quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

We all know there are some things we are going to disagree on.

There are some things we can agree on up to a point.

However, in trying to find common ground, we sort of need to know where to start, so in an effort to find that common ground....

Some of the choices will require some explanation on your part explaining what you mean when you agree to it, and I am even including some things I do not agree with at all.

And due to board limits, please fill free to add something.

No.

I'm simply no longer interested in finding common ground.

That request has been a ploy used by the left for decades, who then proceed to use emotionally comforting but specious arguments to slowly destroy every facet of a moral society.

The lines have been drawn, although many do not yet recognize it.

They will.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
I guess that is dependent on your personal definition of a 'moral society'.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that it's just a lot of subjective rules that he wants everyone to live by.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

LOL! Welcome back, Firm. I hope you and the Missus are well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
I guess that is dependent on your personal definition of a 'moral society'.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that it's just a lot of subjective rules that he wants everyone to live by.

I dunno ... I consider adherence to the rule of law a pretty strong part of the morality that has been trashed pretty strongly by leftists over the years, in particularly over the last 8 years.

Of course, that's just my morality talking. Leftists' morality pretty much seems to be that anything that advances their cause is moral, and if the law gets in the way, then the law is pretty much toast.

Of course, if a non-leftist breaks or bends a law, then all hell breaks lose,

This is called "good politics" on the part of lefties.

I call it hypocrisy and a loss of social morality that will lead to violence and the destruction of civil society.

Which is kinda my point. I no longer have much interest in thinking there is any rational, moral or legal reason to believe that there can be a joining of efforts for our "joint" political benefit. In the short-term, it might appear to be so, but in the long run, the only place it will lead to is the enslavement of the majority of the American people.

So, engaging in point-to-point legal arguments in the hope of convincing the left - long term - in anything a non-lefty believes is a not only a waste of energy, but a trap to allow them to marshal their extra-legal and morally indefensible efforts to destroy the very thing that makes a civil - and moral - society possible.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Yeah, rightist nutsuckers are constantly violating any rule of law, that would be what you are thinking of perhaps, like the refusal to advise and consent SCOTUS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Perhaps you can give us a chapter and verse with credible citations of some rule of law violations in the last 8 years?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I dunno ... I consider adherence to the rule of law a pretty strong part of the morality that has been trashed pretty strongly by leftists over the years, in particularly over the last 8 years.

Of course, that's just my morality talking. Leftists' morality pretty much seems to be that anything that advances their cause is moral, and if the law gets in the way, then the law is pretty much toast.

Of course, if a non-leftist breaks or bends a law, then all hell breaks lose,

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
This is called "good politics" on the part of lefties.

I call it hypocrisy and a loss of social morality that will lead to violence and the destruction of civil society.

Which is kinda my point. I no longer have much interest in thinking there is any rational, moral or legal reason to believe that there can be a joining of efforts for our "joint" political benefit. In the short-term, it might appear to be so, but in the long run, the only place it will lead to is the enslavement of the majority of the American people.

So, engaging in point-to-point legal arguments in the hope of convincing the left - long term - in anything a non-lefty believes is a not only a waste of energy, but a trap to allow them to marshal their extra-legal and morally indefensible efforts to destroy the very thing that makes a civil - and moral - society possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Yeah, rightist nutsuckers are constantly violating any rule of law, that would be what you are thinking of perhaps, like the refusal to advise and consent SCOTUS.

Strawman. Par for course from the left, though. If ya didn't have strawmen, you wouldn't have any valid points. [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Perhaps you can give us a chapter and verse with credible citations of some rule of law violations in the last 8 years?

Why should I do that? Just by reading some of the forum headlines, it appears that others are doing quite well.

If you were willing (able?) to use critical thinking skills, and get out of your ideological mindset, you'd find plenty of information to support my point. But you won't, which IS my point, and I really no longer care all that much, as it's pretty much a waste of effort.

Now, come on back with the standard ad hominem "nutsacker" insults you are so famous for. That'll SHOW me up and endear you to the "can't we all just get along" crowd! Not. [8|]

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

You just said that you consider adherence to the law a strong part of morality... so are you upset when a non-leftist breaks the law?

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
How do you explain the total lack of right-wing anger over Trump's Russia ties?

Oh wait, let me guess... he didn't do anything, it's all a plot against Trump.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
I think it's more likely that you just don't understand them and haven't actually made an attempt either. In fact, I would be willing to bet that you went straight from not really listening to giving up completely after not giving them a chance and not even making the barest minimum of effort to ask yourself if you even have prejudices.

You post the same straw men we see from all the other right-wingers on here and pretend that you're simply tired of being the most diplomatic, charitable, rational being in the world. It's absurd.

