I know Im probably gonna get some heat for this

[Bennettjh]

Mourdock is unelectable because a comment he made which was grossly twisted into something he did not say at the eleventh hour when he did not have time to recover from it? That was a political drive-by shooting and not a matter of substance and the fact that he had a solid lead up to that point should have told you something.

Likewise, you might recall that McStupid's numbers were in the toilet bowl until Palin joined the ticket. There would have been a greater chance of a GOP win with her at the top of the ticket and McStupid in Arizona. The causes for McCain losing that election were a combination of McCain, Obama benefiting from national media who were shamelessly backing him, and votes cast by dead folks, small children, foreign nationals, fictional characters, cats, dogs, and horses.

On point where you are correct is that it is a false choice. Having foisted upon us two candidates one of whom is marginally less bad than the other is a false choice. Having the teleprompter, aside from a few inflammatory issues used to stir people up, say the same thing regardless of who is reading it is a false choice. One of the reasons for this is that *some* among us have been brainwashed into believing that we have to accept this as the only alternative to having no choice at all. We need to stop putting up with this s**t now. The Dems don't put of candidates who are marginally less conservative than Sean Hannity, so why should we accept candidates who are marginally less liberal than Rachel Maddow?



When was the last time a true leftist (as opposed to a scared sheep) gave a f**k about you, your opinion, your rights, or even your continued existence?



Stop and think about this. Primary turnout is generally significantly lower than general election turnout, and those turning out tend to be the most party-loyal and most inclined to follow the establishment. In national elections, the early primaries are generally in the more liberal states. The moderates are bought and paid for. The conservatives have to scratch for every penny. By the time the primaries are held in states where they would do well, they have already been run out of money and quit. Playing against a stacked deck is a difficult thing to do.



I don't need their help demonizing people who demonize themselves. Sarah Brady was perhaps the most outspoken about the goal of anti-gun laws being the establishment of a socialist state, but she is hardly alone. Look at the whole picture of the gun grabber. The MFSB who is putting up the most money to attack guns is the same guy who wants to dictate what size of Coke you can drink. Now, tell me again how it isn't about control. Those who are supporting them are often idiots who are sold on the nice warm and fuzzy marketing the lefties peddle, you know, making sure kids don't starve (even if you eventually run out of other people's money to **** away on people who make the system a way of life), keeping them safe from the bogeyman (even if this is a very false sense of security). The bottom line is that leftist politics is a two-tiered system in which those at the top cannot with any sliver of intellectual honesty be argued not to be in it for control of others. If you doubt this, review: They are sufficiently open about being socialists, which socialism does not provide a free society. They want to control what you eat, what you drink, what you drive, where you live, how much water your toilet flushes, what you may or may not do with your property, and this is just what comes to mind at the moment. Tell me again how Hannity is brainwashing me about these people.



Exactly, and they are being sold the idea that if they put up with it for a little while, it will eventually get reversed. Well, we've been waiting to receive our half of the benefit of 'compromise' since 1934. I am not holding my breath and turning 16 shades of purple waiting on it. Same thing with being told to accept 'moderate' GOP nominees and maybe we'll get a conservative next time. The only time next time got here was with Reagan and that was done to the shock and ire of the party who had anointed Bush I, whose personal attack on Reagan's economic policy became the standard leftist hatchet phrase for the duration of Reagan's presidency.

I can't rep you again so the best I can do is

 

[KG1]

Let's see...

Reagan won as a conservative.

Bush I won as a presumed conservative, truth notwithstanding.

Bush II won as an outspoken conservative.

Dole got shot down as a 'moderate'.

McStupid got shot down as a 'moderate'.

Romney got shot down as a 'moderate'.

Can you see a trend here or do you need someone to draw you a diagram?

Exactly. Moderates got shot down because conservatives did not turn out for them.

Simple as that.

 

[KG1]

Seriously, to believe it is poorly worded, one has to believe that our Founders were SO stupid, than the MEANT "Right of the Militia" but wrote "Right of the People" by mistake.

