What is this #ed canary asses?
Is this the next best thing since the NeoJedi clan that departed a few years ago?
Just curious because I really don't know.
Council of the canary asses? Is it a secret militia movement?
It will be answered here-
Just curious because I really don't know.
Council of the canary asses? Is it a secret militia movement?
It will be answered here-
0
-
? 0 -
Is yoos serious? 
0 -
quote:Originally posted by stubnoid
Is yoos serious?
Sort of.
I don't care one way or another but I was wondering if they are a branch off from the Neo Jedi clan?0 -
MVP- Sorry I moved your post (I am neutral in this) however this is where it started.[;)] 0 -
MVP,
I posted the following in response to a query on the "Canary Ass" intentions from Mr. Nunn, in an earlier post.
I hope that it brings a bit of understanding and clarity to the issue.........
The "Order of The Brethren of The Canary Ass" was formed as a 'tongue-in-cheek' grouping in response to a certain frustrated posters comment about certain people being all talk and having nothing to back it up.
The Brethren took off from there and the main idea behind it, is for the Brethren to hold fast to and point out examples of the founding principals of individualism, without which America goes down the toilet.
The 'alter-ego' thing sprang up in direct, 'tongue-in-cheek' response to our adoption of the name "canary ass". Although the names and the group were formed as a quasi-joke, the alter-ego's' are not designed to hide the identity of any member, nor to stir up any problems.
Nothing posted using our alternate "canary ass" name is one bit different than that which is regularly posted under our regular screen names.
A roster is available, clearly identifying each 'canary ass' and in fact, most of us have adopted our Brethren number, or identity, in our regular screen name sig-lines to further clarify and identify.
It seems that I remember a group called something akin to the "society of suave sophisticated smoking jacket club", being in existence previously. This is not an attempt to excuse any bad behavior on the part of the 'canary ass' group David, but merely to illustrate that occasionally, like minded individuals band together for fun and other reasons.
The Brethren quite frankly, is fun for those of us involved, yet we have a serious mission underlaying the enjoyable nature of the 'canary ass brethren', that being to band together to present the consistent message of adherence to the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, personal liberty, limited government and the founding principals of individualism.
We contrast our postions against the insidious mindset and philosophy of Collectivism, which is steadily destroying the Republic.
Education is the goal, since without an understanding of and a clarification of these issues, most will never realize how the Republic was meant to be and how it can be saved, rather than slowly destroyed.
No deliberate attempt to stir up anything going on here David, just a group of "Brethren", formed to be an illustration of a group of freedom minded, liberty espousing individuals.0 -
Most excellent explanation.
Thanks
I will admit I do not 100% agree with anyone on the forums, but I do agree the best thing for America would be to find the path back to the foundation.
Keep up the good work.0 -
quote:Originally posted by MVP
Most excellent explanation.
Thanks
I will admit I do not 100% agree with anyone on the forums, but I do agree the best thing for America would be to find the path back to the foundation.
Keep up the good work.
No problem and thank you sir.0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
MVP,
I posted the following in response to a query on the "Canary Ass" intentions from Mr. Nunn, in an earlier post.
I hope that it brings a bit of understanding and clarity to the issue.........
The "Order of The Brethren of The Canary Ass" was formed as a 'tongue-in-cheek' grouping in response to a certain frustrated posters comment about certain people being all talk and having nothing to back it up.
The Brethren took off from there and the main idea behind it, is for the Brethren to hold fast to and point out examples of the founding principals of individualism, without which America goes down the toilet.
The 'alter-ego' thing sprang up in direct, 'tongue-in-cheek' response to our adoption of the name "canary ass". Although the names and the group were formed as a quasi-joke, the alter-ego's' are not designed to hide the identity of any member, nor to stir up any problems.
Nothing posted using our alternate "canary ass" name is one bit different than that which is regularly posted under our regular screen names.
A roster is available, clearly identifying each 'canary ass' and in fact, most of us have adopted our Brethren number, or identity, in our regular screen name sig-lines to further clarify and identify.
It seems that I remember a group called something akin to the "society of suave sophisticated smoking jacket club", being in existence previously. This is not an attempt to excuse any bad behavior on the part of the 'canary ass' group David, but merely to illustrate that occasionally, like minded individuals band together for fun and other reasons.
