Stop Hiding. Let's vote!

[The Man]

The Partriot Act is a knee-jerk reaction to make us safer by becoming more intrusive in our lives. PS, I don't support many of its provisions.

Sadly I supported it...as it was supposed to expire..problem is it just keeps getting extended...hence I no longer support it.

 

[Jackass master]

Yes, and so is this background check on all gun sales, albeit to a lesser degree. I don't support any of the Patriot Acts provisions. The whole thing needs to be scrapped as the unconstitutional POS that it is.

Like so many knee jerk legislative attempts to make folks feel safe. They fail miserably and chip away at our rights. One more reason we need to start throwing out laws not adding new ones. Deal with criminals harshly and leave law abiding citizens alone. Legislating me into a position where my weapons are now illegal after 40 years makes me resist even stronger regardless of my health.

 

[Accountable]

And you argue to repeal the Second Amendment.
That is a defacto argument for absolute gun control whether it's your intention or not.

I disagree.

And any alteration to the Second Amendment needs to consider the real issues that society faces....not the absolutism of the past you are trying to impose in this thread.

I'm not "imposing" any absolutism. The Amendment itself is written in absolute terms, like it or not - admit it or not. Debates like this inevitably starts ignoring the Second Amendment, and I am advocating that if we want to violate it (which any infringement does) then why not change it.

Obviously you don't like the way it's written. How would you change it?

 

[Accountable]

Consider......replace 'gun' with 'nuclear weapon' and try making the same argument.

So?

(Pragmatism getting the way? )

No.

I don't know of any private citizen being able to buy a nuclear weapon, regardless of legality. Do you?

 

[Accountable]

Like so many knee jerk legislative attempts to make folks feel safe. They fail miserably and chip away at our rights. One more reason we need to start throwing out laws not adding new ones. Deal with criminals harshly and leave law abiding citizens alone. Legislating me into a position where my weapons are now illegal after 40 years makes me resist even stronger regardless of my health.

Amen!

 

[Francis]

Like so many knee jerk legislative attempts to make folks feel safe. They fail miserably and chip away at our rights. One more reason we need to start throwing out laws not adding new ones. Deal with criminals harshly and leave law abiding citizens alone. Legislating me into a position where my weapons are now illegal after 40 years makes me resist even stronger regardless of my health.

Amen!

OK its easy to bash the other person's perspective on how to solve or at minimum lower the problem.

What are your solutions?

 

[Stone]

I disagree.

I'm not "imposing" any absolutism. The Amendment itself is written in absolute terms, like it or not - admit it or not.The Amendment itself is written in absolute terms,, and I am advocating that if we want to violate it (which any infringement does) then why not change it.

Obviously you don't like the way it's written. How would you change it?

I disagree.

Interesting rebuttal

I'm not "imposing" any absolutism.

You ought to look up the definition of absolutism.
Your position--------> 'My way or the highway'.

The Amendment itself is written in absolute terms,

It is subject to change as you have acknowledged.
In this thread, you are arguing to repeal rather than amend.
Or are you going for a 'bait and switch' argument?

The Amendment itself is written in absolute terms,, and I am advocating that if we want to violate it (which any infringement does) then why not change it.

That hasn't been the thread topic as you started it. Repeal was, at the beginning and you even inferred you'd explain your position in legal terms.
So far you haven't.

But you have taken my past comments out of context to promote your typical libertarian stance on the Constitution.

Obviously you don't like the way it's written

Ironic coming from the member that wants to repeal the Second Amendment.

How would you change it?

I'd rather leave it alone and let the Supreme Court decide it's intent and Congress amend it as necessary.
Not the perfect answer, but better than your position that calls for repeal and the potential loss of rights because technology and society have changed since the late 1700's.

 

[Stone]

So?

No.

I don't know of any private citizen being able to buy a nuclear weapon, regardless of legality. Do you?

So?

Obviously, you couldn't respond. More likely you simply won't.

No.

I don't know of any private citizen being able to buy a nuclear weapon, regardless of legality. Do you?

Ever hear ......Your ignorance is no excuse of the law.
If legal, anyone or group ( militia ) with the necessary finances could buy or build a nuclear weapon as simple as a dirty bomb.
Do I personally know of such a person or group, no, I don't run in those circles.
But I am aware there are home grown subversives that might use nuclear devices if given the chance.
McVeigh was a classic example. He used what was accessible at the time to complete an act of terrorism.

