Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Help Fight For Right:

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Toledo,Ohio
    Posts
    3

    Help Fight For Right:

    Constitutional Carry is worth 'keeping on the front burner'- a battle worth all out efforts because it is a RIGHT !

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Constitutional Carry is a state specific issue.

    Moved this to your state - other states have similar threads.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    sparta ky
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Constitutional Carry is a state specific issue.

    Moved this to your state - other states have similar threads.
    Constitutional Carry should be a national issue not a state one.
    States should not have a say in what is in the Constitution.
    That's is what the tenth amendment is for.
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    The 2nd was delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.
    The courts I believe wrongly let states have it back.

    Mike

  4. #4
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    I certainly dont want more Federal Judges, Scotus and Federal House and Senators and lobbyists screwing with guns laws. They have done such a crappy job w everything else they touch. Where does it say healthcare, gay rights, manufacture of guns, control of the internet, and abortion in the Constitution is purview of Feds? The 2A has made great progress as it stands - sure dont want a oppty where Bloomberg can throw $100 million to get all the Federal ****** to agree and restrict gun rights.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Constitutional Carry is a state specific issue.
    Moved this to your state - other states have similar threads.
    Unbelievable comment by a moderator on a RKBA forum.

    The States cannot write laws that supersede the Constitution!

    Grapeshot, how the hell do YOU interpret..... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"????


    Seriously I really cant believe you said what you said. Do YOU think our RKBA should be regulated/restricted?

    The 2nd Amendment IS Constitutional carry, it is all we should need from Boston to Los Angeles and everywhere in between to carry open, concealed, handgun or long gun.
    Last edited by Jeff. State; 02-14-2015 at 09:56 AM.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Constitutional Carry is a state specific issue.

    Moved this to your state - other states have similar threads.
    Quote Originally Posted by ps1mhd View Post
    Constitutional Carry should be a national issue not a state one.
    States should not have a say in what is in the Constitution.
    That's is what the tenth amendment is for.
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    The 2nd was delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.
    The courts I believe wrongly let states have it back.

    Mike
    Actually the 2nd Amendment is a restriction on the federal government, not delegated to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    Unbelievable comment by a moderator on a RKBA forum.

    The States cannot write laws that supersede the Constitution!

    Grapeshot, how the hell do YOU interpret..... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"????

    Seriously I really cant believe you said what you said. Do YOU think our RKBA should be regulated/restricted?

    The 2nd Amendment IS Constitutional carry, it is all we should need from Boston to Los Angeles and everywhere in between to carry open, concealed, handgun or long gun.
    In this case I do not "interpret" - I report.

    Whether we like it or not our RKBA is not total, pure, unadulterated. There is a difference in the laws from state to state - rants to the contrary notwithstanding - that's why it was moved.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 02-14-2015 at 03:37 PM. Reason: fixed spelling
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Actually the 2nd Amendment is a restriction on the federal government, not delegated to it.


    In this cae I do not "interpret" - I report.

    Whether we like it or not our RKBA is not total, pure, unadulterated. There is a difference in the laws from state to state -. rants to the contrary notwithstanding - that's why it was moved.
    Being from NJ, I can relate to your state to state comment.

    NJ, does not even acknowledge the 2A in its own State Constitution...

    My .02

    CCJ
    Last edited by countryclubjoe; 02-14-2015 at 03:20 PM.
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    I'm sorry Grapeshot, but your explanation would allow States to defy all the protections in the Bill of Rights. Heck why do we even refer to the Constitution if this is the case?

    Because they currently get away with it does not make OK.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    I'm sorry Grapeshot, but your explanation would allow States to defy all the protections in the Bill of Rights. Heck why do we even refer to the Constitution if this is the case?

    Because they currently get away with it does not make OK.
    Would you mind suggesting a way, or two or three, to remedy that situation that do not involve a massive reset?

