Obamacare just ruined my life

[Dot Com]

Yep. The2ndAmendment needs to read Heller

 

[daws101]

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." -
-- Winston Churchill

 

[Foxfyre]

No thanks, I don't believe in insurrection.

The Federal Government itself is an insurrection, it is our Duty to Restore the Rule of Law.

The Second Amendment exists for when the government revolts against the Republic.

wrong; The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[1]

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[2] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[3][4]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[4] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme court handed down a landmark decision that held expressly that the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[5][6] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions limiting the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government and expressly found that it limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[7]

The problem comes, in the case of ANY vaguely defined points in the Constitution or in any legislation, including Obamacare, as to whether we allow the courts, even the Supreme Court, to be God--to be the all knowing or all authoritative last word--or whethe we the people retain the power and direct the government to do our will. Too many people can cite case law, but cannot argue a principle for or against it. And that is tragic.

But in years past, we had national leaders who did not look to the courts as God, and did not fit their arguments to fit a political party ideology:

Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659:

. . . .I, for one, have been persuaded that the term "militia" did not have the limited reference that Professor Cress and many modern legal analysts assign to it. There is strong evidence that "militia" refers to all of the people, or least all of those treated as full citizens of the community. . . .

. . . .Cress persuasively shows that no one defended universal possession of arms. New Hampshire had no objection to disarming those who "are or have been in actual rebellion," just as Samuel Adams stressed that only "peaceable citizens" should be protected in their right of "keeping their own arms." 58 All these points can be conceded, however, without conceding as well that Congress — or, for that matter, the States, — had the power to disarm these "peaceable citizens."

Surely one of the foundations of American political thought of the period was the well-justified concern about political corruption and consequent governmental tyranny. Even the Federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of foisting an oppressive new scheme upon the American people, were careful to acknowledge the risk of tyranny. James Madison, for example, speaks in Federalist Number Forty- Six of "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." 59 The advantage in question was not merely the defense of American borders; a standing army might well accomplish that. Rather, an armed public was advantageous in protecting political liberty. It is therefore no surprise that the Federal Farmer, the nom de plume of an anti-federalist critic of the new Constitution and its absence of a Bill of Rights, could write that "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses s arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." 60 On this matter, at least, there was no cleavage between the pro-ratification Madison and his opponent. . . .
The Embarrassing Second Amendment

Now if we can have a reasonable debate over who is authorized to bear arms via the 2nd Amendment vs reasoned regulation of those same arms, why is it so difficult to have a reasonable debate over what authority the government should be allowed re our healthcare?

 

[Snookie]

The Federal Government itself is an insurrection, it is our Duty to Restore the Rule of Law.

The Second Amendment exists for when the government revolts against the Republic.

wrong; The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[1]

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[2] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[3][4]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[4] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme court handed down a landmark decision that held expressly that the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[5][6] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions limiting the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government and expressly found that it limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[7]

The problem comes, in the case of ANY vaguely defined points in the Constitution or in any legislation, including Obamacare, as to whether we allow the courts, even the Supreme Court, to be God--to be the all knowing or all authoritative last word--or whethe we the people retain the power and direct the government to do our will. Too many people can cite case law, but cannot argue a principle for or against it. And that is tragic.

But in years past, we had national leaders who did not look to the courts as God, and did not fit their arguments to fit a political party ideology:

Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659:

. . . .I, for one, have been persuaded that the term "militia" did not have the limited reference that Professor Cress and many modern legal analysts assign to it. There is strong evidence that "militia" refers to all of the people, or least all of those treated as full citizens of the community. . . .

. . . .Cress persuasively shows that no one defended universal possession of arms. New Hampshire had no objection to disarming those who "are or have been in actual rebellion," just as Samuel Adams stressed that only "peaceable citizens" should be protected in their right of "keeping their own arms." 58 All these points can be conceded, however, without conceding as well that Congress — or, for that matter, the States, — had the power to disarm these "peaceable citizens."

