Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[ICantSpellDawg]

If your ideology is so brittle that you cannot tolerate a plain reading of a single sentence, you've got bigger problems than passivity.

My ideology isn't brittle on this issue. My ideology may be incorrect, but it is logically consistent, firmly held and tempered coldly. I am suggesting that you do not have an ideology on this issue. You have a fluid passivity on this issue. It is squishy. You don't care enough to attack it and don't care enough to defend it. I guess if you feel that dispassionately about a topic this makes sense, but this is a pretty heady issue. Squishiness of this magnitude is traditionally reserved in my world for types of pizza's ordered, action movies watched, say yes to the dress, etc.

Areas where my ideology is squishy are in labor relations, tax policy, immigration, etc. Bill of rights issues I normally go full bore (pun unintended, then liked, then not edited out because it became intended). Equality in law, freedom of religion, due process, lawful search and seizure, right to keep and bare arms, assembly, speech, powers not enumerated, etc. Not squishy on those, I want them expanded, flat out, at the expense of government power.

[Lemur]

if you suggested that we have freedom of assembly, but not to groups larger than 3. Freedom of Religion, but not to irreligion. Freedom of speech, but not that which is deemed controversial.

As I already demonsrtated a page or two ago, all of our first amendment rights have boundaries. Making up absurd examples to somehow demonstrate that they don't ... I'm not even sure what your'e doing.

It is odd and unsettling that you would suggest this as though all arguments were created equal.

Please show me where I have said that. Man, I wish I said half of the illogical provocative stuff you put in my mouth. I'd be a firebrand!

This all started with another Orgah talking about how the court had "shown" the meaning of an amendment, which rubbed me the wrong way. Courts do not reveal a holy truth; they decide on an interpretation. Is that a controversial position? Human language is vague, imprecise, and can be read in many ways. Is that a controversial position? I demonstrated that even a simple one-sentence amendment can be read a couple of ways. Is that a controversial position? And then I said that we, as a nation, have settled on a particular interpretation. Is that a controversial position?

My ideology isn't brittle on this issue.

If you have sacred cows that Others Must Not Question, then your ideology is brittle. Fear and outrage at having an assumption examined isn't exactly the sign of a well-tempered belief system.

You have a fluid passivity on this issue. It is squishy.

Correct, I'm not much of a footsoldier for anybody. Which always seems to enrage the loyal footsoldiers, who cannot imagine that anyone out there is not in some way a loyal footsoldier. If not a footsoldier then ... COWARD!

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm a footsoldier sometimes. Occasionally you get things done by forging your own path, other times people need to band together. You do recognize the value of a divide and conquer strategy. Surely, the inverse strategy would be stand together and repel the conquerers.

No man is an island. What would you fight for? What do you believe in? Is family the only thing g worth getting pumped up about and defending, or are there other principles in play?

[Lemur]

What would you fight for? What do you believe in?

Dude, based on your habit of ignoring what I actually write in favor of made-up squishy things, am I obligated to respond? Do I gotta?

[ICantSpellDawg]

No, you don't have to. BTW, you accused me in around 20 posts of being unethical and against Manchin-Toomey, in spite of 20 posts pointing out my squishy support for it. Maybe both of our instances were wrong, but not far off the mark. I was barely for Toomey Manchin, you are barely for the Second Amendment.

[Lemur]

you are barely for the Second Amendment.

Please feel free to show me where I have said that. Sigh. You seem to believe that not embracing the NRA = not really supporting the right to keep and bear arms. Obviously, this is false.

And yeah, your triumphalism over the defeat of a bill that would have probably strengthened the Second Amendment struck me as utterly amoral and self-defeating. And your whole glib "criminals will get guns anyway" line of rhetoric is so vacuous that it's almost impossible to take seriously. Criminals will just get into your car, so don't lock it. Making life harder for criminals is a worthy goal, a moral goal. Dismissing common-sense measures to limit the damage they do is ... well, it appears to be ethically challenged.

[Papewaio]

Shouldn't the right to bear arms include the ability to make your own for personal use?

After all women bear children...

[ICantSpellDawg]

The NRA is a powerhouse in the battle to retain the right to keep and bear arms. You don't support the NRA, you don't own firearms, you reject the notion that small arms would be effective against government, you most likely have a very low crime rate where you live, you take potshots at every pro2a argument there is. I don't see you as someone who defends it.

I believe in trade unions when the going gets rough. Solidarity is important in harnessing power for little nobodies like you and I. You reject common cause and think that your agenda will go places. I don't think so. Like 2a, don't like current NRA positions on every issue, join it, explain a better way.

[HopAlongBunny]

It's amazing that the rage and energy spent on this question can not be directed to sorting out something that is both obvious, and might make a real difference to individuals-perhaps even the nation:P

http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/08...lling-secrecy/