Las Vegas Killings

[burrrton]

I don't agree that both sides are being unreasonable.

I'm being charitable to account for the factions of both sides who oppose literally any concession to the 'other side'.

[Aseahawkfan]

If you want to talk about original intent the 2nd amendment was intended to allow small townships rural communities to maintain a "well regulated militia" so that they may defend themselves as it could take a very long time in those days for a protective response from the federal government. Not to arm individuals with enough weaponry to wipe out small townships and rural communities.

This "misunderstanding" of the constitution, as you put it, is every bit as much yours as the other side of the argument's.

Bullcrap, c-bob. All the Bill of Rights first ten amendments are based on the idea of individual rights as a balance to governmental power. It was not created so towns could defend themselves because the government response was slow. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the time and the document as government was never intended to exert that level of military or police power.

It was never intended that the people call upon the government for defense. It was intended that they form the defense for their area, period. The government was not intended to maintain a standing army, but to be able call upon the people when the nation required defending. It was also intended that an armed citizenry maintained the "free state" by ensuring the government did not control force in a nation. The men that wrote the Constitution were very aware that when the arm of government controlled arms in a nation, that nation was oppressed even if the government did not exert that force all time. Arms control was a part of tyrannical rule for thousands of years, well-known and well-studied by the Founders. Nearly every society employed a military/police class to enforce rule on the population. The only way to halt this is to ensure equal access to arms including training with your population. Yes, I'm aware that with the weapon advances of the modern day this is not practical, which is why I focus on small arms since a small insurgency force is capable of mounting a successful campaign to unseat powerful human tyrants.

I see the world has changed. Maintaining a standing army in the modern world is a necessary evil. I also see the citizens maintaining the arms of a soldier as a necessary evil. If they must at some point rise up and unseat their government by violent force, then they must have the means to do so including the training and the will.

Why you see this as unnecessary, I do not know. You are one of the people that believes George Bush Jr. lied about our reasons for the Iraq War that killed tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens and killed and maimed several thousand of our people in the prosecution of this war. You believe our government lied about this and manipulated us into this war. Yet you do not want the people to keep and bear arms to balance a government capable of this behavior? This is the strange hypocrisy of the thinking you purport to believe in.

The bottom line is you are grievously wrong about the 2nd Amendment. The idea of federal military and police power of the kind we have nowadays was what the Founders wanted to avoid. It is literally what they wrote the 2nd Amendment to counter. It was always intended that an armed citizenry with the will to use their weapons to defend their freedom from tyranny foreign or domestic would counter any attempt by a foreign or domestic government to exert violent tyranny on the The People. What would unite those people in defense of liberty is their individual desire to be free, thus uniting for defense of individual freedom, laying down their arms once it was reestablished.

I get it. We are off the railroad tracks of liberty and have been for a long, long time. I'm not sure if it is ever coming back, likely not given most people are like yourself and even myself (I'm a hypocrite and I admit it). We will not stand up and violently oppose a government that is acting irresponsibly with power we have given them to murder and mistreat in our name with lies and propaganda as part of a game with other nations for world domination. We are both too old and too comfortable to rise up and do a damn thing about it other than b**** on some forums or cast a vote that doesn't seem to matter as the people in office seem to do whatever they want regardless of what our Constitution or even the people's will wants them to do.

I hope we can retain this right so that some future generation of people will at least have the chance to rise up and reign in these abuses at some point. It's unlikely to happen. It seems by that time the ruling class will have built a robot army for managing living humans and small arms will likely not be enough. I imagine there is no returning to a time when individuals believed their rights were sacred. And now we are just a herd of 300 million plus trying to survive in the United States. 7 billion worldwide. It's hard to take care of a herd of humans that size because that many humans produce a lot of crazy people willing to exert violence without cause or sane justification.

I'll have my say nonetheless hoping that people will retain their rights and maybe use them to make the world a better place. It happens on occasion as it did here so long ago.

We disagree on the 2nd Amendment. It is very a much an individual right like free speech or freedom of religion, not dependent on view of society or the group. It was intended to act as a way for a citizen to defend himself and his nation for any tyranny be it criminals in his town or an invading army or a tyrannical domestic government. It is an important check and balance on governmental power. it is necessary to a free state as the amendment indicates. It is number 2 for a reason. Americans should not be willing to give up the power of violent revolution because of psychopaths anymore than they give up any other aspect of their freedoms due to terrorists or any other evil person using our freedoms against us.

I'm done with this nonetheless. This issue won't be decided on Internet forums. I doubt many minds will change. I think The People are slowly moving towards an attitude of giving up their weapons and accepting heavy government rule and management of their lives for security and comfort, thus trading liberty for video games, television, and fast food (or whatever you're consumption habits favor).

[c_hawkbob]

Bullcrap yourself Asea, virtually everything in your rebuttal is your opinion, as well as your unbelievably arrogant assertion that everyone that doesn't accept your very narrow interpretation of anything has a "fundamental misunderstanding" of whatever material is in question.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I can get with chawkbob's reasons for the 2nd Amendment. Those are understandable reason's for citizen's to be armed at the time.

However, I would have to imagine the conversation of the framers at the time that amendment was being written was influenced by their experience with the British government during the Revolutionary Period. You had a colony that disagreed with and resisted an oppressive government without using firearms at first, said oppressive government used force (armed soldiers) to put the colony back in line, then the colony uses firearms to fight back to become free from the oppressive government. I have to believe they wanted to make sure that this nation's citizens always had the ability to fight back against an oppressive government, both foreign and domestic.

[Edit] I would agree that the intention was not for citizens to have huge arsenals of weaponry with fire rates that can claim the lives of many at one time. Sarah Conner type bunkers from T2 isn't what the framer's had in mind.

[NorthHawk]

It's interesting to note that there was a prior draft of the 2nd Amendment:

Original proposal
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Final draft
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The first talked about country and the second about a State.

So who would regulate such a militia as it's clear they didn't intend to have roving bands of self defined militia?
Obviously it would be the government.

The logical conclusion is the 2nd Amendment wasn't provided as a means to protect its citizens against a National Gov't nor a State Gov't, rather it was for protection from outside forces such as Britain returning or another
force that might want to invade. As well, it seems that it would give the State a right to form a militia to guard against encroachment of the Federal Gov't on State's rights and thus the change of wording from Country to State.

But nobody really knows what they intended and it's been debated for a long time and will continue to do so, it would seem.

[Seahawks4Ever]

"Nobody knows what the founding fathers intended" Hogwash! Read the Federalist Papers if you want to know what they intended. Oh, that's right, actually looking up and actually reading history is just too hard for a LAZY ELECTORATE.

[NorthHawk]

Then why is there debate amongst historians?
There's even one who thinks it was put in place to protect slavery, or to at least get Virginia to sign, so the intent is not agreed to by all scholars.

[burrrton]

Supreme Court jurisprudence has clearly established what the 2A means. There's no need to debate it further unless you have some nuanced issue that hasn't been answered by them six ways to Sunday.

[Aseahawkfan]

It's interesting to note that there was a prior draft of the 2nd Amendment:

Original proposal
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Final draft
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The first talked about country and the second about a State.

So who would regulate such a militia as it's clear they didn't intend to have roving bands of self defined militia?
Obviously it would be the government.

The logical conclusion is the 2nd Amendment wasn't provided as a means to protect its citizens against a National Gov't nor a State Gov't, rather it was for protection from outside forces such as Britain returning or another
force that might want to invade. As well, it seems that it would give the State a right to form a militia to guard against encroachment of the Federal Gov't on State's rights and thus the change of wording from Country to State.

But nobody really knows what they intended and it's been debated for a long time and will continue to do so, it would seem.

The government would not regulate the militia. The People would themselves. The power of the Constitution was founded on the principles of individual freedom and natural law with the additions of functional government included in the overall government.

We know what was intended. It has always been clear by the intent of the Bill of Rights. It was to provide checks and balances on government power and to protect the individual from government oppression. The Bill of Rights was based on individual freedoms provided to the citizen that the government could not take away. I understand they don't teach this in High Schools. You research the founding principles of the document, specifically natural law and the idea of an individual right and you see where they're coming from.

