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.
Highball
dcinffxva
Member Posts: 2,830 ✭✭
Comments
You stated something to the effect that "if someone doesn't believe in freedom, then they are a slimeball, etc."
You should have said, to be correct and truthful, that if that someone doesn't believe in your defination of freedom then they are a slimeball. Oh, and to avoid being a "slimeball", that someone must also believe in your solution for our loss of freedom.
quote:So, unless you fit in one of those catagories, how does my position on this even effect you or infringe on your, or anybody elses here, rights?
YOUR...and the government/nra methods used to distinguish those 'groups' you insist ought to be disarmed...involve forcing ALL to crawl on their bellies to beg permission to buy a weapon.
This is intolerable to a man that believes in individual freedoms...and the basis foundation of this country.
As usual you and your side has to duck, weave, distort and somehow find a way to avoid directly dealing with my statement. I will say it again. If you are not a child, an illegal alien, a convicted VIOLENT criminal nor haven been adjucated as a mental defective, then I do not advocate you or anyone else has to crawl on their knees to purchase, possess or carry a firearm.
You take objection to my statement which makes me think you ARE one of the 4 groups I listed. Probably the child would be my guess.
You posted this on a different thread and I did not want to hijack that one.
See the highlighted area? I met a man today that is just like you described. He told me he is more patriotic than folks who wont "jump the hoops". He was talking about class 3 items. I was thinking about what you post all the time and how right on the mark you are with people just like I met.
Highball Posted - 01/02/2010 : 2:29:37 PM
Double-nine ;
Welcome aboard.
Your treatice is pretty accurate for the rank and file anti-gunner.
There are other forms of this insanity, tho.
Those that feel that government permission makes them special, somehow...more manly, more honest, a better citizen.
Those pushing gun control so as to totally subjugate the citizens of this country..the better to instutite the tyranny they so earnestly crave.
Just wondering. Oh, you camp follows of Highball, feel free to jump in and be obnoxious in defense of your hero (as usual).
No...I dont see Freeminds post as being sarcastic.
Merely trying to apply the same logic towards cops as is applied to US..the tax-paying citizen.
Once again, the King has rewarded his loyal servents...while *+++ on us, his subjects.
Highball,
To begin with, by no means do I profess to speak for anyone other than myself here. If others care to offer their opinions either way, feel free.
I agree with a lot of what you have to say, and I am not saying this to troll, or start an argument, but the condescending, arrogant, pompous way you come across in many of your posts is a large reason I stay off of this board.
I stay more active than most other gun owners in sending E-mails and physical letters to both politicians and journalists regarding the restrictive firearm laws. I have even had one major journalist respond, admitting he really didn't know much about guns, but he was relying on "other people" for his facts. I offered to take him shooting, so he could realize the true differences between a Tec-9 semi-auto, and a true machine gun (as he referred to the Tec-9 in his article). He took me up on the offer, and now understands the differences between them.
I hope one day that you realize that most of us here are working for a common goal, and that your "I am the only one who is right" attitude really is not helping anyone here reach it. Like it or not, we currently have very restrictive gun laws. You can either take an active role in changing that (which I hope you are) or you can sit behind a keyboard, and tell a bunch of other gun enthusiasts that would probably be your ally that they are full of crap for having ANY belief that may differ from yours.
"The Second Amendment bars the Federal Government and MOST state government laws from infringing upon citizen gun ownership"
indicates that the person holding those beliefs is "full of crap"...deserving only of arrogance and condensention from those of us able to read and understand the written word.
I spent a lot of years, coddling anti-gun gun owners...hoping that they would finally understand the ultimate aim of the Elites.
Most cannot...and I really no longer give a damn what sqishy compromisers believe or think...my aim being to alert REAL Second Amendment supporters to the REAL threat to our Rights...COMPROMISERS and "Nics checks are a good thing" so-called gun rights supporters.
These people have been shooting Gun Rights Supporters in the back for a good many years...and it is time to call them what they are.
I am sorry you cannot truly support the Second Amendment. There are several million more just like you in the NRA.
As far as my being on this board...there are a half-dozen men that post here whose opinions I value. Were they to decide that my absence would increase traffic in this forum...I would withdraw immediately.
To the contrary, my friend. I think your posts have stimulated perhaps the MAJORITY of the responses that I have seen on this forum over the past three years. You sure have made me reconsider my positions many times.
Am I part of the half-dozen? [:D]
ANY belief other then;
"The Second Amendment bars the Federal Government and MOST state government laws from infringing upon citizen gun ownership"
indicates that the person holding those beliefs is "full of crap"...deserving only of arrogance and condensention from those of us able to read and understand the written word.
I spent a lot of years, coddling anti-gun gun owners...hoping that they would finally understand the ultimate aim of the Elites.
Most cannot...and I really no longer give a damn what sqishy compromisers believe or think...my aim being to alert REAL Second Amendment supporters to the REAL threat to our Rights...COMPROMISERS and "Nics checks are a good thing" so-called gun rights supporters.
These people have been shooting Gun Rights Supporters in the back for a good many years...and it is time to call them what they are.
I am sorry you cannot truly support the Second Amendment. There are several million more just like you in the NRA.
As far as my being on this board...there are a half-dozen men that post here whose opinions I value. Were they to decide that my absence would increase traffic in this forum...I would withdraw immediately.
This post illustrates my point. I said early in my first post that I agree with much of what you say, and I can't see anywhere in my original post that indicates otherwise my beliefs in the rights of gun owners.
The US Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights was written and ratified well over 200 years ago, yet to this day, the Supreme Court still makes decisions regarding the constitutionality of laws.
The words, although on parchment could just as easily be carved in stone. The difference is interpretation. Are you so arrogant that you believe that your interpretation is the only possible correct one ?
I could understand if you were making your posts on a Brady Bill forum, or some other anti-gun site. The vast majority of people on here though share a lot of the same values as you do, although their interpretations may differ on points. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong, it just makes them individuals.
The Courts have ruled for over 200 years, and continue to rule on the constitutionality of laws. In some cases, they have reversed themselves. That alone should tell you something about the interpretations.
No where in my original post did I suggest you withdraw from the boards. My suggestion was that your efforts may be better focused by assisting those that would be your allies, instead of belittling them to the point where they no longer post. Maybe then you would have more than a half dozen supporters out of the nearly 40,000 members.
You stood toe-to-toe with me over a period of time and debated..sometimes hotly..the merits of our respective positions. When presented with a logical argument, you thought about it, and accepted or rejected it on LOGICAL grounds...and not fuzty emotions.
Dcinffxva;
I do indeed understand exactly what you are saying.
But..I prefer the company of those 'dirty half-dozen' strong men then tens of thousands of those willing to crawl on their bellies to their masters for permission to breath....
Join with us.
ALL FEDERAL GUN LAWS ARE NON-CONSTITUTIONAL....ALL of them. Am I so arrogant as to believe that MY view is the only possible view of this matter ?...Well...no...I rely upon the founders for my guidance..they who went to WAR over massive governmental interference in private ownershop of firearms.
I really prefer THEIR views over, say, the NRA's....
ONLY by knowing where you are going is there any possibility of getting there...and while there may indeed need to be 'compromising' (CCWs') for example..one must NEVER lose sight of the fact that they are exchanging a Right for a privilege.
I believe that the time will come when the people will be forced to take the government back from the rotten corruption of the Elites and the Courts...
Try sticking around and getting past 'my arrogance'..advance your arguments. Perhaps you can undo the 'damage'
In the discussion of any topic that is truly important and possibly life-altering, it is, I believe, essential for the most ardent and devout to be heard along with the most ambivalent and flippant.
Somwhere in between these two hask marks is reality for me. And, truth-be-told, I'm among the first to acknowledge that reality is, at best, a dynamic and changing entity.
You would be wrong, with your assumption. I read your posts as being from an intelligent, thoughtful man.
Your background, as has mine, shaped and moulded you...and you have achieved a breakthrough a few years ago that changed you profoundly...and will change you more then you can conceive of right now....
My figure of 'half-dozen' was tossed out rather carelessly, I now realize..there are posters that pop in now and again that I had not thought about..and some new guys that seem top-notch..at least from this old mans' perspective...
I appreciate the comments back, as well as the others that have chimed in. And I want to reiterate, I agree with much of what you say.
"I do indeed understand exactly what you are saying.
But..I prefer the company of those 'dirty half-dozen' strong men then tens of thousands of those willing to crawl on their bellies to their masters for permission to breath...."
The dirty half dozen may be a fine group of associates. The tens of thousands are the ones that are necessary as allies though.
I totally agree that the NRA is not doing enough. Because of that, I am doing what I can on my own as well. I'm trying to decide which other group more suits my needs (GOA, JPFO are my primary's) and I will contribute to them as well. Regardless of the NRA not doing enough, they currently have the biggest voice, and I am a life member.
I've posted a few times on this forum, and have been, and seen other posters get attacked for their views. These are the people we need to be hanging on to, not driving away. This board should be the most active one here. Instead it is one of the least.
I think you would have to agree that your views are among the most extreme end of the spectrum, and the other end being Sarah Brady and her cronies. The vast majority fall somewhere in the middle. Those are the people that need to be drawn in, not driven away.
There has been recent court action (the overturn of the DC ban) that marks the opportunity for significant positive changes. There is also pending legislation (HR 1022) that would be a crippling blow to gun owners. The time is now for gun owners to be heard.
I posted this over a month ago, and it only got one response.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=237470
I posted it on the GD forum as well, and it got a little better traffic.
If you read it, you will see no mention of NICS checks, waiting periods or any other restrictions. I specifically mention the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Hughes Amendment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 as being unconstitutional legislation.
Nowhere have I suggested you change your views. I may be wrong, but I think I recall you saying that you had been an ERT member in one of the Fed. agencies. If so, then I know some of the skills in team building that you would be familiar with. This is a time when everyone that can, should be employing those skills to turn gun owners into a more united voice.
Therein lies the crux of the matter. This statement sounds so very reasonable to the bulk of the people in this country that might brush against me or my postings.
My views, however, are taken from a group of men that had just fought the greatest military in the world..and they and their ragged bands had won. They were determined that NEVER AGAIN would Elites have the power to subjucate the populace...the Second Amendment would ensure that the common people would be armed equally with the military...and free to do so.
I do NOT admit nor believe that I am 'extreme'.
The Extremes are the Brady bunch...and a weak-kneed populace afraid to exercise or totally ignorant of their God-Given Rights...and a president that proclaims himself a "Second Amendment Supporter..and is going to enforce federal gun laws".
THERE is 'Extreme'....not I.
I believe that political processes are entirely too corrupted to regain freedom in this country...and I will participate no more in them.
I saw your post..and did not respond precisely BECAUSE I will no longer crawl on my belly to the powdered,perfumed dandys that make up the court for permission to exercise my Rights any longer.
I feel that the last, best chance to win freedom is to allow the Elites their head...and they will bring conditions to the point that real Americans will reach the point that they cannot gag down any longer the crap fed us.....
I am ALL for teamwork..just not the teamwork that has stood by wringing its hands over 20,000+++ gunlaws..or ACTIVELY helping pass them.
Now..as for being attacked on this forum.
The title of the Forum is "Gun Rights and Constitutional Law".
Typically, people that support background checks, Nics checks, or ad nausium gun laws find a chilly reception here..or ANYPLACE where Second Amendment supporter gather. Gun Law supporters are victims of massive propaganda programs...or just prefer fuzzy , emotional thinking...and after suffering through a lifetime of listening
politely to gun owners making the case for gun law...I finally rejected their imput in ANYTHING having to do with important decisions...they are unable to even understand that the one thing
that keeps us free is weapons held in the hands of private citizens.
quote:I think you would have to agree that your views are among the most extreme end of the spectrum, and the other end being Sarah Brady and her cronies. The vast majority fall somewhere in the middle. Those are the people that need to be drawn in, not driven away.
