"Ignorant" does not mean "stupid." Only in our bastardization of language has this passed into popularity and common usage.
So, when I refer to someone in a serious discussion as being "ignorant" of the facts, it should be taken not in common usage, you should consult Webster's or whatever medium you so desire.
I am ignorant of many things in life, we all are. Demanding you have a knowledge base of something does not necessarily make it so.
Let me discuss "dishonesty."
There are many, many forms of dishonesty. Usually in this forum, it is an intellectual brand of dishonesty, i.e., I spoke about Diane Feinstein being intellectually dishonest, or ignorant, because she had experience with carrying a small revolver and she used this as a "trump card" to get some "respect" as an "authority" on firearms during the debate on the Senate Floor with regard to the assault weapons legislation she authored years ago.
To address LeAnn, specifically. I accept being admonished by the Moderator. I am also taking the time to specifically articulate as to why I said what I said.
1. Your Father taught you how to shoot and you shot better than many others.
Duly noted.
2. You consult your own spiritual beliefs as to what you think is "common sense."
Duly noted.
3. You took the time to type out what a lunatic a family member was and then use him as a reference that you know what you are talking about when it comes to firearms.
Duly noted, further, Number Three does not leave you wondering what others would think of you when you more or less call someone a dangerous nut and then use the same person as a reference, re: your knowledge of firearms? This does not strike you as odd?
These are the things I am referring to when it comes to "intellectual dishonesty in debate," nothing more and nothing less. I'm not inferring that you are an out and out liar, that you are a car thief or any other thing. I'm simply saying that what you are saying, at times, makes no sense. One does not use a mentally unstable person as a reference and expect everyone to nod their heads in agreement, "She sure does know what she is talking about!"
Upon reflection, however, it may very well have been wrong of me to refer to you as "dishonest" in the matter. Sometimes, we think we know what we are speaking about, you are not a Senator who is deliberately misleading people in order to pass an unconstitutional bill into an equally unconstitutional law.
In other words, you might not carry with you the stench of an ulterior motive other than what YOU have stated. Understand, carefully, what Panther said to you about what a "reasonable" law is and the need for greater gun control laws because the 20,000 on the books "don't work." In many cases, as I stated earlier with a quote from Krauthammer (did you actually read it and think about it in the context of our conversations?), we have been lied to and B.S.'d CONSTANTLY over the years.
It might have been more proper to say in some kinder way that you possibly have an inflated sense of firearms knowledge because of the three things that YOU cited, LeAnn. I don't consider those three things to be overwhelming, convincing markers for "firearms knowledge." I have been shooting for about 29 years and I know alot about them, I know alot about politics and I know alot about my rights, the mechanisms of various firearms and the history of them.
Ultimately, part of the problem with any insult or misunderstanding lies with you, like it or not. For if you want to participate at a table and demand to be heard and be seen as having some sort of knowledge base on the subject, you have to bring more to the table than you already have. If that offends you, I'm sorry.
You might not be intentionally dishonest when it comes to this, LeAnn, and it might have very well been wrong of me to jump to that instead of just saying that you have an inflated sense of knowledge when it comes to them. I stand by that. I have articulated as to why I believe that.
Instead of now coming back and once again saying I have insulted you, "Show me what you got!"
Show us all that you have a knowledge of firearms instead of merely loudly proclaiming that you do, in other words.
To continue:
Buddhism is a religion, which is fine. You can consider it a religion or as a "life guide." If some more people took certain tenets of it to heart, perhaps the world would be a better place.
You have a right to inject spirituality into the debate. I have a right to say that Buddha's reference to "common sense" which is more succinctly stated as, "follow your gut in life," has little or no significance as to what the Founding Fathers wanted when they passed the Second Amendment.
Do not take what I say out of context and try to twist it. I am saying just this:
You stated early on that you are not convinced by the Constitutional arguments put forth by Pro-Gun people, which is your choice, your right and your decision. You then stated the common sense portion related to Buddhism.
I'm sorry, Buddha does not trump people like Tench Coxe. I would hope that you would take the time to study what I am now going to post and by all means, please follow the link and read the entire thing.
If you come away with the idea that we don't have the right to keep and bear arms, I don't know what to tell you.
These are the sorts of articles that Handgun Control, Inc. despises.
