Security of a free state....
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The reference to `state' in the above statement...is this a clear warning to STATES to not meddle in the Second Amendment, also ?
Generally recognized by sane people as a bar to federal government control of weapons, the reference to `state' above surely cannot apply to that government, also...for the Bill of Rights was mainly directed towards limiting federal government.
Am I missing a point..that the Founders referred to the Union as a 'state' ?
The reference to `state' in the above statement...is this a clear warning to STATES to not meddle in the Second Amendment, also ?
Generally recognized by sane people as a bar to federal government control of weapons, the reference to `state' above surely cannot apply to that government, also...for the Bill of Rights was mainly directed towards limiting federal government.
Am I missing a point..that the Founders referred to the Union as a 'state' ?
0
-
Anybody ever read this article? I am posting only because of the reference in red below to the definition of state according to this fellow.
"What the Second Amendment says
Chuck Klein
Does the Second Amendment and/or the Ninth Amendment acknowledge an unconditional right to keep and bear arms? The answer is both yes and no.
The controversy of the Second Amendment exists because, erroneously, some have insisted that the right to keep and bear arms is a state (as in Ohio, Texas, Florida) right and not an individual right. However, it is clear that the first clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means a free America.
The word "state" means nation/country, such as "the state of Israel" or "the Arab states" or "Secretary of State." In other words, the nation can best form a well-regulated militia (army/navy) if its militia (originally, men between the ages of 18 and 45) are free to keep and bear arms.
In addition, upon examining the Ninth Amendment (the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people), it is obvious the framers intended to recognize certain natural rights such as the right to life.
Of course, if one has this right but is denied the means (use of arms) to defend and protect this life, then this right has been disparaged.
At the time of the Constitution's inception the framers, all "men" in a "man's world," clearly gave little thought to anyone other than the man as the defender of family, property or country.
Whereas in 18th Century England, only the aristocratic (the ruling class) were empowered to defend honor and country. This concept of all men being full "citizens" and having the right and obligation to serve and protect was unique to America.
A citizen, circa 1785, was considered to be any white American male over the age of 21 and not a felon. The idea of civilian gun controls was unconscionable. It was also inconceivable that a Thomas Jefferson or a James Madison would refuse to take a musket away from a drunk, a child or someone conspicuously deranged. Had one been able to ask these learned, most-sacred document-framers of the conflict of such a restrictive action, they most likely would have replied with words to the effect that the drunk or mental incompetent were, at least, temporarily not citizens. A child was, of course, not a man and a felon had forsaken his citizenship.
With the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 19th Amendments, all of-age Americans were recognized as full, ruling-class citizens. Arms possession was, and still is, the signature of being a citizen -- not a subject to some monarchy and most assuredly not mentally inept, a child, a felon or a substance abuser.
So, yes, and until such time as the Constitution is amended, keeping and bearing arms is an intrinsic and absolute right for all citizens.
While on the other hand, noncitizens do not have an absolute right to a firearm - however temporary that condition might be. The American ruling class (also known as voters), if it so desires, can change the definition of citizen or establish any restrictions it wants on guns -- but only by amending the Constitution."
Chuck Klein is a plaintiff in a lawsuit to overturn Ohio's law against carrying concealed weapons. He is a private investigator and author of eight books. He describes himself as a staunch supporter of Constitutional correctness as opposed to political correctness.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
Anybody ever read this article? I am posting only because of the reference in red below to the definition of state according to this fellow.
"What the Second Amendment says
Chuck Klein
Does the Second Amendment and/or the Ninth Amendment acknowledge an unconditional right to keep and bear arms? The answer is both yes and no.
The controversy of the Second Amendment exists because, erroneously, some have insisted that the right to keep and bear arms is a state (as in Ohio, Texas, Florida) right and not an individual right. However, it is clear that the first clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means a free America.
The word "state" means nation/country, such as "the state of Israel" or "the Arab states" or "Secretary of State." In other words, the nation can best form a well-regulated militia (army/navy) if its militia (originally, men between the ages of 18 and 45) are free to keep and bear arms.
In addition, upon examining the Ninth Amendment (the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people), it is obvious the framers intended to recognize certain natural rights such as the right to life.
Of course, if one has this right but is denied the means (use of arms) to defend and protect this life, then this right has been disparaged.
At the time of the Constitution's inception the framers, all "men" in a "man's world," clearly gave little thought to anyone other than the man as the defender of family, property or country.
Whereas in 18th Century England, only the aristocratic (the ruling class) were empowered to defend honor and country. This concept of all men being full "citizens" and having the right and obligation to serve and protect was unique to America.
