"Rules of Engagement for an Adult Dialog" - Lil Mick
That is cute, coming from you.
LibertyForAll and Odin
Rules of Engagement for an Adult Dialog
1. Respect Opinions
That's right, we all have them, we are all entitled to them, and we have the right to share
them. Most importantly, opinions are never wrong...respect them.
2. Facts are Debatable
This should be what the dialog centers on, are the facts one presents to back up the
opinion correct or not. Facts can be wrong.
3. No Name Calling or Labeling
Seriously, do I really need to add this...apparently thanks to Liberty and Odin, I do.
There ya go, lets have a good dialog, an example...
The only lasting solution to the gun issue is to repeal the 2nd amendment.
- Guns are the only privately manufactured and marketed good that we constitutionally protect the owner ship for.
- This constitutional protection has helped two private industries, the gun lobby and gun manufactures to reap in billions in profits.
- The actual reason the framers put it in the bill of rights right under number one, is because they wanted to protect their right to maintain a civilian army "militia's". They were a bit paranoid and I understand why. This reason no longer exists.
Because the reason the framers added this to the bill of rights at that high of a position is no longer valid or needed in this millennium. Since that was the only reason and now all it does is allow the private gun lobby and marketers to profit, then the amendment is no longer needed and should be repealed.
Lets have a dialog on this...
Once again, LibertyForAll, has to attack me, call me names and attach labels to me and my opinions.
It's as though they seem to operate like we don't have a right to our opinion when it differs from theirs.
LibertyForAll and Odin, are incapable of a friendly, respectful dialog. They have to attack the messenger.
When one of you folks can debate my thoughts and opinions, completely on the merits and not say one word about me, I will respectfully respond back.
It is in fact what I am trying to introduce here, friendly, respectful, mature dialog on our difference of opinions. :)
Just to inform the rest of you...The "always hyperbolic, fact-averse "Mick" is a he, not a she.
Although I am a long haired, pagan man.
You are all in my prayers as far as your wild fires this season. Hoping Manitou is doing well, I lived in the Springs when they were having those horrendous floods.
Peace and Love to You All. :)
Folks, here we have the always hyperbolic, fact-averse "Mick" trying vainly to drum up support for more over-reaching, excessively-regulated, "feel good, accomplish nothing" gun control.
While she's certainly free to provide her "VHO" in a public forum such as this, one must wonder what she hopes to accomplish, since shredding her viewpoint is easily achieved with even a minimal amount of logic and basic common-sense which I'll now provide:
"We don't let certain folks drive a car if they for instance have too many DUI's"
Although comparing a firearm to a Firenza is a total apples-to-oranges analogy--but don't stop Mick when she's rolling, LOL!--we actually don't allow criminals to maintain possession.
"Background checks help to keep guns away from those that may want to harm others, and smaller magazines will give victims a chance to get away when the perpetrator has to reload"
Background checks are already in effect, and reload times can be as little as three seconds, regardless of magazine size.
Your link is cute--if as partisan as it gets--and it's telling you don't mention that gun deaths are way, WAY down from their peak in '93 (but since that data doesn't fit your shrill, pre-packaged narrative, we hardly need to wonder why):
Miss Mick, hundreds of millions of citizens have exercised their legal, Constitutionally-protected right to own hundreds of millions of guns, and the ability shall remain, regardless of what your uneducated, ill-informed opinion may be. I know you'd like to dictate what is acceptable for others--thus saving us from ourselves *snort*--but if what me or mine do doesn't affect you and/or yours, please refrain from offering lifestyle choices.
"We have to start considering what is the better good of all and not just ourselves"
The collective, "royal", "We" already has, and the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment have won, while those on your side just keep rattling your cages, which is kinda funny, but mostly ridiculous.
"We have to start acting and thinking like intelligent adults"
You first, but color me skeptical whether you have the means and/or ability...
