I hear what everyone is sayin’
But different world. If you can’t recognize it I can’t help yah.

I’m only 54 years old and grew up with no cell phones, computers were 20 or 64 K, no internet, black and white TV with no cable.

Video games were pong and space invaders unless you went to an arcade.
But we had pellet guns at the age of 12.

Different world.

But if they’ll give I’ll give. But they gotta give to get.

Heres a thougt, since we gave up so much stuff, lets get back 20 more things and then we can call it a compromise.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

This is the best statement.  But it's already is in place, it's just that politicians choose to ignore it. Cough cough, 2nd amendment, cough cough.

It would have to be more clear and with less wiggle room than the second amendment.

For example our state constitution has a second amendment but we also have a law saying guns can't be confiscated during an emergency.

It would have to be more clear and with less wiggle room than the second amendment.

For example our state constitution has a second amendment but we also have a law saying guns can't be confiscated during an emergency.

We shouldn't need that specific law if the cops/guard, etc... learned about the constitution/bill of rights.

As we have seen with COVID, we know how much of HPD would just follow orders and ignore the right to peacefully assemble. So if we apply this same logic to a confiscation that's ordered, how many will say no.  There is a reason why 96% of citations issued for violating the covid mandates were dismissed in court.  In your train of thought, do I have proof HPD will just follow orders?  Of course not because it hasn't happened yet. But we look at this important thing called "history", which gives a good way of showing how HPD would react to other orders.  I mean would you let a convicted sex offender with 5 convictions baby sit your child? They didn't do anything yet because they have not yet babysat your child, but their "history" would make you think otherwise from allowing them to babysit.   I would not allow this.

Better way to frame he question is what will I personally give up to gain something in a compromise.  Will I give up my AR15's that I own to get CCW?  Will I endure a 6 month investigation to buy my next gun so I can get a suppressor?  Will I give up my 30 round AR15 magazines so I can have a 15 round pistol magazine?

This is instead of giving up other peoples rights so I can gain something myself.  I try to apply this to myself, to ensure I have a stake or skin in the game, to make better decisions

Will I surrender my due process rights in an attempt to win the approval of people who are actively trying to kill me?

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1536509016775528449?t=PWARfZOmkdahdfUZkjzYKQ&s=01

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Better way to frame he question is what will I personally give up to gain something in a compromise.  Will I give up my AR15's that I own to get CCW?  Will I endure a 6 month investigation to buy my next gun so I can get a suppressor?  Will I give up my 30 round AR15 magazines so I can have a 15 round pistol magazine?

This is instead of giving up other peoples rights so I can gain something myself.  I try to apply this to myself, to ensure I have a stake or skin in the game, to make better decisions

That’s some shit right there. 

I like what "AIEA HOUND" Posted:

"I hear what everyone is sayin’
But different world. If you can’t recognize it I can’t help yah.

I’m only 54 years old and grew up with no cell phones, computers were 20 or 64 K, no internet, black and white TV with no cable.

Video games were pong and space invaders unless you went to an arcade.
But we had pellet guns at the age of 12.

Different world.

But if they’ll give I’ll give. But they gotta give to get."

"DIFFERENT WORLD"

Yes!

We have VIOLENT Video Games
Different Morals from When i was growing up (Good or Bad)
We have SOCIAL MEDIA.....ANYONE can be a "STAR" in their own way... (OH BOY!)

I Believe we need to find "middle" ground.  We can complain all we want.

I always ask the question.

 Do we ALL VOTE?

Seems someone elects the wrong people....I have been guilty of this....

I am NOT a Republican or Democrat....Im Politcally "GENDER NETURAL" (Sorry i'm not making "fun" of that term but thought i would use it to make a point...)

No one person or party has the interest of "me".

Since i grew up in Hawaii...I was "shielded" in what the 2A world in the other 49 states.  I didn't know a lot of things ....

I can see if your state didn't have a "waiting" period, mental health check (aka Yellow form for me) etc etc etc

I don't like the fact i have two sets of mags for my handguns (10 rounds), 15+ for mainland (I shoot in Las Vegas) etc

BUT at the end of the day, i would LOVE to see less restrictions...Thank you for all that "SHARES"!  I like to read what others Post!

ALOHA!

We shouldn't need that specific law if the cops/guard, etc... learned about the constitution/bill of rights.

Problem with that train of thought is it assumes everyone shares your particular interpretation of the constitution and just chooses to ignore it.

It's not that simple and I suspect the actual breakdown is more complicated. The following non-compeehensibe list comes to mind
1. People who share you understanding on the constitution but don't care
2. People who don't understand the constitution very well and don't care
3. People who understand the constitution but interpret differently than you.
4. People who understand the constitution but aren't sure how a specific situation relates to a specific right.

Our constitution is amazingly short and sweet but by no means unanimously understood.

Problem with that train of thought is it assumes everyone shares your particular interpretation of the constitution and just chooses to ignore it.

It's not that simple and I suspect the actual breakdown is more complicated. The following non-compeehensibe list comes to mind
1. People who share you understanding on the constitution but don't care
2. People who don't understand the constitution very well and don't care
3. People who understand the constitution but interpret differently than you.
4. People who understand the constitution but aren't sure how a specific situation relates to a specific right.

Our constitution is amazingly short and sweet but by no means unanimously understood.

Our Constitution/Bill of Rights is straight forward.  The people enforcing any orders/laws have to understand it. So to reply:

1) They should be fired and arrested for violating the constitution.
2) They should not graduate the academy/basic training and still be arrested if they did graduate and violate it.
3) The media/politicians have taken little by little that they control the narrative and make it OK to violate the Constitution.  So as LEO/Military, 1 needs to read it.  It's very straight forward, especially with technology (no need go the the library)
4) Then they do not understand it. Refer to #2


With regard to the above, It's being taught wrong or not at all in basic/academy/prosecutors office, etc...

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing".

If we must compromise on the 2nd amendment, lets also compromise on the 13th and 19th 
Kamala has already been bought and unable to vote since in office. 

If we must compromise on the 2nd amendment, lets also compromise on the 13th and 19th 
Kamala has already been bought and unable to vote since in office. 

Been bought? Not even worried about that, I wonder if she has the intelligence level necessary to vote

Our Constitution/Bill of Rights is straight forward.  The people enforcing any orders/laws have to understand it. So to reply:

I would argue that this is demonstrably an incorrect statement. The mere advent of technologies and situations that the founders had no concept of and the constitution does not directly address shows just how not straight forward things can be.

There are multiple schools of thought on how to interpret the constitution. There are experts in the history of law in america who disagree on certain aspects on the constitution. Saying that rights are straight forward flies in the face of those facts. Yet despite experts and judges arriving at different interpretations you expect police and military to just know what is constitutional as if it is obvious and they must agree with your particular interpretation. So many of our major constitutional rights only really get ironed out when some cop or government official tries something new.

Take the freedom of speech for example, it took many many years and legal challenges for it to be one understood they way it is today. Case in point, how the line became drawn that libel is not protected speech, that is not straight forward in the first amendment. Or look at what is called a Terry Stop which established reasonable suspicion for cops to detain someone, again, not something straight forward in the constitution.

I would argue that this is demonstrably an incorrect statement. The mere advent of technologies and situations that the founders had no concept of and the constitution does not directly address shows just how not straight forward things can be.

There are multiple schools of thought on how to interpret the constitution. There are experts in the history of law in america who disagree on certain aspects on the constitution. Saying that rights are straight forward flies in the face of those facts. Yet despite experts and judges arriving at different interpretations you expect police and military to just know what is constitutional as if it is obvious and they must agree with your particular interpretation. So many of our major constitutional rights only really get ironed out when some cop or government official tries something new.

Take the freedom of speech for example, it took many many years and legal challenges for it to be one understood they way it is today. Case in point, how the line became drawn that libel is not protected speech, that is not straight forward in the first amendment. Or look at what is called a Terry Stop which established reasonable suspicion for cops to detain someone, again, not something straight forward in the constitution.

"Experts".

The 1a is so the governtment cannot censor u, libel is between individuals/entities. So that example is wrong.

Terry stops need reasonable suspision which u stated. The 4th states "unreasonable". So yes, it is straight forward.

So basically ur entire reply is wrong.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

"Experts".

The 1a is so the governtment cannot censor u, libel is between individuals/entities. So that example is wrong.

Terry stops need reasonable suspision which u stated. The 4th states "unreasonable". So yes, it is straight forward.

So basically ur entire reply is wrong.

Yep.  Libel is not a CRIME -- nobody is going to arrest you for that.  It's a CIVIL violation that one can sue over.  Period.

The Constitution is meant to protect rights, not delineate penalties.  That's for Congress at the Federal and State levels to  do.

If you say something untrue about someone that damages them (financially, socially, ...), then they have recourse.  You're responsible for your own abuses of your civil rights.

Most rights and laws use the "reasonable man" paradigm to determine what's allowed and what's not.  I can post many examples that prove EEF is anything but a reasonable man. 

It's not reasonable to pick a rare instance and expect the laws to address them.  Laws should be shaped to address the majority of cases.  The outliers will be decided in court, which is why precedents exist -- to guide the justice system in deciding future outliers.

Yep.  Libel is not a CRIME -- nobody is going to arrest you for that.  It's a CIVIL violation that one can sue over.  Period.

The Constitution is meant to protect rights, not delineate penalties.  That's for Congress at the Federal and State levels to  do.

If you say something untrue about someone that damages them (financially, socially, ...), then they have recourse.  You're responsible for your own abuses of your civil rights.

Most rights and laws use the "reasonable man" paradigm to determine what's allowed and what's not.  I can post many examples that prove EEF is anything but a reasonable man. 

It's not reasonable to pick a rare instance and expect the laws to address them.  Laws should be shaped to address the majority of cases.  The outliers will be decided in court, which is why precedents exist -- to guide the justice system in deciding future outliers.

Personally I think EEF is a cop.
Member of a Democrat run union.
Not to offend other Democrats on this site.
It does offer interesting dialog..
Challenges keep you on your toes.
 

Personally I think EEF is a cop.
Member of a Democrat run union.
Not to offend other Democrats on this site.
It does offer interesting dialog..
Challenges keep you on your toes.
 

He knows just enough to be dangerous.  Makes a good show with his "thought experiments" and goal post relocations, but when he starts hijacking thread after thread to explore tangents and one-offs, the discussion becomes unproductive, if not dangerous.  He likes to explore the gray area of topics, which is the world in which most Democrats live.

Nothing scares a Democrat more than someone with a moral foundation and a belief in right and wrong.

Never forget fisheye posting all sorts of crap trying to get incriminating replies when he/she first showed up.
Clearly a cop fishing for idiots to take the bait.

Yes, I have a very long and unforgiving memory.

Personally I think EEF is a cop.
Member of a Democrat run union.
Not to offend other Democrats on this site.
It does offer interesting dialog..
Challenges keep you on your toes.
 

It is constantly amusing and frustrating that being a moderate so often gets me labeled as being someone on the other side. To you I am some democrat cop (aren't cops usually republicans?) and to some liberal I am some right wing  (insert random insult against conservatives).