Sunday, November 8, 2015

More On Modern Conservatism In a Nutshell...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

In a prior post, published with the intent to facilitate open, frank, and honest discussion of post 1979 modern day conservatism (although that was inadvertently omitted, a extreme rightwing insurgent high jacked the post with his pro NRA firearm nuttery. As is to be expected it was abundantly clear he had no intention of either frank or honest discussion. His only purpose was to push his over the top uncompromising agenda.

This particular individual has been known to me for some time and while at one time we shared some common views on individual liberty and the proper role of government this is no longer the case.

At any rate, unable to understand what I consider a compromise position on firearm regulation, the parameters being his position of no regulation beyond the NRA's position and an outright banning of all firearms in the hands of civilian individuals, the following is my position.

A) The purpose of firearm regulation is to insure, to the greatest extent possible, that firearms do not end up in the hands of the mentally unbalanced, those who have a history of violent behaviors, those with prior criminal offenses involving firearms, or anyone whose true identity cannot be readily verified. Public safety concerns outweigh the special interest concerns of the NRA.

B) Mandatory firearm safety course from an approved training facility must be completed prior to purchase of any firearm,

C) Uniform and universal background checks.

D) Uniform mandatory waiting (or cooling off) periods that insures background checks can be, and are adequately performed.

E) Purchase of firearms at gun shows are permissible. However, transfer of ownership cannot be completed until background checks are completed and the individual is deemed eligible to own a firearm.

F) Any individual who is involved in and convicted of violent behaviors or criminal activity following the purchase of a firearm(s) will have their right to posses any firearm immediately revoked and the right to own will forever be rescinded.

G) The right to own, and responsibly bear firearms shall not be infringed pursuant to the 2'nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Now, we will see if the extreme rightwing NRA nut will honor his statement to provide his compromise solution.

For everyone else feel free to discuss any conservative positions or issues, either pro or con.

And do have a pleasant evening whatever you may be doing.


  1. Is it simply impossible for you to hold a conversation on firearms without invoking the NRA? Seriously, you seem to have a problem. I am not now, nor have I been a member of the your futile attempt to paint a relationship between that group and myself may play well with the Dervishes and his ilk....but I have little use for LaPierre's antics. Your projection holds no water. And the pejoratives......really? Does that help your argument somehow?

    "Extreme rightwing"? You obviously haven't been to my blog [BTW you linked my old site]. Again, projection does not become you, nor does it bolster any logic or reason that may be contained in your statements above.

    Now, on to your "compromise", and as promised, I'll give you mine.....though let's take a look at what you've proffered.

    (A) is merely a statement of intentions; (B) is a demand; (C) is a demand; (D) is a demand; (E) is a demand; (F) is a demand; and (G) is an editorialized version of the 2nd Amendment.

    Where does your "compromise" give anything to the gun rights camp? You've written a generic definition of the term in the previous post....we see the take...where is the give? Do you see why I kept asking you to at least restate what you claimed you wrote? I saw then, and see actual compromise. You've written what I presume to be your ideal of what the RKBA should look like. What are you offering?

    As it happens, I would be open to mandatory NICs checks for any purchase at a gun show....since it serves essentially as a large, conglomerated dealer storefront; I could likewise be open to showing proof of firearms training for any sale requiring a NICs check [though you were sort of vague on what defines a 'training facility']. I do not endorse UBC, as the State should have no role in regulating the private transactions of lawful and Constitutionally protected items between consenting citizens. I would have thought the 'Libertarian' in you would at least understand the danger in such a precedent. I might support the revocation of the right to keep and bear arms for violent, firearm related offenses....provided there were an avenue of's not as if our criminal justice system doesn't make mistakes. I do not support such for non-violent felons....anymore than I do the revocation of their voting rights. And finally, I support an overhaul the current NIC system, to avoid the gaps in reporting [such as with the Charleston shooting]....and an audit of the thousands of failed NICs checks that triggered no follow-up nor indictments.

    As the 2nd Amendment, as written, already protects the pre-existing right of the People to keep and bear arms, I need not slap a coat of paint on it. But you do see how compromise works, no? I have offered some ideas that are not the current paradigm on the federal I have to ask again, what do you give as compromise.

    Finally, since you seem to claim that you still have an interest in individual liberty and the role of the State....on what do you base your position that the federal government has the power to give rise to your tenets? Is the federal government bound by the restrictions placed upon it....or does political expediency, the current calendar year, or good intentions overrule the enumerations laid out by the Founders?

  2. Replies
    1. Interesting, but perhaps expected response. If you'll remember your own words: Compromise means to find common ground on which two opposing groups........come together and resolve differences resulting in reduced firearm violence.


      You, and those like you on the other hand, have been unwilling to offer a single suggestion.

      Why then, does it appear that you oppose any actual compromise [you know, one side giving up something in return for obtaining a consensus].....if it doesn't meet your list of demands, since you've offered nothing from the gun control camp.

    2. Further, I posted another gun owners proffer of compromise last month. If you're actually interested in dialogue of compromise [instead of levying pejoratives and partisan labels], I'd be interested in your openness to the tenets.

    3. In reality it is the NRA, the firearm manufacturers, and gun nuts that have given nothing. What Jersey stated in regards to this is ABSOLUTELY factual.

      My stated suggestions infringe on no ones right to own a firearm, unless they are a probable danger to others in society. My list certainly can be disagreed with and discussed, something sir I perceive you have no intention of doing. At this point I frankly don't give a damn either.

      Your "demands" meme is laughable and for reasons I stated in my prior respons.

    4. Further, this is my board and my post. Should you wish to discuss further you can post your compromise right here. .

  3. Yeah, I'm not buying this "compromise" argument CI's been making of late. What more do they want? Drones with guns on them? They have been getting and getting for years now, and the numbers of guns out there just keep growing. For the number of people who claim to own firearms to legally own all the guns out there, they'd have to have like ten each. I find it very, very hard to believe they average number of guns owned per owner is that high. What this comes down to is the right to give a gun to anyone you want. The Constitution says "keep and bear," not "give or trade or sell to anyone without recourse of the law." By definition, when you give your gun away, you are neither keeping nor bearing it anymore. How is that covered by the Second Amendment? Just like if you write copyright, and you sell the work to someone else, you have forfeited your rights in regard to that work, if you sell, or trade, or give a gun away, you now are no longer doing something that is covered by the 2nd Amendment, but rather public safety and commerce.

    "Compromise," my ass. This about right and wrong, responsibility and being a demanding brat.


    1. Yet, it was not I who has made demands. If I had, you would have easily pointed them out to drive home your accusation. RN made 5 demands above...but since you agree with them, you care neither not for their Constitutionality. You want what you want, and you don't care if protected rights get circumvented in the process.

      And much like RN, you seem to have a differing definition of compromise; but even more disconcerting is that you seem not to believe that the citizen should be 'allowed' to conduct private transactions of lawful items, without oversight and regulation [tax] from the State.

      Just like if you write copyright, and you sell the work to someone else, you have forfeited your rights in regard to that work...

      You've forfeited your ownership of the work. You have no right to an item without ownership of it. Likewise, you aren't prohibited from the right to free speech if have no written material, no?

    2. I find it amusing as well as ludicrous that you characterize my suggested solutions to what a majority of Americans view as a problem as demands. As I hold no elective federal office, have no cabinet position, am not a part of any federal sdvisory board on firearm issues, hold no lobbying positions, and have no ability to influence or control anything I obviiously am not making any demands. I simply have stated what I believe are sensible and reasonable positions to reduce firearm violence and continue to allow qualified citizens to own firearms.

      What your view of compromise is sir I haven't the faintest idea. Nor do I care at this juncture. It is whatever it is. After many years on this earth and many managing business interests that required problem solving and compromise I indeed understand the concept, having utilized both over the years.

    3. I simply have stated what I believe are sensible and reasonable positions to reduce firearm violence and continue to allow qualified citizens to own firearms.

      Which is exactly why I have repeatedly stated that what you offered was your ideal of RKBA....not a compromise. I have offered several items that give allowances to the gun control camp, from the current paradigm...which is the only place to begin discussions of a compromise. Your above tract did not do likewise.

      Though terms such as sensible and reasonable are completely subjective and statistically undefinable [i.e. no metrics available], you would still expect a modicum of respect for your opinion, no? Why do you consistently not return in kind?

    4. As an addendum, you're correct in that I shouldn't have couched your position as 'demands'. I allowed Jersey's closing comment to cloud my thinking. My apologies.

    5. You are exasperating, CI. On most issues, you and I either agree or have some disagreement that I find quite understandable and reasonable. On this one issue - fuggetaboutit. You have the right to keep and bear arms, not to transact them however you like. If you disagree with that, then whatever. I disagree. I don't know what else to say.


  4. In the previous comment thread on this subject, I saw of a lot word-wrangling, nitpicking, harping and carping, and sleight of hand ... all of which made this exchange all the more tedious and tendentious. The above commenter (i.e. CI) threw in a veritable Gish Gallop into the conversation to confuse, conflate, and obfuscate this discussion even further. Unsure as whether to invite myself into an intractable situation, perhaps I should just let this comment stand as is.

  5. Compromise comes at the end of a discussion, not the beginning. First, positions have to be stated and discussed. RN, you have stated your ideas on gun control many times. CI has not. As with many conservative arguments, he has simply stated what he does not like or will no do. No alternative ideas have been presented.

    1. Conservatives of CI's type firmly believe compromise means taking home all the candy.

      Unfortunately he's just another disgruntled guy who uses his intelligence to pursue confrontation. The typical winner take all mentality.

    2. Here's my disagreement with your statement, Jerry [should RN publish it]; if the 2nd Amendment were to be scrapped and replaced, then a baseline from all parties would be required to begin a discussion of compromise. However, this is something even RN has stated non-support of. So, our beginning baseline is the 2nd Amendment as it currently stands. Compromise of course, is by definition an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

      I have above, stated four concessions to the gun control camp....while RN stated five concessions that he would seek from the gun rights camp. I've asked multiple times, where are the concession to the gun rights camp, in return?

      Do you see how I would find your accusation to be false?

  6. Just as I suspected...gun controlling liberals are intellectual cowards. Enjoy your impotent echo chamber.

  7. With this, your last comment, you have worn out your welcome.

    Sere ya...

  8. CI: "Enjoy your impotent echo chamber."

    Did he take his balls and go home?

    1. CI, of all people no doubt understands impotency.

  9. Methinks the 'insurgent' is a tedious and tendentious bore and attention whore.

  10. I actually thought (in the beginning) he would offer something concrete that would help facilitate an intelligent discussion. I was wrong. CI is totally agenda driven and his heavy firepower weblog caricature depiction should have given me a clue I guess.

    1. That and he's a good buddy of Will who pontificates on Contra O'Reily.

  11. As he claimed "libertarian" status, I cut him some slack. In scanning his blog, though, we find he loves
    government laws of the type which prevent legal suit against the gun industry (the sole industry, thank you
    LaPierre). A couple whose daughter was slain by the lunatic in the Aurora movie complex sued anyway.
    Lost. And were adjudged to have to pay the gun industry $280,000 in fees. I would have thought a libertarian would have a bit of empathy, for citizens, especially aggrieved ones, but Mr. CI wrote with apparent glee,
    ""What the fuck do you not understand about liability of criminal actions using lawful items well past the point of sale and well outside the span of control?" thus joining Lapierre's unthinking army, a Lapierre
    he mentioned he finds distasteful. We learn that distaste is an acquired taste. I guess.

    1. And as a Libertarian, I would be happy to respond if RN makes such a response visible.

    2. Your comment will be reviewed for content. It it contains is condescending or arrogant, confrontational or disrespectful it will not be published CO.

    3. BB - You write that I "love government law"s"...yet you only cite the PLCAA......could you illustrate other laws that I "love"? Further, if the standard is to support no laws....then no citizen can possibly be a Libertarian. See where I'm going with this?

      Empathy plays very little role in the legal system, as it's not a definable standard for civil or criminal conviction. And 'apparent glee'? You mistake my disgust for the vultures at Brady to use the parents of Jessica Phillips as pawns in their quest to litigate where they cannot legislate. It was no secret to all parties involved, that the losing side would pay the court fees. The die were rolled, and the Phillip's came up short. The question now remains....will Brady compensate the Phillips for their financial loss.

      Finally, as I stated in my blog post, tell us another lawful business/industry who can be held liable for the unlawful actions of a consumer, potentially multiple times removed from the point of sale and span of control, using a lawful product of said business, free of manufacturer negligence or safety defect?

      And why would you support such liability? Do you support suing Ford if a drunk driver plows an Explorer into another vehicle? My position of liberty nor firearms is not the position of the I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep forcing an invented relationship. If your position has merit, you don't need to proclaim such.

    4. Yes. i was involved in forensics in suits against my company. A frustrating one, for example was the guy that was a reloader. He dumped all his primers into a coffee can and stuck it in the glove
      compartment. He sued us & Ford (for having the fuze box in the rear of the glove compartment)
      for causing agony by shrapnel, medical costs and the usual pain and suffering. In almost all these cases, including this one, the 'victim' is bought off, settling out of court. Another guy put a construction powerload though his hand, claiming a half hour hangfire. Bought him off. Same with the guy who hurt himself after clogging his .22 with seven rounds, the eighth suffering overpressure. From a practical standpoint, I agree about the legal system: science, factual
      evidence and IMO right and wrong are among the many concepts alien to hardworking lawyers.
      After retirement I advised a firearms legal consultant in the area of explosives technology: he
      quit after a few cases observing it was hard to tell who was the dumbest...the people suing or
      the lawyers trying the case. Brady bankrolling the gun industry. Yeah, that would give you
      enormous glee, I'm sure. You and James Holmes. Pardon me for 'projecting'.

    5. It doesn't really bother me that you would go to the trouble to project an emotional attribute to something I wrote; it's no different than the evidence free, forced association with myself and the NRA [though James Holmes seems a bit much]. I'm just curious as to why you feel the need to do so.

      I didn't really get clarity on your reply, if you support lawful business/industry being held liable for the unlawful actions of a consumer, potentially multiple times removed from the point of sale and span of control, using a lawful product of said business, free of manufacturer negligence or safety defect?

    6. Alors, le canard est toujours vivant!
      Constitutional  Insurgent,
      This commentary is not about you, or your word wrangling over “compromise” versus “demands” [please note: a blog is a discussion board, not a legislative body], or your pretentious legalisms that sink to the level of sophistry; or your stalking points de jour and shape-shifting arguments that amount to little more than heaping crap on a wall. This commentary is not about you; or your trollish tendency to distort, misquote, harp, carp, nitpick, accuse, heckle, taunt, and insult – all while accusing the good people of this forum of behaving in precisely the same manner. The next time you accuse anyone of “intellectual dishonesty,” look at your “projections” in a mirror.

      This discussion thread is NOT ABOUT YOU!  It's about tens of thousands of innocent victims  – the one who sent a text message inside a movie theater, the one who said the wrong thing, the one who threw popcorn, the one who played loud music, the unarmed teen who wore a hoodie and ‘looked’ like a thug, the TV crew murdered live on camera, victims of road rage and domestic violence.

      This commentary is NOT ABOUT YOU. It’s about kids who kill kids because a parent failed to store weapons in a safe and responsible manner.  This commentary is not about you:  It’s about 247 mass shootings within 238 days -- in 2015 alone!  This commentary is about INNOCENT VICTIMS who ended up DEAD -- deprived of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
      This commentary is about unhinged people with guns, hotheads with guns, irresponsible people with guns, and a culture that values the brandishing of ‘iron’ over human life.  Most of all, this commentary asks the most basic question of all:  What do we value as a nation and a people?
      This commentary is NOT ABOUT YOU, and your constant, inordinate, and insatiable appetite for ego food that inevitably turns the focus of attention back to you.

      Whatever my good friend and colleague, Rational Nation, decides to do with you — whether to pull the plug or continue this sham — he has my wholehearted support.

    7. Do you feel better now? Your tract is an appeal to emotion sans any regard for what is lawful or logical. You just made the commentary about me. My points have all related to the law and the Constitution, ergo....I have not projected associations or emotional attribution in lieu of foundation. My position doesn't need such. Your issues with the English language, or proper use thereof, do not have bearing on my position nor constitute a rebuttal of my points.

      Thank you for your opinions.

    8. CI, like most highly partisan folks came here to push his agenda Octo. Having little, if anything new to offer, he used the tactics you aptly identified to short circuit any real discussion.

      It's all good though. CI continues to feel superior while he strokes his own ego and the rest of us simply move on knowing that our concerns, views, and positions on the issue of firearm control are ultimately right and eventually will prevail. In spite of the firearm manufacturers or the NRA.

    9. Your final comment CI, which I shall not post here, amounted to another attempt to continue your criticism of those who maintain different views than your own. It was based in your own emotional reaction to one who dared to disagree with you.

      Your last comment CI was based in your own emotions and it directly and intentionally was meant to impugn another commenter of good character.

      Enjoy your day.

    10. CI: “Your tract is an appeal to emotion sans any regard for what is lawful or logical.

      What you consider ‘emotional’ is also ‘rational.’ It is rational to ask: “Will members of my family become the next victims of gun violence?” It is rational to ask: “Is my community safe from crime?” It is rational to ask: “Will my children be safe in school?” It is rational to ask: “Am I safe walking the streets?” There is NOTHING IRRATIONAL about voicing legitimate fear. This is why we have LAWS, contrary to your self-serving gibberish. Your lack of empathy, common decency, and civility has been duly noted.

      CI: “Your issues with the English language … do not have bearing on my position nor constitute a rebuttal of my points.

      Ronald Reagan: “There you go again!

