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 Jim Rau
No it does not make it 'right', but it makes it 'real'!
Reality is not always the way we want it to be or think it should be.
The point I am trying to get across to those with an open mind is:
We have to attack this problem with in the parameters of reality, or there is NO, ZERO chance of achieving any head way in solving it.
Every time there is a conflict between reality and ideology reality wins!!
What is the difference between those idealists in the world of academia and the the idealists on this site??[?]
And by the way no one has answered my question!! Why???
496, I would really be interested in your input here!
I sense a clash of the 1. Hesitant idealist who urges caution and levelheadedness due perhaps to a fear of upsetting the "masters" all the while ostensibly decrying the carnage that a revolution might engender. 2. He who understands that as citizen in a democracy IS the master regardless of what the government says. I imagine what folks who wanted to hold the Boston Tea Party had to contend with? "Now now boys, we gotta work within the system, the redcoats will give us our inalienable rights as free men as long as we work out a deal,,,give some concessions. My question is. How far will we sink into this morass of concessions (additional fettering) before we see that our government is indeed tyrannical in it's attempts to deny us what is due in the Constitution, namely with gun registration etc. Free men do not need to be conciliatory when speaking the truth about the Rights of Man, nor will they need to apologize for defending the same.Just food for thought from a kid who grew up holding a rifle over stone walls on the route that Rochambeau took.
So if the laws says you can't threaten people it does not apply until you do so and are caught right?correct
If the law says you can't CCW it does not apply until you do so and are caught Right?also correct Getting caught is not relevant.Also-Do not make the elementary mistake of clouding the issue of CCW being in the 2A- what is not specifically prohibited is permitted.
Here you make my point for me-read carefully now. Are you watching?Okay...
If I make a threat to someone, I am placing perhaps several of someone else's liberties at risk (depending on the specific threat, of course) Correct? Good. Let's keep going... The utterance of that threat is an illegal act based on what? Based on the likelihood of carrying out that threat. Why? Because I said I would do it. Saying so,leaves no choice but to assume one has both the means and the motive to perform the acts specified therein. Are you following? To simplify-I said I would do something bad to someone, and the law has to assume I will. Why? Because I said so! Reasonable enough?
Now...are you still reading? Making a law forbidding the carry of firearms is based on what? I have made no threat (real or implied) I give no reason for one to believe that I will commit all manner of nefarious acts (regardless of whether I have before or not) My actually carrying (legal or otherwise) infringes on no one's liberties (in fact, precisely the opposite) I am doing nothing illegal other than doing what the goverment forbade in direct contravention of the law the government is limited by.
Most importantly, there is no guarantee of the ability to make threats in the BoR. It says free speech, yes, but there are penalties for the abuse of that freedom, and rightfully so, but not the exercise of it.
Back to one of my UNANSWERED questions:
What is the difference between the idealists in academia and the idealists on this site (in the CA bunch here)??? There are several-most importantly two:My ideal of a government following the plan concieved by the founders and codified in the Constitution is one shared and codified as the basis for the founding of our nation. That being the greatest nation on Earth, without peer or superior. In academia, generally, the ideal (typically a socialist utopia)is one that is fantasy from it's conception;was not the plan envisioned for this country, and makes no provision for the motivation of people who want more.
You have not been keeping up with this. For many years I was of the same idealistic state of mind many here are. But when I looked at it closely I saw how unrealistic I was and how was not accomplishing any thing good by being a 'marauder' for the cause.
Here is where we differ. I don't believe for a second that a society and government that abides by the rules set out for both in the Constitution is unrealistic. Not only is it attainable-IT USED TO BE THE RULE NOT THE EXCEPTION!!!!!! And by accepting that things are the way they are and feeling that nothing is accomplished by resisting it is defeatist and I'll personally have no part in it. I don't believe for a second that you ever believed the way I do as that is not the natural progression of man. Men do not strive for less freedom. Ever.
Is it possible to make this any clearer to you? Is there anything about this you do not understand?
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Really ?
I do not fear a full auto, unregistered, in the hands of my neighbor.
While I know of no such weapons, I am confident that there ARE such out there. I am pretty sure the government hasn't cowed an ENTIRE nation of men...just most of them.
I don't fear them at all.
Odd thing. I think full autos are a joke. My frugal nature shrivels at the idea of blasting all that ammo down range.
Still..it is none of your nor the governments business who owns them.
Just curious HB, but how many times have been fired upon by a full auto weapon? How many times and or rounds have you fired in return?
Have you ever used a full auto weapon just for fun at the range???[?]
quote:Originally posted by Rhinovangogh
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
No it does not make it 'right', but it makes it 'real'!
Reality is not always the way we want it to be or think it should be.
The point I am trying to get across to those with an open mind is:
We have to attack this problem with in the parameters of reality, or there is NO, ZERO chance of achieving any head way in solving it.
Every time there is a conflict between reality and ideology reality wins!!
What is the difference between those idealists in the world of academia and the the idealists on this site??[?]
And by the way no one has answered my question!! Why???
496, I would really be interested in your input here!
I sense a clash of the 1. Hesitant idealist who urges caution and levelheadedness due perhaps to a fear of upsetting the "masters" all the while ostensibly decrying the carnage that a revolution might engender. 2. He who understands that as citizen in a democracy IS the master regardless of what the government says. I imagine what folks who wanted to hold the Boston Tea Party had to contend with? "Now now boys, we gotta work within the system, the redcoats will give us our inalienable rights as free men as long as we work out a deal,,,give some concessions. My question is. How far will we sink into this morass of concessions (additional fettering) before we see that our government is indeed tyrannical in it's attempts to deny us what is due in the Constitution, namely with gun registration etc. Free men do not need to be conciliatory when speaking the truth about the Rights of Man, nor will they need to apologize for defending the same.Just food for thought from a kid who grew up holding a rifle over stone walls on the route that Rochambeau took.
Welcome rhino. If you said nothing more on the subject you will have earned my respect.
[quote
Just curious HB, but how many times have been fired upon by a full auto weapon? How many times and or rounds have you fired in return?
Have you ever used a full auto weapon just for fun at the range???[?]
[/quote]
What in the sam h3ll does that have to do with the discussion? I have all three, have not only the means, but the permission of the commonwealth of MA to own one. That does not pique my interest one bit. My neighbor owns several ClassIII items and I have never desired to touch a one of them. I do love his Model 70 Shadow though- now,there is an instrument to envy.
