Guns and Ammo readers are really that crazy

sodomy is proven or not. I don't think its negotiated . Your example is, by consensus, a ridiculous one.

The Tsar and I went to a different restaurant than the dogs,
with some friends of mine (including 1 other denizen of this forum).





David

oh.




never mind.

oh.




never mind.

No.
Your post is in error; confusion.
U raise an evidentiary issue,
not one of ultimate fact.

Booth either killed Lincoln, or he did not,
regardless of what later is or is not proven.

If Booth be acquitted, that will not restore Lincoln to life.
Proof (or its absence) has no effect upon an antecedent event.





David

Sorry guy. They ultimately had to release the entire editorial staff, and subsequently broke all links.

your choices of "analogy" are a bit disquieting and kinda creepy Dave.

Your choices to debilitate the Bill of Rights
are a bit disquieting and kinda creepy, farmer.

The point is that some things are not negotiable
and refusal to bargain over them is not un-reasonable.

My reply DIRECTLY addresses the heart of this thread.
People who were NOT willing to negotiate were being subjected to ridicule.
I rise to their defense.





David

Hey, my vote cancels your vote ole timer

I know how elections work

"Calling for our constitutional rights to be violated for no reason" is fairly innocuous?



That's a little vague. What exactly constitutes "suggesting moderation"?

That said, I don't think the original proposal required much vehemence in response. A simple flat out "no" would suffice as a response to the proposal.

Possibly also a explanation of why the proposed law would be a totally unacceptable violation of our civil rights, but only if it seemed likely that the explanation would be received rationally (otherwise just a waste of energy).



As if the Freedom Haters ever offered reasoned debate?

What was the supposed "fair and reasoned critique"?

Certainly not the blatant call to violate our civil rights?



That is largely because no Freedom Hater is capable of reason or compromise.



My understanding from reading the thread is that the issue in question is an unconstitutional waiting period.

Was someone opposing mandatory training for CCW carry?

It was an analogy. He was trying to teach you the principle that sometimes "no compromise" is the preferred option.


Note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

"....an analogy can be used in teaching as well. An analogy as used in teaching would be comparing a topic that students are already familiar with, with a new topic that is being introduced so that students can get a better understanding of the topic and relate back to previous knowledge."

His post contained neither hyperbole nor nonsense.

The problem with the background check system is that the government has begun to use it to block the purchase of guns by people who should not be denied their right to have guns.

Therefore it is necessary to guarantee that people are able to freely purchase guns without being subjected to a background check.

"Therefore it is necessary to guarantee that people are able to freely purchase guns without being subjected to a background check."

no it isn't.

that's just selfish and stupid...

I do not join that consensus. Perhaps it was futile for him to expect you guys to understand that sometimes you don't compromise with the bad guys. But I do not think it ridiculous for him to have attempted the explanation.

why do you assert that? Im a proud gun owner. Its just not the central nugget of my life, as is neither my set of lathe chisels

How do u imagine that the farmer
ascertained that consensus, Oralloy? Do u think he ran a survay?
Did he ask u your vu on that issue ?


I bet that thay think that when travon was slamming Zimmy 's head
on the cement, that Zimmy shud have COMPROMIZED with him.
I wonder how thay felt about our demand for unconditional surrender from the Japs?
or from the nazis? The essence of liberalism is compromize with the truth.





David

From Jim Bequette, editor, “Guns & Ammo” Magazine:

As editor of “Guns & Ammo,” I owe each and every reader a personal apology.

No excuses, no backtracking.

Dick Metcalf’s “Backstop” column in the December issue
has aroused unprecedented controversy. Readers are hopping mad about it,
and some are questioning “Guns & Ammo”’s commitment to the Second Amendment.
I understand why.

Let me be clear: Our commitment to the Second Amendment is unwavering.
It has been so since the beginning. Historically, our tradition in supporting
the Second Amendment has been unflinching. No strings attached.
It is no accident that when others in the gun culture counseled compromise
in the past, hard-core thinkers such as Harlon Carter, Don Kates and Neal Knox
found a place and a voice in these pages. When large firearms advocacy groups
were going soft in the 1970s, they were prodded in the right direction, away
from the pages of “Guns & Ammo.”

In publishing Metcalf’s column, I was untrue to that tradition, and for that I apologize.
His views do not represent mine — nor, most important, “Guns & Ammo”’s.
It is very clear to me that they don’t reflect the views of our readership either.

Dick Metcalf has had a long and distinguished career as a gunwriter,
but his association with “Guns & Ammo” has officially ended.

I once again offer my personal apology. I understand what our valued readers want.
I understand what you believe in when it comes to gun rights, and I believe the same thing.

I made a mistake by publishing the column. I thought it would generate
a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and simple.
I was wrong, and I ask your forgiveness.

Plans were already in place for a new editor to take the reins of “Guns & Ammo” on January 1.
However, these recent events have convinced me that I should advance that schedule immediately.

Your new “Guns & Ammo” editor will be Eric R. Poole, who has so effectively been running
our special interest publications, such as “Book of the AR-15” and “TRIGGER.”
You will be hearing much more about this talented editor soon.

“Guns & Ammo” will never fail to vigorously lead the struggle for our Second Amendment rights,
and with vigorous young editorial leadership such as Eric’s, it will be done even better in the future.

Respectfully,

Jim Bequette



Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/11/06/response-december-2013-backpage-column/#ixzz2kAyF8WEG

youre all over the stove Davey. Your hoping that if you throw some wet noodles onto the wall, one or two will stick. Stop getting all fevered up, and try to stick with the argument at hand
PS, how much time did you serve in the US military ? OR are you one of the chicken hawks who believe that a "Thnks for your service" will undo all the criminal orders from host of US presidents who get hrd-ons by sending the kids into harms way.
I Imgine that you served not one fuckin day, and now you act like the god of liberty himself.
Youre a fraud Davey, a little wizened old fuckin fraud