In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Thank you, HB, for placing the bait. Brilliant move.[:D]
Captain,
You must have a full-auto keyboard. Did you go through the proper channels to get it? Paperwork? Tax? You know we have restrictions in this civilized society to save us from ourselves.[:D]
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
Thank you, HB, for placing the bait. Brilliant move.[:D]
Captain,
You must have a full-auto keyboard. Did you go through the proper channels to get it? Paperwork? Tax? You know we have restrictions in this civilized society to save us from ourselves.[:D]
A hearty thanks to you also Highball. A trap baited, waited on, sprung and an ol' fox hung, dried and stretched. One fox hide, nailed to the barn door.[:D][:D]
Shane, Sometimes I just open a thread and there it is, perfect opportunity. The thoughts flow into written words as smooth as a young lass' bottom and, well, what can I say; damn it, I just enjoy a good, effective riposte.[:D][:o)]
A good evening to you both, my good forum friends.[;)]
Perfect, and/or absolute are only found in the minds of man. They do not occur anywhere, any time in the real world! [V]
Just another fact those of you who are in denial refuse to admit!
I guess one of the reasons I am still at it here is becasue I HATE bullies![;)]
quote: guess one of the reasons I am still at it here is becasue I HATE bullies!
So tell me, J.R.;
What do you call the Founders, then ?
Honestly, J.R.. This is yet another example of your persistence in kicking up dust and screaming, attempting to throw your opponents into a bad light.
You see, even a LITTLE thought would reveal that those of us advocating "Shall Not Be Infringed" are inclined to be gentlemen...unlikely to bully ANYBODY. One just would never KNOW when being an * could get you shot.
Now...you mean that we are insisting on the letter of the Constitution...the LAW of the Land, by the way...well..one should think that EVERY American should also insist upon that.
Now.if you TRULY `hated bullys'..you would be directing your wrath towards the Congress and President...for THEY are the people contravening the Constitution....and sending out their `bully boys' to KILL anybody resisting anti-Constitutional laws.
See, Jim...you just have trouble with words...and facts.
HB,
If you think the 'founders' were perfect you really have lost touch with reality. They were human just like the rest of us. The only perfect person to walk on earth was crusified!!![V]
I wish you would contribute to the discussion rather than rant and make insulting and/or demeaning remarks about those who don't see eye to eye with you.[8D]
But I guess you get more attention doing it your way and we know you have to have that attention, don't we?????
It's not about drawing attention to himself. I answered this for you over in GD, but you must have missed it. Here's the analogy again; maybe you will understand:
HB has simply stated the truth regarding the RTKBA and the stances some folks take against it, i.e. being "for" some control. Let me see if I can give you an analogy to help you understand where he's coming from:
Imagine, if you will, a house. There are lots of folks living in this house, about 34 of them. It's a good house, plenty of room, and everyone really enjoys living there. Over time, the house starts showing it's age, because the routine maintenance required to keep it in good order has been ignored by everyone living there, save one, or about 3%. While this one invidual (or 3% of the persons living there) has done what he can to repair the house, more needs to be done to keep it standing. This one individual tells the others living there, "Hey, we've gotta fix this place, or it's going to collapse!" He tells the others this day after day, week after week, but they do not listen. They are content with a little disrepair, believing the house is sound enough to stand. More time goes by, and the house starts to crumble. The one person in the house who has tried to fix it once again tries to rally the others to help repair it, but his pleas go unanswered. This becomes very frustrating......
Jim, I could go on and on, but do you see what I'm getting at? Eventually, the house will collapse, and those who accepted the dilapidation here and there will be standing around, scratching their heads and saying, "Wonder how that happened?" Then, it will be too late to repair the house. It will be demolished, and only through the hard efforts of a few will it be rebuilt.
WS,
Let us assume your assment of HB is correct. Why then does he continue to rant and insult and not contribue to the discussion? I'll tell you why, he thrives on ours and others praise and attention. Nothing more, nothing less.
He is doing nothing to further your viewes. I heard him the first time.
You and Jeff continue to discuss what you feel is 'right' and I contiune to agree with you in that I would like to see the constitutions much more strickly held to. Where we differ is in the means need to accomplish this.
That said, please answer the question I ask earlier, PLEASE, with suger on it.[;)]
Which question. You have asked many. Specify, and I will give you an answer.
You and Jeff continue to discuss what you feel is 'right'
Jim,
It's not about what we 'feel'; it's about what 'is'. What 'is', is the unrestricted/unregulated absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms. That's it. That's all there is.
ws,
I apoligize. We have so many threads going I am loosing track of them.[:X]
I ask you if you would like to see all the states follow the lead of Alaska and reconize the right to CCW, on one of the other threads.
