Indiana Senator introduces bill for training requirements

[IndyDave1776]

You are falling into the black hole of believing your own drivel. Good day.

Oh really? Just because you apparently flunked civics, that doesn't make the understanding derived from plain text drivel. You are starting to sound like that stupid son of a ***** we kicked out of the senate for sounding like that.

If you are too polarized to see the truth before you, perhaps you should study the protestant reformation, particularly the doctrine of sola scriptura not as a study in religion but in terms of the arguments for relying on the foundational text for authority and holding it authoritative as opposed to considering tradition to be more authoritative to the point of considering reliance on the supposedly authoritative document as a door to anarchy (particularly in terms of allowing people to do their own thinking rather than simply conforming to what they are told). Maybe a different set of arguments relying on the same principles would be easier to follow in the absence of subject matter which has you disturbed. I am stopping here in deference to the rules regarding religious discussion given that my point turns on the parallel arguments and not religion, but it may add something to one's perspective on the subject.

 

[KS1956]

Perhaps I see the Constitution differently from you because women did not have a right to vote until 1920 under the 19thA. So, yes, I see the process of adjustment provided for in the Constitution to be in the nature of "living".

I truly am finished. I am surprised at the rudeness that the respondents on this site would employ when debating with a member of the opposite sex. Pointing a gun such as ATM has is shocking. I have no response.

 

[Scutter01]

 

[SteveM4A1]

You have been engaged by another female in discussion Katrina, but you wouldn't answer her questions. Play the gender card, race card, whatever. It certainly doesn't make it true in any reality other than your own.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Perhaps I see the Constitution differently from you because women did not have a right to vote until 1920 under the 19thA. So, yes, I see the process of adjustment provided for in the Constitution to be in the nature of "living".

Just quoted for emphasis...this is a new one to me.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Perhaps I see the Constitution differently from you because women did not have a right to vote until 1920 under the 19thA. So, yes, I see the process of adjustment provided for in the Constitution to be in the nature of "living".

I truly am finished. I am surprised at the rudeness that the respondents on this site would employ when debating with a member of the opposite sex. Pointing a gun such as ATM has is shocking. I have no response.

Including more people under the umbrella of those enjoying the rights it recognizes is far different from changing the contents of the Constitution itself. I should hope that a reasonable person could see that difference. Affording the right for women to vote did NOT change voting, it simply included a previously excluded group of people. Likewise, the reconstruction amendments afforded a class of people who had previously been in servitude and excluded from possessing constitution rights those rights they had been denied. It did NOT change the nature of the rights themselves or the operation of the republic aside from also disallowing the states to exclude those same people from the rights of citizenship. It would serve you well to learn to understand the difference between changing inclusion and changing the nature of that in which people are included. They are two entirely different things.

As for harsh treatment of a member of the opposite gender, I have a few thoughts to offer. First, when you walk in the door and start verbally kicking people in the n*ts (other than 88GT since she is a lady) you cannot expect others to honor whatever entitlement mentality you may have regarding an alternate standard for the way they treat you. If you have a hard time with people who value the Constitution greatly exactly as written, you may consider Reagan's advice regarding heat in the kitchen. Second, when you present arguments which have no foundation other than the believe that we are ultimately ruled by a nine-member oligarchy and alternately what makes your tummy feel good, don't expect others to defer to that. The only way the republic can operate is exactly as it was designed. The proper procedure is to read the Constitution, and for the government to do what it says, and refrain from doing what it doesn't say, which applies to ALL infringements of any of our rights. Third, crying about being 'offended' is not very effective, especially after approaching a group of gun owners arguing that we should willingly allow one of our most cherished rights to be demoted to a conditional privilege and applaud as it is done. If you consider offending people a problem issue, you just violated your own principle in a huge way, unless it applies only to you in your reckoning.

 

[John Galt]

 

[birdhunter55]

Any attempt to force training in order to obtain a permit is just another form of gun control. Yes, you might say you agree that everyone should be properly trained, but once they have that clause, it is a simple matter of making the training a little more difficult, and then a little more, and then no one will be able to pass the training.....
Government needs to butt out off this all together! My 2nd amendment gives me all I need!

 

[ATM]

...I truly am finished.

OK. Bye.

I am surprised at the rudeness that the respondents on this site would employ when debating with a member of the opposite sex.

Really? I've never heard of an "opposite sex" politeness or debate handicapping system being required for simple internet discussions or arguments.
Perhaps you should petition the government for some sort of regulation in this arena which you would find favorable to yourself.

Pointing a gun such as ATM has is shocking. I have no response.

Willy Wonka is certainly not one to be trifled with. I SAID GOOD DAY.

 

[Scutter01]

Really? I've never heard of an "opposite sex" politeness or debate handicapping system being required for simple internet discussions or arguments.
Perhaps you should petition the government for some sort of regulation in this arena which you would find favorable to yourself.

No, she lost the argument so she reverted to playing the victim card instead.

 

[hondatech2k2]

Perhaps I see the Constitution differently from you because women did not have a right to vote until 1920 under the 19thA. So, yes, I see the process of adjustment provided for in the Constitution to be in the nature of "living".

I truly am finished. I am surprised at the rudeness that the respondents on this site would employ when debating with a member of the opposite sex. Pointing a gun such as ATM has is shocking. I have no response.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!

And in response to IndyDave1776......

LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC!

 

[ATM]

No, she lost the argument so she reverted to playing the victim card instead.

I think she fell victim to her own belief that a decent vocabulary, rather than rational support for the position she's adopted, would be sufficient to win an argument with the commoners of INGO.

It must be very different on other sites.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I think she fell victim to her own belief that a decent vocabulary, rather than rational support for the position she's adopted, would be sufficient to win an argument with the commoners of INGO.

It must be very different on other sites.

Exactly.

 

[actaeon277]

What you fail to recognize is that this is a democratic republic and that the Constitution is a living document. You are a reactionary, sir, with no hold over the truth greater than any other. The majority of the citizens don't hold to your views. Perhaps it is you who needs to reappraise.

Constitutional Republic, rule of law
Vs
Democracy, rule of mob

Perhaps I see the Constitution differently from you because women did not have a right to vote until 1920 under the 19thA. So, yes, I see the process of adjustment provided for in the Constitution to be in the nature of "living".

I truly am finished. I am surprised at the rudeness that the respondents on this site would employ when debating with a member of the opposite sex. Pointing a gun such as ATM has is shocking. I have no response.

Living document means that it has a process built in to modify it.
It is a contract we the people made for the gov to rule. It can not modify the contract, without following the contract.
Your example, was an amendment, the correct way.
The gov is not supposed to randomly change it anymore then a contractor working on your house changing that contract.

 

[Rhoadmar]

Perhaps I see the Constitution differently from you because women did not have a right to vote until 1920 under the 19thA. So, yes, I see the process of adjustment provided for in the Constitution to be in the nature of "living".

I truly am finished. I am surprised at the rudeness that the respondents on this site would employ when debating with a member of the opposite sex. Pointing a gun such as ATM has is shocking. I have no response.

Sorry if your feelings got hurt princess.

 

[2A_Tom]

You are falling into the black hole of believing your own drivel. Good day.

How many times have you left this thread in total exasperation so far.

Can't wait till Thursday.

 

[KG1]

Interesting thread y'all got goin on here. (says the ignorant gun rube) What's a Constitution? Some sort of willy-nilli non-binding contract? Is there an expiration date?

 

[actaeon277]

Even if responsibilities are left unsaid, they are there in common law and antiquity. You have a right to bear arms, but you do not have a right to use said weapon to murder your neighbor or rob a bank. Those acts are not in the constitution but are understood among the common man of the time. Let's please not parse that which is common sense.

Another false dichotomy. The prohibited acts to which you refer are prohibited precisely because the immediate and direct consequence of them is the violation of another man's rights. Who is being harmed by not requiring training of all LTCH holders? No law should exist that does not prevent a behavior that directly harms another, with few allowable exceptions.

I'm on my cell phone, so in depth research is limited.
But there are two legal terms, in Latin
Illegal because the act itself is wrong
And illegal because it is against the law.

Malum in se -- wrong in itself, or a universal wrong. Such as murder.
Malum prohibitum -- wrong by virtue of being prohibited. Such as 7 bullets ok, 8 bullets not ok.

 

[actaeon277]

What's wrong with training? If it's free I know some people I would like to enroll. Some people are un safe.

Have you read the thread?
Most people here like training.
It's the mandatory part they have a problem with.
Several reasons have been stated.

 

[geronimojoe85]

Have you read the thread?
Most people here like training.
It's the mandatory part they have a problem with.
Several reasons have been stated.

He's making a thunder run for the classies, Baby.