OMG Part 2 - Why we need Constitutional education for the Masses

[LordBrownTrout]

What a silly little work of fiction. If you want to trust a drunk with a gun, I guess you can,but it's not something anybody else would do. I can tell you spent a lot of effort on creating your little scenario, but at best it is junior high level fiction and grade school logic. Get someone to proof read your crap before you embarrass yourself again by posting such drivel.

Hi BULLDOG it may not be word for word, I apologize,
but yes both conversations were real.

The older conversation was with a friend Charles I met, fellow Democrat at a Harris County organizational meeting,
and we discussed the campus plans developed out of my district that is a national registered historic landmark.
http://www.houstonprogressive.org including plans for disabled Vet housing and home health assistance www.freedmenstown.com

The recent conversation was with a hard headed independent friend I thought was more conservative
but after talking more in depth with him he seems to use the govt in liberal ways and makes me look like the conservative.
we both believe Trump and Sanders supporters could do better collaborating on business and educational plans to reform govt.

That's why I was shocked he didn't get the gun thing.
I thought everyone in Texas would get it for sure since we are brought up in this culture!

Well, you thought wrong – which is why your thread fails as a statistics of small numbers fallacy.

This thread fails. False fallacy of all fallacies.

Can either of you tell me what is the assumption, assertion or premise
you are saying is a fallacy that fails?

LordBrownTrout and C_Clayton_Jones

Is it the issue of Constitutional outreach and education?
I have never seen this process fail, but always succeed in bringing up grievances
conflicts and issues that need to be compared and discussed, even if and especially if we disagree.
So what is there to fear about failure?
Any interaction at all would lead to understanding where the other persons are coming from,
so that is always a step forward, no matter how complicated the conflicts may be.
Nothing wrong with discussing, how is that a failure?

Sorry about that emily. It wasn't your thread that fails. It was jones' post that was a false fallacy.

 

[emilynghiem]

Should guns be available out of vending machines ???

I love these constitutional "experts" you think you can't have ANY gun control .

There are ways to 3D print a working gun. So that's a step ahead of vending machines.

the main principle in Constitutional law always goes back to consent of the governed
as the basis of enforcing laws and contracts. the parties have to agree to comply or it falls apart at some point.

where people CHOOSE to support something because they really believe it is best,
you can see the difference. Why can't we build more policies based on what people
agree will work so that we quit wasting energy and resources fighting but focus on solutions we agree on

You didn't answer my vending machine question.

Look. We have a court system created by the constitution because there will always be differences of opinions and new laws that need challenging . It's not a bad thing . It's expected .

Dear Timmy
I find we need something more than just the courts as they are, but also
* more access and assistance with conflict resolution, including writing better laws to begin with instead of bullying over conflicts nobody bothered to resolve first
* restitution and accountability to taxpayers instead of making the public pay for the corruption, waste and abuses of govt that could be charged back to the wrongdoers to pay
* using a combination of media resources and party structure
to set up a grievance process similar to grand juries to hear and answer complaints
of ethics violations, conflicts of interests, and biases in beliefs pushed into public policy that people don't agree on and prefer to be resolved

right now, the courts aren't supposed to "rewrite" bad or conflicting laws for people, but just answer yes or no to one argument or another.
We need a process that helps citizens to resolve their issues, especially where political beliefs are involved
where people DON"T agree just to take it to court and let the gavel decide whose belief is going to dominate the other!

That only works so far.
We seem to have progressed as a country to need more diversified local representation
and not expect federal govt to make blanket policies for the public out of convenience.

we seem to have outgrown that, and need to develop more local autonomy / self-governing
states, districts and economies

 

[emilynghiem]

Should guns be available out of vending machines ???

I love these constitutional "experts" you think you can't have ANY gun control .

There are ways to 3D print a working gun. So that's a step ahead of vending machines.

the main principle in Constitutional law always goes back to consent of the governed
as the basis of enforcing laws and contracts. the parties have to agree to comply or it falls apart at some point.

where people CHOOSE to support something because they really believe it is best,
you can see the difference. Why can't we build more policies based on what people
agree will work so that we quit wasting energy and resources fighting but focus on solutions we agree on

You didn't answer my vending machine question.

