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.
RKBA Philosophy
Old Ironsights
Member Posts: 93 ✭✭
What's the True Source of our Right to Bear Arms?
by Paul Bonneau
1.paulbx1@dfgh.net
Attribute to: The Libertarian Enterprise
There are some odd posts being made on gun forums these days. For example, "its people like you that will hand the white house to a commi democrat, who will select the next supreme court justice member....and they will destroy the 2nd..." This, apparently an attempt to convince us to vote for McCain, that great protector of the 2nd Amendment. Here's another: "The jack booted feds will roll you (and me) up like an old carpet. If you think you can resist then you will join the ranks of the Branch Davidians and the martyrs of Ruby Ridge. All the good sheeple will fall in line or die." This is supposedly what will happen if Obama or Hillary gets elected.
There is a very strange notion implicit in these comments: that our rights derive from 9 old men and women on the Court. Thus if we get the wrong ones in there, we are doomed. Since the composition of the Court depends on who is President, this in turn implies that our rights really derive from the President.
This is even stranger than the notion that our right to bear arms comes from the 2nd Amendment itself.
Now, fully recognizing the somewhat linguistic question of whether rights exist at all, our right to bear arms depends on one thing, and one thing only: our willingness to kill anyone who attempts to confiscate them. Surely, that is not news? Yes of course, we write our congresscritters and join GOA and JPFO (and NRA if we are clueless), and write letters to the editor, and argue legal cases in court, and vote for "pro-gun" legislators, and so forth. But our right does not depend on any of these mechanisms, and they unfortunately tend to conceal the hard fact beneath everything: that our right to bear arms depends on our willingness to kill anyone who attempts to confiscate them. What these other mechanisms are good for, is putting off any day of reckoning - which is well worth doing to be sure (up to a point). But they cannot be the whole prop of our right.
Well, what about noncompliance?
Noncompliance is certainly an excellent tool. It's the old saying, "There's safety in numbers." The English have lost their guns because they could not be bothered even to refuse to comply with their law (not enough numbers there, I guess), while New Jerseyites and other Americans still have their "assault weapons" because they did refuse to comply. It's not the ideal situation, since "selective enforcement" is possible, but it is better than the alternative of being disarmed. Massive noncompliance has the additional attraction of making manifest the illegitimacy of government, and if there is anything they hate, it is that.
But in a noncompliant situation, what happens if you are caught? Then, you are back to brass tacks again, deciding whether you are willing to put up with 5 years of prison rape, or instead making the wife of the guy who caught you a widow (if he cannot be made to see reason). That's what is always at the bottom of this. Our right depends on something internal to ourselves, not upon others.
Again, the Presidency and the Court's composition does not matter to the right itself, but bears only on the day of reckoning. At this point the reader is advised to refer to Patrick Henry's famous speech. Is it better to put off that day, so that our children have to deal with it in worsened circumstances, than it is to deal with it ourselves? Who is best equipped to deal with it - those who have already lived their lives, or those in their prime with small children at home? These are questions that should be occurring to all of us.
This discussion brings up another interesting point. What, really, is the difference between persuasion and coercion? One could argue, the difference is a firearm - but not the one held by the persuader or would-be coercer! It is the firearm held by the one being "persuaded".
What does this mean?
I answer with the question, "Can armed people be coerced?" It is at least arguable that they cannot! The persuasion, especially when it gets into heavy arm-twisting, can certainly look like coercion; but for the armed, the question is always decided by a choice: go along, or resist. Just because we mostly choose to go along, it should not deceive us that that is the only choice; whereas for the disarmed, it is the only choice (and thus there is no choice at all). A state-employed thug, or a free-lance one, simply takes from an unarmed man anything he wants including life itself. To an armed man, he can only produce compliance using at worst a threat on one's life, accompanied by the risk of losing his own. Quite a different kettle of fish.
This calculus applies to all questions of compliance, but especially to the question of compliance with gun confiscation itself. One might say this is the meta-question of compliance. If one complies, then one by implication complies with all further demands no matter how extreme, because compliance with this one gives up the possibility of any future choice. It is saying, "Here is my gun. Now, what else do you want to do with me?"
