This just in from NRA-ILA


MountainGator

New member
Dear :

Over the past week, pollsters have identified 14 incumbent, anti-gun Congressmen who have gone from safe re-election to toss-up races. Each of these incumbents is being challenged by a pro-Second Amendment candidate. This represents an unprecedented opportunity to deliver a resounding defeat to anti-gun Congressmen like Barney Frank. Such an opportunity only comes once in a generation and I need your help. To take advantage of this rare opportunity, we need to turn out the 10,000 NRA member and former member households who control 20,000 votes in these districts and get them to vote on Election Day. Turning out pro-gun voters and any of their friends among the 2.58 million gun owners who live in these districts is the key to victory. In order for pro-gun candidates to win in these newly competitive districts, NRA-ILA needs to continue – right up to Election Day – the most aggressive Get-Out-The-Vote Drive possible.

I’ve never used e-mail to ask for your help before. But I desperately need it now. You can help NRA-ILA pull off a political miracle by doing one of the following right now.

Click here http://www.nramedia.org/t/7658/6888646/582/0/ and make a secure online credit card donation of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more to NRA-ILA. Call NRA-ILA at 1-866-376-4868 to make your credit card contribution (call Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m. EST). Turning out the vote in these 14 races gives us a chance to win seats that for years were thought to be unwinnable. We may never have a chance like this again in our lifetimes.

You have the power to elect candidates in these races who will be rock solid in their support of our fundamental Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Please let me hear from you right away. Thank you.

Sincerely,


Chris W. Cox
Executive Director
NRA-ILA

P.S. What you do now will decide the future of the Second Amendment for many years to come. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to elect pro-gun candidates in key Congressional districts that were recently thought to be unwinnable. Please Click here http://www.nramedia.org/t/7658/6888646/582/0/and make an urgent $25, $50, $100, $250 or more contribution in support of NRA-ILA’s Get-Out-The-Vote Drive today.

Or, call 1-866-376-4868 to make your contribution by phone. Whatever you decide, please act today.

Thank you again and remind your family and friends to vote!
 

Bohemian

New member
Dear :

Over the past week, pollsters have identified 14 incumbent, anti-gun Congressmen who have gone from safe re-election to toss-up races. Each of these incumbents is being challenged by a pro-Second Amendment candidate. This represents an unprecedented opportunity to deliver a resounding defeat to anti-gun Congressmen like Barney Frank. Such an opportunity only comes once in a generation and I need your help. To take advantage of this rare opportunity, we need to turn out the 10,000 NRA member and former member households who control 20,000 votes in these districts and get them to vote on Election Day. Turning out pro-gun voters and any of their friends among the 2.58 million gun owners who live in these districts is the key to victory. In order for pro-gun candidates to win in these newly competitive districts, NRA-ILA needs to continue – right up to Election Day – the most aggressive Get-Out-The-Vote Drive possible.

I’ve never used e-mail to ask for your help before. But I desperately need it now. You can help NRA-ILA pull off a political miracle by doing one of the following right now.

Click here http://www.nramedia.org/t/7658/6888646/582/0/ and make a secure online credit card donation of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more to NRA-ILA. Call NRA-ILA at 1-866-376-4868 to make your credit card contribution (call Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m. EST). Turning out the vote in these 14 races gives us a chance to win seats that for years were thought to be unwinnable. We may never have a chance like this again in our lifetimes.

You have the power to elect candidates in these races who will be rock solid in their support of our fundamental Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Please let me hear from you right away. Thank you.

Sincerely,


Chris W. Cox
Executive Director
NRA-ILA

P.S. What you do now will decide the future of the Second Amendment for many years to come. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to elect pro-gun candidates in key Congressional districts that were recently thought to be unwinnable. Please Click here http://www.nramedia.org/t/7658/6888646/582/0/and make an urgent $25, $50, $100, $250 or more contribution in support of NRA-ILA’s Get-Out-The-Vote Drive today.

Or, call 1-866-376-4868 to make your contribution by phone. Whatever you decide, please act today.

Thank you again and remind your family and friends to vote!

Biggest & Most Important Race In Country For Second Amendment Rights And The NRA Is Sitting On The Sidelines...