Look. We have a court system created by the constitution because there will always be differences of opinions and new laws that need challenging . It's not a bad thing . It's expected .

Re: You didn't answer my vending machine question. Timmy

whether or not we can buy guns out of machines, or print them at home and assemble them ourselves,
we still need to address the issue of people agreeing what the rules are in their home districts
so people can enforce consistent policies, weed out criminally ill or abusive people, and
avoid problems with profiling and blaming/punishing the wrong people by not knowing who is compliant and who is criminal.

we will still need that to deal with mental and criminal issues of abuse and sick behavior
regardless what goes on with guns and technology. the common factor is mental and criminal illness,
so why not address that head on

 

[g5000]

I explained that if people have the freedom to buy weapons, and govt takes that liberty away, that is treating them as criminals before they've done anything wrong. So people who are lawabiding and don't plan to abuse that freedom don't want to be penalized
by losing freedoms just because of the crimes of other people they aren't responsible for.

This pretty much encapsulates my feelings about our freedoms, and not just our gun rights.

The trick is identifying who is law-abiding and who isn't. No one has ever presented a better method than background checks.

 

[g5000]

If there is no means to separate the law-abiding from the law-breaking, then one can see why some people feel it would be better to deny access to guns to everyone rather than risk allowing the law-breaking to have access to guns.

The argument "outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns" does not hunt. After all, advanced countries which have outlawed guns have much, much lower gun homicide rates than we do.

It seems logical to me, therefore, that we gun rights proponents should encourage the technologies which enable us to filter out the law-breakers. The better the methods we develop, the more we weaken the gun controller's premise we must deny guns to everyone for a lack of a means to discern good guys from bad guys.

 

[jasonnfree]

Should guns be available out of vending machines ???

I love these constitutional "experts" you think you can't have ANY gun control .

There are ways to 3D print a working gun. So that's a step ahead of vending machines.

the main principle in Constitutional law always goes back to consent of the governed
as the basis of enforcing laws and contracts. the parties have to agree to comply or it falls apart at some point.

where people CHOOSE to support something because they really believe it is best,
you can see the difference. Why can't we build more policies based on what people
agree will work so that we quit wasting energy and resources fighting but focus on solutions we agree on

You didn't answer my vending machine question.

Look. We have a court system created by the constitution because there will always be differences of opinions and new laws that need challenging . It's not a bad thing . It's expected .

Re: You didn't answer my vending machine question. Timmy

whether or not we can buy guns out of machines, or print them at home and assemble them ourselves,
we still need to address the issue of people agreeing what the rules are in their home districts
so people can enforce consistent policies, weed out criminally ill or abusive people, and
avoid problems with profiling and blaming/punishing the wrong people by not knowing who is compliant and who is criminal.

we will still need that to deal with mental and criminal issues of abuse and sick behavior
regardless what goes on with guns and technology. the common factor is mental and criminal illness,
so why not address that head on

Maybe the best way is what they did in the old days. The sheriff of the town decides if the cowpokes have to turn in their weapons before they go in the saloons. Least that's what we saw in the movies. I think it should be up to the locals, not the feds. Very little gun violence in rural America compared to the big city.

 

[emilynghiem]

I explained that if people have the freedom to buy weapons, and govt takes that liberty away, that is treating them as criminals before they've done anything wrong. So people who are lawabiding and don't plan to abuse that freedom don't want to be penalized
by losing freedoms just because of the crimes of other people they aren't responsible for.

This pretty much encapsulates my feelings about our freedoms, and not just our gun rights.

The trick is identifying who is law-abiding and who isn't. No one has ever presented a better method than background checks.

