SAF Preemptively Surrenders, Yet Again

[DRob]

jeez

Yep!

 

[88GT]

jeez

and yet I'm not wrong.

 

[rambone]

So why is it bad when the SAF compromises on our rights, but good when the NRA does it?

Or is the argument that they all have to do it, and we should support them all?

You see, you haters must learn to do grown up things, like brush your teeth, eat your vegetables, clean your room, and voluntarily endorse gun control.

Your problem is that you want to protect all of your rights -- right now! You have no right to a beautiful 2nd Amendment.

 

[Steve.43]

I'm relatively new to INGO discussions, so maybe I'm too much of a newbie to make this observation. If you think I am, please forgive.

I think it's OK for us to disagree about issues, but when personalities are attacked it jeopardizes our unity. I hope everyone will consider lowering the tone of the debate and realize that our only strength is in hanging together to protect our rights. I'd prefer to see a discussion that is voluntarily limited by the participants to fact and opinion, leaving personal attacks out.

 

[cce1302]

There sure seems to be a lot of hand-wringing over people supporting the SAF but not the NRA.

Yet in all those "NRA bad-SAF good" threads, I don't find one post that points out that SAF's record is as bad on compromise as the NRA's.

Seems that nobody other than Kirk even knew that he was sued by SAF.

Now we have this thread, which actually seems to be "NRA good-SAF bad for taking a page out of NRA's book"

It also seems to be "you supported the SAF over the NRA in the past, now I shall hold you personally responsible for everything that Alan Gura ever says or does in the future whether or not you agree with it or even know about it."


All in all, a pretty ridiculous thread.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm relatively new to INGO discussions, so maybe I'm too much of a newbie to make this observation. If you think I am, please forgive.

I think it's OK for us to disagree about issues, but when personalities are attacked it jeopardizes our unity. I hope everyone will consider lowering the tone of the debate and realize that our only strength is in hanging together to protect our rights. I'd prefer to see a discussion that is voluntarily limited by the participants to fact and opinion, leaving personal attacks out.

Put 10 people in a room who all agree that we should hang together and not separately. You won't make it 10 political topics without all 10 refusing to give ground on at least one of those topics.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm relatively new to INGO discussions, so maybe I'm too much of a newbie to make this observation. If you think I am, please forgive.

I think it's OK for us to disagree about issues, but when personalities are attacked it jeopardizes our unity. I hope everyone will consider lowering the tone of the debate and realize that our only strength is in hanging together to protect our rights. I'd prefer to see a discussion that is voluntarily limited by the participants to fact and opinion, leaving personal attacks out.

That sounds nice, but that is also how we got in the fix we are in--by acting on a sense of false unity in which we supported people who weren't supporting us. If someone purporting to be an ally is pissing in our water dish, he needs to be called out on it. In case you failed to notice, for a very long time now, those ostensibly on the right side have engaged in the most sissified efforts to protect freedom in the name of being civil/genteel/polite/politically acceptable while our enemies have engaged in a relentless and bloodthirsty attack over the course of a century, yet we are told we have to be 'nice' and 'compromise' (i.e., capitulate on the installment plan). Alan G. needs to shape up or ship out. I would say the same thing about the NRA spending the 6 years of Bush II/GOP House/GOP Senate who are all ostensibly allies mumbling 'enforce the existing laws, enforce the existing laws' when they should have been screaming 'REPEAL THE F**KING UNCONSTITUTIONAL THINGS IF YOU WANT TO KEEP US AS FRIENDS!'

In politics, you do NOT win by being nice. It is unfortunate, but that is the way it is, especially when being confronted with zealots who are half as bright and twice as dedicated as jihadists.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Put 10 people in a room who all agree that we should hang together and not separately. You won't make it 10 political topics without all 10 refusing to give ground on at least one of those topics.

But those other 9 guys are idiots and everybody knows it.

 

[hornadylnl]

But those other 9 guys are idiots and everybody knows it.

Are the anti gay marriage people any less rigid on their positions than the anti gunners? Never going to get together when one expects the other to give ground on their issue and being unwilling to give ground on theirs?

How many here would trade gay marriage for repealing all unconstitutional gun laws?

 

[88GT]

How many here would trade gay marriage for repealing all unconstitutional gun laws?

Me. But it's not really marriage, it's a secular civil contractual union. Does that make a difference?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Are the anti gay marriage people any less rigid on their positions than the anti gunners? Never going to get together when one expects the other to give ground on their issue and being unwilling to give ground on theirs?

How many here would trade gay marriage for repealing all unconstitutional gun laws?

While this is a good and fair question, you have addressed three separate issues, which are the Second Amendment, affording equal rights of life and property, and the .gov's authority to redefine language. The sticking point, at least where I am concerned, is that equal rights in practice are not good enough for the vocal segment of the gays who have already rejected that if it does not come with a redefinition of language, and I reject all efforts to allow the .gov to redefine language given the havoc already caused by redefinition of words like 'infringe', 'regulate', and the phrase 'shall not'. There is no constitutional authority for redefining language and allowing it effectively nullifies every established contract by allowing its terms to be unilaterally redefined such as to change the meaning of the contract and the concept being controlled by it.