Would you argue it should be a right to legally access radioactive material?

 

[Accountable]

OK its easy to bash the other person's perspective on how to solve or at minimum lower the problem.

What are your solutions?

To what?

 

[Stone]

Talk about evasion.......

 

[Accountable]

You ought to look up the definition of absolutism.
Your position--------> 'My way or the highway'.

You keep trying to attribute the wording of the Amendment to me. I didn't write it. If you don't like how it's written then you should try to get it changed ... or repealed.

It is subject to change as you have acknowledged.
In this thread, you are arguing to repeal rather than amend.
Or are you going for a 'bait and switch' argument?

I stated my opinion. I'd love to hear yours. Until this post you've only taken the coward's way of attacking my opinion and me personally, and attributing the wording of the Amendment to me, without contributing your own suggestion of how you would change it.

That hasn't been the thread topic as you started it. Repeal was, at the beginning and you even inferred you'd explain your position in legal terms.
So far you haven't.

http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...-Let-s-vote!&p=2277842&viewfull=1#post2277842

But you have taken my past comments out of context to promote your typical libertarian stance on the Constitution.

Which comments do you think have I taken out of context?

I'd rather leave it alone and let the Supreme Court decide it's intent and Congress amend it as necessary.
Not the perfect answer, but better than your position that calls for repeal and the potential loss of rights because technology and society have changed since the late 1700's.

But Congress hasn't amend it as necessary, and likely won't. They just continue violating it as past legislatures have done rather than clarifying it. That's my point in the OP. I threw down the gauntlet to see how many, if any, libs actually had the balls to state their case for repeal. Rob is the only one.

Ever hear ......Your ignorance is no excuse of the law.
If legal, anyone or group ( militia ) with the necessary finances could buy or build a nuclear weapon as simple as a dirty bomb.
Do I personally know of such a person or group, no, I don't run in those circles.
But I am aware there are home grown subversives that might use nuclear devices if given the chance.
McVeigh was a classic example. He used what was accessible at the time to complete an act of terrorism.

Would you argue it should be a right to legally access radioactive material?

I point out the fact that it IS a right to keep and bear arms, and that the supreme law of the land dictates that that right shall not be infringed. This is not my argument it is plain fact. Now, if you want to argue what arms means, go ahead. I'm not interested. I'm more interested in the fact that a portion of our supreme law of the land is not satisfactory to virtually anyone in the entire country as written, yet no one has the balls to address it.

 

[Stone]

You keep trying to attribute the wording of the Amendment to me. I didn't write it. If you don't like how it's written then you should try to get it changed ... or repealed.

I stated my opinion. I'd love to hear yours. Until this post you've only taken the coward's way of attacking my opinion and me personally, and attributing the wording of the Amendment to me, without contributing your own suggestion of how you would change it.

http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...-Let-s-vote!&p=2277842&viewfull=1#post2277842

Which comments do you think have I taken out of context?

But Congress hasn't amend it as necessary, and likely won't. They just continue violating it as past legislatures have done rather than clarifying it. That's my point in the OP. I threw down the gauntlet to see how many, if any, libs actually had the balls to state their case for repeal. Rob is the only one.

I point out the fact that it IS a right to keep and bear arms, and that the supreme law of the land dictates that that right shall not be infringed. This is not my argument it is plain fact. Now, if you want to argue what arms means, go ahead. I'm not interested. I'm more interested in the fact that a portion of our supreme law of the land is not satisfactory to virtually anyone in the entire country as written, yet no one has the balls to address it.

You keep trying to attribute the wording of the Amendment to me.

You are confused. I've done no such thing.

If you don't like how it's written then you should try to get it changed ... or repealed.

Then you obviously do not like how it's written because you are one of three calling for it to be repealed........I voted "Nea".
And it's for that reason I call BULLSHIT on your argument again.

I stated my opinion. I'd love to hear yours.

I already have. You just didn't like it.

Until this post you've only taken the coward's way of attacking my opinion and me personally

Because your thread is BULLSHIT.
It starts with you not liking how the Second is interpreted and applied and demanding it be repealed while arguing your rights are being eroded. That's not logical.
Those are your words, nutter.
All you are now trying to accomplish is a bait and switch argument.
All or nothing.....absolutism is your insane creed.


