I am a radical (and therefore numerically insignificant)

We need more like you, Travis. on topics like this, liberals trend to start at a compromise and then negotiate. Conservatives start radical.
 
Travis said:
I don't think I said it was "more" of an outrage.
Click to expand...

How are we to interpret your words in any other way? How can we not conclude that you are less outraged by what you want than what you can't stand?

Well back in my youth, when I had nice health insurance, I had mental health professionals to talk to. That's why I know enough now to stay away from guns.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should stay away from discussions about guns too. You don't seem to be coping with them very well. In your day-to-day life, do guns actually matter to you at all? Do they noticeably impact you? Because for most people who don't regularly use a gun, the answer is no. And if that's true for you, well... why get yourself wound up about it?
 
Ken, I'm a moderate, not even a "libburul", but I am really pretty **** tired of negotiating with people whose only goal is to BE IN CONTROL.

Let's take a contrary extreme view.

BAN ASSAULT RIFLES FOREVER. MELT EVERY NONMILITARY ONE DOWN INTO PLAQUES OF MARTIN LUTHER KING!

There. Let's start with that premise.
 
ravdin said:
So the wishes of minorities such as black or gay people shouldn't matter in our society? For example, I'm completely opposed to Proposition 8, which denies gay people the right to be married in California. But it did pass by popular vote in 2008. Does that mean the rest of us who were against it don't matter?
Click to expand...

As far as that vote/bill goes - yes it means you don't matter.

Thomas Jefferson defined democracy as two wolves and a sheep voting on what they'll have for supper. Without basic and guaranteed rights for minorities and individuals, democracy would be nothing more than mob rule.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain you've misinterpreted Noztradamus comment.

A democracy cannot not insure the rights of minorities - in fact it insures they have no say. Which is precisely why we are a Republic with a Constitution to limit the things that government is permitted to do. We can't vote on free speech or gun ownership or access to trial by jury (except wrt the amendment process). Now within the limited scope of the valid powers of government we can vote - at least for representatives. So we have a Democratic Republic !

Sadly the Constitution is ignored and bypassed with some regularity in recent decades. I don't believe any reasonable person can read the Patriot Act, the NDAA or observe common TSA searches and rationalize these against the plain and easily interpreted text of the Constitution.

So perhaps we are closer to a 'tyranny of the majority' (democracy) than never before. What's for supper ?
 
Travis said:
Yes I am a radical.

Therefore I am essentially insignificant. The vast majority of people are not going to support my no compromise get-all-the-guns-out-of-civilian-hands-with-whatever-force-is-necessary stance on the issue of gun control. They will, instead, support much more practical and less insane proposals.
Click to expand...

Don't you agree that your rights must stop where the next person's begin ? reciprocity ? Or do you believe you should have special rights over others ?

So if you believe you have some 'right' to take others guns, why would they not have a 'right' to take what you care about ?

Maybe some respect for people with different beliefs and values is in order.
Perhaps some humility about your rights wrt to others is needed.

It's not radical to demand what you prefer at to cost to others. It's selfish.
 
Ziggurat said:
He's staying away from gun discussions... by starting a discussion about guns. Yeah, I don't think that's going to work.
Click to expand...

You understand that you don't have to read and post in every thread, right?

Also, I think you missed the point of the OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom