This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Open Letter to Two of Our Critics

 
Blogazdein’s Head and Retro, as you can see, I have been at my son’s graduation and did not have time to respond to your criticisms posted on the Vent Page. I have time now. 
Those of us who blog get a daily report of how many people look in on us. Over the years, it has been pretty steady. The number has not gone down recently.
 
By now you have heard from some of the people whose names you listed. Basically, they say they have not gone anywhere. However, they have wearied of jousting with people who are not worth it. They are resting.
 
Going down the list you made: Honest Debate has been gone for years. I had hoped he would be a co-administrator, but he was very busy. One thing I hope though, is that he was not upset when I missed his music gig here in Boone. It was one of those fiercely cold Boone nights and so I missed his performance. He did leave the blog right after that.
 
Liberal POV has been good riddance, although his inane comments do appear occasionally under other names. As to New Guy, I have never understood why we lost him. He never really explained. I do know that many local officials are his close friends. That was what made him so valuable as he had access to the local scene, equal to JW on the other side. I know he was bothered being associated with a blog where the commenters were dissing his friends. Also, he was uncomfortable with my attacks on Soucek.
 
As to Jack, I don’t know. On the other hand I do predict that Happily Married will be back, especially if the topic of LGBT arises.
 
Sarkazein, I have asked to keep his cards and letters coming and never worry about it being too much. I really treasure him.
 
Anyway, thanks for caring.
Blogger

37 comments:

Sarkazein said...

Thank you Blogger for the kind words. HD has commented a few times in the last few months. The "critic commenter" in question obviously spends a great amount of his time monitoring this blog site. He even counts my comments. He, under a mess of other screen names, has never been capable of defending his socialism/liberalism so he lashes out at his betters in an odd yet kind of sad way.

Sarkazein said...

I must say, I thought of GuyFaulkes as I open carried near a drift of liberals.

Sarkazein said...

The "Recent Comments" column is not appearing. This will cause an undo burden on the "critic commenter" as he has to go to each post in order to keep his comment counting data current.

guy faulkes said...

All right, Sark, curiosity has overcome me. Why did you think of me when open carrying around our liberal friends and did the sight of an armed citizen exercising hi civil rights in order to live up to his responsibility to protect himself, his family, and the public at ;large cause any of them to soil his loincloth?

guyfaulkes said...

I forgot to mention that I also wonder why our comment counting friend has a problem with how I spell Faulkes but says nothing about your spelling sarcasm Sarkazein. Do you think you went over his head?

Sarkazein said...

GuyFaulkes- I just now saw your comments 7:36 AM & 7:43 AM. I had commented last year prior to the Texas Open Carry Law that I wasn't too sure about open carry being a good thing. I have tried it a few times and find the most enjoyable part the looks I get from obvious illegal aliens and obvious liberals. Probably half my comments here are to tweak liberals. Now, I can visually tweak liberals just by passing by them.

guy faulkes said...

Sark, be careful when you are in contact with anti-gun liberals and are carrying a gun. I once had one try to get me charged with threatening him because I offered to take him to the range so he could shoot and have a basis for an informed opinion. In his mind, the offer constituted a threat that scared him until yellow water was probably running down his leg. I knew the cop he talked to and when the cop told me about it, he thought it was funny. Another cop might have reacted differently. That being said, open carrying makes an effective political statement.

Sarkazein said...

I have a liberal associate who says if he sees someone open carry he will chastise them. I said that means you trust the person open carrying enough to feel physically safe around him. In fact, you trust the armed person more than you trust an unarmed person as it is unlikely you would harass just anyone.

Happily Married said...

