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.
The Gathering Storm
codenamepaul
Member Posts: 2,931 ✭
The Gathering Storm
by Michael Gaddy
by Michael Gaddy
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
~ Lysander Spooner
Critical decisions, based purely on emotions, at the expense of reason, are at the very least, dangerous in the extreme. The emotional hysteria involving the coronation of our new president is frightening indeed and should be seen by those who truly believe in the Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment (2A), as a gathering storm. This type of intense worship and adulation for a statist leader has not been witnessed since the 1930s in Europe.
The deck is stacked against liberty and personal freedom: the President is anti-gun, the Vice-President is anti-gun, the Speaker of the House of Representatives is anti-gun, the Senate Majority leader is anti-gun, the Attorney General is anti-gun, as is the majority of congress.
The group that claims it protects our 2A freedoms, the NRA, has compromised citizens into a terribly weak position as concerns our 2A rights. A staunch supporter of the NRA wrote the following when I confronted him with evidence of support by NRA leadership for multiple infringements of the very freedoms the NRA claims to defend.
"In your examples, I'm dubious that Baker and LaPierre really believed what they were saying. Political BS, trying to keep the votes lined up. Doing their own con-job efforts on Congressional neutrals."
How can anyone justify supporting an NRA leadership that lies? Can anyone be sure whom else these leaders have lied to, and for what reason? Have they also lied to their members about supporting 2A?
This same reader stated the NRA could not support Congressman Ron Paul (A+ GOA rating) for president because he did not have a chance at winning and instead supported Senator John McCain who had an F- rating on 2A issues as rated by Gun Owners of America. Is it not completely obvious that the NRA cares more about being on the winning (republican) team than it does about defending the 2A? Money sent to these traitors would be better spent on ammo.
What should frighten everyone about the NRA is their enthusiastic support for a federal agency (BATFE), an agency that perpetrated a raid on innocent men, women and children at Waco that led to the deaths of over 75 members of that church, including 21 children, and then lied to Congress about the particulars of that raid. The agency claimed the raid was necessary to protect the well-being of the children the state eventually killed. The BATFE has taught its agents to perjure themselves in court, has declared a shoestring to be a machine gun, and routinely abuses citizens in their homes and businesses.
Republicans, don't even start blaming the loss of freedoms on those "damn liberals." You supported a candidate for president with a terrible record on supporting the Bill of Rights, ignoring the only candidate (Ron Paul) who stands for everything you claim to believe in. You continued in your support for a criminal administration just because they called themselves "conservative" and you could align yourself with a "winner." You supported mass murder in Iraq and Afghanistan and the seizing of freedoms in this country in the name of "security." Your support of this continuing madness led to the massive emotional turnout for the Chi Town Hustler. If you are looking for sympathy, it falls between shame and syphilis in the dictionary.
I believe there to be no political solution to the infringements on our liberty by the tyrannical state. Money sent to organizations that basically pay elected representatives to honor their oaths to the Constitution is money wasted.
Now, for the scenario that will precede a rush to confiscate all weapons presently in the hands of American citizens: history tells us that first a madman, who has been previously diagnosed with mental problems, who is taking legal, across the counter, mind-altering drugs, will enter a "gun-free zone" and kill a large number of innocent people. The attack must take place in a gun-free zone to enable the madman to kill as many as possible without encountering anyone with the ability to stop him, otherwise the desired number of deaths could not be obtained, and if someone were to be armed and shoot the madman, other than an employee of the state, it would support private, individual possession of firearms, exactly the opposite of the state's desired effect.
Second, the firearm(s) will have been obtained through currently legal channels. If the firearm were to be illegally obtained, or stolen, it would not support the state's case for shutting down legal sales.
Third, the perpetrator of this death and mayhem will promptly commit suicide; this precludes any investigation into true motives or possible accomplices.
