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.

Little boys crying

2

Comments

  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    Originally posted by brecht
    All right I admit it I missed out on bible study
    I think my original point is still valid. There is a need for discussion. Fanatism doesn't bring us any further. It doesn't matter if it is for guns, god or Allah!
    Some of you guys have proven her to have quite a potential to be fanatics.
    What I'm trying toe say here it is not as "black and white" than some of you guys think it is.
    I like to shoot and I like to continue doing this, but I think some of the opinions stated in this forum are oil on the fire who want to blame gun owners for all the crime there is.
    We live in a democracy and the public opinion is what makes the laws. Currently we are a bunch of gun nuts that can't be reasoned with and looking at some of these posts I can see why the public thinks that.

    So...Just what did the population think of those that did the Boston tea Party...or stood at the bridge in the face of the MIGHTIEST army in the world....they must have been fanatical to do that musn't they???Can we be any more so?I do not think so,I do not advocate a "Call To Arms"....what I am saying is that our zeal to restore our prsious Constitution and hence "our" wonderful country to what our fathers intended we must be at least somewhat fanatical to get the job done. If you indeed believe more laws will help then you have obviously NOT done your homework....It doesn't work,never has yet...
  • brechtbrecht Member Posts: 305 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    guys
    You got me wrong. I don't wannt aditional laws on top of the 20 000
    I want a new set of ruling instead of the old ones. I want the old ones replaced by a set of new onenes that make actually sense. best would at a fderal level. so you could own the same guns in california than in montana.
    eg get rid of the 10 round magazines and a bunch of other crap but force gunowners to be tought and educated.

    in a world full of compromise some don't
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    Originally posted by brecht
    guys
    You got me wrong. I don't wannt aditional laws on top of the 20 000
    I want a new set of ruling instead of the old ones. I want the old ones replaced by a set of new onenes that make actually sense. best would at a fderal level. so you could own the same guns in california than in montana.
    eg get rid of the 10 round magazines and a bunch of other crap but force gunowners to be tought and educated.

    Ahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!So you want CHANGE!!! YOU want to change the way things are done here in the US of A,now THAAT is Fanatical!! And in a GOOD way.Third party polatics bud...join in that discussion and lets see where it leads us....I believe it can work,L.H.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hey Brecht, I know what you're saying. But try to understand that education of the use and purpose of firearms was knowledge passed down from father to son in those times, as was every other thing relating to being a man, in general. I think at this point, the feds could make the job of fatherhood to us men a lot easier by redlining all the laws made to "regulate" an inalienable right, and let the fathers do their job. I have a rather extensive knowledge compared to others around me as to gun laws, but yet, I'm nowhere close to knowing all 20,000 of them.

    I guess we have a different approach to this problem, that's for sure, but it functions along the same lines. Truth is, those of us who are fathers have too much to teach, now, and with our declining society, even if the laws were redlined at this point, many adolescent boys have no fathers to teach them about firearms. I didn't. Many more grew up in a dilineated society where they were poorly equipped with the law, or were criminals, and can no longer possess a firearm as a result, anyway. So, even if my way did succeed, it probably wouldn't work out ideally, anyway. There would have to be a period of time where the lawless would have to be exterminated by the law abiding, to get the full impact of responsibility across to those who wouldn't have learned any other way.

    Everything government touches, it breaks. Look at the education system for the most obvious example.

    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.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    Gotta agree with Gunphreak right thru........The education system is a joke,it is in shambles and what we got is kids running the show,coming out not educated or grown up....The teachers hands are tied,not that I believe most of them care the way they used to anyway....All part of the unraveling of our society..I have said all along the way to staighten this all out is to let EVERYONE be armed all the time.Nature would take its course and the lawful would take care of the lawless,much like in the old west.Some would die,many in fact I am sure....
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Posted - 09/20/2003 : 11:41:51 Show Profile Email Poster Reply with Quote guys
    You got me wrong. I don't wannt aditional laws on top of the 20 000
    I want a new set of ruling instead of the old ones. I want the old ones replaced by a set of new onenes that make actually sense. best would at a fderal level. so you could own the same guns in california than in montana.
    eg get rid of the 10 round magazines and a bunch of other crap but force gunowners to be tought and educated. quoted by Bercht.