Just as soon as the NRA Endorses Sharron Angle over Amnesty Loving, Constitution Trampling, Second Amendment Hating Dirty Harry Reid; and stops sending me "Thank Harry Reid" fricking letters with their fricking hand out... and stops endorsing gun-banning RINOS & DEMOCRAPS...
Is Harry Reid pro-gun or anti-gun? - Gun Owners Of America

Until they start supporting the Unabridged Second Amendment ...
F*ck the NRA ...

My Pro-Second Amendment dollars go to Gun Owners of America...
The Only No Compromise Gun Lobby In Washington:
Link Removed

Call The NRA and tell them to Endorse Sharron Angle & Denounce Dirty Harry Reid and the rest of the gun-banning RINOS & DEMOCRAPS they are endorsing...
1-800-392-8683


Link Removed
Link Removed
 

nogods

Active member
Until they start supporting the Unabridged Second Amendment ...
F*ck the NRA ...

The NRA has no reason to support something that does not exist.

The NRA has, through intelligent and politically savvy leadership, grown itself into one of the the most influential political organizations in the US. It didn't get there by chasing fantasy positions.

I'm a member of the NRA. I don't agree with all of the executive decisions but on balance the NRA does a good job of promoting firearms education and protecting and advancing gun ownership rights. It would lose that ability if it chased after irrational concepts.

The NRA supports gun rights advocates regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on. That focus helps the NRA maintain its credibility even with people elected officials it opposes.
 

6shootercarry

New member
The NRA supports gun rights advocates regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on. That focus helps the NRA maintain its credibility even with people elected officials it opposes.

Harry Reid and gun rights advocates are about as far apart as can be. Side of the aisle, Bullsh!t!!, Not even in the same building...

Compromise is how we've gotten to this point... It's that kind of "fantasy position" crap that gets us in the compromise position... Shall Not Be Infringed... Hummmm, reading it exactly that way I see no reason to compromise... Vermont has it right...
 

nogods

Active member
It seems to me that phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" gets convoluted a lot.

That phrase plainly says that the "right to keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed. The "shall not be infringed" phase does not define the right, it merely prohibits infringement of the right, whatever the scope and nature of that right may be.

Trying to use the prohibition on infringement as the definition of the right itself is simply not supported by our native language, reason, or logic, and has been consistently rejected by the SCOTUS.

Heller and McDonald defined "the right to keep and bear arms" to include(but not necessarily limited to) the right to possession of a handgun for personal protection in one's home.

But keep in mind that it is not an unlimited right. For example, as stated in Heller, the right to keep and bear arms does not include possession of handguns by felons. Thus, prohibing a felon from keeping a handgun in his or her home for personal protection is not an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms because the right does not extend to felons in the first place.

Think of it like a law that says no one shall infringe on the privacy rights of another person. We first have to define the scope and nature of the privacy right before we can determine if there is an infringment.

If the privacy right does not include one's presence in a public place, then photographing a person while they are in a public place would not be an infringment on their right to privacy. If the right of privacy was defined to include one's presence in a public place, then photographing a person in a public place might be an infringment on their right to privacy.

But in either case, until we have defined the scope and nature of the right, the "shall not be infringed" prohibition has no effective meaning. It doesn't define the right. It merely prohibits infringing whatever that right may be.
 

buddy

New member
The problem is not the NRA, the problem is that in the real world, change does not happen overnight. Small changes happen, leading to a large shift in the world over many years. The democrats (liberals) are much better at recognizing this reality than republicans (conservatives). No one really believes everything that the United States is now, a left leaning, quasi socialist country, happened overnight. It has happened through many small changes over the last 60+ years. Incrementalism is the way to bring about change in this country and we have to be smart enough to accept that. Some people, such as bohemian, continue to look for huge, sweeping changes to take place, such as an "unabridged" second amendment". Meanwhile, gun grabbers are gradually, not quickly, eroding our 2nd amendment rights (and others too, if truth be told), while you stand on your soapbox and preach.