Sark loves parading around his ignorance. Your "liberal" friend does not necessarily trust the person. You "liberal" friend might just be brave enough - or fed up enough not to worry about the open carry person's reactions. Maybe your dumb enough to think that everyone is afraid of a gun. That mentality is exactly what is wrong with the entire open carry concept. You assume by openly carrying that you are presenting safety and security. Your assumptions are just that - and they "make an ass out of u and me" as the old saying goes. I have noticed a recent trend of open carry in town. I know they they are not law - just citizens exercising their "right". But with great "strength" comes great responsibility. I am one of those "liberals" according to you. I have a concealed carry permits and I own weapons of all kinds, pistols (many), shotguns and rifles. I am not sure how you reconcile your version of a "liberal" that has those traits as you are so adamant about their disposition. That being said, the "right" for someone to open carry provides absolutely no assurance of a qualified citizen. It simply means that they were either given a gun or came up within enough money to buy a gun. This does not make them qualified or safe in any shape form or fashion. I shutter at the idea that there is a movement that the world would somehow be safer if everyone owned a gun. I went through a couple of safety courses and watched the people that were considered "passing" for their marksmanship that were then capable of a concealed permit. I am a competitive level marksman and was appalled that these people were given a pass of the class. The idea of these people being confronted in a crowded place provides for nightmares. But at least they were provided some training and guidance. Open carry is highly problematic for these reasons. No training, no qualifications, no mental competency reassurances - just a "right" as you see it. Maybe you should consider the importance of that right and be more selective. It might actually help your cause. I have confronted people when I noticed a concealed gun when I was on my own. I have been trained and qualified and that makes my abilities better than someone without those things, I did not confront the recent open carry persons because my daughter was with me. I was afraid of their reactions and afraid for her safety. You people are so concerned about who goes in the bathrooms you are ignorant as to real dangers. the ability to have judgement, respect, and precision around firearms is a privilege and is special - and should be monitored and controlled. Your calls for everyone - no anyone - to open carry dilute the gene pool so it is a bunch of idiots out there brandishing a firearm they have no idea how to control - but maybe that is what you have been exemplifying.

Sarkazein said...

HM- Consider yourself well tweaked. I feel like a cigarette before I nod off.

Johnny Rico said...

Happily Dumb said:

"You "liberal" friend might just be brave enough - or fed up enough not to worry about the open carry person's reactions"

And why exactly would a liberal socialist sheep (you) be "fed up." What are you fed up with - someone exercising a Constitutional Right or the fact they are doing something that horrifies you - the exercise of personal responsibility? LOL!!!

Then we get to the heart of the communist mindset with this little jewel:

"That being said, the "right" for someone to open carry provides absolutely no assurance of a qualified citizen."

What is a "qualified citizen" exactly? You see, we don't need any assurance of anything other than what the 2nd Amendment give us which is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. If you need an assurance of something, then be assured your political brand is rooted in self deception, oppression and just plain being stupid. LOL

Then you go on to make a totally insane statement with:

"I have confronted people when I noticed a concealed gun when I was on my own"

Why would you confront someone when you noticed a concealed gun? What exactly would you say to someone with a concealed weapon (it wasn't concealed if you saw it). You claim to be a competitive level shooter with many guns, but your statements don't back up that mindset. I think you were exposed a couple years ago claiming this same thing. What competition do you engage in - popgun shooting doesn't count. Back to confronting people exercising their rights - in doing so you become exactly what you claim to be against!! Hypocrite. You say folks open carrying shouldn't have the right to do so, yet you believe you have the right to "confront" someone who does because (according to you) are more expert than them? WTF? This is one of the all time dumbest posts I've read, and you've posted some real winners before. As for confronting those carrying guns, I doubt you could fight your way out of an open field full of special needs children.

Stings don't it

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

guy ffaulkes said...

Rico,I have to disagree with your post. The Second Amendment does not give anyone anything. It affirms a right granted by the Creator and prevents the government from interfering with it. It provides the means for the people to be able to keep a tyrannical government from abusing the people. This includes our own government in a worst case scenario. It is for this reason that big government proponents hate it so badly.You make an excellent point about the danger of requiring some type of qualification before one has the ability to own a gun. The government would soon see to it only those people it approves of will be armed.

In a perfect world, hM would be right. People would recognize that rights come with responsibilities. However, aright that is controlled by a government is not a right,If some are not as proficient with a firearm as Hm or I would like, then it is a small price to pay for freedom.

HM, as a competitive shooter and self acknowledged firearms expert, what is your opinion of the gun handling abilities of law enforcement officers? Please compare them to the general public and then to a competitive shooter such as yourself.