    Well, with your last post I have to kind of agree with you. If we can trust the federal govt. to be reasonable and fair about it, it would be better to get rid of all the city, county and state gun laws and just have one national set of gun laws. If that fair and honest situation were to happen, and appear to be lasting, I would have no problem with some required training.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • paramountparamount Member Posts: 1 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    All I want to say about all of your comments is simple. I have been in Law Enforcement (State and Federal) for a little over 15 years now(not including another 8 years Army serving in 2 conflicts). A very short time by some, but enough for me to get solid beleif on gun laws.

    I have never seized a firearm from a drug dealer, theif or any of the many "street thugs" that I have encountered that had legally obtained it and had it registered. The laws on obtaining firearms are of no concern to criminals and never will be. The only laws they should be concerned with are what happens if the use it or are caught with it in their possession.

    Unfortunatly these laws (and Courts that enforce them) are a joke and the criminals know it. Some States have the laws with punishments that would help to control this problem but they seem unwilling to use them. We should not be focusing on the legal methods of obtaining firearms but on the illegal ones.

    In closing on the discussion of home/self defense, if you are not sure if you can shot a kill someone, buy a dog and leave the firearm for plinking. A weapon for defense is only drawn to be used and only used to kill, not "bluff" or "intimidate". I have seen so many people shot (and killed) by their own weapon because the intruder called their bluff.

    Brecht, pardon my asking, Miss, what do you do for a living?

    Education, Training, Education. And then do some more!!!!
  • brechtbrecht Member Posts: 305 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Brecht, pardon my asking, Miss, what do you do for a living?

    I'm gettin my PhD in Biomedical Science. I'm currently developing a hemoglobin sensor for the US army which is designe to determine the need of a blood transfusuion is situation the victin facing huge blood loss.

    This is something you cops might be interrested in , too.

    in a world full of compromise some don't
  • brechtbrecht Member Posts: 305 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Well lets summarize:
    We all agree that:
    1 Gun laws are too complicated and too many
    2 there is a need for revision of the laws
    3 gunowners have not the best position in the media
    4 every responsible citizen should be allowed to have as many guns as he or she wants
    5 there might be some need for eeducation

    well how do we get there?
    Do we ask god for help?
    I don't think that will work.
    It seem that we have to lobby the so much despised politicians.
    How do we do that?
    I"m open for suggestion here.
    Are there any documents out ther that show:
    number of gun related crimes
    number of crimes with registered guns
    shots fired in an avreage gun fight
    crime rate over the last years
    stuff like that



    in a world full of compromise some don't
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    brecht: You have summerized it very well and I find that I have a whole lot of agreement with you. In regards to you question of what do we do about the situation, that is a very, very hard question to answer. The whole progun, antigun positions are very complex and many other things are interwoven into a person taking one side or another. I will mention an undisputable fact and that is as long as our govt. doesn't get totally out of control from us, if say 75% of the American people were gun owners and shooters, we would have no serious anti-gun problems. This idea kind of automatically points me in the direction we need to go to solve this whole problem.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    And let us NOT IGNORE one of our largest problems...ourselves.We as gun owners are a house SO divided it is small wonder they can do what they do to us.This hunter does'nt care about concealed carry,that duc hunter doesn't care about assualt weapons etc.etc.
  • brechtbrecht Member Posts: 305 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    (Prof. Lott, University of Illinois, More Guns, Less Crime 1998)


    in a world full of compromise some don't
  • wizard78wizard78 Member Posts: 3,144
    edited November -1
    This is the first time I'm in this forum and I'm glad I picked this thread to read. You all have many valid points and I would be foolish to comment on them as I am a new member and most times it takes reading and thought to understand things. I will therefore ask. If we are in need of compromise, what do we call all the laws made since "GCA 68" ? Haven't the law abiding citizens of this country who own or want to own weapons been compromising long enough? When are the people and legislators who want to "compromise" gun ownership to only law enforcement and military going to give a little? So far after every past compromise, they have come back wanting to " compromise " some more. Thanks. [8D]

