If banning rifles is a winner for democrats, why do they want to hide it from voters?

[westwall]

When you claim such ridiculous "victories" you only make yourself look foolish. Yes, the SCOTUS refused the hear the Friedman case, but that ain't the end of the story. All of this crap takes time. The Supremes try like hell to not have to hear hard cases like this on.


"On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case called Kolbe v. Hogan, sent the state of Maryland’s ban on assault weapons back to a federal trial court for a second, more scrupulous review. In a 2–1 decision, the majority of the appellate panel found that the semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines banned under a new Maryland law “are in common use by law-abiding citizens” and cannot be banned under the Second Amendment. The ruling sets the wheels in motion for another major gun fight at the high court. It will now likely have to answer this question: In a country where one bloody massacre seems to follow another, and 33,636 people were killed by firearms in 2013, does the court want to be in the business of handing out AR-15s like so much Halloween candy?"

The Supreme Court May Finally Have to Take a New Gun Case

First of all, the law as it's written is poorly written is should be struck down. I originally read it and didn't think it would last this long. A 10 round max and it's definition of what an assault rifle is just doesn't cut it. It's a bad law. The Judges have all but hit Maryland over the head without actually ruling. They are giving Maryland a chance to fix the damned thing. If they don't fix it pretty soon, it's never going to make it to the supreme court. A lower court is going to strike it down first. This is why the Supreme Court has decided not to hear it. It's not run the gambit of the lower courts.

In 2013, after the Theater shooting and the school shooting in Colorado, there were some pretty drastic gun regs passed. They didn't go after the AR specifically. They went after the features of a full blown AR like the pistol grip, the forward pistol grip, more than 15 rounds (I found that a bit odd and would have gone for 20 myself since at the time, there were no 15 round clips offered so they came with 10 and that looked real odd), the various rails to mount things like the M203, the threaded barrel ends for silencers, collapsible stocks, and a few more little tidbits. Plus, all gun sales and transfers had to go through gun checks including private ones. And the age to purchase or obtain firearms was raised to 21. Strawman sales were deem illegal. There were more but, like I said, not enough to lose any sleep over. They also tried to sneak in the Assault wording. The NRA took it to court. The wording for the Assault was agreed to be removed during the proceedings so the Court agreed to let the rest stand. Poor wording on what an assault rifle is. We do have ARs on the shelves but they are pretty well stripped. The Accessories to make them full blown can be had but you have to go through the internet to get them. Many online stores won't ship to colorado. These were Grand Fathered in.

Here comes the sad part and the very expensive tissy fit by the NRA. They dumped millions of dollars into a recall of 3 state Senators and Representatives. 2 survived the recall, both Democrats. One Democrat was replaced by a Republican due to the recall. On the 2014 election, the Republican was replaced by a Democrat. Nothing changed except the NRA spent millions of dollars and the state of Colorado spent millions on the recall as well. For much of this State, the NRA is not well thought of.

What you are claiming as a victory is something that is pending. You describe it as the lower courts breaking the law when in fact, they are trying to give the state the chance to change their law without any ruling. I see this all the time not just in firearms but in many other things as well. The fact remains, our Judicial System is much better off than our congressional or executive system. And I mean all levels. I see no place where there is a battle going on like you claim there is. You seem to be making the fool out of yourself and you don't need my help.

I never claimed anything as a victory. That was you. I have said, rightly so, that SCOTUS has already ruled on what weapons are protected, and which are not, and the criteria they used for their determination. That's all I have done. The lower Courts have made some terrible rulings due to judicial malfeasance, and the hope that we don't know the laws that have already been ruled on. They think that they can pull a fast one like obummer was fond of doing.

They are wrong.

And yet you can't find even one place where the supreme court has overturned the lower court on any gun reg ruling. You can find where the lower courts have kicked it up and not ruled themselves but that's it. The one that I admit was different actually wasn't done by the supreme court but was done by a lower court about the stun gun. The Supreme court has only made rulings with DC which has no lower court since they are not a state and rely on the supreme court itself for rulings.

The last one you brought up, the lower court did not rule but kicked it back to the government. They made suggestions. They are trying to shame them into making a good law for a change. I have seen this happening in the last 2 years way too many times. You seem to have a fixation of Obama when the real culprits is the various levels of congressionals that keep trying to sneak some real partisan crap through. So far, the court system has stopped most of that. IT appears you need to spend less time dwelling on Obama sucks and the Courts Suck and more time on the Congressionals Suck and do something about it.

