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.

No middle Road......

HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Given that statement, and thinking about what brought it on.a long and bloody war with a King determined to keep a people in bondage;

Which person of the two below is an extremist, radical, dangerous threat to the preservation of freedom;

Joe;
He believes that government has and SHOULD have the power to register, restrict, limit and control the individual use of and buying of weapons;


Sam;
He believes that Joe ..and the government are totally overstepping their boundaries under the Constitution ..and even more so, interfering in the process that the Founders instituted to keep government in check.

Comments

  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Looks like Joe is guilty on all counts.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    [:D][:D][:D]

    An excellent yet delightfully simple illustration that stabs to death any realistic refutation and/or support of government infringement of the RTKBA......Brought to you by Sir Highball, "Freedoms Old War Horse".[;)][^]
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,597 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
  • remingtonoaksremingtonoaks Member Posts: 27,192
    edited November -1
    joe, lets shot him
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Remington;
    Welcome aboard, Sir..that simple question separates the men from the boys...I think.
  • Horse Plains DrifterHorse Plains Drifter Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 37,974 ***** Forums Admin
    edited November -1
    Joe is a terrorist.
  • Lucky_LeftyLucky_Lefty Member Posts: 7,971
    edited November -1
  • dan kellydan kelly Member Posts: 9,799
    edited November -1
    sam believes that your constitution and ALL its ammendements should be held as being law!!
    if joe thinks that the constitution is meant to mean otherwise he is entitled to his views...i wonder what he would think if the ammendement relating to free speach was interpreted by a judge or a politician to mean that if you the u.s. citizen dont agree with what your political leaders say then the ones who disagree will be sent to prison...
    you either support your constitution and all its amendements as written or you dont, noone should be allowed to pick and choose.
    your constitution and its protections guaranteeing your certain rights has made you the envy of the world!
    and yes, it would be worth fighting for.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Lots of reads...few replies.

    Ugly thing..the tables being turned on gun controllers, isn't it ? At least for them.
    They delight in calling ugly names those of us actually supporting the Constitution...and the brutal truth is...THEY are all the things they call us.

    Go figure.
  • triple223taptriple223tap Member Posts: 385 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Say there Highball, how do you like this one - ?

    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Does the governemnt abridge your speach when it is illegal to advocate violent overthrow of the government?

    - or when it is unlawful to shout "fire" in a crowded theater?

    - or when you can be prosected for slander?

    - how about jailing a reporter for publishing the truth?

    What say you, Highball, do you support the literal reading of Amendment 1 or not?

    And how about this - ?

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    How do you feel about the so-called Patriot Act?

    Okay with you if Bush searches without warrants?

    And then there's this too -

    Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense

    Gonna try those Gitmo accused with no right to questions witnesses? No jury?

    And while we're at it, what about those inalienable tights - life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.

    Okay with you if the G'mint deprives people of all three of those?
  • triple223taptriple223tap Member Posts: 385 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Isn't it about time for you to "stand up", Highball?

    "Stand up" my *.

    You don't know what that means.

    LMFAO!!!!
  • nyforesternyforester Member Posts: 2,575 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I believe we all agree - Joe must be burned at the stake !
    In a true "FREE STATE", Joe would not exist. The fact is, our rights as once known and lived have been metamorpasized into some hybred politically correct version to make all sexes, color, creed and age equal so no people are offened. Horse Crap !!! Socialism here we come.
    Abort Cuomo
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by triple223tap
    Say there Highball, how do you like this one - ?

    Well, triple, Highball is absent right now, but what the hell, I'll bite.[:o)]

    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Does the governemnt abridge your speach when it is illegal to advocate violent overthrow of the government?

    Yep

    - or when it is unlawful to shout "fire" in a crowded theater?

    Yep

    - or when you can be prosected for slander?


    Well, truth is an absolute defense to slander, so if you mean some other connotation then yep.

    - how about jailing a reporter for publishing the truth?

    Yep

    What say you, Highball, do you support the literal reading of Amendment 1 or not?

    I do, you don't. What is the mystery?

    And how about this - ?

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    How do you feel about the so-called Patriot Act?

    Unconstitutional, treasonous and tyrannical.

    Okay with you if Bush searches without warrants?

    Nope. See above description.

    And then there's this too -

    Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense

    Gonna try those Gitmo accused with no right to questions witnesses? No jury?

    Nope. Doesn't fit my Constitution.

    And while we're at it, what about those inalienable tights - life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.

    If you mean the "Unalienable Rights" from the Declaration of Independence, what about them?

    They all still apply as concepts and absolutes, which government is to keep its damn dirty hands off of.

    These Unalienable Rights also include the RTKBA, but you don't believe that this is "unalienable", now do you triple?

    Okay with you if the G'mint deprives people of all three of those?

    Nope

    That was kind of fun triple, can we play some more? [;)][:o)]
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Lord 'Amighty !!!

    Captain...you never said a bad word...you never slung an insult...YET that other feller better not even nod his head...for it will fall plumb OFF !!!

    Cut to the BONE...!!!! [:D][:D]

    Nothing to add..nothing to take away..sure wish I had that smooth delivery !!!!

    WHOOPS !!! Just one 'hell'..which is what that creature finds himself in every time he shows up here to promote his big government 'stickt'...
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Time to brush up on the law, dude:

    quote:Does the governemnt abridge your speach when it is illegal to advocate violent overthrow of the government?


    It is not illegal to advocate violent overthrow of an unconstitutional gov't. The gov't acts with no authority if it does.

    quote:- or when it is unlawful to shout "fire" in a crowded theater?


    It is not criminal to shout Fire in a crowded theater. If, however, your doing so kills someone, it's your rear end, and you will be nailed to the wall for it.

    If, on the other hand, you don't yell fire in a crowded theater, and it is on fire, what do you think will happen then???

    quote:- or when you can be prosected for slander?


    This is a civil issue, not a criminal one.

    quote:how about jailing a reporter for publishing the truth?


    Depends. If he violated your 4th Amendment rights to do it, then I would say he can have his * sued for it. Is it criminal?? No.

    quote:What say you, Highball, do you support the literal reading of Amendment 1 or not?


    I'm not Highball, but yes I do support a literal reading of it.

    quote:How do you feel about the so-called Patriot Act?


    I'd rather deal with the trifles surrounding too much liberty than not enough of it.

    The Patriot Act is wrong on its face. End of story.

    quote:Okay with you if Bush searches without warrants?


    No it isn't.

    quote:Gonna try those Gitmo accused with no right to questions witnesses? No jury?


    They aren't citizens, so personally, I don't give a damn. He starts doing this to US Citizens, I'd say raise hell about it.

    quote:And while we're at it, what about those inalienable tights - life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.


    You meant "rights", I believe. I'm not sure what you want to know about these particular rights, but what I'm going to say about it is that without these things, America is dead.

    quote:Okay with you if the G'mint deprives people of all three of those?


    No.

    What was the point of all these questions???
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Clearly, when truth is spoken, it reveals that we are surrounded by madmen.

    The Founders mean nothing to them, freedom means nothing to them..

    I wonder what goes thru their minds as the last agonized scream of Braveheart rings out in the land..FREEDOM.does it send a chill down their spine ?
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    Well highball, due tot he fact that it sends a chill up my spine, I would have to assume that for those who care nothing about it, it goes in one ear and out the other to be forgotten in moments.
  • Old IronsightsOld Ironsights Member Posts: 93 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by triple223tap
    Say there Highball, how do you like this one - ?

    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Does the governemnt abridge your speach when it is illegal to advocate violent overthrow of the government?

    - or when it is unlawful to shout "fire" in a crowded theater?

    - or when you can be prosected for slander?

    - how about jailing a reporter for publishing the truth?

    What say you, Highball, do you support the literal reading of Amendment 1 or not?

    Gee Tap, I dunno... are you saying that we should rip out the vocal cords and smash the fingers of people who are convicted of doing the things you list?

    We don't take away or restrict an individual's MEANS or ABILITY to use his R2FS for ANY reason - no matter what they have done or said.

    Why do people think the RKBA should be held to adifferent standard?

    When we start burning out the tongues of people for committing Slander or "yelling Fire! in a crowded theater", then and only then will the analogy be apropos.

    quote:And how about this - ?

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    How do you feel about the so-called Patriot Act?

    Okay with you if Bush searches without warrants?

    Absolutely not.

    quote: And then there's this too -

    Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense

    Gonna try those Gitmo accused with no right to questions witnesses? No jury?

    That's the problem with believing Prisoners of War are "criminals"... they ain't.

    quote:And while we're at it, what about those inalienable tights - life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.

    Okay with you if the G'mint deprives people of all three of those?

    Life: You must be referring to Incarcerated Execution. I am opposed to it. Execution is only legitimate at the hands of the intended victim at the scene of the intended crime. It's called Self Defense, and for that The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED.

    Liberty: Again - Government Warehousing of criminals: I oppose it. It is a drain on the economy and a training ground for crime. Crime is best handled by a vigerous Self Defense - or, in the case of Fiduciary (white collar) Crime, absolute personal liability for restitution.

    Persuit of Happiness: Only the Persuit is a Right. Nothing more.
  • Aaron.Combs1Aaron.Combs1 Member Posts: 217 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    sam believes that your constitution and ALL its ammendements should be held as being law!!


    word to the wise... the law is... shall we say aginst the law
Sign In or Register to comment.