    Fight Crime, Shoot First
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    wizard78: welcome to the board. Your thoughtful post is most welcome. You are right in that for approximately 50 years all the changes in gun rights (with the exception of concealed carry in most states) has been in the direction of gun owners giving up rights. So yes I would like to see some "compromises" going in the other direction in that gun owners get some right back or expanded. Not sure how to do that because of such a lack of interest and a failure of gun owners to actually do something to help their rights. If a majority of the huge number of gun owners in the country would vote, vote for the right canidadte, keep in touch with all the problem legislators and contribute time andd money to the pro-gun groups we would have no anti-gun problem.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    And if that majority did vote we could elect third party and other officials that would do some serious shaking up in the political arena.Fox is telling it like it is,the problem is the amount of gun owners that do vote is so slight ans at that they are a house divided.Wel come to the board,hang on it'll be a wild ride!L.H.
  • brechtbrecht Member Posts: 305 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    guys I'n not sure a third party will help us here. It will only be a third media sreamlined possibility that won't be any different than the existing two. Second unfortunately is our current political system not in favour for a third party.
    I think we need to start changing our consumption habits. Tha media only broadcasts what the majority wnts to hear. (murders , rapes and what brittney spears had for dinner last night)
    We are the kind of people that can be easily manipulated by just one story.
    See the british story in the othet topic.
    One girl gets raped and everybody is crying for DNA testing without thinking about the consequences.
    The first step we can do is not falling into the traps the media sets up for us. And demmand serious objective jourmnalism.


    in a world full of compromise some don't
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by brecht
    guys I'n not sure a third party will help us here. It will only be a third media sreamlined possibility that won't be any different than the existing two. Second unfortunately is our current political system not in favour for a third party.
    I think we need to start changing our consumption habits. Tha media only broadcasts what the majority wnts to hear. (murders , rapes and what brittney spears had for dinner last night)
    We are the kind of people that can be easily manipulated by just one story.
    See the british story in the othet topic.
    One girl gets raped and everybody is crying for DNA testing without thinking about the consequences.
    The first step we can do is not falling into the traps the media sets up for us. And demmand serious objective jourmnalism.


    in a world full of compromise some don't


    While I agree with the last of your post I must disagree with the first.I believe that we are only deluding ourselves if we actually think we can make changes with the 2 parties.....They have been intrenced in our lives SO long we have all begun to believe that that is all there is or it is all that will work.A third party can stand behind another candidate of another party or put up its own.This makes a powerful situation and would make ALL politicians THINK at least.
  • nitrouznitrouz Member Posts: 1,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Brecht, your spelling and gramar sucks. You must be having one heck on a time getting that Phd in Biomedical Science.

    Gun owners need no education to possess or use a firearm. Pulling a trigger is not rocket science, in defense of your property and self. Having to go through a class to get a CCW is a formality in some areas of this nation. I have never had to take a class to be able to carry concealed.

    I'm a Federal Firearm License holder and order firearm's straight off of this site, no classes required as it isn't rocket science.

    You want the same firearms available in all states, bad idea. California will always prevail with which firearms are on the approved list and that list will be small. Thus the majority of the other States won't jump on that bandwagon.

    Your "Forum Waffenrecht" or Weapons Rights Forum sounds like it has done alot in Germany for only having 298 members. http://www.fwr.de/

    I spent two years in Germany and visited a few German firearm dealers, all they sold were grossly overpriced, over engraved junk. No average citizen could buy them or use them without crossing a river of red tape and costs for permits and fees. The German's were so mad at U.S. military members for bringing firearms into their country they made us stop and thus made us sitting ducks living in a foreign nation. I don't think any legislation in Germany is anything to brag about.

