liberal left socialist pinkos


ishi

New member
"The liberal left commie socialists are after our guns!"

This is pretty typical fare on the internet gun forums. It's also wrong and destructive to the 2A movement, and here's why:

As Americans, we have hundreds of political issues that are important to us. Many are related to economics, some are related to religious values, some are about foreign policy. Of all of these, civil rights are usually the least divisive. Most americans learn early about the Bill of Rights and accept them as fundamental building blocks of our nation's character. It's hard to find Americans who won't support the freedom of speech or the right to a fair trial.

As a civil rights issue, gun ownership is not an issue that naturally divides along traditional political lines. The American Left has always been a champion of civil rights - the ACLU, regardless of its disappointing and inexplicable stance on the 2A as a collective right, has generally been a lion defending the Bill of Rights. The Left also have families, and are victims of crime the same as everybody else.

A sizeable portion of the Left would be very receptive to getting on board with the pro 2A movement, if only the current 2A advocates would be less divisive and insulting to the Left's other, unrelated political views. When a left-leaning American wants information about buying a gun for the defense of his family, he will log on to a gun forum and find himself immediately insulted and vilified in every thread on the forum. It should come as no shock when he thinks "These guys are complete a-holes, maybe I should rethink my position on this". The 2A struggle has just lost another vote. There's one more person who will never go out of his way to write his congressman or senator to demand the 2A be respected. There's another person who may no longer care about the 2A views of the candidates in the Democratic primary.

Every successful grassroots civil rights movement has worked to embrace voters from across the political spectrum. The 2A movement has instead created a divisive and confrontational movement that makes enemies instead of courting allies. This is one of the reasons for why the 2A movement has had limited success in the political scene - it actively drives away voters from the Left.

Besides being harmful to the 2A movement, the claim that gun restrictions and confiscation are naturally Socialist policies simply is not true. Socialism is interested in the economic equalization of society, the means of which might range from high taxes on the rich and capital gains income, to nationalized healthcare, to outright public ownership of the means of production and a state-planned economy. Those who disagree with these ideas have predictably uncharitable opinions of those who espouse them, but this has nothing to do with the 2A. The 2A is not an economic policy, it is a statement about the civil rights of the individual in the United States.

Ironically, the anti-2A politicians who are most often called 'liberal left socialist' are actually staunchly pro-Capitalist candidates of the Democrat party, which happily takes billions in campaign donations from the same Corporations and rich individuals as donate to Republican causes. Calling Pelosi and Hillary Clinton Socialists is quite frankly an insult to Socialists everywhere.

Capitalist democracies such as Australia and the UK are the most recent nations to disarm their citizens. Is this because Australia is full of liberal left socialists? Their staunchly conservative, rabidly anti-gun prime minister John Howard would disagree.

Gun control is about control - control of the government over the individual. If we want to defeat this control, we need to see where the threat is coming from - with clear eyes and a clear head. 2A rights needs to be de-linked from other issues so that people from across the political spectrum can work together. Need an epithet? Use 'antis' or something, anything, but not socialist, liberal, left, democrat. When you do that, you simply drive away the folks from that camp who want to join the struggle. Resist the urge to turn the 2A movement into a Republican 'members-only' clubhouse. Republicans can't win this fight alone.

Hello, I'm Ishi, I vote Green party, and I support the Bill of Rights - ALL of it.
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
liberal left socialist pinkos
Isn't that something like a multiple repititious redundancy...?

Truth is you're right...mostly. When I hear of Hillary espousing the redistribution of wealth, and the confiscation of "excess profits" from Big Oil to fund social programs, to my uneducated ear that smacks of Socialism, pure and simple. Maybe you can point out where I'm wrong. The ACLU represents itsellf as a Champion of Civil Rights, but has never explained (to my knowledge) why the right of some schmuck to engage in sexual predation with little girls...or little boys!! NAMBLA??...is more important than my Right to engage in defending my sons from said schmuck. Why is it OK to kill...murder, even at the point of entering the world...unborn babies, but it's immoral to put a multiple heinous murderer to death? (NOTE: I say "murder" with respect to fetuses because of the precedent set by the Scott Peterson case... If the fetus isn't a viable human being, how could the court have charged him with the murder of his own unborn son?)