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
So if the laws says you can't threaten people it does not apply until you do so and are caught right?correct
If the law says you can't CCW it does not apply until you do so and are caught Right?also correct Getting caught is not relevant.Also-Do not make the elementary mistake of clouding the issue of CCW being in the 2A- what is not specifically prohibited is permitted.
Here you make my point for me-read carefully now. Are you watching?Okay...
If I make a threat to someone, I am placing perhaps several of someone else's liberties at risk (depending on the specific threat, of course) Correct? Good. Let's keep going... The utterance of that threat is an illegal act based on what? Based on the likelihood of carrying out that threat. Why? Because I said I would do it. Saying so,leaves no choice but to assume one has both the means and the motive to perform the acts specified therein. Are you following? To simplify-I said I would do something bad to someone, and the law has to assume I will. Why? Because I said so! Reasonable enough?
Now...are you still reading? Making a law forbidding the carry of firearms is based on what? I have made no threat (real or implied) I give no reason for one to believe that I will commit all manner of nefarious acts (regardless of whether I have before or not) My actually carrying (legal or otherwise) infringes on no one's liberties (in fact, precisely the opposite) I am doing nothing illegal other than doing what the goverment forbade in direct contravention of the law the government is limited by.
Most importantly, there is no guarantee of the ability to make threats in the BoR. It says free speech, yes, but there are penalties for the abuse of that freedom, and rightfully so, but not the exercise of it.
Back to one of my UNANSWERED questions:
What is the difference between the idealists in academia and the idealists on this site (in the CA bunch here)??? There are several-most importantly two:My ideal of a government following the plan concieved by the founders and codified in the Constitution is one shared and codified as the basis for the founding of our nation. That being the greatest nation on Earth, without peer or superior. In academia, generally, the ideal (typically a socialist utopia)is one that is fantasy from it's conception;was not the plan envisioned for this country, and makes no provision for the motivation of people who want more.
You have not been keeping up with this. For many years I was of the same idealistic state of mind many here are. But when I looked at it closely I saw how unrealistic I was and how was not accomplishing any thing good by being a 'marauder' for the cause.
Here is where we differ. I don't believe for a second that a society and government that abides by the rules set out for both in the Constitution is unrealistic. Not only is it attainable-IT USED TO BE THE RULE NOT THE EXCEPTION!!!!!! And by accepting that things are the way they are and feeling that nothing is accomplished by resisting it is defeatist and I'll personally have no part in it. I don't believe for a second that you ever believed the way I do as that is not the natural progression of man. Men do not strive for less freedom. Ever.
Is it possible to make this any clearer to you? Is there anything about this you do not understand?
WHEN was it the rule not the exception????
I really don't care if you believe it or not, but I have made the exact same arguments you are making.
You make a statement that I have excepted things as they are. Again you have not been keeping up. I do not except this and I have put my career and pension on the line to defend my believes in the 2nd Amendment. I have to laugh at people like you who are so 'holier than though' and you have never had to sacrifice anything to support your beliefs. You are truly 'clue less' to what is going on the real world. And if you truly believe you can achieve the 'ideal' of which you speck I feel sorry for you. You are going to VERY disappointed.
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
[quote
Just curious HB, but how many times have been fired upon by a full auto weapon? How many times and or rounds have you fired in return?
Have you ever used a full auto weapon just for fun at the range???[?]
What in the sam h3ll does that have to do with the discussion? I have all three, have not only the means, but the permission of the commonwealth of MA to own one. That does not pique my interest one bit. My neighbor owns several ClassIII items and I have never desired to touch a one of them. I do love his Model 70 Shadow though- now,there is an instrument to envy.
[/quote]
He made the statement he was not afraid of people with full auto weapons, so I want to know how much first hand experance on both ends of a full auto weapon he has to base this statement. I don't thing this is to much to ask, why do you???
Here we go again, you guys are really going to get my post count up like Jeff and HB did several months ago.[;)]
So please, newbies, go back and read up so I don't have to keep repeating myself!!!![V]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I am not going off on tangent
Nice try though![;)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Then the plane view doctrine is unconditional??
The requirement to ID yourself before you vote is unconditional??
The laws which restrict you from threatening to kill or harm others are unconditional??
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
quote:Originally posted by Rhinovangogh
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
No it does not make it 'right', but it makes it 'real'!
Reality is not always the way we want it to be or think it should be.
The point I am trying to get across to those with an open mind is:
We have to attack this problem with in the parameters of reality, or there is NO, ZERO chance of achieving any head way in solving it.
Every time there is a conflict between reality and ideology reality wins!!
What is the difference between those idealists in the world of academia and the the idealists on this site??[?]
And by the way no one has answered my question!! Why???
496, I would really be interested in your input here!
I sense a clash of the 1. Hesitant idealist who urges caution and levelheadedness due perhaps to a fear of upsetting the "masters" all the while ostensibly decrying the carnage that a revolution might engender. 2. He who understands that as citizen in a democracy IS the master regardless of what the government says. I imagine what folks who wanted to hold the Boston Tea Party had to contend with? "Now now boys, we gotta work within the system, the redcoats will give us our inalienable rights as free men as long as we work out a deal,,,give some concessions. My question is. How far will we sink into this morass of concessions (additional fettering) before we see that our government is indeed tyrannical in it's attempts to deny us what is due in the Constitution, namely with gun registration etc. Free men do not need to be conciliatory when speaking the truth about the Rights of Man, nor will they need to apologize for defending the same.Just food for thought from a kid who grew up holding a rifle over stone walls on the route that Rochambeau took.
Welcome rhino. If you said nothing more on the subject you will have earned my respect.
[/quote]Thanks for the welcome. Are you in law enforcement? Your replies on this site remind me of some old FBI colleagues(Probably just a mindset). Lots of those guys were prior Marine and before that Boy Scouts. I was a Boy Scout too. Still am. Did you read Johnny Tremaine?
While I am not here for earning anyone's respect,I do not wish to comment on the 2nd amendment so much as I do the clash of ideas I see here. I do value your input here after reading tons of threads on various subjects. Level headed men should prevail over hot heads, but often these level types are often loyalists in failed causes with right-minded allegiances and a strong sense of duty. Good soldiers are always employed and will often unflinchingly do their duties (Wounded Knee,Bergen Belsen,Mi Lai, Quantanamo e.g.).IMHO, once enlisted, as soldiers, good men abdicate free will and exchange it for a paycheck. I do not suggest that these men are dupes or bad people. I spent 20 years in the military.
My purpose for chiming in on the 2nd amendment thread is to find out to my satisfaction where people truly stand. It is possible to be brilliant, educated, informed and still be on the wrong side of any argument. I imagine what the Sons of Liberty had to contend with moving to secure their rights and Kick out the oppressors. I imagine there were plenty of lackeys,loyalists and spies about...certainly there were good soldiers of the King standing guard. Fascinating discussion. Carry on. Rhino [:o)]
I have no experience with enemy fire from a full auto on urban American streets.
Full auto, unless backed with interlacing fields of fire from other gunners, and complete with troop protection, is susceptible to going away quickly.
In the days of massed troops, advancing across open fields, the machine gun was a fearsome weapon.
The criminals we have today that snap and start killing people probably would run up less of a score with full auto weapons....Simply because the rate of fire would run them out of ammo quicker.
3-round bursts being beyond them, I think.
In an America that was sane..gun fire in a mall would instantly alert every gun bearing Citizen in the area...and the end would come very shortly for the killer(s). Full auto or not.
I have access to full auto weapons ..a friend owns several. I shoot them now and again ..if he insists. I could not bring myself to spend the money for the cartridges. Cheap, you know...I also never let him forget about the 200 dollar tithe to the government each time he spends another 15,000 on a 400 buck weapon...
quote:I imagine there were plenty of lackeys,loyalists and spies about...certainly there were good soldiers of the King standing guard. Fascinating disc
I call them cowards, fellow travelers, Quislings, and compromisers...myself.
I have never understood how the concept of a state being able to trump Federal Law. AS for constitutional law, they can't. They are bound by the constitution just like everyone else. Several laws in California have been over turned because they were found to be unconstitutional. Various tried and failed gun bans by the City of San Fransisco and the "good" Mayor Nusium. Now there an * worth his wieght in Poop.
But there are some states that feel they don't have to obey law. Like California. Here it legal to sell and possess Medicinal Pot. Federal law says B.S.. Yet they don't press it. Federal Law has it listed as a class 1 narcodic. A felony.
I have allways been under the aparently false impression that state law could NOT over ride Federal Law or constitutional law. But in todays worlds, that seems to mean very little. And as usual. it depends on what state you live in.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
So if the laws says you can't threaten people it does not apply until you do so and are caught right?correct
If the law says you can't CCW it does not apply until you do so and are caught Right?also correct Getting caught is not relevant.Also-Do not make the elementary mistake of clouding the issue of CCW being in the 2A- what is not specifically prohibited is permitted.
Here you make my point for me-read carefully now. Are you watching?Okay...
If I make a threat to someone, I am placing perhaps several of someone else's liberties at risk (depending on the specific threat, of course) Correct? Good. Let's keep going... The utterance of that threat is an illegal act based on what? Based on the likelihood of carrying out that threat. Why? Because I said I would do it. Saying so,leaves no choice but to assume one has both the means and the motive to perform the acts specified therein. Are you following? To simplify-I said I would do something bad to someone, and the law has to assume I will. Why? Because I said so! Reasonable enough?
Now...are you still reading? Making a law forbidding the carry of firearms is based on what? I have made no threat (real or implied) I give no reason for one to believe that I will commit all manner of nefarious acts (regardless of whether I have before or not) My actually carrying (legal or otherwise) infringes on no one's liberties (in fact, precisely the opposite) I am doing nothing illegal other than doing what the goverment forbade in direct contravention of the law the government is limited by.
Most importantly, there is no guarantee of the ability to make threats in the BoR. It says free speech, yes, but there are penalties for the abuse of that freedom, and rightfully so, but not the exercise of it.
Back to one of my UNANSWERED questions:
What is the difference between the idealists in academia and the idealists on this site (in the CA bunch here)??? There are several-most importantly two:My ideal of a government following the plan concieved by the founders and codified in the Constitution is one shared and codified as the basis for the founding of our nation. That being the greatest nation on Earth, without peer or superior. In academia, generally, the ideal (typically a socialist utopia)is one that is fantasy from it's conception;was not the plan envisioned for this country, and makes no provision for the motivation of people who want more.
You have not been keeping up with this. For many years I was of the same idealistic state of mind many here are. But when I looked at it closely I saw how unrealistic I was and how was not accomplishing any thing good by being a 'marauder' for the cause.
Here is where we differ. I don't believe for a second that a society and government that abides by the rules set out for both in the Constitution is unrealistic. Not only is it attainable-IT USED TO BE THE RULE NOT THE EXCEPTION!!!!!! And by accepting that things are the way they are and feeling that nothing is accomplished by resisting it is defeatist and I'll personally have no part in it. I don't believe for a second that you ever believed the way I do as that is not the natural progression of man. Men do not strive for less freedom. Ever.
Is it possible to make this any clearer to you? Is there anything about this you do not understand?
WHEN was it the rule not the exception????
I really don't care if you believe it or not, but I have made the exact same arguments you are making.
You make a statement that I have excepted things as they are. Again you have not been keeping up. I do not except this and I have put my career and pension on the line to defend my believes in the 2nd Amendment. I have to laugh at people like you who are so 'holier than though' and you have never had to sacrifice anything to support your beliefs. You are truly 'clue less' to what is going on the real world. And if you truly believe you can achieve the 'ideal' of which you speck I feel sorry for you. You are going to VERY disappointed.
If you go back as recently as 1967 (pre '68 GCA) or even pre '34 GCA. None of what we discuss-in addition to SSN's, payroll deduction and exhorbitant tax rates, politicians selling senate seats and a bumbling idiot in the white house was occurring. I would say 1900 is about perfect politically. The US was unapologetically imperial. Men were men, women were women and thought it best that they keep to that. One could buy machine guns or artillery providing you had the means.
quote:Originally posted by Rhinovangogh
Thanks for the welcome. Are you in law enforcement? Your replies on this site remind me of some old FBI colleagues(Probably just a mindset). Lots of those guys were prior Marine and before that Boy Scouts. I was a Boy Scout too. Still am. Did you read Johnny Tremaine?
While I am not here for earning anyone's respect,I do not wish to comment on the 2nd amendment so much as I do the clash of ideas I see here. I do value your input here after reading tons of threads on various subjects. Level headed men should prevail over hot heads, but often these level types are often loyalists in failed causes with right-minded allegiances and a strong sense of duty. Good soldiers are always employed and will often unflinchingly do their duties (Wounded Knee,Bergen Belsen,Mi Lai, Quantanamo e.g.).IMHO, once enlisted, as soldiers, good men abdicate free will and exchange it for a paycheck. I do not suggest that these men are dupes or bad people. I spent 20 years in the military.
