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, Gundad, you have placed yourself squarely in the camp of the Beast.Your council will neither be sought...nor accepted.
Your post indicates that you have absolutely no grasp on the meaning of nor intent of the Second Amendment.
You are so utterly clueless as to even denigrate the 3 % that fought the American Revolution ..something you would not have joined, given your attitude.
Yours IS, of course, the voice of the majority. That is why the Founders despised and feared a Democracy people like you thrive in it.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:HB: does it do the cause any good for you to alienate 5mil NRA members?
Those 5 million insist that the government has the authority to control weapons ?
Then...yeah..I want the enemy brought out into the open.
I don't want to be shot in the back by what I stupidly considered a trustworthy ally.
I know perhaps 20 people that have dropped out of the NRA here locally...several more on the board.
Know what ? I would trust those people at my back.
Know WHY ? Because they have faced their inner demons concerning the NRA ..the fear that they are wrong about the Second Amendment, rather then the NRA...and they have whipped those demons.
They UNDERSTAND...fully...what that Amendment means ..and what it entails.
I will take ten of those men over your 5 million wanna-bees.
What Highball said, pretty much sums up the NRA/Quisling issue for me.
You can consider "us" on the "same team" if it pleases you, but if one supports the government in regulating the means to oppose tyranny from that very government, as povided for/specified in Amendment II, than you are NOT on my team.
It is as simple as that.
I prefer my beliefs and goals to be uncluttered by those who merely weaken them and muddy-up the bottom-line focus. Those beliefs and goals being, to have a government restrained by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as written and intended.
quote:I don't have any rocket launchers in the garage or tanks hidden in the barn. That would exede "regulated". To insist on unfettered access would make me no different than the land barons of the old west, who sought to impose their will with small armies, other than lack of funding.
That is the kind of mindset the NRA asserts. That 3% are the guys who have made "militia" a dirty word!
Short history lesson for ya dad....
It was the British coming to confiscate cannon that touched off the revolutionary war.
Now just what were those founders doing with cannons? Even though they HAD THEM, surely they didn't intend for us to have them, when they wrote the second, did they?[B)]
Because if those founders were about anything, they were about double standards, huh?
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.
OK. So far, so good.
The word "regulated" implies control. Maybe some don't like it but it keeps the extremely rich from ammasing arsenals to impose their will.
Really? Well tell me sir, how can you interpret the 2nd Amendment as you have (in bold), when our own goverment is guilty of doing the exact same thing? And no, I don't like your interpretation because it just ain't so.
That is the kind of mindset the NRA asserts.
Whoo boy. The NRA has done nothing for the RTKBA but undermine it. These forums are filled with factual information about how the NRA has sold out gun owners since 1934. NRA mindset? I can sum it up in one word; 'greed'. The NRA does not wish for an unregulated, unrestricted RTKBA as the Founders intended. It is bad for their business. If the 20,000+ firearms laws on the books were to be repealed (as they should be), the NRA would no longer be able to utilize scare tactics to extort money from it's members.
308 is correct in his statement about the rich ruling. It has always been that way. Look at history if you don't want to take my word for it. One of the things you all agree is the need to be armed to prevent those who do not have our interest at heart from 'ruling' us. Well human nature has not and will not EVER change. If there were NO restrictions on the non-governmental ownership of weapons and weapons systems we would already be ruled by a 'war lord' society.
Those with the 'arms' which = $$$$$$$$$ in an unrestricted society will rule![V]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
308 is correct in his statement about the rich ruling. It has always been that way. Look at history if you don't want to take my word for it. One of the things you all agree is the need to be armed to prevent those who do not have our interest at heart from 'ruling' us. Well human nature has not and will not EVER change. If there were NO restrictions on the non-governmental ownership of weapons and weapons systems we would already be ruled by a 'war lord' society.
Those with the 'arms' which = $$$$$$$$$ in an unrestricted society will rule![V]
I have to disagree with you here Jim. Even if "the rich" could have personal armies to be some petty warlord, there are still laws in place to rpevent them from forcing their will on the populace. Perhaps even some lowly peon could take HIS weapon and put an end to the rich warlords life. As the old saying goes "God made man, Sam Colt made 'em equal". Firearms in that case would be the great equalizer.
The phrase "regulated" in reference to the militia in the second amendment confuses people. In that time a "well regulated militia" was one that was well trained. In every writing on the matter from the framers of the constitution that I have read, they wanted arms in the hands of the general population, not to prevent "the Rich" from taking over, but as a last line of defense against enemies, both foreign and domestic. I think if some rich buzzard tried to impose his will through force of arms that would make him an enemy of the people and those poeple could use THEIR OWN ARMS (as has happened in the history of this nation, whether scholls teach it or not) to put said individual in his place.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
308,
Agreed. But the problem is how much 'regulation' is to much. As of now the 'regulation' is VERY excessive in most parts of this country.
I say the 2nd Amendment is the 'enforcement/penalty clause' of the Constitution. With out it the rest of the document is worthless!![V]
Jim, could you please explain which "regulation" you find acceptable in reference to gun laws?
Yes I came. Like it or not all thinks hit an 'equilibrium' in reality.
The exceptions and restrictions to ALL of our rights are no different, which includes our RTKABA's.
There are two 'ideals' here.
On one side the 'ideal' is total unconditional disarmament of the population.
On the other side is the total deregulation of the access to armament to everyone and any one.
Well in reality there will be a point of equilibrium. THERE ALWAYS IS!!!
We have to fight to obtain the point of equilibrium as close to our 'ideal' as possible. So I don't know just where it will be, or that it will completely stabilize at one exact point. But it will happen just a sure as the sun rises in the east everyday.
So the 'hard core' folks will never achieve their 'ideal' on either side. But I support the 'ideal' on our side and the folks, like HB and his associates, who strive for it. The closer they get the better. But like the person who says 'one death is to many' and strive to stop all deaths, they will fail to achieve this unrealistic goal. But the closer they get the better I like it![^]
Even if "the rich" could have personal armies to be some petty warlord, there are still laws in place to rpevent them from forcing their will on the populace. Perhaps even some lowly peon could take HIS weapon and put an end to the rich warlords life.
Yeah, you and your gun try getting by his security force.
As for HB I can imagine a day under his regime. How long would it be before he started burning books? Not to worry, we'll read about him in the news, painted as another example of why we need for new draconian gun laws, by the liberal media, convincing the overwhelming majority that civilian can't handle the responsibility of gun ownership. I'll need to get a permit for my 10in butcher's knife.
Thanks, buddy.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Yes I came. Like it or not all thinks hit an 'equilibrium' in reality.
The exceptions and restrictions to ALL of our rights are no different, which includes our RTKABA's.
There are two 'ideals' here.
On one side the 'ideal' is total unconditional disarmament of the population.
On the other side is the total deregulation of the access to armament to everyone and any one.
Well in reality there will be a point of equilibrium. THERE ALWAYS IS!!!
We have to fight to obtain the point of equilibrium as close to our 'ideal' as possible. So I don't know just where it will be, or that it will completely stabilize at one exact point. But it will happen just a sure as the sun rises in the east everyday.
So the 'hard core' folks will never achieve their 'ideal' on either side. But I support the 'ideal' on our side and the folks, like HB and his associates, who strive for it. The closer they get the better. But like the person who says 'one death is to many' and strive to stop all deaths, they will fail to achieve this unrealistic goal. But the closer they get the better I like it![^]
So....
In other words, you won't DIRECTLY answer which laws you are comfortable with then eh?
Actually I have answered that several times in the last months.
But I will, to accommodate you, repeat myself.[;)]
1. I am totally opposed to the current BG checks for the purchases of any arm not full auto.
2. The current BG law should apply to Full Auto only.
3. There should be no law in the land which prohibits CCW by those not 'intoxicated' or convicted of a felony 'persons' crime, and obviously those using a weapon in the commission of a crime. The mistominer DV restriction is pure BS.
4. The age restrains for purchase of weapons should be eliminated, the use of the discretion of the person selling could be handled in civil court.
5. Dealers should only require normal business licences, not FFL's.
6. The ser# of a weapon should be recorded, and name and ID of the buyer noted in a log book, NO OTHER PAPER WORK!
7. There should be no restrictions on small arms ammo (50 cal and smaller)
8. Crew served weapons should be licensed, the way our full auto weapons are now.
These are GENERAL guidelines. I think would be work able in the REAL world and would allow us to exercise our rights within a working 'system'.
I know these do not set will with the 'ideal' crowd, but then nothing but total access by all to anything will. But as I said there is ALWAYS going to be an equilibrium between the two 'Ideal' sides of the issue. I think this is a 'real' place to start.
Does that answer your question??[?]
quote:Originally posted by gundad308
Yeah, you and your gun try getting by his security force.
Well, there are some who are capable of hitting a target from more than point-blank range. Guess snipers have no way of getting a bullet through some security detail [;)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Actually I have answered that several times in the last months.
But I will, to accommodate you, repeat myself.[;)]
1. I am totally opposed to the current BG checks for the purchases of any arm not full auto.
2. The current BG law should apply to Full Auto only.
3. There should be no law in the land which prohibits CCW by those not 'intoxicated' or convicted of a felony 'persons' crime, and obviously those using a weapon in the commission of a crime. The mistominer DV restriction is pure BS.
4. The age restrains for purchase of weapons should be eliminated, the use of the discretion of the person selling could be handled in civil court.
5. Dealers should only require normal business licences, not FFL's.
6. The ser# of a weapon should be recorded, and name and ID of the buyer noted in a log book, NO OTHER PAPER WORK!
7. There should be no restrictions on small arms ammo (50 cal and smaller)
8. Crew served weapons should be licensed, the way our full auto weapons are now.
These are GENERAL guidelines. I think would be work able in the REAL world and would allow us to exercise our rights within a working 'system'.
I know these do not set will with the 'ideal' crowd, but then nothing but total access by all to anything will. But as I said there is ALWAYS going to be an equilibrium between the two 'Ideal' sides of the issue. I think this is a 'real' place to start.
Does that answer your question??[?]
Sure does Jim. I knew you weren't on the same side at all, as us. You claim over and over you belive the same as us.
Now you have put to print, that you were untruthful, and are NOT on the same side.
You are quit welcome![^]
Like I said, I wish you well. The closer you get to the 'ideal' the closer we will get a 'real' working equilibrium.[;)]
Now don't jump on your high horse and act like you are better than the rest of us, because you are not![:)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
You are quit welcome![^]
Like I said, I wish you well. The closer you get to the 'ideal' the closer we will get a 'real' working equilibrium.[;)]
Now don't jump on your high horse and act like you are better than the rest of us, because you are not![:)]
When have I EVER claimed to be better than anyone else Jim?
Never would be the answer.
The difference between you and me Jim, is I understand and comprehend the Constitution and the BOR's while you simply don't.
You "comprimise" because you think there is a foothold on the anti's side. 20,000+ gunlaws, and every one is unconstitutional. Their "foothold" in reality is just you being apathetic.
quote:Originally posted by gundad308
As for HB I can imagine a day under his regime. How long would it be before he started burning books? Not to worry, we'll read about him in the news, painted as another example of why we need for new draconian gun laws, by the liberal media, convincing the overwhelming majority that civilian can't handle the responsibility of gun ownership. I'll need to get a permit for my 10in butcher's knife.
Thanks, buddy.
Heavy flow month, buddy?
The founders had 'em the size of bowling balls, think you could at least muster the size of a sesame seed?
quote:Originally posted by freemind
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
You are quit welcome![^]
Like I said, I wish you well. The closer you get to the 'ideal' the closer we will get a 'real' working equilibrium.[;)]
Now don't jump on your high horse and act like you are better than the rest of us, because you are not![:)]
When have I EVER claimed to be better than anyone else Jim?
Never would be the answer.
The difference between you and me Jim, is I understand and comprehend the Constitution and the BOR's while you simply don't.
You "comprimise" because you think there is a foothold on the anti's side. 20,000+ gunlaws, and every one is unconstitutional. Their "foothold" in reality is just you being apathetic.
Apathy has destroyed this country.
Wrong again free,
I too 'understand and comprehend the constitution' as well if not better than you, BUT I do not deny the real world and human nature.
Your mentality is similar to the activist who says 'one death by xyz is to many, and we will not rest until we have eradicated this xyz'. Enter reality, CAN'T HAPPEN in the real world. (xyz= DUI's, childhood cancer, and the list is endless).
I have two rules for setting goals:
1. They MUST be realistic.
2. They must be non-conflicting.
So all you are doing is setting yourself up for CERTINE failure.
If you notice, on my wish list, NONE of those are currently practiced. So if or when we get to that point in this battle then we can look further down the road at your goals and try to get closer to your 'ideal' situation. But I think we have one hell of a battle just trying to reach my goal!!!
You use the word 'compromise' as a dirty word. It is a fact of life. Your 'collective' of CA is going to have realize they are not the only ones in the world and certainly not a majority so to even start down your road to your 'ideal' you will have to work with the rest of the people in the world. If you continue this isolationist mentality you will only put up a bigger barrier to you ever even starting to accomplish any reform.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:I have litterly told several 'friends' they are no longer friends of mine and are not welcome in my home because they support the Obama/liberal movement
How amusing;
I not only feel that way...I also have included those voting mccain in the real belief tht he intended to restore American values to the country.
I feel like, in order to think clearly about this issue, you need to stop thinking of the "state" as a legitimate entity. The "STATE" is a well-developed FICTION! What the "state" is, is a group of men and women, who call themselves "government" that has a monopoly on the use of violence. It doesn't matter whether they are "republican" or "democrat" or whatever they are calling themselves. Because this monopoly exists, people(yes, they are only people) who like to use violence get themselves into "government". Even the "well-meaning" people in "government" are bound to be corrupted while in their position. POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY!
There should be NO restrictions to prevent ANY ONE from protecting themselves and their families! Yes, Jim, this includes "crazy" people, "felons", "illegal" immigrants, cult leaders, and YOU!
Let's just look at a statement that will expose the faulty logic of gun restrictions, Jim:
"There are bad and violent people out there that might harm my family, so we need a group of people with a MONOPOLY on violence to protect us from them. And the way they can protect us is to disarm us"
c33, (FFNG)
I think you need to do some reading of our past discussions before you start making assumptions and labeling those of us here, good or bad!!![;)]
No he doesn't Jim. He has HB to guide him. I see where thats going from here. We really need to be carefull Jim. The Bolan Brigade is gaining support. Soon they will have.... several and will come looking for US. Or are we them?? I'm not sure. But I know we will be in big trouble.
This brings back some memories of my youth.
One night we, a car load of friends and I, were in the next town just east of us, Burlington. We were up to no good, just went to the show and were looking for 'some action' (I am sure some of you can remember what that was)[}:)] but we were not to well received by the locals. We had about two car loads of them following us trying to get the courage up to jump us when I and another one of my friends got in one hell of an pissen contest in the car, about something stupid, and he popped me and I lit into him. The driver of the car stopped and we got out and kicked the snot out of each other while the other locals watched. They stopped following us and we went on our way. I had a split lip, and black eye and my fighting friend had a tooth knocked out and a big cut in his forehead. Both of us bleed all over the car.
WE DIDN'T ACOMPLISH ANYTHING GOOD!! It took about a week of bruding and we shook hands and are friends to this day.
Can you guys figure out why I am telling this story????[;)]
Yeah. Good Story. [:D] I've had a couple of nights like that. Life in small towns is like that. I had one of best friends accuse me of trying to get his girl. I wasn't but she was a freshman and Steve was a Senior. So she had this Big Sr. fighting over her. *L* The funny part was that my friend allready four or five others on the hook. Anyway, Steve bigger then me by 50lbs, I picked up a shovel and promised him a night in the ER but ,,,,,,,,,Hey it your choice. *L* He saw the light and we went and got drunk and talked crap about dumb Freshman girls.
I see your a true Alaskan. *L* Snowmachine ?? Rather than Snowmobile. I was told thats how you guys tell an outsider when they show up. A Co-worker used to live up there. Worked at the Chemical Weapons Storge facility there. Can't remember the name.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
c33, (FFNG)
I think you need to do some reading of our past discussions before you start making assumptions and labeling those of us here, good or bad!!![;)]
I'm not sure of what FFNG means, but I did not say any one was "good" or "bad" I said the "state" was bad.
Walter;
Not to worry. Nobody gets attached to the new guy...until we see if you survive the first few months.
This is a tough bunch, around here ..little quarter is asked, and little given. We welcome your input ..wade right in and express your viewpoints.
If your view is that the government has no business involved in gun control, you will get my support instantly....but I don't like gun controllers, pedophiles, rapists, murderers, or traitors.
And I lump that whole group pretty much together.
Actually...a pedophile may well be further UP the ladder, as a `decent citizen', then are gun controllers.
The reason ? child molester can destroy the lives of 2, or ten, or 50 children...the gun controller destroys the lives of ENTIRE GENERATIONS of children.
Thank you! I do not have thin skin, I just am not used to forums. I thought he was using some kind of text-abbreviation. I agree 100% with you Highball.
Jim, your story, I get it, wish everyone else would. We have a common enemy that's more dangerous to us than we are to each other. Our biggest problem is our few degrees of separation on the issue, and how we deal with it. Guys like Jim and I agree with CA guys on so much, but they focus on the differences. I believe a day will come when we will put it all on the line. I hope we'll put our small differences behind us and work together. We'll need every able bodied person.
Do you actually think that it is merely a `small difference' ?
That `small difference' is quite likely the balance point between a free country and one ruled with an iron fist.
Allowing the government power to database every citizen that might resist;
Allowing the government to rigidly control weapons that are effective to a resistance;
Allowing the government to circumvent the Constitution is NEVER a `little thing'.
Comments
Agreed. But the problem is how much 'regulation' is to much. As of now the 'regulation' is VERY excessive in most parts of this country.
I say the 2nd Amendment is the 'enforcement/penalty clause' of the Constitution. With out it the rest of the document is worthless!![V]
Your post indicates that you have absolutely no grasp on the meaning of nor intent of the Second Amendment.
You are so utterly clueless as to even denigrate the 3 % that fought the American Revolution ..something you would not have joined, given your attitude.
Yours IS, of course, the voice of the majority. That is why the Founders despised and feared a Democracy people like you thrive in it.
quote:HB: does it do the cause any good for you to alienate 5mil NRA members?
Those 5 million insist that the government has the authority to control weapons ?
Then...yeah..I want the enemy brought out into the open.
I don't want to be shot in the back by what I stupidly considered a trustworthy ally.
I know perhaps 20 people that have dropped out of the NRA here locally...several more on the board.
Know what ? I would trust those people at my back.
Know WHY ? Because they have faced their inner demons concerning the NRA ..the fear that they are wrong about the Second Amendment, rather then the NRA...and they have whipped those demons.
They UNDERSTAND...fully...what that Amendment means ..and what it entails.
I will take ten of those men over your 5 million wanna-bees.
What Highball said, pretty much sums up the NRA/Quisling issue for me.
You can consider "us" on the "same team" if it pleases you, but if one supports the government in regulating the means to oppose tyranny from that very government, as povided for/specified in Amendment II, than you are NOT on my team.
It is as simple as that.
I prefer my beliefs and goals to be uncluttered by those who merely weaken them and muddy-up the bottom-line focus. Those beliefs and goals being, to have a government restrained by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as written and intended.
That is the kind of mindset the NRA asserts. That 3% are the guys who have made "militia" a dirty word!
Short history lesson for ya dad....
It was the British coming to confiscate cannon that touched off the revolutionary war.
Now just what were those founders doing with cannons? Even though they HAD THEM, surely they didn't intend for us to have them, when they wrote the second, did they?[B)]
Because if those founders were about anything, they were about double standards, huh?
You and the NRA can kma.
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.
OK. So far, so good.
The word "regulated" implies control. Maybe some don't like it but it keeps the extremely rich from ammasing arsenals to impose their will.
Really? Well tell me sir, how can you interpret the 2nd Amendment as you have (in bold), when our own goverment is guilty of doing the exact same thing? And no, I don't like your interpretation because it just ain't so.
That is the kind of mindset the NRA asserts.
Whoo boy. The NRA has done nothing for the RTKBA but undermine it. These forums are filled with factual information about how the NRA has sold out gun owners since 1934. NRA mindset? I can sum it up in one word; 'greed'. The NRA does not wish for an unregulated, unrestricted RTKBA as the Founders intended. It is bad for their business. If the 20,000+ firearms laws on the books were to be repealed (as they should be), the NRA would no longer be able to utilize scare tactics to extort money from it's members.
Those with the 'arms' which = $$$$$$$$$ in an unrestricted society will rule![V]
308 is correct in his statement about the rich ruling. It has always been that way. Look at history if you don't want to take my word for it. One of the things you all agree is the need to be armed to prevent those who do not have our interest at heart from 'ruling' us. Well human nature has not and will not EVER change. If there were NO restrictions on the non-governmental ownership of weapons and weapons systems we would already be ruled by a 'war lord' society.
Those with the 'arms' which = $$$$$$$$$ in an unrestricted society will rule![V]
I have to disagree with you here Jim. Even if "the rich" could have personal armies to be some petty warlord, there are still laws in place to rpevent them from forcing their will on the populace. Perhaps even some lowly peon could take HIS weapon and put an end to the rich warlords life. As the old saying goes "God made man, Sam Colt made 'em equal". Firearms in that case would be the great equalizer.
The phrase "regulated" in reference to the militia in the second amendment confuses people. In that time a "well regulated militia" was one that was well trained. In every writing on the matter from the framers of the constitution that I have read, they wanted arms in the hands of the general population, not to prevent "the Rich" from taking over, but as a last line of defense against enemies, both foreign and domestic. I think if some rich buzzard tried to impose his will through force of arms that would make him an enemy of the people and those poeple could use THEIR OWN ARMS (as has happened in the history of this nation, whether scholls teach it or not) to put said individual in his place.
Laws are useless to those with the GUNS. Look at the Mexican border area as we speak!!! The $$$$ = guns = ruler!!![V][xx(]
POINTING SOUTH!!! [:D]
308,
Agreed. But the problem is how much 'regulation' is to much. As of now the 'regulation' is VERY excessive in most parts of this country.
I say the 2nd Amendment is the 'enforcement/penalty clause' of the Constitution. With out it the rest of the document is worthless!![V]
Jim, could you please explain which "regulation" you find acceptable in reference to gun laws?
"FREE FIRE ZONE"[^]
The exceptions and restrictions to ALL of our rights are no different, which includes our RTKABA's.
There are two 'ideals' here.
On one side the 'ideal' is total unconditional disarmament of the population.
On the other side is the total deregulation of the access to armament to everyone and any one.
Well in reality there will be a point of equilibrium. THERE ALWAYS IS!!!
We have to fight to obtain the point of equilibrium as close to our 'ideal' as possible. So I don't know just where it will be, or that it will completely stabilize at one exact point. But it will happen just a sure as the sun rises in the east everyday.
So the 'hard core' folks will never achieve their 'ideal' on either side. But I support the 'ideal' on our side and the folks, like HB and his associates, who strive for it. The closer they get the better. But like the person who says 'one death is to many' and strive to stop all deaths, they will fail to achieve this unrealistic goal. But the closer they get the better I like it![^]
Yeah, you and your gun try getting by his security force.
Thanks, buddy.
Yes I came. Like it or not all thinks hit an 'equilibrium' in reality.
The exceptions and restrictions to ALL of our rights are no different, which includes our RTKABA's.
There are two 'ideals' here.
On one side the 'ideal' is total unconditional disarmament of the population.
On the other side is the total deregulation of the access to armament to everyone and any one.
Well in reality there will be a point of equilibrium. THERE ALWAYS IS!!!
We have to fight to obtain the point of equilibrium as close to our 'ideal' as possible. So I don't know just where it will be, or that it will completely stabilize at one exact point. But it will happen just a sure as the sun rises in the east everyday.
So the 'hard core' folks will never achieve their 'ideal' on either side. But I support the 'ideal' on our side and the folks, like HB and his associates, who strive for it. The closer they get the better. But like the person who says 'one death is to many' and strive to stop all deaths, they will fail to achieve this unrealistic goal. But the closer they get the better I like it![^]
So....
In other words, you won't DIRECTLY answer which laws you are comfortable with then eh?
But I will, to accommodate you, repeat myself.[;)]
1. I am totally opposed to the current BG checks for the purchases of any arm not full auto.
2. The current BG law should apply to Full Auto only.
3. There should be no law in the land which prohibits CCW by those not 'intoxicated' or convicted of a felony 'persons' crime, and obviously those using a weapon in the commission of a crime. The mistominer DV restriction is pure BS.
4. The age restrains for purchase of weapons should be eliminated, the use of the discretion of the person selling could be handled in civil court.
5. Dealers should only require normal business licences, not FFL's.
6. The ser# of a weapon should be recorded, and name and ID of the buyer noted in a log book, NO OTHER PAPER WORK!
7. There should be no restrictions on small arms ammo (50 cal and smaller)
8. Crew served weapons should be licensed, the way our full auto weapons are now.
These are GENERAL guidelines. I think would be work able in the REAL world and would allow us to exercise our rights within a working 'system'.
I know these do not set will with the 'ideal' crowd, but then nothing but total access by all to anything will. But as I said there is ALWAYS going to be an equilibrium between the two 'Ideal' sides of the issue. I think this is a 'real' place to start.
Does that answer your question??[?]
Yeah, you and your gun try getting by his security force.
Well, there are some who are capable of hitting a target from more than point-blank range. Guess snipers have no way of getting a bullet through some security detail [;)]
Actually I have answered that several times in the last months.
But I will, to accommodate you, repeat myself.[;)]
1. I am totally opposed to the current BG checks for the purchases of any arm not full auto.
2. The current BG law should apply to Full Auto only.
3. There should be no law in the land which prohibits CCW by those not 'intoxicated' or convicted of a felony 'persons' crime, and obviously those using a weapon in the commission of a crime. The mistominer DV restriction is pure BS.
4. The age restrains for purchase of weapons should be eliminated, the use of the discretion of the person selling could be handled in civil court.
5. Dealers should only require normal business licences, not FFL's.
6. The ser# of a weapon should be recorded, and name and ID of the buyer noted in a log book, NO OTHER PAPER WORK!
7. There should be no restrictions on small arms ammo (50 cal and smaller)
8. Crew served weapons should be licensed, the way our full auto weapons are now.
These are GENERAL guidelines. I think would be work able in the REAL world and would allow us to exercise our rights within a working 'system'.
I know these do not set will with the 'ideal' crowd, but then nothing but total access by all to anything will. But as I said there is ALWAYS going to be an equilibrium between the two 'Ideal' sides of the issue. I think this is a 'real' place to start.
Does that answer your question??[?]
Sure does Jim. I knew you weren't on the same side at all, as us. You claim over and over you belive the same as us.
Now you have put to print, that you were untruthful, and are NOT on the same side.
Thanks for leaving no room for doubt. [;)]
Like I said, I wish you well. The closer you get to the 'ideal' the closer we will get a 'real' working equilibrium.[;)]
Now don't jump on your high horse and act like you are better than the rest of us, because you are not![:)]
You are quit welcome![^]
Like I said, I wish you well. The closer you get to the 'ideal' the closer we will get a 'real' working equilibrium.[;)]
Now don't jump on your high horse and act like you are better than the rest of us, because you are not![:)]
When have I EVER claimed to be better than anyone else Jim?
Never would be the answer.
The difference between you and me Jim, is I understand and comprehend the Constitution and the BOR's while you simply don't.
You "comprimise" because you think there is a foothold on the anti's side. 20,000+ gunlaws, and every one is unconstitutional. Their "foothold" in reality is just you being apathetic.
Apathy has destroyed this country.
As for HB I can imagine a day under his regime. How long would it be before he started burning books? Not to worry, we'll read about him in the news, painted as another example of why we need for new draconian gun laws, by the liberal media, convincing the overwhelming majority that civilian can't handle the responsibility of gun ownership. I'll need to get a permit for my 10in butcher's knife.
Thanks, buddy.
Heavy flow month, buddy?
The founders had 'em the size of bowling balls, think you could at least muster the size of a sesame seed?
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
You are quit welcome![^]
Like I said, I wish you well. The closer you get to the 'ideal' the closer we will get a 'real' working equilibrium.[;)]
Now don't jump on your high horse and act like you are better than the rest of us, because you are not![:)]
When have I EVER claimed to be better than anyone else Jim?
Never would be the answer.
The difference between you and me Jim, is I understand and comprehend the Constitution and the BOR's while you simply don't.
You "comprimise" because you think there is a foothold on the anti's side. 20,000+ gunlaws, and every one is unconstitutional. Their "foothold" in reality is just you being apathetic.
Apathy has destroyed this country.
Wrong again free,
I too 'understand and comprehend the constitution' as well if not better than you, BUT I do not deny the real world and human nature.
Your mentality is similar to the activist who says 'one death by xyz is to many, and we will not rest until we have eradicated this xyz'. Enter reality, CAN'T HAPPEN in the real world. (xyz= DUI's, childhood cancer, and the list is endless).
I have two rules for setting goals:
1. They MUST be realistic.
2. They must be non-conflicting.
So all you are doing is setting yourself up for CERTINE failure.
If you notice, on my wish list, NONE of those are currently practiced. So if or when we get to that point in this battle then we can look further down the road at your goals and try to get closer to your 'ideal' situation. But I think we have one hell of a battle just trying to reach my goal!!!
You use the word 'compromise' as a dirty word. It is a fact of life. Your 'collective' of CA is going to have realize they are not the only ones in the world and certainly not a majority so to even start down your road to your 'ideal' you will have to work with the rest of the people in the world. If you continue this isolationist mentality you will only put up a bigger barrier to you ever even starting to accomplish any reform.
quote:I have litterly told several 'friends' they are no longer friends of mine and are not welcome in my home because they support the Obama/liberal movement
How amusing;
I not only feel that way...I also have included those voting mccain in the real belief tht he intended to restore American values to the country.
YES!
Good...you finally get it.
No, YOU get it Highball! And I'm glad to see that I'm not alone on here! Bravo!
There should be NO restrictions to prevent ANY ONE from protecting themselves and their families! Yes, Jim, this includes "crazy" people, "felons", "illegal" immigrants, cult leaders, and YOU!
Let's just look at a statement that will expose the faulty logic of gun restrictions, Jim:
"There are bad and violent people out there that might harm my family, so we need a group of people with a MONOPOLY on violence to protect us from them. And the way they can protect us is to disarm us"
May I issue an invitation to read some more of the back posts ?
I think you willl find several..at least 18 of us on here.."Get It"...
There are a few more that are coming along...not 'there', yet...but there is ALWAYS hope.
I think you need to do some reading of our past discussions before you start making assumptions and labeling those of us here, good or bad!!![;)]
One night we, a car load of friends and I, were in the next town just east of us, Burlington. We were up to no good, just went to the show and were looking for 'some action' (I am sure some of you can remember what that was)[}:)] but we were not to well received by the locals. We had about two car loads of them following us trying to get the courage up to jump us when I and another one of my friends got in one hell of an pissen contest in the car, about something stupid, and he popped me and I lit into him. The driver of the car stopped and we got out and kicked the snot out of each other while the other locals watched. They stopped following us and we went on our way. I had a split lip, and black eye and my fighting friend had a tooth knocked out and a big cut in his forehead. Both of us bleed all over the car.
WE DIDN'T ACOMPLISH ANYTHING GOOD!! It took about a week of bruding and we shook hands and are friends to this day.
Can you guys figure out why I am telling this story????[;)]
I see your a true Alaskan. *L* Snowmachine ?? Rather than Snowmobile. I was told thats how you guys tell an outsider when they show up. A Co-worker used to live up there. Worked at the Chemical Weapons Storge facility there. Can't remember the name.
c33, (FFNG)
I think you need to do some reading of our past discussions before you start making assumptions and labeling those of us here, good or bad!!![;)]
I'm not sure of what FFNG means, but I did not say any one was "good" or "bad" I said the "state" was bad.
You are correct, sorry. FFNG was a term we used for the new guys in the big green latrine (RVN)!!![;)]
Not to worry. Nobody gets attached to the new guy...until we see if you survive the first few months.
This is a tough bunch, around here ..little quarter is asked, and little given. We welcome your input ..wade right in and express your viewpoints.
If your view is that the government has no business involved in gun control, you will get my support instantly....but I don't like gun controllers, pedophiles, rapists, murderers, or traitors.
And I lump that whole group pretty much together.
Actually...a pedophile may well be further UP the ladder, as a `decent citizen', then are gun controllers.
The reason ? child molester can destroy the lives of 2, or ten, or 50 children...the gun controller destroys the lives of ENTIRE GENERATIONS of children.
I welcome more posts from you.
That `small difference' is quite likely the balance point between a free country and one ruled with an iron fist.
Allowing the government power to database every citizen that might resist;
Allowing the government to rigidly control weapons that are effective to a resistance;
Allowing the government to circumvent the Constitution is NEVER a `little thing'.
THOSE are the `small differences' you speak of.
Think about it.