      For a troll who assails people on protocols of reason and logic, this is your most self-contradictory and non-sensible comment of all. Errors in reason and logic are driven by errors in language and discourse, such as cherry picking, moving-the-goalposts (your favorite), and denial (your default response) as prime examples.

      Finally, herein lies a boundary issue. RN is the proprietor of this blog; not you. Only RN has the right to establish the subject of this post; not you. Terms and conditions of usage are set by RN; not you. You have been rude and offensive to every commenter here, and have failed to conduct yourself in a civil manner as an invited guest.

  12. This comment is in two parts.

    The NRA bills itself as a protector of Second Amendment rights. I can also present a contrary argument, that the NRA violates rights, as examples:

    In 1996, former Rep. Jay Dickey (R-AR) spearheaded legislation to end government-funded research on gun violence. His bill eliminated $2.6 million from the budget of the Center for Disease Control (CDC), which studied firearm fatalities as a public health issue. Today, Jay Dickey HAS REGRETS. He says: “I wish we had started the proper research and kept it going all this time.”

    The suppression of research and the collection of empirical data, like the suppression of free speech, is a right denied to all American citizens. Here is another example:

    In Florida, an NRA backed bill known as the “physicians gag rule” punishes doctors for discussing gun safety with patients. How about these safety risks to children: Poisonous chemicals, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, and swimming pools? How about wearing bicycle helmets and seatbelts? Doctors advise parents on these safety issues, but not when it comes to guns. Doctors may no longer advocate safe weapons storage to caregivers of high-risk patients, such as those with clinical depression -- a suicide risk. Silencing safety messages is a violation of free speech. Even worse, this NRA backed bill interferes with the doctor-patient relationship, a formerly protected right.

    Here is another story: Forty Men (40) with Assault Rifles Terrorize Four (4) Women at a Texas Restaurant. These women, alarmed by the gun massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, met over lunch when forty ‘open carry’ extremists brandishing assault style weapons gathered outside the restaurant. That the men were not arrested under menacing statutes is quite besides the point:

    “’No laws were broken.’ How often have we heard this excuse yet think to ourselves: ‘Legal’ is not always synonymous with 'ethical.' Legal acts, often considered reprehensible, have become cultural artifacts.”

    “We covet freedom but spurn responsibility. We equate freedom with excess and excess with freedom. We practice brinksmanship but not citizenship … The madness in our midst reflects a culture gone mad.”

    My point: Here are examples of democracy via bullying and intimidation, democracy by brinksmanship at the barrel of a gun.

  13. PART TWO

    “Overwhelming majorities of voters favor background checks (85%), keeping guns away from unstable persons (80%), and a federal database to track gun sales (67%). Many rank and file members [please note: 70%] of the NRA support these measures; yet their Executive Committee holds our nation hostage.”

    Here is an example of DEMOCRACY DENIED! Overwhelming majorities of American want action, yet the NRA trades on mystification fallacies, scare tactics, and bogus slippery-slope arguments to perpetuate the impasse, the madness, and the carnage.

    The NRA of my childhood was vastly different from the NRA of today. Growing up in a rural community and having a neighbor who took me hunting, I had an average interest in guns for a child of the times. I remember an NRA that promoted gun safety, marksmanship, and sportsmanship. BTW, did I mention “gun safety” and the responsible ownership of firearms!

    During its history, the NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first gun-control law passed in the U.S. Again in 1968, the NRA supported the Gun Control Act (also supported by gun manufacturers Colt and Smith & Wesson), which created a system of Federally licensed gun dealers and restrictions on categories and classes of firearms.

    What changed? The “Cincinnati Revolution” of 1977 when a radical insurgency hijacked the organization and seized control. In due course, the NRA morphed into a lobbying and political advocacy group promoting the commercial self-interest of manufacturers and a radical agenda of the insurgents.

    Now engaged in full-time lobbying, the NRA is less interested in promoting gun safety, marksmanship, or sportsmanship, but did once upon a time publish a list of “public enemies” which includes the AARP, American Psychological Association, League of Women Voters, YMCA, United States Catholic Conference, Union of Hebrew Congregations, the United Methodist Church, and Kevin Costner (actor), as examples.

    The Cincinnati insurgents also changed the bylaws of the NRA; rank and file NRA members can no longer remove them through open elections and get rid of them. Today, this insurgency hold an entire nation hostage.

    To be perfectly fair and even-handed, there was also a time when the NRA published a “Friends of the NRA” list, which includes such prominent celebrities as Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Timothy McVeigh, and Jared Loughner.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.