We can't compromise! We can't collaborate! We can't cooperate!

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's take rape as an example:

So you don't have a counter argument, then, about why common sense gun control would be a bad thing.

It just demonstrates that finding the middle ground is in no way preferable.

And thus knocks out your argument with no counter-argument needed.

I don't so much care about guns for other purposes than defending against government personally. Knowing that people have ARs has slowed down growth of the government in the USA. Without people being able to defend themselves tyranny can raise easily.

Leftists only care about the guns for the same reason. They want to take over the government and control defenseless people. Not going to happen...

Ridiculous nonsense.

Private citizens owning ARs – or AKs, or HK 91s, or SCAR 16s, or Bren 805s, for that matter – has in no manner ‘slowed down’ the growth of government; the notion is as delusional as it is wrong.

Just as ridiculous, delusional, and wrong is the lie that ‘the left’ wants to ‘take over government,’ whatever that’s supposed to mean – no one seeks to ‘take away’ anyone’s guns, no one seeks to leave anyone ‘defenseless.’

It comes as no surprise that most Trump supporters are truly this stupid.

 

[kaz]

I'm sure glad these guys didn't say what today's parties are saying.

"It's not about "Left vs. Right". It's about the WINGERS on BOTH ends vs. a MAJORITY of America. That's MY "side of the fence". ""

That was before 2015 and the descent on the escalator in His Majesty's palace on 5th Avenue. And the lies that followed, and the denial of those lie by the idiots who voted for him.

Trump does not evoke neutral feelings....from anyone. And he never did.

To leftists, a compromise is when you only get some of what you wanted and the other side gets nothing and all you do is bitch about what you wanted and didn't get

More mindless parroting of your MessiahRushie's lies.

Bull shit.

Accuse your opponents of what you are at present doing. Rush Limbaugh
You know, when you are a messiah, when you have a messianic attitude about yourself,
nobody's supposed to doubt you. Rush Limbaugh

Both of those are quotes where Rush said what you do and you presented it as if he's advocating that.

You're a liar, edthelemur

You left out the third quote that proves your MessiahRushie was doing what he accused Obama of doing. So I wasn't saying he "advocated" them I proved he was practicing them!!!
Stop playing dumb!

That's just stupid. The first two quotes are clearly what Rush said that Democrats do. The third is something you don't have, humor. Rush is setting the trap you fall into every time, baiting leftists. I agree with libertarians like Neil Boortz more, but Rush is the godfather of radio. No one can bait leftists like he can. And you fall for it every time

 

[kaz]

Let's take rape as an example:

So you don't have a counter argument, then, about why common sense gun control would be a bad thing.

Because you only take guns from honest citizens. Criminals don't follow your laws. I mean duh

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm sure glad these guys didn't say what today's parties are saying.
.

The core problem of all this is that we're using government, not to protect our rights, but to fight the "culture war". The folks above sought government that would stop bullies from forcing their will on society. But we've turned into a tool for the bullies, a means of forcing their will on society.

Sorry, no.

It was not the intent of the Framers that government would ‘protect rights’; it was their intent that our rights and civil liberties would be protected by the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law from government excess and overreach.

Indeed, the Founding Generation fully expected government to seek to regulate, restrict, and otherwise limit citizens’ rights and liberties through the political process, reflecting the will of the people; and when the people err and enact regulations, restrictions, and limits repugnant to the Constitution and its case law, the people are at liberty to seek relief through the judicial process and to have such measures invalidated consistent with the rule of law, regardless the will of the people.

The core problem of all this is that far too many people are ignorant of the above intent of our Constitutional Republic, have nothing but contempt for the rule of law, and have politicized our rights and protected liberties, subjecting our rights and protected liberties to the capricious ‘will of the people,’ thus jeopardizing the rights of the people through political conflict contrary to the will and wisdom of the Founding Generation.

We were given a Republic – and clearly we are incapable of keeping it.

 

[Mac1958]

A other example of a Mac argument where he just asserts things and does not give any kind of evidence, reasons or examples. This is how you can become so centered that even the center is not center enough.

It could be taken seriously if you took the care to actually furnish your arguments rather than just spouting your intuitions which are often very incorrect. And even if they do work for you, the case may not be the same for the rest of the Americans. Don't rely on anecdotes...

TLDR, WHY should the parties collaborate and cooperate? When someone comes to me and tells to me with a straight face that white males need to shut up and that there are 73 genders, the cooperation is over.

I don't need to provide evidence. I never have to name names. That's the fun of it.

As usual, I make a single, general point -- no personal attacks, no insults -- and wingers come running from far and wide to illustrate it for me. In this case, 12 calm words and one graphic, and the shit completely hits the fan.

Even better, most aren't even in real disagreement with the main point - the primary variable here is merely the direction in which the fingers are pointing. And yet, that has made a few people angry with the OP. For some reason.

You have a thread crammed with real-time evidence. Partisan talking points galore. Here it is. You're welcome.
.

"I don't need to provide evidence".

There you have it. But you do if your point is to be taken seriously.

Why should the sides co-operate? It isn't in their self interest. Right now the best shot democrats have at winning the election is painting a picture of evil republican white males to motivate the minorities to go to vote. No co-operation can take place in such arragnement.

Obviously the point has been taken quite seriously, given the amount and nature of the responses.

And after bringing that up, you immediately confirm my point for me. As I said, the primary variable is the direction of the pointing finger.

The two sides are terribly divided. No one seems to disagree. So I wonder about the reason for the complaints.
.

Most of the people I read are not taking your point seriously and pointing out that co-operation is no good.

But obviously they must be incorrect. I mean your picture says so!


And yes I am pointing fingers all over the place. Are you now going to campaign how that's bad too? At least have a pic before claiming such!

Yes, the partisans on both ends are saying they don't want to collaborate.

Collaboration worked for the Founding Fathers, it works for business, but not for today's partisans, no way. And it's all the other guy's fault.

That's the point, and it looks like we all agree. So there's no reason to bitch about a point on which we all agree.
.

 

[Mac1958]

His thread was destroyed and credibility damaged.

... with the wingers. Irrelevant. You're the problem.
A badge of honor. I do love it when you folks illustrate my point for me.

I won, you lost, lets move on.

You always say that when you lose

I do love wingers who keep an imaginary scoreboard in their heads to prop up their self esteem.

"I won, you lost, nannie nannie boo boo"


.

Its not my fault you started a retarded thread and several people had to correct you on US history.

It sure did strike a nerve and trigger you partisans, and had you flinging personal insults and name-calling right out of the gate.

But you won! You won! You're so clever! Good for you!


.

 

[kaz]

I'm sure glad these guys didn't say what today's parties are saying.
.

The core problem of all this is that we're using government, not to protect our rights, but to fight the "culture war". The folks above sought government that would stop bullies from forcing their will on society. But we've turned into a tool for the bullies, a means of forcing their will on society.

Sorry, no.

It was not the intent of the Framers that government would ‘protect rights’; it was their intent that our rights and civil liberties would be protected by the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law from government excess and overreach.

Indeed, the Founding Generation fully expected government to seek to regulate, restrict, and otherwise limit citizens’ rights and liberties through the political process, reflecting the will of the people; and when the people err and enact regulations, restrictions, and limits repugnant to the Constitution and its case law, the people are at liberty to seek relief through the judicial process and to have such measures invalidated consistent with the rule of law, regardless the will of the people.

The core problem of all this is that far too many people are ignorant of the above intent of our Constitutional Republic, have nothing but contempt for the rule of law, and have politicized our rights and protected liberties, subjecting our rights and protected liberties to the capricious ‘will of the people,’ thus jeopardizing the rights of the people through political conflict contrary to the will and wisdom of the Founding Generation.

We were given a Republic – and clearly we are incapable of keeping it.

Gotcha. Conservatives are forcing their will on you by saying things in public you disagree with. It has to be stopped

 

[Mac1958]

I'm sure glad these guys didn't say what today's parties are saying.
.

Take an issue and show us how each side should compromise.....

Read through the thread, I'm not going through that again.

No one wants to collaborate. It's all the other guy's fault. We all agree. It's working out great.
.

 

[JoeB131]

If you care so much about guns because the deaths, why do you always try to go after the heavy weapons, which are very useful in defending tyranny, but don't cause almost any loss of life?

Um... let's see. Parkland. Sandy Hook. Aurora. Um, yeah, they do cause heavy loss of life.

No one buys this drivel. Even in your post you get all emotional about the (harmless) "gun nut". You hate the gun nuts because in fighting against tyranny the gun nut is going to arm a whole army.

No, i hate gun nuts because they are the kind of people who go around shooting up things when they snap.

Not only that but you instinctively know that any conversation starts from the place "Why shouldn't I kill you and take your stuff?". Having a huge population with guns in place that are against your politics is very bad politically. Even worse, there probably is no faster way of converting someone from soy boy to a conservative than handing him a gun.

Meh, if you need a gun to feel like a "real man", you have serious issues. None of which is worth having 33,000 gun deaths every year.

Stop with the "cares about kids" rhetoric. Maybe a 60 IQ idiot buys it but certainly no one with brains. For a left winger whether moderate or hard core, an armed populace is very bad news.

Actually, an armed populace is bad news for the 33,000 people who die every year for your little fetish.

It does nothing to stop "tyranny".

Fact is Nazi Germany, most Germans owned guns, and not a one of them tried to stop Hitler.... not even when Germany was losing the war.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Let's take rape as an example:

So you don't have a counter argument, then, about why common sense gun control would be a bad thing.

Do you believe Heller is settled law ?

 

[JoeB131]

Because you only take guns from honest citizens. Criminals don't follow your laws. I mean duh

Most gun deaths and mass shootings are from people who had no criminal record up until the very bad day they had.

Here's the thing. Keeping guns away from criminals works just fine in Japan, the UK, Germany, Italy, France.

Oh, you might hear about a gun incident from one of those countries, but only because they are so rare.

 

[JoeB131]

Do you believe Heller is settled law ?

Nope. It's a bullshit decision.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Actually, an armed populace is bad news for the 33,000 people who die every year for your little fetish.

Would be more than 33,000 annually without guns in lawful hands.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Do you believe Heller is settled law ?

Nope. It's a bullshit decision.

Then there is no compromise with you.

Next.

 

[JoeB131]

Would be more than 33,000 annually without guns in lawful hands.

Um, no, actually, it wouldn't.

Every other industrialized nation restricts gun ownership, and every other industrialized nation has a small fraction of our crime and violence.

 

[JoeB131]

Then there is no compromise with you.

Next.

Sure... I'm perfectly willing to let some of you guys continue with your fetish under certain circumstances to keep guns out of the hands of nuts.

The reason why this reasonable compromise can't be reached is because the gun industry knows the nuts are their prime customers.

Or as Upton Sinclair opined, "It's hard to get a man to understand a problem when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it."

 

[2aguy]

If you care so much about guns because the deaths, why do you always try to go after the heavy weapons, which are very useful in defending tyranny, but don't cause almost any loss of life?

Um... let's see. Parkland. Sandy Hook. Aurora. Um, yeah, they do cause heavy loss of life.

No one buys this drivel. Even in your post you get all emotional about the (harmless) "gun nut". You hate the gun nuts because in fighting against tyranny the gun nut is going to arm a whole army.

No, i hate gun nuts because they are the kind of people who go around shooting up things when they snap.

Not only that but you instinctively know that any conversation starts from the place "Why shouldn't I kill you and take your stuff?". Having a huge population with guns in place that are against your politics is very bad politically. Even worse, there probably is no faster way of converting someone from soy boy to a conservative than handing him a gun.

Meh, if you need a gun to feel like a "real man", you have serious issues. None of which is worth having 33,000 gun deaths every year.

Stop with the "cares about kids" rhetoric. Maybe a 60 IQ idiot buys it but certainly no one with brains. For a left winger whether moderate or hard core, an armed populace is very bad news.

Actually, an armed populace is bad news for the 33,000 people who die every year for your little fetish.

It does nothing to stop "tyranny".

Fact is Nazi Germany, most Germans owned guns, and not a one of them tried to stop Hitler.... not even when Germany was losing the war.

You are wrong on all counts...

11,004 people were murdered with guns, but people in democrat voting districts.....495 died in gun accidents, the rest were suicide.....and countries in Europe, then Japan, China and korea, all with extreme gun control had higher suicide rates which is where the rest of our gun deaths come from...

No, the nazis did not allow Jews or their political enemies to have guns and they used the gun registration lists created in the 1920s to take their guns away from them before they sent them to the death camps....

And less than 76 people a year are killed in mass public shootings while there are over 600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carry guns for self defense......

Law abiding people who own and carry guns are not a problem... you just hate guns and gun owners.

 

[Norman]

Would be more than 33,000 annually without guns in lawful hands.

Um, no, actually, it wouldn't.

Every other industrialized nation restricts gun ownership, and every other industrialized nation has a small fraction of our crime and violence.

When adjusted to white population only, this is blatantly false.

Sure you can compare apples to orange, but that's a bit of a deception right there. Blacks and Hispanics have much higher crime rates everywhere.

Many EU nations have worse statistics after the adjustment.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Would be more than 33,000 annually without guns in lawful hands.

Um, no, actually, it wouldn't.

Every other industrialized nation restricts gun ownership, and every other industrialized nation has a small fraction of our crime and violence.

Every other nation doesn't have 450 million guns in private hands.

The law abiding capitulating sets up their slaughter.

 

[2aguy]

Would be more than 33,000 annually without guns in lawful hands.

Um, no, actually, it wouldn't.

Every other industrialized nation restricts gun ownership, and every other industrialized nation has a small fraction of our crime and violence.

Wrong...Britain is more violent than the U.S. .... you have been shown this over and over....... Americans use their legal guns 2.4 million times a year to stop violent criminals while in Britain, their criminals are running out of control.