I know Im probably gonna get some heat for this

[4sarge]

Civics 101a / Math 101: If a candidate can't win a majority of his/her party's vote in a primary, they can't win a general election.

Exactly, McCain & Romney are NOT Conservative, therefore they LOST. If I wanted to Vote for Socialist HOPE & CHANGE then Obama or Hillary would be my Choice. Surrender is NEVER an option. Compromise, Common Sense Gun Laws & Discussion are progressive code words for Surrender. Sorry, your white flag skivvies are showing.

 

[gabrigger]

That's a false choice.

Civics 101: In order to get what you want out of the political process, you must first get your candidates elected.

The fact that Mourdock lost in Indiana spells "unelectable" in capital letters. Palin is clearly unhinged, and her presence on the ballot cost McCain a shot at the presidency. Cruz and Paul will never win a national election.

John McCain cost John McCain the 2008 election. When you run a liberal, you typically don't get conservatives to vote for them. Whether Cruz or Paul can win a national election, who knows?.

We must stand strong and not compromise one single inch further. It is time to go on the attack and restore our rights. We do this at the ballot box by voting for candidates that actually support the Constitution and our rights. We don't win when we support the John McCains of the world.

 

[IndyDave1776]

That's a false choice.

Civics 101: In order to get what you want out of the political process, you must first get your candidates elected.

The fact that Mourdock lost in Indiana spells "unelectable" in capital letters. Palin is clearly unhinged, and her presence on the ballot cost McCain a shot at the presidency. Cruz and Paul will never win a national election.

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?

"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.

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?

Civics 101a / Math 101: If a candidate can't win a majority of his/her party's vote in a primary, they can't win a general election.

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.

Keep allowing Rush and Sean to brainwash you into demonizing those who disagree with you. I'd rather think for myself.

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.

Some people are okay with compromising away everything over time instead of giving it up all at once, as though the end result is different.

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.

 

[BuckCreek]

"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.

Again I refer to Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[MisterChester]

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.

 

[Scutter01]

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.

You missed the point of the seat belt comments completely. The point had nothing whatsoever to do with seatbelts.

 

[JetGirl]

LP1, my question in #43 wasn't rhetorical. Seriously... Where will we end up with more people saying "sure, take a little more...and a little more...and a little more...?"

 

[heofon]

We need to work toward zero gun laws for good guys. The second amendment is the only common sense gun law.

 

[actaeon277]

"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.

Civics 101a / Math 101: If a candidate can't win a majority of his/her party's vote in a primary, they can't win a general election.

If we can't win a majority.....
Discussion.....
Marginalized....
History.....


Okay Alex Trevek.
How bout slavery, Japanese Internment Camps, the Revolution, prohibition, and "back of the bus" for $100.
Are you telling me those were fixed by compromise and discussion?

And discussion.
Sure, try to get a pro-gun conversation on national tv.
How about posting on the everytown or mda page.

The anti-s wanted discussion. Their discussion.

There is a difference between the majority, and the majority that actually gets off the couch.
Most overturns in history have been initiated by a minority. The majority sit back.

 

[actaeon277]

How about repealing the gun control acts, license/permitting, etc. Then we'll have that conversation.

 

[IndyDave1776]

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.

You mean to tell us that you measure a law's validity strictly by public utility? How about lack of authority? A little MYODB is in order.

 

[MisterChester]

You mean to tell us that you measure a law's validity strictly by public utility? How about lack of authority? A little MYODB is in order.

Try telling that to the judge in traffic court

 

[2A_Tom]

"Question I know Im probably gonna get some heat for this." Patriot3

Duh, you think?

Well, yeah.

You psychic?

 

[LP1]

LP1, my question in #43 wasn't rhetorical. Seriously... Where will we end up with more people saying "sure, take a little more...and a little more...and a little more...?"

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.

 

[LP1]

Exactly, McCain & Romney are NOT Conservative, therefore they LOST. If I wanted to Vote for Socialist HOPE & CHANGE then Obama or Hillary would be my Choice. Surrender is NEVER an option. Compromise, Common Sense Gun Laws & Discussion are progressive code words for Surrender. Sorry, your white flag skivvies are showing.

So if they were more conservative, they would have won? You can't seriously believe that, do you?

 

[LP1]

Don't apologize for thinking I didn't support Obama. Apologize for arguing based on a false dichotomy

I've slept since the 2008 and 2012 elections. Please refresh my memory regarding what other candidates were on the ballot that had more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

Not a false dichotomy - there were only two real choices.

 

[JetGirl]

We need to convince them, not yell at them.

I don't see the rabid anti-gun representatives and advocates being convinced of anything other than their own broken-record spiel.
Can you give an example of someone who was swayed otherwise?

Your question denies the basic reality of what has been happening. We aren't giving, giving, giving - we've been getting.

The facts have already proven this^ statement incorrect. From the inclusion of the Second Amendment to date, we have way less than we did to start. How can anyone say otherwise?

 

[MisterChester]

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've mentioned this in another thread, but I think we need to increase our rights the same way they try to take it away. One bite at a time. The ultimate goal is to restore the 2nd amendment and we have seen a lot of progress in the past 30 or so years. Carry laws, court cases, you name it. We just need to keep at it. This is something that won't happen overnight. It would be fantastic if it did, but realistically it's not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Right now we can hope for Drake v Jerijan to get its day in court.

 

[LP1]

You're welcome to your opinion, but it doesn't change the facts of the second amendment.

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.

 

[actaeon277]

All of the BOR is limitations place on the gov. NOT the citizens.

Does freedom of religion only apply to priests/ministers?
Speech to the press?