I'm not the most politically astute cat you'll ever meet, and there are already voices on this board...yours among them...that I find myself holding in some regard with respect to their knowledge. But I do know that you can't make a cat a dog, and while I'm open and ready to embrace ANY well-meaning, sincere person who's interested in the value of 2A, if only to know and understand his own position better, I do not have to be warm and fuzzy to the whole category of liberal left socialist pinkos and fascist bastids who want to deprive me of my Rights.

"Gun-ism", like racism and sexism, isn't going to be solved in one swell foop (!), but one-on-one, one person at a time, and it begins with me. Just as there's no room in my zone for in-your-face feminists, or people who insist on perpetuating socially destructive stereotypes, so there is no room for gun-bashers, particularly those with an agenda.

Did I go on and on long enough...? Sorry.
 
Last edited:

ishi

New member
Ektarr, thanks for your reply. It's not my intention to insult the forum members here, and likewise I hold your opinion in some regard.

Most of all I don't want to descend into run-of-the-mill left vs. right argumentation, since that's exactly the opposite of my intentions. Ever since arriving at my current convictions about the 2A, I've had the surreal problem of explaining my views to, actually *communicating* with republicans. Maybe the most amazing thing is the common ground that all Americans have, even a Republican and Socialist (let's not mince words, the Greens are socialists).

It comes down to my belief that the Bill of Rights is the common denominator. All americans should adhere to it, and all american political frameworks should be built with it as the base. The right and left can fight like cats and dogs about the rest, but the republic will be strong if the Bill of Rights stands. If it doesn't stand, we could see a kind of split that turns into "Sunni vs. Shia" style emnity. I'm thinking of the words "A house divided cannot stand" and it fits in the current political climate. We all need to get back to the basics, back to the constitution.

2nd Amendment advocates know that freedom isn't free. There will always be a maniac who enters a shopping district and shoots innocents until somebody stops him. It's possible that these rare instances could be further reduced by giving up all our rights, but that trade is unacceptable. It's the price we pay for future-proofing our republic against totalitarianism. Let's not pretend that our freedom was bought at no price. Some murders will happen that might have been prevented. Totalitarianism can certainly reduce crime!

Each right in the Bill of Rights comes with a price, and a very high one. The right for us to post our objections to current unconstitutional law is bought at the price of allowing perverts to publicly advocate eliminating age restrictions on pederasty! This is a very, very high price. And it must be paid. When we buy freedom, the price will always hurt us, because it never comes cheap.

Can we all come together to defend the constitution while temporarily forgetting all of our other differences? If not, this republic may not survive.

I'm doing my best to sway the left - I actually registered a domain called www.liberalgunforum.com yesterday. I hope to create a community that will be able to cooperate with and support the 2nd amendment movement. And everyone here will definitely be welcome to visit.

Yours in solidarity,

ishi
 
Last edited:

Cremon

New member
As a civil rights issue, gun ownership is not an issue that naturally divides along traditional political lines.

You are correct there. One should not assume second amendment advocates are all conservatives. I have seen liberal forums where liberals argue vehemently against one another over this issue. But most gun control advocates are liberals. It is just interesting to me to see how many liberals are against gun control too. There are quite a few.
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
It is just interesting to me to see how many liberals are against gun control too. There are quite a few.
The Pink Pistols comes to mind. I guess I shouldn't assume that they're "Liberal" in any regard except their interpersonal preferences.
 

sar

New member
Speaking from the point of view of a gun owner liberal democrat I can assure you this isn't an entirely Right/Left issue. The problem is that issues like gun control are highlighted and emotionalized to polarize folks and meaningful discussion is lost.

Frankly, I'm a bit dissapointed in how very easy it is to get a CHL here in Tx. It I had designed the test, the applicants would have to shoot 90% or better and demonstrate an ability to field strip their weapons. Maybe provide a reference or two that they aren't a nutjob. I'd feel better knowing that armed citizens in Texas are able to hit targets at 9 feet, 21 feet and 45 feet more than 75% of the time...

All in all though, I'm glad I'm able to carry when I choose to and that we have reciprocity with so many states.
 

sar

New member
I've only been on this forum for a few hours, but I gotta say, Ishi's a smart person! That first post very much sums up some feelings I've had as I've moved from being an anti-gun idealogue to a gun owner.