Dear g5000 background checks don't catch the latent criminally ill who haven't committed any crime yet.
the methods I've found that catch people on this level involve spiritual healing and diagnosis of people's spiritual history.
No way is govt ever going to be able to capture or regulate that process.
Medical science might someday be able to diagnose dangerous criminal sickness in advance,
but until this is perfected and proven, it's all faith based - the process of counseling people to find these problems before sickness strikes.

It's all voluntary, managed by communities and ministries around the populations they serve.
That's the best screening I've found that catches issues BEFORE any other signs manifest.
We need to work on that early intervention level, but clearly govt cannot do this or it becomes like "minority report"
and profiling in advance. it's against the laws of due process. Only by voluntary compliance can people choose
to become educated in the spiritual process of counseling relations that leads to early diagnosis of any ill or criminal behavior or abuse.
All by free choice. That's the most effective I've found.

 

[g5000]

Maybe the best way is what they did in the old days. The sheriff of the town decides if the cowpokes have to turn in their weapons before they go in the saloons.

DC v Heller negated this option. And rightly so.

Least that's what we saw in the movies. I think it should be up to the locals, not the feds. Very little gun violence in rural America compared to the big city.

I try not to conflate reality with movies.

 

[g5000]

Dear g5000 background checks don't catch the latent criminally ill who haven't committed any crime yet.
the methods I've found that catch people on this level involve spiritual healing and diagnosis of people's spiritual history.

I've been sitting here trying to come up with a cogent response to this, but all I can do is go, "Aye yie yie!"

 

[BULLDOG]

I explained that if people have the freedom to buy weapons, and govt takes that liberty away, that is treating them as criminals before they've done anything wrong. So people who are lawabiding and don't plan to abuse that freedom don't want to be penalized
by losing freedoms just because of the crimes of other people they aren't responsible for.

This pretty much encapsulates my feelings about our freedoms, and not just our gun rights.

The trick is identifying who is law-abiding and who isn't. No one has ever presented a better method than background checks.

Dear g5000 background checks don't catch the latent criminally ill who haven't committed any crime yet.
the methods I've found that catch people on this level involve spiritual healing and diagnosis of people's spiritual history.
No way is govt ever going to be able to capture or regulate that process.
Medical science might someday be able to diagnose dangerous criminal sickness in advance,
but until this is perfected and proven, it's all faith based - the process of counseling people to find these problems before sickness strikes.

It's all voluntary, managed by communities and ministries around the populations they serve.
That's the best screening I've found that catches issues BEFORE any other signs manifest.
We need to work on that early intervention level, but clearly govt cannot do this or it becomes like "minority report"
and profiling in advance. it's against the laws of due process. Only by voluntary compliance can people choose
to become educated in the spiritual process of counseling relations that leads to early diagnosis of any ill or criminal behavior or abuse.
All by free choice. That's the most effective I've found.

So you're looking for something like was shown in Minority Report, where certain people were able to tell which ones were going to be crooks, and which ones weren't. Just how are we going to decide who is capable of knowing that?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear g5000 background checks don't catch the latent criminally ill who haven't committed any crime yet.
the methods I've found that catch people on this level involve spiritual healing and diagnosis of people's spiritual history.

I've been sitting here trying to come up with a cogent response to this, but all I can do is go, "Aye yie yie!"

Dear g5000 Not to worry, I believe where our prison and mental health system is heading
will require medical research into this, where abnormal conditions can be diagnosed early
and determined what level of danger or stage of progression is involved, similar to cancer or diabetes and other diseases.

Instead of automatically criminalizing people for their sickness, taking a medical approach would help society to become more clinical about it
and WANT to get help if someone they know is sick and suffering from such conditions.


One day we could manage dangerous forms of criminal illness where we don't violate people's consent and
rights, but have voluntary compliance, similar to how people with Ebola and AIDS generally comply with authorities on managing these deadly conditions.
We don't need to go overboard with abusing govt out of unfounded fears.

I think we need to reform our prison and mental health systems anyway,
to focus on effective medical diagnosis and treatment, prevention and cure,
and not placating symptoms with pharmaceuticals for profit.

this would solve several problems at once by taking a medical approach.