    The only little boy I see crying appears to be a poster of German origin trying to improve his english skills.

    jesus2000x.jpg?mtbrand=NS_US

    "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."
    - Jesus Christ in Luke 22:36
  • brechtbrecht Member Posts: 305 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    well first of all there are 28.300 members you looked at the lifetime members.
    second if they sell so muck overengraved **** over there why are you guys so fond of the Hks then
    eg a HK mark 23 is abour 1100 $ there that is about 50% of the price here.


    in a world full of compromise some don't
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    That's why I buy Glocks and Beretta's.

    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.
  • WarbirdsWarbirds Member Posts: 16,813 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    brecht- I find it amusing that your trailer quote is "in a world of comprimise, some don't" however all throughout the thread you mention "comprimise" ????
  • GGIL1977GGIL1977 Member Posts: 6 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    When it comes to firearm legislation it has come to our opinion that any further compromise is useless. Law Biding fireamr owners have been compromising for years, too many to count since the founding of our country. In old England it was required for every male at the age of 13 to keep a long bow, for the security of the country. The way the world is going all form of government will eventually fall upon the basis of the unstableness of capitalism. Yet it was our forefathers who wrote the constituion under the guise in order to protect the living breathing thing that is the constituiton (the people) that they were granted and encouraged to own a firearm of the day. Eg: musket, the modern equilvalent would be the assault rifle. Now that there has been some history established,now it is time for realism. Realistically, the chances of a foreign invader upon this soil is few and far between. Yet the seeds have already been planted. On the other hand the frmaers of the constituiotn may have placed the second amendment into the constituion to protect us from a Federal Government that is too strong, and would wnat to eliminate the rights that have already been established. Yet the seeds have already been planted for this as well. True Constituionalist ned to take there stand, draw the line in the sand and simpley say, "NO MORE COMPROMISE!" with given all to much already.....

    Carroll A. Gates
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    hear hear!!!

    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.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    There are an untold number of writings by the founders that state that that is precisely the reason they placed the second in the bill of rights. (to protect us from, and make sure the federal govt. stayed in line)
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Exactly, wolf.

    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.
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Dave W.
    brecht- I find it amusing that your trailer quote is "in a world of comprimise, some don't" however all throughout the thread you mention "comprimise" ????


    Yup,is interesting ain't it?
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    A strict observence of the written laws is doubtless ONE of the high duties of a GOOD citizes,but it is not THE HIGHEST.The laws of NECESSITY,of self-preservation,of saving our country when in danger,are of higher obligation.To lose our country by a scrpulous adherence to written law,would be to lose the law itself,with life,liberty,property and all those who are enjoying them with us;thus Absurdly sacrificing the end to the means........
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens,and make military instuction a regular part of collegiate education.
    Thomas Jefferson 1813
  • brechtbrecht Member Posts: 305 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    there are two kinds of compromise
    one is a compromise about the goal
    and the other is to compromise about the way to get there I'm guilty of compromising about the way not the goal

    in a world full of compromise some don't
  • TexdocTexdoc Member Posts: 39 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I think this thread is a good example of the cynicism that comes with age and the well intentioned niavete that comes with youth....and rightly so for both.
    While Brecht has some LOGICAL points, the execution of that logic relies upon historically UNreliable politicians and other "advisors" with personal agendas. Many of us HAVE tried to compromise only to find that we were dealing with uninformed people who are hoplophobes and only consider their socioeconomic status and personal background in making decisions. What those of us in South central Texas feel about firearms may certainly be different than some Main Line born and raised liberal * (and I use that description only with the greatest respect). As was pointed out, generational differences also exist..I must admit that I think that even I have failed to pass along the same enthusiasm for firearms as was passed to me. At any rate, Brecht, you need to understand the "scars" some of have been given over this issue even when we had the right intent. Continue to use your logic, but its the same as making sure a gun is unloaded. Don't believe anyone when they tell you it..check it yourself (Believe in yourself), but also handle it like it is even after you check it (Also question yourself). You will find that age and people who can tell you all sorts of stuff about politics but couldn't define the difference between a Republic and a democracy
    will make you a little more untrusting. By the way, since you mentioned Bowling for Columbine, I hope you have read the info at www.hardylaw.net/Truth_about_Bowling.html




