TR> SK> Tom, I just saw that you are the Co-Moderator. Well, I have a
TR> SK> complaint.  You have taken the debate about "commandeering"
TR> SK> to a level of personal insult and debasement.
TR>First, I really don't know which message you are talking about. If
TR>you don't like some laws and have decided not to obey them, so be it.
TR>You make the choice, you pay the price.
Of course.
Thing is, you were being insulting in that you hurl the indictment that 
I don't know the Constitution. I take that as an insult....along with 
evading my points.
I will give this example of my thinking (again):
Slavery was legal, at one time, in this country. Actually, it was even 
considered Constitutional...because an amendment had to be added to the 
Constitution to eliminate it. Correct?
Well, if I lived during that period of slavery, I would have said that 
it was NOT Constitutional. Sure, that would have been only MY opinion. 
But I find it to be the only right and righteous opinion.
Now, if you think slavery was right and just just because it was 
legal...that is very telling.
TR> SK> I DO know the Constitution. I just have a differing level of
TR> SK> what I will  allow per taking of personal rights disguised as
TR> SK> law.
TR>See the above paragraph. The law is the law.
And the law can be wrong.
TR> SK> I will not take more insult, though.
TR> SK> Take it to personal mail, if you wish. I can't, and won't keep
TR> SK> restating  myself. If you didn't understand what I said the
TR> SK> second time...the  third..forth...or fifth time....the sixth
TR> SK> should have sufficed.  Again:
TR>That sounds like a good idea for you to take it to personal mail.
I am not out to insult.
TR>Jump out of the discussion any time you wish. Just because you don't
TR>agree with a particular law doesn't mean that it is going to go away.
That is true. But I have to live with myself. I can't do that if I don't
follow my heart and show my disdain for totalitarianism.
TR>Since there is a public discussion going at this particular time
TR>here, I won't be participating in a private debate with you in
TR>netmail.
I don't want to debate you in private mail. I just said you should take 
your insults to private mail.
TR> It really makes little difference if you said something 20
TR>or 30 times, if it contradicts the law and it insults you for someone
TR>to tell you that, you really need to get into a different discussion,
TR>especially if you are insulted that easily. I really don't know what
TR>you are calling insult, but if you call disagreement and examples for
TR>that disagreement insult, you probably need to find an echo where
TR>your feelings won't be hurt so easily.
My feelings aren't hurt. I just think debate should have TWO or more 
people offering points...hurling insults is not debate.
TR> SK> THE POLICE WORK FOR ME! I AM NOT A SLAVE! THE LAW CAN BE WRONG!
TR>So, if you violate the law, and you pay them to enforce the law, what
TR>are they supposed to do? If you don't like a particular law, use the
TR>system and get it changed. Otherwise, choose to break it and pay the
TR>consequences.
I will. 
Again, the point was that you had to go to insult to make a non-point. 
And, I'm sure, you won't address my argument about slavery up there.
---
* CMPQwk #1.42* UNREGISTERED HANDGUN COPY
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------