Skip to main content

View Diary: To my gun owning neighbor and to every gun enthusiast in the United States of America - (333 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Freedom is liberty and liberty is.... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, ban nock, wishbone, PavePusher

    "1. a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
         b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
    2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
    3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights."

    You will notice that 'control' is named 3 separate times as contrary to liberty.
    Gun Control is as much an infringement of liberty as warrantless wiretaps is.

    "its time that people be secure from...."
    Terrorist attacks? That is the justification for warrantless wiretaps, Gitmo & torture. I disagree with all three for the same reason I disagree with gun control.

    "you side has gone too far"
    I disagree. I am not suggesting infringing on yours or anyone else's liberty.
    That isn't 'too far'. In fact...I don't even need to go 'so far' as to require any extra legislation to achieve my viewpoint.

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 06:35:20 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well-regulated is control as well. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, PsychoSavannah

      The Constitution could not be more explicit. The well-regulated control of the government over military weapons is required. It is not optional. It is in the Second Amendment.

      You cannot claim that the Constitution is made for complete and perfect individual freedom. It isnt. It has far too many examples of duties and responsibilities of the government which impinge upon our individual liberties, Second Amendment included.  

      You are arguing something that never existed and will never exist as long as there is a need for law, enforcement, and the public good. In a thousand years perhaps, people will have evolved enough to not need any enforcement from government, but until then, we need our personal firearms freedom to be within the context of a well-regulated militia. Otherwise, you are condemning thousands of people a year to maiming, early death and trauma. We cannot yet have the perfect individual freedom you want so badly for yourself, because too many people are not able to handle it. Many are barely human. We dont even try to find out who those people are. We just sell them a military weapon. Not only unconstitutional, but insane as well.

      We only ask that people register their guns and show their competence to have them. It is the simplest and least intrusive step which can be taken.

      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

      by OregonOak on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 07:09:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's true. The second couldn't be more explicit. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher, CarlosJ

        "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
        You will notice that 'well regulated' refers to the Militia.
        You will notice that 'shall not be infringed' refers to the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms'.
        You will further notice that being a member of the Militia is not a requirement for the right of the people.

        "Complete and perfect individual freedom"
        Not asking for that. I am simply asking for no infringements upon current liberties.

        "never existed"
        Au Contraire. There is a reason why its not my side proposing new laws & bans.

        "condemning thousands of people a year to maiming, early death and trauma."
        Not anymore than I am by opposing warrantless wiretaps.

        "We only ask that people register their guns and show their competence to have them"
        Registration has been used too often (Australia, GB, NY, Cali) for confiscation or attempted confiscation.
        "show competence" According to whom? What other Constitutional liberties should we require an arbitrary 'confidence test'?
        So to your simple question, I have a simple answer:
        No.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 07:30:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If the federal government decides to confiscate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          guns, there's not much we can do about it other than not vote for politicians who would confiscate guns. I'm in favor of background checks, licensing and registration. Let's be realistic, not doing any of that is not going to prevent confiscation of firearms if "The Authorities" decide that's what the law is.

          "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens," -Friedrich Schiller "Against Stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain"

          by pengiep on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 07:42:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And I can prevent registration by not voting (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pengiep, PavePusher, CarlosJ

            for politicians that support it.

            And that's what I plan to do.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:00:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  With respect, I understand. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero, PsychoSavannah

              You and Anton Scalia and the NRA will continue to read the Second Amendment as you wish. I will continue to vote for politicians who read the Second Amendment as it was written, with the non-infringement clause dependent upon the well-regulated militia clause.

              It is clear to me that to "keep" a military weapon, a citizen must have the same mental, physical and moral qualifications of any member of a formal military force. Well-regulated. You and Mr. Scalia cannot wish it away.

              Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

              by OregonOak on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 09:16:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Can't wish it away"?!? (4+ / 0-)

                I don't have to 'wish'. The second is interpreted the same way it has for the entirety of its existence (minus the AWB debacle).

                The second amendment is clear. One doesn't have to be a member of a militia in order to have the right to keep and bear arms.

