Dictator ? You think ?
We of late have been bombarded with claims that somehow we are welded into a borglike mentality ..that we all somehow think, react, and depend upon each others slightest gesture to chart the path towards the future.
Much has been made of the fact that I am the `head ass'...that somehow means that the rest of the Canary Asses take their cues from me concerning how they should act.
Naturally, this observation is only made by the weak-willed...those unable to grasp the concept of `individual action'...
That is just how far out of touch with the spirit of `being American' so many are here in this country. The idea that a group of men can be INDIVIDUALS...each a leader in his OWN rights...is foreign to most.
Those men might come together for a common purpose...but they remain individuals.
Each has his OWN methods of teaching, of training, of imparting knowledge to others.
I happen to be an ass, these days...I no longer suffer fools gladly...I am not divinity.
I `gained' the position of `head ass' simply BECAUSE I am abrupt, brusque, and deadly blunt.
Most of the other Asses are much more diplomatic in their endeavors...with the occasional flashes of thunder and lightening when they get fed up with some particularly obnoxious collectivist.
They are gentlemen ..to a man.
I am not.
You that feel put upon by my posts may well find it instructive to put the matter before the Council of Canary Asses. Make your best case.
You convince them that I am injurious to the cause of the Canary Asses, that I cause them loss of stature; I will abide by their decision. I trust and respect those men.
I will withdraw my name from the roster.
Mind you...I will continue to continue EXACTLY my personal method of gathering the fighting men of America....but you will not be allowed to use your personal dislike of me to defame the Canary Asses, if they so chose.
Much has been made of the fact that I am the `head ass'...that somehow means that the rest of the Canary Asses take their cues from me concerning how they should act.
Naturally, this observation is only made by the weak-willed...those unable to grasp the concept of `individual action'...
That is just how far out of touch with the spirit of `being American' so many are here in this country. The idea that a group of men can be INDIVIDUALS...each a leader in his OWN rights...is foreign to most.
Those men might come together for a common purpose...but they remain individuals.
Each has his OWN methods of teaching, of training, of imparting knowledge to others.
I happen to be an ass, these days...I no longer suffer fools gladly...I am not divinity.
I `gained' the position of `head ass' simply BECAUSE I am abrupt, brusque, and deadly blunt.
Most of the other Asses are much more diplomatic in their endeavors...with the occasional flashes of thunder and lightening when they get fed up with some particularly obnoxious collectivist.
They are gentlemen ..to a man.
I am not.
You that feel put upon by my posts may well find it instructive to put the matter before the Council of Canary Asses. Make your best case.
You convince them that I am injurious to the cause of the Canary Asses, that I cause them loss of stature; I will abide by their decision. I trust and respect those men.
I will withdraw my name from the roster.
Mind you...I will continue to continue EXACTLY my personal method of gathering the fighting men of America....but you will not be allowed to use your personal dislike of me to defame the Canary Asses, if they so chose.
0
-
HB,
Dons methods for effecting change are what I have been advocating. I don't know if he and I are advocating the same 'amount' of change or not. I know my goals for change are not the same as yours because I know it makes no since to set unattainable goals.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
HB,
Dons methods for effecting change are what I have been advocating. I don't know if he and I are advocating the same 'amount' of change or not. I know my goals for change are not the same as yours because I know it makes no since to set unattainable goals.
Jim:
The methods I've suggested for principled resistance as compared to principled attack still rest on the position that the Federal Government has no business knowing what I have or do in my home, and has no business trying to separate me from what I have. Though you state that you share some of the 'unrealistic' goals of complete freedom of purchase, ownership and carrying, the methods you suggest always accept some limitation. I reject those methods because they distort the intent of the 2nd in the eyes of most Americans.
I tolerate limitation because it is what we have today. I tolerate it only because there is hope for correction as more Americans understand that limitation is one of the very infringements to the right that is prohibited.
I recommend armed resistance to a violation of my property by authorities acting outside the authority of the U.S. Constitution. If you advocate that same position then yes, our methods would be similar. Anything short of that bestowes power upon those authorities they do not legally hold.0 -
Don,
We are on the same sheet of music. I guess it would depend on what you mean by 'tolerate'. I don't tolerate the current restrictions. I do everything I can to get the word out to all that the current situation is not acceptable. If no further restrictions were enacted I will comply with the law. If further restrictions are applied I will not. I have an FFL and do as the law requires when selling guns. I do so with destine!!! I am in a better situation when it comes to CCW than most of you because I am a retired LEO (peace officer for you HB[;)]) so the CCW laws, and handguns bans have no affect on me. One of my goals (which would be considered unrealistic by many) is to have unrestricted CCW in the USA. With our current government that is about as likely as finding a snow ball in he!!.[:(!]0 -
Jim:
Tolerate as compared to accept. It is not semantics in that the many who accept limitations because 'It's the best we can do' have already succumbed to the power of the state.