The MSM will then repeatedly show scenes of this crime in order to bring about the most intense emotional response from Boobus. There will be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth and demands for immediate action by the state. Congress will immediately consider and pass gun control legislation that has been previously written and simply awaiting this event, claiming again this legislation is absolutely necessary and will make us all safer.
It is my sincere hope the above never happens, but history and the current emotional climate in this country does not support my desires. Take advantage of this window in time to prepare yourself for the coming storm.
January 22, 2009
by Michael Gaddy
by Michael Gaddy
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
~ Lysander Spooner
Critical decisions, based purely on emotions, at the expense of reason, are at the very least, dangerous in the extreme. The emotional hysteria involving the coronation of our new president is frightening indeed and should be seen by those who truly believe in the Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment (2A), as a gathering storm. This type of intense worship and adulation for a statist leader has not been witnessed since the 1930s in Europe.
The deck is stacked against liberty and personal freedom: the President is anti-gun, the Vice-President is anti-gun, the Speaker of the House of Representatives is anti-gun, the Senate Majority leader is anti-gun, the Attorney General is anti-gun, as is the majority of congress.
The group that claims it protects our 2A freedoms, the NRA, has compromised citizens into a terribly weak position as concerns our 2A rights. A staunch supporter of the NRA wrote the following when I confronted him with evidence of support by NRA leadership for multiple infringements of the very freedoms the NRA claims to defend.
"In your examples, I'm dubious that Baker and LaPierre really believed what they were saying. Political BS, trying to keep the votes lined up. Doing their own con-job efforts on Congressional neutrals."
How can anyone justify supporting an NRA leadership that lies? Can anyone be sure whom else these leaders have lied to, and for what reason? Have they also lied to their members about supporting 2A?
This same reader stated the NRA could not support Congressman Ron Paul (A+ GOA rating) for president because he did not have a chance at winning and instead supported Senator John McCain who had an F- rating on 2A issues as rated by Gun Owners of America. Is it not completely obvious that the NRA cares more about being on the winning (republican) team than it does about defending the 2A? Money sent to these traitors would be better spent on ammo.
What should frighten everyone about the NRA is their enthusiastic support for a federal agency (BATFE), an agency that perpetrated a raid on innocent men, women and children at Waco that led to the deaths of over 75 members of that church, including 21 children, and then lied to Congress about the particulars of that raid. The agency claimed the raid was necessary to protect the well-being of the children the state eventually killed. The BATFE has taught its agents to perjure themselves in court, has declared a shoestring to be a machine gun, and routinely abuses citizens in their homes and businesses.
Republicans, don't even start blaming the loss of freedoms on those "damn liberals." You supported a candidate for president with a terrible record on supporting the Bill of Rights, ignoring the only candidate (Ron Paul) who stands for everything you claim to believe in. You continued in your support for a criminal administration just because they called themselves "conservative" and you could align yourself with a "winner." You supported mass murder in Iraq and Afghanistan and the seizing of freedoms in this country in the name of "security." Your support of this continuing madness led to the massive emotional turnout for the Chi Town Hustler. If you are looking for sympathy, it falls between shame and syphilis in the dictionary.
I believe there to be no political solution to the infringements on our liberty by the tyrannical state. Money sent to organizations that basically pay elected representatives to honor their oaths to the Constitution is money wasted.
Now, for the scenario that will precede a rush to confiscate all weapons presently in the hands of American citizens: history tells us that first a madman, who has been previously diagnosed with mental problems, who is taking legal, across the counter, mind-altering drugs, will enter a "gun-free zone" and kill a large number of innocent people. The attack must take place in a gun-free zone to enable the madman to kill as many as possible without encountering anyone with the ability to stop him, otherwise the desired number of deaths could not be obtained, and if someone were to be armed and shoot the madman, other than an employee of the state, it would support private, individual possession of firearms, exactly the opposite of the state's desired effect.
Second, the firearm(s) will have been obtained through currently legal channels. If the firearm were to be illegally obtained, or stolen, it would not support the state's case for shutting down legal sales.
Third, the perpetrator of this death and mayhem will promptly commit suicide; this precludes any investigation into true motives or possible accomplices.
The MSM will then repeatedly show scenes of this crime in order to bring about the most intense emotional response from Boobus. There will be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth and demands for immediate action by the state. Congress will immediately consider and pass gun control legislation that has been previously written and simply awaiting this event, claiming again this legislation is absolutely necessary and will make us all safer.
It is my sincere hope the above never happens, but history and the current emotional climate in this country does not support my desires. Take advantage of this window in time to prepare yourself for the coming storm.
January 22, 2009
Comments
Unfortunately, the only audience that will find it credible, is that which already have this stuff figured out. God help the Republic.
A most excellent post nonetheless codenamepaul.
quote:Now, for the scenario that will precede a rush to confiscate all weapons presently in the hands of American citizens: history tells us that first a madman, who has been previously diagnosed with mental problems, who is taking legal, across the counter, mind-altering drugs, will enter a "gun-free zone" and kill a large number of innocent people. The attack must take place in a gun-free zone to enable the madman to kill as many as possible without encountering anyone with the ability to stop him, otherwise the desired number of deaths could not be obtained, and if someone were to be armed and shoot the madman, other than an employee of the state, it would support private, individual possession of firearms, exactly the opposite of the state's desired effect.
Second, the firearm(s) will have been obtained through currently legal channels. If the firearm were to be illegally obtained, or stolen, it would not support the state's case for shutting down legal sales.
Third, the perpetrator of this death and mayhem will promptly commit suicide; this precludes any investigation into true motives or possible accomplices.
This scenario very well could be planned and executed by the liberals just to get the response described above. The liberals are shameless and have no sense of right or wrong. They will do anything and everything to achieve their desired end!!![:(!]
We must be prepared to do the same!!!
CNP, please post this in GD.
Done.
a liberal will become a conservative ONLY after he or his loved ones are brutalized victims of his liberal policies
I have witnessed this several times in my life.[;)]
Many anti-NRA gun owners hammer on the NRA because their efforts at hammering on the anti-gun liberals go largely unnoticed. Take the NRA out of the equation and things will be no better for gun rights and in the opinion of about 4 million of your fellow gun owners, the gun rights situation will be worse. Of course those gun owners who hammer on the NRA must surely be smarter than those 4 million NRA supporters. Right?
Say several people are vying for a powerful office that can have a tremendous effect on your gun rights. Say one candidite is totally anti-gun, one is 25% pro-gun and the third is 100% progun. You of course can't support the anti-gun canidate which leaves the other two. At first glance you of course would support the 100% pro-gun candidate unless you know he cannot win. Supporting a canidadate you know cannot win is about the same as supporting the 100% anti-gun candidate. Reason being that if you had instead supported the 25% gun rights candidate, he might have won.
I am a realist. I would prefer to have a person that has power over my rights to at least be on my side 25% of time as opposed to someone who has power over me and is against me 100% of the time.. This is called living in the real world.
Sure, from a strictly moral standpoint, it would have felt better to have supported the best candidate, Ron Paul, but from a realistic standpoint that support would have been as wasted as if I had supported none of the candidates.
In addition, if the NRA had thrown their support behind Ron Paul, when he overwhemingly lost, that would have caused many politicans to now believe that the NRA is too weak to be a threat to them.
Only the liberals take positions or actions based upon how things "should" be or because something "feels" right. Conservatives take positions because they are reacting to the real world and chose the best action that is available to them. Even if such action means voting for the lessor of two evils.
Throw you bricks now, but someday you children will learn how the real world works.
This poster continues in his efforts to make an intelligent analogy, yet, failure is the obvious and perpetual result, as it will continue to be, since the posters belief system and philosophy are hopelessly flawed.
Illustrating the "rightness" of such a position means squat. After all, multi-millions of our fellow citizens are surely smarter than those of us who believe in constitutionally limited government, since they voted for the likes of Obama, Schumer, McCain, Kennedy, Feinstein and on and on and on....., Right?
Final point on the above quote....Yes, those gun-owners who hammer on the vaunted NRA ARE indeed smarter than the remainder of those 4 million NRA supporters. Wonder where the poster has been, since all this has been aptly proven, time and again, at least proven to all but one who would have to be an idiot.
quote:Say one candidite is totally anti-gun, one is 25% pro-gun and the third is 100% progun. You of course can't support the anti-gun canidate which leaves the other two. At first glance you of course would support the 100% pro-gun candidate unless you know he cannot win. Supporting a canidadate you know cannot win is about the same as supporting the 100% anti-gun candidate.And then the above "pearl of wisdom", which is a perfect illustration of a certain posters abject lack of principal and conviction.
"Settling" for a known evil who will act contrary to the Republic -vs.- standing on principal and thus, setting an example for others to emulate, or, if nothing else, holding true to ones beliefs.
What a concept, huh?
quote:In addition, if the NRA had thrown their support behind Ron Paul, when he overwhemingly lost, that would have caused many politicans to now believe that the NRA is too weak to be a threat to them.
And then, there is the above quote....this repetitive pattern indicates either employment, or some affiliation (or perhaps a familial or an intimate relationship with Wayne Iscariot, or Spokes-Model Chris Cox) with the vaunted NRA, beyond mere membership.
Nothing else seems to add up.
quote:Conservatives take positions because they are reacting to the real world and chose the best action that is available to them. Even if such action means voting for the lessor of two evils.
Throw you bricks now, but someday you children will learn how the real world works.The average new american "conservative", actually seems to blindly take the position of the dominant fascist wing of the Collectivist-Globalist Party, regardless of "reality".
Hannity, O'Reilly, Ingraham, Limbaugh and other propaganda mouthpieces, do a masterful job of keeping the attention and loyalty of the "faithful" on track.
One need look no further than the past dozen or so election cycles to clearly see what comes from this posters "reality" and "lesser of two evils" voting dogma. Of course, one would have to be marginally capable as an independent and critical thinker and in making simple observations, before one could grasp such lofty and hard to see (sarcasm fully intended) concepts, huh?
"This child" has been fully aware of how the "real world works" for many years. Refer to the above description reference critical thinking and basic observation skills for illustration.
Thus, "this child" has broken away from the "see-saw" game of the Collectivist-Globalist Party and "this child" has taken a principled stance for what "this child" clearly sees, assesses and knows, not what "feels" like the proper thing.
I hate to use it, but the oft repeated phrase of "better to be though of as a fool, than to open ones mouth (or in this case trfaux's off-base commentary) and remove all doubt", applies perfectly to the quoted poster, again and again and again.
Go figure......
Of course those gun owners who hammer on the NRA must surely be smarter than those 4 million NRA supporters. Right?
I see it is SSDD.
How many of those supposedly "smart" members of the NRA, do you think would still BE members, if they were to be "educated" like the people on this forum have been?
A few years ago, if an NRA post came up, 90% or more, would advocate the NRA. NOW, after having the evidence placed before them, doing the research for themselves, they see what the NRA has REALLY been up to, the percentages NO LONGER support the NRA. Sure there are a few die-hards, that still hang onto the false line dangled by the NRA. But by being vigilant in their surveillance of the NRA's actions, even with some of those members, the seeds of doubt have started to sprout.
There are some pretty SMART people here (do you dispute this?) that have done the research, after see the evidence, and have come to the conclusion that they are NOT being represented in the way that they were led to believe they were.
Oh how I wish I could "EDUCATE" those 4 million members. Then we would see if you would still be able to demean the members here who see the "REALITY" of the situation, by your implied lack of intelligence, for anyone that admits the TRUTH.
Who do you think has had a larger impact on the membership of the NRA? You with your babbling on in support of a fraudulent, corrupt organization, or me with the FACTS? There have been many that posted that they have changed their mind because of what has been presented here. How many more may have just acted on it, without saying anything?
Going by what has happened here, on these forums, I would be willing to bet that the membership number would no longer be 4 million UNEDUCATED members. Would you be willing to make that bet, if those members knew the TRUTH? (If you provide the funds and member list, we can find out)
Tr,
This is the only part of your post to which I will offer a response. The Captain smacked your snout, and quite efficiently I might add, in responding to your other comments.
It is evident that you need remedial lessons in history. I would suggest the following;
First, read the Declaration of Independence. After you have done that, read it again.
Second, read the Constitution/BOR. After you have done that, read it again.
The power lies not with the government, but with the people.
Your comments have exposed you for what you are; a subject.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Of course those gun owners who hammer on the NRA must surely be smarter than those 4 million NRA supporters. Right?
I see it is SSDD.
How many of those supposedly "smart" members of the NRA, do you think would still BE members, if they were to be "educated" like the people on this forum have been?
A few years ago, if an NRA post came up, 90% or more, would advocate the NRA. NOW, after having the evidence placed before them, doing the research for themselves, they see what the NRA has REALLY been up to, the percentages NO LONGER support the NRA. Sure there are a few die-hards, that still hang onto the false line dangled by the NRA. But by being vigilant in their surveillance of the NRA's actions, even with some of those members, the seeds of doubt have started to sprout.
There are some pretty SMART people here (do you dispute this?) that have done the research, after see the evidence, and have come to the conclusion that they are NOT being represented in the way that they were led to believe they were.
Oh how I wish I could "EDUCATE" those 4 million members. Then we would see if you would still be able to demean the members here who see the "REALITY" of the situation, by your implied lack of intelligence, for anyone that admits the TRUTH.
Who do you think has had a larger impact on the membership of the NRA? You with your babbling on in support of a fraudulent, corrupt organization, or me with the FACTS? There have been many that posted that they have changed their mind because of what has been presented here. How many more may have just acted on it, without saying anything?
Going by what has happened here, on these forums, I would be willing to bet that the membership number would no longer be 4 million UNEDUCATED members. Would you be willing to make that bet, if those members knew the TRUTH? (If you provide the funds and member list, we can find out)
Do you thing one of the reasons few stand up for their believes in the NRA or anything "the brethren" don't agree with might have to do with the fact that:
1. They will get their 'snout smacked' for expressing themselves, as stated above
2. They know it is a waste of their time to try and discuss it because many here refuse to 'discuss' they only insult and attack them.
I know I have considered just saying to hell with it. There are few, if any, here who will discuss the problem because of there closeminded prejudice, but I like the entertainment and feel a need to inform those who may visit here there are other views other than just the one's expressed by obnoxious aggressive elitists minority on this site.
1. They will get their 'snout smacked' for expressing themselves, as stated above
2. They know it is a waste of their time to try and discuss it because many here refuse to 'discuss' they only insult and attack them.
This forum would bog down into novel length posts if back and forth "discussion" were the norm. Rather, "debate" and "point/counter-point" are the preferred method.
To me, it simply seems as if certain posters who, when forwarding certain positions and beliefs, make their own "point/counter-point" rather difficult, since those positions and beliefs hold little or no water when the Constitution, or certain facts, are held up as a measure.
If one were to have a viable "point/counter-point", it would be the opposing argument that got its "snout smacked", don't you think Jim?
One thing that you and others seem to deliberately ignore, Jim, is that "The Brethren" are all individuals who merely have the simple historical truth/factual historical record as the basis for their positions.
That is the commonality Jim. Nothing more, nothing less.
If it seems as if there is some script, or common argument, as is regularly inferred, keep in mind this little factoid; "The Brethren" simply extol the virtues, philosophies and the arguments contained in our founding documents and within the concept of the Republic that America is intended to be.
Food for thought......
quote:Do you thing one of the reasons few stand up for their believes in the NRA or anything "the brethren" don't agree with might have to do with the fact that:
1. They will get their 'snout smacked' for expressing themselves, as stated above
2. They know it is a waste of their time to try and discuss it because many here refuse to 'discuss' they only insult and attack them.
This forum would bog down into novel length posts if back and forth "discussion" were the norm. Rather, "debate" and "point/counter-point" are the preferred method.
To me, it simply seems as if certain posters who, when forwarding certain positions and beliefs, make their own "point/counter-point" rather difficult, since those positions and beliefs hold little or no water when the Constitution, or certain facts, are held up as a measure.
If one were to have a viable "point/counter-point", it would be the opposing argument that got its "snout smacked", don't you think Jim?
One thing that you and others seem to deliberately ignore, Jim, is that "The Brethren" are all individuals who merely have the simple historical truth/factual historical record as the basis for their positions.
That is the commonality Jim. Nothing more, nothing less.
If it seems as if there is some script, or common argument, as is regularly inferred, keep in mind this little factoid; "The Brethren" simply extol the virtues, philosophies and the arguments contained in our founding documents and within the concept of the Republic that America is intended to be.
Food for thought......
So you need people like me who do not intimidate easily to give you all something to do right???[8D]
My point, which I have been trying for months to get across, is there is no need to attack, talk down, and insult people just because they don't see eye to eye with you. You and several others have noticeably changed your approach to be more 'civil' and still be forceful and get the point across. But there are some here who I think just enjoy being bullies![V]
Why do all that again, when we can "point/counter-point" more civilly, since we already called each other practically every name in the book some time ago.[;)]
My standard first response was "That is Horse Kaka", or just "Bull Kaka".
Now I take a deep breath and 'engage my brain before I engage my mouth/key board'![;)]
Many anti-NRA gun owners hammer on the NRA because their efforts at hammering on the anti-gun liberals go largely unnoticed. Take the NRA out of the equation and things will be no better for gun rights and in the opinion of about 4 million of your fellow gun owners, the gun rights situation will be worse. Of course those gun owners who hammer on the NRA must surely be smarter than those 4 million NRA supporters. Right?
Hmmmm? 86 million gunowners are wrong, according to the gun grabber.
Say several people are vying for a powerful office that can have a tremendous effect on your gun rights. Say one candidite is totally anti-gun, one is 25% pro-gun and the third is 100% progun. You of course can't support the anti-gun canidate which leaves the other two. At first glance you of course would support the 100% pro-gun candidate unless you know he cannot win. Supporting a canidadate you know cannot win is about the same as supporting the 100% anti-gun candidate. Reason being that if you had instead supported the 25% gun rights candidate, he might have won.
I am a realist. I would prefer to have a person that has power over my rights to at least be on my side 25% of time as opposed to someone who has power over me and is against me 100% of the time.. This is called living in the real world.
Ahhh, supporting evil is ok, as long as they have a chance of being the winner, even though we still lose,
Brilliant![xx(]
Sure, from a strictly moral standpoint, it would have felt better to have supported the best candidate, Ron Paul, but from a realistic standpoint that support would have been as wasted as if I had supported none of the candidates.
The batteries are dead on my crystal ball, glad you could clear that up.
In addition, if the NRA had thrown their support behind Ron Paul, when he overwhemingly lost, that would have caused many politicans to now believe that the NRA is too weak to be a threat to them.
What? And lose their best friend?!? Not a snowball's chance in hell.
Only the liberals take positions or actions based upon how things "should" be or because something "feels" right. Conservatives take positions because they are reacting to the real world and chose the best action that is available to them. Even if such action means voting for the lessor of two evils.
We are living the results of lesser evil. Duhhhhh[xx(] It doesn't work. But for someone who fails to see obvious facts in everything of importance, this is hardly a surprise. Insanity defined.
Throw you bricks now, but someday you children will learn how the real world works.
If you and all the rest of of the liberal backstabbing untrustworthy weasels have your way, there won't be future. No thanks, I'd rather not do it your way -->Duhhhhh! I'm not even half thick enough for it.
To label me a liberal is one of the stupidest thing's you have said in a long time. But considering the source I am not surprised.[;)]
Just can't stop taking down and throwing insults can you. The usual tactic of those who have not real arguments to present to support there stand.[;)]
The only liberals here are the CA's. Liberals are elite idealist. And you are elite idealists.
To label me a liberal is one of the stupidest thing's you have said in a long time. But considering the source I am not surprised.[;)]
Just can't stop taking down and throwing insults can you. The usual tactic of those who have not real arguments to present to support there stand.[;)]
Jim, you definitely have a reading comprehension problem. Scroll to the top of my post and look a little closer at who my post was addressed to. Try real hard to focus.
As far as your misguided comments about no real argument???? You're delusional. How is the Constitution "no real argument". I'm starting to think you were on meds, and now your off them??
And I will insult that loser as long as he chooses to remain here, or I meet him and personally take satisfaction, bet on it! He chose to make it personal with a comment having nothing to do with our political disagreements, now he can reap it. You, if it came down to getting ugly, I would trust at my back, him on the other hand, no way!
Do you thing one of the reasons few stand up for their believes in the NRA or anything "the brethren" don't agree with might have to do with the fact that:
1. They will get their 'snout smacked' for expressing themselves, as stated above
No, I don't thing that they are afraid of getting their 'snout smacked.' If they do not have enough integrity to stand up for what they believe in, for fear of something as trivial as getting their snout smacked, then I am not so sure that I would want them on my side anyway.
I believe that they have no counterpoint to the facts presented. I welcome (and will acknowledge) a post showing where they have done good. But don't expect me to laud them for passing ANOTHER UNconstitutional law "allowing me to get (government controlled) permission" to exorcise a constitutional right. Or them "joining in" on a law suit already in progress, only to claim a selfish victory if the results are positive. (neglecting to give credit to the original party, by the way)
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
2. They know it is a waste of their time to try and discuss it because many here refuse to 'discuss' they only insult and attack them.
I have pointed it out in the past, where you Jim (yes YOU) use these very tactics. What absolutely amazes me, is that you use these tactics AGAINST people that have an unbending belief in the constitutional principles this country was founded on.
quote:example, obnoxious aggressive elitists minority (do I need to point out more, as I have in the past?)
After YOUR name calling, insulting, and attacking them, then turn right around and say you have the SAME BELIEFS??? Unbelievable.
*********
I am going to pull a page out of tr fox's book, with the use of an analogy. JFYI, I very rarely watch football, but here goes.
Picture a football field. The anti-gun people are on the left (wrong) side. The constitutional people are on the right side. You, tr fox and the like are in the middle. We are not playing football, instead.....tug-of-war.
There is a rope from end to end, with the marker in the middle. It has taken over 200 years, to get that marker in the middle by the anti-gun crowd. Yet you, and the tr foxs of the world want those people on the right side of the field to GIVE UP that whole half of the playing field. Conceding defeat on those issues, simply because "in your mind" that is the "reality" of the situation. In your reality, we have NO hope of ever getting those rights back, so to just GIVE THEM UP is your solution.
You would have everyone take a position in the center of the field. Effectively putting the middle ground (now) at the 25 yard line. You attack, chastise, insult, and call names of those on the right side, because they will not admit defeat and join YOU in the middle of the field. By your own admission (as well as tr fox) you are ready, willing, and able to accept "some" UNconstitutional laws.
Do you really think that by you belittling those who unwaveringly support the constitution, simply because of their delivery, is helping the cause? Just who's side are you REALLY on. (nevermind, you answer that one, with each of your insults, delivered to anyone that firmly believes in the constitution)
I for one, will continue to stand on the right side of the field. I will NOT join you in the middle, pulling BOTH ways on the rope. Someone has to take a stand, on the right side, and not "compromise away" those lost rights. I will count myself among those who feel the need to do so.
*********
Oh, just as an aside. I believe the antis have added King Kong to their side, and with every appointment he makes (Holden, etc.) adds another gorilla to the mix. In no time, we will ALL be pulled down to the 10 or maybe even the 5 yard line. Either singly or collectively. Just like the good people in California (yes, while maybe not many, there are some good people out there. Same as every other state that have lost SO MANY of their rights) We are going to be crushed under the thumb of tyranny, despite our best efforts.
The only liberals here are the CA's. Liberals are elite idealist. And you are elite idealists.
To label me a liberal is one of the stupidest thing's you have said in a long time. But considering the source I am not surprised.[;)]
Just can't stop taking down and throwing insults can you. The usual tactic of those who have not real arguments to present to support there stand.[;)]
X 2[;)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Do you thing one of the reasons few stand up for their believes in the NRA or anything "the brethren" don't agree with might have to do with the fact that:
1. They will get their 'snout smacked' for expressing themselves, as stated above
No, I don't thing that they are afraid of getting their 'snout smacked.' If they do not have enough integrity to stand up for what they believe in, for fear of something as trivial as getting their snout smacked, then I am not so sure that I would want them on my side anyway.
I believe that they have no counterpoint to the facts presented. I welcome (and will acknowledge) a post showing where they have done good. But don't expect me to laud them for passing ANOTHER UNconstitutional law "allowing me to get (government controlled) permission" to exorcise a constitutional right. Or them "joining in" on a law suit already in progress, only to claim a selfish victory if the results are positive. (neglecting to give credit to the original party, by the way)
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
2. They know it is a waste of their time to try and discuss it because many here refuse to 'discuss' they only insult and attack them.
I have pointed it out in the past, where you Jim (yes YOU) use these very tactics. What absolutely amazes me, is that you use these tactics AGAINST people that have an unbending belief in the constitutional principles this country was founded on.
quote:example, obnoxious aggressive elitists minority (do I need to point out more, as I have in the past?)
After YOUR name calling, insulting, and attacking them, then turn right around and say you have the SAME BELIEFS??? Unbelievable.
*********
I am going to pull a page out of tr fox's book, with the use of an analogy. JFYI, I very rarely watch football, but here goes.
Picture a football field. The anti-gun people are on the left (wrong) side. The constitutional people are on the right side. You, tr fox and the like are in the middle. We are not playing football, instead.....tug-of-war.
There is a rope from end to end, with the marker in the middle. It has taken over 200 years, to get that marker in the middle by the anti-gun crowd. Yet you, and the tr foxs of the world want those people on the right side of the field to GIVE UP that whole half of the playing field. Conceding defeat on those issues, simply because "in your mind" that is the "reality" of the situation. In your reality, we have NO hope of ever getting those rights back, so to just GIVE THEM UP is your solution.
You would have everyone take a position in the center of the field. Effectively putting the middle ground (now) at the 25 yard line. You attack, chastise, insult, and call names of those on the right side, because they will not admit defeat and join YOU in the middle of the field. By your own admission (as well as tr fox) you are ready, willing, and able to accept "some" UNconstitutional laws.
Do you really think that by you belittling those who unwaveringly support the constitution, simply because of their delivery, is helping the cause? Just who's side are you REALLY on. (nevermind, you answer that one, with each of your insults, delivered to anyone that firmly believes in the constitution)
I for one, will continue to stand on the right side of the field. I will NOT join you in the middle, pulling BOTH ways on the rope. Someone has to take a stand, on the right side, and not "compromise away" those lost rights. I will count myself among those who feel the need to do so.
*********
Oh, just as an aside. I believe the antis have added King Kong to their side, and with every appointment he makes (Holden, etc.) adds another gorilla to the mix. In no time, we will ALL be pulled down to the 10 or maybe even the 5 yard line. Either singly or collectively. Just like the good people in California (yes, while maybe not many, there are some good people out there. Same as every other state that have lost SO MANY of their rights) We are going to be crushed under the thumb of tyranny, despite our best efforts.
Guilty as charged. But I am trying to get better!!!! By the way I can't spell four cheet![;)]