    All y'all go on and on about absolutism interpretation of "shall not be infringed" without the first word about how to remove, repeal, rescind and otherwise remedy all the infringements that have been done to date. Fer instanse, how to you plan to keep all the constitutionalists you manage to elect in office until you elect enough of them to over-ride a presedential veto or re-write legislation that will overcome the objections that SCOTUS raises. Speaking of which, how do you plan to replace those activist justices, along with the ones at lower levels?

    Humpty Dumpty appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass (1872), where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice:
    "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
    "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  10. #10
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    Unbelievable comment by a moderator on a RKBA forum.

    The States cannot write laws that supersede the Constitution!

    Grapeshot, how the hell do YOU interpret..... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"????


    Seriously I really cant believe you said what you said. Do YOU think our RKBA should be regulated/restricted?

    The 2nd Amendment IS Constitutional carry, it is all we should need from Boston to Los Angeles and everywhere in between to carry open, concealed, handgun or long gun.
    Agree 100%. One of the things I DO want the fed to actually do is prevent states from stealing rights. Pretty much the exact opposite of what happens right now.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,731
    Well not since McDonald v. Chicago. States can only add to your Federal constitutional rights; they cannot pass constitutional amendments that restrict the rights you receive under the Federal Constitution.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Well not since McDonald v. Chicago. States can only add to your Federal constitutional rights; they cannot pass constitutional amendments that restrict the rights you receive under the Federal Constitution.
    Exactly. The Second Amendment applies to the States, not because of the Second Amendment, but because of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that is true only because of the power of the Supreme Court of the United States to incorporate the Second Amendment under the Fourteenth Amendment (as it did in McDonald v. Chicago), which it can do because the Constitution of the United States grants the Supreme Court of the United States the right to final interpretation of the Constitution under Article III, Sections 1 and 2.

    The folks around here may only read the Second Amendment (and maybe the Fourth Amendment), but they need to understand that there's a whole lot more to the United States Constitution.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    358

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Werz View Post
    which it can do because the Constitution of the United States grants the Supreme Court of the United States the right to final interpretation of the Constitution under Article III, Sections 1 and 2.
    Werz, I'm not looking for an argument but would like someone to be able to provide a specific quote from the Constitution that grants the PRIVILEGE (not a right as government isn't alive, cannot posses or confer rights) of Judicial Review to the Supreme Court. AFAIK, the Court usurped that privilege in 1803 and Thomas Jefferson was none too happy about it.

    Again, I'm asking for a direct quote from the Constitution that enumerates that specific power for the Supreme Court of the United States of America. I don't want to keep ranting against it if the power is truly and clearly granted. If you are able to provide that I would really appreciate it.

    Until someone can provide direct evidence to the contrary, this is the stance with which I agree: http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html
    Moreover, were he to return there, wouldn't he be rather bad at their game, no longer being accustomed to the darkness? - Plato

  14. #14
    Regular Member Chuck!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    143
    Article III:

    Section 1.

    The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
    Section 2.

    The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made,

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    358
    AFAIK, the power of the Supreme Court to decide matters of constitutionality were inferred by the Court. I still don't see any direct, specific enumeration of the power of Judicial Review (deciding if law is constitutional or not) for the Supreme Court. That was one of the questions John Marshall was trying to answer in the case. Unfortunately, there appeared to be a conflict of interest since Marshall was involved in the original issue prior to it reaching the high court. Nobody yet has been able to show the direct text that empowers the Supreme Court to decide matters of constitutionality. All law school videos on the matter that I've watched teach that it was a power inferred by the Court; it gave itself the power. All scholarly-ish articles on the subject also point to the power being inferred and not specified in the Constitution.

    You can read in the opinion (towards the end http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137), Marshall is saying in a alot of words, "Somebody has to do it and the Supreme Court is the logical entity." There really isn't anything specific in the Constitution that confers the power to the Supreme Court. I think it was in Federalist #78 (or 76??) where there is a little discussion that might relate a little bit but it doesn't really clarify, IMHO. It's telling to me that clear privilege for the Supreme Court to decide matters of constitutionality is missing from the Constitution. It looks to me like a usurped power by a Chief Justice that might have had a conflict of interest. If there was clear language conferring that privilege upon the Court, it would make my life a little easier because it would be one less thing to think about...

