Longtime liberal friend wants to buy a gun now.

[ditcherman]

Poppycock.


Think back over time to any issues regarding the first amendment - even down to the Ten Commandments at a courthouse, or a prayer before a football game.

Were any of those resolved with firearms?


Does anyone ever say, "if our church isn't tax deductible, we'll start shooting."?


Does the city think, "Well, we better let this gathering happen, or we'll get shot?"

Nope.

Replace the word "shot" with "sued", and yes.



Oh, they're (incl. me*) bad too. Everyone has their blind spots.


* I'm far right of centrist, but on INGO I sure look centrist.

Now that's clarity right there.

Concerning the rest of your post, don't you think that the whole point is that we don't have to say "or we'll start shooting", because, well, we can? I know people are almost all talk, but it could happen, and in my mind to think that the two are not connected is to kinda not believe in the 2nd amendment. As soon as we can't, not just don't, we are in much greater jeopardy of losing those rights.

And in some ways, the precedent for those 10 commandments at the courthouse or the prayer before a football game was settled with firearms. Our forefathers made it very clear to the king that his time was over and we wanted to do things our way. So just because we didn't settle it or see it settled in our lifetime with firearms, the precedents were set with them.

My sig line on another forum is "our forefathers would be shooting by now". It may be a bit of hyperbole, or maybe not, I don't really know. But I like the sentiment.

TMWIW (tell me why I'm wrong)

 

[bwframe]

This thread has been a good example of how liberals view the second amendment emotionally. As if numbers of guns or guns at all are some sort of a threat.

Whereas conservatives understand the constitutional statement of the fact that our right to self defense is inalienable. Our right to self defense applies also to overbearing or tyrannical government trying to dictate only it's favored version of the first amendment, rather than actual freedom of speech.

 

[KellyinAvon]

This thread has been a good example of how liberals view the second amendment emotionally. As if numbers of guns or guns at all are some sort of a threat.

Whereas conservatives understand the constitutional statement of the fact that our right to self defense is inalienable. Our right to self defense applies also to overbearing or tyrannical government trying to dictate only it's favored version of the first amendment, rather than actual freedom of speech.

Paraphrasing Jeff Cooper, a firearm has no moral standing because that implies it has free will, which it doesn't.

"All guns are bad, therefore all people who own guns are bad" is hard to overcome because it's 100% emotion and zero logic. In a standing room only committee hearing at the Statehouse I ended up standing in among a gaggle of mad moms. That would be the one time I wasn't wearing my NRA or Glock polo so they didn't realize I was on the other side of the issue. If they applied any logic they'd be pro-2A. Since March, I bet some have figured it out. They'll still be showing up in in their I heart Bloomberg t-shirts, herd mentality and group belonging go hand in hand with this bunch.

 

[beer leaguer]

I'm newer to the gun world. A resident alien who came here at 2 years of age. I worked hard, went to college, pay my taxes, and never take for granted what the U.S. offers. I don't hunt, so am I still considered a Fudd?

 

[actaeon277]

I'm newer to the gun world. A resident alien who came here at 2 years of age. I worked hard, went to college, pay my taxes, and never take for granted what the U.S. offers. I don't hunt, so am I still considered a Fudd?

A Fudd is someone that is okay with banning certain guns or features, as long as "his" guns are okay.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

A Fudd is someone that is okay with banning certain guns or features, as long as "his" guns are okay.

They are also frequently "Butters"... Meaning, "I support the 2nd Amendment, but...."

 

[BE Mike]

I'm newer to the gun world. A resident alien who came here at 2 years of age. I worked hard, went to college, pay my taxes, and never take for granted what the U.S. offers. I don't hunt, so am I still considered a Fudd?

No, you are not a Fudd. I'd welcome you as a U.S. Citizen, if you ever decide to take the plunge. Are you a Hoosier?

 

[HoosierNation33]

This thread has been a good example of how liberals view the second amendment emotionally. As if numbers of guns or guns at all are some sort of a threat.

Whereas conservatives understand the constitutional statement of the fact that our right to self defense is inalienable. Our right to self defense applies also to overbearing or tyrannical government trying to dictate only it's favored version of the first amendment, rather than actual freedom of speech.

Here's my take. I'll open my this with a bit of a downer here...I agree with liberals on several things, and to some on forums such as these, I'm one of those koolaid drink libtards. Whatever. I'd view myself as an independent. I'm not gonna affiliate with any political party especially if neither of them have my best interest at heart. And both parties in my mind suck to some extent. But one thing is crystal clear.

2A exists. It's real. And whether anyone wants to argue otherwise...it's not going anywhere. When the country was founded, the right to own firearms--particularly against in defense of a tyrannical government--was so important it was put near the top of the list of priorities. And that's exactly where's it going to stay. Now unfortunately, diehard leftists incapable of thinking for themselves want to make us believe guns are evil and terrible. As someone above pointed out, a firearm has no moral standing. But when it's demonized...that's the personification that the uneducated masses will believe. And that blows.

