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.
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
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."
The End justifies the Means, right?
If that were the case, Rack, I would be happy to leave. Tyranny is tyranny, plain and simple.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
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.
Once again, imbecile, it is not 'our' interpretation. We have simply stated we espouse what the Founders believed.
You have chosen to demand that your 2A right be TOTALLY without any restrictions what-so-ever;
Exactly what the Founders believed. It is evident that you take issue with what the Founders stood on. No surprise, considering the company you keep/support.
even going so far as to demand that convicted violent felons be allowed to legally have firearms.
An individual who has served their sentence, paid their debt, and released back into society should have full restoration of their rights. Period.
You have chosen to condemn anyone who disagrees even a little bit with your extreme position as a traitor or worse.
You earned it. Every bit of it. By the way; you assigned yourself that label. All we did was set the shoe out; You tried it on, saw that it fit, and decided to wear it.
You have chosen to almost welcome violence so that you all can become saviors of the constitution and/or real life "action heros."
There is a vast difference between 'welcoming' violence and being willing to engage in it for a just cause.
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."
Listen, 'we' did not create an "us vs them" situation. There is the Constitution; you either accept it or not. There is no gray area, and no room for fence sitters. There is a line of distinction. Which side are you on?
In other words, you * have created a structure that is soon to collapse around you because it is a flawed structure
'Flawed structure', huh? I'll give you the epitome of a flawed structure; the NRA.
that creates more bad than good regarding gun rights for the sane gun owners.
How can stating the truth ever be a 'bad' thing regarding the RTKBA, or anything else for that matter? If more folks would speak the truth, and more folks would simply accept the truth, we'd be a lot better off. However, it is much easier for some to prefer a sugar-coated, watered-down perversion of the truth, because deep down, they are frightened by the cold, hard truth.
"sane gun owners"? You mean like those who vocally and monetarily support organizations or entities that are hell-bent on perverting rights for profit? IS that how you define 'sane'?
You know, tr, is is readily apparent that you are lacking in the 'guts' department. You only jump in once a fight/discussion/debate has commenced, and then it is only to nip at others ankles.
Wow,.....just got caught up on this thread.
I am surprised at some of the turns this has taken.
Not much I can add per se, other than to say I understand fully LT's position, and it sounds much like what mine would be.
I also think I understand what Highball is saying as well.
A total meltdown such has been presented here, would not allow for the entirety of civil rights that exist at this time. Most were added in stages after the writing of the Constitution, even up to modern times.
We have a duty to throw off the chains of a tyrannical government, and just like the Loyalists long ago,.....there will be many that do not wish to lose the "perceived" comfort or safety, of said government.
Once a person of that mindset crosses over to "aiding and abetting" the enemy,........they must be considered one and the same.
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
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.
Fox, you've missed the point.....most likely on purpose.
This isn't about highball's (or anyone else's) opinion on the second amendment. If it was, there would be no debate....since as of yet I've found no disagreement with highball in that regard.
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.
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 see we are back to close minded name calling again. You are confusing close mined with intelligence in this case.[V]
But I must say 'sob sisters' is a much better then 'enemy's' and 'cowards'. May be we are making progress.[;)]
Jeff,
I think I can say we are on the same sheet of music if or when the SHTF![8D]
quote:But I must say 'sob sisters' is a much better then 'enemy's' and 'cowards'. May be we are making progress.
Rack ops WILL be in the field when the day comes. We may not fight together ..but he damn sure will be out their somewhere.
I am merely crueler then he....
The cowards and enemies WILL also be out there. They represent most of the general population...much of the NRA...and probably 70 % of gun owners.
They will remain the cowards, Quislings, fellow travelers, And enemies as I called them.
I also will never be shy about CALLING them what they are.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:But I must say 'sob sisters' is a much better then 'enemy's' and 'cowards'. May be we are making progress.
Rack ops WILL be in the field when the day comes. We may not fight together ..but he damn sure will be out their somewhere.
I am merely crueler then he....
The cowards and enemies WILL also be out there. They represent most of the general population...much of the NRA...and probably 70 % of gun owners.
They will remain the cowards, Quislings, fellow travelers, And enemies as I called them.
I also will never be shy about CALLING them what they are.
I am sorry that that offends you.
Or not.
HB,
You do not offend me. The point I am making is you are recognizing, even if WE do not see eye to eye, we are not enemies or cowards, just sob sisters who will shot back if the need arises![;)]
quote:The point I am making is you are recognizing, even if WE do not see eye to eye, we are not enemies or cowards, just sob sisters who will shot back if the need arises!
Remember, always ..what EVER I say does not make it so.
My calling out gun controllers as cowards, ect ..while being factual and true ..does not place any particular individual in that category.
Only they THEMSELVES can do that...by their words and actions.
Support for gun control places one in a position of being diametrically opposed to the Constitution.
Not by I...but by that document itself.
It is what it is....in the words of an illustrious member hereabouts.
A member, might I add, of a truly unique `club'...the 3 % that will stand and fight tyranny.
Remember, also...I have not moved one inch from my position of inflexibility concerning the Second Amendment...YOU have made whatever movement there has been.
In other words...you have not gained a convert to your flawed position;
You have merely moved closer to a Constitutional position.
Sitting in a Council, after the war...your position allowing government control of full autos will be greeted with the contempt it deserves..and will be laughed off the slate.
You still have a ways to move...before you adopt a Constitutional position.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
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 am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, BUT there must be reasonable, common-sense laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals."
---Sen Charles Schumer, Sen Hillary Clinton, Sen John Kerry, Sen Dick Durbin, Sen Barack Obama, tr fox, Jim Rau, et al.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
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.
HB:
I missed your post earlier, and it deserves a clarification.
The scenario I see is not the complete breakdown of society, rather the increased power of the state. The assault will be that upon our freedoms by LEOs, BATF, etc. coming door-to-door to confiscate that which our Constitution says they cannot.
In that scenario, the PR battle will be won not sniping at them as they pass, but resisting them when they come to break the law of the land during the enforcement of the law of the day.
The complete breakdown of society as you note above, and in the 'whatchaagonnado' thread will require the coordinated offensive action to which you refer.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:In that scenario, the PR battle will be won not sniping at them as they pass, but resisting them when they come to break the law of the land during the enforcement of the law of the day.
Ahh.....I see.
Yet that appears to guarantee success on the part of the federales ..with little hope for the homeowner except to die on his doorstep.
While I admit there must be a certain number of `martyrs'...I would hope they would be few in numbers..I do not believe that we will have the support of more then 20-40 percent of the population THIS time....either. No matter WHAT we do, or not do.
Yet that appears to guarantee success on the part of the federales ..with little hope for the homeowner except to die on his doorstep.
While I admit there must be a certain number of `martyrs'...I would hope they would be few in numbers..I do not believe that we will have the support of more then 20-40 percent of the population THIS time....either. No matter WHAT we do, or not do.
Perhaps, but perhaps not.
Those martyrs would be people known to their community, upstanding folk who probably have played a leadership role in some fashion.
I have often asked myself how Ruby Ridge would have been received differently if Mr. Weaver could not have been labelled a 'White Separatist' and if he had not fallen for the sting operation. Public opinion was strongly mixed following the death of Vicki. I suggest that it would have been almost unified against the FBI absent those two media strikes against the Weavers.
Yes, the feds would win rounds 1 - 100, but many would be taken out in the process. Three things would then happen.
1. Those conducting the raids would be forced to evaluate the Constitutionality of the assaults as they weigh morality and mortality.
2. Neighbors helping neighbors would make each successive assault more costly than the last. This may be optimistic. One can hope.
3. Finally, the muddled masses would begin to realize what was going on, and political pressure would be brought to bear.
IMO, we need to break through the 40% and 50% barriers so we can use their democratic mob mentality against them. It will be difficult if officers are being lost to IEDs, but possible if good people take a moral stand against tyranny and it is seen as such.
We will not defeat them through strength of arms in either case. We can only hold them off long enough for public perception to change, and thus must plan the quickest and least costly method of changing that perception. If public perception cannot be changed, we are screwed, regardless of which path we take.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
What you have been saying since 'day one' is that the government has the authority under the Constitution to impose gun control on sovereign Citizens.
Most anything else you have said had been drowned out by the echoes of that statement ..repeated endlessly by you.
At NO time have I read a post from you concerning multitudes of Citizens dying on their doorsteps defending the Constitution...nor the value of that versus the jack-boots being met at the edge of town and shot down like the dogs they are.
