This just in from NRA-ILA


nogods

Active member
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...

lol..lets take a poll. The size of an ignorant crowd does not raise the level of the intelligence of anyone in the crowd.

In all your dribble you have not offered one bit of reasoning that would allow the 2nd to read as you wish it would be. "shall not be infringed" is the action applied to the subject "the right to bear arms". It is simple English.

"the right to bear arms" has no intrinsic meaning. It has to be defined to be given life. Once it is defined, then the action clause "shall not be infringed" acts upon it. Until then, the action clause has nothing to act upon.

This is why it is important we should require all residents of the US to learn English as a first language.
 

buddy

New member
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.

"me not shooting would be stupid". During the last 60 yrs, our rights have been eroded like nothing before in our history. So I am curious, have you shot people or are you stupid? How many people have you shot because you think they don't meet your standards for applying the constitution? Or are you stupid for not shooting anyone?

I am glad you sit while you write. Unforunately, I cannot reply, I am too dazzled by the brilliance of your statement. It is not even good sarcasm.

Regarding compromise, I made it clear that any compromise should result in a net gain for our side. You ask me about gaining 10% to lose 20%, I say, who gives a sh&t about that statement? I never said it. If you have to deliberately misquote me and argue against something I never said, go for it. I personally would never negotiate anything, either in politics or my business, that results in a net loss.

I am glad you cry. I just don't really care, and don't see what it adds to this discussion.

I too am active in local politics, although my involvement has slowed due to starting a business.

For you or Bohemian, you believe in an unabridged 2nd amendment. Do you think there should be any limits on someone (anyone) owning a weapon (any weapon)? Any restrictions at all?
 

golocx4

Got Beretta's?
Bottom Line: Tuesday is critical.
ACORN and their free cigarettes will be out in force.
SEIU and their contracts on for voting machines will be working

Every Gun owner had better be planning to vote and getting everyone in their family to vote or we are toast.

NRA Political Victory Fund has a great tool using your zipcode.

Print out your ballot and take it with you to vote.

National Rifle Association | Political Victory Fund | PVF Home

Every member of this forum should go here between now and Tuesday!

Yes, it is that important.
 

6shootercarry

New member
lol..lets take a poll. The size of an ignorant crowd does not raise the level of the intelligence of anyone in the crowd.

In all your dribble you have not offered one bit of reasoning that would allow the 2nd to read as you wish it would be. "shall not be infringed" is the action applied to the subject "the right to bear arms". It is simple English.

"the right to bear arms" has no intrinsic meaning. It has to be defined to be given life. Once it is defined, then the action clause "shall not be infringed" acts upon it. Until then, the action clause has nothing to act upon.

This is why it is important we should require all residents of the US to learn English as a first language.

The English language I have no issue with, It's the liberal mindset that causes me confusion.

Definition of RIGHT
1: qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval

2: something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled <voting rights> <his right to decide> b (1) : the interest that one has in a piece of property —often used in plural <mineral rights> (2) plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature <film rights of the novel>

3: something that one may properly claim as due <knowing the truth is her right>

4: the cause of truth or justice

5a : right hand 1a; also : a blow struck with this hand <gave him a hard right on the jaw> b : the location or direction of the right side <woods on his right> c : the part on the right side d : right field e : a turn to the right <take a right at the stop sign>

6a : the true account or correct interpretation b : the quality or state of being factually correct

7often capitalized a : the part of a legislative chamber located to the right of the presiding officer b : the members of a continental European legislative body occupying the right as a result of holding more conservative political views than other members

8a often capitalized : individuals professing support of the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices and conservative governmental policies b often capitalized : a conservative position

9a : a privilege given stockholders to subscribe pro rata to a new issue of securities generally below market price b : the negotiable certificate evidencing such privilege —usually used in plural

Just so were on the same theoretical page, choose your definition of Right. It really comes down to interpretation and the bias involved in the process... Your definition and mine vary by some degree. But that is to be expected from what I would describe as "a very thorough and complete brainwash". Kudos to the professor.

Or don't choose. It matters little to me what you think or feel or believe. In fact I've come to the conclusion that any further discourse is futile. I have a very good idea what the intrinsic value of the "Right" is.
It's apparent that you'd have that value decided for you and willingly accept it.