(JetGirl beat me to it, lol)

IMO I think even Justice Stevens in a round about way agrees that the 2nd amendment as written has broader meaning to include the rights of all people, hence his latest bent on the need to change the wording limiting it to only those people partaking in a militia as having that right.

The "Right of the people" is all inclusive and "shall not be infringed" as it was intended to be by the Founders.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Exactly. Moderates got shot down because conservatives did not turn out for them.

Simple as that.

Yes, and the so-called moderates are in a position to prevent a conservative from getting on the ticket. Why should I turn out for someone who makes me study him really hard to tell the difference between him and his openly liberal opponent? I am not saying that I didn't, but my point is that it defeats the purpose to go out of one's way for a minuscule difference. Maybe the RNC will take a hint and quit shoving these wastes of space down our throats.

 

[2A_Tom]

Yes, and the so-called moderates are in a position to prevent a conservative from getting on the ticket. Why should I turn out for someone who makes me study him really hard to tell the difference between him and his openly liberal opponent? I am not saying that I didn't, but my point is that it defeats the purpose to go out of one's way for a minuscule difference. Maybe the RNC will take a hint and quit shoving these wastes of space down our throats.

I wouldn't count on it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I wouldn't count on it.

I am certainly not going to hold my breath until I turn funny colors waiting!

 

[ryknoll3]

The FACT of 2A is that it is poorly worded. Without the "well regulated militia" part, it would be much simpler. Legal scholars have long disagreed with what it means, and there is no end in sight. The only true fact is that nobody really knows for sure. So we are left with trying to arrive at a consensus OPINION about what it really means. When you think about it, the same holds true for everything else in the constitution as well.

OK, well the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law... abridging free speach...." Sounds pretty simple, right? Explain how that's always followed exactly as written?

 

[Bill of Rights]

"f*** dialogue" says to those who disagree "your opinion doesn't count". Some folks on this forum need to step outside of the echo chamber and realize that a lot of people see the world differently, and it's not because they want to control others - they simply want to live in peace and safety. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, maybe their minds can be changed, maybe not. Those who see the world differently can vote just like you and me, and demographic trends are in their favor. We need to engage them and explain why gun rights matter; some minds will be changed. Choosing to not engage them will lead to more people viewing pro-2A folks as "gun nuts" and will eventually cause the pro-2A argument to be marginalized.

You're right. "F*** dialogue" does say their opinion doesn't count. Let's put this in a perspective Scutter has used, albeit in a far different circumstance: A man enters your home and tells you he's going to rape either your wife or your daughter. He then challenges you to convince him (via dialogue) that you should choose one or the other. As a man who has both, I can tell you that the only dialogue we would have would be accomplished with one of my guns or possibly with my bare hands as I ripped him limb from limb or died trying. I certainly will not be verbally discussing with him the false choice he's presented.

The other candidate was Obama. That's odd, I didn't think that a lot of INGOers supported him, but I guess I was wrong. Sorry about that.

Obama was ANother candidate, not THE other candidate. Believing the lie you've been conditioned to believe, that only the two big parties have a chance of winning, is what makes that happen. Tell me: if 50% +1 of the popular vote was taken by, say, Gary Johnson, in more than 50% of the states, who do you suppose the Electoral College would be sworn to vote for in their ballot? This means that everyone on the ticket has a chance of winning the office. It is true that the big parties have more money to spend, and it is true that they both have the media working the "Big Lie" theory to prevent the smaller parties from making their positions known and otherwise marginalizing them, but the chance still exists.

The seatbelt argument I read here is not relevant to guns. They made it mandatory because there was clear evidence that it saved lives, and cars are MUCH more dangerous than guns ever will be. Gun control laws do not save lives, they put more lives in danger. Who here is going to argue against seatbelts? We have a concise purpose on getting rid of gun control laws because they don't do anything to protect the public, in addition to how unconstitutional they are. No one is going to argue against seatbelts because there is evidence that supports why we need it. No such thing exists for gun control, at least anything reputable.

