Topic: Ok, I'll play 20 questions ....

[Pandora]

.... from commongunsense.com ::snort::, but this link is to The LawDawg where you can read all the questions and his answers, but his analogy in answer to the last question is what interests me:

*Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

Since what you consider to be reasonable isn't even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

Same "reasonable compromise" touted with every last damn thing; it's their playbook.

[Weisshaupt]

.... from commongunsense.com ::snort::, but this link is to The LawDawg where you can read all the questions and his answers, but his analogy in answer to the last question is what interests me:

*Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

Since what you consider to be reasonable isn't even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

Same "reasonable compromise" touted with every last damn thing; it's their playbook.

Use the enemies own ethics and civility as a weapon against them.
For generations we have expected Quid Pro Quo out of these jerks,  and it never comes to pass. Sad thing is they still haven't any clue that we are arming ourselves and hunkering down, so that the next time they ask, the compromise is going to be a bit different and involve an exchange of lead.

[Weisshaupt]

Oh man,  some beauties in there

What do you think are the "second amendment remedies" that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?

I don't have a clue. Ask her.

Do you believe in the notion that if you don't like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?

Since I don't like being robbed, and I don't like being assaulted, yes, I do. As for speaking, that's what the Amendment next to the Second is for.

And if the government is the one Assaulting and robbing you, that is what Sharron Angle meant.  I have had several people on the left ask me why "I  can't live and let live" - nothing makes me  madder. Every time I tell them, "Because you won't let me.  You vote for people who you know will use government for to make me live the way you think is best and you have the gall to tell me to live and let live? Stop pretending to be noble- You are a bullying fascist asshole too cowardly to do your bullying yourself- so you vote for the government to do it. That doesn't absolve you of responsibility for what you do, nor can you pretend you are interested in just mining your own business.  You have voted to  invade my home, held a gun to my head, stolen my money, and demanded I express your values, but what you think I should by, and hold opinions you think I should hold, and you think I should not be angry? You think I should accept that state of affairs? You don't have the right to do it and neither does the government. Keep pushing asshole. See where it leads. "

They don't understand a word of it. After all I am a crazy hater. No need to actually decipher it. They aren't personally responsible for wjat the collective does.   They will walk away, forget it, and continue to vote of Democrats. Some tell me they are innocent because they are "unexamined" - if so, they are willfully so.  No mercy.

Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?

If they're lying, it's fairly appropriate. And since folks from your side have called me everything from crazy to redneck to inbred, I'd have to ask your stance on that one.

The new tone.  They aren't responsible for the collective. Of course, they don't ever chastise the collective, expect when they want to get more out of individual who aren't part of it - Society is to blame for racism, crime, gun shootings  etc. therefore everyone must be punished.

Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

heh.
 

[Libertas]

Somebody tell Scalia baout the "cake".      

http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,6478.new.html#new