Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Airborneguy:
Sometimes we have to realize that we are arguing with individuals who have their minds in a vault. To find out how "progressives" think and what methods they use to try and achieve their goals one needs to look no further than the comments of Jonathan Gruber one of the chief architects of "Obamacare". They are nothing more than a bunch of elitist swines who think that they know what's best for the American people. They wish to force their agenda down our throats and make us all slaves to the government, of which they will control. They think we are too stupid to understand any of this. However, as the last election proves the American people are indeed waking up after 6 years of Obama's policies. As Obama had stated before the election that this is what the election was about. Note how the Democrats ran from them like scared little rats on a sinking ship in spite of supporting those policies for 6 miserable years. They will never be able to accomplish their goals as long as we have the 2nd Amendment and subscribe to constitutional law. Constitutional law is the foundation of our Republic it is what prevents our government from enslaving us. As Opin_Yunated states:
Quote:
Truthfully, we should be embarassed as a country for not amending our Constitution (the darn thing is 200 years old) to be more modern, as they do in other developed countries.
They despise constitutional law as it is a major obstacle in achieving their goals. That is why they are trying to convince people that the constitution is an outdated embarrassment that hasn't kept up with the times. But no matter how irrational they are it is still the law of the land. "If Opin_Yunated" likes the system of government in other so-called developed countries and feels that the United States is behind the times. I would suggest that he/she move there instead of trying to change ours. One of the reasons and there are many that I despise them so, is that they have no problem screwing other people as long as it is not their ox that is being gored. Then they can't understand why those people could possibly be outraged? It's always up to "them" to decide what type of guns we should be allowed to own. What type of house we should be allowed to live in. What types of food we should be allowed to eat. What type of vehicles that we should be allowed to own. How much money we should be allowed to earn etc. etc. etc. They use class envy and race to divide this country, they always have to have villains and victims pitting one group against another. "Progressivism" will lead to the destruction of this country as we know it. We must do all we can to stop it.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 11-12-2014 at 01:30 PM..
They believed in checks and balances. In limiting govt power. They were also clear that if govt become broken, oppressive or tyrannical, it was to be overthrown. Now, most "liberals" see this as quackery, but this country is founded on the ideas and principles that freedoms guaranteed to us, are absolute and not to be infringed upon.
Quote:
Slippery slope: The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear
Do you have insurance? Why?
Its not leveraging fear. Its smart and realistic to want to protect yourself, against ANYONE who tries to force violence unto you - no matter who they are. This is the real world we live in, and its a dangerous place.
If youre a parent, its your responsibility to protect your family.
Im 6'2 260 pounds and have been lifting weights for over 20 years, and can take care of myself. I carry a gun and knife with me everyday. I hope I never have to pull my gun on someone. But, Im a strict believer in the idea that no one has the right to put their hands on me, or take whats mine (without permission). I will defend myself, and I refuse to be a unarmed victim.
Last edited by Scorpio1969; 11-12-2014 at 01:52 PM..
They believed in checks and balances. In limiting govt power. They were also clear that if govt become broken, oppressive or tyrannical, it was to be overthrown. Now, most "liberals" see this as quackery, but this country is founded on the ideas and principles that freedoms guaranteed to us, are absolute and not to be infringed upon.
Outstanding! Some just don't get it. It is those who we should fear most.
Amending the Constitution is fine. The Constitutional protection everyone here is hanging their hat on is an Amendment itself. The imperfect nature of the Constitution was known and acknowledged from before day 1, hence the mechanisms to better it. If we couldn't amend it there would be no 2nd Amendment.
An Amendment that itself permits individual states to opt out of that part of the 2nd Amendment would save a whole lot of conflict between groups. Lets call it a 75% vote or something of a state's populous for it to pass. We all know there'd be at least 40 states or so that would opt to stay in and that would always protect an individual's right to bear arms, whether in a militia or not, and of the remaining states some might opt out. NY, for example. That way all the anti-gun people can move to a gun-controlled state and all the gun-owners can move to a free-gun state (there would be plenty to chose from). If they chose to. And if they don't move and still complain - well whose gonna listen them?
Preemption won't be a problem if the "opting" language is actually part of the Amendment.
For interested parties, the 9th Circuit denied California's appeal of Peruta earlier today. In summary, this means that every law abiding citizen of the states represented by the 9th Circuit are now entitled to CCW permits. In direct opposition, the 2nd Circuit (us), has repeatedly found that citizens must show "cause" to be issued a permit. In NY and NJ, that means direct threats to life (and even that justification is routinely denied). I fully expect the SCOTUS to take a carry case sooner rather than later now that a clear disconnect exists between multiple Circuits (the 5th, 7th and DC circuits have also issued conflicting decisions).
What does that have to do with the SAFE Act? How does the SAFE Act prevent you from getting a permit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborneguy
...And I don't want to understand liberals. That would be a worthless exercise in stupidity. Waste of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker
Airborneguy:
Sometimes we have to realize that we are arguing with individuals who have their minds in a vault. To find out how "progressives" think and what methods they use to try and achieve their goals one needs to look no further than the comments of Jonathan Gruber one of the chief architects of "Obamacare". They are nothing more than a bunch of elitist swines who think that they know what's best for the American people. They wish to force their agenda down our throats and make us all slaves to the government, of which they will control. They think we are too stupid to understand any of this. However, as the last election proves the American people are indeed waking up after 6 years of Obama's policies. As Obama had stated before the election that this is what the election was about. Note how the Democrats ran from them like scared little rats on a sinking ship in spite of supporting those policies for 6 miserable years. They will never be able to accomplish their goals as long as we have the 2nd Amendment and subscribe to constitutional law. Constitutional law is the foundation of our Republic it is what prevents our government from enslaving us. As Opin_Yunated states:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker
They despise constitutional law as it is a major obstacle in achieving their goals. That is why they are trying to convince people that the constitution is an outdated embarrassment that hasn't kept up with the times. But no matter how irrational they are it is still the law of the land. "If Opin_Yunated" likes the system of government in other so-called developed countries and feels that the United States is behind the times. I would suggest that he/she move there instead of trying to change ours. One of the reasons and there are many that I despise them so, is that they have no problem screwing other people as long as it is not their ox that is being gored. Then they can't understand why those people could possibly be outraged? It's always up to "them" to decide what type of guns we should be allowed to own. What type of house we should be allowed to live in. What types of food we should be allowed to eat. What type of vehicles that we should be allowed to own. How much money we should be allowed to earn etc. etc. etc.