Surely one of the foundations of American political thought of the period was the well-justified concern about political corruption and consequent governmental tyranny. Even the Federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of foisting an oppressive new scheme upon the American people, were careful to acknowledge the risk of tyranny. James Madison, for example, speaks in Federalist Number Forty- Six of "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." 59 The advantage in question was not merely the defense of American borders; a standing army might well accomplish that. Rather, an armed public was advantageous in protecting political liberty. It is therefore no surprise that the Federal Farmer, the nom de plume of an anti-federalist critic of the new Constitution and its absence of a Bill of Rights, could write that "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses s arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." 60 On this matter, at least, there was no cleavage between the pro-ratification Madison and his opponent. . . .
The Embarrassing Second Amendment

Now if we can have a reasonable debate over who is authorized to bear arms via the 2nd Amendment vs reasoned regulation of those same arms, why is it so difficult to have a reasonable debate over what authority the government should be allowed re our healthcare?

I have never seen a reasonable debate about the right to bear arms. The NRA and the powerful gun lobby sees to that, regretfully.

 

[RKMBrown]

wrong; The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[1]

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[2] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[3][4]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[4] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme court handed down a landmark decision that held expressly that the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[5][6] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions limiting the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government and expressly found that it limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[7]

The problem comes, in the case of ANY vaguely defined points in the Constitution or in any legislation, including Obamacare, as to whether we allow the courts, even the Supreme Court, to be God--to be the all knowing or all authoritative last word--or whethe we the people retain the power and direct the government to do our will. Too many people can cite case law, but cannot argue a principle for or against it. And that is tragic.

But in years past, we had national leaders who did not look to the courts as God, and did not fit their arguments to fit a political party ideology:

Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659:

. . . .I, for one, have been persuaded that the term "militia" did not have the limited reference that Professor Cress and many modern legal analysts assign to it. There is strong evidence that "militia" refers to all of the people, or least all of those treated as full citizens of the community. . . .

. . . .Cress persuasively shows that no one defended universal possession of arms. New Hampshire had no objection to disarming those who "are or have been in actual rebellion," just as Samuel Adams stressed that only "peaceable citizens" should be protected in their right of "keeping their own arms." 58 All these points can be conceded, however, without conceding as well that Congress — or, for that matter, the States, — had the power to disarm these "peaceable citizens."

Surely one of the foundations of American political thought of the period was the well-justified concern about political corruption and consequent governmental tyranny. Even the Federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of foisting an oppressive new scheme upon the American people, were careful to acknowledge the risk of tyranny. James Madison, for example, speaks in Federalist Number Forty- Six of "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." 59 The advantage in question was not merely the defense of American borders; a standing army might well accomplish that. Rather, an armed public was advantageous in protecting political liberty. It is therefore no surprise that the Federal Farmer, the nom de plume of an anti-federalist critic of the new Constitution and its absence of a Bill of Rights, could write that "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses s arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." 60 On this matter, at least, there was no cleavage between the pro-ratification Madison and his opponent. . . .
The Embarrassing Second Amendment

Now if we can have a reasonable debate over who is authorized to bear arms via the 2nd Amendment vs reasoned regulation of those same arms, why is it so difficult to have a reasonable debate over what authority the government should be allowed re our healthcare?

I have never seen a reasonable debate about the right to bear arms. The NRA and the powerful gun lobby sees to that, regretfully.

That's because authoritarians only view, as reasonable, arguments where the result is every second of every life (other than their own and their friends of course) is micro managed by their chosen authority of reference.

 

[Foxfyre]

wrong; The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[1]

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[2] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[3][4]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[4] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme court handed down a landmark decision that held expressly that the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[5][6] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions limiting the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government and expressly found that it limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[7]

The problem comes, in the case of ANY vaguely defined points in the Constitution or in any legislation, including Obamacare, as to whether we allow the courts, even the Supreme Court, to be God--to be the all knowing or all authoritative last word--or whethe we the people retain the power and direct the government to do our will. Too many people can cite case law, but cannot argue a principle for or against it. And that is tragic.