Picture a dam with a hole. Some on one side are trying to gradually increase the size of the whole, others are trying to plug it. Meanwhile, a few stand aside and say "I am a purist. I don't want a whole at all. I am willing to accept nothing less" while the people trying to make the whole bigger laugh and keep on going. Those of us trying to plug the whole wonder whose side you really are on. Maybe a weak analogy, but it makes a point. All I can think of at the time while at my desk working.

Go ahead and waste your vote on someone who says they will fight for an unabridged 2nd amendment. When we have lost ALL of our rights, including the right to bear arms, you will have no right to stand there and say you are not culpable. It is in fact people who refuse to settle for small improvements, and therefore allow the opposition to win, who will forever be responsible for what this country has, and is, becoming.
 

6shootercarry

New member
The problem is not the NRA, the problem is that in the real world, change does not happen overnight. Small changes happen, leading to a large shift in the world over many years. The democrats (liberals) are much better at recognizing this reality than republicans (conservatives). No one really believes everything that the United States is now, a left leaning, quasi socialist country, happened overnight. It has happened through many small changes over the last 60+ years. Incrementalism is the way to bring about change in this country and we have to be smart enough to accept that. Some people, such as bohemian, continue to look for huge, sweeping changes to take place, such as an "unabridged" second amendment". Meanwhile, gun grabbers are gradually, not quickly, eroding our 2nd amendment rights (and others too, if truth be told), while you stand on your soapbox and preach.

Picture a dam with a hole. Some on one side are trying to gradually increase the size of the whole, others are trying to plug it. Meanwhile, a few stand aside and say "I am a purist. I don't want a whole at all. I am willing to accept nothing less" while the people trying to make the whole bigger laugh and keep on going. Those of us trying to plug the whole wonder whose side you really are on. Maybe a weak analogy, but it makes a point. All I can think of at the time while at my desk working.

Go ahead and waste your vote on someone who says they will fight for an unabridged 2nd amendment. When we have lost ALL of our rights, including the right to bear arms, you will have no right to stand there and say you are not culpable. It is in fact people who refuse to settle for small improvements, and therefore allow the opposition to win, who will forever be responsible for what this country has, and is, becoming.

Small improvements? What frigging state do you live in? I'm in MA and have not seen any improvement!!!
In fact, the "Cradle of Freedom" has become the cesspool of pregressive liberalism, socialism, and is about as unimproved when it comes to firearms laws. All thanks to compromise.

Perhaps it will take those of us who have had enough of the incremental compromise bullsh!t, the ebb and flow I'll call it, on the God given right itself, to put some holes in the people on the other side of the dam that keep trying to make the hole bigger. Then use the carcasses to plug the hole in a manner as to send a message to any others who come along thinking "hey a dam, lets make a hole"..

Since when did we all get so comfortable with asking permission to be free?

Those willing to compromise their freedom will have none of it by days end...:mad:
 

6shootercarry

New member
It seems to me that phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" gets convoluted a lot.

That phrase plainly says that the "right to keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed. The "shall not be infringed" phase does not define the right, it merely prohibits infringement of the right, whatever the scope and nature of that right may be.

Trying to use the prohibition on infringement as the definition of the right itself is simply not supported by our native language, reason, or logic, and has been consistently rejected by the SCOTUS.

Heller and McDonald defined "the right to keep and bear arms" to include(but not necessarily limited to) the right to possession of a handgun for personal protection in one's home.

But keep in mind that it is not an unlimited right. For example, as stated in Heller, the right to keep and bear arms does not include possession of handguns by felons. Thus, prohibing a felon from keeping a handgun in his or her home for personal protection is not an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms because the right does not extend to felons in the first place.

Think of it like a law that says no one shall infringe on the privacy rights of another person. We first have to define the scope and nature of the privacy right before we can determine if there is an infringment.

If the privacy right does not include one's presence in a public place, then photographing a person while they are in a public place would not be an infringment on their right to privacy. If the right of privacy was defined to include one's presence in a public place, then photographing a person in a public place might be an infringment on their right to privacy.

But in either case, until we have defined the scope and nature of the right, the "shall not be infringed" prohibition has no effective meaning. It doesn't define the right. It merely prohibits infringing whatever that right may be.

BLAHH BLAHHH BLAHHH!!!