Typical ad hominems.
Can you construct an argument without using the term "liberal" or "progressive?" The man isn't out to get you, seesh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker
They use class envy and race to divide this country, they always have to have villains and victims pitting one group against another. "Progressivism" will lead to the destruction of this country as we know it. We must do all we can to stop it.
Appeals to emotion Attempting to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpio1969
Those ancient documents purposely limited govt.
They believed in checks and balances. In limiting govt power. They were also clear that if govt become broken, oppressive or tyrannical, it was to be overthrown. Now, most "liberals" see this as quackery, but this country is founded on the ideas and principles that freedoms guaranteed to us, are absolute and not to be infringed upon.
So.. instead of addressing my post, dig your heals in and repeat the slippery slop argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpio1969
Do you have insurance? Why?
Its not leveraging fear. Its smart and realistic to want to protect yourself, against ANYONE who tries to force violence unto you - no matter who they are. This is the real world we live in, and its a dangerous place.
If youre a parent, its your responsibility to protect your family.
Im 6'2 260 pounds and have been lifting weights for over 20 years, and can take care of myself. I carry a gun and knife with me everyday. I hope I never have to pull my gun on someone. But, Im a strict believer in the idea that no one has the right to put their hands on me, or take whats mine (without permission). I will defend myself, and I refuse to be a unarmed victim.
What the hell does that have to do with the SAFE Act?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Look I don't disagree with anything you are saying, but that wasn't my argument. I agree it was passed through in a poor manner. I've acknowledged in this thread several times I have no desire to support any means of "de-arming" law-abiding citizens. My argument was strictly that the SAFE Act does not infringe on the right to bear arms. It places some restrictions on weapon classifications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker
Scorpio1969:
Outstanding! Some just don't get it. It is those who we should fear most.
Selling fear just proves you have no desire to engage in logical, rational discussion.
That way all the anti-gun people can move to a gun-controlled state and all the gun-owners can move to a free-gun state
Now you're beginning to make sense. That's just what I did, however it was not just about guns. Socialist welfare policies, and public employees unions/teachers unions controlling the legislature also played a major part. We should take it one step further where all of the Liberals live in states that conform to their beliefs and all Conservatives live in states that conform to their beliefs. The biggest problem the Liberals will have is who will be left to pay for all of the socialist welfare programs. I am all for it. But it has to be two separate countries so each will be able to elect their own president, senate and congress.
Selling fear just proves you have no desire to engage in logical, rational discussion.
There is no way in hell to have any kind of rational discussion with the likes of you.
Quote:
Can you construct an argument without using the term "liberal" or "progressive?"
Well that's what you are aren't you? Or are you too ashamed to admit it? Or is this another attempt at deception that Liberals/Progressives are known for. Let's just try to disguise who we are, is that it? I am a "Constitutional Conservative" damn proud of it along with my opinions. You still haven't refuted anything in my arguments point by point. You can only respond with: "Typical ad hominems." You said yourself you want to change the constitution, that it is outdated. I gave a valid reason as to why you want to change it to suit your agenda. You only respond with "Typical ad hominems". I mention the methods used by Jonathan Gruber admitting that they used lies, deception and fraud on the American people to get "Obamacare" passed. And of the American people being too stupid to understand it. Is it not true? Or was it that what we heard on that video was just a figment of our imagination. If that policy was that great why would they have to use those methods to pass it? Along with your entire mis-guided agenda. You really are pathetic.
Quote:
Attempting to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument
What in the hell do you think you are doing? Unbelievable!
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 11-12-2014 at 03:37 PM..
There is no way in hell to have any kind of rational discussion with the likes of you.
Well that's what you are aren't you? Or are you too ashamed to admit it? Or is this another attempt at deception that Liberals/Progressives are known for. You still haven't refuted anything in my arguments point by point. You only can respond with,"Typical ad hominems."
You haven't said anything of substance. That's why I asked if you can construct an argument without using the term "liberal" or "progressive." Every sentence is some tangent rant about socialist liberals followed up by whatever fantasy you conceive in your mind. I already provided the definition of an ad hominem to you.. you deliberately brand anything you don't like as "liberal" and go off on a rant about liberals. None of that has anything to do with the damn SAFE Act and how it infringes on the right to bear arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker
What in the hell do you think you are doing? Unbelievable!
Tu Quoque Avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser; answering criticism with criticism
What does that have to do with the SAFE Act? How does the SAFE Act prevent you from getting a permit?
When you read Heller, you'll know. You are currently attempting to change your argument from "why be against the Safe Act?" to "how does it stop you from getting a permit?" It doesn't, and no one here has said that it does. What the Safe Act does do has been addressed, and you were presented with reasoning based on Heller, which you ignored.
If you want to be informed, read it. If you prefer to be surprised when Safe is overturned at SCOTUS, that's your choice also.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
