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
quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
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!!!
Please do not twist my words for that certainly was not my posting and you know it. Discipled in training and being prepared. There was no limitation on arms, caliber, design as you well know. The arms were from every corner of the world and every mfg.
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.
Conceding a portion of a right does not work well in the real world. Your real world takes that concession and runs with it 20,000 plus times. This is a fact documented in legal codes of the federal government and in all 50 states.
If we are to be a nation of law as proscribed by the Constitution, we cannot be a nation of laws designed to circumvent that law. It takes a very special mind to call the demand for respect of the U.S. Constitution 'Anarchy' or lawlessness.
Your statutory laws that contradict the law of the land is what right minded individuals consider lawlessness.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
I can see the whites of the enemies eyes!!!!And they is us!!!!As long as we believe that "well since that jerk is doing a poor job in office next election we'll vote him out."It doesn't matter how many times we vote,the same spend/control mindset happens.Can the whole bunch,dis-allow attorneys from office,start over with the original ideas of the Constitution and put normal,intelligent,working class people in control!Power corrupts and total power corrupts totally!!
quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
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 [;)]
tod, As you can see the mudslinging at the Canary * starts, When did one of us start belittling anyone? We stand to respect the Constitution as WRITTEN, some people just refuse to read it. They can't see that "SHALL NOT BE INGRINGED" means just that.
quote:Originally posted by zink
quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
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 [;)]
tod, As you can see the mudslinging at the Canary * starts, When did one of us start belittling anyone? We stand to respect the Constitution as WRITTEN, some people just refuse to read it. They can't see that "SHALL NOT BE INGRINGED" means just that.
Lance
I am used to slingers, they bother me not. I try to make common sense arguments for my beliefs, and do the best to explain my pov. If people do not agree with what I have to say I cannot change it. I will have done my part the best i could, it all comes down to individual choice.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The 'brethren' support anarchy, ........
.............lawlessness.
Your continued accusations that members here support anarchy or lawlessness are getting rather tiring.
Please show me where ANYONE supports...
NO LAW AGAINST MURDER.
NO LAW AGAINST RAPE.
NO LAW AGAINST THEFT.
NO LAW AGAINST ___________ you fill in the blank.
THAT is lawlessness, and with it, the potential for anarchy.
There are those who DO support the constitution, as written. The supreme law of THIS land. And for that, you accuse them of supporting lawlessness and anarchy? [V]
Talk about twisting words, and insulting people. Must be from the frustration caused in your inability prove them wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
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.
Conceding a portion of a right does not work well in the real world. Your real world takes that concession and runs with it 20,000 plus times. This is a fact documented in legal codes of the federal government and in all 50 states.
If we are to be a nation of law as proscribed by the Constitution, we cannot be a nation of laws designed to circumvent that law. It takes a very special mind to call the demand for respect of the U.S. Constitution 'Anarchy' or lawlessness.
Your statutory laws that contradict the law of the land is what right minded individuals consider lawlessness.
Another great post from Don.
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
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.
Will you walk into my parlour?" said the Spider to the Fly,
'Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy;
The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I've a many curious things to shew when you are there."
Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair can ne'er come down again."
"I'm sure you must be weary, dear, with soaring up so high;
Will you rest upon my little bed?" said the Spider to the Fly.
"There are pretty curtains drawn around; the sheets are fine and thin,
And if you like to rest awhile, I'll snugly tuck you in!"
Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "for I've often heard it said,
They never, never wake again, who sleep upon your bed!"
Said the cunning Spider to the Fly, " Dear friend what can I do,
To prove the warm affection I 've always felt for you?
I have within my pantry, good store of all that's nice;
I'm sure you're very welcome -- will you please to take a slice?"
"Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "kind Sir, that cannot be,
I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!"
"Sweet creature!" said the Spider, "you're witty and you're wise,
How handsome are your gauzy wings, how brilliant are your eyes!
I've a little looking-glass upon my parlour shelf,
If you'll step in one moment, dear, you shall behold yourself."
"I thank you, gentle sir," she said, "for what you 're pleased to say,
And bidding you good morning now, I'll call another day."
The Spider turned him round about, and went into his den,
For well he knew the silly Fly would soon come back again:
So he wove a subtle web, in a little corner sly,
And set his table ready, to dine upon the Fly.
Then he came out to his door again, and merrily did sing,
"Come hither, hither, pretty Fly, with the pearl and silver wing;
Your robes are green and purple -- there's a crest upon your head;
Your eyes are like the diamond bright, but mine are dull as lead!"
Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little Fly,
Hearing his wily, flattering words, came slowly flitting by;
With buzzing wings she hung aloft, then near and nearer drew,
Thinking only of her brilliant eyes, and green and purple hue --
Thinking only of her crested head -- poor foolish thing! At last,
Up jumped the cunning Spider, and fiercely held her fast.
He dragged her up his winding stair, into his dismal den,
Within his little parlour -- but she ne'er came out again!
And now dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly flattering words, I pray you ne'er give heed:
Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale, of the Spider and the Fly.
So long fellers. I will be taking another job ( same company, different assignment) starting tomorrow. I will be on the road most of the day, 150 mile up to PS 1 (Prudhoe Bay) and back to PS 4, 300 miles total. I will not be on the computer much. I am not sure the computers at the Pump Station will even let me come to this site. This computer (at Atigun Camp) is off their net.
So you will have to find another enemy/traitor/liar/ and what ever else you have called me over the last few months to insult and attack.
I will miss the discussions we have had. I will not miss the pissing contests.
Jeff try and keep the 'brethren' straight and narrow, some of them seem to get side tracked occasionally![;)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
So long fellers. I will be taking another job ( same company, different assignment) starting tomorrow. I will be on the road most of the day, 150 mile up to PS 1 (Prudhoe Bay) and back to PS 4, 300 miles total. I will not be on the computer much. I am not sure the computers at the Pump Station will even let me come to this site. This computer (at Atigun Camp) is off their net.
So you will have to find another enemy/traitor/liar/ and what ever else you have called me over the last few months to insult and attack.
I will miss the discussions we have had. I will not miss the pissing contests.
Jeff try and keep the 'brethren' straight and narrow, some of them seem to get side tracked occasionally![;)]
Jim, I think I'll just call you, Jim. Be careful out there and before long you will be back.
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.
Oh brother.[xx(][xx(][xx(] Again, an unmasking for all to see.
I stand on four simple, easy to understand words, who's meaning and intent are crystal clear......."Shall Not Be Infringed".
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
So long fellers. I will be taking another job ( same company, different assignment) starting tomorrow. I will be on the road most of the day, 150 mile up to PS 1 (Prudhoe Bay) and back to PS 4, 300 miles total. I will not be on the computer much. I am not sure the computers at the Pump Station will even let me come to this site. This computer (at Atigun Camp) is off their net.
So you will have to find another enemy/traitor/liar/ and what ever else you have called me over the last few months to insult and attack.
I will miss the discussions we have had. I will not miss the pissing contests.
Jeff try and keep the 'brethren' straight and narrow, some of them seem to get side tracked occasionally![;)]
Good luck and God speed Jim. Stay safe, really.
As to me keeping anyone in line, not my job, nor do any of my fellow constitutionalists need any such monitoring.
I consider it an honor to share these views on the Constitution and the Republic with such men of character, principals and conviction.
Take care of yourself Jim. Let me know how you are doing, when you have the time and the opportunity.
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.
Jim WTH
Where in history
Where in founding fathers ideals
Where in the hell would you get such an idea in any context that RKBA would include "regulations", that we must apply in the "real world", and how will these "gun laws/regulations" make anyone more free.
Why do you care what type or number of guns I may have? How does this have any affect on "your" freedom? Or anyone elses for that matter.
What gun regulation or law has made any person on this planet any safer?
I have been reading posts here for almost a year, and while I disagree with you most of the time you usually make decent points/arguements, but in this case this statement is utterly ridiculous.
Hope you have a good trip, I also will be travelling for next few days, but will check for your reply as soon as I return.
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
I would get the hell out of the way and let the onslaught consume itself. The puts you then in a flanking position yourself. This is HB's context-let them have their head. Give them all the rope they need to hang themselves with the rope of tyranny. OBCA will be there to cut down the corpse and bury the detritus-never to be heard from again. Never again shall its stench pollute the light of day.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
So long fellers. I will be taking another job ( same company, different assignment) starting tomorrow. I will be on the road most of the day, 150 mile up to PS 1 (Prudhoe Bay) and back to PS 4, 300 miles total. I will not be on the computer much. I am not sure the computers at the Pump Station will even let me come to this site. This computer (at Atigun Camp) is off their net.
So you will have to find another enemy/traitor/liar/ and what ever else you have called me over the last few months to insult and attack.
I will miss the discussions we have had. I will not miss the pissing contests.
Jeff try and keep the 'brethren' straight and narrow, some of them seem to get side tracked occasionally![;)]
Safe travels to you, Jim.
I would ask that while you are driving, however, you spend just a little time evaluating your support of lawlessness by government and, in the same breath, decry respect for the law by citizens.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
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
I would get the hell out of the way and let the onslaught consume itself. The puts you then in a flanking position yourself. This is HB's context-let them have their head. Give them all the rope they need to hang themselves with the rope of tyranny. OBCA will be there to cut down the corpse and bury the detritus-never to be heard from again. Never again shall its stench pollute the light of day.
Fight...but know how to do it first.
This where HB and I differ. I would do nothing to slow the advance, but do what I could to break down the existing once the fray started.
quote:This where HB and I differ. I would do nothing to slow the advance, but do what I could to break down the existing once the fray started.
Don't be too sure of that, Z. [:D]
You don't hardly think I intend being content allowing evil men power forever, do you ?
We MUST suffer under them right now.
Down the line..after a breakup..things change.
Comments
quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
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!!!
Please do not twist my words for that certainly was not my posting and you know it. Discipled in training and being prepared. There was no limitation on arms, caliber, design as you well know. The arms were from every corner of the world and every mfg.
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.
Conceding a portion of a right does not work well in the real world. Your real world takes that concession and runs with it 20,000 plus times. This is a fact documented in legal codes of the federal government and in all 50 states.
If we are to be a nation of law as proscribed by the Constitution, we cannot be a nation of laws designed to circumvent that law. It takes a very special mind to call the demand for respect of the U.S. Constitution 'Anarchy' or lawlessness.
Your statutory laws that contradict the law of the land is what right minded individuals consider lawlessness.
Brad Steele
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 [;)]
tod, As you can see the mudslinging at the Canary * starts, When did one of us start belittling anyone? We stand to respect the Constitution as WRITTEN, some people just refuse to read it. They can't see that "SHALL NOT BE INGRINGED" means just that.
Lance
quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
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 [;)]
tod, As you can see the mudslinging at the Canary * starts, When did one of us start belittling anyone? We stand to respect the Constitution as WRITTEN, some people just refuse to read it. They can't see that "SHALL NOT BE INGRINGED" means just that.
Lance
I am used to slingers, they bother me not. I try to make common sense arguments for my beliefs, and do the best to explain my pov. If people do not agree with what I have to say I cannot change it. I will have done my part the best i could, it all comes down to individual choice.
The 'brethren' support anarchy, ........
.............lawlessness.
Your continued accusations that members here support anarchy or lawlessness are getting rather tiring.
Please show me where ANYONE supports...
NO LAW AGAINST MURDER.
NO LAW AGAINST RAPE.
NO LAW AGAINST THEFT.
NO LAW AGAINST ___________ you fill in the blank.
THAT is lawlessness, and with it, the potential for anarchy.
There are those who DO support the constitution, as written. The supreme law of THIS land. And for that, you accuse them of supporting lawlessness and anarchy? [V]
Talk about twisting words, and insulting people. Must be from the frustration caused in your inability prove them wrong.
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.
Conceding a portion of a right does not work well in the real world. Your real world takes that concession and runs with it 20,000 plus times. This is a fact documented in legal codes of the federal government and in all 50 states.
If we are to be a nation of law as proscribed by the Constitution, we cannot be a nation of laws designed to circumvent that law. It takes a very special mind to call the demand for respect of the U.S. Constitution 'Anarchy' or lawlessness.
Your statutory laws that contradict the law of the land is what right minded individuals consider lawlessness.
Another great post from Don.
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.
Will you walk into my parlour?" said the Spider to the Fly,
'Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy;
The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I've a many curious things to shew when you are there."
Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair can ne'er come down again."
"I'm sure you must be weary, dear, with soaring up so high;
Will you rest upon my little bed?" said the Spider to the Fly.
"There are pretty curtains drawn around; the sheets are fine and thin,
And if you like to rest awhile, I'll snugly tuck you in!"
Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "for I've often heard it said,
They never, never wake again, who sleep upon your bed!"
Said the cunning Spider to the Fly, " Dear friend what can I do,
To prove the warm affection I 've always felt for you?
I have within my pantry, good store of all that's nice;
I'm sure you're very welcome -- will you please to take a slice?"
"Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "kind Sir, that cannot be,
I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!"
"Sweet creature!" said the Spider, "you're witty and you're wise,
How handsome are your gauzy wings, how brilliant are your eyes!
I've a little looking-glass upon my parlour shelf,
If you'll step in one moment, dear, you shall behold yourself."
"I thank you, gentle sir," she said, "for what you 're pleased to say,
And bidding you good morning now, I'll call another day."
The Spider turned him round about, and went into his den,
For well he knew the silly Fly would soon come back again:
So he wove a subtle web, in a little corner sly,
And set his table ready, to dine upon the Fly.
Then he came out to his door again, and merrily did sing,
"Come hither, hither, pretty Fly, with the pearl and silver wing;
Your robes are green and purple -- there's a crest upon your head;
Your eyes are like the diamond bright, but mine are dull as lead!"
Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little Fly,
Hearing his wily, flattering words, came slowly flitting by;
With buzzing wings she hung aloft, then near and nearer drew,
Thinking only of her brilliant eyes, and green and purple hue --
Thinking only of her crested head -- poor foolish thing! At last,
Up jumped the cunning Spider, and fiercely held her fast.
He dragged her up his winding stair, into his dismal den,
Within his little parlour -- but she ne'er came out again!
And now dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly flattering words, I pray you ne'er give heed:
Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale, of the Spider and the Fly.
So you will have to find another enemy/traitor/liar/ and what ever else you have called me over the last few months to insult and attack.
I will miss the discussions we have had. I will not miss the pissing contests.
Jeff try and keep the 'brethren' straight and narrow, some of them seem to get side tracked occasionally![;)]
So long fellers. I will be taking another job ( same company, different assignment) starting tomorrow. I will be on the road most of the day, 150 mile up to PS 1 (Prudhoe Bay) and back to PS 4, 300 miles total. I will not be on the computer much. I am not sure the computers at the Pump Station will even let me come to this site. This computer (at Atigun Camp) is off their net.
So you will have to find another enemy/traitor/liar/ and what ever else you have called me over the last few months to insult and attack.
I will miss the discussions we have had. I will not miss the pissing contests.
Jeff try and keep the 'brethren' straight and narrow, some of them seem to get side tracked occasionally![;)]
Jim, I think I'll just call you, Jim. Be careful out there and before long you will be back.
Lance
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.
Oh brother.[xx(][xx(][xx(] Again, an unmasking for all to see.
I stand on four simple, easy to understand words, who's meaning and intent are crystal clear......."Shall Not Be Infringed".
So long fellers. I will be taking another job ( same company, different assignment) starting tomorrow. I will be on the road most of the day, 150 mile up to PS 1 (Prudhoe Bay) and back to PS 4, 300 miles total. I will not be on the computer much. I am not sure the computers at the Pump Station will even let me come to this site. This computer (at Atigun Camp) is off their net.
So you will have to find another enemy/traitor/liar/ and what ever else you have called me over the last few months to insult and attack.
I will miss the discussions we have had. I will not miss the pissing contests.
Jeff try and keep the 'brethren' straight and narrow, some of them seem to get side tracked occasionally![;)]
Good luck and God speed Jim. Stay safe, really.
As to me keeping anyone in line, not my job, nor do any of my fellow constitutionalists need any such monitoring.
I consider it an honor to share these views on the Constitution and the Republic with such men of character, principals and conviction.
Take care of yourself Jim. Let me know how you are doing, when you have the time and the opportunity.
Jeff
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.
Jim WTH
Where in history
Where in founding fathers ideals
Where in the hell would you get such an idea in any context that RKBA would include "regulations", that we must apply in the "real world", and how will these "gun laws/regulations" make anyone more free.
Why do you care what type or number of guns I may have? How does this have any affect on "your" freedom? Or anyone elses for that matter.
What gun regulation or law has made any person on this planet any safer?
I have been reading posts here for almost a year, and while I disagree with you most of the time you usually make decent points/arguements, but in this case this statement is utterly ridiculous.
Hope you have a good trip, I also will be travelling for next few days, but will check for your reply as soon as I return.
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
I would get the hell out of the way and let the onslaught consume itself. The puts you then in a flanking position yourself. This is HB's context-let them have their head. Give them all the rope they need to hang themselves with the rope of tyranny. OBCA will be there to cut down the corpse and bury the detritus-never to be heard from again. Never again shall its stench pollute the light of day.
Fight...but know how to do it first.
So long fellers. I will be taking another job ( same company, different assignment) starting tomorrow. I will be on the road most of the day, 150 mile up to PS 1 (Prudhoe Bay) and back to PS 4, 300 miles total. I will not be on the computer much. I am not sure the computers at the Pump Station will even let me come to this site. This computer (at Atigun Camp) is off their net.
So you will have to find another enemy/traitor/liar/ and what ever else you have called me over the last few months to insult and attack.
I will miss the discussions we have had. I will not miss the pissing contests.
Jeff try and keep the 'brethren' straight and narrow, some of them seem to get side tracked occasionally![;)]
Safe travels to you, Jim.
I would ask that while you are driving, however, you spend just a little time evaluating your support of lawlessness by government and, in the same breath, decry respect for the law by citizens.
Brad Steele
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
I would get the hell out of the way and let the onslaught consume itself. The puts you then in a flanking position yourself. This is HB's context-let them have their head. Give them all the rope they need to hang themselves with the rope of tyranny. OBCA will be there to cut down the corpse and bury the detritus-never to be heard from again. Never again shall its stench pollute the light of day.
Fight...but know how to do it first.
This where HB and I differ. I would do nothing to slow the advance, but do what I could to break down the existing once the fray started.
Lance
Don't be too sure of that, Z. [:D]
You don't hardly think I intend being content allowing evil men power forever, do you ?
We MUST suffer under them right now.
Down the line..after a breakup..things change.