The Brethren quite frankly, is fun for those of us involved, yet we have a serious mission underlaying the enjoyable nature of the 'canary ass brethren', that being to band together to present the consistent message of adherence to the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, personal liberty, limited government and the founding principals of individualism.
We contrast our postions against the insidious mindset and philosophy of Collectivism, which is steadily destroying the Republic.
Education is the goal, since without an understanding of and a clarification of these issues, most will never realize how the Republic was meant to be and how it can be saved, rather than slowly destroyed.
No deliberate attempt to stir up anything going on here David, just a group of "Brethren", formed to be an illustration of a group of freedom minded, liberty espousing individuals.
In blue above. I have to ROFLMAO on this one. Here we have a tattered little band of malcontents who tightly and formerly band together using the same group name and assigning themselves numbers? Then each and everyone of them try and project the very same absolute understanding of the meaning of the 2A as if they were all some kind of legal scholars. A 2A understanding that allows absolutely no room for discussion, reasoning or even slightly differently interpertations than that which is offered by the "collective" known as the C. Asses.
Most of the asses (not all) even show anger and contempt for anyone who tries and disagree with them.
Then, when one of the asses posts a particuarally ignorant comment, and somebody calls them on it (like me) then even if the orginal posting ass does not voice offense at being called on his dumb comment, the other asses will jump right in an express outrage and "speak" for their fellow ass.
So, bottom line, it is a joke for these "collective asses" to criticize what they see in others as those others being part of a "collective."0 -
originally posted by trfox:
In blue above. I have to ROFLMAO on this one. Here we have a tattered little band of malcontents who tightly and formerly band together using the same group name and assigning themselves numbers?
Yes, banding together. Tell me tr, what is wrong with that? Of course, I do not expect you to have any understanding of the subject, as you prefer to be part of organization that engages in 'planting' daggers.
Then each and everyone of them try and project the very same absolute understanding of the meaning of the 2A as if they were all some kind of legal scholars.
It doesn't require a juris doctor degree to understand the Bill of Rights, specifically, Article II.
A 2A understanding that allows absolutely no room for discussion, reasoning or even slightly differently interpertations...
Correct, because there is no need for it. The discussion, reasoning, and interpreting were done over 200 years ago by the Founders; we simply accept it.
Most of the asses (not all) even show anger and contempt for anyone who tries and disagree with them.
It is not your disagreement with 'us' that causes the anger, but your disagreement with the Founders and the Constitution.
Then, when one of the asses posts a particuarally ignorant comment,
'particuarally ignorant comment'? Heh, heh. It's 'particularly'. Thanks tr; that was classic, and I needed a good laugh.[:D]
and somebody calls them on it (like me) then even if the orginal posting ass does not voice offense at being called on his dumb comment, the other asses will jump right in an express outrage and "speak" for their fellow ass.
So, bottom line, it is a joke for these "collective asses" to criticize what they see in others as those others being part of a "collective."
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and speaking of ignorance, yours is manifesting itself rather clearly. Taking up for your fellow countrymen in their defense of the RTKBA is not the same as...well, belay that. Instead of explaining true 'collectivism' to you, how about using your head, look it up, and do the research. You just may learn something. After you have done that, get back to me, and let me know what you learned....
If you have the guts.0 -
Of course Mr. Fox is also guilty of not allowing for differences of opinion. If you don't agree with HIM he likes to throw verbal (or textual as the case may be with the whole keyboard thing) barbs at those individuals.
In general, we "asses" see 2A in absolute terms. The simple phrase "The right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", specifically the last portion in blue. There is no grey area, shall not be infringed leaves no room for "reasonable restrictions", or "common sense regulation", but there are those who don't like that and wish to find ways to water down and legislate away our inalienable rights.
All one has to do is look up The Founders views on firearms to see EXACTLY what they had in mind regarding the issue - and they meant for a civilian militia to be on equal terms with a standing army - meaning for modern times full auto, select fire, 50 cal, anything of that nature that our current "foot soldiers" have at their disposal. But I digress........ lt has summed up our "little club" quite succinctly [;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by rkba4ever
Of course Mr. Fox is also guilty of not allowing for differences of opinion. If you don't agree with HIM he likes to throw verbal (or textual as the case may be with the whole keyboard thing) barbs at those individuals.