If you want to declare the left an enemy, at the very least stop lying to yourself about why.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

You just said that you consider adherence to the law a strong part of morality... so are you upset when a non-leftist breaks the law?

Not really, not any more, when used against leftists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
How do you explain the total lack of right-wing anger over Trump's Russia ties?

Oh wait, let me guess... he didn't do anything, it's all a plot against Trump.

Other than the stench of partisan politics, what proof do you and your cohorts have of some type of collusion?

Nada, my friend. Absolute nada.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
I think it's more likely that you just don't understand them and haven't actually made an attempt either. In fact, I would be willing to bet that you went straight from not really listening to giving up completely after not giving them a chance and not even making the barest minimum of effort to ask yourself if you even have prejudices.

You post the same straw men we see from all the other right-wingers on here and pretend that you're simply tired of being the most diplomatic, charitable, rational being in the world. It's absurd.

If you want to declare the left an enemy, at the very least stop lying to yourself about why.

Ah, padawan, you know me not.

You might consider doing at least the de minimis bit of research, before making such accusations. [:-]

Also, you might research the process and meanings of "rad·i·cal·i·za·tion", to see what you and your friends' tactics do to the great majority of "non-leftists".

Consider me an American Radical.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

Your entire post shows that you are guilty of absolutely everything that makes you so mad about the other side. It's actually quite remarkable. I didn't even need to know that much about you in order to call it-- I've seen it all before and it's not special, unique or new. I knew who you were just from a single post, and now I feel even more confident about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

Is the reason you don't get upset with a 'non-leftist' breaks the law because when a 'non-leftist' breaks the law, they probably didn't actually break the law? Do you think this is also what the leftists think when you concoct some narrative about Obama breaking the law? Or wait... you're saying that 'leftists did it first, so all bets are off'? So I guess you should stop pretending you care about the law, and just admit you've embraced blind, irrational hatred. Maybe you've already admitted this... which means that your input is pretty much meaningless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

Will you change your mind on Trump if the FBI comes out with mountains of evidence that Trump is actually being blackmailed by Russian spies? I don't think so-- you will assume it's a plot by the Democrats to undermine the president's authority. You will look at all of the laws that the leftists have broken to get to that point and assume it's all lies, and then you will attack them as barbaric, power-hungry, etc. etc. etc. And you won't stop to consider that maybe this is exactly how the other side sees your side, because you're too caught up in blind hatred.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

And you're seriously blaming me for making you the way you are? You don't think that you have any say in that at all? What kind of weakling lets other people-- ESPECIALLY those he claims to despise-- define him like that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

A little tip: you're not going to convince anyone that you were ever the diplomat you say you were if every time you post you feel the need to declare everyone on the left your enemy. It just makes you look totally self-unaware.

quote:

I dunno ... I consider adherence to the rule of law a pretty strong part of the morality that has been trashed pretty strongly by leftists over the years, in particularly over the last 8 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:



In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State,

The Opinion in Miller was published in 1939.

Aymette v. State (2001)informs us:

And, “Militia,” just like “well-regulated Militia,” likewise was understood to be composed of the people generally possessed of arms which they knew how to use, rather than to refer to some formal military group separate and distinct from the people at large. [SNIP] But this enables the government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use.

The Court in Heller affirmed Miller and Miller was clarified by Aymette.

In the Heller Opinion the Court said that all Rights are not unlimited. No one has the right to carry whatever weapon at whatever time. A citizen has the right to self defense but not to dangerous and unusual weapons. That says to me that although land mines are military weapons no one is permitted to use them for defense around the perimeter of his home.

Heller interpreted Miller to mean that the weapons protected were those in common use by the militia. Aymette defines the militia as all able citizens of a certain age. The Militia is not separate and apart from the people. That's where in my opinion your point stumbles.

Btw, Miller was indicted and convicted in Federal District Court for interstate transport of the shot gun. Despite the Court's observation about the gun the decision of the lower court was overturned. Part of the National Firearms Act was found to be unconstitutional per the Second Amendment.

quote:

As for the militia being useless, modern military history is ripe with examples of under equipped, barely organized fighting forces defeating much better equipped military occupation.

Vietnam, Afghanistan in the 80's, the US Involvement in Iraq AND Afghanistan (there is no stretch of the term 'pacified' that comes close to the Modern military forces involved putting a stop to the guerilla and insurgent activities.)

In point of fact, a number of fire bases in Afghanistan were closed as being untenable.

As in Vietnam, US forces barely had total control of the cities, outside the urban areas it was Indian country.