Gun Deaths Compared to Motor Vehicle Deaths
Motor vehicle deaths are on a steady decline nationwide, thanks to decades of applying proven public health-based injury prevention strategies to reduce death and injury. Meanwhile, gun deaths continue unabated. Guns remain the only consumer products not regulated for health and safety in the United States.
The VPC publishes an annual analysis of federal Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention data comparing gun deaths and motor vehicle deaths on a state-by-state basis. The most recent analysis shows that in 2014, gun deaths outpaced motor vehicle deaths in 21 states and the District of Columbia.
Nine out of 10 American households have access to a motor vehicle while a little less than a third of American households contain a gun. To reduce the unacceptable toll of death and injury, firearms must be regulated for health and safety just as we regulate motor vehicles and all other consumer products.
Larry, in my very humble opinion, I don't think your analogy works at all.
You folks seem to continue to push this false message that gun safety legislation is going to take your guns away, like your analogy on taking cars away. That's just false.
Universal background checks will not take your guns away.
Smaller magazines will not take your guns away.
Background checks help to keep guns away from those that may want to harm others, and smaller magazines will give victims a chance to get away when the perpetrator has to reload.
To me that is common sense gun safety legislation. As long as you are not a risk to others Larry, you may keep your guns, even with the above legislation.
We don't let certain folks drive a car if they for instance have too many DUI's, that can be analogous to someone failing a background check for good reason.
However, if someone wants to drive a car who is not licensed can still do so, just as a person denied a gun sale can still get a gun if they really want to. None of these laws are absolute, of course folks can get around it if they want.
That doesn't mean we just give up and let drunks drive, or mentally ill get guns.
Let's go a step further, let's say there was a ban on assault weapons, or semi-automatic long guns, however, you want to describe them. Well, there are also certain types of vehicles we do not allow on the roads.
Look folks, we need to discuss this issue, too many people in this country are dying from gun deaths, far more than any other country in the world ( excluding countries currently at war).
That's a problem and needs to be addressed, the status quo is not ok.
We have to stop the false messaging that your guns are going to be taken away.
We have to stop the shouting and start having a dialog.
We have to start acting and thinking like intelligent adults.
We have to start considering what is the better good of all and not just ourselves.
"None of his points had any factual content"
Please show me the "factual content" in your diatribe.
Hint: it doesn't exist; it's just opinion and conjecture, while I actually discussed the Constitution as a document that applies to us all and confers various rights upon the citizenry.
You lose, which I'm sure is a daily occurrence.
I know it stinks that you can't control others--as the gov't controls you and provides all your thoughts, words, deeds and fiances--but that's the way it is, and Harry Reid has a better chance of winning the gold in female gymnatics in Rio than your nonsensical proposal has of being enacted.
"Take your own advice before lecturing others.."
Odin nailed it, but your latent hypocrisy is gonna make it a difficult pill to swallow; my condolences regarding your immaturity and faux-indignation.
I apologize to all for a personal note to Lil Mick.
“LibertyforAll” at one time used a different name. Don’t know why he changed it, (have my suspicions) but he hasn’t changed his modus operandi, which is mostly to insult. It is a compulsion he seems incapable of setting aside, and beyond which he has little to offer in the way of civil discourse. Once I realized with whom I was arguing, I dropped it. He will deflect, change the subject, but mostly he’ll insult.
We’d all do well to ignore his postings.
As for your Second Amendment question, I have an opinion:
Our Founders, who wrote the definitive Document of the Enlightenment, had good reasons for writing the Second Amendment as they did. I’ve come around to believing that it would NEVER have entered their minds that citizens should NOT have the right to possess a firearm. I don’t believe that it was ever an issue in their thinking.
Rather, the Second Amendment was written to fill glaring needs of the fledgling nation…a need that well regulated (and armed) militias filled during the War of Independence, a need out on the frontier, a need to combat the threat of southern gangs of escaped slaves, a need for an organized response to possible invasions, a need to combat the threat of pirates that were invading coastal settlements, the need to establish an arms industry to meet the demands of an expanding nation. I am of the notion that it would have NEVER occurred to them that some sort of threat to personal possession of arms would ever be an issue even in light of the Red Coats’ isolated efforts to seize arms from local “radicals”. So the well regulated militias established armories, and trained their members.
