Post by: Little Joe on February 17, 2018, 06:17:06 AM
Ok, hear me out, then lambast me.
I owned a small business for about 20 years. It started out with my wife and I and one employee and we eventually grew to about 20 employees. AT first, we had very few rules and we liked it that way. But as soon as we added our second employee, we found we had to infringe lightly on the rights of each employee just a little. We couldn't let one employee abuse our tolerance or pretty soon (for instance) they were both taking two hour lunches and coming in late. So we had to set rules.
As we hired more employees we found we needed more rules. We had to limit internet surfing and facebooking and checking email while on the job. Only a few were doing this, but it was hurting the morale of the good employees. Taking home promotional ball point pens was just fine with us, until we realized how many thousands of pens were walking off so we had to make rules against taking company property. As we added employees, the rules kept stacking up. That was part of the reason I was so happy to sell the place and retire.
The 2nd amendment was great for the first couple of hundred years, but now, too many people abuse the privilege and we need to find some way to stop that.
Before you start leaping out of your chair, let me say I am in no way advocating banning all guns, but I think we need to redefine exactly what the 2nd amendment means and why it exists. Hunting? Yeah, sure; get a gun that is appropriate. I don't need to keep a 50 caliber machine gun aimed at my front door.
And I don't think we can easily defend the notion of violently holding off our government or that staging a revolution is defensible. That is what the ballot box and the Supreme Court are for (as imperfect as they have been lately).
It pains me to be leaning in this new direction, but things are spinning out of control, even if more people are killed by their own swimming pool than by guns (I just made that up and don't know if it is true or not).
I don't know exactly what the answer is, but there has to be a dialogue, and we have to set rules that will probably inconvenience some people.
Ok. Fire away (not literally of course).
Post by: Lucifer on February 17, 2018, 06:49:16 AM
When looking at statistics on gun related crimes the US is really not as bad as the progressives and MSM make it out to be. And in countries with very strict gun ownership laws the criminals are still using guns.
The latest school killing boils down to this: Multiple reports were made to the police and the FBI about this individual, yet they failed to respond adequately. Also involved in this latest crime was the perpetrator was on various prescription drugs for a mental condition which made him unstable.
This kid, if he didn't have access to guns, could have just as easily rented a truck and driven over people as they were leaving the building, or he could have made a pressure cooker bomb (or something similar) and inflicted damage and death.
The problem is not the guns.
Post by: Little Joe on February 17, 2018, 06:58:20 AM
But I'm still not convinced one way or the other. Believe it or not, I am willing to listen to both sides, but we do have a problem. Perhaps Archie Bunker was right when he said the way to stop airliner hijackings (very popular in the '60s) was to "arm all the passengers. I don't know if that is a good idea on an airliner, but maybe arming the teachers (or at least allowing trained volunteer teachers to be armed) would get the killers out of the schools (and into the churches, or other gun free zones).
Mass shootings are a problem. What is a solution that works? "Just enforce all the current rules" is not working and won't work.
Post by: Lucifer on February 17, 2018, 07:06:41 AM
Thanks for the logical and calming words. And thanks for not ripping in to me.
But I'm still not convinced one way or the other. Believe it or not, I am willing to listen to both sides, but we do have a problem. Perhaps Archie Bunker was right when he said the way to stop airliner hijackings (very popular in the '60s) was to "arm all the passengers. I don't know if that is a good idea on an airliner, but maybe arming the teachers (or at least allowing trained volunteer teachers to be armed) would get the killers out of the schools (and into the churches, or other gun free zones).
Mass shootings are a problem. What is a solution that works? "Just enforce all the current rules" is not working and won't work.
"Gun Free Zones" are an invitation for mass shootings. Why? The shooter knows no one will shoot back.
Also, if you want to see how well gun control works, just go to the heavy liberal bastions of the US that have very strict gun control (Chicago, Detroit, LA, NY, etc) and see how well it's working there.
Back to the mouth foaming progressives and their MSM. Notice when a shooter is taken out by a gun carrying citizen those stories get buried?
Post by: Anthony on February 17, 2018, 08:34:13 AM
If people are really serious about banning, and confiscating guns, which is the real end game, they will focus on amending the Constitution. For the record, I am adamantly against amending the Second Amendment. It is there for a very good reason, and partly makes the U.S. exceptional.
Harden gun free zones, by not making the gun free with the law abiding, good guys.
Post by: nddons on February 17, 2018, 09:19:27 AM
My firm commitment to the concept that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is waning and the 2nd A needs to be modified. In a macro sense, people just can't be trusted with guns.I think it’s simple minded that “modifying” the 2A will do anything but embolden the criminals, make lives more at risk, and yes, embolden an already intrusive and dangerous FedGov. You and most others laugh at the prospect of an armed citizenry defending itself against a tyrannical government, but what makes you think we are immune from getting such a tyrant when dozens of other countries in the last 100 years have had to deal with such a threat? Look at what Obama and his minions I have done to weaponize the DOJ, FBI, IRS and other agencies for strictly political purposes. Lives have been ruined because of it. What makes you say lives can’t be lost if the tyranny scale gets turned up slightly.
Ok, hear me out, then lambast me.
I owned a small business for about 20 years. It started out with my wife and I and one employee and we eventually grew to about 20 employees. AT first, we had very few rules and we liked it that way. But as soon as we added our second employee, we found we had to infringe lightly on the rights of each employee just a little. We couldn't let one employee abuse our tolerance or pretty soon (for instance) they were both taking two hour lunches and coming in late. So we had to set rules.
As we hired more employees we found we needed more rules. We had to limit internet surfing and facebooking and checking email while on the job. Only a few were doing this, but it was hurting the morale of the good employees. Taking home promotional ball point pens was just fine with us, until we realized how many thousands of pens were walking off so we had to make rules against taking company property. As we added employees, the rules kept stacking up. That was part of the reason I was so happy to sell the place and retire.
The 2nd amendment was great for the first couple of hundred years, but now, too many people abuse the privilege and we need to find some way to stop that.
Before you start leaping out of your chair, let me say I am in no way advocating banning all guns, but I think we need to redefine exactly what the 2nd amendment means and why it exists. Hunting? Yeah, sure; get a gun that is appropriate. I don't need to keep a 50 caliber machine gun aimed at my front door.
And I don't think we can easily defend the notion of violently holding off our government or that staging a revolution is defensible. That is what the ballot box and the Supreme Court are for (as imperfect as they have been lately).
It pains me to be leaning in this new direction, but things are spinning out of control, even if more people are killed by their own swimming pool than by guns (I just made that up and don't know if it is true or not).
I don't know exactly what the answer is, but there has to be a dialogue, and we have to set rules that will probably inconvenience some people.
Ok. Fire away (not literally of course).
If people can’t be trusted with guns, are YOU going to go door to door in the Humboldt Park, Wentworth Gardens, or Damen and Blue Island neighborhoods of Chicago demanding they the residents turn over their guns to FedGov? No? Why not you? Oh, you don’t want to show up as a corpse in an alley, with rats eating your flesh. Understood. Neither do I.
But you think that if people are told they are prohibited from having a 50 cal, or a .308, or a 5.56 from those scary black “weapons of war” AR-15s, they will just turn them in, right? Good luck with that.
I believe that the only reason we haven’t fallen as a nation, as has the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, and the USSR is because we have as our foundation the enshrined natural right of self defense, including that from a tyrannical government or domestic enemy. (We are killing ourselves in other ways like our debt, indifferent electorate, etc., but that’s a different discussion for a different day). Laugh if you want, but more of us believe this than you would think.
I do believe the nation needs a new education about the Second Amendment and it’s role in protecting the rest of the Bill of Rights. We are failing our fellow citizens in that regard.
Post by: bflynn on February 17, 2018, 12:55:54 PM
My son understands it, although he is tainted because everyone around him is feeding him crap. Fortunately we got to him first. But shame on the parents and teachers of these people.
Post by: acrogimp on February 17, 2018, 01:18:22 PM
One more, ten more, a thousand more will make no difference TO PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BREAK THE LAW.
100% confiscation of all firearms is the only way to reduce these types of crimes with respect to the guns themselves. And I am talking 100%, door-to-door, every vehicle, every locker, every building in the entire nation. Good luck with that, this is, IMO, one of the few things that would actually result in a de facto all out civil war. And even if that were attempted and completed without an armed revolution, it would still not remove all illegal weapons from the hands of criminals.
The guns are not picking themselves up, loading themselves, aiming themselves, and pulling their own trigger.
So people who DO want to disarm the population because they believe, apparently as you now do, that we 'just can't be trusted with guns'.
Bullshit.
There are over 300 million firearms in the US, and about 100 million gun owners. If legal guns and legal gun owners were a problem, you would know it.
The utter disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty of the gun control argument is pathetic, insulting and borderline pathological. They change commonly accepted definitions and mathematical norms at whim so long as it appears to bolster their argument (26 yr olds shot by the police while committing a crime counted as child gun victims, etc.). Here is a hint, there have not been 18 school shootings this year (if you mean like what happened in FL the other day). We can all agree that 3 is 3 too many, but it is not 18.
Our society has risks associated with the level of freedom we still enjoy - and there is a just and constitutional requirement to balance individual privacy with public safety - removing guns from law abiding citizens and creating more consequence-less free target practice, err, I mean gun free zones is not the answer.
The most practical response is to add armed guards at soft targets, for qualified persons to concealed carry (and this is up to the individual, the State has no legal oversight of this in my mind), and for DOJ and other law enforcement agencies to actually enforce the laws that are already on the books (Democrat administrations are famous/infamous for refusing to enforce laws if it helps create an impression they want in the public eye).
This young man should probably have not been allowed to purchase a weapon based solely on the previous interaction with local LEO's, add in the FBI warning (I wonder what they were so busy doing they couldn't spare a minute to look into reports of a possibly homicidal troubled young person......must be the Russians....) and it is almost inconceivable he was not on a list of some kind that should have prevented passing a background check.
As tragic as it is, the number of deaths at that school at the hands of this murderer is actually what Chicago calls an average weekend - how tough are the gun laws in Chicago? Or D.C.? Or L.A.? Or Baltimore? Or Houston? or NYC?
If a few of these animals were popped by a teacher or local LEO or armed guard, AND the lamestream media would cover it as such (good person with gun stops bad person with gun), there would be fewer of these events.
'Gimp
Post by: acrogimp on February 17, 2018, 01:49:35 PM
The 2nd amendment was great for the first couple of hundred years, but now, too many people abuse the privilege and we need to find some way to stop that.I wanted to circle back to this specifically because this is actually the root of the problem.
Before you start leaping out of your chair, let me say I am in no way advocating banning all guns, but I think we need to redefine exactly what the 2nd amendment means and why it exists. Hunting? Yeah, sure; get a gun that is appropriate. I don't need to keep a 50 caliber machine gun aimed at my front door.
And I don't think we can easily defend the notion of violently holding off our government or that staging a revolution is defensible. That is what the ballot box and the Supreme Court are for (as imperfect as they have been lately).
The 2nd Amendment, as written, means that if I can afford an F-15C, I can have an F-15C. If I can afford an M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, I get one of those too. It's primary purpose is two-fold, to enshrine the right to self defense (against individuals or bad government) and to provide for the common defense by ensuring the population was able to join in its' own defense if called upon. Nothing in there about hunting, or target shooting, nothing about whether or not a gun looks scary because it is black and looks like a military weapon.
At the time of the founding there was no difference between martial and sporting/hunting weapons, they were one and the same. This is the context of the 2nd Amendment, it is not a limitation on your rights as an individual, it is declaring and protecting your rights, functionally, it is a restriction on the power of the government - 'shall not be infringed' is not talking about you and me, it is talking directly to all elements of the government (and in this context would be both the Federal and the State since that is how we ended up with the Bill of Rights in the first place).
And in the US, your right to own the same type weapons as the military was sacred, until the St. Valentines Day Massacre (where one group of criminals murder another group of criminals) using Thompson sub-machine-guns. You could own a machine gun without restriction until 1934 - now, every person in the US who wants to 'be allowed' to own a machine gun has to jump through ridiculous hoops and pay outrageous fees, as a result of criminals behaving criminally. The gangland era which gave us the National Firearms Act of 1934 also introduced the drive-by shooting and yet we didn't outlaw cars, I wonder why?
The 2nd Amendment is the guarantor of all the other rights laid out - and unfortunately, over the last 80 years we have gone from 'shall not be infringed' to more than 22,000 laws, the camel is not working his nose under the tent, he is trying to get his tail inside.
'Gimp
Post by: Lucifer on February 17, 2018, 02:03:13 PM
Read this article and let the message sink in for a bit. Here we have a political donor essentially saying "I own you, and if you don't do my bidding I will take away your money!"
Quote
A prominent Republican political donor demanded on Saturday that the party pass legislation to restrict access to guns, and vowed not to contribute to any candidates or electioneering groups that did not support a ban on the sale of military-style firearms to civilians.
Al Hoffman Jr., a Florida-based real estate developer who was a leading fund-raiser for George W. Bush’s campaigns, said he would seek to marshal support among other Republican political donors for a renewed assault weapons ban.
“For how many years now have we been doing this — having these experiences of terrorism, mass killings — and how many years has it been that nothing’s been done?” Mr. Hoffman said in an interview. “It’s the end of the road for me.”
So will the politician, many of whom have made a pledge to "uphold the constitution" succumb to the big money donor or will they represent the voters who elected them?
Post by: Little Joe on February 17, 2018, 02:46:47 PM
But we still need a solution that works, and that actually stands better chance than a snowball in hell to pass. I'm all for capital punishment for those that willfully and wantonly abuse the right to bear arms. But that would have very limited effect because most mass shooters don't live to repeat anyway.
Maybe we could learn something from Singapore where littering or spitting earns you a caning. That should be for first offenses. Second offenses would get exponentially tougher.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on February 17, 2018, 02:52:40 PM
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on February 17, 2018, 02:57:50 PM
Ok, so you guys have all helped shake a little sense back in me. Thanks.
But we still need a solution that works, and that actually stands better chance than a snowball in hell to pass. I'm all for capital punishment for those that willfully and wantonly abuse the right to bear arms. But that would have very limited effect because most mass shooters don't live to repeat anyway.
Maybe we could learn something from Singapore where littering or spitting earns you a caning. That should be for first offenses. Second offenses would get exponentially tougher.
Joe, no one is robbing banks with these guns. They are all just nuts who aren't concerned with what will happen to themselves. We already have laws against killing people. IMO it is a drug problem and a family problem; we didn't see these kind and quantity of crimes when Mom stayed home with the kids while Dad was at work, there were no psychotropic drugs being handed out like gumdrops, and people identified as crazy got put away for everyone's protection.
Post by: Lucifer on February 17, 2018, 03:13:55 PM
Joe, no one is robbing banks with these guns. They are all just nuts who aren't concerned with what will happen to themselves. We already have laws against killing people. IMO it is a drug problem and a family problem; we didn't see these kind and quantity of crimes when Mom stayed home with the kids while Dad was at work, there were no psychotropic drugs being handed out like gumdrops, and people identified as crazy got put away for everyone's protection.
And don't forget, law enforcement AND the FBI knew this kid was a problem and did nothing.
Of course, we can't really blame the FBI, they were busy chasing down FB trolls. ::)
Post by: Lucifer on February 17, 2018, 03:20:47 PM
The mouth foaming progressives and their MSM are demanding we do something about guns to end the violence.
But yet we don't see them in Chicago were children are murdered on a regular basis. Why is that?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/chicago-shootings/index.html
http://wgntv.com/2017/07/19/2-children-1-adult-shot-on-west-side/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-children-shot-chicago-20170215-story.html
http://ktla.com/2017/06/09/man-killed-after-pleading-with-teen-gunman-im-with-my-kids/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/us/toddler-killed-chicago-murder.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/15/man-charged-killing-chicago-child/97938680/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-1000-shooting-victims-chicago-2017/
Post by: bflynn on February 17, 2018, 03:30:14 PM
I'm all for capital punishment for those that willfully and wantonly abuse the right to bear arms. But that would have very limited effect because most mass shooters don't live to repeat anyway.
Capital punishment is too easy. Keep them in prison for their entire life. No parole. Make them know that they have no future except to sit and stare at the walls for the next 75 years. Far more horrifying than "you'll painlessly end my suffering in 10 years".