But in years past, we had national leaders who did not look to the courts as God, and did not fit their arguments to fit a political party ideology:

Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659:

. . . .I, for one, have been persuaded that the term "militia" did not have the limited reference that Professor Cress and many modern legal analysts assign to it. There is strong evidence that "militia" refers to all of the people, or least all of those treated as full citizens of the community. . . .

. . . .Cress persuasively shows that no one defended universal possession of arms. New Hampshire had no objection to disarming those who "are or have been in actual rebellion," just as Samuel Adams stressed that only "peaceable citizens" should be protected in their right of "keeping their own arms." 58 All these points can be conceded, however, without conceding as well that Congress — or, for that matter, the States, — had the power to disarm these "peaceable citizens."

Surely one of the foundations of American political thought of the period was the well-justified concern about political corruption and consequent governmental tyranny. Even the Federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of foisting an oppressive new scheme upon the American people, were careful to acknowledge the risk of tyranny. James Madison, for example, speaks in Federalist Number Forty- Six of "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." 59 The advantage in question was not merely the defense of American borders; a standing army might well accomplish that. Rather, an armed public was advantageous in protecting political liberty. It is therefore no surprise that the Federal Farmer, the nom de plume of an anti-federalist critic of the new Constitution and its absence of a Bill of Rights, could write that "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses s arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." 60 On this matter, at least, there was no cleavage between the pro-ratification Madison and his opponent. . . .
The Embarrassing Second Amendment

Now if we can have a reasonable debate over who is authorized to bear arms via the 2nd Amendment vs reasoned regulation of those same arms, why is it so difficult to have a reasonable debate over what authority the government should be allowed re our healthcare?

I have never seen a reasonable debate about the right to bear arms. The NRA and the powerful gun lobby sees to that, regretfully.

Thanks for illustrating the problem. You make no effort to discuss or address the concept but launch into an immediate implied condemnation of the NRA and 'powerful gun lobby'. It isn't their fault there is no discussion. It is the fault of those who choose to demonize THEM rather than engage them in a reasoned argument.

RKM is just as bad, however, taking your bait with an adhominem attack on authoritarianism, and also not addressing the concept.

I still think it must be something in the water you guys drink.

 

[daws101]

The problem comes, in the case of ANY vaguely defined points in the Constitution or in any legislation, including Obamacare, as to whether we allow the courts, even the Supreme Court, to be God--to be the all knowing or all authoritative last word--or whethe we the people retain the power and direct the government to do our will. Too many people can cite case law, but cannot argue a principle for or against it. And that is tragic.

But in years past, we had national leaders who did not look to the courts as God, and did not fit their arguments to fit a political party ideology:

Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659:



Now if we can have a reasonable debate over who is authorized to bear arms via the 2nd Amendment vs reasoned regulation of those same arms, why is it so difficult to have a reasonable debate over what authority the government should be allowed re our healthcare?

I have never seen a reasonable debate about the right to bear arms. The NRA and the powerful gun lobby sees to that, regretfully.

That's because authoritarians only view, as reasonable, arguments where the result is every second of every life (other than their own and their friends of course) is micro managed by their chosen authority of reference.

do you speak any other language besides extreme right propaganda.?

 

[RKMBrown]

The problem comes, in the case of ANY vaguely defined points in the Constitution or in any legislation, including Obamacare, as to whether we allow the courts, even the Supreme Court, to be God--to be the all knowing or all authoritative last word--or whethe we the people retain the power and direct the government to do our will. Too many people can cite case law, but cannot argue a principle for or against it. And that is tragic.

But in years past, we had national leaders who did not look to the courts as God, and did not fit their arguments to fit a political party ideology:

Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659:



Now if we can have a reasonable debate over who is authorized to bear arms via the 2nd Amendment vs reasoned regulation of those same arms, why is it so difficult to have a reasonable debate over what authority the government should be allowed re our healthcare?

I have never seen a reasonable debate about the right to bear arms. The NRA and the powerful gun lobby sees to that, regretfully.

Thanks for illustrating the problem. You make no effort to discuss or address the concept but launch into an immediate implied condemnation of the NRA and 'powerful gun lobby'. It isn't their fault there is no discussion. It is the fault of those who choose to demonize THEM rather than engage them in a reasoned argument.

RKM is just as bad, however, taking your bait with an adhominem attack on authoritarianism, and also not addressing the concept.

I still think it must be something in the water you guys drink.

Just to be clear about what you said here. If I agree with you, I have to state that fact, or in the absence of said high five, thanks, or I agree with everything you said, you will assume I am suffering from some poison in my water. This because I responded in the negative to the poster who attacked you. You asked for a reasoned debate. The poster explained, and demonstrated by debate is useless with entrenched combatants.

When you are talking about guns. You will get wildly different and entrenched views.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have never seen a reasonable debate about the right to bear arms. The NRA and the powerful gun lobby sees to that, regretfully.

Thanks for illustrating the problem. You make no effort to discuss or address the concept but launch into an immediate implied condemnation of the NRA and 'powerful gun lobby'. It isn't their fault there is no discussion. It is the fault of those who choose to demonize THEM rather than engage them in a reasoned argument.

RKM is just as bad, however, taking your bait with an adhominem attack on authoritarianism, and also not addressing the concept.

I still think it must be something in the water you guys drink.

Just to be clear about what you said here. If I agree with you, I have to state that fact, or in the absence of said high five, thanks, or I agree with everything you said, you will assume I am suffering from some poison in my water. This because I responded in the negative to the poster who attacked you. You asked for a reasoned debate. The poster explained, and demonstrated by debate is useless with entrenched combatants.

When you are talking about guns. You will get wildly different and entrenched views.

I don't mind widely different and entrenched views as that is what constitutes discussion and debate. I encourage that. I have the utmost respect for those who articulate a reasoned defense for their point of view whether or not I can agree with that defense. But demonizing something or somebody in lieu of a pro or con argument is not a reasoned defense.

What I refuse to accept as intelligent debate are the stupid statements like:
1. Republicans are racist
2. Democrats are racist.
3. Republicans are evil.
4. Democrats are evil.
5. Conservatives suck.
6. Liberals suck.

Or in lieu of addressing the subject we get comments like:

"I have never seen a reasonable debate about the right to bear arms. The NRA and the powerful gun lobby sees to that, regretfully."

and

"That's because authoritarians only view, as reasonable, arguments where the result is every second of every life (other than their own and their friends of course) is micro managed by their chosen authority of reference."

All such statements are part of programming to derail any discussion and promote a food fight/pissing match.

 

[Snookie]

The problem comes, in the case of ANY vaguely defined points in the Constitution or in any legislation, including Obamacare, as to whether we allow the courts, even the Supreme Court, to be God--to be the all knowing or all authoritative last word--or whethe we the people retain the power and direct the government to do our will. Too many people can cite case law, but cannot argue a principle for or against it. And that is tragic.

But in years past, we had national leaders who did not look to the courts as God, and did not fit their arguments to fit a political party ideology:

Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659:



Now if we can have a reasonable debate over who is authorized to bear arms via the 2nd Amendment vs reasoned regulation of those same arms, why is it so difficult to have a reasonable debate over what authority the government should be allowed re our healthcare?

I have never seen a reasonable debate about the right to bear arms. The NRA and the powerful gun lobby sees to that, regretfully.

That's because authoritarians only view, as reasonable, arguments where the result is every second of every life (other than their own and their friends of course) is micro managed by their chosen authority of reference.

You talking about God?