My purpose for chiming in on the 2nd amendment thread is to find out to my satisfaction where people truly stand. It is possible to be brilliant, educated, informed and still be on the wrong side of any argument. I imagine what the Sons of Liberty had to contend with moving to secure their rights and Kick out the oppressors. I imagine there were plenty of lackeys,loyalists and spies about...certainly there were good soldiers of the King standing guard. Fascinating discussion. Carry on. Rhino [:o)]
[/quote]
I am not in law enforcement although I did try for a while. Too much compromise of principle, combined with too many folks who did not understand the purpose of what they were doing. That said, I bid the Maryland S.P adieu and moved on. I am an engineer in charge of the operations department of a gas turbine power plant. I spent 6 years active in the Marines and 4 in the Reserves, one of those in Kosovo.
I have read Johnny Tremaine, and enjoyed it. I find it curious how readable it is even today.
I try and put forth a reasoned argument, but typically find that logic is too easily trumped by rhetoric and emotion. As an engineer, I find it hard to allow such to make rule and not logic and fact. Again welcome,
I think perhaps we are playing the game of an anti-gunner here;
No society of man was EVER perfect. Attempting to prove this time or that time as being better then another is futile...for somebody else will spring to attention, loudly pointing to some infraction that is really, truly terrible.
What we should confine ourselves to is original intent...and the transgressions thereof.
Allowing an anti-gunner to kick up endless gray areas is all good fun ..but that is EXACTLY the technique utilized by the NRA in their excuses for endorsing this or that gun bill.
"Well ..it is better then a total ban...see..we got a sunset put in...see we managed to water it down.."...the endless rhetoric they use to somehow excuse their involvement in gun control laws.
For those concerned about my past ..as far as you are concerned...I am a Keyboard Kommando. You will discuss with me the merits of my arguments ..not what I have done.
That subject is closed..it is none of your business.
When I say something...you are free to accept it...or reject it.
That is the basis of a free country.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Here we go again, you guys are really going to get my post count up like Jeff and HB did several months ago.[;)]
So please, newbies, go back and read up so I don't have to keep repeating myself!!!![V]
Damn Jim, it looks like someone ate your lunch and took you milk money too.[:D][:o)]
codenamepaul, YOU sir, are articulate and on-point in this public spanking of Mr. Rau.
Jim, you know that although we disagree on the meaning and intent of the Constitution and the proper role of government, I still kinda like you.[:I][:)] You are, if nothing else, tenacious.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Jeff,
Where have you been hiding!! And you had better not have been off hunting again!!![}:)]
I wish I were hunting again Jim.
Very nasty election at the S.O. is now over. Numbnuts-in-Chief was ousted (thank God). New Boss coming in, lots of projects, reports, assessments, transition plans etc, to complete.
Politically-based retribution, backbiting, panic, paranoia and various other nasty business going on internally.
Add to that, a slimy-weasel of a GB member contacting my agency, trying to screw me over for my individualist/constitutionalist stances, which he feels are inappropriate for an "Officer of The Law" to hold. The weasel is trying to tie my personal positions to my position and my agency, as if I were speaking as a representative, rather than as an individual who happens to hold a position in the business.
I am so thoroughly sick of B.S. and controversy that I have not felt like posting.
Lt496;
Welcome back.
Noticed your list of 32-20's...sorta makes me salivate.
I faintly remember when I salivated over wimmin that way...but after awhile, I discovered that guns last longer...[:D]
Since you have been gone, we have sorta been havin' our way with Mr Rau. He is a pretty good sort, actually..but still holding firm on the full auto thing.
Long as he has his rifle pointed the right direction...that problem can be thrashed out when the new Conventions are held, after the taking back is over.
quote:Add to that, a slimy-weasel of a GB member contacting my agency, trying to screw me over for my individualist/constitutionalist stances, which he feels are inappropriate for an "Officer of The Law" to hold. The weasel is trying to tie my personal positions to my position and my agency, as if I were speaking as a representative, rather than as an individual who happens to hold a position in the business.
Do you have a make on this piece of snit, Captain ?
Jeff,
Believe me Sir, I know EXACTLY how you feel!!! If there is anything I can do to help let me know![V]
I hope you have a boss with some personal integrity and will stand behind you!
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Lt496;
Welcome back.
Noticed your list of 32-20's...sorta makes me salivate.
I faintly remember when I salivated over wimmin that way...but after awhile, I discovered that guns last longer...[:D]
Since you have been gone, we have sorta been havin' our way with Mr Rau. He is a pretty good sort, actually..but still holding firm on the full auto thing.
Long as he has his rifle pointed the right direction...that problem can be thrashed out when the new Conventions are held, after the taking back is over.
Yeah Bert, the post of the 32-20's got me thinking about some of the old rifles in the back of my safe and it was a nice diversion to hold them again...memories and all that.
Jim is often irritating and off-base (IMO Jim[:o)]) on some very important points, but I am sure that if things really go south, as it were, he will be on the right side.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:Add to that, a slimy-weasel of a GB member contacting my agency, trying to screw me over for my individualist/constitutionalist stances, which he feels are inappropriate for an "Officer of The Law" to hold. The weasel is trying to tie my personal positions to my position and my agency, as if I were speaking as a representative, rather than as an individual who happens to hold a position in the business.
Do you have a make on this piece of snit, Captain ?
Yeah, I am pretty sure who it is, but not positive. I'll keep my suspicions to myself in that case.
Regardless, he is entitled to his opinions, although his character (rather the lack thereof) and motivation is now clear.
I'll be okay, since I am careful to never speak on behalf of the agency, only offer my personal views. We'll see if I am allowed to have personal opinions and views I guess.
I am not sweating the small stuff though.[;)] I will not be cowed, nor silenced as to my individual views and opinions, regardless of where I work, or what my profession is.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Jeff,
Believe me Sir, I know EXACTLY how you feel!!! If there is anything I can do to help let me know![V]
I hope you have a boss with some personal integrity and will stand behind you!
Jim, you do indeed know where I am at in this situation, having lived it yourself.
Appreciate the offer of help and i'll remember that you offered it, although I am not concerned, just irritated.
I have never tied any of my views to those of my agency. Many of you know where I work and others know simply that I am a peace officer. Regardless, I do not and have not spoken as a representative of my agency on any such issue, just as me, the individual, who happens to be a peace officer.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by lt496
Yeah, I am pretty sure who it is, but not positive.
If you become positive, I would appreciate an email.
Count on it pickenup, for your personal knowledge only.
One apparently needs to watch one's back around some of these collectivist, big-government types. They seem threatened by individualists and by those who stand for the Constitution.
Go figure....
