crickets...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

"The federal military is still composed of the sons and daughters of the people at large. Who do you think the military would side with? So, at this time I don't hold to, as you put it, "the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population."

Thanks for making my point, a militia isn't ever going to be required, because we have a military comprised of people just like you and I regardless of our differences in opinions. So if the shooter had no AR weapon, and the good Samaritan had none either, how many people would likely be saved?

Did you notice the qualifiers "still" and "at this time" in the passage by me that you quoted. The 2A is a preventative, so that the people might have some recourse when the "if"s in the unquoted previous passage above your quoted one might happen: "If the people no longer take their constitutional rights as inherent and to be protected by the methods that the Constitution affords them, and if the federal military no longer is willing to protect and defend the actual Constitution they swore to protect and defend, and if the people and their militaries believe in the supreme power of the federal government and swear allegiance to it, rather than to the Constitution, then your trust in the federal government better be justified."

If enough citizens and military personnel remain who have not become part of those ifs, the 2A can provide some recourse if there is the will and desire to "fight the power."

And if there is not enough will and desire, then, as I said, "your trust in the federal government better be justified." History does not justify such a trust. But we are conditioned to be blind to history, especially if we are not conscious of the signs or trends which should cause us to be wary.

Those signs and trends are so in our face, it is amazing that so many of us don't see them. You call that view a tin foil hat. I call it head in the sand.

It would still be easy to make a course direction by political rather than military means. That is my desire. And no, in spite of the 2A recourse the Constitution gives us, I also see the signs and trends that the Progressive model has been so implanted in the American psyche that recourse to the 2A would probably be a futile bloody mess if there were even enough of those who would rebel.

That's why I so want a thorough discussion on Constitutionalism vs. Progressivism. But, contrary to the notion that there is no "reasonable" discussion re guns, the actual discussion that is avoided is the constitutional one.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That's why I so want a thorough discussion on Constitutionalism vs. Progressivism. But, contrary to the notion that there is no "reasonable" discussion re guns, the actual discussion that is avoided is the constitutional one.

still waiting from way back on page 1 for specifics on what should be done....despite claims of not wanting to ban guns entirely that is logical conclusion, is it not? .... claims of only wanting to limit the deaths and injuries through some "common sense laws" only last till the next incident, then what ???? pat yourself on the back for saving lives that may otherwise have been lost if bump stocks or high capacity magazines were used...... and what do you blame then ? what is your next "common sense law" when these incidents occur after enacting common sense law?... if you read the comments associated with the stories of this tragedy you see that there are a LOT of Americans that believe no one should own a gun....

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That's why I so want a thorough discussion on Constitutionalism vs. Progressivism. But, contrary to the notion that there is no "reasonable" discussion re guns, the actual discussion that is avoided is the constitutional one.

It demonstrates that Progressives / Liberals are so invested in their agenda they can not allow themselves to engage in reasoned discussion.

They have their demands flowing from positions grounded only in emotional constructs. That's why they react with either anger or hateful derision when simply challenged on a legal / constitutional basis. Such a challenge is processed as an attack of their feelings and as such can not be rebutted with reason and facts.

Heartstrings and virtue signalling are completely immune to Supreme Court citation.

As the old debate maxim says, you can't reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

It demonstrates that Progressives / Liberals are so invested in their agenda they can not allow themselves to engage in reasoned discussion.

They have their demands flowing from positions grounded only in emotional constructs. That's why they react with either anger or hateful derision when simply challenged on a legal / constitutional basis. Such a challenge is processed as an attack of their feelings and as such can not be rebutted with reason and facts.

Heartstrings and virtue signalling are completely immune to Supreme Court citation.

As the old debate maxim says, you can't reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

Talk about living in a bubble ...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Talk about living in a bubble ...

some great stuff in there....you should read it twice

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

some great stuff in there....you should read it twice

I did .... just changed it


ReelinRod is so invested in his agenda he can not allow himself to engage in reasoned discussion. AKA bubble

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I did .... just changed it


ReelinRod is so invested in his agenda he can not allow himself to engage in reasoned discussion. AKA bubble

I assume that ReelinRod is invested in more than one agenda. Some may be more important to him than others. You know . . . like getting and eating the right foods (whatever he considers right), maintaining his home and autos, taking care of his family. His agenda in this thread seems to be defending the Constitution. You know . . . the thing you swore to protect and defend.

I'm sure you have some important agendas. Would defending them be considered by you to be in a bubble?

ReelinRod has certainly engaged the discussion here with informed reason in response (in discussion) to other posts (discussions). His discussion is actually what can rhetorically be called "argument." Your response in this post is not argument. It is simply ad hominem abuse. A sort of name-calling slander. A sort of dirty politics.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

ReelinRod is so invested in his agenda he can not allow himself to engage in reasoned discussion. AKA bubble

Reasoned Discussion

Originally Posted by wdmso

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...8&postcount=95Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Did you notice the qualifiers "still" and "at this time" in the passage by me that you quoted. The 2A is a preventative, so that the people might have some recourse when the "if"s in the unquoted previous passage above your quoted one might happen: "If the people no longer take their constitutional rights as inherent and to be protected by the methods that the Constitution affords them, and if the federal military no longer is willing to protect and defend the actual Constitution they swore to protect and defend, and if the people and their militaries believe in the supreme power of the federal government and swear allegiance to it, rather than to the Constitution, then your trust in the federal government better be justified."

If enough citizens and military personnel remain who have not become part of those ifs, the 2A can provide some recourse if there is the will and desire to "fight the power."

And if there is not enough will and desire, then, as I said, "your trust in the federal government better be justified." History does not justify such a trust. But we are conditioned to be blind to history, especially if we are not conscious of the signs or trends which should cause us to be wary.

Those signs and trends are so in our face, it is amazing that so many of us don't see them. You call that view a tin foil hat. I call it head in the sand.

It would still be easy to make a course direction by political rather than military means. That is my desire. And no, in spite of the 2A recourse the Constitution gives us, I also see the signs and trends that the Progressive model has been so implanted in the American psyche that recourse to the 2A would probably be a futile bloody mess if there were even enough of those who would rebel.

That's why I so want a thorough discussion on Constitutionalism vs. Progressivism. But, contrary to the notion that there is no "reasonable" discussion re guns, the actual discussion that is avoided is the constitutional one.

So many if's and and's in your immaginary government/military coo to happen, that foil hat is really messing with you.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So many if's and and's in your immaginary government/military coo to happen, that foil hat is really messing with you.

The 2A is contingency driven. If's are contingencies. Most laws suppose an "if." Everything you do involves an "if." Life depends on "so many" ifs.

"And" merely connects a few "ifs."

If you think there are too many "ifs," regardless of what material your hat is made of, it is a dunce.