What are you implying is the significance of this link you posted other than calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment?
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?87126-Stop-Hiding-Let-s-vote!&p=2277842&viewfull=1#post2277842
excerpt>

Personally, I think it's time to repeal the Second Amendment. But by that I mean complete repeal, not replacing it with a more restrictive amendment. The right to bear arms is a long established right

All I see is a nutter argument that allows modern military options beyond the concept of self defense.

Which comments do you think have I taken out of context?

This one:

I agree.....but gun debates are so polarized, that arguments are crafted in absolutes with little regard for pragmatic solutions.

You immediately replied:

The Amendment itself is written in absolute terms.

followed up with:

Then explain it. How pragmatic can you get when dealing with "shall not be infringed"?

The context was to the discussions and debate on gun control.
Obviously, something you are intentionally avoiding.

Now, if you want to argue what arms means, go ahead. I'm not interested.

And you proved my point........you are so polarized, you refuse to acknowledge that there are weapons, as I have pointed out, that should not be legally accessible to individuals or private militia.

You chose a nutter argument.

I'm more interested in the fact that a portion of our supreme law of the land is not satisfactory to virtually anyone in the entire country as written, yet no one has the balls to address it.

In this thread.......you argued to repeal.
That's not addressing anything.......it's ignoring the issue.

 

[Stone]

.......................

But Congress hasn't amend it as necessary, and likely won't. They just continue violating it as past legislatures have done rather than clarifying it. That's my point in the OP. .....................

Bait and switch .........while implying a need for a revolution, eh?
Let me know how that works out for you.

 

[Accountable]

Bait and switch .........while implying a need for a revolution, eh?
Let me know how that works out for you.

What's the bait? What's the switch? Consider it a rhetorical question.

You're afraid to address the issue. I get that. Most Americans are. So you instead hide behind a rock and throw your poo at me for not hiding with you.
Just keep hiding.

 

[Stone]

What's the bait? What's the switch? Consider it a rhetorical question.

You're afraid to address the issue. I get that. Most Americans are. So you instead hide behind a rock and throw your poo at me for not hiding with you.
Just keep hiding.

..........................

I point out the fact that it IS a right to keep and bear arms, and that the supreme law of the land dictates that that right shall not be infringed. This is not my argument it is plain fact. Now, if you want to argue what arms means, go ahead. I'm not interested. I'm more interested in the fact that a portion of our supreme law of the land is not satisfactory to virtually anyone in the entire country as written, yet no one has the balls to address it.

Now, if you want to argue what arms means, go ahead. I'm not interested.

What a BULLSHIT thread.

 

[Accountable]

What a BULLSHIT thread.

My apologies. You're free to unsubscribe.

 

[Stone]

My apologies. You're free to unsubscribe.

Thanks for granting me permission.
But I'm enjoying the experience........

 

[Minor Axis]

Accountable, I'm honored that you would highlight one of my pearls of wisdom in your posts.

 

[robdawg1]

Would you be willing to give up your weapon?{whether personal weapon or not}

i don't personally own any weapons, i don't as they say "bear arms"...

 

[Stone]

................but gun debates are so polarized, that arguments are crafted in absolutes with little regard for pragmatic solutions.


I voted no to repeal the Second Amendment.

With the above, I posted what the libertarian thread starter seemed to abject to.
While I easily demonstrated that the thread starter was so polarized on the subject he refused to discuss the concerns about social and technological changes the Founding Fathers couldn't possibly predict with accuracy and write into law........here's the flip side with what is obviously a liberal response demonstrating their own version of absurd polarization:

Kindergartner Suspended Over Bubble Gun Threat

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blog...un-threat-174618051--abc-news-topstories.html

excerpt>

A 5-year-old girl was suspended from school earlier this week after she made what the school called a "terrorist threat."
Her weapon of choice? A small, Hello Kitty automatic bubble blower.
The kindergartner, who attends Mount Carmel Area Elementary School in Pennsylvania, caught administrators' attention after suggesting she and a classmate should shoot each other with bubbles.


The kindergartner was ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation during her 10-day suspension........

This country lacks a lot of common sense.