Interesting post on another forum
I hope this don't get poofed it I'd like some opinions!
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34976
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34976
0
-
Somebody posted the same thing almost word for word on this forum some time back I think!
I know I have seen it somewhere!0 -
That was very well written and 100% on track. For being written in 2000, it sounds like right now. 0 -
The link was sent to me by a citizen of the UK... 0 -
Interesting indeed, but I see a contradiction in the third paragraph...
"I will never again concern myself with concealed carry laws. I will carry my sidearm as I see fit, and wherever I choose, whether I am in Wyoming or New York City. I will ignore unjust laws denying me the right to determine my own fate while exempting friends and cronies of the legislature and the executive from the same laws. I will try to comply with the law whenever possible and obtain a permit whenever given the opportunity;"0 -
quote:Originally posted by mrseatle
Interesting indeed, but I see a contradiction in the third paragraph...
"I will never again concern myself with concealed carry laws. I will carry my sidearm as I see fit, and wherever I choose, whether I am in Wyoming or New York City. I will ignore unjust laws denying me the right to determine my own fate while exempting friends and cronies of the legislature and the executive from the same laws. I will try to comply with the law whenever possible and obtain a permit whenever given the opportunity;"
I think he is saying he is packing legal or not!!!0 -
quote:Originally posted by HobbyGuy
quote:Originally posted by tobefree
quote:Originally posted by mrseatle
Interesting indeed, but I see a contradiction in the third paragraph...
"I will never again concern myself with concealed carry laws. I will carry my sidearm as I see fit, and wherever I choose, whether I am in Wyoming or New York City. I will ignore unjust laws denying me the right to determine my own fate while exempting friends and cronies of the legislature and the executive from the same laws. I will try to comply with the law whenever possible and obtain a permit whenever given the opportunity;"
I think he is saying he is packing legal or not!!!
Exactly and for that statement alone makes that guy a dangerous idiot.! If someone is going to break the law, how smart is it to announce it first? [B)]
Supporting this clowns' point of view is encouraging law makers to make gun laws more strict (so jackass Rambos like him have a harder time obtaining and retaining a firearm). [;)]
Stupid people like this make it worse for the rest of us. [:(!]
Jim
Interesting...I am having a hard time with that part as well as I to believe in doing things legally... But I do agree with his core content...he should have the right to defend him self 24/7 anywhere, anytime. I must admit I am in favor of baning them from places serving Alcohol...I have know too many people that become complete freaking idiots with a touch of the hair of the dog..I'm glad that I ain't one of them....
Now what about the bottom line "what if they say give them all up"!!!0 -
I am packing, legal or not.
The right is God given.
Doug0 -
A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Founders considered the BORs to be natural Rights given by God.
That trumps jack-booted thugs opinions.0 -
quote:The Bible And Gun Control
By
Larry Pratt
Executive Vice-President
Gun Owners Foundation
The underlying argument for gun control seems to be that the availability of guns causes crime. By extension, the availability of any weapon would have to be viewed as a cause of crime. What does the Bible say about such a view?
Perhaps we should start at the beginning, or at least very close to the beginning -- in Genesis 4. In this chapter we read about the first murder. Cain had offered an unacceptable sacrifice, and Cain was upset that God insisted that he do the right thing. In other words, Cain was peeved that he could not do his own thing.
Cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with God. There were no guns available, although there may well have been a knife. Whether it was a knife or a rock, the Bible does not say. The point is, the evil in Cain's heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon.
God's response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer. Later (see Genesis 9:5-6) God instituted capital punishment, but said not a word about banning weapons.
Did Christ Teach Pacifism?
Many people, Christians included, assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite Matthew 5:38-39 for their proof. In this verse Christ said: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
The Sermon on the Mount from which this passage is taken deals with righteous personal conduct. In our passage, Christ is clearing up a confusion that had led people to think that conduct proper for the civil government -- that is, taking vengeance -- was also proper for an individual.
Even the choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace. Several times in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount Christ used this same "you have heard it said" figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the times.
Contrast this to Christ's use of the phrase "it is written" when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil's lies or misquotes from Scripture with the words: "it is written").