Link Removed

interesting reading above
 

ishi

New member
S
Frankly, I'm a bit dissapointed in how very easy it is to get a CHL here in Tx. It I had designed the test, the applicants would have to shoot 90% or better and demonstrate an ability to field strip their weapons. Maybe provide a reference or two that they aren't a nutjob. I'd feel better knowing that armed citizens in Texas are able to hit targets at 9 feet, 21 feet and 45 feet more than 75% of the time...

I understand that feeling. I've often thought that there should be a law exam requiring applicants to be able to recall and apply the law concerning self-defense and deadly force. I have a strong suspicion that the vast majority of license holders have little clue or interest in how the law is applied.

That said, I'm not sure that such a requirement is constitutional. I think that the government's desire for expediency has completely overrun the constitution, and the more we make laws that ignore the constitution, the more precedent there is for continuing to do so. If the constitution were strictly enforced, the national government would be gutted. It's clear to me by now that this is exactly what needs to happen.

The founders envisioned a federal republic where states would have broad and far-reaching abilities to make their own laws and allow their residents to choose to do things differently than other states. Wouldn't this be best for all concerned? Maybe this country is simply too big to have a single set of laws that can please everyone.

Okay, I've digressed. I've segued into my Ron Paul campaign speech...
 

sar

New member
I'm not sure if it exceeds the consitution. The second ammendment says "well regulated" That might give the government power to demand training and proficiency. I'm anything but a constitutional scholar, but I'm concerned about some of the negligence and ignorance I see(I'm a trauma surgeon and get to see some of the consequences first hand)
 

ishi

New member
I'm not sure if it exceeds the consitution. The second ammendment says "well regulated" That might give the government power to demand training and proficiency. I'm anything but a constitutional scholar, but I'm concerned about some of the negligence and ignorance I see(I'm a trauma surgeon and get to see some of the consequences first hand)


As a thought experiment, I wonder how the following phrase, if it were in the constitution, might be interpreted by our fine supreme court...

"A well-educated populace being necessary to a democratic state, the right to own books shall not be infringed".

1) the right is only necessary so that the populace is educated. However, since we're educating the people ourselves in our schools, with our government-approved books, the second clause is no longer applicable.
2) the populace has the right to own books, but not necessarily to read them..

Don't look now, but my signature is apropos of the conversation... :eek:
 

sar

New member
Interesting but not completely correct analogy. Education and regulation are different. Regulation implies authority.

I'm pretty ambivalent on these issues, personally. I've got both a libertarian streak and a safety-nazi streak. I'm not so concerned about CCW holders committing crimes.

I'd actually be interested in seeing if there were a way to show that unintentional gun injuries and deaths are lower amond ccw holders than the general gun owning population. I'd guess that to be the case(most studies suggest safety type courses lower injury and death rates in other types of activities-stands to reason it'd apply to guns)

If I were a savvy marketing guy for a big gun maker. I'd try the Phillip Morris approach: "We at (Kimber or Cold or Ruger or Glock, etc) feel responsible, safe gun use is essential. For 2008, we're proud to offer 100 dollars rebate off the purchase of a new handgun upon confirmation of participation in a gun safety class." I'd try to minimize the hardcore message and push and highlight programs about safety. Advertise the safety research and development that goes into their designs, etc.
 

ishi

New member
I've only been on this forum for a few hours, but I gotta say, Ishi's a smart person! That first post very much sums up some feelings I've had as I've moved from being an anti-gun idealogue to a gun owner.

Link Removed

interesting reading above


Ehh, you're making me blush sar. :eek:

I read this pamphlet though... and it looks like it should be titled "Why you're going to lose the election if you don't make people believe you're passionate about the right to bear arms". The information in there was factual, and surely true. But, any politician who needs to read that in order to support the constitution needs a beating with the clue stick. And they need to lose.

See, I don't blame the Republicans for the utter destruction of the American left that occurred in the 80's. I blame the Democrats. They're bought out, bourgeois, and totally incapable of representing the left. Let the Republicans worry about (or ignore as they see fit) the fact that their leadership doesn't represent anything approaching conservative values anymore.

American politics is a joke... if Ron Paul doesn't run as 3rd party, I'm voting Stephen Colbert. :rolleyes:
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
Excuse me, but isn't the idea of the vast majority of CC proponents to make access to the full range of 2nd Amendment protections easier to exercise?