It gets convoluted by the progressive liberals who've been seated on the bench by the progressive liberals that have been elected by progressive liberals that are all too willing to deprive themselves of their God given rights... Of course with no God, you have no God given rights... Ahhh, It all makes perfect sense now... :wacko:

The above reads to me like you're ready to clean your guns and hand them over when they come knocking on your door... Again more evidence... Pathetic... I think you may be one of the people on the other side of the dam. Making the hole bigger...
 

buddy

New member
Small improvements? What frigging state do you live in? I'm in MA and have not seen any improvement!!!
In fact, the "Cradle of Freedom" has become the cesspool of pregressive liberalism, socialism, and is about as unimproved when it comes to firearms laws. All thanks to compromise.

Perhaps it will take those of us who have had enough of the incremental compromise bullsh!t, theI ebb and flow I'll call it, on the God given right itself, to put some holes in the people on the other side of the dam that keep trying to make the hole bigger. Then use the carcasses to plug the hole in a manner as to send a message to any others who come along thinking "hey a dam, lets make a hole"..

Since when did we all get so comfortable with asking permission to be free?

Those willing to compromise their freedom will have none of it by days end...:mad:

This is just stupid. You are going to shoot people now? Really? I seriously doubt it.

MA is a liberal cesspool, no doubt. It did not happen overnight, though. Do you really deny the fact that liberals have gradually changed this country and were content to take many decades to do so, while people like you stood around writing letters to the editor or posting on an internet site, a load of toughguy bs about shooting people. While you are doing that, our rights are being eroded.

MA is a cesspool due to the lack of reading skills apparently. I never said we should ask permission to be free. I never said we should compromise our freedoms. We should never do that. Each compromise should result in getting our freedoms back, slowly. If I compromise 10 times and each time gets me 10% more rights, I will have my 100% rights back. You meanwhile, are left shouting platitudes and quoting stuff off the internet and wondering why you have no more rights. All because of an "I want it now" attitude.

I am willing to compromise on NV Blue card registration, for example. Get rid today of the blue card bs and I will agree to allow the continuation of something like the ccw requirement to qualify with each semi auto I want to carry. (go to the NV thread if you don't know what I am talking about)Then next time, eliminate the semi auto requirement, and I will vote to allow the continuation of another law on the books I may not agree with. And on and on until we are really where we should be. And where will you be? Still crying on the internet about how you want it all, now, or you may, perhaps start shooting people.
 

Bohemian

New member
Read The Unabridged Second Amendment...

How about we ask a subject matter expert on what the founders meant by "Shall Not Be Infringed"...
Link Removed

Or another...

The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government...
Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" - Samuel Adams

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams

Think about this...
I was born in 1962 and my parents had more rights than my children, grandchildren & I do now...
ITS not getting a little bit better incrementally its getting much worse by leaps & bounds...
 

buddy

New member
How about we ask a subject matter expert on what the founders meant by "Shall Not Be Infringed"...
Link Removed

Or another...

The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government...
Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" - Samuel Adams

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams

Think about this...
I was born in 1962 and my parents had more rights than my children, grandchildren & I do now...
ITS not getting a little bit better incrementally its getting much worse by leaps & bounds...

I never said it was getting better incrementally. I said changes happen that way, for better or worse. Since the 30's, it has been for the worse. But anyone who thinks our freedoms will come back in one big, fell swoop, by someone only willing to accept "all or nothing" is living in la la land.
 

mappow

New member
Harry Reid and gun rights advocates are about as far apart as can be. Side of the aisle, Bullsh!t!!, Not even in the same building...

Compromise is how we've gotten to this point... It's that kind of "fantasy position" crap that gets us in the compromise position... Shall Not Be Infringed... Hummmm, reading it exactly that way I see no reason to compromise... Vermont has it right...

Compromise is how we've gotten to this point, both parties are culpable. WE the People have continued to allow this to happen as well. GOT to STOP the Insanity. MY Rights are not up for compromise. I AM afforded those Rights. IT"S ALL ABOUT ME, THE INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS PROTECTIONS not some Toady in Congress compromising my inalienable rights.

Well said 6shooter!!
 