To further underscore the point that Christ was correcting the religious leaders on their teaching that "an eye for an eye" applies to private revenge, consider that in the same Sermon, Christ strongly condemned false teaching: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven..." (Matthew 5:19). Clearly, then, Christ was not teaching something different about self defense than is taught elsewhere in the Bible. Otherwise, He would be contradicting Himself for He would now be teaching men to break one of the commandments.
The reference to "an eye for an eye" was taken from Exodus 21:24-25 which deals with how the magistrate must deal with a crime. Namely, the punishment must fit the crime. The religious leaders of Christ's day had twisted a passage that applied to the government and misused it as a principle of personal revenge.
The Bible distinguishes clearly between the duties of the civil magistrate (the government) and the duties of an individual. Namely, God has delegated to the civil magistrate the administration of justice. Individuals have the responsibility of protecting their lives from attackers. Christ was referring to this distinction in the Matthew 5 passage. Let us now examine in some detail what the Scriptures say about the roles of government and of individuals.
Both the Old and New testaments teach individual self defense, even if it means taking the assailant's life in certain circumstances.
Self-Defense in the Old testament
Exodus 22:2-3 tells us "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."
One conclusion which can be drawn from this is that a threat to our life is to be met with lethal force. After the sun has risen seems to refer to a different judgment than the one permitted at night. At night it is more difficult to discern whether the intruder is a thief or a murderer. Furthermore, the nighttime makes it more difficult to defend oneself and to avoid killing the thief at the same time. During the daytime, it better be clear that one's life was in danger, otherwise, defense becomes vengeance, and that belongs in the hand of the magistrate.
In Proverbs 25:26 we read that "A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well." Certainly, we would be faltering before the wicked if we chose to be unarmed and unable to resist an assailant who might be threatening our life. In other words, we have no right to hand over our life which is a gift from God to the unrighteous. It is a serious mistake to equate a civilized society with one in which the decent people are doormats for the evil to trample on.
Trusting God
Another question asked by Christians is "Doesn't having a gun imply a lack of trust that God will take care of us?"
Indeed, God will take care of us. He has also told us that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments. (John 14:15)
Those who trust God work for a living, knowing that 1 Timothy 5:8 tells us "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." For a man not to work, yet expect to eat because he was "trusting God" would actually be to defy God.
King David wrote in Psalm 46:1 that God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. This did not conflict with praising the God "Who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle" (Psalm 144:1).
The doctrine of Scripture is that we prepare and work, but we trust the outcome to God.
Those who trust God should also make adequate provision for their own defense even as we are instructed in the passages cited above. For a man to refuse to provide adequately for his and his family's defense would be to defy God.
There is an additional concern to taking the position that "I don't need to arm myself. God will protect me."
At one point, when Satan was tempting Jesus in the wilderness, he challenged Jesus to throw himself off the top of the temple. Satan reasoned that God's angels would protect him. Jesus responded: "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God'" (Matthew 4:7).
It may seem pious to say that one is trusting in God for protection, and we all must, but it is tempting God if we do not take the measures that He has laid out for us in the Bible.
Role of Government
The Bible records the first murder in Genesis 4 when Cain killed his brother Abel. God's response was not to register rocks or impose a background check on those getting a plough, or whatever it was that Cain used to kill his brother. Instead, God dealt with the criminal. Ever since Noah the penalty for murder has been death.
We see the refusal to accept this principle that God has given us from the very beginning. Today we see a growing acceptance of the idea that checking the criminal backgrounds of gun buyers will lessen crime but we should seldom execute those who are guilty of murder.
In Matthew 15 (and in Mark 7) Christ accused the religious leaders of the day of also opposing the execution of those deserving of death -- rebellious teenagers. They had replaced the commandments of God with their own traditions. God has never been interested in controlling the means of violence. He has always made it a point to punish, and where possible, restore (as with restitution and excommunication) the wrongdoer. Control of individuals is to be left to self-government. Punishment of individuals by the civil government is to be carried out when self-government breaks down.
Man's wisdom today has been to declare gun free school zones which are invaded by gun-toting teenage terrorists whom we refuse to execute. We seem to have learned little from Christ's rebuke of the Pharisees.
Nowhere in the Bible does God make any provision for dealing with the instruments of crime. He always focuses on the consequences for an individual of his actions. Heaven and hell only applies to people, not to things. Responsibility only pertains to people, not to things. If this principle, which was deeply embedded in the common law, still pertained today lawsuits against gun manufacturers would be thrown out unless the product malfunctioned.