 

[hazlnut]

Call me when the elite give up their armed bodyguards and security.

Apples and oranges.

You are a nobody. Nobody cares about you. Nobody is trying to kill you or threatening you.

You don't matter that much to anyone with a gun.

Upside - you save $$ on not needing security.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What a silly little work of fiction. If you want to trust a drunk with a gun, I guess you can,but it's not something anybody else would do. I can tell you spent a lot of effort on creating your little scenario, but at best it is junior high level fiction and grade school logic. Get someone to proof read your crap before you embarrass yourself again by posting such drivel.

Hi BULLDOG it may not be word for word, I apologize,
but yes both conversations were real.

The older conversation was with a friend Charles I met, fellow Democrat at a Harris County organizational meeting,
and we discussed the campus plans developed out of my district that is a national registered historic landmark.
http://www.houstonprogressive.org including plans for disabled Vet housing and home health assistance www.freedmenstown.com

The recent conversation was with a hard headed independent friend I thought was more conservative
but after talking more in depth with him he seems to use the govt in liberal ways and makes me look like the conservative.
we both believe Trump and Sanders supporters could do better collaborating on business and educational plans to reform govt.

That's why I was shocked he didn't get the gun thing.
I thought everyone in Texas would get it for sure since we are brought up in this culture!

Well, you thought wrong – which is why your thread fails as a statistics of small numbers fallacy.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
sorry but I don't treat people as statistics when it comes to resolving issues one on one.

Can you explain what you are referring to?

I'm talking about explaining, resolving and reaching a resolution on issues
one person at a time
if that's what it takes, where each person may come up with a different solution.

So the statistical data is going to vary for each case.

What I would say is a common pattern across the board in general:
* if people are forgiving and willing to work together despite differences or conflicts in beliefs that won't change
I would expect the rate of success in finding an issue that can be resolved is greater
* if people are NOT willing to work together, but reject and divide out of fear,
then the chances of finding points of agreement to build solutions are less

Do you agree that such a "statistical" pattern could be shown?
It won't prove causality, as if forgiveness or unforgiveness "causes" success or failure,
but it might show CORRELATION. What do you think of that, C_Clayton_Jones

Might that show that inclusion and tolerance "correlate" with higher rates of
success in resolving conflicts and managing diversity of people groups or beliefs within a common solution or policy?

I am interested in that point as something that statistics might show
as a general pattern with people.

I would also guess that religious conflicts are easier to resolve than political
ones that involve money and public policy and multiple levels of reform and implementing policies.
Religious differences can be resolved directly among people and only affect those
individuals who are more free to change their minds on how to approach each other.
but politics puts pressure on people and they can't negotiate as easily.

so I am guessing the stats would be on the side of resolving religious issues before political ones.

Liberals are not ‘opposed’ to guns; again, it’s a ridiculous lie.

Liberals own guns, enjoy hunting and the shooting sports, carry guns for self-defense, and support current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Moreover, necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory policy is not government ‘taking away’ anyone’s liberty, it is not “treating them as criminals before they've done anything wrong,” and it does not ‘penalize’ law-abiding citizens, the notion is ignorant nonsense.

As the Heller Court correctly reaffirmed: no right is ‘absolute,’ including the Second Amendment right; and as is the case with other rights, the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, as determined by the courts, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Call me when the elite give up their armed bodyguards and security.

As already correctly noted: this fails as a false comparison fallacy.

It also fails as a red herring fallacy.

No one is seeking to ‘disarm’ citizens, no one is seeking to ‘ban guns,’ and no one is being asked to ‘give up’ their firearms.

 

[amrchaos]

What the Constitution is is taught in public school.

The different ways to interpret it, you have to take up some political and law classes for that.

Or self study....

 

[emilynghiem]

What a silly little work of fiction. If you want to trust a drunk with a gun, I guess you can,but it's not something anybody else would do. I can tell you spent a lot of effort on creating your little scenario, but at best it is junior high level fiction and grade school logic. Get someone to proof read your crap before you embarrass yourself again by posting such drivel.