If any damage, or negative perception is placed on my professional standing due to this weasel, he can expect civil action, swift and harsh.[;)]
Comments
No it does not make it 'right', but it makes it 'real'!
Reality is not always the way we want it to be or think it should be.
The point I am trying to get across to those with an open mind is:
We have to attack this problem with in the parameters of reality, or there is NO, ZERO chance of achieving any head way in solving it.
Every time there is a conflict between reality and ideology reality wins!!
What is the difference between those idealists in the world of academia and the the idealists on this site??[?]
And by the way no one has answered my question!! Why???
496, I would really be interested in your input here!
I sense a clash of the 1. Hesitant idealist who urges caution and levelheadedness due perhaps to a fear of upsetting the "masters" all the while ostensibly decrying the carnage that a revolution might engender. 2. He who understands that as citizen in a democracy IS the master regardless of what the government says. I imagine what folks who wanted to hold the Boston Tea Party had to contend with? "Now now boys, we gotta work within the system, the redcoats will give us our inalienable rights as free men as long as we work out a deal,,,give some concessions. My question is. How far will we sink into this morass of concessions (additional fettering) before we see that our government is indeed tyrannical in it's attempts to deny us what is due in the Constitution, namely with gun registration etc. Free men do not need to be conciliatory when speaking the truth about the Rights of Man, nor will they need to apologize for defending the same.Just food for thought from a kid who grew up holding a rifle over stone walls on the route that Rochambeau took.
So if the laws says you can't threaten people it does not apply until you do so and are caught right?correct
If the law says you can't CCW it does not apply until you do so and are caught Right?also correct Getting caught is not relevant.Also-Do not make the elementary mistake of clouding the issue of CCW being in the 2A- what is not specifically prohibited is permitted.
Here you make my point for me-read carefully now. Are you watching?Okay...
If I make a threat to someone, I am placing perhaps several of someone else's liberties at risk (depending on the specific threat, of course) Correct? Good. Let's keep going... The utterance of that threat is an illegal act based on what? Based on the likelihood of carrying out that threat. Why? Because I said I would do it. Saying so,leaves no choice but to assume one has both the means and the motive to perform the acts specified therein. Are you following? To simplify-I said I would do something bad to someone, and the law has to assume I will. Why? Because I said so! Reasonable enough?
Now...are you still reading? Making a law forbidding the carry of firearms is based on what? I have made no threat (real or implied) I give no reason for one to believe that I will commit all manner of nefarious acts (regardless of whether I have before or not) My actually carrying (legal or otherwise) infringes on no one's liberties (in fact, precisely the opposite) I am doing nothing illegal other than doing what the goverment forbade in direct contravention of the law the government is limited by.
Most importantly, there is no guarantee of the ability to make threats in the BoR. It says free speech, yes, but there are penalties for the abuse of that freedom, and rightfully so, but not the exercise of it.
Back to one of my UNANSWERED questions:
What is the difference between the idealists in academia and the idealists on this site (in the CA bunch here)??? There are several-most importantly two:My ideal of a government following the plan concieved by the founders and codified in the Constitution is one shared and codified as the basis for the founding of our nation. That being the greatest nation on Earth, without peer or superior. In academia, generally, the ideal (typically a socialist utopia)is one that is fantasy from it's conception;was not the plan envisioned for this country, and makes no provision for the motivation of people who want more.
You have not been keeping up with this. For many years I was of the same idealistic state of mind many here are. But when I looked at it closely I saw how unrealistic I was and how was not accomplishing any thing good by being a 'marauder' for the cause.
Here is where we differ. I don't believe for a second that a society and government that abides by the rules set out for both in the Constitution is unrealistic. Not only is it attainable-IT USED TO BE THE RULE NOT THE EXCEPTION!!!!!! And by accepting that things are the way they are and feeling that nothing is accomplished by resisting it is defeatist and I'll personally have no part in it. I don't believe for a second that you ever believed the way I do as that is not the natural progression of man. Men do not strive for less freedom. Ever.
Is it possible to make this any clearer to you? Is there anything about this you do not understand?
Really ?
I do not fear a full auto, unregistered, in the hands of my neighbor.
While I know of no such weapons, I am confident that there ARE such out there. I am pretty sure the government hasn't cowed an ENTIRE nation of men...just most of them.
I don't fear them at all.
Odd thing. I think full autos are a joke. My frugal nature shrivels at the idea of blasting all that ammo down range.
Still..it is none of your nor the governments business who owns them.
Just curious HB, but how many times have been fired upon by a full auto weapon? How many times and or rounds have you fired in return?
Have you ever used a full auto weapon just for fun at the range???[?]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
No it does not make it 'right', but it makes it 'real'!
Reality is not always the way we want it to be or think it should be.
The point I am trying to get across to those with an open mind is:
We have to attack this problem with in the parameters of reality, or there is NO, ZERO chance of achieving any head way in solving it.
Every time there is a conflict between reality and ideology reality wins!!
What is the difference between those idealists in the world of academia and the the idealists on this site??[?]
And by the way no one has answered my question!! Why???
496, I would really be interested in your input here!
I sense a clash of the 1. Hesitant idealist who urges caution and levelheadedness due perhaps to a fear of upsetting the "masters" all the while ostensibly decrying the carnage that a revolution might engender. 2. He who understands that as citizen in a democracy IS the master regardless of what the government says. I imagine what folks who wanted to hold the Boston Tea Party had to contend with? "Now now boys, we gotta work within the system, the redcoats will give us our inalienable rights as free men as long as we work out a deal,,,give some concessions. My question is. How far will we sink into this morass of concessions (additional fettering) before we see that our government is indeed tyrannical in it's attempts to deny us what is due in the Constitution, namely with gun registration etc. Free men do not need to be conciliatory when speaking the truth about the Rights of Man, nor will they need to apologize for defending the same.Just food for thought from a kid who grew up holding a rifle over stone walls on the route that Rochambeau took.
Welcome rhino. If you said nothing more on the subject you will have earned my respect.
Just curious HB, but how many times have been fired upon by a full auto weapon? How many times and or rounds have you fired in return?
Have you ever used a full auto weapon just for fun at the range???[?]
[/quote]
What in the sam h3ll does that have to do with the discussion? I have all three, have not only the means, but the permission of the commonwealth of MA to own one. That does not pique my interest one bit. My neighbor owns several ClassIII items and I have never desired to touch a one of them. I do love his Model 70 Shadow though- now,there is an instrument to envy.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
So if the laws says you can't threaten people it does not apply until you do so and are caught right?correct
If the law says you can't CCW it does not apply until you do so and are caught Right?also correct Getting caught is not relevant.Also-Do not make the elementary mistake of clouding the issue of CCW being in the 2A- what is not specifically prohibited is permitted.
