Home General

Stand Up For Your Rights!!!

24

Comments

  • Nothing says "substantive dialogue" like a well put together ad hominem response, eh?

  • Militia being every Male. Understanding what militia means is important.  It would be every male, armed and also trained for purposes of defending against any threat. 
  • Funny that, you of all people, would continue with your incessant criticism of anyone who might cause you the least little bit of cognitive dissonance.

    This post is about standing up for our rights.

    What Rights have yous espoused motie?   Oh, that's right.....  You haven't.  Just quick little diminutive quips, supposedly in an effort to impress us all with your wit.

    I've finally figured out why you're this way.

    It's be cause you Have No Substantive Thoughts to offer up.  Just the sad whimpers and pathetic criticisms of an obscure old man grasping for relevance. 

    In other words, a Troll.


    Your constant twisting of my words, superimposing your own myopic belief system on mine, pervasive evasive behavior-never answering a question directly, choosing instead to attack others, all the while accusing them of doing so.  Not unlike a chihuahua displaying it's machismo, until it realizes the gate is open, then scampers back up onto the porch. 


    So, come on Troll Motie, or Trotie for short.

    Wow us with more of your decades of seminary training, wisdom and meaningful dialogue.
  • motie2motie2 Master
    edited March 2018
    I was going to suggest we take this nonsense to DM's but again, you are no fun..... 
    I'm going to go back under my bridge. <giggle>
  • Yeah, I know Trotie.

    A liberals worst nightmare....  A free thinking individual, able to conjugate a verb, and to defend themselves from not only tyranny and despotism, but the false witness of others.

    Yup, a real buzzkill.
  • @motie2 I’ve honestly been so invested in this conversation. LOL. Now I know how my grandma felt when she used to get enthralled with her novellas.
  • motie2motie2 Master
    edited March 2018
    I'm not interested in changing anybody's mind, and as long as this nonsense is confined to the one discussion/folder/mud pit it seems harmless enough.
    I'll shame-facedly admit to liking watching RWNJ's over react.
    (I'm a 71 year old scamp.... so naughty)
    But I'm done playing with this one. It's just too easy.
    And when it's this easy it stops being fun.

    "Does anyone remember laughter?"
    The Rock said it best: "Know your role...."




  • Thanks for the advice JF. I appreciate your point of view, though I do think it unrealistic.  That one should ignore antagonistic troll like behavior?  Yeah, no.


    And it's good to see you acknowledge your roll of troll motie.

    I love that you are redefining the English language and your apparent psychic abilities.  Well done.

    I also love how in this new reality of yours, how someone, oh, I dunno, like.... Me.  A self professed Christian Conservative is now a decided RWNJ.

    Yup, that Bible, that's just dangerous stuff.  Talking about Not Killing, and Not Lying.  Must be a real nutter to believe anything written there, eh trotie? 

    And that Constitution, what kind of a wacko could possibly read all of that hateful rhetoric and believe it.  Unimaginable !  The thought of a government having limited and finite power and being restrained from becoming tyrannical or despotic!?!?!?  Who would want that?


    As for laughter?  I have to imagine that you are laughing your ass of trotie.  All the way to the bank, as you're cashing that monthly pension check.  Provided to you by all of those RWNJ's  (you know, Bible Thumping Flag Waving Patriots) that have supported you your entire life.

    Well played sir.  Well played.


  • daveinlaxdaveinlax Connoisseur
    My rights have never been in question but I lived for a short time in the post civil rights bill south and saw what remained from Jim Crow. IMO most of the little issues you have with your rights are nothing compared to centuries of any rights at all denied for so many. 
  • PhilipPhilip Enthusiast
    Ha ha ha ha you had to watch a puppet show.
  • I think @mseddon and i have had some good conversation so far. I have absolutely seen conversation sway someone’s viewpoints. If that person is really looking to learn, and willing to take a humble posture, knowing that we don’t have it all figured out. We should all have his posture. Writing off debate assuming that no one is willing to learn seems like a dangerous decision/viewpoint. 

    I myself have changed viewpoints because of debate and maintaining an open mind. 
  • mseddonmseddon Professor
    @TaylorJDutton Thank you for the very thoughtful reply. I still haven't heard of any actual legislation to regulate AR-15 rifles at the US Congress. I hear a lot about it on Facebook and such, but haven't seen any proposed legislation. However, if you have, please point me to it, this is an honest request, I'd like to check out the proposed legislation.

    Since you asked for my thoughts - I do hear what you are saying about a determined person being able to do bad things. I actually agree that is true. I don't think we can regulate such things out of existence. But, I would like for us to find a way to reduce their frequency. I feel we owe it to our children. Red lights don't prevent traffic accidents, but they sure do reduce their frequency (something I even agree with when I'm stuck at a red light in a small town with no oncoming traffic). I feel this would be a combination of meaningful regulation of the rate of fire of weapons - not taking away the ability to buy such guns, but making it harder to do so, along with meaningful efforts to address mental illness, and ultimately our culture of violence - some of which might be regulation or legislated and some of which needs to be achieved through other means. While impinging on our freedom to buy anything at anytime, it feels to me like that would be a reasonable trade off to improve the safety of our children.
  • judandhispipejudandhispipe Master
    edited March 2018
    "Understanding what militia means is important. "

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
    So is understanding what "well-regulated" means. And "necessary for the security of a free state".

    This is a well-regulated militia
    httpsproxyduckduckgocomiurf1image_hosthttp3A2F2Fuploadwikimediaorg2Fwikipedia2Fcommons2Fthumb2F22F282FSeal_of_the_United_States_National_Guardsvg2F1024px-Seal_of_the_United_States_National_Guardsvgpnguhttpsuploadwikimediaorgwikipediacommonsthumb228Seal_of_the_United_States_National_Guardsvg1024px-Seal_of_the_United_States_National_Guardsvgpng





  • @judandhispipe i disagree,  they are part of the military. while they do have a role of defense of the nation, i dont think they count as militia.  you would never see them aid the citizens if the government turned on us, not unless they turned against their own brothers first.  that would be a terrible thing if it ever happens, hopefully we never have to see that, but i wouldnt categorize them as militia
  • @mseddon i understand where you're coming from.  If stricter background checks actually helped keep our children safer, and at the same time never infringed on the rights of anyone who had no ill-intent, then i think that would be a good decision.  I just dont see it going that way.  who knows, maybe it will, and i will have to admit that i was at least partially wrong.  I just see that if they take away more and more rights, and we realize it was a bad idea, then how do we go back from there? its rare that we ever see "rights" ever given back to us after they are taken away (as far as mankind and the history of manking is concerned)  I absolutely see where your heart and mind is though.  I suppose i just fear federal government and more power in their hands, simply because they are people, just like i dont trust myself.  Without CHrist, i am wicked, i seek my own gain over others.  this could be an argument for more gun control, but i dont think it is, because when greater powers realize that weaker powers have nothing, they can trample over them.  
  • @jfreedy while i agree that smoking my pipe and relaxing is a good idea, this is exactly why i think debate is important.  as far as my current conversation is going, i believe we both value each others opinions, and existence.  we are not "better" than this, debate is part of what makes mankind thrive, especially men.  we care so much for each others well being that we are willing to speak into each others lives. from both directions i believe this is the case.  if being a pipe smoker means having no will to debate important issues, then i suppose i dont get to wear that title.  but to go further, i think pipe-smoker would have even more meaning if it meant being a person who is humble, speaks the truth in love, and fights for what they believe, because it is important to them.  in the paraphrased words of Tim Keller, if you arent willing to fight with/for someone, its probably evidence that you dont truly love them, because investment lends itself to passion.  
  • The trouble is, @TaylorJDutton, the Founders wanted something like the National Guard. That's what the Second Amendment is about  Alexander Hamilton wrote about it at great length in Federalist Number 29.

    "It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."
     
    You don't have a right to defend yourself against the Government That's treason.
    You want to make sure the Government doesn't come for you? Then be an engaged citizen. Participate in the democratic process.
    Let's be frank. If everything completely fails, and they come for you, and you shoot at them, they'll call in a drone, or an attack helicopter, and blow you out completely.
    https://www.wonderslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/AH-1Z-Viper.jpg

  • @Judandhispipe <<Let's be frank. If everything completely fails, and they come for you, and you shoot at them, they'll call in a drone, or an attack helicopter, and blow you out completely.>>      Hey, that's what I wrote on March 12 ........ <<You take up the gun against the US military, you lose. See ya......>>

    Let's see if you get disparaged....

  • @jfreedy i see what you are saying there, to be very clear i am only talking about defending my life in a very extreme case, if it’s to that point i don’t think it would be treason at all, and if so, then so be it, we’d all be committing treason at the point I’m thinking of.  I don’t believe we have reached that point. I’m talking tyranny here lol, hitler, Stalin, the like

    I am in the process of becoming a police officer myself, don’t get me wrong here haha

    I don’t believe it’s only purpose is for defense against a tyrannical government, but self preservation and self defense as well. I believe it’s to preserve our right for all of it. 