Try McDonald Vs Chicago. 2010.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
I just got finished reading the whole bill. It is a fascinating history lesson. I won't print it in here. It's way too long and way to much pontification is involved. Guess the Judges liked to hear themselves talk way too much but the point is in there anyway. Mostly about scared free white men protecting their own against any and all evils both real and imagined. Those laws that were struck down were from a time where it was a seesaw of which side would disarm which side. If the Feds weren't disarming the States, the States were disarming the Feds. Each one in fear of each other. Or one group disarming another group. Each side passed laws that justified their actions. And due to the times, the courts generally upheld those laws. It was from a time when Judges might be called Joe Bob. But sometime after 1869, those laws started to be struck down. Using those old laws to justify laws today is just doing the old "Hey, look over there" routine. You would have to go all the way back to the Jim Crowe Laws which were struck down by all levels of Federal Courts.

In my mind, I removed all that since it really meant nothing and reread it. What came out of it was that Chicago was trying to ban all firearms. It wasn't the court system, it was their legislators. The lower federal court ruled that they could not do this. It was appealed. It went in front of the Supreme Court and they ruled that it was unconstitutional. After taking out all the crap out of the ruling, what is left is the Heller ruling. Chicago cannot ban handguns in the homes for law abiding citizens that qualify for legal ownership. There was no over ruling of the lower court since the lower court agreed each step of the way for exactly the same reason.

Heller had a profound affect on all States Laws. In affect, DC is equivalent to a State and Heller applies to all states. Some States or Cities deny that like Chicago tried to do. What you keep bringing up isn't a discord in the Federal Court System. It's a discord in the Legislative State and Local Governments. And without that, there would be less need for the Federal Courts including the Supreme Court.

I wonder, are you doing this because you are trying to get your first win or are you just using me to educate people in here? I am not looking for a win. I am just informing of the law. Simple as that. There are no winners. But there are certainly losers. But if you want to keep bringing up these things, I'm game. I find it fascinating.

Indeed it is an interesting history lesson. Keep learning. There is much more for you to catch up on.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

First of all, the law as it's written is poorly written is should be struck down. I originally read it and didn't think it would last this long. A 10 round max and it's definition of what an assault rifle is just doesn't cut it. It's a bad law. The Judges have all but hit Maryland over the head without actually ruling. They are giving Maryland a chance to fix the damned thing. If they don't fix it pretty soon, it's never going to make it to the supreme court. A lower court is going to strike it down first. This is why the Supreme Court has decided not to hear it. It's not run the gambit of the lower courts.

In 2013, after the Theater shooting and the school shooting in Colorado, there were some pretty drastic gun regs passed. They didn't go after the AR specifically. They went after the features of a full blown AR like the pistol grip, the forward pistol grip, more than 15 rounds (I found that a bit odd and would have gone for 20 myself since at the time, there were no 15 round clips offered so they came with 10 and that looked real odd), the various rails to mount things like the M203, the threaded barrel ends for silencers, collapsible stocks, and a few more little tidbits. Plus, all gun sales and transfers had to go through gun checks including private ones. And the age to purchase or obtain firearms was raised to 21. Strawman sales were deem illegal. There were more but, like I said, not enough to lose any sleep over. They also tried to sneak in the Assault wording. The NRA took it to court. The wording for the Assault was agreed to be removed during the proceedings so the Court agreed to let the rest stand. Poor wording on what an assault rifle is. We do have ARs on the shelves but they are pretty well stripped. The Accessories to make them full blown can be had but you have to go through the internet to get them. Many online stores won't ship to colorado. These were Grand Fathered in.

Here comes the sad part and the very expensive tissy fit by the NRA. They dumped millions of dollars into a recall of 3 state Senators and Representatives. 2 survived the recall, both Democrats. One Democrat was replaced by a Republican due to the recall. On the 2014 election, the Republican was replaced by a Democrat. Nothing changed except the NRA spent millions of dollars and the state of Colorado spent millions on the recall as well. For much of this State, the NRA is not well thought of.

What you are claiming as a victory is something that is pending. You describe it as the lower courts breaking the law when in fact, they are trying to give the state the chance to change their law without any ruling. I see this all the time not just in firearms but in many other things as well. The fact remains, our Judicial System is much better off than our congressional or executive system. And I mean all levels. I see no place where there is a battle going on like you claim there is. You seem to be making the fool out of yourself and you don't need my help.

