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.
Does it surprise anyone occasionally that an american citizen would regard those supporting the Constitution as 'rebels' ?
Precisely what the British called them, lo these many years ago.
We may as well understand that we damn well better adopt the mindset of the Founders.
They recognized the British as enemies of freedom.
The line grows clearer every day..that bright line separating freedom and slavery.
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by trfox:
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.
Well, yeah, but you guys need a babysitter.......no one else would take the job.........GB.com upped their salary offer for taking it.....so.......
Hi all,
1st- Alaska does have restrictions on CCW. Read the law. All the previouse restrictions still apply, except for the need to have a permit.
2nd- Wolf, I am trying to find the 'question' here! If I am understanding you want to know how the other side has compermised, corret? Well if you would look at what has occured in recent years we, gun folks, have been able to 'push' back at the anit's in both legistaltive and legal areas. They have been forced to 'compermise' their positions drasticly. MAKE NO MISTAKE, WE ARE FIGHTING AN UPHILL BATTLE! If you look at all the federal, state and local 'gun' laws on the books which are DIRECT VIOLATION OF OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS you will see what I mean. I guess you could say everytime we get one of those laws repealed or ammended in our favor, they are are forced to 'compermise' their position. But setting here behind the puter on your * bitching about the WAY IT SHOULD BE does not make it so!![;)]
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
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.
It would be more like a proper probable-cause search and seizure, wouldn't it?
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
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.
It would be more like a proper probable-cause search and seizure, wouldn't it?
Focus on the words "...right to firearms ownership should be suspended.." Meaning not just the gun(s) perhaps used during the crime, but all his guns. Such action would require a "law" spelling this sensible action out. To many here that would be a "gun control" law and they claim that because of the 2A, absoutely no laws are allowed that control gun ownership. If you doubt me, post an open question and ask them just what kind of MIMIUMAL gun control laws would they support.
You will probably get a resounding "Absoutely no gun laws whatsoever!." If that works for you, fine. It doesn't work for me.
Wolf,
They are wrong in their 'position' and their 'position' has no legal standing, but they obvously have a 'position', which is opposite of ours. Sad thing is, if you look at all the anti-gun laws on the books today, their 'position' is ahead of ours!!![:(]
As I said earlier, WE ARE FIGHTING AN UPHILL BATTLE![V]
And all this 'infighting' we are engaged in here and else where just helps their 'position'!!!![:(!]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Wolf,
They are wrong in their 'position' and their 'position' has not legal standing, but they obvously have a 'position', which is opposite of ours. Sad thing is, if you look at all the anti-gun laws on the books today, their 'position' is ahead of ours!!![:(]
As I said earlier, WE ARE FIGHTING AN UPHILL BATTLE![V]
And all this 'infighting' we are engaged in here and else where just helps their 'position'!!!![:(!]
Jim I don't think you absorbed a WORD that JP said.
The anti's don't have ANY ammunition to bring a fight. Limp wristed pansies (girly men) GAVE away rights (comprimise) because the anti's said so.
They have NO standing, other than the total lack of spine on the gun owners part, to tell them to F.O.
The only reason there is a battle, is because people won't STAND up and stop them.
People locked in the mindset of;
"Government must control weapons, or the streets will run red with blood" are unable to reason logically. They operate on emotions ..and only emotional appeals will resonate with them. Just because one owns a gun///or 1000 guns ..means little when a man thinks this way.
The brutal truth ..the Second Amendment is all about controlling rapacious government, wielded by decent citizens, is quite beyond them..so the fact they are perfectly comfortable with government control is no surprise.
Not even in their wildest dream is there a chance for aroused citizens to actually win a war for independence ..they feel helpless in front of the juggernaut. You read it on these forums quite often..."No chance-no chance-no chance-...
When you think that way.there is absolutely no choice save humbly accept what few crumbs fall off the masters table. Oh, it is perfectly acceptable to beg a little.but ONLY as proscribed by that Master.
One never raises his voice, one is ALWAYS polite, with suitable embellishments .."Normally Sir, I agree with your policies, but Sir," ..ect.
NEVER."You piece of dog snit ..where the hell did you get the notion that we would allow you to turn your back on the Constitution" ???
Furthermore, these folks often feel that they would be unable to handle an incident, were ordinary people not vetted by government carrying.
Fear plays an important role, when the bad guy whips out a piece and demands that you go to the back room and lie down.
Most folks just....go.
What probably shocks me the most ..we have a couple guys on here that profess to be `in the arena ',,fighting the good fight down to City Hall .."Fighting for our gun Rights"...These guys are our most vocal critics. Instead of understanding that the hard core of gun owners is an important asset ..they attack us like rabid dogs. Without that core ..there would have been no guns left long ago .."Constitution be Damned", as one of them submitted awhile ago.
Then again...thinking it over ..the contrast between what they are doing, and what the Founders intended is stark ..so no surprise that they would turn on what casts them into such a bad light.
Comments
Precisely what the British called them, lo these many years ago.
We may as well understand that we damn well better adopt the mindset of the Founders.
They recognized the British as enemies of freedom.
The line grows clearer every day..that bright line separating freedom and slavery.
originally posted by trfox:
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.
Well, yeah, but you guys need a babysitter.......no one else would take the job.........GB.com upped their salary offer for taking it.....so.......
1st- Alaska does have restrictions on CCW. Read the law. All the previouse restrictions still apply, except for the need to have a permit.
2nd- Wolf, I am trying to find the 'question' here! If I am understanding you want to know how the other side has compermised, corret? Well if you would look at what has occured in recent years we, gun folks, have been able to 'push' back at the anit's in both legistaltive and legal areas. They have been forced to 'compermise' their positions drasticly. MAKE NO MISTAKE, WE ARE FIGHTING AN UPHILL BATTLE! If you look at all the federal, state and local 'gun' laws on the books which are DIRECT VIOLATION OF OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS you will see what I mean. I guess you could say everytime we get one of those laws repealed or ammended in our favor, they are are forced to 'compermise' their position. But setting here behind the puter on your * bitching about the WAY IT SHOULD BE does not make it so!![;)]
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.
It would be more like a proper probable-cause search and seizure, wouldn't it?
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
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.
It would be more like a proper probable-cause search and seizure, wouldn't it?
Focus on the words "...right to firearms ownership should be suspended.." Meaning not just the gun(s) perhaps used during the crime, but all his guns. Such action would require a "law" spelling this sensible action out. To many here that would be a "gun control" law and they claim that because of the 2A, absoutely no laws are allowed that control gun ownership. If you doubt me, post an open question and ask them just what kind of MIMIUMAL gun control laws would they support.
You will probably get a resounding "Absoutely no gun laws whatsoever!." If that works for you, fine. It doesn't work for me.
They have NO POSITION to start with.
Nevermind.
Hey, could you just compromise a little faster? Maybe folks would take notice.
They are wrong in their 'position' and their 'position' has no legal standing, but they obvously have a 'position', which is opposite of ours. Sad thing is, if you look at all the anti-gun laws on the books today, their 'position' is ahead of ours!!![:(]
As I said earlier, WE ARE FIGHTING AN UPHILL BATTLE![V]
And all this 'infighting' we are engaged in here and else where just helps their 'position'!!!![:(!]
Wolf,
They are wrong in their 'position' and their 'position' has not legal standing, but they obvously have a 'position', which is opposite of ours. Sad thing is, if you look at all the anti-gun laws on the books today, their 'position' is ahead of ours!!![:(]
As I said earlier, WE ARE FIGHTING AN UPHILL BATTLE![V]
And all this 'infighting' we are engaged in here and else where just helps their 'position'!!!![:(!]
Jim I don't think you absorbed a WORD that JP said.
The anti's don't have ANY ammunition to bring a fight. Limp wristed pansies (girly men) GAVE away rights (comprimise) because the anti's said so.
They have NO standing, other than the total lack of spine on the gun owners part, to tell them to F.O.
The only reason there is a battle, is because people won't STAND up and stop them.
"Government must control weapons, or the streets will run red with blood" are unable to reason logically. They operate on emotions ..and only emotional appeals will resonate with them. Just because one owns a gun///or 1000 guns ..means little when a man thinks this way.
The brutal truth ..the Second Amendment is all about controlling rapacious government, wielded by decent citizens, is quite beyond them..so the fact they are perfectly comfortable with government control is no surprise.
Not even in their wildest dream is there a chance for aroused citizens to actually win a war for independence ..they feel helpless in front of the juggernaut. You read it on these forums quite often..."No chance-no chance-no chance-...
When you think that way.there is absolutely no choice save humbly accept what few crumbs fall off the masters table. Oh, it is perfectly acceptable to beg a little.but ONLY as proscribed by that Master.
One never raises his voice, one is ALWAYS polite, with suitable embellishments .."Normally Sir, I agree with your policies, but Sir," ..ect.
NEVER."You piece of dog snit ..where the hell did you get the notion that we would allow you to turn your back on the Constitution" ???
Furthermore, these folks often feel that they would be unable to handle an incident, were ordinary people not vetted by government carrying.
Fear plays an important role, when the bad guy whips out a piece and demands that you go to the back room and lie down.
Most folks just....go.
What probably shocks me the most ..we have a couple guys on here that profess to be `in the arena ',,fighting the good fight down to City Hall .."Fighting for our gun Rights"...These guys are our most vocal critics. Instead of understanding that the hard core of gun owners is an important asset ..they attack us like rabid dogs. Without that core ..there would have been no guns left long ago .."Constitution be Damned", as one of them submitted awhile ago.
Then again...thinking it over ..the contrast between what they are doing, and what the Founders intended is stark ..so no surprise that they would turn on what casts them into such a bad light.