Responsibility rightly includes being liable for monetary damages if a firearm is left in a grossly negligent fashion so that an ignorant child gets the gun and misuses it. The solution is not to require that trigger locks be used on a gun to avoid being subject to such a law suit. Some might argue that this is nothing more than an application of the Biblical requirement that a railing be placed around the flat rooftop of a house where people might congregate. But trigger locks are to be used with unloaded guns which would be the same as requiring a railing around a pitched roof where people do not congregate.
Surely in protecting against accidents we cannot end up making ourselves more vulnerable to criminal attack, which is what a trigger lock does if it is in use on the firearm intended for self protection.
The firearm that is kept for self defense should be available in an emergency. Rooftop railings have no correspondence to the need for instant access to a gun. On the other hand, guns that are not intended for immediate use should be kept secured as a reasonable precaution. But to make the owner criminally or monetarily liable for another's misuse violates a basic commandment of Scripture: "the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20b).
Self Defense Versus Vengeance
Resisting an attack is not to be confused with taking vengeance which is the exclusive domain of God (Romans 12:19). This has been delegated to the civil magistrate, who, as we read in Romans 13:4, "is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."
Private vengeance means one would stalk down a criminal after one's life is no longer in danger as opposed to defending oneself during an attack. It is this very point that has been confused by Christian pacifists who would take the passage in the Sermon on the Mount about turning the other cheek (which prohibits private vengeance) into a command to falter before the wicked.
Let us consider also that the Sixth Commandment tells us "Thou shall not murder." In the chapters following, God gave to Moses many of the situations which require a death penalty. God clearly has not told us never to kill. He has told us not to murder, which means we are not to take an innocent life. Consider also that the civil magistrate is to be a terror to those who practice evil. This passage does not in any way imply that the role of law enforcement is to prevent crimes or to protect individuals from criminals. The magistrate is a minister to serve as "an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (Romans 13:4).
This point is reflected in the legal doctrine of the United States. Repeatedly, courts have held that the government has no responsibility to provide individual security. One case (Bowers v. DeVito) put it this way: "there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
Self Defense in the New testament
The Christian pacifist may try to argue that God has changed His mind from the time that He gave Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. Perhaps they would want us to think that Christ canceled out the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 or the provision for justifiably killing a thief in Exodus 22. But the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that this cannot be, because "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). In the Old testament, the prophet Malachi records God's words this way: "For I am the Lord, I do not change" (Malachi 3:6).
Paul was referring to the unchangeability of God's Word when he wrote to Timothy that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Clearly, Paul viewed all Scripture, including the Old testament, as useful for training Christians in every area of life.
We must also consider what Christ told his disciples in his last hours with them: "...But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" (Luke 22:36). Keep in mind that the sword was the finest offensive weapon available to an individual soldier -- the equivalent then of a military rifle today.
The Christian pacifist will likely object at this point that only a few hours later, Christ rebuked Peter who used a sword to cut off the ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest in the company of a detachment of troops. Let us read what Christ said to Peter in Matthew 26:52-54:
Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?
In the companion passage in John 18, Jesus tells Peter to put his sword away and told him that He had to drink the cup that His Father had given Him. It was not the first time that Christ had to explain to the disciples why He had come to earth. To fulfill the Scriptures, the Son of God had to die for the sin of man since man was incapable of paying for his own sin apart from going to hell. Christ could have saved His life, but then believers would have lost their lives forever in hell. These things only became clear to the disciples after Christ had died and been raised from the dead and the Spirit had come into the world at Pentecost (see John 14:26).
While Christ told Peter to "put your sword in its place" He clearly did not say get rid of it forever. That would have contradicted what he had told the disciples only hours before. Peter's sword was to protect his own mortal life from danger. His sword was not needed to protect the Creator of the universe and the King of kings.
Years after Pentecost, Paul wrote in a letter to Timothy "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim. 5:8). This passage applies to our subject because it would be absurd to buy a house, furnish it with food and facilities for one's family, and then refuse to install locks and provide the means to protect the family and the property. Likewise it would be absurd not to take, if necessary, the life of a night-time thief to protect the members of the family (Exodus 22:2-3).
A related, and even broader concept, is found in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Christ had referred to the Old testament summary of all the laws of the Bible into two great commandments: "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and your neighbor as yourself'" (Luke 10:27). When asked who was a neighbor, Christ related the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37). It was the Good Samaritan who took care of the mugging victim who was a neighbor to the victim. The others who walked by and ignored the victim's plight were not acting as neighbors to him.
In the light of all we have seen the Scriptures teach to this point, can we argue that if we were able to save another's life from an attacker by shooting the attacker with our gun that we should "turn the other cheek instead?" The Bible speaks of no such right. It only speaks of our responsibilities in the face of an attack -- as individual creatures made by God, as householders or as neighbors.
National Blessings and Cursings
The Old testament also tells us a great deal about the positive relationship between righteousness, which exalts a nation, and self defense. It makes clear that in times of national rebellion against the Lord God, the rulers of the nation will reflect the spiritual degradation of the people and the result is a denial of God's commandments, an arrogance of officialdom, disarmament and oppression.
For example, the people of Israel were oppressed during the time of the rule of the Judges. This occurred every time the people apostatized. Judges 5:8 tells us that, "They chose new gods; then there was war in the gates; not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel."
Consider Israel under Saul: The first book of Samuel tells of the turning away of Israel from God. The people did not want to be governed by God; they wanted to be ruled by a king like the pagan, God-hating nations around them. Samuel warned the people what they were getting into -- the curses that would be upon them -- if they persisted in raising up a king over themselves and their families. Included in those curses was the raising up of a standing, professional army which would take their sons and their daughters for aggressive wars (I Samuel 8:11).
This curse is not unknown in the United States. Saul carried out all the judgments that Samuel had warned the people about. His build up of a standing army has been repeated in the U.S., and not just in terms of the military, but also the 650,000 full-time police officers from all levels of government.
Saul was the king the Israelites wanted and got. He was beautiful in the eyes of the world but a disaster in the eyes of the Lord. Saul did not trust God. He rebelled against His form of sacrifice unto the Lord. Saul put himself above God. He was impatient. He refused to wait for Samuel because God's way was taking too long. Saul went ahead and performed the sacrifice himself, thus violating God's commandment (and, incidentally, also violating the God-ordained separation of duties of church and state!)
Thus was the kingdom lost to Saul. And, it was under him that the Philistines were able to defeat the Jews and put them into bondage. So great was the bondage exerted by the Philistines that "Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, 'Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears.' But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen each man's plowshare, his mattock, his ax, and his sickle;...So it came about, on the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people who were with Saul and Jonathan..." (1 Samuel 13:19-20; 22-23).
Today, the same goals of the Philistines would be carried out by an oppressor who would ban gunsmiths from the land. The sword of today is the handgun, rifle or shotgun. The sword control of the Philistines is today's gun control of those governments that do not trust their people with guns.
It is important to understand that what happened to the Jews at the time of Saul was not unexpected according to the sanctions spelled out by God in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. In the first verses of those chapters, blessings are promised to a nation that keeps God's laws. In the latter parts of those chapters, the curses are spelled out for a nation that comes under judgment for its rebellion against God. Deuteronomy 28:47-48 helps us understand the reason for Israel's oppression by the Philistines during Saul's reign:
Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things, therefore you shall serve your enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of all things; and He will put a yoke of iron on your neck until He has destroyed you.
The Bible provides examples of God's blessing upon Israel for its faithfulness. These blessings included a strong national defense coupled with peace. A clear example occurred during the reign of Jehoshaphat. 2 Chronicles 17 tells of how Jehoshaphat led Israel back to faithfulness to God which included a strong national defense. The result: "And the fear of the Lord fell on all the kingdoms of the lands that were around Judah, so that they did not make war against Jehoshaphat" (2 Chronicles 17:10).
The Israelite army was a militia army (Numbers 1:3, ff.) which came to battle with each man bearing his own weapons -- from the time of Moses, through the Judges, and beyond. When threatened by the Midianites, for example, "Moses spoke to the people , saying, 'Arm some of yourselves for the war, and let them go against the Midianites to take vengeance for the Lord on Midian'" (Numbers 31:3). Again, to demonstrate the Biblical heritage of individuals bearing and keeping arms, during David's time in the wilderness avoiding capture by Saul, "David said to his men, 'Every man gird on his sword.' So every man girded on his sword, and David also girded on his sword" (1 Samuel 25:13).
Finally, consider Nehemiah and those who rebuilt the gates and walls of Jerusalem. They were both builders and defenders, each man -- each servant -- armed with his own weapon:
Those who built on the wall, and those who carried burdens loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction, and with the other held a weapon. Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built (Nehemiah 4:17-18).
Conclusion
The wisdom of the framers of the Constitution is consistent with the lessons of the Bible. Instruments of defense should be dispersed throughout the nation, not concentrated in the hands of the central government. In a godly country, righteousness governs each man through the Holy Spirit working within. The government has no cause to want a monopoly of force; the government that desires such a monopoly is a threat to the lives, liberty and property of its citizens.
The assumption that only danger can result from people carrying guns is used to justify the government's having a monopoly of force. The notion that the people cannot be trusted to keep and bear their own arms informs us that ours, like the time of Solomon, may be one of great riches but is also a time of peril to free people. If Christ is not our King, we shall have a dictator to rule over us, just as Samuel warned.
For those who think that God treated Israel differently from the way He will treat us today, please consider what God told the prophet Malachi: "For I am the Lord, I do not change..." (Malachi 3:60 -
hmmm, really? Wow! 0 -
" I just followed orders" 0 -
Thats funny...that is very nearly MY precise opinion of YOUR tired old
" I will follow orders/there is no God Given Rights/the government SAYS'" tripe that YOU shovel on an ongoing basis...
I will leave it up to the readers to decide for THEMSELVES whom is the 'punk' herein...
The one defending American freedoms...or the one who isn't.0 -
Look in the constitution. They list it there as god given. Yea, the constitution was written by men, but the bible wasn't written by God either. 0 -
I've followed exchanges like this through a number of threads on this forum. I can't say I agree, totally, with any of those taking absolute, my-way-or-the-highway positions. I particularly dislike and am tired of the "jack-booted thugs" line, because I can't assume the speaker means only certain police officers when I know for a fact that persons using the line to me in the past were very definitely talking about all police officers. While the facts of the matter are very simple -- the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to every law-abiding citizen of this country -- the reality of how those facts relate to everyday life isn't quite as easy. However, when it comes down to it, I have to side with the hard-liners here. The idea of an American police officer or soldier considering that his first and primary duty is to obey orders, and the implication that it's neither his place nor within his power to question those orders, is offensive and frightening. The Constitution is the fabric of this country. Begin making major changes to its content, and implement those changes with an attitude that the average citizen has no business arguing or opposing the process, and the United States is in serious danger of no longer existing. The name might continue, but not the freedom the name is supposed to stand for.
The Constitution has worked -- very well, usually, and at least well enough, the rest of the time -- through over two centuries of good times and bad. Anyone of the opinion that we're in such dire times that maybe the Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees ought to be given a hard look and revised, and anyone prepared to enforce the laws that would result from that, either believes the guarantee of freedom may have turned out to be a mistake, or, to be as charitable as I'm able, is too imcompetent or lazy to work within the reality that freedom a lot of the time is inefficient and inconvenient, particularly for those in power.
Which, incidentally, was precisely what those white-wigged old fools intended, two hundred some-odd years ago. I don't worship them, but I do place them, on a whole, far above anything we've got in their place at the moment. They realized the greatest danger to this country wasn't the freedom of its citizens, but the willingness of its leaders to sacrifice that freedom to considerations of the moment.
The founding fathers declared independence, fought a war against duly-constituted, legal authority, and wrote a Constitution like no other statement of government purpose and limitations that the world had ever seen, and they did so in the explicit spirit of our rights being God-given -- all of them. Anyone who enjoys the freedoms of living in this nation accepts that premise as a form of contract, or basically declares his willingness to do without any of the benefits that have resulted from it. The choice to do so is your right, but you don't have the right to expect me to abide by what you've decided.0 -
Oh, and by the way, for the benefit of anyone on either side of this debate who believes I say what I do because you can say and do whatever you want when you're an anonymous user name --
Mike Lange
10124 Western Row
Dillsboro, IN 47018
Home weekdays after 4 p.m. and on weekends, unless I'm on one of several "extra" jobs I have to do to stay alive. Please drop by when I'm going to be around. I'm far more polite in my posts than I am when I'm insulted or mocked in person, for the precise reason that I don't consider it overly courageous to use anonymity as a cover for rudeness.0 -
quote:I can assure you that those individuals, highball specifically uses that term towards all law enforcement. Lawless and reckless individuals like him are one of the primary reasons
I can assure you with confidence that you are absolutely right..I have complete contempt for Law Enforcement.You were Law Enforcement..ready, willing, and able to kick in doors to take weapons, in the event of a gun ban.
Now then...
David Nunn is as fine an example of Peace Officer as is possible today..and there are several more on here also.
Fine men...and willing to walk out the door, given an order to disarm American citizens.
David Nunn is able to read...and actually HAS read..the Constitution.
That is the difference between Law Enforcement..and a Peace Officer.0 -
HobbyGuy --
My opinion (and with that and the right amount of pocket change you can buy a cup of coffee, I'm fully aware) is that the answer to your question comes down to whether changes to the Constitution would violate the spirit in which it was intended, and whether the letter or the spirit of the law takes precedence. The Constitution's intent is perfectly clear; the writers expressed their views on the subject numerous times. Their purpose in writing it was to provide adequately strong government for the United States of America, while safeguarding the liberties of its citizens. The give-and-take process of trying to strike an acceptable balance between "adequately strong" government and "liberty" has been going on since even before the Constitution was ratified. I come down fairly hard on the side of "liberty" in part because I am in fairly frequent contact with people who very adamantly consider the concept unworkable if we're going to have "practical" government, and who also believe that, if such a concept is to be a reality in this country, it ought to be limited to the "right" people. I have neither the formal education, the money, nor the rank within our society or the school district I work for to be considered one of the "right" people.
This isn't paranoid ranting, it's simply passing along what I've very politely but firmly been told.
I appreciate that your reply to my posts avoided the usual heaping-on of contempt that I've been on the receiving end of, in times past. We strongly disagree on several very important points, but disagreement and the right to express the same are, also, God-given rights in this country. I suppose that, since we both (and Highball, too) can say what we think, piss off half the known world in the process, and not find ourselves being paid an "official" visit in the middle of the night (and that I, and I presume you and Highball, too, have the means to give said visitors an extremely ugly surprise) means that, while we might be sitting comfortably in the handbasket, we ain't quite gone to Hell just yet.
My peace of mind and tranquility would benefit immensely from simply not checking out what everyone's talking about on this forum, but the responsibility of staying informed, and participating in discussions relevant to the meaning and structure of our nation, is one of the many inconveniences I refer to as coming with the freedoms we enjoy.0 -
Just being curious here...But you looongtimers in GB.
Have u ever seen some real proof of Hobbyguy being a cop ?0 -
I was going to wait for LT496 to check in...ANOTHER Peace Officer that I have the HIGHEST regard for..but I am enjoying myself entirely too much to wait.
The REAL problem, here.. quote:I'm sorry that you are such a scared "sheeple" and believe that the big bad government is out to get you.is that thugs do NOT scare me into silence..in spite of Waco and hundreds of other killings across the country.
Oh..and 1776 ? Don't get too comfortable thinking that 'we haven't been picked up"..or killed.
That merely means we have no following.0 -
The only way that civil disobedience works is when masses of people, so many that law enforcement is overwhelmed and legislators are terrified by the numbers, ignore the law.
An individual deciding to ignore the law is a felony conviction waiting to happen.
I wonder if he plans to shoot any cop who tries to enforce the laws he thinks don't apply to him?0 -
There is a vast difference between obeying tyranny because one is entirely too stupid to understand tyranny versus freedom..
And obeying tyranny because one is fully aware of the consequences of not doing so.
Anybody reading my posts is fully aware that I urge compliance with ALL jack-booted thugs..and the unconstitutional laws they so happily enforce.