In general, we "asses" see 2A in absolute terms. The simple phrase "The right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", specifically the last portion in blue. There is no grey area, shall not be infringed leaves no room for "reasonable restrictions", or "common sense regulation", but there are those who don't like that and wish to find ways to water down and legislate away our inalienable rights.
All one has to do is look up The Founders views on firearms to see EXACTLY what they had in mind regarding the issue - and they meant for a civilian militia to be on equal terms with a standing army - meaning for modern times full auto, select fire, 50 cal, anything of that nature that our current "foot soldiers" have at their disposal. But I digress........ lt has summed up our "little club" quite succinctly [;)]
It is clear to you, and also to me, and many others of the "asses" per se.
It will never be clear to TR, and I have quit responding to his never ending garbage that is always the same.
Ooops,.....I guess I just responded in a way.
I will leave it up to better men than I, to continue to argue the same points over and over with a troll.
My temperament does not seem to allow it.0 -
Jeff,
Good post. (as usual)
But if the primary purpose is 'education' then you must 'educate' your members in this 'art'. Intimidation is not an education tool!! It is the opposite. It will cause those of us who do not intimated easily to 'fight' back. In other words "don't tread on me" and others and expect to get a favorable response. You sound and act like you should be running the 'reprogramming camps' of the future. I for one will fight this to the death. [V]
Reality will not go away or buckle under to idealism, not matter who is 'preaching' the idealism.
Think about it. Teach your 'members' to engage their brain before they engage their mouth![;)]
By the way, the terms 'absolute' or 'perfect' should be use sparingly. In reality they seldom exist!!![;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Jeff,
Good post. (as usual)
But if the primary purpose is 'education' then you must 'educate' your members in this 'art'. Intimidation is not an education tool!! It is the opposite. It will cause those of us who do not intimated easily to 'fight' back. In other words "don't tread on me" and others and expect to get a favorable response. You sound and act like you should be running the 'reprogramming camps' of the future. I for one will fight this to the death. [V]
Reality will not go away or buckle under to idealism, not matter who is 'preaching' the idealism.
Think about it. Teach your 'members' to engage their brain before they engage their mouth![;)]
By the way, the terms 'absolute' or 'perfect' should be use sparingly. In reality they seldom exist!!![;)]
Thanks Jim.[:)]
One must remember that "intimidation" is completely different from "vehement".
If your vision of a "reprogramming camp" is related to the message, spread by an individual who believes in the principals of the Republic, of freedom, limited government, individual liberty and strict national sovereignty, then you have a very skewed view of "reality".
If you feel intruded upon by the mere vehement articulation of these things, then I really do not know what to tell you.
For me, I do not intend to stop pointing out each and every example that I see, of predatory government and contrasting that example with the founding principals of individualism.
For this to be labeled as "intimidation" defies logic, Jim. It is simply a strong and ofttimes vigorous debate of ideas, ideals, principals and issues.
As to your "realism vs. idealism" comment. Idealism will not buckle under the 'conventional wisdom', or the 'reality' of most Americans supporting and/or accepting collectivist governance.
I simply see the issue differently than you. If nobody "preached" or spoke out directly and bluntly on these topics, where than would be the voice for liberty and the regaining of the Republic Jim?
Certainly not from those using "your methods", whatever those methods are.[;)]
As to "my" members, you do to seem to grasp the concept of the "Brethren". Nobody is "my" member, nor am I directed, or controlled by any other "member" of this loose-knit band of individualists.
We are all distinct individuals, beholden to no one and free to express our views and message as we individually chose. Different styles, different "hot-buttons", different approaches, all with the underlying themes of America's founding principals and the Principals of the Republic.0 -
Jeff,
Stop using those 'big' words. [}:)] A duck is a duck, as they say. When I was referring to the members as yours I was not implying you own them, but were your associates. Point being, as we have discussed before, you can't 'educate' anyone, especially adults by 'shoving it down their throats'. Education is an 'art' which few here have mastered![;)]0 -
That is true , Jim, but do we really need to spoon-feed people? We try to point out to people the founders own words regarding citizens use i.e. the "Keep and Bear" of firearms, and because we strongly support no infringements we get sneered at by certain members here.
