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.
gun owners be heard on all channels
quickmajik
Member Posts: 15,576 ✭✭✭
All of you guys who arent or havent yet, need too be sending as much Email to the media that will listen to your concerns about restriction on you 2A privilages as you can.. lou dobbs, hannity, oreilly, Rush ECt... They will respond to your concerns on the Air if you collectively bombard them, for fear that they too will loose their credibility otherwise.. Make clear that the 2A is our only insurance and defense against tyrany, that that needs to be repeated as much as possible before holder and the dems start law making...
And before you start off on a difference in opinions with the neo cons, this is bigger then that, do all that you can..
And before you start off on a difference in opinions with the neo cons, this is bigger then that, do all that you can..
Comments
All of you guys who arent or havent yet, need too be sending as much Email to the media that will listen to your concerns about restriction on you 2A privilages as you can.. lou dobbs, hannity, oreilly, Rush ECt... They will respond to your concerns on the Air if you collectively bombard them, for fear that they too will loose their credibility otherwise.. Make clear that the 2A is our only insurance and defense against tyrany, that that needs to be repeated as much as possible before holder and the dems start law making...
And before you start off on a difference in opinions with the neo cons, this is bigger then that, do all that you can..
I am not one who is simply content with preserving my 2a rights while everything else goes further in the crapper.
I do not mean any disrespect, It is like so many are just picking the 2a portion, and as long as their guns aren't touched they are content to let things continue as is.
The issues are so great we need to do more than just concentrate on the 2a aspect. If we continue down the path we are currently on a lot of gun advocates will be turning their guns in voluntarily for 50.00 vouchers to supermarkets to feed their families
Could it perhaps be that you are comfortable crawling on your belly buying a weapon...that 20,000+++ gun laws don't worry you ?
I think perhaps I will use all those numbers you are gathering to call and demand STRONGER gun laws.
Perhaps at some point, you will get as pzzed as I am...and I and a veery few others no longer have to stand alone.
Todesengel ;
Indeed. I harp on the Second simply because it alone is the means to retore freedom. One man cannot address every invasion of our Rights by this government.
Nor can we take it back the way they took it..we simply do not have time. Every minor gain we might make..they take another giant bite of us.
That is changing... You dont want us too win, you want us all too fail, just like you..
What I want to fail is the compromising, the contentment with present gun laws, the weak, sorry pizant compliance of the 'men' we are saddled with today.
Yeah...Magic...if you are there...I WANT you to fail in ALL your endeavors.
Your OP never mentioned 20,000++ gun laws..not once.
The only thing you humbly ask for, in your little, whimpering voice is.'please..no new gun laws'...
The ONLY demand that should be made of all those people you speak of is ;
SUPPORT THE DAMN CONSTITUTION !!
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
not.'No more gun laws"...
But TAKE THE DAMN LAWS OFF THE BOOKS !!! ALL OF THEM.
Fail ?
The wish for failure is on your head, and the heads of the NRAs and the Trfoxes, and the Jim Raus and the Slumlords and the selectfires of this world.
Not I.
We have all made bad choices in the past, mistakes if you will, but it is not too late to leave them in the pat and find our common ground.
Find that common ground with each other and build the base from that. We need each other, we need to be able to lean on our brothers and forgive for not having each others backs in the past.
The past matters not, only the future. We CAN do this, we can do anything we just have to stop bickering with each other over the little things, and concentrate on the true importance of what is at stake
You see?? I live with this crotchy old codger who couldnt hump my backpack, yet he thinks he knows one damn thing about me... If you ask me, he started the fight. Honestly I think they are just a bunch of LE's having fun causeing discord on the gun forums, thus insuring there is no coherent unified front... and so we do nothing to stop whats comming..
Well I don't pretend to know one thing about you quick, but you are here, and have a voice so I assume we are on the same side. You both want the same thing, but see some of the particulars differently, it happens everyday in life with in just about everything we do, and everyone we meet.
I do not desire to fight with anyone, and can overlook the smaller issues of disagreement, and concentrate on the end goal. I hope my brothers can all do the same.
I am not judging here, just offering my opinion
We have 20,000 +++ gun laws in this country.
EVERY ONE IS ILLEGAL ..according to the Constitution.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is the law of the land.
Anything else is lawlessness ..and those supporting gun laws are outlaws.
I do not support outlaws....nor do I rub shoulders with them, willingly.
Demand that EVERY GUN LAW BE REPEALED...or shut the hell up. You are not competent to speak for me.
Joining people that refuse to understand and obey the Constitution is sure death for that document.
I chose to not demean the bedrock of this Republic by doing so.
quote:and have a voice so I assume we are on the same side. You both want the same thing,
WRONG. Gun owning gun controllers are the guys shooting you in the back every day of your life..assuming, of course, you believe in the Constitution. Otherwise..you are doing the shooting.
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
You see?? I live with this crotchy old codger who couldnt hump my backpack, yet he thinks he knows one damn thing about me... If you ask me, he started the fight. Honestly I think they are just a bunch of LE's having fun causeing discord on the gun forums, thus insuring there is no coherent unified front... and so we do nothing to stop whats comming..
Well I don't pretend to know one thing about you quick, but you are here, and have a voice so I assume we are on the same side. You both want the same thing, but see some of the particulars differently, it happens everyday in life with in just about everything we do, and everyone we meet.
I do not desire to fight with anyone, and can overlook the smaller issues of disagreement, and concentrate on the end goal. I hope my brothers can all do the same.
I am not judging here, just offering my opinion
It is a sound opinion, in my opinion..[;)]
I will not side with people that suddenly have had a conversion ..and demand that the 'present administration' do this or that.
We have 20,000 +++ gun laws in this country.
EVERY ONE IS ILLEGAL ..according to the Constitution.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is the law of the land.
Anything else is lawlessness ..and those supporting gun laws are outlaws.
I do not support outlaws....nor do I rub shoulders with them, willingly.
Demand that EVERY GUN LAW BE REPEALED...or shut the hell up. You are not competent to speak for me.
Joining people that refuse to understand and obey the Constitution is sure death for that document.
I chose to not demean the bedrock of this Republic by doing so.
Highball. I understand your passion, anger, and stance completely. I do not dsagree with your rhetoric. Let me just explain my stance, please humor me.
You are an experienced person in this country. You have a lived a great many years longer than a lot of us, so you have seen more things, and remember times that were much more free than a lot of us. You do not have to be deprogrammed" as much as a lot of us do. A lot of us were raised in a government system that you were not.
Taking this into consideration, you have a big headstart on a lot of us. We are trying to undo years and years of government misinformation being fed to us as truth. We were raised to accept that as gospel, things that would never be taught in school when you were being raised.
If you work with us, and help break through that acceptance of things that we were not taught to accept you may just find the type of men you CAN rub shoulders with. If you just give up on your brothers over a difference in some thinking you are dishonoring yourself, and your cause imo.
Time is short and everyone who is turned away may never come back again. Their basic beliefs are our own, you just have to help us break through the layer of crap we have been taught to believe
I will not side with people that suddenly have had a conversion ..and demand that the 'present administration' do this or that.
We have 20,000 +++ gun laws in this country.
EVERY ONE IS ILLEGAL ..according to the Constitution.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is the law of the land.
Anything else is lawlessness ..and those supporting gun laws are outlaws.
I do not support outlaws....nor do I rub shoulders with them, willingly.
Demand that EVERY GUN LAW BE REPEALED...or shut the hell up. You are not competent to speak for me.
Joining people that refuse to understand and obey the Constitution is sure death for that document.
I chose to not demean the bedrock of this Republic by doing so.
quote:and have a voice so I assume we are on the same side. You both want the same thing,
WRONG. Gun owning gun controllers are the guys shooting you in the back every day of your life..assuming, of course, you believe in the Constitution. Otherwise..you are doing the shooting.
So you're against stopping one more gun law, denying houndreds of thousands of people from protecting themselves from becoming victims of violent crime or a tyranical government... you are awfully indifferent too other peoples safety and lives.. Yet you claim some type of moral high ground?? [:D][:D]
Junior Member
I understand you completely.
Now..we have people right here that are better suited to the soft, easy approach towards education.
I am not.
I address men. Men that will get mad, men that will then take the time to educate themselves so that they can come back here and destroy me with the 'facts'.
The deeper those men dig..the more information they come across revealing that they have been hood-winked....
These men then become stronger then I, in their defense of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment.....
I feel time is so desperately short that the shock approach will get men up to speed faster then any other avenue left.
The soft, squishy girly-men all around us will do us no good at all.
I want men capable of getting MAD AS HEL. ..and still capable of functioning as a reasonable, intelligent human being.
THOSE, friend, are the nucleus of the resistance that is forming in this country.
THOSE are the men that WILL regain freedom, here in America.
Quick ; Yes..I am against stopping more gun laws.
Allow the gun bans..police to start Monday going door to door..gathering weapons.
Let it be in MY day..so my children can live in peace.
I am glad we all see things for what they are, now let's get our plan together. As an experienced member here said the soft and squishy need not apply, lol.
Lets say you and a few of your friends are on the field of a battle that is eminent. On one flank is your allies being obstructed by something (existing gun laws). On the other flank is your opponents coming full bore (future gun restrictions). What do you do first? Attack the existing laws so your allies can come to your assistance? Turn to fight the oncoming to delay the onslaught? Or get out of the way? At this time you only have enough with you to do one option.
I would fight to break down the obstruction so I would have more assistance to fight the oncoming. I may lose my life but I would go down kicking.
We are all in the same battle, but different point of modes.
FIGHT...
DEFEND...
or RUN...
Lance
I love freedom.
I lived thru the last remaining vestiges of, the tattered remnants of the freedom given us by the Founders.
I have seen guns leaned up behind the doors of nearly every gas station in town ..and men trading guns freely on the streets of town.
I have seen the guns in the racks of pickups down at the local schools ..as students hunted on the way home.
I have watched as the Rights we are born with have become government privileges.
I did my part in 'fighting for American freedom"...only to discover that the fighting had NOTHING to do with American freedom ..and EVERYTHING to do with consolidating power into fewer and fewer hands.
I have grieved for most of my life over the loss of America.
Yes...I am passionate in my defense of Rights and Freedoms. I make no apologies for that passion.
In my day, boys ..and men ..were capable of swinging fists against each other ..then dusting themselves off and going to drink a beer together...both having a bit different viewpoint on life.
If you are capable of accepting the Second as written, I welcome you as brothers and friends...and you will be SOO desperately needed soon enough.
Just a simple question here folks (pardon my analogy)...
Lets say you and a few of your friends are on the field of a battle that is eminent. On one flank is your allies being obstructed by something (existing gun laws). On the other flank is your opponents coming full bore (future gun restrictions). What do you do first? Attack the existing laws so your allies can come to your assistance? Turn to fight the oncoming to delay the onslaught? Or get out of the way? At this time you only have enough with you to do one option.
I would fight to break down the obstruction so I would have more assistance to fight the oncoming. I may lose my life but I would go down kicking.
We are all in the same battle, but different point of modes.
FIGHT...
DEFEND...
or RUN...
Lance
That is what many thought the Heller case would do, open the flanks. We didnt have the support or we were betrayed. I sent a few houndred bucks and letters but as you can tell, it all came too late or had little to no effect at all.
The holder comments were the greatest thing from this administration so far. It should have served as a wakeup to all people, in conjunction with the policies already implemented, that anything other than complete control by whatever means is comming. All illusions have been stripped, and I thank him for sticking his foot in his mouh
quote:Originally posted by zink
Just a simple question here folks (pardon my analogy)...
Lets say you and a few of your friends are on the field of a battle that is eminent. On one flank is your allies being obstructed by something (existing gun laws). On the other flank is your opponents coming full bore (future gun restrictions). What do you do first? Attack the existing laws so your allies can come to your assistance? Turn to fight the oncoming to delay the onslaught? Or get out of the way? At this time you only have enough with you to do one option.
I would fight to break down the obstruction so I would have more assistance to fight the oncoming. I may lose my life but I would go down kicking.
We are all in the same battle, but different point of modes.
FIGHT...
DEFEND...
or RUN...
Lance
That is what many thought the Heller case would do, open the flanks. We didnt have the support or we were betrayed. I sent a few houndred bucks and letters but as you can tell, it all came too late or too little to no effect at all.
People have a different view of what is acceptable in these times as far as what is the correct path one must take to make their voice heard. My take is that I thank all whatever response they have in atempting to retrieve their rights. If it is letters, money, phone calls, emails, etc one must meet their own burden of responsibility to justify to themself that they have done all that they can. When whatever true action starts though, I only hope that they are ready to take it to the required level, whatever that may be. Do what you must t justify the coming action in your mind to keep your wits sharp, and your eye on the end goal. Patiotism comes in many forms, none of which are facism, socialism, and communism.
Thank you all for your efforts, whatever you see is appropriate at this time
quote:Originally posted by zink
Just a simple question here folks (pardon my analogy)...
Lets say you and a few of your friends are on the field of a battle that is eminent. On one flank is your allies being obstructed by something (existing gun laws). On the other flank is your opponents coming full bore (future gun restrictions). What do you do first? Attack the existing laws so your allies can come to your assistance? Turn to fight the oncoming to delay the onslaught? Or get out of the way? At this time you only have enough with you to do one option.
I would fight to break down the obstruction so I would have more assistance to fight the oncoming. I may lose my life but I would go down kicking.
We are all in the same battle, but different point of modes.
FIGHT...
DEFEND...
or RUN...
Lance
That is what many thought the Heller case would do, open the flanks. We didnt have the support or we were betrayed. I sent a few houndred bucks and letters but as you can tell, it all came too late or had little to no effect at all.
Who did you send your money to? The NRA (no disrespect intended)? They only spend around 10% to these projects. Makes you feel like the little boy holding his finger in a leaky dike (the dam type[;)]).
Lance
Quick, highball, this is exactly what the enemies of this country want. They want to divide us so we cannot be that unified voice and force that can demand the change we all want.
We have all made bad choices in the past, mistakes if you will, but it is not too late to leave them in the pat and find our common ground.
Find that common ground with each other and build the base from that. We need each other, we need to be able to lean on our brothers and forgive for not having each others backs in the past.
The past matters not, only the future. We CAN do this, we can do anything we just have to stop bickering with each other over the little things, and concentrate on the true importance of what is at stake
You are wasting your time. The "brethren" are a group of close mined, rigid, holier than thou elitists who thing they know it all and if you don't completely agree with them they will ridicule, insult and attack you. You may be correct about them being part of the governmnet planeted here to divide us. That appears to be their goal!!![:(!]
Yeah..there are government plants here, no doubt about it at all.
One wonders ;
Would they be folks supporting gun control ;
OR folks stating that 'Shall Not Be Infringed' means exactly what it says ?
In other words...would they be a 'Jim Rau '...or a 'Highball' ?
As for joining together, instead of dividing us. The invitation has been extended many times ;
Accept the Constitution AS WRITTEN...and you will be welcomed with open arms.
Attempting to foist off your warped, perverted version...aka the NRA...and you will be met with resistance...also as the NRA is met with resistance among intelligent men.
That is what many thought the Heller case would do,
I sent a few houndred bucks
Like Zink,
I would like to know who you sent money to, and if it was for a "specific" purpose?
quote:You are wasting your time. The "brethren" are a group of close mined, rigid, holier than thou elitists who thing they know it all and if you don't completely agree with them they will ridicule, insult and attack you. You may be correct about them being part of the governmnet planeted here to divide us. That appears to be their goal!!!
Yeah..there are government plants here, no doubt about it at all.
One wonders ;
Would they be folks supporting gun control ;
OR folks stating that 'Shall Not Be Infringed' means exactly what it says ?
In other words...would they be a 'Jim Rau '...or a 'Highball' ?
As for joining together, instead of dividing us. The invitation has been extended many times ;
Accept the Constitution AS WRITTEN...and you will be welcomed with open arms.
Attempting to foist off your warped, perverted version...aka the NRA...and you will be met with resistance...also as the NRA is met with resistance among intelligent men.
To accept it as written one would first have to actually read it. Too many people refer to it, but have not actually read the bill of rights. When I went to school we had to memorize the Preamble as well as The Bill of Rights, and recite them in front of the class. Of course we also had a flag in every classroom and said the Pledge every morning before class. There is only one interpretation to be had y reading it, whether you agree with it or not.
Mind stating that interpretation of the Second for the record ?
I apologize if I have missed a previous statement.
I believe in a republic, government by law. The basic 'law' is the Bill of Rights. But we MUST apply this to the real world in the form of statutory 'law'. Or we would still have anarchy.
We need to 'regulate' the RTKABA's, but this regulation MUST be VERY LIMITED. A Republic form of government is one of laws which allow the people the freedom to prosper, and live with as few controls as possible, not in lawlessness.
quote:There is only one interpretation to be had y reading it, whether you agree with it or not.
Mind stating that interpretation of the Second for the record ?
I apologize if I have missed a previous statement.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
The 'brethren' support anarchy, no laws to cover the RTABA's, just let anyone, have any arm, any where, at any time, anarchy.
I believe in a republic, government by law. The basic 'law' is the Bill of Rights. But we MUST apply this to the real world in the form of statutory 'law'. Or we would still have anarchy.
We need to 'regulate' the RTKABA's, but this regulation MUST be VERY LIMITED. A Republic form of government is one of laws which allow the people the freedom to prosper, and live with as few controls as possible, not in lawlessness.
The constitution says nothing abut regulating the rtkba, it says shall not be infringed. WEbster doesn't place "regulated" in the definition of shall not. The o founding fathers could not have made this any more plain. Government intervention is never a solution, it just adds to the problem
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The 'brethren' support anarchy, no laws to cover the RTABA's, just let anyone, have any arm, any where, at any time, anarchy.
I believe in a republic, government by law. The basic 'law' is the Bill of Rights. But we MUST apply this to the real world in the form of statutory 'law'. Or we would still have anarchy.
We need to 'regulate' the RTKABA's, but this regulation MUST be VERY LIMITED. A Republic form of government is one of laws which allow the people the freedom to prosper, and live with as few controls as possible, not in lawlessness.
The constitution says nothing abut regulating the rtkba, it says shall not be infringed. WEbster doesn't place "regulated" in the definition of shall not. The o founding fathers could not have made this any more plain. Government intervention is never a solution, it just adds to the problem
If you all insist to live in your own little world and deny reality go ahead. The founders also knew a republic is a government controlled by laws. If you want no laws them form your own oligarchy like the one we have now and leave those of us alone to do as the Founders intended.[:(!]
Please stop taking things out of context, read the 2nd Amendment in it entreaty!!!
Well, Jim Rau, isn't it amazing how we can read the same words...and come to such a terribly different conclusion.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is the LAW..stated FLATLY, with no wiggle room.
All your wiggling merely reveals your character.
Leave you alone, Jim Rau ? Tell you what ; Enjoy your stay in the Sun..you and the other gun controllers. You day, however, is drawing to a close. All that remains is for your kinsmen to make that final, fatal step...gun bans.
Then we shall see if your version of the truth can match our version of the truth.
Todesengel ;
Thank you, Sir, for a plain statement that even a child could understand. Much like the Constitution..straight words from a brave man.
quote:I believe in a republic, government by law.
Well, Jim Rau, isn't it amazing how we can read the same words...and come to such a terribly different conclusion.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is the LAW..stated FLATLY, with no wiggle room.
All your wiggling merely reveals your character.
WELL REGULATED, If you can take it out of context so can I!!!![^]
quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The 'brethren' support anarchy, no laws to cover the RTABA's, just let anyone, have any arm, any where, at any time, anarchy.
I believe in a republic, government by law. The basic 'law' is the Bill of Rights. But we MUST apply this to the real world in the form of statutory 'law'. Or we would still have anarchy.
We need to 'regulate' the RTKABA's, but this regulation MUST be VERY LIMITED. A Republic form of government is one of laws which allow the people the freedom to prosper, and live with as few controls as possible, not in lawlessness.
The constitution says nothing abut regulating the rtkba, it says shall not be infringed. WEbster doesn't place "regulated" in the definition of shall not. The o founding fathers could not have made this any more plain. Government intervention is never a solution, it just adds to the problem
If you all insist to live in your own little world and deny reality go ahead. The founders also knew a republic is a government controlled by laws. If you want no laws them form your own oligarchy like the one we have now and leave those of us alone to do as the Founders intended.[:(!]
Please stop taking things out of context, read the 2nd Amendment in it entreaty!!!
I do not believe that if they wanted arms bound by laws for free men they would have felt strongly enough to give them their own amendment. Have you read the journals of the founding fathers? How can one decipher a regulated meaning after reading the journals and The Bill of Rights?
quote:I believe in a republic, government by law.
Well, Jim Rau, isn't it amazing how we can read the same words...and come to such a terribly different conclusion.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is the LAW..stated FLATLY, with no wiggle room.
All your wiggling merely reveals your character.
There are no attacks or insults you can use that you already haven't used. But if it makes you feel better to try insult me go ahead. It only shows your frustration in your inability to prove me wrong!!!
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The 'brethren' support anarchy, no laws to cover the RTABA's, just let anyone, have any arm, any where, at any time, anarchy.
I believe in a republic, government by law. The basic 'law' is the Bill of Rights. But we MUST apply this to the real world in the form of statutory 'law'. Or we would still have anarchy.
We need to 'regulate' the RTKABA's, but this regulation MUST be VERY LIMITED. A Republic form of government is one of laws which allow the people the freedom to prosper, and live with as few controls as possible, not in lawlessness.
The constitution says nothing abut regulating the rtkba, it says shall not be infringed. WEbster doesn't place "regulated" in the definition of shall not. The o founding fathers could not have made this any more plain. Government intervention is never a solution, it just adds to the problem
If you all insist to live in your own little world and deny reality go ahead. The founders also knew a republic is a government controlled by laws. If you want no laws them form your own oligarchy like the one we have now and leave those of us alone to do as the Founders intended.[:(!]
Please stop taking things out of context, read the 2nd Amendment in it entreaty!!!
I do not believe that if they wanted arms bound by laws for free men they would have felt strongly enough to give them their own amendment. Have you read the journals of the founding fathers? How can one decipher a regulated meaning after reading the journals and The Bill of Rights?
I have. And I disagree with your interpretation of same. I respect your opinion. I think you have every right to believe as you do. My problem, as I have stated before, is this 'bully' stance taken by the 'brethren' against anyone who exercises their right to disagree with them.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:I believe in a republic, government by law.
Well, Jim Rau, isn't it amazing how we can read the same words...and come to such a terribly different conclusion.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is the LAW..stated FLATLY, with no wiggle room.
All your wiggling merely reveals your character.
WELL REGULATED, If you can take it out of context so can I!!!![^]
Anyone with military training knows that definition means well disciplined, prepared.
quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The 'brethren' support anarchy, no laws to cover the RTABA's, just let anyone, have any arm, any where, at any time, anarchy.
I believe in a republic, government by law. The basic 'law' is the Bill of Rights. But we MUST apply this to the real world in the form of statutory 'law'. Or we would still have anarchy.
We need to 'regulate' the RTKABA's, but this regulation MUST be VERY LIMITED. A Republic form of government is one of laws which allow the people the freedom to prosper, and live with as few controls as possible, not in lawlessness.
The constitution says nothing abut regulating the rtkba, it says shall not be infringed. WEbster doesn't place "regulated" in the definition of shall not. The o founding fathers could not have made this any more plain. Government intervention is never a solution, it just adds to the problem
If you all insist to live in your own little world and deny reality go ahead. The founders also knew a republic is a government controlled by laws. If you want no laws them form your own oligarchy like the one we have now and leave those of us alone to do as the Founders intended.[:(!]
Please stop taking things out of context, read the 2nd Amendment in it entreaty!!!
I do not believe that if they wanted arms bound by laws for free men they would have felt strongly enough to give them their own amendment. Have you read the journals of the founding fathers? How can one decipher a regulated meaning after reading the journals and The Bill of Rights?
I have. And I disagree with your interpretation of same. I respect your opinion. I think you have every right to believe as you do. My problem, as I have stated before, is this 'bully' stance taken by the 'brethren' against anyone who exercises their right to disagree with them.
You have every right to disagree with me, or whoever else you desire to. I think it is black and white, as do you. I am not going to dislike or even hate you for your beliefs, but it does not mean I will tow your line anymore than you will mine.
No bully here, your right to disagree is protected under the constitution [;)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:I believe in a republic, government by law.
Well, Jim Rau, isn't it amazing how we can read the same words...and come to such a terribly different conclusion.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is the LAW..stated FLATLY, with no wiggle room.
All your wiggling merely reveals your character.
WELL REGULATED, If you can take it out of context so can I!!!![^]
Anyone with military training knows that definition means well disciplined, prepared.
Correct. Disciplined, having rules, restrictions, and policies regulating the type and amount of EQUIPMENT AND ARMS.
Thank you for pointing this out to others!!!
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The 'brethren' support anarchy, no laws to cover the RTABA's, just let anyone, have any arm, any where, at any time, anarchy.
I believe in a republic, government by law. The basic 'law' is the Bill of Rights. But we MUST apply this to the real world in the form of statutory 'law'. Or we would still have anarchy.
We need to 'regulate' the RTKABA's, but this regulation MUST be VERY LIMITED. A Republic form of government is one of laws which allow the people the freedom to prosper, and live with as few controls as possible, not in lawlessness.
The constitution says nothing abut regulating the rtkba, it says shall not be infringed. WEbster doesn't place "regulated" in the definition of shall not. The o founding fathers could not have made this any more plain. Government intervention is never a solution, it just adds to the problem
If you all insist to live in your own little world and deny reality go ahead. The founders also knew a republic is a government controlled by laws. If you want no laws them form your own oligarchy like the one we have now and leave those of us alone to do as the Founders intended.[:(!]
Please stop taking things out of context, read the 2nd Amendment in it entreaty!!!
I do not believe that if they wanted arms bound by laws for free men they would have felt strongly enough to give them their own amendment. Have you read the journals of the founding fathers? How can one decipher a regulated meaning after reading the journals and The Bill of Rights?
I have. And I disagree with your interpretation of same. I respect your opinion. I think you have every right to believe as you do. My problem, as I have stated before, is this 'bully' stance taken by the 'brethren' against anyone who exercises their right to disagree with them.
You have every right to disagree with me, or whoever else you desire to. I think it is black and white, as do you. I am not going to dislike or even hate you for your beliefs, but it does not mean I will tow your line anymore than you will mine.
No bully here, your right to disagree is protected under the constitution [;)]
Are you a member of the 'brethren'?