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/hk-coxe.htmThe Pennsylvania Convention adopted the Constitution in mid-December of 1787, but not without strong opposition. A large number of delegates had opposed the new Constitution, especially if it were not to contain a bill of rights. The anti-federalist delegates explained their reasoning in The Dissent of the Minority of the Convention. The Pennsylvania minority castigated the majority for not allowing the proposal of amendments-in particular a bill of rights, which would have provided in part:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals...
Coxe immediately set out to refute the objections of the convention minority. Under a pen-name, "Philanthropos," Coxe pointed out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights had not (yet) been raised by prominent antifederalists in other states:
The right of the people to fish, fowl and hunt, the freedom of speech, provision against disarming the people, a declaration of the subordination of the military to the civil power, annual elections of representatives, and the organization and call of the militia, are considered by the minority of our convention, as on an exceptionable footing; but none of these are even mentioned by [G]overnor Randolph, [M]r. Mason or [M]r. Gerry.
Coxe further contended, in another article, that the minority's fear of the federal standing army was ridiculous, as was the minority's fear that the Congress might disarm the people:
The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the foederal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Now to the next assault on my senses for the day, Good Afternoon, Todd.
Oh, I'm very rough. Ha! Not a brute nor a Neanderthal, however. In point of fact, although she might scoff, if LeAnn were being attacked, it would most likely be someone like me that would step in and shut it down, as opposed to many people that hold her beliefs when it comes to firearms.Akil Todd Harvey wrote:
Leann,
Don is a little rough; some would say brutish or somewhat Neanderthal-like, but I would argue that, like myself, he is a little slow in knowing when people are NOT insulting him. On the inside, Don is a nice guy, but I have not seen that part of him yet.
You have not seen the nice side, you're not my Wife or Son, I know you from a forum, that's about as far as it goes for the moment.
What she has stated verbatim that she really took offense at was in fact directed at you, I quoted you and addressed her and she had nothing to do with it whatsoever.Although he definitely let you have it once or twice, the majority of his insults were directed at me, and I probably deserved it.
I believe it was just at the time although I must plead ignorance as to precisely the exchange, I do remember doing so. I do remember thinking at the time that what you said that led me to say that would fit the definition of the word.Some months back you called me a traitor. There was little or no thought of the SERIOUSNESS of the accusation as far as I can tell and even less to back up your claim. I have been waiting for months and months for the apology or some moderator or administrator to straighten this forum out such that such unfounded attacks would not continue to occur with such anticipated frequency.
I go by what people say, I'm not Miss Cleo. If you did not mean whatever you said that led me to that conclusion, I would retract the statement if you did. If you say something that sounds traitorous, I would call it so. Very simple. You have an apology if you can cite what was stated and you explain more in depth what you meant prior to me referring to you as a "traitor," or you can retract it and I will.
Do as you wish. Go by the old axiom that I cannot remember the exact wording of, Todd. When you try to kill the King, do not wound him. You come at me with empty insult, you will be given same. You make me think about something I never thought about before, even about myself and my views and I will surely consider it and let you know how I feel.Under these circumstances, I shall abide by the only rule I know of, shoot in the direction in which fire is directed at you. You shoot at me and I will return fire. You shoot at me unprovoked (verbally), for the mere error of having views differing from your own (a right this great country still affords I believe) and I make it my mission to save those insults just for you.
Don't use it as an excuse to enter every thread I participate in just to add insult. Your whole later entry into this thread has been to give people who oppose me SUPPORT and you have not really added anything of SUBSTANCE to THIS thread other than just that. You are, in a very real way, stalking me in this thread and taking cheap shots.
Keep doing it and I will keep addressing it.
Regardless, that was a pretty good detailed explanation of where you were coming from when you made comments in prior posts. Now we have both, in our own ways, apologized to LeAnn and given our take on the comments made. Also, we have both invited her to inform us of her education and knowledge on firearms, the Second Amendment, the Constitution, and the Founding documents of the United States of America. Once we have been told what her background is, we won't be ignorant when we make comments. I hope she comes back and cures our ignorance in that matter. Then we can continue the dialog.
However, You will cease disparaging other forums, other moderators, the site as a whole, and the forums in general when posting on the "Tough Issues" forum. I can deal with you here, but when you attack and disparage other forums and moderators behind their back on this forum (where they may or may not see it... remember, we don't all have time to read every post in every forum), I give you a choice: Either apologize to that moderator and forum (in a manner that I find out about it...) OR the alternative from me on this forum. Your choice. I admit that I let you and jorvik and Don and (at times) others go at it pretty freely here. But when it comes to other forums, moderators, or the site in general, I draw the line here... now... 