And isn't adherence to the BoR and rest of The Constitution, minus any attempts to read into the words beyond what we know of the Founders' original intent, based firmly in the right's side of the political spectrum? If someone believes in, for example, abortion as being an unalienable right (which is what Roe v. Wade established) when no such right is articulated or even ever contemplated by the Framers, is it fair to expect that same person to find "wiggle room" in interpreting the 2A beyond original intent? Isn't that "wiggle room" in interpretation based in solidly left-wing thinking? Regardless of anyone else's answers to those questions, I believe strongly that liberalism, as currently practiced in America, is antithetical to upholding any semblance of original intent.

The Constitution must be taken as a whole, not piece-by-piece deciding which rights are fundamental, which ones are basic and which ones are outdated and obsolete. Liberalism can find any concept it sets out to find in that document. True conservatism attempts only to preserve and protect in law all the genius contained within it.

While it is true that some left-leaning people can revere the 2A, it is just as true that the majority don't. And even the ones who do, if they support most other left issues, they show by that belief that the sanctity of The Constitution has wiggle room for wildly inexplicable interpretation. I can't distinguish between a lefty who supposedly supports the 2A if they don't likewise support the original intent of the rest of The Constitution, which, if they did, they'd be conservatives, not liberals.

Blues
 
Last edited:

ishi

New member
And isn't adherence to the BoR and rest of The Constitution, minus any attempts to read into the words beyond what we know of the Founders' original intent, based firmly in the right's side of the political spectrum?

Not so firmly.

Segregation was certainly a conservative policy. It took years of work by the left to achieve equal rights for blacks.

Wiretapping without a warrant is prohibited by the 4th amendment but supported wholeheartedly by the supposed 'conservatives' in congress and the white house.

Christian conservatives would be very happy to ban all kinds of books and entertainment. Liberals generally have prevented this and supported the 1st amendment.

The 2nd amendment is an example where the opposite has been true; the Republicans have generally been in favor and the Democrats often try to destroy it.

The obliteration of Habeas Corpus by the 2006 Military Commissions act is a direct violation of the 6th amendment. Led by Republicans but only possible with the compliance of Democrats.

So, shredding the constitution is a pastime enjoyed by just about everybody in the Federal Government, with a few exceptions.


True conservatism attempts only to preserve and protect in law all the genius contained within it.

I agree 100% with this statement. Your definition of conservative is spot-on with my own. Conservatism should try to maintain the meaning of the constitution and follow sound fiscal policies. What have we seen from politicians who claim 'conservatism' though? Staggering national debt, pointless wars which claim american tax dollars and lives with no benefit, a dollar which is now worth less than the canadian dollar, the destruction of habeas corpus, unprecedented abuse of executive power, secret torture camps in eastern Europe. Is this conservatism? Surely not.

Now, let's not let the Democrats off the hook. What have we seen from their 'liberal' policies?

Spineless compliance with illegal war-making. More compliance in the face of unconstitutional legislation. Slavish obedience to corporate special interests. Attempts to disarm the people. Decades of broken promises.

It's my assertion that the 'liberal' Democrat leadership in american politics is not liberal, and the 'conservative' Republican leadership is not conservative. They're chameleons which perennially fool the electorate into thinking they represent them, when in fact they represent no one but themselves.
 
Last edited:

BluesStringer

Les Brers
Not so firmly.

Segregation was certainly a conservative policy. It took years of work by the left to achieve equal rights for blacks.

This is an urban myth. The majority of Republicans in Congress voted in favor of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, a minority of Democrats voted in favor of it. Al Gore's daddy voted against it, as did Slick Willy's mentor, William Fulbright. Long before that Fulbright was among the first congress-critters to officially denounce the Supreme Court decision in '54, Brown v. Board of Education. In '56 he and 19 other Senators were joined by 77 House members in authoring and signing the "Southern Manifesto," all but two of which were Democrats. The manifesto railed against the "activist" court that forced integration on the unwilling southern states. Republicans, except for the aforementioned two, ignored or embraced the decision and went on to strengthen it with the Act of '64. Democrats have a terrible record in support of civil rights. The myth persists mostly because of a deal with MLK and Bobby Kennedy, which was wholly political as opposed to legal and/or constitutional, whereby King threw his considerable influence towards JFK for his reelection campaign. We all know what happened during that campaign, and time seemed to stand still. King endorsed a Dem, therefore, the public perception was that Dems endorsed and supported civil rights. Even with the snub by King and his followers, Republicans still were the deciding factor in voting in the CRA of '64, less than a year after JFK's assassination, yet presumably bright and thoughtful people mischaracterize Republicans as being the party of racism to this day. It simply isn't true.