But if I had one of my liberal friends and family come over and ask for help in buying a gun, firearms safety training, etc., there's no doubt in my mind I'd help them enter the community. And do so without bringing up any politics. I'm not trying to shame someone who's finally decided to"see the light". You wouldn't shame an atheist after them believing then getting baptized, right? I'd support them on their journey to become a responsible gun owner. And hopefully they'll do the same. Further down the road, this will help to break through the demonized stigma so put forth. We might not see it in our generation, but maybe the next or our grandchildren. That's what we're supposedly trying to do right? But fighting fire with fire as we so often do or guilt-tripping prior life choices doesn't help our cause.

 

[ditcherman]

Here's my take. I'll open my this with a bit of a downer here...I agree with liberals on several things, and to some on forums such as these, I'm one of those koolaid drink libtards. Whatever. I'd view myself as an independent. I'm not gonna affiliate with any political party especially if neither of them have my best interest at heart. And both parties in my mind suck to some extent. But one thing is crystal clear.

2A exists. It's real. And whether anyone wants to argue otherwise...it's not going anywhere. When the country was founded, the right to own firearms--particularly against in defense of a tyrannical government--was so important it was put near the top of the list of priorities. And that's exactly where's it going to stay. Now unfortunately, diehard leftists incapable of thinking for themselves want to make us believe guns are evil and terrible. As someone above pointed out, a firearm has no moral standing. But when it's demonized...that's the personification that the uneducated masses will believe. And that blows.

But if I had one of my liberal friends and family come over and ask for help in buying a gun, firearms safety training, etc., there's no doubt in my mind I'd help them enter the community. And do so without bringing up any politics. I'm not trying to shame someone who's finally decided to"see the light". You wouldn't shame an atheist after them believing then getting baptized, right? I'd support them on their journey to become a responsible gun owner. And hopefully they'll do the same. Further down the road, this will help to break through the demonized stigma so put forth. We might not see it in our generation, but maybe the next or our grandchildren. That's what we're supposedly trying to do right? But fighting fire with fire as we so often do or guilt-tripping prior life choices doesn't help our cause.

I agree with a lot of your post, and putting people or being put in a box is part of the problem not solution.

Concerning the 2A not going anywhere, do you not see it as threatened if the D's win the presidency and both houses? Even if not "them" (there I go putting people in boxes!) stripping the amendment out, they will, and have, redefined very restrictively. It is this redefinition that we are fighting when "we" say "defend the 2nd".

Do you really not see the 2nd, and gun rights, threatened with the wrong people in power?

 

[churchmouse]

Here's my take. I'll open my this with a bit of a downer here...I agree with liberals on several things, and to some on forums such as these, I'm one of those koolaid drink libtards. Whatever. I'd view myself as an independent. I'm not gonna affiliate with any political party especially if neither of them have my best interest at heart. And both parties in my mind suck to some extent. But one thing is crystal clear.

2A exists. It's real. And whether anyone wants to argue otherwise...it's not going anywhere. When the country was founded, the right to own firearms--particularly against in defense of a tyrannical government--was so important it was put near the top of the list of priorities. And that's exactly where's it going to stay. Now unfortunately, diehard leftists incapable of thinking for themselves want to make us believe guns are evil and terrible. As someone above pointed out, a firearm has no moral standing. But when it's demonized...that's the personification that the uneducated masses will believe. And that blows.

But if I had one of my liberal friends and family come over and ask for help in buying a gun, firearms safety training, etc., there's no doubt in my mind I'd help them enter the community. And do so without bringing up any politics. I'm not trying to shame someone who's finally decided to"see the light". You wouldn't shame an atheist after them believing then getting baptized, right? I'd support them on their journey to become a responsible gun owner. And hopefully they'll do the same. Further down the road, this will help to break through the demonized stigma so put forth. We might not see it in our generation, but maybe the next or our grandchildren. That's what we're supposedly trying to do right? But fighting fire with fire as we so often do or guilt-tripping prior life choices doesn't help our cause.

I agree with a lot of your post, and putting people or being put in a box is part of the problem not solution.

Concerning the 2A not going anywhere, do you not see it as threatened if the D's win the presidency and both houses? Even if not "them" (there I go putting people in boxes!) stripping the amendment out, they will, and have, redefined very restrictively. It is this redefinition that we are fighting when "we" say "defend the 2nd".

Do you really not see the 2nd, and gun rights, threatened with the wrong people in power?

There is a lot to be said about both these posts. Read them consecutively as if it were an ongoing and most civil conversation over a beer on the deck by a fire.
Yes the 2A is here but for crap sake every fracking lib that has ran for high office wants to put a gun Zar in place to whittle away at it. And we are loosing bits and pieces of it almost daily around the country. Back door runs at what choices we have. These holier than us offerings have stated the 2nd is in jeopardy and I am not thinking Alex Trebec (Sp) here.
No knock on the top post here but seriously..........