We do not really trade our guns for our life, in a confiscation, any more than the Jews of Nazi Germany traded their guns for their lives. We do not really own our lives anyway, but only borrow them temporarily: we are mortal. The real trade here is guns for little more than a state-determined temporary extension of our lives on our knees - and the lives of our children and their descendents on their knees as well. Despite how repugnant, how low such a choice is, there is apparently no shortage of people willing to make it.
Thus our right, our freedom, does not depend on those people either. They are even more useless than the Constitution, the judges and the presidents in protecting it, because their lamentations of surrender only tend to sap the resolve of others. Our freedom depends on those few who understand the issue at its base; and knowing where the right comes from, step up and accept the duty. It is they who will make the meanies pay, who will refuse to take the easy choice of slavery, who will kill those who force the question of ultimate compliance on them, even at the expense of their own lives. The best end for a useful life is a useful death, and there is no more useful death than in the act of killing tyrants. A Remnant, a few real men and women is all it takes; "the rest are furniture".
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle459-20080309-04.html
by Paul Bonneau
1.paulbx1@dfgh.net
Attribute to: The Libertarian Enterprise
There are some odd posts being made on gun forums these days. For example, "its people like you that will hand the white house to a commi democrat, who will select the next supreme court justice member....and they will destroy the 2nd..." This, apparently an attempt to convince us to vote for McCain, that great protector of the 2nd Amendment. Here's another: "The jack booted feds will roll you (and me) up like an old carpet. If you think you can resist then you will join the ranks of the Branch Davidians and the martyrs of Ruby Ridge. All the good sheeple will fall in line or die." This is supposedly what will happen if Obama or Hillary gets elected.
There is a very strange notion implicit in these comments: that our rights derive from 9 old men and women on the Court. Thus if we get the wrong ones in there, we are doomed. Since the composition of the Court depends on who is President, this in turn implies that our rights really derive from the President.
This is even stranger than the notion that our right to bear arms comes from the 2nd Amendment itself.
Now, fully recognizing the somewhat linguistic question of whether rights exist at all, our right to bear arms depends on one thing, and one thing only: our willingness to kill anyone who attempts to confiscate them. Surely, that is not news? Yes of course, we write our congresscritters and join GOA and JPFO (and NRA if we are clueless), and write letters to the editor, and argue legal cases in court, and vote for "pro-gun" legislators, and so forth. But our right does not depend on any of these mechanisms, and they unfortunately tend to conceal the hard fact beneath everything: that our right to bear arms depends on our willingness to kill anyone who attempts to confiscate them. What these other mechanisms are good for, is putting off any day of reckoning - which is well worth doing to be sure (up to a point). But they cannot be the whole prop of our right.
Well, what about noncompliance?
Noncompliance is certainly an excellent tool. It's the old saying, "There's safety in numbers." The English have lost their guns because they could not be bothered even to refuse to comply with their law (not enough numbers there, I guess), while New Jerseyites and other Americans still have their "assault weapons" because they did refuse to comply. It's not the ideal situation, since "selective enforcement" is possible, but it is better than the alternative of being disarmed. Massive noncompliance has the additional attraction of making manifest the illegitimacy of government, and if there is anything they hate, it is that.
But in a noncompliant situation, what happens if you are caught? Then, you are back to brass tacks again, deciding whether you are willing to put up with 5 years of prison rape, or instead making the wife of the guy who caught you a widow (if he cannot be made to see reason). That's what is always at the bottom of this. Our right depends on something internal to ourselves, not upon others.
Again, the Presidency and the Court's composition does not matter to the right itself, but bears only on the day of reckoning. At this point the reader is advised to refer to Patrick Henry's famous speech. Is it better to put off that day, so that our children have to deal with it in worsened circumstances, than it is to deal with it ourselves? Who is best equipped to deal with it - those who have already lived their lives, or those in their prime with small children at home? These are questions that should be occurring to all of us.
This discussion brings up another interesting point. What, really, is the difference between persuasion and coercion? One could argue, the difference is a firearm - but not the one held by the persuader or would-be coercer! It is the firearm held by the one being "persuaded".
What does this mean?
