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.

Jim Rau

HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
quote:HB,
You haven't been keeping up with me very well, I have moved slightly in your direction!!!

In the interest of fairness...I noticed this over on Politics.


STOP THE PRESSES !!!

Please..elucidate for us here where you are at in the gun control debate ?
Ignore the ..ahem...gentle sarcasm exhibited above..I truly want to know.

I WELCOME any that feel they are capable of 'moving in my direction'...which IS, after all, the direction of the Constitution...and would certainly welcome clarification.

Thank you for considering this request.

Comments

  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    quote:HB,
    You haven't been keeping up with me very well, I have moved slightly in your direction!!!

    In the interest of fairness...I noticed this over on Politics.


    STOP THE PRESSES !!!

    Please..elucidate for us here where you are at in the gun control debate ?
    Ignore the ..ahem...gentle sarcasm exhibited above..I truly want to know.

    I WELCOME any that feel they are capable of 'moving in my direction'...which IS, after all, the direction of the Constitution...and would certainly welcome clarification.

    Thank you for considering this request.

    As I said, I have moved to allowing MAGAZINE fed full autos (select fire) to the unrest riced, but I stop at belt fed/crew served weapons.
    But I know that still makes the 'enemy' in your eyes. But I don't really cared about that or I would have left here like most have after you relentless personal attacks![}:)]
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:But I don't really cared about that or I would have left here like most have after you relentless personal attacks!
    I am going to address this.

    I am indeed relentless. Good choice of words.

    What I attack is the fuzzy-wuzzy, yellow-bellied limp-wristed among us that refuse to support and defend the CONSTITUTION..the Supreme Law of the land.

    Call it whatever you will. The cowards bail out.
    the men join the discussion, learn, and grow stronger for doing so.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,460 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    quote:HB,
    You haven't been keeping up with me very well, I have moved slightly in your direction!!!

    In the interest of fairness...I noticed this over on Politics.


    STOP THE PRESSES !!!

    Please..elucidate for us here where you are at in the gun control debate ?
    Ignore the ..ahem...gentle sarcasm exhibited above..I truly want to know.

    I WELCOME any that feel they are capable of 'moving in my direction'...which IS, after all, the direction of the Constitution...and would certainly welcome clarification.

    Thank you for considering this request.

    As I said, I have moved to allowing MAGAZINE fed full autos (select fire) to the unrest riced, but I stop at belt fed/crew served weapons.
    But I know that still makes the 'enemy' in your eyes. But I don't really cared about that or I would have left here like most have after you relentless personal attacks![}:)]

    Jim:

    Cloth belts are typically limited to 100 rounds, but you can buy 150 round magazines. Why is a 100 round feed system more dangerous than a 150 round feed system? Probably ought to seriously consider limiting magazine size, shouldn't we?

    Compromise is a slippery slope, Jim. If the line can be moved in one direction, it can easily be moved in the other.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    quote:HB,
    You haven't been keeping up with me very well, I have moved slightly in your direction!!!

    In the interest of fairness...I noticed this over on Politics.


    STOP THE PRESSES !!!

    Please..elucidate for us here where you are at in the gun control debate ?
    Ignore the ..ahem...gentle sarcasm exhibited above..I truly want to know.

    I WELCOME any that feel they are capable of 'moving in my direction'...which IS, after all, the direction of the Constitution...and would certainly welcome clarification.

    Thank you for considering this request.

    As I said, I have moved to allowing MAGAZINE fed full autos (select fire) to the unrest riced, but I stop at belt fed/crew served weapons.
    But I know that still makes the 'enemy' in your eyes. But I don't really cared about that or I would have left here like most have after you relentless personal attacks![}:)]

    Jim:

    Cloth belts are typically limited to 100 rounds, but you can buy 150 round magazines. Why is a 100 round feed system more dangerous than a 150 round feed system? Probably ought to seriously consider limiting magazine size, shouldn't we?

