Guns and debate

[ZachS]

No, it's the "right to bear arms."

Not according to the OP I quoted! He definitely talked about the right to bare arms.


Unfortunately, the puritanical right-wingers* that run this place won't allow me to insert a truly appropriate image to illustrate this concept.


*yes, that is exactly why I think about you - the presence of conservatives** on this site makes me afraid that I'll be rounded up and forced to go to church with PlayboyPenguin

**yes I know you're not all conservatives

 

[Boats]

Because you have a distrust in anyone who is a liberal, this is a form of prejudice. I don't mean to attack you or anything, just that it usually doesn't help the situation to group everyone together, although we are all entitled to our opinions.

An observation formed over a lifetime of watching and participating in domestic politics is rather different than a knee-jerk prejudice.

I get lots of one line liberal static for my view. What I never get is a solid instance of a liberal taking the lead against his or her own anti-gun leadership in a rolling back of anti-gun legislation. Just a few instances of heavy lifting in the furtherance or defense of gun rights on the part of more than one or two token liberal politicians would go a long ways towards tempering my views.

There is no heavy lifting to point to, just bandwagoning and lip service.

But in order for us to actually stand for our gun rights, we're going to have to put aside the differences, and realize that not everyone fits into their stereotype, or else we will remain a divided group, who squabbles with each other every time an unrelated issue comes up.

You cannot stand shoulder to shoulder with someone who turns tail when the rhetorical shots are fired. The problem a liberal faces is that the OPFOR is composed almost entirely of his "allies" on those "other issues."

 

[mudnducs]

You cannot stand shoulder to shoulder with someone who turns tail when the rhetorical shots are fired. The problem a liberal faces is that the OPFOR is composed almost entirely of his "allies" on those "other issues."

Bingo

 

[Gunner3456]

Things tend to happen one at a time at the legislative level. One day there is a gun issue proposed and a law and we rise together with emails, calls and letters.

Another time there is a different bill before the legislature on which we have wide disagreement and we go our separate ways on it.

It isn't perfect, but it's all we have. We stand together on gun rights. It's the best we can do, but it's pretty effective.

 

[Boats]

What is with the passive voice? These things and bills don't happen in a vacuum or spring wholly formed out of thin air, they come from somewhere.

From whose desks do you suppose these things and bills spring?

 

[Gunner3456]

Not according to the OP I quoted! He definitely talked about the right to bare arms.


Unfortunately, the puritanical right-wingers* that run this place won't allow me to insert a truly appropriate image to illustrate this concept.


*yes, that is exactly why I think about you - the presence of conservatives** on this site makes me afraid that I'll be rounded up and forced to go to church with PlayboyPenguin

**yes I know you're not all conservatives

Ok, let's split the difference. Here's a gal who has the right to bear bare arms.

 

[mudnducs]

Things tend to happen one at a time at the legislative level. One day there is a gun issue proposed and a law and we rise together with emails, calls and letters.

Another time there is a different bill before the legislature on which we have wide disagreement and we go our separate ways on it.

It isn't perfect, but it's all we have. We stand together on gun rights. It's the best we can do, but it's pretty effective.

It is not the best we can do...as a matter of fact it is far from the best we can do.

You can open the flood gates of dissent and crush the PC mindset that's stifling America right now, today.
We can be fearless about what holds us together and test it.
We can be fearless about our belief in what makes America America and expose what is rotting her from the inside.

 

[goneshooting]

the right to beer arms

 

[matt_w]

You can open the flood gates of dissent and crush the PC mindset that's stifling America right now, today.

Uh huh, and how exactly are you suggesting that we "open the flood gates of dissent"?

 

[raftman]

... It is not "black and white" thinking to suggest that your vote is not, and perhaps has never been, where your mouth is.

You don't who I've voted for, or what I've voted for, or even if I've ever voted at all, whether I'm a registered member of any party, or no party at all, so that baseless accusation holds no water.

tell me why I am wrong.

You're wrong because your line of thinking is no different than that of Fascists and Stalinists. You quite literally state that anyone who doesn't believe what you do is a traitor. Is that what the Founding Fathers intended? People suggesting that it's treason to question one political view? Isn't that what they actually fought against?

If one were to familiarize oneself with George Washington's farewell address, he warns specifically against this sort of "us vs. them" mentality the against the formations of factions along such lines.

 

[Boats]

You don't who I've voted for, or what I've voted for, or even if I've ever voted at all, whether I'm a registered member of any party, or no party at all, so that baseless accusation holds no water.



You're wrong because your line of thinking is no different than that of Fascists and Stalinists. You quite literally state that anyone who doesn't believe what you do is a traitor. Is that what the Founding Fathers intended? People suggesting that it's treason to question one political view? Isn't that what they actually fought against?

If one were to familiarize oneself with George Washington's farewell address, he warns specifically against this sort of "us vs. them" mentality the against the formations of factions along such lines.

Spare me your anonymous voting record or lack thereof, and the third grade civics lesson. This is a gun board, where the 2A should have a little more cachet than you give it relative to possible competing interests. Funny how no liberal ever answers the charge that they unctuously enable that which they bravely profess to resist. Scalded cats show more sand.

Stripped of varnish, such ridiculousness is called hypocrisy.

"Us v. Them?" They are not, cannot, be us if by "us" one means stalwart 2A defenders. "Them's" something else entirely when consorting with liberal enemies of the 2A.

 

[raftman]

Hypocrisy eh? What do you make of your assertion that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a traitor? If the Constitution guarantees us the freedom of speech, freedom to believe whatever we choose, among a number of other freedoms... doesn't labeling someone a traitor simply because their beliefs at least partially differ from yours violate constitutional principles?