These men came from societies where arms were regulated. I don't mean just guns, I mean arms of all kinds for years. They came from societies where the ruling class employed a military/police class to enforce the social hierarchy. It was why they considered it necessary to ensure the protection of arms for citizens. Do you ever ask what motivated them to include such an amendment so early in The Bill of Rights? What motivated such an inclusion? Why not take are of that later? Why include the Right to Bear Arms in a group of amendments intended to ensure individual rights? Ask yourself that question, then explore the answer.

I've taken the time to study this from my time in college. The extensive arms control measures enacted by various societies throughout history shows a clear pattern that disarmament of the population is a precursor to tyranny. Does it necessarily guarantee tyranny? No. Does it create a situation where the people have no real power? Yes, it does. All power is force. You literally have no real power if you can't protect it with force. It's why the force of military/police backed government is the ultimate arbiter of all matters when pressed to the maximum level. Most don't push it to this level, but those that do find out quite clearly that if you do not have the means to oppose something by force, you have little real power. Even someone as powerful as Bill Gates has nothing once the police or military show up at his house.

This is an extreme example. It illustrates the basic point of why The Founders considered it important that the citizenry possess arms. If The People do not have arms, they have no real power. They knew it back then, some realize it now. Others will gladly give up their means of violent revolution to feel safer and will accept the yoke. Some of us have read history and know that a disarmed people without the means and consequent knowledge and will to use those means are a powerless people that will one day find themselves wanting when the arms they have given only to the government are turned on them.

[Aseahawkfan]

Supreme Court jurisprudence has clearly established what the 2A means. There's no need to debate it further unless you have some nuanced issue that hasn't been answered by them six ways to Sunday.

Some of us will not accept everything the Supreme Court decides and would rather look to the original intent of The Bill of Rights and its founding principles. The Supreme Court is heavily politicized and corrupt at this point. They are declaring corporations as individuals and using The Commerce Clause in a far too wide a manner.

[burrrton]

Some of us will not accept everything the Supreme Court decides and would rather look to the original intent of The Bill of Rights and its founding principles.

Some people piss standing up into a 40mph wind, too.

They are declaring corporations as individuals

An eminently defensible declaration. A "corporation" isn't a sentient being, individuals are, and that doesn't cease to be true because you pool your money with others.

[RiverDog]

Some of us will not accept everything the Supreme Court decides and would rather look to the original intent of The Bill of Rights and its founding principles. The Supreme Court is heavily politicized and corrupt at this point. They are declaring corporations as individuals and using The Commerce Clause in a far too wide a manner.

There was a huge debate amongst the founding fathers themselves, so it's not as if it was a completely unified document with clear, unarguable principles even in 1789.

Besides, we have to determine which parts of it translates into 21st century society and which parts are no longer relevant. Freedom of speech, a free press, exercise of religion, unreasonable search and seizure? Those phrases translate well today, and probably will forever. A well regulated militia probably doesn't translate. Heck, most Americans don't even know what a militia is.

That doesn't mean that I'm against the 2nd amendment, to the contrary. It simply means that we can't take every word in the Constitution and apply it to modern society.

[Largent80]

The amendment has been interpreted and abused and it's so obvious and also too late.

[Seahawks4Ever]

" it is a defensible position" -Burton-yeah, if you totally distort not just the meaning of the words the U.S. Constitution was written with but also the spirit in which they were written.

Burton, the people with whom you are trying to defend actively trying to destroy our great nation. Those who continue to support Donald J. Trump are worse than piles of excrement, at least piles of excrement can be turned in to something useful like fertilizer.

I can understand opposing someone because you disagree with that person's political ideas. What I cannot understand nor condone is someone who blatantly lies and distorts what an opponent has said and/or what they stand for.

Wake up traitors, these reports about Trump and most of his cabinet members abusing their offices is NOT FAKE NEWS when you have two former Presidents, one a Republican and one a Democrat warning the American people that our Great Republic is in dire peril because we have a criminal as POTUS.

[Seahawks4Ever]

Now, back to the topic that this thread is about, the massacre in Las Vegas;

Conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones and Breitbart but not limited to those two have started claiming that the shooting was actually carried out by some Islamic Terrorists that were working by the F.B.I. and that the "goal" of the shooting was so that the Federal Government would have an excuse to start confiscating the weapons of law biding American citizens. YEP, they actually went there, they really did.

It is a totally outrageous lie, but when you have people such as Burton and River Dog who buy into this B.S. it really makes me sick.

I can hear RD complaining from here, but doesn't he realize if he fails to stand up and speak out about BALD FACE LIES such as these and many, many other out right deceptions then he is giving his stamp of approval. You know, he probably believes that there were some "good people" who were marching with their Tiki Torches and chanting "blood and soil" and insults against people of the Jewish faith. Many of those right wing racists also carried American flags that the marchers had desecrated by putting swastikas on them. Wow, swastikas on American flags and there are some people who actually try and defend monstrocities such as these.

The same people who defend these racist pukes such as that Spencer guy have a hissy fit when a few sports figures have been expressing their freedom of speech by "taking a knee".

[burrrton]

yeah, if you totally distort not just the meaning of the words the U.S. Constitution was written with but also the spirit in which they were written.

Yeah, *that's* what all those SCOTUS justices are doing. Nailed it.

Burton, the people with whom you are trying to defend actively trying to destroy our great nation.

Who am I defending (besides a Supreme Court decision)? Honestly not following.

[burrrton]

It is a totally outrageous lie, but when you have people such as Burton and River Dog who buy into this B.S. it really makes me sick.

What the actual f*ck are you talking about??

Start reading more carefully or I'm going to mute you.

Conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones and Breitbart but not limited to those two have started claiming that the shooting was actually carried out by some Islamic Terrorists that were working by the F.B.I. and that the "goal" of the shooting was so that the Federal Government would have an excuse to start confiscating the weapons of law biding American citizens. YEP, they actually went there, they really did.

Idiotic cranks like Jones said the same crap about 9/11- you sound surprised they went there for a smaller massacre like LV.

Wow, swastikas on American flags and there are some people who actually try and defend monstrocities such as these.

Yeah, RD- quit defending them! LOL.

[RiverDog]

Now, back to the topic that this thread is about, the massacre in Las Vegas;

Conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones and Breitbart but not limited to those two have started claiming that the shooting was actually carried out by some Islamic Terrorists that were working by the F.B.I. and that the "goal" of the shooting was so that the Federal Government would have an excuse to start confiscating the weapons of law biding American citizens. YEP, they actually went there, they really did.

It is a totally outrageous lie, but when you have people such as Burton and River Dog who buy into this B.S. it really makes me sick.

I can hear RD complaining from here, but doesn't he realize if he fails to stand up and speak out about BALD FACE LIES such as these and many, many other out right deceptions then he is giving his stamp of approval. You know, he probably believes that there were some "good people" who were marching with their Tiki Torches and chanting "blood and soil" and insults against people of the Jewish faith. Many of those right wing racists also carried American flags that the marchers had desecrated by putting swastikas on them. Wow, swastikas on American flags and there are some people who actually try and defend monstrocities such as these.

The same people who defend these racist pukes such as that Spencer guy have a hissy fit when a few sports figures have been expressing their freedom of speech by "taking a knee".

Honestly, you've lost me. Are you calling me a conspiracy theorist, suggesting that I've defended right wing racists? Just what kind of BS is it that I have I bought into? You'll have to be a little more specific before I can respond.

[Aseahawkfan]

Wow. Now that is a nut job troll right there.

[RiverDog]

Wow. Now that is a nut job troll right there.

Yea, no kidding. I've always known S4E as a rational poster, but calling out burrton and me, suggesting that we're both Nazis? Someone must have pissed in his Corn Flakes. I'm not sure why he left you off the hook.

[idhawkman]

Many of those right wing racists also carried American flags that the marchers had desecrated by putting swastikas on them. Wow, swastikas on American flags and there are some people who actually try and defend monstrocities such as these.

What? Wait.... I thought you were "for" feedom of speech. What happened?

[Seahawks4Ever]

I AM for freedom of speech, just because I pointed out that some of the RACIST that you want to CHAMPION had put SWASTIKAS on OLD GLORY. Yes, they has a RIGHT to do it but it DOES desecrate it. You have every right to your racist hate speech unless you start promoting the violent over throw of the United States Government. You sir and your ilk have danced right up to that line so don't be surprised if someone calls you out on it.

"Patriotism is the LAST REFUGE of a SCOUNDREL" -Benjamin Franklin . That's what I think of every time you phony patriots open up your pie hole.

P.S. Asshoes such as yourself have been denigrating and threatening survivors of the Las Vegas shooting calling them "actors" and phony victims. Why do I have the feeling that YOU are one of those PUKES who are doing this??????????????????????

The TRUTH is Trump and fellow FACISTS, such as yourself, are DESTROYING our Republic and YOU are being called out on it!

If I had my druthers I would wish that Kapernick had found some OTHER way of protesting and I wish that others would not have followed suit BUT I will fight to the death to defend their RIGHT to do so. I feel the same about other OFFENSIVE speech but NOT SUBVERSIVE or SEDITIOUS speech. Just as players have a RIGHT to protest during the National Anthem people also have the RIGHT to say that they find that form of speech OFFENSIVE, actions do have consequences after all, I draw the line at saying that the players should be forced to stand or not protest.

Rocky Blier, the famed FB of the Steelers brought up an interesting angle, since they are "at work" he says they don't have a "right" to protest since none of us at a "regular job" would NEVER be allowed to protest or we would be FIRED. How true, how true and guess what? These knee taking players CAN BE FIRED for their protests!! BUT! Does any owner or the NFL really want to go there?? Surely they don't or they already would have. Can you imagine 3/4 of the players walking away from the sport right in the middle of the season??? It would take a few years to get the "product" back up to the level of play as it is now but would there be any fans left???

I REALLY believe that the players should find another way to make their voice heard, a more productive way that doesn't pizz off millions of people many who are fans and of course many who are not. But, they do have the RIGHT to do it.

Does THAT clear it up for you? I am sorry you have a reading comprehension problem, maybe you should have paid attention in school instead of skipping out to smoke, drink, drug, and masterbate to a Ronald Reagan poster...

[Seahawks4Ever]

RD, sorry a missed one of your fellow coneheads, thanx for pointing him out LOL

Look, I HATE what is going on in this country but what I REALLY HATE is that the streets are not filled with people protesting this administration.

[burrrton]

I HATE what is going on in this country

You're at least half of it, you psycho. Get a f*cking grip.

[RiverDog]

RD, sorry a missed one of your fellow coneheads, thanx for pointing him out LOL

Look, I HATE what is going on in this country but what I REALLY HATE is that the streets are not filled with people protesting this administration.

Yea, that seems to be the liberal reaction, doesn't it? Rather than organizing a 'get out the vote' effort by registering voters, recruit viable candidates that support their POV, and raise funds and use the proceeds to air their POV, liberals would much rather go out in the streets, occupy police and prevent them from catching bad guys, create an extremely unsafe situation where violence is sure to break out, vandalize private property, obstruct traffic and disrupt others lives, and increase the response time for emergency services.

If your mother died of a heart attack because the ambulance that is usually less than 5 minutes away got stuck in traffic caused by an anti Trump protest that you started, how would you feel?

Look, I didn't vote for Trump and I won't vote for Trump if he runs again, and I am to the point where I am seriously considering voting for a Dem for a national office for the first time in my 40+ years of voting simply because I don't like Trump. But barring an impeachment or resignation, we're stuck with for the next 4 years. You libs need to look ahead to 2020 and start figuring out how you are going to oppose him rather than sitting around and whining about every tweet he makes.

[idhawkman]

I AM for freedom of speech, just because I pointed out that some of the RACIST that you want to CHAMPION had put SWASTIKAS on OLD GLORY. Yes, they has a RIGHT to do it but it DOES desecrate it. You have every right to your racist hate speech unless you start promoting the violent over throw of the United States Government. You sir and your ilk have danced right up to that line so don't be surprised if someone calls you out on it.

Jump to conclusions much? I have no racist hate speech.

"Patriotism is the LAST REFUGE of a SCOUNDREL" -Benjamin Franklin . That's what I think of every time you phony patriots open up your pie hole.

What's your definition of a patriot? I believe I've shown my patriotism with over 15 years of government service. I'll put that up against your patriot claim.

P.S. Asshoes such as yourself have been denigrating and threatening survivors of the Las Vegas shooting calling them "actors" and phony victims. Why do I have the feeling that YOU are one of those PUKES who are doing this??????????????????????

First you say I am doing it and then you say you have a feeling. I think the feeling you have should be examined as I've never said one thing about the victims other than say a prayer for them.

The TRUTH is Trump and fellow FACISTS, such as yourself, are DESTROYING our Republic and YOU are being called out on it!

Now I'm a fascist and Trump is too. Do you even know what that word means. Look it up - you'll be shocked at what it actually means. Then after you look it up, tell me who is more fascist - Obama putting in all the government regulations and oversights or Trump for getting rid of it.

If I had my druthers I would wish that Kapernick had found some OTHER way of protesting and I wish that others would not have followed suit BUT I will fight to the death to defend their RIGHT to do so.

Finally we agree on something. Let's start from here.

I feel the same about other OFFENSIVE speech but NOT SUBVERSIVE or SEDITIOUS speech.

subjective - who determines what's subversive or seditious? The Brits thought our founding fathers were subversive and seditious.

Just as players have a RIGHT to protest during the National Anthem people also have the RIGHT to say that they find that form of speech OFFENSIVE, actions do have consequences after all, I draw the line at saying that the players should be forced to stand or not protest.

Again, your facts are a little off. They do not have a RIGHT to protest. They have the RIGHT to not be prosecuted by the federal government for their speech whether it is hateful or not. They can be fired by their employer, placed mandates on by their employer and all kinds of other things. Their right to protest is only allowed by their employer at this point and not by the government. I also have the right NOT to partake in their protest and to protest in my own way - which I do. I am not shouting you down or calling you names because you don't see things my way but that doesn't stop you from doing it to me because I don't share your view. Hmmm... Ever think about taking a civics lesson at a local college or online?

Rocky Blier, the famed FB of the Steelers brought up an interesting angle, since they are "at work" he says they don't have a "right" to protest since none of us at a "regular job" would NEVER be allowed to protest or we would be FIRED. How true, how true and guess what? These knee taking players CAN BE FIRED for their protests!! BUT! Does any owner or the NFL really want to go there?? Surely they don't or they already would have. Can you imagine 3/4 of the players walking away from the sport right in the middle of the season??? It would take a few years to get the "product" back up to the level of play as it is now but would there be any fans left???

The owners don't have to. The players are cutting their own salaries and don't even know it yet. When the players who don't want any part of this issue start losing pay, then you'll see the issue resolved among themselves. The owners will continue to be rich but the players will suffer a big salary cap hit in the coming years.

I REALLY believe that the players should find another way to make their voice heard, a more productive way that doesn't pizz off millions of people many who are fans and of course many who are not.

Again we agree. Wow, now we are on a roll.

But, they do have the RIGHT to do it.

NO! Again, they do not have a right to do it, they have the right not to be prosecuted by the Government if they do, do it.

Does THAT clear it up for you? I am sorry you have a reading comprehension problem, maybe you should have paid attention in school instead of skipping out to smoke, drink, drug, and masterbate to a Ronald Reagan poster...

Again with the ad hominem attacks. Morally, intellectually bankrupting yourself in any disccussion or argument. Just like the Russian Collusion case, this could be a boomerang effect on you.

[burrrton]

Now I'm a fascist and Trump is too.

No no, id- you're a "FACIST"- you only like people with faces.

[idhawkman]

No no, id- you're a "FACIST"- you only like people with faces.

sooner or later I'm going to grow tired of trying to straighten this guy out but posts like this make me laugh so much that it might take a while.

[RiverDog]

sooner or later I'm going to grow tired of trying to straighten this guy out but posts like this make me laugh so much that it might take a while.

Yea, I don't understand what S4E is up to. He's behaving so irrationally that Cbob has started a thread by writing him an open letter asking him to back off. I enjoy a good, healthy debate and I don't mind a moderate name calling here or there, but this guy has really gone off the rails.

[idhawkman]

Yea, I don't understand what S4E is up to. He's behaving so irrationally that Cbob has started a thread by writing him an open letter asking him to back off. I enjoy a good, healthy debate and I don't mind a moderate name calling here or there, but this guy has really gone off the rails.

I wish there was a thumbs up button these posts so I could click it when I agree. I didn't like the name calling and cussing so much either.