I never claimed anything as a victory. That was you. I have said, rightly so, that SCOTUS has already ruled on what weapons are protected, and which are not, and the criteria they used for their determination. That's all I have done. The lower Courts have made some terrible rulings due to judicial malfeasance, and the hope that we don't know the laws that have already been ruled on. They think that they can pull a fast one like obummer was fond of doing.

They are wrong.

And yet you can't find even one place where the supreme court has overturned the lower court on any gun reg ruling. You can find where the lower courts have kicked it up and not ruled themselves but that's it. The one that I admit was different actually wasn't done by the supreme court but was done by a lower court about the stun gun. The Supreme court has only made rulings with DC which has no lower court since they are not a state and rely on the supreme court itself for rulings.

The last one you brought up, the lower court did not rule but kicked it back to the government. They made suggestions. They are trying to shame them into making a good law for a change. I have seen this happening in the last 2 years way too many times. You seem to have a fixation of Obama when the real culprits is the various levels of congressionals that keep trying to sneak some real partisan crap through. So far, the court system has stopped most of that. IT appears you need to spend less time dwelling on Obama sucks and the Courts Suck and more time on the Congressionals Suck and do something about it.

Try McDonald Vs Chicago. 2010.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
I just got finished reading the whole bill. It is a fascinating history lesson. I won't print it in here. It's way too long and way to much pontification is involved. Guess the Judges liked to hear themselves talk way too much but the point is in there anyway. Mostly about scared free white men protecting their own against any and all evils both real and imagined. Those laws that were struck down were from a time where it was a seesaw of which side would disarm which side. If the Feds weren't disarming the States, the States were disarming the Feds. Each one in fear of each other. Or one group disarming another group. Each side passed laws that justified their actions. And due to the times, the courts generally upheld those laws. It was from a time when Judges might be called Joe Bob. But sometime after 1869, those laws started to be struck down. Using those old laws to justify laws today is just doing the old "Hey, look over there" routine. You would have to go all the way back to the Jim Crowe Laws which were struck down by all levels of Federal Courts.

In my mind, I removed all that since it really meant nothing and reread it. What came out of it was that Chicago was trying to ban all firearms. It wasn't the court system, it was their legislators. The lower federal court ruled that they could not do this. It was appealed. It went in front of the Supreme Court and they ruled that it was unconstitutional. After taking out all the crap out of the ruling, what is left is the Heller ruling. Chicago cannot ban handguns in the homes for law abiding citizens that qualify for legal ownership. There was no over ruling of the lower court since the lower court agreed each step of the way for exactly the same reason.

Heller had a profound affect on all States Laws. In affect, DC is equivalent to a State and Heller applies to all states. Some States or Cities deny that like Chicago tried to do. What you keep bringing up isn't a discord in the Federal Court System. It's a discord in the Legislative State and Local Governments. And without that, there would be less need for the Federal Courts including the Supreme Court.

I wonder, are you doing this because you are trying to get your first win or are you just using me to educate people in here? I am not looking for a win. I am just informing of the law. Simple as that. There are no winners. But there are certainly losers. But if you want to keep bringing up these things, I'm game. I find it fascinating.

Indeed it is an interesting history lesson. Keep learning. There is much more for you to catch up on.

Do the guncrazy sheeple know they let a wolf into their fold?

 

[westwall]

I never claimed anything as a victory. That was you. I have said, rightly so, that SCOTUS has already ruled on what weapons are protected, and which are not, and the criteria they used for their determination. That's all I have done. The lower Courts have made some terrible rulings due to judicial malfeasance, and the hope that we don't know the laws that have already been ruled on. They think that they can pull a fast one like obummer was fond of doing.

They are wrong.

And yet you can't find even one place where the supreme court has overturned the lower court on any gun reg ruling. You can find where the lower courts have kicked it up and not ruled themselves but that's it. The one that I admit was different actually wasn't done by the supreme court but was done by a lower court about the stun gun. The Supreme court has only made rulings with DC which has no lower court since they are not a state and rely on the supreme court itself for rulings.

The last one you brought up, the lower court did not rule but kicked it back to the government. They made suggestions. They are trying to shame them into making a good law for a change. I have seen this happening in the last 2 years way too many times. You seem to have a fixation of Obama when the real culprits is the various levels of congressionals that keep trying to sneak some real partisan crap through. So far, the court system has stopped most of that. IT appears you need to spend less time dwelling on Obama sucks and the Courts Suck and more time on the Congressionals Suck and do something about it.

Try McDonald Vs Chicago. 2010.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
I just got finished reading the whole bill. It is a fascinating history lesson. I won't print it in here. It's way too long and way to much pontification is involved. Guess the Judges liked to hear themselves talk way too much but the point is in there anyway. Mostly about scared free white men protecting their own against any and all evils both real and imagined. Those laws that were struck down were from a time where it was a seesaw of which side would disarm which side. If the Feds weren't disarming the States, the States were disarming the Feds. Each one in fear of each other. Or one group disarming another group. Each side passed laws that justified their actions. And due to the times, the courts generally upheld those laws. It was from a time when Judges might be called Joe Bob. But sometime after 1869, those laws started to be struck down. Using those old laws to justify laws today is just doing the old "Hey, look over there" routine. You would have to go all the way back to the Jim Crowe Laws which were struck down by all levels of Federal Courts.

In my mind, I removed all that since it really meant nothing and reread it. What came out of it was that Chicago was trying to ban all firearms. It wasn't the court system, it was their legislators. The lower federal court ruled that they could not do this. It was appealed. It went in front of the Supreme Court and they ruled that it was unconstitutional. After taking out all the crap out of the ruling, what is left is the Heller ruling. Chicago cannot ban handguns in the homes for law abiding citizens that qualify for legal ownership. There was no over ruling of the lower court since the lower court agreed each step of the way for exactly the same reason.

Heller had a profound affect on all States Laws. In affect, DC is equivalent to a State and Heller applies to all states. Some States or Cities deny that like Chicago tried to do. What you keep bringing up isn't a discord in the Federal Court System. It's a discord in the Legislative State and Local Governments. And without that, there would be less need for the Federal Courts including the Supreme Court.

I wonder, are you doing this because you are trying to get your first win or are you just using me to educate people in here? I am not looking for a win. I am just informing of the law. Simple as that. There are no winners. But there are certainly losers. But if you want to keep bringing up these things, I'm game. I find it fascinating.

Indeed it is an interesting history lesson. Keep learning. There is much more for you to catch up on.

Do the guncrazy sheeple know they let a wolf into their fold?

Do you understand that making bigoted comments like that render whatever opinion you may have had irrelevant? Instead of acting like a d'bag, try carrying on a civil discussion.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And yet you can't find even one place where the supreme court has overturned the lower court on any gun reg ruling. You can find where the lower courts have kicked it up and not ruled themselves but that's it. The one that I admit was different actually wasn't done by the supreme court but was done by a lower court about the stun gun. The Supreme court has only made rulings with DC which has no lower court since they are not a state and rely on the supreme court itself for rulings.

The last one you brought up, the lower court did not rule but kicked it back to the government. They made suggestions. They are trying to shame them into making a good law for a change. I have seen this happening in the last 2 years way too many times. You seem to have a fixation of Obama when the real culprits is the various levels of congressionals that keep trying to sneak some real partisan crap through. So far, the court system has stopped most of that. IT appears you need to spend less time dwelling on Obama sucks and the Courts Suck and more time on the Congressionals Suck and do something about it.

Try McDonald Vs Chicago. 2010.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
I just got finished reading the whole bill. It is a fascinating history lesson. I won't print it in here. It's way too long and way to much pontification is involved. Guess the Judges liked to hear themselves talk way too much but the point is in there anyway. Mostly about scared free white men protecting their own against any and all evils both real and imagined. Those laws that were struck down were from a time where it was a seesaw of which side would disarm which side. If the Feds weren't disarming the States, the States were disarming the Feds. Each one in fear of each other. Or one group disarming another group. Each side passed laws that justified their actions. And due to the times, the courts generally upheld those laws. It was from a time when Judges might be called Joe Bob. But sometime after 1869, those laws started to be struck down. Using those old laws to justify laws today is just doing the old "Hey, look over there" routine. You would have to go all the way back to the Jim Crowe Laws which were struck down by all levels of Federal Courts.