 

[mudnducs]

Uh huh, and how exactly are you suggesting that we "open the flood gates of dissent"?

Whaddya mean 'what am I suggesting'? Haven't you been reading the thread?
Don't restrict debate to a single issue....expose liberalism everywhere...all the time...whereever you find it.

Crush it.

Smother it under the weight of the reasoning that went into the ideals that made America great:
smaller government is better
lower taxes are better
less government intrusion is better
Capitalism releases the productive aspects of free men better than any regulated, mandated or dictated/proscribed method EVER devised.
Horatio Bunce had it right.

We can not back away from liberalism/progressivism....it is intolerant of any thought or opinion but its own.

 

[Boats]

Hypocrisy eh? What do you make of your assertion that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a traitor? If the Constitution guarantees us the freedom of speech, freedom to believe whatever we choose, among a number of other freedoms... doesn't labeling someone a traitor simply because their beliefs at least partially differ from yours violate constitutional principles?

The Constitution guarantees you freedom of speech free of governmental interference within limits. As I am not the government, but a private actor, I can violate your civil rights, but I cannot violate your "constitutional principles" whatever you might be defining those as.

Why don't you want to answer the charge rather than quibble over who delivered it and in what fashion?

Classic liberal victim dancing. If you go fast enough you might cause a blurring.

 

[bugeye]

OK, here is a simple test for you experts on the constitution and if you get it wrong you have to stop claiming to channel for these dead guys, OK?

Who actually wrote the Constitution?
scroll down to see the answer


















































Gouverneur Morris

I know it was sort of a trick question but you promised.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Define "wrote."
He didn't really "write it," he was only in charge of the committee that drafted it.
He didn't pen it either. That job fell to a clerk.

 

[Boats]

Hey bugeye,

Rather than do the jackass dance why don't you explain how you can vote for liberals and effectively defend gun rights at the same time since the politicians you elect undermine gun rights every chance they get?

Waiting. . .waiting. . . waiting. . . .

 

[raftman]

The Constitution guarantees you freedom of speech free of governmental interference within limits. As I am not the government, but a private actor, I can violate your civil rights, but I cannot violate your "constitutional principles" whatever you might be defining those as.

Why don't you want to answer the charge rather than quibble over who delivered it and in what fashion?

Classic liberal victim dancing. If you go fast enough you might cause a blurring.

Problem is, you used the word treason, a word with an accepted legal definition. In fact, it's defined in the Constitution itself. You may not agree with a viewpoint, you may hate it with a passion, but that doesn't make it treason.

There's two things wrong with your charges and accusations. First off, you assume I vote liberal, and second off, is your utterly nonsensical presumption that one can't be both a 2A supporter and left of center at the same time. Wrong on both counts.

But I guess, to get to core issue... your question is basically "How can someone call themselves a 2A supporter and liberal at the same time?"

Well... for starters they can vote against local and statewide gun control measures. They can contact their local leaders and representatives with their concerns. They help can educate fellow citizens of the importance of gun rights. They can be active in pro-gun organizations. They can also vote for pro-gun candidates, even if said candidates are with the Democratic party. There's far more of those than you seem to realize, like the Blue Dog folks, for example.

As far as what I actually believe. I think partisan lines are sheer stupidity. The Founding Fathers knew it, seems like most people these days don't. One should be able to believe whatever they want about any given issue, without feeling obligated to feel a certain way about a completely unrelated issue. I wonder why almost no one realizes how much of a non-sequitur it all is. For example, by what logic MUST a supporter of 2A, be against laws that protect the environment? Or by what logic must an opponent of abortion reject the idea that global warming is real and the result of human activity? That's probably why our second amendment rights in danger to begin with, because too many people argue that to be pro-gun, you've gotta be a conservative, and stand with conservatives on all the issues, regardless of how unrelated to gun rights they may be. It goes back to that "us and them" mentality, and if there's more of them, or they're better organized, better-funded, they just get lucky on account of an unforeseen circumstance, then we lose. If instead, we establish that gun rights are important to everyone and that anyone and everyone can support second amendment rights, then our rights will be much harder to take away.

 

[bugeye]

Hey bugeye,

Rather than do the jackass dance why don't you explain how you can vote for liberals and effectively defend gun rights at the same time since the politicians you elect undermine gun rights every chance they get?

Waiting. . .waiting. . . waiting. . . .

I allready did, now you explain why you want to vote for guys that want to end the middle class?

 

[bugeye]

Define "wrote."
He didn't really "write it," he was only in charge of the committee that drafted it.
He didn't pen it either. That job fell to a clerk.

These are from wikkianswers
but I did check it with a few other sources.
"
Morris actually "wrote" the Constitution. The original copy of the document is preserved in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C."

,... Bugeye comments --- As head of the committe I'm sure that large parts were a consensus but he had to come up with the worlds. He is sometimes called the 'penman' of the constitution, and he did compose the preamble on his own. he was quite an amazing fellow having only one leg and missing flesh on one of his arms, and a good merchant.

Jacob Shallus who, at the time, was assistant clerk of the Pennsylvania State Assembly, and whose office was in the same building in which the Convention was held, was given the task of engrossing the Constitution prior to its being signed.
"

So I guess we will have to give credit for any that said Jacob Shallus, any takers?

Moris was in charge but he did write the orginal draft, Shallus made it pretty and that was the copy that was signed.

My point here is that we really don't know that much about the framers. Now I'm facinated again, time to learn more history!