Post by: acrogimp on February 17, 2018, 06:25:32 PM
The Founders recognized the dangers of making decisions that effect all Americans in the heat of the moment and gave us a legislative system that has two houses, one, closer to the people (the House) that can be overcome by emotion, and one intended to be more calm and deliberative (the Senate), such that any significant change in law requires debate and discussion and then agreement between the two houses, then be approved by the Administrative, as well as passing muster with the Judiciary.
It is supposed to be hard to pass a law, tougher again to change/amend the Constitution.
The danger now is that we have far too many people in elective positions who have made that their life's calling instead of the sacrifice it was supposed to be - these folks are so beholden to special interests and campaign contributors, and so enamored of their position and their power, that enough vocal calls for change, no matter if they be ginned up astroturf nonsense or propoganda, and the boneheads will fold like a two dollar suit.
'Gimp
Post by: Anthony on February 18, 2018, 09:30:27 PM
Post by: Lucifer on February 19, 2018, 03:25:33 PM
Quote
Knives kill far more people in the United States than rifles do every year.
In the wake of the horrific school shooting in Florida last week, the debate over guns in America has surged again to the forefront oft the political conversation. Seventeen students were killed when a deranged gunman rampaged through the Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida. Many are calling now for stricter gun laws in the wake of the shooting, specifically targeting the AR-15 rifle and promoting the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.
However, recent statistics from 2016 show that knives actually kill nearly five times as many people as rifles that year.
Post by: invflatspin on February 19, 2018, 09:06:28 PM
The 2nd A, like the other ones in 1-10 are a statement of the natural(or god given, if one wishes) right of a human. How then, do we go about removing, modifying, or restricting a natural right? I'm sorry, as I don't have answers either, but the repeal of prohibition is a telling tale. govts are conceived among, men for the benefit and consent of the governed. Suppose like many other nations we decide that no longer is the citizen the final arbiter of his/her defense? Hmmmm
Part 2. On a practical matter, since ~1993 the number of fed/state/local badged/weaponed LEO has almost DOUBLED. I won't post the list the depts that have law enforcement cadre, because I would run out of electrons. If the state(et-al) wants me to give up my natural right, I say fine - you first. We have posse comatatus, so all other LEO turn in your guns, you can keep the badges. Once all of them are disarmed, then call me - I'll meet you at the steps of the courthouse, and you can have mine.
It's only fair...
Post by: invflatspin on February 19, 2018, 09:10:12 PM
How can you trust a govt - which doesn't trust YOU?
Post by: bflynn on February 20, 2018, 06:53:53 AM
How then, do we go about removing, modifying, or restricting a natural right?
The answer is that you just do it. The fact that you can convince many others to agree to limit a natural right does not make it just. Example, you're probably for the removal of the right to life all the time - every time you see capital punishment. The fact that many people agree to murder one does not make that murder just.
Do not mistake this for me supporting any form of gun control. I'm in the crowd that says citizens should own battle tanks, F-35s and battleships if they can. I do draw the line at nuclear weapons, but only because I don't consider those actual weapons - they are strategic threats.
Post by: invflatspin on February 20, 2018, 09:03:24 AM
Having said that here's what I've come up with:
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; except upon federal just cause hearing of due process by a jury of peers.
The BOR is generally written in stoic prose. Not a lot of qualifiers or adjectives. I tried to follow suit with this theme of limited expressive clauses. Just one exception, and the state must ask permission of the people to restrict it. How it would work in practice: A) Each human in the US is born with the natural right. B) There shall be no infringement(everyone keep and bear all the arms they want). C) A fed court can enter a petition to restrict or withdraw that right: "Asst fed prosecutor John Jones, petitions the 9th circuit to withdraw the right of the people to keep and bear arms of 'Steve Smith, a single man' for the following just cause; 'on or about 1 March Steve Smith used a weapon to rob the Piggly Wiggly at 123 Cherry Ln. Anytown USA. He was subsequently arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced for this crime of armed robbery.' etc." D) A court case is then held on the docket, and a jury will determine if Steve Smith should be allowed to keep and bear anymore.
Downside: More rules/regulation doesn't necessarily mean fewer gun deaths. Armed robbers aren't generally known as law abiding citizens. But - it's a start. I think it also recognizes the limitations needed for a more civil society. The problem arises with locations where liberals congregate, as they will eventually use this clause to restrict the right with no just cause. In this way, an active fed prosecutor and a liberal jury pool could go wild and cause serious problems. I can see a situation where a driver of a TX vehicle in LA is stopped, given a ticket for unsafe lane change, and the prosecutor files a federal writ along with the citation to restrict the 2nd A right, and have a hearing in some backwater liberal court where they can start pulling people's natural right based on a screwed up liberal jury. So - nothing is without risk, once we start meddling.
Post by: invflatspin on February 20, 2018, 09:07:07 AM
The answer is that you just do it. The fact that you can convince many others to agree to limit a natural right does not make it just. Example, you're probably for the removal of the right to life all the time - every time you see capital punishment. The fact that many people agree to murder one does not make that murder just.
Presuming anything about my stance on any right is dangerous. For the record, I am not 'for' capital punishment. Never have been. Expanding that to justification for a murder by mob, is fatuous.
Post by: invflatspin on February 20, 2018, 11:19:01 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/technology/russian-bots-school-shooting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Twitter is flush with Russian bots pulling in on the pro-gun control debate. Nothing twitter can do about it I guess. Freedom of speech and all. Gun control in US; Good for liberals. Good for Russians. Why am I not surprised.
Post by: bflynn on February 20, 2018, 03:36:59 PM
States can solve this themselves.
Post by: Little Joe on February 20, 2018, 04:24:30 PM
I dunno. I'm of the opinion that people who want to keep arms should declare themselves to be members of the unorganized militia and subject themselves to being called up in time of emergency or civil disorder. Those who do not declare this will not be members and then will not bear arms.I have been thinking about that. It would resolve the controversy where liberals use the "well regulated militia" as an argument against general gun ownership. Declare yourself part of the militia, submit to certain rules and requirements, and they can't take your gun away. ANY gun.
States can solve this themselves.
Post by: invflatspin on February 20, 2018, 04:49:50 PM
In colonial times, an army was supposed to be supplied, supported and provided by landed gentlemen, to be reimbursed by the state(feds) for times of battle. Goes back to the kings, noblemen and serfs, etc.
So, the 'militia' angle is covered. Anyone who owns a gun is a member, and given the severity of the occasion - is eligible for conscription in defense of the nation.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on February 20, 2018, 06:17:18 PM
I have been thinking about that. It would resolve the controversy where liberals use the "well regulated militia" as an argument against general gun ownership. Declare yourself part of the militia, submit to certain rules and requirements, and they can't take your gun away. ANY gun.
The part they like best is the word "regulated." But they have no idea what the word meant in 1789.
Post by: bflynn on February 20, 2018, 08:27:26 PM
What i was saying is that states can define the militia. Then the federal government doesn't really have a say in the state militia. The states can solve it all themselves.
Post by: invflatspin on February 20, 2018, 11:02:00 PM
Post by: bflynn on February 20, 2018, 11:28:43 PM
Regardless, 2A uses the militia as justification for a right which the government shall not infringe. It is a right that is supposed to be absolute, so a good justification was need for such an extreme. Because a militia is necessary for security, the people need to be armed.
Post by: Anthony on February 21, 2018, 07:05:38 AM
The bill of rights does not define who is the militia. It is a term undefined in the Constitution. But I was not responding to the 2nd amendment, only a personal opinion which is contradicted by the law.
Regardless, 2A uses the militia as justification for a right which the government shall not infringe. It is a right that is supposed to be absolute, so a good justification was need for such an extreme. Because a militia is necessary for security, the people need to be armed.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Keep, and Bear Arms is an INDIVIDUAL right. The fact that able bodied men 18 - 45 are automatically part of the Unorganized Militia by U.S. Code is irrelevant.
Post by: nddons on February 21, 2018, 10:02:22 AM
The Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Keep, and Bear Arms is an INDIVIDUAL right. The fact that able bodied men 18 - 45 are automatically part of the Unorganized Militia by U.S. Code is irrelevant.That’s right. The militia clause was never a dependent clause.
Post by: jb1842 on February 21, 2018, 01:32:38 PM
Post by: Lucifer on February 22, 2018, 06:57:45 AM
Right now the mid terms look dismal for the dims with zero prospect of winning back the senate and a slim chance of getting a majority in the house.
What can they run on this year? "We don't like more jobs!" "The tax bill was bad, we need more taxes!" "A growing and vibrant economy is bad, let's go back to the Obama economy!". IOW, they got nothing, and thanks to their MSM and the "Russia! Russia! Russia!" phony narrative, coupled with a broke DNC they got nothing.
So now their hopes are to smear republicans with the gun control issue in dire hopes of getting votes come November. This whole frenzy will die down in a couple of weeks, but ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBCNYTWashPo will continue to stoke the fire in an effort to get the dims their votes, and will start to look even more stupid as time goes by.
Post by: Little Joe on February 22, 2018, 07:10:00 AM
Understand that the current debate has nothing to actually do with gun control, and everything to do with the dims attempting to win at the mid terms.While I agree with most of what you said, I caution you from getting too overconfident. I foresee virtually every eligible democrat voter turning out for the midterms, and I don't foresee that for the Rs.
Right now the mid terms look dismal for the dims with zero prospect of winning back the senate and a slim chance of getting a majority in the house.
A huge majority of women, minorities and young people absolutely hate Trump, and they will show up at the polls to vote for YOU (Lucifer), if you run against Trump.
And I suspect that the Ruskies will stir up enough shit to see that this happens. They don't give a crap WHO wins, they just want to sew discord among us. And they have been amazingly successful so far.
Post by: bflynn on February 22, 2018, 07:29:26 AM
And I suspect that the Ruskies will stir up enough shit to see that this happens. They don't give a crap WHO wins, they just want to sew discord among us. And they have been amazingly successful so far.
Do you think the Left is sophisticated enough to realize that the major reason they hate Donald Trump is because the Russians told them to on social media?
I doubt it. I also doubt that the right is sophisticated enough the same about Hillary.
Post by: Lucifer on February 22, 2018, 07:35:33 AM
While I agree with most of what you said, I caution you from getting too overconfident. I foresee virtually every eligible democrat voter turning out for the midterms, and I don't foresee that for the Rs.
A huge majority of women, minorities and young people absolutely hate Trump, and they will show up at the polls to vote for YOU (Lucifer), if you run against Trump.
And I suspect that the Ruskies will stir up enough shit to see that this happens. They don't give a crap WHO wins, they just want to sew discord among us. And they have been amazingly successful so far.
You spend way too much time watching and reading MSM.
The midstream Dems, what use to be known as the Reagan Democrats aren't in the "hate Trump" camp. The Alt Left Progressives which hijacked the party only make up a small percentage, but they make the most noise and have the MSM fully behind them.
Even the Dems (non progressive) are enjoying the robust economy and watching their 401k's kick ass. They are also smart enough to know that a Speaker Pelosi would do much damage that prosperity.
Post by: Little Joe on February 22, 2018, 07:40:40 AM
You spend way too much time watching and reading MSM.It's not just the MSM that forms my opinion. It is my interaction with family, friends, and overhearing discussions in the gym, restaurants and all the other places I frequent.
But yes, I do listen to the MSM. That is how I figure out how my in-laws get their disinformation, and better prepare me to argue with them. Not that you ever win a political argument with a liberal, but it is fun to see their faces change colors as they start to stutter absurd things.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on February 22, 2018, 09:20:48 AM
Do you think the Left is sophisticated enough to realize that the major reason they hate Donald Trump is because the Russians told them to on social media?Generalizing here, but my experience has been that most lefties do adoringly adhere to any narrative-supporting information that strikes the emotions just waiting on their sleeves and triggers them to rocket forward to an emotion-based position that immediately hardens into concrete. You can't blast them out of it with dynamite. This happened right before my eyes this weekend, the subject being gun control. The person got up, got her coat, and left, shaking with emotion. Just because the group was talking about possible solutions to school shootings. Creative ones, I might add. But no. It had to be gun control, or bye bye.
I doubt it. I also doubt that the right is sophisticated enough the same about Hillary.
Hating Trump is reflexive and prescribed by the Emotion Gods of the Media.
Hating Hillary is just common sense.
Post by: bflynn on February 22, 2018, 11:11:35 AM
And I agree, they won't acknowledge it. Of course, the Russians also tried to get Hillary elected, which they also won't acknowledge.
Post by: invflatspin on February 22, 2018, 04:52:34 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/22/cop-assigned-to-florida-school-never-went-in-amid-shooting-sheriff-says.html
Can we charge and try him? This is what you 'crat lovers want. Defend it.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on February 22, 2018, 07:42:47 PM
Post by: nddons on February 22, 2018, 08:13:19 PM
The F’ing campus assigned police officer at the high school ducked for cover and never went in the building.I’d like to think he’ll ever have another restful sleep in his life,but I always overestimate the level of manliness in today’s men.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on February 22, 2018, 08:34:19 PM
I’d like to think he’ll ever have another restful sleep in his life,but I always overestimate the level of manliness in today’s men.
This guy was around long enough that he gets to retire. 🙄
Post by: Lucifer on February 23, 2018, 06:14:42 AM
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/22/fl_school_shooting_survivor_cnn_told_me_i_needed_to_stick_to_the_script_they_scripted_entire_town_hall.html
The dims propaganda arm is in full mode and most of it is just phony.
Post by: Lucifer on February 23, 2018, 06:18:15 AM
Mr. Jones, please remember that the KKK was an organization developed and ran by the democrats to spread fear and terror to the populace. History doesn't lie, lie you attempt to do.
Post by: Lucifer on February 23, 2018, 08:31:21 AM
https://townhall.com/columnists/davidharsanyi/2018/02/23/cnns-shameful-town-hall-is-a-clarifying-moment-on-guns-n2452982
But CNN got great ratings. Why does anyone even agree to go on that network knowing it's just a propaganda arm of the progressive Alt Left?
Post by: nddons on February 23, 2018, 10:11:36 AM
Post by: Number7 on February 23, 2018, 08:48:09 PM
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on February 23, 2018, 09:10:47 PM
The courts have been VERY CLEAR that the police are under no obligation to protect or defend you at any time.
Thats right. So why does it not follow that you are 100% allowed to defend yourself?
Post by: invflatspin on February 24, 2018, 09:04:01 AM
The courts have been VERY CLEAR that the police are under no obligation to protect or defend you at any time.
I'm well aware of this, however an active shooter is prima-facie case of crime in action. While the 'protect and defend' argument may indeed fail, the badge and gun are there to apprehend the criminal. We can debate if that means 'flagrante delecto', or just wait around, while kids are being slaughtered and stroll in later. This has more of an elemental human helping human theme here. The cop knew that kids were being shot, and he had a gun, nontwithstanding the limits of his responsibility as a cop, pretty much any decent human would have tried.
Post by: Lucifer on February 24, 2018, 06:03:51 PM
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/02/24/its-not-about-saving-lives-democratic-senator-says-gun-debate-will-help-his-par-n2453485
Post by: Number7 on February 25, 2018, 09:49:31 AM
I'm well aware of this, however an active shooter is prima-facie case of crime in action. While the 'protect and defend' argument may indeed fail, the badge and gun are there to apprehend the criminal. We can debate if that means 'flagrante delecto', or just wait around, while kids are being slaughtered and stroll in later. This has more of an elemental human helping human theme here. The cop knew that kids were being shot, and he had a gun, nontwithstanding the limits of his responsibility as a cop, pretty much any decent human would have tried.
You have to understand that you are talking about Broward County Florida. It is the second most corrupt county in America, right after Janet Reno's old home, Miami Dade.
The sheriff is not only delusional but a fan boy of Hilary, Barack, Nancy and DebbyBlabbermouth-Schultz.
He has no integrity, no intelligence that I have ever seen and runs the department like an old ward boss from NYC. On elecvtion night you could always count on his deputies "findinga previously uncounted box of ballots that just happened to deliver the right number of votes to the chosen candidate.
That they happen to hire scum bags like deputy coward-boy should be no surprise. And decent human beings don't remain employed there long. You have to fit the political agenda or get run over.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on February 25, 2018, 10:48:43 AM
He has no integrity, no intelligence that I have ever seen and runs the department like an old ward boss from NYC. On election night you could always count on his deputies "finding a previously uncounted box of ballots that just happened to deliver the right number of votes to the chosen candidate.
Do you have any links showing this behavior?
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on February 25, 2018, 01:28:01 PM
You have to understand that you are talking about Broward County Florida. It is the second most corrupt county in America, right after Janet Reno's old home, Miami Dade.
The sheriff is not only delusional but a fan boy of Hilary, Barack, Nancy and DebbyBlabbermouth-Schultz.
He has no integrity, no intelligence that I have ever seen and runs the department like an old ward boss from NYC. On elecvtion night you could always count on his deputies "findinga previously uncounted box of ballots that just happened to deliver the right number of votes to the chosen candidate.
That they happen to hire scum bags like deputy coward-boy should be no surprise. And decent human beings don't remain employed there long. You have to fit the political agenda or get run over.
"Born in New York, Israel is the son of a New York homicide detective. He began his career as a patrol officer for the Fort Lauderdale police department in 1979, later working narcotics in the 1980s and 1990s, when crime was rampant. Israel has been the subject of 10 internal affairs complaints, mainly for excessive force, although he was cleared in all of them. "
Yeah, not surprised. I know this kind of cop. A punk with a badge.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on February 25, 2018, 10:35:46 PM
What a piece of shit:
"As for the sheriff, he is a pretty typical politician, hiring friends and political allies, treating his law-enforcement position as a nakedly political fief.
His arrogance is astounding: When asked about his penchant for hiring his supporters and looking after his own interests first, the sheriff replied, “Lions don’t care about the opinions of sheep.” "
Post by: bflynn on February 26, 2018, 07:53:41 AM
Do you have any links showing this behavior?
No, of course not. Furthermore, there was no need for deputies to show up with the "right number of votes to the chosen candidate" because the sheriff won by about a 2-1 margin.
I don't understand people who operate on fake facts and never try to validate what they "know". I guess it's just easier to make stuff up?
Post by: Little Joe on February 26, 2018, 12:00:31 PM
No, of course not. Furthermore, there was no need for deputies to show up with the "right number of votes to the chosen candidate" because the sheriff won by about a 2-1 margin.With that logic, some of those South American and Middle Eastern despots had no need to fix their elections because they always won with 100% of the popular vote anyway.
I don't understand people who operate on fake facts and never try to validate what they "know". I guess it's just easier to make stuff up?
Post by: bflynn on February 26, 2018, 12:15:58 PM
With that logic, some of those South American and Middle Eastern despots had no need to fix their elections because they always won with 100% of the popular vote anyway.
Are you saying the Sheriff stuffed the ballot box and then won with 67% of the vote? If you are, see my previous statement about making up facts...or else post something that backs up what you're saying.
The sheriff was extremely popular when he was elected. If you have evidence otherwise then post it, but otherwise I have to call outright bullship on any claim that he rigged the election. Once again, if you use Google, it isn't difficult to find information.
Post by: Little Joe on February 26, 2018, 01:41:33 PM
Are you saying the Sheriff stuffed the ballot box and then won with 67% of the vote? If you are, see my previous statement about making up facts...or else post something that backs up what you're saying.He's a politician. Ergo, he is crooked.
The sheriff was extremely popular when he was elected. If you have evidence otherwise then post it, but otherwise I have to call outright bullship on any claim that he rigged the election. Once again, if you use Google, it isn't difficult to find information.
QED
But seriously, I don't know if he is crooked or not, but it has become the new American way to judge people guilty based on the seriousness of the allegations. And it wasn't conservatives that established that trend.
Post by: Number7 on February 26, 2018, 02:33:48 PM
No, of course not. Furthermore, there was no need for deputies to show up with the "right number of votes to the chosen candidate" because the sheriff won by about a 2-1 margin.
I don't understand people who operate on fake facts and never try to validate what they "know". I guess it's just easier to make stuff up?
BULLSHIT
And you aren't smart enough to read the whole post, stupid.
If you had the brains to go with your bullisht you would have read that I said the deputies show up with enough votes to change the outcome to the desired result.
NOT the result in the sheriff race.
Children who vote liberal should not post on adult boards. It's unseemly.
AND NO, moron, the local papers do not print the facts about teh corrupt Broward County Supv of Elections because they are told what to print, just like many other papers in the country.
Post by: Number7 on February 26, 2018, 02:35:50 PM
Are you saying the Sheriff stuffed the ballot box and then won with 67% of the vote? If you are, see my previous statement about making up facts...or else post something that backs up what you're saying.
The sheriff was extremely popular when he was elected. If you have evidence otherwise then post it, but otherwise I have to call outright bullship on any claim that he rigged the election. Once again, if you use Google, it isn't difficult to find information.
You are far too blind to admit the truth to yourself and its obvious your too delightfully asinine to want to know anything beyond your political bullshit, but I will try.
Broward County Florida is just as corrupt as Cook County Illinois.
If i have triggered you, go buy your own crayons and play-doh.
Post by: invflatspin on February 26, 2018, 02:52:34 PM
Do you have any links showing this behavior?
https://www.local10.com/news/election-results/broward-county-election-results-nov-8-2016
Post by: invflatspin on February 26, 2018, 02:56:18 PM
https://www.local10.com/news/election-results/broward-county-election-results-nov-8-2016
72% of the county voted for this dem. Would seem plausible that he is ass-buddy of the aformentioned Hillary, Nancy, BO, etc.
Guess it doesn't count as a 'smoking gun' version of condemnation. Oh wait - one has to FIRE the gun for it to smoke.
(see what I did there?)
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on February 26, 2018, 03:07:09 PM
https://www.local10.com/news/election-results/broward-county-election-results-nov-8-2016 (https://www.local10.com/news/election-results/broward-county-election-results-nov-8-2016)
Those are just election results. It does show the county is solidly blue. It does not show that the Sheriffs department showed up with an extra ballot box to swin an election one way of the other.
Post by: Little Joe on February 26, 2018, 03:16:14 PM
BULLSHITI know it is your style, and this IS the spin zone where you are allowed to say anything you want, but do you really think all the name calling and insults to a fellow board member are necessary? Sure, direct them at politicians (like the sheriff), but why treat fellow board members that way? Just stating your facts will make your arguments more persuasive.
And you aren't smart enough to read the whole post, stupid.
If you had the brains to go with your bullisht you would have read that I said the deputies show up with enough votes to change the outcome to the desired result.
NOT the result in the sheriff race.
Children who vote liberal should not post on adult boards. It's unseemly.
AND NO, moron, the local papers do not print the facts about teh corrupt Broward County Supv of Elections because they are told what to print, just like many other papers in the country.
Post by: invflatspin on February 26, 2018, 03:48:59 PM
Those are just election results. It does show the county is solidly blue. It does not show that the Sheriffs department showed up with an extra ballot box to swin an election one way of the other.
You can take that up with the person who posted it. I just pointed out that he's an ass-buddy with the corrupt, lying, scum on the liberal side. Fairfield county CT, Broward county FL both heavily democratic, including their sheriff and local LEO. FL and New England FBI are also heavily democratic(as is most of the FBI in the nation). Yet - all we hear about is how Trump(didn't have anything to do with either shooting) and the NRA(heavily republican) are the people to blame. Demorats don't want to fix the problem, cuz - where would that leave them without a political advantage?
Face it, the dems get a lot of mileage out of blaming others for their failures. Why would they try to solve this issue?
Post by: bflynn on February 26, 2018, 06:06:03 PM
BULLSHIT
And you aren't smart enough to read the whole post, stupid.
If you had the brains to go with your bullisht you would have read that I said the deputies show up with enough votes to change the outcome to the desired result.
NOT the result in the sheriff race.
Children who vote liberal should not post on adult boards. It's unseemly.
AND NO, moron, the local papers do not print the facts about teh corrupt Broward County Supv of Elections because they are told what to print, just like many other papers in the country.
Take a chill pill.
Seriously, don't let stuff posted here affect your life. A friend of mine did and wound up in an armed encounter with the police. Well, they say it was armed, he was sitting in a chair in his house with a pistol on the table next to him after having a violent argument with a neighbor. End result, the po-po won, they shot up his house, shot him and he went to prison for 18 months.
But it all came about because someone on another board got under his skin. One of his last posts was like your just now. He went away angry and never came back.
Relax. It really isn't good for you.
Post by: bflynn on February 26, 2018, 06:10:52 PM
You are far too blind to admit the truth to yourself and its obvious your too delightfully asinine to want to know anything beyond your political bullshit, but I will try.
Broward County Florida is just as corrupt as Cook County Illinois.
If i have triggered you, go buy your own crayons and play-doh.
LOL - no, you haven't triggered me. Dude, I was in the military, I've had my ass chewed out by professionals. I don't need crayons or play-doh. You're not even close to making me lose my shyt.
Look - you're making the claim of ballot tampering. Post the evidence or we'll have to just assume that you have no evidence and you're just making it all up as you usually do. As is, I really don't trust any "facts" that you claim without checking them exactly because you make such wild claims without the ability to prove them. Jeez, you're almost like Henning, but without the grandiose entertainment factor.
Post by: invflatspin on February 26, 2018, 06:34:28 PM
As for voting irregularities, the left side has been particularly famous for their activities. Tammany hall, UAW, all of the various fed empl union graft. It's ALL from the left! At least I wish the two sides would have equal corruption so things would be equal. But no - the left has almost a lock on messing with ballots.
Post by: Number7 on February 26, 2018, 06:57:32 PM
LOL - no, you haven't triggered me. Dude, I was in the military, I've had my ass chewed out by professionals. I don't need crayons or play-doh. You're not even close to making me lose my shyt.
Look - you're making the claim of ballot tampering. Post the evidence or we'll have to just assume that you have no evidence and you're just making it all up as you usually do. As is, I really don't trust any "facts" that you claim without checking them exactly because you make such wild claims without the ability to prove them. Jeez, you're almost like Henning, but without the grandiose entertainment factor.
The problem with you people (and I use that term intentionally) is that you fucking play the link game to avoid the truth to score points for your fucking criminal political party. You People use the government to destroy the constitution, end freedom and put scumbags like Barack and Hilary in power just to spite the people who pay the fucking bills for all the shit you cause to become law.
You people lack the backbone to stand to your party and vote them out, because you are too conditioned to be pansies and whine about racism and islamophobia.
You people stood down and let those fucking liberals assholes put queer men and perverts int he girls shower room because you lack the balls to speak up and risk being labeled.
Well here's your label.
Liberalism is a mental illness and you CHOOSE to become mentakly ill liberals because you lack the balls to take a stand unless the entire press corps has your pathetic back.
Post by: bflynn on February 26, 2018, 10:52:48 PM
You also have not read and have once again failed to provide even the slimmest evidence for your claim of the sheriff's involvement in corruption in Broward county voting. By this point everyone just assumes you made this up like you usually do.
So listen up - what you think you know is all wrong.
I do not have a political party. I am non affiliated. So everything that you think you just insulted me with just came across as lame.
I am not a Liberal, that is a leftist progressive. I am a classic liberal, which is a lover of freedom and individualism. So everything that you think you tagged me with about the left is pretty much completely wrong. Google is your friend. Let it help you learn the difference.
Seriously, i do not think you could have written something more inacurate about me if I were coaching you on how to do it.
I have a serious concern for your mental state, your health and your fitness to fly.
Post by: Number7 on February 27, 2018, 07:43:53 AM
Because Asecrest (I probably spelled that wrong) IS a classic liberal, you think you can make believe that makes you one, too.
You spend you posts pretending, poorly, that you aren’t another pathetic whining, lib, your never ending need to try and make conservatives respect your pathetic feelings and conform our discussions to make you feel better is transparent, silly and typical of a self-centered, while men. Then you threaten us with how soon you will change your mind and we will “lose” you as one of us, which you proclaim will undoubtedly put more fascist assholes in power - just like you want.
So here goes.
Go fuck yourself and your amateur psychological bullshit.
Go play with yourself and your dishonest, useless, entitlement friends, and leave the rest of us conservatives to suffer through the devastating loss of your political support.
I think we’ll survive.
And you can come out of the closet and be what you really are. A sniveling, demanding, selfish, childish boy in a mans body.
Post by: Number7 on February 27, 2018, 07:49:04 AM
Over at POA there was this pathetic metrosexual lawyer who desperately wanted to be a man and a judge. He pretended to be a century’s just like you, and constantly played that card while pushing ultra liberal positions.
He was such a transparent homosexual that he actually used to try and convince people that he hung around in bars and went home with ugly women, as if that gave him credibility.
Nothing he did ever convinced anyone that he was anything but a pathetic child, playing in the men’s locker room.
When he finally got appointed to a local township judgeship, he folded his tent, ran away and never attempted to pretend he was a centrist, again.
Fake conservatives only fool themselves,
Post by: bflynn on February 27, 2018, 08:02:53 AM
One last thing.
...
Fake conservatives only fool themselves,
Oh, if only it were the last thing.
I am not a conservative either, therefore I'm not a fake conservative. I agree with conservatives on a lot of things, but where I tend to depart with them, it is over matters of personal freedom.
I have no idea who you're taking about on POA, but gosh if you have a problem with them, wouldn't it be better to settle it with them rather than gossiping behind their back?
Post by: nddons on February 27, 2018, 08:06:22 AM
Oh, if only it were the last thing.Besides wanting to prevent women from killing babies right up to the minute of birth, what else are conservatives doing to quash personal freedom?
I am not a conservative either, therefore I'm not a fake conservative. I agree with conservatives on a lot of things, but where I tend to depart with them, it is over matters of personal freedom.
I have no idea who you're taking about on POA, but gosh if you have a problem with them, wouldn't it be better to settle it with them rather than gossiping behind their back?
Post by: Number7 on February 27, 2018, 08:30:13 AM
Besides wanting to prevent women from killing babies right up to the minute of birth, what else are conservatives doing to quash personal freedom?
Hurting liberal feelings by telling them the truth instead of playing along with their patheitc make believe, imaginations of how terrible the world is because conservatives are allowed to think and speak their minds, instead telling the little snowflakes like Flynn what they think they're entitled to hear.
You NEVER hear a liberal modifying their opinion to please the delicate sensibilities of conservatives. They are the classic hypocrites. All day, all the time.
Post by: invflatspin on February 27, 2018, 08:56:12 AM
I mean - WTF? If personal freedom is the criteria to measure political activism, the liberals(classic or progressive, no diff) are 10 times as bad as the right. I've been on the planet long enough to have known liberals who were for true liberty of the person. They are all long dead and gone. Sanders, Pelosi, Schumer, McCain(yes, I know), and more all endorse restricting and re-defining the 2nd A. Which takes us right back to gun control.
If one truly wants personal freedom, the last thing they should support is any form of liberal control. If thinking that DACA represents a type of personal freedom, woe to them. It's desire is simply to marshal the power of the electorate so that more draconian policies(Obamacare anyone?) can be implemented to restrict, and narrow the natural rights of all American citizens. (maybe some here consider health care services from those trained in the field to be a natural right? Whatev)
Post by: nddons on February 27, 2018, 09:56:36 AM
While I don't disagree that some conservatives are trying to limit personal freedom, their success in this area pales in comparison to the left. We just got out of 8 years of draconian regulation of everything from bars of soap, to mega-corp. Does anyone think that Net Neutrality was a production of the conservatives!? How about the EPA, overlording their defined responsibilities down to every stream, spring, and watercourse in the US. Even those on private property.I’d like to ask you the same question. Aside from aborting babies right up to birth, what are conservatives doing to limit personal freedom?
I mean - WTF? If personal freedom is the criteria to measure political activism, the liberals(classic or progressive, no diff) are 10 times as bad as the right. I've been on the planet long enough to have known liberals who were for true liberty of the person. They are all long dead and gone. Sanders, Pelosi, Schumer, McCain(yes, I know), and more all endorse restricting and re-defining the 2nd A. Which takes us right back to gun control.
