FBI statistics. Maybe about ten years ago, Alaska repealed its gun control laws,
with no problems from the people that u described, Plain.

The same thing begins in Arizona in a few days.

Plain, your quoted text, hereinabove set forth, appears to imply
that u believe that "every psychopathic, violent asshole" respects and obays gun control laws, right ????
That each of them has restrained himself until it becomes LEGAL, right ??
because THAT 'S what "every psychopathic, violent asshole" about !?
Do thay all meet in convention assembled and pledge their loyalty to obedience of the law ????

David

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Besides, "existential need" is a commonly used piece of sarcasm.

Plain, will u be kind enuf to explain:
" WHAT PURPOSE has been served by delaying him in that line?? "

Please share your knowledge with us, Professor.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

But that has absolutely nothing to do with what POM said since she was clearly talking about amendment.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

But that has absolutely nothing to do with what POM said
since she was clearly talking about amendment.

Nonsense; I am pointing out that there is a right way and a rong way.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

My point is that altho it is possible to amend the Constitution legitimately,
it can also de facto be amended by judicial cheating; toward that end, deception is employed
by judges who wish to deviate, substituting their desires for the Constitutional law established by the Founders.
That is what liberal judges DO; if thay don 't deviate, then thay r not liberal.

As opposed to conservative judicial activism I suppose? Rolling Eyes

Judges are people and as much as they might like to claim the high road, in the end most of them always vote with their ideological views, both conservative and liberal.

Liberals got lucky at the last few elections (the mid term and then the presidential); I guess people didn't like the direction of the Bush administration. But they have quickly forgotten it and have swallowed all the bull crap from the conservatives since Obama has been in office. Its sickening really, but there it is. Luckily McCain didn't get in office so we could a few liberals in court. We just need one more, but I don't think anymore will be retiring. So you all will have all the pro guns laws passed that you want and other conservative ideological agendas.

2 Replies

Gun permit allows quick access to Texas Capitol

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know