This is the question I would like a simple answer to.[:)]
Well, even though you will not admit it, this occured becasue people, like me, got the law changed. Not once, but twice. [;)]
Like I just said, I will contiune the fight on this 'low road' as some have called it. You can stick to the 'high road' and lets see who gets the job done. I only hope the problems you 'high roaders' cause will not lose it all for all of us.[xx(]
WS,
Do you now see where I am comming from? Did HB reply add anything to your argument? Insults and personal attacks, for some unk reason, seem to casue people the move to the other side.
Jim,
You earned it.
You see Jim, while only 35 and not as seasoned as some, I can clearly see the tactic you are employing; divide and conquer.
However, it has failed, and failed miserably.
The man you speak of is a patriot in every sense of the word. I have read time and time again where he has attempted to warn the sheepish masses. Some listen, and some do not. Some are too apathetic to care.
I have no doubt why you harbor the feelings you do. You see, Jim, there are those who have the stomach to handle the truth, and exactly what that truth means. Others become weak and nauseated at the mere mention of the truth.
Those men who have the same yearning for liberty and freedom as the Founders know exactly where HB is coming from.
WS,
Boy do you have it 'bass akward' as my mom would say. This is exactly what you and those with the 'everything or nothing' stance are doing.[:(]
Any one, reguardless of how much they beleive in and support the 2nd Ammentment, who do not agree compleatly with you and yours come under attack from your little click here. Me included. Well as you can see I don't intimade as easaly as those who have chossen to just ignore your stance after you have attacked them. By attacking them and makeing those negative statements about them and the organizations or people they support, you lose creditability, and it has a dividing effect on 'gun people', who all, to one degree or another do not support the anti-gun agenda.[:(]
If you refuse to see this you are truly blinded by your emotion for your cause.[xx(]
quote:If you refuse to see this you are truly blinded by your emotion for your cause.
Jim, sadly, you can apply your own statement to your own arguments. Blinded..........I'd say so.
Let's argue for the audience, but please quit trying to change the mind of the one we argue with. You position and mine are cemented and not movable.
Frame the argument for the audience, it is less aggravating that way and you won't feel that it is a personal attack when a point of disagreement is raised.
WS,
Boy do you have it 'bass akward' as my mom would say. This is exactly what you and those with the 'everything or nothing' stance are doing.
Any one, reguardless of how much they beleive in and support the 2nd Ammentment, who do not agree compleatly with you and yours come under attack from your little click here. Me included.
You support the RTKBA or you don't. Period. There is no middle ground, and no room for those lacking spines who would like to straddle the issue.
Well as you can see I don't intimade as easaly as those who have chossen to just ignore your stance after you have attacked them.
Do you think it may be the message that intimidates (or indicts), and not the messenger?
By attacking them and makeing those negative statements about them and the organizations or people they support has a dividing effect on 'gun people',
No Jim, you have it "bass ackward." It is the truth that divides. On one side, there are those who believe in no restriction of a right. On the other side, there are those who believe in restriction/regulation, be it minimal or an all out prohibition. There is a distinct line in between. I have chosen my side, as have you, and we are facing each other.
who all, to one degree or another do not support the anti-gun agenda.
Once again, Jim, you either support the RTKBA or you do not.
If you refuse to see this you are truly blinded by your emotion for your cause.
It's not emotion; it's passion and a love for individual liberty.
Wrong Jeff, there in lies the differance. I have learned to adapt ( not cemented) and continue the fight, your stance does not allow you to adapt (cemented).[;)]
Adaptation is the key to survival![xx(]
I have been VERY close to death several times, but I adapted and was here to fight another day. I learned a valuable lesson from life. I hope you and others see this before it's to late for you.
If your position is the one needed to win the fight, GOD forbid, I will stand right beside you locked and loaded![:)]
USA
1315 Posts
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 4:40:00 PM
Well, even though you will not admit it, this occured becasue people, like me, got the law changed. Not once, but twice.
Like I just said, I will contiune the fight on this 'low road' as some have called it. You can stick to the 'high road' and lets see who gets the job done. I only hope the problems you 'high roaders' cause will not lose it all for all of us.
"......the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Well...I am so glad you were there at the Constitutional Convention to get that changed.
It is the low-road'ers who are giving it away piecemeal. We will not lose it for you, we are the ones standing to oppose you losing ("compromising" it away) for the rest of us. How can you not see it? Compromise means "to meet in the middle". Now, when we give ground (call it compromise) please show where the opposing side gives ground. They call it a compromise when they don't confiscate?? That is the position they start from.(Everytime) Funny how we are the ones with the Constitution backing us, and we give ground. They have nothing backing them except "feeling", and we cow to them??? I don't get it.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Wrong Jeff, there in lies the differance. I have learned to adapt ( not cemented) and continue the fight, your stance does not allow you to adapt (cemented).[;)]
Adaptation is the key to survival![xx(]
I have been VERY close to death several times, but I adapted and was here to fight another day. I learned a valuable lesson from life. I hope you and others see this before it's to late for you.
If your position is the one needed to win the fight, GOD forbid, I will stand right beside you locked and loaded![:)]
Well, at least you admit, your values sway with the wind.
NOT everyone has the fortitude to have a moral compass.
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Jim Rau
Senior Member
USA
1315 Posts
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 4:40:00 PM
Well, even though you will not admit it, this occured becasue people, like me, got the law changed. Not once, but twice.
Like I just said, I will contiune the fight on this 'low road' as some have called it. You can stick to the 'high road' and lets see who gets the job done. I only hope the problems you 'high roaders' cause will not lose it all for all of us.
"......the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Well...I am so glad you were there at the Constitutional Convention to get that changed.
It is the low-road'ers who are giving it away piecemeal. We will not lose it for you, we are the ones standing to oppose you losing ("compromising" it away) for the rest of us. How can you not see it? Compromise means "to meet in the middle". Now, when we give ground (call it compromise) please show where the opposing side gives ground. They call it a compromise when they don't confiscate?? That is the position they start from.(Everytime) Funny how we are the ones with the Constitution backing us, and we give ground. They have nothing backing them except "feeling", and we cow to them??? I don't get it.
JP, I have said this MANY times myself. I don't get it either. WHAT EXACTLY are the anti-gunner giving up? NOTHING I can see.
By the by, how are things lately? Hope all is relatively well.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Wrong Jeff, there in lies the differance. I have learned to adapt ( not cemented) and continue the fight, your stance does not allow you to adapt (cemented).[;)]
Adaptation is the key to survival![xx(]
I have been VERY close to death several times, but I adapted and was here to fight another day. I learned a valuable lesson from life. I hope you and others see this before it's to late for you.
If your position is the one needed to win the fight, GOD forbid, I will stand right beside you locked and loaded![:)]
Advocacy of fundamental rights and freedoms is far different than 'life and death' on the battlefield, or on the streets Jim.
I too have learned and lived to tell about it.
My stance on an issue could change, IF logic and appropriateness dictated such change, or adaptability.
Where it comes to the principals of individualism and the Constitution, I have no need to adapt. The truth and what is right NEVER changes.
Adapting to hazardous circumstances simply can not be logically equated to the issue of ones beliefs about fundamental questions of freedom and the proper role and authority of government.
I'll be looking for you if and when that dreaded day ever arrives and I expect that at that point, you'll have come to realize the truth of the 'bottom-line' and will be where you should be, shoulder to shoulder with those of us who have been there all along.
I fully expect this argument to rage after we regain freedom in this country...and there may well be people shot over it, as tempers flare in meeting halls.
The question always before us; How much controls should a government ..City, State, Federal..have on weapons.
I believe that the answer is, of course, NONE...but rather involves the upgrading of the Justice System.
Vicious animals MUST be thinned out ..and that by execution. Those misusing weapons MUST be forced to pay at a level in direct proportion to their crime ..from death to rock piles for however many years.
This presupposes that Judges, Lawyers, and Police are honest...and the penalty for corruption should be death.
Given an effective, honest Justice System, one can give the Police the authority to handle problems as they should be...and sometimes that is with a Billie club behind the local barn. Sometimes people must be convinced to stop bothering other folks ..and prison is not always the answer needed.
There will be areas to fill in...but the broad brush strokes above are MY answer to the loses of freedom we are experiencing...for a government that fears an armed citizenry is an HONEST government.
Were I to live through the hard times...those are the actions I would be demanding, down at the town hall....and I would be armed with a .45 and a FAL as I did so.
I am sorry Wolf, your question must have gotten lost in the rant, what was it?[?]
Jeff,
My values and goals haven't changed, but my methods of acheiving them have!
No, if it comes down to the need to start shooten, I am there. But I will remain firm in my values and goals, but flexable in my methods of acheiving them.[;)]
This is where we differ.
What I cannot 'grasp' is your embracing of this or that gun control..while supposedly fighting against gun control.
Once again..it is possible to live in the enemies camp and work from within; But adopting the enemies position for your personal beliefs is a trainwreck.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:But you can't seem to grasp this
What I cannot 'grasp' is your embracing of this or that gun control..while supposedly fighting against gun control.
Once again..it is possible to live in the enemies camp and work from within; But adopting the enemies position for your personal beliefs is a trainwreck.
But in reality Highball, folks like him want to be accepted by the masses. For his type IMO, it isn't really about rights, it is about self gratifaction. "Look at me! I am DOING something for gun rights! WHAT are you doing!?"
