[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve

Do you question how passionately we went after Tim McVeigh?? What makes YOU think YOUR rebellion is going to any more popular than HIS was???

excon

First of all I'm not McVeigh, I'm not cult in Waco and I'm not plannng any rebellion. But for you to think we're too stupid to come up with a viable plan that includes a large segment of our military is what's ridiculous. This isn't Syria, and I'm quite certain more of our military sympathizes with us than say, president zero. We defeated the British military, Israel kicked eveyone's a$$, you obviously underestimate the underdog.

What's disturbing is your apparent ease with the thought of our government suppressing us to the point of rebellion, in which case I would have hoped you would be on the side of freedom. Sounds like you're OK with us ceding our freedom without a fight.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Sounds like you're OK with us ceding our freedom without a fight.

See, here's where it goes off the rails.. To ME, going through a background check before you can buy a gun, is NOT CEDING any right that I can find. It's NOT even close.. And, I KNOW the Constitution pretty good.

Now, ordering the NSA to READ your email and LISTEN to your phone calls is CEDING a right. YOUR man did that. I didn't hear ANYTHING from you then.

Look. I'm ready for Civil War part Deux. Maybe after you're defeated a second time, we can move forward.

Excon

[paraclete]

Hell
On the other hand, maybe we need to see one side WHIPPED up on real good before we can get something done... I'm ready to go.

excon

Ex you are surely not serious, political debate is one thing, revolution another.

Look, I agree change is needed, you can't have a country that is ungovernable because one side rejects what the ballot box tells them, even if it sends conflicting signals. If that happens it means the system is flawed and needs to be corrected, and that needs to be made a priority.

I'm not talking out of the side of my mouth here, the problems you face have been seen before and it takes real courage to tackle them

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

See, here's where it goes off the rails.. To ME, going through a background check before you can buy a gun, is NOT CEDING any right that I can find. It's NOT even close.. And, I KNOW the Constitution pretty good.

Now, ordering the NSA to READ your email and LISTEN to your phone calls is CEDING a right. YOUR man did that. I didn't hear ANYTHING from you then.

Look. I'm ready for Civil War part Deux. Maybe after you're defeated a second time, we can move forward.

excon

We already have background checks, but even expanding them is NOT where your side wants to stop. Interesting also that you defend the constitution and freedom in one breath and endorse a war to put us in our place the next.

[tomder55]

Ex you are surely not serious, political debate is one thing, revolution another.

look, I agree change is needed, you can't have a country that is ungovernable because one side rejects what the ballot box tells them, even if it sends conflicting signals. If that happens it means the system is flawed and needs to be corrected, and that needs to be made a priority.

I'm not talking out of the side of my mouth here, the problems you face have been seen before and it takes real courage to tackle them

Yup ,you already said we need Napoleonic dictatorship .
Tocqueville argued that democracy was capable of breeding its own form of despotism, albeit of the "soft" variety.. . "an immense protective power" that took all responsibility for everyone's happiness. The trade off was that this power remained "sole agent and judge of it." This power would "resemble parental authority" and would try to keep people "in perpetual childhood" by protecting them "from all the trouble of thinking and all the cares of living."

You ask why this country continues it's moral decline. It's because we have been seduced by the attraction of the nanny-state .

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

but even expanding them is NOT where your side wants to stop.

Couple things. Fighting a rebellion IS in the cause of freedom. Secondarily, if you're going to feel PUT in your place, then don't start something.. Cause if you do, you WILL be put in your place.

Finally, if WANTING to pass serious gun reform is TYRANNY, let me get off this wacko train right now...

Excon

[paraclete]

You ask why this country continues it's moral decline. It's because we have been seduced by the attraction of the nanny-state .

You would like to think so but in fact it has been suduced by something else. That is; materialism, the now society. This is the ever present danger of a secular society and your nation was first in line, so first in decline

[excon]

Hello clete:

This is the ever present danger of a secular society and your nation was first in line, so first in decline

If it's decline to EXPAND freedom to those who've been denied it, sign me up for MORE of that.