HB,
You are missing the point. The methods Don described are those I have been advocating all along. The fact that you will never get your 'ideal' met is not part of this equation. You fail to admit that there always have been and always will be some restrictions and exceptions to ALL of our rights, including the RTKABA's. I am aware of your 'demands' even if it is not possible for you to ever have them met.
The restrictions on our rights today is totally unacceptable and we have got to get these restrictions reduced as far as we can. There NEVER will be a time when there are ABSOLUTLY NO restrictions, even if you can't except this it is a fact of life.[V]
HB,
Dons methods for effecting change are what I have been advocating. I don't know if he and I are advocating the same 'amount' of change or not. I know my goals for change are not the same as yours because I know it makes no since to set unattainable goals.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
HB,
Dons methods for effecting change are what I have been advocating. I don't know if he and I are advocating the same 'amount' of change or not. I know my goals for change are not the same as yours because I know it makes no since to set unattainable goals.
Jim:
The methods I've suggested for principled resistance as compared to principled attack still rest on the position that the Federal Government has no business knowing what I have or do in my home, and has no business trying to separate me from what I have. Though you state that you share some of the 'unrealistic' goals of complete freedom of purchase, ownership and carrying, the methods you suggest always accept some limitation. I reject those methods because they distort the intent of the 2nd in the eyes of most Americans.
I tolerate limitation because it is what we have today. I tolerate it only because there is hope for correction as more Americans understand that limitation is one of the very infringements to the right that is prohibited.
I recommend armed resistance to a violation of my property by authorities acting outside the authority of the U.S. Constitution. If you advocate that same position then yes, our methods would be similar. Anything short of that bestowes power upon those authorities they do not legally hold.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Don,
We are on the same sheet of music. I guess it would depend on what you mean by 'tolerate'. I don't tolerate the current restrictions. I do everything I can to get the word out to all that the current situation is not acceptable. If no further restrictions were enacted I will comply with the law. If further restrictions are applied I will not. I have an FFL and do as the law requires when selling guns. I do so with destine!!! I am in a better situation when it comes to CCW than most of you because I am a retired LEO (peace officer for you HB[;)]) so the CCW laws, and handguns bans have no affect on me. One of my goals (which would be considered unrealistic by many) is to have unrestricted CCW in the USA. With our current government that is about as likely as finding a snow ball in he!!.[:(!]
Tolerate as compared to accept. It is not semantics in that the many who accept limitations because 'It's the best we can do' have already succumbed to the power of the state.
I agree that to a large degree we are on the same sheet of music. I would point out, however, that music can be played in a manner true to the composer or can be played in a manner the composer would not recognize.
Your goal of unrestricted Concealed Carry (as you have stated before) is laudable and is realistic, and is why I find you to be more of an ally than do some. I do believe, however, that absent a Constitutional change to the 2nd Amendment that replaces the word 'infringe', any restriction is anti-Constitutional and so long as one restriction remains, the door is open for more. I therefore reject the premise that there will never be a time when there are no restrictions, as that is accepting as fact that we will never live up to the high standards set by our founders.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Don,
This brings us back to the basic question of what restrictions are 'acceptable'. The purest say none. Does this mean we should not restrict thermal-nuclear weapons. They are in our military arsenal which the purest say is the intent of the 2nd Amendment. We are to have access to the weapons of the military.
Or do we start at nuclear, or are chemical and biological weapons ok to???? How about the 10,000 lb super block buster bombs????
There MUST and WILL restriction and exception. THIS IS A FACT OF LIFE! And I know our founder understood this too!!! They were labeled as 'wise men' so they were aware we would have to adapt our restrictions as we change. The basic rights MUST not be 'infringed', but we have to have some control of these weapons for the safety of us all. Small arms should have little to no restriction. They are the basics of our RTKABA's.
These type of statements contribute to my doubting your sincerity in some respects, though not entirely, as they needlessly complicate the discussion. The question revolves around whether the word 'bear' refers to bearing as in carrying or 'bringing to bear' as in training a 16" naval rifle. From a practical standpoint, it does not matter.
It is not necessary to point to a weapon that kills indiscriminately such as a nuclear, chemical or even high yield conventional warheads when discussing if I should be able to exercise the obvious right to freely purchase, own and carry an M-16 or M-60 if I should so desire to protect myself and family from an out-of-control government. Likewise, there is no need to bring it up while discussing the obvious right of a person living in public housing in San Francisco to purchase, own, and carry a sidearm to protect herself and her daughter from the local criminal gang.
I have read the discussions that 'bear' actually means aiming and firing, and have read discussions that 'bear' actually means carrying. Either way, it means that Government does not have Constitutional authority to limit or restrict the purchase, ownership, or carrying of any small arm currently available. Those are the current restrictions that effect us today, and those are the current restrictions that limit our ability to ensure the security of a free State.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Agreed Don! But you, if I am understanding your correctly, are in the same ball park when you look at the totality of the circumstances. I have said the only restriction on 'small arms' should be a no cost background check of 'full auto' weapons. This would be simply to keep those who have been convinced of a felony or are currently involved in criminal activity from walking in and walking out with an M-60 or Ma Deuce. To purchase, owen, carry (open or concealed) any firearm other than full auto there should be no restrictions. For crew served weapons there should be a system in place similar to the current system used to transfer full auto weapons. I thing this is a realistic set of restrictions which would not 'infringe' on the responsible, law abiding citizens basic rights.. But this is not good enough for the purest who thinks any reatriction is to much. So I will continue to be called 'bad' by both sides which tells me I am on the right track!!![;)]
There is much common ground here of which I was unaware. I hesitate to get bogged down in the technicalities of full-auto background checks at the moment, as I need time to give it some thought. Given the indiscriminate nature of even medium caliber full auto fire, it is a legitimate point to bring up, though I cannot see how it squares with the 2nd Amendment. Any help you can provide on this point would be appreciated.
If I am to understand you correctly, any small arm; pistol or long gun; bolt, lever, or semi-auto, is available for purchase for a fist full of dollars and a smile (smile not required) resulting in a record-free purchase. A big step in the right direction, to be sure. Elimination of restriction, not modification of restriction.
Hell, you've even addressed putting an M105 in my backyard.[:)]
Good points to ponder, Jim.
Thanks.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Don,
All I am trying to do is look at this in a realistic manner. Whether we want to or not we MUST consider the opinions of others not so sympathetic to our cause. Look what happened in this election. If we can convince enough people of the importance of the RTKABA's and give then the assurances they need to feel 'safe' in there ability to achieve 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' we will prevail. The purists will not be happy and the anti-gunners will not be happy. The way things are now is an abomination to the 2nd Amendment.
Comments
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."
The End justifies the Means, right?
If that were the case, Rack, I would be happy to leave. Tyranny is tyranny, plain and simple.
Brad Steele
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.
Once again, imbecile, it is not 'our' interpretation. We have simply stated we espouse what the Founders believed.
You have chosen to demand that your 2A right be TOTALLY without any restrictions what-so-ever;
Exactly what the Founders believed. It is evident that you take issue with what the Founders stood on. No surprise, considering the company you keep/support.
even going so far as to demand that convicted violent felons be allowed to legally have firearms.
An individual who has served their sentence, paid their debt, and released back into society should have full restoration of their rights. Period.
You have chosen to condemn anyone who disagrees even a little bit with your extreme position as a traitor or worse.
You earned it. Every bit of it. By the way; you assigned yourself that label. All we did was set the shoe out; You tried it on, saw that it fit, and decided to wear it.
You have chosen to almost welcome violence so that you all can become saviors of the constitution and/or real life "action heros."
There is a vast difference between 'welcoming' violence and being willing to engage in it for a just cause.
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."
Listen, 'we' did not create an "us vs them" situation. There is the Constitution; you either accept it or not. There is no gray area, and no room for fence sitters. There is a line of distinction. Which side are you on?
In other words, you * have created a structure that is soon to collapse around you because it is a flawed structure
'Flawed structure', huh? I'll give you the epitome of a flawed structure; the NRA.
that creates more bad than good regarding gun rights for the sane gun owners.
How can stating the truth ever be a 'bad' thing regarding the RTKBA, or anything else for that matter? If more folks would speak the truth, and more folks would simply accept the truth, we'd be a lot better off. However, it is much easier for some to prefer a sugar-coated, watered-down perversion of the truth, because deep down, they are frightened by the cold, hard truth.
"sane gun owners"? You mean like those who vocally and monetarily support organizations or entities that are hell-bent on perverting rights for profit? IS that how you define 'sane'?
You know, tr, is is readily apparent that you are lacking in the 'guts' department. You only jump in once a fight/discussion/debate has commenced, and then it is only to nip at others ankles.
Deleted by pickenup[:(!]
While I may agree......please refrain. [;)]
I am surprised at some of the turns this has taken.
Not much I can add per se, other than to say I understand fully LT's position, and it sounds much like what mine would be.
I also think I understand what Highball is saying as well.
A total meltdown such has been presented here, would not allow for the entirety of civil rights that exist at this time. Most were added in stages after the writing of the Constitution, even up to modern times.
We have a duty to throw off the chains of a tyrannical government, and just like the Loyalists long ago,.....there will be many that do not wish to lose the "perceived" comfort or safety, of said government.
Once a person of that mindset crosses over to "aiding and abetting" the enemy,........they must be considered one and the same.
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.
Fox, you've missed the point.....most likely on purpose.
This isn't about highball's (or anyone else's) opinion on the second amendment. If it was, there would be no debate....since as of yet I've found no disagreement with highball in that regard.
This is about control, plain and simple.
What? The abbreviation? I was just telling Tr, 'Good For You'.[;)][:D][:o)]
Pick,
What? The abbreviation? I was just telling Tr, 'Good For You'.[;)][:D][:o)]
Oops, my bad. [:D]
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.
I see we are back to close minded name calling again. You are confusing close mined with intelligence in this case.[V]
But I must say 'sob sisters' is a much better then 'enemy's' and 'cowards'. May be we are making progress.[;)]
Jeff,
I think I can say we are on the same sheet of music if or when the SHTF![8D]
Rack ops WILL be in the field when the day comes. We may not fight together ..but he damn sure will be out their somewhere.
I am merely crueler then he....
The cowards and enemies WILL also be out there. They represent most of the general population...much of the NRA...and probably 70 % of gun owners.
They will remain the cowards, Quislings, fellow travelers, And enemies as I called them.
I also will never be shy about CALLING them what they are.
I am sorry that that offends you.
Or not.
quote:But I must say 'sob sisters' is a much better then 'enemy's' and 'cowards'. May be we are making progress.
Rack ops WILL be in the field when the day comes. We may not fight together ..but he damn sure will be out their somewhere.
I am merely crueler then he....
The cowards and enemies WILL also be out there. They represent most of the general population...much of the NRA...and probably 70 % of gun owners.
They will remain the cowards, Quislings, fellow travelers, And enemies as I called them.
I also will never be shy about CALLING them what they are.
I am sorry that that offends you.
Or not.
HB,
You do not offend me. The point I am making is you are recognizing, even if WE do not see eye to eye, we are not enemies or cowards, just sob sisters who will shot back if the need arises![;)]
Remember, always ..what EVER I say does not make it so.
My calling out gun controllers as cowards, ect ..while being factual and true ..does not place any particular individual in that category.
Only they THEMSELVES can do that...by their words and actions.
Support for gun control places one in a position of being diametrically opposed to the Constitution.
Not by I...but by that document itself.
It is what it is....in the words of an illustrious member hereabouts.
A member, might I add, of a truly unique `club'...the 3 % that will stand and fight tyranny.
Remember, also...I have not moved one inch from my position of inflexibility concerning the Second Amendment...YOU have made whatever movement there has been.
In other words...you have not gained a convert to your flawed position;
You have merely moved closer to a Constitutional position.
Sitting in a Council, after the war...your position allowing government control of full autos will be greeted with the contempt it deserves..and will be laughed off the slate.
You still have a ways to move...before you adopt a Constitutional position.
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 am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, BUT there must be reasonable, common-sense laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals."
---Sen Charles Schumer, Sen Hillary Clinton, Sen John Kerry, Sen Dick Durbin, Sen Barack Obama, tr fox, Jim Rau, et al.
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.
HB:
I missed your post earlier, and it deserves a clarification.
The scenario I see is not the complete breakdown of society, rather the increased power of the state. The assault will be that upon our freedoms by LEOs, BATF, etc. coming door-to-door to confiscate that which our Constitution says they cannot.
In that scenario, the PR battle will be won not sniping at them as they pass, but resisting them when they come to break the law of the land during the enforcement of the law of the day.
The complete breakdown of society as you note above, and in the 'whatchaagonnado' thread will require the coordinated offensive action to which you refer.
Brad Steele
Ahh.....I see.
Yet that appears to guarantee success on the part of the federales ..with little hope for the homeowner except to die on his doorstep.
While I admit there must be a certain number of `martyrs'...I would hope they would be few in numbers..I do not believe that we will have the support of more then 20-40 percent of the population THIS time....either. No matter WHAT we do, or not do.
Ahh.....I see.
Yet that appears to guarantee success on the part of the federales ..with little hope for the homeowner except to die on his doorstep.
While I admit there must be a certain number of `martyrs'...I would hope they would be few in numbers..I do not believe that we will have the support of more then 20-40 percent of the population THIS time....either. No matter WHAT we do, or not do.
Perhaps, but perhaps not.
Those martyrs would be people known to their community, upstanding folk who probably have played a leadership role in some fashion.
I have often asked myself how Ruby Ridge would have been received differently if Mr. Weaver could not have been labelled a 'White Separatist' and if he had not fallen for the sting operation. Public opinion was strongly mixed following the death of Vicki. I suggest that it would have been almost unified against the FBI absent those two media strikes against the Weavers.
Yes, the feds would win rounds 1 - 100, but many would be taken out in the process. Three things would then happen.
1. Those conducting the raids would be forced to evaluate the Constitutionality of the assaults as they weigh morality and mortality.
2. Neighbors helping neighbors would make each successive assault more costly than the last. This may be optimistic. One can hope.
3. Finally, the muddled masses would begin to realize what was going on, and political pressure would be brought to bear.
IMO, we need to break through the 40% and 50% barriers so we can use their democratic mob mentality against them. It will be difficult if officers are being lost to IEDs, but possible if good people take a moral stand against tyranny and it is seen as such.
We will not defeat them through strength of arms in either case. We can only hold them off long enough for public perception to change, and thus must plan the quickest and least costly method of changing that perception. If public perception cannot be changed, we are screwed, regardless of which path we take.
Brad Steele
Bears thinking about...and I will do so.
I have been saying this exact thing since day one here! But now it 'bears thinking about'?????[?]
What you have been saying since 'day one' is that the government has the authority under the Constitution to impose gun control on sovereign Citizens.
Most anything else you have said had been drowned out by the echoes of that statement ..repeated endlessly by you.
At NO time have I read a post from you concerning multitudes of Citizens dying on their doorsteps defending the Constitution...nor the value of that versus the jack-boots being met at the edge of town and shot down like the dogs they are.
You are missing the point. The methods Don described are those I have been advocating all along. The fact that you will never get your 'ideal' met is not part of this equation. You fail to admit that there always have been and always will be some restrictions and exceptions to ALL of our rights, including the RTKABA's. I am aware of your 'demands' even if it is not possible for you to ever have them met.
The restrictions on our rights today is totally unacceptable and we have got to get these restrictions reduced as far as we can. There NEVER will be a time when there are ABSOLUTLY NO restrictions, even if you can't except this it is a fact of life.[V]
I fail to see the similarity, myself.
Dons methods for effecting change are what I have been advocating. I don't know if he and I are advocating the same 'amount' of change or not. I know my goals for change are not the same as yours because I know it makes no since to set unattainable goals.
HB,
Dons methods for effecting change are what I have been advocating. I don't know if he and I are advocating the same 'amount' of change or not. I know my goals for change are not the same as yours because I know it makes no since to set unattainable goals.
Jim:
The methods I've suggested for principled resistance as compared to principled attack still rest on the position that the Federal Government has no business knowing what I have or do in my home, and has no business trying to separate me from what I have. Though you state that you share some of the 'unrealistic' goals of complete freedom of purchase, ownership and carrying, the methods you suggest always accept some limitation. I reject those methods because they distort the intent of the 2nd in the eyes of most Americans.
I tolerate limitation because it is what we have today. I tolerate it only because there is hope for correction as more Americans understand that limitation is one of the very infringements to the right that is prohibited.
I recommend armed resistance to a violation of my property by authorities acting outside the authority of the U.S. Constitution. If you advocate that same position then yes, our methods would be similar. Anything short of that bestowes power upon those authorities they do not legally hold.
Brad Steele
We are on the same sheet of music. I guess it would depend on what you mean by 'tolerate'. I don't tolerate the current restrictions. I do everything I can to get the word out to all that the current situation is not acceptable. If no further restrictions were enacted I will comply with the law. If further restrictions are applied I will not. I have an FFL and do as the law requires when selling guns. I do so with destine!!! I am in a better situation when it comes to CCW than most of you because I am a retired LEO (peace officer for you HB[;)]) so the CCW laws, and handguns bans have no affect on me. One of my goals (which would be considered unrealistic by many) is to have unrestricted CCW in the USA. With our current government that is about as likely as finding a snow ball in he!!.[:(!]
Tolerate as compared to accept. It is not semantics in that the many who accept limitations because 'It's the best we can do' have already succumbed to the power of the state.
I agree that to a large degree we are on the same sheet of music. I would point out, however, that music can be played in a manner true to the composer or can be played in a manner the composer would not recognize.
Your goal of unrestricted Concealed Carry (as you have stated before) is laudable and is realistic, and is why I find you to be more of an ally than do some. I do believe, however, that absent a Constitutional change to the 2nd Amendment that replaces the word 'infringe', any restriction is anti-Constitutional and so long as one restriction remains, the door is open for more. I therefore reject the premise that there will never be a time when there are no restrictions, as that is accepting as fact that we will never live up to the high standards set by our founders.
Brad Steele
This brings us back to the basic question of what restrictions are 'acceptable'. The purest say none. Does this mean we should not restrict thermal-nuclear weapons. They are in our military arsenal which the purest say is the intent of the 2nd Amendment. We are to have access to the weapons of the military.
Or do we start at nuclear, or are chemical and biological weapons ok to???? How about the 10,000 lb super block buster bombs????
There MUST and WILL restriction and exception. THIS IS A FACT OF LIFE! And I know our founder understood this too!!! They were labeled as 'wise men' so they were aware we would have to adapt our restrictions as we change. The basic rights MUST not be 'infringed', but we have to have some control of these weapons for the safety of us all. Small arms should have little to no restriction. They are the basics of our RTKABA's.
These type of statements contribute to my doubting your sincerity in some respects, though not entirely, as they needlessly complicate the discussion. The question revolves around whether the word 'bear' refers to bearing as in carrying or 'bringing to bear' as in training a 16" naval rifle. From a practical standpoint, it does not matter.
It is not necessary to point to a weapon that kills indiscriminately such as a nuclear, chemical or even high yield conventional warheads when discussing if I should be able to exercise the obvious right to freely purchase, own and carry an M-16 or M-60 if I should so desire to protect myself and family from an out-of-control government. Likewise, there is no need to bring it up while discussing the obvious right of a person living in public housing in San Francisco to purchase, own, and carry a sidearm to protect herself and her daughter from the local criminal gang.
I have read the discussions that 'bear' actually means aiming and firing, and have read discussions that 'bear' actually means carrying. Either way, it means that Government does not have Constitutional authority to limit or restrict the purchase, ownership, or carrying of any small arm currently available. Those are the current restrictions that effect us today, and those are the current restrictions that limit our ability to ensure the security of a free State.
Brad Steele
There is much common ground here of which I was unaware. I hesitate to get bogged down in the technicalities of full-auto background checks at the moment, as I need time to give it some thought. Given the indiscriminate nature of even medium caliber full auto fire, it is a legitimate point to bring up, though I cannot see how it squares with the 2nd Amendment. Any help you can provide on this point would be appreciated.
If I am to understand you correctly, any small arm; pistol or long gun; bolt, lever, or semi-auto, is available for purchase for a fist full of dollars and a smile (smile not required) resulting in a record-free purchase. A big step in the right direction, to be sure. Elimination of restriction, not modification of restriction.
Hell, you've even addressed putting an M105 in my backyard.[:)]
Good points to ponder, Jim.
Thanks.
Brad Steele
All I am trying to do is look at this in a realistic manner. Whether we want to or not we MUST consider the opinions of others not so sympathetic to our cause. Look what happened in this election. If we can convince enough people of the importance of the RTKABA's and give then the assurances they need to feel 'safe' in there ability to achieve 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' we will prevail. The purists will not be happy and the anti-gunners will not be happy. The way things are now is an abomination to the 2nd Amendment.