We hear the SAME thing from TR, only packaged a bit different. [xx(]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Well, even though you will not admit it, this occured becasue people, like me, got the law changed. Not once, but twice. [;)]
Many times I have used the state of Alaska (and Vermont) as an example.
Alaska FINALLY recognized the RIGHT of the people to BEAR ARMS.
Yes, the first law passed gave the citizens "government regulated" PERMISSION, to bear arms.
That in itself would have been the end of it, IF left up to the "we have to have (some) restrictions" crowd.
As proven in other parts of the country.
What happened NEXT, is where the hard core "CONSTITUTIONAL" group, came into play.
They said NO, your "government regulated" PERMISSION, is NOT good enough.
We citizens, want you (the government) to recognize our RIGHT to bear arms.
WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION!
Does ANYONE REALLY think that without the "CONSTITUTIONAL" group, Alaska would have passed a law, recognizing this right, guaranteed by the constitution?
The FACT that Alaska DID pass such a law, in this day and age, BECAUSE the "CONSTITUTIONAL" group kept fighting for it, tells me that it CAN happen elsewhere. IF the "CONSTITUTIONAL" group is willing to band together, stand strong in their beliefs, and fight for it.
quote:Jim Rau Posted - 09/01/2008 : 7:13:05 PM
I am sorry Wolf, your question must have gotten lost in the rant, what was it?
Once more.................................
quote:
Jim Rau
Senior Member
USA
1315 Posts
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 4:40:00 PM
Well, even though you will not admit it, this occured becasue people, like me, got the law changed. Not once, but twice.
Like I just said, I will contiune the fight on this 'low road' as some have called it. You can stick to the 'high road' and lets see who gets the job done. I only hope the problems you 'high roaders' cause will not lose it all for all of us.
"......the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Well...I am so glad you were there at the Constitutional Convention to get that changed.
It is the low-road'ers who are giving it away piecemeal. We will not lose it for you, we are the ones standing to oppose you losing ("compromising" it away) for the rest of us. How can you not see it? Compromise means "to meet in the middle". Now, when we give ground (call it compromise) please show where the opposing side gives ground. They call it a compromise when they don't confiscate?? That is the position they start from everytime, as if that is what the Constitution says. Funny how we are the ones with the Constitution backing us, and we give ground. They have nothing backing them except "feeling", and we cow to them??? I don't get it.
quote:Jim Rau
Senior Member
USA
1334 Posts
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 3:23:55 PM
ws,
I apoligize. We have so many threads going I am loosing track of them.
I ask you if you would like to see all the states follow the lead of Alaska and reconize the right to CCW.....
You see JR, CCW is already guaranteed in the BOR #2,(in red above) and there should not even be a battle to have a state "recognize" it, it is a given because of the BOR. But allowing it to be specialized (controlled) turns it into a privilege, so what's to be proud of? Again give ground by allowing it to be controlled when the Constitution already backed you up saying you could do it as a right. What did we get in return. NOTHING, because they have nothing to give...they are on the wrong side with no political capital because none exists for them. It is is a total illusion. A little at a time is all they want because since they have nothing to offer but the illusion that they have something to trade, they can't make a big move or it would become more obvious that they have nothing to trade in this so-called compromise. To them (and the NRA), compromise is "we will infringe on you less, and ignore the constitution less, if you agree to give up some of your freedom and turn it into a privilege." Sound like a good trade to you Jim? Do you see that they start from the flawed position of nothing "real" to trade? The Constitution backs us fully, and them none. You see?
Perhaps the Founding Fathers believed in swift, decisive retribution for crimes after they were committed rather than trying to prevent them from happening by penalizing all citizens in advance, making the right to keep and bear arms and the right to a swift trial exclusive.
The guy on a shooting spree was in commission of a crime, so it seems to me that his right to firearms ownership should be suspended until his trial was completed.
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Perhaps the Founding Fathers believed in swift, decisive retribution for crimes after they were committed rather than trying to prevent them from happening by penalizing all citizens in advance, making the right to keep and bear arms and the right to a swift trial exclusive.
The guy on a shooting spree was in commission of a crime, so it seems to me that his right to firearms ownership should be suspended until his trial was completed.
Uh......that would be one of those "gun control laws" that the rebels here will not allow.
Perhaps the Founding Fathers believed in swift, decisive retribution for crimes after they were committed rather than trying to prevent them from happening by penalizing all citizens in advance, making the right to keep and bear arms and the right to a swift trial exclusive.
The guy on a shooting spree was in commission of a crime, so it seems to me that his right to firearms ownership should be suspended until his trial was completed.
Uh......that would be one of those "gun control laws" that the rebels here will not allow.
