I think it is interesting, don't you? That I see the corruption of Democracy in the U.S. as a tendency towards Fascism – while you see it as the definition of Democracy itself.
Such is ultimately what happens when one presents the arguments that the protections of the united states constitution can be so easily removed, as if they were privileges granted to the people by government. Eventually their argument and position can be turned against them, in ways they did not stop to consider.
Don’t take my word for what you said. Take your own (from post 413): The reason I have brought it up is simple—your response to me asking you to go ahead and have that discussion would prove whether or not you were a hypocrite. I suspected that all anyone had to do was say “let’s have it then” and you would turn away from the discussion you accused others of avoiding—all while trying to cover this refusal with fresh complaints. You have already proven how poor your recollection is when it comes to your own words. Let’s see how poor your recollection is of mine. My very first response to you accusing me of avoiding your “fundamental subject” was “So fine, let’s talk about it.” And after you avoided that, I next said: “Do you want to talk with me about the issue or not?” And after you avoided that, I said “Do you want to have the discussion you have accused me of avoiding, or will your next post find fresh excuses and diversions from the topic you called me out on?” Something may be failing you, but it's not your memory. Can anyone tell me why should I continue to feed a troll?
There's nothing fluid about the Constitution; it's quite concrete. It doesn't lean with the wind, it doesn't flow with the tilt of public opinion. It's not even like a concrete basement or garage; it's more like a concrete bunker of the style at Cheyenne Mountain. It can be changed but it's very, very, difficult and as intentionally so as it is difficult. You really should quit worrying about gun violence and worry more about violence. Trying to deal solely with the tool of convenience doesn't address the problem at all. Perhaps we should talk about violence in Sweden, like this violence that didn't involve a gun:
A diversion over a trivial matter to which I have already conceded by “taking your word for it”. That's what I said in my last response with, “let's move forward from that point”. A second-time diversion over the same trivial matter from above to which I have already conceded by “taking your word for it”. And I said, “let's move forward from that point” in my last response to you. Why do you repeat even that point? That's the third time you repeat your complaint about the same issue and once again, I said, “let's move forward from that point” in my last response to you. Now the fourth time you repeat yourself over the same issue and still again I said, “ let's move forward from that point” in my last response to you. Even now you repeat for the third time the same trivial matter to which I have already conceded by “taking your word for it”. I honestly believe that you are feeding yourself. It is very unfortunate (and even a surprise!) that you are hell-bent on proving my initial suspicions correct > > > And you failed to quote me, “So … the point of the Constitution possesses 'fluid elements” or qualities facsimile thereof have been substantiated. Correct? Now, what is the next subject you'd like to discuss?" as well as > > > I have given you ample opportunity to respond/comment/discuss/debate/refute my introduction to the causes of gun violence in the U.S. You claim that I am avoiding the issue which is not true. I'm ready but what about you? In case you've forgotten, this is what I said about that specific issue > > > So let us hear what you have to say about my assessment on the causes of gun violence in the U.S. - - - - a subject that you claim I am avoiding. Don't be shy. But leave out the indignant attitude because that is not an on-topic issue. If we both focus maybe we can save the U.S. from total implosion.
Thingamabob, I have already told you that you are wrong in assuming the Constitution has “fluid elements.” You do not understand and do not care to learn about the amendment process that proves you are wrong. Nor do you care to understand the importance of making it difficult to change my Constitution. Deny it again if you must…. Now, since you want me to address your “assessment”…here is what I have to say…. In sum, you offer grand conclusions without a shred of actual analysis. An elementary school math equation is neither an analysis nor a serious explanation of gun violence in America. “Guns + Americans = bad” is a kindergarten phrase. Those who offer grand conclusions bear some burden of explaining how they reached them. You offer nothing. Give me some analysis that shows you have actually given the issue some thought. “Angry and hungry dogs thrust into a ring with other angry and hungry dogs” is laughable. It sounds like you are arguing it’s all Michael Vick’s fault. I do see you mention in your next paragraph “exploited by gun runners.” This is likewise a meaningless and vague conclusion that does not show any understanding of the issue you are trying to address. Who are these "gun-runners?" Where are they running guns to? How are they “legal” or “illegal?” What is the nature of the “exploitation” they are engaged in, and how does it relate to the “causes” of gun violence? You offer nothing but a conclusion. Frankly, there is a vast difference between making grand, unsupported conclusions and actually explaining them. No one takes you seriously because you can’t back any of it up with some reasoned analysis for how you arrived at these conclusions—and even you must admit your past experience in arriving at incorrect conclusions has already eroded confidence in your pronouncements. I don't post frequently here, but in the years I have been here I have seen one universal constant. When a conclusion is challenged, the validity test for that conclusion always lies in the reasoning which led to that conclusion. And when you offer none--well then--your conclusions appear to be nothing more than ill-informed musings. I would like to see--and have a chance to address--the reasons why you make the claims you make. Now to address the first part of your next paragraph—beginning with “I am capable….” Honestly, this is far more interesting. It’s not interesting because of any analysis you have done (for I find none). Rather, I don’t think you understand the meaning of what you are saying. You say there is a way to “elevate Americans to a point where “guns + Americans = not bad.” This is—perhaps without you realizing it—an admission that guns are not the problem. The 2nd Amendment RKBA is not the problem. The number of guns in America is not the problem. For you are saying that if we can somehow be rehabilitated then having guns is OK and “guns + Americans = not bad.” While this new equation remains a kindergarten-level analysis, it at least it does acknowledge the presence of the firearm is not the problem. There is hope for you yet, my friend. In any event, you have apparently imagined this future utopia where “guns + Americans = not bad.” And you tell us you are capable of discussing how we reach this paradise. I’m all ears then. Tell me how we elevate Americans to the point we can have our guns and change this simplistic equation from “bad” to “not bad.” I’d love to address your thought process here as well. Before I go let me end with the admission that it is completely unfair to spend all our time pouring water on your sand castles. Feel free to back up what you say with analysis, but also let me know when you want me to offer my views on gun violence in America so you can try to tear down what I say. Fairness demands as much.