    As far as the militia end, i am not extremely knowledgeable about the national guard, do they allow states to choose their officers? Or is it completely run by the federal government? Do you find it follows Hamilton’s ideas?

    Curious because i know we have some national guardsmen on the forum, I’d love to hear their thoughts 






  • Sorry trotie, no disparaging here, just plain factual conversation.  Should you continue to lament of such offenses, regardless of their glaring absence of substantiation, not to worry...  We're all used to it by now.   You choose to be offended at those who choose to disagree with you...  So be it.

    Jud, when the Colonialist stood up against the tyrannical oppression of England were the committing treason?  According to them, NO!  According to the folks across the pond.... Absolutely.


    If things get bad enough here again, and we  stand up against the despots, oppressors, tyrants and bullies, are we really committing treason?

    Circling back to previous whimpers...  The fact that you choose to take the position that you do, in regards to standing up for one's rights (or in your case, criticizing those that choose to do so, simply because you're either afraid, unwilling or unable to do so) speaks volumes of your position.

    Trying to placate a bully does little more than to give tacit approval of their actions and essentially encourages their behavior.
  • I'm not offended in the slightest. I'm just pointing out the obvious. The Second Amendment was written to provide for what was referred to in the past as the "State troops" - what is now referred to as the National Guard. It has nothing to do with private citizens arming themselves. That's a lie, foisted on frightened people by the NRA, which, these days. is now simply a front for the firearms industry to make more money.

  • Apparently someone didn't get the message about disagreeing without being disagreeable..... Instead, another personal attack. 
    Is such an attack warranted? I don't think so. But, apparently I have no right to express any opinion that doesn't conform to his.                           
    One might consider his bloviations to be clear evidence of hysterical over-reaction. 
    I've been called worse. These criticisms and ad hominem attacks would be intimidating if they weren't so lame.
    As a long time gun owner (a long gun -- a Savage over/under I inherited from my father, of blessed memory), I have spoken in support of the Second Amendment in sermons and published articles. I am a strong supporter thereof, but my opinions are invalid and not to be allowed, eh?.

    Hey, Dino,
    What does the TR in my new name stand for? (-10 pts -- Ending a sentence with a preposition.)
    I bet it doesn't stand for "Totally Rational"
    Also, is Trotie pronounced TRO-TEE with a long O, or TROTTY? "Inquiring Minds want to know".....

                                                                                 (signed) "Trotie the Bully Cupcake" :D 



  • Even if the second amendment wasn’t meant to acknowledge the right of the people to keep and bear arms (which it says). I’d say the national guard is a pretty bad version of the militia/state troops it speaks about. No offense to the national guard, i am thankful for them. But i don’t think they fit the bill you’re describing. 

  • mseddonmseddon Professor
    @TaylorJDutton Thank you again for hearing me and taking my comments seriously. I guess I would feel like the bar that is set - that background checks or any kind of regulation would not impinge on rights feels rather high to me. I feel that regulation of course impinges on our rights. And we seem to be comfortable with this (or less grumpy about it at least) in many other aspects of our lives. When we live in cities and towns, we submit to zoning regulations. The feds use highway funds to set national standards such as speed limits. My wife had to obtain multiple licenses just to open a small consulting business. We have to obtain a license before we get married, and I as a pastor have to make sure that either partner in any couple I'm marrying is not already married. We may argue about these regulations, some may not like them, but we have a discussion that is open to the idea of regulations in these aspects of our lives. So I feel like we already live in a community where our rights are regulated, and I can't understand why in this one aspect of our lives is considered off limits to discussion.

    So I feel that we make trade offs between our liberties and the good of the community in many other areas of our lives, particularly those which have to do with life and death. While I agree the second amendment does say we have a right to bear arms in a well-regulated militia, I don't see that as saying we cannot regulate such arms. Asking what a "well-regulated militia" means seems like a place to start. We already ban automatic weapons, so we have opened the door to regulation. Regulation is not taking away a right, in my opinion, it is simply balancing that right with the health and safety of the community. There is evidence that regulations do improve firearm safety (here's a piece from what seems to me to be a careful and balanced study of studies -https://www.sciencenews.org/article/evidence-preventing-gun-violence-deaths-research), and, I'm in agreement with you, that these regulations have to be done right. I would like to open the door to discussing this, with gun enthusiasts participating in the discussion. (I own a couple of shotguns, by the way). I feel that we can't even have a reasonable discussion because the bar gets set too high. That's what bothers me.
Sign In or Register to comment.