                The one wishing for something different is you.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 09:34:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Respectfully disagree (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coquiero

                  The interpretation you argue for has been created in the last 40 years of Post-Reagan politics by the NRA. It is all Public Relations from the people who bought you Mad Men.

                  You can see the same devolution of interpretation in the slavery debate from 1789 to 1860. It resulted in an explosion. Your position on the gun issue will result in the same type of explosion if it is allowed to continue.

                  My amazement that an intelligent person like you cannot see this is complete. Wisdom is the application of intelligence and time, and you have become unwise in your interpretation at the hands of a powerful industry and false media.  

                  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                  by OregonOak on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 04:57:36 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh? So what guns were banned pre-Reagan that (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PavePusher, CarlosJ

                    wasn't post-Reagan?

                    Spare me the condescending propaganda accusations.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 05:12:45 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Feigning ignorance of my point.. (0+ / 0-)

                      To repeat.

                      The NRA has created the toxic public relations around the Second Amendment by simply leaving OUT the first clause in all its publications over the last 40 years and then campaigned to elect politicians who would appoint judges in sympathy with the "single clause" theory. Scalia, voila.

                      In the meantime, technology makes availaible awesome military weapons unknown to the public before that time, movies and advertising build demand for them, and now you have the makings of an explosion.

                      Congratulations. We are poised for real knock down drag out fight. I get the feeling that is what the NRA and its sympathizers want anyway. To kill a few liberals.

                      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                      by OregonOak on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 04:07:10 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm not 'feigning ignorance'. I am pointing out as (0+ / 0-)

                        politely as I can that 'your point' is a load of bullshit.

                        The 'toxic public relations around the Second Amendment' was caused by the threat upon it....even Clinton going into this compared it to a 'toxic landmine'.

                        "leaving OUT the first clause"
                        Nothing in the first clause has anything to do with the 'right of the people'. Which is why gun rights have been essentially the same (minus the disastrous AWB1) since its inception.

                        "awesome military weapons unknown to the public before that time"
                        What military weapons? What time?

                        "To kill a few liberals"
                        Glad to know where your insistence of infringing on the liberties of innocent Americans comes from: Irrational fear.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 06:55:26 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  With respect, look at your NRA literature (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Glen The Plumber

                          And see if this isn't true: the first part of the Second Amendment, is left off every quotation of the Second Amendment, and has been for about 40 years. This was the intentional misreading of the Second Amendment bought about when the NRA decided that it was not helpful to have "The well-regulated militia" clause on their masthead, or in the public mind. Principle one of advertising to change public perception is to fabricate a new interpretation, then repeat ad infinitum until it seems that the new interpretation has Always Been The Way We All See It.

                          Then consider that no Supreme Court has ever ruled that the first part of the Second Amendment is "inoperative," as Scalia did in Heller. There is a direct line between this 40-year public relations effort and the eventual misreading of the Second Amendment. For what purpose? As the NRA states, as a last resort to controlling government tyranny. In other words, shooting government officials, or threatening and people you don't like; in the case of the NRA, Democrats, liberals and other people who have struggled for a role of government to support the less well off in our country. This is being done too. Threats work, even veiled ones, to accomplish political goals. I dont think I need to go over the list of liberals assassinated or intimidated to adopt a "pro-gun" stand.

                          How you cannot see this is beyond my imagination, Frank. The NRA has succeeded in gaining massive public support around an official policy of terror and manipulation, by making the "well-regulated militia" clause inoperative and you, as an intelligent man, have bought into their defense.

                          I hope upon reflection, and prayer, you can see how far from sanity the NRA has taken this country, and join us to reverse the movement for the NRA agenda for All Citizens Armed All the Time.

                          This is new. This is not historically true. This is very, very dangerous. This is what the tyranny of the mob looks like, and I hope you can join us in re-establishing a republic based on common ground rather than fear and violence.  

                          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                          by OregonOak on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 04:32:43 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  "Terror and manipulation" "very, very dangerous" (0+ / 0-)

                            "Tyranny of the mob" "liberals assassinated" "violence and fear"

                            I will not surrender the liberties of innocent Americans because of your irrational fears.

