PlayboyPenguin said:
I think you are missing the point...along with a lot of other frothing at the mouth attack dogs (not impying you are one but there are some on here). I poll was done just yesterday on this very board and (at the time) 63% on this board voted for gun control and had issue with people ( a full third of respondants) that said "everyone" should be allowed to purchase regardless of background, criminal history, age, or lack of training. What do think those numbers would be if the general public was polled...and the reason (in my opinion) is we have way to many FAR right people in the gun movement who will thump their breasts and quote the 2nd amendment
Nope. My Dad could quote me every single one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights well before the GCA of 1968. As could his Dad before him. Both had a grasp on the rest of the document as well. So, it's not the people who know what that document says who are the problem. The problem is in the leftist mass media who love hysteria and hate guns, and are so eager to brainwash the general public for fun and profit. It is in the leftist school systems who either teach that the Second Amendment applies only to National Guard troops (when the NG didn't even EXIST at the time of its penning), or "skip" over it altogther. And in "appeasement" types such as yourself who claim to have a grasp on what the Amendments were about, yet disprove any claim on credibility by calling the Federalist Papers "biased political publications".
THERE'S our problem.
(even though they do not truely understand it any better than the next guy)
You mean the "next guy" who recognizes a subordinate clause as a subordinate clause, or who realizes that the Federalist Papers are a collection of writings penned by the
SAME people who wrote the Constitution to begin with, and gave nothing more than further background for
WHY they wrote it as they did?
I have had to go back several times and ask people "where did I say that?" only to get the response "you emplied that..."
Not once have you seen me state the you "emplied" anything, yet I have not seen you address any of my points in a line by line counter to them. You give quite enough information about your mindset by what you write without me having to figure out what you are implying.
It is a shame that you would attack someone on a statement like "I am not sure how I feel" (I even gave reasons for my hesitation and stated that I knew these were personal issues but will still love to be able to own one)...what a way to turn people against you and make the entire movement look bad.
As far as I know, I have attacked nothing but bad ideas and ill concieved posts.
Seems to me that would be a time to try and sway someone your way, not turn them immediately against you. I see this on here all the time. I spent the last two days reading post as far back as I could and I see many people on here that have been rabidly attacked every time they state an opinion even slightly outside the "all or nothing" platform.
*sigh* The leftists learned what the chieftain of an African village knew loooong ago. One eats an elephant ONE bite at the time. All of the Amendments contained within the Bill of Rights, like it or not, ARE an "all or nothing" proposition. Give the leftists even the FIRST bite, and they will be back for another forkfull as soon as they have swallowed.
And here is some advice...quoting the 2nd Amendment has not won a single case where a gun law was challenged as to it's constitutionality so start being a little more astute and get some better ammo.
Having seen the well directed reason displayed in your posts thus far, I will leave you and your free advice to someone who needs it. The plain naked fact is that the Second Amendment
DOES recognize an
INALIENABLE right, and thus can
NEVER be irrelavent to a firearms rights discussion.
there are lots of better facts out there to support Gun ownership. A lot of people on here love to qualify that legal gun owners are safe, responsible people...then nwhat is wrong with having a simple litmus for who can own.
Err....that pesky 2nd again. Litmus tests are used in order to deny certain people in certain districts their rights. THAT is a fact. Just another way to "Bork" a citizen on a everyday scale.
And like I said it cannot be a case by case thing since that is to abitrary and easy to manipulate and deny whoever you fell like denying. It has to be concret...over 21, no criminal record, no history of mental illness, and take a gun safety course.
I underlined the part in question. Make it clear that I am not messing with nor manipulating your quotes. I just want to underscore my problem with it.
NOWHERE in the 2nd (that pesky 2nd again) does it say that people must receive government (or even private) training in order to execise their inalienable rights. You are not required to take any courses in English or Logic in order to post your views here. See: First Amendment. (BTW, one that leftists quote endlessly without turning people against the idea of free speech.)
And once you meet these simple requirement you can get a CCW and be a law abiding gun-toting American.
