Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fortitude - American Resilience in the Era of Outrage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by meltingfeather View Post
    As with most things— the details matter.
    Trump has said he supports them.
    Crenshaw said maybe they should be considered. If you listen to his actual thoughts on the issue, it’s not quite as black and white.
    There is no gray area on this issue. There is no room for consideration. Why you ask? Because the words “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,” that’s why.

    We have allowed this right to be infringed enough in the name of being reasonable and agreeable.

    Crenshaw’s book may be great, and well written but he damaged his own credibility. You said it yourself, “details matter,” Crenshaw is a quick study and becoming a master silver tongue, speaking in terms of ambiguity so that he never really can be held to one side of an issue or another

    Comment


      #17
      Fortitude - American Resilience in the Era of Outrage

      Originally posted by Playa View Post
      There is no gray area on this issue. There is no room for consideration. Why you ask? Because the words “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,” that’s why.

      We have allowed this right to be infringed enough in the name of being reasonable and agreeable.

      Crenshaw’s book may be great, and well written but he damaged his own credibility. You said it yourself, “details matter,” Crenshaw is a quick study and becoming a master silver tongue, speaking in terms of ambiguity so that he never really can be held to one side of an issue or another

      The message in his book is a good one.
      I don’t know enough about him to debate his position on issues.
      Red flag laws concern me. That’s one of the reservations I have about our President. He said he supports them.

      Comment


        #18
        ANY politician that wants to limit freedom (and this is the VAST majority of them) should be intensely scrutinized. I don’t care if the SOB won the Medal of Honor. If he wants to limit our Constitutional Freedoms, then I have a problem with him, as should all Americans.

        Comment


          #19
          Some folks need to research a little before throwing stones based on headlines. We love to label the media "fake news" until it meets our agenda.

          We already limit gun ownership for certain segments of the population that have no business being in possession of firearm. How is what Crenshaw is saying any different from what we already do.

          He states he has yet to see a red flag law he would support. He also says he is not opposed to them so long as they protect due process.

          Is the NRA in favor of mass murders being allowed firearms? Armed robbers? Of course not. Why? Because due process has been done and proven that these individuals are a danger to themselves and others. Crenshaw's position is no different.



          To OP, I am reading his book right now as well. Not very far in, but I am enjoying it so far.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Jason View Post
            Some folks need to research a little before throwing stones based on headlines. We love to label the media "fake news" until it meets our agenda.

            We already limit gun ownership for certain segments of the population that have no business being in possession of firearm. How is what Crenshaw is saying any different from what we already do.

            He states he has yet to see a red flag law he would support. He also says he is not opposed to them so long as they protect due process.

            Is the NRA in favor of mass murders being allowed firearms? Armed robbers? Of course not. Why? Because due process has been done and proven that these individuals are a danger to themselves and others. Crenshaw's position is no different.



            To OP, I am reading his book right now as well. Not very far in, but I am enjoying it so far.
            Because the restrictions you mention are all based on an individuals previous behaviors and actions violating existing laws. Red flag laws are predicated on an individual’s anticipated behavior or actions, no laws have been violated. Do you see the difference? There should be no due process because there was no standard violated

            Comment


              #21
              I may misunderstand the definition of due process, but my understanding is that due process would demand some evidence of "previous behaviors and actions violating existing laws" ie. a terroristic threat to self or another would be violation of an existing law would it not?

              It should also be noted that Crenshaw has repeatedly stated he has yet to see a red flag law that he would support. That should tell all of us that he is not a gun grabbing liberal.

              My main point is this. Like or Crenshaw or hate him, that's your business. However, the average TBH'er is smart enough to read past the headlines and genuinely figure out what a politicians position on any issue is without letting Fox or CNN dictate that to us.

              TBH'ers are smarter and more well versed in politics than the average Joe. It's one of the things that makes this site great.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Jason View Post
                My main point is this. Like or Crenshaw or hate him, that's your business. However, the average TBH'er is smart enough to read past the headlines and genuinely figure out what a politicians position on any issue is without letting Fox or CNN dictate that to us.

                TBH'ers are smarter and more well versed in politics than the average Joe. It's one of the things that makes this site great.
                Are they? I sure hope so, but there are some very loud folks who don't seem interested it getting more than 280 characters into anything.

                Comment

                Working...
                X