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.

United we stand

jaegermisterjaegermister Member Posts: 692 ✭✭✭✭
United we stand divided we fall, needs no explaination. I have no AR , no M1 , they just don't fit my need, but I understand them as a firearm. One of the most apparent differences bwt pro gun and anti gun supporters is the understanding or lack there of to firearms. The AR was designed to kill people, so was the Mauser 98 . In fact most all guns were, even the Winchester lever , which only fell short of military service due to design features. This was the original" high capacity magazine " firearm.
Pro gun people also understand that banning the future sale of a gun or magazine type will have no effect on the millions already out there. It would require the posession of all current AR 's a criminal act. It would require the surrender of a particular gun and or magazine or face criminal charges. And even if successfully completing that task the next available gun to a deranged individual would be perhaps a semi shot gun. In fact a semi shotgun has tremendous potential to do damage.
And so ownership is replaced with the word posession. And as such millions of American law abiding citizens would be faced with criminal charges.
It is not about what YOU own but about what is in store in the future if one group begins to impose their will over you.
«1

Comments

  • BGHillbillyBGHillbilly Member Posts: 1,927 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Correct you are, back in the 30's majority of gunowners stood on the sidelines and let the ball start rolling downhill, then in 68 they did the same, then in the eighties came the Brady bill, now we are looking at who knows what.

    Gun grabbers take just a little 'reasonable' step then when a new generation comes along and people caln down and accept the changes they take another.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,136 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    We have not been 'united' since the NRA began selling out the individual right to keep and bear firearms in the 1930s.

    I have nothing in common with the average permit-oriented NRA stooge, and will not compromise to achieve such commonality.

    Some believe that the NRA and their support for the 'Due Process' decision in 'McDonald' was a victory for the individual. In truth it was a victory for the NRA money machine and gave government Constitutional authority to register and regulate firearms and license individuals.

    Absent McDonald, an AWB or High Cap Magazine ban would be Constitutionally questionable. The McDonald decision, through precedent, confirms to us that such laws are well within the power of Federal, State, and Local Governments.

    I feel united with about 10% of gun owners I talk with about this subject. The other 90% are either concerned only about the here and now, or willingly accept the jackboot of the state on their neck.

    Merry Christmas
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • buffalobobuffalobo Member Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    We have not been 'united' since the NRA began selling out the individual right to keep and bear firearms in the 1930s.

    I have nothing in common with the average permit-oriented NRA stooge, and will not compromise to achieve such commonality.

    Some believe that the NRA and their support for the 'Due Process' decision in 'McDonald' was a victory for the individual. In truth it was a victory for the NRA money machine and gave government Constitutional authority to register and regulate firearms and license individuals.

    Absent McDonald, an AWB or High Cap Magazine ban would be Constitutionally questionable. The McDonald decision, through precedent, confirms to us that such laws are well within the power of Federal, State, and Local Governments.

    I feel united with about 10% of gun owners I talk with about this subject. The other 90% are either concerned only about the here and now, or willingly accept the jackboot of the state on their neck.

    Merry Christmas


    Thanks Don, educating folks is the best long term cure for tyranny. You are a big asset to the cause.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    We have not been 'united' since the NRA began selling out the individual right to keep and bear firearms in the 1930s.

    I have nothing in common with the average permit-oriented NRA stooge, and will not compromise to achieve such commonality.

    Some believe that the NRA and their support for the 'Due Process' decision in 'McDonald' was a victory for the individual. In truth it was a victory for the NRA money machine and gave government Constitutional authority to register and regulate firearms and license individuals.

    Absent McDonald, an AWB or High Cap Magazine ban would be Constitutionally questionable. The McDonald decision, through precedent, confirms to us that such laws are well within the power of Federal, State, and Local Governments.

    I feel united with about 10% of gun owners I talk with about this subject. The other 90% are either concerned only about the here and now, or willingly accept the jackboot of the state on their neck.

    Merry Christmas
    So Don the anti-gunners have won you over, sorry to see that.[:(]
  • wifetrainedwifetrained Member Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    We have not been 'united' since the NRA began selling out the individual right to keep and bear firearms in the 1930s.

    I have nothing in common with the average permit-oriented NRA stooge, and will not compromise to achieve such commonality.

    Some believe that the NRA and their support for the 'Due Process' decision in 'McDonald' was a victory for the individual. In truth it was a victory for the NRA money machine and gave government Constitutional authority to register and regulate firearms and license individuals.