 

[hornadylnl]

While this is a good and fair question, you have addressed three separate issues, which are the Second Amendment, affording equal rights of life and property, and the .gov's authority to redefine language. The sticking point, at least where I am concerned, is that equal rights in practice are not good enough for the vocal segment of the gays who have already rejected that if it does not come with a redefinition of language, and I reject all efforts to allow the .gov to redefine language given the havoc already caused by redefinition of words like 'infringe', 'regulate', and the phrase 'shall not'. There is no constitutional authority for redefining language and allowing it effectively nullifies every established contract by allowing its terms to be unilaterally redefined such as to change the meaning of the contract and the concept being controlled by it.

To repeal every unconstitutional gun law, you wouldn't approve of your local courthouse issuing a "marriage license" identical to yours to 2 men or 2 women?

 

[cce1302]

Why are we telling the government to tell us what marriage is or is not?

 

[KLB]

While this is a good and fair question, you have addressed three separate issues, which are the Second Amendment, affording equal rights of life and property, and the .gov's authority to redefine language. The sticking point, at least where I am concerned, is that equal rights in practice are not good enough for the vocal segment of the gays who have already rejected that if it does not come with a redefinition of language, and I reject all efforts to allow the .gov to redefine language given the havoc already caused by redefinition of words like 'infringe', 'regulate', and the phrase 'shall not'. There is no constitutional authority for redefining language and allowing it effectively nullifies every established contract by allowing its terms to be unilaterally redefined such as to change the meaning of the contract and the concept being controlled by it.

Do you realize you just made his point?

 

[hornadylnl]

Do you realize you just made his point?

LOL

 

[IndyDave1776]

Do you realize you just made his point?

If a person is too obtuse to recognize the dangers I outlined, I would see little hope in him. Equal rights should be adequate without implicitly giving the government authority to redefine language as it sees fit. If equal rights are not adequate, we have a far deeper problem with people who are in fact dangerous as opposed to merely seeking equal rights.

 

[Bunnykid68]

If a person is too obtuse to recognize the dangers I outlined, I would see little hope in him. Equal rights should be adequate without implicitly giving the government authority to redefine language as it sees fit. If equal rights are not adequate, we have a far deeper problem with people who are in fact dangerous as opposed to merely seeking equal rights.

I knew what you meant. Equal rights are equal rights, we do not need more equal rights.

 

[Steve.43]

Put 10 people in a room who all agree that we should hang together and not separately. You won't make it 10 political topics without all 10 refusing to give ground on at least one of those topics.

Agreed. But even when folks refuse to give ground, they can still argue the issues and avoid making personal attacks.

 

[Steve.43]

That sounds nice, but that is also how we got in the fix we are in--by acting on a sense of false unity in which we supported people who weren't supporting us. If someone purporting to be an ally is pissing in our water dish, he needs to be called out on it. In case you failed to notice, for a very long time now, those ostensibly on the right side have engaged in the most sissified efforts to protect freedom in the name of being civil/genteel/polite/politically acceptable while our enemies have engaged in a relentless and bloodthirsty attack over the course of a century, yet we are told we have to be 'nice' and 'compromise' (i.e., capitulate on the installment plan). Alan G. needs to shape up or ship out. I would say the same thing about the NRA spending the 6 years of Bush II/GOP House/GOP Senate who are all ostensibly allies mumbling 'enforce the existing laws, enforce the existing laws' when they should have been screaming 'REPEAL THE F**KING UNCONSTITUTIONAL THINGS IF YOU WANT TO KEEP US AS FRIENDS!'

In politics, you do NOT win by being nice. It is unfortunate, but that is the way it is, especially when being confronted with zealots who are half as bright and twice as dedicated as jihadists.

Not much here with which I disgree. However, I hope it does more than merely "sound nice." Unity, patience, and absolute dedication to their nefarious purpose have allowed the enemy to get this far into "fundamentally transforming" our country. They have flown under our radar for about 100 years, wasting little or no time in waging personal attacks upon each other, but marching in lockstep together in pursuit of their common goal. I'm suggesting that we might take a page from their playbook and stop attacking each other on a personal basis. Arguing issues is one thing. Personal attacks are another, as they engender bad feelings among those who are supposed to allied.

Another point of agreement: No one is more disgusted than I with politicians who promise conservative values during the campaign and then do a 180 once elected, transforming themselves into sycophantic lap dogs for the establishment and betraying those whom they are elected to represent. During the campaign, they sound like Ted Cruz clones. Then when elected, they suddenly sound more like Lindsey Graham or Richard Lugar. Again, though, I don't see how curtailing personal attacks on each other affects this situation in any negative way. I think the other side loves it when we attack each other, as it detracts our attention from their activities.

 

[Stickfight]

Do you realize you just made his point?

If a person is too obtuse to recognize the dangers I outlined, I would see little hope in him. Equal rights should be adequate without implicitly giving the government authority to redefine language as it sees fit. If equal rights are not adequate, we have a far deeper problem with people who are in fact dangerous as opposed to merely seeking equal rights.

Translation: no I do not.