 

[ditcherman]

There is a lot to be said about both these posts. Read them consecutively as if it were an ongoing and most civil conversation over a beer on the deck by a fire.
Yes the 2A is here but for crap sake every fracking lib that has ran for high office wants to put a gun Zar in place to whittle away at it. And we are loosing bits and pieces of it almost daily around the country. Back door runs at what choices we have. These holier than us offerings have stated the 2nd is in jeopardy and I am not thinking Alex Trebec (Sp) here.
No knock on the top post here but seriously..........

Sorry I'll try harder next time.
Oh but the day is yet young!
I hope you have a good one CM, you deserve it!

 

[churchmouse]

Here's my take. I'll open my this with a bit of a downer here...I agree with liberals on several things, and to some on forums such as these, I'm one of those koolaid drink libtards. Whatever. I'd view myself as an independent. I'm not gonna affiliate with any political party especially if neither of them have my best interest at heart. And both parties in my mind suck to some extent. But one thing is crystal clear.

2A exists. It's real. And whether anyone wants to argue otherwise...it's not going anywhere. When the country was founded, the right to own firearms--particularly against in defense of a tyrannical government--was so important it was put near the top of the list of priorities. And that's exactly where's it going to stay. Now unfortunately, diehard leftists incapable of thinking for themselves want to make us believe guns are evil and terrible. As someone above pointed out, a firearm has no moral standing. But when it's demonized...that's the personification that the uneducated masses will believe. And that blows.

But if I had one of my liberal friends and family come over and ask for help in buying a gun, firearms safety training, etc., there's no doubt in my mind I'd help them enter the community. And do so without bringing up any politics. I'm not trying to shame someone who's finally decided to"see the light". You wouldn't shame an atheist after them believing then getting baptized, right? I'd support them on their journey to become a responsible gun owner. And hopefully they'll do the same. Further down the road, this will help to break through the demonized stigma so put forth. We might not see it in our generation, but maybe the next or our grandchildren. That's what we're supposedly trying to do right? But fighting fire with fire as we so often do or guilt-tripping prior life choices doesn't help our cause.

Sorry I'll try harder next time.
Oh but the day is yet young!
I hope you have a good one CM, you deserve it!

Oh you both stated positions very well. 2 very good example of current thinking.

And yes I may take myself up on the deck/fire and beer later on.

 

[JettaKnight]

Now that's clarity right there.

Concerning the rest of your post, don't you think that the whole point is that we don't have to say "or we'll start shooting", because, well, we can? I know people are almost all talk, but it could happen, and in my mind to think that the two are not connected is to kinda not believe in the 2nd amendment. As soon as we can't, not just don't, we are in much greater jeopardy of losing those rights.

And in some ways, the precedent for those 10 commandments at the courthouse or the prayer before a football game was settled with firearms. Our forefathers made it very clear to the king that his time was over and we wanted to do things our way. So just because we didn't settle it or see it settled in our lifetime with firearms, the precedents were set with them.

My sig line on another forum is "our forefathers would be shooting by now". It may be a bit of hyperbole, or maybe not, I don't really know. But I like the sentiment.

TMWIW (tell me why I'm wrong)

I probably should let it drop... but since you asked...

Our forefathers took up arms before the second amendment, and any constitution. So, technically...

And they installed a whole other bunch of things to go along with the 2A, that can be used in lieu of taking up arms, e.g. a republic, checks and balances, voting.
There's been numerous cases related to the 1A, but I can't recall a single decision in which a judge wrote, "Because of the well armed militia in America..."
If there comes a time when the 2A is literally protecting the 1A, then all hell has broken loose and laws, incl. the Constitution will be disregarded in part or in whole.


It's a catchy slogan, and comforting thought that reinforces the need for an armed populace, but it doesn't square up with reality.



That's all I got. I need more coffee.

 

[beer leaguer]

No, you are not a Fudd. I'd welcome you as a U.S. Citizen, if you ever decide to take the plunge. Are you a Hoosier?

I'm not a Hoosier, I'm a Hoser.


I need to get my citizenship one of these days. I'm on month 9 waiting for a copy of my green card.

 

[bwframe]

Like I said...

 

[Clay Pigeon]

I'm not a Hoosier, I'm a Hoser.


I need to get my citizenship one of these days. I'm on month 9 waiting for a copy of my green card.

I'm not a Hoosier either, I'm a Terrapin. I know what a Terrapin is, not sure what a Hoosier is...

 

[KLB]

I'm not a Hoosier either, I'm a Terrapin. I know what a Terrapin is, not sure what a Hoosier is...

Will antibiotics cure that?

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Oh you both stated positions very well. 2 very good example of current thinking.

And yes I may take myself up on the deck/fire and beer later on.

The deck i saw was ground level, not so far to fall....

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Will antibiotics cure that?

Nope, that wouldn't flush the salt water outa me... But my understanding is a Buckeye is an educated Hoosier...

 

[beer leaguer]

Nope, that wouldn't flush the salt water outa me... But my understanding is a Buckeye is an educated Hoosier...

Is a wolverine an educated buckeye then?