                            Gun Control won't help you with your distrust & paranoia of your fellow citizens. There is no amount of laws or bans that will soothe such unfounded fears. That's something you're going to have to work out yourself. Maybe you should try 'prayer & reflection'

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 05:27:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So you dont see Sandy Hook as terror? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber

                            .. or Columbine, or Aurora, or Boston, or the five dead in Federal Way this past weekend because people who should NOT have had guns were defended by the NRA's individual "right" to have guns? How can you excuse your own rhetoric?

                            If my post seems fearful to you, then I suppose I will have to say, yes, I am afraid that people who defend the NRA's "individual right" line are selfish, emotionally scarred Social Darwinists in the mode many rightist movements of the past century. As long as THEY survive, well, must suck to be you is their attitude. I do fear a resurgance of the fear and violence which the fascists were capable of using, and the best way to do it is to sell military weapons to every member of society, no questions asked. That idea is the death of democracy. If we are not all in this together, we might as well say so now, arm everyone and see who is the last faction standing in a year.

                            I feel sorry for your fear and anger as well. There is something that you communicate beyond just "freedom" and "liberty" which gives me the impression that you really do not give a rats ass about anyone else. I dont own guns. I am not the paranoid one here.  

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 01:57:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "your fear" (0+ / 0-)

                            Read your post.
                            Then continue to tell me about 'fascism', 'death of democracy', 'fear', "Terror and manipulation" "very, very dangerous", "Tyranny of the mob", "liberals assassinated" "violence and fear"

                            Irony.

                            How many liberties must be surrendered for your shameless & irrational fears?
                            How much will you ask innocent Americans to surrender in your futile quest to finally feel safe?

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 03:23:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How many guns will you shill for (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber

                            to sacrifice thousands of innocent children each year? Have you no shame, at long last, have you no shame?

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 06:27:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Said the supporter of warrantless wiretaps. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Not A Bot

                            ...........Or is it a different Constitutional liberty you insist that innocent Americans must lose?

                            It is so hard to keep your type strait.

                            I find it interesting that you choose to plagiarize what Joseph Welch said to Joe McCarthy--Joe McCarthy, a man that insisted that the liberties of innocent Americans be curtailed for safety.....'for the children'.
                            And just like your ideological twin McCarthy, your sick desire to take the liberties of innocent Americans for your paranoid fears will be defeated.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 07:28:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your paranoid fears wrapped in your false idea (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber

                            of "liberty" are a threat to every citizen in America, especially the young people who need the protection of a strong Federal government. I am arguing for background checks.

                            How that can be construed as an infringement of Constitutional liberty, when the Second Amendment requires a Well-Regulated miltia as a precondition of military weapon ownership is beyond your logic, and Anton Scalia's logic as well. I think you would be far more comfortable preaching to sites dedicated to requiring gun ownership in America. People here are ignoring your idiotic ramblings in favor of the Second Amendment read in its entirety, and look forward to Mr. Scalia's replacement and the overturning of Heller and McDonald at the next opportunity. You are on the losing end of Constitutional law, and of history, and it would be better to accomodate yourself to it sooner rather than later. Bitter dead enders never end well.

                            I find it interesting that as I quote Joseph Welch's takedown of a fascist bully, you try to take the role of the man who brought him down. Your contortions are legend, Mr. Rose.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 05:19:20 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am on the losing end? (0+ / 0-)

                            Looks like somebody is on the wrong side of reality. It is hard to imagine a greater failure than what the President just orchestrated.

                            If it was simply B/Cs, I think it would have passed, but when B/Cs were introduced with a gun ban, it tipped people off to the fact that B/Cs wasn't all that gun controllers wanted.

                            Now all that remains is the electorial consequences. I hope you feel safer in the aftermath of the 2014 elections.

                            I will be sure to ask you.

                            "Bitter dead enders never end well"
                            Indeed they do not.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 07:56:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Short term thinking.. your hallmark. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                            Oh, yes there was something wrong with THAT bill, any OTHER bill would have had a chance, blah blah. Pure sophistry.  Your kind will vote and campaign against ANY bill, because THAT bill is wrong, but the OTHER one is ok. Pure NRA propoganda. The scary librulz are coming for your gunz. Fear and paranoia. The truth is, only if you are a terrorist, or a psycho could you construe that bill as going after your guns. Is that who you are defending? Or is it... accidental child killing in the thousands? Whichever one, you have no moral standing at all in this issue. You, and the NRA, and Scalia, and the GOP, are complicit in the murder of innocents by not supporting that bill. Congratulations. You are on the side of Mayhem by way of the Insane.  

