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.
Hb,
We, meaning the citizens of this country, have allowed this to happen over many years. It has reached a 'breaking' point. WE, meaning ALL of us who agree in principal, must work in every way and arena to get this situation reversed. It will not happen with one quick event, much as I wish it could/would. If we do not succeed in the future we WILL find ourselves with our backs against the wall (where you feel we are now, but some like me still think we can continue to get this process reversed through slower less violent means). When and if this occurs we have got to be allies, not enemies.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and don't you forget it!!![;)]
HB,
"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'..."
Actually, I agree with you on these items. The Militia Law of 1792 (by the same writers of 2amdt) was about the militia having (mandating actually) "weapons of the day", on par with the standing army.
I confess to having been wrong, in earlier posts, on my defining of the meaning of "regulated" in the 2amdt. I've known that but lost it somewhere. I must've been Obamatized, after all I work in a union environment.
You preach the Alaska model, but Jim, please come back to "reality".
Alaska by its very history and nature, is peopled by a different breed than most other states. Alaskans are by and large "individualists" in their views, at least more so that any other state in the nation, thus, their propensity to distrust government and to trust each other is much more prevalent than found elsewhere.
Gotta disagree with you there. I lived in Alaska as well and what you said might have passed back in the day, however there's turning out to be more and more bleening tree huggers and hippy types up there all the time. I have a friend that still lives up there that I talk to often and they tell me what's the trend. I've found much more indiviualists in Texas.
From my time I lived there it seemed 90% wanted and took goverment handouts. Alot of peoples life consisted of getting drunk or high on some drug, knocking up a girl, then going to prison. I saw very few indiviualists while I lived up there. I liked Alaska, but it sure as hell wasn't because of the people.
quote:Originally posted by Kodiakk
quote:Originally posted by lt496
You preach the Alaska model, but Jim, please come back to "reality".
Alaska by its very history and nature, is peopled by a different breed than most other states. Alaskans are by and large "individualists" in their views, at least more so that any other state in the nation, thus, their propensity to distrust government and to trust each other is much more prevalent than found elsewhere.
Gotta disagree with you there. I lived in Alaska as well and what you said might have passed back in the day, however there's turning out to be more and more bleening tree huggers and hippy types up there all the time. I have a friend that still lives up there that I talk to often and they tell me what's the trend. I've found much more indiviualists in Texas.
From my time I lived there it seemed 90% wanted and took goverment handouts. Alot of peoples life consisted of getting drunk or high on some drug, knocking up a girl, then going to prison. I saw very few indiviualists while I lived up there. I liked Alaska, but it sure as hell wasn't because of the people.
By your description, it seems as if my picture of Alaska and its citizens, is off-base. I wouldn't know first hand, since I have never lived there.
Setting aside the various and sundry city dwellers, leeches and weasels that infest any society, I had pictured Alaskans as rugged-individualists, living in a harsh land and being largely self-reliant. Guess I am placing a "pioneer" concept onto the citizenry, due to my youthful visions and dare I say it, "assumptions" [:I].
Originally posted by gundad308
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.
The word "regulated" implies control. Maybe some don't like it but it keeps the extremely rich from ammasing arsenals to impose their will.
Incorrect. "Regulated" does not imply control. "Well regulated" as word usage of the times meant proficient in the use of arms. This twisting of words is one the gun grabbers are using to press their goals. "Repeat a lie enough and it becomes the truth", old commie mantra. Don't do it for them.
Comments
We, meaning the citizens of this country, have allowed this to happen over many years. It has reached a 'breaking' point. WE, meaning ALL of us who agree in principal, must work in every way and arena to get this situation reversed. It will not happen with one quick event, much as I wish it could/would. If we do not succeed in the future we WILL find ourselves with our backs against the wall (where you feel we are now, but some like me still think we can continue to get this process reversed through slower less violent means). When and if this occurs we have got to be allies, not enemies.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and don't you forget it!!![;)]
jpwolf, got plenty, dude.
Plenty means "a large amount". Now that you have been corrected on the meaning of "plenty", you might wish to edit, so as to not look so silly.
"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'..."
Actually, I agree with you on these items. The Militia Law of 1792 (by the same writers of 2amdt) was about the militia having (mandating actually) "weapons of the day", on par with the standing army.
I confess to having been wrong, in earlier posts, on my defining of the meaning of "regulated" in the 2amdt. I've known that but lost it somewhere. I must've been Obamatized, after all I work in a union environment.
jpwolf, NO EDIT NEEDED! thanks.
You preach the Alaska model, but Jim, please come back to "reality".
Alaska by its very history and nature, is peopled by a different breed than most other states. Alaskans are by and large "individualists" in their views, at least more so that any other state in the nation, thus, their propensity to distrust government and to trust each other is much more prevalent than found elsewhere.
Gotta disagree with you there. I lived in Alaska as well and what you said might have passed back in the day, however there's turning out to be more and more bleening tree huggers and hippy types up there all the time. I have a friend that still lives up there that I talk to often and they tell me what's the trend. I've found much more indiviualists in Texas.
From my time I lived there it seemed 90% wanted and took goverment handouts. Alot of peoples life consisted of getting drunk or high on some drug, knocking up a girl, then going to prison. I saw very few indiviualists while I lived up there. I liked Alaska, but it sure as hell wasn't because of the people.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
You preach the Alaska model, but Jim, please come back to "reality".
Alaska by its very history and nature, is peopled by a different breed than most other states. Alaskans are by and large "individualists" in their views, at least more so that any other state in the nation, thus, their propensity to distrust government and to trust each other is much more prevalent than found elsewhere.
Gotta disagree with you there. I lived in Alaska as well and what you said might have passed back in the day, however there's turning out to be more and more bleening tree huggers and hippy types up there all the time. I have a friend that still lives up there that I talk to often and they tell me what's the trend. I've found much more indiviualists in Texas.
From my time I lived there it seemed 90% wanted and took goverment handouts. Alot of peoples life consisted of getting drunk or high on some drug, knocking up a girl, then going to prison. I saw very few indiviualists while I lived up there. I liked Alaska, but it sure as hell wasn't because of the people.
By your description, it seems as if my picture of Alaska and its citizens, is off-base. I wouldn't know first hand, since I have never lived there.
Setting aside the various and sundry city dwellers, leeches and weasels that infest any society, I had pictured Alaskans as rugged-individualists, living in a harsh land and being largely self-reliant. Guess I am placing a "pioneer" concept onto the citizenry, due to my youthful visions and dare I say it, "assumptions" [:I].
I stand corrected.