    Compromise is a slippery slope, Jim. If the line can be moved in one direction, it can easily be moved in the other.
    It already has moved WAY TO FAR in the wrong direction because WE, ME INCLUDED have stood by and allowed it to happen, but not just in the area of the RTKABA's but EVERY aspect of our lives. We must, and many are, standing up and saying 'ENOUGH'. The 'idealist/extremists' on BOTH sides of these issues will be the losers. There is no place for this mentality in the real world.
    Compromise is here to stay, as it always has been. There is compromise in 99.9% of all we do in this life. If you or anyone denies this you are living in a different world than the rest of the 99.9% of us!!![V]
  • Hunter MagHunter Mag Member Posts: 6,611 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Jim,HB,DM and the rest, there is no compromise anymore. The Stalinistic government simply shoves down our throat what it deems best for us peasants. Look at the current heathcare crap I mean bill. 60% of the people don't want it and they're more determined than ever to pass this death certificate on to the peasants. The more that are against it the faster they seem to shovel it.[:(!]

    But of course the elitists politicians are exempt from this and many other things they see fit for the sheep.
    Sorry for the hijack guys...carry on...
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,460 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
    Jim,HB,DM and the rest, there is no compromise anymore. The Stalinistic government simply shoves down our throat what it deems best for us peasants. Look at the current heathcare crap I mean bill. 60% of the people don't want it and they're more determined than ever to pass this death certificate on to the peasants. The more that are against it the faster they seem to shovel it.[:(!]

    But of course the elitists politicians are exempt from this and many other things they see fit for the sheep.
    Sorry for the hijack guys...carry on...


    No apology necessary, Jim. You are correct.

    It is the inevitable result of compromising on principle and giving power to those that crave that power. Obama is the embodiment of C.S. Lewis' benevolent tyrant. The Bradys' view themselves in the same light, as did GWB in his sincere desire to protect us from the evils of terrorism. It is a failure, not of our system, but of how we have allowed Congress to circumvent the restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution.

    It is time for an Article 5 Convention. Either we confirm the applicability of the U.S. Constitution, or we make changes and force DC to conform. If neither takes place, it would be the perfect time to dissolve our Union and create new Unions that better reflect what diversity still exists in this country. EDIT: This is, IMO, our only chance to re-establish the proper power relationship between we the people and the Federal Government. If, for example, there is to be a modification to the 2nd as many seem to support, at least we can insist that it be in the form of an amendment where we the people grant the Federal Government that power, and we can limit that power in a precise and specific manner. I don't personally support such a modification, but something must be done to re-define the limits of government. There are no limits being recognized today as evidenced by what is happening with health-care.

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

    C. S. Lewis
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
    Jim,HB,DM and the rest, there is no compromise anymore. The Stalinistic government simply shoves down our throat what it deems best for us peasants. Look at the current heathcare crap I mean bill. 60% of the people don't want it and they're more determined than ever to pass this death certificate on to the peasants. The more that are against it the faster they seem to shovel it.[:(!]

    But of course the elitists politicians are exempt from this and many other things they see fit for the sheep.
    Sorry for the hijack guys...carry on...


    No apology necessary, Jim. You are correct.

    It is the inevitable result of compromising on principle and giving power to those that crave that power. Obama is the embodiment of C.S. Lewis' benevolent tyrant. The Bradys' view themselves in the same light, as did GWB in his sincere desire to protect us from the evils of terrorism. It is a failure, not of our system, but of how we have allowed Congress to circumvent the restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution.

    It is time for an Article 5 Convention. Either we confirm the applicability of the U.S. Constitution, or we make changes and force DC to conform. If neither takes place, it would be the perfect time to dissolve our Union and create new Unions that better reflect what diversity still exists in this country. EDIT: This is, IMO, our only chance to re-establish the proper power relationship between we the people and the Federal Government. If, for example, there is to be a modification to the 2nd as many seem to support, at least we can insist that it be in the form of an amendment where we the people grant the Federal Government that power, and we can limit that power in a precise and specific manner. I don't personally support such a modification, but something must be done to re-define the limits of government. There are no limits being recognized today as evidenced by what is happening with health-care.

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

    C. S. Lewis



    Don, I think you are a very intellegent fella.

    You should rethink what you are saying.

    The constitution allready put limits on what government can and can't do. Now you think it is a good idea to rework the people's contract because those vipers have ignored it?

    What is to stop them the next time? It didn't stop them the first time.

    It is a better move, IMO, that people stand up and fight, if they won't listen and follow their OATH. While not a fan of killing wontonly, sometimes it takes spilling blood to set the coarse right again. We have been far too polite and understanding for far too long.

    If they can't use the amendment process and do things in the OPEN for all to see, then they are nothing but the enemy destroying what doesn't belong to them. They are enslaving and destroying my kids. They have enslaved every ONE of us.

    No, we should clearly see the danger in giving politicians ANY more power. What the founders have given to us, works perfectly, if we hold fast to it.

    When Franklin said "You have a Republic, IF you can keep it", I am sure he had higher hopes from the citizenry. We have FAILED to protect ourselves, and the future generations. We can either set the wrongs right, or we can just become comfortable with our chains. We are the LAST place on earth that freedom may be had. If we conceed to the enemy, freedom WILL be lost forever.

    I can NOT take that burden lightly. This isn't just about me, but about my wife, my kids, my future kin, and my fellow countrymen/women. IF I am to fail, I will die trying to prevail. I will not give up this fight. Everything that is important in life is at stake.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,460 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by freemind
    Don, I think you are a very intellegent fella.

    You should rethink what you are saying.

    The constitution allready put limits on what government can and can't do. Now you think it is a good idea to rework the people's contract because those vipers have ignored it?

    What is to stop them the next time? It didn't stop them the first time.

    It is a better move, IMO, that people stand up and fight, if they won't listen and follow their OATH. While not a fan of killing wontonly, sometimes it takes spilling blood to set the coarse right again. We have been far too polite and understanding for far too long.

    If they can't use the amendment process and do things in the OPEN for all to see, then they are nothing but the enemy destroying what doesn't belong to them. They are enslaving and destroying my kids. They have enslaved every ONE of us.

    No, we should clearly see the danger in giving politicians ANY more power. What the founders have given to us, works perfectly, if we hold fast to it.

    When Franklin said "You have a Republic, IF you can keep it", I am sure he had higher hopes from the citizenry. We have FAILED to protect ourselves, and the future generations. We can either set the wrongs right, or we can just become comfortable with our chains. We are the LAST place on earth that freedom may be had. If we conceed to the enemy, freedom WILL be lost forever.

    I can NOT take that burden lightly. This isn't just about me, but about my wife, my kids, my future kin, and my fellow countrymen/women. IF I am to fail, I will die trying to prevail. I will not give up this fight. Everything that is important in life is at stake.

    I think the same of you, James, and in principle believe exactly as you do.

    I have gone round and round on this Article 5 Convention thing in my head until I am dizzy, and for now, believe it to be our best hope.

    Presidents, Congress, and SCOTUS have all proven that the words of the Constitution mean little to them. We have Justice Roberts, for example, specifically stating that if incorporated the 2nd Amendment will be subject to legislative and judicial oversight during the arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago case. The is, IMO, virtually no chance that any Supreme Court in our or our children's' lifetimes will decide to return to the States or the Individual the power, liberty and freedom that are our birthright.

    We have not had a President or a Congress in 150+ years that have attempted to reduce the power of the Federal Government and bring it back to its proper role.

    All three of these co-equal powers, the checks and balances that the founders built into our system are unholy partners in usurping of the rights of the individual and the individual States, and of the empowerment of the Federal State.

    In short, neither of these three entities give the actual Constitution a passing glance when passing or deciding law. They cite precedent to expand upon what had been done in the past, a past replete with actions counter to the very limits they are sworn to uphold.

    IMO, an Article 5 Convention will have 3 potential outcomes:

    1. The Constitution will remain unchanged, the most likely outcome in my opinion. The result of this, however, will be a thorough vetting of that document, renewed interest on a universal level, and an much more informed public, one that will move our system back towards where it should be.

    2. A few minor Amendments that will define the limits of Congress and breath fresh life into the phrase 'enumerated powers'. These Amendments would then be ratified.

    3. A complete rewrite, full of new powers for a National Government. This will probably not be ratified, but if it is, will result in succession by any number of states, and new birth of freedom on our continent for those that want to grab it.

    I will remain active supporting candidates who believe in the founders' creation, and we will make small gains here and there at least on a local level. Until we present the Triad of Tyrants with a real threat to their power, however, I do not see anything changing.

    An Article 5 Convention will serve to do this in a very public way.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Presidents, Congress, and SCOTUS have all proven that the words of the Constitution mean little to them. We have Justice Roberts, for example, specifically stating that if incorporated the 2nd Amendment will be subject to legislative and judicial oversight during the arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago case. The is, IMO, virtually no chance that any Supreme Court in our or our children's' lifetimes will decide to return to the States or the Individual the power, liberty and freedom that are our birthright.

    We have not had a President or a Congress in 150+ years that have attempted to reduce the power of the Federal Government and bring it back to its proper role.

    All three of these co-equal powers, the checks and balances that the founders built into our system are unholy partners in usurping of the rights of the individual and the individual States, and of the empowerment of the Federal State.

    In short, neither of these three entities give the actual Constitution a passing glance when passing or deciding law. They cite precedent to expand upon what had been done in the past, a past replete with actions counter to the very limits they are sworn to uphold.


    Don, what your saying boils down to "they aren't following the dictates of the contract". AND I agree.

    You have pointed out that if there were a Article 5 convention, one of three things could happen. You should know by now, the first two are not happening. What we will have is a total destruction of those founding principles. I can not and will not gamble my childrens future in such a manner. I will not gamble with anyones future.

    We have a contract. It works.

    We have faltered in being vigilant to KEEP our republic. The founders fought tyrants to secure freedom for all people of America, and all future generations. We now, stand at the same crossraod that those Men did. We can either bow, and be good servants, or we can stand and fight, like Men too.

    The pen is ONLY mightier when people are unwilling to take action. While we like to belive we are "civilized", fact is we are not. We are at our cores, primal. Some are just prone to violence easier, than others.

    No, I am not belittling you Don. You ARE damn smart. I can't come to terms with what you are suggesting. I can allready see that outcome, and I won't allow it.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,460 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by freemind

    Don, what your saying boils down to "they aren't following the dictates of the contract". AND I agree.

    You have pointed out that if there were a Article 5 convention, one of three things could happen. You should know by now, the first two are not happening. What we will have is a total destruction of those founding principles. I can not and will not gamble my childrens future in such a manner. I will not gamble with anyones future.

    We have a contract. It works.

    We have faltered in being vigilant to KEEP our republic. The founders fought tyrants to secure freedom for all people of America, and all future generations. We now, stand at the same crossraod that those Men did. We can either bow, and be good servants, or we can stand and fight, like Men too.

    The pen is ONLY mightier when people are unwilling to take action. While we like to belive we are "civilized", fact is we are not. We are at our cores, primal. Some are just prone to violence easier, than others.

    No, I am not belittling you Don. You ARE damn smart. I can't come to terms with what you are suggesting. I can allready see that outcome, and I won't allow it.

    You may very well be correct, James.

    Perhaps it is the eternal optimist in me that believes that once the American Public is forced to evaluate how far from our founding we have strayed, they will realize how much we have lost and push to regain it. Any change will require, however, 3/4 of the individual State Legislatures to sign on. That in and of itself leads me to believe that not much, if anything, will change, though the education of the people by the process will be of immense value. It is in this way that I believe an Article 5 Convention will strengthen the existing Constitution, but yes, it is a gamble.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus


    You may very well be correct, James.

    Perhaps it is the eternal optimist in me that believes that once the American Public is forced to evaluate how far from our founding we have strayed, they will realize how much we have lost and push to regain it. Any change will require, however, 3/4 of the individual State Legislatures to sign on. That in and of itself leads me to believe that not much, if anything, will change, though the education of the people by the process will be of immense value. It is in this way that I believe an Article 5 Convention will strengthen the existing Constitution, but yes, it is a gamble.


    Optimism is a good thing.

    You are missing some key elements for this plan to work however.

    The people are not hungry. They have no real reason to seek freedom. They just wait for Uncle Sugar to pay the bills, pay the rent, buy their food, pay their childcare expenses, send the SS check/unemployment check, give them a fat tax "refund", ect.
    Entirely TOO many people on Uncle Sugars teat.

    Then you have the people who don't like to think for themselves. They prefer the orders to come from above, rather than think and act like they should on their own.

    The government has it's slimy fingers emnbedded in every facet of our lives.

    I once heard an IDIOT tell me, if it were not for the FCC, we would not have TV. REALLY?
    And people are this dumb/ignorant?

    The few, like us Don, that know what freedom is, are FAR outnumbered by those lemmings that stumble through life. Bringing an Article 5 convention NOW will be a death blow to the republic, eternally.

    The PEOPLE HAVE to be "hungry" first. Not just pissed or discontented. They have to witness the horrors of a tyrant with their very eyes.


    Mark my words, if "healthcare" passes, it WILL be the death of the republic. We won't even realize it for a couple of years, but our republic WILL be dead.

    That is how I see our republic Don. One move away from Checkmate.
  • Hunter MagHunter Mag Member Posts: 6,611 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Freemind, I think it boils down to responsibility. It's much too easy for the lazy sheeple to sit back and let the government "feed" them. Then the iron * government just relishes it when the sheeple cry for help. It's much like a drug addict having their fix. Responsibility has become much too cumbersome for most.[:(]

    Don, here's something to ponder, why, should the government be conceerned with changing the constitution, especially when it take 3/4 to do it? It's much easier to ignore/circumvent it, by misinterpretation than to amend it. They easily abide by it when it suits their agenda we've blatantly noticed.[xx(]
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    As I said in an earlier post, in my world there only two types of people, traditionalists, and progressives. The progressives have no morals, integrity, and are totally ruthless in their push to get there agenda passed. They DO NOT believe in the Constitution and will do ANYTHING to negate it and/or circumvent it.
    Out silly infighting here only plays into their hands and makes it easier for them to succeed.[:(!]
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:Out silly infighting here only plays into their hands and makes it easier for them to succeed

    I , personally, do not view the proper interpretation of the Constitution as being 'silly infighting'.

    Rather I see the endless compromises of the progressives to the Socialist/fascist contingent as being terribly destructive to the bedrock of this country.

    Please do not place yourself in the 'traditional' role here...for there is nothing traditional about gun control.

    You have been DRAGGED...kicking and screaming every step of the way to your present 'softened' gun control stance...and I fear the conversion is but skin deep.
  • RockatanskyRockatansky Member Posts: 11,175
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    quote:HB,
    You haven't been keeping up with me very well, I have moved slightly in your direction!!!

    In the interest of fairness...I noticed this over on Politics.


    STOP THE PRESSES !!!

    Please..elucidate for us here where you are at in the gun control debate ?
    Ignore the ..ahem...gentle sarcasm exhibited above..I truly want to know.

    I WELCOME any that feel they are capable of 'moving in my direction'...which IS, after all, the direction of the Constitution...and would certainly welcome clarification.

    Thank you for considering this request.

    As I said, I have moved to allowing MAGAZINE fed full autos (select fire) to the unrest riced, but I stop at belt fed/crew served weapons.
    But I know that still makes the 'enemy' in your eyes. But I don't really cared about that or I would have left here like most have after you relentless personal attacks![}:)]


    So, who's doing the allowing?
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    quote:HB,
    You haven't been keeping up with me very well, I have moved slightly in your direction!!!

    In the interest of fairness...I noticed this over on Politics.


    STOP THE PRESSES !!!

    Please..elucidate for us here where you are at in the gun control debate ?
    Ignore the ..ahem...gentle sarcasm exhibited above..I truly want to know.

    I WELCOME any that feel they are capable of 'moving in my direction'...which IS, after all, the direction of the Constitution...and would certainly welcome clarification.

    Thank you for considering this request.

    As I said, I have moved to allowing MAGAZINE fed full autos (select fire) to the unrest riced, but I stop at belt fed/crew served weapons.
    But I know that still makes the 'enemy' in your eyes. But I don't really cared about that or I would have left here like most have after you relentless personal attacks![}:)]


    So, who's doing the allowing?

    "We The People"!!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.