I answer with the question, "Can armed people be coerced?" It is at least arguable that they cannot! The persuasion, especially when it gets into heavy arm-twisting, can certainly look like coercion; but for the armed, the question is always decided by a choice: go along, or resist. Just because we mostly choose to go along, it should not deceive us that that is the only choice; whereas for the disarmed, it is the only choice (and thus there is no choice at all). A state-employed thug, or a free-lance one, simply takes from an unarmed man anything he wants including life itself. To an armed man, he can only produce compliance using at worst a threat on one's life, accompanied by the risk of losing his own. Quite a different kettle of fish.
This calculus applies to all questions of compliance, but especially to the question of compliance with gun confiscation itself. One might say this is the meta-question of compliance. If one complies, then one by implication complies with all further demands no matter how extreme, because compliance with this one gives up the possibility of any future choice. It is saying, "Here is my gun. Now, what else do you want to do with me?"
We do not really trade our guns for our life, in a confiscation, any more than the Jews of Nazi Germany traded their guns for their lives. We do not really own our lives anyway, but only borrow them temporarily: we are mortal. The real trade here is guns for little more than a state-determined temporary extension of our lives on our knees - and the lives of our children and their descendents on their knees as well. Despite how repugnant, how low such a choice is, there is apparently no shortage of people willing to make it.
Thus our right, our freedom, does not depend on those people either. They are even more useless than the Constitution, the judges and the presidents in protecting it, because their lamentations of surrender only tend to sap the resolve of others. Our freedom depends on those few who understand the issue at its base; and knowing where the right comes from, step up and accept the duty. It is they who will make the meanies pay, who will refuse to take the easy choice of slavery, who will kill those who force the question of ultimate compliance on them, even at the expense of their own lives. The best end for a useful life is a useful death, and there is no more useful death than in the act of killing tyrants. A Remnant, a few real men and women is all it takes; "the rest are furniture".
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle459-20080309-04.html
Comments
Oh My God....is that what is out there on the net nowadays ???
Folks..time may well be getting short. This type of information was understood FULLY by generations past..today it is subversive. SO BE IT.
quote:Our freedom depends on those few who understand the issue at its base; and knowing where the right comes from, step up and accept the duty. It is they who will make the meanies pay, who will refuse to take the easy choice of slavery, who will kill those who force the question of ultimate compliance on them, even at the expense of their own lives. The best end for a useful life is a useful death, and there is no more useful death than in the act of killing tyrants. A Remnant, a few real men and women is all it takes; "the rest are furniture".
The 3% I speak of...the rest will ride upon our shoulders. And were the Beast to win..those types will willingly spend the rest of their miserable lives on their knees...
Old Ironsights..you bring good things to the table.
What's the True Source of our Right to Bear Arms?
by Paul Bonneau
1.paulbx1@dfgh.net
Attribute to: The Libertarian Enterprise
There are some odd posts being made on gun forums these days. For example, "its people like you that will hand the white house to a commi democrat, who will select the next supreme court justice member....and they will destroy the 2nd..." This, apparently an attempt to convince us to vote for McCain, that great protector of the 2nd Amendment. Here's another: "The jack booted feds will roll you (and me) up like an old carpet. If you think you can resist then you will join the ranks of the Branch Davidians and the martyrs of Ruby Ridge. All the good sheeple will fall in line or die." This is supposedly what will happen if Obama or Hillary gets elected.
There is a very strange notion implicit in these comments: that our rights derive from 9 old men and women on the Court. Thus if we get the wrong ones in there, we are doomed. Since the composition of the Court depends on who is President, this in turn implies that our rights really derive from the President.
This is even stranger than the notion that our right to bear arms comes from the 2nd Amendment itself.
Now, fully recognizing the somewhat linguistic question of whether rights exist at all, our right to bear arms depends on one thing, and one thing only: our willingness to kill anyone who attempts to confiscate them. Surely, that is not news? Yes of course, we write our congresscritters and join GOA and JPFO (and NRA if we are clueless), and write letters to the editor, and argue legal cases in court, and vote for "pro-gun" legislators, and so forth. But our right does not depend on any of these mechanisms, and they unfortunately tend to conceal the hard fact beneath everything: that our right to bear arms depends on our willingness to kill anyone who attempts to confiscate them. What these other mechanisms are good for, is putting off any day of reckoning - which is well worth doing to be sure (up to a point). But they cannot be the whole prop of our right.
