TexasCHLforum.com

nitrogen wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

nuparadigm wrote:I searched the referenced page for a way to post a comment or a rebuttal; nothing was apparent.

Of course not, the Washington Times does not welcome intelligent discourse.

Doesn't "emeritus" mean out of merit in latin, or in other words, without merit?

Basically, when applied to a Professor it usually means that the person has retired from that post. Basically it's an honorary thing so that someone who retires still gets to keep their "title".

Wikipedia wrote: The word originated in the mid-18th century from Latin as the past participle of emereri meaning to "earn one's discharge by service". Emereri itself is a compound of the prefix e- (a variant of ex-) meaning "out of or from" and merēre meaning "earn".

So it really does mean "out of merit"? And I was just joking.

President Clinton attempted gun control in 1994 when he banned military type assault weapons that have no sane civilian use, but President Bush allowed this modest gun control measure to lapse in 2004.

This is simply untrue. President Bush had nothing to do with it. The law sunsetted, and attempts in Congress to revive it failed.

By today's standards, crime was no problem in the largely rural New World whose inhabitants seldom locked their doors.

I don't know what the crime rate was in the 18th century, but maybe there was less crime because everyone knew everyone else in a small area, and there was no easy means of transportation for quick getaways. Or maybe it was because everyone was armed?

BTW, banditry on the road was a real problem, and there were no police except local constables and sheriffs.

- Jim

When he quoted the second amendment in his article, did he purposely leave out the words 'of the people' ?

seamusTX wrote:

President Clinton attempted gun control in 1994 when he banned military type assault weapons that have no sane civilian use, but President Bush allowed this modest gun control measure to lapse in 2004.

This is simply untrue. President Bush had nothing to do with it. The law sunsetted, and attempts in Congress to revive it failed.

Not only that, but Bush had previously said that he would sign the AWB if it was renewed!

KBCraig wrote:Not only that, but Bush had previously said that he would sign the AWB if it was renewed!

I know, but I didn't want to embarrass the President by repeating it.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:I wonder what Justin Moon thinks of this piece.

- Jim

Good reference!

I'm sure Justin doesn't agree, and I doubt his father does either. Since this is the Times, not the Post, this column is contrary to their editorial position.

I think they let an extremist offer the counter-opinion because it winds up shoring up their position.

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:I think they let an extremist offer the counter-opinion because it winds up shoring up their position.

That's quite possible. I often see attempts to be "fair and balanced" where one side is represented poorly.

- Jim

I don't have the energy to comment on the esteemed authors ignorance.

Oops I did it anyway.

He lost it me in the third sentance, "The prayers and condolences have ended, the tragedy is no longer Page One news, classes have been resumed and the flag at the headquarters of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in Virginia no longer flies at half mast. "

Learn the rules of flying a flag, it is half staff, mast is on a ship.

O6nop wrote:When he quoted the second amendment in his article, did he purposely leave out the words 'of the people' ?

He sure as shoot did... and I didn't even realize it.
What a coward he is.
Just pathetic.