    "If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?"
    Clint Smith
  • Rob GreeneRob Greene Member Posts: 102 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Brecht: Not everyone in the media thinks guns are a bad thing. I'm in the media and I take every chance I can get to remind everyone that the same bill of rights that says I can say what I want about the government on the air says I can own a firearm as well. We're not all liberal weenies. I'm a gun owning conservative weenie!

    **It is your right to posess a firearm. In case of questions, please refer to amendment 2, United States Constitution.**
  • 2gun2gun Member Posts: 318 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    i have read some of this thread and others and am getting amused and upset.

    first off.we need to admit that as gunowners and proponents of gun ownership we have a problem, a lot of americans dont see things as we do in spite of whats in the constitution.

    second, i keep hearing no more compromise. we have a real problem there as we dont get a seat at the table. those with our money(nra), those against us(hci)(trial lawyers)and politicians get to sit in judgement of whether or not we get to keep our guns in spite of whats in the constitution.

    third we have a representative goverment that doesnt represent what we want it represents the best face that will allow it reelection.

    fourth this one will get you all riled up, activist courts, i know you all are fond of telling how the separation of powers is supposed to work but from the earliest cases the courts have been activist about what they want since they are the arbiters of law and superior courts are not prone to reversing lower court decisions except in rare instaces. this is in spite of the definitions of the separation of powers.

    lastly is the problem that we literalists are fond of quoting our literalist views to those who disagree and ignoring their opinions thereby creating an us v them appearance.

    our supposed representatives at the nra should be better marketers and so should we. there is no assualt weapon, there is a handgun rifle and shotgun with different types of actions. the people who use guns to defend themselves should be the advertised special not some stupid enemies list. before we make it one step further remember that laws have been passed that restricted the right of gunowners and gunowners accepted the courts decisions(nfa regulation, etc). if we had not and had the country standing behind us the result would have been the same as prohibition.obviously that was not the case and we need to realize that we must present ourselves differently today because we dont make the decisions that concern us the gun needs to be presented as the defender of the weak a 30rd magazine as the equalizer between the bookish nerd and the gang of thugs, the small caliber handgun, a young ladys defense against those intent on rape.

    most of all stop talking about the coming revolution, its over it happened somewhere in the sixties. noone is rising up against oppression by the politicians today. they are either happy with it or to weak to make a stand.

    if we do not get this through our heads even if the ban expires as soon as enough democrats get back in office(and they will over time)there will be a new ban with no sunset just a prayer that maybe a court will literally read the 2nd amendment

    happiness is a warm gun, preferably preban
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    No coming revolution? We'll see how that stands up once things we have now start going under, like more jobs, Social Security, and the Second Amendment. One of those things go under (especially SS), we'll see....

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Remember how many seats were lost after AWB passage? Vae victis!
    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.
  • 2gun2gun Member Posts: 318 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    i hate to disagree but the people who are losing their jobs arent up for the revolution , they want free health care and food stamps so as long as bread and circuses can be provided they'll be more than happy to ignore the rights that disappear.

    remember what i said about activist courts, there are also things that can be as well said with silence and today the supremes have the 2nd amndmt. almost relegated to the trash heap by saying nothing. they will mix with abortion, prayer,search and seizure, but what is expressly written is to be ignored. that is activism at its finest and the revolution still wont come. they have informed us and the body politic that gun regulation is ok.

    on the social security thing when our childrens goverment cant afford to borrow more money from the rest of the world to pay ss because we have no manufacturing base then maybe there will be a short lived revolution but by then the largest employer will be the goverment anyway so who would sacrifice their job because some people cant eat especially over a right that the courts routinely ignore and their employers think is dangerous.

    happiness is a warm gun, preferably preban
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    There is some logic to that, I'll admit.