Sarkazein said...

HM- You support liberal politicians. You have absolute ZERO credibility when it comes to firearms and the right to carry. Liberal politicians live to restrict gun rights and you support liberalism. It is Conservatives who have to constantly defend their right to carry from the Left's unending legislative and executive order attacks on this right. Turn in your firearms to your county sheriff and apologize to your liberal friends for your hypocrisy, lies about being proficient, and for commenting on other's bulges (handgun imprints you say you chastise people for).

Johnny Rico said...

Guy Faulks,

You are right. Forgive me for not articulating that the 2nd Amendment derives from natural rights which were know as pre-existing rights to the Founders. These human rights include the natural right to utter words, assemble with other humanoids, defend oneself with whatever available against whatever threat presents itself, and many more.

Liberals like happily dumb (notice lower case) tend to gloss over the natural rights as they devolve into what I call contrived rights. The "qualification" standard is just such a contrived rights. Happily stupid thinks a right with caveats is still a right. But then again, the village idiot claims to be a competitive shooter so who knows what will come from his well worn mouth next. I notice he doesn't seem to want to engage on this topic anymore. Typical liberal socialist sheep.

Johnny Rico

Happily Married said...

JR, I ‘ll start with you. I Indicated the old saying about assuming – but you were an ass to start with so your assumptions don’t change anything. Fed up with the fact that open carry is a constitutional right – fed up with idiots like you who think that an open carry situation is always a good thing. Someone with a pistol on their hip has NOTHING to do with personal responsibility. If that person has had some training and can actually be counted on to understand when it is appropriate to fire a weapon and then accurate enough to hit whatever they were shooting t – then maybe. If they can do that, then they are exercising personal irresponsibility as that particular constitutional right has now put US citizens in harm’s way. A qualifies citizen is someone who is at least aware of the dangers of a loaded weapon. Having a US citizenship DOES NOT QUALIFY YOU. If you don’t need anything other than the second amendment you are an idiot! Guy even alluded to it. You people are so incapable of reading and understanding it is laughable. I did not say anything about owning a gun. I specifically commented on open carry. Someone has the audacity to carry a loaded pistol openly in a crowded store – that’s what I am talking about. If people want to stockpile guns for this paranoid government overthrow – then fine. When the government gets out of control and takes guns and oppresses people, please feel free to train yourself on those stockpiled guns and fight back – but until then, and until you are “qualified” keep it at home.
I was a teacher at a University that did not allow weapons on campus. I witnessed an older mail harassing a couple of students and when he bent over he had a pistol in his belt under his coat that slid up to reveal. I went over and asked him if he was law (being the only type that could legally have a gun on campus) and I was going to report him if not. Turns out he was a detective and we had a good conversation about guns. So not only did I have every right to confront him, the detective thought it laudable (look it up). So, once again, your assumption just makes an ass out of you – and actually only you at this point. I also never said I engaged in competition. I said I was a competition level shooter. Having hunted since I was 9 I am what is known as a “crack shot”. I have bested shooters with metals for accuracy. I simply have never felt the desire to shoot competitively. I love how you guys choose to focus on that part – rather than the message:

Happily Married said...

Guy, Once again, I did not say I competed. I have bested medal winners. The gun handling abilities of typical law enforcement would be, and should be, a bare minimum for open carry. The safety training for concealed carry is a joke ( I passed with my left hand)and the media is rife with stories about cops shooting themselves in the foot - or other such accidents. Then what about the story recently of an old man that had been deputized and simply wanted to kill someone - so he got sent up for manslaughter and the program has been discontinued. There should absolutely be a "qualification" for open carry, including training and certifications. Before any of you nimwits start going off - I said OPEN CARRY - not gun ownership. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH (POP CULTURE REFERENCE). The responsibility of taking a loaded weapon into a crowd is great and should only be by someone who is qualified. It does not take a perfect world - just a populous who understands guns to stand up be counted for what is right. I carry about half the time - and largely because of my daughter (only being half the time). A loaded gun takes absolute responsibility and precision - far more than most of the population has - including myself. It only takes one small mistake or slip up and absolute tragedy occurs. This is not spilled milk - this is death. I will teach my daughter to shoot when the time is right. Until then I must be vigilant. Open carry is not for everybody. The media has stories of the elderly lady who witnesses a fist fight and pulls her gun from her purse and starts indiscriminately shooting. This is not what the second amendment is for and it should not be encouraged.