Does the bickering get overly childish? Yes, I'll admit it, and I'll even admit that I've allowed myself to sink to that neanderthalic level a time or two. But nobody will learn about the founders own words and thoughts if nobody brings them up. We get the modern twist of "antiquated" or other terms that if applied to other portions of the constitution would get peoples undies in a major knot! But because we "canaries" or "asses" bring these up we get dumped on. IF we get pounced upon for bringing them up, how can anyone learn? Do we buckle under to the PC crowd?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Jeff,
Stop using those 'big' words. [}:)] A duck is a duck, as they say. When I was referring to the members as yours I was not implying you own them, but were your associates. Point being, as we have discussed before, you can't 'educate' anyone, especially adults by 'shoving it down their throats'. Education is an 'art' which few here have mastered![;)]
I prefer big-words Jim. I can certainly revert to my Appalachian, hillbilly roots and language, if it makes you feel better about what I say.[:o)]
I do agree that a "duck is a duck". That would be why so many of my postings contain the flat statement that "it is what it is".[;)]
You continue to misunderstand, knowing, or unknowing, that strong arguments about what one believes, particularly in a debate, does not equate (equal in small-words Jim[:o)]) shoving anything down anyones throat. It is merely staking out ones positions and defines ones arguments.
Would you have me simply agree with all the "go along to get along" claptrap and the "compromise", "facilitate" and support anti-Constitution government actions in some bizarre attempt to later "win over" some to the "real" Constitution.
That is madness of the highest order, IMO, because all that does, is acknowledge and cement the belief that government has the constitutional authority to do many of the things that they do. How then, after this mistaken belief is cemented among the populace, does one then convince anyone that government has no constitutional authority to do the very things that you say that they do?
Bizarre and circular "logic" (used very, very loosely).[8)]0 -
4ever,
No, we don't buckle under, we 'inform' and 'educate'.
Jeff, and 4ever,
You do not inform nor educate anyone by calling them 'cowards' and 'enemies' to mention a few of the nicer terms used by many of your associates. When you simply throw out 'my way or the highway' most will take the highway!!![V]0 -
quote:When you simply throw out 'my way or the highway' most will take the highway!!!
Not 'My Way' Jim Rau....the FOUNDERS WAY !!!.
Trust them..or get the hell away away from me.
That simple.
Cowards, Quislings, fellow travelers, Beast-Lovers can kiss my grits...I have no use for nor patience for them.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:When you simply throw out 'my way or the highway' most will take the highway!!!
Not 'My Way' Jim Rau....the FOUNDERS WAY !!!.
Trust them..or get the hell away away from me.
That simple.
Cowards, Quislings, fellow travelers, Beast-Lovers can kiss my grits...I have no use for nor patience for them.
If that was "the founders way", we'd be all living in concentration camps.0 -
4ever,
No, we don't buckle under, we 'inform' and 'educate'.
Jeff, and 4ever,
You do not inform nor educate anyone by calling them 'cowards' and 'enemies' to mention a few of the nicer terms used by many of your associates. When you simply throw out 'my way or the highway' most will take the highway!!!
Jim,
Problem is, it seems so many gun owners wish to debate/discuss the true meaning of an issue that was itself settled through much debate and discussion over 200 years ago.
A lot of those same folks that believe in a 'perverted' view of the Second Amendment never question/debate the First Amendment. Why? They simply accept what the Founders gave us in Amendment I. Now, why can't they just do the same with the Second?0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
A lot of those same folks that believe in a 'perverted' view of the Second Amendment never question/debate the First Amendment. Why? They simply accept what the Founder's gave us in Amendment I. Now, why can't they just do the same with the Second?[/blue]
Ignorance.0 -
quote:If that was "the founders way", we'd be all living in concentration camps.
Contrary to whatever it is you believe..allowing the enemy to share your foxhole is rather counterproductive.
I believe that we are nearing the end of the good times..the times when every perverted viewpoint is welcomed and honored.
I make my own position perfectly clear..and it ONLY my position;
Time to separate the wheat from the chaff.0 -
quote:If that was "the founders way", we'd be all living in concentration camps.
Another profoundly ignorant statement.
I am finding there are many people living in this country that are not only ignorant of its history and purpose, but rather are fully aware of that history and purpose and openly reject it!