Well, what about noncompliance?
Noncompliance is certainly an excellent tool. It's the old saying, "There's safety in numbers." The English have lost their guns because they could not be bothered even to refuse to comply with their law (not enough numbers there, I guess), while New Jerseyites and other Americans still have their "assault weapons" because they did refuse to comply. It's not the ideal situation, since "selective enforcement" is possible, but it is better than the alternative of being disarmed. Massive noncompliance has the additional attraction of making manifest the illegitimacy of government, and if there is anything they hate, it is that.
But in a noncompliant situation, what happens if you are caught? Then, you are back to brass tacks again, deciding whether you are willing to put up with 5 years of prison rape, or instead making the wife of the guy who caught you a widow (if he cannot be made to see reason). That's what is always at the bottom of this. Our right depends on something internal to ourselves, not upon others.
Again, the Presidency and the Court's composition does not matter to the right itself, but bears only on the day of reckoning. At this point the reader is advised to refer to Patrick Henry's famous speech. Is it better to put off that day, so that our children have to deal with it in worsened circumstances, than it is to deal with it ourselves? Who is best equipped to deal with it - those who have already lived their lives, or those in their prime with small children at home? These are questions that should be occurring to all of us.
This discussion brings up another interesting point. What, really, is the difference between persuasion and coercion? One could argue, the difference is a firearm - but not the one held by the persuader or would-be coercer! It is the firearm held by the one being "persuaded".
What does this mean?
I answer with the question, "Can armed people be coerced?" It is at least arguable that they cannot! The persuasion, especially when it gets into heavy arm-twisting, can certainly look like coercion; but for the armed, the question is always decided by a choice: go along, or resist. Just because we mostly choose to go along, it should not deceive us that that is the only choice; whereas for the disarmed, it is the only choice (and thus there is no choice at all). A state-employed thug, or a free-lance one, simply takes from an unarmed man anything he wants including life itself. To an armed man, he can only produce compliance using at worst a threat on one's life, accompanied by the risk of losing his own. Quite a different kettle of fish.
This calculus applies to all questions of compliance, but especially to the question of compliance with gun confiscation itself. One might say this is the meta-question of compliance. If one complies, then one by implication complies with all further demands no matter how extreme, because compliance with this one gives up the possibility of any future choice. It is saying, "Here is my gun. Now, what else do you want to do with me?"
We do not really trade our guns for our life, in a confiscation, any more than the Jews of Nazi Germany traded their guns for their lives. We do not really own our lives anyway, but only borrow them temporarily: we are mortal. The real trade here is guns for little more than a state-determined temporary extension of our lives on our knees - and the lives of our children and their descendents on their knees as well. Despite how repugnant, how low such a choice is, there is apparently no shortage of people willing to make it.
Thus our right, our freedom, does not depend on those people either. They are even more useless than the Constitution, the judges and the presidents in protecting it, because their lamentations of surrender only tend to sap the resolve of others. Our freedom depends on those few who understand the issue at its base; and knowing where the right comes from, step up and accept the duty. It is they who will make the meanies pay, who will refuse to take the easy choice of slavery, who will kill those who force the question of ultimate compliance on them, even at the expense of their own lives. The best end for a useful life is a useful death, and there is no more useful death than in the act of killing tyrants. A Remnant, a few real men and women is all it takes; "the rest are furniture".
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle459-20080309-04.html
We gun people do not live on an island that is isolated and alone and populated only by us. If we did, then we could all enjoy our 2nd admendment rights, our "God given" rights, or our natural right of self defense (call it whatever you wish) without restrictions and our lifestyle would not bump into other citizens and citizen groups who disagreed with us. But we live in a huge country along with millions of other citizens. And since we gun people are not in the majority, nor do we own or have total control of this country, we have no choice but to take into account the legitimate and sincere objection some of our fellow citizens might have to our own desire to possess firearms.(note: I have no feeling of fellowship and attempt at understanding or working with the anti-gun extremeists. I am referring to the reasonably fair, moderate and honest people who have some disagreement about unrestricted gun ownership and use.)