Wiretapping without a warrant is prohibited by the 4th amendment but supported wholeheartedly by the supposed 'conservatives' in congress and the white house.

Wow. Again, presumably bright and thoughtful folks can't seem to distinguish between eavesdropping on calls coming into the US from out of country and the valid fear of governmental abuse which might include the warrantless wiretapping to which you refer. To say that wholesale warrantless wiretapping on citizens within the borders of the US is "wholeheartedly supported" by conservatives in or out of congress and the white house is another wild accusation which has zero basis in fact. There are myriad technicalities raised by the new technology of cell and satellite communication devices because they are transmitted over the air just like radio, which government has every legal authority to listen in on and regulate. Technically, "wiretapping" is a virtually obsolete misnomer. You have no legal expectation of privacy for conversations that you voluntarily broadcast over the air. But forget that technical argument, and show us where in The Constitution a foreign national, calling into the US from a foreign country, has any 4th Amendment protections whatsoever. Another myth that the left created to hammer an administration that they despise more than they despise the barbarians that would slice their heads off if given half the chance!

Christian conservatives would be very happy to ban all kinds of books and entertainment. Liberals generally have prevented this and supported the 1st amendment.

OK, I'll give ya that one, at least as it regards what the Christian right would be "very happy" with. But the Christian right doesn't control the Republican Party. Witness the threat by Rev. Dobson to bail on the Reps and go for a 3rd party candidate if Rudy or Mitt win the nomination. Also, witness the history of the Christian right's attempts to get porn banned or abortion or books or certain lyrics in songs. 100% failure right down the line, which supports my contention that they don't control, or even have much influence over, the way conservatism operates in this country. To hold up whatever Christians want out of the conservative movement as an example of the overall movement being cavalier in our adherence to The Constitution and original intent is a red herring of the first order. Again, it simply isn't true, and the fact that you can go buy any book you want, any music you want, get an abortion on demand and log onto any porn site you wish to should be proof enough that I'm right about that.

The 2nd amendment is an example where the opposite has been true; the Republicans have generally been in favor and the Democrats often try to destroy it.

I would contend that Republicans generally are in favor of preserving as much of original intent of the entirety of The Constitution as is humanly possible, and Democrats often try to destroy it. Like I said, The Constitution must be taken as a whole, and as such, anybody who claims to be a conservative on the grounds that they take some parts of it as set in stone and other parts as just some advice from The Ancients is no conservative at all, they're liberal.

The obliteration of Habeas Corpus by the 2006 Military Commissions act is a direct violation of the 6th amendment. Led by Republicans but only possible with the compliance of Democrats.

Oh my God. The obliteration of Habeas Corpus was accomplished when the Act to which you refer codified into law the long-standing axiom that illegal enemy combatants captured on the battlefield while trying to kill American soldiers are not entitled to constitutional protections? Really? Perhaps you can show us in American history where one single instance of constitutional protections were afforded legal enemy combatants overseas, much less illegal ones. You would have a point if you referenced the illegal internment of American citizens of Japanese decent during WWII, but you can't honestly believe that constitutional protections should extend beyond our borders, into enemy territory during war-time, and to the benefit of savages who, if released due to exercising those protections, would go straight back to the battlefield and try to kill as many more Americans as they could!! Please tell us you don't really believe that. If you do, then there's a perfect example in a nutshell of why I say that liberalism is antithetical to upholding any semblance of constitutional original intent.

So, shredding the constitution is a pastime enjoyed by just about everybody in the Federal Government, with a few exceptions.

I have debunked every example that you offered of conservatives engaging in "shredding" The Constitution in any shape, manner or form. I'm not saying that conservatism is alive and well in our government, it clearly is weak and getting ever weaker, but the examples you chose don't even come close to highlighting why I might say that. Nor do I believe that you accurately describe what is or is not solid adherence to constitutional principals.