 

[Snookie]

The problem comes, in the case of ANY vaguely defined points in the Constitution or in any legislation, including Obamacare, as to whether we allow the courts, even the Supreme Court, to be God--to be the all knowing or all authoritative last word--or whethe we the people retain the power and direct the government to do our will. Too many people can cite case law, but cannot argue a principle for or against it. And that is tragic.

But in years past, we had national leaders who did not look to the courts as God, and did not fit their arguments to fit a political party ideology:

Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659:



Now if we can have a reasonable debate over who is authorized to bear arms via the 2nd Amendment vs reasoned regulation of those same arms, why is it so difficult to have a reasonable debate over what authority the government should be allowed re our healthcare?

I have never seen a reasonable debate about the right to bear arms. The NRA and the powerful gun lobby sees to that, regretfully.

Thanks for illustrating the problem. You make no effort to discuss or address the concept but launch into an immediate implied condemnation of the NRA and 'powerful gun lobby'. It isn't their fault there is no discussion. It is the fault of those who choose to demonize THEM rather than engage them in a reasoned argument.

RKM is just as bad, however, taking your bait with an adhominem attack on authoritarianism, and also not addressing the concept.

I still think it must be something in the water you guys drink.

You don't have to get sexist about it.

 

[RKMBrown]

I have never seen a reasonable debate about the right to bear arms. The NRA and the powerful gun lobby sees to that, regretfully.

That's because authoritarians only view, as reasonable, arguments where the result is every second of every life (other than their own and their friends of course) is micro managed by their chosen authority of reference.

do you speak any other language besides extreme right propaganda.?

There are just as many authoritarians in the right as there are in the left. My view on gun ownership is, I believe, a constitutional conservative view.

 

[RKMBrown]

I have never seen a reasonable debate about the right to bear arms. The NRA and the powerful gun lobby sees to that, regretfully.

That's because authoritarians only view, as reasonable, arguments where the result is every second of every life (other than their own and their friends of course) is micro managed by their chosen authority of reference.

You talking about God?

Does he speak to you about gun control?

 

[Snookie]

That's because authoritarians only view, as reasonable, arguments where the result is every second of every life (other than their own and their friends of course) is micro managed by their chosen authority of reference.

You talking about God?

Does he speak to you about gun control?

In the hallway at three am in the morning.

 

[RKMBrown]

Thanks for illustrating the problem. You make no effort to discuss or address the concept but launch into an immediate implied condemnation of the NRA and 'powerful gun lobby'. It isn't their fault there is no discussion. It is the fault of those who choose to demonize THEM rather than engage them in a reasoned argument.

RKM is just as bad, however, taking your bait with an adhominem attack on authoritarianism, and also not addressing the concept.

I still think it must be something in the water you guys drink.

Just to be clear about what you said here. If I agree with you, I have to state that fact, or in the absence of said high five, thanks, or I agree with everything you said, you will assume I am suffering from some poison in my water. This because I responded in the negative to the poster who attacked you. You asked for a reasoned debate. The poster explained, and demonstrated by debate is useless with entrenched combatants.

When you are talking about guns. You will get wildly different and entrenched views.

I don't mind widely different and entrenched views as that is what constitutes discussion and debate. I encourage that. I have the utmost respect for those who articulate a reasoned defense for their point of view whether or not I can agree with that defense. But demonizing something or somebody in lieu of a pro or con argument is not a reasoned defense.

What I refuse to accept as intelligent debate are the stupid statements like:
1. Republicans are racist
2. Democrats are racist.
3. Republicans are evil.
4. Democrats are evil.
5. Conservatives suck.
6. Liberals suck.

Or in lieu of addressing the subject we get comments like:

"I have never seen a reasonable debate about the right to bear arms. The NRA and the powerful gun lobby sees to that, regretfully."

and

"That's because authoritarians only view, as reasonable, arguments where the result is every second of every life (other than their own and their friends of course) is micro managed by their chosen authority of reference."

All such statements are part of programming to derail any discussion and promote a food fight/pissing match.

You appear to be more interested in starting and discussing pissing matches than a reasoned discussion. Instead of reading the arguments you are attacking the posters.