In addition it is just being a good fellow citizen and human being to make a reasonable attempt to pay at least some attention to your fellow citizens when they politely and sincerely tell you that guns and gun ownership frighten them and they fear for their own safety and that of their families. and they wish to, not take away your guns, but to at least work with you to find ways to remove much of their fear using various laws, restrictionss, etc.
All the above means we can never expect to not have some gun laws hanging over our heads. In my opinion, once we accept that, if it is true, then the best we can hope for is to have as few and as tolerant gun laws as possible hanging over our head. I believe the NRA feels the same way.
In red above. The writer, as so many people do, cannot help but throw a criticism at the NRA. But look at what two groups he names but does not critizice. Two small, relativity new groups (GOA and JFPFO) with very limited membership compared to the NRA. And along with llimited membership comes limited finances, media attention, power, clout and political persuesion. For several years right here on GB.com the anti-NRA drums have been beating louder and louder. Yet during those years I have personally observed this drum beating, the NRA hasn't gotten visibly weaker and GOA and JFPFO hasn't gotten visibly bigger, strong or more powerful. So for anyone who is politically savy enough to know that in order to keep our guns, we absoutely must have an effective national gun rights organization, then the only one out there is the NRA. So instead of always hoping for the demise of the NRA, or instead of offering constant criticism of the NRA and thereby making it harder for the NRA to get new members and grow even stronger, maybe we should instead work towards improving what we have. Seeing as how it appears that no other national organization is going to magically appear to give us anyother choice.
Also, in red above. It tells me a lot about the author when he will criticize the NRA but he fails to criticize the GREAT MAJORITY of gun owners who do absoutely nothing but sit on their butts, enjoy their guns, buy and sell their guns, but spend absoutely no time, money or effort in trying to save our gun rights.
PS: for those gun owners here who believe that they have a right to totally and absoutely unrestricted gun rights and are willling (even anxious for some) to go to civil war and if necessary kill anyone who disagrees, you can feel free to totally reject what I have written and you will find I totally understand why.
quote:We book people do not live on an island that is isolated and alone and populated only by us. If we did, then we could all enjoy our 1st Amendment Rights, our "God given" rights, or our natural right of free expression (call it whatever you wish) without restrictions and our lifestyle would not bump into other citizens and citizen groups who disagreed with us. But we live in a huge country along with millions of other citizens. And since we book people are not in the majority, nor do we own or have total control of this country, we have no choice but to take into account the legitimate and sincere objection some of our fellow citizens might have to our own desire to possess firearms.(note: I have no feeling of fellowship and attempt at understanding or working with the anti-book extremists. I am referring to the reasonably fair, moderate and honest people who have some disagreement about unrestricted book ownership and use.)
In addition it is just being a good fellow citizen and human being to make a reasonable attempt to pay at least some attention to your fellow citizens when they politely and sincerely tell you that books and book ownership frighten them and they fear for their own safety and that of their families. and they wish to, not take away your books, but to at least work with you to find ways to remove much of their fear using various laws, restrictions, etc.
All the above means we can never expect to not have some book laws hanging over our heads. In my opinion, once we accept that, if it is true, then the best we can hope for is to have as few and as tolerant book laws as possible hanging over our head. I believe the NRA feels the same way.
Damn the 1st Amendment. No one should have access to "dangerous" books like, say, "The Federalist Papers", or "Common Sense". Why, they may get radical Revolutionary Ideas! [}:)]
Sorry. I don't give a rat's * whether or not someone feels uneasy about ANY action that I take or thing that I possess that does not directly impact them. They need to grow up.
I they don't "take into consideration" any of my prejudices, so why should I "take into consideration" any of their prejudices?
THeir fear is irrational because it is based upon an irrationality - that a thing can do them damage without an evil person controlling it. The gun in my pocket does not hurt them, and never will. I will only point that gun at them if they are trying to hurt me. Maybe THAT is what makes them uneasy. They want the unfettered "right" to be able to hurt me without my being able to respond.
That's how things were run in the dark ages. It's now called a Thugocracy - where the Biggest and Strongest, or Largest Group can impose their will, no matter how reprehensible or bizzare, on the smaller/weaker group.
Maybe you should read a little bit about the Psychological term known as "projection" - wherein someone declares fear/hatred of somthing/someone because that thing represents a barely suppressed aspect of themselves.