    ETA: I'm really hoping that Werz or COL have an end-all-beat-all way of explaining it so I can put it to rest in my own mind. I've learned a lot from those two over the years. I also appreciate your input but just putting a quote of something we've undoubtedly read over and over wasn't what I was looking for. I'm wanting to see a specific clause... a highlighted phrase... something concrete.
    Last edited by JmE; 02-23-2015 at 10:35 AM. Reason: ETA
    Moreover, were he to return there, wouldn't he be rather bad at their game, no longer being accustomed to the darkness? - Plato

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    358
    I hope that I've kept the following quotes short enough for Fair Use (?) and not too far OT. If not, I apologize and please note that it was not intentional.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ury+v.+Madison

    The case was heard before Chief Justice John Marshall and four associate justices. Marshall was one of the "midnight judges" President Adams had appointed to the federal bench during his last few months in office. Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, Marshall had served as secretary of state for the Adams administration. Ironically, it was Marshall who, serving in a dual capacity as the secretary of state and chief justice, had failed to deliver the commission to Marbury. None of these facts presented a sufficient conflict of interest for Marshall to disqualify himself from hearing the dispute.
    Having ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was invalid and unenforceable, Marshall next asked whether the judiciary was the appropriate branch to be vested with authority to overturn unconstitutional legislation. Although it is commonly accepted today that the power to nullify state and federal statutes falls within the purview of the judicial branch of government, the Constitution does not specifically delegate this power to any one branch. Under the explicit provisions of the Constitution, then, the executive and legislative branches might have argued in 1803 that they were no less entitled than the judicial branch to be entrusted with the power of judicial review.
    Marshall was arguing that it was the historical role of courts to settle legal disputes by interpreting and applying the law. In some instances, the applicable statutory or Common Law has conflicted with other laws, Marshall said, and it has been the obligation of courts to resolve "the operation of each."
    Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Marbury has been the object of much criticism. Constitutional historians claim that Marbury represents a paradigm of judicial activism, which is marked by judges who decide cases based on issues not argued before them. This criticism seems to be particularly apt when applied to Marbury because, as constitutional scholar Leonard W. Levy has pointed out, "[In] no other case in our constitutional history has the Court held unconstitutional an act of Congress whose constitutionality was not at issue." Neither Marbury nor Madison had attacked the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act.

    Against this criticism, historians have weighed the dilemma confronting Chief Justice Marshall. As a Federalist appointed to the Supreme Court, Marshall attempted to facilitate the growth of the national government through his judicial opinions. To achieve this end, Marshall aspired to establish the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, under which the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of both state and federal governments would be subordinate. He also hoped to establish the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, providing the final word on the meaning and application of any constitutional principles.
    Please note that constitutionality was not even an issue in the case at hand! IMHO, this was a very sneaky usurpation of an unenumerated power. A constitutional error in 1803 is still an error and ought to be corrected through constitutional amendment or reset all questions of constitutionality. Perhaps "shall not be infringed" will mean what it says in plain language?
    Last edited by JmE; 02-23-2015 at 10:54 AM.
    Moreover, were he to return there, wouldn't he be rather bad at their game, no longer being accustomed to the darkness? - Plato

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    <heh> I have been waiting for someone to renew a 200-year-old complaint about Marbury v. Madison.

    Consider the alternative. If there is no judicial power to invalidate a statute, of what use is the Bill of Rights? There are no self-executing penalties under the Bill of Rights, nor are any penalties prescribed. In the absence of any penalties, the rights enumerated therein become mere suggestions. Remember that, in the normal scheme of things, statutes are enacted by the majority vote of both houses of Congress, and by the signature of the President; they have a vested interest in the laws they enact. If the Supreme Court does not have the power to invalidate those statutes, then who would? Congress could pass, and the President could sign and enforce, any anti-gun legislation they desired, and the Second Amendment would be powerless to countermand it. The only other solution would be a citizen revolt to overturn a Constitutional republic, in which case, the Constitution itself, including the Bill of Rights, becomes meaningless.