A citizen, circa 1785, was considered to be any white American male over the age of 21 and not a felon. The idea of civilian gun controls was unconscionable. It was also inconceivable that a Thomas Jefferson or a James Madison would refuse to take a musket away from a drunk, a child or someone conspicuously deranged. Had one been able to ask these learned, most-sacred document-framers of the conflict of such a restrictive action, they most likely would have replied with words to the effect that the drunk or mental incompetent were, at least, temporarily not citizens. A child was, of course, not a man and a felon had forsaken his citizenship.
With the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 19th Amendments, all of-age Americans were recognized as full, ruling-class citizens. Arms possession was, and still is, the signature of being a citizen -- not a subject to some monarchy and most assuredly not mentally inept, a child, a felon or a substance abuser.
So, yes, and until such time as the Constitution is amended, keeping and bearing arms is an intrinsic and absolute right for all citizens.
While on the other hand, noncitizens do not have an absolute right to a firearm - however temporary that condition might be. The American ruling class (also known as voters), if it so desires, can change the definition of citizen or establish any restrictions it wants on guns -- but only by amending the Constitution."
Chuck Klein is a plaintiff in a lawsuit to overturn Ohio's law against carrying concealed weapons. He is a private investigator and author of eight books. He describes himself as a staunch supporter of Constitutional correctness as opposed to political correctness.
There are more holes in this "analysis' than a hunk of swiss cheese.0 -
If we're going to quote the 2nd Amendment we might try to get it right, down to the last comma.
Like, for example, if you capitalize Militia (as above), it might be nice to remember that the founders made certain to capitalize "People" in the same context.
I would personally think that People are at least as important, if not moreso, than an unidentified militia to be formed at a future date in American history.0 -
Yup. You are right.
And I am perfectly willing to go to war with those anxious to change the clear meaning of the Second...no metter WHERE a comma or capitialization is.
I tend to emphasize the word 'Militia' to help people understand that THEY are the 'Militia of America'..or they are a government official or are not an American...plain and simple.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The reference to `state' in the above statement...is this a clear warning to STATES to not meddle in the Second Amendment, also ?
Generally recognized by sane people as a bar to federal government control of weapons, the reference to `state' above surely cannot apply to that government, also...for the Bill of Rights was mainly directed towards limiting federal government.
Am I missing a point..that the Founders referred to the Union as a 'state' ?
The Bill Of Rights is reference to 'individual' rights. It applies to ALL levels of government. If a city, county, or state 'violates' your 'individual rights' the Federal Dept. of Justice SHOULD intervene in your behalf. And they do, UNLESS this violation is a violation of your RTKABA's!!!![:(!]
This is what really pisses me off about this entire situation!! [:(!]
I really wish you people would stop taking quotes of the 2nd Amendment out of context. It must be considered in it entirety.[V]
It is equal to the sum of ALL it's parts!0 -
quote:I really wish you people would stop taking quotes of the 2nd Amendment out of context. It must be considered in it entirety.
It is equal to the sum of ALL it's parts!
And YOU...supporter of gun laws..think to lecture ME about the meaning of the Second ?
Fancy that.[xx(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:I really wish you people would stop taking quotes of the 2nd Amendment out of context. It must be considered in it entirety.
It is equal to the sum of ALL it's parts!
And YOU...supporter of gun laws..think to lecture ME about the meaning of the Second ?
Fancy that.[xx(]
You have a lot to learn. Even if you refuse to admit it.
As they say "ignorance is bliss"![;)]
And I do not apologize for not believing in lawlessness, as you do!0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
And I do not apologize for not believing in lawlessness, as you do!
Unbelievable.0 -
No need for there to be "lawlessness" as you put it Jim.
Honest citizens maintain their God given rights provided by our Constitution.
The "lawless" as you put it, are jailed or put to death.
Where is the problem,.....other than how things are run now?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
Where is the problem,.....other than how things are run now?
The problem, Mark, is that he's a JBT and a liar. I am appalled that nobody sees it.0 -
I really wish you people would stop taking quotes of the 2nd Amendment out of context. It must be considered in it entirety.[V]
I really wish folks would simply accept the RTKBA for what it is instead of what they want it to be.
The Founders made no provisions for the government to step in and regulate that right. In fact, it is an idea they were opposed to because they knew that, eventually, government would abuse it, hence the wording, 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Wise men; very wise.
They would, without a doubt, be apalled at what government has done to the RTKBA; I believe they would vomit over the fact 'the people' have allowed it to happen, due to the majority's ignorance and belief in a perverted, watered down version of it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
No need for there to be "lawlessness" as you put it Jim.
Honest citizens maintain their God given rights provided by our Constitution.
The "lawless" as you put it, are jailed or put to death.
Where is the problem,.....other than how things are run now?
