The "want to be" gun confiscators would have a daunting job ahead of them

[montana]

And just how much value has the 2A been in preventing or repealing the myriad of unconstitutional laws that clearly infringe on those rights and freedoms?

We could debate the value, "or in your opinion the irrelevance of all of the Bill of Rights in of itself" by applying such logic. If the checks and balances have not worked well enough to even defend such rights, "as you have so vehemently expressed with The 2nd A" then what is your solution? Do nothing and never resist because it has been pointless so far? Is The 2ndA the only right you consider irrelevant, "or are there other irrelevant rights" since none of them have completely prevented intrusions of individual rights ? No where has any one stated, "our rights have never been infringed upon by an over reaching government and supporters" yet I don't consider The Bill of Rights in of itself impotent. This is the very reason people like me and others, "post up-dates, historical evidence,etc on 2ndA issues to keep gun right supporters informed" so they can use the political process to prevent more gun right intrusions. Being a gun forum would reason why we focus more on gun rights than others. I'm a little confused by your lack of enthusiasm, "and even sabotaging of such efforts" while claiming to be a supporter of The Bill of Rights and The 2nd A itself.

[stanc]

We could debate the value, "or in your opinion the irrelevance of all of the Bill of Rights in of itself" by applying such logic. If the checks and balances have not worked well enough to even defend such rights, "as you have so vehemently expressed with The 2nd A" then what is your solution? Do nothing and never resist because it has been pointless so far? Is The 2ndA the only right you consider irrelevant, "or are there other irrelevant rights" since none of them have completely prevented intrusions of individual rights ? No where has any one stated, "our rights have never been infringed upon by an over reaching government and supporters" yet I don't consider The Bill of Rights in of itself impotent. This is the very reason people like me and others, "post up-dates, historical evidence,etc on 2ndA issues to keep gun right supporters informed" so they can use the political process to prevent more gun right intrusions. Being a gun forum would reason why we focus more on gun rights than others. I'm a little confused by your lack of enthusiasm, "and even sabotaging of such efforts" while claiming to be a supporter of The Bill of Rights and The 2nd A itself.

1. Where did I opine that the Bill of Rights is irrelevant?

2. I don't "vehemently" express myself. I am quite calm.

3. If the Bill of Rights doesn't prevent the government from violating said rights, doesn't that, by definition, make it impotent?

4. How is expressing my thoughts and opinions "sabotaging" anyone's efforts on anything? I have no power to thwart anyone.

[LR1955]

I said nothing in that post about "deterring a potential tyrant," but since you bring it up, your statement that it is "historically false," is itself false. The people in the American colonies were armed, but that did not deter King George from tyrannical acts against them.

Stan:

Once again you are misleading and are ignoring history.

Deter doesn't mean the absolute of 'stop'. It means trying to prevent something from happening -- and its strength lies in the understanding of a potential enemy that an aggressive act would result in his destruction.

Yes, the Crown continued to do things to the Colonists that they considered tyranny and what happened? A revolution and our side won.

Things would probably have been far different if the Crown had succeeded in confiscating the firearms of the Colonists.

Historical lessons learned for potential tyrants. An armed population may not roll over and do your bidding. An unarmed population has no choice.

LR55

[montana]

1. Where did I opine that the Bill of Rights is irrelevant?.

You didn't,"exactly" that is why I asked

2. I don't "vehemently" express myself. I am quite calm.

Yes you are very calm, poor choice of words on my part!

3. If the Bill of Rights doesn't prevent the government from violating said rights, doesn't that, by definition, make it impotent?

I will take that as a yes , "so you are saying" The Bill ,of Rights is irrelevant?????

4. How is expressing my thoughts and opinions "sabotaging" anyone's efforts on anything? I have no power to thwart anyone.

If your opinion and thoughts support one side,"2ndA is irrelevant" as oppose to the other side, "2ndA is relevant" then you are supporting the idea of the irrelevance of the 2ndA, Thus you are putting effort or working against the relevance of the 2ndA in this discussion. Thus sabotaging the relevance of the 2ndA. This of course depends on whether you believe your opinion or words have no meaning or effect with other peoples opinions or beliefs, "so you would then be correct" making this discussion completely irrelevant

[JASmith]

Stan,

Ask yourself what purpose is being served by your continued dogged attempts to make yourself seem to be completely right and the rest of us wrong?

