Brandishing? or just target practice?
- Thread starter Axeanda45
- Start date
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Umm....I beg to differ. If we were at war with anti-gunners, we'd be shooting the most successful ones.
What we are at war with is the English language, and we're charging the enemy and tripping over our tongues to placate them with politically correct BS to keep from pissing them off.
The anti-gunners are the ones trying to steal our rights. Is there any way to approach them that will make them stop trying to steal our rights? If someone breaks into my home to steal my stuff, I am not polite to them. If someone steals my wife's right to say yes or no and rapes her, I will not be polite with them.
I will be no more polite to someone with an appetite for my rights or my liberty. One follows the other. Once they get the first, the second isn't far behind.
I have the right to open carry. I will do it at my whim, irrespective of any anti-gunner's wish (or irrational demand) that I don't. We are in the process of looking for property out in the sticks, and once we find it and get moved in, if one of my far-away neighbors is an ant-gunner and comes to my property to give me grief for shooting there, they will receive a demand that they leave forthwith, not some polite attempt to change their mind about the beauty of the gun I'm shooting.
James Madison described rights as analogous to property when he said:
I couldn't care any less how people perceive me for being a gun-owner and regular shooter. My rights are just as important to me as my property, and I will protect both with the firm refusal to relinquish either, whether someone else gets offended or not, and that includes even if the anti-gunners want to start a real war over my rights, not the fake war of words that our culture has succumbed to in the name of political correctness.
Blues
sevans1965
New member
One thing a lot of guys don’t get- you have a “right” to own guns, but with certain rights comes “responsibility” (key word there- “responsibility”)! If you act like a jackarse with little to no regard to your neighbor or fellow citizen (who also have rights), you’re going to provide the ammunition that certain groups need to fight against the very rights we cherish! You can thump your keyboard against your chest and tell the world how it is, but the actions of a belligerent few are going to be a contributing cause that risk the rights we hold dear.
And those of you that publically threaten to stand your ground make me laugh. “Most” of you talk the talk with your keyboard, but in reality you won’t walk the walk. You can reply to this comment and tell me you’ll fight (literally), but don’t waste your breath, I don’t believe most of you! I was in England when their guns were confiscated, if everyone there that talked the talk would have walked the walk, the outcome may have been different. And don’t bother telling me how different you are, again, I don’t believe most of you (everyone can be a tough guy behind the safety of their keyboard!).
And those of you that publically threaten to stand your ground make me laugh. “Most” of you talk the talk with your keyboard, but in reality you won’t walk the walk. You can reply to this comment and tell me you’ll fight (literally), but don’t waste your breath, I don’t believe most of you! I was in England when their guns were confiscated, if everyone there that talked the talk would have walked the walk, the outcome may have been different. And don’t bother telling me how different you are, again, I don’t believe most of you (everyone can be a tough guy behind the safety of their keyboard!).
Axeanda45
Banned
Claiming I somehow "infringed" on someone elses rights while on my own property doing something 100% legal even with all the "laws" against this that or the other is very childish and shows that 1. You cannot comprehend written words, and 2. You have no clue about how rights can and cannot be infringed upon...
According to you sevans, I must somehow FIRST go around and ask ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS PERMISSION, or SEE IF THEY WOULD MIND before I go ahead and exercise my own rights....
What an idiotic mindset.... and YOU have the gall to somehow say that WE are the ones that "dont get it"......
According to you sevans, I must somehow FIRST go around and ask ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS PERMISSION, or SEE IF THEY WOULD MIND before I go ahead and exercise my own rights....
What an idiotic mindset.... and YOU have the gall to somehow say that WE are the ones that "dont get it"......
BluesStringer
Les Brers
And one thing you don't get is that putting the word "right" in quotations displays how unserious and dismissive you are about the meaning of the word as it pertains to fundamental, unalienable, God-given rights. The word should be emphasized, not marginalized or minimized on a website devoted to the furtherance of gun rights. Your little lecture is completely out of place here.
In this case, putting quotation marks around "responsibility" is perfectly appropriate, as to suggest that anyone exercising their fundamental, unalienable, God-given rights has any "responsibility" to bend or acquiesce to others' demands on how they should exercise their rights, should be dismissed, marginalized and minimized. Consider yourself dismissed, marginalized and minimized in the minds of many of your readers on this site.