                            And, yes I will feel safer when powders are tagged and regulated, and terrorists and the mentally ill are required to reveal their backgrounds to gun sellers, which should happen around.. oh.. 2014.

                            And if you are truly worried about "electoral consequences," maybe you should get out and campaign for real Democrats instead of the Blue Dog Reagan Democrats who sell us down the river every time we try to make the country a little less insane. Goodbye and Good Riddance, Mr. K Street NRA Shill Max Baucus, and hello Ron Wyden. How do you like THAT for starters? Mr. Baucus sees the handwriting on the wall, and can count votes better than most. The Blue Dogs have howled their last. I am looking forward to the Senate AND the House this time, and Obama will get credit for actually taking a principled stand instead of triangulating "electoral politics" pre-Newtown.

                            I will be glad to have that conversation with you in 2014.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 04:20:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am a liberal. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            andalusi

                            You best learn what 'liberal laws' mean.

                            I am defending the liberties of innocent Americans, people whom you distrust & their liberties you despise.

                            The last time gun control destroyed the party it not only polled far better, but it had 'million mom marches'.
                            Now you don't even have 'dozen mom marches'.
                            Individual liberties is something that just keeps growing, in contrast to your fearful  paranoia.

                            We won 20 years ago.

                            I look forward to seeing your liberty-fearing type put back to the irrelevancy corner for the next 20 years.

                            Just remember....next election is all yours.
                            Own it.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 04:54:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your Liberty.. is a Perversion of Liberty. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                            And you never seem to have the time to address your hand-in-pocket to Mr. Scalia. What friends you keep.

                            I dont despise people's liberties. I read the ENTIRE Second Amendment, and support the Background Check bill as written. I support the liberty to keep and own firearms within the context of a well-regulated militia, the way the FOUNDERS WROTE THE AMENDMENT. What part of that dont you understand? And why, like Republicans and the NRA, and fringe gun groups to the RIGHT of the NRA, do you refuse to respond to it?

                            Your kind is completely off the reservation in terms of the Constitution. The effects are all around us. The thugs may win because you refuse to use the Constitution to protect the population from insane people with guns. Own THAT.

                            Your brand of liberty would freeze beer, Mr. Rose. It is not what you think it is, and even though you can make the argument and convince millions of other selfish and paranoid people of its value does not make it right. We may have another war over this, not unlike many countries who refuse to be civilized and understand what the Rule of Law is all about within a democracy. If we do, I hope you enjoy your 20 years of "winning."

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 07:23:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then let us ask the dictionary, shall we? (0+ / 0-)

                            "Liberty: NOUN
                            1. a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                                 b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
                            2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
                            3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights"
                            I don't have my 'English-to-Oreganoakese" dictionary handy, why don't we stick to the actual definitions of words?

                            As devastating as your laughable guilt by association argument is (clearly, you are a scholar), you have the uncomfortable reality of 230 years of precedent.

                            Simple literacy shows that being a part of a militia is not a prerequisite for the right to keep and bear arms.
                            This isn't Starship Troopers. Rights aren't contingent on military service.

                            American's liberties take presidents over your shameless fear.
                            The liberties of innocent Americans aren't made null & void by your distrust of them.

                            "Don't understand rule of law"
                            Indeed I do.
                            And your attempts to change it was met with utter failure. There is no need for your paranoid fears of "another war". Democracy will do just fine.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 05:37:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "American Liberties" as defined by MerriamWebster? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero, indycam

                            Okay. Well played. I submit to your overwhelming legal scholarship.

                            Or, you could have read Locke, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton about what "liberty" means in the context of a civilisation where people must work together and limit their own personal desires, in the Rule of Law, formed by experience and evolution of ideas, for the common good. But no, Merriam Webster is good enough for you.