Happily Married said...

Sark, As for you, you continue to show your idiocy. You don't get to dictate my credibility in any shape form or fashion. You do not know all those I support. You also are too stupid to understand political support regarding the 2nd amendment. I never lied. You are so gullible as to believe anything the NRA tells you. Please impress everyone with your understanding of the NRA's dogmatic campaign against Obama and his intent to abolish guns. The NRA sold you idiots on a proposition that Obama wanted to abolish the 2nd amendment (sound familiar for those up to date on politics?) Obama is constantly chided on his willingness to issue executive orders but his only orders on the subject have been about background checks and gun safety programs. The NRA plays you for fools and you dimwitted accept it. Obama never wanted to do away with the 2nd. Hillary does not want to do away with the 2nd. The simply want safer gun ownership. You take every opportunity to throw insults at me and my family ( I noticed the Katelyn Jenner post). So you keep proving yourself an idiot and I will reiterate that you can go fuck yourself. Your not funny - you are insulting, childish, and you drag down the few on this board who can actually make good points about conservatism. I suggest you quit and apologize to those around you.

Happily Married said...

In general what you people don't understand is that your arguments that everyone deserves to walk around with loaded weapons only hurts your cause. Instead of being proud of RESPONSIBLE gun ownership - you want to delude the practice to saying that everyone should have a gun - which is just assinine. You are so hung up on the 2nd amendment that you ignore the natural progression of any capitalistic endeavor. Take organic foods. If everyone could say they offered organic foods with no regulatory requirements on it - then it looses its meaning and specialness - and marketability. Those who felt they were truly producing and selling organic food worked with the government to establish guidelines - and to confirm they were the real deal. Letting everyone open carry dilutes the idea that gun ownership can be a responsible enterprise. Your NRA treats you like idiots and you eat it up like its ice cream. If RESPONSIBLE gun owners were to establish standards and then say - hey, if you want this "right" then prove you deserve the "right". If you think that carrying a gun is no big deal (JR) you are a bigger idiot that previously thought and your cause will be lost in the end to the current political reality. It is no surprise that most urban areas are liberal in nature and vote democratic. Urban areas have to deal with greatly increased population issues. They have to establish rules and ideas around living stacked on top of each other. These rules and ideas more and more resemble liberalism, progressivism, and socialism as a way to cope with population issues. This is not the Old West anymore. Misfires and gun mistakes never hit anybody because no one else was around. Hard Core conservatives don't understand this political dynamic and try to spread a message of fear. Liberals understand that having to live on top of one another, a message of fear does not go very far. The politics of fear is a sad political reality that conservatives are swallowing hook line and sinker. Trump is the worst. He plays on you desire to hate and be politically incorrect and then tells you who to hate and fear. His message works because our populous is in a mental decline. It is sad - and you should all - no - we should all be ashamed.

Sarkazein said...

HM- Of course I get to dictate your credibility and lack there of. If I were to go by your written word, you'd be a mindreader who can decide who gets their rights and who doesn't, just like all Leftwing Communists before you. Again, you are a hardcore liberal who supports both liberalism and its liberal candidates. Anything you write about who you think should be allowed to carry and who you think should not is just that, the warped thoughts of a Lefty.
You can be sure, unbridled by the NRA and its supporters and members and "hardcore Conservatives", your chosen politicians would end the Second Amendment. Absolute proof of that is Heller. The split SCOTUS was 5-4. IF the Leftists like yourself had won, there would be no right of the individual to keep and bear arms. You are wrong. You should stay away from guns, and spend more time in public bathrooms judging who is "far enough along" in the "transgengerism" to qualify to shower with your wife and daughters.
If nothing else, you are proof of the mental disorder that is liberalism.

guy faulkes said...