Hi BULLDOG it may not be word for word, I apologize,
but yes both conversations were real.

The older conversation was with a friend Charles I met, fellow Democrat at a Harris County organizational meeting,
and we discussed the campus plans developed out of my district that is a national registered historic landmark.
http://www.houstonprogressive.org including plans for disabled Vet housing and home health assistance www.freedmenstown.com

The recent conversation was with a hard headed independent friend I thought was more conservative
but after talking more in depth with him he seems to use the govt in liberal ways and makes me look like the conservative.
we both believe Trump and Sanders supporters could do better collaborating on business and educational plans to reform govt.

That's why I was shocked he didn't get the gun thing.
I thought everyone in Texas would get it for sure since we are brought up in this culture!

Well, you thought wrong – which is why your thread fails as a statistics of small numbers fallacy.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
sorry but I don't treat people as statistics when it comes to resolving issues one on one.

Can you explain what you are referring to?

I'm talking about explaining, resolving and reaching a resolution on issues
one person at a time
if that's what it takes, where each person may come up with a different solution.

So the statistical data is going to vary for each case.

What I would say is a common pattern across the board in general:
* if people are forgiving and willing to work together despite differences or conflicts in beliefs that won't change
I would expect the rate of success in finding an issue that can be resolved is greater
* if people are NOT willing to work together, but reject and divide out of fear,
then the chances of finding points of agreement to build solutions are less

Do you agree that such a "statistical" pattern could be shown?
It won't prove causality, as if forgiveness or unforgiveness "causes" success or failure,
but it might show CORRELATION. What do you think of that, C_Clayton_Jones

Might that show that inclusion and tolerance "correlate" with higher rates of
success in resolving conflicts and managing diversity of people groups or beliefs within a common solution or policy?

I am interested in that point as something that statistics might show
as a general pattern with people.

I would also guess that religious conflicts are easier to resolve than political
ones that involve money and public policy and multiple levels of reform and implementing policies.
Religious differences can be resolved directly among people and only affect those
individuals who are more free to change their minds on how to approach each other.
but politics puts pressure on people and they can't negotiate as easily.

so I am guessing the stats would be on the side of resolving religious issues before political ones.

Liberals are not ‘opposed’ to guns; again, it’s a ridiculous lie.

Liberals own guns, enjoy hunting and the shooting sports, carry guns for self-defense, and support current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Moreover, necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory policy is not government ‘taking away’ anyone’s liberty, it is not “treating them as criminals before they've done anything wrong,” and it does not ‘penalize’ law-abiding citizens, the notion is ignorant nonsense.

As the Heller Court correctly reaffirmed: no right is ‘absolute,’ including the Second Amendment right; and as is the case with other rights, the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, as determined by the courts, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
when I have to stop and explain to people
why it violates Constitutional principles to deprive people of liberty who haven't committed crimes,
there is something OFF with the liberal mentality and agenda
that TAKES THIS FOR GRANTED or somehow underplays it as a nonissue.

You, yourself, did the equivalent of the religious right
"not thinking banning abortion is taking away any choices"
when you, yourself, did not recognize how the ACA mandates
take away individual choice of how to pay for health care.

You are in denial, too, if you do not see how this is an issue.

Same as the prolife who don't see how there is any question that abortion is murder,
and there is no freedom of choice involved.

How are you any different if you can't see
that people may approach it differently and be severely oppressed by govt?

Same with this transgender issue that
one side will say is "mental confusion, and not a real issue to be accommodated like a disability"
http://www.newsweek.com/how-bathroom-bill-hurts-transgender-son-455120

C_Clayton_Jones

the point I would really like to bring out is
how can we ask other people and groups to be SENSITIVE about rights being infringed upon
if you or I run around negating or denying people's rights and liberties THEY feel are being copted by govt

People on both sides argue "no rights are lost" where they appear to be NONISSUES
while the opposition is screaming there ARE ISSUES.

