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

[emilynghiem]

OMG now my mind is really blown
where I thought I had nothing left!

A friend of mine wants to run for State Rep in TEXAS of all places.
And wants to promote the argument that even in the Wild West there was gun control
where the local sheriff would make all the men in the bar "check in their guns" at the saloon before
getting drunk.

I told my friend flat out, sorry, but there are people I would trust to have my back
DRUNK WITH A GUN before I trust people with or without a gun who don't respect the law.

I said the criteria is whether people use arms to DEFEND the law not violate.
So YES I would trust people I know who are as serious about defending law and order
as police are, and respect the Constitution, and don't bypass due process or take justice into their own hands.

I was thinking: This is TEXAS, are you looking to get SMASHED with this argument?

the point I was able to make is the LOCAL Sheriff having a policy that the town follows
is LOCAL between the people. that's NOT the same as the FEDERAL GOVT trying to regulate
guns from the top down, from centralized govt dictating to the states and local people.

so I did convince him if all districts were like college campuses, where the police KNOW the
community members, and who is trouble or doesn't belong there, then we wouldn't have as many issues
with profiling or shooting kids or other law abiding residents accidentally.

If the people and police worked together to make sure EVERYONE was educated on the
process of apprehending a disruptive person, then we could tell who is and who isn't complying,
whether it's a citizen or an officer who is becoming abusive and threatening excessive force.
We'd check all such abuses if we all agreed and were trained to follow the same standard policies.

He got that, that if it were localized then it could be managed safely.

What I could have brought up, and maybe I'll save this for later, is the civics lesson on due process
and not depriving people of liberty who haven't committed crimes, just because OTHER PEOPLE
commit crimes.

That's how I explained this gun rights issue previously to a liberal Democrat friend who asked why are conservatives so against banning AK47 and assault weapons that aren't even necessary? 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 is collective punishment, where lawabiding citizens are punished along with the guilty, and they are arguing there are better ways to pinpoint and hold the criminals responsible without infringing on the freedom of the lawabiding.

I'll save that for next time.

It just blows my mind that I have to explain this to people who don't get where Conservatives
are coming from with the Constitution.

I didn't even get into the examples of cases of riots and robberies where I would want the law abiding people around me to have access to guns. The deterrent effect in Texas may not be possible to measure,
but the fact that people know a lot of citizens have guns is likely a factor, where armed robbers will try to go for the easy targets who can be overpowered. It may also explain why we don't have riots here as in other cities, because people know that either police or citizens aren't afraid to shoot first and ask questions later (as in the case of the attackers at the Muslim cartoon contest event in Garland Texas where both were shot almost instantly).

I should be glad my friend asked me first before running for office, trying to argue that history has always had gun control. the history lesson most conservatives point out is how the dictators will disarm the citizens from a centralized position in order to oppress the masses. don't leave out that part of history!

 

[SwimExpert]

OMG now my mind is really blown
where I thought I had nothing left!

A friend of mine wants to run for State Rep in TEXAS of all places.
And wants to promote the argument that even in the Wild West there was gun control
where the local sheriff would make all the men in the bar "check in their guns" at the saloon before
getting drunk.

I told my friend flat out, sorry, but there are people I would trust to have my back
DRUNK WITH A GUN before I trust people with or without a gun who don't respect the law.

I said the criteria is whether people use arms to DEFEND the law not violate.
So YES I would trust people I know who are as serious about defending law and order
as police are, and respect the Constitution, and don't bypass due process or take justice into their own hands.

I was thinking: This is TEXAS, are you looking to get SMASHED with this argument?

the point I was able to make is the LOCAL Sheriff having a policy that the town follows
is LOCAL between the people. that's NOT the same as the FEDERAL GOVT trying to regulate
guns from the top down, from centralized govt dictating to the states and local people.

so I did convince him if all districts were like college campuses, where the police KNOW the
community members, and who is trouble or doesn't belong there, then we wouldn't have as many issues
with profiling or shooting kids or other law abiding residents accidentally.

If the people and police worked together to make sure EVERYONE was educated on the
process of apprehending a disruptive person, then we could tell who is and who isn't complying,
whether it's a citizen or an officer who is becoming abusive and threatening excessive force.
We'd check all such abuses if we all agreed and were trained to follow the same standard policies.

He got that, that if it were localized then it could be managed safely.

What I could have brought up, and maybe I'll save this for later, is the civics lesson on due process
and not depriving people of liberty who haven't committed crimes, just because OTHER PEOPLE
commit crimes.

That's how I explained this gun rights issue previously to a liberal Democrat friend who asked why are conservatives so against banning AK47 and assault weapons that aren't even necessary? 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 is collective punishment, where lawabiding citizens are punished along with the guilty, and they are arguing there are better ways to pinpoint and hold the criminals responsible without infringing on the freedom of the lawabiding.

I'll save that for next time.

It just blows my mind that I have to explain this to people who don't get where Conservatives
are coming from with the Constitution.