If one truly wants personal freedom, the last thing they should support is any form of liberal control. If thinking that DACA represents a type of personal freedom, woe to them. It's desire is simply to marshal the power of the electorate so that more draconian policies(Obamacare anyone?) can be implemented to restrict, and narrow the natural rights of all American citizens. (maybe some here consider health care services from those trained in the field to be a natural right? Whatev)
Sorry, but I can’t let these statements go unchallenged. The more times things like your first sentence are repeated, the more they are treated as truisms, regardless of the lack of facts to back them up. The mob mentality will kill us all if we let it.
Post by: invflatspin on February 27, 2018, 10:25:22 AM
I’d like to ask you the same question. Aside from aborting babies right up to birth, what are conservatives doing to limit personal freedom?
Sorry, but I can’t let these statements go unchallenged. The more times things like your first sentence are repeated, the more they are treated as truisms, regardless of the lack of facts to back them up. The mob mentality will kill us all if we let it.
No problem and I appreciate the POV. I would say that the current PATRIOT act(written by predominantly right-leaning 'crats), including the FREEDOM act(both of them are hilariously oxymoronic) along with the renewed interest by this admin in civil forfeiture without due process are a couple big examples. Both were renewed and are being expanded in 2017. Trump is set to launch some kind of alteration/increase of gun law background checks or regulations in light of the recent shooting. I really can't say what will come of it, but it appears he's going to do something. I believe that bump-stocks are in the process of being outlawed. And while that device is not specifically a 'gun', it still is a restriction on what was once a perfectly legal retail product to buy and sell. Next month? Maybe not. If I 'personally' want to buy a bump stock, I guess I'll have to get one soon. Congress and senate have been sitting with conservative majorities now for about 20 months, and there is no repeal of Obamacare. I guess that counts as a mechanism to continue restrictions on personal freedom to choose medical care, or not choose medical care coverage. Notwithstanding that the financial penalties are now moot, the fact is - if one does not have health care this tax year, one is in violation of some part of the 3000+ pages of that law which is still on the books. There's other less obvious examples, but these should suffice.
Every pol wants more power to themselves, and less power to citizens. It is the way of pols. I'm simply pointing out that the libs are far, far more effective at chipping away at personal freedom than the cons.
Post by: nddons on February 27, 2018, 10:41:35 AM
No problem and I appreciate the POV. I would say that the current PATRIOT act(written by predominantly right-leaning 'crats), including the FREEDOM act(both of them are hilariously oxymoronic) along with the renewed interest by this admin in civil forfeiture without due process are a couple big examples. Both were renewed and are being expanded in 2017. Trump is set to launch some kind of alteration/increase of gun law background checks or regulations in light of the recent shooting. I really can't say what will come of it, but it appears he's going to do something. I believe that bump-stocks are in the process of being outlawed. And while that device is not specifically a 'gun', it still is a restriction on what was once a perfectly legal retail product to buy and sell. Next month? Maybe not. If I 'personally' want to buy a bump stock, I guess I'll have to get one soon. Congress and senate have been sitting with conservative majorities now for about 20 months, and there is no repeal of Obamacare. I guess that counts as a mechanism to continue restrictions on personal freedom to choose medical care, or not choose medical care coverage. Notwithstanding that the financial penalties are now moot, the fact is - if one does not have health care this tax year, one is in violation of some part of the 3000+ pages of that law which is still on the books. There's other less obvious examples, but these should suffice.Valid points. I would try to differentiate these REPUBLICAN (swamp dweller) points from CONSERVATIVE orthodoxy, which in my mind except for the abortion issue (and I’ll grant you illegal drugs) is deeply rooted in the “leave me the fuck alone” camp. There is no similar camp on the liberal side of the political divide.
Every pol wants more power to themselves, and less power to citizens. It is the way of pols. I'm simply pointing out that the libs are far, far more effective at chipping away at personal freedom than the cons.
Post by: bflynn on February 27, 2018, 11:05:18 AM
Besides wanting to prevent women from killing babies right up to the minute of birth, what else are conservatives doing to quash personal freedom?
I think you're trying to be a smartass here but you don't realize why you're failing. Preventing women from killing babies is an example of enforcing personal freedom...the rights of the baby are being respected, including the right to life.
And yet again the words are important. I disagree with conservatives on certain areas, I don't necessarily state that they are quashing personal freedom.
I believe that people have the right to live their lives according to their own terms, not yours. That means gay people can go get married if they want - DOMA was bad law and that's why it was overturned. But it also means that if you find their lifestyle objectionable, you have the right not to engage with them. Your choice. I may even go further than you here and say that if you object to anyone for any reason, then you have the right not to engage with them. You have the right to pursue your life on your own terms.
I have no interest in it myself, but I think there is room for personal drug use.
I am consistent in believing in life being sacred and that includes capital punishment. Most conservative that I know are all for state sanctioned murder of certain criminals. I believe that it isn't society's right to take anything from an individual, including their life. But I'm all for a life sentence with no parole staring at the walls.
On gun control, I believe in self control first. I believe that people who might have mental problems could be allowed to buy a gun, but they should be much more stringently scrutinized. I am infuriated that the last 3 active shooter events that we've seen should have never happened because the shooter should not have been able to buy their guns. In each even there was a background check that failed to include known problems. The background check system failed.
Any other specific areas that you'd like to know about?
Post by: invflatspin on February 27, 2018, 11:09:17 AM
Would l like to go back to those days of true conservatism? Hell yeah I would. But don't forget - that means drastic evisceration of the federal spending. I will say that no one, anywhere, in any race, in any state or county is going to run on a platform of reduced spending in govt, and a return to the power of the people. That dog won't hunt. Sorry.
Post by: invflatspin on February 28, 2018, 01:46:32 PM
Trump on gun control. Not all of them are directly tied to Trump, but most are. I reject all of the proposals except cutting ties with the NRA. Most of these are right out of the lib playbook, and to be shown caving in to the left on constitutional issue like 2nd A is wrong.
Post by: nddons on February 28, 2018, 02:03:07 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/28/gun-control-measures-proposed-by-trump-lawmakers-after-florida-school-shooting.htmlIt is the height of arrogance that government can pass laws to stop evil, the height of cowardice to yield logic and intelligence to teenage attention whores’ foolish demands, and the height of stupidity to attack a nonprofit civil liberty organization and its members and ignore the clear and present danger that a disinterested and dishonest government poses to us citizens.
Trump on gun control. Not all of them are directly tied to Trump, but most are. I reject all of the proposals except cutting ties with the NRA. Most of these are right out of the lib playbook, and to be shown caving in to the left on constitutional issue like 2nd A is wrong.
Post by: Number7 on February 28, 2018, 02:04:51 PM
I have no idea who you're taking about on POA, but gosh if you have a problem with them, wouldn't it be better to settle it with them rather than gossiping behind their back?
The reason this offends you is that it compares so obviously to your behavior.
Post by: invflatspin on February 28, 2018, 02:34:37 PM
It is the height of arrogance that government can pass laws to stop evil, the height of cowardice to yield logic and intelligence to teenage attention whores’ foolish demands, and the height of stupidity to attack a nonprofit civil liberty organization and its members and ignore the clear and present danger that a disinterested and dishonest government poses to us citizens.I'm not sure why I'm quoted, but all that is ok with me. I'm not advocating attacking any civil liberty org. I am an advocate that the state not ENDORSE any civil liberty organizations. The two factions are often at odds, and would not want to corrupt the civil orgs with any pressure from the state.
But that's just me.
Post by: nddons on February 28, 2018, 04:09:42 PM
I'm not sure why I'm quoted, but all that is ok with me. I'm not advocating attacking any civil liberty org. I am an advocate that the state not ENDORSE any civil liberty organizations. The two factions are often at odds, and would not want to corrupt the civil orgs with any pressure from the state.Sorry, I wasn’t speaking to anything you wrote. I agree with you.
But that's just me.
I was speaking to the stupid effort to “just do something” because of this shooting.
People (read government hacks on both sides) need to chill the fuck out and relax about this. Maybe focus on places where shootings of this magnitude are called a “weekend” in Chicago.
Post by: invflatspin on February 28, 2018, 04:13:49 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-police-taken-guns-203608468.html
Take the guns, whether they had the right or not.
Post by: Lucifer on February 28, 2018, 04:21:49 PM
Sorry, I wasn’t speaking to anything you wrote. I agree with you.
I was speaking to the stupid effort to “just do something” because of this shooting.
People (read government hacks on both sides) need to chill the fuck out and relax about this. Maybe focus on places where shootings of this magnitude are called a “weekend” in Chicago.
Why aren't any of these whiny pansies crying over all the children that are murdered in Chicago using guns? Nothing, nada, zip, not a word.
And if gun control works so well, why is a city like Chicago, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, why is gun violence so huge there? Again, why can't the progressives explain this?
Post by: nddons on February 28, 2018, 04:35:07 PM
Another Trump broadside to the 2nd A.Ugh. Time to buy more ammo, mags, and ARs.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-police-taken-guns-203608468.html
Take the guns, whether they had the right or not.
Post by: nddons on February 28, 2018, 04:41:23 PM
Why aren't any of these whiny pansies crying over all the children that are murdered in Chicago using guns? Nothing, nada, zip, not a word.Ok they can explain it. They just know that explaining it will cross the line.
And if gun control works so well, why is a city like Chicago, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, why is gun violence so huge there? Again, why can't the progressives explain this?
Their explanation is that someone can go to Indiana or outside Cook County and bring them back to Chicago, as if bangers are restricted to two hour round trips. Point out that the banger will then go downstate, or way out of state, and it starts to look like a complete ban will be the only thing to fix this. Point out that the bangers will never turn them in, but suburban Chicagoans might, they then turn to wallflowers and say getting any guns off the street is a start. They can’t even process what they just said.
My brother still lives in that cesspool of Illinois, but is hoping to move to Idaho when his boys are in college.
Post by: Lucifer on February 28, 2018, 04:51:32 PM
Another Trump broadside to the 2nd A.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-police-taken-guns-203608468.html
Take the guns, whether they had the right or not.
My take on this is, once again, Trump is willing to give them what they want to just watch them screw it all up, like DACA.
Post by: jb1842 on February 28, 2018, 04:53:27 PM
Ugh. Time to buy more ammo, mags, and ARs.
I just bought an AR 10. Need to get mags this week.
Post by: invflatspin on February 28, 2018, 05:29:54 PM
I'm guessing that maybe 5% or so of the support for the dems is for those single-issue gun control advocates. If the left actually passed meaningful legislation, or restrict the 2nd A, then there would be no reason for them to stay with the dems.
Post by: Ron22 on March 01, 2018, 08:38:20 AM
Quote
"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/28/trump-says-take-guns-first-and-worry-due-process-second-white-house-gun-meeting/381145002/
Post by: Lucifer on March 01, 2018, 08:48:37 AM
And who said it was the Dems that want tot take your guns away
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/28/trump-says-take-guns-first-and-worry-due-process-second-white-house-gun-meeting/381145002/
I think Trump is playing them. Just like DACA. he knows the dims don't care about school safety, mass shootings, etc. He does know they only care about abolishing the second amendment. So he is going to offer them everything they want, and just like DACA, they will expose themselves to what they truly are.
Post by: LevelWing on March 01, 2018, 10:57:58 AM
I think Trump is playing them. Just like DACA. he knows the dims don't care about school safety, mass shootings, etc. He does know they only care about abolishing the second amendment. So he is going to offer them everything they want, and just like DACA, they will expose themselves to what they truly are.No, Trump spouted off like he does at times. He's not playing some ultra super game of underwater chess, he just spouts off. When push comes to shove, he won't go through with any of it.
Either way, it's not good when the president makes comments about doing away with basic civil liberties such as due process.
Post by: nddons on March 01, 2018, 11:10:55 AM
No, Trump spouted off like he does at times. He's not playing some ultra super game of underwater chess, he just spouts off. When push comes to shove, he won't go through with any of it.I agree.
Either way, it's not good when the president makes comments about doing away with basic civil liberties such as due process.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 01, 2018, 11:41:18 AM
Either way, it's not good when the president makes comments about doing away with basic civil liberties such as due process.
Cops do it every day.
Your only recourse is after the fact. And you almost always lose because the system must have the odds stacked that way.
Post by: invflatspin on March 01, 2018, 01:24:00 PM
Post by: Lucifer on March 01, 2018, 01:46:34 PM
No, Trump spouted off like he does at times. He's not playing some ultra super game of underwater chess, he just spouts off. When push comes to shove, he won't go through with any of it.
Either way, it's not good when the president makes comments about doing away with basic civil liberties such as due process.
I've watched you spout off the same drivel before. We have also watched the President agree with the dims and agree to give them even more than they want, just to unravel when their real agenda unfolds. This is yet another example.
This is why the establishment types simply don't get it and keep wanting to play business as usual, which is fucking over everyone.
Post by: Lucifer on March 01, 2018, 01:52:51 PM
Slightly different in that we don't elect cops(well, we do some sheriffs, but not the cop on the beat). But we elect our representatives. I don't know what kind of game Trump is playing with the gun control, making mistakes in this area could have drastic consequences. For a fact - I would withdraw my support of Trump the minute he goes through with anything more than the idiotic 'ban' on bump stocks. (banning the purchase of a non-lethal plastic gizmo? Effing - really?)
Congress enacts laws and the President either signs or vetos. The President isn't going to make a decree and ban guns all on his own.
The dims are using the latest school shooting in a dire attempt to get rid of the second amendment. The legislation they want passed doesn't stand a chance of getting through congress and making it to the President's desk. The dims simple want this issue for the 2018 mid terms to use because they have so fucked up everything else. When they start crying "evil republicans want kids murdered!" then Trump can simply say "Hey, I told you I would work with you, but you guys couldn't get it passed".
Post by: LevelWing on March 01, 2018, 01:55:09 PM
I've watched you spout off the same drivel before. We have also watched the President agree with the dims and agree to give them even more than they want, just to unravel when their real agenda unfolds. This is yet another example.Please link to my posts where I call for trampling on civil liberties.
This is why the establishment types simply don't get it and keep wanting to play business as usual, which is fucking over everyone.
He made a stupid comment but instead of just saying, "Yeah, that was dumb" you feel the need to defend him, as if somehow there's any defense for the trampling of people's rights. This isn't some big, elaborate game the president is playing where he's secretly trapping the Democrats. He spouted off and it's highly unlikely he will attempt to back any of it up.
Post by: Lucifer on March 01, 2018, 01:57:38 PM
Please link to my posts where I call for trampling on civil liberties.
He made a stupid comment but instead of just saying, "Yeah, that was dumb" you feel the need to defend him, as if somehow there's any defense for the trampling of people's rights. This isn't some big, elaborate game the president is playing where he's secretly trapping the Democrats. He spouted off and it's highly unlikely he will attempt to back any of it up.
I just call out your same old lame bullshit. You must be a huge George Will or Bill Kristol fan.
Post by: invflatspin on March 01, 2018, 01:59:47 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-gun-grabber-chief-apos-132236449.html
Trump is rapidly becoming another beltway bandit. He's barely through one year in office, and the swamp has a nice hold on him. This is what happens to people when they never leave the beltway mind-set. Rather than go the smart way, and ban 'gun-free' zones, he's going left at a furious pace. All those people who were going to slog out to vote for Trump(like me) are going to stay home and be outraged.
Post by: LevelWing on March 01, 2018, 02:00:50 PM
I just call out your same old lame bullshit. You must be a huge George Will or Bill Kristol fan.That's not an answer. You're not "calling out" anything. You're making an accusation without backing it up. I'd like to see the links to my posts where I've called for the trampling on civil liberties.
Post by: Lucifer on March 01, 2018, 02:09:52 PM
Quote
It’s called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO. While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements (“petitioners” are those who seek the order, “the respondent” is its subject):
It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);
It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;
It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;
In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and
The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.
The concept of the GVRO is simple, not substantially different from the restraining orders that are common in family law, and far easier to explain to the public than our nation’s mental-health adjudications. Moreover, the requirement that the order come from people close to the respondent and that they come forward with real evidence (e.g. sworn statements, screenshots of social-media posts, copies of journal entries) minimizes the chance of bad-faith claims.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/
Quote
What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something”? I’ve written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it’s carefully and properly implemented.
It’s called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 01, 2018, 02:16:10 PM
Post by: Lucifer on March 01, 2018, 02:18:57 PM
How about a ban on whatever meds this (latest) kid was on?