Excon

[talaniman]

Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
You ask why this country continues it's moral decline. It's because we have been seduced by the attraction of the nanny-state .

I think just the opposite. The country is evolving and more people are being included and joining in the process of building a better union. Nanny state is just a made up catch phrase to deflect attention from that giant sucking sound and blame poor people for being poor.

Now grab your guns and defend the rich guys rights to be rich. What's in YOUR wallet?

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:



Couple things. Fighting a rebellion IS in the cause of freedom. Secondarily, if you're gonna feel PUT in your place, then don't start something.. Cause if you do, you WILL be put in your place.

Finally, if WANTING to pass serious gun reform is TYRANNY, let me get off this wacko train right now...

excon

Define "serious gun reform." Our side is pretty simple, the constitution guarantees our right to keep and bear arms, your side is all over the map on "serious gun reform."

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Define "serious gun reform."

Nahhh.. I'll define the OTHER word I used in that sentence, and that's WANT.

People in hell WANT icewater.. It's a deflection, or a straw man, or a red herring, or just plain nonsensical to say we can't pass a universal background check because the libs WANT more.

In simple English, can you tell me how a universal background check INFRINGES on your right to own a gun??

Please, do NOT tell me about the things NOBODY is proposing as a reason to oppose the stuff somebody actually IS proposing...

Can you do that? Bet not.

Excon

[talaniman]

You got guns, and are paranoid!! You can still buy guns, yet are paranoid!! That's all you can talk about, your right to be paranoid!!

Maybe a gun isn't what you need. Sure doesn't make you feel better or less paranoid. Just saying.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh.. I'll define the OTHER word I used in that sentence, and that's WANT.

People in hell WANT icewater.. It's a deflection, or a straw man, or a red herring, or just plain nonsensical to say we can't pass a universal background check because the libs WANT more.

In simple English, can you tell me how a universal background check INFRINGES on your right to own a gun???

Please, do NOT tell me about the things NOBODY is proposing as a reason to oppose the stuff somebody actually IS proposing...

Can you do that? Bet not.

excon

Dude, how are you going to enforce "universal" background checks? That's the kind of thing Schmucky's bill did which would make me a felon for taking a vacation with someone house sitting while my guns were there.

Last week I told you about a guy who got his guns confiscated in NY because he allegedly had taken anti-anxiety medication once which is a violation of their hastily passed gun control. According to his lawyer that was no "clerical error," NY state police are allegedly scouring people's medical records for just such things.

You told us to trust you with health care and that ain't working out at all like you said, so sorry, I don't trust you with my second amendment rights. Get over it.

[tomder55]

They will never admit that the real goal of universal backround checks is a national registry .

[excon]

Hello tom:

they will never admit that the real goal of universal backround checks is a national registry

Just like you'll never admit that your goal is the reversal of Roe v. Wade and the criminalization of contraceptives.

Excon

[speechlesstx]

I have never heard anyone mention the criminalization of contraceptives but you, I'm not Muslim.

[tomder55]

Of course I'll admit to having a goal of reversing Roe. I think it is unconstitutional and the codification of legal murder. Hope I made that plain enough.
Now why not admit that the only possible outcome of universal backround checks is a national registry of guns.

[speechlesstx]

2 killed as 2 bombs explode at Boston Marathon

[cdad]

You got guns, and are paranoid!!! You can still buy guns, yet are paranoid!!!!!!!!! That's all you can talk about, your right to be paranoid!!!

Maybe a gun isn't what you need. Sure doesn't make you feel better or less paranoid. Just saying.

We have already seen it in the news and it has been posted on this thread. How a State tried to take away someone's guns for taking a certain medication. If a national registration were to go through then this condition will be nationwide.

Big Brother: Obamacare Looks to Collect Private Medical Info - Peter Roff (usnews.com)

One proposed departmental rule deals with what may become a centralized database containing patient medical records and pharmaceutical claim information.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

I sure don't know why bombs are outlawed. That's a HUGE encroachment on my second Amendment rights.

excon