Here Comes the Executive Order on Background Checks

[printcraft]

Mine. But as we already covered, I don't get to pick a candidate that aligns with my way of thinking; I'm given two bad options and have to figure out which is least dangerous.

So you admit your side is takes things too far but you still haven't figured out which side is least dangerous to the country as a whole?

Somebody upthread mentioned cognitive dissonance.......

 

[Lowe0]

So you admit your side is takes things too far but you still haven't figured out which side is least dangerous to the country as a whole?

Somebody upthread mentioned cognitive dissonance.......

Either side will be quite willing to take things too far, given the opportunity.

 

[printcraft]

Either side will be quite willing to take things too far, given the opportunity.

So your answer is to give the side with the "best and brightest" history of doing just that... the tools.... to do just that?

 

[Lowe0]

So your answer is to give the side with the "best and brightest" history of doing just that... the tools.... to do just that?

More like least grim projected future, but yes.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Mine. But as we already covered, I don't get to pick a candidate that aligns with my way of thinking; I'm given two bad options and have to figure out which is least dangerous.

You have still left me wondering how it is that you consider flagrant disregard of the Bill of Rights (in addition to ignoring the Constitution in general) to be less dangerous than such things as not supporting special rights for homosexuals.

 

[KG1]

It's pretty simple to figure out that on a forum with a foundation based on Indiana gun ownership that the biggest issue at this time for many are 2nd Amendment related but there are a certain few that don't share that concern and would rather come here and push their SJ related issues and they wonder why they encounter a push back.

 

[Lowe0]

It's pretty simple to figure out that on a forum with a foundation based on Indiana gun ownership that the biggest issue at this time for many are 2nd Amendment related but there are a certain few that don't share that concern and would rather talk about SJ related issues and they wonder why they encounter a push back.

I don't wonder why people don't agree with me. What I do wonder is why people are surprised. You can't expect to recruit new shooters to political action if all you're selling is an even harder tack away from the mainstream. It's your party, run it how you want; just don't be surprised with the results.

 

[printcraft]

More like least grim projected future, but yes.

"mainstream"

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't wonder why people don't agree with me. What I do wonder is why people are surprised. You can't expect to recruit new shooters to political action if all you're selling is an even harder tack away from the mainstream. It's your party, run it how you want; just don't be surprised with the results.

OK...

1. How do we benefit from throwing our own primary cause under the bus for the sake of being able to sing kumbaya with the left?

2. When have the practitioners of any cause on the left done the same thing that the insist we are anywhere from obstinate to insane for not doing? I have never seen political practitioners of the causes of abortion, homosexuality, gun restriction, socialized health care, or redistribution of wealth decide to fall back and quit pushing quite so hard in the effort to get along. The only time they give it a rest in the public square is when they can see they are clearly losing and then fall back to find a new angle of attack, but they never lighten up, yet we are supposed to peacefully capitulate in the name of being peaceful.

3. Your suggestion seems predicated on the notion of 'compromise'. There has not been any compromise in the entire process. What passes for compromise is the left starting with nothing and 'giving up' part of their bucket list for the time being without giving anything of value in return--and somehow claim the inability to understand how we could possibly object.

 

[Expat]

You have still left me wondering how it is that you consider flagrant disregard of the Bill of Rights (in addition to ignoring the Constitution in general) to be less dangerous than such things as not supporting special rights for homosexuals.

Lots of us are what I refer to as litmus test voters. A candidate has to be solid in one particular area before we will even start looking at the other positions he/she takes. Certainly for me the RKBA is the first litmus test they have to get past. But even then for me, a guy like Bernie (before running for POTUS), would be unacceptable. Even though, he was apparently pro-gun previously. His additional positions would kill it for me. I couldn't support a gun loving communist, socialist, fascist, etc. Apparently some people's litmus test is to have some sort of legal preferences for homosexuals and that is it. Now that is a single issue voter. As long as you are solidly for that one category, nothing else he says or does will dissuade you.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Lots of us are what I refer to as litmus test voters. A candidate has to be solid in one particular area before we will even start looking at the other positions he/she takes. Certainly for me the RKBA is the first litmus test they have to get past. But even then for me, a guy like Bernie (before running for POTUS), would be unacceptable. Even though, he was apparently pro-gun previously. His additional positions would kill it for me. I couldn't support a gun loving communist, socialist, fascist, etc. Apparently some people's litmus test is to have some sort of legal preferences for homosexuals and that is it. Now that is a single issue voter. As long as you are solidly for that one category, nothing else he says or does will dissuade you.

I agree. I am not a one-issue voter, but do have some instant (political) death issues.

 

[kawtech87]

More like least grim projected future, but yes.

This is funny. If you were a student of history you would understand just how grim a future is waiting for us if we are disarmed. Just ask a few old Jews how well it worked out for them and then ask if we can trust our government or not. I'm surprised that you don't understand that the future you think will be so bright and free, most of us don't want any part of. So tell me how if we are forced to accept this utopian vision of yours against our will just how exactly is that fair and inclusive? Oh wait that's right we are privlaged white men who deserve to be punished for something that happened 200 years ago and to take a backseat because gays want special treatment. Funny thing is, if you read the Constitution, which I'm sure you haven't, it makes no distinction for any special group. It clearly states that all LEGAL citizens of the US have all the same rights. Women, men, gays, blacks it doesn't matter. You have nothing to fight for. You all ready have everything. It's right there, written in better English than we speak today if you would just bother to read it.

 

[Lowe0]

Lots of us are what I refer to as litmus test voters. A candidate has to be solid in one particular area before we will even start looking at the other positions he/she takes. Certainly for me the RKBA is the first litmus test they have to get past. But even then for me, a guy like Bernie (before running for POTUS), would be unacceptable. Even though, he was apparently pro-gun previously. His additional positions would kill it for me. I couldn't support a gun loving communist, socialist, fascist, etc. Apparently some people's litmus test is to have some sort of legal preferences for homosexuals and that is it. Now that is a single issue voter. As long as you are solidly for that one category, nothing else he says or does will dissuade you.

To repeat: once I'm done applying litmus tests to candidates, none are left. Voting requires me to pick and choose from my principles.

 

[IndyDave1776]

To repeat: once I'm done applying litmus tests to candidates, none are left. Voting requires me to pick and choose from my principles.

Could you enlighten us a bit. So far as I can tell, your principles don't make a shred of sense.

 

[BogWalker]

Could you enlighten us a bit. So far as I can tell, your principles don't make a shred of sense.

Sounds to me like he's saying there's no perfect candidate.

 

[tbhausen]

I don't wonder why people don't agree with me. What I do wonder is why people are surprised. You can't expect to recruit new shooters to political action if all you're selling is an even harder tack away from the mainstream. It's your party, run it how you want; just don't be surprised with the results.

Opposing liberalism is now a "tack away from the mainstream"? You can BS some of the people some of the time, but I know BS when I smell it. Just keep feeding people BS until they begin to believe it, right? Not this guy.

 

[rugertoter]

You know this is just the nose under the tent right? If he gets away with it there will be more. Soon...

Yeah. The little "man-child" has a pen, and he's not afraid to use it. Meanwhile, our Congress has the power, and they are afraid to use it.

 

[churchmouse]

Thank you, but no. We're too far apart to come to any sort of understanding.

I knew you would not accept.
To meet at a range, share gunpowder therapy and share a meal is what men do.
I made an attempt.....you rescinded as those of your mindset most always do.
I would not have preached or badgered. Not that way on the firing line.
I would however school you there.....

 

[IndyDave1776]

Sounds to me like he's saying there's no perfect candidate.

I am having trouble making sense out of his position. He on one hand says that he picks the candidates he finds least dangerous, but he is picking the candidates who are the worst offenders at attacking the Constitution and the republic. He apparently doesn't understand where the lines are drawn between a free republic in which the government (at least theoretically) serves the people rather than a non-free system in which the people serve the government. Then again, maybe I am wrong. Maybe he believes that a socialist paradise will work and they will even let him keep his gun(s).

 

[churchmouse]

Could you enlighten us a bit. So far as I can tell, your principles don't make a shred of sense.

You did see he would not come out in the daylight right.