HM, you logic is convoluted at best. First you say you do not compete, but that you bested medal winners. If you did not compete, how did you best him? By the way, what kind of medal winner was he? Did he win a medal in a combat based sport such as IPSC or IDPA? Might it have been in a hunting based sport such as trap or skeet? What division did he win a medal i? Was he a grand master or a novice? Anyone can beat anyone on any given day. Shooting better than someone else once in a while does not make one an authority on guns.

You say you are not talking about gun ownership, but carrying a gun responsibly. You cannot separate the two because the Second Amendment reads keep and bare arms. Keep means own. Bare,means carry and shoot. Then in your last post, you go back to saying you get to decide who can own a gun. Neither you or I get to decide what a responsible gun owner is or who he is. I wish people would get training also, but that is their choice, not yous , mine, or anyone else.

How do you reconcile that when the numbers of people owning and charring guns (in the manner they choose) increase, crime falls? I refer you to the book More Guns, Less Crime. This book was the result of an intensive study.

You say you only carry a gun part of the time. How do you know when you are going to need it? Do you only insure your car part of the time?

Trump does not play on anyone's hate or fear. He articulates an alternative course of action than that which the liberals hold dear. Disagreeing with a liberal does not mean you hate anyone. You clam this is a matter of mental decline. I say it is a return to sanity.

I did not ask if all cops were good shots, I asked how you felt they fit into the issue of the definition of responsible users of guns. In my opinion, they are just like the general public. Some good; sine bad. They are not a good as competitive shooters.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- All the Supreme Court Justices who have voted against the individual's right to bear arms were appointed by a Democrat. Mostly appointed by Bill "The Rapist" Clinton and Barrack "The Great Uniter" Obama and all continuously rule/vote against the 2nd. You support them.
Voluntarily turn in your "many" guns to your county sheriff, you don't deserve them.

Happily Married said...

Once again the lack of ability to read from conservatives is mind boggling. "Shooting better than someone else once in a while does not make one an authority on guns." I never claimed to be an authority on guns. I claimed to be at a similar level of shooting ability as someone who shoots competitively. Pretty plain and simple. It amazing what goes over your head. I also never suggested that I would somehow choose who gets a right. Owning a gun and bearing arms are two different things. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged". You do realize it is already abridged as a society progresses. You people never learn from your own mistakes. You were adamant about discriminating against gays regarding marriage - so much so that you created a constitutional amendment outlawing it that immediately got swatted down by the supreme court. Now the bigger backlash is occurring where everything is discrimination. If you had tried to meet in the middle the reaction would not have been so harsh. The right to keep and bare arms is already abridged in so much that you cant buy a bazooka on the streets legally. As gun violence proliferates, fear of guns will start to dominate and the ability to stroll around with a pistol on your hip will be highly questioned. Now if you were to try and meet in the middle - say work with the NRA to establish quality standards for open carry. I would not establish standards - gun owners should get together to establish standards. I also would never say who gets to own a gun and who does not. It might be prudent if the NRA and gun owners establish recommendations so that someone with a violent criminal pass does not buy a gun legally (which they can now with the gun show loophole). The ironic thing here is that the NRA and rabid gun owners are shooting themselves in their own foot by being so dogmatic that everyone has the ability to safely carry a gun in the open without any training or preparation. The concept is simply moronic.
More Guns Less Crime was analyzed and determined to be inconclusive by many other studies. Neither you or I get to decide what a responsible gun owner is or who he is. "I wish people would get training also, but that is their choice, not yous , mine, or anyone else." Actually you and I as voters do get to help set some standards. Conservatives think in such black and white terms - whereas most of the world is gray. Standards are set for everything including driving a car, being a doctor, hell even cutting someone hair in this state requires a license - all for good reason. If people get fed up enough with gun violence, they might just want candidates who do support abolishing the 2nd amendment. If the NRA sets some standards as a show of good faith - the far leftists who want it abolished will appear more out of line. Basic politics. Sark, as the saying goes, I will give up my guns when you pry them out of my cold dead hands. If nothing else, you are proof of why conservatism is dying in this country - an inability to adapt. I make reasonable suggestions regarding gun issues and you know to do nothing other than go to the extreme.

guy faulkes said...

HM, your posts contradict each other so much as to make them meaningless. If all you were saying is that you shoot at a certain level, who cares? You were implying that your ability gives you a special knowledge. You first imply one thing and in the next breath change it. Trying to have a discussion with you is like herding cats. If you ever settle on what you think, let me know what it is.

Sarkazein said...

GuyFaulkes- Hence the "gray" mindset of liberals.

HM- Just curious, where did you get your quote of the 2nd Amendment? "Abridged"?

Happily Married said...

Guy,

I never suggested I had special knowledge - I did want to make it clear that guns and shooting are well known to me and my family - hence the comment about how I am labeled so much so a liberal and that aspect is not very typical of a liberal - one thing Sark never addressed when challenged. The world is not black and white. I have liberal traits and typical conservative traits. I will never advocate for abolishing the second amendment. It makes perfect sense that before someone carries a loaded weapon into a crowded shop that they know what the hell they are doing and can prove they have the training to do such. I think you thin the same thing but would never advocate for fear of losing any "conservative" credential you might have. That is exactly what I think.

Sark, I recollected and transposed abridged from the fourteenth amendment and infringed. The point and message is the same. Anyone else agree that gun ownership and open carry should be a privilege and have certain responsibilities?

Sarkazein said...

HM- If you vote Democrat, you are voting to abolish the 2nd. Your claim to gun experience only makes your comments worse. And no, the point and message is nowhere near "the same" because you have a follow up sentence to your incorrect quote.
I know several liberals who own guns, what's your point? "Challenged"?

Happily Married said...

Sark,

there you again again with the completely black and white thinking. Not all democrats want to abolish the 2nd, not even most - only a few. I hope you understand the political will it would take to abolish a constitutional amendment. It would be so far beyond any party - it would have to be the will of a majority of the people. Democrats do not have that kind of power. The world is mostly grey. Dogmatism is highly overrated. The NRA has sold you a bill of goods and you have taken the bait hook line and sinker. Just like Trump lying about Hillary wanting to do away withe the second. It is simply a lie (and not the first - nor the last). Maybe I will simply refer to you from here on out as NRA's Bitch. Sounds about right.

guy faulkes said...

You are confused about what I would like and what I demand, HM. I would like people to be trained how to operate anything they use, including guns.I demand the government follow the Constitution. The The Second Amendment is the part of the Constitution that guarantees that people can keep in bear arms so they can defend themselves from a tyrannical government, including our own. This right cannot be infringed upon.

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in order for it to be ratified. The Constitution is the contract with the people that gives the federal government the right to exist. If any of the first ten amendments is changed, then the contract has been broken. The entire document would need to be ratified again or it would be null and void.

This brings us to the belief that I have that the United States will eventually break apart as did the Soviet Union. People want different things. They do not just differ in how to reach a goal, they have different goals. Also, one must consider that bringing in illegal aliens to bolster their voting blocks is going to backfire on the liberals.

Eventually Florida, Texas, and a portion of California will become part of Mexico. The Northeast is going to be in its own Little world. The remainder will probably stick together.

Thu may sound ridiculous, but some of you said that when I said that I thought that the Republican party would split due to the establishment Republicans. It is in the process of doing so.

Any comments?

Sarkazein said...

Happy- You say "Not all democrats want to abolish the 2nd..'' No one said they all did. I did say, however, by voting for Democrats you are voting to end the 2nd. I proved it in showing you how the Democrat appointees on the Supreme Court have ruled against the individual right to keep and bear arms every time. You vote Democrat, and the Democrats win, the courts are packed with Leftist judges. You are part of the problem and you should not even touch a gun much less claim Annie Oakley status.

Sarkazein said...