Oh, no quotation marks around the "rights" of my neighbors to tell me how I should exercise my real, fundamental, unalienable, God-given rights, eh? Pffft. Go back to England and like Axe said, quit projecting your cowardice on the rest of us.
Blues
marti breehl
New member
Wow that made some peace.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Look at this internet tough guy...gots me shaking in me virtual boots...
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
sevans1965
New member
It's a matter of opinion, but the same could be said about some of your replies! I don't consider it a lecture, more of a debate. But I've come to learn that intelligent/rational debate is not possible with some people here!
Wake up and smell the coffee, God didn't give you these rights, man did . Some men are trying to take it away, and the mentality of some on this forum are helping (by their actions and words). God is a figment of mans imagination.
Cowardice (LOL), get it right, I'm an internet tough guy!! LMAO.
You know nothing about me. I've done more to protect our freedom and liberty than a majority of the COMPLAINERS on this forum!!
All I hear is more chest thumping! What a joke LOL.
Quote and correct grammar to your hearts content, I'm done with this foolish argument.
Axeanda45
Banned
BC1
,
Nothing on anyway.
BC1
,
Then the neighbor is the criminal. Filing a false report. Offering false instrument for filing. Make a false report on me, fail to be successful and I'll file a civil action, place your assets in my sights and send your lawyer blind on paperwork at $300 per hour. And I don't EVER back-off. Whether I win or lose doesn't matter. The cost will turn-out your lights.
Glad to see you know the answer to the biggest question ever pondered by mankind. Perhaps we just change the definition of God in the law to mean "the being, entity or forces that created life, including the natural order of science." NOW... God being also defined as nature gave you life. Nature gave you smarts (we hope) and the instinct found in every animal to fight, defend and preserve its life any way it can. No man has the power or authority to define his actions to be above nature.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I am going to address this from the Framer's perspective, or at least as close as I can get after reading every word of the Federalist Papers, Declaration and Constitution several times each.
First, it is true that "God-given" is a term not found in our founding documents, but neither are those documents devoid of the meme. The Preamble of the Declaration establishes the source of our rights as deriving from "nature's God," and the first "truth" to be held "self-evident" is that people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" immediately following the reference to God.
Whether or not one believes in God is not the point here. The point is that the Framers used wording so unambiguous as to give our founding documents the imprimatur of being set in stone, being so obviously apparent that to defy the source given in the DoI is to defy man's very nature, which, at the bottom line, is the irresistible yearning to be free. Everything in the Constitution and Bill of Rights flows from those first words of the Declaration of Independence. To claim otherwise is to expose the lie that is the verbal ejaculation, "I've done more to protect our freedom and liberty than a majority of the COMPLAINERS on this forum!!"
One simply can't give the full measure of protection for an idea that he neither understands, nor believes in.
So sevans1965, if the idea of God-given liberty is a figment of man's imagination, the men whose imaginations were thusly-deluded incorporated the idea into our founding documents, which are, and always have been since ratification of the Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights, the law of the land, both of which were written in such a way as to acknowledge its self-evident nature that freedom from government intrusion in the trivialities of everyday human interactions is a fundamental, unalienable right which finds its source in nature and nature's God.
You said you wanted debate. You claimed that you have done more to protect this nation's freedoms and liberties than most of the rest of us have. You've already exposed your lack of knowledge of the nature and source of our rights, so now that it's been revealed for you, you can debate how well you may, or may not, have protected them based on the realities of their intended meanings whether or not you actually believe in God.
Seeking understanding of important universal truths is never a foolish endeavor. You should try it before bailing on it.
Debate is welcomed. Ignorance and posturing based on a total lack of knowledge is not. You have the floor.
Blues
Since we’re off into a philosophical discussion of rights I think I’m going to chime back in.
The more I study the Bible the more I’m convinced that the idea of “Rights” is a human construct. through out the Bible I find one instance of any “Right” being conferred upon humanity and that is the right given to believers to become children of God (John 1:12) and even that right is conferred with the understanding that exercising it means you give up all your other “Rights”.
Biblically believers are portrayed as bond servants (I.E. Slaves by choice) Slaves don’t have Rights. The Bible also posits the entire universe as God’s creation and states that as created beings we have no right to rail against our creator for the role he created to play. (Isa 45:9/ Rom 9:20) So if God created you to go to a Concentration Camp (Corrie Tenboom) you got no right to complain, If God created you to preach in a Roman dungeon until they cut off your head or crucify you upside down (Paul/ Peter) , again no “Rights.”
So you can rail about your “God given Rights” or you can claim to be a follower of God but I don’t think you can do both.
The more I study the Bible the more I’m convinced that the idea of “Rights” is a human construct. through out the Bible I find one instance of any “Right” being conferred upon humanity and that is the right given to believers to become children of God (John 1:12) and even that right is conferred with the understanding that exercising it means you give up all your other “Rights”.
Biblically believers are portrayed as bond servants (I.E. Slaves by choice) Slaves don’t have Rights. The Bible also posits the entire universe as God’s creation and states that as created beings we have no right to rail against our creator for the role he created to play. (Isa 45:9/ Rom 9:20) So if God created you to go to a Concentration Camp (Corrie Tenboom) you got no right to complain, If God created you to preach in a Roman dungeon until they cut off your head or crucify you upside down (Paul/ Peter) , again no “Rights.”
So you can rail about your “God given Rights” or you can claim to be a follower of God but I don’t think you can do both.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I repeat, whether or not one believes in God, the reality is that the Framers intended to give the rights of man that they simply acknowledged, not created, the strength and permanence of as deriving from God. So either way, whether one believes or doesn't, the law remains as existent owing to the idea (I would say "belief") of God's wishes for His children to live in freedom.
Also the idea that we have to accept the concept of “God given inalienable Rights” because the founders (APBTN) posited it is ridiculous. They also believed that slaves were 2/3 of a person and women shouldn’t vote.
Again Scripture doesn't bear that out in fact just looking at the news doesn't bear that out. Doesn't the Bible say that all human beings are descendant from Adam and therefore all God’s children? The Israelites were specifically refered to as God's children and He sent them into slavery numerous times. The Bible states clearly that if you are a Christian and a slave you should not seek your Freedom (1st Corinthians 7:21) How many of God’s children were held in slavery by the very founders (APBTN) that wrote the Declaration of Independence?
If you're going to tell me that God desires for His children to be free show it to me in Scripture
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Good grief. You thought what? That I sit in front a computer screen hanging on every word you say? I had some stuff to do. I'm back now, and I see that my instinct not to attempt to engage you as anything other than a provocateur troll is totally validated.
From what you say next, it sounds like you think the Framer's take on slavery is Biblically justifiable, so why are you bustin' my chops?
I didn't cite or quote Scripture, I cited the documented truth that the Framers thought that the rights they sought to protect through our founding documents derived from God, and as such, were intended to be permanent and unalienable laws of man, not God. I was trying to point out their intentions to someone who already disclosed his disbelief in God.
I did not say that the Framers were perfect people, nor do I believe they were. I said they wrote a set of laws that they felt so strongly derived from nature and of nature's God that they invoked His name to demonstrate their intentions that those laws be seen as written in stone, immutable, and unalienable for perpetuity.
But like I said above, if you believe that God's wish is for man to be enslaved by other men, then why are you bustin' my chops over what you clearly imply are the imperfections of the Framers? Double-minded much?
I didn't tell you that God desires for His children to be free, the Framers told you through their writings that that is what they believed, and that that belief is what makes this country's founding documents intended to be taken as defining permanent, natural, fundamental and unalienable protections of the rights of man.
You really don't read so well, do you?
Blues
Oldgrunt
Well-known member
I didn't realize that you had taken up the practice of law also. I'll say this, you do get around. You definitely should look up the definition of brandishing and, just for your information, felonious assault is defined in this manner:
"A felonious assault is generally defined as an attack or threat of an attack on another individual in which the attacker uses a dangerous weapon and seeks to cause serious harm, but stops short of an attempt to kill the victim. The exact definition varies from one jurisdiction to another, with different interpretations of intent and different conditions and distinctions drawing the line between misdemeanor and felony charges, but most agree on this basic premise. Further distinctions are often drawn between different grades of felonious assault to better fit the punishment to the specific crime. For instance, assault and battery, where an attacker has caused a level of harm to an individual that medical attention is required, is one form.
Not every attack can be defined as a felonious assault. Simple assault, in which the attacker is unarmed and any actual attack does not result in serious injury, is only a misdemeanor, and the legal penalties are usually far less severe. On the other hand, an attacker who deliberately seeks to kill is guilty of murder or at least attempted murder."
In your twisted logic, the man is guilty of only what you think is illegal. How do you know what was in his mind when he fired a shot in his own backyard, an action he says he has performed many times before? And, also, an action his neighbors have most likely heard before without incident.
