.

Why is the 2A written without exceptions?

Little-AcornLittle-Acorn Member Posts: 103 ✭✭
Some of the discussion on this board might have touched on a vital characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." As you indicate here, it does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example: Some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor around him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

I don't know.

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHtest EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for the "Forgive and forget" principle to apply here. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

And yet when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.
«13

Comments

  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Well, allow me to thank you very much for that piece, L-A....much of it mirrors my particular thought proceses concerning the Second.

    Now..note well that the Second does not state that the Right to Murder shall not be infringed'...

    I think that laws against murder (by whatever means) rape, terroristic threatening, ect, fall well within the scope of justifiable actions taken by Society to protect itself...WITHOUT passing laws restricting a tool demed neccesary 'to the security of a free state'...
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    You BOTH get two thumbs up for being SPOT ON.
  • nyforesternyforester Member Posts: 2,574 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Well said.....
    This leads me to a question.

    When (year) was the first recorded gun law/restiction place into law ?

    Just thinking.....I know of a few towns in the late 1800's that made carrying firearms a crime - or was that just Hollywood.

    I wonder what the "People" thought about gun restictions back then ?
    Abort Cuomo
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    1. Most 'no gun' laws were the result of a (bad) political 'machine' trying to control the opposition. (a mater of history) This would allow those in power to be armed and 'oppress' others to stay in power. If the opposition were armed they could be arrested.
    But the acorn could not be more wrong if he tried. NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE. There are not, or very damn few, alway and never's in the real world. Those words should be removed from your vocablary when dealing with the human animal. And the RTKABA is no exception, as his example showes. Do you want anyone, anywhere, anytime to have the absolute right to have a gun? If so you are nuts, crazy, loco, smoken dope, and not of this (real) world!!![xx(]
  • Little-AcornLittle-Acorn Member Posts: 103 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    But the acorn could not be more wrong if he tried. NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE.

    I never said it was.

    I said that THE LAW was written in an "absolute" fashion, with no exceptions specified, and then I wondered aloud how the Framers must have intended the real world to take care of the exceptions that must obviously be allowed. I made up an extreme situation as an example.

    Lawmakers have taken the fact that exceptions must obviously be allowed, and used that FACT as an excuse to restrict weapons up the wazoo, in ways the Framers certainly didn't intend.

    I posited that the Framers must have intended for Common Sense (aka Jury Nullification in some circles) to make the exceptions. A jury or judge would be very hard pressed to convict the cop who took away the mass murderer's gun at the scene of the crime. But the 2nd amendment is written in such a way that its STRICT LANGUAGE certainly does not allow ANY governmental body anywhere in the U.S., from making ANY law restricting or taking away people's guns.

    A cop taking away an obvious criminals' weapon, would be excused by any person with any sense. But that act cannot be endorsed by any LAW... because once you give government the power to make ANY law taking away even an obviously-threatening criminal's weapon, they will expand that power into taking away weapons from people who are not threats and/or not criminals... in part by making other laws that create criminals to order.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:And the RTKABA is no exception, as his example showes. Do you want anyone, anywhere, anytime to have the absolute right to have a gun? If so you are nuts, crazy, loco, smoken dope, and not of this (real) world!!!

    Well, Jim...I also chose to not allow YOU to have the authority to limit my access to weapons..Now...I realize that you are a well balanced, sane, drug-free Individual.

    Your buddy over there...the one with another badge...ISN'T that honorable.

    I prefer to trust my skill and wits with my neighbor owning weapons then an implacable, nameless,faceless Beast killing at will.

    Study history a bit. That is what uncontrolled governments DO.

    You are holding up the end result of a justice system gone mad...unwilling to punish appropriately, allowing animals to roam the street at will .gendering an underworld of slobbering manics.to limit and control ME...as a decent citizen.

    quote:anytime to have the absolute right to have a gun? If so you are nuts, crazy, loco, smoken dope, and not of this (real) world!!![/quote]
    With all due respect Jim..and if you insist upon calling names, that respect gets slimmer again...it is YOU doing the Beasts' bidding..aiding and abeting the absolute final solution it so earnestly desires.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    hb,
    So it would be ok for a 6 year old to have and take to school a full auto MP5, right?
    It would fine with you to allow all those convicted of crimes to be armed even while they are in jail, right?
    No matter how * someone is on a 'drug' they should not be restriced from carring or useing a firearm, right?
    IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!![?]
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    I almost believe that TrFox is back...and feeding you.

    These are precisely the same arguments he uses ...and they are just as wrong now as they were several years ago when we had exactly the same discussions.

    I firmly believe that gun control is a mental illness. The symptoms are exactly the same, from one gun controller to another.

    I had expected, by the intelligence of some of your posts, that reason would eventually carry the day for you.

    It is readily apparent that it not to be so.
    It just proves something I have known for many years...intelligence alone is not enough. There must be something additional inside a man..or else we would not see so many anti-gun otherwise smart men.

    The problem,of course....some vital ingredient that made up the Founders is missing in these people.
  • nyforesternyforester Member Posts: 2,574 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I think it boils down to loving your guns more than your wife's * ![}:)]
    Abort Cuomo
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Actually, what I 'love' is FREEDOM...the lack of governmental interference into every aspect of my life.

    The guns are merely the vehicle to secure that freedom...and the ONLY method understood by the Elites.
  • dheffleydheffley Member Posts: 25,000
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    Actually, what I 'love' is FREEDOM...the lack of governmental interference into every aspect of my life.

    The guns are merely the vehicle to secure that freedom...and the ONLY method understood by the Elites.


    AMEN!
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    It is simple. The BOR guarantees rights. Once you commit a crime, you have violated someone else's God given rights, and at that point in time you no longer have the same rights you once had. That is why the LEO can disarm the armed criminal. The framers didn't imagine the dumbing down of America, which would require them to cover common sense details. [V]
  • 1776-19761776-1976 Member Posts: 299 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I dont believe our founders ever intended for for those who commit murder or any other violent crime against fellow citizens to be housed, provided hot meals, provided clothing, provided free medical, provided recreation, or any of the other benefits given to criminals who have demonstrated they dont give a s#^& about anyone but themselves. If someone close to me was a victim of a violent crime the last person the criminal would have to fear is the government. The argument acorn started is the same kind of extreme propaganda the anti-freedom 2nd Amendment haters like to use as an excuse for gun control. One of the biggest causes for the increase in crime is the people letting the government dictate what justice is.
  • nyforesternyforester Member Posts: 2,574 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    Actually, what I 'love' is FREEDOM...the lack of governmental interference into every aspect of my life.

    The guns are merely the vehicle to secure that freedom...and the ONLY method understood by the Elites.


    Better Said !
    Abort Cuomo
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:The framers didn't imagine the dumbing down of America, which would require them to cover common sense details.

    One can certainly expect anti-gunners ..afraid to defend themselves because they lack the courage to do so...throwing up the continual straw men we as Second Amendment supporters are subjected to, and must shred continually.

    Personal responsibility is lost on them ..for they have none.

    What has ALWAYS disturbed me is the gun owner that embraces the insanity of gun control.
    When you pick up a gun, you assume RESPONSIBILIY...for that weapon is indeed capable of reaching out and killing somebody at a far distance...thus One MUST handle and use it wisely.

    If we demand it from ourselves...why then do we not demand it from other people...and PUNISH SEVERLY those unable or unwilling to practice safety and responsibility with deadly weapons ?

    We don't punish the entire population for the acts committed by loathsome child molesters, rapists, or the guy that firebombed the nightclub a few years ago...
    Why then are gun owners willing to punish an entire population AND THEMSELVES...for the acts committed by a few ?

    What part of ;
    1; The Founders considered weapons the final control to tyranny;
    2; They left us instructions to never again allow restrictions on firearms;
    3 ;It is INSANITY to allow a government the power to control the controller.
    do You Not Understand ?

    Anti gunners are insane, cowards, or Quislings...and it matters not a whit if you have 500 guns and shoot everyday at the range.

    There IS NO GRAY areas in this matter. None at all.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:There IS NO GRAY areas in this matter. None at all.

    Truth spoken.

    Only those who look to create an alternate reality, frame the argument in a manner that bolsters their flawed position, choose to "work" within the commonly accepted "truth" of "gov't granted privilege", only these people see "grey" in a Natural-Right/God-given Right.

    The BOR's were put in place to enumerate these Natural-Rights and to set limits on what and how government could operate when dealing with the fundamental rights of America's citizens.

    Some of the Amendments deal with the limited manner in which government can intrude upon an individual, e.g. with consent, with a search warrant meeting strict court reviewed standards, limits even when someone is arrested/charged by government with a crime.

    Amendment I comes close to an absolute by its words.

    ONLY Amendment II is written in cold, stark language that leaves NO constitutional, or lawful room, for the intrusion of government in the RKBA.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Picture the scenario;
    The Alamo; The fight is in progress. Valiant men are fighting, defending the spirit of freedom.
    Against that backdrop, some of the faint-at-heart are busily throwing the bars open ..allowing the enemy into the fort through the back gate...

    Those, friends, are the Anti-gunners in your midst.. gun owners that support Beast control.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    HB,
    1. If this were a PERFECT world your PERFECT solution to this problem would work just fine. BUT, the REAL world, the rest of us live in, is not perfect. Therefore we REQUIRE some rules to try and keep some of this improfection in check.
    2. As you know, but refuse to admit, every right we had, have, or ever hope to have will require 'restrictions' because there are those, less perfect than you, who will use (abuse) the 'right' and they will violate the rights of others. THIS IS REALITY, even if you refuse to accept it.
    IN THIS WORLD THERE MUST BE RULES, like it or not. And they must be followed by the majority. If these rules become to restrictive the majority will not stand for it and changed will be forced, one way or another.
  • Little-AcornLittle-Acorn Member Posts: 103 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau

    1. If this were a PERFECT world your PERFECT solution to this problem would work just fine. BUT, the REAL world, the rest of us live in, is not perfect.
    I never said it was.

    I said that THE LAW was written in an "absolute" fashion, with no exceptions specified, and then I wondered aloud how the Framers must have intended the real world to take care of the exceptions that must obviously be allowed. I made up an extreme situation as an example.

    Lawmakers have taken the fact that exceptions must obviously be allowed, and used that FACT as an excuse to restrict weapons up the wazoo, in ways the Framers certainly didn't intend.

    I posited that the Framers must have intended for Common Sense (aka Jury Nullification in some circles) to make the exceptions. A jury or judge would be very hard pressed to convict the cop who took away the mass murderer's gun at the scene of the crime. But the 2nd amendment is written in such a way that its STRICT LANGUAGE certainly does not allow ANY governmental body anywhere in the U.S., from making ANY law restricting or taking away people's guns.

    A cop taking away an obvious criminals' weapon, would be excused by any person with any sense. But that act cannot be endorsed by any LAW... because once you give government the power to make ANY law taking away even an obviously-threatening criminal's weapon, they will expand that power into taking away weapons from people who are not threats and/or not criminals... in part by making other laws that create criminals to order.
  • rkba4everrkba4ever Member Posts: 815 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    HB,
    1. If this were a PERFECT world your PERFECT solution to this problem would work just fine. BUT, the REAL world, the rest of us live in, is not perfect. Therefore we REQUIRE some rules to try and keep some of this improfection in check.
    2. As you know, but refuse to admit, every right we had, have, or ever hope to have will require 'restrictions' because there are those, less perfect than you, who will use (abuse) the 'right' and they will violate the rights of others. THIS IS REALITY, even if you refuse to accept it.
    IN THIS WORLD THERE MUST BE RULES, like it or not. And they must be followed by the majority. If these rules become to restrictive the majority will not stand for it and changed will be forced, one way or another.


    But should we leave it for the government to decide what gets "restricted"? Doing that only encourages despotism, when they decide what you can and can't do you give them too much power to marginalize anyone who disagrees with "the gummint's" opinion. This is how we ended up in this posistion - we abdicated personal responsibility and left it to some agency to be the arbiters of how we, as a society, operate. They like the power to push people around, and they disarm us delibereately so we can no longer push back.

    Yes, society need rules to function, but to apply those rules to one set of people (law-abiding) and not the other (the criminal element) is not going to work. The laws are not working, since the repurcussions of criminal activity are not enough to deter the acts. So should I sacrifice liberty because of this? Should I be willing to "go along" with things I disagree with just so someone else feels better?

    Here is a quote from one of the founding fathers, and it applies to this day, as well as it did in his time and summs up succinctly the crux of the matter.

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764).
  • Little-AcornLittle-Acorn Member Posts: 103 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by rkba4ever
    But should we leave it for the government to decide what gets "restricted"?
    That's exactly the point.

    In some ways, the Constitution was written so that really important decision were made by those FARTHEST from the head of government. That's why the President has no say in the approval/rejection of a Constitutional amendment, and why one must be ratified by 3/4 of the states where only 2/3 of Congress (or a Constitutional Convention of the people) is needed.

    I believe that the Framers intended the people themselves, to be the the final (and only) arbiter of whether Joe Blow gets his guns taken away. If a cop takes the gun of the mass murderer, the people can excuse him by jury nullification, if some govt agency even bothers accusing him via indictment or whatever (probably wouldn't happen). But at the same time, a government that wants to legislate away gun rights, is met with a total, 100% ban on any such laws: the 2nd amendment.

    The framers deliberately put NO exceptions in the 2nd, relying on the people to "enact" their own on a case-by-case basis.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    Acorn,
    In theory this sounds good. But our legal system is 'flooded' now. How do you thing we could handle a system where everyone who disarmed another had to be tried? We could not. Again, reality!
    Those of us tasked with enforcing the law have to have and use (wisely) the descrestion to apply the law to the circumstances of any given incident. The conflict some refuse to admit, The letter of the law VS The spirit (intent) of the law. If you consider the Constitution the 'law of the land', the same applies here.
    The intent of the 2nd Amentment was not to allow, everyone, anywhere, any time to be armed. THE FOUND FATHERS HAD MORE COMMON SENSE THAN THAT![;)]
  • 45long45long Member Posts: 642 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Jim,,,,,, Exactly which people does the 2nd Admendment not allow ownership of firearms ?

    The intent of the 2nd Amentment was not to allow, everyone, anywhere, any time to be armed. THE FOUND FATHERS HAD MORE COMMON SENSE THAN THAT!

    I ask because I don't see that "intent" anywhere in the 2nd. What I do see is the statement that the right of the PEOPLE shall NOT be infringed. No where do I see the disclaimer that says, Except these people or those people. I am in Law Enforcement too. At the Federal level. And I still can't see where more gun laws or gun restrictions has done anything to protect the average law abiding citizen. If anything they have made the average citizen more likely to be victimized by a gun toteing criminal. Let me ask you this. Which of the 20,000 + or so gun laws currently on the books was supposed to be the magic bullet,(so to speak), and reduce crime and make us safer? Answer. All of them. Now. What law would YOU like passed that would prevent the next big,(or little), gun crime? THE ONE law that would save us all from ever having to worry about gun crime in this country.

    I can hardly wait for your reply.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    AW 45,
    First let me say we currently have way to many 'laws/restrictions' on our second amendmant right. [V][:(!]
    BUT, try and get two people to agree on just what laws/restrictions should be allowed and you have a fight on your hands. Now multiply that by millions and I thing you can see the PROBLEM.[xx(]
    If you look at the post where I used the 0 thru 10 explaination you can see where I am comming from. One of the points, which most can see, is those who have the 'everything or nothing' very ridged stance are going down in flames. Hopefully they will not cause as much damage to our cause as I think they will by giving those 'undecieds' a very negative impression of 'those gun nuts' (their words not mine).[:)]
  • 45long45long Member Posts: 642 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Jim,, I saw that point system thing. Sorry but I have to admit it was a bit over my head. Way to much to just say that most people don't care one way or another about anything that doesn't effect them directly. My point is What restrictions or laws currently on the books have helped in any significant way? No points to ponder.
    no 0-10 thing. Just tell me what laws and/or restrictions on the books have actually done ANYTHING besides regulate the law abiding citizen. Which ones have the criminals been so worried about that they won't violate it?

    See Jim, that is OUR point. Plain and simple. Since no law or restriction on gun ownership is effective in ANY WAY, they are not only a violation of the second admendment, but are a complete waste of time as they do not work. So if they do not work, then WHY have them in the first place when they only restrict a persons right to defend themselves should the need arise. Law abiding citizens should have the unrestricted ability to own whatever firearm they want.From 1934 to present day, NO GUN LAW HAS EVER HAD ANY EFFECT ON THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT. But they have had horrendous consequences on the law abiding public. If you could show me any instance where they have had the desired effect on violent crime, then I would be more willing agree with you. But you can't. Whether your talking about a full auto weapon or a 15 round magazine, neither one is any more dangerous than they person holding them.

    And it is the criminal element and the threat of an ever growing government that is the reason the founders wrote the 2nd without restrictions. Self protection and the tyrrany of government. They knew that someday, another revolution would come about. When that day came they wrote the 2nd so that the future citizens of this country would have the means to defend themselves and defend liberty against any and all who would come to take it from them. And I'm not talking about now. Or tomorrow. But someday, it will happen. Maybe in my life time. Maybe not. But it will happen. That's a fact. That is why the founders intended for the American people to have the ability to own small arms equal to the military. And today small arms means anything from a .22 to a 40mm plus. Now would many be going out and getting a 40mm weapon? No. Because the majority of people understand that they just do not have the where withall to get one or a place to shoot one. But would a lot of folks like a nice M4 ? Sure. Or one of the H&K varients? oh hell yeah. The 2nd was written so they could. WITHOUT RESTRICTION.

    And you never did tell me where the restrictions were that the founders intended. I have found that they were pretty plain spoken. They said what they meant and meant what they said. The Brit's figured that out. The ONLY restrictions placed on the 2nd have been put there by a government that is scared to death of it's citizens. Most in the last 50 years. And the result has been an increase,(not decrease), in violent crime. School shootings, people going postal at work. Gang violence. None of that was going when guns were more available and easier to get. Ponder that and get back to me.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    45,
    I have been down this road MANY times in the last week or so. You are asking the same old question I have address MANY TIMES.[:(][|)]
    Go back and read the 100+ post I have made in the last ten or so days, I am tired of reapeating myself.[;)]
  • 45long45long Member Posts: 642 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Jim,,, I have read them,(or many of your posts), and you still have not answered my two questions. What law or restriction would you pass or is currently on the books that has had an impact on gun crime? Second, where in the 2nd Amdmendment does it exclude certain people from keeping and bareing arms? You brought up the idea that the founders "intent of the 2nd Amentment was not to allow, everyone, anywhere, any time to be armed. THE FOUND FATHERS HAD MORE COMMON SENSE THAN THAT!" I am simply asking where do they say that? I have read some of the Federalist Papers on the 2nd and I haven't seen it there either. In fact I have seen the opposit.

    Your the one saying that certain restrictions are needed for the good of all and that is what the founders intended. I'm saying that is not true. And I'm asking you to show me your evidence to support your argument. And I will except antidotal evidence. I'm not one of those guys that HAS to have absolute proof from some highly educated scholar. Just show me something. So far your falling on your face. Head beating not withstanding.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    Correct that to 300+ posts.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    300 posts of pro-NRA nonsense. The same sort of drivel we have been treated to for 40 years of my life.

    Utter rejection, from my viewpoint.

    The only thing you and yours have gotten us is more rules, regulations and laws.

    I thought we were dealing with a reasonable man. We are dealing with a mouthpiece for the NRA..which is nothing more then a conduit of governmental agression and tyranny.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    No, HB, 300+ posts about the reality of OUR situation. I think the NRA needs alot of improvemnet!![;)]
    You just have to keep 'preaching' to the choir, does it make you feel better??

    Get off your butt and go get more people to join the fight. I think those on this site;
    1. Have heard your rant MANY times. [}:)]
    2. Those here are already supporters of the RTKABA.
    You need to reach outside of the 'circle' and increase our numbers![:)]
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:Those here are already supporters of the RTKABA.

    No, Jim...YOU ARE NOT.

    You support governmental control of weapons..and the two are mutually EXCLUSIVE !!
    MOST of the people on GB support gun control...and if we cannot educate THEM..what chance do we have with non-gun owners ?

    You cry and whine about my abusive behavior...yet we have VERY erudite individuals on here that are perfectly capable of carrying on conversations in drawing rooms with their little pinkie stuck out.
    THAT method struggles to gain a foothold against the raising tide of stupidity and ignorance in the gun world.

    I prefer My method, thank you very much. Strong men cutting to the heart of the matter...and piss on the cowards that flee at the first tone of a raised voice.

    What do you suppose will happen when first shot is fired to those pezants, Jim...just what you think will happen among those of us with strong arguments.

    And, Jim...I love it when the enemy underestimates the strength and resilience of an adversary....I really do.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    HB,
    Obama and you are alot alike.
    You both have the gift of gab, very little else. But you both sure have a way with words. But actions speak louder than words. But I guess that don't matter as long as the ones who beleive as do give you alot of applause![:D]
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    And you, Jim are a lot like mccain;
    Both leave loops in the sand behind you as you move thru life...and the smell of snake is strong.

    Unlike you and mccain, I don't pretend to be what I am not.Tell me again, J.M., how you enjoy crawling on your belly begging Daddy to buy a gun.
    I always enjoy listening to strong, tough men explain how they filled out the paperwork and 'by god bought that gun and took 'er home with them'....dusting off their belly as they did so.
    [xx(][xx(]
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    No, you HB, and many others are the pretenders. You hide behind funny names on the internet, will not say where you are, then spout off and then run and hide again. You may fool some of the folks just like you, but I can spot an 'internet hero/wnatabe', and you are one of them. This is why I ask Jeff (whom is one of the few here I have respect for) to verify (For his own use) that I was not one of those people 'hiding' in the computer like you and your other friends with there cute little names and lotaced 'where', they won't say because they are afraid like you.
    You must enjoy hiding from reality.
    Fight, you don't have a clue about the fight. [|)][|)]
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Tell me again, J.R., how you enjoy crawling on your belly begging daddy for permission to buy the means to defend you and your loved ones;
    Tell me again how "Shall Not Be Infringed" has no bearing on that.

    What you think about me means zero.
    What you think about the Second Amendment is the important thing, here....
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    I almost believe that TrFox is back...and feeding you.

    These are precisely the same arguments he uses ...and they are just as wrong now as they were several years ago when we had exactly the same discussions.

    I firmly believe that gun control is a mental illness. The symptoms are exactly the same, from one gun controller to another.

    I had expected, by the intelligence of some of your posts, that reason would eventually carry the day for you.

    It is readily apparent that it not to be so.
    It just proves something I have known for many years...intelligence alone is not enough. There must be something additional inside a man..or else we would not see so many anti-gun otherwise smart men.

    The problem,of course....some vital ingredient that made up the Founders is missing in these people.



    No, tr fox is not "back" as I don't wish to hang out with a band of keyboard kommandos who are always preaching revolution from the safety of their keyboard. I at least, even if I am backing the wrong horse, am out there sacrificing at least a little of my time, money and effort to at least try and DO SOMETHING to help save our gun rights.

    But to respond to this thread, since my name was mentioned. If anyone can name me even one of the rights described in the bill of rights that is ABSOLUTE, then you win this argument.

    As long as there are two or more people on the planet, neither one can have ABSOLUTE rights without violating the rights of the other people.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    I almost believe that TrFox is back...and feeding you.

    These are precisely the same arguments he uses ...and they are just as wrong now as they were several years ago when we had exactly the same discussions.

    I firmly believe that gun control is a mental illness. The symptoms are exactly the same, from one gun controller to another.

    I had expected, by the intelligence of some of your posts, that reason would eventually carry the day for you.

    It is readily apparent that it not to be so.
    It just proves something I have known for many years...intelligence alone is not enough. There must be something additional inside a man..or else we would not see so many anti-gun otherwise smart men.

    The problem,of course....some vital ingredient that made up the Founders is missing in these people.



    No, tr fox is not "back" as I don't wish to hang out with a band of keyboard kommandos who are always preaching revolution from the safety of their keyboard. I at least, even if I am backing the wrong horse, am out there sacrificing at least a little of my time, money and effort to at least try and DO SOMETHING to help save our gun rights.

    But to respond to this thread, since my name was mentioned. If anyone can name me even one of the rights described in the bill of rights that is ABSOLUTE, then you win this argument.

    As long as there are two or more people on the planet, neither one can have ABSOLUTE rights without violating the rights of the other people.


    Good Lord!

    One small point, if I may.

    Reference keeping and bearing arms, unless their is a MISUSE, or BAD ACT committed with said arm, there is no issue.

    The keeping and bearing needs no restriction.

    "Shall not be infringed". That seem about as absolute as anything could possibly be.

    Go read the remainder of the BOR's. You will see that Amendment II is deliberately written in the 'absolute'. Other amendments have a process outlined, by which government can intrude for cause.

    There is a reason for that. Think about it.

    Tr, your argument, as usual, is flawed and hollow.

    One final point. You keep tossing out that people are "preaching revolution", when all I see is a debate over philosophy and ideas.

    Misdirection and diversion at work ladies and gentlemen. Of course, it DOES give a certain poster the 'cover' he needs to keep his head down in this argument.

    Go figure....
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,998
    edited November -1
    originally posted by trfox:

    If anyone can name me even one of the rights described in the bill of rights that is ABSOLUTE, then you win this argument.


    Amendment II

    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.


    Tr,

    Ask and ye shall receive. Please tell me what I have won. Thanks.[:D]
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,998
    edited November -1
    Dammit Captain, you beat me to it!!![:D]
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    Dammit Captain, you beat me to it!!![:D]


    [:D][:D][:D]You know what they say ws. Only the quick survive.[:o)][:D]

    Such a target rich environment when ol' tr darts in for a hit and run "commentary".
Sign In or Register to comment.