I agree that to a large degree we are on the same sheet of music. I would point out, however, that music can be played in a manner true to the composer or can be played in a manner the composer would not recognize.
Your goal of unrestricted Concealed Carry (as you have stated before) is laudable and is realistic, and is why I find you to be more of an ally than do some. I do believe, however, that absent a Constitutional change to the 2nd Amendment that replaces the word 'infringe', any restriction is anti-Constitutional and so long as one restriction remains, the door is open for more. I therefore reject the premise that there will never be a time when there are no restrictions, as that is accepting as fact that we will never live up to the high standards set by our founders.0 -
Don,
This brings us back to the basic question of what restrictions are 'acceptable'. The purest say none. Does this mean we should not restrict thermal-nuclear weapons. They are in our military arsenal which the purest say is the intent of the 2nd Amendment. We are to have access to the weapons of the military.
Or do we start at nuclear, or are chemical and biological weapons ok to???? How about the 10,000 lb super block buster bombs????
There MUST and WILL restriction and exception. THIS IS A FACT OF LIFE! And I know our founder understood this too!!! They were labeled as 'wise men' so they were aware we would have to adapt our restrictions as we change. The basic rights MUST not be 'infringed', but we have to have some control of these weapons for the safety of us all. Small arms should have little to no restriction. They are the basics of our RTKABA's.0 -
Jim:
These type of statements contribute to my doubting your sincerity in some respects, though not entirely, as they needlessly complicate the discussion. The question revolves around whether the word 'bear' refers to bearing as in carrying or 'bringing to bear' as in training a 16" naval rifle. From a practical standpoint, it does not matter.
It is not necessary to point to a weapon that kills indiscriminately such as a nuclear, chemical or even high yield conventional warheads when discussing if I should be able to exercise the obvious right to freely purchase, own and carry an M-16 or M-60 if I should so desire to protect myself and family from an out-of-control government. Likewise, there is no need to bring it up while discussing the obvious right of a person living in public housing in San Francisco to purchase, own, and carry a sidearm to protect herself and her daughter from the local criminal gang.
I have read the discussions that 'bear' actually means aiming and firing, and have read discussions that 'bear' actually means carrying. Either way, it means that Government does not have Constitutional authority to limit or restrict the purchase, ownership, or carrying of any small arm currently available. Those are the current restrictions that effect us today, and those are the current restrictions that limit our ability to ensure the security of a free State.0 -
Agreed Don! But you, if I am understanding your correctly, are in the same ball park when you look at the totality of the circumstances. I have said the only restriction on 'small arms' should be a no cost background check of 'full auto' weapons. This would be simply to keep those who have been convinced of a felony or are currently involved in criminal activity from walking in and walking out with an M-60 or Ma Deuce. To purchase, owen, carry (open or concealed) any firearm other than full auto there should be no restrictions. For crew served weapons there should be a system in place similar to the current system used to transfer full auto weapons. I thing this is a realistic set of restrictions which would not 'infringe' on the responsible, law abiding citizens basic rights.. But this is not good enough for the purest who thinks any reatriction is to much. So I will continue to be called 'bad' by both sides which tells me I am on the right track!!![;)] 0 -
Interesting, Jim.
There is much common ground here of which I was unaware. I hesitate to get bogged down in the technicalities of full-auto background checks at the moment, as I need time to give it some thought. Given the indiscriminate nature of even medium caliber full auto fire, it is a legitimate point to bring up, though I cannot see how it squares with the 2nd Amendment. Any help you can provide on this point would be appreciated.
If I am to understand you correctly, any small arm; pistol or long gun; bolt, lever, or semi-auto, is available for purchase for a fist full of dollars and a smile (smile not required) resulting in a record-free purchase. A big step in the right direction, to be sure. Elimination of restriction, not modification of restriction.
Hell, you've even addressed putting an M105 in my backyard.[:)]
Good points to ponder, Jim.
Thanks.0 -
Don,
All I am trying to do is look at this in a realistic manner. Whether we want to or not we MUST consider the opinions of others not so sympathetic to our cause. Look what happened in this election. If we can convince enough people of the importance of the RTKABA's and give then the assurances they need to feel 'safe' in there ability to achieve 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' we will prevail. The purists will not be happy and the anti-gunners will not be happy. The way things are now is an abomination to the 2nd Amendment.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
189 comments