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.
Options
Gun Rights: Where do you stand?
Rack Ops
Member Posts: 18,597 ✭✭✭
I sometimes wonder where my fellow gun owners stand on these issues. Note: I'm not looking to start a debate on the merits of these issues, I just want to know where everyone stands. BTW, if for example you don't think .50 cal rifles should be banned, but SHOULD be registered and/or taxed, then say so....You don't have to explain why you feel a certain way about an issue but if you want to, feel free. Here's a list of major issues for me:
1) The "Assault Weapons" Ban
2) Gun Registration
3) Conceal Carry Laws
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time
5) Machine Gun Laws
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.)
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect)
8) .50 cal ban
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows
If I forgot to mention a major issue, go ahead and add it to the list. I look forward to the responses
Molon Labe
1) The "Assault Weapons" Ban
2) Gun Registration
3) Conceal Carry Laws
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time
5) Machine Gun Laws
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.)
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect)
8) .50 cal ban
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows
If I forgot to mention a major issue, go ahead and add it to the list. I look forward to the responses
Molon Labe
Comments
1) 100% against the ban. Leave my AR alone!
2) Against gun registration. I'm sure my name is already on a "gun owners" list somewhere, but some people aren't
3) I love Vermont's style of conceal carry. I feel that any honest, law-abiding citizen should be allowed to carry. If a crime is committed with the gun, they should be harshly punished. Once again, with CCWs I don't like the idea of putting my name on a list.
4) If I can legally buy a gun, then why should there be a limit on what I can purchase?
5) This one is a little trickier for me. I think owning one should be legal, but there should be an EXTENSIVE background check, and quite a few hoops to jump through to get one. These should be registered, if for no other reason to keep people who couldn't pass the background check, or couldn't jump through the hoops from simply making their own.
6) Another tricky one for me. I think if a felon has their voting rights restored, the right to own a gun should come with it.
7) Personally, I'd like to own a short barrelled gun (something like a Tommy Gun with a 10 in barrel). I don't really see or have a need for a silencer, but people should be allowed to have them if they want.
8) Against the .50 cal ban
9) I'm not against the idea of background checks, if a system is put in place that makes it quick and easy for the seller to perform.
Molon Labe
A. I'm again it.
2) Gun Registration
A. I'm again it.
3) Conceal Carry Laws
A. They are unconstitutional in forty-eight of the fifty states. Vermont and to a lesser degree Alaska have it about right. I do have two CCW permits/licenses though, because at this point in my life I don't care to go to war with city hall. A requirement to have a CCW permit/license is in itself an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms.
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time
A. I'm again it.
5) Machine Gun Laws
A. I'm again it.
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.)
A. I don't have a problem with a felon loosing his rights via due process of law. Felony wife-beating would be included.
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect)
A. I'd rather comply with the United States Constitution.
8) .50 cal ban
A. I'm again it.
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows
A. I'd rather comply with the United States Constitution.
2) Gun Registration = Absolutely not!
3) Conceal Carry Laws = There should be no law allowing it or not allowing, it should be considered part of our natural 2nd ammendment guaranteed right. The 2nd ammendment does not give us a right, we already have the right, the 2nd ammendment just spells out that our constitution recognizes and confirms it.
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time = This is a free market capitalist system in the U.S., you should be able to buy as many guns as you can afford, whenever you want to.
5) Machine Gun Laws = Same answer as above, you should be able to buy whatever you want. Behavior is what you should be judged by, not what you own.
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.) = Convicted felons lose their rights. Wife beaters should only lose their rights if they are convicted felons.
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect) = Again, you should be able to own whatever you want.
8) .50 cal ban = NO BANS
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows = All gun sellers should do a back ground check to make sure felons and mental patients are weeded out.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms...
Wherein do you find the government power to prevent a "Felon" from getting his gun back..?
Background checks ?
Felons, people..notice how there are more and more acts that are felonies every day ? Get the drift...? Or do I have to spell it out to you ?
Those people that cannot be trusted with a gun..either get smart and leave guns alone...or they get very dead at the hands of a citizen that IS responsible...
Folks don't seem to really fuss much about good people getting killed EVERY DAY by violent criminals.....what in hell is so disturbing about allowing good ciizens the ability to even the odds a bit...?
That about covers it.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Well, the gun control people speak out...and they is us !!!
The right of the people to keep and bear arms...
Wherein do you find the government power to prevent a "Felon" from getting his gun back..?
Background checks ?
Felons, people..notice how there are more and more acts that are felonies every day ? Get the drift...? Or do I have to spell it out to you ?
Those people that cannot be trusted with a gun..either get smart and leave guns alone...or they get very dead at the hands of a citizen that IS responsible...
Folks don't seem to really fuss much about good people getting killed EVERY DAY by violent criminals.....what in hell is so disturbing about allowing good ciizens the ability to even the odds a bit...?
Gotta go with Highball
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.
2) Nope.
3) Yes. I think the federal government should provide a FREE 8 hour handgun safety and marksmanship course to anyone 18 and over. This would earn them a FEDERAL CCW good in all states, good for a lifetime, no renewal required. Most folks like to disregard the first part, "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State". Well-regulated means trained and prepared. I don't see how a national CCW training program would be infrigement at all, in fact I see it as an enhancement. Anyone caught carrying without a CCW should merely be ordered to take this course.
4) No, heh, though might help my bank account [:)]
5) I think one-man machine guns are OK, but I think squad weapons should be regulated.
6) Yes. I agree that violent felons shouldn't be released at all, but I am also a realist, therefore I don't think they should be able to own firearms if they ARE released. And yes, this means I don't mind the current system of instant background checks to confirm that I AM A CITIZEN and I AM NOT A FELON. These checks are then destroyed and not kept on record, and no gun ownership information is recorded. Works for me.
7) I dunno, too vague. I would have to see a specific law and evidence that it would actually prove some sort of benefit. In general, I say NO.
8) No.
9) I would like some way to avoid sales to Illegal Aliens and Felons, so I guess I don't mind the transfer agent concept at the gun show. Both parties walk over to an instant-check table and make the transfer. Takes 20 minutes. So I guess that is a YES!
Of course, I'm sure the "gentlemanly" members of this forum will scream that I am a LIBERAL and accuse me of infiltrating from another forum.
[8D]
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
As for the questions at hand... I'm with Highball. I used to think it might be ok for background checks, but I've reached the conclusion that all this would do is create a list of gun owners like they had in England or Australia. No more laws. Violent criminals don't get released from prison unless it is safe for them to own a gun and live in a free country.
" Those who give up a little freedom for temporary security, deserve neither freedom nor security "
- Benjamin Franklin
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
All of my answers are perfectly justifiable under the U.S. Constitution...
...and I didn't see you answer the questions, Salzo.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
All of my answers are perfectly justifiable under the U.S. Constitution...
Horse poop. Lots of horse poop so rather than ask you point by ridiculous point to explain how your positions are "constitutional" Ill just ask you to explain one- Explain where in the constitution the federal government has the authority to mandate safety courses, or even provide safety courses, and where in the consttution does the federal government get the authority to offer concealed carry licenses?????
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
I asked at the begining of the thread that it not turn into a debate. We have done that before, and we'll do it again later. All I want is to know where people stand, and if possible I'd like to know why.
For example, I have a feeling that there is at least someone on this board who agrees with a .50 cal ban, or the Brady Bill. I want them to be able to say WHY without being blasted from all sides. We can't even get past CCW courses without slamming each other....perhaps we are our own worst enemies [:(!]
Molon Labe
As I said, I interpret "well-regulated" to mean trained and prepared. Therefore, I read this statement as saying that the Feds have the ability to regulate the Milita (the armed citizenry), as long as those regulations do not infrige upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
I do not see anything regarding the infringment of the concealment of arms. I do not see anything that prohibits the training and preparation of the armed citizenry, in fact I see a mandate to promote that.
There you go.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
I will cease and desist.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
"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."
As I said, I interpret "well-regulated" to mean trained and prepared. Therefore, I read this statement as saying that the Feds have the ability to regulate the Milita (the armed citizenry), as long as those regulations do not infrige upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
I do not see anything regarding the infringment of the concealment of arms. I do not see anything that prohibits the training and preparation of the armed citizenry, in fact I see a mandate to promote that.
Peeee-uuuu. Your reading comprehension, and knowledge of history stinks.
psssst-let me let ya in on a little secret-the second amendment does not say what we can do. It certainly does not say what the governmnt can do. The second amenmdnet says what the government CAN NOT do.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
One, out of Alaska, has stated that in the event of a gun ban...he would turn in his own mother if she tried to keep a gun...... This was stated on the forum, a couple years ago...
Mostly those here on this forum are intelligent enough to realize gun control equals people control equals tyranny....They care enough to read,study,and educate themselves...rare birds, indeed.
Hard question to answer, since this is a dreamed up word, with little relevance. Since I know what the feebleminded think one is, absolutely not. Violation of the 2nd Amendment.
quote:2) Gun Registration
Absolutely not. Violation of the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments.
quote:3) Conceal Carry Laws
To attempt to regulate or deny is a violation of the 2nd and 4th Amendments.
quote:4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period of time
Nobody has the right to tell me what I can or cannot buy... period.
quote:5) Machine Gun Laws
These are gross violations of the 2nd Amendment.
quote:6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.)
A true malum in se felon should lose more than his right to own firearms... he should lose either his freedom, or in extreme circumstances, and beyond a shadow of a doubt, his life. All other crimes should not be classified felonies, and most should not be classified as crimes, period.
quote:7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect)
Silencers are support equipment, just the same as magazines and ammunition are, and regulation of support equipment is a violation of the 2nd and 9th Amendments. SBR's, Short barrel shotguns, and destructive devices are all militia weapons, and any regulation or restriction of them are violations of the 2nd Amendment.
quote:8) .50 cal ban
Absolutely not. Violation of the 2nd Amendment.
quote:9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales at gun shows
No license should be required to do business, period, as such violates the spirit of a free enterprise society. Background checks Violate the 4th Amendment right to privacy, as well as the 5th Amendment right against self incrimination. Though these are excepted as commonplace procedures, they only exist because we conceded to them in the first place. We clearly have admitted we don't have this right.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
No, none of those listed are assault weapons anyway!
2) Gun Registration
Never!
3) Conceal Carry Laws
All should be like Vermont!
4) Limits on the amount of guns you can purchase within a set period
of time
What idiot thought up this one? No.
5) Machine Gun Laws
If an American soldier can have it, so should everyone else.
6) Restrictions on ownership (felons, wife-beaters, ect.)
This is the one that gets a bit tricky. What kind of felonies?
There are a lot felony laws on the books now that I wouldn't consider should be more than a misdemeanor. some I wouldn't even consider a crime at all. If the person used a gun in a real criminal activity like armed robbery or a murder, then Yes. However, depending on the felony, if a person has done their time and been a law abiding productive citizen for say five or more years, then I believe that person should at least be able to defend his home and family just like everyone else.
7) Misc Laws (silencers, short barrel rifles, ect)
Another idiot idea, like these are going to make any real difference. My answer is No.
8) .50 cal ban
No.
9) The Gun Show "Loophole" ie: No background checks for private sales
at gun shows
No.
quote:quote:
1) The "Assault Weapons" Ban
Hard question to answer, since this is a dreamed up word, with little relevance. Since I know what the feebleminded think one is, absolutely not. Violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Yes, they should be banned, simply because the selector switch doesn't go far enough back [:D]
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
I also believe that Thomas Jefferson would be spinning in his grave with the current system that we have. I also believe that Mr. Jefferson and the rest did not anticipate the pieces of crap that we have to deal with in our society. If T.J. had, he would have added a common sense clause about not letting bababooeybags having firearms and also giving law abiding citizens exemptions for shooting the above mentioned P.S.O. But that didn't happen.
I believe (with the current technology) that a background check can be done fast enough for the law abiding person. We are ALWAYS going to have someone slip through the cracks and when that happens let us handle that in the way that is fit. Once we cut the bleeding heart lawyers out of the f*%$ing equation, bababooey will fall back in line.
Let the PEOPLE run the government and NOT THE LAWYERS!!!!!!
The human condititon was NOT CONCEALED from those wise men...the Founders.They knew EXACTLY what man was capable of,in the way of evil...they also knew that other men were more capable of deciding on the spot what actions were neccessary and justified then some corrupt entity 500 miles away...
Background checks would be no more welcome today to these men then they were 200 odd years ago.Just because "Technology" makes something "easier and fast" doesn't change the fact that some breaurat now gets to decide your fate as a citizen. See...the difference between a citizen....and a SLAVE...is the RIGHT TO OWN FIREARMS...WITHOUT governmental interference !!
The Founders UNDERSTOOD this...too damn bad today, in the land of soft living...more then about 3 % of the people cannot seem to understand this fact.
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
I'm SO glad that YOU have the insight to what the founding father where thinking and able to predict over 220 years ago. Most of us don't have that ability, You are TRULY blessed![;)][:D][:D]
I'll agree that Jefferson and the rest had knowledge of the hearts of man but not to the extent of what we live through today. I don't think they predicted computers, drive by shootings on a daily basis, serial killers increasing yearly, prisons overflowing to the point that they let dangerous criminals loose to make room for embezzlers, (insert any other atrosity here). I on the other hand, as a law enforcement officer, DO understand what is in the hearts of man in the day and age and I DO know what they are capable of. I have seen it first hand. I've rolled in the dirt with the "fine, upstanding" individuals.
I have read Jefferson's writings very extensively and I believe, if he were here today, he would have the intelligence to adapt and would be in favor of instant background checks and probably even 3 day cooling off periods. Do I believe he would agree with limiting the number a firearms one can purchase or what type of firearms or ammunition one can buy ( i.e. fully automatic weapons, .50 cal, "armor piercing", Hi capacity mags)??--- NO!!! I believe he put the 2nd amendment in to give "teeth" to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I do believe he would want us to have "shark teeth" if it came time for us to fight for our rights. I also agree in this.
I know criminals are going to get guns anyway they can but I don't want them to be able to buy them over the counter! Let's at least shut off THAT avenue!
I don't know where you live but where I live I can go in to a store, pick out what kind of weapon I want, give the dealer my CWP and while I am filling out the forms he makes a call. I walk out in about 15 minutes unless I want to BS with him for awhile. I can be shooting that morning. If you can't do that get busy and get your friends together and make it so. If you need help doing so there is plenty of peolple here that would be willing to help (or at least they so there are ready).
Take your guns and kids for a hike and have a GREAT day shooting!
Just MY humble opinion.
Highball,
I have read Jefferson's writings very extensively and I believe, if he were here today, he would have the intelligence to adapt and would be in favor of instant background checks and probably even 3 day cooling off periods.
I have read a bit of Jefferson myself, but havent come across ANY writing that would suggest he would support background checks and cooling off periods(now your leftist stripes are REALLY showing-I can understand why people WOULD FALL for the background check nonsense-but only a hardcore gun grabber would think "cooling off" periods are appropriate). Would you mind refering to some of his letters/speeches that indicate TO YOU, he would support such constitutional violations?
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Should a criminal be stupid enough to confront a member of the armed populace, his @$$ would be removed from society, one way or another, and probably in a way to warn all other would-be criminals of the consequences of their potential actions.
I have full faith that he would scoff at background checks and waiting periods, or even find them counter-productive, the same way I do. To him, a background check would indicate a failure in the justice system (because it does), otherwise, a background check would not be necessary in the first place, and argue that a person who has been threatened by another member of society needs a gun NOW... not later, NOW!!!!
(Good news, Mrs. Smith.. your gun has been approved for purchase.... you may pick it up anytime you wish, Mrs. Smith..... uhh, Mrs. Smith?!?!?)
Once you guys realize that there is no one solution that will fix things, the wiser you will become. It has taken us a better part of 225 years to screw up our country to the extent it is, now, no one thing will fix it. Eliminating background checks without fixing the justice system and encouraging citizens to protect themselves will fail.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
On a more personal note, I will be as short sighted as you were against another gun owner (me). When the crap hits the fan, I will be on the front line, maybe getting fired upon, defending my gun rights, while you are out digging a hole to bury your guns in. Now, do a little self reflection and see where YOU REALLY stand. Please don't spout off like any of the other radicals that won't be there when it crap hits the fan (gunphreak). As an ex-military man and an a retired law enforcement officer, I've heard my share of blow hards, so don't even waste your typing if you're going to spew forth your radical drival. It is a waste of your time writing and my time reading.
As for gunphreaks remarks, I expected nothing different and you can see where I stand on his remarks.
You can tell yourself where you will be when the crap hits the fan....but it is all lip service unless you have served and are tested under battle conditions.
My humble opinion, from one that has served.
salzo-- as you don't know me and probably never will, I will tell you this, NO ONE that knows me has EVER called me a leftist. In fact, I swing to the rifgt with great zeal and am proud of it. I, unlike you, have the intellegence to understand that society needs to adapt and grow,
What does "society needs to grow" have to do with supporting unconstitutional laws and policies?? Are you saying that because society has to grow, it is OK to allow the government powers that are defiant of the constitution?? That pesky constitution, always in the way of societal progress.
"adapting and growing"- hmmm, interesting phrase.
reminds me of the "living and breathing document" the left spouts off about the constitution. Your red stripes are showing Wolf.
You find any of those Jefferson writings yet- ya know the ones that lead you tro believe that he would support back ground checks and cooling off periods?
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
I don't have the time nor the inclination to educate you. This is something that you must do on your own. Get off the computer and go to your library and read Jefferson's writing. Open your mind for once and see what he is saying. I don't have time to interpret for you so you may need a tutor.
Also, show me in the constitution where it says that a background check or a three day waiting period "shall not be done" and I will agree that both are ""unconstitutional........show EVERYONE here where it says THAT in the CONSTITUTION or the BILL OF RIGHTS!
Can't do it? I didn't THINK so. Nuff sad.
I am convinced you will be on the front lines.
Defending your masters and their freedom destroying laws.
Oh..the part about quote:Also, show me in the constitution where it says that a background check or a three day waiting period "shall not be done" and I will agree that both
It is pretty obvious that an intelligent law enforcement officer such as yourself interperets "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" as meaning whatever you and your masters WANT it to mean...eh ?
As Salzo says.."Living Breathing Document" is the term used by scum such as Kennedy/Shumer/Fiendstean as they work ceaselessly to destroy freedom....
Extremist ? Mister...the "Extremists" are people like you..people that read the Constitution as something giving you the power to control other citizens lives....
salzo----
Also, show me in the constitution where it says that a background check or a three day waiting period "shall not be done" and I will agree that both are ""unconstitutional........show EVERYONE here where it says THAT in the CONSTITUTION or the BILL OF RIGHTS!
Can't do it? I didn't THINK so. Nuff sad.
The wrong question. Seems apparent that you think that if the constitution doesnt say the government cant do something, that means they can do something.
Listenup, Im gonna keep it as general as possible so your meager mind can handle it.
THE CONSTITUTION SAYS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO. It does not list what they cant do(BOR excluded). Now go to the library, and get yourself a copy of the constitution- turn to article one section 8, where you will find the enumerated powers of the federal government. THIS IS WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POWERS ARE, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. You will find nothing in those enumerated powers, that gives the government the authority to do background checks, require "cooling off periods", rescind felons rights, "mandate federal drivers license (through that one in because of your assinine position on this issue that I trread in another thread).
So in a nutshell, you do not ask "where in the constitution does it say the government cant do it"-the correct question is "where in the constitution does it say they can."
When the founders were debating placing a bill of rights in the constitution, MANY FOUNDERS were opposed to the idea, they felt, that it was redundant to place the BOR in the constitution,, because nothing imn the pre BOR constitution gave the government the authority to meddle in those areas enumerated in the bill of rights. Many of the founders felt it would be DANGEROUS to include a bill of rights, because they felt that the govenment, and the people for that matter, would think it was OK for the government to do anything it wished, as long as they didnt infringe on the bill of rights, and of course, once you allow them to stick their nose under that tent, it wont be long before people think it is OK to medle in the bill of rights, just not too much. You are a POSTER CHILD for what those founders who opposed the bill of rights feared.-completely ignorant of the role of the government, and thinks the only thing the gov. CANT do, is infringe on the bill of rights-and even there you make exceptions.
A wonderful read on the powers of the government and the constitution can be found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to George Washington. Go find it numb nuts-ya might learn something.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
When the crap hits the fan, I will be on the front line, maybe getting fired upon, defending my gun rights,
You wont defend your rights now, you support and welcome unconstitutional gun laws. Why would ANYONE believe that when "the crap hits the fan", you will have a change of heart and go to the front line??
Naaaaaaa. When it hits the fan, you will be standing on the side lines telling all of the "extremists" to throw down their weapons, and have "faith" in the government. That is another leftist streak you have displayed in your posts. I place my "faith" in God. Only a rabid leftist who worships at the altar of government would place his "faith" in government.
Jefferson(that guy you have read "extensively") spoke of government as being a "necessary evil". You aint supposed to have faith in them. You are supposed to keep an eye on them and keep them under control.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
I might as well throw in a little "crap hits the fan" opinion. It has been my experiance that NO ONE can be sure how they will react in combat. I will say this though, I have more faith in someone who has been in combat, as opposed to someone whose closest experience to battle was watching "Saving Private Ryan" in surround sound.
Molon Labe
...but on which side, I wonder....
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Me...I don't care a bucket of spit for gun controllers. Little ones...or big ones. In other words ...those desiring "Just this or just that" gun law...are as bad as those wanting to ban guns.
WHY...? Because they give AID and COMFORT to the enemy...they give the enemy COVER...because the enemy desires TOTAL CONTROL over the populace.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=4932
I agree 150% with this!