All you are doing for now is making casual readers of this forum think that some of us don't care about our freedoms and rights?

Is that your goal?

Regardless it is getting past time for you to heed your own signature line:

If at first you don't succeed, give up.
Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

[stanc]

..."so you are saying" The Bill ,of Rights is irrelevant?????

No, I am saying that the Bill of Rights is only words on parchment, that can be -- and repeatedly have been -- ignored by those in power.

If your opinion and thoughts support one side,"2ndA is irrelevant" as oppose to the other side, "2ndA is relevant" then you are supporting the idea of the irrelevance of the 2ndA, Thus you are putting effort or working against the relevance of the 2ndA in this discussion. Thus sabotaging the relevance of the 2ndA. This of course depends on whether you believe your opinion or words have no meaning or effect with other peoples opinions or beliefs, "so you would then be correct" making this discussion completely irrelevant

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

Stan,

Ask yourself what purpose is being served by your continued dogged attempts to make yourself seem to be completely right and the rest of us wrong?

All you are doing for now is making casual readers of this forum think that some of us don't care about our freedoms and rights?

Is that your goal?

Regardless it is getting past time for you to heed your own signature line:

JASmith,

Thanks, I needed that.

[stanc]

Stan,

I really enjoy your well-reasoned posts. They make a great contribution to the forum. Please keep posting.

Thanks, Joe. I have to say, I find your posts at least as admirable. You are truly without peer.

[41bear]

JASmith,

Thanks, I needed that.

I second that, a thousand times over.

[LR1955]

Stan,

Ask yourself what purpose is being served by your continued dogged attempts to make yourself seem to be completely right and the rest of us wrong?

All you are doing for now is making casual readers of this forum think that some of us don't care about our freedoms and rights?

Is that your goal?

Regardless it is getting past time for you to heed your own signature line:

JAS:

Who could possibly be a 'casual' reader of this particular thread?

LR55

[JASmith]

Thanks, Joe. I have to say, I find your posts at least as admirable. You are truly without peer.

Thanks for the compliment. But, when was that line posted? It is certainly not consistent with my memory of our conversations.

[JASmith]

JAS:

Who could possibly be a 'casual' reader of this particular thread?

LR55

Thanks for the morning wake-up humor!

[NugginFutz]

Thanks for the compliment. But, when was that line posted? It is certainly not consistent with my memory of our conversations.

You realize, Joe, that Stan was once again having a bit of fun at someone else's expense. He merely took what he considered to be literary license and rephrased what you said into what he wanted to read.

[JASmith]

I know, but an appropriately brutal response would have played into his hand. It is interesting to see how bitterly panicked he becomes when someone clarifies a post by inserting a parenthetical remark but is perfectly willing to insert what I am very sure is a false quote.

Given his behavior and our inevitable, I admit, knee-jerk responses to his outrageous posts, we should campaign to the moderators to shut down any post he participates at post 25. That would limit the damage he causes and the time we spend rebutting his incessant baiting.

I liked LR’s comment better — who are ‘casual readers’ of this forum? That one has both an element of humor and begets some serious thinking.

[stanc]

I know, but an appropriately brutal response would have played into his hand. It is interesting to see how bitterly panicked he becomes when someone clarifies a post by inserting a parenthetical remark but is perfectly willing to insert what I am very sure is a false quote.

You and others have been perfectly willing to change what I wrote when quoting me. I just followed your lead, except took it to extreme.

And "bitterly panicked" is grossly inaccurate. I was only mildly annoyed. Nothing you could ever say would cause me to become panicked.

[LR1955]

And I am perfectly willing to lock this thread.

And I do not agree with limiting Stan's or anyone else's ability to post as many times to a thread as they want. Nor do I agree with censoring someone because their opinion differs from some or all here.

And, somehow I doubt the 2A debate will be settled by comments made to the Grendel forum.

If people don't want to respond to a thread, they don't have to.

LR55