I see your point, I can also see the attraction to just discussing ideas and not promoting a person. I think once we start talking about candidates people start drawing lines and it can get heated. I can see Springfield's interest in keeping it to just discussing ideas.
I do vote for proper candidates in Illinois but I live in the South end of the state and we have one county on the NorthEast corner that pretty much cancels all the good votes.
I for one, wasn't even aware that has/is happening. Thanks for pointing it out Sarge. (I gave a like to your previous post, thinking that might be what you were saying). I also agree about using names if that person is on record on a certain policy being discussed. I consider that as part of having a factual discussion on the issues at hand.
Good example peglegjoe. There's nothing wrong that a person is anti gun, as that is also their right. Where it goes wrong is when that person tries to interfere with us pro gun individuals and revoke our rights. If your friend hadn't had a change of heart, I would have supported her right, told her she needed to support mine (even though she disagreed), and probably gave an example of the use of a gun as being a tool that either could help or hinder depending on the individual wielding it. My example would have involved her children, knowing it would invoke her motherly instincts. I would have laid out a scenario that someone is forcibly abducting her child in front of her. The tools for her use at her disposal, are a phone (to call the police), a broom or shovel, and hammer and a gun. I'd limit her selection to one tool only as time is of the essence and she must act quickly. I'd ask, what tool would you select. If it was any tool other than the gun, I'd still support her right for not choosing the gun, but I'd point out why I'd consider that the right choice if that scenario played out in front of me.
A persons views can still be anti gun while not proactively advocating the removal of ones 2A rights (in my example, I was referring to someone that didn't like guns, nor wanted to have one). But for someone to come up to me a gun lover, and tell me they don't like guns and I shouldn't have any in their opinion (I have them in my family), I personally don't see anything wrong with that. Now if they tried to do a "Red Flag" move on me, or proactively worked to take away any of my rights, that's another story to which I agree with you. To me, it's akin to a conscientious objector, or deeply religious person, trying to sell me on their view as being the one I should follow (i.e. Guns kill & I won't kill, & neither should you). They have that right to try, and I have the right to do the opposite within our Free Speech society. If either doesn't want to listen, then just walk away, but in my view, that person can be just as patriotic as I. It's my opinion, which it sounds like you disagree which is fine SGTsmRodThere is a big difference in being anti-gun and not wanting to own a gun.
If I don't chose to own a gun that is my right and my choice.
Being anti-gun is wanting to remove all guns from everyone. That is not their right.
We need the citizens well armed. Not for hunting or time at the range. Not for concealed
or open carry individual defense. Not even for the protection of loved one's and property.
We need well armed citizens for the protection of the Republic. Patriots that will come
forward should the nation become subservient to some tyrant that manages to buy his/her
way in to the leadership of the country.
So, in my eyes you can not be anti-gun and be a patriot. We do need all kinds of patriots.
Those armed and willing to be the tip of the spear and those unarmed willing to prepare
meals and tend to wounds of their fellow patriots. Patriots everyone, armed and unarmed,
doing their part to preserve the Grand Republic called the United States of America.
. Where we do agree, is what I believe the 2A was put in place for, and that was to protect the people from a tyrannical government that looked to (by the use of) force its will upon its citizenry, much the way the British Crown did to their citizen colonialist.
I happen to concur bassbob. In fact Kirsten Gillibrand recently had an A rating from the NRA, proving politicians will do & say anything to get elected in a certain area whose majority of citizens have a certain view. Pro 2A gun lovers in Upstate NY? "I'm pro 2A", running for President and need to fall in line with the DNC, "I didn't understand gun violence and I'm now pro gun control".
www.washingtonexaminer.com