                            The Constitution, despite you, your kind and Scalia, still reads as it was written, and no amount of amateur interpretation will erase it. You have never dealt with the meaning of the words, instead picking and choosing the phrases which fit your selfish desires. Background Checks fit within the demands of the Second Amendment, and no one is going to take your guns, unless you are certifiably insane or a terrorist out to kill and maim innocent citizens.

                            That is all this is about, and your contortions and random ad hominum spin do nothing to advance the discussion. You must be very proud of the Roberts Court and Mr. Scalia's shredding of the document we have lived by for 230 years. I wonder which of the other  Amendments you are aiming at now. Perhaps the 14th? We could have armed Slave Catchers again. That will really help to build a civilisation based on the common good. It worked out so well before 1865.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 06:03:31 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'll just stand aside while you debate the (0+ / 0-)

                            dictionary.

                            Good luck with your one-man-assault on the English language.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 06:08:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do some reading before you engage in debate. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            indycam

                            Read some Jefferson. Locke. Hume. Madison. Lincoln. Kant. Pierce.  Read what the founders had in mind when they established "Liberty" before you use the Abridged Merriam-Webster as your sole authority on the subject.

                            They all asserted that liberty within the context of civilisation does NOT mean.. do anything you feel like doing. That is a pre- middle school definition.

                            Liberty, to the founders, besides being Liberty from Monarchial Oppression, Liberty from Established Religion,  Liberty from Kings, Liberty from arbitrary murder and imprisonment, and  liberty from fear, means using the concept of The Common Good to guide which actions we can all agree on are beneficial to the greatest possible liberty for all members. That your liberty stops where mine begins, and that Absolute Liberty is a fool's errand in any place where there are more than two people in a room. It is described by the word Civility. Humane Thinking. The Golden Rule, and as such is based on ancient Judeo-Christian philosophy. It is NOT what you think it is. Democracy does not exist where personal LICENCE flourishes.

                            Your idea is the idea of Libertarianism. Selfish, myopic, self- interested and isolated Libertarianism. It is the opposite of democracy or a republican form of government. Somalia and Ethiopia have that. We know what it looks like. You are obviously confused about the meaning of terms.

                            And thank you for declaring your departure. At least we have established what you are; a right-wing libertarian who may THINK he is a progressive liberal, but who got a very thin education on what actual liberty means.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 04:31:17 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A 'right-wing libertairian' that has a user name (0+ / 0-)

                            based on FDR.

                            Your detective skills are equivalent to your language skills.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 06:34:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nice cover job. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            indycam

                             Easy enough to slap on an FDR quote, but it is very apparent where your sympathies are; Scalia, Roberts, and the NRA.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 06:47:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes. It's all a CONSPIRACY!!!! (0+ / 0-)

                            I also edited the dictionary.

                            And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for your profound powers of deduction/mind-reading/dictionary-defeating powers.

                            Drat.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 06:51:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow. Just wow. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            indycam, Glen The Plumber

                            You really are convinced you are the only bright spot in the Universe at the microscopic level. You cannot even start to address the bigger and more comprehensive arguments. Not there. In the weeds.

                            And, maybe if you would lay off on the ad hominum attacks, you might be able to actually.. you know.. persuade.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:05:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are just the gift that keeps giving. (0+ / 0-)

                            "ad hominum"
                            2 posts earlier "[you are] a right-wing libertarian"

                            You have managed to debate the dictionary while losing a debate to yourself.

                            Hats off to ya.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:12:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Still nothing substantive. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            indycam, Glen The Plumber

                            Just hurling bumpersicker slogans. Deep, really deep.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:40:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yup . (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, OregonOak

                            Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

                            by indycam on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 10:29:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You mean other than the dictionary definition of (0+ / 0-)

                            a word?
                            A definition you refuse to concede to?

                            I really wish I could do something as 'substantive' as single-handedly taking on the dictionary while hurling such nuggets of......whatever it is you think you're doing.

                            I'll just have to leave such big-thoughts to you.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 11:39:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you not have an encyclopedia ? (0+ / 0-)

                            See the problem is ,
                            you have a dictionary
                            and OregonOak has a library full of books
                            not just a dictionary .
                            You should open up and try to understand what OregonOak is saying , he has a great deal of knowledge to share . He is not a one dimensional cartoon , he doesn't have simple pat answers to complex problems , he doesn't spew simple minded crap , he has arguments that hold together under examination .
                            If knowledge is power , he has what it takes .