I didn't even get into the examples of cases of riots and robberies where I would want the law abiding people around me to have access to guns. The deterrent effect in Texas may not be possible to measure,
but the fact that people know a lot of citizens have guns is likely a factor, where armed robbers will try to go for the easy targets who can be overpowered. It may also explain why we don't have riots here as in other cities, because people know that either police or citizens aren't afraid to shoot first and ask questions later (as in the case of the attackers at the Muslim cartoon contest event in Garland Texas where both were shot almost instantly).

I should be glad my friend asked me first before running for office, trying to argue that history has always had gun control. the history lesson most conservatives point out is how the dictators will disarm the citizens from a centralized position in order to oppress the masses. don't leave out that part of history!

I agree with you. ^^This^^ is exactly why we need constitutional education for the masses. Though, it's also evidence that it won't work.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Devil's Advocate - saloons are private property. The owner can prohibit the carrying of firearms on site. Most shopping malls in this region prohibit firearms. Of course, bad guys can't read.

 

[emilynghiem]

OMG now my mind is really blown
where I thought I had nothing left!

A friend of mine wants to run for State Rep in TEXAS of all places.
And wants to promote the argument that even in the Wild West there was gun control
where the local sheriff would make all the men in the bar "check in their guns" at the saloon before
getting drunk.

I told my friend flat out, sorry, but there are people I would trust to have my back
DRUNK WITH A GUN before I trust people with or without a gun who don't respect the law.

I said the criteria is whether people use arms to DEFEND the law not violate.
So YES I would trust people I know who are as serious about defending law and order
as police are, and respect the Constitution, and don't bypass due process or take justice into their own hands.

I was thinking: This is TEXAS, are you looking to get SMASHED with this argument?

the point I was able to make is the LOCAL Sheriff having a policy that the town follows
is LOCAL between the people. that's NOT the same as the FEDERAL GOVT trying to regulate
guns from the top down, from centralized govt dictating to the states and local people.

so I did convince him if all districts were like college campuses, where the police KNOW the
community members, and who is trouble or doesn't belong there, then we wouldn't have as many issues
with profiling or shooting kids or other law abiding residents accidentally.

If the people and police worked together to make sure EVERYONE was educated on the
process of apprehending a disruptive person, then we could tell who is and who isn't complying,
whether it's a citizen or an officer who is becoming abusive and threatening excessive force.
We'd check all such abuses if we all agreed and were trained to follow the same standard policies.

He got that, that if it were localized then it could be managed safely.

What I could have brought up, and maybe I'll save this for later, is the civics lesson on due process
and not depriving people of liberty who haven't committed crimes, just because OTHER PEOPLE
commit crimes.

That's how I explained this gun rights issue previously to a liberal Democrat friend who asked why are conservatives so against banning AK47 and assault weapons that aren't even necessary? 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 is collective punishment, where lawabiding citizens are punished along with the guilty, and they are arguing there are better ways to pinpoint and hold the criminals responsible without infringing on the freedom of the lawabiding.

I'll save that for next time.

It just blows my mind that I have to explain this to people who don't get where Conservatives
are coming from with the Constitution.

I didn't even get into the examples of cases of riots and robberies where I would want the law abiding people around me to have access to guns. The deterrent effect in Texas may not be possible to measure,
but the fact that people know a lot of citizens have guns is likely a factor, where armed robbers will try to go for the easy targets who can be overpowered. It may also explain why we don't have riots here as in other cities, because people know that either police or citizens aren't afraid to shoot first and ask questions later (as in the case of the attackers at the Muslim cartoon contest event in Garland Texas where both were shot almost instantly).

I should be glad my friend asked me first before running for office, trying to argue that history has always had gun control. the history lesson most conservatives point out is how the dictators will disarm the citizens from a centralized position in order to oppress the masses. don't leave out that part of history!

I agree with you. ^^This^^ is exactly why we need constitutional education for the masses. Though, it's also evidence that it won't work.

Dear SwimExpert it will work if both people have the patience to translate back and forth.
I thought I had trouble translating the meaning of God and Jesus to atheists and secular humanists.
but those who care about peace and justice at least get that Christianity SHOULD be related to that, even if they don't believe Christians are teaching the same Justice.

when it comes to teaching the meaning of Constitutional laws and natural laws,
dognabbit, the biases people have against political groups are even stronger obstructions than religious biases.

this will be considerably harder than resolving religious issues with terminology and beliefs.

political beliefs are much more emotionally charged so it takes that much more patience
and faith that both people can focus on common points DESPITE the multitude of differences.

wow

it works where I can find a way to translate it into common terms the other person CAN relate to. Gee whiz. this is job cut out for Superman!

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

 

[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!

 

[BluesLegend]

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

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

OMG now my mind is really blown
where I thought I had nothing left!

A friend of mine wants to run for State Rep in TEXAS of all places.
And wants to promote the argument that even in the Wild West there was gun control
where the local sheriff would make all the men in the bar "check in their guns" at the saloon before
getting drunk.

I told my friend flat out, sorry, but there are people I would trust to have my back
DRUNK WITH A GUN before I trust people with or without a gun who don't respect the law.

I said the criteria is whether people use arms to DEFEND the law not violate.
So YES I would trust people I know who are as serious about defending law and order
as police are, and respect the Constitution, and don't bypass due process or take justice into their own hands.

I was thinking: This is TEXAS, are you looking to get SMASHED with this argument?

the point I was able to make is the LOCAL Sheriff having a policy that the town follows
is LOCAL between the people. that's NOT the same as the FEDERAL GOVT trying to regulate
guns from the top down, from centralized govt dictating to the states and local people.

so I did convince him if all districts were like college campuses, where the police KNOW the
community members, and who is trouble or doesn't belong there, then we wouldn't have as many issues
with profiling or shooting kids or other law abiding residents accidentally.

If the people and police worked together to make sure EVERYONE was educated on the
process of apprehending a disruptive person, then we could tell who is and who isn't complying,
whether it's a citizen or an officer who is becoming abusive and threatening excessive force.
We'd check all such abuses if we all agreed and were trained to follow the same standard policies.

He got that, that if it were localized then it could be managed safely.

What I could have brought up, and maybe I'll save this for later, is the civics lesson on due process
and not depriving people of liberty who haven't committed crimes, just because OTHER PEOPLE
commit crimes.

That's how I explained this gun rights issue previously to a liberal Democrat friend who asked why are conservatives so against banning AK47 and assault weapons that aren't even necessary? 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 is collective punishment, where lawabiding citizens are punished along with the guilty, and they are arguing there are better ways to pinpoint and hold the criminals responsible without infringing on the freedom of the lawabiding.

I'll save that for next time.

It just blows my mind that I have to explain this to people who don't get where Conservatives
are coming from with the Constitution.

I didn't even get into the examples of cases of riots and robberies where I would want the law abiding people around me to have access to guns. The deterrent effect in Texas may not be possible to measure,
but the fact that people know a lot of citizens have guns is likely a factor, where armed robbers will try to go for the easy targets who can be overpowered. It may also explain why we don't have riots here as in other cities, because people know that either police or citizens aren't afraid to shoot first and ask questions later (as in the case of the attackers at the Muslim cartoon contest event in Garland Texas where both were shot almost instantly).

I should be glad my friend asked me first before running for office, trying to argue that history has always had gun control. the history lesson most conservatives point out is how the dictators will disarm the citizens from a centralized position in order to oppress the masses. don't leave out that part of history!

I agree with you. ^^This^^ is exactly why we need constitutional education for the masses. Though, it's also evidence that it won't work.

You're not clever.

 

[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.

 

[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!

Hi C_Clayton_Jones not sure which part struck you as funny/funniest
but I did think it was crazy that I, as a progressive Green Democrat all into the restorative justice nonviolent alternatives
peaceful coexistence blah blah blah
would be the one to explain to a guy (I thought was a homegrown Texas redneck type if you ask me)
why the conservatives wouldn't go for his example of how "gun control" was history from the Old West.

That's as bad as me having to explain to him what Jesus means in the Bible
when I am a secular humanist Buddhist Constitutionalist and he's the church going Catholic.

I thought it was more sad than funny that I have to teach people their own Bible and Constitution
when I'm the last person on earth who ever wanted to get involved in any way in church-state politics and religion. Yuck.
But because I hate the messes so much, I did figure out the minimal I needed to learn to negotiate solutions.
So I was offering this to my friend -- the very minimum we should be teaching so the public enforces the same standards across the board
and quits letting govt run amok for lack of check by the public.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"That's how I explained this gun rights issue previously to a liberal Democrat friend who asked why are conservatives so against banning AK47 and assault weapons that aren't even necessary? 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."

Nonsense, a ridiculous lie.

 

[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!

Hi C_Clayton_Jones not sure which part struck you as funny/funniest
but I did think it was crazy that I, as a progressive Green Democrat all into the restorative justice nonviolent alternatives
peaceful coexistence blah blah blah
would be the one to explain to a guy (I thought was a homegrown Texas redneck type if you ask me)
why the conservatives wouldn't go for his example of how "gun control" was history from the Old West.

That's as bad as me having to explain to him what Jesus means in the Bible
when I am a secular humanist Buddhist Constitutionalist and he's the church going Catholic.

I thought it was more sad than funny that I have to teach people their own Bible and Constitution
when I'm the last person on earth who ever wanted to get involved in any way in church-state politics and religion. Yuck.
But because I hate the messes so much, I did figure out the minimal I needed to learn to negotiate solutions.
So I was offering this to my friend -- the very minimum we should be teaching so the public enforces the same standards across the board
and quits letting govt run amok for lack of check by the public.

Your thread also fails as a straw man fallacy.

You contrive this ridiculous lie about ‘liberals’ being ‘opposed to guns’ in an effort to misrepresent their position.

Then you attack the lie you’ve contrived (straw man) and claim ‘victory.’

 

[SwimExpert]

You're not clever.

Maybe not, but neither is she.

 

[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.

 

[SwimExpert]

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

Hasty generalization. It's called hasty generalization.

For someone who invokes the term "fallacy" in almost every single post, it sure is funny that you constantly invoke amateur concepts mostly invented by internet trolls and high school students.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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?

 

[Timmy]

Should guns be available out of vending machines ???

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

 

[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

 

[Timmy]

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 .