Illegal Mayors Against Guns

The Donkey said:

On substantive "pro-gun": I don't think it makes much of a difference in the House, because you have a pro-gun majority there regardless of which party the leadership comes from. Pelosi cannot get an anti-gun measure through the House.

The Senate is another story because of their "advise and consent" role on judicial nominees. What is going on in the third branch now is very important to guns.

But generally, when thinking about judicial nominees, I tend to look beyond substantive interpretation of 2A. On civil liberties, I am interested in a range of issues, many of which indirectly effect 2A rights.

For example, consider the 11th Amendment: under a activist, right-wing interpretation of the 11th Amend., embodied in Will v. Michigan State Police, if a State policeman -- or other state (as opposed to local) official -- falsely arrests you for open carry, you are without federal legal recourse.

I would very much like to see the Will case overturned: but the justices who voted with the Heller and McDonald majorities are also those who would vote to uphold the immunity for arbitrary and abusive state power in Will. They pull the same kind of crap on issue after issue in civil liberties cases, but many people who are concerned about gun rights exclusively do not recognize it.

Now that Heller and McDonald are settled law, I think that it is high time that gun rights people broaden their perspectives somewhat. That may mean -- contrary perhaps to the prevailing meme here -- that the "liberals" are the good guys.

Personally, I am uncomfortable with Senate activism in holding up orrejecting judicial nominations for reasons of judicial philosphy in most cases. The place to influence the judiciary is in presidential elections.

Click to expand...

"liberals" or more accurately progressives will never be the good guys. What we do need is more libertarian officials.

eye95 said:

I notice you omitted the part of my post, short as it was, the supported my statement.

Oh, well. Moving on.

Click to expand...

<chuckle> I notice you felt you had to bring it up, just so you could make noise, then ostentatiously "move on" so everybody would notice that you were doing so.

So, let me get this straight. You ask me a question. I take the time to give a sincere reply to what I think is the central issue, complete with my reasoning, even addressing what I consider the error of your premise (without calling it error or telling you I think you are wrong. You're welcome for the courtesy.) And, you fuss about me cutting short your quote, misrepresenting your position? Then, having invited me, and received a civil reply, you play some control game by announcing you are moving on? (bad control by inhibiting/cutting off communication)

Do you really think enough of us actually desire to communicate with you such that there is any point to announcing you are "moving on"?

Hahahahahahahahaaa

Oh, and I notice that even though you "moved on" you were paying attention to what I wrote. Where you say, "...not a dime's worth of difference..." in your next post, replying to Donkey.

Hahahhahahaahahahaa



Fellas,

When Eye95 announces to you that he is "moving on", he is not only saying he is going to ignore you, he is also saying he wants you to shut up. If he only wanted to stop discussing a given subject or just wanted to ignore you, he could do so without writing anything more, couldn't he? By adding the "moving on" comment he is trying to control your communication on the subject, too--so you'll shut up. Otherwise, he wouldn't need to add it, would he? He wants to make sure you get the idea that he is cutting you off.

I guess the sad part is that he thinks that is a way to control others. That he even feels the need to control other's in this way is even sadder.

When I say "moving on," it simply means that the current sub-discussion has nowhere productive to go--usually because we have competing axioms (and people's axioms tend not to change except as a result of life-altering events) or because one of the participants has started getting away from mature and civil rhetoric into something else. There is no point in continuing. Doing so usually produces page after page of junk that just serves to annoy everyone.

It means that I have said what I need to say to possibly sway anyone whose mind is open on the subject. Since I am rarely trying to change the mind of the person with whom I am discussing, I don't want to turn off those yet to make up their mind. So, I make my point and stop the arguing that will surely degenerate into the juvenile.

Years of posting on the Internet have taught me that this is the most productive way to respond to a disagreement on a message board. For mature posters, they make one more reply and, absent a reply from me, the thread continues on without pages of back-and-forth. Some posters take it as a personal slight, even though it is not intended as such. I tend not to worry when someone is sensitive in that way.

The way I indicate that repeated behavior by a poster has illustrated that any further discussions with him would not be productive and will result in my ignoring him would be something along the lines of "Welcome to IgnoreLand."

I prefer to discuss with folks who can disagree without having to make comments about the person to whom they are posting. The analogy I like is hanging around a bar. If someone starts saying ugly things about me because they disagree with me, I just walk away and talk to someone else. If they do it often enough, I just stop paying attention to them at all and don't even address them in discussions even if one of us is within earshot of the other.

Like I've said, it's how I keep from participating in flame wars. It doesn't stop others from flaming me (obviously). However, they are responsible for their own choices. I'll try to make my own mature choices.

Welcome to IgnoreLand. I really hated saying that this time. But, I give up.

