Excuse me.

I understand your desire to protect the OP, but I was referring quite specifically to the tone and to the contents of the post. The tone and the content are inextricably linked. That is entirely the responsibility of the original poster. Your observations in regards to my own post have no relation whatever to what I actually said.

Sarcasm and smug lectures are highly inappropriate to the topic involved - the killing of people within a church. Yes, that is my opinion, and I hold to it.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

You're trying to argue the invalidity of a debate you've never seen or read?

I've heard some doozies today, but you win the prize with that one.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Mistrust of self-proclaimed "elites" is precisely why the 2nd Amendment exists.

It does not exist for the purposes of:

- Shooting deer
- Shooting clay pigeons
- Shooting burglars
- Collecting guns
- Arming criminals
- Defending the country (from invasion)
- Giving Euroweenies something to talk about

Those various things are merely benefits and/or side-effects. Meh. Free society. WTF can you do? It's not like I hear you ridiculing the First Amendment because of the crazy shit some people are saying...even though various Euroweenie Enclaves have myriad infringements of free speech built into their various [inferior] systems.

That's right, Germany, give your populace the right to wear a swastika and own a gun. Let a ass be a ass. When you have the guts to do that, maybe we'll have something to talk about. Until then, just hope you don't get subjected to crazy leadership and/or steamrolled by war YET AGAIN. (Ain't a single country over there with a government that has even close to the length of tenure that my United States does. Obviously, we're doing something right. Whereas...)

The Second Amendment, when it gets right down to the nuts and bolts of it, exists for the purposes of killing people. People who exact tyranny on the masses. Unless you find me an oppressive deer, that is...in which case, he can have a third eye, too.

It is no coincidence that advocates of European-style taxation and socialized control view the Second Amendment with such distaste. It is an obstacle to their objectives.

The SCOTUS took a step in the right direction. There is a reason so much of the Constitution is written in the negative. It is supposed to leave very little wiggle room for creative so-called "elites" to curb freedom. "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..." and whatnot.

Using individual examples of citizens behaving badly does not an argument make. I'd not expect you to accept an anti-homosexual argument based upon the misdeeds of various individual homosexuals. And they're much more prolific than mass shootings.

As for our society, the various infringements of our Second Amendment rights that have already taken hold (and will hopefully go away, such as the draconian D.C. laws did) are absolutely an impediment to reducing gun crime. Y'all talk in MTV bumper sticker slogans all the time. Well, fine, here is one from me...an absolute truism: Outlaw Guns and Only Outlaws Will Have Guns. No. Thank. You. Kennesaw, Georgia (link) has the right idea. "Mandatory" Gun Ownership = one of the "10 Best Towns for Families" (Family Circle magazine). Not in spite of. Because of. And that will still hold true even if Billie Joe Jackass from Mockingbird Lane in Kennesaw happened to go apeshit and shoot up the town because his cable TV was fuzzy. At least he likely wouldn't get very far into a rampage.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

No, I don't think that.

__________________
"I think that gay marriage should be allowed."
- John McCain on an episode of Hardball, 2006, before the commercial break

"I do not believe that gay marriage should be legal."
- John McCain on the same episode of Hardball, after the commercial break

"John McCain does not speak for the John McCain campaign."
- Tucker Bounds, Spokesman of the John McCain presidential campaign.

The straight talk express. You gotta love it.

I'm not the one giving a lecture. I'm just trying to take part in the discussion. I'm not being sarcastic and smug I guess is in the eye of the beholder. I simply to not share your feelings.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Do you think that the outcome of that defense should be dependent on which party is larger and stronger?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I don't think that about you. I didn't pick up on that. At least not about you specifically. Sorry.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Smug and sarcastic are words I chose to specifically refer to the tone and content of the original post - they were not in any way related to you at all.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

Yes, indeed. Well said.

The events are dreadful, and no matter how often they happen they must be taken seriously, and the victims and those associated with them must be treated with respect.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

Well that sort of thing is very common in a place in which people with opposing views discuss controversies and politics. I don't see how this one is any more so that the majority of threads actually.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

You've asked that twice, now I'll ask you, what does that have to do with the 'right' to have a gun?

Well, you're asking everyone to accept the argument's validity, sight unseen, on your word alone. That's why the Sasquatch reference.

So, basically, your argument is that the 2nd amendment gives you the right to murder anyone you want. I mean, yes, yes, it's politics and tyranny and all that but since it's you and you alone who'll be determining who's "oppressing the masses" well..that can be anyone.

Like this guy frex

Based on your argument, what's the difference between you and him?, and if you say there is none, this makes you a good argument to ALLOW people to have guns?

Yes, certainly. It happens - and we respond.

That was why I was confused by your response to my first post here. Anyway - it appears to be cleared up....

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

Those who look to, in their mind, reasonably limit the effectiveness of the First Amendment frequently use the banality of "yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater" example as some sort of bridge to whatever nonsense they are championing.

Well, guess what, it is perfectly alright to yell "FIRE" in a theater. If there is a fire. It is not simply "okay", I'd say it is a responsibility.

Now, if this government ever overreaches to the point at which "the people" march into D.C., guns in hand, to slap down tyranny, well, therein is the desired result of the Second Amendment. It'd be no different than the original Revolution in the sense that you'd likely be among the 85%+ that were content (or willing to put up) with the status quo or taking whatever improvements were granted to you by your "trusted elite" ruler.

Your ridiculous attempt to suggest that by anybody's logic, say, that Booth, Oswald, or Hinckley or that jackass to which you linked were simply exercising their Second Amendment rights is barely worth a response.

There is, of course, a built-in conundrum insofar as the Constitution providing a path to revolution, but allowing overt revolutionary acts to be deemed illegal. This is purposeful and not that hard to grasp for those in favor of preserving explicit limits on the government (I almost said "favor of preserving rights granted", but the Constitution doesn't "grant" to us so much as it "limits" them...and, yes, it is an "us" and "them" situation).

This is part of the design which will help ensure that random and relatively meaningless strains upon our country (i.e. the 2000 election, which would have resulted in massive deaths - even in "gun free weenie zones" - throughout most of the rest of the world) don't amount to a coup d'etat. But the pathway is clear for THE moment - whenever that is - THE moment revolution becomes necessary. By the time the shit hits the fan, various picayune ordinances and laws (and even good-old-fashioned "treason") will not be much of a concern. Those are just laws, after all. Possession of a weapon, however, is a very tangible thing.

To those who poo-poo this whole scenario...I remember talking to you and your kind in the late 1980's when it was clear to me that the USSR was disintegrating. "It's not going anywhere," you insisted. There was a reason I entered college in 1990 with the idea of being an International Business major with a Russian minor.

None of this, again, has anything to do with random individual acts. But you knew that already. I suppose you thought me stupid. /me cares

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

Ok, then if people should be able to defend themselves, why does it matter how they do that? What is the difference in using fists vs knives vs guns? If someone illegaly attacks you with a gun, how should you defend yourself?

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.