That is wishful thinking! It will never happen. Even in the true dictatorships in this would it don't happen. We have a legal system which has to goals:
1. To provide a select few a way to make a lot of money.
2. To try and see that no innocent people are convicted.
They have completely succeeded in the first and have turned many guilty victimizers lose trying to accomplish the second.[V]0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
I really wish you people would stop taking quotes of the 2nd Amendment out of context. It must be considered in it entirety.[V]
I really wish folks would simply accept the RTKBA for what it is instead of what they want it to be.
The Founders made no provisions for the government to step in and regulate that right. In fact, it is an idea they were opposed to because they knew that, eventually, government would abuse it, hence the wording, 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Wise men; very wise.
They would, without a doubt, be apalled at what government has done to the RTKBA; I believe they would vomit over the fact 'the people' have allowed it to happen, due to the majority's ignorance and belief in a perverted, watered down version of it.
Then tell me Shane, why is the word 'regulate' used and not the word 'trained' used in the wording of the 2nd Amendment?? I keep hearing it said this 'regulated militia' means a 'trained militia' but for the life of me I don't EVER recall training being synonymous with regulating!
Please enlighten me![?]0 -
Reference my comment about you believing in lawlessness. Is it not true you advocate a government where there are NO LAWS reference the RTKABA's?? If there are no laws then it is lawless is it not????[?] 0 -
Then tell me Shane, why is the word 'regulate' used and not the word 'trained' used in the wording of the 2nd Amendment?? I keep hearing it said this 'regulated militia' means a 'trained militia' but for the life of me I don't EVER recall training being synonymous with regulating!
Please enlighten me!
Jim,
In many documents, such as the DOI, an 'f' was used in place of an 's'. I have no idea why they did that. I do not see it in usage today. I've never heard anyone say, 'Oh fhit!". The range I go to does not have 'fhooting' lanes. I can't recall anywhere lately that I have seen an 'f' used where an 's' should be. Please enlighten me, Jim.
Facts are, If you do the research, and read some of the staements made by the men who founded this Nation, you would gain a clear understanding of what they meant by 'regulate', and it damn sure wasn't a reference to a government right to interfere in an UNINFRINGED RIGHT of the people.
Let's see what the Founder's had to say:
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
I really wish you people would stop taking quotes of the 2nd Amendment out of context. It must be considered in it entirety.[V]
I really wish folks would simply accept the RTKBA for what it is instead of what they want it to be.
The Founders made no provisions for the government to step in and regulate that right. In fact, it is an idea they were opposed to because they knew that, eventually, government would abuse it, hence the wording, 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Wise men; very wise.
They would, without a doubt, be apalled at what government has done to the RTKBA; I believe they would vomit over the fact 'the people' have allowed it to happen, due to the majority's ignorance and belief in a perverted, watered down version of it.
Then tell me Shane, why is the word 'regulate' used and not the word 'trained' used in the wording of the 2nd Amendment?? I keep hearing it said this 'regulated militia' means a 'trained militia' but for the life of me I don't EVER recall training being synonymous with regulating!
Please enlighten me![?]
Well trained, well equipped, well outfitted. Common meaning in those days.0 -
Thank you Shane. I do appreciate your posting those quotes.
BUT the very first one points out what I am saying. James Madison, in the same sentence, points out the militia must be BOTH 'regulated' and 'trained'.
Jeff,
Enforcement officers of the day were often referred to as 'regulators', those who did the training were not referred to regulators. So I think many are trying to explain away the true intend of the meaning 'regulated'.
When the Army was formed it was formed by combining many militia's who were both untrained and unregulated. Thus they lacked a set of 'rules' thus a lack of discipline (lawlessness).
You know better than most there MUST be a set of 'rules' in place to have some 'order and discipline' in the ranks and to set forth what 'equipment and arms' are acceptable. ie: regulated
Just some food for thought.[;)]0 -
originally posted by Jim Rau:
...there MUST be a set of 'rules' in place to have some 'order and discipline' in the ranks and to set forth what 'equipment and arms' are acceptable.
Just some food for thought.[;)]
No thanks. The 'food' you mentioned in the statement above is rancid and spoiled.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by Jim Rau:
...there MUST be a set of 'rules' in place to have some 'order and discipline' in the ranks and to set forth what 'equipment and arms' are acceptable.
Just some food for thought.[;)]
No thanks. The 'food' you mentioned in the statement above is rancid and spoiled.
Only to the close minded Shane!!![;)
You can run from the truth, but you can't hide from it.0 -
originally posted by Jim Rau:
Only to the close minded Shane!!!
Well, Jim, if your definition of being open minded is synonymous with the measure of how you 'support' the Constitution, then I will take your statement above as a compliment. Thanks.
You can run from the truth, but you can't hide from it.
Jim, I do not run from the truth, but embrace it. I hide from nothing, especially perversions or distortions of the truth; I attack them, for if they are allowed to permeate society and flourish, true liberty will not.0 -
I will fight for my version of the Second Amendment.
I have nothing but contempt for the governments version;
I will never lift one finger to help that perverted version;
I will ask no young men to fight for that perverted version; I made that mistake when I was young and very stupid.
I am just about at the stage of refusing to salute a flag that covers so very much perversion.
That flag has been so dishonored by the warped, twisted individuals serving under her..there is little left of the honor of that flag.
We will be forced to fashion a new design, after the re-taking...for the ugly, sour stench emitted from so very many souls willing to obey evil men without question, without remorse, and without compunction.
"Shall Not be Infringed"..so very simple. Those that cannot see the elegant meaning are stone-blind..their loyality is placed somewhere else then the Constitution.
You fight for your version, Jim...I will fight for mine. I really believe that puts us in each others sights.
Like Fox, you keep arguing for restrictions ;
Like Fox, you are still wrong.
Free country..at least when the shooting starts, it will be. Each man gets to make his own decision.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by Jim Rau:
Only to the close minded Shane!!!
Well, Jim, if your definition of being open minded is synonymous with the measure of how you 'support' the Constitution, then I will take your statement above as a compliment. Thanks.
You can run from the truth, but you can't hide from it.
Jim, I do not run from the truth, but embrace it. I hide from nothing, especially perversions or distortions of the truth; I attack them, for if they are allowed to permeate society and flourish, true liberty will not.
I guess we are back to square one. You are just like the Baptist minster. If you don't believe EXCATLY as I do you are going to hell!!! Well you keep the faith. Me, I am an individualist who is capable of thinking for my self. I don't need anyone to tell me how I must believe or I an a second class citizen. You and the liberal secular progressives have a A LOT in common!0 -
originally posted by Jim Rau:
I guess we are back to square one. You are just like the Baptist minster. If you don't believe EXCATLY as I do you are going to hell!!! Well you keep the faith. Me, I am an individualist who is capable of thinking for my self. I don't need anyone to tell me how I must believe or I an a second class citizen. You and the liberal secular progressives have a A LOT in common!
Ok, I am through being diplomatic. Rant friggon on.[:(!]
Jim, you know g-damn good and well what I am talking about. The Constitution, specifically the 2nd, reads 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.'
I didn't put it in there, the Founders did, and I happen to agree with them. Evidently, you do not, and as far as I am concerned, that makes YOU an enemy of the Constitution. Yeah, I said it, an ENEMY of the Constitution. Go ahead and get mad. I do not give a rat's ass, because it is the truth.
You are no different from the others who are constantly attempting to distort, twist, pervert, and eventually destroy the Constitution.
DAMMIT! It is what it is; a right of the people that is not to be trampled upon or trifled with by the government. What in the hell is so hard to understand about that?
As I have said before, it is not so much and issue of 'understanding' as it is 'acceptance'.
Rant off.[:(!]0 -
Thank you Shane, you certainly proved the point I made above. I know, I am 'going to hell' with all the others who don't agree with you to the letter!!! Don't blow a gasket, but remember, you can run from the truth, but you can't hide from it!!!
Have a nice day young man!!![;)]0 -
I know, I am 'going to hell'
Good riddance.[:(!]0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
I know, I am 'going to hell'with all those who don't beleive excatly as you do.
Good riddance.[:(!]
Fixed it. I don't care if you quote me but please don't take it out of context.[;)]0 -
Fixed it. I don't care if you quote me but please don't take it out of context.
You are lecturing me about taking things out of context. You're the master at it. It is not just simply how I believe, but how the Founders believed as well. What they put on paper is good enough for me. Why isn't it for you?
And once again, good friggon riddance.[:(!]
You know the truth, you just don't accept it.[:(!]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
I know, I am 'going to hell'with all those who don't beleive excatly as you do.
Good riddance.[:(!]
Fixed it. I don't care if you quote me but please don't take it out of context, like you do the 2nd Amendment.[;)]
There I fixed my own post!!![;)]0 -
Jim,
Like the song says, 'you go your way, and I'll go mine'.
One day, we will find ourselves looking at each other, instead of standing shoulder to shoulder. So be it.
I'm done will folks who do not accept the Constitution.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
Jim,
Like the song says, 'you go your way, and I'll go mine'.
One day, we will find ourselves looking at each other, instead of standing shoulder to shoulder. So be it.
I'm done will folks who do not accept the Constitution.
Agreed, but I can't for the life of me see why you would be 'looking' at me, unless you try to violate my rights and take my guns and/or ammo![:0]
Your are not a gun grabber in a warriors uniform are you!!![;)]
By the way I except the Constitution, just not your version/interpretation![:D]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
78 comments