Bohemian

New member
I never said it was getting better incrementally. I said changes happen that way, for better or worse. Since the 30's, it has been for the worse. But anyone who thinks our freedoms will come back in one big, fell swoop, by someone only willing to accept "all or nothing" is living in la la land.

Believe what you want to believe, fact is as long as people keep thinking with a defeatist attitude like yours; then we are already defeated without a fight...

56 men put their families, fortunes and lives and liberty on the line for the freedoms we have allowed the Progressives to steal from us, via perversion of the founding documents and through our own ignorance and neglect thereof...

We have done them and our children and their children's children a great dishonor just in the last 48 years alone...

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." - Ronald Reagan


"Important principles may, and must, be inflexible." - Abraham Lincoln

WTFU SHEEPLE - TAKE BACK THE REPUBLIC

Remember, Remember The Second of November 2010
 

buddy

New member
Believe what you want to believe, fact is as long as people keep thinking with a defeatist attitude like yours; then we are already defeated without a fight...

56 men put their families, fortunes and lives and liberty on the line for the freedoms we have allowed the Progressives to steal from us, via perversion of the founding documents and through our own ignorance and neglect thereof...

We have done them and our children and their children's chen a great dishonor just in the last 48 years alone...

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." - Ronald Reagan


"Important principles may, and must, be inflexible." - Abraham Lincoln

WTFU SHEEPLE - TAKE BACK THE REPUBLIC

Remember, Remember The Second of November 2010

It is obvious you have not read anything I have written. Defeatist attitude? I want to reclaim my rights, I just recognize it will be slow. I am a realist. You, on the other hand, are an idealist, which is fine. But standing there holding out for everything you desire, and not willing to accept less, even in order to get more later, is a mistake.

Since most of your threads consist of quoting others, here is one from Reagan
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "

"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.

"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."

Sounds like the voice of reason to me. If you don't get everything you want next tuesday, go ahead and accept nothing. The rest of us will carry on trying to get our rights back, even if it takes time.

People keep posting these sayings about compromise but I would rather compromise but overall, win, than not compromise and lose everything. Unfortunately, those who have compromised us over the last 60 years have lost, rather than won, which is why are rights are eroding.

You must have been fun to grow up around. I guess if you wanted to play basketball and your buddies wanted to play football, you went home.
 

nogods

Active member
BLAHH BLAHHH BLAHHH!!!

It gets convoluted by the progressive liberals who've been seated on the bench by the progressive liberals that have been elected by progressive liberals that are all too willing to deprive themselves of their God given rights... Of course with no God, you have no God given rights... Ahhh, It all makes perfect sense now... :wacko:

The above reads to me like you're ready to clean your guns and hand them over when they come knocking on your door... Again more evidence... Pathetic... I think you may be one of the people on the other side of the dam. Making the hole bigger...

Putting aside all of your rhetoric, I don't see any reasoning in your response that disputes my view (which is the majority view of learned people in this country).

Is it just that you don't like it?

The language of the Second Amendment is simple, clear, precise and concise.

Our founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they chose those words. You apparently don't like their choice. But that doesn't justify re-interpreting those words with a contorted strained irrational premise to suit your needs.
 

Bohemian

New member
It is obvious you have not read anything I have written. Defeatist attitude? I want to reclaim my rights, I just recognize it will be slow. I am a realist. You, on the other hand, are an idealist, which is fine. But standing there holding out for everything you desire, and not willing to accept less, even in order to get more later, is a mistake.

Since most of your threads consist of quoting others, here is one from Reagan
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "

"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.

"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."

Sounds like the voice of reason to me. If you don't get everything you want next tuesday, go ahead and accept nothing. The rest of us will carry on trying to get our rights back, even if it takes time.

People keep posting these sayings about compromise but I would rather compromise but overall, win, than not compromise and lose everything. Unfortunately, those who have compromised us over the last 60 years have lost, rather than won, which is why are rights are eroding.

You must have been fun to grow up around. I guess if you wanted to play basketball and your buddies wanted to play football, you went home.