Here you make my point for me-read carefully now. Are you watching?Okay...
If I make a threat to someone, I am placing perhaps several of someone else's liberties at risk (depending on the specific threat, of course) Correct? Good. Let's keep going... The utterance of that threat is an illegal act based on what? Based on the likelihood of carrying out that threat. Why? Because I said I would do it. Saying so,leaves no choice but to assume one has both the means and the motive to perform the acts specified therein. Are you following? To simplify-I said I would do something bad to someone, and the law has to assume I will. Why? Because I said so! Reasonable enough?
Now...are you still reading? Making a law forbidding the carry of firearms is based on what? I have made no threat (real or implied) I give no reason for one to believe that I will commit all manner of nefarious acts (regardless of whether I have before or not) My actually carrying (legal or otherwise) infringes on no one's liberties (in fact, precisely the opposite) I am doing nothing illegal other than doing what the goverment forbade in direct contravention of the law the government is limited by.
Most importantly, there is no guarantee of the ability to make threats in the BoR. It says free speech, yes, but there are penalties for the abuse of that freedom, and rightfully so, but not the exercise of it.
Back to one of my UNANSWERED questions:
What is the difference between the idealists in academia and the idealists on this site (in the CA bunch here)??? There are several-most importantly two:My ideal of a government following the plan concieved by the founders and codified in the Constitution is one shared and codified as the basis for the founding of our nation. That being the greatest nation on Earth, without peer or superior. In academia, generally, the ideal (typically a socialist utopia)is one that is fantasy from it's conception;was not the plan envisioned for this country, and makes no provision for the motivation of people who want more.
You have not been keeping up with this. For many years I was of the same idealistic state of mind many here are. But when I looked at it closely I saw how unrealistic I was and how was not accomplishing any thing good by being a 'marauder' for the cause.
Here is where we differ. I don't believe for a second that a society and government that abides by the rules set out for both in the Constitution is unrealistic. Not only is it attainable-IT USED TO BE THE RULE NOT THE EXCEPTION!!!!!! And by accepting that things are the way they are and feeling that nothing is accomplished by resisting it is defeatist and I'll personally have no part in it. I don't believe for a second that you ever believed the way I do as that is not the natural progression of man. Men do not strive for less freedom. Ever.
Is it possible to make this any clearer to you? Is there anything about this you do not understand?
WHEN was it the rule not the exception????
I really don't care if you believe it or not, but I have made the exact same arguments you are making.
You make a statement that I have excepted things as they are. Again you have not been keeping up. I do not except this and I have put my career and pension on the line to defend my believes in the 2nd Amendment. I have to laugh at people like you who are so 'holier than though' and you have never had to sacrifice anything to support your beliefs. You are truly 'clue less' to what is going on the real world. And if you truly believe you can achieve the 'ideal' of which you speck I feel sorry for you. You are going to VERY disappointed.
[quote
Just curious HB, but how many times have been fired upon by a full auto weapon? How many times and or rounds have you fired in return?
Have you ever used a full auto weapon just for fun at the range???[?]
What in the sam h3ll does that have to do with the discussion? I have all three, have not only the means, but the permission of the commonwealth of MA to own one. That does not pique my interest one bit. My neighbor owns several ClassIII items and I have never desired to touch a one of them. I do love his Model 70 Shadow though- now,there is an instrument to envy.
[/quote]
He made the statement he was not afraid of people with full auto weapons, so I want to know how much first hand experance on both ends of a full auto weapon he has to base this statement. I don't thing this is to much to ask, why do you???
So please, newbies, go back and read up so I don't have to keep repeating myself!!!![V]
How many 'blacks' were allowed to be armed then??[;)]
They were also deemed to be chattel.
Do you agree with that, Jim?
Nice try though![;)]
I am not going off on tangent
Nice try though![;)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Then the plane view doctrine is unconditional??
The requirement to ID yourself before you vote is unconditional??
The laws which restrict you from threatening to kill or harm others are unconditional??
Coulda fooled me....
quote:Originally posted by Rhinovangogh
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
No it does not make it 'right', but it makes it 'real'!
Reality is not always the way we want it to be or think it should be.
The point I am trying to get across to those with an open mind is:
We have to attack this problem with in the parameters of reality, or there is NO, ZERO chance of achieving any head way in solving it.
Every time there is a conflict between reality and ideology reality wins!!
What is the difference between those idealists in the world of academia and the the idealists on this site??[?]
And by the way no one has answered my question!! Why???
496, I would really be interested in your input here!
I sense a clash of the 1. Hesitant idealist who urges caution and levelheadedness due perhaps to a fear of upsetting the "masters" all the while ostensibly decrying the carnage that a revolution might engender. 2. He who understands that as citizen in a democracy IS the master regardless of what the government says. I imagine what folks who wanted to hold the Boston Tea Party had to contend with? "Now now boys, we gotta work within the system, the redcoats will give us our inalienable rights as free men as long as we work out a deal,,,give some concessions. My question is. How far will we sink into this morass of concessions (additional fettering) before we see that our government is indeed tyrannical in it's attempts to deny us what is due in the Constitution, namely with gun registration etc. Free men do not need to be conciliatory when speaking the truth about the Rights of Man, nor will they need to apologize for defending the same.Just food for thought from a kid who grew up holding a rifle over stone walls on the route that Rochambeau took.
Welcome rhino. If you said nothing more on the subject you will have earned my respect.
[/quote]Thanks for the welcome. Are you in law enforcement? Your replies on this site remind me of some old FBI colleagues(Probably just a mindset). Lots of those guys were prior Marine and before that Boy Scouts. I was a Boy Scout too. Still am. Did you read Johnny Tremaine?
While I am not here for earning anyone's respect,I do not wish to comment on the 2nd amendment so much as I do the clash of ideas I see here. I do value your input here after reading tons of threads on various subjects. Level headed men should prevail over hot heads, but often these level types are often loyalists in failed causes with right-minded allegiances and a strong sense of duty. Good soldiers are always employed and will often unflinchingly do their duties (Wounded Knee,Bergen Belsen,Mi Lai, Quantanamo e.g.).IMHO, once enlisted, as soldiers, good men abdicate free will and exchange it for a paycheck. I do not suggest that these men are dupes or bad people. I spent 20 years in the military.
My purpose for chiming in on the 2nd amendment thread is to find out to my satisfaction where people truly stand. It is possible to be brilliant, educated, informed and still be on the wrong side of any argument. I imagine what the Sons of Liberty had to contend with moving to secure their rights and Kick out the oppressors. I imagine there were plenty of lackeys,loyalists and spies about...certainly there were good soldiers of the King standing guard. Fascinating discussion. Carry on. Rhino [:o)]
Full auto, unless backed with interlacing fields of fire from other gunners, and complete with troop protection, is susceptible to going away quickly.
In the days of massed troops, advancing across open fields, the machine gun was a fearsome weapon.
The criminals we have today that snap and start killing people probably would run up less of a score with full auto weapons....Simply because the rate of fire would run them out of ammo quicker.
3-round bursts being beyond them, I think.
In an America that was sane..gun fire in a mall would instantly alert every gun bearing Citizen in the area...and the end would come very shortly for the killer(s). Full auto or not.
I have access to full auto weapons ..a friend owns several. I shoot them now and again ..if he insists. I could not bring myself to spend the money for the cartridges. Cheap, you know...I also never let him forget about the 200 dollar tithe to the government each time he spends another 15,000 on a 400 buck weapon...
I call them cowards, fellow travelers, Quislings, and compromisers...myself.
And...yeh...I am a hot-head.
But there are some states that feel they don't have to obey law. Like California. Here it legal to sell and possess Medicinal Pot. Federal law says B.S.. Yet they don't press it. Federal Law has it listed as a class 1 narcodic. A felony.
I have allways been under the aparently false impression that state law could NOT over ride Federal Law or constitutional law. But in todays worlds, that seems to mean very little. And as usual. it depends on what state you live in.
You lost me on this one!! [?]
s-e-l-f D-e-f-e-n-s-e
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
You lost me on this one!! [?]
s-e-l-f D-e-f-e-n-s-e
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
So if the laws says you can't threaten people it does not apply until you do so and are caught right?correct
If the law says you can't CCW it does not apply until you do so and are caught Right?also correct Getting caught is not relevant.Also-Do not make the elementary mistake of clouding the issue of CCW being in the 2A- what is not specifically prohibited is permitted.
Here you make my point for me-read carefully now. Are you watching?Okay...
If I make a threat to someone, I am placing perhaps several of someone else's liberties at risk (depending on the specific threat, of course) Correct? Good. Let's keep going... The utterance of that threat is an illegal act based on what? Based on the likelihood of carrying out that threat. Why? Because I said I would do it. Saying so,leaves no choice but to assume one has both the means and the motive to perform the acts specified therein. Are you following? To simplify-I said I would do something bad to someone, and the law has to assume I will. Why? Because I said so! Reasonable enough?
Now...are you still reading? Making a law forbidding the carry of firearms is based on what? I have made no threat (real or implied) I give no reason for one to believe that I will commit all manner of nefarious acts (regardless of whether I have before or not) My actually carrying (legal or otherwise) infringes on no one's liberties (in fact, precisely the opposite) I am doing nothing illegal other than doing what the goverment forbade in direct contravention of the law the government is limited by.
Most importantly, there is no guarantee of the ability to make threats in the BoR. It says free speech, yes, but there are penalties for the abuse of that freedom, and rightfully so, but not the exercise of it.
Back to one of my UNANSWERED questions:
What is the difference between the idealists in academia and the idealists on this site (in the CA bunch here)??? There are several-most importantly two:My ideal of a government following the plan concieved by the founders and codified in the Constitution is one shared and codified as the basis for the founding of our nation. That being the greatest nation on Earth, without peer or superior. In academia, generally, the ideal (typically a socialist utopia)is one that is fantasy from it's conception;was not the plan envisioned for this country, and makes no provision for the motivation of people who want more.
You have not been keeping up with this. For many years I was of the same idealistic state of mind many here are. But when I looked at it closely I saw how unrealistic I was and how was not accomplishing any thing good by being a 'marauder' for the cause.
Here is where we differ. I don't believe for a second that a society and government that abides by the rules set out for both in the Constitution is unrealistic. Not only is it attainable-IT USED TO BE THE RULE NOT THE EXCEPTION!!!!!! And by accepting that things are the way they are and feeling that nothing is accomplished by resisting it is defeatist and I'll personally have no part in it. I don't believe for a second that you ever believed the way I do as that is not the natural progression of man. Men do not strive for less freedom. Ever.
Is it possible to make this any clearer to you? Is there anything about this you do not understand?
WHEN was it the rule not the exception????
I really don't care if you believe it or not, but I have made the exact same arguments you are making.
You make a statement that I have excepted things as they are. Again you have not been keeping up. I do not except this and I have put my career and pension on the line to defend my believes in the 2nd Amendment. I have to laugh at people like you who are so 'holier than though' and you have never had to sacrifice anything to support your beliefs. You are truly 'clue less' to what is going on the real world. And if you truly believe you can achieve the 'ideal' of which you speck I feel sorry for you. You are going to VERY disappointed.
If you go back as recently as 1967 (pre '68 GCA) or even pre '34 GCA. None of what we discuss-in addition to SSN's, payroll deduction and exhorbitant tax rates, politicians selling senate seats and a bumbling idiot in the white house was occurring. I would say 1900 is about perfect politically. The US was unapologetically imperial. Men were men, women were women and thought it best that they keep to that. One could buy machine guns or artillery providing you had the means.
Thanks for the welcome. Are you in law enforcement? Your replies on this site remind me of some old FBI colleagues(Probably just a mindset). Lots of those guys were prior Marine and before that Boy Scouts. I was a Boy Scout too. Still am. Did you read Johnny Tremaine?
While I am not here for earning anyone's respect,I do not wish to comment on the 2nd amendment so much as I do the clash of ideas I see here. I do value your input here after reading tons of threads on various subjects. Level headed men should prevail over hot heads, but often these level types are often loyalists in failed causes with right-minded allegiances and a strong sense of duty. Good soldiers are always employed and will often unflinchingly do their duties (Wounded Knee,Bergen Belsen,Mi Lai, Quantanamo e.g.).IMHO, once enlisted, as soldiers, good men abdicate free will and exchange it for a paycheck. I do not suggest that these men are dupes or bad people. I spent 20 years in the military.
