Compromise
Paul Clolery: Intelligent People With Opposing Ideas Can Compromise
I agree. Which is why we will not compromise. You’re not intelligent people.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 26th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Compromise? O.K., we repeal half of federal gun laws, determined by drawing lots.
February 26th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Well put, Uncle.
February 26th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Oh, well, it’s the Huffington Post. Not even worth arguing with.
February 26th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
I’d love to compromise. Which laws can we roll back first?
February 26th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
IMHO, any time an Anti says they are willing to compromise, they reveal the fact that they are incapable of accepting “NO” for an answer. This reveals what Spoiled, Immature Brats that they are, no matter what their chronological age is. Or they would realize that the words “shall NOT be infringed” means EXACTLY what it means. For any Anti out there who is reading this, I’ll try to keep it as simple as possible: No means NO! Even my dogs understand that. But if you can’t, then you are Dumber than a Dog, and should be declared Mentally Incompetent, no matter who you are,nor how much money you have, or what Societal Position you currently occupy. And if you DO understand it, and are still insisting that there be “compromise”, then this is proof you don’t want the Constitution to exist as it it written. Ipso facto, that makes you an “enemy, both Foreign and Domestic”, and you need to be prosecuted and locked up for Treason. If you want the Constitution changed, get an Amendment passed, or call a Constitutional Convention.
And Barry, until the Federal Courts determine the Defense Of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional, you DON’T get to tell the DOJ not to enforce it. Can you spell “Impeachable Offense”?
February 26th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
On very basic issues like human rights, compromise is not possible.
I will not compromise on Slavery.
I will also not compromise on opposing victim-disarmament.
February 26th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
What’s interesting is that even on the Huffington Post he’s having his ass handed to him in the comments.
February 26th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
We will never say it as well as LawDog said it…
February 26th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
There is no compromise in their direction I am willing to take.
Is there any compromise in our direction they are willing to take? Because that looks like the only compromise available from their position of weakness.
February 26th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
“Compromise” to a liberal is give and take. We, the Good Americans give while the liberals just take.
Tango summed that up real good.
February 26th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
‘”I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” From the idea of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that tyranny easily includes the right not to be afraid to walk the streets of your own neighborhood.’
I thought tyranny was taking away our gun rights. You know, like Soviet Russia, Communist China, and Nazi Germany.
February 26th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
It would help if they could at least reference things correctly.
From the article:
“When then Senator Obama campaigned for the presidency, lunatics took the open carry law of the State of Arizona too far by going to rallies with rifles displayed. It made the Secret Service more than nervous and struck fear into the hearts of many in attendance, threatening THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLE WITHOUT FEAR.” -Paul Clolery (emphasis mine)
From the Bill of Rights (same Bill of Rights as contains the Second Amendment):
“Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” -Bill of Rights, Emphasis mine
There is no explicit right to not have the possibility of violence in a crowd. There IS an enumerated right for the people to assemble as a group, provided they are not being violent. The words “without fear” are in no way associated with this enumerated right.
February 26th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
I love compromise. Do what I say and you don’t have to die…
February 26th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Compromise involves both sides giving up something that they actually own. We have rights and real property. What do they have but second-hand platitudes.
Keep your compromise.
February 26th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Compromise is fine.
Faux compromise that is actually just racheting is BS and I won’t agree with it.
February 26th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
All compromise is is giving the other side something they aren’t strong enough to take on their own. Just ask the NRA. They give away our rights all the time in the spirit of compromise.
February 26th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
And what rights has the NRA given away?
And daddy needs to give me a pony, right now.
February 26th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
The Hughes Amendment
February 26th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Those who are anti-gun for their fellow citizens make statements like the following, but never consider the obvious implication:
“The founding fathers never imagined a 31-clip semi-automatic handgun, which a deranged person can legally obtain.”
Well then, why would we allow our hired guns to have those “never imagined by the founding fathers”?? If they are to be illegal for the citizens, then should we also make them illegal to the employees of the citizens according to “the equal protection of the laws”??
February 26th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
@Shooting buddy
“And what rights has the NRA given away?”
They supported the NFA.
February 27th, 2011 at 12:51 am
Bubblehead Les,
If Obama really believes the act is unconstitutional he has the _duty_ to not enforce the act. He took an oath to support and defend the Constitution too and must not violate that through action or inaction. Co-equal branches of government and all, you know.
February 27th, 2011 at 11:30 am
Gyah. We need some kind of “NSFW”-analog for links to HuffPo…
February 27th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
According to Article I, Section 8.15-16, the Federal Gov’t only has very restricted “delegated power” over the militia, i.e., “such part of them as may be EMPLOYED in the service of the United States, “. That is the reference made by the subordinate, explanatory clause of the 2nd Amendment sentence. All of the Bill of Rights, according to their Preamble,are “restrictive” of the Federal Government and “declarative” of the rights of the States and People as specificied in the 10th Amendment. Therefore all Federal gun laws beyond such part of the militia that it employs are unconstitutional and illegal.
February 27th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
****:
The NRA supported the final version of the NFA, The one where the word “pistol” was replaced with the word “silencer”.
FDR was trying to go for ALL the marbles, and he had both houses of congress behind him.