No you didn't. All you wrote was:
You have presented convoluted rhetoric that makes no sense at all. The federal governemnt hasn't infringed on my right to keep and bear arms. You're reactionary absolutism is showing.
I actually thought it was a pretty funny posting. First, you pretend to be shocked when I called you on the ad hominem argument and then you did it again!
And the real kicker: You claimed that "The federal governemnt hasn't infringed on my right to keep and bear arms." That's an absolute laugh riot -- anyone that owns a gun and knows anything about the state of federal gun control law knows that's a bunch of Barbra Streisand. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried to help you understand, giving you a link to a whole raft of Supreme Court, appeals court, and state court decisions that were enabled by NFA '34.
Again?! When did you ask me the first time? Actually, you stole that line from me at. See RE#47.
Yes, I did. I quoted it from your own posting #47 because I thought it was also a relevant question for you, and asked you to respond. Then, I added it again at the bottom of my posting.
Btw, if I choose to enter a "hot button" issue thread and attempt to engage you libertarians and other political fringers in intelligent and civil debate, I'd say thats a sign of cojones. But afraid? Not me, bucko!
That would be an admirable endeavour, if you were actually doing so. But, I challenged you on a specific issue: how the precedents set by the War on Some Drugs has enabled federal gun control and clear infringements on the Second Amendment. And all you did was bury your head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen.
If you truly don't understand how it happened, I'll be happy to talk you through the chronology. If you don't want to be bothered, just say so -- but quit claiming that you are participating in intelligent and civil debate, because you aren't, at least not when someone gets the upper hand.
However, I will insist that you cease the personal attacks on me, such as:
You see a sinister plot behind everything to do with the government.
You're reactionary absolutism is showing.
engage you libertarians and other political fringers
I'm an independent, which I suppose makes me one of your "political fringers". But, your use of that term was a pejorative, not a description. And, regardless of what my political ideology might be, it doesn't make my points any less valid.
As I said in #25 in this thread, I believe that Prohibition is a very relevant case study -- everything from the authority of government to prosecute a "War" on anything, to the consequences of doing so, and the subsequent consequences of not doing so. All of the things that are happening today -- high violent crime rate (particularly murders), easy availability to minors, gang warfare in pursuit of market share, corruption of law enforcement -- happened during Prohibition.
When Prohibition was repealed, the murder rate dropped by more than half within a year or two afterwards. It stayed low until the government began escalating the War on Some Drugs, peaking again in the 60's. Whatever your rationale for the War on Some Drugs might be, the evidence is overwhelming that the "cure" is worse than the "disease".
So, what's it going to be? Are you truly interested in a civil and intelligent discussion about the effects of the War on Some Drugs? Or are you oblivious to them, because the alternatives offend your morality?
This is the whole of the War on Americans known as the war on (some) drugs. Your attempts at reason will be rebuffed with strawmen, ad hominems and gratuitous flaming. They will attribute to you, as RM has to me, perjoratives such as "bully" or "ruffian" which are, in fact, fully descriptive of them and their tactics. About as subtle as a JBT kicking in your door at 3:00 in the morning.
I applaud your clarity of thought and reasoned arguments. The WODDIES do not. Sad state of affairs, isn't it?