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.
Well, Here You C. * Have It Spelled Out For U
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
The below in red was posted by Highbail on 9-24-08 at 4:48:08 on the "To the canary Hineys" Topic:
quote:
.
If the slimy anti-gunners cannot leave their pus-soaked fingers off my Gun Rights;
Then war is what they have wrought.
Now you C. * seem to all believe you somehow below to some sort of electronic brotherhood that starts and stops right at your computer screen. Probably you also feel that, being a "brotherhood", none of you will ever change sides and become the "enemy." Well, carefully consider your #1 C. * own words/stance on the gun rights issue. He is clearly saying, and I bet he will even confirm this since he is so far gone one the issue, that EVERYBODY/ANYBODY who even TRIES to provide a tiny bit of gun control (like making it illegal for a convicted murderer, just out of prison after serving his sentence, to stop at the first hardware store he comes to and legally purchase a fully automatic M-16 and goes on another killing spree) is putting their "pus-soaked fingers" on Highbail's God given and Founder given gun rights.
Now consider this, if you believe that you belong to such a good and loyal "brotherhood.". Suppose at some point in time from various reasons, (talking with someone who is netural or only slightly pro-gun rights such as your father, mother, sister, wife, etc) and you change your attitude somewhat about gun rights. Say that you continue to agree that there should be no restrictions on peaceful, lawful citizens buying, selling and carrying guns (I myself support this idea). But from talking to and trying to be understanding of people whom you care about, but people who are not as strongly pro-gun rights as you, you decided that maybe it is not a good idea for a known criminal to stop at the first hardware store and legallybuy a fully automatic M-16. Maybe you have decided that it is OK to at least have one tiny gun control law that only effects known criminals and if they want a gun they at least must put out some extra effort and go steal one or buy one illegal. Maybe you feel those known criminals should not have any right, constitutional or otherwise, to have the full support and blessings of society as they purchase their fully automatic M-16.
Once your little change in attitude becomes known to C. * #1, then you suddenly become his enemy and now because you support one little gun control law that only effects known criminals, suddenly C.* #1 considers you to have put "your pus soaked fingers on his gun rights." In addition C. * #1 now considers you and him to be "at war."
Can any of you more reasonable C. * really not recognize this situation?
Please don't try and cloud the issue by your usual :"well that felon trying to buy the M-16 should have never gotten out of prison or even that he should have been executed." We all know that no matter what we do, society will always give at least some violent criminals more than one chance to walk our streets.
quote:
.
If the slimy anti-gunners cannot leave their pus-soaked fingers off my Gun Rights;
Then war is what they have wrought.
Now you C. * seem to all believe you somehow below to some sort of electronic brotherhood that starts and stops right at your computer screen. Probably you also feel that, being a "brotherhood", none of you will ever change sides and become the "enemy." Well, carefully consider your #1 C. * own words/stance on the gun rights issue. He is clearly saying, and I bet he will even confirm this since he is so far gone one the issue, that EVERYBODY/ANYBODY who even TRIES to provide a tiny bit of gun control (like making it illegal for a convicted murderer, just out of prison after serving his sentence, to stop at the first hardware store he comes to and legally purchase a fully automatic M-16 and goes on another killing spree) is putting their "pus-soaked fingers" on Highbail's God given and Founder given gun rights.
Now consider this, if you believe that you belong to such a good and loyal "brotherhood.". Suppose at some point in time from various reasons, (talking with someone who is netural or only slightly pro-gun rights such as your father, mother, sister, wife, etc) and you change your attitude somewhat about gun rights. Say that you continue to agree that there should be no restrictions on peaceful, lawful citizens buying, selling and carrying guns (I myself support this idea). But from talking to and trying to be understanding of people whom you care about, but people who are not as strongly pro-gun rights as you, you decided that maybe it is not a good idea for a known criminal to stop at the first hardware store and legallybuy a fully automatic M-16. Maybe you have decided that it is OK to at least have one tiny gun control law that only effects known criminals and if they want a gun they at least must put out some extra effort and go steal one or buy one illegal. Maybe you feel those known criminals should not have any right, constitutional or otherwise, to have the full support and blessings of society as they purchase their fully automatic M-16.
Once your little change in attitude becomes known to C. * #1, then you suddenly become his enemy and now because you support one little gun control law that only effects known criminals, suddenly C.* #1 considers you to have put "your pus soaked fingers on his gun rights." In addition C. * #1 now considers you and him to be "at war."
Can any of you more reasonable C. * really not recognize this situation?
Please don't try and cloud the issue by your usual :"well that felon trying to buy the M-16 should have never gotten out of prison or even that he should have been executed." We all know that no matter what we do, society will always give at least some violent criminals more than one chance to walk our streets.
Comments
An individual with a "diseased" mind will go to any means to accomplish their sick goals.
Regardless of what you think,......Highball is not a "God" to most of us, nor do I believe him to consider himself as such.
He speaks as he feels, and largely I agree with what he says.
I have already expressed a small "disagreement" about felons, and that was BEFORE becoming a member.
In short, some feel as soon as they walk from the prison cell that their rights should be restored.
I on the other hand do not consider their sentence "complete" until any remaining probation is served cleanly. The reason I feel that way, is because even though they are living outside,......they can be brought back at any time for a violation of probation. I consider probation to be part of the sentence for that very reason. After that, I agree fully that they have served their sentence, and their debt has been paid in full, as deemed by the court.
At that point they are a free man once again, and a free man is due his Constitutional rights,......all of them.
IMO, and I have stated this before, any cause needs firebrands to point to the ideal, and it also needs committed leaders to work through societal preconceptions in a more gentle manner. The examples given were firebrands Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine as compared to the more 'civil' approach of Adams and Jefferson.
I believe that HB points towards a pure and honest end result. One that is 90%+ achievable as we continue to educate Americans. Your statement regarding violent felons, while true today, need not be true in a generation. There is no reason, for example, that a convicted murderer, a man who poses a threat to polite society armed or otherwise need be re-introduced into that society. This is a problem of jurisprudence that is negatively effecting the lives of those who should not be effected.
Until our country again functions as it should, it is imperative that we have a clear and pure goal towards which we strive. That goal is and must be freedom and liberty, and a fully functioning citizenry. A fully functioning citizenry does not include the labels that squelch employment opportunities and limit rights to those that have screwed up in the past, yet have proven through their incarceration and defined parole that they can once again join society. The goal must be inclusion of as many as possible, not the exclusion of as many as possible as is the current mind-set of many. Labelling people for life only ensures that we create a sub-culture that will live down to our expectations.
Achieving this goal will never happen if one accepts the current limitations as Constitutional and acceptable. They must be rejected out of hand as the evil they are. Many are content to accept the complete government control of firearms ownership, accepting the situation that only those that pass muster are allowed to own or carry firearms. This is obviously contrary to the 2nd Amendment, but it is accepted because it is the 'best we can do'. I submit that we can do better, and that accepting government control on any level allows for government control on any other level, as proven by the findings of SCOTUS in DC vs. Heller.
Insisting upon true freedom and liberty in gun rights, voting rights, etc. is necessary to the achievement of a safer and less stratified citizenry. The criminal culture would not exist if violent offenders were properly sequestered and eliminated as necessary, and those that merited release were actually put on a path to full assimilation.
There are many ways to go about this, and you will find within any group, including the Canary *, different approaches to achieve this goal. What you will not find, however, is any significant disagreement as to basic goal that is the return to Constitutional Government through the resurrection of individual freedom, liberty and responsibility at the expense of the collectivist intrusion into our daily lives of the extra-constitutional government we have today.
Brad Steele
You get it...something Fox NEVER WILL.....
Back in the days I was Union ..when contract time came around, I would talk to the boys...attempting to get them to ask for 10 bucks an hour raise....
They would ask for 2 bucks. We would get 75 cents...they just NEVER were smart enough to understand what I was driving at.
No guts, no glory.
You put it in the kind of words Fox MIGHT understand ..smooth, polished, no rough edges...That goes along nicely with his 'go along to get along attitude'....
But the point is ..you got a rough edge too...or you wouldn't have known what I am about.
That part about me being a 'God' is a riot ..my feet stink just the same as anybody else's ...and I damn well know it.
Where you find no 'give' in me is in what the Founders left us ..the ABSOLUTE NECESSITY to keep government in check...and the absolute ONLY way to do that is with force of arms wielded by aroused Citizens.
No need for me to put many words into this;
I have not had, nor will I ever have the slightest change of mind or heart on what the Constitution/BOR really means. Period.
Don, Don, Don......THANK YOU !!!! Thank you, thank you THANK YOU !!
You get it...something Fox NEVER WILL.....
Back in the days I was Union ..when contract time came around, I would talk to the boys...attempting to get them to ask for 10 bucks an hour raise....
They would ask for 2 bucks. We would get 75 cents...they just NEVER were smart enough to understand what I was driving at.
No guts, no glory.
You put it in the kind of words Fox MIGHT understand ..smooth, polished, no rough edges...That goes along nicely with his 'go along to get along attitude'....
But the point is ..you got a rough edge too...or you wouldn't have known what I am about.
That part about me being a 'God' is a riot ..my feet stink just the same as anybody else's ...and I damn well know it.
Where you find no 'give' in me is in what the Founders left us ..the ABSOLUTE NECESSITY to keep government in check...and the absolute ONLY way to do that is with force of arms wielded by aroused Citizens.
Hey,.......my feet don't stink![:0][:D]
The below in red was posted by Highbail on 9-24-08 at 4:48:08 on the "To the canary Hineys" Topic:
quote:
.
If the slimy anti-gunners cannot leave their pus-soaked fingers off my Gun Rights;
Then war is what they have wrought.
Now you C. * seem to all believe you somehow below to some sort of electronic brotherhood that starts and stops right at your computer screen. Probably you also feel that, being a "brotherhood", none of you will ever change sides and become the "enemy." Well, carefully consider your #1 C. * own words/stance on the gun rights issue. He is clearly saying, and I bet he will even confirm this since he is so far gone one the issue, that EVERYBODY/ANYBODY who even TRIES to provide a tiny bit of gun control (like making it illegal for a convicted murderer, just out of prison after serving his sentence, to stop at the first hardware store he comes to and legally purchase a fully automatic M-16 and goes on another killing spree) is putting their "pus-soaked fingers" on Highbail's God given and Founder given gun rights.
Now consider this, if you believe that you belong to such a good and loyal "brotherhood.". Suppose at some point in time from various reasons, (talking with someone who is netural or only slightly pro-gun rights such as your father, mother, sister, wife, etc) and you change your attitude somewhat about gun rights. Say that you continue to agree that there should be no restrictions on peaceful, lawful citizens buying, selling and carrying guns (I myself support this idea). But from talking to and trying to be understanding of people whom you care about, but people who are not as strongly pro-gun rights as you, you decided that maybe it is not a good idea for a known criminal to stop at the first hardware store and legallybuy a fully automatic M-16. Maybe you have decided that it is OK to at least have one tiny gun control law that only effects known criminals and if they want a gun they at least must put out some extra effort and go steal one or buy one illegal. Maybe you feel those known criminals should not have any right, constitutional or otherwise, to have the full support and blessings of society as they purchase their fully automatic M-16.
Once your little change in attitude becomes known to C. * #1, then you suddenly become his enemy and now because you support one little gun control law that only effects known criminals, suddenly C.* #1 considers you to have put "your pus soaked fingers on his gun rights." In addition C. * #1 now considers you and him to be "at war."
Can any of you more reasonable C. * really not recognize this situation?
Please don't try and cloud the issue by your usual :"well that felon trying to buy the M-16 should have never gotten out of prison or even that he should have been executed." We all know that no matter what we do, society will always give at least some violent criminals more than one chance to walk our streets.
[xx(][xx(][xx(]
You know, I don't know why people bother anymore. It sure seems TR spends his time doing NOTHING but attacking us. His posts only serve to stir the pot. PERHAPS TR, you would be better served, spending time with eboydell. Least you two would have something in common. [xx(]
tr:
IMO, and I have stated this before, any cause needs firebrands to point to the ideal, and it also needs committed leaders to work through societal preconceptions in a more gentle manner. The examples given were firebrands Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine as compared to the more 'civil' approach of Adams and Jefferson.
I believe that HB points towards a pure and honest end result. One that is 90%+ achievable as we continue to educate Americans. Your statement regarding violent felons, while true today, need not be true in a generation. There is no reason, for example, that a convicted murderer, a man who poses a threat to polite society armed or otherwise need be re-introduced into that society. This is a problem of jurisprudence that is negatively effecting the lives of those who should not be effected.
Until our country again functions as it should, it is imperative that we have a clear and pure goal towards which we strive. That goal is and must be freedom and liberty, and a fully functioning citizenry. A fully functioning citizenry does not include the labels that squelch employment opportunities and limit rights to those that have screwed up in the past, yet have proven through their incarceration and defined parole that they can once again join society. The goal must be inclusion of as many as possible, not the exclusion of as many as possible as is the current mind-set of many. Labelling people for life only ensures that we create a sub-culture that will live down to our expectations.
Achieving this goal will never happen if one accepts the current limitations as Constitutional and acceptable. They must be rejected out of hand as the evil they are. Many are content to accept the complete government control of firearms ownership, accepting the situation that only those that pass muster are allowed to own or carry firearms. This is obviously contrary to the 2nd Amendment, but it is accepted because it is the 'best we can do'. I submit that we can do better, and that accepting government control on any level allows for government control on any other level, as proven by the findings of SCOTUS in DC vs. Heller.
Insisting upon true freedom and liberty in gun rights, voting rights, etc. is necessary to the achievement of a safer and less stratified citizenry. The criminal culture would not exist if violent offenders were properly sequestered and eliminated as necessary, and those that merited release were actually put on a path to full assimilation.
There are many ways to go about this, and you will find within any group, including the Canary *, different approaches to achieve this goal. What you will not find, however, is any significant disagreement as to basic goal that is the return to Constitutional Government through the resurrection of individual freedom, liberty and responsibility at the expense of the collectivist intrusion into our daily lives of the extra-constitutional government we have today.
Excellent post Don,
Spot on as usual
tr:
IMO, and I have stated this before, any cause needs firebrands to point to the ideal, and it also needs committed leaders to work through societal preconceptions in a more gentle manner. The examples given were firebrands Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine as compared to the more 'civil' approach of Adams and Jefferson.
I believe that HB points towards a pure and honest end result. One that is 90%+ achievable as we continue to educate Americans. Your statement regarding violent felons, while true today, need not be true in a generation. There is no reason, for example, that a convicted murderer, a man who poses a threat to polite society armed or otherwise need be re-introduced into that society. This is a problem of jurisprudence that is negatively effecting the lives of those who should not be effected.
Until our country again functions as it should, it is imperative that we have a clear and pure goal towards which we strive. That goal is and must be freedom and liberty, and a fully functioning citizenry. A fully functioning citizenry does not include the labels that squelch employment opportunities and limit rights to those that have screwed up in the past, yet have proven through their incarceration and defined parole that they can once again join society. The goal must be inclusion of as many as possible, not the exclusion of as many as possible as is the current mind-set of many. Labelling people for life only ensures that we create a sub-culture that will live down to our expectations.
Achieving this goal will never happen if one accepts the current limitations as Constitutional and acceptable. They must be rejected out of hand as the evil they are. Many are content to accept the complete government control of firearms ownership, accepting the situation that only those that pass muster are allowed to own or carry firearms. This is obviously contrary to the 2nd Amendment, but it is accepted because it is the 'best we can do'. I submit that we can do better, and that accepting government control on any level allows for government control on any other level, as proven by the findings of SCOTUS in DC vs. Heller.
Insisting upon true freedom and liberty in gun rights, voting rights, etc. is necessary to the achievement of a safer and less stratified citizenry. The criminal culture would not exist if violent offenders were properly sequestered and eliminated as necessary, and those that merited release were actually put on a path to full assimilation.
There are many ways to go about this, and you will find within any group, including the Canary *, different approaches to achieve this goal. What you will not find, however, is any significant disagreement as to basic goal that is the return to Constitutional Government through the resurrection of individual freedom, liberty and responsibility at the expense of the collectivist intrusion into our daily lives of the extra-constitutional government we have today.
One hell of a comment.10X Don
Please don't try and cloud the issue by your usual :"well that felon trying to buy the M-16 should have never gotten out of prison or even that he should have been executed." We all know that no matter what we do, society will always give at least some violent criminals more than one chance to walk our streets.
I would cloud the issue by adding that if a far greater sector of society walked about armed, the criminal would have little chance of wreaking havoc before being reduced to a puddle in the street. Furthermore, he would know it and refrain from the attempt to begin with. This is the deterrent, not forcing them to steal a gun to achieve their nefarious intent. But by adding reams of regulation to a simple right, the anti's (especially those who think "a tiny bit of gun control" is okay) have made exercising that right so burdensome, that some (even most) fail to exercise it at all. That leaves the feeling that if "most" choose not to exercise it, it must not be necessary. This prompts further limitations, and culminates in the attitude that prevails today, namely your own. A little is okay, so more must be better. None is best, and a little is too much.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Please don't try and cloud the issue by your usual :"well that felon trying to buy the M-16 should have never gotten out of prison or even that he should have been executed." We all know that no matter what we do, society will always give at least some violent criminals more than one chance to walk our streets.
I would cloud the issue by adding that if a far greater sector of society walked about armed, the criminal would have little chance of wreaking havoc before being reduced to a puddle in the street. Furthermore, he would know it and refrain from the attempt to begin with. This is the deterrent, not forcing them to steal a gun to achieve their nefarious intent. But by adding reams of regulation to a simple right, the anti's (especially those who think "a tiny bit of gun control" is okay) have made exercising that right so burdensome, that some (even most) fail to exercise it at all. That leaves the feeling that if "most" choose not to exercise it, it must not be necessary. This prompts further limitations, and culminates in the attitude that prevails today, namely your own. A little is okay, so more must be better. None is best, and a little is too much.
Even if the total lack of any gun control, as advocated by the C. *, ever comes about, there will NEVER be a majority of Americans carrying guns as they go about their daily lives. If for no other reason except for the fact that the majority of Americans wouldn't know what/how to react even if they had a firearm and were attacked by a violent criminal with a gun. But without any gun controls there WILL BE majority of violent criminals daily carrying their concealed firearms.
The trick is to provide uninfringed gun rights to the peaceful, lawful citizens while at the same time doing our best to do what we can to at least keep violent criminals and their firearms in the "unlawful" catagory.
Even if the total lack of any gun control, as advocated by the C. *, ever comes about, there will NEVER be a majority of Americans carrying guns as they go about their daily lives. If for no other reason except for the fact that the majority of Americans wouldn't know what/how to react even if they had a firearm and were attacked by a violent criminal with a gun. But without any gun controls there WILL BE majority of violent criminals daily carrying their concealed firearms.
The trick is to provide uninfringed gun rights to the peaceful, lawful citizens while at the same time doing our best to do what we can to at least keep violent criminals and their firearms in the "unlawful" catagory.
In todays world of severe gun control the majority of violent criminals do carry firearms especially when commiting crime.
Criminals don't obey laws...how many times do we have to go through this?
Lets work with some FACTS.
Not the way it "should" be, but the way IT IS.
fox, explain to me, why the state of Vermont (who has NO RESTRICTIONS on concealed carry) rates #49th in violent crimes. (surpassed by South Dakota @ #50) OBVIOUSLY not everyone carries a firearm in Vermont while going about their daily lives, yet the facts show that the violent crime rate is lower than places with restrictions.
How about the town of Kennesaw? Who "in March 1982, unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting - as a victim, attacker or defender." NOT ONE. (as of April 19, 2007)
Explain why, in EVERY state that enacts a concealed carry law (while still unconstitutional) the violent crime rate DECLINES, or rises slower than before the CCW law.
Explain why, DESPITE your predictions, MORE GUNS = LESS VIOLENT CRIME.
The FACTS show your same old rhetoric for what it really is.
A willingness to accept UNCONSTITUTIONAL infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.
The trick is to provide uninfringed gun rights to the peaceful, lawful citizens while at the same time doing our best to do what we can to at least keep violent criminals and their firearms in the "unlawful" catagory.
Point the first, who cares if most Americans would not carry. It isn't about bolstering the numbers of citizens who carry firearms, it is about Amendment II and the fact that the Fed is prohibited from intruding upon a citizen's decisions and abilities in this area.
Point the second, your own statement says it all. "Violent criminals" already carry firearms, IF they choose to do so. Your government regulated "nirvana" notwithstanding.
The key would be to either incarcerate said "violent criminals" for their "bad acts", or that other citizen's would punch these "violent criminals" life-tickets, surely and with great regularity, thus thinning the herd of "violent criminals" and causing those remaining to have a real need to fear the results of their "actions".
One would think that this would be obvious, but it seems not to be the case with you fox.
Last point, your providing of "un-infringed gun rights" for 'peaceful' and 'lawful' citizens and in keeping 'unlawful' the "violent criminals", is a contradiction.
Think "bad acts" fox, not regulation, restriction, control or other collectivist government methods of imposing regulation of free people.
A gun is simply a tool and an inanimate object. The "bad act" committed with said gun and the placing of the rightful focus there, rather than on some government imposed "preventive" solution, is where your train derails.
Imagine the concept........
It boils down to the issue of the "Individualism Model", of citizens being free from government interference and meddling in their lives, unless and until some specific "bad act" is committed..... vs. the "Collectivist Model", of preemptive attempts to "do something" in advance of an actual "bad act", e.g. deciding which of America's Citizens should be restricted, controlled and/or debarred the use of firearms, in direct conflict with Amendment II and the concept of our Constitutional Republic.
Go figure....