Who here will argue against seatbelts? Pick me, pick me. I've seen two collisions in which a seatbelt actually made a difference. In the first, had the guy been wearing it, well.... let's just say the steering column was embedded in the seatback right behind where his chest would have been.... and in the other, a pre-teen boy was in the back seat of an F-250, struck by a drunk driver during a blizzard. The seatbelt, together with the impact of the hit, caused him to strike his head on the back window of the truck. When I got there, he was unconscious, unresponsive, his jaw clenched shut, and he'd vomited at least once. I'm very happy to say that those calls are quite rare.
The point, however, is not that "seatbelts R bad, mmmkay?", the point is that mandating them is wrong, especially when those who voted for them did so only with the assurance that the level of enforcement being done would never happen. Hint: If you do something like that, it gets called "fraud", among other names, and you get to go see a judge for doing so.

Nowhere in any of my posts did I suggest giving anything away. My point is that screaming "hell no" at those who disagree with us in any debate is a non-starter, regardless of topic. Anti-gun people vote, and the demographic groups that tend to do so are growing - they will not be bludgeoned into submission or outvoted by a shrinking minority. We need to convince them, not yell at them.

And by and large, with the exception of NY and CT, gun rights have expanded in the past decade. Your question denies the basic reality of what has been happening. We aren't giving, giving, giving - we've been getting.

I never said I'd scream "hell no".... I simply said I'd not discuss their proposal. Kinda like a lowball offer in the classifieds... not worth discussing. Or, y'know, that whole "rape the daughter or the wife" thing.

You are right, though, we have been getting. We've been getting screwed. We've been getting demonized. We've been getting libeled and slandered. And we've been getting silenced by the "PC crowd" whenever we dare to speak up, as racists, sexists, bigots, etc.

It's time we took the offensive in the verbal war. Let's start shutting them down as they've done to us.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Scutter01]

I never said I'd scream "hell no".... I simply said I'd not discuss their proposal.

I, on the other hand, am more than happy to scream "hell no". I'm happy to tell them to get bent. I'm delighted to tell them "Every time we have a 'dialogue', it's to talk about how much of my cake you want to take this time. Until you're ready to talk about giving my cake back, until you're ready to talk about YOUR contribution to the so-called 'compromise', you can go jump in a lake."

 

[Steve.43]

So anyone who refuses to compromise has been brainwashed by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh? You're just as condescending and full of as the rest of the gun grabbers. Whispering sweet nothings into our ears about compromise will get you nowhere. I think everyone has seen enough of how that turns out for us. Personal freedom is what this is all about. I reject the control and conformity platform of the leftists. Once you take the 2nd away we will lose our freedom of speech, our freedom to worship according to our own beliefs and also the sanctity of our homes. No sir, not going to happen.

Wow. Well said.

 

[jbombelli]

I, on the other hand, am more than happy to scream "hell no". I'm happy to tell them to get bent. I'm delighted to tell them "Every time we have a 'dialogue', it's to talk about how much of my cake you want to take this time. Until you're ready to talk about giving my cake back, until you're ready to talk about YOUR contribution to the so-called 'compromise', you can go jump in a lake."

This is worth repeating.

 

[Scutter01]

This is worth repeating.

I, on the other hand, am more than happy to scream "hell no". I'm happy to tell them to get bent. I'm delighted to tell them "Every time we have a 'dialogue', it's to talk about how much of my cake you want to take this time. Until you're ready to talk about giving my cake back, until you're ready to talk about YOUR contribution to the so-called 'compromise', you can go jump in a lake."

 

[Patriot3]

Thank you guys for the posts and I agree with you guys that we should not budge on the issue. I am glad for all the input and of course I will do my part and support the 2nd amendment in all its forms. Thanks again guys

 

[Fletch]

You can't make deals with dishonorable people and expect good things to come of it.