                            Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

                            by indycam on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 07:25:31 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  He must not read them, as he already has proven (0+ / 0-)

                            he doesn't so much know the definitions of simple English words.

                            But I am certain he has made excellent headway into coloring them.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 07:31:56 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you realize that your childish comments (0+ / 0-)

                            are not hurting anyone but yourself ?
                            OregonOak is an adult with a great deal of knowledge on this subject , knowledge that isn't one dimensional , knowledge that doesn't lead him to say ridiculous things like "coloring them".

                            But I am certain he has made excellent headway into coloring them.
                            This is something I would expect a schoolyard bully to say and laugh about . An infantile insult that shows a great deal about the person who says it .

                            You are obviously not able to converse with OregonOak on his level and I really doubt that he will ever lower himself to your level of discourse .

                            You remind me of a loudmouth tattooed big hog riding biker who can't compete in an adult conversation and resorts to flinging inane bull shit in a futile attempt to win via a completely callous disregard for anything and everything above the neck .

                            Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

                            by indycam on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 08:24:50 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, I am handicapped by my insistence of using (0+ / 0-)

                            the actual definitions of words. And he certainly proved that he wouldn't stoop to the level of using the correct definitions.

                            But thanks for your opinion.
                            Really means a lot to me.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 09:05:56 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think your "handicap" lays elsewhere . (0+ / 0-)

                            I think you can't accept that you don't know or understand what is being said , that you are hung up on some silly little game and you can't get past it .
                            Keep on going about

                            the actual definitions of words
                            that's really working for you . You really got him there , you really show your great depth by going on and on about "the actual definitions of words" . Do you think anyone is convinced that you have a better handle on the subject because you keep going on about "the actual definitions of words" ? Its such a childish game that you are playing , I'm almost embarrassed for you .

                            Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

                            by indycam on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 09:27:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Using a pun? How clever. (0+ / 0-)

                            Using the disabled as an insult? How classy.

                            Using the language correctly is not a 'silly game'. It is basic competence in conversation.
                            If one cannot use the language correctly to make a point, then the point is incorrect.
                            The meanings of words don't change at your convenience.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 09:38:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dude , you brought it up . (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            OregonOak
                            Well, I am handicapped by my insistence of using
                            You can't be so two faced as to believe you can bring it up
                            and then object to it ?
                            Using the language correctly is not a 'silly game'. It is basic competence in conversation.
                            If one cannot use the language correctly to make a point, then the point is incorrect.
                            Arrogance is such bad form . Do you know that what you are saying is just plan wrong ? Or do you just not care ?

                            Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

                            by indycam on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 09:46:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Me and the dictionary. (0+ / 0-)

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 09:49:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And ? (0+ / 0-)
                            Me and the dictionary.
                            You and the dictionary ...

                            Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

                            by indycam on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 09:53:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks Indy, but I don't think Frank understands. (0+ / 0-)

                            Entire volumes of books over lifetimes of scholars have been written about the concept of "liberty" and "human freedom." Its not easy and its not simple to put into effect, because the concept is abstract and hard to make work in the real world. You get that, and I get that, but many people don't, and want an easy definition to bandy about, or in this case, to just proclaim and not debate at all.

                            Voltaire, Lincoln, Marshall, Henry Clay, John and JQ Adams, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Immanuel Kant, and thousands of others have struggled with the idea of liberty and freedom when it comes into conflict with others' vision of their own freedom. King George had  EXCELLENT liberty, for himself, yet not as much as King Phillip of Spain, blessed with no Parliament or English Magna Carta of Rights to deal with. But they both failed the test of how to maximize freedom for the greatest number of citizens, and their failure resulted in ... US. The American Experiment in freedom. Even a brief review of the history of attempts at Freedom and Liberty exposes the hazards of individual freedom unaccounted for by checks and balances, and the founders realized they were on a razor thin edge between mob rule, anarchy (perfect individual freedom for all) and tyranny, (perfect individual freedom for one great man, and none for anyone else) It is so difficult to explain how to manage the balance between anarchy and tyranny that they didn't try, aside from Jefferson and Kant, too hard; they put most of their effort into designing a government which EXPRESSED HOW to keep the balance right and charged us, their descendents, with keeping the balance alive. As Franklin said, "Gentlemen,  it is a Republic, if you can keep it."