BryanVa, Any Constitution that can be amended possesses “fluid quality”. In the case of the U.S. Constitution, it can be amended, it has been amended, and at least one amendment has been repealed. You don't get much more fluid than that. That's the proof you've been overlooking. As for the discussion of causes of gun violence in the U.S. I have already stated its' cornerstone. Hungry and angry dogs pitted against other hungry and angry dogs is what I said. That's the basis. You know what “hungry” means and you know what “angry” means. To put it into other terms … people without sufficient means and frustration stemming from a nationally imposed inferiority complex.
No, I'm just curious why you feel you need to spend your time criticizing The United States and our way of life when your own is going down the tubes. It's clear that you're driven by jealousy of our country rather than any hatred of crime.
I guess you didn't notice. The title of this thread is "My gun control compromise" so it's not so strange that I am talking about the U.S. If you want to see my comments on Sweden you'll have to look for the thread entitled "Comments about Sweden". By the way .... you are welcome to speak your piece on it too ... even if you are not Swedish. I don't know if you have a word for it in the U.S. but if I translate it into English it is called "Freedom of expression". But I am afraid you are out of luck - It's not our fault the U.S. is murdering people left and right - so if you make that claim you'll get nothing but laughs. Have a nice day!
It's actually very important that we pour water on his sandcastles and the sandcastles of others like him. Though thingamabob will never change his mind because his views are based on emotion and not actual data, there are those who will read the posts here, or similar posts in other places or platforms, and form opinions and vote on those opinions. It is critical that those who support liberty and the right to protect ourselves from tyranny, violence, and physical assault - by anyone - voice the truth and discredit the lies every time we read or hear them.
I agree. We should all heed this warning: “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Justice Brandeis, explaining why he could not condone the government's use of information in a criminal case that was obtained from the use of a wiretap which in his opinion violated the Fourth Amendment, in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1928 (Dissenting opinion). Too many people are unaware—or choose to forget—that gun control in America has a dark past in which it is intimately connected with the “will of the majority” deciding to oppress a minority group. Gun control has been used as an essential tool of oppression three different times in America. I for one am glad we have a Constitution that puts individual rights beyond the tyranny of an irritated majority. Our founders chose to recognize certain fundamental individual liberties in the Bill of Rights to prevent the government from trampling upon them under the excuse that it is the “will of the majority.” Individual liberty is inconsistent with tyranny. The two cannot co-exist. Recognizing individual liberty in the Constitution, and thereby binding the government to respect it, is essential to preserving freedom: “The great ideals of liberty and equality are preserved against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles, by enshrining them in constitutions, and consecrating to the task of their protection a body of defenders.” Justice Benjamin Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process, Lecture II, 1921.
Firearm-related restrictions already exist to address such. They are simply not enforced. Such does not mean that additional firearm-related restrictions are needed, when the shortcomings relate to those in a position of authority are simply not doing their job.
I agree with that. But I am talking about the causes of gun violence. Your idol and I were going to have a discussion on that subject but he ducked out the back door and ran off.
Special training. Licenses. Sounds like the current CHL program. You finally got everything you ever wanted in gun control. Happy now?
You include suicides and DGU's in your list of "gun violence", two uses of firearm that I support. It looks like a woman who uses a gun to defend herself against an attacker just gets under your skin. How dare she, right?
The cause of such is ultimately human nature itself. The species itself is the problem, not the implement used to express violence against others. The species has been violent since its inception, it will continue to remain violent until it is finally extinct. Why does any particular individual commit murder? Simply because they want to commit murder. What can be done to make them refrain from doing such? Absolutely nothing if they do not fear the law against such. The member BryanVA is a licensed and experienced prosecuting attorney for the state of Virginia, tasked with far more pressing responsibilities than education on this forum.
Presuming you are legally able to buy and own a gun, this is exactly how it should be. Except for the waiting period, of course.
WHAT?! WHAT?! Attorneys are not tasked with telling the truth. Their job is to persuade people into believing a pre-determined agenda by finding loopholes and/or manipulating emotions. They are like TV commercials that lie about their product. But the main point is that he's slithered out of a debate in the most sleazy of manners.
He is from the rape capital of Europe and is more interested in preventing American women from having the tools to defend themselves from rape than he is in stopping rape in Sweden or in the US. That should tell you something.