I've actually had Anti-Gun types declare that outright, saying "That's why no one should have guns, because if I had one I would have (illigitamately, in a fit of rage) shox X."
It shows that Gun Banners are not in control of their own emotions and do not believe that anyone else can be either.
That is clinically disturbed. I do not accept the opinions of disturbed people.
You may want to read this article:
Raging Against Self Defense:
A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
http://www.vcdl.org/new/raging.htm
and this book: "The Liberal Mind"
"Modern liberalism's irrationality can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche." "The Liberal Mind" reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world's political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty."
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=20&ITEM_ID=2285
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494
Which, may I ask, do you prefer ?
The sincere, earnest decent method of shooting your arguments into a scrap heap.or the direct, brutal way I do it ?
Either way ..you .and the NRA ..can gain no headway against those that actually support the Constitution.
The mere fact that the NRA still has 4 million members if more of an indictment of those individuals then anything else.they just cannot understand, or refuse to understand the Second.
So, Tr;
The mere fact that the NRA still has 4 million members if more of an indictment of those individuals then anything else.they just cannot understand, or refuse to understand the Second.
Aint that the truth. NRA member often sight their numbers to validate the NRA.
Half the voters in this country are registered democrats, the other half are registered Republicans-and neither party is right. I certainly would not use the number of registered members in the party to validate their philosophy, and I sure as hell wouldnt use the NRAs numbers to validate theirs.
With one simple change I can prove how absurd your position on this is.
quote:We book people do not live on an island that is isolated and alone and populated only by us. If we did, then we could all enjoy our 1st Amendment Rights, our "God given" rights, or our natural right of free expression (call it whatever you wish) without restrictions and our lifestyle would not bump into other citizens and citizen groups who disagreed with us. But we live in a huge country along with millions of other citizens. And since we book people are not in the majority, nor do we own or have total control of this country, we have no choice but to take into account the legitimate and sincere objection some of our fellow citizens might have to our own desire to possess firearms.(note: I have no feeling of fellowship and attempt at understanding or working with the anti-book extremists. I am referring to the reasonably fair, moderate and honest people who have some disagreement about unrestricted book ownership and use.)
In addition it is just being a good fellow citizen and human being to make a reasonable attempt to pay at least some attention to your fellow citizens when they politely and sincerely tell you that books and book ownership frighten them and they fear for their own safety and that of their families. and they wish to, not take away your books, but to at least work with you to find ways to remove much of their fear using various laws, restrictions, etc.
All the above means we can never expect to not have some book laws hanging over our heads. In my opinion, once we accept that, if it is true, then the best we can hope for is to have as few and as tolerant book laws as possible hanging over our head. I believe the NRA feels the same way.
Damn the 1st Amendment. No one should have access to "dangerous" books like, say, "The Federalist Papers", or "Common Sense". Why, they may get radical Revolutionary Ideas! [}:)]
Sorry. I don't give a rat's * whether or not someone feels uneasy about ANY action that I take or thing that I possess that does not directly impact them. They need to grow up.
I they don't "take into consideration" any of my prejudices, so why should I "take into consideration" any of their prejudices?
THeir fear is irrational because it is based upon an irrationality - that a thing can do them damage without an evil person controlling it. The gun in my pocket does not hurt them, and never will. I will only point that gun at them if they are trying to hurt me. Maybe THAT is what makes them uneasy. They want the unfettered "right" to be able to hurt me without my being able to respond.
That's how things were run in the dark ages. It's now called a Thugocracy - where the Biggest and Strongest, or Largest Group can impose their will, no matter how reprehensible or bizzare, on the smaller/weaker group.
Maybe you should read a little bit about the Psychological term known as "projection" - wherein someone declares fear/hatred of somthing/someone because that thing represents a barely suppressed aspect of themselves.
I've actually had Anti-Gun types declare that outright, saying "That's why no one should have guns, because if I had one I would have (illigitamately, in a fit of rage) shox X."
It shows that Gun Banners are not in control of their own emotions and do not believe that anyone else can be either.
That is clinically disturbed. I do not accept the opinions of disturbed people.