According to that pesky Second, your birth certificate IS your CCW. "...keep and bear..." Hard to "bear" something that you are prohibited from carrying.
I cannot believe that all the people on here have mental illness or a criminal record so what part of that is it that they protest?
Dunno. Could it be the same misuse of artificial litmus tests for citizens to deny the common man security in arms? People seem to think that it is impossible to get a permit to own a handgun in New York City. Fallacious belief. It's impossible if you are a commoner. If you are wealthy or powerful enough, you CAN get a permit.
Do they love guns but not enough to take an hour out of their life to take a class?
Have taken several classes myself. Took a lifelong one from my father. Not State sanctioned, but every bit as informative.
And do not give me that tired old slippery slope argument...the world is all about degrees of acceptance and tolerance and compromise.
So it is okay to rape a woman just a
little bit? It is okay to beat a child unconcious under
certain circumstances? No? you mean there
ARE some things you don't think compromise is a good thing on?
It is a shame that the gun movements worst enemy is often the gun movement itself.
No sir, it is the leftists with their lies and half truths and demands for "compromise" who are the worst enemy. It is the soft brained people who buy into the leftist propoganda who are our second worst enemy.
I see this in other movement also and it never ceases to amaze me. Like the gay rights movement when they are offered equal protect for civil unions but will not compromise on a stupid work like "marriage"...a word that belongs to the religous institutions to begin with so it is not up to the state to grant. I always thought these open forums were a place to express opinion and not be shouted down but according to several emails I have recieved from board members there is "...no use trying. There are not many open minds on the site and the ones that are there seldom speak up." If anyone on here thinks that kind of in-fighting and intolerance is going to advance the movement
If you think that pointing out erroneous posts is "infighting" then so be it.
I will love to see what you think when all cities are like San Francisco. Do not fool yourself into thinking it cannot happen.
Are you really so blind that you can't see that I KNOW it can happen without a contingent of "no compromise" people willing to stand up and say "no more"?
It does not take much to cause a strong surge of backlash laws and look at all the news lately. A killing spree here in a NW Mall, a post worker killing spree, etc. Even though these would not have been stopped by tough gun laws do you think the average person will believe that or just follow the crowd when the "guns are the problem" contingent starts to shout.
And Heaven above knows that the grabbers wouldn't be shouting for the sheep to follow if we all "just compromised" on fully automatic weapons. Or semi-automatic firearms. Or bolt or lever action repeaters. Or single shot weapons. Or look to England, that glorious land of reasonable appeasement. They now are working on legislation to outlaw sharp points on steak knives. Seems someone there used one too many to stab someone with. Self defense is not a defense there, ya know?
As for your statement...when you try to justify automatic weapons by saying something like who people were very adapt at slaughtering people even without them you are still putting forth a bad message.
Oh dear. Forbid I should say something true. How ugly of me. And what I
said was that if you studied the battles fought in ancient times, the bloodshed was
WORSE because of the absence of firearms. A sword stroke at close range is a terrible thing.
You cannot use death to justify more death.
Do you have a reading impairment? (That is not a rhetorical question, btw). I never "justified" any death and dare you to show where I did. I merely stated the plain fact that the possession of firearms does
NOT lead to more deaths, or even necessarily to easier murder, contrary to your posts. Quite the opposite, aamof. The possession of firearms has been proven to save many more lives than it allows to be taken. And even on the field of battle, it makes for more humane warfare.
You are not going to make people say "I guess it okay if someone shoots up a mall since the Huns used to kill people by the thousands". OK attack dogs...go at me...I would actually find it funny if I didn't think that it was hurting the overall gun movement so badly.
If by pointing out the fallacies in your posts, you think I have "hurt the cause", then I strongly suspect you need to re-evaluate how you assimilate information.
PS- I haven't written that much since I did my thesis...this board is great as far as posting and being able to edit but it sure could use a spell check feature.
*sigh* I hope the thesis wasn't on English comprehension. Upper right hand corner. "ABC" with a check mark underneath. You can download a spell checker there if you so desire.
