Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

@Frank Apisa,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Anyone voting Republican is asking for more Scalia's or Thomas'.
Yes, of course; thay give historically accurate applications of the Constitution,
with no liberal distortions.

Frank Apisa wrote:
I will never vote for a Republican for any chief executive position primarily for that reason.
U disfavor accuracy.

Frank Apisa wrote:
The people touting Chris Christie for president ought to consider
what he is doing to our state’s court system. He is doing what
the most right-wing conservative would do…subverting it to a right-wing ideology.
That means that he favors good fidelity
to the Original Intendment of the Constitution.
I see no point in voting for a compromise against freedom, in a RINO.
Those who favor authoritarianism shud vote Democrat
and those who prefer personal freedom shud vote Republican or Libertarian.
U can 't compromise accuracy.

Frank Apisa wrote:
The worst thing that could happen to this country
in the next presidential election is the election of a Republican president.
A Republican will undermine authoritarianism.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I will never vote for a Republican for Chief Executive of state or Union...and I do the nation and its citizens a service in that.

The Republicans...dominated by the nuts on the right...are a cancer on the country. They had some marginal value as the loyal opposition at one time...but now even that they cannot do with any value for our country.

Being on the right means playing it straight, as good as gold,
with no distortion. Liberalism is distortion, veering away from
Original Americanism, from the foundations of this anti-authoritarian Republic.
This country belongs to its Orthodox, to us, not to those who distort in favor of authoritarianism.
America was Founded by the Sons of Liberty. Long live Individualism, liberty and hedonism!

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Anyone voting Republican is asking for more Scalia's or Thomas'.
Yes, of course; thay give historically accurate applications of the Constitution,
with no liberal distortions.

Frank Apisa wrote:
I will never vote for a Republican for any chief executive position primarily for that reason.
U disfavor accuracy.

Frank Apisa wrote:
The people touting Chris Christie for president ought to consider
what he is doing to our state’s court system. He is doing what
the most right-wing conservative would do…subverting it to a right-wing ideology.
That means that he favors good fidelity
to the Original Intendment of the Constitution.
I see no point in voting for a compromise against freedom, in a RINO.
Those who favor authoritarianism shud vote Democrat
and those who prefer personal freedom shud vote Republican or Libertarian.
U can 't compromise accuracy.

Frank Apisa wrote:
The worst thing that could happen to this country
in the next presidential election is the election of a Republican president.
A Republican will undermine authoritarianism.

Frank Apisa wrote:
I will never vote for a Republican for Chief Executive of state or Union...and I do the nation and its citizens a service in that.

The Republicans...dominated by the nuts on the right...are a cancer on the country. They had some marginal value as the loyal opposition at one time...but now even that they cannot do with any value for our country.
Being on the right means playing it straight, as good as gold,
with no distortion. Liberalism is distortion, veering away from
Original Americanism, from the foundations of this anti-authoritarian Republic.
This country belongs to its Orthodox, to us, not to those who distort in favor of authoritarianism.
America was Founded by the Sons of Liberty. Long live Individualism, liberty and hedonism!
David

American conservatism may well be one of the ugliest movements ever to infect planet Earth. There are several other contenders...I acknowledge that. But American conservatism stinks like two year old Limburger that has been left out in the heat.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Do you advocate full and utter govt control then? Liberty is your other choice.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Do you advocate full and utter govt control then?

We are the government...and the Constitution pretty much defines who controls what. I just like to follow the law.

Do you obey red lights...or do you just sail through them?

Quote:

Liberty is your other choice.

Was there more to this sentence before the "Liberty" or after the "choice?"

I do not understand it.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

American conservatism may well be one of the ugliest movements ever to infect planet Earth.
There are several other contenders...I acknowledge that. But American conservatism stinks
like two year old Limburger that has been left out in the heat.

Thank u for that insight into the private World of Frank Apisa.

( I 'm glad that u r not my accountant. )

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
American conservatism may well be one of the ugliest movements ever to infect planet Earth.
There are several other contenders...I acknowledge that. But American conservatism stinks
like two year old Limburger that has been left out in the heat.

Thank u for that insight into the private World of Frank Apisa.

( I 'm glad that u r not my accountant. )

I'm glad I am not my own accountant...not that I need one these days. Accounting was always a terrible subject for me...and I do not so much "balance" my check book...as come close to balancing it. I'd hate to tell you how often I had to simply update to the bank statement...back when checks were in vogue. (I've only written two during the last year or so...both to Nancy.) The last one prior to those two was a donation to the ACLU.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

American conservatism may well be one of the ugliest movements ever to infect planet Earth. There are several other contenders...I acknowledge that. But American conservatism stinks like two year old Limburger that has been left out in the heat.

Aaaawwwww... I wouldn't have thought American conservatism wouldn't even bust the top 10 of ugly movements.

Lets take a quick look and see.

The far left has entreated us with these:
Anarchism in the US
Black Panthers
Communism in the US
Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA)
Weather Underground

The far right has provided:
Aryan Nation
John Birchers
KKK
Neo-Nazis
Skinheads
Fascism in the US

Yeah, I think you are taking a bit of liberty with your opinions on this Frank.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

American conservatism may well be one of the ugliest movements ever to infect planet Earth. There are several other contenders...I acknowledge that. But American conservatism stinks like two year old Limburger that has been left out in the heat.

Aaaawwwww... I wouldn't have thought American conservatism wouldn't even bust the top 10 of ugly movements.

Lets take a quick look and see.

The far left has entreated us with these:
Anarchism in the US
Black Panthers
Communism in the US
Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA)
Weather Underground

The far right has provided:
Aryan Nation
John Birchers
KKK
Neo-Nazis
Skinheads
Fascism in the US

Yeah, I think you are taking a bit of liberty with your opinions on this Frank.

From your premises, I must dissent, Mr. McGentrix.
The term "right" derives from the time of the French Revolution.
The members of the Estates General who favored the King n supported him,
sat on the right of the President. Those who supported differences
from the status quo sat together on his left.

Accordingly (from the positions of their chairs), the rightists
were conservative, orthodox Monarchists. The leftists were not.
The leftists wanted changes.

Applied to American history, those on the right disfavor change
and we cling to orthodoxy in reference to the views of the Founders,
as manifested in the the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution.
Qua Americanism, loyalty is to the US Constitution instead of the King.
As water constitutes ice, so the Constitution constitutes this Republic
and it is the fundamental law. Any law that is inconsistent therewith
is null, void and of no legal effect (tho it might be of factual effect).

I am a conservative, having worked for and voted for Barry Goldwater
and Ronald Reagan. In order for me to be a "conservative" I must conserve
the filosofy of the Authors of the Constitution (as amended, per its Article 5).
Conservatism is essentially the same as orthodoxy, bearing close, loyal,
literal fidelity to the Founding Instrument and rejecting excuses for deviation (liberalism).

Let us now examine those groups
putatively provided by "the far right",
i.e., the most meticulously orthodox Americans,
those MOST like George Washington and James Madison
in their views (as amended as per Article 5)
to evaluate how closely those groups
conform to the filosofy of the US Constitution:

1. Aryan Nation
I don 't know much about this one.
I suspect that Amendments 13 - 15 might be related to their thinking.
Perhaps u can furnish more detail, and tell us how their views
conform closely to the Constitution. (I 'm a little skeptical.)

2. John Birchers
The John Birch Society was an artifact of the 3rd World War,
the war to enslave all the Earth under communism. John Birch
was a martyr for freedom, slain by the Red Chinese.
The JBS has had extremely little impact upon America domestically;
it was intended to cause a better, more forceful effort in defense
of the Free World from the onslaught of communist imperialism.
The members of the John Birch Society strove to preserve the
US Constitution, but not to alter it. Sadly, thay also collaborated with
paradigmatic, non-fonetic spelling, but we won the 3rd World War anyway.

3. KKK
The KKK began by Confederate veterans, during Union occupation
of the South, to defend their homes n people from angry, abusive
Northern soldiers. Its members strove to preserve their way of life.
That included racial relations. Until the Civil War, Africans were
considered to be livestock like horses.

4. Neo-Nazis
In order to be on "the far right"
"neo-Nazis" had to conform to the views of the Founders,
in the heritage of the Sons of Liberty. I am confident that James Madison
was NOT a Nazi; he supported Individualism (which Hitler abhorred)
and personal liberty. To be a "National Socialist" one must be
a collectivist not an Individualist, with contempt
and disdain for personal freedom; nazism is anti-thetical
to the filosofy of the US Constitution. If u wanna claim
that thay are close to the views of the Founders, Mr. McGentrix,
then please tell us HOW. I 've never heard that the Founders
were anti-Jewish.

5. Skinheads
So far as I 've heard, these are street thugs who shun
consideration of matters of intellect. If u disagree,
then please indicate where I have gone rong.

6. Fascism in the US
Well, Mr. McGentrix, I don 't see that Mussolini's views are manifested
in the US Constitution. If u find them there, then please cite us to them.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

No David. I am talking about modern far left and far right political movements. If you deny that the groups outlined in my post above are indeed considered "far right" political organizations you are either using an out-dated definition or are purposefully ignoring reality.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

No David. I am talking about modern far left and far right political movements. If you deny that the groups outlined in my post above are indeed considered "far right" political organizations you are either using an out-dated definition or are purposefully ignoring reality.