Therein lies the crux of the matter. This statement sounds so very reasonable to the bulk of the people in this country that might brush against me or my postings.
My views, however, are taken from a group of men that had just fought the greatest military in the world..and they and their ragged bands had won. They were determined that NEVER AGAIN would Elites have the power to subjucate the populace...the Second Amendment would ensure that the common people would be armed equally with the military...and free to do so.
I do NOT admit nor believe that I am 'extreme'.
The Extremes are the Brady bunch...and a weak-kneed populace afraid to exercise or totally ignorant of their God-Given Rights...and a president that proclaims himself a "Second Amendment Supporter..and is going to enforce federal gun laws".
THERE is 'Extreme'....not I.
I believe that political processes are entirely too corrupted to regain freedom in this country...and I will participate no more in them.
I saw your post..and did not respond precisely BECAUSE I will no longer crawl on my belly to the powdered,perfumed dandys that make up the court for permission to exercise my Rights any longer.
I feel that the last, best chance to win freedom is to allow the Elites their head...and they will bring conditions to the point that real Americans will reach the point that they cannot gag down any longer the crap fed us.....
I am ALL for teamwork..just not the teamwork that has stood by wringing its hands over 20,000+++ gunlaws..or ACTIVELY helping pass them.
Now..as for being attacked on this forum.
The title of the Forum is "Gun Rights and Constitutional Law".
Typically, people that support background checks, Nics checks, or ad nausium gun laws find a chilly reception here..or ANYPLACE where Second Amendment supporter gather. Gun Law supporters are victims of massive propaganda programs...or just prefer fuzzy , emotional thinking...and after suffering through a lifetime of listening
politely to gun owners making the case for gun law...I finally rejected their imput in ANYTHING having to do with important decisions...they are unable to even understand that the one thing
that keeps us free is weapons held in the hands of private citizens.
Where I think you are blinded by emotion is stating that there are no limits on the Second Amendment. You are simply incorrect IMO. Just as you can't scream fire in a crowded theater you can't honestly say that unrestricted access to LAWS rockets and RPG's and tactical nukes is a protected right. That logic simply does not work.
I profoundly, deeply agree with you that almost every restrictive gun law currently on the books is unconstitutional. I also KNOW there are limits to every freedom. It is the placing of that line that is the disagreement in our society.
Also; we are no longer a free people. Our Gub'Ment has us right where they want us. Under surveillance, observation and control.
Your rights end where mine begin and vise versa.....How does my ownership of a LAW rocket infringe upon your rights?
Nuclear weapons are another matter.....as the detonation of one would have far reaching effects on other citizens.
Since the 2nd was put in place to protect the militia, it stands to reason that the unorganized militia should have access to, and training with, equipment used by the organized militia......That means rifles, machine guns, mortars, ect....
The act of screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre endangers the other patrons. Slanderous speech is also prohibited, because it infringes on another person....
Your rights end where mine begin and vise versa.....How does my ownership of a LAW rocket infringe upon your rights?
Nuclear weapons are another matter.....as the detonation of one would have far reaching effects on other citizens.
Since the 2nd was put in place to protect the militia, it stands to reason that the unorganized militia should have access to, and training with, equipment used by the organized militia......That means rifles, machine guns, mortars, ect....
Our founding fathers had a heck of a lot more common sense than some display here. But; I'll play along. You can't stand firm against the hurricane bending allows you to win! Even the lowly palm tree must bend to live for another day; the storm passes, the tree is still rooted and able to go on.
[QUTOE]
Since the 2nd was put in place to protect the militia, it stands to reason that the unorganized militia should have access to, and training with, equipment used by the organized militia......That means rifles, machine guns, mortars, ect....
quote:As far as my being on this board...there are a half-dozen men that post here whose opinions I value. Were they to decide that my absence would increase traffic in this forum...I would withdraw immediately.
To the contrary, my friend. I think your posts have stimulated perhaps the MAJORITY of the responses that I have seen on this forum over the past three years. You sure have made me reconsider my positions many times.
Am I part of the half-dozen? [:D]
+1 on that!!! You, Highball, are one of the few I have come to respect here as well. You too WW.
