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.
Freemind,, I never said his views about the 2nd were factually wrong. What I have said is that his view point excludes ALL that don't agree with him 100%. And I don't believe that was a founding principle of this country. As I have said SEVERAL TIMES. The constitution would NEVER had been ratified had it not been for compromise. And his,( as well as apparently your), stance is that we are either with him or your pond scum. Pronounceing all of us sheep because we don't foam at the mouth like he does and maybe you too for all I know. In the mean time, we support the second and work to support local organizations that do as well. But all I hear from HB and others is hot air and insults. Personnally I think that maybe some of the keyboard commandos should get up from behind it once in a while and go out and do something pro-active for the 2nd admendment. Even something small would be better than doing nothing. But that is to much to ask I guess. It much more fun to sit on your butts and hurl insults at people you don't know.
The compromising was done the day the Bill of Rights was ratified.
Today, we are merely cowards...allowing lying, slimy slugs power over us that was never intended.
If you and the NRA and the government and Trfox and Jim Rau want to change that document...do it the right way.
Stop calling me and others radical and worse because we INSIST that you follow the letter of the Constitution so you can have your gun control that you favor.
Meanwhile...until you GET that Constitutional change you want ..just keep flapping your lips about how terrible we all are pointing out the actual MEANING of the Second Amendment.
You people that support just a `little' gun control just do not seem to understand that without somebody pointing to original intent ..your position on just a little gun control becomes LOTS of gun control....because you have ceded the high ground to the enemy.
Again,, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE NR FIGGIN A. And when you stop calling me a sheep or anyone else for that matter simply for haveing another view point or another way of doing things, then maybe I won't view you as such a radical fanatic. And untill you actually go out and do something proactive in support of the 2nd, flapping your lips is all YOUR doing.
You support gun control...or you wouldn't be so rabid about attacking me.
Pretty simple. That places you on the same side as the NRA.
Only sheep bleat when a rock is thrown among them. They just want the rock-throwing to stop.they don't want to move to a position of safety...or , heaven forbid, a position to attack the REAL enemies...
I do nothing ? There are 18 men on this site that amount to more then all the Second Amendment activities you and others of your beliefs have been involved in your entire lives.
These are men that share a common belief;
That belief being individual freedom.
Those men, and I have carried a message all across this country ..a message unadulterated by propaganda, fear, compromise, or weakness.
HB,, Whatever. Your not changing me or I you. I am tired of this never ending rant of yours. We are sheep. You are God of the constitution. Whatever.
I have stopped caring. You win. Hooray for you. We both feel that there is little or nothing constitutional about the others view. Great. You will continue to be a keyboard commando and I will continue to support Actively those who fight against the Gun Grabbers. If that makes me a sheep fine. It won't stop me from doing what is right.
You have victory. As hollow as it is. But I am sure those are the kinds of "victories" your used to. pop a cold one and celebrate.
This has never been about you, 45..gathering everybody was never in the cards.
All I needed you for was to provide the other side of the argument.
Guys like you furnish the ammunition needed to construct a Constitutional argument.
Merely stating that `shall not be infringed' is all-inclusive does not carry the weight of battering down the weak arguments presented by the NRA or nra-light for gun control.
Better by far for there to be an actual person out there, throwing out the propaganda perpetrated upon the unsuspecting citizens of this country...as they endlessly mouth the party line of those in power.
I thank you for that.
Understand ..it isn't your fault. You are just attempting to discredit the greatest documents ever handed to mankind ..the Bor and Constitution...and everything you try is doomed to fail.
My last word on this thread HB. No I have not. "You are just attempting to discredit the greatest documents ever handed to mankind ..the Bor and Constitution.." I never have. And I have NEVER been in favor of gun control. Of ANY Kind. Simply because i obey the law and stay out of jail doesn't mean that I support gun control. That is simply YOUR interpritation. Misguided as it is. I am a L.E.O. And if, in your mind, that makes me the enemy. Or unconstitutional, then so be it. That's not my problem.
Then perhaps you can explain to the jury just exactly why you feel it necessary to attack me continually ?
Your crying about my manners, my bluntness, my snide remarks...ALL ought to not bother you personally.
What I do has...by personal testimony of several right here on these forums...swung several to the side of the correct interpretation of the Second.
We have other men right here on this board that have the ability to discuss in a civilized manner the pros and cons of the document in question...and oddly enough ..those men do not feel it necessary to hammer me unmercifully about my crude methods.
Ever wonder just WHY you and a couple others feel obliged to forge another clone of YOU ?
I think it completely obvious that you have another viewpoint on the Second Amendment...no matter HOW much you protest your dislike of gun laws.
There IS no infringement allowed on the Second...no matter how much you wish it so, or read into it whatever you will.
If you agree with that...why in hell does this discussion go on and on and on ?
quote:Originally posted by Highball
We have other men right here on this board that have the ability to discuss in a civilized manner the pros and cons of the document in question...and oddly enough ..those men do not feel it necessary to hammer me unmercifully about my crude methods.
I was with you until you started advocating "cleansing" the populace....an excellent example of how to turn "the 3%" into 1%
Sorry, Rack; I don't think you were EVER `with' me.
That being said. You are the moderate.
Explain exactly what you would do with people that insist upon their Right to preach gun control in a free society ?
It has been proven over and over and over that gun control leads to tyranny.
Personally, I have little trouble with you bedding 3 women at a time....you want to do dogs, ok .long as you do it in private and don't make a public spectacle of yourself.
Gay ? Ok...just don't try and teach school or be a Scout Master or be around children.
See how open minded I am ?
Even idiots running about preaching gun control don't bother me all that much, actually...as long as the general public is taught, properly...that that person is INSANE.
No.what bothers me is the fact that those idiots elect to the highest offices in this land insane people just like themselves.
Perhaps the best plan is just to try, convict, and execute high officials that advocate Constitution busting policies ?
Naturally, some attempt would have to be made to keep the criminally insane OFF the jury panels....I.E...gun controllers...
It appears that a free society cannot exist for very long. Either the truly criminally insane take control...or people like you so weaken and dilute the fibers of the country it becomes a pushover for any pizant that comes along.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Sorry, Rack; I don't think you were EVER `with' me.
That being said. You are the moderate.
Pathetic....
Not so long ago, you were saying I was a "hard-core" American, just like yourself......but since I won't go along with your idea for a little holocaust, I'm branded a gun control "moderate"
Thats fine, I remember you branding me in much the same way when I had the gall to state Ted Nugent is a POS hypocrite.....as if that somehow any damned thing to do with my views on gun control.
Lacking the Constitutional grounds to support your viewpoint, you've taking the coward's way out and simply branded me a heretic....
But then again, this ceased being a discussion about gun control a long time ago.......
Suit yourself.
This is a public forum ..you have been invited to expound your deathless prose on the subject of gun controllers taking over at every level.
You don't like my solution ..that's fine.
You obviously are not intelligent enough to offer one of your own except allow them free rein as they destroy the fabric of this society.
Your solution is as unacceptable to me as mine is to you.
I am going to say this one more time ..for you sob sisters out there.
I have said that I would rift out anti gunners from my A.O.
That statement must be a bit qualified...for I have never expected to possible `control' more then a small area and a few people...even given the best of all possible worlds.
I realize that the sob sisters immediately took that to mean that somehow I expected to take over ten thousand miles and a million people, and start the purges.
I fell into that trap..and put forth something not possible on a sweeping scale. Unfortunately, insanity IS legal in this country..as long as you smile and speak softly, people like you give lots of weight to insane individuals.
The scenario I postulate is utter chaos...where the so-called `rule of law' is null and void, as gangs run wild.
Anti-gunners, in that situation, are dead weight ..their insanity tearing down the structures being re-built...and eating food better served to sane people.
Better to send them down the road ..to serve some other master then the Constitution.
I really don't give a rats az what you think about that. I intend to ensure the survival of people I consider valuable.
Just one of the choices One will be forced to make when food gets tight.
You may call me whatever you wish;
I owe NOTHING to those seeking to take away the Second Amendment. When it comes to the Second, I will defend it with every last bit of breath in my body...and if that means taking away somebody elses `Rights' to attack me on the Second...so be it.
The sob sisters just cannot understand ..as long as we have the Second...we can discuss all those `other' Rights.
The day the Second is gone...so too are those soft Rights that worry you so much.
Defend to the death all those other Rights; For surely that is where you will be when your defense of the Second is lacking.
I owe NOTHING to those seeking to take away the Second Amendment. When it comes to the Second, I will defend it with every last bit of breath in my body...and if that means taking away somebody elses `Rights' to attack me on the Second...so be it.
And thats why you are no better than those you rail against, jackboot.
Guess I am a disgrace as well then Rack, as I share Highball's sediments. You find it acceptable to give freedom robbing anti-gunners a PLACE in our society, then you will have NO freedom.
Just becasue they speak softly and APPEAR to care about our country, doesn't mean they do. They desire control of everyone, including YOU.
quote:Originally posted by freemind
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
.
You're a disgrace, jackboot.
Guess I am a disgrace as well then Rack, as I share Highball's sediments. You find it acceptable to give freedom robbing anti-gunners a PLACE in our society, then you will have NO freedom.
Just becasue they speak softly and APPEAR to care about our country, doesn't mean they do. They desire control of everyone, including YOU.
Make that 3.[^] No place for PC fatladysz. The proverbial bad apple.
Thank you, gentlemen;
This has been bothering me a bit.
I have agonized over this dichotomy for many years...the necessity of actually winning the coming war against the need to defend the Constitution...ALL of it.
Could the Founders have won their war ..had they strictly lived and fought by the Constitution ? I have a tiny belief that perhaps they could not have...And..as the present adversary says...that puts me in the' same class as those I rail against' . Jackboot.
I believe that even if there is a need to take certain control at some point ..that honoring that One Amendment ..the Second ..there will be ensured the absolute means for men of good will to make damn sure no leader goes berserk...or a bullet in the head will suffice.
Let me tell you...were there pretty good proof that someone in a group was talking out of turn, or passing info to the enemy...I would have not the slightest problem using a cheese grater on him...thereby violating his Civil Rights.
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by freemind
They desire control of everyone, including YOU.
So does Highball, by his own admission.
Either someone WILL conform to his view, or they'll "go away"
Two sides of the same coin......which is tragically ironic given the source.
Barack Obama advocates ignoring the Constitution because it "isn't fair enough", Highball advocates ignoring it because it is "too soft"
The staunch "individualist" advocates forcing conformity at the point of a gun......
As I look at this "argument", I am struck with a glaring point that could use some clarification for this poor ol' country boy.
Is HB advocating his stance from a position as a "Government" and thus advocating what Rack Indicates, or is he advocating his own "personal" stance as it relates to his "personal" A.O.?
There is a distinct difference between the two positions.
Comparing Highball to Barak Obama, or any other POTUS, or government official and placing a constitutional context onto what he states, is disingenuous at best, "IF" HB is speaking from his personal views as to what HE would do as an individual for that which may be under his control in such an event.
The Constitution is a document that restrains "government" to its rules and processes.
Let it be said that if the SHTF and ol' Lt had a conclave/group of individuals together for whatever reason, there would be no gun-prohibitionists, fellow travelers, or "able-bodied unwilling to carry their load" allowed in my A.O. either. Such would be banished to fend for themselves, or to latch on to some more "permissive" individual or group, or put out to wander aimlessly and die, due to the lack of a handout.
Correct me if I am wrong Rack, but does this not fit a similar scenario that you've been commenting on that you deem to be the taking away of someones rights, or to be contrary to the Constitution, as it were?
Individual decisions for your own private circumstances vs. "government" actions Rack. Big difference.
That all being said, I have not put this whole "argument" into context as to what HB has stated and I would appreciate some clarification.
Thank you, Captain;
You just snapped into focus something that has eluded me for many, many years...that simple fact.
An individual, fighting for his and a small group of survivors lives ..versus some politician in a safe, secure environment telling me how to live or die.
Simply amazing...how stupid one can be at times. This is quite obvious...now that you point it out.
An entire nation can survive...for awhile...the endless erosions of values by those that hate those values. Witness America, today.
A group of 10 or 50 men...fighting for their LIVES ...cannot tolerate themselves to be weakened by garbage.
While the Rackops of the world were never going to change my mind ..you clearly pointed out the reason why they should not do so.
Thanks.
That point has bothered me for many years. It will no longer do so. My Christmas came early this year.
No doubt, some of you noticed my laboured arguments concerning this subject...I just could feel the ground unsure under my feet. Now I stand once again on bedrock ..thanks to the support of the Brethren and the precision missile delivered on target by our good Captain.
I've hesitated to weigh in on this because I am troubled that the conversation between two men who's opinions I respect has degraded to such a level.
I have a very different view than does HB as to what will be the eventually battle if the intolerable of today becomes the unendurable of tomorrow. I do not see where bands of patriots establishing Areas of Operation will be of any benefit to the cause, rather I see 100s of individual battles of defense of hearth and home that will inevitably combine to force public opinion to decide between tyranny and freedom. If public opinion decides on tyranny, well, all bets are off. I am, however, a perennial optimist regarding the heart of the American Public, and firmly believe that a generational change of direction will occur simply because it must if freedom and liberty are to survive.
Perhaps it is because I have grown soft and recoil at the thought of living absent the comforts of home. Perhaps it is because I believe that we will need to bring fence-sitters into the fold, which will be impossible if they are bombarded with daily propaganda style news reports of various patriot cells and thier latest assaults upon polite society. Perhaps it is because I believe that only through principled defense of our rights as compared to offensive action do we have any hope of establishing significant support (which will be necessary for any success within the framework of our Constitution).
That being said, if we ever are reduced to individual camps, it is obvious that the social fabric will be in such disarray that any given camp will be unable to expend resources for those that are not participating or are not fully on-board. The original comment by HB was, IMO, a bit of hyperbole suggesting the elimination of those that would not contribute, and from what I've seen, is has been modified to simple expulsion for those that were not fully on board. Obviously at that survival stage, active opponents will have to be eliminated.
As LT points out, at that time this will not be a situation in which the niceties of due process and complete vetting of all rights and responsibilities is possible as the purpose is not to govern rather to move towards the re-establishment of proper governance. It will be a fluid situation of extremes and extreme measures will be necessary in order maintain cohesion and maximize the chances for success. This is perfectly acceptable so long as any and all extreme measures are measured against the yardstick of freedom and liberty and are taken within a framework of principle and not subject to emotion or personality.
Good men can and do have different sensibilities and good men can disagree. I believe this to be the case in this situation.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
I was hoping you'd be along, lt. Now we can get somewhere.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
As I look at this "argument", I am struck with a glaring point that could use some clarification for this poor ol' country boy.
Is HB advocating his stance from a position as a "Government" and thus advocating what Rack Indicates, or is he advocating his own "personal" stance as it relates to his "personal" A.O.?
Under the circumstances of such a scenario, would HB and his merry men not be the de facto government of his imaginary fiefdom?
quote:
There is a distinct difference between the two positions.
Even if not, I still see no difference in the positions. The Rights recognized under the Constitution (all of them) are pre-existing and a taking of those rights by one is the same as a taking of those rights by the other.
What HB, or any of the other "individualists" (HA!) in this discussion do on or with their own property is one thing..... but the road to tyranny begins when they, and you, decide to make the rules in their own "AO"
The argument can be made that one has an obligation to help their fellow man if he is in need....I don't agree with that position, and wouldn't help someone I considered to be "worthless", but thats a different cirumstance entirely than physically taking their possessions (and lets be honest, this is exactly what you're advocating, unless you plan on moving their house too)
quote:
Let it be said that if the SHTF and ol' Lt had a conclave/group of individuals together for whatever reason, there would be no gun-prohibitionists, fellow travelers, or "able-bodied unwilling to carry their load" allowed in my A.O. either.
"They won't be allowed"....how lame. What if they don't go. You gonna burn 'em out, Janet Reno?
quote:
Individual decisions for your own private circumstances vs. "government" actions Rack. Big difference..
As has been clearly stated, by both sides, time and time again...this isn't a discussion of "individual decisions" or "private circumstances", its about imposing one's will on their neighbor, at the point of a gun.
This isn't even about the second amendment anymore. I'm as pro-gun as anyone on this forum, but I've been told I wouldn't be welcome in highball's Amerika......Since I'm not an anti-gunner, I must be a "fellow traveler" (I admit to having never heard that term before this discussion, so thanks to HB for broadening my vocabulary at least)
Either you support the whole Bill of Rights or you're pissing on it just as surely as those you preach against......it is what is, lt.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
It will be a fluid situation of extremes and extreme measures will be necessary in order maintain cohesion and maximize the chances for success. This is perfectly acceptable so long as any and all extreme measures are measured against the yardstick of freedom and liberty and are taken within a framework of principle and not subject to emotion or personality.
I'm sorry Don, but you cannot justify eliminating dissenting opinions by "measuring it against the yardstick of freedom and liberty"
If you're going to do it, do it....but saying you're doing it for "freedom" and "liberty" (as opposed to your own survival) is a farce, period
quote:
Good men can and do have different sensibilities and good men can disagree.
Don;
Perhaps you would care to explaing the difference in these occurances ?
quote:I do not see where bands of patriots establishing Areas of Operation will be of any benefit to the cause, rather I see 100s of individual battles of defense of hearth and home that will inevitably combine
Personally, I think given a break-down of society, one would be duty-bound to secure your area. Eventually, you would be, I believe, forced to clean out the nest of bikers in the next town...the free-booters across the river...for the protection and survival of the group.
At some point, you would join forces with the decent folks of Anytown...thereby expanding the areas safe to travel, trade with, and consort with.
I ALSO cannot see ANY Patriot resting comfortably while his country is dragged into the dirt by various rat-tag thieves, criminals, and assorted garbage that will surface as soon as the iron hand of government fails to keep them subdued just enough to be an irritant to
the populace and useful tools of that government.
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
It will be a fluid situation of extremes and extreme measures will be necessary in order maintain cohesion and maximize the chances for success. This is perfectly acceptable so long as any and all extreme measures are measured against the yardstick of freedom and liberty and are taken within a framework of principle and not subject to emotion or personality.
I'm sorry Don, but you cannot justify eliminating dissenting opinions by "measuring it against the yardstick of freedom and liberty"
If you're going to do it, do it....but saying you're doing it for "freedom" and "liberty" (as opposed to your own survival) is a farce, period
quote:
Good men can and do have different sensibilities and good men can disagree.
On that we agree.....Thanks for joining in.
None of this would be done for survival, Rack. Our own survival would best be assured by submitting to the whims of whatever authority is in place. The only reason anyone would organize as has been described would be to preserve what freedom and liberty he could. You are correct that "measuring it against the yardstick of freedom and liberty" is imprecise at best, but as I am not envisioning this as a near-term possibility, I have not developed a consise set of principles that would apply. It is those principles that would determine the viability of any resistance movement.
For an organization to have any positive impact it would by necessity have to recognize the obvious need to treat the average citizen with respect. The average citizen would (initially at least) feel that he did not have a dog in this fight. To arbitrarily dismiss that opinion would be a mistake, as this would be a public relations battle more-so that it would be an actual conflict.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
If there is a war You idiots can hammer out the details after you win. Point being Ethos and creedos are of little import when compared to everything else needed to bring war to the enemy. You guys can Worry about propaganda when you have time to spraypaint it on the burnt out walls Of the buildings you happen to be passing when your not getting shot at.
I have reached the necessary conclusions in my own mind already.
I seek only to inspire forward thinking individuals so that they too can be ready when the time comes.
Being paralyzed by 'ethics' when the shooting starts will merely condemn one to death.
The loss of even ONE Patriot due to the actions of sob sisters is one too many.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The only reason anyone would organize as has been described would be to preserve what freedom and liberty he could.
Or it could be a simple case of greed....
"I'm sorry Mr. Smith, you can't live here anymore because we can't trust you. No, you can't take anything with you, but we'll put it to good use...after all, we're BETTER than you."
Highbail, I hope you are learning a lesson by having Rack Ops turn against you. You and your little gang of * have set yourself up for more such lessons. Reason being that you have taken the militant position that ONLY your interpertation of the 2A is or ever can be correct. You have chosen to demand that your 2A right be TOTALLY without any restrictions what-so-ever; even going so far as to demand that convicted violent felons be allowed to legally have firearms. You have chosen to condemn anyone who disagrees even a little bit with your extreme position as a traitor or worse. You have chosen to almost welcome violence so that you all can become saviors of the constitution and/or real life "action heros." You have formed your goofey little club apparently so as to create a hostile "us vs them" situation. You have condemned everyone who doesn't agree with you as not being "real men" which of course makes it look as you * are claiming to be the only "real men."
In other words, you * have created a structure that is soon to collapse around you because it is a flawed structure that creates more bad than good regarding gun rights for the sane gun owners.
I continue to accomplish what I started out to do...separate the wheat from the chaff.
You, TR, have blown away with the wind ..a proven lightweight. You are unable to keep even the most basis facts straight in your mind ..and you persist in smearing decent people by your own fevered fears of individuals possessing weapons without government approval.
Rackops has staked out his position. It is unalterably opposed to mine.
So be it.
You and he and millions more will make fine shock troops for the enemies of freedom one of these days...as you obey orders to `kill the dissidents'.
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
I was hoping you'd be along, lt. Now we can get somewhere.
Well hello to you to Rack.[;)]
quote:Originally posted by lt496
As I look at this "argument", I am struck with a glaring point that could use some clarification for this poor ol' country boy.
Is HB advocating his stance from a position as a "Government" and thus advocating what Rack Indicates, or is he advocating his own "personal" stance as it relates to his "personal" A.O.?
Under the circumstances of such a scenario, would HB and his merry men not be the de facto government of his imaginary fiefdom?
I am not sure of the parameters of Highball's scenario, but will address mine.
I am hypothesizing a SHTF scenario, where gov't has broken down and/or active hostilities have broken out with said gov't, rather than a "post-revolt new government" scenario.
Maybe we are speaking of apples and avocados here.
To answer your question, any group that was allowed to gather with me would contain no quislings, fellow-travelers, or those who advocated subversion of whatever the goal happened to be, in this case, the restoration of our Constitutional Republic.
Private citizens, banded voluntarily with ol' Lt and his family (under select circumstances of my choosing), does not make this the Federal, or the State gov't. It merely makes a voluntary association of people.
There simply is no "de facto" to it in my scenario.
quote:
There is a distinct difference between the two positions.
Even if not, I still see no difference in the positions.
Well, Rack, therein lay your problem in grasping the concept.
When speaking of the Constitution, it is restraint on government, Federal Government actually, but for the sake of argument, we will concede coverage to the sovereign states also.
The Rights recognized under the Constitution (all of them) are pre-existing and a taking of those rights by one is the same as a taking of those rights by the other.
Allow me just a short analogy to address the above "point" on Constitutionally enumerated rights.......Someone comes at you with a knife with the intent to cut your pecker off, you shoot and kill the mope, or choke him to death. You have taken away his "rights" under your view.
That being said, you were justified in doing so. In addition, as an individual, violations of enumerated constitutional rights are restricted to government abuse, under color of authority or some other "government" connotation.
All else is related to civil law and societal norms as it pertains to the actions of a private citizen.
See the distinction?
What HB, or any of the other "individualists" (HA!) in this discussion do on or with their own property is one thing..... but the road to tyranny begins when they, and you, decide to make the rules in their own "AO"
Again and speaking to my own scenario, my "A.O." is the scope of my private area of control or influence. That could be my home (permanent or temporary), my remote property, or it could be those who choose and are allowed to accompany me on the move, etc..
Regardless, I, as a private person and being in control of that which I choose to be in control of, in this case my family unit and maybe a few select others, decide who associates with me in my "area of operations".
You want to be there and have been invited, fine, but you can't be an advocate for that which we fight against, nor can you undermine the "group", or family, or me, by working toward the success and victory of that which I am fighting against.
You get sent down the road, one way or the other, period.
The argument can be made that one has an obligation to help their fellow man if he is in need....I don't agree with that position, and wouldn't help someone I considered to be "worthless", but thats a different cirumstance entirely than physically taking their possessions (and lets be honest, this is exactly what you're advocating, unless you plan on moving their house too)
I have an obligation to myself and my family first and foremost. I have an obligation to the Constitution and the Republic. I have no obligation, unless it is a moral or religious one, to care for anyone but those things mentioned.
Nowhere did you see me refer to "worthless". I spoke of those who take an opposing philosophical position to liberty and to those who contribute nothing by choice. Those may have "worth" to someone else in my scenario, but that is for others to decide.
As to taking someones property....what the hell are you talking about?
Take your schit and get out, unless you are an open and immediate threat to me and mine.
quote:
Let it be said that if the SHTF and ol' Lt had a conclave/group of individuals together for whatever reason, there would be no gun-prohibitionists, fellow travelers, or "able-bodied unwilling to carry their load" allowed in my A.O. either.
"They won't be allowed"....how lame.
I am speaking in my scenario about my unit, family, or voluntary association. Any with me would be there because they are family, or because they asked to be, or were asked to be.
Don't like the rules, you are no longer allowed to be an associate.
Difficult concept, huh Rack?
What if they don't go. You gonna burn 'em out, Janet Reno?
What an utterly ridiculous statement.
If you are in my roving band and/or in my home, temporary or permanent, you will leave if you are instructed to do so.
It is what it is.
This simple and direct concept applies to my home and to my association situation right now also, Rack.
Come on over to my house and then try to subvert and/or pervert our family, our home, our beliefs, our customs, or our way of life and guess what, you will leave, no doubt.
Another difficult concept?
quote:
Individual decisions for your own private circumstances vs. "government" actions Rack. Big difference..
As has been clearly stated, by both sides, time and time again...this isn't a discussion of "individual decisions" or "private circumstances", its about imposing one's will on their neighbor, at the point of a gun.
I think that I have covered this thoroughly in my above descriptions, but will simply say that you seem to have a comprehension problem and great difficulty in separating the Constitution and individual rights, from private vs. government actions.
This isn't even about the second amendment anymore. I'm as pro-gun as anyone on this forum, but I've been told I wouldn't be welcome in highball's Amerika......Since I'm not an anti-gunner, I must be a "fellow traveler" (I admit to having never heard that term before this discussion, so thanks to HB for broadening my vocabulary at least)
Highball can speak for Highball, he is quite capable.
As for me, I have not said that you would or would not be "welcome" in my group in a SHTF scenario. I am sure that you would opt to not be, even if asked.
I am not speaking to a "rebuilt America", but if that is the scenario, then the Constitution is reinstated as intended and although individuals may have their personal anti-liberty, anti-Constitution views, all who achieved public office would be held to their "oath of office" to support and defend said Constitution and if that oath were violated, then immediate removal from office proceedings would be desired and expected.
Sadly, in a society where individualism is practiced, weasels, fellow-travelers and various and sundry other anti-liberty persons would inevitably worm their way back into positions of power, just as history has always proven and thus, the cycle of liberty, to dependence, to tyranny, to revolt would likely begin again.
Either you support the whole Bill of Rights or you're pissing on it just as surely as those you preach against
Well Rack, I do indeed support the Bill of Rights AND the remainder of the Constitution. I always have.
lt, my reply will be short as much of what you stated I agree with. highball has staked out his position, as have you.....and you are correct that I have, perhaps unfairly, lumped your positions together.
For the sake of bandwidth, if I don't address the point.....we're in agreement [:)]
quote:
Allow me just a short analogy to address the above "point" on Constitutionally enumerated rights.......Someone comes at you with a knife with the intent to cut your pecker off, you shoot and kill the mope, or choke him to death. You have taken away his "rights" under your view.
Analogies often fall short, and this one is no exception.
The "attacker" in your scenario is making a direct, physical attack upon me.....I have no choice but to defend myself if I have any desire to continue to "pursue happiness" [;)]
A more accurate analogy would be blowing away my neighbor because they have a "men are pigs" bumper sticker on their car.
quote:
That being said, you were justified in doing so. In addition, as an individual, violations of enumerated constitutional rights are restricted to government abuse, under color of authority or some other "government" connotation.
BS.
Does an employer have a right to strip-search employees at their whim? Can they tell me what religion I must (or must not) follow?
I can find volumes of legal cases where someone in authority (and not just government authority) was "nailed to the wall" for violating someone's rights.
quote:
See the distinction?
No, I don't.....That whole "...endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" thing keeps getting in the way.
quote:
As for me, I have not said that you would or would not be "welcome" in my group in a SHTF scenario. I am sure that you would opt to not be, even if asked.
Based on your comments above, you're wrong again. My guess is I'd be lucky to have a couple of your type as neighbors.
quote:
Sadly, in a society where individualism is practiced, weasels, fellow-travelers and various and sundry other anti-liberty persons would inevitably worm their way back into positions of power, just as history has always proven and thus, the cycle of liberty, to dependence, to tyranny, to revolt would likely begin again.
Your assessment of history is correct. History tells us that EVERY democracy will fall at some point, its just a matter of time. Its what Jefferson was speaking of in his famous "liberty tree" quote.
The cycle cannot be stopped, it has yet to be disproven as a law of human nature, but nothing is gained by jumping directly from freedom to tyranny....
I think this subject is covered nicely.
The opposition is reduced to grunting and belching ..typical of the type .As usual, the only intelligence has been exhibited by the Brethren.
Others may well find value in pursuing dialogue with sob sisters ..and I will indeed read their posts, if they do so.
However ..I don't associate with sob sisters in real life ..and I have my fill of them here.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
I think this subject is covered nicely.
The opposition is reduced to grunting and belching ..typical of the type .As usual, the only intelligence has been exhibited by the Brethren.
Comments
Today, we are merely cowards...allowing lying, slimy slugs power over us that was never intended.
If you and the NRA and the government and Trfox and Jim Rau want to change that document...do it the right way.
Stop calling me and others radical and worse because we INSIST that you follow the letter of the Constitution so you can have your gun control that you favor.
Meanwhile...until you GET that Constitutional change you want ..just keep flapping your lips about how terrible we all are pointing out the actual MEANING of the Second Amendment.
You people that support just a `little' gun control just do not seem to understand that without somebody pointing to original intent ..your position on just a little gun control becomes LOTS of gun control....because you have ceded the high ground to the enemy.
Pretty simple. That places you on the same side as the NRA.
Only sheep bleat when a rock is thrown among them. They just want the rock-throwing to stop.they don't want to move to a position of safety...or , heaven forbid, a position to attack the REAL enemies...
I do nothing ? There are 18 men on this site that amount to more then all the Second Amendment activities you and others of your beliefs have been involved in your entire lives.
These are men that share a common belief;
That belief being individual freedom.
Those men, and I have carried a message all across this country ..a message unadulterated by propaganda, fear, compromise, or weakness.
I have stopped caring. You win. Hooray for you. We both feel that there is little or nothing constitutional about the others view. Great. You will continue to be a keyboard commando and I will continue to support Actively those who fight against the Gun Grabbers. If that makes me a sheep fine. It won't stop me from doing what is right.
You have victory. As hollow as it is. But I am sure those are the kinds of "victories" your used to. pop a cold one and celebrate.
All I needed you for was to provide the other side of the argument.
Guys like you furnish the ammunition needed to construct a Constitutional argument.
Merely stating that `shall not be infringed' is all-inclusive does not carry the weight of battering down the weak arguments presented by the NRA or nra-light for gun control.
Better by far for there to be an actual person out there, throwing out the propaganda perpetrated upon the unsuspecting citizens of this country...as they endlessly mouth the party line of those in power.
I thank you for that.
Understand ..it isn't your fault. You are just attempting to discredit the greatest documents ever handed to mankind ..the Bor and Constitution...and everything you try is doomed to fail.
Then perhaps you can explain to the jury just exactly why you feel it necessary to attack me continually ?
Your crying about my manners, my bluntness, my snide remarks...ALL ought to not bother you personally.
What I do has...by personal testimony of several right here on these forums...swung several to the side of the correct interpretation of the Second.
We have other men right here on this board that have the ability to discuss in a civilized manner the pros and cons of the document in question...and oddly enough ..those men do not feel it necessary to hammer me unmercifully about my crude methods.
Ever wonder just WHY you and a couple others feel obliged to forge another clone of YOU ?
I think it completely obvious that you have another viewpoint on the Second Amendment...no matter HOW much you protest your dislike of gun laws.
There IS no infringement allowed on the Second...no matter how much you wish it so, or read into it whatever you will.
If you agree with that...why in hell does this discussion go on and on and on ?
We have other men right here on this board that have the ability to discuss in a civilized manner the pros and cons of the document in question...and oddly enough ..those men do not feel it necessary to hammer me unmercifully about my crude methods.
I was with you until you started advocating "cleansing" the populace....an excellent example of how to turn "the 3%" into 1%
Just a thought
That being said. You are the moderate.
Explain exactly what you would do with people that insist upon their Right to preach gun control in a free society ?
It has been proven over and over and over that gun control leads to tyranny.
Personally, I have little trouble with you bedding 3 women at a time....you want to do dogs, ok .long as you do it in private and don't make a public spectacle of yourself.
Gay ? Ok...just don't try and teach school or be a Scout Master or be around children.
See how open minded I am ?
Even idiots running about preaching gun control don't bother me all that much, actually...as long as the general public is taught, properly...that that person is INSANE.
No.what bothers me is the fact that those idiots elect to the highest offices in this land insane people just like themselves.
Perhaps the best plan is just to try, convict, and execute high officials that advocate Constitution busting policies ?
Naturally, some attempt would have to be made to keep the criminally insane OFF the jury panels....I.E...gun controllers...
It appears that a free society cannot exist for very long. Either the truly criminally insane take control...or people like you so weaken and dilute the fibers of the country it becomes a pushover for any pizant that comes along.
Sorry, Rack; I don't think you were EVER `with' me.
That being said. You are the moderate.
Pathetic....
Not so long ago, you were saying I was a "hard-core" American, just like yourself......but since I won't go along with your idea for a little holocaust, I'm branded a gun control "moderate"
Thats fine, I remember you branding me in much the same way when I had the gall to state Ted Nugent is a POS hypocrite.....as if that somehow any damned thing to do with my views on gun control.
Lacking the Constitutional grounds to support your viewpoint, you've taking the coward's way out and simply branded me a heretic....
But then again, this ceased being a discussion about gun control a long time ago.......
This is a public forum ..you have been invited to expound your deathless prose on the subject of gun controllers taking over at every level.
You don't like my solution ..that's fine.
You obviously are not intelligent enough to offer one of your own except allow them free rein as they destroy the fabric of this society.
Your solution is as unacceptable to me as mine is to you.
I am going to say this one more time ..for you sob sisters out there.
I have said that I would rift out anti gunners from my A.O.
That statement must be a bit qualified...for I have never expected to possible `control' more then a small area and a few people...even given the best of all possible worlds.
I realize that the sob sisters immediately took that to mean that somehow I expected to take over ten thousand miles and a million people, and start the purges.
I fell into that trap..and put forth something not possible on a sweeping scale. Unfortunately, insanity IS legal in this country..as long as you smile and speak softly, people like you give lots of weight to insane individuals.
The scenario I postulate is utter chaos...where the so-called `rule of law' is null and void, as gangs run wild.
Anti-gunners, in that situation, are dead weight ..their insanity tearing down the structures being re-built...and eating food better served to sane people.
Better to send them down the road ..to serve some other master then the Constitution.
I really don't give a rats az what you think about that. I intend to ensure the survival of people I consider valuable.
Just one of the choices One will be forced to make when food gets tight.
You may call me whatever you wish;
I owe NOTHING to those seeking to take away the Second Amendment. When it comes to the Second, I will defend it with every last bit of breath in my body...and if that means taking away somebody elses `Rights' to attack me on the Second...so be it.
The sob sisters just cannot understand ..as long as we have the Second...we can discuss all those `other' Rights.
The day the Second is gone...so too are those soft Rights that worry you so much.
Defend to the death all those other Rights; For surely that is where you will be when your defense of the Second is lacking.
I owe NOTHING to those seeking to take away the Second Amendment. When it comes to the Second, I will defend it with every last bit of breath in my body...and if that means taking away somebody elses `Rights' to attack me on the Second...so be it.
And thats why you are no better than those you rail against, jackboot.
You're a disgrace, jackboot.
.
You're a disgrace, jackboot.
Guess I am a disgrace as well then Rack, as I share Highball's sediments. You find it acceptable to give freedom robbing anti-gunners a PLACE in our society, then you will have NO freedom.
Just becasue they speak softly and APPEAR to care about our country, doesn't mean they do. They desire control of everyone, including YOU.
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
.
You're a disgrace, jackboot.
Guess I am a disgrace as well then Rack, as I share Highball's sediments. You find it acceptable to give freedom robbing anti-gunners a PLACE in our society, then you will have NO freedom.
Just becasue they speak softly and APPEAR to care about our country, doesn't mean they do. They desire control of everyone, including YOU.
Make that 3.[^] No place for PC fatladysz. The proverbial bad apple.
This has been bothering me a bit.
I have agonized over this dichotomy for many years...the necessity of actually winning the coming war against the need to defend the Constitution...ALL of it.
Could the Founders have won their war ..had they strictly lived and fought by the Constitution ? I have a tiny belief that perhaps they could not have...And..as the present adversary says...that puts me in the' same class as those I rail against' . Jackboot.
I believe that even if there is a need to take certain control at some point ..that honoring that One Amendment ..the Second ..there will be ensured the absolute means for men of good will to make damn sure no leader goes berserk...or a bullet in the head will suffice.
Let me tell you...were there pretty good proof that someone in a group was talking out of turn, or passing info to the enemy...I would have not the slightest problem using a cheese grater on him...thereby violating his Civil Rights.
Now it's 4[;)]
Make that 3. [^]No place for PC fatladysz. The proverbial bad apple.
Now it's 4[;)]
now its 6![;)]
They desire control of everyone, including YOU.
So does Highball, by his own admission.
Either someone WILL conform to his view, or they'll "go away"
Two sides of the same coin......which is tragically ironic given the source.
Barack Obama advocates ignoring the Constitution because it "isn't fair enough", Highball advocates ignoring it because it is "too soft"
The staunch "individualist" advocates forcing conformity at the point of a gun......
quote:Originally posted by freemind
They desire control of everyone, including YOU.
So does Highball, by his own admission.
Either someone WILL conform to his view, or they'll "go away"
Two sides of the same coin......which is tragically ironic given the source.
Barack Obama advocates ignoring the Constitution because it "isn't fair enough", Highball advocates ignoring it because it is "too soft"
The staunch "individualist" advocates forcing conformity at the point of a gun......
As I look at this "argument", I am struck with a glaring point that could use some clarification for this poor ol' country boy.
Is HB advocating his stance from a position as a "Government" and thus advocating what Rack Indicates, or is he advocating his own "personal" stance as it relates to his "personal" A.O.?
There is a distinct difference between the two positions.
Comparing Highball to Barak Obama, or any other POTUS, or government official and placing a constitutional context onto what he states, is disingenuous at best, "IF" HB is speaking from his personal views as to what HE would do as an individual for that which may be under his control in such an event.
The Constitution is a document that restrains "government" to its rules and processes.
Let it be said that if the SHTF and ol' Lt had a conclave/group of individuals together for whatever reason, there would be no gun-prohibitionists, fellow travelers, or "able-bodied unwilling to carry their load" allowed in my A.O. either. Such would be banished to fend for themselves, or to latch on to some more "permissive" individual or group, or put out to wander aimlessly and die, due to the lack of a handout.
Correct me if I am wrong Rack, but does this not fit a similar scenario that you've been commenting on that you deem to be the taking away of someones rights, or to be contrary to the Constitution, as it were?
Individual decisions for your own private circumstances vs. "government" actions Rack. Big difference.
That all being said, I have not put this whole "argument" into context as to what HB has stated and I would appreciate some clarification.
You just snapped into focus something that has eluded me for many, many years...that simple fact.
An individual, fighting for his and a small group of survivors lives ..versus some politician in a safe, secure environment telling me how to live or die.
Simply amazing...how stupid one can be at times. This is quite obvious...now that you point it out.
An entire nation can survive...for awhile...the endless erosions of values by those that hate those values. Witness America, today.
A group of 10 or 50 men...fighting for their LIVES ...cannot tolerate themselves to be weakened by garbage.
While the Rackops of the world were never going to change my mind ..you clearly pointed out the reason why they should not do so.
Thanks.
That point has bothered me for many years. It will no longer do so. My Christmas came early this year.
No doubt, some of you noticed my laboured arguments concerning this subject...I just could feel the ground unsure under my feet. Now I stand once again on bedrock ..thanks to the support of the Brethren and the precision missile delivered on target by our good Captain.
I have a very different view than does HB as to what will be the eventually battle if the intolerable of today becomes the unendurable of tomorrow. I do not see where bands of patriots establishing Areas of Operation will be of any benefit to the cause, rather I see 100s of individual battles of defense of hearth and home that will inevitably combine to force public opinion to decide between tyranny and freedom. If public opinion decides on tyranny, well, all bets are off. I am, however, a perennial optimist regarding the heart of the American Public, and firmly believe that a generational change of direction will occur simply because it must if freedom and liberty are to survive.
Perhaps it is because I have grown soft and recoil at the thought of living absent the comforts of home. Perhaps it is because I believe that we will need to bring fence-sitters into the fold, which will be impossible if they are bombarded with daily propaganda style news reports of various patriot cells and thier latest assaults upon polite society. Perhaps it is because I believe that only through principled defense of our rights as compared to offensive action do we have any hope of establishing significant support (which will be necessary for any success within the framework of our Constitution).
That being said, if we ever are reduced to individual camps, it is obvious that the social fabric will be in such disarray that any given camp will be unable to expend resources for those that are not participating or are not fully on-board. The original comment by HB was, IMO, a bit of hyperbole suggesting the elimination of those that would not contribute, and from what I've seen, is has been modified to simple expulsion for those that were not fully on board. Obviously at that survival stage, active opponents will have to be eliminated.
As LT points out, at that time this will not be a situation in which the niceties of due process and complete vetting of all rights and responsibilities is possible as the purpose is not to govern rather to move towards the re-establishment of proper governance. It will be a fluid situation of extremes and extreme measures will be necessary in order maintain cohesion and maximize the chances for success. This is perfectly acceptable so long as any and all extreme measures are measured against the yardstick of freedom and liberty and are taken within a framework of principle and not subject to emotion or personality.
Good men can and do have different sensibilities and good men can disagree. I believe this to be the case in this situation.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by lt496
As I look at this "argument", I am struck with a glaring point that could use some clarification for this poor ol' country boy.
Is HB advocating his stance from a position as a "Government" and thus advocating what Rack Indicates, or is he advocating his own "personal" stance as it relates to his "personal" A.O.?
Under the circumstances of such a scenario, would HB and his merry men not be the de facto government of his imaginary fiefdom?
quote:
There is a distinct difference between the two positions.
Even if not, I still see no difference in the positions. The Rights recognized under the Constitution (all of them) are pre-existing and a taking of those rights by one is the same as a taking of those rights by the other.
What HB, or any of the other "individualists" (HA!) in this discussion do on or with their own property is one thing..... but the road to tyranny begins when they, and you, decide to make the rules in their own "AO"
The argument can be made that one has an obligation to help their fellow man if he is in need....I don't agree with that position, and wouldn't help someone I considered to be "worthless", but thats a different cirumstance entirely than physically taking their possessions (and lets be honest, this is exactly what you're advocating, unless you plan on moving their house too)
quote:
Let it be said that if the SHTF and ol' Lt had a conclave/group of individuals together for whatever reason, there would be no gun-prohibitionists, fellow travelers, or "able-bodied unwilling to carry their load" allowed in my A.O. either.
"They won't be allowed"....how lame. What if they don't go. You gonna burn 'em out, Janet Reno?
quote:
Individual decisions for your own private circumstances vs. "government" actions Rack. Big difference..
As has been clearly stated, by both sides, time and time again...this isn't a discussion of "individual decisions" or "private circumstances", its about imposing one's will on their neighbor, at the point of a gun.
This isn't even about the second amendment anymore. I'm as pro-gun as anyone on this forum, but I've been told I wouldn't be welcome in highball's Amerika......Since I'm not an anti-gunner, I must be a "fellow traveler" (I admit to having never heard that term before this discussion, so thanks to HB for broadening my vocabulary at least)
Either you support the whole Bill of Rights or you're pissing on it just as surely as those you preach against......it is what is, lt.
It will be a fluid situation of extremes and extreme measures will be necessary in order maintain cohesion and maximize the chances for success. This is perfectly acceptable so long as any and all extreme measures are measured against the yardstick of freedom and liberty and are taken within a framework of principle and not subject to emotion or personality.
I'm sorry Don, but you cannot justify eliminating dissenting opinions by "measuring it against the yardstick of freedom and liberty"
If you're going to do it, do it....but saying you're doing it for "freedom" and "liberty" (as opposed to your own survival) is a farce, period
quote:
Good men can and do have different sensibilities and good men can disagree.
On that we agree.....Thanks for joining in.
Perhaps you would care to explaing the difference in these occurances ?
quote:I do not see where bands of patriots establishing Areas of Operation will be of any benefit to the cause, rather I see 100s of individual battles of defense of hearth and home that will inevitably combine
Personally, I think given a break-down of society, one would be duty-bound to secure your area. Eventually, you would be, I believe, forced to clean out the nest of bikers in the next town...the free-booters across the river...for the protection and survival of the group.
At some point, you would join forces with the decent folks of Anytown...thereby expanding the areas safe to travel, trade with, and consort with.
I ALSO cannot see ANY Patriot resting comfortably while his country is dragged into the dirt by various rat-tag thieves, criminals, and assorted garbage that will surface as soon as the iron hand of government fails to keep them subdued just enough to be an irritant to
the populace and useful tools of that government.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
It will be a fluid situation of extremes and extreme measures will be necessary in order maintain cohesion and maximize the chances for success. This is perfectly acceptable so long as any and all extreme measures are measured against the yardstick of freedom and liberty and are taken within a framework of principle and not subject to emotion or personality.
I'm sorry Don, but you cannot justify eliminating dissenting opinions by "measuring it against the yardstick of freedom and liberty"
If you're going to do it, do it....but saying you're doing it for "freedom" and "liberty" (as opposed to your own survival) is a farce, period
quote:
Good men can and do have different sensibilities and good men can disagree.
On that we agree.....Thanks for joining in.
None of this would be done for survival, Rack. Our own survival would best be assured by submitting to the whims of whatever authority is in place. The only reason anyone would organize as has been described would be to preserve what freedom and liberty he could. You are correct that "measuring it against the yardstick of freedom and liberty" is imprecise at best, but as I am not envisioning this as a near-term possibility, I have not developed a consise set of principles that would apply. It is those principles that would determine the viability of any resistance movement.
For an organization to have any positive impact it would by necessity have to recognize the obvious need to treat the average citizen with respect. The average citizen would (initially at least) feel that he did not have a dog in this fight. To arbitrarily dismiss that opinion would be a mistake, as this would be a public relations battle more-so that it would be an actual conflict.
Brad Steele
I seek only to inspire forward thinking individuals so that they too can be ready when the time comes.
Being paralyzed by 'ethics' when the shooting starts will merely condemn one to death.
The loss of even ONE Patriot due to the actions of sob sisters is one too many.
The only reason anyone would organize as has been described would be to preserve what freedom and liberty he could.
Or it could be a simple case of greed....
"I'm sorry Mr. Smith, you can't live here anymore because we can't trust you. No, you can't take anything with you, but we'll put it to good use...after all, we're BETTER than you."
The End justifies the Means, right?
The loss of even ONE Patriot due to the actions of sob sisters is one too many.
The loss of any jackboot intent on preying upon his neighbors is a good start.
In other words, you * have created a structure that is soon to collapse around you because it is a flawed structure that creates more bad than good regarding gun rights for the sane gun owners.
I continue to accomplish what I started out to do...separate the wheat from the chaff.
You, TR, have blown away with the wind ..a proven lightweight. You are unable to keep even the most basis facts straight in your mind ..and you persist in smearing decent people by your own fevered fears of individuals possessing weapons without government approval.
Rackops has staked out his position. It is unalterably opposed to mine.
So be it.
You and he and millions more will make fine shock troops for the enemies of freedom one of these days...as you obey orders to `kill the dissidents'.
I was hoping you'd be along, lt. Now we can get somewhere.
Well hello to you to Rack.[;)]
quote:Originally posted by lt496
As I look at this "argument", I am struck with a glaring point that could use some clarification for this poor ol' country boy.
Is HB advocating his stance from a position as a "Government" and thus advocating what Rack Indicates, or is he advocating his own "personal" stance as it relates to his "personal" A.O.?
Under the circumstances of such a scenario, would HB and his merry men not be the de facto government of his imaginary fiefdom?
I am not sure of the parameters of Highball's scenario, but will address mine.
I am hypothesizing a SHTF scenario, where gov't has broken down and/or active hostilities have broken out with said gov't, rather than a "post-revolt new government" scenario.
Maybe we are speaking of apples and avocados here.
To answer your question, any group that was allowed to gather with me would contain no quislings, fellow-travelers, or those who advocated subversion of whatever the goal happened to be, in this case, the restoration of our Constitutional Republic.
Private citizens, banded voluntarily with ol' Lt and his family (under select circumstances of my choosing), does not make this the Federal, or the State gov't. It merely makes a voluntary association of people.
There simply is no "de facto" to it in my scenario.
quote:
There is a distinct difference between the two positions.
Even if not, I still see no difference in the positions.
Well, Rack, therein lay your problem in grasping the concept.
When speaking of the Constitution, it is restraint on government, Federal Government actually, but for the sake of argument, we will concede coverage to the sovereign states also.
The Rights recognized under the Constitution (all of them) are pre-existing and a taking of those rights by one is the same as a taking of those rights by the other.
Allow me just a short analogy to address the above "point" on Constitutionally enumerated rights.......Someone comes at you with a knife with the intent to cut your pecker off, you shoot and kill the mope, or choke him to death. You have taken away his "rights" under your view.
That being said, you were justified in doing so. In addition, as an individual, violations of enumerated constitutional rights are restricted to government abuse, under color of authority or some other "government" connotation.
All else is related to civil law and societal norms as it pertains to the actions of a private citizen.
See the distinction?
What HB, or any of the other "individualists" (HA!) in this discussion do on or with their own property is one thing..... but the road to tyranny begins when they, and you, decide to make the rules in their own "AO"
Again and speaking to my own scenario, my "A.O." is the scope of my private area of control or influence. That could be my home (permanent or temporary), my remote property, or it could be those who choose and are allowed to accompany me on the move, etc..
Regardless, I, as a private person and being in control of that which I choose to be in control of, in this case my family unit and maybe a few select others, decide who associates with me in my "area of operations".
You want to be there and have been invited, fine, but you can't be an advocate for that which we fight against, nor can you undermine the "group", or family, or me, by working toward the success and victory of that which I am fighting against.
You get sent down the road, one way or the other, period.
The argument can be made that one has an obligation to help their fellow man if he is in need....I don't agree with that position, and wouldn't help someone I considered to be "worthless", but thats a different cirumstance entirely than physically taking their possessions (and lets be honest, this is exactly what you're advocating, unless you plan on moving their house too)
I have an obligation to myself and my family first and foremost. I have an obligation to the Constitution and the Republic. I have no obligation, unless it is a moral or religious one, to care for anyone but those things mentioned.
Nowhere did you see me refer to "worthless". I spoke of those who take an opposing philosophical position to liberty and to those who contribute nothing by choice. Those may have "worth" to someone else in my scenario, but that is for others to decide.
As to taking someones property....what the hell are you talking about?
Take your schit and get out, unless you are an open and immediate threat to me and mine.
quote:
Let it be said that if the SHTF and ol' Lt had a conclave/group of individuals together for whatever reason, there would be no gun-prohibitionists, fellow travelers, or "able-bodied unwilling to carry their load" allowed in my A.O. either.
"They won't be allowed"....how lame.
I am speaking in my scenario about my unit, family, or voluntary association. Any with me would be there because they are family, or because they asked to be, or were asked to be.
Don't like the rules, you are no longer allowed to be an associate.
Difficult concept, huh Rack?
What if they don't go. You gonna burn 'em out, Janet Reno?
What an utterly ridiculous statement.
If you are in my roving band and/or in my home, temporary or permanent, you will leave if you are instructed to do so.
It is what it is.
This simple and direct concept applies to my home and to my association situation right now also, Rack.
Come on over to my house and then try to subvert and/or pervert our family, our home, our beliefs, our customs, or our way of life and guess what, you will leave, no doubt.
Another difficult concept?
quote:
Individual decisions for your own private circumstances vs. "government" actions Rack. Big difference..
As has been clearly stated, by both sides, time and time again...this isn't a discussion of "individual decisions" or "private circumstances", its about imposing one's will on their neighbor, at the point of a gun.
I think that I have covered this thoroughly in my above descriptions, but will simply say that you seem to have a comprehension problem and great difficulty in separating the Constitution and individual rights, from private vs. government actions.
This isn't even about the second amendment anymore. I'm as pro-gun as anyone on this forum, but I've been told I wouldn't be welcome in highball's Amerika......Since I'm not an anti-gunner, I must be a "fellow traveler" (I admit to having never heard that term before this discussion, so thanks to HB for broadening my vocabulary at least)
Highball can speak for Highball, he is quite capable.
As for me, I have not said that you would or would not be "welcome" in my group in a SHTF scenario. I am sure that you would opt to not be, even if asked.
I am not speaking to a "rebuilt America", but if that is the scenario, then the Constitution is reinstated as intended and although individuals may have their personal anti-liberty, anti-Constitution views, all who achieved public office would be held to their "oath of office" to support and defend said Constitution and if that oath were violated, then immediate removal from office proceedings would be desired and expected.
Sadly, in a society where individualism is practiced, weasels, fellow-travelers and various and sundry other anti-liberty persons would inevitably worm their way back into positions of power, just as history has always proven and thus, the cycle of liberty, to dependence, to tyranny, to revolt would likely begin again.
Either you support the whole Bill of Rights or you're pissing on it just as surely as those you preach against
Well Rack, I do indeed support the Bill of Rights AND the remainder of the Constitution. I always have.
......it is what is, lt.
It is indeed what it is Rack.
You and he and millions more will make fine shock troops for the enemies of freedom one of these days...as you obey orders to `kill the dissidents'.
The only one advocating harming dissidents is you, jackboot.
For the sake of bandwidth, if I don't address the point.....we're in agreement [:)]
quote:
Allow me just a short analogy to address the above "point" on Constitutionally enumerated rights.......Someone comes at you with a knife with the intent to cut your pecker off, you shoot and kill the mope, or choke him to death. You have taken away his "rights" under your view.
Analogies often fall short, and this one is no exception.
The "attacker" in your scenario is making a direct, physical attack upon me.....I have no choice but to defend myself if I have any desire to continue to "pursue happiness" [;)]
A more accurate analogy would be blowing away my neighbor because they have a "men are pigs" bumper sticker on their car.
quote:
That being said, you were justified in doing so. In addition, as an individual, violations of enumerated constitutional rights are restricted to government abuse, under color of authority or some other "government" connotation.
BS.
Does an employer have a right to strip-search employees at their whim? Can they tell me what religion I must (or must not) follow?
I can find volumes of legal cases where someone in authority (and not just government authority) was "nailed to the wall" for violating someone's rights.
quote:
See the distinction?
No, I don't.....That whole "...endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" thing keeps getting in the way.
quote:
As for me, I have not said that you would or would not be "welcome" in my group in a SHTF scenario. I am sure that you would opt to not be, even if asked.
Based on your comments above, you're wrong again. My guess is I'd be lucky to have a couple of your type as neighbors.
quote:
Sadly, in a society where individualism is practiced, weasels, fellow-travelers and various and sundry other anti-liberty persons would inevitably worm their way back into positions of power, just as history has always proven and thus, the cycle of liberty, to dependence, to tyranny, to revolt would likely begin again.
Your assessment of history is correct. History tells us that EVERY democracy will fall at some point, its just a matter of time. Its what Jefferson was speaking of in his famous "liberty tree" quote.
The cycle cannot be stopped, it has yet to be disproven as a law of human nature, but nothing is gained by jumping directly from freedom to tyranny....
The opposition is reduced to grunting and belching ..typical of the type .As usual, the only intelligence has been exhibited by the Brethren.
Others may well find value in pursuing dialogue with sob sisters ..and I will indeed read their posts, if they do so.
However ..I don't associate with sob sisters in real life ..and I have my fill of them here.
I think this subject is covered nicely.
The opposition is reduced to grunting and belching ..typical of the type .As usual, the only intelligence has been exhibited by the Brethren.
Are you, by chance, related to Baghdad Bob?