Still the same assessment...
 

6shootercarry

New member
"me not shooting would be stupid". During the last 60 yrs, our rights have been eroded like nothing before in our history. So I am curious, have you shot people or are you stupid? How many people have you shot because you think they don't meet your standards for applying the constitution? Or are you stupid for not shooting anyone?

I am glad you sit while you write. Unforunately, I cannot reply, I am too dazzled by the brilliance of your statement. It is not even good sarcasm.

Regarding compromise, I made it clear that any compromise should result in a net gain for our side. You ask me about gaining 10% to lose 20%, I say, who gives a sh&t about that statement? I never said it. If you have to deliberately misquote me and argue against something I never said, go for it. I personally would never negotiate anything, either in politics or my business, that results in a net loss.

I am glad you cry. I just don't really care, and don't see what it adds to this discussion.

I too am active in local politics, although my involvement has slowed due to starting a business.

For you or Bohemian, you believe in an unabridged 2nd amendment. Do you think there should be any limits on someone (anyone) owning a weapon (any weapon)? Any restrictions at all?

I will address the questions and statements one at a time.

"me not shooting would be stupid". During the last 60 yrs, our rights have been eroded like nothing before in our history. So I am curious, have you shot people or are you stupid? How many people have you shot because you think they don't meet your standards for applying the constitution? Or are you stupid for not shooting anyone?"

If an attempt was to be made to deprive me of Life, Liberty, or The Pursuit of Happiness by ANYONE, Yes I would shoot. Would you not? There is a great deal of room there for interpretation. It's about as frightening a proposition as I can think of, but where do you draw the line. When do you say ENOUGH!! We have been conditioned to condone, tolerate, and accept the compromise. There will always be the existence of people who will come to take and expect that there will be people willing to give. I've shot no one thus far and as I indicated in a previous post, I'll pray I don't have to.

"I am glad you sit while you write. Unforunately, I cannot reply, I am too dazzled by the brilliance of your statement. It is not even good sarcasm."

Levity... Not even a little?

"I am glad you cry. I just don't really care, and don't see what it adds to this discussion."


I was confused about the crying on the internet statement and indicated a few instances in which I thought crying could be considered acceptable. Correct. It is irrelevant...

"I too am active in local politics, although my involvement has slowed due to starting a business."

Excellent. Keep at it. If we allow all the other things to hamper our ability to tend to our civic duties, we get into a rescue mode of political change and have to fight to reverse the damage. That rescue activity can also lead to compromise as a means of survival. I'm guilty of having been a bit inactive in the past due to family and career responsibilities...

"Regarding compromise, I made it clear that any compromise should result in a net gain for our side. You ask me about gaining 10% to lose 20%, I say, who gives a sh&t about that statement? I never said it. If you have to deliberately misquote me and argue against something I never said, go for it. I personally would never negotiate anything, either in politics or my business, that results in a net loss."

That was a question not a statement. I asked if you would be willing to get 10% for 20, 30% loss... It's speculative and open to interpretation. Nogods can assist with interpretation along with a better understanding of the English language... Careful, he seems a bit liberally biased...

"For you or Bohemian, you believe in an unabridged 2nd amendment. Do you think there should be any limits on someone (anyone) owning a weapon (any weapon)? Any restrictions at all?"

They become the inches that make up the mile taken.
You wrote it yourself. The willingness to compromise. The takers depend on that incremental degradation in the willingness to fight. Yea I know, it bends the mind. The liberals having been lead to believe that the simple written words need to be interpreted and restructured, will never read them the same way. And the inverse will be true in that conservatives who have no desire to interpret or restructure the words will read them simply as they have been written.

Therein lies the battle, fight, disagreement. Call it what you choose. Each side will have the other compromise so it's really a balance. The proposed 10% gotten has a negative % associated with it.

I've stated my point here and have nothing further to add. In the interest of peace, we shall agree to disagree? What say you?
 

Bohemian

New member
Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it...

One of the key tenets of our founders Second Amendment...

IS...

Without a Unabridged Second Amendment, we have no means to resist/replace a Tyrannical government...

“Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.” - Edmund Burke


It never ceases to amaze me how many so-called second amendment supporters do not understand the fundamental, preexisting right the founders protected for us...

That goes double for the rest of our rights they protected...

Or that in the history of the world the compromise, incrementalism approach the NRA & many on this forum and elsewhere advocate has always led to the same end...
Total Confiscation, Anarchy, and Dictatorship...

The only ones whom have been compromising is those of us that at least support the second amendment in some way, shape or form...
The Gun-Grabbing Liberals & Progressives have only gained more & more of the means to their ultimate socialist/Marxist utopia...

We keep giving and they keep taking...

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH TIME TO TAKE BACK WHAT IS INHERENTLY OURS DAMM-IT!

Don't kid yourselves the recent SCOTUS 2a rulings only muddied the waters further, just like the previous ones have...

Educate yourselves for crying out loud...
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/fire...078-gun-bans-dont-think-can-happen-watch.html

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

"Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia" - Elbridge Gerry

The Weimar Republic - We Are Heading This Way At Breakneck Speed By The Socialist/Marxist In Chief & Company...
Weimar Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re-Boot The Constitution, Take Back The Republic November 2nd, 2010
 

Bohemian

New member
The vote is always important but never more so than during the upcoming elections. Choose wisely and VOTE!

Amen +1 and offer to take friends, family, neighbors etc., to the polls if they have not gone already...

We do not want anybody being intimated...

Remember the Black Panther b.s. chasing off anybody whom was not voting for Obama...

and the ACORN/SEIU voter fraud in virtually all the swing states...
 
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 was born in 1950's you could even have a handgun in Chicago !!! But no one needed one . Now you tell me if we are better off now? ( How many years to make it legal ? All the way to the Supreme Court . Unbelievable ????? )
 

PaxMentis

New member
Unfortunately, the compromises made are usually more of the nature of settling for losing some rights so the grabbers don't come after them all. As a result, they are being stripped incrementally in such a way that many are not even aware of the loss.

As far as "convoluted language" regarding the second amendment, the framers chose to not qualify the "right to keep and bear arms" that they so rightly guaranteed against infringement. Any later qualification or limitation of that right is, by definition, an infringement.

And finally, I think this whole bugaboo about "Chuckie Schumer will be Majority Leader" is silly. First of all, while Chuckie might very well be Leader, there will be one less anti-gun vote on his side than there would be if Harry were there. There is also the fact that Chuckie, with more exposure, can almost be expected to shoot himself in the foot...figuratively of course.

:pleasantry:
 

nogods

Active member
As far as "convoluted language" regarding the second amendment, the framers chose to not qualify the "right to keep and bear arms" that they so rightly guaranteed against infringement. Any later qualification or limitation of that right is, by definition, an infringement.

:pleasantry:

Are biological and nuclear weapons protected by the right to bear arms?

Can I possess such weapons anywhere at anytime without restriction?

Is a jaguar trained to guard me a weapon covered by the right to bear arms? Can i take my jaguar into the courthouse? Can i bring my nuclear and biological weapons into the Capitol building? If not, wouldn't that be an infringement of the right to bear arms?
 

6shootercarry

New member
Are biological and nuclear weapons protected by the right to bear arms?

Can I possess such weapons anywhere at anytime without restriction?

Is a jaguar trained to guard me a weapon covered by the right to bear arms? Can i take my jaguar into the courthouse? Can i bring my nuclear and biological weapons into the Capitol building? If not, wouldn't that be an infringement of the right to bear arms?

The answer to all the questions; YES... Again we the people have become adjusted to the compromise. Some of us would rather not continue...

With the right comes responsibility. If the "Right" is abused by those who chose to do wrong, they shall expect to be struck down by those who will do right. You can't go around trying to restrict and regulate by the premise "people may do harm with it". Guess what? They will.

Regulating and restricting the "Right" has never had an effect on the criminals who choose to do wrong. Why do the bleeding heart liberals believe it ever will? So infringement on my "Right" to carry a gun when and where I choose for the purpose of self defense helps me in what way?