It is one thing to be an uneducated follower, but it is quite another to be an outright subversive. I used to think that people just didn't understand the Founders' intentions. Now I realize that we are among many who openly reject and oppose those intentions.
That kind of dissension will lead to a shooting war.
-WoundedWolf0 -
HB,
All of your 'drama' don't change what I said, or the reality of the situation. Drama Queens do not change reality, they only show others they don't understand reality.[;)]
WS,
You are doing EXACTLY what I said you are doing. 'My way or the highway'. Your view is the 'only' view. Like I said, 'perfect' only igsists in the minds of man, not in the real world. There will NEVER be the application of the Constitution you 'demand'. It's called human foul ability, the reality of this situation.
EVERY TIME THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN IDELOLOGY AND REALITY, BY DEFINATION REALITY WINS. This is a FACT of life you can't deny. If you refuse to except the real world you are mentally ill!!!![:(]0 -
If you look at our country's early history you may find that the Founders did not care overmuch for cowards, quislings, or Beast lovers, either. [;)] 0 -
originally posted by Jim Rau:
WS,
You are doing EXACTLY what I said you are doing. 'My way or the highway'. Your view is the 'only' view. Like I said, 'perfect' only igsists in the minds of man, not in the real world. There will NEVER be the application of the Constitution you 'demand'. It's called human foul ability, the reality of this situation.
EVERY TIME THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN IDELOLOGY AND REALITY, BY DEFINATION REALITY WINS. This is a FACT of life you can't deny. If you refuse to except the real world you are mentally ill!!!!
Jim,
As has been stated before on here by better men than I, it is not just 'our view', which by the way, is a phrase I have an issue with:
It is not a 'view'. A 'view' suggests there may be other plausible 'views' or 'explanations' of the subject at hand. There's not. The RTKBA, per the Founder's words, is a right of the citizens, free from any government mandates, intrusion, or regulation. Period. To suggest otherwise is rubbish. The Founders, in their infinite wisdom, clearly worded Article II to the BOR. It is quite unambiguous. It's meaning is clear, as is the Founder's intent. The 2nd Amendment's sole purpose is to ensure 'the people' always have the means to resist tyranny. That's it. That's all it is. To suggest that mandates/regulations somehow fit in, and are in keeping with the Constitution is foolish, for those same restrictions only serve to inhibit and/or infringe upon the citizens' ability to fight oppression. The Founder's would have never went for that, and neither do I. Calling it 'reality' doesn't make it right.
Here's a question; What if a citizen chooses to exercise his/her RTKBA outside of any unconstitutional government mandates. Has said citizen accepted 'real world reality'? No, not at all, neither are they mentally ill.0 -
WS,
There are NO rights which are "free from ANY government mandates,intrusion, or regulation". The question is how much regulation is acceptable without gutting the right. There is way to much of this 'regulation' occurring reference the RTKABA's now than is acceptable (we can agree on that, right???) If you honestly believe the above situation will ever happen in the real world you are going to be sadly disappointed.
If you can't work in the REAL world to defend the 2nd Amendment and defeat those who attack it then you are not an asset, but a liability to the cause.[:(]0 -
quote:If you can't work in the REAL world to defend the 2nd Amendment and defeat those who attack it then you are not an asset, but a liability to the cause.
More utter nonsense.
We ARE working in the real world ..the world of hard men, men willing to defend America with their life, if necessary.
You just keep right on stroking your compromising buddies ..weak-kneed Quislings, cowards, sycophants, and beast -lovers.
Continue to labor away, mightily eating away at the once invincible foundation of America with your CCWs, Nics checks, Projects Exiles, full-auto restrictions, and whatever else you guys will do your best to pass in the next couple years...all the time stridently telling us how you are `Fighting for Gun Rights".
I prefer the company of men yearning to breath free air, myself.0 -
HB,
I'll keep on keepen on so you can, hopefully, realize your wishes, since you obviously ain't going to try and change things.[^]
I am sorry you have given up on the USA. [:(]0 -
quote:ain't going to try and change things. You and obama should get along right well, with sentiments like that.
Change ? Why the hell should I..or YOU..for that matter...want to change "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ???????????
Knock yourself out, fella. The faster you get your change, the faster the remnents can take it back.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
47 comments