GuyFaulkes- I have a different theory on the break up of the United States. I think Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Utah, and Arizona will secede form the Union. Some other states will also want to join, perhaps North Carolina, Indiana, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana.
There is a non-binding vote developing this year in Texas. Arizona may beat us to it. The Feds are after Sheriff Arpaio now to make him another political prisoner. That could actually be the modern day Ft Sumter.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- You have not yet been able to "quote" the 2nd Amendment correctly. Perhaps this will help

Happily Click Here People and Infringed and other important words are included in the original writing of.

Happily Married said...

NRA' Bitch (Sark),

I admitted transposing the words - and the meaning is still the same - you have failed to show any real difference in effect of definition. You also did not prove anything with the Supreme Court example. The Supreme Court justices ideological background has not proven a vote direction (especially in the last couple of years). The Court can only interpret constitutional law. The words cannot be changed except as I described. Even if Heller had gone the other way, as other lawsuits in other regions developed, it would have likely been overturned. And now you are saying that if I vote democrat I should never even touch a gun. is the same true for anyone who votes for Democrats? Who is the communist now?

Guy, as stated that right is already infringed on by means of measurable restrictions to attempt to prevent violent criminals and mental patients from committing mass murders with guns. Does requiring training for open carry infringe on the right to open carry? It is a measured approach to general population safety that would go a long way meeting different ideological groups halfway. Does the NRA really want a bunch idiots running around with loaded guns in public. I certainly hope not - but they would never do anything to prevent it. I also stated that if it is the tyrannical government you are worried about, then when the shit hits the fan anyone can go to their stash of guns and go participate in the carnage - enforcement of laws will be null and void anyway.

BTW, do you really think that liberals are bringing in illegal aliens in order to bolster voting for liberals? You are truly paranoid. Since you have stamped my forehead with the liberal stamp, I can tell you that my perspective on illegal immigrants has nothing to do with voting blocks - it has to do with people - mostly good people who are simply trying to live. You folks seam to forget that most liberal initiatives start with the intent of helping those that need help

Sarkazein said...

AnnieOakley- You did not "transpose" words. The rest of your comment reads as though you are rattled. Try a few more cuss words, maybe that will help.

Sarkazein said...

AnnieOakley- Yes, anyone who votes for Democrats should not own a gun.

Sarkazein said...

AnnieOakley wrote- "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged". "You do realize it is already abridged as a society progresses."

a·bridge/əˈbrij/
verb
shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense.
curtail (rights or privileges).

in·fringe/inˈfrinj/
verb
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).

Two different meanings. Meanings of importance. You followed up your incorrect quote of the 2nd with a sentence proving you meant to use the word "abridged" ("society progresses" or changes). You have proven you do not understand the 2nd. Take this as a learning opportunity. No need to lash out at your betters.

guy faulkes said...

HM, you are trying to limit a right by attacking the right. You cannot do this because one either has the right to do something or he does not. It is not deniable that one has the right to keep and bear arms. That being said, I suppose one could use the method the feds are using to attack the bathroom law in North Carolina. For instance one could deny the privilege of obtaining a driver's license or using public transportation unless one can pass the BLET handgun qualification course in the manner the feds wish to with hold funding from schools. Passing this qualification would not be hard as you know if you are as well versed in shooting as you claim.

Unfortunately, this will not work as what you really want to do is to legislate people into being responsible. A person is either taught to be responsible at an early age or he has to learn it through life experiences. The latter is very seldom achieved, Liberals seldom ever get there. One cannot make another responsible nor can one take another s rights from him in an attempt to do so.

You have a point about criminals not being allowed guns, except that is part of their punishment for commuting a crime. Even then, they can have their rights restored. As far as mass shootings are concerned, legislation to try to prevent it does not work. The only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.

Your wishing require training in order to exercise one's gun rights is no different than me requiring one be conservative before he could vote.

If your stated purpose for the intent of liberal initiatives is correct, all I can say is that the intent fails miserably. Liberal legislation has enslaved people into an entitlement process from which it is difficult to escapee. These people vote to keep the bread and circuses coming, not to obtain self sufficiency.

Sarkazein said...

GuyFaulkes- Well said! (..." you are trying to limit a right by attacking the right. You cannot do this because one either has the right to do something or he does not.") Hence the word "infringed". A thoughtfully chosen word.