    It is more that just Article III, Sections 1 and 2. It is the only logical choice. But that choice will not always yield the outcomes you desire.

    Quote Originally Posted by JmE View Post
    A constitutional error in 1803 is still an error and ought to be corrected through constitutional amendment or reset all questions of constitutionality. Perhaps "shall not be infringed" will mean what it says in plain language?
    It can "mean" anything you want. Without the judicial power to enforce those words by invalidating legislation, and with a vested interested in the legislative and executive branches to maintain the legislation enacted, those words are nothing but lofty ideals, just like all the other heart-warming aphorisms you learned as a child. Of course, the judicial power will not always interpret those words in the same dogmatic manner that some may demand. But you can't always have your way. Didn't your mom teach you that?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    358
    Werz,

    I have no "desired outcome." I simply hear and read people asserting that it is an enumerated privilege and it doesn't really seem to be. I gather that it is not a privilege explicitly granted to the Supreme Court through the Constitution. I was really hoping for a more concrete answer that would convince me that it was actually spelled out in the Constitution or something so that I could put it to rest in my own thoughts. I guess that's not happening today. It's more difficult to put any credence in a constitution when our government violated it so early and that action still affects individual rights today. Yes, it's an old argument but the effects are still being felt and will continue for as long as Judicial Review is being wielded by the Court.

    Uncalled for impolite response not withstanding, thanks for the reply.

    (Serious question: *Edited* Maybe it's just the way I read your posts... IDK. If you don't mean it that way then I apologize.)
    Last edited by JmE; 02-24-2015 at 02:19 AM.
    Moreover, were he to return there, wouldn't he be rather bad at their game, no longer being accustomed to the darkness? - Plato

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    358
    Here's another thought. Since the Court wants to claim that unenumerated privilege, why should it be able to refuse to hear a case that clearly represents a constitutional issue? Shouldn't the Court be compelled to hear the case as is its duty? By refusing to hear such a case, isn't it denying redress of a constitutional grievance? That allows activist justices to cherry pick only those cases which might further their own agenda. In the meantime, the very party that the Constitution was drafted to protect is harmed.

    ETA: Is there a process to compel the Supreme Court to hear an individual case?
    Last edited by JmE; 02-24-2015 at 02:46 AM. Reason: ETA
    Moreover, were he to return there, wouldn't he be rather bad at their game, no longer being accustomed to the darkness? - Plato

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by JmE View Post
    I was really hoping for a more concrete answer that would convince me that it was actually spelled out in the Constitution or something so that I could put it to rest in my own thoughts.
    It has long been my experience that people see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and read what they want to read. When they are confronted with facts which conflict with their chosen ideology, it creates cognitive dissonance, causing them to seek out resources which reassure them of their preconceived reality. At that point, argument becomes fruitless.

    Thus, I will simply leave you with a "plain language" commentary in a form analogous to one which is highly favored in these environs:

    What don't you understand about "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"?

    Have a nice day.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    358
    Then I'm in good company because it wasn't such a clear cut answer then and it has been questioned by many much more educated than I since. AFAIK, budding attorneys are still taught that it is an inferred power that resulted from Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

    If it is a constitutional duty of the Court then it shouldn't be something that court can refuse to perform, IMHO.
    Moreover, were he to return there, wouldn't he be rather bad at their game, no longer being accustomed to the darkness? - Plato

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by JmE View Post
    Then I'm in good company because it wasn't such a clear cut answer then and it has been questioned by many much more educated than I since. AFAIK, budding attorneys are still taught that it is an inferred power that resulted from Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
    Yeah, let's just ignore what the Framers of the Constitution believed:

    Records from the Philadelphia Convention reveal that no fewer than a dozen delegates in almost two dozen instances discussed judicial review of federal legislation. Indeed, the understanding that judicial review would exist under the proposed Constitution proved critical to several decisions. The availability of judicial review convinced delegates to reject the judiciary's participation in a council of revision that could veto federal legislation. It also led delegates to discard a proposed congressional veto over state laws. Other delegates cited judicial review as a reason for adopting certain provisions. Only two delegates questioned judicial review, but neither proposed prohibiting it. Indeed, even those two delegates agreed, during the ratification struggle, that the Constitution would authorize judicial review of federal statutes. Finally, during the ratification fight, none of the Philadelphia delegates denied that the final version of the Constitution authorized judicial review of federal legislation. In fact, every delegate who spoke of judicial review affirmed that it was a feature of the new Constitution.
    Saikrishna B. Prakash & John C. Yoo, The Origins of Judicial Review, 70 U.CHI.L.REV. 887, 928.

    Or let's go to the original resource, Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787:

    Mr. King: [T]he Judicial ought not to join in the negative of a Law [veto] , because the Judges will have the expounding of those Laws when they come before them; and they will no doubt stop the operation of such as shall appear repugnant to the constitution. Vol. 1, p. 109.
    Mr. Madison: In R. Island the Judges who refused to execute an unconstitutional law were displaced, and others substituted, by the Legislature who would be willing instruments of the wicked & arbitrary plans of their masters. A power of negativing the improper laws of the States is at once the most mild & certain means of preserving the harmony of the system. Vol. 2, p. 28.
    Mr. Govr. Morris: A law that ought to be negatived will be set aside in the Judiciary departmt. Vol. 2, p. 28.
    Mr. Wilson: The Judiciary ought to have an opportunity of remonstrating agst projected encroachments on the people as well as on themselves. It had been said that the Judges, as expositors of the Laws would have an opportunity of defending their constitutional rights. Vol. 2, p. 73.
    [Regarding Article III, Section 2] Docr. Johnson moved to insert the words "this Constitution and the" before the word "laws" ... The motion of Docr. Johnson was agreed to nem: con: [without dissent]. Vol. 2, p. 430.
    Mr. Martin: Whether therefore, any law or regulations of the Congress, or any acts of its Presidents or other officers are contrary to, or not warranted by the constitution, rests only with the judges[.] Vol. 3, p. 220.
    I won't speak to what "budding attorneys are still taught." Experienced attorneys do the research.

    None of this is likely to make a difference to a dogmatic ideologue. But just in case someone more open-minded is reading along ...
    Last edited by Werz; 02-24-2015 at 10:02 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    358
    Werz, you've given me some things to read and think about and I thank you for it. However, why do you have to be such a jerk about it? I'm not trying to bait you into anything. Mine were honest questions and thoughts. Some of the people on this forum and other forums know me personally. I'm pretty sure that they would tell you that I'm straight forward and not trolling you. I don't ask things when I'm not really, honestly seeking an answer.

    Over the years, you've continually replied in this manner to me. What the heck is your problem with me? Need a hug?

    Anywho... food for thought. Thank you again.
    Last edited by JmE; 02-25-2015 at 12:39 AM. Reason: typo
    Moreover, were he to return there, wouldn't he be rather bad at their game, no longer being accustomed to the darkness? - Plato

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by JmE View Post
    Werz, you've given me some things to read and think about and I thank you for it. However, why do you have to be such a jerk about it? I'm not trying to bait you into anything. Mine were honest questions and thoughts. Some of the people on this forum and other forums know me personally. I'm pretty sure that they would tell you that I'm straight forward and not trolling you. I don't ask things when I'm not really, honestly seeking an answer.

    Over the years, you've continually replied in this manner to me. What the heck is your problem with me? Need a hug?

    Anywho... food for thought. Thank you again.
    I don't mind answering people's questions (within reasonable limits), and I'm willing to defend my own opinions. I don't mind the fact that people disagree with me. You are not nasty, but you do come off as a bit smug and disingenuous. Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression, but I see a lot of that professionally, and I tend to react with sarcasm.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    If someone has a question then they must repair to their OWN TRUSTED Sources for the answer.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •