Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

FiremanBob wrote:Kreutz really is an idiot. Now he imagines that I wrote something that I didn't: viz, a statement that the law is necessary. I originally took issue with his claim that the law is unconstitutional.

Once again, the intellectual dishonesty of this Kreutz troll is beneath contempt. It would be different if he had a sense of humor at least.

Kreutz DOES have a sense of humor. It's a rather interesting one, but it is there.

Kreutz is also not an idiot, nor is he a troll. He believes what he says, so I wouldn't say that he is being dishonest, intellectually or otherwise.

I have found, though, that Kreutz will meet you with the same amount of civility that you present him with.

I disagree with Kreutz on many an issue, but I make no mockery of him, and thus far, he has returned the favor. Of the folks with which I have disagreed on this forum, Kreutz is one of the more gracious.

SHMIV wrote:

FiremanBob wrote:Kreutz really is an idiot. Now he imagines that I wrote something that I didn't: viz, a statement that the law is necessary. I originally took issue with his claim that the law is unconstitutional.

Once again, the intellectual dishonesty of this Kreutz troll is beneath contempt. It would be different if he had a sense of humor at least.

Kreutz DOES have a sense of humor. It's a rather interesting one, but it is there.

Kreutz is also not an idiot, nor is he a troll. He believes what he says, so I wouldn't say that he is being dishonest, intellectually or otherwise.

I have found, though, that Kreutz will meet you with the same amount of civility that you present him with.

I disagree with Kreutz on many an issue, but I make no mockery of him, and thus far, he has returned the favor. Of the folks with which I have disagreed on this forum, Kreutz is one of the more gracious.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'd have to agree with that. I get along OK with him while disagreeing about much. I was just trying to defuse the situation. Kreutz knows he's a damnyankee, and he ain't even ashamed of it.

I neglected to mention that I rather enjoy the alternate view points. It would get rather boring around here if we all sat around agreeing with each other all the time. It's not very intellectually stimulating under those circumstances, either.

If he had the decency to respond directly to the question I raised (about his claim that the Kansas law is unconstitutional), I might agree with you. But his evasive maneuvers, changing of the subject, and dissimulation reek of troll to me.

wow. yet another way to waste time, money and divert attention from the real problems. asinine.

papasan wrote:wow. yet another way to waste time, money and divert attention from the real problems. asinine.

But it let's people fist pump and yell " 'Merica!"
I don't understand why you would need a law stating that other laws are unlawfull. Just use the laws in place and ignore any so called "but in my culture" crap.
This is another feel good looky what I did I'm such a conservative vote for me bill.
Then again, Kansas was teaching Creationism in puplic schools so I can see where this is coming from.

Well, in support of the Kansas law, we do have the example of left-wing activist judges on the west coast, particularly in California, whose decisions right up to the Ninth Circuit of the federal court are overturned by the Supreme Court more than in any other part of the country.

Remember that our state and federal governments are not monolithic, and subject to the checks and balances of a three-part structure. If the judiciary is taking upon itself interpretations of law, or sources of law, that conflict with the state's constitution and the will of the people, I see no problem in the legislative branch passing a statute that reminds them of their responsibilities.

Sure, we'd like it to be unnecessary, but we live in the real world, not the perfect one.

FiremanBob wrote:Well, in support of the Kansas law, we do have the example of left-wing activist judges on the west coast, particularly in California, whose decisions right up to the Ninth Circuit of the federal court are overturned by the Supreme Court more than in any other part of the country.

Remember that our state and federal governments are not monolithic, and subject to the checks and balances of a three-part structure. If the judiciary is taking upon itself interpretations of law, or sources of law, that conflict with the state's constitution and the will of the people, I see no problem in the legislative branch passing a statute that reminds them of their responsibilities.

Sure, we'd like it to be unnecessary, but we live in the real world, not the perfect one.

Very true but do you think this would apply to murder or beating ones spouse or daughter? I can't even imagine a liberal judge interpreting legalizing felonies such as these.

No, but the murder example is the most extreme. There is a whole range of acts, ranging from how women are treated in divorce to the handling of fraud and other torts, in which a Muslim militant might attempt to make a mockery of the trial by insisting on the use of his "law". All this law does is prevent the attempt, thereby saving the taxpayers a lot of time, trouble and money.

Look at two examples: (1) the recent circus in Minnesota over a requirement that the Minneapolis airport install special foot-baths and prayer rooms for Muslims, at taxpayer expense; (2) the recent circus in Gitmo over the way women in the courtroom were dressed. The latter one turned what should have been a one-hour arraignment hearing into an all-day fiasco.

FiremanBob wrote:If he had the decency to respond directly to the question I raised (about his claim that the Kansas law is unconstitutional), I might agree with you. But his evasive maneuvers, changing of the subject, and dissimulation reek of troll to me.

What was there of substance to respond to? It was simply your opinion. Which natch, has little substance to begin with.

See, this is both unnecessary, because as many have mentioned since only US law counts on US soil anyway.

And unconstitutional because during the deliberations the Kansas legislators did refer to Sharia specifically, but left it out of the law to stave off problems.

The intent was religious discrimination when the law was formed, if only cut out of the law. But its still a matter of public record what was said in their legislature.

Whoopsie!

Tell ya what, I'm a generous Damnyankee, when this winds its way to the SC (which it will), and if the SC shoots it down (it will), you can send me a bottle of good scotch. Smokier the better.


In the unlikely event I'm wrong on both counts, I'll send you your favorite drink. Can I safely assume that'd be a suitcase of Natty Ice?

Deal?

dorminWS wrote:

FiremanBob wrote:Kreutz really is an idiot. Now he imagines that I wrote something that I didn't: viz, a statement that the law is necessary. I originally took issue with his claim that the law is unconstitutional.

Once again, the intellectual dishonesty of this Kreutz troll is beneath contempt. It would be different if he had a sense of humor at least.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ah, give the boy a break. He's a liberal and a damnyankee. He therefore can't help being intellectually dishonest any more than a dog can help licking its ....eeerr....ummm .... package. If he wasn't blind to the concept of intellectual honesty he'd be a good honest conservative; or maybe a republican or at least a RINO.

He's a troll...

You had it right the first time.

Meet him toe to toe and he'll put you on ignore if his inability to pretend to win an argument causes his lapse into incivility and threatens his remaining on the forum.

Feel free to expose and ridicule the bridge dwellers comments.