Not exactly SOP for this group so delete if ya want.

[flamin lib]

SecMo gets a lot of heat for posting here but the THOUGHTFUL responses to the issues brought up give me hope and reinforce the idea that every gungeoneer isn't a raving crazy ass idiot on the way to an elementary school with an AK.

There are people here that actually think about the issues presented. They consider the actual posts and comment on them in thoughtful considered ways. Some acknowledge the validity of a given situation and some give thoughtful counterpoint. That is discussion whether the OP takes part or not.


There are others not so much.

And no, I won't comment further.

[NYC_SKP]

1. It's very kind and civil of you to point this out.

Civility is welcome.

[upaloopa]

2. There is no common ground.

I don't know why we keep up the charade.
Most of us don't want to ban guns but I think I am in the majority when I say I support the AWB uniform background checks universal registry and limits on where guns can be carried. To gunners I am a gun grabber.
I think the majority are pushed around by the gun lobby meaning ALEC the NRA and the gun manufacturing industry.
The 2nd Amendment says why gun ownership is a right not that owning a gun is a right. And that why is no longer relevant.
I am not a gun grabber but I don't compromise on the above.

[Straw Man]

4. Eh?

Most of us don't want to ban guns but I think I am in the majority when I say I support the AWB uniform background checks universal registry and limits on where guns can be carried.

And when asked why you support these things--in other words, how they will make us safer--you say that you refuse to get dragged into discussions with "gunners." So I might ask what claim you have to credibility.

Might I remind you that in another thread you plainly stated your opposition to ALL forms of carry? And now you're trying to present it as "limits on where guns can be carried"? This is bad faith, plain and simple.

The 2nd Amendment says why gun ownership is a right not that owning a gun is a right. And that why is no longer relevant.

What kind of doublespeak is this?

[upaloopa]

8. You are here to play games. I am not. I stated my opinion.

It doesn't need your approval.

[Straw Man]

10. I'm absolutely serious.

Playing games? What do you call it when someone comes to a discussion board and then refuses to discuss anything?

Bad faith and evasion.

[upaloopa]

13. I wonder if you have prepared yourself to kill? That's what this all comes down to.

I spent a year in Vietnam. I was almost killed during Tet. Feb 2nd 1968. Cobra gun ships slicks with mini guns and my own m60 kept me alive. I had to kill to stay alive. I think about this more and more as I get older.
I used colt 45 autos to 50 Cal machine guns.
Today there are millions of gun nuts walking the streets carrying loaded guns. Paranoid guys afraid to walk the streets unarmed. Just a couple of loose screws away from the loonies at Bunkerville.
No I don't want your fucking guns around me. You are armed and dangerous because fear motivates you. Fear of bad guys and fear that we want to disarm you.
I was never afraid in Vietnam fear gets you or someone else killed.

[Straw Man]

15. Absolutely and unequivocally false.

Today there are millions of gun nuts walking the streets carrying loaded guns. Paranoid guys afraid to walk the streets unarmed. Just a couple of loose screws away from the loonies at Bunkerville.

This is not the reality that I or anyone I know lives in. It's simply not the case. I think you are projecting your own paranoia here.

No I don't want your fucking guns around me. You are armed and dangerous because fear motivates you. Fear of bad guys and fear that we want to disarm you.

You don't know me. You don't know what I do. You don't know what motivates me. I'm talking about having the right to a means of defending myself if the need should arise, and in all probability it never will. I'm also talking about having the right to own weapons for sport and recreation as well, a right which many would take away "in the name of public safety." You DO want to disarm everyone; you have said as much. That doesn't cause me fear; it does motivate me to speak up and ask you questions about how and why you think that should be done, questions you seem to be unwilling or unable to answer.

Your wartime experiences are obviously troubling to you, but they have nothing to do with civilian ownership of firearms in a free society. I hope that you can find a way to deal with your issues for the sake of your own peace of mind, but please do not project them on me or anyone else.

[upaloopa]

17. you have an opinion that's all

I know you give up your guns walk the streets like the rest of us I dare you
Are you prepared to kill? Answer me
Why do you need a gun? Do you live in some fantasy where you get the drop on a bad guy? Why?????.
You must rehearse it in your mind or you wear a gun and shit will just happen

[Straw Man]

18. Of course I do. And so do you.

I know you give up your guns walk the streets like the rest of us I dare you

You know nothing. I walk the streets without a gun ALL THE TIME. I don't live in fear, but I do believe in rights.

Do not presume to talk about what motivates me. It's not a subject about which you can speak with any authority.

[SQUEE]

21. And when someone does answer your question..

"Are you prepared to kill?" Do you get to jump in with, how do you know?..
or is it AHA! you WANT to kill somebody, or...
I have a CC permit, which is almost completely used for ease of transportation to the range, and the local smith, no worries on having loaded magazines and such...
And, as to your question, I am prepared to defend myself, as far as my aggressor intends to push, and if that includes a Mozambique drill, so be it, but I only have loaded weapons in my home, I do NOT public carry because I do not want to spend the day, worrying about killing someone, and spending every moment avoiding situations that will lead to me doing so and living in a color code of awareness reactions.. it is quite simple, when out and about, armed, the complete essence of my existence becomes hyper aware avoidance of any form of conflict, so as to avoid a deadly escalation. I want to see the trees, smell the hunnysuckle, and enjoy my friends and loved ones, FOR ME, I am unable to do that AND carry.

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. "The 2nd Amendment says why gun ownership is a right not that owning a gun is a right. "

Wrong on both counts.

[upaloopa]

7. you ever study English Grammer in school?

Give up on the Second Amendment's grammar


December 18, 2012|By John E. McIntyre | The Baltimore Sun


I received a note a couple of days ago from a gentleman concerned about the placement of commas in the various drafts of the Second Amendment. And today, at The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin writes that "the text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical."

Well, The New Yorker may not be the best place to go for instruction on grammar and usage. The Founders (it's a little vexing to have to keep explaining this) loved Latinate constructions, one of which is the absolute, a phrase modifying a whole clause, often consisting of a noun and a participle. The Second Amendment opens with just such an absolute: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." Modifying the succeeding clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," it puts the right in the context of the establishment and operation of a militia.*
Commas don't much enter into it. Eighteenth-century writers like to insert a comma between subject and verb, though we don't follow such a convention any longer. The comma in the Second Amendment merely sets off the absolute.

We still have absolute phrases in English, and we typically set them off with commas, viz., The point having been made repeatedly, further discussion would seem idle.

Happily, when Mr. Toobin turns from grammar to the law, he is more persuasive, pointing out that for most of the Republic's history, legal thinking construed the Second Amendment to be about militias rather than an individual right to possess firearms. That understanding, he argues, is a constitutional novelty, developed though political pressure by the National Rifle Association and Supreme Court decisions during the past forty years.

He observes, a little snidely, "Conservatives often embrace 'originalism,' the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a 'living' constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-18/news/bal-give-up-on-the-second-amendments-grammar-20121218_1_second-amendment-commas-grammar

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. Yes. And I can even spell it...

I'd wager I've forgotten more about linguistic analysis than you (or the writer of that article) will ever know. Probably set theory as well, which is the clue to why the "militia context" interpretation fails.

[upaloopa]

14. that's all you got? fails? elaborate from your wealth of knowledge

[beevul]

19. Of course there isn't.

"Most of us don't want to ban guns but I think I am in the majority when I say I support the AWB (a gun ban)..."

You can't even be honest about it.

How could you possibly expect anyone to find common ground with you who says you don't want to ban guns, but support a ban on guns a few syllables later in the same sentence?

"To gunners I am a gun grabber."

You support a ban on certain currently legal firearms, what do you expect?

[blueridge3210]

3. Not sure what the point of replying is as you indicated you will not comment;

but here goes:

SecMo catches "heat", not for posting here, but for posting and refusing to discuss, which is a violation of the SOP.

Being a group host himself, it would seem to be expected for him to respect the SOP of another group but he shows no sign of doing so.

Anyone who attempts to get him to actually discuss his post receives a response of: "Hi Stalker", "Hi Follower" or "Please do not derail the discussion" (non-existent).

It is clear from his ongoing pattern of behavior that he is not looking for a discussion but for the opportunity to lecture. If that is his desire he has the GCRA group for this; of course this group has few members as they are quick to ban anyone with a dissenting viewpoint.

[Lizzie Poppet]

6. Thank you, and I agree.

SecMo may not participate (meaningfully) in the discussions his copypasta posts engender, but lots of others do, and the conversation can be valuable. That's a very good observation you make, and I'm revising my opinoin on SecMo's presence here accordingly.

[Duckhunter935]

9. Good post

I hope we can all be as civil as you as there is no reason for the name calling that tends to happen. I do enjoy the civil discussion that happens here and most all of the complaints to Secular are that he never comments on his posts. "DISCUSS" is a part of the SOP and as a host in the other group that strenuously enforces his SOP, I wish he would give us the courtesy of following ours. A lot of us would like to have a discussion in the other group but have been quickly blocked without any warning.

here is what got me blocked......

Yep
a lot of people here see gun owners that way

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=1458

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. K&R

A vital role (IMHO) for boards like this is to promote understanding and communication among folks with some common ground. Your OP, while not on target for this group's SoP, is spot-on with THE SoP, the one for free speech overall. I prefer to get to know folks a bit or at least what they think about things. I know very little about what Secular thinks.

Thanks

[Eleanors38]

16. Excepting the poster-in-question's snide remarks

and disrespectul view of others, I don't care too much about the bulk quantity of posts. I pass on most as trivial or lacking clarity, comment on others. I suppose there is an over-arching reason for a google dump every morn', but in the event one can maintain fighting trim. So there is that.

[ileus]

20. There are lot's of regressive 2Aer's here, but we have to keep fighting the good fight.

While not every regressive wants us disarmed in our own homes, many would rather have the additional victims to be to dilute the numbers of easy prey. I'll continue to support the right to protect myself and family because I value our lives outside our home as well as inside.

As I always say....safety first.