I believe there is, then, an underlying “Spirit” of the Second Amendment which is unspoken and is, perhaps, the source of Second Amendment Absolutism. But it is that absolutism which will end up destroying that very “Spirit” of the Second Amendment with which we might ALL agree. There are MANY aspects of today’s “gun issues” that are not addressed or even considered in the Second Amendment, and what is NOT in the Second Amendment could reasonably be discussed if the absolutists would take a step back and recognize that fact, and work toward resolutions which would serve the common good, rather than the interests of the Corporate arms industry.
We trusted this attorney with a video of a city bus accident. when we asked for it back it had been edited. He kept it for two weeks and led us to believe he would represent us. He took sides with the city instead. DO NOT TRUST THIS MAN
"STOP the shouting...STOP the name calling and labels...START communicating like adults.."
Take your own advice before lecturing others.
If gun safety legislation is introduced, the 2nd amendment is invoked.
When the 2nd amendment is invoked, it's all over but the shouting..
....and unfortunately the shouting is all that continues.
STOP the shouting...STOP the name calling and labels...START communicating like adults.
Just a point that you pro second amendment folks don't seem to understand(this is just one, there are many).
If the second amendment was repealed, nothing would change, the status quo would remain.
Repealing the second amendment does not outlaw guns...
What it does do is eliminate constitutionally protecting ownership of a privately manufactured, privately marketed good.
What it does do is open the door for common sense safety legislation.
Can a pro second amendment supporter respond to the point I am making and not insult me personally?
Can one of you other than LibertyForAll continue this dialog in a mature, intelligent manner?
I will not respond to "LIbertyForAll", all he did was call me names, what a despicable answer to a simple question.
None of his points had any factual content, it was just a Lil Mick bashing.
My point and question is still valid and still unanswered. Is there any of you pro second amendment folks who can answer these questions in an adult and intelligent manner?
We were in on the Gazette concept as a stakeholder but declined the Payne Chapel opportunity. We would be back in for the City Auditorium.
Pizzeria Rustica, Enoteca Rustica, TAPAteria
Wow, Lil' Mick, if there was any question about your total ignorance of and absolute disregard for the Constitution, you've certainly made it obvious here.
I'll dismantle your goofiness by degrees:
"why do you support this amendment?"
Well, because the Founders placed immense importance upon it--look at its rank--and it's part of the Bill or Rights. Didya get that? "Rights", as in "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
You may not agree with it--which is fine, if idiotic--but such an opinion stops there, as what you believe has no bearing upon what I'm allowed to do.
Do you think the 1st Amendment should be abolished? The 4th? Any others, or does your selectivity only single-out one? And since when did you become the arbiter over which amendments we should support or negate?
"We do not constitutionally protect any other consumer good"
Again, this isn't about the manufacture of a "good", it's about a right inherent to us all. Don't like guns? Great, don't own one, but please cease in trying to prevent me from choosing the option to do so.
Here's a tangential question: Do you support the ACA/Obamacare? If so, then how can the Feds force the citizenry to purcahse a private commodity and/or service under penalty-of-law? Is this ability in the Constitution, or is there a double-standard regarding what things legislation applies to? (I'm gonna pop some corn while you attempt some dizzy regressive spin).
"This amendment simply needs to go, it is wrong in every way"
So says a hypocritical, hyperbolic, subservient, self-righteous, faux-indignant, neophyte who would pick and choose what suits them as opposed to simply allowing others to do so for themsleves.
Bottom line: you--and your ilk mindless enough to "Like" such sleepy ideological malaise here--are on the losing end of this debate, and it shall remain so into perpetuity, as such brash, infantile, utterly doomed proposals simply underscore how behind-the-times and legislatively ignorant many liberals choose to be, thus making logical, common-sensical positions that much easier to espose and support.
Thanks for posting such a primative, troglodytic view; it's like providing infinite ammunition (pun intended) to the opposing viewpoint, LOL!
The city that I lived in in California actually has more bike lanes than Colorado Springs does. There are bike lanes everywhere in CA, and when there isn't, they have signs reminding drivers to "Share the Road".
I have a question for all of you who support the second amendment, actually, I have two questions.
My first question is why, why do you support this amendment?
My Second question is why should guns be the only privately manufactured, privately marketed consumer good which its ownership is a constitutionally protected right?
We do not constitutionally protect any other consumer good, to my knowledge, why this one?
Both the gun lobby and gun manufacturers have had windfall profits, become billionaires because they produce and sell a product we constitutionally protect the ownership of.
I think that is just wrong!
My thought, there is no reason for this amendment anymore. It was originally adopted to maintain a civilian army, militia's. We don't do that, or need that anymore.
There is no reason this privately manufactured and marketed consumer good should continue to be constitutionally protected.
This amendment simply needs to go, it is wrong in every way.
Well, ASA, there's an amazingly simple solution to your dislike of these weapons: Don't own one, but please cease from telling others they don't have the option to do so.
You see, "freedom-of-choice" may be too heady a concept for an admitted Socialist such as yourself, but it's still in effect on these shores, and your personal likes and dislikes have no bearing on what others can decide for themselves, and just because you require an omnipotent federal entity to provide your thoughts, words and deeds, doesn't mean we all do
Tell us how the regs that the regressives are trotting out--yet again--would have prevented this tragedy, or San Bernadino, or Sandy Hook, or Ft. Hood.
Extreme regulations on "assault" weapons--an utter misnomer, as "assault" is a verb, not a noun--were enacted in '94, but were allowed to expire--even by your beloved, Big Daddy Dems--in 2004, because they were ineffective.
And tell us how the regressives recent proposals are faring, LOL!!!
This isnt about hunks of steel and plastic, it's about individual intent and ideology, and since we can't account for every whack-job trotting around this big, blue marble, perhaps you should worry about yourself, and leave me and my fellow citizens alone, or do you know what's best for others, and feel compelled to save them from themselves?
"I am NOT a victim of enough denial" - Sadly, this is but a microcosm of what composes a multitude of victimizations and self-imposed masochism; please seek help so that your ego and psyche may become more fully formed; as for your intellect, I'm not sure much can be done to even lay a foundation, much less bolster it.
Of course there are many different kinds of guns for different purposes, not all being to kill people in a rapid fire manner. Your Second Amendment Absolutism is showing.
I am writing specifically about a specific type of weapon which is manufactured for the specific purpose of unleashing deadly bullets “as fast as a trigger finger can twitch” (a semi-automatic weapon). If you doubt that the Orlando murderer CHOSE his weapon for THAT express purpose, you can view the manufacturer’s video of the Sig Saur MCX here: ( http://www.sigevolution.com/sigmcx ) and get back to us when you can realistically argue that the guy in the video is “hunting” or “defending himself”, and not engaged in assualting and shooting “as fast as his trigger finger can twitch”…at targets, the size and shape of humans, with images of rounds penetrating the stylized bodies…and smoke and darkness through which the victorious masculine hero exits.
I am NOT a victim of enough denial to prevent me from recognizing PRECISELY what that weapon is designed to do.
And I don’t think I’ve engaged in any hyperbole. It is what it is.
And not that I expect an answer, but do you have a comment about the actual subject of my original post?
"a tool, the purposefully designed function of which is to kill as many people as fast as a trigger finger can twitch"
Yet again, ASA resorts to tired, trite, sloppy hyperbole as he ideologically trips and rhetorically falls/fails.
So, guns can't be used for hunting? Target practice? Self-defense? Law-enforcement?
They're only constructed for one, singular purpose?
Suggestions like that are what keep regressives from actually being taken seriously, and some helpful advice: when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging...
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation