Who gives a crap anymore.
It really wears one down to constantly face the liberal crap from every side. Makes me feel like just saying the hell with most folks. I work at a very, very small college and it is even starting to make its way into our little college. The good Lord help us all. We will need it!!!!
0
-
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Jeff,
Thanks again for the link. I intend to go back there and do some more reading.
I don't know why the thread got locked. I was the one who got called all the nasty names and it didn't bother me. I was trying to resolve the difference the plumber and I have. Or I should say, to find out why he had to be so nasty to me. But I guess he stepped over the line!!![;)]
You are welcome Jim.
Like I said, there is some good 'food for thought' to be found there and such can lead to mere detailed, focused information.
Hope you find the subject enlightening, for at the 'bottom-line' e.g. "collectivism vs. individualism", that is where the real battle is to be fought, not in the coliseum games and the distraction/clown-circus events of Democrat vs. Republican, or left vs. right.
Collectivism comes from all these directions, parties and political philosophies. Once that is understood and accepted, the focus and the fight can be directed where it needs to be, rather than on the minutia and on that which is staged for our distraction.0 -
Jeff,
Yes it does. I guess I have been "Running against the wind" most of my life. So I agree with you. But where I have a difference of opinion with some is how to approach/handle this problem with some hope of making a difference short of physically eliminating the opposition.[;)]0 -
quote:The other side wants no restrictions what so ever on the individual's ability to obtain, own, carry, and use a firearm. It will never happen. There is not now and never has been such a place. The far right ideal, HB country!!!150 or so years ago the area of the US west of the Mississippi River was such a place. There was very little government, with its attendant "law officers" to enforce its will on the people. Folks went where they wanted and did what they wanted, and when they ran afoul of someone else doing the same thing and they disagreed, they settled things in the simple, basic manner that things should be settled. The side that had the strongest force of armed citizens prevailed.
Of course, the federal government could not have people acting independently, so they stepped in (as usual) and took control "in the interest of the greater good."0 -
This is true, when there is 'no' government there are 'no' restrictions.
I guess I should have been more specific and said there has never been a government where no restrictions were present!!![;)]0 -
OK everyone, let's make nice. I'm sure they love to see us at each other's throats. I may be new to this forum, but I'm in the battle a long time now. Sometimes I feel radical, then I realize how many I could push to the other side. Sometimes I feel more "centrist", until I realize how I lose the fire in my belly. There's room for all of us here. Some will fight defiantly, others not, some from the inside. HB: does it do the cause any good for you to alienate 5mil NRA members? JR: patience with the petulant. LET'S WORK TOGETHER PEOPLE!! Well that's my 2 cents worth. 0 -
[;)]In case you haven't noticed patience is one of my virtues!![^]
I do let people know how I feel though. If ever there was a person, other than my x-wife, who could test your patience it's Highball!!![;)]0 -
quote:HB: does it do the cause any good for you to alienate 5mil NRA members?
Those 5 million insist that the government has the authority to control weapons ?
Then...yeah..I want the enemy brought out into the open.
I don't want to be shot in the back by what I stupidly considered a trustworthy ally.
I know perhaps 20 people that have dropped out of the NRA here locally...several more on the board.
Know what ? I would trust those people at my back.
Know WHY ? Because they have faced their inner demons concerning the NRA ..the fear that they are wrong about the Second Amendment, rather then the NRA...and they have whipped those demons.
They UNDERSTAND...fully...what that Amendment means ..and what it entails.
I will take ten of those men over your 5 million wanna-bees.0 -
308,
I guess he answered your question didn't he.
Hb,
You are getting better. You expressed your self and didn't insult anyone or call them any 'nastys'!!![^]0 -
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 word "regulated" implies control. Maybe some don't like it but it keeps the extremely rich from ammasing arsenals to impose their will.
Also check out the Militia Law of 1792:
"whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe...........[or]whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act,........".
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia....
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service,...
I realize some of the precepts of the original are outdated (white male...musket/firelock...ball/powder etc...), but if brought into the present day, I would interpret it to mean that I SHALL own a weapon of the day and sufficient ammunition and accoutrements to field myself if called up. I arm myself by these standards and have amassed sufficient stores to equip my 3 sons as such when the are of age. I don't have any rocket launchers in the garage or tanks hidden in the barn. That would exede "regulated". To insist on unfettered access would make me no different than the land barons of the old west, who sought to impose their will with small armies, other than lack of funding.
That is the kind of mindset the NRA asserts. That 3% are the guys who have made "militia" a dirty word!0 -
Continued from my last posting....
Unless we all feel that..."the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,".... That's when we will need to act as one, and be damn sure we're right.
Thomas Jefferson once called the 2nd amdmnt "Liberty's Teeth", and that an armed citizenry to be the last resort to a central government gone awry. I believe we are nearly there and when we are we will need those 5mil and the 3% working together. United we stand, Divided we fall.
You'll have to excuse me now as the UPS man just delvered a new scope for my AR15.0 -
308,
Agreed. But the problem is how much 'regulation' is to much. As of now the 'regulation' is VERY excessive in most parts of this country.
I say the 2nd Amendment is the 'enforcement/penalty clause' of the Constitution. With out it the rest of the document is worthless!![V]0 -
Well, Gundad, you have placed yourself squarely in the camp of the Beast.Your council will neither be sought...nor accepted.
Your post indicates that you have absolutely no grasp on the meaning of nor intent of the Second Amendment.
You are so utterly clueless as to even denigrate the 3 % that fought the American Revolution ..something you would not have joined, given your attitude.
Yours IS, of course, the voice of the majority. That is why the Founders despised and feared a Democracy people like you thrive in it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:HB: does it do the cause any good for you to alienate 5mil NRA members?
Those 5 million insist that the government has the authority to control weapons ?
Then...yeah..I want the enemy brought out into the open.
I don't want to be shot in the back by what I stupidly considered a trustworthy ally.
I know perhaps 20 people that have dropped out of the NRA here locally...several more on the board.
Know what ? I would trust those people at my back.
Know WHY ? Because they have faced their inner demons concerning the NRA ..the fear that they are wrong about the Second Amendment, rather then the NRA...and they have whipped those demons.
They UNDERSTAND...fully...what that Amendment means ..and what it entails.
I will take ten of those men over your 5 million wanna-bees.
What Highball said, pretty much sums up the NRA/Quisling issue for me.
You can consider "us" on the "same team" if it pleases you, but if one supports the government in regulating the means to oppose tyranny from that very government, as povided for/specified in Amendment II, than you are NOT on my team.
It is as simple as that.
I prefer my beliefs and goals to be uncluttered by those who merely weaken them and muddy-up the bottom-line focus. Those beliefs and goals being, to have a government restrained by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as written and intended.0 -
quote:I don't have any rocket launchers in the garage or tanks hidden in the barn. That would exede "regulated". To insist on unfettered access would make me no different than the land barons of the old west, who sought to impose their will with small armies, other than lack of funding.
That is the kind of mindset the NRA asserts. That 3% are the guys who have made "militia" a dirty word!
Short history lesson for ya dad....
It was the British coming to confiscate cannon that touched off the revolutionary war.
Now just what were those founders doing with cannons? Even though they HAD THEM, surely they didn't intend for us to have them, when they wrote the second, did they?[B)]
Because if those founders were about anything, they were about double standards, huh?
You and the NRA can kma.0 -
originally posted by gundad308:
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.
OK. So far, so good.
The word "regulated" implies control. Maybe some don't like it but it keeps the extremely rich from ammasing arsenals to impose their will.
Really? Well tell me sir, how can you interpret the 2nd Amendment as you have (in bold), when our own goverment is guilty of doing the exact same thing? And no, I don't like your interpretation because it just ain't so.
That is the kind of mindset the NRA asserts.
Whoo boy. The NRA has done nothing for the RTKBA but undermine it. These forums are filled with factual information about how the NRA has sold out gun owners since 1934. NRA mindset? I can sum it up in one word; 'greed'. The NRA does not wish for an unregulated, unrestricted RTKBA as the Founders intended. It is bad for their business. If the 20,000+ firearms laws on the books were to be repealed (as they should be), the NRA would no longer be able to utilize scare tactics to extort money from it's members.0 -
308 is correct in his statement about the rich ruling. It has always been that way. Look at history if you don't want to take my word for it. One of the things you all agree is the need to be armed to prevent those who do not have our interest at heart from 'ruling' us. Well human nature has not and will not EVER change. If there were NO restrictions on the non-governmental ownership of weapons and weapons systems we would already be ruled by a 'war lord' society.
Those with the 'arms' which = $$$$$$$$$ in an unrestricted society will rule![V]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
308 is correct in his statement about the rich ruling. It has always been that way. Look at history if you don't want to take my word for it. One of the things you all agree is the need to be armed to prevent those who do not have our interest at heart from 'ruling' us. Well human nature has not and will not EVER change. If there were NO restrictions on the non-governmental ownership of weapons and weapons systems we would already be ruled by a 'war lord' society.
Those with the 'arms' which = $$$$$$$$$ in an unrestricted society will rule![V]
I have to disagree with you here Jim. Even if "the rich" could have personal armies to be some petty warlord, there are still laws in place to rpevent them from forcing their will on the populace. Perhaps even some lowly peon could take HIS weapon and put an end to the rich warlords life. As the old saying goes "God made man, Sam Colt made 'em equal". Firearms in that case would be the great equalizer.
The phrase "regulated" in reference to the militia in the second amendment confuses people. In that time a "well regulated militia" was one that was well trained. In every writing on the matter from the framers of the constitution that I have read, they wanted arms in the hands of the general population, not to prevent "the Rich" from taking over, but as a last line of defense against enemies, both foreign and domestic. I think if some rich buzzard tried to impose his will through force of arms that would make him an enemy of the people and those poeple could use THEIR OWN ARMS (as has happened in the history of this nation, whether scholls teach it or not) to put said individual in his place.0 -
4ever,
Laws are useless to those with the GUNS. Look at the Mexican border area as we speak!!! The $$$$ = guns = ruler!!![V][xx(]0 -
Perhaps it's time for there to be MORE guns on the border
POINTING SOUTH!!! [:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
308,
Agreed. But the problem is how much 'regulation' is to much. As of now the 'regulation' is VERY excessive in most parts of this country.
I say the 2nd Amendment is the 'enforcement/penalty clause' of the Constitution. With out it the rest of the document is worthless!![V]
Jim, could you please explain which "regulation" you find acceptable in reference to gun laws?0 -
I made a comment about having a three word solution to our immigration problem on another site and I thought they would hyperventilate and faint.
"FREE FIRE ZONE"[^]0 -
Jim, are you going to answer my question? 0 -
Yes I came. Like it or not all thinks hit an 'equilibrium' in reality.
The exceptions and restrictions to ALL of our rights are no different, which includes our RTKABA's.
There are two 'ideals' here.
On one side the 'ideal' is total unconditional disarmament of the population.
On the other side is the total deregulation of the access to armament to everyone and any one.
Well in reality there will be a point of equilibrium. THERE ALWAYS IS!!!
We have to fight to obtain the point of equilibrium as close to our 'ideal' as possible. So I don't know just where it will be, or that it will completely stabilize at one exact point. But it will happen just a sure as the sun rises in the east everyday.
So the 'hard core' folks will never achieve their 'ideal' on either side. But I support the 'ideal' on our side and the folks, like HB and his associates, who strive for it. The closer they get the better. But like the person who says 'one death is to many' and strive to stop all deaths, they will fail to achieve this unrealistic goal. But the closer they get the better I like it![^]0 -
Even if "the rich" could have personal armies to be some petty warlord, there are still laws in place to rpevent them from forcing their will on the populace. Perhaps even some lowly peon could take HIS weapon and put an end to the rich warlords life.
Yeah, you and your gun try getting by his security force.0 -
As for HB I can imagine a day under his regime. How long would it be before he started burning books? Not to worry, we'll read about him in the news, painted as another example of why we need for new draconian gun laws, by the liberal media, convincing the overwhelming majority that civilian can't handle the responsibility of gun ownership. I'll need to get a permit for my 10in butcher's knife.
Thanks, buddy.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Yes I came. Like it or not all thinks hit an 'equilibrium' in reality.
The exceptions and restrictions to ALL of our rights are no different, which includes our RTKABA's.
There are two 'ideals' here.
On one side the 'ideal' is total unconditional disarmament of the population.
On the other side is the total deregulation of the access to armament to everyone and any one.
Well in reality there will be a point of equilibrium. THERE ALWAYS IS!!!
We have to fight to obtain the point of equilibrium as close to our 'ideal' as possible. So I don't know just where it will be, or that it will completely stabilize at one exact point. But it will happen just a sure as the sun rises in the east everyday.
So the 'hard core' folks will never achieve their 'ideal' on either side. But I support the 'ideal' on our side and the folks, like HB and his associates, who strive for it. The closer they get the better. But like the person who says 'one death is to many' and strive to stop all deaths, they will fail to achieve this unrealistic goal. But the closer they get the better I like it![^]
So....
In other words, you won't DIRECTLY answer which laws you are comfortable with then eh?0 -
Actually I have answered that several times in the last months.
But I will, to accommodate you, repeat myself.[;)]
1. I am totally opposed to the current BG checks for the purchases of any arm not full auto.
2. The current BG law should apply to Full Auto only.
3. There should be no law in the land which prohibits CCW by those not 'intoxicated' or convicted of a felony 'persons' crime, and obviously those using a weapon in the commission of a crime. The mistominer DV restriction is pure BS.
4. The age restrains for purchase of weapons should be eliminated, the use of the discretion of the person selling could be handled in civil court.
5. Dealers should only require normal business licences, not FFL's.
6. The ser# of a weapon should be recorded, and name and ID of the buyer noted in a log book, NO OTHER PAPER WORK!
7. There should be no restrictions on small arms ammo (50 cal and smaller)
8. Crew served weapons should be licensed, the way our full auto weapons are now.
These are GENERAL guidelines. I think would be work able in the REAL world and would allow us to exercise our rights within a working 'system'.
I know these do not set will with the 'ideal' crowd, but then nothing but total access by all to anything will. But as I said there is ALWAYS going to be an equilibrium between the two 'Ideal' sides of the issue. I think this is a 'real' place to start.
Does that answer your question??[?]0 -
quote:Originally posted by gundad308
Yeah, you and your gun try getting by his security force.
Well, there are some who are capable of hitting a target from more than point-blank range. Guess snipers have no way of getting a bullet through some security detail [;)]0 -
Yeah, I thought of it, #5, I bet he would to. Good Luck! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Actually I have answered that several times in the last months.
But I will, to accommodate you, repeat myself.[;)]
1. I am totally opposed to the current BG checks for the purchases of any arm not full auto.
2. The current BG law should apply to Full Auto only.
3. There should be no law in the land which prohibits CCW by those not 'intoxicated' or convicted of a felony 'persons' crime, and obviously those using a weapon in the commission of a crime. The mistominer DV restriction is pure BS.
4. The age restrains for purchase of weapons should be eliminated, the use of the discretion of the person selling could be handled in civil court.
5. Dealers should only require normal business licences, not FFL's.
6. The ser# of a weapon should be recorded, and name and ID of the buyer noted in a log book, NO OTHER PAPER WORK!
7. There should be no restrictions on small arms ammo (50 cal and smaller)
8. Crew served weapons should be licensed, the way our full auto weapons are now.
These are GENERAL guidelines. I think would be work able in the REAL world and would allow us to exercise our rights within a working 'system'.
I know these do not set will with the 'ideal' crowd, but then nothing but total access by all to anything will. But as I said there is ALWAYS going to be an equilibrium between the two 'Ideal' sides of the issue. I think this is a 'real' place to start.
Does that answer your question??[?]
Sure does Jim. I knew you weren't on the same side at all, as us. You claim over and over you belive the same as us.
Now you have put to print, that you were untruthful, and are NOT on the same side.
Thanks for leaving no room for doubt. [;)]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
86 comments