Pharmaceutical lobby is way too powerful for that to happen.
Post by: asechrest on March 01, 2018, 04:05:06 PM
Post by: Lucifer on March 01, 2018, 04:34:38 PM
Quote
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio moved today to give law enforcement and families the ability to confiscate guns from persons with severe mental illnesses.
The Republican lawmaker said he will be introducing legislation in the U.S. Senate that allows for 'Gun Violence Restraining Orders' that require a court order. The measure would also extend to the purchase of firearms.
'And to be clear, the due process in such a situation would be on the front end, not on the back end,' Rubio said in a floor speech on Thursday as he attempted to mitigate conservatives' concerns that the measure would be an infringement on the Second Amendment.
Quote
Republicans on Capitol Hill were shocked by Trump's position.
According to The Weekly Standard, Sen. Jeff Flake's immediate response was, 'Uhh... Well, any proposal we put forward respects due process, so...'
Sen. Thom Tillis offered that Trump is 'not a legal scholar' and that's probably not 'exactly what he meant.'
'I don't think that he was saying that there's a place where you suspend the Constitution and suspend due process. I just don't believe that,' Tillis said.
Post by: Little Joe on March 01, 2018, 05:09:32 PM
How about a ban on whatever meds this (latest) kid was on?Yeah. Replace them with something lethal. That will solve a whole bunch of problems.
Post by: invflatspin on March 01, 2018, 05:42:19 PM
Trump's next move in his game of 11 Dimension chess is to go pro abortion..
Welcome to the 1990s.
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914
Post by: bflynn on March 01, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
All those people who were going to slog out to vote for Trump(like me) are going to stay home and be outraged.
Just a reminder - I predict that Republicans will lose big in the mid terms because they refuse to adopt any kind of compromise. They would rather be right than win. Remember, this is how Republicans lose.
Trump is all about the deal. To reach a deal, you have to compromise. I believe he is probably signaling that he is willing to deal.
Post by: invflatspin on March 01, 2018, 06:49:12 PM
As for the abortion debate, there are some here who are rather strident about that. However, it has been legislated(to no effect), it has been discussed, and it has been reviewed by SCOTUS. It's not clearly defined in the constitution, except in ambiguous terms, so there's wiggle room with that. Now - to the gun debate. There is no amount of obfuscation that can be written that doesn't clearly violate the natural right of the people. that's why it says "shall NOT be infringed". Anything on that front is an affront to the republic.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 01, 2018, 08:11:29 PM
Post by: bflynn on March 01, 2018, 08:20:22 PM
Well, there's compromise, and then there's capitulation.
Yes, yes. The trouble is, most republicans believe that any compromise is capitulation.
Should bump stocks be banned?
Post by: Lucifer on March 01, 2018, 08:36:06 PM
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/28/rubios-approval-rating-hits-all-time-low-after-cnn-town-hall/
Why an conservative would give the Corrupt News Network the time of day is beyond me.
Post by: Lucifer on March 01, 2018, 08:40:38 PM
http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/01/take-two-weeks-truth-emerge-parkland-students-astroturfing/
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 01, 2018, 08:46:41 PM
Yes, yes. The trouble is, most republicans believe that any compromise is capitulation.
Should bump stocks be banned?
No it's the other way around. Dems (leftists) NEVER compromise.
Post by: Number7 on March 01, 2018, 08:48:03 PM
Yes, yes. The trouble is, most republicans believe that any compromise is capitulation.
There you go arguing that republicans should give you progressives everything you want to avoid losing your non-existent vote.
Post by: Jim Logajan on March 01, 2018, 10:00:01 PM
GUNS
It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. After a tragedy like the massacre at Columbine High School, anyone could feel that it is too easy for Americans to get their hands on weapons. But nobody has a good solution. This is another issue where you see the extremes of the two existing major parties. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
Trump, Donald. The America We Deserve (Kindle Locations 1128-1135). St. Martin's Press. Kindle Edition.
Post by: nddons on March 02, 2018, 07:04:51 AM
Well, there's compromise, and then there's capitulation. Compromise means we sit and talk about how to spend all the lucre and then how to borrow, tax or debase the currency to pay for it. Capitulation is when pols decide unilaterally to break the covenant of the written document which defines the republic.Your last sentence is the one place where I believe Scalia was wrong in Heller. Allowing some limitations opens the door to what we are seeing today.
As for the abortion debate, there are some here who are rather strident about that. However, it has been legislated(to no effect), it has been discussed, and it has been reviewed by SCOTUS. It's not clearly defined in the constitution, except in ambiguous terms, so there's wiggle room with that. Now - to the gun debate. There is no amount of obfuscation that can be written that doesn't clearly violate the natural right of the people. that's why it says "shall NOT be infringed". Anything on that front is an affront to the republic.
Post by: invflatspin on March 02, 2018, 07:48:00 AM
Yes, yes. The trouble is, most republicans believe that any compromise is capitulation.
Should bump stocks be banned?
Never. It's pre-molded plastic. How on earth do you ban the sale of pre-molded plastic in a free country?
Post by: acrogimp on March 02, 2018, 08:58:20 AM
Just a reminder - I predict that Republicans will lose big in the mid terms because they refuse to adopt any kind of compromise. They would rather be right than win. Remember, this is how Republicans lose.I think you are totally wrong on this issue hurting Republicans, it has never seriously hurt Republicans because the left always over reaches on this issue.
Trump is all about the deal. To reach a deal, you have to compromise. I believe he is probably signaling that he is willing to deal.
I am beginning to think that Trump's recent statements are, once again, a rope-a-dope. I find them EXTREMELY troubling on the surface, but like DACA he may be setting the Dem's up for another 'see, they don't want to really solve the problem' revelation. It is also running a possibility of uncovering where the true influence of money in politics lie, and it is not favorable for the left - Planned Parenthood spends more in 6 months on lobbying than the NRA has in the past 20 years or something like that, and while the NRA and their members have never killed anyone, Planned Parenthood actually kills a couple thousand Americans each and every day, and a portion of the money they spend in lobbying (95+% on Democrats only mind you) comes from the American taxpayer who spend half a billion dollars a year. I predict he will use this soon.
Like him or hate him, Trump really has been revealing and then nuking the swamp in general, the left in particular, by pointing out they really are not interested in solutions so much as talking.
There is a genuine danger here and I do not want to minimize it - put simply, the Founders left us with 'shall not be infringed' and that has mutated into more than 22,000 Federal, State and Local laws restricting gun rights (for the law abiding that is). There can be NO compromise on a natural right, it is not a privilege granted/controlled by government, it is a right from God that limits government. As I have said before, taking the 2nd Amendment fully in context, it says if I or a group of friends and I can afford an F-22 or an M1A1 Abrams we can own it - it is inviolable.
Bump stocks, high-cap magazines, scary colors, etc., do not, in a practical, measurable way impact criminal use of firearms - long guns are simply not a statistically important contributor, and never have been.
The 'do something' calls are an emotional overreaction, and our system of government was designed, specifically, to prevent the danger of hasty, emotional reactions.
The Left in the US has mastered the art of fabricated, manipulated and amplified outrage, and have what is an effective but very limited playbook here - the difference is that we have an alternative to the lock-step radical-alt-left-government-media complex with a small but effective number of right-leaning news outlets, a couple powerful commentators, and a President who is no-ones' lap dog.
The longer this continues the more obvious it will become just how manufactured and amplified this is, you are already seeing real, grassroots pushback against the virtue signalling BS of companies and cities going against the NRA, and that is just the beginning. The NRA may not have 100 million members, but there are at least 100 million gun owners in the US and few of them are actually willing to give up their rights - picking a fight with a third of the nation on something this important and this personally, closely held is a losing strategery.
'Gimp
Post by: invflatspin on March 02, 2018, 09:13:14 AM
Post by: bflynn on March 02, 2018, 10:46:10 AM
No it's the other way around. Dems (leftists) NEVER compromise.
There you go arguing that republicans should give you progressives everything you want to avoid losing your non-existent vote.
I rest my case.
Post by: Little Joe on March 02, 2018, 11:11:23 AM
I rest my case.The only way "I rest my case" fits here is if you are conceding the point that it is leftists that don't negotiate.
But IMNSHO, neither side will negotiate very much. Democrats negotiate less than Republicans, but the problem is that if a politician on either side gives up a point, he will most likely be voted out of office. So as much as we like to criticize and chastise politicians, the real fault lies with the stupid voters.
Post by: bflynn on March 02, 2018, 11:13:33 AM
I think you are totally wrong on this issue hurting Republicans, it has never seriously hurt Republicans because the left always over reaches on this issue.
I am beginning to think that Trump's recent statements are, once again, a rope-a-dope. I find them EXTREMELY troubling on the surface, but like DACA he may be setting the Dem's up for another 'see, they don't want to really solve the problem' revelation. It is also running a possibility of uncovering where the true influence of money in politics lie, and it is not favorable for the left - Planned Parenthood spends more in 6 months on lobbying than the NRA has in the past 20 years or something like that, and while the NRA and their members have never killed anyone, Planned Parenthood actually kills a couple thousand Americans each and every day, and a portion of the money they spend in lobbying (95+% on Democrats only mind you) comes from the American taxpayer who spend half a billion dollars a year. I predict he will use this soon.
Like him or hate him, Trump really has been revealing and then nuking the swamp in general, the left in particular, by pointing out they really are not interested in solutions so much as talking.
There is a genuine danger here and I do not want to minimize it - put simply, the Founders left us with 'shall not be infringed' and that has mutated into more than 22,000 Federal, State and Local laws restricting gun rights (for the law abiding that is). There can be NO compromise on a natural right, it is not a privilege granted/controlled by government, it is a right from God that limits government. As I have said before, taking the 2nd Amendment fully in context, it says if I or a group of friends and I can afford an F-22 or an M1A1 Abrams we can own it - it is inviolable.
Bump stocks, high-cap magazines, scary colors, etc., do not, in a practical, measurable way impact criminal use of firearms - long guns are simply not a statistically important contributor, and never have been.
The 'do something' calls are an emotional overreaction, and our system of government was designed, specifically, to prevent the danger of hasty, emotional reactions.
The Left in the US has mastered the art of fabricated, manipulated and amplified outrage, and have what is an effective but very limited playbook here - the difference is that we have an alternative to the lock-step radical-alt-left-government-media complex with a small but effective number of right-leaning news outlets, a couple powerful commentators, and a President who is no-ones' lap dog.
The longer this continues the more obvious it will become just how manufactured and amplified this is, you are already seeing real, grassroots pushback against the virtue signalling BS of companies and cities going against the NRA, and that is just the beginning. The NRA may not have 100 million members, but there are at least 100 million gun owners in the US and few of them are actually willing to give up their rights - picking a fight with a third of the nation on something this important and this personally, closely held is a losing strategery.
'Gimp
To be clear - the issue that I think hurts Republicans is that they are in power and refuse to compromise within their own party to accomplish anything.
That cuts across multiple issues. Here, that means the Dems get to campaign on the Republicans loving guns and hating people so much that they refuse to stop the murder of school children. It's a complete lie, but the Republicans have fed the fuel to the Dems by doing nothing...because they refuse to ever compromise. Democrats then take that and fire up their base with it. Because Trump is so bombastic, it fires them up even more. Republicans will lose big in November.
I'm in the "own a battleship, tank or F-35 if you can" camp. But on the other hand, I also assume a level of self control that is demonstratively not present. Obviously there are idiots who should not have guns or battleships, tanks or F-35s. But how do you know who they are?
Shall not be infringed has flown the coop a long time ago. Maybe a future USSC will overturn every gun law in existence, but otherwise face the reality that we are infringed.
I believe one path toward less infringement is for states to take control of the issue. If a state takes on the task more formally identifying and training their militia, then it becomes a matter of the federal government trying to limit a state's militia power. To me, that is so clearly outside the boundaries of what the federal government can do that it is a slam dunk...but I'm sure someone can figure out a way to argue around it.
BTW, my answer on bump stocks is that they're worthless, so sacrifice them - see paragraph 1. They increase the rate of fire, but fully automatic weapons are meaningless in a fight. There's a reason the military has required the three round burst setting on M-16s, full auto does nothing but waste ammo.
I'm also of the opinion that those with any kind of violent police or mental health encounter should show up as flagged on the background check database. Not that we're going to deny them the right to buy a gun, but they should be looked at much, much more closely than someone who isn't violent. Maybe that means they don't get cleared at that moment and have to go through evaluations. Is that so different from flight physicals? Yes, there is a constitutional difference...again, you can buy a gun, but it's more difficult if you've threatened to kill your ex wife.
Post by: bflynn on March 02, 2018, 11:14:30 AM
The only way "I rest my case" fits here is if you are conceding the point that it is leftists that don't negotiate.
Well, "my case" has nothing to do with the left but I do agree they have a problem compromising too. My point is that Republicans refuse to compromise at all. I think that's been shown.
How about this - the fanatics on the left and the right can be identified by the inability to compromise.
Post by: acrogimp on March 02, 2018, 11:24:16 AM
I rest my case.I actually have to agree with YouOnlyLiveTwice and Number7 on this. The 'middle ground' that is being demanded from the Left, the radical-alt-left-government-media complex and an extremely vocal (i.e, substantially amplified or over-represented) but tiny group represents a capitulation, not a compromise, and this is is nearly always the case.
It is a capitulation for several reasons, chief among them, 'shall not be infringed' and the natural law right to self-defense, secondly, because nothing being seriously proposed would actually do/have done anything with respect to the recent attacks in terms of actual prevention, and lastly, because they (the Left) are starting off by demonizing a 3rd of the nation and a civil liberties non-profit. They are not interested in compromise, they may couch their end goal (confiscation) with focus group tested (but intellectually dishonest and vapid) terms like 'common sense' and 'for the children', but their end goal is confiscation because they know, as does any rational thinking adult, that laws only limit the actions of folks already predisposed to follow/obey the law.
Most schools in the US, and I would bet all/nearly all of the ones that have had these tragedies have signs posted that they are gun free zones, the signs are backde up by local, state, even Federal laws, and yet the violence still happens somehow - don't those meanies killing people know they are in a gun free zone? I mean, there is a sign after all. /sarc
We are not talking about letting the camel put his nose in the tent - we are dealing with him trying to get his tail in with the rest that is already here.
There is a need to understand that the individual has no reasonable expectation of individual safety at the hands of LEO's and other government officials, not just as evidenced by the actual performance or lack thereof of the School Resource Officers and Deputies that were AT THE FUCKING SCHOOL DURING THE SHOOTING, but also as has been determined in court all the way to SCOTUS.
Our system still (although not near as well as founded) respects the rights of the individual as the smallest minority, and it does so better than any other system in history - that means the right to privacy (not only what weapons I may or may not own, but also the right to individual privacy with respect to medical/mental issue).
In order to ACTUALLY do something legislatively that will ACTUALLY have a shot at ACTUALLY preventing these tragedies you wil have to empower the government (Fed, State, Local) to deny people one or more fundamental individual rights - understand that because that is the crux of this whole thing. Our system however does not allow for that as founded with respect to denying a fundamental, natural individual right in exchange or out of respect for something that is not a right and in fact has been ajudicated and is not a government responsibility (to protect the individual).
Even in terms of public expectations of safety (the closest legitimate argument to make with respect to our actual system as established), we took a course several decades ago as a Nation to move away from involuntary committal and institutions because they were CRIMINALLY horrible places and were rampant with abuse by the staff and by people working the system to enrichen themselves at the expense of their own family members (e.g., get crazy Aunt Gertrude committed and take her stuff).
A (marginally) free and open society has risks associated with it, the risks are related to what people expect, what people want, and what they are willing to do to get it. You as an individual have zero, none, nada, no expectation of protection, as an individual, from any government agent or agency, case closed.
We can not, and should not, toss aside the bedrock that our Republic is founded on to try to fetch misguided and ultimately unachievable goals if it means denying fundamental, God-given rights. This is the genius of the Founders in establishing a representative republic and not a direct democracy - they knew, 250 years ago, of the dangers of the mob-rule mentality and of the importance of the ability to speak freely and to defend ones' self against any aggressor, foreign or domestic.
'Gimp
Post by: bflynn on March 02, 2018, 03:41:08 PM
To a fanatic, giving up anything is intolerable. So the fanatic cannot compromise.
This idea may hit too close to home for some to accept.
And then the republican party loses.
Post by: Number7 on March 02, 2018, 05:29:22 PM
I rest my case.
Acting pathetic is no response, junior.
You don't have a case.
You're too busy whining that everyone should give you what you want to avoid hurting your progressive feelings and making you go vote like you would anyway.
Post by: bflynn on March 02, 2018, 06:08:06 PM
Acting pathetic is no response, junior.
You don't have a case.
You're too busy whining that everyone should give you what you want to avoid hurting your progressive feelings and making you go vote like you would anyway.
No whining. Really not looking for you to validate what I'm saying. I laugh when you call me progressive....
I offer advice because in the end I think Republicans might be better for the country than Dems. Maybe I'm wrong.
Post by: Lucifer on March 02, 2018, 08:38:37 PM
Exactly what I've been saying.
Post by: Little Joe on March 03, 2018, 05:29:55 AM
In order to compromise you have to give something up and then you get something in return. That is what compromise means. It is the art of the deal.So if the government shuts down, it is the Republicans fault,
To a fanatic, giving up anything is intolerable. So the fanatic cannot compromise.
This idea may hit too close to home for some to accept.
And then the republican party loses.
and if neither side yields an inch, it is the Republicans fault.
Got it. But unfortunately, in the "public school educated", and MSM informed mind, it is absolutely true.
Post by: bflynn on March 03, 2018, 06:16:49 AM
So if the government shuts down, it is the Republicans fault,
and if neither side yields an inch, it is the Republicans fault.
Got it. But unfortunately, in the "public school educated", and MSM informed mind, it is absolutely true.
LOL...you guys are hillarious.
I challenge you to show where I ever blamed Republicans for a shutdown.
This is what I meant by saying that I have to allow that maybe you just become uninteresting to the left and they get bored and leave. You don't even try, you just make up what you wish were true.
Frankly I am becoming less and less interested in what gets posted here because the amount of thought put into this is going way down.
Post by: Lucifer on March 03, 2018, 06:25:01 AM
Frankly I am becoming less and less interested in what gets posted here because the amount of thought put into this is going way down.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/qmfpjpAT2fJRK/giphy.gif)
Post by: Little Joe on March 03, 2018, 06:32:53 AM
LOL...you guys are hillarious.You didn't blame the Rs for the shutdown here. But can you deny that the left (MSM, Schools, etc) DO blame Republicans for government shutdowns by default. Of couse though, they did have a little trouble blaming the Rs for the last one because it was so obvious that the shutdown was a purely politically inspired event and their position was so weak that the shutdown only lasted a small portion of the weekend.
I challenge you to show where I ever blamed Republicans for a shutdown.
This is what I meant by saying that I have to allow that maybe you just become uninteresting to the left and they get bored and leave. You don't even try, you just make up what you wish were true.
Frankly I am becoming less and less interested in what gets posted here because the amount of thought put into this is going way down.
But YOU do blame the Rs for not budging on compromise when at the very least, the Ds are just as bad or worse.
Post by: Number7 on March 03, 2018, 07:39:20 AM
In order to compromise you have to give something up and then you get something in return. That is what compromise means. It is the art of the deal.
To a fanatic, giving up anything is intolerable. So the fanatic cannot compromise.
This idea may hit too close to home for some to accept.
And then the republican party loses.
Like a true blue lib, you PRESUME that republicans who fail to give you everything you want are intransigent. The only compromise in your world is where YOU get what YOU want and then call it compromise. The lie you live is pathetic but real.
Compromise to a liberal like you is the same as the IRS taking everything you own for a two dollar debt, then charging you for the cost of stealing your property.
Post by: bflynn on March 03, 2018, 06:00:15 PM
You didn't blame the Rs for the shutdown here. But can you deny that the left (MSM, Schools, etc) DO blame Republicans for government shutdowns by default. Of couse though, they did have a little trouble blaming the Rs for the last one because it was so obvious that the shutdown was a purely politically inspired event and their position was so weak that the shutdown only lasted a small portion of the weekend.
But YOU do blame the Rs for not budging on compromise when at the very least, the Ds are just as bad or worse.
Of course I recognize the MSM gives the left a pass. They only did a little last time because it was unbelievable ever state that it wasn't Schumer's fault.
And yes, I do blame the Republicans for not compromising on anything. They don't recognize the position they're in. They refuse to recognize what could be gained in order to "protect" a bunch of stuff that probably isn't as important. They refuse to exploit an opponent's weakness if it means giving up anything.
This is what I fault them on. They're going to take their righteous right into losing power.
Post by: acrogimp on March 03, 2018, 07:29:21 PM
Of course I recognize the MSM gives the left a pass. They only did a little last time because it was unbelievable ever state that it wasn't Schumer's fault.Sorry B, I think you may be suffering from some kind of confirmation bias here, the R's give ALL the time, otherwise we would not have 22,000 Federal, State and Local gun laws instead of 'shall not be infringed'; we would not have abortion on demand instead of a respect for life; we would not have Sanctuary Cities (and States, fuck I hate living in California); we would not have people not knowing which fucking bathroom or personal pronoun to use; we would not have bakers being sued for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake, and we would not have gay marriage; we would not have DoD paying for sex change operations/hormones for incarcerated traitors; and so on and so on and fucking so on.
And yes, I do blame the Republicans for not compromising on anything. They don't recognize the position they're in. They refuse to recognize what could be gained in order to "protect" a bunch of stuff that probably isn't as important. They refuse to exploit an opponent's weakness if it means giving up anything.
This is what I fault them on. They're going to take their righteous right into losing power.
THIS is the big lie, that one side, the Conservative side, does not compromise, they have compromised after compromise. The real issue is even their capitulation is not ever going to be enough because the left wants uniformity of thought and belief and action.
Obama for example was not rejected and opposed as strenuously as he was because of the color of his skin, it was the color of his politics.
The middle has had enough and Trump is the symptom, not the cause. The vast majority of people do not care anywhere near as much as about politics in the whole as we do here - they care about individual things in their individual lives, paying bills, being healthy, being left alone, etc.
But, there are issues that resonate with them deeply, being called racist over and over when there is ZERO evidence to support such a vile and destructive claim, being called deplorable, being blamed for events that they have literally nothing to do with, and starting off consistently in any discussion on their back foot and on defense because of the constant attack dog nature of our politics. They, we, have had fucking enough and are not going to take it anymore.
The R's have been incredibly ineffective as both a minority and majority party for the past several decades not because they don't give enough, but because they never really fight at all.
'Gimp
Post by: bflynn on March 03, 2018, 08:49:36 PM
Sorry B, I think you may be suffering from some kind of confirmation bias here, the R's give ALL the time, otherwise we would not have 22,000 Federal, State and Local gun laws instead of 'shall not be infringed'; we would not have abortion on demand instead of a respect for life; we would not have Sanctuary Cities (and States, fuck I hate living in California); we would not have people not knowing which fucking bathroom or personal pronoun to use; we would not have bakers being sued for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake, and we would not have gay marriage; we would not have DoD paying for sex change operations/hormones for incarcerated traitors; and so on and so on and fucking so on.
THIS is the big lie, that one side, the Conservative side, does not compromise, they have compromised after compromise. The real issue is even their capitulation is not ever going to be enough because the left wants uniformity of thought and belief and action.
Obama for example was not rejected and opposed as strenuously as he was because of the color of his skin, it was the color of his politics.
The middle has had enough and Trump is the symptom, not the cause. The vast majority of people do not care anywhere near as much as about politics in the whole as we do here - they care about individual things in their individual lives, paying bills, being healthy, being left alone, etc.
But, there are issues that resonate with them deeply, being called racist over and over when there is ZERO evidence to support such a vile and destructive claim, being called deplorable, being blamed for events that they have literally nothing to do with, and starting off consistently in any discussion on their back foot and on defense because of the constant attack dog nature of our politics. They, we, have had fucking enough and are not going to take it anymore.
The R's have been incredibly ineffective as both a minority and majority party for the past several decades not because they don't give enough, but because they never really fight at all.
'Gimp
And that's the difference between giving and compromising. Before they got nothing for giving something up. This time they have the opportunity to dictate terms. But they refuse to do it.
Post by: acrogimp on March 03, 2018, 09:03:42 PM
And that's the difference between giving and compromising. Before they got nothing for giving something up. This time they have the opportunity to dictate terms. But they refuse to do it.Then you are advocating for a difference without distinction IMO - either the left gets what it wants, or the left gets what it wants - that is not compromise.
You are missing the point, the R's compromised on civil unions but that was not enough, now we have gay marriage - they compromised on a vast expansion of heretofore undefined civil 'rights' around what was held for decades (if not centuries) to be aberrant behavior/mental illness, and now will destroy businesses of people with religious beliefs against gay marriage.
The R's compromised on the original assault weapon ban, now the left wants that and more.
The R's compromised on abortion for specific health reasons, now it is a form of post-coitus birth control AND people who are diametrically opposed to it on deeply held religious grounds are forced to pay for it.
There are I am sure a ton more examples I could provide but clearly you are not open to interpretations outside your current belief system, which is cool, so I am going to go have some fun instead.
'Gimp
Post by: Number7 on March 04, 2018, 05:59:25 AM
And that's the difference between giving and compromising. Before they got nothing for giving something up. This time they have the opportunity to dictate terms. But they refuse to do it.
What a crock of ignorant bullshit.
Congratulations, you’ve outdone your self on stupid.
Post by: Lucifer on March 04, 2018, 06:33:28 AM
Quote
With that in mind, and as liberals line up behind a shield made of children to march on the Second Amendment, it’s important to remember what happens when you attempt to compromise with people whose ultimate goal is your obliteration and why no amount of compromise will ever be enough.
There is an example from our recent past that shows how compromise works when it comes to big government liberals. It may not be perfect, and it isn’t pretty, but it is what happens when you accept the concept of diminishing the rights of innocent people over the actions of the guilty.
You have to dig in your heels and make clear you will never, ever acquiesce to their demands. This has been the tactic of the National Rifle Association when it comes to the Second Amendment, and it is the correct choice. But it hasn’t been the choice made by others in the past.
And of course, the big point to be made here:
Quote
There is no compromise with someone who doesn’t want you to exist, there is only incrementally losing ground until you no longer exist. A right diminished will never return, government does not cede back power once seized.
Post by: bflynn on March 04, 2018, 09:53:31 AM
Then you are advocating for a difference without distinction IMO - either the left gets what it wants, or the left gets what it wants - that is not compromise.
You are missing the point, the R's compromised on civil unions but that was not enough, now we have gay marriage - they compromised on a vast expansion of heretofore undefined civil 'rights' around what was held for decades (if not centuries) to be aberrant behavior/mental illness, and now will destroy businesses of people with religious beliefs against gay marriage.
The R's compromised on the original assault weapon ban, now the left wants that and more.
The R's compromised on abortion for specific health reasons, now it is a form of post-coitus birth control AND people who are diametrically opposed to it on deeply held religious grounds are forced to pay for it.
There are I am sure a ton more examples I could provide but clearly you are not open to interpretations outside your current belief system, which is cool, so I am going to go have some fun instead.
'Gimp
Republicans did not compromise on gay marriage. They had an opportunity to compromise but couldn't do it. Instead they created DOMA, a law which enshrined Christian beliefs of marriage into law in violation of the First Amendment. Then DOMA was correctly overturned and gay marriage was rammed down everyone's throats. Compromise? What did they get?
They did not compromise on abortion because they didn't try to get something for it. They capitulated. Again, tell me what they got, other that 70 millions babies murdered at the mother's insistance.
You are correct, we have long been in situations where the Left leverages the MSM to tell lies about Republicans. And....???
What could Republicans compromise on with gun control? There are people here who have say nothing. But how has that worked out for everyone? Gun rights are being nibbled away without Republicans putting any kind of law in place that ensures the 2nd Amendment. Give up Bump stocks to allow teachers to be carry if they choose? I count that as a huge win. Too many only see what is lost.
Could they have compromised on immigration? Yes, but they didn't and now we have nothing, all so they can claim to hold the line on DACA. What good is that doing? There are still tens of millions of illegal immigrants here who should not be. Now the timing is pretty much lost. One day Dems will make the decision and once again ram something down Republicans's throat.
In order to uphold "right", Republicans constantly enable "wrong".
As far as interpertations outside my line of thought, I am completely open to them. But they have to be supported by more than a difference of opinion. I trace most of what I say and believe back to "man should be free, as long as they refrain from hurting others". i am pretty sure you agree with that, so I am not sure why there is any divergence.
As far as compromises, I was simply taught they are a necessary part of life exactly because we do not agree. If there was no compromise, most business deals would not happen...if every contract negotiator came out with "this is my offer, take it or leave it", then nobody would ever agree.
The real choices are "the left gets something they want and so do republicans" or "republcians play the delay game until they are no longer in the position to make decisiosn".
Post by: Lucifer on March 04, 2018, 10:08:25 AM
What could Republicans compromise on with gun control? There are people here who have say nothing. But how has that worked out for everyone? Gun rights are being nibbled away without Republicans putting any kind of law in place that ensures the 2nd Amendment. Give up Bump stocks to allow teachers to be carry if they choose? I count that as a huge win. Too many only see what is lost.
The highlighted sentence really strikes me as odd. So, we have to create new laws to ensure the second amendment?
I know your panties get twisted when I say "Follow the laws as written", but with 22,000 laws already on the subject how exactly does writing yet another law "ensure the 2cd amendment" if the previous 22,000 doesn't?
So let's say the R's concede and give in to banning bumpstops and "assault rifles". Do you honestly see it stopping there?
What I see then is the definition of "assault rifle" gets broadened to cover virtually every rifle on the market. Then it gets broadened again to cover handguns. Then it get's broadened to cover the ammunition.
Why don't you admit that the real position of the progressives is to do away with gun ownership and the second amendment? You know full well they won't rest until it's gone and they are willing to keep chipping away at it till it's done. "Compromise" is just the tool to keep them busy at the real agenda.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 04, 2018, 01:42:59 PM
Education today, at least Bill Maher shut him down.
Post by: Number7 on March 04, 2018, 06:17:00 PM
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/970079934822604800
Education today, at least Bill Maher shut him down.
Bflynn - Republicans HAVE to compromise on gun rights because they will be seen as a party that never compromises and lose my vote...
Which is more illuminating of a blank slate?
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 04, 2018, 06:45:17 PM
Post by: bflynn on March 04, 2018, 06:58:11 PM
and lose my vote...
You mean in Republicans had compromised on gun control in 2015, you would have voted for Hillary?
Post by: Number7 on March 04, 2018, 07:07:54 PM
You mean in Republicans had compromised on gun control in 2015, you would have voted for Hillary?
You really are shallow.
Post by: invflatspin on March 04, 2018, 09:27:57 PM
Shall not be infringed has flown the coop a long time ago. Maybe a future USSC will overturn every gun law in existence, but otherwise face the reality that we are infringed.
Fascinating that you put the very essence of the need for keep and bear. There may be a time, not long from now that the infringement will exceed my(and others) ability to withstand.
Post by: invflatspin on March 04, 2018, 09:51:55 PM
Give up Bump stocks to allow teachers to be carry if they choose? I count that as a huge win. hurting others". i am pretty
give up a piece of molded plastic? WTF?
Allow? See - this is the progressive mind at work. It's an inverse of the real world where there is no such thing as ALLOW. The natural right recognizes no bounds on keep and bear. There is no such animal, person, authority, or power on earth that gives permission. Rights are inalienable. When we pop out of the vagina, shazzam! we have rights. It's not like we're a kid with a bowl of gruel; 'please sir, may I have more?'
Incredible what kind of ass-backwardness there is out there. Any some of you were dismayed that I said this is the definition of progressive. I have to give marks for sticking around anyway. You sure have some 'nads hanging around with this nut-ball authority first mishigoss.
Post by: bflynn on March 05, 2018, 12:30:30 AM
real world where there is no such thing as ALLOW. The natural right recognizes no bounds on keep and bear. There is no such animal, person, authority, or power on earth that gives permission. Rights are inalienable....