So don't both sides need to recognize this is going on
for us to ever resolve what is going on with both sides?

 

[BluesLegend]

Call me when the elite give up their armed bodyguards and security.

As already correctly noted: this fails as a false comparison fallacy.

It also fails as a red herring fallacy.

No one is seeking to ‘disarm’ citizens, no one is seeking to ‘ban guns,’ and no one is being asked to ‘give up’ their firearms.

Ahahahaha control filth are absolutely trying to ban guns and disarm citizens and give up their firearms, by any means possible. How many times does the SCOTUS need to strike down their unconstitutional gun control laws before you pull your head out?

 

[emilynghiem]

Call me when the elite give up their armed bodyguards and security.

As already correctly noted: this fails as a false comparison fallacy.

It also fails as a red herring fallacy.

No one is seeking to ‘disarm’ citizens, no one is seeking to ‘ban guns,’ and no one is being asked to ‘give up’ their firearms.

Ahahahaha control filth are absolutely trying to ban guns and disarm citizens and give up their firearms, by any means possible. How many times does the SCOTUS need to strike down their unconstitutional gun control laws before you pull your head out?

Dear BluesLegend
To avoid the frustration of "beating our heads against a wall"
I've come to accept that some people like C_Clayton_Jones have a bias they can't see past.*

With respect to Constitutional respect for beliefs, I would be a hypocrite if I didn't respect CCJ right to those beliefs,
while I continue pointing out such beliefs have no place in federal govt to impose on the public BECAUSE these are BELIEFS not shared by all of us.*

Clearly the beliefs that the Second Amendment and other Constitutional laws and principles are based on
recognizing sovereignty of states and people as "the default" is NOT the "default belief"
of liberals who believe that Govt is the default for protecting representing and establishing public interests.

Instead of bullying back and forth, insulting each other for which viewpoint we believe in,
I am saying public policy should be based on where these agree -- that laws should be
written so well that they represent where the public agrees, and AVOID the biases that make one side or the other object on principle.

If people do not have the faith that laws can be written by consent of the governed,
representing all people equally, that's yet another BELIEF that can't be forced onto people by govt.

that is why education is necessary, to teach people how to resolve conflicts
and establish consensus and consent of the governed as the standard of law.
It can't be forced on people, but is best proven by example and experience.

By the very nature of "consent of the governed" people have to consent by free and educated choice.
If people see more examples of effective policies passed and enforced by consent, then
we can demonstrate why that standard is more Constitutional than the bullying by coercion and exclusion
we have going on now trying to force resolutions to conflicts against the will of one or both sides.

* NOTE: I will give credit to the prolife Conservatives, Christians and Constitutionalists
who also have a similar bias, such as not being able to see abortion except as murder and not a legal choice,
but who at the same time RECOGNIZE that other people don't share this belief so it goes against
Constitutional principles to push it through govt based on faith based arguments that the public doesn't believe in or consent to.

When will more liberals admit to the same with the right to health care
and now this right to marriage and transgender/orientation issue?

Just because something may be better for the public, and rightfully protect more people's rights interests
and beliefs about equality, does not give govt license to pass that into law any more than
* forcing right to life on people to protect both unborn children and also women from harm related to abortion
or
* forcing Christianity, prayer or spiritual healing on the public as a required part of law
even though this could ultimate save lives and resources (even more than requiring insurance which costs more while spiritual healing is free and directly affects the causes and symptoms of diseases and other ill conditions that insurance doesn't correct or prevent)

The prolife Christians who are against paying for the effects of abortion or drug use
could use the same arguments that liberals use to argue against paying for ER costs for people without insurance,
in order to justify govt regulations dictating and penalizing citizens' choices.

I keep hoping a LIGHT will turn on in people's heads:
that both sides of these arguments sound identical in their complaints.
They just complain about different issues as the focus,
but for each issue, one side argues that it is necessary for govt to intervene to protect certain rights or interests
and the other side argues that's just a ploy to abuse govt for political control and the right of people should be protected.

 

[BluesLegend]

Call me when the elite give up their armed bodyguards and security.

As already correctly noted: this fails as a false comparison fallacy.

It also fails as a red herring fallacy.

No one is seeking to ‘disarm’ citizens, no one is seeking to ‘ban guns,’ and no one is being asked to ‘give up’ their firearms.

Ahahahaha control filth are absolutely trying to ban guns and disarm citizens and give up their firearms, by any means possible. How many times does the SCOTUS need to strike down their unconstitutional gun control laws before you pull your head out?

Dear BluesLegend
To avoid the frustration of "beating our heads against a wall"
I've come to accept that some people like C_Clayton_Jones have a bias they can't see past.*

With respect to Constitutional respect for beliefs, I would be a hypocrite if I didn't respect CCJ right to those beliefs,
while I continue pointing out such beliefs have no place in federal govt to impose on the public BECAUSE these are BELIEFS not shared by all of us.*

Clearly the beliefs that the Second Amendment and other Constitutional laws and principles are based on
recognizing sovereignty of states and people as "the default" is NOT the "default belief"
of liberals who believe that Govt is the default for protecting representing and establishing public interests.

Instead of bullying back and forth, insulting each other for which viewpoint we believe in,
I am saying public policy should be based on where these agree -- that laws should be
written so well that they represent where the public agrees, and AVOID the biases that make one side or the other object on principle.

If people do not have the faith that laws can be written by consent of the governed,
representing all people equally, that's yet another BELIEF that can't be forced onto people by govt.

that is why education is necessary, to teach people how to resolve conflicts
and establish consensus and consent of the governed as the standard of law.
It can't be forced on people, but is best proven by example and experience.

By the very nature of "consent of the governed" people have to consent by free and educated choice.
If people see more examples of effective policies passed and enforced by consent, then
we can demonstrate why that standard is more Constitutional than the bullying by coercion and exclusion
we have going on now trying to force resolutions to conflicts against the will of one or both sides.

* NOTE: I will give credit to the prolife Conservatives, Christians and Constitutionalists
who also have a similar bias, such as not being able to see abortion except as murder and not a legal choice,
but who at the same time RECOGNIZE that other people don't share this belief so it goes against
Constitutional principles to push it through govt based on faith based arguments that the public doesn't believe in or consent to.

When will more liberals admit to the same with the right to health care
and now this right to marriage and transgender/orientation issue?

Just because something may be better for the public, and rightfully protect more people's rights interests
and beliefs about equality, does not give govt license to pass that into law any more than
* forcing right to life on people to protect both unborn children and also women from harm related to abortion
or
* forcing Christianity, prayer or spiritual healing on the public as a required part of law
even though this could ultimate save lives and resources (even more than requiring insurance which costs more while spiritual healing is free and directly affects the causes and symptoms of diseases and other ill conditions that insurance doesn't correct or prevent)

The prolife Christians who are against paying for the effects of abortion or drug use
could use the same arguments that liberals use to argue against paying for ER costs for people without insurance,
in order to justify govt regulations dictating and penalizing citizens' choices.

I keep hoping a LIGHT will turn on in people's heads:
that both sides of these arguments sound identical in their complaints.
They just complain about different issues as the focus,
but for each issue, one side argues that it is necessary for govt to intervene to protect certain rights or interests
and the other side argues that's just a ploy to abuse govt for political control and the right of people should be protected.

You need to go back and study liberals, rational is not a word I would use to describe them. Or honest, or trustworthy. You cannot negotiate with them, you cannot compromise or find common ground with liberals. They will strike a deal but in bad faith fully intending to break that deal at the first opportunity. They are waging a war on individual rights by death of a thousand cuts, by erosion. They don't give a crap about the Constitution, they use it when its to their advantage and ignore it when it gets in their way. Liberals blatantly lie and twist, proudly. So liberals and liberalism have to be defeated, not bargained with.