If the supreme court upheld the ruling that local government and law enforcement has no duty to protect you from criminals and madmen, they should have no issue with anyone choosing to protect themselves and loved ones by any means they choose. Be it a jaguar or

a Cheetah.
57_elenco.jpg


Right, n; any claim, title, etc., that is morally just or legally granted as allowable or due to a person
that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.
Natural: rights that can neither be bestowed by a government nor abrogated by it, such as rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

No change in assessment...
 

buddy

New member
The answer to all the questions; YES... Again we the people have become adjusted to the compromise. Some of us would rather not continue...

With the right comes responsibility. If the "Right" is abused by those who chose to do wrong, they shall expect to be struck down by those who will do right. You can't go around trying to restrict and regulate by the premise "people may do harm with it". Guess what? They will.

Regulating and restricting the "Right" has never had an effect on the criminals who choose to do wrong. Why do the bleeding heart liberals believe it ever will? So infringement on my "Right" to carry a gun when and where I choose for the purpose of self defense helps me in what way?

If the supreme court upheld the ruling that local government and law enforcement has no duty to protect you from criminals and madmen, they should have no issue with anyone choosing to protect themselves and loved ones by any means they choose. Be it a jaguar or

a Cheetah.
57_elenco.jpg


Right, n; any claim, title, etc., that is morally just or legally granted as allowable or due to a person
that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.
Natural: rights that can neither be bestowed by a government nor abrogated by it, such as rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

No change in assessment...


So what laws should stay in place? Obviously none according to you. Was it compromise to not allow a person to scream "fire" in a crowded theater? Burning the flag? Why not allow people to burn the flag? The law does not stop those who wish to do it. I assume you wish to allow flag burning. How about slander? Just allow citizens to strike down those who they decide have slandered them? We have natural rights to self defense and free speech. I agree, if that is what you are saying. Would you allow infringement on flag burning and slander? How about sedition? Burning your draft card in the 60's?


Oh, yeah, if the "right" is abused by those who do wrong, they can be ... blah blah blah.
Sounds like a libertarian anarchist to me. There is a reason Rand hated libertarians.
 

Bohemian

New member
Freedom first

So what laws should stay in place? Obviously none according to you. Was it compromise to not allow a person to scream "fire" in a crowded theater? Burning the flag? Why not allow people to burn the flag? The law does not stop those who wish to do it. I assume you wish to allow flag burning. How about slander? Just allow citizens to strike down those who they decide have slandered them? We have natural rights to self defense and free speech. I agree, if that is what you are saying. Would you allow infringement on flag burning and slander? How about sedition? Burning your draft card in the 60's?


Oh, yeah, if the "right" is abused by those who do wrong, they can be ... blah blah blah.
Sounds like a libertarian anarchist to me. There is a reason Rand hated libertarians.

You are spewing the same crap from the anti's playbook...
Educate yourself man...

FREEDOM FIRST...
Fundamental Freedom is not subject to negotiation or compromise...

Once again it needs to be reiterated...
Without the Unabridged Second Amendment WE THE PEOPLE have no effective way to resist/replace a tyrannical government...

We have plenty of reasonable laws on the books to deal with somebody that murders somebody during the course of a robbery; that do not prohibit somebody from actually being able to carry something to defend themselves with...

While we have a plethora of unconstitutional superfluous laws that define what, when and where you have the ability to defend your life and that of your friends, family, neighbors etc...

I am sure nobody is against consequences for using the Unabridged Second Amendment in a way that is not consistent with the framers intent of protecting said preexisting right to defend yourselves, your family, neighbors etc., from all enemies foreign and domestic, using equal or greater force than may be brought against us; including but not limited to the tyranny of our own government...

Watts & Rodney King and other LA riots and Hurricane Katrina were perfect examples of in recent history where people's previously compromised rights prevented them from defending themselves from armed gangs of 10-30 individuals armed with the very weapons they were prohibited from owning...

Here's a scenario for you... say for example the country collapses from Obama & Company's Socialist Utopia; and a truck load of individuals have a pretty good idea that you have some food and water and or women in your place...
They decide that a reasonable course of action is to drive that pickup/suv through your front door... (something that is currently being done on a daily basis in Mexico and Greece just to name two)
AND you see them coming...
What do you think your chances are of stopping them with your hunting rifle or handgun or shotgun are?
ZIP, ZERO, NATTA...

Now IF you were able to actually possess a hand-held rocket launcher such as a Law/Rpg etc., it would be like shooting fish in a barrel...
Same thing if a tyrannical government decided to send the U.N.'s Spetsnaz to confiscate your guns & knives because you are a registered firearm owner that has participated in at least one NICS check, is a holder of a CCW/CCP or related Concealed Firearms Permit...
Or have participated in any of the current required compromises on The Unabridged Second Amendment to allow you to actually exercise your pre-existing right....
Moreover, said tyrannical government has deemed it for the public good that nobody will be armed any longer...

Dictatorship/President for life, suspension of civil rights sound familiar?
Weimar Republic?, Greece? Europe? Hugo Chavez?
How about the tenets of Socialism, Marxism, Communism that are all embraced by those that have previously compromised our rights away...
 

buddy

New member
You are spewing the same crap from the anti's playbook...
Educate yourself man...

FREEDOM FIRST...
Fundamental Freedom is not subject to negotiation or compromise...

Once again it needs to be reiterated...
Without the Unabridged Second Amendment WE THE PEOPLE have no effective way to resist/replace a tyrannical government...

We have plenty of reasonable laws on the books to deal with somebody that murders somebody during the course of a robbery; that do not prohibit somebody from actually being able to carry something to defend themselves with...

While we have a plethora of unconstitutional superfluous laws that define what, when and where you have the ability to defend your life and that of your friends, family, neighbors etc...

I am sure nobody is against consequences for using the Unabridged Second Amendment in a way that is not consistent with the framers intent of protecting said preexisting right to defend yourselves, your family, neighbors etc., from all enemies foreign and domestic, using equal or greater force than may be brought against us; including but not limited to the tyranny of our own government...

Watts & Rodney King and other LA riots and Hurricane Katrina were perfect examples of in recent history where people's previously compromised rights prevented them from defending themselves from armed gangs of 10-30 individuals armed with the very weapons they were prohibited from owning...

Here's a scenario for you... say for example the country collapses from Obama & Company's Socialist Utopia; and a truck load of individuals have a pretty good idea that you have some food and water and or women in your place...
They decide that a reasonable course of action is to drive that pickup/suv through your front door... (something that is currently being done on a daily basis in Mexico and Greece just to name two)
AND you see them coming...
What do you think your chances are of stopping them with your hunting rifle or handgun or shotgun are?
ZIP, ZERO, NATTA...

Now IF you were able to actually possess a hand-held rocket launcher such as a Law/Rpg etc., it would be like shooting fish in a barrel...
Same thing if a tyrannical government decided to send the U.N.'s Spetsnaz to confiscate your guns & knives because you are a registered firearm owner that has participated in at least one NICS check, is a holder of a CCW/CCP or related Concealed Firearms Permit...
Or have participated in any of the current required compromises on The Unabridged Second Amendment to allow you to actually exercise your pre-existing right....
Moreover, said tyrannical government has deemed it for the public good that nobody will be armed any longer...

Dictatorship/President for life, suspension of civil rights sound familiar?
Weimar Republic?, Greece? Europe? Hugo Chavez?
How about the tenets of Socialism, Marxism, Communism that are all embraced by those that have previously compromised our rights away...

How about answering my questions instead of insulting me?
As far as your scenarios, I do not see them coming in my lifetime. Obama will be on his way out soon, and I really don't sit around thinking the UN is going to confiscate my guns. But I know from your postings you believe this to be a possibility so have at it.

You guys who are against compromise always pick out the worst examples, like California, which was never a compromise. Those people just hate guns, freedom and liberty and get what they deserve for voting people like Gov Brown into office. How come you never look at compromises that work, like, I don't know, the us constitution? It took weeks if not months of compromise and debate to get it passed.