Yes, natural rights allow you to do anything. But US Law does not and THAT is the truth of the real world that we live in. Republic, remember? If you arguing about the language, then it just proves that Republicans have lost the battle of the language. You want to word a law to require that no state oppose teachers getting concealed carry and no state may oppose teachers carrying concealed in school, then I say that is great whatever the language.
Otherwise, you can yell and scream about natural rights until you are blue in the face. You are ineffective. I agree 2A is important and we should not be infringed. Reminder, I am part of the tank, battleship and F-35 crowd.
Still, I hate to break it to you, but your inalienable rights have been alienated; the only true inalienable law is self defense. If that triggers you, then I suggest you choose between the play-dough and coloring books or a real life course of action that will work to restore your supposed inalienable rights. If you are not already a member, I suggest you join the NRA. Maybe run for congress. Figure out a way to put 9 conservatives on the supreme court who agree with you.
Meanwhile, if we go back to the strategic situation the Republicans find themselves in, voters want SOMETHING done. That isn't me claiming that, it is the overwhelming result of every poll. If they do not, the Dems will run on this, about how Republicans love their guns so much that they are desperately trying to change nothing and Republicans will have no defense against that charge. You insist on hanging onto a piece of plastic rather than doing something that would make a meaningful change. Word it however you like, as an endorsement of 2A rather than a law. But pass something because the clock is once again ticking and doing nothing will be seen as a failure by the people (like me) who you need to impress to win in November.
Post by: bflynn on March 05, 2018, 12:33:57 AM
You really are shallow.
Lol! I called you on it. You will never not vote Republican. If that hurts, take a hard look in the mirror.
Post by: bflynn on March 05, 2018, 03:12:10 AM
Post by: Little Joe on March 05, 2018, 05:58:21 AM
Oh, and BTW...if you are clever, you can do the same thing a bump stock does with your finger and a belt loop or even just a piece of rope. So trade that worthless piece of plastic to the Dems for teachers carrying guns in the classroom.A "trade" with the Dems that I"d agree to would be to trade a minimum age of 18; for both purchasing/owning guns AND voting for a minimum age of at least 21.
Post by: Lucifer on March 05, 2018, 06:07:00 AM
Oh, and BTW...if you are clever, you can do the same thing a bump stock does with your finger and a belt loop or even just a piece of rope. So trade that worthless piece of plastic to the Dems for teachers carrying guns in the classroom.
The arguments I keep reading is the progressives don't want teachers carrying, period. They don't want guns in the public hands, period.
State laws decide whether a teacher may be armed in a school, and it's already in place in several states.
The dims want the eradication of the second and they've made that perfectly clear. They have also made clear that this recent debate is nothing more than a campaign issue for 2018 (since they are running short on anything to actually run on).
IMO this is going to backfire on them like everything else the Wyle E. Coyote democrats have attempted so far.
Post by: bflynn on March 05, 2018, 06:25:26 AM
So, we have to create new laws to ensure the second amendment?
New laws are being created. Do you want to make the wording or let Dems do it?
As far as the new laws go, a federal law preempts state law. Especially if that federal law is a reminder of the 2nd Amendment.
Certain states will howl if the federal law preempts "states rights" with regards to infringing on rights. But these same people shouldn't even be here anymore because Trump won and they were supposed to move to Canada.
Post by: Number7 on March 05, 2018, 06:26:08 AM
Lol! I called you on it. You will never not vote Republican. If that hurts, take a hard look in the mirror.
Pathetic.
You are a pathetic, progressive, pawn.
Post by: bflynn on March 05, 2018, 06:28:37 AM
Pathetic.
You are a pathetic, progressive, pawn.
And you apparently can't handle that I was right.
I'm having fun, how about you?
Post by: Little Joe on March 05, 2018, 07:15:08 AM
As far as the new laws go, a federal law preempts state law. Especially if that federal law is a reminder of the 2nd Amendment.Legally and Constitutionally, wouldn't that only apply to the powers enumerated in the Constitution?
Post by: invflatspin on March 05, 2018, 08:02:42 AM
Yes, natural rights allow you to do anything. But US Law does not and THAT is the truth of the real world that we live in. Republic, remember? If you arguing about the language, then it just proves that Republicans have lost the battle of the language. You want to word a law to require that no state oppose teachers getting concealed carry and no state may oppose teachers carrying concealed in school, then I say that is great whatever the language.
Otherwise, you can yell and scream about natural rights until you are blue in the face. You are ineffective. I agree 2A is important and we should not be infringed. Reminder, I am part of the tank, battleship and F-35 crowd.
Still, I hate to break it to you, but your inalienable rights have been alienated; the only true inalienable law is self defense. If that triggers you, then I suggest you choose between the play-dough and coloring books or a real life course of action that will work to restore your supposed inalienable rights. If you are not already a member, I suggest you join the NRA. Maybe run for congress. Figure out a way to put 9 conservatives on the supreme court who agree with you.
Meanwhile, if we go back to the strategic situation the Republicans find themselves in, voters want SOMETHING done. That isn't me claiming that, it is the overwhelming result of every poll. If they do not, the Dems will run on this, about how Republicans love their guns so much that they are desperately trying to change nothing and Republicans will have no defense against that charge. You insist on hanging onto a piece of plastic rather than doing something that would make a meaningful change. Word it however you like, as an endorsement of 2A rather than a law. But pass something because the clock is once again ticking and doing nothing will be seen as a failure by the people (like me) who you need to impress to win in November.
And your answer is that I should start dealing out access to my inalienable right for some bit of molded plastic, so that I may be ALLOWED to retain that which is my right by existence? Weird.
I'll tell you what I'll compromise. I will allow you to rant and rave and scream and shout, and make all kinds of political posturing. Cuz - that's a right too, it's the 1st. And I'll keep my right under the 2nd, and we'll all be good. Because, once you(not the personal 'you', the liberals collectively) step over that line, and start actually restricting gun ownership, WE will open that giant can of whup-ass and all the feds with all their 'allow' brothers need to pick a side. Choose wisely.
Post by: invflatspin on March 05, 2018, 08:45:39 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/05/in-2004-he-walked-into-school-with-a-shotgun-today-from-prison-he-weighs-in-on-parkland/?utm_term=.08dbd4495b7b
He's very lucky that no one who was armed was nearby, or he wouldn't be in prison, he'd be where he belongs - in a pine box in a grave. Now, he's blathering on about trampling other peoples rights - from prison. Which is where I always go when I need a lesson in civil rights.
congrats Flynn, you have a fellow brother in liberal douche-baggery.
Post by: bflynn on March 05, 2018, 08:53:02 AM
Legally and Constitutionally, wouldn't that only apply to the powers enumerated in the Constitution?
Yes, of course. Read my sentence as "a new law about not restricting cc for teachers"...to me the context was self apparent, but I can see room for confusion.
Post by: bflynn on March 05, 2018, 08:55:41 AM
...I'll keep my right under the 2nd...
I have a great fear that when democrats get into control again, you won't. You're going to lose a whole lot more than a piece of plastic.
I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I know that Republicans could pass a great number of laws right now and if they do them right, they will make it very difficult for Dems to change them later. The nature of our system is that once laws are passed, they become very difficult to undo.
Post by: invflatspin on March 05, 2018, 09:33:50 AM
I have a great fear that when democrats get into control again, you won't. You're going to lose a whole lot more than a piece of plastic.
I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I know that Republicans could pass a great number of laws right now and if they do them right, they will make it very difficult for Dems to change them later. The nature of our system is that once laws are passed, they become very difficult to undo.
I will. I've been cagey about the alternative, because this is a web board, and I like to keep things light and humble. But I will say again, and you'll just read through the lines for the meaning:
I - will - not - lose - my - 2nd A - right - to - keep - and - bear - arms.
fini
Post by: bflynn on March 05, 2018, 12:09:59 PM
I - will - not - lose - my - 2nd A - right - to - keep - and - bear - arms.
You - are - not - in - control - of - that.
That is the danger. I'd really like to see republicans get out in front of this. But I don't think they will.
Post by: Number7 on March 05, 2018, 01:12:45 PM
Lol! I called you on it. You will never not vote Republican. If that hurts, take a hard look in the mirror.
The stupid runs deep in you today, but you did convict yourself of being the progressive weenie we all know you are.
Post by: invflatspin on March 05, 2018, 01:24:57 PM
You - are - not - in - control - of - that.
That is the danger. I'd really like to see republicans get out in front of this. But I don't think they will.
come and take it. I double dog dare ya. Again, by 'ya' I mean the collective. G ahead progs, start taking guns. If you want to see the end of a political party, just keep going the way you're going.
Guess what FL just did? Voted DOWN the various gun bans, and vote IN the arming of select teachers. I'm not an advocate of arming teachers, but I am far more an advocate of recognizing the right of teachers to BE armed, than some kind of 'assault weapon' ban.
Post by: invflatspin on March 05, 2018, 01:50:07 PM
The right doesn't need to do anything. It is the left that wants to change the current inalienable right from the people to some authority/figurehead/executive/'crat in whole or in part. So drop a proposal in the hopper to alter/restrict/eliminate the 2nd A. Go right ahead, the entire membership of the senate knows how to advance a SB. There are 48-ish left leaning senators and one crazy idiot who can't tell what party he's in. Any/all of them are free to sponsor the amendment bill and take up the cause.
We await that process with baited breath. And then, supposing it passes, and the checks and balances find it suitable to become law, try to implement some form of gun registration/control/limits/infringement. Please, we're just a bunch of backward, fly-over, mouth-breathing, goobers. Go ahead, see how that works out for y'all. Really, looking forward to the gun police at my door. "Have you now, or have you ever been a gun owner? I will come in your home and inspect and search for guns, and no I don't need a warrant. I will be taking any guns I see, and you do not get a receipt, nor payment, nor consideration. " Yeah - go ahead, start the next civil war. It'll be fun. Choose wisely.
Post by: nddons on March 05, 2018, 02:54:03 PM
Yes, natural rights allow you to do anything. But US Law does not and THAT is the truth of the real world that we live in. Republic, remember? If you arguing about the language, then it just proves that Republicans have lost the battle of the language. You want to word a law to require that no state oppose teachers getting concealed carry and no state may oppose teachers carrying concealed in school, then I say that is great whatever the language.Throwing a boat anchor to a drowning man is also “DOING SOMETHING”, but at the end of the day it may not be the “RIGHT THING.”
Otherwise, you can yell and scream about natural rights until you are blue in the face. You are ineffective. I agree 2A is important and we should not be infringed. Reminder, I am part of the tank, battleship and F-35 crowd.
Still, I hate to break it to you, but your inalienable rights have been alienated; the only true inalienable law is self defense. If that triggers you, then I suggest you choose between the play-dough and coloring books or a real life course of action that will work to restore your supposed inalienable rights. If you are not already a member, I suggest you join the NRA. Maybe run for congress. Figure out a way to put 9 conservatives on the supreme court who agree with you.
Meanwhile, if we go back to the strategic situation the Republicans find themselves in, voters want SOMETHING done. That isn't me claiming that, it is the overwhelming result of every poll. If they do not, the Dems will run on this, about how Republicans love their guns so much that they are desperately trying to change nothing and Republicans will have no defense against that charge. You insist on hanging onto a piece of plastic rather than doing something that would make a meaningful change. Word it however you like, as an endorsement of 2A rather than a law. But pass something because the clock is once again ticking and doing nothing will be seen as a failure by the people (like me) who you need to impress to win in November.
If you are the moderate you claim to be, you should be shouting to your compatriots to stand down, relax, and methodically go through the process of investigation, analysis, and proposal of logical solutions that would have prevented this. I can think of at least 10 things that could have stopped this shooting, and not one of them involve disarming law abiding Americans.
If you’re not advocating a stand down, then you are just a mind-numbed member of the mob rule clan, and are unworthy of serious consideration.
Post by: Little Joe on March 05, 2018, 03:18:09 PM
It might just be semantics, but in politics, everything is semantics.
Guess what FL just did? Voted DOWN the various gun bans, and vote IN the arming of select teachers.
I don't believe ANYBODY every proposed, recommended or approved the "arming" of teachers.
THIS is what has been, and has always been proposed. There is a huge difference between arming teachers, and allowing teachers to exercise their right to bear arms.
I'm not an advocate of arming teachers, but I am far more an advocate of recognizing the right of teachers to BE armed, than some kind of 'assault weapon' ban.
Even if NO teachers choose to carry in their school, just the fact that the school is no longer a gun free zone will deter some of those psychos from even attempting to try something. Not all of them, but some of them, and it won't cost the public a cent.
Post by: Little Joe on March 05, 2018, 03:20:20 PM
I would not be opposed to raising the age to purchase weapons to 21, but I would want to see the voting age raised to 21 also. That is called a compromise, which Flynn wants so badly.
Post by: asechrest on March 05, 2018, 03:34:31 PM
Question: How many of the recent school shooters have been under 18 yrs old. Just from memory, it seems like most of them.
I would not be opposed to raising the age to purchase weapons to 21, but I would want to see the voting age raised to 21 also. That is called a compromise, which Flynn wants so badly.
We would need to also raise the Selective Service age to 21.
Post by: Little Joe on March 05, 2018, 03:49:21 PM
We would need to also raise the Selective Service age to 21.Not really. My suggestion was a compromise tying the minimum age to buying guns with the minimum age to vote. It didn't go so far as to raising the general age of majority.
The only way it could affect the military is if they required their recruits to buy their own guns.
Man, times have changed. I bought my first gun when I was 14. It was a Savage over/under (410 gauge shotgun on the bottom, 22 LR on the top). When I was in highschool, almost every one had gun racks in their car, with loaded guns in them. They would either come to school straight from hunting, or they would be going straight from school to go hunting. And I don't recall a single school shooting, except when Randy shot a couple of cans out behind the gym, for which he got 3 days suspension.
Post by: Number7 on March 05, 2018, 07:10:54 PM
There is no standing to simply end a constitutional guarantee because because a bunch of worthless cowards are afwaid.
Goldilocks was awfaid.
jimmy carter was afwaid.
The pathetic left is afwaid - but not of the law. The left is afwaid they can't run a fascist America unless the state disarms good people.
That's bflynn is pandering for.
That's what Nancy Pelosi (on those days she in not overcome by her creeping senility) wants.
That's what the fucking traitor, Obama wants.
The proper concession is NO CONCESSION. NO COMPROMISE. NO MOVE TO TEH CENTER so whiney leftists pretending to be middle of the road conservatives can feel special.
Post by: bflynn on March 05, 2018, 07:15:49 PM
The proper concession is NO CONCESSION. NO COMPROMISE.
We will track that and see how it works for you. In a few years when Dems have control, expect to lose it all.
Republicans (including you) are in a bad strategic situation and you don't even know it. And because of people like you, we're going to lose even more of out gun rights. That means you're screwing me over, so I'm not impressed with you.
Meanwhile, I'm just trying to figure out...are you playing at being an idiot or is it actual? Do you remember that I strongly believe in 2A or is your closed mindedness telling you that anyone who disagrees with you is the enemy? It's a mystery....
Post by: Lucifer on March 05, 2018, 07:26:37 PM
We will track that and see how it works for you. In a few years when Dems have control, expect to lose it all....
So are you saying when the democrats regain control of Congress and the WH they will simply remove the second amendment of the constitution on their own and bypass the constitution?
Or maybe you are implying they will pass a law (all guns are hereby banned) and the Supreme Court will uphold their law?
Post by: asechrest on March 05, 2018, 07:41:12 PM
Not really. My suggestion was a compromise tying the minimum age to buying guns with the minimum age to vote. It didn't go so far as to raising the general age of majority.
If we raise the voting age to 21, we must raise the selective service age to match. I won't send our young folks to war without the ability to vote.
Post by: Lucifer on March 05, 2018, 08:27:29 PM
If we raise the voting age to 21, we must raise the selective service age to match. I won't send our young folks to war without the ability to vote.
Every war up through Viet Nam the voting age was 21. The 26th amendment wasn't passed until 1971.
So many thousands of veterans went to war before they could vote.
Post by: Little Joe on March 06, 2018, 05:41:24 AM
If we raise the voting age to 21, we must raise the selective service age to match. I won't send our young folks to war without the ability to vote.Ok, that is reasonable. Totally impractical, but somehow reasonable. It is impractical because it waits 3 more years for kids to grow up, establish families and careers before it yanks them out of their life.