Ronald Reagan is 2nd only to Slick-Willie Clinton in compromising more Second Amendment rights away than any other President in U.S. History... (Before & After and During His Presidency...
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/politics/11472-enough-ronald-reagan-praise-b-s.html

F*CK Compromise of our Fundamental Rights...

Did the framers compromise on Shall Not Be Infringed? NO...

We cannot, must not allow any more to be read into it...

The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government...
Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT
 
Small improvements? What frigging state do you live in? I'm in MA and have not seen any improvement!!!
In fact, the "Cradle of Freedom" has become the cesspool of pregressive liberalism, socialism, and is about as unimproved when it comes to firearms laws. All thanks to compromise.

Perhaps it will take those of us who have had enough of the incremental compromise bullsh!t, the ebb and flow I'll call it, on the God given right itself, to put some holes in the people on the other side of the dam that keep trying to make the hole bigger. Then use the carcasses to plug the hole in a manner as to send a message to any others who come along thinking "hey a dam, lets make a hole"..

Since when did we all get so comfortable with asking permission to be free?

Those willing to compromise their freedom will have none of it by days end...:mad:

It seems that MA is making progress with the election of Scott Brown and it appears that Barney Frank is not breezing along as he has in past years. The problem is that each state elects their own state legislature which then passes the state laws. Apparently MA wants legislators which walk over our rights.

If you disagree, you have the option of working very hard, both physically and fiscally to get the folks you want elected to office. If that fails, you also have the option to move somewhere else. I lived in CA for three years and quit my job, along with my wife, and we moved back to the real world in the Midwest and then back to Oklahoma, where we can tote our guns.

How about we ask a subject matter expert on what the founders meant by "Shall Not Be Infringed"...
Link Removed

Or another...

The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government...
Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" - Samuel Adams

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams

Think about this...
I was born in 1962 and my parents had more rights than my children, grandchildren & I do now...
ITS not getting a little bit better incrementally its getting much worse by leaps & bounds...


Bohemian, I guess I don't understand why you don't welcome everyone who supports the Second Amendment. You seem to have a terrible hatred of the NRA. The NRA was active supporting the Second Amendment long before the GOA existed.

I guess the old Rodney King line comes to mind, Why can't we all just get along or something like that. We all have a common purpose which is to protect our Second Amendment Rights.

I know you have a deep dislike for Harry Reid, as do I, but be careful what you wish for. I think Sharon Angle will win the election, but it will be hard for the Republicans to get the necessary seats to control the Senate and it is very likely that Chuckie Schumer will be the Majority Leader. Unfortunately there is no one else in the Senate who is more anti Second Amendment than Chuckie.

It will then be even more important for the NRA, the GOA and other Second Amendment groups to step up and fight for our rights. I just hope you will slow down your negative rhetoric concerning the NRA and do as Rodney said.

JMHO
 

6shootercarry

New member
This is just stupid. You are going to shoot people now? Really? I seriously doubt it.

MA is a liberal cesspool, no doubt. It did not happen overnight, though. Do you really deny the fact that liberals have gradually changed this country and were content to take many decades to do so, while people like you stood around writing letters to the editor or posting on an internet site, a load of toughguy bs about shooting people. While you are doing that, our rights are being eroded.

MA is a cesspool due to the lack of reading skills apparently. I never said we should ask permission to be free. I never said we should compromise our freedoms. We should never do that. Each compromise should result in getting our freedoms back, slowly. If I compromise 10 times and each time gets me 10% more rights, I will have my 100% rights back. You meanwhile, are left shouting platitudes and quoting stuff off the internet and wondering why you have no more rights. All because of an "I want it now" attitude.

I am willing to compromise on NV Blue card registration, for example. Get rid today of the blue card bs and I will agree to allow the continuation of something like the ccw requirement to qualify with each semi auto I want to carry. (go to the NV thread if you don't know what I am talking about)Then next time, eliminate the semi auto requirement, and I will vote to allow the continuation of another law on the books I may not agree with. And on and on until we are really where we should be. And where will you be? Still crying on the internet about how you want it all, now, or you may, perhaps start shooting people.


Me NOT shooting would be stupid. I'll not go quietly while allowing anyone to take my guns or freedom... It's that simple. Yea, You'll think internet bravado so I'll not continue with that. I have no inclination to explain or justify myself to anyone... But I'll indulge...