 

[BULLDOG]

Call me when the elite give up their armed bodyguards and security.

As already correctly noted: this fails as a false comparison fallacy.

It also fails as a red herring fallacy.

No one is seeking to ‘disarm’ citizens, no one is seeking to ‘ban guns,’ and no one is being asked to ‘give up’ their firearms.

Ahahahaha control filth are absolutely trying to ban guns and disarm citizens and give up their firearms, by any means possible. How many times does the SCOTUS need to strike down their unconstitutional gun control laws before you pull your head out?

Dear BluesLegend
To avoid the frustration of "beating our heads against a wall"
I've come to accept that some people like C_Clayton_Jones have a bias they can't see past.*

With respect to Constitutional respect for beliefs, I would be a hypocrite if I didn't respect CCJ right to those beliefs,
while I continue pointing out such beliefs have no place in federal govt to impose on the public BECAUSE these are BELIEFS not shared by all of us.*

Clearly the beliefs that the Second Amendment and other Constitutional laws and principles are based on
recognizing sovereignty of states and people as "the default" is NOT the "default belief"
of liberals who believe that Govt is the default for protecting representing and establishing public interests.

Instead of bullying back and forth, insulting each other for which viewpoint we believe in,
I am saying public policy should be based on where these agree -- that laws should be
written so well that they represent where the public agrees, and AVOID the biases that make one side or the other object on principle.

If people do not have the faith that laws can be written by consent of the governed,
representing all people equally, that's yet another BELIEF that can't be forced onto people by govt.

that is why education is necessary, to teach people how to resolve conflicts
and establish consensus and consent of the governed as the standard of law.
It can't be forced on people, but is best proven by example and experience.

By the very nature of "consent of the governed" people have to consent by free and educated choice.
If people see more examples of effective policies passed and enforced by consent, then
we can demonstrate why that standard is more Constitutional than the bullying by coercion and exclusion
we have going on now trying to force resolutions to conflicts against the will of one or both sides.

* NOTE: I will give credit to the prolife Conservatives, Christians and Constitutionalists
who also have a similar bias, such as not being able to see abortion except as murder and not a legal choice,
but who at the same time RECOGNIZE that other people don't share this belief so it goes against
Constitutional principles to push it through govt based on faith based arguments that the public doesn't believe in or consent to.

When will more liberals admit to the same with the right to health care
and now this right to marriage and transgender/orientation issue?

Just because something may be better for the public, and rightfully protect more people's rights interests
and beliefs about equality, does not give govt license to pass that into law any more than
* forcing right to life on people to protect both unborn children and also women from harm related to abortion
or
* forcing Christianity, prayer or spiritual healing on the public as a required part of law
even though this could ultimate save lives and resources (even more than requiring insurance which costs more while spiritual healing is free and directly affects the causes and symptoms of diseases and other ill conditions that insurance doesn't correct or prevent)

The prolife Christians who are against paying for the effects of abortion or drug use
could use the same arguments that liberals use to argue against paying for ER costs for people without insurance,
in order to justify govt regulations dictating and penalizing citizens' choices.

I keep hoping a LIGHT will turn on in people's heads:
that both sides of these arguments sound identical in their complaints.
They just complain about different issues as the focus,
but for each issue, one side argues that it is necessary for govt to intervene to protect certain rights or interests
and the other side argues that's just a ploy to abuse govt for political control and the right of people should be protected.

You need to go back and study liberals, rational is not a word I would use to describe them. Or honest, or trustworthy. You cannot negotiate with them, you cannot compromise or find common ground with liberals. They will strike a deal but in bad faith fully intending to break that deal at the first opportunity. They are waging a war on individual rights by death of a thousand cuts, by erosion. They don't give a crap about the Constitution, they use it when its to their advantage and ignore it when it gets in their way. Liberals blatantly lie and twist, proudly. So liberals and liberalism have to be defeated, not bargained with.

I suppose you would believe all that crap if you believed all the right wing lies, and never actually looked for yourself.