Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
it's so pointless to argue in venues like that... "Arguing with an internet troll is like wrestling in the mud with a pig... after a while, you realize he's enjoying it"Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ, we are the III%, CIP2, and some other catchphrase meant to aggravate progreSSives who are hell bent on taking rights away...
The Democrat Post is a selective sampling because you're dealing with a lot of Libs and Libs who either don't work and have all day to post there or "work."
I worked "with" a Lib once who spent all day in his cube playing WoW and spamming comments with hard-code Leftist drivel. I think he got promoted to management now!
Rucker61 is making some really good, intelligent, articulated arguments there! Good for him!
“Every good citizen makes his country's honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense and is conscious that he gains protection while he gives it.” Andrew Jackson
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
Thanks, but see 68charger's comment above.
Te occidere possunt sed te edere non possunt nefas est
Sane person with a better sight picture
If you enjoy it, by all means have at it... it is somewhat entertaining... I personally think it's a waste of time- unless you're just looking to hone debating skills... you'll never convince them...Thanks, but see 68charger's comment above.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ, we are the III%, CIP2, and some other catchphrase meant to aggravate progreSSives who are hell bent on taking rights away...
I have learned an awful lot researching my positions.
Te occidere possunt sed te edere non possunt nefas est
Sane person with a better sight picture
I point out facts. A major stumbling block of the left. Especially when it's from articles other than Fox News, M.Levine, rush or Beck. Their heads explode and fall back on racist, homophobic, misogynistic name calling .
OR they report your comment as "Hate Filled". Typical fuktards.
The Great Kazoo's Feedback
"when you're happy you enjoy the melody but, when you're broken you understand the lyrics".
I'll sometimes engage in the debate just for the sheer fun of watching them flounder when presented with facts. My godmother is your typical Denver liberal -- thinks she's moderate and the rest of us are hard core conservative. She also makes much of the fact that she has Hawaiian ancestry and majored in History so one Christmas when she was spouting off about the NRA and the need for gun control, I casually mentioned that as a devoted student of history, she surely realized gun control came to Hawaii when the haoles overthrew Queen Liliuokalani and wanted to ensure the Hawaiians couldn't take the government back. She got real quiet when she realized it was true and she didn't have a counter argument.
I wonder how many people are "liberals" just because of the bandwagon effect... since it's primarily urban areas that are heavily liberal, would seem that it could be a majority.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ, we are the III%, CIP2, and some other catchphrase meant to aggravate progreSSives who are hell bent on taking rights away...
I didn't mean that. What he did, and he is not shy about it, was work with the Attorney General's Office to issue bogus "guidance" about what the law covered and what it didn't. This was in his role as attorney for some of the Plaintiffs in the Colorado Outfitters v Hickenlooper case. This guidance substantially weakened the arguments about the unreasonableness of the law, and that unreasonableness is key to getting it struck down. He also stipulated that 15 round or less compliant magazines are available for most firearms. I both disagree with that as a fact, and it ignores the argument that the magazine law was a backdoor attack on firearms, by turning magazine fed firearms into single shot (at best) firearms. Fortunately, I think, the District Court decision, which relied greatly on that bogus and unenforcable guidance in upholding the constitutionality of the law, was thrown out by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. A Federal attack on the law can start over.
This isn't a secret, he discussed it in his testimony before the House State Veterans and Military Affairs committee earlier this year, when that committee was considering the mag ban repeal in the House. He was there testifying against the law (in support of the bill before the committee) and also to disagree with the rantings of ProgressNow's Alan Franklin, who got up to announce how great the law was, and how it didn't really ban any guns at all. Dave Kopel said, basically, that no guns were banned because I worked out guidance with the AG to neuter the worst aspects of the law.
The problem with working with the AG to make the law more mild (and in my opinion, in an unenforceable way, since the AG does not prosecute crimes under the magazine ban) is that it makes it harder to repeal the thing altogether. It takes a great deal of political muscle and backing to repeal this sort of law. The idea that you can compromise with your political enemies to dilute bad gun laws and then get rid of them later is not a winning strategy. The more dilute the harder they are to get rid of altogether. And as the Colorado Outfitters case shows, you can compromise to try to get some political gain (have the AG neuter the law to a certain extent) only to have that taken away, and your left having offered to accept a lesser level of restriction, without even getting the benefit of that.
It's not that Dave Kopel is anti-gun. It's that he is willing to compromise what should be non-negotiable principles for illusory gain. In battling gun control, I don't think that's a winning strategy.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote