12-06-2016, 02:05 AM
(12-05-2016, 10:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:I just read what you say, read what you write, without expectations being involved. I know what you're talking about with that though, I spent years dealing with people like that here and it really aggravated me. I don't twist your words. I don't put words in your mouth. I don't skew your opinions or alter your opinions to suit my expectations or views. I don't add false meanings or alternate thoughts or do whatever I want to with what you've written. Mike Alexander and other blues did that stuff with me all the time. Do you know how many times that I wished that Mike was within arms reach? I'm not like Mike Alexander and some of the other blues. I spent the bulk of my time duking it out with them and still do to a lesser extent today. I don't know what the old forum was like before I began participating. I just know what it was like during Bush's second term. You were a vanilla blue poster back then. I have noticed some changes in your positions. You've given up on gun control/changing the 2nd Amendment to suit the blues and appear to be more in line with my views/values on that issue. You may have been opposed to it all along but I hadn't seen you take a firm stance on it with other blues until recently.(12-05-2016, 02:45 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: My point, we are listening/reading your posts and allowing information to enter our brains and using the information received to form our opinions and judgements and positions relating to you. The blue side is obviously anti-gun. The blue side doesn't see/recognize a need or feel the necessity to own a firearm in today's world. I have read your personal positions on gun control which appear to align with that common belief. You don't see a reason or feel the necessity to own a firearm yourself and you have claimed that you'd be willing to vote to give up your right to own a gun if the issue were to be placed on a ballet. A negative sign to me. However, you do seem to understand our reasons/concerns/stances associated with our gun rights and the issue of gun control and you seem to be able to recognize our right to have them as well. A positive sign to me. Where do you really stand on the issue with information that's been received as a positive sign and a negative sign?
Well, to start with, you obviously are not listening / reading to my posts regarding gun policy.
On the legal and historical side, I favor the 'Standard Model' interpretation, that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. I was with Scalia on this case and others. Another sign that I'm not a classic vanilla blue person is that I think Scalia had his merits in favoring rule of law, interpretation of the text as written, and favoring the meaning the authors intended.
On the statistics and consequences side, I see both sides as having studies and opinions of equal and not that great merit. Other contributors to the forum will throw statistics at each other. I don't as nothing is conclusive. Lacking anything conclusive, I would favor rule of law.
I'm not inclined to sign away my right to own and carry, though I'm not feeling a need to exercise it.
I do favor some loophole closing. The criminals and mentally unstable should be denied the right to carry, though putting it on paper and enforcing it are quite different. Prohibitions are very difficult to enforce. I do not favor passing laws that can't be put into effect.
If it were possible to pass an amendment or hold a constitutional convention, I could see rewriting the 2nd. I would remove the justification clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" to make it absolutely clear that the right is an individual right of the people. While one original intent of the Second was to have militia members own and carry military arms, this might not be prudent and wise given the more potent present day military weapons. If acceptable wording could be found that clearly protected arms appropriate for self defense, hunting and other civilian uses, I might be open to restrictions on some military features.
Alas, the country is too divided at this time for amendments or conventions. The above paragraph must remain an intellectual exercise at this time.
I think I have been absolutely clear and consistent in the above over the last decade plus.
I have had problems with many posters confusing my positions with the plain vanilla blue positions as you just did. I have some sympathy, and I doubt very much I'm the only person with this problem. There are a lot of people who contribute regularly. I find it difficult to remember every nuance of every contributor. Thus, I try to respond to what someone said in the last post or two rather than count on my correctly remembering something said months or years ago.
Anyway, I hope that clarifies my position on gun policy. If your memory tells you I'm pure vanilla blue, consider that you might be reading what you expect to read rather than what is being said. The inability to accurately read what someone with different values is writing is chronic around here. Folks find it easier to interact with their own vile stereotypes rather than try to wrap their heads around what others are really trying to say.