You may want to read this article:
Raging Against Self Defense:
A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
http://www.vcdl.org/new/raging.htm
and this book: "The Liberal Mind"
"Modern liberalism's irrationality can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche." "The Liberal Mind" reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world's political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty."
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=20&ITEM_ID=2285
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494
With all the guns I and my daughter own, with all the people I try to introduce to shooting, with my daughter and I both having a CCW and always trying to encourage others to get one and you act like I am anti-gun just because I am willing to acknowledge that we cannot avoid some reasonable and enforceable rules that my fellow citizens who truely are anti-gun want?
Even if you are offended by my position, you have to admit you haven't done much about it except rant against me. Look around you. You already have gun control rules. Who you gonna blame for that? Me? If you think I have the power to control gun laws then you are out of touch with reality.
So, Tr;
Which, may I ask, do you prefer ?
The sincere, earnest decent method of shooting your arguments into a scrap heap.or the direct, brutal way I do it ?
Either way ..you .and the NRA ..can gain no headway against those that actually support the Constitution.
The mere fact that the NRA still has 4 million members if more of an indictment of those individuals then anything else.they just cannot understand, or refuse to understand the Second.
You offer only the weight and value of your words compared to the weight and value of nearly 4 million dues paying NRA members? You need to get some new scales for doing your comparsions.
Words of sanity amongst the rantings of those not so sane.
At least I am not the only one who participates here who thinks along the same lines. I attend every gun show I can, near and far. Talk to a lot of gun entusiasts every week. Yours is the attitude I normaly see. The extremeist out there are actually a threat to the cause. That logic would give a recently released convicted multiple murder the legal right to buy a full auto M 16. This is where no restrictions gets you!
Can't you see people that belong to your "club", can see what is WRONG with the NRA's stance on second amendment rights?
People don't poke you because you OWN guns/have a CCW. People POKE you because the rights we have, you don't fully understand/agree with them. You go along WITH gun control, instead of pointing it out for WHAT it IS. You CHEER your CCW that you now have, INSTEAD of reconizing your rights existed BEFORE the government turned your RIGHT into a revocable PRIVILAGE.
Freedom of speech is aggravating as hell especially when arguments are made out of fear and ignorance, but this freedom also means I don't have to listen, and at least they are INDEED Free to be ignorant.
One of my biggest issues with gun control folks is that their arguments are all academic, not real world, and before making these arguments they ought to be willing to understand what they are arguing against. A friend of mine (one of the ignorant) and I argued for a few hours and it finally ended with an invitation to the range to go and shoot. Unwilling to consider the other side of the argument he did not take me up on it. I told him that a wise man is able to change his mind, and a fool never will. Eventually I talked him into going shooting for the first time. I started him out with a ruger 10/22 then moved up to a wee little AR-15, with 30 rounds, and finally finished off the day with a 30-30 and a sig p239. A few months later He made me go with him to pick up his bran new AR. Point is he was one of the few who was willing to see both sides of the argument before finally picking the right one...
That logic would give a recently released convicted multiple murder the legal right to buy a full auto M 16. This is where no restrictions gets you!
Ohhh boy.
And this is a perfect illustration of screwed up logic. Restrict firearms, because the wrong people might get them. Did you ever consider, using the above scenario you provided, that a "convicted multiple murder", should NEVER be a RECENTLY RELEASED multiple murderer?
So using your logic, because of the piss poor penal system, it is OK for the government to stick its nose where the constitution prohibits it from doing so, because the government isnt doing a good job in those areas that it is SUPPOSED to be involved with.
Instead of demanding government regulation and intervention when it comes to restricting guns, you should be demanding the government do its job, and keep convicted murderers from getting released.
Of course the dirtbag should not be released. Sadly it happens every day. I think we probably agree that it is the responsiblilty of every honest law abiding citizen to stop such a released criminial from doing further damage by whatever force is necessary. Prime exeample of why the 2nd ammendment is needed. The fools keep releasing the bad guys.
The proper response to releasing violent criminals is to DEMAND an end to it...NOT restrict yours and my Rights.
Lacking any semblance of sanity from the authorities, we the decent citizen OUGHT to have the freedom to protect ourselves and loved ones from harm.
A gun in the hands of a decent citizen is no threat at all.and the ones intending to harm others need to be put down.right there.