As far as doing nothing in the time that I'm away from this site, I'll address that here.

"while people like you stood around writing letters to the editor or posting on an internet site, a load of toughguy bs about shooting people."

I usually sit while I write. It's just more comfortable that way. Yes, writing to your elected officials is part of the peaceful stance against rights infringement. Voting to remove the elected officials that are more likely to compromise when it comes to your rights, is the other part of that peaceful ground standing. Tolerating government representatives that fail to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights is part of that unnecessary compromise.

"While you are doing that, our rights are being eroded."

It's the willingness to compromise by people like yourself, that has allowed the erosion of our rights. By signaling to anyone you are willing to compromise to get what you think you want, you loose what you had already. Perhaps understanding what it is that God gave you and our founding fathers and patriots fought to protect for you, would be a good beginning. You would perhaps be less likely to negotiate with it if you really understood it for the gift that it is.

"Each compromise should result in getting our freedoms back, slowly. If I compromise 10 times and each time gets me 10% more rights, I will have my 100% rights back."

The fundamental premise of compromise is giving something in return for something else. The math here is faulty. You propose to get 10% back every time you compromise, yet what are you willing to give in return for the 10%? What do you offer up for sacrifice? what % is it worth? It may not be important to you, but maybe it's of great importance to another.
You write here as though you have the best interests of every gun owner in mind. Ask other gun owners how they feel about your willingness to compromise. A poll here would suffice for demonstration. You'll be astounded by the results...

If NV found it necessary and proper to enact some of the laws we have here in MA regarding regulation and restriction of firearms, would you allow it to happen if it got you 10% back at the risk of loosing 20, 30, or more percent? Are you sure you really want to take that risk?

"MA is a cesspool due to the lack of reading skills apparently. I never said we should ask permission to be free."

If you were saying anything I couldn't hear you over the internet. I can read however... I seem to be doing it well enough. I read "Shall Not Be Infringed" exactly as written... No compromise required. I simply asked a general question...

"You meanwhile, are left shouting platitudes and quoting stuff off the internet and wondering why you have no more rights. All because of an "I want it now" attitude."

I'm not shouting. It's quiet here and I kinda like it that way. OK, symbolically speaking, if I were "shouting" here in this medium it would be something like this "I WANT IT NOW!"..

I'm not greedy, I don't "want". I'm selfish, I'd like to keep what I have and was given already... Compromise means I have to give to get. That leaves me with the same or in most cases with gun rights, less than I had to begin with. So tell me how do I get the 10% back again?

"And where will you be? Still crying on the internet about how you want it all, now, or you may, perhaps start shooting people."

I have moments when I cry. I cried at the death of my friend Chris (breast cancer) and I cried when my lifelong friend Steve died (motorcycle accident). I do not however, cry when matters of internet disagreement are at hand...

I'll be here, continuing to fight for my rights. I made the trip to DC in April this year to support the 2nd amendment march. Sure it was a symbolic thing, but I made the time to do it and met some really cool like minded folks on the trip. I will write this with conviction for you to read irregardless of you believing it or not, none of them have any inclination to compromise when God given rights come into negotiation.

I'm active in local political campaigns and support candidates who uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not attempt to undermine it with compromise. If they are assembling a march for gun rights locally, I'll take the day if need be.

So now it's time to disagree. I disagree with your thought process, but realize I have no power to alter it. So I'll "stick to my guns" and not compromise. I'll also pray I don't have to shoot.
 

6shootercarry

New member
Putting aside all of your rhetoric, I don't see any reasoning in your response that disputes my view (which is the majority view of learned people in this country).

Is it just that you don't like it?

The language of the Second Amendment is simple, clear, precise and concise.

Our founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they chose those words. You apparently don't like their choice. But that doesn't justify re-interpreting those words with a contorted strained irrational premise to suit your needs.

Our founding fathers wrote:

Amendment II
"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."

You wrote:

Originally Posted by nogods View Post
"It seems to me that phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" gets convoluted a lot.

That phrase plainly says that the "right to keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed. The "shall not be infringed" phase does not define the right, it merely prohibits infringement of the right, whatever the scope and nature of that right may be.

