This is where you're supposed to concede the point, assuming you have any intellectual integrity. That's the problem; liberals don't have intellectual integrity. Their whole ideology is based on lies and can not be honestly defended.The only problem with this little scenario you paint is that:
That's why, when they're cornered, they always resort to ad hominem attacks.Originally Posted by joe bloe
The only problem with this little scenario you paint is that:I'm sure you meant lunatic in nice way. Truthfully, by Sandbox standards that is pretty mild stuff.
- "quite" means "I agree"
- I never made any ad hominem attacks.
Not yet, anyway
The only problem with this little scenario you paint is that:I assumed that "quite" meant you were saying my argument was absurd, not your own. Surely, you weren't conceding that your argument was absurd. No one ever concedes anything in the Sandbox. I think that's probably a violation of some rule.
- "quite" means "I agree"
- I never made any ad hominem attacks.
Not yet, anyway
You say absolutes are seldom the best way to deal with a problem. The second amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That means shall not be limited in any way. That may or may not be a reasonable amendment, but it is an absolute. The second amendment does not just prohit banning guns, it prohibits any limitation on gun ownership.You are correct, absolutism is almost always the refuge of simple minds, and is almost always a bad idea.
By analyzing Madison's use of the word infringe in his other writings, it is clear that he uses the word to mean to change in any way.
If you don't think the second amendment is reasonable, then work to repeal it.
Originally Posted by joe bloe
If the point is to reduce gun deaths, by all means, propose a solution that does so. I have proposed my solutions. Where's yours?What a dumb statement on your part. You now claim that a person who does not know the answer is not allowed to see that something is wrong. The analogy is not flawed, it just is counter to what you want to believe. I promise you I can call an ambulance if I see someone have a car wreck, but I don't know how to attend to massive internal wounds. Sadly you sound like so many of our politicians who see something they don't like and make stupid laws that are worse that what they try to fix.
But I've pegged you as anti-gun months ago in the Zimmerman thread. Originally Posted by gnadfly
What a dumb statement on your part. You now claim that a person who does not know the answer is not allowed to see that something is wrong. The analogy is not flawed, it just is counter to what you want to believe. I promise you I can call an ambulance if I see someone have a car wreck, but I don't know how to attend to massive internal wounds. Sadly you sound like so many of our politicians who see something they don't like and make stupid laws that are worse that what they try to fix.Hardly. I'm saying that sitting around emoting about tragedy without proposing a solution is simply having a national "hen party." Gun control is a very well discussed topic in this country for the last 100 years...AND if you clicked essences first link there are two distinct unequivocal lies by Piers in the first minute.
An I am far from anti-gun, but I am opposed to idiots having guns. And opposed to vigilanies like Zimmerman doing what he did. Did I ever claim in the Z threads that having a gun was the problem? No, I did not. Originally Posted by Old-T
You are correct, absolutism is almost always the refuge of simple minds, and is almost always a bad idea.
I really don't care that Madison was a very smart man--he was NOT infallible, especially when trying to predict a world 200+ years in the future.
If he intended the words as you say he did--and we will never know, regardless of what people try to infer today--then he was indeed wrong for today's world. This is not the agrarian world of the 1700s, it is not the world of the Minutemen and the Whiskey Rebellion.
Madison's comprehension of what a firearm was is a bit different from what we have around us today. You and the others that are so afraid of any restrictions have conveniently forgotten that there HAS been interpretation/modernization of the phrase ""the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Even JD admits it no longer really means ANY arms. It doesn't include missiles, rockets, and nukes. But to literally be blind to what the 2nd amendment says you should be arguing in favor of personal nukes as well. You accept SOME changed meaning over time, but you refuse to consider other changes to be even debatable. Your argument is logically flawed. Originally Posted by Old-T
The left is employing "incrementalism" out of this tragedy and the media is cooperating. Just keep broaching repealing the second amendment enough times and count on people to stop fighting it and others to blindly accept it.Within the next four years, the odds are very good that Obama will be able to get a five to four radical leftist majority on the Supreme Court. When that happens, the second amendment will be effectively overturned. It will have about as teeth as the tenth amendment.
Just like the "war on women" this last national election. It was simply "abortion on demand" hiding behind the skirts of women who had really been raped or victimized by their male relatives. Originally Posted by gnadfly
The eighteenth amendment outlawed alcohol. The twenty first amendment overturned the eighteenth amendment. The Constitution was designed to be amended when the people decide it's wrong.I agree with you that amending/modifying the 2nd amendment is the correct thing to do. I do not believe repealing it is the right thing to do.
Why isn't the left agressively trying to repeal the second amendment instead of engaging in pretzel logic to try and twist it's clear meaning into something that was never intended.
When we decided the eighteenth amendment was a mistake, we didn't try to finess the problem by saying surely it wasn't intended to include beer and wine; obviously it only applies to whisky. Originally Posted by joe bloe
Within the next four years, the odds are very good that Obama will be able to get a five to four radical leftist majority on the Supreme Court. When that happens, the second amendment will be effectively overturned. It will have about as teeth as the tenth amendment. Originally Posted by joe bloeI suspect you consider almost anyone left of your views to be "radical leftist". That kind of mindset--and the left is just as guilty in seeing anyone right of themselves as "radical conservatives--that has gotten us where we are politically. They is damn little room for negotiation and reaching common ground any more, even on minor things.
I agree with you that amending/modifying the 2nd amendment is the correct thing to do. I do not believe repealing it is the right thing to do.I have no desire to modify my political views in order to conform with the majority that don't believe in a constitutional republic. I'd rather hold a minority view and be right, than conform with the views of the great unwashed, and be wrong. There was a time when 80% of the people thought the Earth was flat.
I suspect you consider almost anyone left of your views to be "radical leftist". That kind of mindset--and the left is just as guilty in seeing anyone right of themselves as "radical conservatives--that has gotten us where we are politically. They is damn little room for negotiation and reaching common ground any more, even on minor things.
You and many on here refuse to acknowledge that probably 80% of Americans are left of your views, including many who would classify themselves as conservatives or republicans. In the same way the vocal liberals look at the 80% or so of Americans standing to their right as all "conservatives". This board for the most part does not represent the cross section of Americans as I see and hear them in the real world. Originally Posted by Old-T
The eighteenth amendment outlawed alcohol. The twenty first amendment overturned the eighteenth amendment. The Constitution was designed to be amended when the people decide it's wrong.I would opine that the bullet biters are using pretzel logic to justify making WMDs available to every Tom, Dick and Bubba in the country.
Why isn't the left agressively trying to repeal the second amendment instead of engaging in pretzel logic to try and twist it's clear meaning into something that was never intended.
When we decided the eighteenth amendment was a mistake, we didn't try to finess the problem by saying surely it wasn't intended to include beer and wine; obviously it only applies to whisky. Originally Posted by joe bloe
I have no desire to modify my political views in order to conform with the majority that don't believe in a constitutional republic. I'd rather hold a minority view and be right, than conform with the views of the great unwashed, and be wrong. There was a time when 80% of the people thought the Earth was flat. Originally Posted by joe bloeI'm sorry, but that is a stupid coment.