Um, trfox;
Originally posted by tr fox on 04/06/2008
It will be a cold day in hell before you see me reading or posting on the gun rights forum part of GB.com.
Comments
Golly, that was fun...and I never had to rebut at all..[:D]
The swift brown fox ain't swift enough any more to keep his tail intact...
This observing of incoming fire right on a tattered brown coat is plumb addi[:0]ctive !!!
Captain,
You must have a full-auto keyboard. Did you go through the proper channels to get it? Paperwork? Tax? You know we have restrictions in this civilized society to save us from ourselves.[:D]
Thank you, HB, for placing the bait. Brilliant move.[:D]
Captain,
You must have a full-auto keyboard. Did you go through the proper channels to get it? Paperwork? Tax? You know we have restrictions in this civilized society to save us from ourselves.[:D]
A hearty thanks to you also Highball. A trap baited, waited on, sprung and an ol' fox hung, dried and stretched. One fox hide, nailed to the barn door.[:D][:D]
Shane, Sometimes I just open a thread and there it is, perfect opportunity. The thoughts flow into written words as smooth as a young lass' bottom and, well, what can I say; damn it, I just enjoy a good, effective riposte.[:D][:o)]
A good evening to you both, my good forum friends.[;)]
and a good one to you sir, and to you HB, "the mad trapper"[;)][:D]
Just another fact those of you who are in denial refuse to admit!
I guess one of the reasons I am still at it here is becasue I HATE bullies![;)]
So tell me, J.R.;
What do you call the Founders, then ?
Honestly, J.R.. This is yet another example of your persistence in kicking up dust and screaming, attempting to throw your opponents into a bad light.
You see, even a LITTLE thought would reveal that those of us advocating "Shall Not Be Infringed" are inclined to be gentlemen...unlikely to bully ANYBODY. One just would never KNOW when being an * could get you shot.
Now...you mean that we are insisting on the letter of the Constitution...the LAW of the Land, by the way...well..one should think that EVERY American should also insist upon that.
Now.if you TRULY `hated bullys'..you would be directing your wrath towards the Congress and President...for THEY are the people contravening the Constitution....and sending out their `bully boys' to KILL anybody resisting anti-Constitutional laws.
See, Jim...you just have trouble with words...and facts.
If you think the 'founders' were perfect you really have lost touch with reality. They were human just like the rest of us. The only perfect person to walk on earth was crusified!!![V]
I wish you would contribute to the discussion rather than rant and make insulting and/or demeaning remarks about those who don't see eye to eye with you.[8D]
But I guess you get more attention doing it your way and we know you have to have that attention, don't we?????
It's not about drawing attention to himself. I answered this for you over in GD, but you must have missed it. Here's the analogy again; maybe you will understand:
HB has simply stated the truth regarding the RTKBA and the stances some folks take against it, i.e. being "for" some control. Let me see if I can give you an analogy to help you understand where he's coming from:
Imagine, if you will, a house. There are lots of folks living in this house, about 34 of them. It's a good house, plenty of room, and everyone really enjoys living there. Over time, the house starts showing it's age, because the routine maintenance required to keep it in good order has been ignored by everyone living there, save one, or about 3%. While this one invidual (or 3% of the persons living there) has done what he can to repair the house, more needs to be done to keep it standing. This one individual tells the others living there, "Hey, we've gotta fix this place, or it's going to collapse!" He tells the others this day after day, week after week, but they do not listen. They are content with a little disrepair, believing the house is sound enough to stand. More time goes by, and the house starts to crumble. The one person in the house who has tried to fix it once again tries to rally the others to help repair it, but his pleas go unanswered. This becomes very frustrating......
Jim, I could go on and on, but do you see what I'm getting at? Eventually, the house will collapse, and those who accepted the dilapidation here and there will be standing around, scratching their heads and saying, "Wonder how that happened?" Then, it will be too late to repair the house. It will be demolished, and only through the hard efforts of a few will it be rebuilt.
Let us assume your assment of HB is correct. Why then does he continue to rant and insult and not contribue to the discussion? I'll tell you why, he thrives on ours and others praise and attention. Nothing more, nothing less.
He is doing nothing to further your viewes. I heard him the first time.
You and Jeff continue to discuss what you feel is 'right' and I contiune to agree with you in that I would like to see the constitutions much more strickly held to. Where we differ is in the means need to accomplish this.
That said, please answer the question I ask earlier, PLEASE, with suger on it.[;)]
Which question. You have asked many. Specify, and I will give you an answer.
You and Jeff continue to discuss what you feel is 'right'
Jim,
It's not about what we 'feel'; it's about what 'is'. What 'is', is the unrestricted/unregulated absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms. That's it. That's all there is.
I apoligize. We have so many threads going I am loosing track of them.[:X]
I ask you if you would like to see all the states follow the lead of Alaska and reconize the right to CCW, on one of the other threads.
This is the question I would like a simple answer to.[:)]
Like I just said, I will contiune the fight on this 'low road' as some have called it. You can stick to the 'high road' and lets see who gets the job done. I only hope the problems you 'high roaders' cause will not lose it all for all of us.[xx(]
Let us get back to the basics;
Which form of gun control do you support ?
Do you now see where I am comming from? Did HB reply add anything to your argument? Insults and personal attacks, for some unk reason, seem to casue people the move to the other side.
Jim,
You earned it.
You see Jim, while only 35 and not as seasoned as some, I can clearly see the tactic you are employing; divide and conquer.
However, it has failed, and failed miserably.
The man you speak of is a patriot in every sense of the word. I have read time and time again where he has attempted to warn the sheepish masses. Some listen, and some do not. Some are too apathetic to care.
I have no doubt why you harbor the feelings you do. You see, Jim, there are those who have the stomach to handle the truth, and exactly what that truth means. Others become weak and nauseated at the mere mention of the truth.
Those men who have the same yearning for liberty and freedom as the Founders know exactly where HB is coming from.
I stand with him.
Boy do you have it 'bass akward' as my mom would say. This is exactly what you and those with the 'everything or nothing' stance are doing.[:(]
Any one, reguardless of how much they beleive in and support the 2nd Ammentment, who do not agree compleatly with you and yours come under attack from your little click here. Me included. Well as you can see I don't intimade as easaly as those who have chossen to just ignore your stance after you have attacked them. By attacking them and makeing those negative statements about them and the organizations or people they support, you lose creditability, and it has a dividing effect on 'gun people', who all, to one degree or another do not support the anti-gun agenda.[:(]
If you refuse to see this you are truly blinded by your emotion for your cause.[xx(]
Jim, sadly, you can apply your own statement to your own arguments. Blinded..........I'd say so.
Let's argue for the audience, but please quit trying to change the mind of the one we argue with. You position and mine are cemented and not movable.
Frame the argument for the audience, it is less aggravating that way and you won't feel that it is a personal attack when a point of disagreement is raised.
Just a thought.
WS,
Boy do you have it 'bass akward' as my mom would say. This is exactly what you and those with the 'everything or nothing' stance are doing.
Any one, reguardless of how much they beleive in and support the 2nd Ammentment, who do not agree compleatly with you and yours come under attack from your little click here. Me included.
You support the RTKBA or you don't. Period. There is no middle ground, and no room for those lacking spines who would like to straddle the issue.
Well as you can see I don't intimade as easaly as those who have chossen to just ignore your stance after you have attacked them.
Do you think it may be the message that intimidates (or indicts), and not the messenger?
By attacking them and makeing those negative statements about them and the organizations or people they support has a dividing effect on 'gun people',
No Jim, you have it "bass ackward." It is the truth that divides. On one side, there are those who believe in no restriction of a right. On the other side, there are those who believe in restriction/regulation, be it minimal or an all out prohibition. There is a distinct line in between. I have chosen my side, as have you, and we are facing each other.
who all, to one degree or another do not support the anti-gun agenda.
Once again, Jim, you either support the RTKBA or you do not.
If you refuse to see this you are truly blinded by your emotion for your cause.
It's not emotion; it's passion and a love for individual liberty.
Adaptation is the key to survival![xx(]
I have been VERY close to death several times, but I adapted and was here to fight another day. I learned a valuable lesson from life. I hope you and others see this before it's to late for you.
If your position is the one needed to win the fight, GOD forbid, I will stand right beside you locked and loaded![:)]
Senior Member
USA
1315 Posts
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 4:40:00 PM
Well, even though you will not admit it, this occured becasue people, like me, got the law changed. Not once, but twice.
Like I just said, I will contiune the fight on this 'low road' as some have called it. You can stick to the 'high road' and lets see who gets the job done. I only hope the problems you 'high roaders' cause will not lose it all for all of us.
"......the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Well...I am so glad you were there at the Constitutional Convention to get that changed.
It is the low-road'ers who are giving it away piecemeal. We will not lose it for you, we are the ones standing to oppose you losing ("compromising" it away) for the rest of us. How can you not see it? Compromise means "to meet in the middle". Now, when we give ground (call it compromise) please show where the opposing side gives ground. They call it a compromise when they don't confiscate?? That is the position they start from.(Everytime) Funny how we are the ones with the Constitution backing us, and we give ground. They have nothing backing them except "feeling", and we cow to them??? I don't get it.
Wrong Jeff, there in lies the differance. I have learned to adapt ( not cemented) and continue the fight, your stance does not allow you to adapt (cemented).[;)]
Adaptation is the key to survival![xx(]
I have been VERY close to death several times, but I adapted and was here to fight another day. I learned a valuable lesson from life. I hope you and others see this before it's to late for you.
If your position is the one needed to win the fight, GOD forbid, I will stand right beside you locked and loaded![:)]
Well, at least you admit, your values sway with the wind.
NOT everyone has the fortitude to have a moral compass.
Your a patriot all right. SUNSHINE patriot.
quote:Jim Rau
Senior Member
USA
1315 Posts
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 4:40:00 PM
Well, even though you will not admit it, this occured becasue people, like me, got the law changed. Not once, but twice.
Like I just said, I will contiune the fight on this 'low road' as some have called it. You can stick to the 'high road' and lets see who gets the job done. I only hope the problems you 'high roaders' cause will not lose it all for all of us.
"......the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Well...I am so glad you were there at the Constitutional Convention to get that changed.
It is the low-road'ers who are giving it away piecemeal. We will not lose it for you, we are the ones standing to oppose you losing ("compromising" it away) for the rest of us. How can you not see it? Compromise means "to meet in the middle". Now, when we give ground (call it compromise) please show where the opposing side gives ground. They call it a compromise when they don't confiscate?? That is the position they start from.(Everytime) Funny how we are the ones with the Constitution backing us, and we give ground. They have nothing backing them except "feeling", and we cow to them??? I don't get it.
JP, I have said this MANY times myself. I don't get it either. WHAT EXACTLY are the anti-gunner giving up? NOTHING I can see.
By the by, how are things lately? Hope all is relatively well.
My values don't wavier, but my methods do adapt![;)]
Lips still sewed in the middle?
All I hear is YOU talking out of BOTH sides of your mouth again.
Can you adapt to answering the questions I put to you?
Off topic,......but nice to see you back JP![:D][;)]
Get some extra strength Ibuprofin before you enter into this.
Wrong Jeff, there in lies the differance. I have learned to adapt ( not cemented) and continue the fight, your stance does not allow you to adapt (cemented).[;)]
Adaptation is the key to survival![xx(]
I have been VERY close to death several times, but I adapted and was here to fight another day. I learned a valuable lesson from life. I hope you and others see this before it's to late for you.
If your position is the one needed to win the fight, GOD forbid, I will stand right beside you locked and loaded![:)]
Advocacy of fundamental rights and freedoms is far different than 'life and death' on the battlefield, or on the streets Jim.
I too have learned and lived to tell about it.
My stance on an issue could change, IF logic and appropriateness dictated such change, or adaptability.
Where it comes to the principals of individualism and the Constitution, I have no need to adapt. The truth and what is right NEVER changes.
Adapting to hazardous circumstances simply can not be logically equated to the issue of ones beliefs about fundamental questions of freedom and the proper role and authority of government.
I'll be looking for you if and when that dreaded day ever arrives and I expect that at that point, you'll have come to realize the truth of the 'bottom-line' and will be where you should be, shoulder to shoulder with those of us who have been there all along.
The question always before us; How much controls should a government ..City, State, Federal..have on weapons.
I believe that the answer is, of course, NONE...but rather involves the upgrading of the Justice System.
Vicious animals MUST be thinned out ..and that by execution. Those misusing weapons MUST be forced to pay at a level in direct proportion to their crime ..from death to rock piles for however many years.
This presupposes that Judges, Lawyers, and Police are honest...and the penalty for corruption should be death.
Given an effective, honest Justice System, one can give the Police the authority to handle problems as they should be...and sometimes that is with a Billie club behind the local barn. Sometimes people must be convinced to stop bothering other folks ..and prison is not always the answer needed.
There will be areas to fill in...but the broad brush strokes above are MY answer to the loses of freedom we are experiencing...for a government that fears an armed citizenry is an HONEST government.
Were I to live through the hard times...those are the actions I would be demanding, down at the town hall....and I would be armed with a .45 and a FAL as I did so.
Jeff,
My values and goals haven't changed, but my methods of acheiving them have!
Amen brother![:)]
Amen brother
I am asking politely, here... Is that sarcasm ?
This is where we differ.
But you can't seem to grasp this!!![V]
What I cannot 'grasp' is your embracing of this or that gun control..while supposedly fighting against gun control.
Once again..it is possible to live in the enemies camp and work from within; But adopting the enemies position for your personal beliefs is a trainwreck.
quote:But you can't seem to grasp this
What I cannot 'grasp' is your embracing of this or that gun control..while supposedly fighting against gun control.
Once again..it is possible to live in the enemies camp and work from within; But adopting the enemies position for your personal beliefs is a trainwreck.
But in reality Highball, folks like him want to be accepted by the masses. For his type IMO, it isn't really about rights, it is about self gratifaction. "Look at me! I am DOING something for gun rights! WHAT are you doing!?"
We hear the SAME thing from TR, only packaged a bit different. [xx(]
Well, even though you will not admit it, this occured becasue people, like me, got the law changed. Not once, but twice. [;)]
Many times I have used the state of Alaska (and Vermont) as an example.
Alaska FINALLY recognized the RIGHT of the people to BEAR ARMS.
Yes, the first law passed gave the citizens "government regulated" PERMISSION, to bear arms.
That in itself would have been the end of it, IF left up to the "we have to have (some) restrictions" crowd.
As proven in other parts of the country.
What happened NEXT, is where the hard core "CONSTITUTIONAL" group, came into play.
They said NO, your "government regulated" PERMISSION, is NOT good enough.
We citizens, want you (the government) to recognize our RIGHT to bear arms.
WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION!
Does ANYONE REALLY think that without the "CONSTITUTIONAL" group, Alaska would have passed a law, recognizing this right, guaranteed by the constitution?
The FACT that Alaska DID pass such a law, in this day and age, BECAUSE the "CONSTITUTIONAL" group kept fighting for it, tells me that it CAN happen elsewhere. IF the "CONSTITUTIONAL" group is willing to band together, stand strong in their beliefs, and fight for it.
I am sorry Wolf, your question must have gotten lost in the rant, what was it?
Once more.................................
quote:
Jim Rau
Senior Member
USA
1315 Posts
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 4:40:00 PM
Well, even though you will not admit it, this occured becasue people, like me, got the law changed. Not once, but twice.
Like I just said, I will contiune the fight on this 'low road' as some have called it. You can stick to the 'high road' and lets see who gets the job done. I only hope the problems you 'high roaders' cause will not lose it all for all of us.
"......the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Well...I am so glad you were there at the Constitutional Convention to get that changed.
It is the low-road'ers who are giving it away piecemeal. We will not lose it for you, we are the ones standing to oppose you losing ("compromising" it away) for the rest of us. How can you not see it? Compromise means "to meet in the middle". Now, when we give ground (call it compromise) please show where the opposing side gives ground. They call it a compromise when they don't confiscate?? That is the position they start from everytime, as if that is what the Constitution says. Funny how we are the ones with the Constitution backing us, and we give ground. They have nothing backing them except "feeling", and we cow to them??? I don't get it.
quote:Jim Rau
Senior Member
USA
1334 Posts
Posted - 09/01/2008 : 3:23:55 PM
ws,
I apoligize. We have so many threads going I am loosing track of them.
I ask you if you would like to see all the states follow the lead of Alaska and reconize the right to CCW.....
You see JR, CCW is already guaranteed in the BOR #2,(in red above) and there should not even be a battle to have a state "recognize" it, it is a given because of the BOR. But allowing it to be specialized (controlled) turns it into a privilege, so what's to be proud of? Again give ground by allowing it to be controlled when the Constitution already backed you up saying you could do it as a right. What did we get in return. NOTHING, because they have nothing to give...they are on the wrong side with no political capital because none exists for them. It is is a total illusion. A little at a time is all they want because since they have nothing to offer but the illusion that they have something to trade, they can't make a big move or it would become more obvious that they have nothing to trade in this so-called compromise. To them (and the NRA), compromise is "we will infringe on you less, and ignore the constitution less, if you agree to give up some of your freedom and turn it into a privilege." Sound like a good trade to you Jim? Do you see that they start from the flawed position of nothing "real" to trade? The Constitution backs us fully, and them none. You see?
The guy on a shooting spree was in commission of a crime, so it seems to me that his right to firearms ownership should be suspended until his trial was completed.
Perhaps the Founding Fathers believed in swift, decisive retribution for crimes after they were committed rather than trying to prevent them from happening by penalizing all citizens in advance, making the right to keep and bear arms and the right to a swift trial exclusive.
The guy on a shooting spree was in commission of a crime, so it seems to me that his right to firearms ownership should be suspended until his trial was completed.
Uh......that would be one of those "gun control laws" that the rebels here will not allow.
quote:
Originally posted by Rocklobster
Perhaps the Founding Fathers believed in swift, decisive retribution for crimes after they were committed rather than trying to prevent them from happening by penalizing all citizens in advance, making the right to keep and bear arms and the right to a swift trial exclusive.
The guy on a shooting spree was in commission of a crime, so it seems to me that his right to firearms ownership should be suspended until his trial was completed.
Uh......that would be one of those "gun control laws" that the rebels here will not allow.
Um, trfox;
Originally posted by tr fox on 04/06/2008
It will be a cold day in hell before you see me reading or posting on the gun rights forum part of GB.com.
Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers,
Actually, James Madison wrote it, and he WAS NOT a lawyer.