I prefer a decent citizen to be OUTSIDE bars..in the event some day there should be a call for a few decent citizens.0 -
HobbyGuy --
I started to reply and then wandered for the simple reason that, so far as I'm qualified or empowered to offer an answer -- I did. I stated that it becomes an issue of whether the letter or the spirit of the law takes precedence. I then qualified what I believe, and why. This didn't include stating in so many words what someone else -- you, my brother (good guy and good police officer, in Arizona), my ex-wife's first ex-husband (ah, not so good a guy or police officer....), or whoever, ought to do. I'm not going to say, "You/he/she/they should do thus-and-such." I will tell you, and did tell you, what I consider to be one of the major points worth considering: Would enforcing changed laws, upholding a Constitution that is no longer what it was intended to be, destroy the point for which one swore to do one's duty to begin with?
I can't answer that question for you, so I leave you with the question and the feelings I have as they bear on my answer. I reserve the right to violate any oath if those to whom it was sworn have, by their actions, cancelled out any useful purpose I can see it serving. My opinion is that those who won't consider the nature or intent of the "changed" laws, but simply do the duty of enforcing them, are a danger to life as it's been understood and lived in this country for over two centuries. That brings us full circle to the statement that that's just my opinion, with no more real authority or validity than yours.
Not trying to evade the issue or change the subject. It's just too complicated a question and I'm just not quite idealistic enough, any more, to offer a ten-words-or-less answer (yeah, right, like I ever could[:p]) that the complexity of real life makes irrelevant for any person but me.0 -
I agree with him, but he does seem a little hostile or angry about the matter!!!! 0 -
The bottom line is that we have the right to bear arms. I see no restrictions placed on it.
Hobbyguy - Maybe I'm nitpicking but, it wasn't "a guy in a powdered wig" or God that gave us the right recognized in the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was put there to keep a foreign AND domestic enemies from taking all our other rights away from us. I see no other way to interpret it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by HobbyGuy
quote:Originally posted by LKB3rd
Look in the constitution. They list it there as god given. Yea, the constitution was written by men, but the bible wasn't written by God either.
The Bible mentions nothing about the Constitution. [;)]
I seem to recall somerhing about the laws of men mentioned in New testament at least once, however, if you are a Christian You only have one law anyway!!!0 -
quote:Nighthawk
Advanced Member
USA
8209 Posts
Posted - 09/23/2007 : 8:27:29 PM
I agree with him, but he does seem a little hostile or angry about the matter!!!!
Are you talking about me being angry ?
Let me lay out the reason, if so.
Just try standing squarely in the footprints of the Founders..the REASON they put forth the Second Amendment. The REASON was to control government..they intended for the populace to be well enough armed to resist tyranny.
It is the apex of insanity to willingly give over to ANY government the power to restrict, limit, or stop citizens from owning ANY shoulder or hand controlled weapons..the very weapons that are the last, best hope to keep government in line.
Having gun owners...who SHOULD be standing shoulder-to-shoulder on this issue..attack unceasingly those actually standing to defend the Second Amendment really OUGHT to make a person mad.
Don't you think ?0 -
Well, Hobbyguy;
Quite clearly the line is drawn heavily between us.
One the one side lies freedom, American values, and soverign citizens.
The other side offers security..and total control.
I leave it up to each man to decide which he prefers.0 -
There is one tiny bit of info that I can give people on this speach that has started this whole thing. The 4473 that is filled out and on record with the store selling the firearm is the ONLY info being kept of the transaction. My experience with these sheets goes back way further than I care to comment on....and the wording of certain parts of this paper has come to be because of my family's past run-ins with the ATF.
Not long ago, I had a reason to call the ATF call center and ask about an NTN that I had gotten the day before. I spilled coffee on some papers that I was trying to get in order and ruined one sheet. I called to get the info from the call center.....and they did not have it on record. I thought it would be still on file since it had only been called in the afternoon before. NOOOO....it was already deleted from the system. So, good news is they are not keeping records of your gun purchases. The only record is the 4473 in the store. I don't know about Wal Mart, Academy Sports, Dicks Sporting Goods, Bass Pro Shops or any of the larger chains.....but every small gun store that I know in my area (including me) treats these records like they belong to our family. We take these things seriously.0 -
LF;
It is 'illegal' for them to retain records. Giving you the information would not be kosher.
We know for a fact that they are compiling a total list of every 4473 turned in by dealers that have just quit because of endless rules, regulations, and harassment.0 -
I know....but its funny how "by the rules" they are when you need something.
When my father fought with them a long time ago....they came for his records and it was like trying to drown a fish to prove to them that they couldn't have them.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
34 comments