No Debate

[hounddog]

I know for a fact that I am the least important person on this forum. I have no strike or pull with anyone anywhere. But I have to say something very seriously in speaking for myself. The other morning, I was watching Fox News and at the bottom of the screen, the print said that Obama was frustrated over the Gun Laws Debates. I am a Christian, American, Texan,Navy Veteran of almost 66 years old. And I promise you, there are no Debates. Why these people can't get that through their thick heads is beyond me. I try to be a friend to everyone that I can, and will bend over a long way to get along with most people. But there are certain areas that the liberals need to get out of and stay out of, because they are not going to like the end result. I'm sorry if I offend any of my 2A friends, but I had to speak my mind. The Debates should have never been allowed to get started in the first place. I pray that God will bless America, but I'm afraid we're running out of time.

[esxmarkc]

I don't have a clue as to how that could possibly offend anyone on this board. And thank you sir for your service to this country so that people such as myself can enjoy a fine way of life - even if it means some liberal potato heads get to rattle their jaws on tv.

[mojo84]

I'm offended. Not by whatb you've said but by the progresive liberals that think they know what's better for me. I'm also offended because that's the in vogue thing nowadays.

[SewTexas]

I'm offended. Not by whatb you've said but by the progresive liberals that think they know what's better for me. I'm also offended because that's the in vogue thing nowadays.

yeh, what he said!

[maintenanceguy]

It's not about outcomes, it's about intentions.

Guys like you and me, we can see the terrible outcomes of these policies. But to the other side, the outcomes never matter. I don't think they can think 2 or 3 steps ahead. Chess must be difficult. Somebody got shot with a gun so guns must be bad and must be taken away. It doesn't matter what the real results would be.

[Jumping Frog]

I agree with your frustration, and won't let mine be taken.

I know for a fact that I am the least important person on this forum. I have no strike or pull with anyone anywhere.

I don't agree with this statement. "Least important"? You have a voice here that matters, just like the rest of us.

[Middle Age Russ]

Firearms are a force option or force multiplier, and as such private ownership of firearms will always be something that collectivists / statists target. If they can get enough concurrence to make individual ownership of firearms illegal, then the State has a monopoly of force and can run roughshod over any and all individual rights. Hounddog, you are among friends here who well understand the incremental warfare of Progressivism against values, morals and individual rights. Thank you for adding your voice to the choir of reason and your prayers to ours.

[joe817]

Firearms are a force option or force multiplier, and as such private ownership of firearms will always be something that collectivists / statists target. If they can get enough concurrence to make individual ownership of firearms illegal, then the State as a monopoly of force and can run roughshod over any and all individual rights. Hounddog, you are among friends here who well understand the incremental warfare of Progressivism against values, morals and individual rights. Thank you for adding your voice to the choir of reason and your prayers to ours.

Very well put MAR! I totally agree. Hounddog, your words of wisdom are profound. Thank you.

[VMI77]

It's not about outcomes, it's about intentions.

Guys like you and me, we can see the terrible outcomes of these policies. But to the other side, the outcomes never matter. I don't think they can think 2 or 3 steps ahead. Chess must be difficult. Somebody got shot with a gun so guns must be bad and must be taken away. It doesn't matter what the real results would be.

I think you're wrong about the other side. It is about outcomes as well as intentions, it's just that the proclaimed outcomes and intentions are different than the real ones. The rank and file may be ignorant of the outcomes as you suggest, and they may have good intentions, but it's virtually impossible that the leadership, those promoting "gun control" like Obama, are ignorant of the consequences. Therefore, when they propose certain measures what you see as terrible outcomes must be the actual outcomes they seek.

The leadership of the anti-self-defense groups have made their intentions pretty clear they just normally keep them to themselves. But enough of their intentions have been revealed so that there is little doubt about what they actually want: UK style laws against self-defense and gun confiscation. They don't want us mundanes to have guns or to be able to defend ourselves, period. They slip up every once in awhile but for the most part they're too savvy to say this openly because it's a no sale to what is probably still a majority of Americans.

That's why they make every effort to demonize guns and gun owners and why school children get expelled for drawing pictures of guns or wearing NRA t-shirts. Their objective is to reduce support for gun ownership to a minority so they can get traction for bans and confiscation. Once they reduce gun ownership to a sufficient minority of the population the outright bans and confiscations will commence --just like in the UK and Australia. Every "gun control" measure they propose is always a step in the direction of bans and confiscation.

[The Annoyed Man]

There is no debate. When Obama says he's frustrated because "the gun debate isn't over yet", it has exactly the same moral weight as if he had said he's frustrated because "the rape debate isn't over yet." Rape is rape. There is no way to justify it. Rape doesn't have a rational defense. Any attempt to try and justify it is an attempt to rob women of the right to personal safety. Any attempt to blame the victim of a rape exculpates the perpetrator of the rape........but that is exactly what Obama does when he goes after the 2nd Amendment.

It's not that the debate is over, it's that there never was any kind of debate. And there never was any kind of debate because the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms is manifestly not debatable. When Obama says the debate isn't over, he is using a desperate ploy to try and inject an idea into the national consciousness - and that idea is that the 2nd Amendment can be infringed........despite the clear language of the Constitution.

So, in his mind, there is a debate........NOT over whether or not the 2nd can be infringed, but rather over how much MORE it can be infringed than it has already been. He takes the fact of its current infringements as a de facto proof that it may (not "can") be infringed. Naturally, any old dictator CAN infringe it; but no president with any reverence for the Constitution MAY infringe it. To bring it back to the rape comparison, he's effectively saying, "the rape debate is not over, because you have been raped in the past, and that means that I can rape you today, and again in the future........so we need to talk about that."

Well, I'm not willing to talk about that........so there is no debate.

I believe in the "may-ness" of the issue, not the "can-ness" of it. "Shall not" speaks to "may-ness". Thus, there is no debate, except in the minds of those for whom the Constitution makes a handy and ample piece of toilet paper.

[Middle Age Russ]

with VM177

Demonization of things and ideas, repetition of "the message" whether there is any truth at all in it, cherry-picking data/statistics and incrementally building momentum are all extremely common tactics used by "Progressives" -- and have been for nigh on a century now -- to move from the Constitutional Republic to a Collectivist utopia. In the politically-charged environment of the 21st century, others have begun using at least some of these same tactics so that we now have incredible polarization to two distinctly different sides on many issues. The heated level of conflict seems to be rising, all toward the stated goal of some of the Progressive element to radically change (destroy) America. I become less convinced day by day that reasoned debate and real compromise are possible in this environment to shore up and protect our nation.