But in the name of compromise, if you want to add something to the bargaining table, you have to give up something. If you agree to Trump's Mexico border wall, I will agree to your voting age change. Or perhaps implementing nationwide voter-photo ID.
I think we are now on the way to getting some things done.
edit: I made a mistake. I meant to say "your draft age change", NOT "your voting age change".
Post by: asechrest on March 06, 2018, 06:34:42 AM
Every war up through Viet Nam the voting age was 21. The 26th amendment wasn't passed until 1971.
So many thousands of veterans went to war before they could vote.
That doesn't make it right.
Post by: Lucifer on March 06, 2018, 07:18:30 AM
That doesn't make it right.
I don't recall those veterans quibbling about going to war before their voting age. The "making it right" is just to satisfy you. The raising the selective service age to align with a voting age is just a bullshit diatribe.
I won't send our young folks to war without the ability to vote.
You won't be doing squat. You don't have the ability to send anyone to war.
Post by: bflynn on March 06, 2018, 07:41:00 AM
So are you saying when the democrats regain control of Congress and the WH they will simply remove the second amendment of the constitution on their own and bypass the constitution?
Or maybe you are implying they will pass a law (all guns are hereby banned) and the Supreme Court will uphold their law?
More like when they are in control of Congress, I expect them use the next shooting to ban all ARs and I expect the Supreme Court will uphold it. Of course that depends on some future composition of the court, which is completely uncertain.
I also expect them to ban any magazine higher than 5 rounds, including built in magazines like under barrel tubes and most tactical shotguns. That would be disappointing, I have an antique .22 rifle with a 15 round tube fed magazine built into the rifle, capable of "rapid fire"...it is a fun little thing to shoot.
What else? A bill to ban bump stocks was pushed forward yesterday in Congress and Republicans are getting bupkis for it. So that one may not even take until the Dems are in control.
I don't advocate these things alone. I advocate trading certain small things for legal protections that enforce 2A because whether you acknowledge it or not, 2A is not invulnerable to government infringement. Blame the Court, but it doesn't change the reality.
Post by: Lucifer on March 06, 2018, 07:56:45 AM
More like when they are in control of Congress, I expect them use the next shooting to ban all ARs and I expect the Supreme Court will uphold it. Of course that depends on some future composition of the court, which is completely uncertain.
I also expect them to ban any magazine higher than 5 rounds, including built in magazines like under barrel tubes and most tactical shotguns. That would be disappointing, I have an antique .22 rifle with a 15 round tube fed magazine built into the rifle, capable of "rapid fire"...it is a fun little thing to shoot.
What else? A bill to ban bump stocks was pushed forward yesterday in Congress and Republicans are getting bupkis for it. So that one may not even take until the Dems are in control.
I don't advocate these things alone. I advocate trading certain small things for legal protections that enforce 2A because whether you acknowledge it or not, 2A is not invulnerable to government infringement. Blame the Court, but it doesn't change the reality.
So by using your logic, even if the Republicans compromise and get yet another law written on gun control, when the democrats regain control they will simply write another law invalidating the previous, do away with guns altogether and the supreme court will somehow decide the second amendment no longer applies and the guns go away.
???
Post by: bflynn on March 06, 2018, 09:27:51 AM
So by using your logic, even if the Republicans compromise and get yet another law written on gun control, when the democrats regain control they will simply write another law invalidating the previous, do away with guns altogether and the supreme court will somehow decide the second amendment no longer applies and the guns go away.
They would have less power in the future because something has already been done and it far more difficult to get people to stop doing something - for example, Obamacare.. Yes, they still might do something anyway.
Trade away things that they care a great deal about, but which are unimportant now.
Post by: asechrest on March 06, 2018, 09:40:10 AM
I don't recall those veterans quibbling about going to war before their voting age. The "making it right" is just to satisfy you. The raising the selective service age to align with a voting age is just a bullshit diatribe.
For an old geezer you sure have a shitty memory. A significant impetus for the Amendment came from those conscripted to fight in the Vietnam War but without the ability to vote. "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote."
Anyway, it just doesn't seem right to send folks off to war without giving the them opportunity to vote for those who make the decision to do so.
Post by: asechrest on March 06, 2018, 11:23:32 AM
Ok, that is reasonable. Totally impractical, but somehow reasonable. It is impractical because it waits 3 more years for kids to grow up, establish families and careers before it yanks them out of their life.
But in the name of compromise, if you want to add something to the bargaining table, you have to give up something. If you agree to Trump's Mexico border wall, I will agree to your voting age change. Or perhaps implementing nationwide voter-photo ID.
I think we are now on the way to getting some things done.
edit: I made a mistake. I meant to say "your draft age change", NOT "your voting age change".
Ok, I'll agree to the nationwide photo voter ID, but only if you agree to change our voter registration system to an automatic, opt out style system. I think we're getting somewhere.
Post by: bflynn on March 06, 2018, 12:00:39 PM
Ok, I'll agree to the nationwide photo voter ID, but only if you agree to change our voter registration system to an automatic, opt out style system. I think we're getting somewhere.
I think I might take that. It will still be localized IDs though.
One reason I'll take it is what just happened yesterday - my 17 year old son got his voter registration card in the mail, he will vote in November. He was opted into the system automatically. So it's already happening.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on March 06, 2018, 12:12:13 PM
Post by: Lucifer on March 06, 2018, 02:48:40 PM
For an old geezer you sure have a shitty memory. A significant impetus for the Amendment came from those conscripted to fight in the Vietnam War but without the ability to vote. "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote."
Anyway, it just doesn't seem right to send folks off to war without giving the them opportunity to vote for those who make the decision to do so.
So since my memory is so bad, which service did you serve in?
Post by: Lucifer on March 06, 2018, 02:50:18 PM
Agree on voting before laying down your life. But absolutely not on the opt-out, automatic issue. Voting should be effortful, thoughtful, and something one is willing to put deliberate energy into accessing. Information, assistance, fine. Auto opt-out, no.
IMO the only ones allowed to vote should be anyone who actually pays taxes. The non payers should not get to have a decision in the process.
Post by: asechrest on March 06, 2018, 03:33:02 PM
I think I might take that. It will still be localized IDs though.
One reason I'll take it is what just happened yesterday - my 17 year old son got his voter registration card in the mail, he will vote in November. He was opted into the system automatically. So it's already happening.
Yes, it is successfully working in some places. I just want it everywhere, And there will need to be some information sharing at a national level in order to keep the rolls up-to-date.
Post by: asechrest on March 06, 2018, 03:40:46 PM
Agree on voting before laying down your life. But absolutely not on the opt-out, automatic issue. Voting should be effortful, thoughtful, and something one is willing to put deliberate energy into accessing. Information, assistance, fine. Auto opt-out, no.
We are bargaining, here! Joe wants a national photo voter ID, which I am willing to support, in return for an automatic opt-out style voter registration system.
But maybe you are right that voting should be effortful. I am thanking successful passing of an algebra test might be a great prerequisite to getting your voter ID card.
Post by: nddons on March 06, 2018, 04:49:23 PM
I don't recall those veterans quibbling about going to war before their voting age. The "making it right" is just to satisfy you. The raising the selective service age to align with a voting age is just a bullshit diatribe.Whoe, Luc. Try decaf.
You won't be doing squat. You don't have the ability to send anyone to war.
Post by: nddons on March 06, 2018, 04:55:15 PM
They would have less power in the future because something has already been done and it far more difficult to get people to stop doing something - for example, Obamacare.. Yes, they still might do something anyway.Republicans will be given no quarter for banning stupid bump stocks. To the contrary, the first gun control bill to move through Congress after this most recent shooting will end up becoming a Christmas tree of everyone’s pet gun law provision. It will look nothing like a bumpstock ban.
Trade away things that they care a great deal about, but which are unimportant now.
Post by: nddons on March 06, 2018, 05:00:03 PM
Agree on voting before laying down your life. But absolutely not on the opt-out, automatic issue. Voting should be effortful, thoughtful, and something one is willing to put deliberate energy into accessing. Information, assistance, fine. Auto opt-out, no.Agreed completely.
Post by: Lucifer on March 06, 2018, 05:33:11 PM
Whoe, Luc. Try decaf.
Why? He's full of shit, as usual.
Post by: invflatspin on March 06, 2018, 05:36:16 PM
Post by: bflynn on March 06, 2018, 05:52:48 PM
Republicans will be given no quarter for banning stupid bump stocks. To the contrary, the first gun control bill to move through Congress after this most recent shooting will end up becoming a Christmas tree of everyone’s pet gun law provision. It will look nothing like a bumpstock ban.
Republicans ARE getting no credit and bump stocks ARE going to get banned. Unless they're just dysfunctional and nothing at all happens, which might actually wind up being worse in the long run.
Post by: asechrest on March 06, 2018, 10:38:08 PM
Why? He's full of shit, as usual.
Great rebuttal, brown eye.
Post by: bflynn on March 07, 2018, 06:18:34 AM
Whoe, Luc. Try decaf.
Don't count on it. He is the chief pot stirrer here. He has to be a bit abrasive in order to stir things up.
Post by: Lucifer on March 07, 2018, 06:36:39 AM
Don't count on it. He is the chief pot stirrer here. He has to be a bit abrasive in order to stir things up.
I make no apologies for how I come off as I am to the point and direct, and I call bullshit out when I see it.
If that bothers anyone there is an ignore function on this forum, go for it.
Post by: asechrest on March 07, 2018, 08:51:19 AM
I make no apologies for how I come off as I am to the point and direct, and I call bullshit out when I see it.
If that bothers anyone there is an ignore function on this forum, go for it.
The good bullshit callers can actually describe why it's bullshit. You didn't. In fact you've failed to respond effectively. I'll recap:
You: You didn't see veterans bitching about going to war without the ability to vote!
Me: Uh, yeah you did, thus the impetus for the Amendment. Remember the slogan?
You: That's bullshit!
Me: Yawn
PS - I've never ignored anyone, and you won't be the first.
Post by: asechrest on March 07, 2018, 08:54:17 AM
So since my memory is so bad, which service did you serve in?
Thank you for your service. No thank you for your attempt at a sidetrack.
Post by: acrogimp on March 07, 2018, 11:56:12 AM
We no longer have a reasonable and reliable method for determining what 'a majority of fill-in-the-blank' actually want, given what we have learned about push polling and outright lies masquerading as polls.
We do have a small, vocal minority pushing for something, but they are always there - the only thing that changes is how much focus they get from the complicit fellow-travellers in the political Left and the media (but I repeat myself) following a tragedy (never let a crisis go to waste).
The reason we have not seen substantial changes in the gun laws in the US in terms of major restrictions is not because of the NRA but because 1 in 3 Americans owns at least one weapon and enjoys having them, and a number of us are very much single-issue voters when we feel there is a real threat - see jumps in NRA membership and gun sales at the mere mention of restrictions by Obama and the latest push from the Tide-Pod eating chirrens with skulls full of mush.
'Gimp
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on March 09, 2018, 11:19:35 AM
We are bargaining, here! Joe wants a national photo voter ID, which I am willing to support, in return for an automatic opt-out style voter registration system.What possible good would auto opt-out do? It simply enables low-information, low-IQ voters, who really don't care enough to research issues, to be reminded that "hey, I can vote!' If they didn't know that, and were not willing to make an effort to do so, American does NOT want them to vote.
But maybe you are right that voting should be effortful. I am thanking successful passing of an algebra test might be a great prerequisite to getting your voter ID card.
You don't want to throw something in people's laps that they didn't care enough to procure in the first place. I suspect auto opt-out would put a lot of ballots floating around out there to be misused.
It makes sense to put requirements on voting. Owning property was a darn good one, but perhaps in these days, just being a taxpayer would be a good gatekeeper requirement.
Post by: asechrest on March 09, 2018, 03:13:54 PM
What possible good would auto opt-out do? It simply enables low-information, low-IQ voters, who really don't care enough to research issues, to be reminded that "hey, I can vote!' If they didn't know that, and were not willing to make an effort to do so, American does NOT want them to vote.
You don't want to throw something in people's laps that they didn't care enough to procure in the first place. I suspect auto opt-out would put a lot of ballots floating around out there to be misused.
It makes sense to put requirements on voting. Owning property was a darn good one, but perhaps in these days, just being a taxpayer would be a good gatekeeper requirement.
I believe that voting is absolutely fundamental to our Republic, and that all of her citizens should have the right to vote. I also believe with total conviction that no one can or should make determinations on who is too stupid or too ill-informed to vote. To do so is incredibly conceited, and harkens back to the days when "literacy tests" helped prevent unwanted groups of people from voting. In fact I find it to be the antithesis of what our country stands for.
You might believe that low-IQ voters are too stupid to vote. But maybe I believe that adults who can't do 6th-grade algebra are too stupid to vote. And that's a hell of a lot of adults.
Post by: Little Joe on March 09, 2018, 03:20:04 PM
I believe that voting is absolutely fundamental to our Republic, and that all of her citizens should have the right to vote. I also believe with total conviction that no one can or should make determinations on who is too stupid or too ill-informed to vote. To do so is incredibly conceited, and harkens back to the days when "literacy tests" helped prevent unwanted groups of people from voting. In fact I find it to be the antithesis of what our country stands for.Ok, I'll go along with that.
You might believe that low-IQ voters are too stupid to vote. But maybe I believe that adults who can't do 6th-grade algebra are too stupid to vote. And that's a hell of a lot of adults.
Everyone must pass a 6th grade algebra test in order to register to vote.
But seriously,
. . .
I was being serious. Voting should take effort and a demonstrated ability to understand logic.
Post by: nddons on March 09, 2018, 03:26:19 PM
I believe that voting is absolutely fundamental to our Republic, and that all of her citizens should have the right to vote. I also believe with total conviction that no one can or should make determinations on who is too stupid or too ill-informed to vote. To do so is incredibly conceited, and harkens back to the days when "literacy tests" helped prevent unwanted groups of people from voting. In fact I find it to be the antithesis of what our country stands for.I do think that doing “something” affirmative to vote or register to vote is the minimum level of affirmation of your obligations as a voter, and having to go someplace to register and bring your proof of citizenship is no price or burden whatsoever for being an American.
You might believe that low-IQ voters are too stupid to vote. But maybe I believe that adults who can't do 6th-grade algebra are too stupid to vote. And that's a hell of a lot of adults.
Today I picked up my truck after getting my front disc brakes replaced. When you pay the bill you get a little packet of three warm chocolate chip cookies that they make right in the lobby. Having been working out to burn off those winter pounds, I was ambivalent toward the cookies; even somewhat negative. I took them anyway. I didn’t need them, I didn’t even want them, but I thought “what the fuck.”
I don’t think people should become voters automatically with the same “what the fuck” attitude. They should have to WANT to become voters.
Post by: invflatspin on March 09, 2018, 04:33:25 PM
I believe that voting is absolutely fundamental to our Republic, and that all of her citizens should have the right to vote. I also believe with total conviction that no one can or should make determinations on who is too stupid or too ill-informed to vote. To do so is incredibly conceited, and harkens back to the days when "literacy tests" helped prevent unwanted groups of people from voting. In fact I find it to be the antithesis of what our country stands for.
You might believe that low-IQ voters are too stupid to vote. But maybe I believe that adults who can't do 6th-grade algebra are too stupid to vote. And that's a hell of a lot of adults.
The structure of our govt lends itself to representation. And while I agree with the majority of this, I have to say that republicanism in action portends that spending by the govt be directed by those who most invest in their nation. While everyone pays for some taxes in the form of sales, and other use taxes, the income tax is a very direct representation of how the federal allocates resources. So - this is a long way of saying, if you don't pay income tax, you have no business deciding how the money that the HR rakes in is spent.
As an example, lets say that a homeowner takes in a boarder. Someone who rents a room in the home and relies on the homeowner for almost everything except the personal property in their room. They rely on the state for most of their income, and part time for paying their rent. The boarder should have no say in how the landscaping, architecture, construction, carpet, drapes, door knocker, trim paint, security system, etc. is done.
The boarder is free to move out, buy land, put up a home, get a job, pay taxes and then vote for HR members. It is the counterpoint of taxation without representation. It is representation without taxation.