 

[Bunnykid68]

This is worth repeating.

I, on the other hand, am more than happy to scream "hell no". I'm happy to tell them to get bent. I'm delighted to tell them "Every time we have a 'dialogue', it's to talk about how much of my cake you want to take this time. Until you're ready to talk about giving my cake back, until you're ready to talk about YOUR contribution to the so-called 'compromise', you can go jump in a lake."

One more time

 

[JetGirl]

You can't make deals with dishonorable people and expect good things to come of it.

QFT

 

[LP1]

No, that's your opinion, and you're doing a poor job of defending it.


Without the "well regulated militia" part, it could be limited to hunting rifles, not the weapons of war.

Legal "scholars" have long tried to gut the second amendment for political reasons.

Weak minded citizens and cowards have stopped defending the second amendment because they don't like gun grabbers and the like saying mean things about them.

You are interpreting it to mean what you want it to mean - that's also known as rationalizing. If it was worded clearly, we wouldn't have endless discussions about it. Without the "militia" part, it COULD also be interpreted to clearly mean that it applies without limitation.

And, I don't need to resort to name-calling. Name calling is a common tactic when the facts aren't on your side.

 

[LP1]

This leaves me with only one question: Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you failing to realize that those who spew this nonsense are being deliberately obtuse in order to avoid the fact that the Constitution disallows their own agenda?

I'm using logic, reading comprehension skills, and historical knowledge rather than being driven by emotion and the need to demonize those who think differently than me. Despite all of the attempts, nobody has put forward any reasoning that would convert the unconverted.

I've tried to help promote gun rights by getting people to realize why they are being tuned out by those don't fit their criteria for being "conservative". Apparently, some people would rather keep trying the same arguments, only louder, and expect a different outcome. Good luck with that.

Call me when Cruz or Paul (son or father) becomes president.

 

[level0]

I'm using logic, reading comprehension skills, and historical knowledge....

Not to pick nits, but your historical knowledge seems to need some shoring up. I suggest the excellent Les Adams' book, The Second Amendment Primer: A Citizen's Guidebook to the History, Sources, and Authorities for the Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It should help you get a basic grasp of what terms like 'militia' mean to the framers. This book is presented in a chronological fashion with extensive footnotes and bibliography. I handed out ten of these this past Christmas to family members.

Additionally, I'll add that my personal opinion is the so-called 'gun control advocates' aren't truly interested in gun control but rather gun abolishment for law abiding citizens like me. Hopefully they all hang themselves tonight and I wake up in a more free country tomorrow. If the alleged Moms Demand Action, and all other groups of the same ilk, were truly concerned about gun violence they would be active in cities like Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, DC, Los Angeles and places where illegal (as opposed to legal) gun violence occurs. Protesting and demonstrating and meeting during the NRA convention is completely misplaced for the self-professed 'anti gun violence' crowd, but not at all misplaced for those who will eradicate my Constitutional rights.

I'll echo many of the previous posts in this thread: I'm done with so-called compromises. There has not been a compromise, it's been all take, take, take. Done with it.

 

[jbombelli]

I'm using logic, reading comprehension skills, and historical knowledge rather than being driven by emotion and the need to demonize those who think differently than me. Despite all of the attempts, nobody has put forward any reasoning that would convert the unconverted.

I've tried to help promote gun rights by getting people to realize why they are being tuned out by those don't fit their criteria for being "conservative". Apparently, some people would rather keep trying the same arguments, only louder, and expect a different outcome. Good luck with that.

Call me when Cruz or Paul (son or father) becomes president.

You go on making concessions with people who want everything from you and offer nothing in return. Let us know how that works out. In the meantime some of us will continue fighting for the rights you so callously throw away like yesterday's trash in your misguided, shortsighted pragmatism.

I spent over 20 years trying to convert the unconverted, and found the vast majority of them to be unconvertable. The numbers don't favor your approach. Let me know when you start converting them by by the thousands or tens of thousands.