Actually, the Mujaheddin were well equipped by the U.S. in the 1980s and the Vietnamese Army was well equipped by China or Russia, or both. The reasons why the U.S. Military failed in the Vietnam countryside was (1) the Vietminh were fighting a political war beyond the comprehension of the Johnson and Nixon Administrations, so had the peasantry with them, and (2) the South's forces only pretended to fight.

The militia is an anachronism and useless. We are well protected by the National Guard against an insurrection and we are well protected against nation-state invasion by our advanced warning systems and by our regular military forces, although I grant you we would be much better protected if we were not wasting man power, equipment, and munitions in foolish endeavors overseas. Additionally, in the event of a real (stupid) act of aggression we have a nuclear arsenal standing bye. And speaking of nuclear, in the age of multi-headed missiles you can wave your AR-16 or your musket at the sky vigorously, but it will be useless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

One thing that is notable about this discussion about the second amendment and the constitutionally protected right to form a militia in the backwoods somewhere, is that between 2009 and last year, many such discussions on here extended the debate about the second amendment into an insistence that it's essential in the event of a dictator seizing control of the 'States as it will facilitate overthrowing them if there's militias all over the place.
I wonder why some of the more right leaning anti gun control evangelists in here have shut up about their constitutionally protected right to stage a terroristparamilitary coup in order to depose an unwanted President since November?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
double Irony - Because the capacity of War have expanded well outside what the original founding fathers could of ever expected - Technically the 2nd Amendment should protect us so that Private Citizens could Purchase and maintain Infantry Based Anti-Tank and Anti-Air weaponry such as the RPG-7 and Stinger Missiles to protect us from Tanks, Armored Cars, Jet Aircraft, Helicopters, and Combat Drones which are now prominent threats on any given battlefield.

Which ably demonstrates why your mis-interpretation of the second amendment is wrong.


The second amendment nutcases are comprehensively full of shit. You want a gun because it makes you feel powerful. End of story. You're weak and you think a gun makes you stronger.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

We all know there are some things we are going to disagree on.

There are some things we can agree on up to a point.

However, in trying to find common ground, we sort of need to know where to start, so in an effort to find that common ground....

Some of the choices will require some explanation on your part explaining what you mean when you agree to it, and I am even including some things I do not agree with at all.

And due to board limits, please fill free to add something.

No.

I'm simply no longer interested in finding common ground.

That request has been a ploy used by the left for decades, who then proceed to use emotionally comforting but specious arguments to slowly destroy every facet of a moral society.

The lines have been drawn, although many do not yet recognize it.

They will.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

The Great Reckoning is coming, for us or them. I vote them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I dunno ... I consider adherence to the rule of law a pretty strong part of the morality that has been trashed pretty strongly by leftists over the years, in particularly over the last 8 years.

Firm, happy to know you are well.

You will notice some changes here. The Mods seem to have fallen off a cliff and you will find the exchanges have grown less civil. Welcome to ad-hom.cum [:D]

Let's talk about the Rule of Law. Two points that I put to you:

1. Since the first English colonies in Virginia and the Carolinas the Laws were written and have been written to protect land owners and the wealthy to the detriment of the poor and powerless. There is a lot of history to support this from the early indentured servants - the poor and beggars gathered up from London's streets to African slaves to Black Codes to Jim Crow Laws to housing mortgage red lining to the disparity in prosecution between powdered cocaine and crack cocaine possession. The Laws have been and often are biased to favor the rich. Let me include college student draft exemption during the Vietnam era.

2. The Laws are often misapplied in practice. We have the highest rate of incarceration per population in the world. We are either the most lawless people in the world or we suffer the greatest amount of injustice.

Furthermore, the Innocence Project has freed 343 wrongly convicted people (according to DNA testing) 20 of whom were on death row.

So, if the Law is the application of our national morality, it tells me that that morality is weak and wanting.

Looking to your reply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

One thing that is notable about this discussion about the second amendment and the constitutionally protected right to form a militia in the backwoods somewhere, is that between 2009 and last year, many such discussions on here extended the debate about the second amendment into an insistence that it's essential in the event of a dictator seizing control of the 'States as it will facilitate overthrowing them if there's militias all over the place.
I wonder why some of the more right leaning anti gun control evangelists in here have shut up about their constitutionally protected right to stage a terroristparamilitary coup in order to depose an unwanted President since November?

Actually most talk about an armed right wing coup came from the left, but now that you want an armed left wing coup you don't want to ridicule it ay more.

quote:

To the point of my earlier comments ... the left has seriously weakened the rule of law. To the point that serious law abiding members of society have a growing conviction that the rule of law will not protect us, and therefore we must take positive steps to protect ourselves from those who no longer honor the law.