You and I agree Katrina and the gun confiscation was a disgrace and a direct violation of the 2nd amendment. I would even go so far as to defend anyone who used phsyical force to defend themselves from the gun grabbers in that case. As a Vegas resident, I am sure you are aware of our sheriffs belief for having blue cards, that it could aid in confiscation in the event of big trouble like katrina, or a terrorist attack. I am sure we can agree that this should be resisted with every fiber of our being. However, I do not equate that resistance with saying that I can own a nuke. And if some fool comes into my office with a Jaguar on a leash and says it is for self defense, I can assure you both the Jag and the fool who claims it is an "arm" would meet an unhappy demise.
 

Bohemian

New member
How about answering my questions instead of insulting me?
As far as your scenarios, I do not see them coming in my lifetime. Obama will be on his way out soon, and I really don't sit around thinking the UN is going to confiscate my guns. But I know from your postings you believe this to be a possibility so have at it.

You guys who are against compromise always pick out the worst examples, like California, which was never a compromise. Those people just hate guns, freedom and liberty and get what they deserve for voting people like Gov Brown into office. How come you never look at compromises that work, like, I don't know, the us constitution? It took weeks if not months of compromise and debate to get it passed.

You and I agree Katrina and the gun confiscation was a disgrace and a direct violation of the 2nd amendment. I would even go so far as to defend anyone who used phsyical force to defend themselves from the gun grabbers in that case. As a Vegas resident, I am sure you are aware of our sheriffs belief for having blue cards, that it could aid in confiscation in the event of big trouble like katrina, or a terrorist attack. I am sure we can agree that this should be resisted with every fiber of our being. However, I do not equate that resistance with saying that I can own a nuke. And if some fool comes into my office with a Jaguar on a leash and says it is for self defense, I can assure you both the Jag and the fool who claims it is an "arm" would meet an unhappy demise.

Again, you fail to have a grasp or understanding of the history of this country, not the least of which being the events mentioned by yourself in regards to California...
In short, the people in California were victims of FEDERAL & STATE level Second Amendment Compromises...

Constitutional Compromise?
Ever hear of the Federalist Papers?

The Unabridged Second Amendment was the result of that so-called compromise you are referring to...
They agreed in the most unambiguous terms possible that are still as applicable then as now...
..."Shall Not Be Infringed" PERIOD...

Your questions have been answered over & over, apparently you have either not read them or are incapable of comprehending them...

FREEDOM FIRST...
Fundamental Freedom is not subject to negotiation or compromise...
IF you are so thin-skinned as to take what I or anybody else herein have said as a insult than so-be-it...
IF you can at least try to be more open-minded you will find it as a statement of fact...

In the real-world we do not deal with ideal scenarios, we deal with what-if, real-world scenarios...
both in business & the military, notwithstanding our personal lives...

And the things you think cannot happen, in the history of the world have happened over & over and over again, due to the ignorance and the naiveté of the poor souls whom said the same thing you are now...

Keep siding with the Liberals Buddy... see what it gets you...

There are plenty of private companies, held by private individuals whom own nuclear and fissionable materials, etc., in this country that in itself is not prohibited under current law...

The ludicrous Nuclear issue you and the liberals continually mention aside...
The problem is, it is currently illegal to construct or possess any kind of device that fires grenades, rockets, explosives of any type or any explosive device other than dynamite; by permit...

I can own a tank or a f18 if I have the money to pay for it; but I can only possess inert disabled projectiles to arm them with...
I personally don't have a desire to have either one, but I feel I have the right too...
A portable rocket launcher (Rpg/Law), and or 203 attachment(s) to black rifle(s) of choice, I.E.D.'s and full auto machine guns are far more practical in my view for civilians, including but not limited to retired military...

As far as the tanks and f18's etc., goes I think citizens militias should have a number of those fully armed; under their control outside of any police, military, national guard etc., and be well-trained as possible to use said armament should the need arise for the replacement/resistance of a tyrannical government...

As the framers clearly delineated...

All of which have been compromised away in my lifetime...

"...Whenever Governments mean to invade
the rights and liberties of the people,
they always attempt to destroy the militia..." - Elbridge Gerry 1788/1789

"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 1788/1789

The last two quotes occured during the debates of adding Second Amendment and its wording to the current bill of rights...

I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
 

6shootercarry

New member
Again, you fail to have a grasp or understanding of the history of this country, not the least of which being the events mentioned by yourself in regards to California...
In short, the people in California were victims of FEDERAL & STATE level Second Amendment Compromises...