The act of screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre endangers the other patrons. Slanderous speech is also prohibited, because it infringes on another person....
Your rights end where mine begin and vise versa.....How does my ownership of a LAW rocket infringe upon your rights?
Nuclear weapons are another matter.....as the detonation of one would have far reaching effects on other citizens.
Since the 2nd was put in place to protect the militia, it stands to reason that the unorganized militia should have access to, and training with, equipment used by the organized militia......That means rifles, machine guns, mortars, ect....
Actually, you'd be wrong about that "Yelling fire" deal. It isn't prohibited, and neither is slander or libel. But rest assured, if you do any of these things, you may have to face the consequences. Yelling fire in a theater can set you up for indirectly causing injuries, or deaths, while slandering others, either spoken or printed, may result in you not having a pot to piss in for damages to another's character.
A technicality.
By the way, ownership of a nuke is wrong in and of itself, simply because there is no peaceful way to use them, and every way they could be used not only constitutes Malum in Se, but also, crimes against humanity.
Actually, you'd be wrong about that "Yelling fire" deal. It isn't prohibited, and neither is slander or libel. But rest assured, if you do any of these things, you may have to face the consequences. Yelling fire in a theater can set you up for indirectly causing injuries, or deaths, while slandering others, either spoken or printed, may result in you not having a pot to piss in for damages to another's character.
Being quite sure that I was correct on this issue, I researched this more carefully
I stand corrected.....
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
Actually, you'd be wrong about that "Yelling fire" deal. It isn't prohibited, and neither is slander or libel. But rest assured, if you do any of these things, you may have to face the consequences. Yelling fire in a theater can set you up for indirectly causing injuries, or deaths, while slandering others, either spoken or printed, may result in you not having a pot to piss in for damages to another's character.
Being quite sure that I was correct on this issue, I researched this more carefully
I stand corrected.....
As I said, a technicality. Don't worry, it isn't like you're the only one who may have been mistaken. I was at one time, too.
Stalin, Rwanda, Germany....JPFO used to have a list on their web site adding up to 250-300 MILLION souls...murdered by their respective governments in the last century.
After being disarmed, of course..makes it SOO much easier for government thugs to drag people off in the middle of the night.
You worry about what the guy across the street MAY do with this or that weapon.
I worry about the REAL threat...out-of-control governments. Left alone, without government interference, I can stop the guy across the street, if he goes berserk.
I CANNOT stop a government from going bad...and believe me, the government IS going bad.
Until and unless you can understand THAT basic fact...ALL GOVERNMENTS GO BAD...you cannot connect the dots about why the Founders included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
I am also wise enough to know that EVERY SINGLE "RIGHT" has to have LIMITS, common sense must rule the day.
Have you considered applying for a position with the Brady Campaign?
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
I am also wise enough to know that EVERY SINGLE "RIGHT" has to have LIMITS, common sense must rule the day.
Have you considered applying for a position with the Brady Campaign?
No no no!!! Rights do not have limits, they have responsibilities!!!
I'm with you, Rack ops!!!
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Highball,
I agree with a lot of what you have to say, and I am not saying this to troll, or start an argument, but the condescending, arrogant, pompous way you come across in many of your posts is a large reason I stay off of this board.
I think the reason some people feel this way is because they are in denial of their beliefs. I see it this way, either you see the words of the constitution they way it is written, or you see it through colored glasses. If a simple man like me can see those rights are for all individuals, so can everyone else. I think fear slants many peoples view of right and wrong. Too many people fear their neighbor for no REAL reason.Are we not all brothers and sisters in this freedom we call the Constitution?
I as well as a few here stand firm besde Highball. Your view is yours, but does NOT make it correct. Colored glasses you know ..
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
I am also wise enough to know that EVERY SINGLE "RIGHT" has to have LIMITS, common sense must rule the day.
Have you considered applying for a position with the Brady Campaign?
Your ilk doesnt even qualify to stand in my shadow.
There is a difference between limits and responsibility. I think WW was right. I hear ol' chucky Schumer needs an intern.[:D]
quote:Your ilk doesnt even qualify to stand in my shadow.
There is a difference between limits and responsibility. I think WW was right. I hear ol' chucky Schumer needs an intern.[:D]
OK children, I will play some more.
Is is OK to carry full auto AK's into an airport in America?
Is it OK to carry a .45 into a criminal court of law?
[br
OK children, I will play some more.
Is is OK to carry full auto AK's into an airport in America?
Is it OK to carry a .45 into a criminal court of law?
Personally, I don't see a problem with it. Guns don't put the fear, of loss of life into me, I only worry when someone points it at me.Do you have the same irrational fear of knives? They conceal much easyier and can be just as deadly. [:)]
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
[br
OK children, I will play some more.
Is is OK to carry full auto AK's into an airport in America?
Is it OK to carry a .45 into a criminal court of law?
Personally, I don't see a problem with it. Guns don't put the fear, of loss of life into me, I only worry when someone points it at me.Do you have the same irrational fear of knives? They conceal much easyier and can be just as deadly. [:)]
I would not see a problem with it either; unless the guy carrying it had a rag on his head [:D][:0]. I have no fear of any weapon, knives are just as deadly at 20 feet as a gun is..
At some point you testosterone loaded kids need to realize that fear has nuttin' to do with common sense.
And; if you think a AUTO AK-47 should be allowed onto a flight and its OK for guns to be carried by folks in criminal proceedings you simply lack the common sense God gave you; or are unwilling to be intellectually honest. Prohibiting weapons on a flight or in courts is not unconstitutional; it is everyday common sense.
FWIW I carry all the time; even when I travel and I travel a LOT. I do NOT have a CCW and travel tens of thousands of miles in several states including PA, OH, WV and NY. Why? Because the REQUIREMENT for a CCW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL in my eyes. Why should I get a license for a God given right codified by man in the 2nd Amendment.
The true argument is common sense. What I know about it is simple; Nancy Pelosi et al have not one iota of it. That helps define it even better.
You, sir, are ignorant. This behavior is exactly what the JBTs pray for. You are a shining example to them why people should NOT have guns and are doing all of us law-abiding gun owners a disservice.
Since this is Highball's post (at least directed to him), I will share some wisdom he taught me and that I cherish... "don't give them a reason." You are not going to accomplish anything for the gun rights movement by playing into their hands, getting arrested on a concealed weapons charge, and having them use you as an example of just another criminal gun toter.
quote:And; if you think a AUTO AK-47 should be allowed onto a flight and its OK for guns to be carried by folks in criminal proceedings you simply lack the common sense God gave you; or are unwilling to be intellectually honest. Prohibiting weapons on a flight or in courts is not unconstitutional; it is everyday common sense.
What exactly is your fear in these situations? Do you think a terrorist would bring an AK into an airport if there were a dozen other armed people in close proximity around him? He might be able to kill one person before he would be riddled with bullets. Look at the Middle East, the terrorists aren't using an AK as their weapon of choice, they are using bombs. An AK is useless when the intent is a large body count.
The same in court. Would someone take the chance of shooting a witness or judge if he knew that he would be swiftly dispatched in a matter of seconds after the fact? I don't seem to be hearing much about these suicide shooters in courtrooms. Most criminals will only commit the crime if they have a high liklihood of surviving it.
For being a proponent of "common sense", you seem to exercise little.
A favorite ploy of the anti-gunners.
We have incompetent boobs handling gun today...we have vicious animals roaming the streets with guns..and we refuse to demand proper punishment for them.
Instead we demand decent citizens obey edicts from on high..edicts that contravene the Constitution.
Flying ? A private company..they have the right to do about what they will. Did the American people have ANY blood running in their veins from the Founders...they would have bankrupted the airlines by refusing to fly again...as I have.
Because you and your type of 'thought processes' have allowed guns to be demonized, by not demanding REAL punishment for the misuse of firearms..is not sufficient grounds for you and your henchmen in the NRA and Congress to infringe upon MY Rights.
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
I am also wise enough to know that EVERY SINGLE "RIGHT" has to have LIMITS, common sense must rule the day.
Have you considered applying for a position with the Brady Campaign?
Your ilk doesnt even qualify to stand in my shadow.
Oh.....you're self important too! You'll fit right in....
Dare I ask, what have you accomplished in your life that is so great that a mere mortal such as myself doesn't qualify to stand in your shadow?
quote:Originally posted by freemind
quote:Your ilk doesnt even qualify to stand in my shadow.
There is a difference between limits and responsibility. I think WW was right. I hear ol' chucky Schumer needs an intern.[:D]
OK children, I will play some more.
Is is OK to carry full auto AK's into an airport in America?
Can you demonstrate whose rights you'd be encroaching on? Remember, now, gov't doesn't have rights. Neither does Airports. They have responsibilities and authorities. Only individuals get rights.
So, should it or would it be OK? Sure would be. Just because a person is in possession of a full auto AK, doesn't mean he should be treated as a criminal.
Is it OK to carry a .45 into a criminal court of law?
Sure. We paid for them buildings, we should be able to carry onto our own property. If, on the other hand, you were arrested and kept in jail pending court, the handcuffs stay on, so possession of a .45 or any other gun would be highly unlikely.
But then, assume you are a witness to a crime that has a high likelihood of retaliation. That right there justifies and encourages walking into a court room armed to the teeth. hell, put a BPV on that guy, too.
OK, what say you to this, then???
Now, what was that you were saying about common sense?? Apparently, common sense is a little more uncommon that you'd have us to believe. I'll choose conventional wisdom over "common" sense, any day!!!
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by bpost1958
I am also wise enough to know that EVERY SINGLE "RIGHT" has to have LIMITS, common sense must rule the day.
Have you considered applying for a position with the Brady Campaign?
Your ilk doesnt even qualify to stand in my shadow.
Oh.....you're self important too! You'll fit right in....
Dare I ask, what have you accomplished in your life that is so great that a mere mortal such as myself doesn't qualify to stand in your shadow?
He is right. Out ilk doesn't qualify to stand in his shadow. We stand in NO ONE"S shadow. That makes us overqualified!!!
He seems quite smug. Again, I'll drink to that!!!
ANY belief other then;
"The Second Amendment bars the Federal Government and MOST state government laws from infringing upon citizen gun ownership"
indicates that the person holding those beliefs is "full of crap"...deserving only of arrogance and condensention from those of us able to read and understand the written word.
I spent a lot of years, coddling anti-gun gun owners...hoping that they would finally understand the ultimate aim of the Elites.
Most cannot...and I really no longer give a damn what sqishy compromisers believe or think...my aim being to alert REAL Second Amendment supporters to the REAL threat to our Rights...COMPROMISERS and "Nics checks are a good thing" so-called gun rights supporters.
These people have been shooting Gun Rights Supporters in the back for a good many years...and it is time to call them what they are.
I am sorry you cannot truly support the Second Amendment. There are several million more just like you in the NRA.
As far as my being on this board...there are a half-dozen men that post here whose opinions I value. Were they to decide that my absence would increase traffic in this forum...I would withdraw immediately.
+1 Preach it my friend.[;)]
The National Guard, as it stands today, is not a militia. The founders would have classified it as a "select militia" (which they warned against) or a reserve formation of the Army.
The Militia is drawn from the people. Allowing "the people" to arm themselves assures the nation that if a well-armed militia is ever needed, one can be quickly gathered. The founders believed strongly in the concept of the "minuteman", we would do well to carry on that tradition.
Emotion does control the debate, I concede that point. When speaking of the Second Ammendment, too many politicions speak about "sportsmans rights".
It ain't about hunting.
Those of us who believe the second ammendment was put in place to give people a means of defence against common criminals are just as wrong.
"being necessary for the security of a free state"
The Second Ammendment is about giving the citizens of this nation a means to defend themselves from foreign or domestic tyranny. Everything else is secondary.
That is why there can be no restrictions. The citizens are required to maintain a militia. We must have the tools to equip that militia if the time ever comes.