Arizona Is On The Right Track ... Again!

[Jrlobo]

Solus, it didn't? Do any of us have any idea of how much borrowed money we pour into Russia today to clean up Krushchev's ( et al) nuclear mess? We don't need half measures that we convince ourselves are victories.

[tombogan03884]

What Solus is advocating are the same type of foolish half measures that led to stalemate in Korea, loss in Vn., and quagmire in Afghanistan .
If you are going into a battle you go to win a complete victory or you are a fool.
Whether it is with tanks and bombs or political influence the principle is the same.
Half measures are for losers who don't learn from history.
The only proper attitude is that "the debate is over, Shall not be infringed means what it says ."

[Solus]

What Solus is advocating are the same type of foolish half measures that led to stalemate in Korea, loss in Vn., and quagmire in Afghanistan .
If you are going into a battle you go to win a complete victory or you are a fool.
Whether it is with tanks and bombs or political influence the principle is the same.
Half measures are for losers who don't learn from history.
The only proper attitude is that "the debate is over, Shall not be infringed means what it says ."

So you say to throw everything into the first engagement rather than a series of engagements that lead to total victory?

We both are looking at the same objective, I just think it is wiser to keep pushing and pushing, obtaining one sure goal each time than rushing headlong toward a very risky initial objective.

[Solus]

You know...   I was thinking about  'having the same objective'   and I think we do...but I question if it is the correct objective for this problem.

For sure an armed populace is the best way to insure folks are protected as efficiently as possible.

This would also apply to kids at school...it is the most efficient way to give them the protection required...having every responsible and willing adult carrying.

But the object we should be looking at for this problem is  how to get the kids protected soonest which is, IMHO, not going to be getting CC approved for teachers while in school.

The quickest way is to get Peace Officers and/or military personnel assigned as 'guards'.  Since those folks carrying is already accepted, and using them as armed security is already accepted also, it is a much smaller and easily accepted step to have them in the schools.

[tombogan03884]

You know...   I was thinking about  'having the same objective'   and I think we do...but I question if it is the correct objective for this problem.

For sure an armed populace is the best way to insure folks are protected as efficiently as possible.

This would also apply to kids at school...it is the most efficient way to give them the protection required...having every responsible and willing adult carrying.

But the object we should be looking at for this problem is  how to get the kids protected soonest which is, IMHO, not going to be getting CC approved for teachers while in school.

The quickest way is to get Peace Officers and/or military personnel assigned as 'guards'.  Since those folks carrying is already accepted, and using them as armed security is already accepted also, it is a much smaller and easily accepted step to have them in the schools.

Great idea Solus.
Then, in order to cut down on violent street crime we can have troops and cops on every street corner.
They could check everybodies ID cards, and question them about what they're doing, where they're going, and where they are coming from .
Maybe you would rather just move to Cuba, or North Korea where they already do those things ?
Or maybe you haven't learned anything in the last 60 years and think kissing liberal ass will actually get you some where ?
It will, but not any where a thinking person wants to be.

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

It's not all or nothing, Tom...no matter how much you want to make it seem that way.

As the left is pushing for a total ban on firearms and are willing to let kids die in the mean time to achieve it, you are pushing for for total honoring of our 2A rights, and willing to let kids die in the mean time to achieve it,

[tombogan03884]

So you're willing to only give up some of OUR last remaining freedom ?
Don't you realize it's people like you who put us in this situation in the first place ?
Are you so dense, or spineless that you STILL have not figured out that you can not get a little bit f*cked ?

[Solus]

So you're willing to only give up some of OUR last remaining freedom ?
Don't you realize it's people like you who put us in this situation in the first place ?
Are you so dense, or spineless that you STILL have not figured out that you can not get a little bit f*cked ?

Show me where I said I was willing to give up any freedom?

Tell me that getting the populace used to thinking   'good guys with guns' is the way to protection doesn't further our cause.

I've not read Alinsky, but I've heard you reference him often.  Tell me...would he advocate taking small steps to gain our goals while conditioning the opposition to acceptance of our goals.  

And putting them on the defensive over an issue they will likely loose while we push for more?

[tombogan03884]

Show me where I said I was willing to give up any freedom?

Tell me that getting the populace used to thinking   'good guys with guns' is the way to protection doesn't further our cause.

I've not read Alinsky, but I've heard you reference him often.  Tell me...would he advocate taking small steps to gain our goals while conditioning the opposition to acceptance of our goals.   

And putting them on the defensive over an issue they will likely loose while me push for more?

That would be fine and dandy if you were actually advocating progress.
What you in fact are doing is reinforcing the communist mantra that only police and troops are qualified to protect Americans .

Alinsky would not advocate taking small steps.
He would advocate disrupting the oppositions rallies and beating up their candidates if blame could be shifted elsewhere.
He would advocate demonizing, and ridiculing any who do not follow the hard line .
He would point out that newspapers publishing names of permit holders is good for us, if we can get it done in San Francisco DiFi's name can be highlighted.

[Solus]

That would be fine and dandy if you were actually advocating progress.
What you in fact are doing is reinforcing the communist mantra that only police and troops are qualified to protect Americans .

Alinsky would not advocate taking small steps.
He would advocate disrupting the oppositions rallies and beating up their candidates if blame could be shifted elsewhere.
He would advocate demonizing, and ridiculing any who do not follow the hard line .
He would point out that newspapers publishing names of permit holders is good for us, if we can get it done in San Francisco DiFi's name can be highlighted.

Then not pushing for the abolishment of all police and the military is also reinforcing that belief .

And if Alinsky would turn down small steps that further the cause, he is a fool.