Constitutional Compromise?
Ever hear of the Federalist Papers?

The Unabridged Second Amendment was the result of that so-called compromise you are referring to...
They agreed in the most unambiguous terms possible that are still as applicable then as now...
..."Shall Not Be Infringed" PERIOD...

Your questions have been answered over & over, apparently you have either not read them or are incapable of comprehending them...

FREEDOM FIRST...
Fundamental Freedom is not subject to negotiation or compromise...
IF you are so thin-skinned as to take what I or anybody else herein have said as a insult than so-be-it...
IF you can at least try to be more open-minded you will find it as a statement of fact...

In the real-world we do not deal with ideal scenarios, we deal with what-if, real-world scenarios...
both in business & the military, notwithstanding our personal lives...

And the things you think cannot happen, in the history of the world have happened over & over and over again, due to the ignorance and the naiveté of the poor souls whom said the same thing you are now...

Keep siding with the Liberals Buddy... see what it gets you...

There are plenty of private companies, held by private individuals whom own nuclear and fissionable materials, etc., in this country that in itself is not prohibited under current law...

The ludicrous Nuclear issue you and the liberals continually mention aside...
The problem is, it is currently illegal to construct or possess any kind of device that fires grenades, rockets, explosives of any type or any explosive device other than dynamite; by permit...

I can own a tank or a f18 if I have the money to pay for it; but I can only possess inert disabled projectiles to arm them with...
I personally don't have a desire to have either one, but I feel I have the right too...
A portable rocket launcher (Rpg/Law), and or 203 attachment(s) to black rifle(s) of choice, I.E.D.'s and full auto machine guns are far more practical in my view for civilians, including but not limited to retired military...

As far as the tanks and f18's etc., goes I think citizens militias should have a number of those fully armed; under their control outside of any police, military, national guard etc., and be well-trained as possible to use said armament should the need arise for the replacement/resistance of a tyrannical government...

As the framers clearly delineated...

All of which have been compromised away in my lifetime...

"...Whenever Governments mean to invade
the rights and liberties of the people,
they always attempt to destroy the militia..." - Elbridge Gerry 1788/1789

"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 1788/1789

The last two quotes occured during the debates of adding Second Amendment and its wording to the current bill of rights...

I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

I was going to go down the same road Bo, but then thought "why answer the same question in 6 different ways".

It appears to me, not to be a matter of unclear answers or insults, but a matter of comprehension.

I should have indicated I was writing this to buddy. edit 11/05/2010...
You asked questions and were provided with candid and honest answers along with supporting arguments. If you disagree with the information provided or the opinions provided simply state that fact and attend to your business. If compromise is your answer to the question simply state that and stand your ground.

The exercise here was to indicate, describe, and define what it is you are willing to compromise. Understand what the "Right" is before being too willing to compromise it. Truth be told I was in the darkness for a time. I'm sure Bohemian will attest to that. This information and the manner in which it is presented should be interpreted as admonishment not insult...

ad·mon·ish
vt \ad-ˈmä-nish\
Definition of ADMONISH
1
a : to indicate duties or obligations to
b : to express warning or disapproval to especially in a gentle, earnest, or solicitous manner
2 : to give friendly earnest advice or encouragement to

In short I agree to disagree if that is to be your course of action. What say you?
 

buddy

New member
Again, you fail to have a grasp or understanding of the history of this country, not the least of which being the events mentioned by yourself in regards to California...
In short, the people in California were victims of FEDERAL & STATE level Second Amendment Compromises...

Constitutional Compromise?
Ever hear of the Federalist Papers?

The Unabridged Second Amendment was the result of that so-called compromise you are referring to...
They agreed in the most unambiguous terms possible that are still as applicable then as now...
..."Shall Not Be Infringed" PERIOD...

Your questions have been answered over & over, apparently you have either not read them or are incapable of comprehending them...

FREEDOM FIRST...
Fundamental Freedom is not subject to negotiation or compromise...
IF you are so thin-skinned as to take what I or anybody else herein have said as a insult than so-be-it...
IF you can at least try to be more open-minded you will find it as a statement of fact...