    Time to take it all the way, now. We lose our manufacturing base, and a bunch of us are now unemployed. Unemployed people don't pay taxes. No tax money... no government. That simple. Everyone turns on their own when this happens. We don't have a Soviet Union anymore because of this principle, but ours will be even more destructive, because we have our hands in way more things than they did. We also have A 2nd Amendment that will ensure one critical difference... there were never guns allowed in USSR at any time in their history, but we have, and those guns (They'll never get 'em all) will come to surface in the hands of many people when they are all SOL and begin preying on others so they have enough to survive. And the politcos will no longer have their comfy livingstyles, because they represent two things feral Americans will hate.... Wealthy people ripe for the taking, and wealthy people who gained their wealth at the taxpayers' expense, so essentially, they'll just be taking back their stuff. These are unintended consequences, and provide the basis for why things will occur and why they will come out this way.

    You can't keep taking out of a well and expect it to always have water. One day, it will run dry.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Remember how many seats were lost after AWB passage? Vae victis!
    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.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    I just have to add that there is no way in hell that anyone can accurately predict the future, especially the far future, outcome of events. There are far, far too many variables to consider.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • RyanShort1RyanShort1 Member Posts: 2 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by brecht

    well how do we get there?
    Do we ask god for help?
    I don't think that will work.
    It seem that we have to lobby the so much despised politicians.
    How do we do that?
    I"m open for suggestion here.
    Are there any documents out ther that show:
    number of gun related crimes
    number of crimes with registered guns
    shots fired in an avreage gun fight
    crime rate over the last years
    stuff like that


    This has been a great thread to read and think about. However, as some of gunphreak's posts allude to, I believe that the real problem in this fine land of ours is deeper than the problems with the 2nd ammendment and no matter how much we lobby to change that situation will continue to be bad unless some OTHER things happen. In fact, I would suggest brecht that your post has signs of this problem. You say essentially that asking God for help won't work...
    I've got news for you. I believe that it's the only thing that WILL work.
    You see as gunphreak said, the right to bear arms doesn't just exist because the Constitution says it does, it existed before, and will continue to exist even if the Constitution is destroyed. It really gets back to your worldview and what you believe about God, man, government, and jurisdiction.
    If you subscribe to the theory of evolution, then you really have no basis for any ultimate authority, nor any inalienable "rights" from the Creator thus the cornerstone for our position is a belief in the truth of the book of Genesis in the Bible. This also pressupposes an acknowledgment of the God of the Bible. You must believe that there man has responsibility to God to follow His laws. Otherwise, any man, or government can make up laws, or a group of people can generate a "concensus" as to what they believe and entrust the government with enforcing it.
    I had the privledge of spending some time last week with Judge Moore and believe that his stand for the acknowledgement of God is one of very few bright spots in the whole field of government right now. He correctly interpreted, and followed the laws, and did not compromise. Yes you may lose some battles, but the real change we ought to seek is at the individual heart level of our fellow citizens and to see a return to principled lives and a proper understanding of the role and jurisdiction of government. Only then will we be able to sustain lasting changes. I pray that our nation will not be forced to sustain more serious judgement before people come to the knowledge of the truth.
    IN SHORT, WE GOTTA PRAY, 'cause otherwise, we have no real hope for lasting change.

    Ryan

    P.S. A good website with some stuff on interposition is at www.visionforum.org
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    It can all be made complicated without ending, but what ideas control the most minds, or the most powerful minds, control the future of us all. It matters not about religion or politics or philosophy or the 2nd admendment.

    When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    And the HK's are hugely over-priced toys for rich wanne-be's.
Sign In or Register to comment.