                            The part that worries me the most is that so many Americans have discarded the concept of the Common Good as the way to maximize freedom for every citizen, seeing only their OWN freedoms as maximal and desirable. My debate here is part of that dismay. I do not know how we get back the original spirit of liberty and freedom in the American sense; we are all in this together as equals, and our laws and policies should not expand one man's freedom at the expense of another's, or one group's interests in the interest of others. Instead, we seem to have selfish interest groups single-mindedly pushing to expand their OWN freedom and liberty and everyone else can just suck eggs, if their freedom is impinged upon. If my freedom to travel is at risk because of random terrorists arms, too bad. The terroritst have a right to be armed and threaten me with them. If my freedom to associate is intimidated by armed gangs, as happened at our own Capital last month, too bad, because their freedom comes first over mine. If my freedom to support a political candidate is opposed to my armed neighbors who have violent rhetoric against that candidate, my support just has to stay hidden because their armaments are more sacred than my safety. There is too much shooting around here anyway, on weekends and evenings, and it would be too easy for a drunk armed guy to just aim a few shots this direction and then throw the gun in the river. This has happened too, to the liberal "dissenters" in the area.

                            This is all plainly Unconstitutional in my view, and the view of Mr. Breyer and Ms. Sotomayar in Heller, but no matter. Scalia got five votes and now my rights are secondary to the gun owners around me. I wont dare to put out a lawn sign for a Democrat now, since my neighbors are all armed Right wingers here in the countryside i live in. Too bad for me. Their rights are more important than mine.  

                            I really think Mr. Madison, Mr Jefferson, Mr. Kant, Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Marshall would agree with me. I can supply quotes if necessary, but I dont think those references would be well-regarded.

                             Thanks for your support.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 04:40:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fear Monger. (0+ / 0-)

                            Troll.  NRA shill.

                            Own that.

                            I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                            by coquiero on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:58:38 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  OH SNAP!!! (0+ / 0-)

                            I tell ya, all you do is scold, scold, scold.

                            'Self-Awareness'--Just not your style.

                            Do not change a thing!

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 01:51:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  Then why don't we just (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero

      live in a libertarian paradise with no government to control anything?  Wouldn't that be true freedom?

      "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

      by Silvia Nightshade on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 08:18:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm good with simply maintaining the current (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher, CarlosJ

        liberties innocent Americans currently enjoy (but I am willing to listen to expansions of individual liberty)

        So the more proper question would be "why don't we live in an authoritarian paradise with government in control of everything? Wouldn't that be something?"  But I'm not much of a fan of such over the top statements.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 09:31:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Liberty in the Founder's Conception (0+ / 0-)

          was a balance between deeply felt personal desires and the needs of the Common Good. A good government ruled by The People does that, if it has the Whole in mind when making decisions. They called that "Disinterested," and they found the most "Disinterested" man they could find, Washington, to lead the early nation. He had the balance almost right.

          Those two ideas are constantly in balanced conflict in any civilisation, and yet, the extremists say ANY government which restricts ANY of my personal desires is corrupt. That is the way to collapse the definition of Liberty advanced so skillfully by Madison and Jefferson. That is also what has happened to the Second Amendment to have so many extremists running around saying the first half simply does not exist because it is nullified by the second half. No balance. No democracy. No liberty.

          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

          by OregonOak on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 04:46:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (181)
  • Community (80)
  • Baltimore (76)
  • Bernie Sanders (57)
  • Civil Rights (46)
  • Freddie Gray (43)
  • Elections (35)
  • Culture (33)
  • Hillary Clinton (32)
  • Law (28)
  • Racism (27)
  • Labor (26)
  • 2016 (24)
  • Education (23)
  • Media (23)
  • Economy (23)
  • Politics (22)
  • Texas (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site