In my mind, I removed all that since it really meant nothing and reread it. What came out of it was that Chicago was trying to ban all firearms. It wasn't the court system, it was their legislators. The lower federal court ruled that they could not do this. It was appealed. It went in front of the Supreme Court and they ruled that it was unconstitutional. After taking out all the crap out of the ruling, what is left is the Heller ruling. Chicago cannot ban handguns in the homes for law abiding citizens that qualify for legal ownership. There was no over ruling of the lower court since the lower court agreed each step of the way for exactly the same reason.

Heller had a profound affect on all States Laws. In affect, DC is equivalent to a State and Heller applies to all states. Some States or Cities deny that like Chicago tried to do. What you keep bringing up isn't a discord in the Federal Court System. It's a discord in the Legislative State and Local Governments. And without that, there would be less need for the Federal Courts including the Supreme Court.

I wonder, are you doing this because you are trying to get your first win or are you just using me to educate people in here? I am not looking for a win. I am just informing of the law. Simple as that. There are no winners. But there are certainly losers. But if you want to keep bringing up these things, I'm game. I find it fascinating.

Indeed it is an interesting history lesson. Keep learning. There is much more for you to catch up on.

Do the guncrazy sheeple know they let a wolf into their fold?

Do you understand that making bigoted comments like that render whatever opinion you may have had irrelevant? Instead of acting like a d'bag, try carrying on a civil discussion.

You have to be kidding. In here? You sit idly by while I get called every unflattering name in the book and you have the nerve to council me in turning around one of their own phrases and use it pertaining to them? Please don't help. All of us have enough to worry about without you.

 

[westwall]

Try McDonald Vs Chicago. 2010.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
I just got finished reading the whole bill. It is a fascinating history lesson. I won't print it in here. It's way too long and way to much pontification is involved. Guess the Judges liked to hear themselves talk way too much but the point is in there anyway. Mostly about scared free white men protecting their own against any and all evils both real and imagined. Those laws that were struck down were from a time where it was a seesaw of which side would disarm which side. If the Feds weren't disarming the States, the States were disarming the Feds. Each one in fear of each other. Or one group disarming another group. Each side passed laws that justified their actions. And due to the times, the courts generally upheld those laws. It was from a time when Judges might be called Joe Bob. But sometime after 1869, those laws started to be struck down. Using those old laws to justify laws today is just doing the old "Hey, look over there" routine. You would have to go all the way back to the Jim Crowe Laws which were struck down by all levels of Federal Courts.

In my mind, I removed all that since it really meant nothing and reread it. What came out of it was that Chicago was trying to ban all firearms. It wasn't the court system, it was their legislators. The lower federal court ruled that they could not do this. It was appealed. It went in front of the Supreme Court and they ruled that it was unconstitutional. After taking out all the crap out of the ruling, what is left is the Heller ruling. Chicago cannot ban handguns in the homes for law abiding citizens that qualify for legal ownership. There was no over ruling of the lower court since the lower court agreed each step of the way for exactly the same reason.

Heller had a profound affect on all States Laws. In affect, DC is equivalent to a State and Heller applies to all states. Some States or Cities deny that like Chicago tried to do. What you keep bringing up isn't a discord in the Federal Court System. It's a discord in the Legislative State and Local Governments. And without that, there would be less need for the Federal Courts including the Supreme Court.

I wonder, are you doing this because you are trying to get your first win or are you just using me to educate people in here? I am not looking for a win. I am just informing of the law. Simple as that. There are no winners. But there are certainly losers. But if you want to keep bringing up these things, I'm game. I find it fascinating.

Indeed it is an interesting history lesson. Keep learning. There is much more for you to catch up on.

Do the guncrazy sheeple know they let a wolf into their fold?

Do you understand that making bigoted comments like that render whatever opinion you may have had irrelevant? Instead of acting like a d'bag, try carrying on a civil discussion.

You have to be kidding. In here? You sit idly by while I get called every unflattering name in the book and you have the nerve to council me in turning around one of their own phrases and use it pertaining to them? Please don't help. All of us have enough to worry about without you.

You have no idea what i delete from these threads. Invariably, when you get pissed off you resort to personal attacks. Take a look at how you responded to me. First you claimed I was abusing you, and there is no insult in any of my posts to you, then you claim i am going to ban you for what I have no idea. Iy is you who have been the uncivil person in this thread. i dare you to go back and review what you have said, vs what I have said in my responses.

The worst thing I said in response to one of your posts was "put some pants on".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
I just got finished reading the whole bill. It is a fascinating history lesson. I won't print it in here. It's way too long and way to much pontification is involved. Guess the Judges liked to hear themselves talk way too much but the point is in there anyway. Mostly about scared free white men protecting their own against any and all evils both real and imagined. Those laws that were struck down were from a time where it was a seesaw of which side would disarm which side. If the Feds weren't disarming the States, the States were disarming the Feds. Each one in fear of each other. Or one group disarming another group. Each side passed laws that justified their actions. And due to the times, the courts generally upheld those laws. It was from a time when Judges might be called Joe Bob. But sometime after 1869, those laws started to be struck down. Using those old laws to justify laws today is just doing the old "Hey, look over there" routine. You would have to go all the way back to the Jim Crowe Laws which were struck down by all levels of Federal Courts.

In my mind, I removed all that since it really meant nothing and reread it. What came out of it was that Chicago was trying to ban all firearms. It wasn't the court system, it was their legislators. The lower federal court ruled that they could not do this. It was appealed. It went in front of the Supreme Court and they ruled that it was unconstitutional. After taking out all the crap out of the ruling, what is left is the Heller ruling. Chicago cannot ban handguns in the homes for law abiding citizens that qualify for legal ownership. There was no over ruling of the lower court since the lower court agreed each step of the way for exactly the same reason.

Heller had a profound affect on all States Laws. In affect, DC is equivalent to a State and Heller applies to all states. Some States or Cities deny that like Chicago tried to do. What you keep bringing up isn't a discord in the Federal Court System. It's a discord in the Legislative State and Local Governments. And without that, there would be less need for the Federal Courts including the Supreme Court.

I wonder, are you doing this because you are trying to get your first win or are you just using me to educate people in here? I am not looking for a win. I am just informing of the law. Simple as that. There are no winners. But there are certainly losers. But if you want to keep bringing up these things, I'm game. I find it fascinating.

Indeed it is an interesting history lesson. Keep learning. There is much more for you to catch up on.

Do the guncrazy sheeple know they let a wolf into their fold?

Do you understand that making bigoted comments like that render whatever opinion you may have had irrelevant? Instead of acting like a d'bag, try carrying on a civil discussion.

You have to be kidding. In here? You sit idly by while I get called every unflattering name in the book and you have the nerve to council me in turning around one of their own phrases and use it pertaining to them? Please don't help. All of us have enough to worry about without you.

You have no idea what i delete from these threads. Invariably, when you get pissed off you resort to personal attacks. Take a look at how you responded to me. First you claimed I was abusing you, and there is no insult in any of my posts to you, then you claim i am going to ban you for what I have no idea. Iy is you who have been the uncivil person in this thread. i dare you to go back and review what you have said, vs what I have said in my responses.

The worst thing I said in response to one of your posts was "put some pants on".

You show prejudice. Just deleting isn't enough when your one sided comments are left. It paints a very slanted picture. You want respect as a moderator, you have to earn it. I don't just give it to you and you certainly can't just take it. Otherwise, the USMB would have died out long ago.

 

[westwall]

Indeed it is an interesting history lesson. Keep learning. There is much more for you to catch up on.

Do the guncrazy sheeple know they let a wolf into their fold?

Do you understand that making bigoted comments like that render whatever opinion you may have had irrelevant? Instead of acting like a d'bag, try carrying on a civil discussion.

You have to be kidding. In here? You sit idly by while I get called every unflattering name in the book and you have the nerve to council me in turning around one of their own phrases and use it pertaining to them? Please don't help. All of us have enough to worry about without you.

You have no idea what i delete from these threads. Invariably, when you get pissed off you resort to personal attacks. Take a look at how you responded to me. First you claimed I was abusing you, and there is no insult in any of my posts to you, then you claim i am going to ban you for what I have no idea. Iy is you who have been the uncivil person in this thread. i dare you to go back and review what you have said, vs what I have said in my responses.

The worst thing I said in response to one of your posts was "put some pants on".

You show prejudice. Just deleting isn't enough when your one sided comments are left. It paints a very slanted picture. You want respect as a moderator, you have to earn it. I don't just give it to you and you certainly can't just take it. Otherwise, the USMB would have died out long ago.

I don't give a damn whether you respect me or not. All I care about is you follow the rules. What part of that do you find so difficult to understand?