Trying to use the prohibition on infringement as the definition of the right itself is simply not supported by our native language, reason, or logic, and has been consistently rejected by the SCOTUS.

Heller and McDonald defined "the right to keep and bear arms" to include(but not necessarily limited to) the right to possession of a handgun for personal protection in one's home.

But keep in mind that it is not an unlimited right. For example, as stated in Heller, the right to keep and bear arms does not include possession of handguns by felons. Thus, prohibing a felon from keeping a handgun in his or her home for personal protection is not an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms because the right does not extend to felons in the first place.

Think of it like a law that says no one shall infringe on the privacy rights of another person. We first have to define the scope and nature of the privacy right before we can determine if there is an infringment.

If the privacy right does not include one's presence in a public place, then photographing a person while they are in a public place would not be an infringment on their right to privacy. If the right of privacy was defined to include one's presence in a public place, then photographing a person in a public place might be an infringment on their right to privacy.

But in either case, until we have defined the scope and nature of the right, the "shall not be infringed" prohibition has no effective meaning. It doesn't define the right. It merely prohibits infringing whatever that right may be."


"But that doesn't justify re-interpreting those words with a contorted strained irrational premise to suit your needs."

If ever I've seen an example of re-interpreting those words with a "contorted strained irrational premise to suit your needs", that load of bullsh!t you wrote is it... Prize winning in fact... Not sure what a suitable prize would be for such... Anyway...

Your inability to "see" reason is not a function of my inability to present it. It's the defect in your thinking caused by the liberally biased education, that causes the faulty processing. I've written this before on this site, so one more time; "The view you speak of, I'm incapable of seeing. I am unable to bend my spine in that direction and to that degree, as to be able to put my head up my @ss. So I miss the contorted view"... Or something along those lines...

You're just another White-Out wielding, brainwashed liberal intent on contorting and editing the document that is the cornerstone of the USA " to suit your needs"...

Yes, the language of the 2nd Amendment is simple, clear, precise and concise. It's YOUR interpretation that is contorted, strained, irrational, and above all falling on deaf.. eyes?
Read it... Don't try and impose words between the words. Just read it as it is written.

Perhaps a poll to get the pulse of the site? But I'm sure you'll argue that the poll will not indicate that your thinking is faulty, it will indicate that the thinking of all those who are in opposition to your thinking are faulty. You must be a lawyer or aspiring democrat... Pathetic, I'll remain unswayed in my assessment...
 

Bohemian

New member
It seems that MA is making progress with the election of Scott Brown and it appears that Barney Frank is not breezing along as he has in past years. The problem is that each state elects their own state legislature which then passes the state laws. Apparently MA wants legislators which walk over our rights.

If you disagree, you have the option of working very hard, both physically and fiscally to get the folks you want elected to office. If that fails, you also have the option to move somewhere else. I lived in CA for three years and quit my job, along with my wife, and we moved back to the real world in the Midwest and then back to Oklahoma, where we can tote our guns.




Bohemian, I guess I don't understand why you don't welcome everyone who supports the Second Amendment. You seem to have a terrible hatred of the NRA. The NRA was active supporting the Second Amendment long before the GOA existed.

I guess the old Rodney King line comes to mind, Why can't we all just get along or something like that. We all have a common purpose which is to protect our Second Amendment Rights.

I know you have a deep dislike for Harry Reid, as do I, but be careful what you wish for. I think Sharon Angle will win the election, but it will be hard for the Republicans to get the necessary seats to control the Senate and it is very likely that Chuckie Schumer will be the Majority Leader. Unfortunately there is no one else in the Senate who is more anti Second Amendment than Chuckie.

It will then be even more important for the NRA, the GOA and other Second Amendment groups to step up and fight for our rights. I just hope you will slow down your negative rhetoric concerning the NRA and do as Rodney said.

JMHO

The NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934, In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871."
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=3247

"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22


Perhaps reviewing the following will give you some clarity...
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/fire...ra-continues-compromise-second-amendment.html
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,435
Messages
623,654
Members
74,274
Latest member
Jlynn610
Top