In the real-world we do not deal with ideal scenarios, we deal with what-if, real-world scenarios...
both in business & the military, notwithstanding our personal lives...

And the things you think cannot happen, in the history of the world have happened over & over and over again, due to the ignorance and the naiveté of the poor souls whom said the same thing you are now...

Keep siding with the Liberals Buddy... see what it gets you...

There are plenty of private companies, held by private individuals whom own nuclear and fissionable materials, etc., in this country that in itself is not prohibited under current law...

The ludicrous Nuclear issue you and the liberals continually mention aside...
The problem is, it is currently illegal to construct or possess any kind of device that fires grenades, rockets, explosives of any type or any explosive device other than dynamite; by permit...

I can own a tank or a f18 if I have the money to pay for it; but I can only possess inert disabled projectiles to arm them with...
I personally don't have a desire to have either one, but I feel I have the right too...
A portable rocket launcher (Rpg/Law), and or 203 attachment(s) to black rifle(s) of choice, I.E.D.'s and full auto machine guns are far more practical in my view for civilians, including but not limited to retired military...

As far as the tanks and f18's etc., goes I think citizens militias should have a number of those fully armed; under their control outside of any police, military, national guard etc., and be well-trained as possible to use said armament should the need arise for the replacement/resistance of a tyrannical government...

As the framers clearly delineated...

All of which have been compromised away in my lifetime...

"...Whenever Governments mean to invade
the rights and liberties of the people,
they always attempt to destroy the militia..." - Elbridge Gerry 1788/1789

"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 1788/1789

The last two quotes occured during the debates of adding Second Amendment and its wording to the current bill of rights...

I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

Not sure why you would say I am thin skinned. Never said I was hurt or offended. Just pointed out something in the context of questions not being answered. Most on another, similar thread. But if you wish to say I am thin skinned and then denounce me for it, fine. Have at it.
I believe, as has been stated here, rights have to be defined. The right to bear arms must be defined as does the right to free speech.
I guess if I don't believe the right to keep and bear arms applies to military weapons like nukes, or to a jaguar, I am a liberal. If you want to believe that, go ahead. I guess if I don't believe that the UN is coming to take away our arms with special forces, I am a liberal. I thought they came in the 90's when Clinton was president and they were hiding in the woods, just waiting. I guess if I don't think a wild mountain cat walking besides me qualifies as "arms" and should not be allowed I am a liberal.

Final question, since I posted it on another thread...if we can define the right to free speech, why can we not apply the right to keep and bear arms in the same manner? The right to free speech does not say "except if you ..." It simply says the right to free speech shall not be abridged.
 

XDM Daniel

New member
We are not happy with the NRA in Utah. They endorsed a piece of crap liberal who anytime I have written him about a gun issue responds with such bull crap it makes me sick. If you check with Gun Owners of America they got it right... They gave the liberal Jim Matheson a C, and gave the true gun supporter Morgan Philpot an A. Won't be giving anymore of my hard earned $'s to the NRA!
 

Bohemian

New member
Not sure why you would say I am thin skinned. Never said I was hurt or offended. Just pointed out something in the context of questions not being answered. Most on another, similar thread. But if you wish to say I am thin skinned and then denounce me for it, fine. Have at it.
I believe, as has been stated here, rights have to be defined. The right to bear arms must be defined as does the right to free speech.
I guess if I don't believe the right to keep and bear arms applies to military weapons like nukes, or to a jaguar, I am a liberal. If you want to believe that, go ahead. I guess if I don't believe that the UN is coming to take away our arms with special forces, I am a liberal. I thought they came in the 90's when Clinton was president and they were hiding in the woods, just waiting. I guess if I don't think a wild mountain cat walking besides me qualifies as "arms" and should not be allowed I am a liberal.

Final question, since I posted it on another thread...if we can define the right to free speech, why can we not apply the right to keep and bear arms in the same manner? The right to free speech does not say "except if you ..." It simply says the right to free speech shall not be abridged.


IT means what it says no more not less, regardless of what SCOTUS/Congress unconstitutionally attempts to pervert it to...

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

Neither are subject to any further interpretation
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,435
Messages
623,630
Members
74,270
Latest member
rlrsk8r
Top