Citizen said:

Fellas,

When Eye95 announces to you that he is "moving on", he is not only saying he is going to ignore you, he is also saying he wants you to shut up.

Click to expand...

So? When I or others post anyway, we're saying we have something further to say.

This is an Internet message forum. Provided one stays within the rules, they're free to post as they see fit, whether someone wants them to "shut up" or not.

The Donkey said:

Not so simple:

A vote for Sharon Angle, for example, is a vote to replace mostly pro-gun Senate majority leader Harry Reid with mostly anti-gun Senator Dick Durban.

But you should probably vote Republican if you, like Sharon Angle, hear the echo of jackboots every time the Department of Education or the EPA is mentioned. Then take your meds.

Click to expand...

There you are Donk, and a good day to you.

I figured you would point out Bloomberg was a republicrat, though you seem to ignore the fact that he is a liberal above all. However, are you seriously implying that republican efforts to prevent terrorism violate your liberty more than laws that prevent you from building on your property for the sake of some "endangered" migratory bird? Last I looked the republicans opposed legislation that forces me to buy insurance, or pay thousands fines as well. Just because they aren't openly advancing gun control does not mean they support the 2A. They are advancing an agenda that will cost us all more money, and economic freedom is a significant issue.

Your needless jab at Sharon Angle notwithstanding, Harry Reid could never have fooled enough people to vote for him in Nevada if he wasn't pro-gun. Though it seems like that might not be enough to keep him in office since he has become nothing more than a "pet" of the increasingly reviled and likely one term president who makes Carter feel better about himself.

Since eye95 pretty much made my arguement for me (thanks) I don't need to expand on why I feel the dems are the greater evil. I do agree with you that even when republicans hold the governement, they do nothing to advance the cause of freedom. However it seems pretty clear to me, and the millions who participate in, or sympathise with the Tea Party that the dems are reversing liberty. So now I hope I'm not being decieved (again), and that the republicans hear the rage coming from the voters and repeal all these stupid laws and initiatives.

PrayingForWar said:

There you are Donk, and a good day to you.

I figured you would point out Bloomberg was a republicrat, though you seem to ignore the fact that he is a liberal above all. However, are you seriously implying that republican efforts to prevent terrorism violate your liberty more than laws that prevent you from building on your property for the sake of some "endangered" migratory bird? Last I looked the republicans opposed legislation that forces me to buy insurance, or pay thousands fines as well. Just because they aren't openly advancing gun control does not mean they support the 2A. They are advancing an agenda that will cost us all more money, and economic freedom is a significant issue.

. . .

Click to expand...

Thanks for inviting me in!

Property rights are important: the problem with the birds may be that they are not worth alot of money to you.

Perhaps you don't value endangered birds as much as I do, but you do like fish, and to swim, don't you?: if you want to build an industrial chicken farm on your property in such a way as to let the chicken sh*t run off into a river -- creating an algae bloom that chokes out all the fish in the river and the Chesapeake Bay and makes the water unsafe to swim in -- then you are fouling a good that belongs to all. Making sure people take proper care of common goods is a proper role of the federal government, IMHO.

Right now, we all pay for the uninsured every time we go to a hospital or pay a health insurance premium. Also, up until September 23rd, the insured sometimes "paid" with their health and lives when their insurers involked pre-existing coverage limitations. The universal coverage requirement is a good way to prevent the inefficient "payment" of the costs of lack of insurance, and makes sure that the insurance industry prospers even while they can no longer exclude people from coverage for unconscionable reasons.

I really don't see legal, constitutional (in my view), responsible governmental actions to address these problems as tyrannical. Neither did most Republicans until the right's overheated, neanderthal wing rhetoric caught up with them. Now the Republican party cannot deal rationally with public goods problems, or resource allocation, or fiscal issues, or other complex issues of governance without tripping over themselves. People will soon realize how completely unable Republicans have made themselves to deliver on what is expected of government, and the GOP is in big trouble.

On issues where "liberty" is directly implicated, ie abuses of police power, it is the Republican right that is the source of most "big government" overreach. Consider what has happened to the 11th Amendment, or the doctrine of qualified immunity, under right wing jurists as examples. I don't think that it affects as many people, but since you mentioned them, yes, the warrentless wiretaps through abuses of "exigent circumstances" and "national security" letters, etc. are also examples, and are of some concern. Guns are an exception, and it is fortunate that there seems to be a national consensus developing in both parties that liberty interests in that area shouldn't be much messed with.

But most people don't care much about that any of that sort of stuff, and won't until they find themselves on the wrong end of the boot. Most people think first about their jobs, their neighborhoods, their schools, their hospitals. If the economy picks up before 2012, Obama is going to be re-elected, and people will put their Gasden flags up in their attics with their hoop skirts and pet rocks.