Let me translate the argument to help you get caught up.

He offered that there can be no reasoned discussion about gun "control" when the loud voices that oppose gun "control" crowd out the discussion. I countered with people who require gun "control" be the result of any argument on gun "control" will never agree to a result that includes a lack of "control" regarding guns.

He countered that he takes his control from god. Thus, indicating that he believes the basis for gun control is the bible.

 

[RKMBrown]

You talking about God?

Does he speak to you about gun control?

In the hallway at three am in the morning.

Ugg. Maybe you need a different type of gun control

 

[daws101]

That's because authoritarians only view, as reasonable, arguments where the result is every second of every life (other than their own and their friends of course) is micro managed by their chosen authority of reference.

do you speak any other language besides extreme right propaganda.?

There are just as many authoritarians in the right as there are in the left. My view on gun ownership is, I believe, a constitutional conservative view.

what the hell is a constitutional conservative?
most all people who claim that have either not read it or don't understand what they've read.

gun control is not in actuality a conservative VS liberal issue ,it has been manipulated by the nra and right wing extremists to appear that way.
the fact is just as many "liberals" own guns as do conservatives.

 

[eagle1462010]

I never thought I'd see the day when the Unions would tell the Dems to fix Obamacare or Repeal it.

The most rabid of defenders and supporters of the Dem Party are ticked off at the current results of the Law.

If that doesn't tell you that Obamacare is a BOVINE POS then nothing will.

What part of the law are unions upset at? Do you know?

Do you know that they are not upset at Obama..and that they blame the GOP for the problem?

They have not said anything about repealing it. Did you know that?

Do you know anything?

They have stated fix it or repeal it. I've shown those statements from the Unions already on threads, including this one I believe.

Their biggest beef has been people getting cut to 30 hours a week. Aka The Idiots who wrote the law had to know this would happen. It's so stupid that they must have done it on purpose for a later goal...................

Do I know anything....................LOL...............All you do is kiss Obama and the Dems butts all the time and just divert the data because it's bad for your mantra.

 

[eagle1462010]

“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
― Thomas Jefferson

“We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people.”
― Hilary Rodham Clinton

“The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”
― Lord Acton

“What manner of men had lived in those days...who had so eagerly surrendered their sovereignty for a lie and a delusion? Why had they been so anxious to believe that the government could solve problems for them which had been pridefully solved, many times over, by their fathers? Had their characters become so weak and debased, so craven and emasculated, that offers of government dole had become more important than their liberty and their humanity? Had they not know that power delegated to the government becomes the club of tyrants? They must have known. They had their own history to remember, and the history of five thousand years. Yet, they had willingly and knowingly, with all this knowledge, declared themselves unfit to manage their own affairs and had placed their lives, which belonged to God only, in the hands of sinister men who had long plotted to enslave them, by wars, by "directives," by "emergencies." In the name of the American people, the American people had been made captive.”
― Taylor Caldwell, Devils Advocate

 

[LoneLaugher]

I never thought I'd see the day when the Unions would tell the Dems to fix Obamacare or Repeal it.

The most rabid of defenders and supporters of the Dem Party are ticked off at the current results of the Law.

If that doesn't tell you that Obamacare is a BOVINE POS then nothing will.

What part of the law are unions upset at? Do you know?

Do you know that they are not upset at Obama..and that they blame the GOP for the problem?

They have not said anything about repealing it. Did you know that?

Do you know anything?

They have stated fix it or repeal it. I've shown those statements from the Unions already on threads, including this one I believe.

Their biggest beef has been people getting cut to 30 hours a week. Aka The Idiots who wrote the law had to know this would happen. It's so stupid that they must have done it on purpose for a later goal...................

Do I know anything....................LOL...............All you do is kiss Obama and the Dems butts all the time and just divert the data because it's bad for your mantra.

No. That is not their beef. You are incorrect. Please.....research what the unions are upset about and get back to us.