My purpose for chiming in on the 2nd amendment thread is to find out to my satisfaction where people truly stand. It is possible to be brilliant, educated, informed and still be on the wrong side of any argument. I imagine what the Sons of Liberty had to contend with moving to secure their rights and Kick out the oppressors. I imagine there were plenty of lackeys,loyalists and spies about...certainly there were good soldiers of the King standing guard. Fascinating discussion. Carry on. Rhino [:o)]
[/quote]
I am not in law enforcement although I did try for a while. Too much compromise of principle, combined with too many folks who did not understand the purpose of what they were doing. That said, I bid the Maryland S.P adieu and moved on. I am an engineer in charge of the operations department of a gas turbine power plant. I spent 6 years active in the Marines and 4 in the Reserves, one of those in Kosovo.
I have read Johnny Tremaine, and enjoyed it. I find it curious how readable it is even today.
I try and put forth a reasoned argument, but typically find that logic is too easily trumped by rhetoric and emotion. As an engineer, I find it hard to allow such to make rule and not logic and fact. Again welcome,
No society of man was EVER perfect. Attempting to prove this time or that time as being better then another is futile...for somebody else will spring to attention, loudly pointing to some infraction that is really, truly terrible.
What we should confine ourselves to is original intent...and the transgressions thereof.
Allowing an anti-gunner to kick up endless gray areas is all good fun ..but that is EXACTLY the technique utilized by the NRA in their excuses for endorsing this or that gun bill.
"Well ..it is better then a total ban...see..we got a sunset put in...see we managed to water it down.."...the endless rhetoric they use to somehow excuse their involvement in gun control laws.
For those concerned about my past ..as far as you are concerned...I am a Keyboard Kommando. You will discuss with me the merits of my arguments ..not what I have done.
That subject is closed..it is none of your business.
When I say something...you are free to accept it...or reject it.
That is the basis of a free country.
I think perhaps we are playing the game of an anti-gunner here;
No society of man was EVER perfect.
When I say something...you are free to accept it...or reject it.
That is the basis of a free country.
HB,
I agree compleatly!!![;)]
Here we go again, you guys are really going to get my post count up like Jeff and HB did several months ago.[;)]
So please, newbies, go back and read up so I don't have to keep repeating myself!!!![V]
What part of this do you not understand?????[?]
Jim must be talking to himself. While you're at it grab a dictionary.[:o)]
Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me!!![:p][;)]
codenamepaul, YOU sir, are articulate and on-point in this public spanking of Mr. Rau.
Jim, you know that although we disagree on the meaning and intent of the Constitution and the proper role of government, I still kinda like you.[:I][:)] You are, if nothing else, tenacious.
Where have you been hiding!! And you had better not have been off hunting again!!![}:)]
Jeff,
Where have you been hiding!! And you had better not have been off hunting again!!![}:)]
I wish I were hunting again Jim.
Very nasty election at the S.O. is now over. Numbnuts-in-Chief was ousted (thank God). New Boss coming in, lots of projects, reports, assessments, transition plans etc, to complete.
Politically-based retribution, backbiting, panic, paranoia and various other nasty business going on internally.
Add to that, a slimy-weasel of a GB member contacting my agency, trying to screw me over for my individualist/constitutionalist stances, which he feels are inappropriate for an "Officer of The Law" to hold. The weasel is trying to tie my personal positions to my position and my agency, as if I were speaking as a representative, rather than as an individual who happens to hold a position in the business.
I am so thoroughly sick of B.S. and controversy that I have not felt like posting.
Other than that, I am doing great.[:D]
Welcome back.
Noticed your list of 32-20's...sorta makes me salivate.
I faintly remember when I salivated over wimmin that way...but after awhile, I discovered that guns last longer...[:D]
Since you have been gone, we have sorta been havin' our way with Mr Rau. He is a pretty good sort, actually..but still holding firm on the full auto thing.
Long as he has his rifle pointed the right direction...that problem can be thrashed out when the new Conventions are held, after the taking back is over.
Do you have a make on this piece of snit, Captain ?
Believe me Sir, I know EXACTLY how you feel!!! If there is anything I can do to help let me know![V]
I hope you have a boss with some personal integrity and will stand behind you!
Lt496;
Welcome back.
Noticed your list of 32-20's...sorta makes me salivate.
I faintly remember when I salivated over wimmin that way...but after awhile, I discovered that guns last longer...[:D]
Since you have been gone, we have sorta been havin' our way with Mr Rau. He is a pretty good sort, actually..but still holding firm on the full auto thing.
Long as he has his rifle pointed the right direction...that problem can be thrashed out when the new Conventions are held, after the taking back is over.
Yeah Bert, the post of the 32-20's got me thinking about some of the old rifles in the back of my safe and it was a nice diversion to hold them again...memories and all that.
Jim is often irritating and off-base (IMO Jim[:o)]) on some very important points, but I am sure that if things really go south, as it were, he will be on the right side.
quote:Add to that, a slimy-weasel of a GB member contacting my agency, trying to screw me over for my individualist/constitutionalist stances, which he feels are inappropriate for an "Officer of The Law" to hold. The weasel is trying to tie my personal positions to my position and my agency, as if I were speaking as a representative, rather than as an individual who happens to hold a position in the business.
Do you have a make on this piece of snit, Captain ?
Yeah, I am pretty sure who it is, but not positive. I'll keep my suspicions to myself in that case.
Regardless, he is entitled to his opinions, although his character (rather the lack thereof) and motivation is now clear.
I'll be okay, since I am careful to never speak on behalf of the agency, only offer my personal views. We'll see if I am allowed to have personal opinions and views I guess.
I am not sweating the small stuff though.[;)] I will not be cowed, nor silenced as to my individual views and opinions, regardless of where I work, or what my profession is.
Correction, tenacious individualist![}:)]
Yeah, I am pretty sure who it is, but not positive.
If you become positive, I would appreciate an email.
At any rate, I am glad your back![8D]
Jeff,
Believe me Sir, I know EXACTLY how you feel!!! If there is anything I can do to help let me know![V]
I hope you have a boss with some personal integrity and will stand behind you!
Jim, you do indeed know where I am at in this situation, having lived it yourself.
Appreciate the offer of help and i'll remember that you offered it, although I am not concerned, just irritated.
I have never tied any of my views to those of my agency. Many of you know where I work and others know simply that I am a peace officer. Regardless, I do not and have not spoken as a representative of my agency on any such issue, just as me, the individual, who happens to be a peace officer.
It will pass, I suspect.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
Yeah, I am pretty sure who it is, but not positive.
If you become positive, I would appreciate an email.
Count on it pickenup, for your personal knowledge only.
One apparently needs to watch one's back around some of these collectivist, big-government types. They seem threatened by individualists and by those who stand for the Constitution.
Go figure....
If any damage, or negative perception is placed on my professional standing due to this weasel, he can expect civil action, swift and harsh.[;)]