"Grants us the right to keep and bear arms" No, it doesn't. But it does recognize a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. Nowhere in the 2A does it say "grant".
Thanks for the link to the cartoon, Anonymous. It's yet more proof that the 2nd Amendment 'Deniers' have the intelligence and maturity of a six year old.
I'm used to panty-wetting hysterics from the gun-control crowd (who, I'm convinced, by and large understand that 'gun free' zones are actually free-fire zones for mass murderers, which is the whole point of the exercise).
I'm frankly more irritated in this case by the editorial decision to rearrange the paragraphs of two entirely separate pieces which are clearly written without any direct references to each other as though they are a conversation of some kind. That's grossly deceptive and whoever did it should be fired and charged with fraud and libel.
Chiu - I thought something similar, and then I realized that was part of what was being presented. The gun "debate" really isn't a debate because it is a point - counter point discussion held in the abstract by "media" with one side bringing hard straight up objective facts to the table and the other presenting what they think and how they feel in spite of the objective facts (sometimes because of them).
Controllers have to keep it point / counter point, rather than direct interactive debate, because it is the only way their "thinking" even remains remotely relevant. When they have direct interaction on the substance, on the facts, on the merits, they lose. And they know it. When there is direct confrontation, they are always exposed by the "tells". "Think". "But". "Need". "If". "Should". "Might". "Could". "Feel". Those who employ those words do so to avoid things like "shall not" and "right" and "is" and, well, you catch where I am going with that.
Part of what is presented here is the nefarious means by which the controllers control - the framing of the "debate" itself absent any actual debate substance lead wing to a winner of a debate. See, gun controllers win by framing this whole thing as if it still open to debate because they know full well they lost the ACTUAL debate loooong ago. Remember, the second amendment (as with the rest of the bill of rights once ratified) is the PRODUCT of the debate held already. It is the outcome of the debate, not a set of bullet points to be debated. So you see - point counter point talking past one another is the BEST they can bring to bear, and if they can get people to buy it - they have already won...as their goal is endless meaningless chatter used to trick into place any control they can get.
The debate was had and settled - and gun rights advocates ought start acting like it. And debating like it. This means destroying the point counterpoint premise...by exposing it for what it is. Meaningless fodder with no purpose but muddying waters already cleared by debate's outcome!
7 comments:
Judging by her words, it sounds alot less like "horse dung and magical thinking" and more like FEAR.
I thought this "cartoon" appropriate (and effective) to the topic:
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/10/only-bad-people-need-guns-cartoon.html
"Grants us the right to keep and bear arms" No, it doesn't. But it does recognize a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. Nowhere in the 2A does it say "grant".
Thanks for the link to the cartoon, Anonymous. It's yet more proof that the 2nd Amendment 'Deniers' have the intelligence and maturity of a six year old.
I'm used to panty-wetting hysterics from the gun-control crowd (who, I'm convinced, by and large understand that 'gun free' zones are actually free-fire zones for mass murderers, which is the whole point of the exercise).
I'm frankly more irritated in this case by the editorial decision to rearrange the paragraphs of two entirely separate pieces which are clearly written without any direct references to each other as though they are a conversation of some kind. That's grossly deceptive and whoever did it should be fired and charged with fraud and libel.
Or at least get a solid ass-kicking.
Liberty over security everytime.
Chiu - I thought something similar, and then I realized that was part of what was being presented. The gun "debate" really isn't a debate because it is a point - counter point discussion held in the abstract by "media" with one side bringing hard straight up objective facts to the table and the other presenting what they think and how they feel in spite of the objective facts (sometimes because of them).
Controllers have to keep it point / counter point, rather than direct interactive debate, because it is the only way their "thinking" even remains remotely relevant. When they have direct interaction on the substance, on the facts, on the merits, they lose. And they know it. When there is direct confrontation, they are always exposed by the "tells". "Think". "But". "Need". "If". "Should". "Might". "Could". "Feel". Those who employ those words do so to avoid things like "shall not" and "right" and "is" and, well, you catch where I am going with that.
Part of what is presented here is the nefarious means by which the controllers control - the framing of the "debate" itself absent any actual debate substance lead wing to a winner of a debate. See, gun controllers win by framing this whole thing as if it still open to debate because they know full well they lost the ACTUAL debate loooong ago. Remember, the second amendment (as with the rest of the bill of rights once ratified) is the PRODUCT of the debate held already. It is the outcome of the debate, not a set of bullet points to be debated. So you see - point counter point talking past one another is the BEST they can bring to bear, and if they can get people to buy it - they have already won...as their goal is endless meaningless chatter used to trick into place any control they can get.
The debate was had and settled - and gun rights advocates ought start acting like it. And debating like it. This means destroying the point counterpoint premise...by exposing it for what it is. Meaningless fodder with no purpose but muddying waters already cleared by debate's outcome!
Post a Comment