    Absent McDonald, an AWB or High Cap Magazine ban would be Constitutionally questionable. The McDonald decision, through precedent, confirms to us that such laws are well within the power of Federal, State, and Local Governments.

    I feel united with about 10% of gun owners I talk with about this subject. The other 90% are either concerned only about the here and now, or willingly accept the jackboot of the state on their neck.

    Merry Christmas


    Excellent point Don!! And a Merry Christmas to you too.
  • wifetrainedwifetrained Member Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    We have not been 'united' since the NRA began selling out the individual right to keep and bear firearms in the 1930s.

    I have nothing in common with the average permit-oriented NRA stooge, and will not compromise to achieve such commonality.

    Some believe that the NRA and their support for the 'Due Process' decision in 'McDonald' was a victory for the individual. In truth it was a victory for the NRA money machine and gave government Constitutional authority to register and regulate firearms and license individuals.

    Absent McDonald, an AWB or High Cap Magazine ban would be Constitutionally questionable. The McDonald decision, through precedent, confirms to us that such laws are well within the power of Federal, State, and Local Governments.

    I feel united with about 10% of gun owners I talk with about this subject. The other 90% are either concerned only about the here and now, or willingly accept the jackboot of the state on their neck.

    Merry Christmas
    So Don the anti-gunners have won you over, sorry to see that.[:(]


    How on earth did you come to that conclusion?, What Don states is absolute fact.

    Beyond the Heller and McDonald case's the NRA has been directly or indirectly responsible for the enactment of every major piece of gun control legislation to ever be enacted into law starting with the 1932 Uniform Firearms Act.

    Lets add the 1933 National Firearms Act, the 1938 Federal Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, all major piece's of gun control that the NRA either supported, help draft, or lobbied for passage in congress.

    In fact, I can't think of a single piece of gun control legislation of national import that the NRA was ever able to get defeated or repealed.

    The sad fact is this, the NRA can market itself as "THE" defender of our 2nd amendment rights but their history dramatically shows otherwise. I prefer the take no prisoners approach of the SAF because our constitutional rights are not negotiable or subject to compromise.
  • Horse Plains DrifterHorse Plains Drifter Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 37,978 ***** Forums Admin
    edited November -1
    Spot on Don, and merry Christmas to you too!!
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,136 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    We have not been 'united' since the NRA began selling out the individual right to keep and bear firearms in the 1930s.

    I have nothing in common with the average permit-oriented NRA stooge, and will not compromise to achieve such commonality.

    Some believe that the NRA and their support for the 'Due Process' decision in 'McDonald' was a victory for the individual. In truth it was a victory for the NRA money machine and gave government Constitutional authority to register and regulate firearms and license individuals.

    Absent McDonald, an AWB or High Cap Magazine ban would be Constitutionally questionable. The McDonald decision, through precedent, confirms to us that such laws are well within the power of Federal, State, and Local Governments.

    I feel united with about 10% of gun owners I talk with about this subject. The other 90% are either concerned only about the here and now, or willingly accept the jackboot of the state on their neck.

    Merry Christmas
    So Don the anti-gunners have won you over, sorry to see that.[:(]


    Apparently you still live in the make-believe world of 'gun rights', Jim. The ability to petition government for the privilege of buying and possessing that which is Constitutionally guaranteed.

    At least the anti-gunners are honest in their desires.

    You and the rest of the permit-oriented stooges do not think past the current generation, and willingly yield to the practical. A process that has, over the past century, abrogated the individual right specifically expressed in the 2nd Amendment, and turned it into a privilege granted by which-ever government can concoct the most severe deprivation.

    You have given up. Do those of us who still care about Freedom and Liberty in this country a favor, and quit pretending that you give a crap about anything other than yourself.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • BGHillbillyBGHillbilly Member Posts: 1,927 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    appears we are divided, guess we fall/fail a few at a time to we and our rights are all gone.
  • 338weatherby338weatherby Member Posts: 427 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    It irritates the hell out of me to hear "NRA" members or any gun owner say "I guess we really don't need hi cap mags or assault rifles". Why are so many people just giving in to the lies and mouths of the anti gunners? The fence riding gun supporters should just jump off the other side. They are not doing us any favors being any other then 100% right to bear arms! Regardless of caliber, action, or capacity. If we all don't stand together and start boycotting these spineless retailers and organizations who just buckled like they were hit by Mike Tyson, we will lose this battle. Gun ownership in not a privilege but a right! A right that also comes with responsible ownership. If we as a country can get people to understand this it might help. All of us who love guns and take the time to discuss them, shoot them, collect them, etc. obviously take pride in our ownership as well. There are too many under-educated careless people buying guns with no clue. Education and shooting clubs would help this. There were times when high schools had shooting teams! Wow look how far things have gone down the poopter!
  • COBmmcmssCOBmmcmss Member Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Simply said, our 2ND Amendment rights are NOT about hunting.

    What part of infringement is too hard to understand?

    COB
  • 338weatherby338weatherby Member Posts: 427 ✭✭
    edited November -1
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    United we stand, divided we fall!!! [xx(]
    Don and others here have ALLOWED the progressives to cause this 'division' in our ranks. They are playing right into their hands. I feel sorry for them, but when a mind is as closed as Don's (and others here[V]) logic and reality will not be excepted by those with the closed mind, thus we all all lose. It is the same reason we are facing this attack on our rights. Those who voted for any third party candidate were voting for what we face now!!![:(!]
    United we stand, divided we fall! Dirt simple![:(!]
  • torosapotorosapo Member Posts: 4,946
    edited November -1
    We are and always be divided. There are too many gun owners that don't see anything wrong with compromise. Too many fuddites who don't see a need for "black guns". Too many who see no problem with registration. Way too many who see no problem with the NICS system.

    Any group that does not have a problem with compromising the 2nd amendment is a problem in itself.

    What right do we compromise away next?
  • wifetrainedwifetrained Member Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    United we stand, divided we fall!!! [xx(]
    Don and others here have ALLOWED the progressives to cause this 'division' in our ranks. They are playing right into their hands. I feel sorry for them, but when a mind is as closed as Don's (and others here[V]) logic and reality will not be excepted by those with the closed mind, thus we all all lose. It is the same reason we are facing this attack on our rights. Those who voted for any third party candidate were voting for what we face now!!![:(!]
    United we stand, divided we fall! Dirt simple![:(!]



    Don and the others have not allowed the progressives to cause any division in the ranks, an extremely dumb downed american public in general, and the "opened minded" morons, who feel that reasoning and logic will prevail, in particular have allowed it. The notion that the left can be reasoned with is foolish and downright dangerous considering the left's ultimate goal. The left doesn't care about crime or it's victims, all it cares about is it's goal and that's disarming the public. Crime and it's victims are merely the price they are willing to let everyone else pay to acheive that goal. The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or sport shooting, never has been and never will be, it's about the american people protecting itself from a tyrannical goverment.

    Only when a majority of gun owners realize this will it become united enough to do something about it.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,136 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    United we stand, divided we fall!!! [xx(]
    Don and others here have ALLOWED the progressives to cause this 'division' in our ranks. They are playing right into their hands. I feel sorry for them, but when a mind is as closed as Don's (and others here[V]) logic and reality will not be excepted by those with the closed mind, thus we all all lose. It is the same reason we are facing this attack on our rights. Those who voted for any third party candidate were voting for what we face now!!![:(!]
    United we stand, divided we fall! Dirt simple![:(!]


    What I am attempting to do, Jim, is to show how you and your fellow pragmatists see not the forest through the trees. Your suggestion that a Constitutional stance is somehow caused by a 'progressive' influence is laughable when it is the compromisers that accept a progressive intrusion upon the individual right specifically noted in Amendment 2.

    You are obviously more united with Sarah Brady than you are with me and other Freedom advocates. You both start with the acceptance of government control over that which is Constitutionally prohibited.

    Once that bridge is crossed, it is only a matter of degree, and the pragmatist will always compromise for the best realistic end, rather than holding firm and forcing the progressives to move.

    History shows us that you and your kind incrementally move towards them to minimize new restrictions. Each move changes the baseline, ensuring that the next move is ever more restrictive.

    The simple fact that you do not (or pretend to not) see this is reason enough convince me that unity is not only fruitless, but dangerous for the rights of my son and grandson.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • HuntscreekHuntscreek Member Posts: 17 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Don McManus. Being new here and not knowing many here. Does'nt change the fact that generations before me my family has hunted and kept guns. As my dad showed me is what I show my Children. My question is I see guys here fighting each other rather than leadership, Don tell me your thinking on what should be done at this point, one progun to another progun. I hear many people clucking but know one has a plan for the follow generations.
    I also wanted to say AR, M1, knife in the kitchen it kills, I don't own AR nor see owning one this month or year but I'd like the Freedom to decide that for myself rather than some pencile pushing pin head.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    United we stand, divided we fall!!! [xx(]
    Don and others here have ALLOWED the progressives to cause this 'division' in our ranks. They are playing right into their hands. I feel sorry for them, but when a mind is as closed as Don's (and others here[V]) logic and reality will not be excepted by those with the closed mind, thus we all all lose. It is the same reason we are facing this attack on our rights. Those who voted for any third party candidate were voting for what we face now!!![:(!]
    United we stand, divided we fall! Dirt simple![:(!]


    What I am attempting to do, Jim, is to show how you and your fellow pragmatists see not the forest through the trees. Your suggestion that a Constitutional stance is somehow caused by a 'progressive' influence is laughable when it is the compromisers that accept a progressive intrusion upon the individual right specifically noted in Amendment 2.

    You are obviously more united with Sarah Brady than you are with me and other Freedom advocates. You both start with the acceptance of government control over that which is Constitutionally prohibited.

    Once that bridge is crossed, it is only a matter of degree, and the pragmatist will always compromise for the best realistic end, rather than holding firm and forcing the progressives to move.

    History shows us that you and your kind incrementally move towards them to minimize new restrictions. Each move changes the baseline, ensuring that the next move is ever more restrictive.

    The simple fact that you do not (or pretend to not) see this is reason enough convince me that unity is not only fruitless, but dangerous for the rights of my son and grandson.


    Don,
    I must say you have taken a play right from the progressive play book!
    Spinning the truth to make it sound like a lie and spinning the lies to sound like the truth![;)]
    But your BS doesn't pass the reality test, nice try though.
    Happy New Year![8D]
  • SCOUT5SCOUT5 Member Posts: 16,195 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    United we stand, divided we fall!!! [xx(]
    Don and others here have ALLOWED the progressives to cause this 'division' in our ranks. They are playing right into their hands. I feel sorry for them, but when a mind is as closed as Don's (and others here[V]) logic and reality will not be excepted by those with the closed mind, thus we all all lose. It is the same reason we are facing this attack on our rights. Those who voted for any third party candidate were voting for what we face now!!![:(!]
    United we stand, divided we fall! Dirt simple![:(!]


    It really matters to what end you are united to obtain. I will not unite with someone who is actively promoting the destruction of liberty. Why would I unite with such a person, organization or cause? Can you answer this question?
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    United we stand, divided we fall!!! [xx(]
    Don and others here have ALLOWED the progressives to cause this 'division' in our ranks. They are playing right into their hands. I feel sorry for them, but when a mind is as closed as Don's (and others here[V]) logic and reality will not be excepted by those with the closed mind, thus we all all lose. It is the same reason we are facing this attack on our rights. Those who voted for any third party candidate were voting for what we face now!!![:(!]
    United we stand, divided we fall! Dirt simple![:(!]


    It really matters to what end you are united to obtain. I will not unite with someone who is actively promoting the destruction of liberty. Why would I unite with such a person, organization or cause? Can you answer this question?


    I am sorry you do not believe in the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS![:(]
    Those of us who do need to unite and let it be known we will not comply. The rest of you who only talk the talk need not step up!!![V]
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,136 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Huntscreek
    Don McManus. Being new here and not knowing many here. Does'nt change the fact that generations before me my family has hunted and kept guns. As my dad showed me is what I show my Children. My question is I see guys here fighting each other rather than leadership, Don tell me your thinking on what should be done at this point, one progun to another progun. I hear many people clucking but know one has a plan for the follow generations.
    I also wanted to say AR, M1, knife in the kitchen it kills, I don't own AR nor see owning one this month or year but I'd like the Freedom to decide that for myself rather than some pencile pushing pin head.


    Firstly, I am not 'progun', I am pro 2nd Amendment. This is a tremendous distinction that is lost upon many. The 2nd Amendment ensures that the U.S. Citizenry is capable of resisting tyranny whether it come from abroad or from our own governments. Too many 'gun rights' advocates forget this point, and willingly engage in conversations that include references to hunting, sport shooting, self-defense, etc.

    It takes no time to research restrictive legislation accepted, promoted, and in some cases even authored by the NRA and its supporters. This legislation is compromised and continues to compromise the individual right to resist tyranny to give cover for hunters and sporting shooters in their efforts to get along yet retain ownership of the weapons they have.

    The classic example (even if one ignores 1934) is the McDonald decision which effectively granted Federal, State, and Local Governments the power to license, register and restrict ownership. Gura mounted a principled argument based upon the Privileges and Immunities clauses in Article 4, Section 2 and amplified in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. The NRA forced itself into the proceedings, and undercut Gura by presenting a Due Process argument based upon the 14th Amendment which re-wrote the 2nd Amendment, confirming that the noted infringements were and are Constitutional.

    This decision, promoted by the NRA and its followers, has codified the power of governments to disarm their citizens. Feinstein's proposed AWB is therefore now Constitutional.

    The distinction between legislated access and the individual right to keep and bear arms is the divide, IMO. The Brady Campaign and the NRA both believe in legislated access. Most that support the NRA agenda believe in legislated access, CCW permits, Government dictates upon private property owners, etc. The GOA and 2nd Amendment foundation are about eliminating restrictive legislation. The NRA does some of this, but also spends huge amounts of time and money promoting legislation that while on the surface improves access, in reality is simply increasing Government involvement, and thus control, over the ownership of firearms.

    The end goal is to overthrow McDonald and restore the 2nd Amendment to its original intent. The short-term goal is to stop the NRA and other compromisers from creating more legislated paths to gun ownership. In doing this, we can hope that many of these compromisers will see the truth and, regardless of personal preference, recognize that the 2nd Amendment is about freedom from tyranny, not the ownership of weapons. As evidenced in many responses in this thread, many are unwilling to take this step.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    Don,
    Please tell me exactly what do you do to 'take this step'?????[?]
    Do you isolate yourself from reality, because that is what you have done?
    Unless you are going to live in a hole in the ground and have all of the necessities with you you will have to interact with others in the world. If you have a totally rigid stance on anything you will accomplish NOTHING but being labeled as mentally ill!

    Are you mentally ill Don???[?]
    This is not a perfect world and, and yes you refuse to admit that compromise and management are a part of reality in ALL things.
    You have the attitude that 'this is my world and the rest of you have to live in it'!!! Good luck with that.[:D]
    I believe the 2nd Amendment should 'stand as read', but there are others who don't see things the EXACT way I do and I know that even though they my not agree in detail they agree in principle. This is where you and I do not see things the same. You think we should start shooting at the government right now, I don't think we have reached that point yet, all though we are getting closer by the day. So I guess you will be one of those who do not support any attempt to change things for the better without the use of force, so be it!!!![:(]
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,136 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    Don,
    Please tell me exactly what do you do to 'take this step'?????[?]
    Do you isolate yourself from reality, because that is what you have done?
    Unless you are going to live in a hole in the ground and have all of the necessities with you you will have to interact with others in the world. If you have a totally rigid stance on anything you will accomplish NOTHING but being labeled as mentally ill!

    Are you mentally ill Don???[?]
    This is not a perfect world and, and yes you refuse to admit that compromise and management are a part of reality in ALL things.
    You have the attitude that 'this is my world and the rest of you have to live in it'!!! Good luck with that.[:D]
    I believe the 2nd Amendment should 'stand as read', but there are others who don't see things the EXACT way I do and I know that even though they my not agree in detail they agree in principle. This is where you and I do not see things the same. You think we should start shooting at the government right now, I don't think we have reached that point yet, all though we are getting closer by the day. So I guess you will be one of those who do not support any attempt to change things for the better without the use of force, so be it!!!![:(]


    Jim, you are a waste of my time.

    You miss the point of education because you apparently are un-educable. I have nowhere stated anything about 'shooting at the government'. I merely point out that the compromising you and your ilk have done over the past 80 years has now placed us in a position where the 2nd Amendment has been materially altered by the Supreme Court. It is a path I no longer wish to be associated with, primarily because I care about the country I will leave for my grandson.

    The more people that open their eyes to what your reality has given us, the more we will have to overthrow the legislation you have put in place. Your stating that the 2nd should 'stand as read' reveals much. Having it 'stand as read' subjects it to interpretation and restrictions we see today. (Sarah Brady, by the way, believes the same thing.)

    I believe it should stand as written.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • HuntscreekHuntscreek Member Posts: 17 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Don, Thank you for you answer, I understand what your saying.
    http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm#amend02
    Just was'nt sure what your point was thanks again for an indeepth answer, well taken, food for thought.
  • torosapotorosapo Member Posts: 4,946
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    Don,
    Please tell me exactly what do you do to 'take this step'?????[?]
    Do you isolate yourself from reality, because that is what you have done?
    Unless you are going to live in a hole in the ground and have all of the necessities with you you will have to interact with others in the world. If you have a totally rigid stance on anything you will accomplish NOTHING but being labeled as mentally ill!

    Are you mentally ill Don???[?]
    This is not a perfect world and, and yes you refuse to admit that compromise and management are a part of reality in ALL things.
    You have the attitude that 'this is my world and the rest of you have to live in it'!!! Good luck with that.[:D]
    I believe the 2nd Amendment should 'stand as read', but there are others who don't see things the EXACT way I do and I know that even though they my not agree in detail they agree in principle. This is where you and I do not see things the same. You think we should start shooting at the government right now, I don't think we have reached that point yet, all though we are getting closer by the day. So I guess you will be one of those who do not support any attempt to change things for the better without the use of force, so be it!!!![:(]


    What other rights do we compromise? Free speech, trial by jury, the right to vote. They have already compromised the 4th amendment with warrant less wire taps, just because where someone is calling.
    We have to draw a line and say NO MORE compromises.
    Compromising is good in somethings, but NOT when it comes to our rights.
  • ClayhillClayhill Member Posts: 63 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Talk is cheap. What do I mean? Hmmmm....., let's see:

    -DHS can already spy on Americans without a warrant.
    -Congress is being bypassed by executive orders.
    -Politicians in both major political parties are either corrupt, spineless, stupid, or socialist.
    -The Supreme Court puts politics ahead of the Constitution.
    -Most of the media are anti-constitution socialists.
    -The government is printing money 24/7 that is backed by nothing.
    -The tax code is 70,000 pages plus and the IRS doesn't need warrants.
    -America elected a president with no "background check" because he gives them lots of free stuff and tells them their problems are someone else's fault.
    -49% of Americans are receiving that "free stuff".
    -Millions and millions of Americans are so fat, happy, and lazy that they don't care and don't bother to vote.

    After all this, do you really think anyone will do anything when they come for our guns? I think we will do nothing.
  • SCOUT5SCOUT5 Member Posts: 16,195 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    United we stand, divided we fall!!! [xx(]
    Don and others here have ALLOWED the progressives to cause this 'division' in our ranks. They are playing right into their hands. I feel sorry for them, but when a mind is as closed as Don's (and others here[V]) logic and reality will not be excepted by those with the closed mind, thus we all all lose. It is the same reason we are facing this attack on our rights. Those who voted for any third party candidate were voting for what we face now!!![:(!]
    United we stand, divided we fall! Dirt simple![:(!]


    It really matters to what end you are united to obtain. I will not unite with someone who is actively promoting the destruction of liberty. Why would I unite with such a person, organization or cause? Can you answer this question?


    I am sorry you do not believe in the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS![:(]
    Those of us who do need to unite and let it be known we will not comply. The rest of you who only talk the talk need not step up!!![V]


    Now that's funny.

    According to you, by refusing to vote for a man who signed legislation that directly infringed on the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS I do not believe in the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Yet by voting for a man who signed legislation that directly infringed on the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS you do believe in the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

    It seems I need to attend a logic's class at one of those liberal arts colleges and become enlightened to make sense out of this one.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    Don,
    Please tell me exactly what do you do to 'take this step'?????[?]
    Do you isolate yourself from reality, because that is what you have done?
    Unless you are going to live in a hole in the ground and have all of the necessities with you you will have to interact with others in the world. If you have a totally rigid stance on anything you will accomplish NOTHING but being labeled as mentally ill!

    Are you mentally ill Don???[?]
    This is not a perfect world and, and yes you refuse to admit that compromise and management are a part of reality in ALL things.
    You have the attitude that 'this is my world and the rest of you have to live in it'!!! Good luck with that.[:D]
    I believe the 2nd Amendment should 'stand as read', but there are others who don't see things the EXACT way I do and I know that even though they my not agree in detail they agree in principle. This is where you and I do not see things the same. You think we should start shooting at the government right now, I don't think we have reached that point yet, all though we are getting closer by the day. So I guess you will be one of those who do not support any attempt to change things for the better without the use of force, so be it!!!![:(]


    Jim, you are a waste of my time.

    You miss the point of education because you apparently are un-educable. I have nowhere stated anything about 'shooting at the government'. I merely point out that the compromising you and your ilk have done over the past 80 years has now placed us in a position where the 2nd Amendment has been materially altered by the Supreme Court. It is a path I no longer wish to be associated with, primarily because I care about the country I will leave for my grandson.

    The more people that open their eyes to what your reality has given us, the more we will have to overthrow the legislation you have put in place. Your stating that the 2nd should 'stand as read' reveals much. Having it 'stand as read' subjects it to interpretation and restrictions we see today. (Sarah Brady, by the way, believes the same thing.)

    I believe it should stand as written.


    Don,
    I have news for you, you can't 'educate' people by harassing, alienating, belittling, bad mouthing them and their views and taking the attitude 'it's my way or the highway'. [;)]
    And you, like a good politician, did not answer my question. Sorry I am wasting your time trying to some 'real' answers from you![V]
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,136 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    Don,
    I have news for you, you can't 'educate' people by harassing, alienating, belittling, bad mouthing them and their views and taking the attitude 'it's my way or the highway'. [;)]
    And you, like a good politician, did not answer my question. Sorry I am wasting your time trying to some 'real' answers from you![V]


    Do you even read your own posts? You obviously do not read mine.

    Your question was what is the first step. That first step is to educate people. That education starts with reversing the brain-washing that has been going on by gun rights supporters for the past 80 years. We have a generation that believes the ability to apply for a Concealed Carry License is a victory for the 2nd Amendment.

    It is the NRA and the advocates of legislated access that have created this situation, Jim. It is not the left.

    Frankly, it is you, Jim, and those like you who promote compromise and realism.

    Regarding the tone of some of my posts:

    You offer nothing other than barbs and generic 'Stand Together' statements and object to them being labeled the wilful ignorance that they are. You earn every jab you receive, more-so because you attempt to paint yourself as an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, yet willing compromise parts of it away because it is 'realistic'. It is the easy way out, as pragmatism normally is, and serves only to dig deeper the hole in which we find ourselves.

    You are a tool of the compromisers, Jim. You refuse to consider the truth and lash back when presented with it. It would be pitiful if you weren't so full of yourself that you think you actually stand for something.

    I'd ask you to think about it but I don't think you would even if you were able.

    I'm done.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    Don,
    You do long winded posts but say little to nothing different and offer no solutions. I know, anyone who does not see it your way is 'ilk' to you and you preach about the way it 'should be' and I will say it again, I AGREE WITH YOU that it should be that way, BUT IT IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE!!! Perfect does not exist in the WORLD we ALL live in. We will have to come to a mutual understanding about this issue/problem and every other issue/problem we now face and will face in the future, like it or not this is REALITY!!!!!
    Happy New Year you old fart!!![;)]
  • shootstrightshootstright Member Posts: 342 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    He who compromises loses what he had to the one who has nothing .


    A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.
    A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
    Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    He who is to ridged to bend in the wind will be broken and become useless to all!!![:D]
    Improvise, adapt, and OVERCOME![;)]
  • 45long45long Member Posts: 642 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Jm, I don't know what Don said that made you think he was an anti-gun person. From what I read, he spot on. It is the compomisors in the NRA that have help write every "Reasonable gun law" on the books. The founders may have had some difference in language used in the contitution, but on the principle of the document, they were stead fast. No compromise. They didn't compromise with the British either. When the rubber meets the road, every gun law on the book is an infringment on that right. I am concerned now what will be the next set of compromises the NRA will support in an effort to be rational.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    It takes all of 'us' to fight 'them'. Even if we don't see 'eye to eye'. I don't agree with A LOT of what the NRA does, but to label them as 'evil' and 'worthless anti-gunners' is just plain stupid and close mined.
    I am as correct to consider Don and those of this prejudice mind set as 'anti gun' as they are to call the NRA 'anti-gun'![;)]
  • dustinfoxdustinfox Member Posts: 393 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Reading through this thread brings to mind a recent post I made regarding the NRA (which as yet has not been responded to). Is there a pro-2nd amendment organization we should be supporting in Washington?
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,136 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by dustinfox
    Reading through this thread brings to mind a recent post I made regarding the NRA (which as yet has not been responded to). Is there a pro-2nd amendment organization we should be supporting in Washington?


    While no one is able to tell you what you should do, or what organizations you personally should support, there are a few that respect the 2nd Amendment much better, IMO, than does the NRA:

    Gun Owners of America is a somewhat generic organization that does good work in pursuing the education of the populace regarding the actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment. They do stray into other areas on occasion, but for the most part their message is on point and is always less compromised than that of the NRA:

    http://gunowners.org/

    The 2nd Amendment Foundation is very active (and effective) in challenging and overturning laws across the country through the courts.

    http://www.saf.org/

    I can only encourage you to look at and research both organizations, and decide for yourself which, if any, works towards goals with which you agree.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • dustinfoxdustinfox Member Posts: 393 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by dustinfox
    Reading through this thread brings to mind a recent post I made regarding the NRA (which as yet has not been responded to). Is there a pro-2nd amendment organization we should be supporting in Washington?


    While no one is able to tell you what you should do, or what organizations you personally should support, there are a few that respect the 2nd Amendment much better, IMO, than does the NRA:

    Gun Owners of America is a somewhat generic organization that does good work in pursuing the education of the populace regarding the actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment. They do stray into other areas on occasion, but for the most part their message is on point and is always less compromised than that of the NRA:

    http://gunowners.org/

    The 2nd Amendment Foundation is very active (and effective) in challenging and overturning laws across the country through the courts.

    http://www.saf.org/

    I can only encourage you to look at and research both organizations, and decide for yourself which, if any, works towards goals with which you agree.


    Thanks Don. The second amendment is pretty clear and concise and any legislation that infringes is unconstitutional.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,136 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by dustinfox
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by dustinfox
    Reading through this thread brings to mind a recent post I made regarding the NRA (which as yet has not been responded to). Is there a pro-2nd amendment organization we should be supporting in Washington?


    While no one is able to tell you what you should do, or what organizations you personally should support, there are a few that respect the 2nd Amendment much better, IMO, than does the NRA:

    Gun Owners of America is a somewhat generic organization that does good work in pursuing the education of the populace regarding the actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment. They do stray into other areas on occasion, but for the most part their message is on point and is always less compromised than that of the NRA:

    http://gunowners.org/

    The 2nd Amendment Foundation is very active (and effective) in challenging and overturning laws across the country through the courts.

    http://www.saf.org/

    I can only encourage you to look at and research both organizations, and decide for yourself which, if any, works towards goals with which you agree.


    Thanks Don. The second amendment is pretty clear and concise and any legislation that infringes is unconstitutional.


    Sadly, dustinfox, the second part of your statement is no longer correct. The method SCOTUS chose to incorporate the second, at the urging of the NRA and against the method advocated for by the GOA through Gura makes Constitutional Licensing, Registration and Regulation. Heller, and more significantly McDonald, was a huge compromise to big government and legislated access as compared to an individual right.

    It is this nuance of these decisions that escapes many, and clarifies to the open-minded the difference between what is popularly called 'Gun Rights' as compared to that pure individual right we should all hold dear.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    Don,
    What 'organization' do you support? Why don't you stop the 'name calling' and start an organization of those who support your beliefs? [;)]
    Or would it be to hard to find enough of these close minded people who can agree on exactly what 'perfection' is!!!![}:)]
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by dustinfox
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by dustinfox
    Reading through this thread brings to mind a recent post I made regarding the NRA (which as yet has not been responded to). Is there a pro-2nd amendment organization we should be supporting in Washington?


    While no one is able to tell you what you should do, or what organizations you personally should support, there are a few that respect the 2nd Amendment much better, IMO, than does the NRA:

    Gun Owners of America is a somewhat generic organization that does good work in pursuing the education of the populace regarding the actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment. They do stray into other areas on occasion, but for the most part their message is on point and is always less compromised than that of the NRA:

    http://gunowners.org/

    The 2nd Amendment Foundation is very active (and effective) in challenging and overturning laws across the country through the courts.

    http://www.saf.org/

    I can only encourage you to look at and research both organizations, and decide for yourself which, if any, works towards goals with which you agree.


    Thanks Don. The second amendment is pretty clear and concise and any legislation that infringes is unconstitutional.


    Sadly, dustinfox, the second part of your statement is no longer correct. The method SCOTUS chose to incorporate the second, at the urging of the NRA and against the method advocated for by the GOA through Gura makes Constitutional Licensing, Registration and Regulation. Heller, and more significantly McDonald, was a huge compromise to big government and legislated access as compared to an individual right.

    It is this nuance of these decisions that escapes many, and clarifies to the open-minded the difference between what is popularly called 'Gun Rights' as compared to that pure individual right we should all hold dear.

    The key words in this post are 'pure' and 'should all hold dear'!
    In the real world 'pure' (perfect) dose not and never will exist!
    I wish it did, but sadly it does not and those who fail to realize this are worthless, as they will never achieve their 'goal of perfection'![:(]
Sign In or Register to comment.