Its not "reality"; its a mistake of definition.
Notions to the contrary are in error, goofy.

If someone's guesswork results in his adopting a screwy definition
of historical meaning, that does NOT change the correct meaning.

Historical accuracy is NOT "outdated".

Were u able to understand the line of reasoning??????

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
No David. I am talking about modern far left and far right political movements. If you deny that the groups outlined in my post above are indeed considered "far right" political organizations you are either using an out-dated definition or are purposefully ignoring reality.
Its not "reality"; its a mistake of definition.
Notions to the contrary are in error, goofy.

If someone's guesswork results in his adopting a screwy definition
of historical meaning, that does NOT change the correct meaning.

Historical accuracy is NOT "outdated".

Were u able to understand the line of reasoning??????

Yes, I understood the line of reasoning and pushed it aside. It's kind of like when the Europeans try to apply their definition of liberal to Americans. Yes, it's a definition, but it does not apply to the situation.

The movements I have mentioned are all 20th century political movements and applying 16th century definitions to them just doesn't work.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Don't you realise, Mac, that Dave has been marking his own exam papers since he was in nappies?

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
No David. I am talking about modern far left and far right political movements. If you deny that the groups outlined in my post above are indeed considered "far right" political organizations you are either using an out-dated definition or are purposefully ignoring reality.
Its not "reality"; its a mistake of definition.
Notions to the contrary are in error, goofy.

If someone's guesswork results in his adopting a screwy definition
of historical meaning, that does NOT change the correct meaning.

Historical accuracy is NOT "outdated".

Were u able to understand the line of reasoning??????

Yes, I understood the line of reasoning and pushed it aside.
It's kind of like when the Europeans try to apply their definition of liberal to Americans.
Yes, it's a definition, but it does not apply to the situation.

The movements I have mentioned are all 20th century political movements
and applying 16th century definitions to them just doesn't work.

Your post shows that u have failed
to grasp the fundamental point, to wit:
liberal means DEVIANT from something else.
For instance, if I arrive at a formal wedding wearing a fine tuxedo
with red sneakers, that is liberal as to the paradigm of formal attire.
While playing poker, if I allege that I have a flush,
when I have 4 spades and a club, that is liberal as to
the established rules of poker.
If I claim to have a flush when I have 3 spades and 2 diamonds,
that is MORE liberal, as to the rules of poker.

If an artist swerves away from a philosophy of painting,
he is liberal in his deviation therefrom.

If u pay me to cut down 1O trees and then
I cut down 9 of them and tell u "that 's close enuf"
then I am taking a liberal interpretation of our contract
of cutting down 1O trees. If I only cut down 7 of them
after u paid me for the ten, then I have been MORE liberal
in my interpretation of the contract. If I took the money
and ran, cutting down NO trees, then I applied a radical interpretation of our contract.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

But I didn't say liberal until the last post and then only to make a point. I was referring to traditional, 20th century, common man definitions of left and right David. I don't like dealing with super specifics like you and some others do. I generalize.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Super specific definitions remain necessary
to avoid SLOPPY THINKING that results in chaotic confusion.

I have mentally accepted it as being a fact
that the definitions used by the common man are simply
the products of ignorance and error and are therefore not useable.

IF u allege the competent, logical creation of a different
scale of measurement, then please be so kind as to TELL US WHAT IT IS.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

But not in all cases David. There are times, when discussing things on an internet forum, that generalities are quite acceptable. There are other times when specific definitions are also necessary and indeed even needed. You can not remain rigid in your thinking.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Only a mug would bet on him not doing.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

But not in all cases David. There are times,
when discussing things on an internet forum, that generalities are quite acceptable.

Yes, sir: when inaccurate error is "quite acceptable" as u put it.

McGentrix wrote:

There are other times when specific definitions are also necessary and indeed even needed.
You can not remain rigid in your thinking.[Emfasis has been added by David]

With the fullness of respect, Mr. McGentrix, if I hire an accountant,
then I expect him to be fully ACCURATE in the rendition of his services.
Similarly, I expect all men to tell me the truth
and I hold them accountable for failures to do so. Is that un-reasonable??

I look forward to your advice.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I am neither a hireling nor an accountant so yes, you are being un-reasonable.

You can accept that what I said is true or not. That does not have any affect on the point I had made though.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Don 't u CARE whether what u post
is right or rong ?

1 Reply

Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know