"Semantics, I know. But it's still social media." - ...Vet
You are selectively editing the string of the conversation in an attempt to make a specious point. Kindly stop the dishonesty.
Did you, or did you not claim you do not use social media? The point is not specious, as it lends credibility or takes it away to the rest of your points. Your definition of social media may not include THR, but mine does. You can't even admit your definition is different, or even define what you believe social media to be. It's not all Facebook and Twitter, although they certainly qualify.
"However, NO community in Michigan is subject to Sharia law." - ibid.
"That certainly would come as a great surprise in certain areas within Dearborn. Maybe a little less time on Facebook and a little more time keeping up on current events in your state would be in order." - yours truly
"Get over yourself. When was the last time YOU were in Dearborn? Or spoke to family and friends nearby? Ever in the last decade? I highly doubt it. Rumors run rampant online (via social media) about the Islamist Sharia Law in Dearborn. IT. DOES. NOT. EXIST." - ibid.
Trouble with comprehension of the written word does not excuse you. My reference, initially and repeatedly so, was for certain communities, not Dearborn or any other city in Michigan as a whole.
"What you say about Sharia Law is verbatim from the internet. You think I don't keep up with current events in my own state." - ibid.
Well, yes...given your denial of the obvious.
"Please. I was in Dearborn just a couple months ago. In a city that large, Muslims are still a minority. What certain neighborhoods do does not over ride the Rule Of Law. My dad grew up in Dearborn, my uncle still lives there. It is nothing like what ignorant fear mongers spread on the internet. Nothing. End of story. You're just flat out wrong, regurgitating what simple minded, agenda driven fear mongers already said. Are you a simple minded, agenda driven fear monger who can't think for yourself?" - ibid.
Do you still beat your wife? Your personal anecdotal evidence isn't going to convince anyone of your argument. Are you familiar with the scientific method?
Show me in the Federal Constitution or the Constitution of the state of Michigan where it allows
communities to operate outside the standing rule of law. Personal anecdotal evidence may not convince YOU of anything. But YOU don't live here, so why would I care what YOU ASSUME is going on in my state? Where then, is YOUR evidence that Sharia Law not only happens in Dearborn or associated communities, but happens with the authority of law? Where do you get the information you follow, and where is YOUR PERSONAL research to back it up? Where are your personal findings in the matter?
"Do you care about what the Dept. of InJustice is doing to our fellow vets? - yours truly
"Well considering the VA doesn't have ANYTHING to do with DoJ, your question is irrelevant." - ibid.
I didn't say that it did...and my question is quite relevant because it goes to trust of federal alphabet agencies. Try to keep up, please.
What are you doing...since you don't agree with how the law is being followed [or not]...to help fellow vets? Or is it not important because the way the law is being implemented doesn't affect you personally?
Apparently you did not read my attendance of town halls, letters to government reps, educating and spreading knowledge, et cetera. I'm terribly sorry I did not mention anything aside from the 2A issues.
The VA doesn't need my help. Fellow veterans do. I help the ones who I can, how I can, when I can and where I can. Whether its resident donations to the VA Hospital in Battle Creek (food, books, time, money, etc.), or company sponsored donations to the Vets home in Grand Rapids (pallets of soda and a donation from Coca-Cola when I worked there), or supporting my local VFW or Legion post. If you assume I sit back and do nothing about anything but gripe on Facebook, you are sorely mistaken. I do all this as well as put in 50+ hours a week on the job.
"But the Alex Jones-esque fear mongering and rumor spreading doesn't serve any good purpose. I've never advocated to sit back and accept it." - ibid.
Then what do you advocate? Other than the status quo? Exactly how comfortable is it in that cocoon of yours?
"I am one of the many people who want full repeal of all gun laws. But, since I don't have the desire to become a prison bride, I abide by the laws that exists as long as they exist until we can get rid of them. Anything else is CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR." - ibid.
Are you familiar with the distinction between 'malum prohibitum' and 'malum in se'?
In a nutshell, yes. It's been awhile since my Intro to Criminal Justice so with a little bit of help from Google:
Malum Prohibitum essentially means, its wrong because society, government, etc. say it's wrong. Most of our civil and non-felonious laws fall under Malum Prohibitum.
Malum in se essentially means it's wrong because it's recognized as evil or wrong unto itself. Murder, rape, robbery, are examples of Malum In Se.
What is the point? That Malum Prohibitum laws are unnecessary restrictions? Some of them are, sure. Change society, and the laws will change with it. We see this happening in various ways nationwide. From Constitutional Carry in Kansas, to Universal Background Checks in Washington. The ghastly NY SAFE act is one end of the spectrum. It never would have been allowed if society felt differently. As it stands, NY society is still heavily mixed regarding that law. Eventually, NY state gun laws, even NY City gun laws might become less restrictive. Maybe the exact opposite will be true. Michigan once banned NFA items, concealed carry, and has a handgun registration that at one point included common long guns. Today, all of the NFA is legal, concealed carry is legal, and has just had a reform bill passed, limited long gun registration is gone, and handgun registration has a bill to eliminate it in the House right now.
But to answer your question. I, as a law abiding citizen, will follow the status quo, if only to fight it while maintaining my freedom. As I said before, it's a lot harder to fight bad laws from inside a jail cell.
"And maybe that's how you were raised, and I feel sorry for your kids if that's your lifestyle." - ibid.
Do you always resort to crass insults when you're losing an argument?
What argument? You bring up stuff that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, consistently avoiding answering the question at face value. You are consistently diverting the focus, shifting the goal posts. You ask what I've done, and when answered you claim it doesn't answer what you asked. You draw correlations then backtrack to cover it up, claiming it's not what you said. You accuse me of crass insults, while at the same time disparaging my character:
Do you still beat your wife?
Never have, never will. I realize it's word play, but it's from way out of left field.
You haven't blatantly come out and admit you defy the laws you disagree with, but one can easily come to that assumption. Again, the "because it's tyranny" defense isn't going to win your trial for felony concealed weapons violation, or whatever you get booked for when you ignore the law. So yeah, if this is how you act, your prison jumpsuit is inevitable, and your kids won't see you breathing free air for awhile.
"As I've said, I may not like the laws, but I abide by them for those selfish reasons like maintaining my rights and liberty." - ibid.
You abide unconstitutional laws to maintain your God-given rights? Astounding!
And here's a free lesson. ALL laws are Constitutional unless ruled otherwise by the Supreme Court. You may THINK they are unconstitutional, but until SCOTUS rules so, your opinion matters as much as mine. Argue it all you want, it's still the law, still enforceable, and if caught breaking it, you'll still go to jail. So, which of these laws I follow have been ruled as unconstitutional? Please, point them out so I can stop.
And once gain,
"Can't fight bad laws from a jail cell."
Well maybe you can if you have the money to hire an amazing lawyer who can get your arrest dropped, your conviction overturned, and the law repealed. Most of us don't have the millions to hire a team of lawyers to fight those battles, which is why I, and thousands of others, donate a little to SAF and NRA-ILA. We let the exerts fight, and we support them how, where and when we can. If that's not enough, I don't know what to tell you.
I do not like gun laws, any of them. I'd like to see them all repealed. Each and every one. That takes time, effort, willingness, and the freedom to actually do something to make a difference. It also takes a societal shift to transition values, ideals, and mores to fight Malum Prohibitum laws that are seemingly irrelevant.
You seem determined to make enemies of allies.