Bottom line, and back on topic, I make no apologies for my belief that I have no allies who are liberal, but who claim to be pro 2A. I can't align myself with anyone whom I believe is supportive of any policy or set of laws that chip away incrementally at any part of The Constitution. I am not just a 2nd Amendment proponent, I am a constitutional originalist, and that means the whole Constitution.

I agree 100% with this statement. Your definition of conservative is spot-on with my own. Conservatism should try to maintain the meaning of the constitution and follow sound fiscal policies. What have we seen from politicians who claim 'conservatism' though? Staggering national debt, pointless wars which claim american tax dollars and lives with no benefit, a dollar which is now worth less than the canadian dollar, the destruction of habeas corpus, unprecedented abuse of executive power, secret torture camps in eastern Europe. Is this conservatism? Surely not.

No, you're right, it's not conservatism, it's simply a rather predictable parroting of liberal talking points. It's a litany of cliches that don't go to the issues of constitutionality at all (except the habeas corpus thing which is anything but "destroyed" or "obliterated"), but rather, to subjective issues for which 10 different people could have 10 different views and they'd all be right....for themselves, that is.

Now, let's not let the Democrats off the hook. What have we seen from their 'liberal' policies?

Spineless compliance with illegal war-making.

What, pray tell, "illegal war-making" is going on right now? Illegal by who's standards? Certainly not by US constitutional standards, as Congress was much more than simply "compliant" in authorizing military action in Iraq, they were direct participants, and just a gnat's-nose-hair from being completely unanimous. You must be referring to the war-making being illegal because we didn't prostrate ourselves in front of the UN General Assembly for any more than 14 months and beg for permission to defend what we, as a country and as a sovereign nation, believe to be in our own interests. Either way, your claim that the war we are engaged in is illegal rings hollow and inaccurate by any objective reading of any law that we are bound by or obligated to abide by.

More compliance in the face of unconstitutional legislation.

You know, it's kind of telling that you see liberals as simply compliant with all the eeeevils that conservatives have ram-rodded down America's throat. You speak of liberalism as some vague concept out there in the ethos somewhere, but not really participating in anything, just kickin' back and apathetically complying with all the truly bad stuff that conservatives do. What's up with that?

Slavish obedience to corporate special interests.

HA! Yeah, liberals are well known for being slaves to corporate interests! They really LOVE corporate America, right? Like, oh, I don't know....WalMart maybe? Halliburton? How on Earth you can say that liberals, whose mainstay policy is taxing corporations in a confiscatory manner, are slaves to the very entities that they punish for success is beyond me!

Attempts to disarm the people. Decades of broken promises.

It took awhile, but we finally found two things we can agree on, which should be illustrative of why I can't separate a liberal who believes in gun control from one who doesn't. If that liberal thinks it's illegal for Congress to authorize the President to go to war, then that liberal doesn't believe in the same Constitution that I do, no matter what their beliefs concerning the 2nd Amendment might be. War powers are succinctly and unambiguously described in The Constitution, and nothing that The President has done, nor anything that Congress authorized him to do, is in conflict with that description. Yet you want me and all conservatives to rally around the handful of liberals that claim to support gun rights, whilst we ignore their appalling lack of understanding such important constitutional issues as when it is or isn't legal to go to war? Sorry, no can do. I don't sleep with the enemy and I don't coddle liberals who try to make nice based on their perception that their acceptance of one hot-button issue is enough to bridge the gap between our respective ideologies. For me, it just isn't.

Blues
 

ishi

New member
Sorry you think I'm your mortal enemy, Blues. You're clearly a very intelligent fellow and some of your arguments give me pause for thought. You'd be a lot more convincing though, if you hated me a little bit less.
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
See, that is exactly the kind of knee-jerk rhetoric that makes it impossible to meet in the middle on any issue. Perhaps "sleep with the enemy" was a bit of overblown hyperbole, but nowhere did I suggest that I hate anyone. I simply strongly disagree with just about everything you said in the post that I replied to, and I tried as hard as I could to justify those disagreements with well-reasoned rationale. Disagreement between liberals and conservatives in this country has devolved into perceived hate, and this is hardly the only example I can point to to illustrate that fact.

If you're going to take every strongly-worded disagreement so personally that you equate it to being hated, then maybe you shouldn't post about such highfalutin subjects as the meaning of The Constitution. Just a thought.

Blues
 
Last edited:

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,385
Messages
622,985
Members
74,199
Latest member
jerpar69
Top