tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post7595343075514041272..comments2023-11-03T05:50:18.057-04:00Comments on Libertas and Latte: Justice and the Race CardConstitutional Insurgenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-39528114961289970242015-04-21T19:13:20.768-04:002015-04-21T19:13:20.768-04:00Partially explains the dude's anger perhaps.Partially explains the dude's anger perhaps.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-88391169553624758082015-04-21T06:05:27.183-04:002015-04-21T06:05:27.183-04:00Will: ... where the wall-height is too short to pu...Will: ... where the wall-height is too short to put up posters of Mao and Keith Olbermann without folding the top and bottom edges around....dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-13804805667125253202015-04-20T23:00:02.597-04:002015-04-20T23:00:02.597-04:00The truth from his parent's crawl space and ex...The truth from his parent's crawl space and exhaustive internet searches in lieu of actual books.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-9284812123791836982015-04-18T06:43:53.228-04:002015-04-18T06:43:53.228-04:00Mr. Sanders said: "He DEMANDS anyone who disa...Mr. Sanders said: "He DEMANDS anyone who disagrees shut the hell up."<br /><br />Not at all. It would just be better if your political views favored allowing law-abiding citizens like CI to live their life unhindered. If you can stop gun criminals without affecting him one bit, that would be great. I don't want you to "shut up", but it sure would be nice if your political views weren't all about forcing your own personal preferences on everyone in the country.<br /><br />"It doesn't surprise me, however, that the gun nut camp views a desire for compromise in order to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals"<br /><br />It would not surprise me if your side, and the Constitutional side (which you continue to use the lowbrow smear "gun nut") both want guns out of the hands of violent criminals.<br /><br />However, there is a huge difference when it comes to law-abiding citizens. Your side wants to punish, hinder and deny the rights of them as well. <br /><br />I'm all for solutions that only go after the bad guys. I strongly oppose solutions that go after people who have not done anyting wrong.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-48182356423124278542015-04-18T05:51:53.703-04:002015-04-18T05:51:53.703-04:00I wouldn't be surprised if the reverse is also...I wouldn't be surprised if the reverse is also true. Non-violent criminals with prison run just as much risk fir being negatively influenced by violent felons.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-20279988792273333522015-04-18T05:50:30.908-04:002015-04-18T05:50:30.908-04:00One simple question for you, should you have the i...One simple question for you, should you have the integrity to answer it [I've not ever received an answer to this question from anyone on the gun control camp]:<br /><br />What is the compromise on behalf of the gun control camp? The 2nd Amendment has already been more infringed upon than any other Constitutionally enumerated right, and to levels that those in the gun control camp would not remotely accept in regards to any other right.<br /><br />Where is, and where has been, <i>your</i> compromise?Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-21239651016889467352015-04-18T02:30:04.737-04:002015-04-18T02:30:04.737-04:00I have no problem with stiff sentencing for violen...I have no problem with stiff sentencing for violent criminal offense. I would, however, like to see serious reform of our penal system. If anything, I would imagine the non-violent guys are somewhat positive influence on the violent guys. Take them out and the violent guys will have only the other violent guys and man 'o man will we have uber-violent dudes after that!<br /><br />JMJJersey McJoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15426560061830038806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-49185167938683636432015-04-17T23:21:17.497-04:002015-04-17T23:21:17.497-04:00CI: ...if you have no means of defending yourself....<i>CI: ...if you have no means of defending yourself... </i><br /><br />Hide or run away.<br /><br /><i>dmarks: ...someone's policies here would leave the criminals well armed...</i><br /><br />Exactly. Someone = dmarks.<br /><br /><i>dmarks: ...running loose right after committing a violent crime, as per this example.</i><br /><br />The "example" you refer to concerns s prosecutor and judge (dmarks' betters) deciding on a sentence. People with the education and experience that qualifies them to make such decisions. Unlike the armchair attorney dmarks.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-643254185014220662015-04-17T22:37:33.439-04:002015-04-17T22:37:33.439-04:00CI: we've been discussing the only people who ...<i>CI: we've been discussing the only people who would be applicable under gun control regulations, the law abiding.</i><br /><br />Well, OF COURSE you only wish to discuss these people - and ignore that people who shouldn't be buying them can under the system you favor. Just like you ignored the fact that that Indiana "religious freedom" law may enable discrimination. Because your megalomania causes you to only be concerned about your own rights. Even if exercising your rights infringes on the rights of others.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-81550494109804256832015-04-17T22:14:04.768-04:002015-04-17T22:14:04.768-04:00CI: ...with Dervish it's the childish pomposit...<i>CI: ...with Dervish it's the childish pomposity to state what others believe.</i><br /><br />If you say so. Although dmarks does this and you say nothing (see below).<br /><br /><i>dmarks: ...Dervish's right (based on gross ignorance and phobias as it were) to never own any. ...intrusive, megalomaniac, and with a childish arrogance that his opinion must be forced on everyone by law.</i><br /><br />I have no "arrogance" or "megalomania" that causes me to want my opinion "forced" on anyone. I simply believe reasonable gun regulation will save lives as such regulations have in other countries. I also acknowledge law-abiding citizens have the right to own a gun and the right to defend themselves. As the SCOTUS has affirmed. <br /><br />My preference would be a compromise between those who concentrate on gun owners rights and those who think reasonable regulations would save lives. But I am a realist who realizes this will likely not happen due to the money on the other side (gun manufacturers and NRA) plus the unwillingness of gun owners/adherants to compromise (people like CI and dmarks). This does not change my opinion, however (an opinion not based on ignorance).<br /><br />It doesn't surprise me, however, that the gun nut camp views a desire for compromise in order to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and save lives as "megalomania". You're attempting to browbeat people into accepting your position instead of respectfully accepting someone might have an opinion that differs from yours without the name calling. There is no need for it since your side is winning anyway.<br /><br />And, no, I do not believe my use of the term "gun nut" to be name calling. You live up to it reference to "disrespect for our rights and liberties" that does not exist. dmarks is the perfect example of childish gun nut who stamps his feet and whines and complains simply because someone expresses an opinion that differs from his own. He's getting exactly what he wants, but it isn't good enough. He DEMANDS anyone who disagrees shut the hell up.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-14551017081784168302015-04-17T15:42:00.565-04:002015-04-17T15:42:00.565-04:00CI At least as bad is his disrespect for our right...CI At least as bad is his disrespect for our rights and liberties, so often to the point where if he doesn't like it personally, it must be outlawed. <br /><br />To be honest I don't own any firearms. However, CI, I don't know your life. You do. I respect your own right to make informed choices to own weapons, as per the Bill of Rights. (As an aside, I welcome learning more about this matter, and if I am corrected on something I am wrong on, like headshots, I won't have a tantrum).<br /><br />I also respect Dervish's right (based on gross ignorance and phobias as it were) to never own any. I suspect you have no problem with him exercising that right also.<br /><br />There's only one of these three sides, represented by the individuals named above in this comment, that is intrusive, megalomaniac, and with a childish arrogance that his opinion must be forced on everyone by law. Any guesses?dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-30906086581722110432015-04-17T15:35:07.390-04:002015-04-17T15:35:07.390-04:00CI, and this is just on our Second Amendment right...CI, and this is just on our Second Amendment rights.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-73789104002569801512015-04-17T15:33:57.297-04:002015-04-17T15:33:57.297-04:00CI said: "So you believe that private transac...CI said: "So you believe that private transactions ..."<br /><br />It appears to be the case. Remember Mr. Sander's claim that I had criminal intent, if i were going to purchase a firearm using one of two different legal means to do so. So much of Mr. Sanders argument here is based on the urge to have government act on an automatic assumption of guilt for everyone. <br /><br />Why else would he advocate laws that punished everyone, and not just criminals. If he actually advocated something that only went after criminals (and followed the due process of the Constitution... unlike everything else he wants), he might actually, for the very first time, be advocating "Reasonable" gun laws.<br /><br />dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-39234605219717634272015-04-17T15:29:40.968-04:002015-04-17T15:29:40.968-04:00It's not even being an expert in a given subje...It's not even being an expert in a given subject, with Dervish it's the childish pomposity to state what others believe...sans any foundation whatsoever.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-2151832309264598722015-04-17T15:29:24.640-04:002015-04-17T15:29:24.640-04:00CI said: "Realizing of course, if you have no...CI said: "Realizing of course, if you have no means of defending yourself against an armed intruder, your "options" are largely meaningless."<br /><br />Exactly.. .and someone's policies here would leave the criminals well armed (and running loose right after committing a violent crime, as per this example in the post) while law-abiding citizens would be harassed with many different un-"reasonable" laws designed by the government to punish people who did not wrong for daring to have guns.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-86682127227686249882015-04-17T15:27:15.512-04:002015-04-17T15:27:15.512-04:00CI said: "Wrong again. You have stated that y...CI said: "Wrong again. You have stated that you "know" that I am not 'hassled' when undergoing a NICs check when I purchase a firearm. YOU cannot "know" something that is not true."<br /><br />This again? And how can anyone expect to believe the word of someone with an irrational phobia over guns who has never undergone a BG check, over someone who has gone through several...<br /><br />Dervish is once again an expert in matters he is proud to have no knowledge of.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-65003806396156513662015-04-17T15:24:56.252-04:002015-04-17T15:24:56.252-04:00CI said: " I would suggest starting with &quo...CI said: " I would suggest starting with "assault weapons". Please."<br /><br />I will know that someone has started to get serious about learning, discussing, debating, when they stop using the "assault weapons" term. which only proves ones ignorance about firearms (as i said before, similar to bringing dragons to a serious discussion of paleobiology)dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-26523089181022026382015-04-17T15:20:09.954-04:002015-04-17T15:20:09.954-04:00Give one example.
Seriously, pick one. I dare you...<i>Give one example.</i><br /><br />Seriously, pick one. I dare you. I would suggest starting with "assault weapons". Please.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-39909723504903037962015-04-17T15:18:48.881-04:002015-04-17T15:18:48.881-04:00I do recognize a person's right to defend them...<i>I do recognize a person's right to defend themselves if there are no other options.</i><br /><br />So tell me, if an armed intruder enters your home and threatens your family...what is the "reasonable" metric for when you decide there are "no other options"? I'm curious. <br /><br />Realizing of course, if you have no means of defending yourself against an armed intruder, your "options" are largely meaningless.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-90819903432014983372015-04-17T15:16:16.785-04:002015-04-17T15:16:16.785-04:00So you believe that private transactions between c...So you believe that private transactions between consenting citizens should be regulated to the point of invasive background checks, by the State. You again are ignorant of precedence. Watch what you wish for.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-56210190104260322932015-04-17T15:14:27.799-04:002015-04-17T15:14:27.799-04:00We were not discussing people who are innocent and...<i>We were not discussing people who are innocent and not proven guilty. </i><br /><br />Wrong, we've been discussing the only people who would be applicable under gun control regulations, the law abiding.<br /><br /><i>You can't "know" something that is not true.</i><br /><br />Wrong again. You have stated that you "know" that I am not 'hassled' when undergoing a NICs check when I purchase a firearm. YOU cannot "know" something that is not true.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-42737678632638888752015-04-17T15:11:29.479-04:002015-04-17T15:11:29.479-04:00Only a minority of US gun owners are members of th...<i>Only a minority of US gun owners are members of the NRA.</i><br /><br />And? Only a fraction of the number of NRA members belong to gun control groups. I’m not an NRA member. What is your point?<br /><br /><i>Because there isn't any to ignore.</i><br /><br />Just tally the examples I've given you, that you've failed to refute.<br /><br /><i>Yet you are wrong. </i><br /><br />You fail to understand that you don't get to tell people what inconveniences them. I mean, you can.....but you look foolish.<br /><br /><i>Maximum penalty = Death</i><br /><br />You’ve confused self defense with a judicial penalty. Why?<br /><br /><i>Give one example.</i><br /><br />The comments section of this blog is rife with examples….pick one that I’ve proffered and refute it. You haven’t had the integrity to do so yet.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-39670575704817050262015-04-17T15:07:05.441-04:002015-04-17T15:07:05.441-04:00dmarks: The honor system is in the Constitution. I...<i>dmarks: The honor system is in the Constitution. Innocent until proven guilty.</i><br /><br />We were not discussing people who are innocent and not proven guilty. We were discussing violent felons buying guns. dmarks trusts them while I do not. Or he thinks it's OK for violent felons to allowed to buy guns. Most people disagree with the dmarks' position.<br /><br /><i>We already knew you hated the Second Amendment. Not surprising that the rest of the Constitution is coming under fire.</i><br /><br />You can't "know" something that is not true. As for bogus claims of the Constitution being "under fire" from me, I'm not the one imaging it contains things it does not.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-36171055925875523002015-04-17T14:35:45.570-04:002015-04-17T14:35:45.570-04:00"What you advocate amounts to the "honor..."What you advocate amounts to the "honor system". dmarks says trust everyone to be completely honest when asked if they can legally purchase a gun"<br /><br />The honor system is in the Constitution. Innocent until proven guilty. You, in a distinct contrast, want to punish and harass law abiding citizens without even suspicion thy have done any crime.<br /><br />We already knew you hated the Second Amendment. Not surprising that the rest of the Constitution is coming under fire. dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-18356789179484842212015-04-17T14:24:48.435-04:002015-04-17T14:24:48.435-04:00dmarks: Instead, we get what CI calls "You po...<i>dmarks: Instead, we get what CI calls "You point to policies that only affect the law abiding and then attempt to correlate them with criminal acts".</i><br /><br />Above I said I succeeded in doing this, but neglected to point out the fallacy of "policies that only affect the law abiding". They affect the non law abiding by stopping them from purchasing a gun. The law-abiding are affected in that they are "hassled" by having their permits approved. A terrible outcome, I know... the criminal stopped and the law-abing citizen approved. I can understand your outrage.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com