What would you do?


To me, this thread borders on if not crosses the line regarding obeying the law. I also would be careful about what I put in print in public! ;)

That's the point. There are two types of law if you will--God's and Man's. God's are pretty straight forward, easy to understand, and pretty much agreed upon. I'm talking about the Ten Commandments here. They have never and will never change.
As for Man's, there's the Bill of Rights and if you read them and understand them they are pretty much the same today with minor, very minor adjustments for the passage of time, ie $20 ain't worth diddly anymore--look at the Bill of Rights if you don't understand that point. But they too, should never change, after all they've gotten us throught 231 years so far. So, as a God fearing and God loving person who has always obeyed the law, is a Vet, is a taxpayer (and a lot) I just have to wonder where the re-writting of the Constitution will end. Carolyn McCarthy (D) NY, attempting to ban something as innocuous as the Ruger 10/22 because her husband was shot and killed doesn't work for me. What is next, the 1st Ammendment? ths sole purpose of this thread is to provoke thought, discussion and political action for the up coming election
 

What to do

That's the point. There are two types of law if you will--God's and Man's. God's are pretty straight forward, easy to understand, and pretty much agreed upon. I'm talking about the Ten Commandments here. They have never and will never change.
As for Man's, there's the Bill of Rights and if you read them and understand them they are pretty much the same today with minor, very minor adjustments for the passage of time, ie $20 ain't worth diddly anymore--look at the Bill of Rights if you don't understand that point. But they too, should never change, after all they've gotten us throught 231 years so far. So, as a God fearing and God loving person who has always obeyed the law, is a Vet, is a taxpayer (and a lot) I just have to wonder where the re-writting of the Constitution will end. Carolyn McCarthy (D) NY, attempting to ban something as innocuous as the Ruger 10/22 because her husband was shot and killed doesn't work for me. What is next, the 1st Ammendment? ths sole purpose of this thread is to provoke thought, discussion and political action for the up coming election



+1 and now is the time to think about what you will do. Each one of us has to make up our own mind. The day will come when you have to decide.
 
My concern here was that we not violate the Forum's rules and in any way by advocate breaking the law of this land in any form. :D Luke has said he is liable for what is posted on the Forum.

God's Word is clear that we are to obey those in authority over us as He has established them for His purposes. Unless those persons or laws violate God's Law.

But again, I just didn't want this thread to be locked because we forgot the Forum rules. :eek:

Carry on! ;)
 
Last edited:
There are legal remedies for even such an extreme situation.

I agree with SIG that it makes no sense to talk about extra-legal remedies on a public forum. Not only does it put Luke's forum in a difficult position, it's also tactically unsound. (think about it...)

I don't like the sound of that God's law stuff though Sig, it sounds too similar to Theocracy and the Divine Right of Kings. I opt for the Constitution as a binding social contract. I won't be the first to break my end of it, but if the government breaks their end, it may no longer be a binding contract.

'Nuff said.
 
I don't like the sound of that God's law stuff though Sig, it sounds too similar to Theocracy and the Divine Right of Kings. I opt for the Constitution as a binding social contract. I won't be the first to break my end of it, but if the government breaks their end, it may no longer be a binding contract.

'Nuff said.

He he... just quoting the book ishi, I'll let you take that issue up with the author! :p
 
He he... just quoting the book ishi, I'll let you take that issue up with the author! :p

Of the Ten Commandments only 6 through 10 are codified in law. The first four are strictly theocracy.

And yes I take issue with one of them. "I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me.

That goes against our laws as well as common sense and decency.

(Oh and I also have a camera so forget the graven images commandment.)
 
To me, this thread borders on if not crosses the line regarding obeying the law. I also would be careful about what I put in print in public! ;)


I resemble, I mean I resent that remark.

In my post on the subject;
Guns? What guns? :confused:

I sold all my guns to an individual some time back. :D


Records? :confused:

I have no records of the sale, as none was required at the time I sold my guns. :D

Tarzan

I did in no way advocate breaking the law.

In my state is it legal for one individual to sell a gun to another? YES!

In my state is it required to keep a record of that transaction? NO!

In what way have I advocated breaking the law? NONE!

How do you know that I now or ever have owned any guns? YOU DON"T


Since I have sold any and all guns I may have ever owned, that is how I would have to respond if I were ever asked to tun over what I do not own.


QED


Tarzan
 
No way referring to you Tarzan! Sorry if you though I was. ;)

To be more clear, I was speaking only in general, no one person's post in mind as I saw the thread slipping further and further toward advocating civil disobedience and out right to heck with the law kind of ideas!

With Luke involved in his move, I thought we might want to be careful about statements in that vein. :D
 
Last edited:
No way referring to you Tarzan! Sorry if you though I was. ;)

To be more clear, I was speaking only in general, no one person's post in mind as I saw the thread slipping further and further toward advocating civil disobedience and out right to heck with the law kind of ideas!

With Luke involved in his move, I thought we might want to be careful about statements in that vein. :D


I have a very dry sense of humor, if you look closely I said;

I resemble...that remark.

I was having some fun.

Actually I agree with you that we should not promote breaking the law. We do have our right to protest injustice but it is also very important to not post things that could be used against you in a court of law.

It is always a good Idea to keep an element of fantasy, for plausible denyability, in what we write and remember that 1984 missed the mark by about 20 years.


Hang in there buddy, I do like the way you think.

Tarzan
 
I have a very dry sense of humor, if you look closely I said;



I was having some fun.

Actually I agree with you that we should not promote breaking the law. We do have our right to protest injustice but it is also very important to not post things that could be used against you in a court of law.

It is always a good Idea to keep an element of fantasy, for plausible denyability, in what we write and remember that 1984 missed the mark by about 20 years.


Hang in there buddy, I do like the way you think.

Tarzan

Hanging! :eek:
 
It all depends what the meaning of is is. One woman got prayer taken out of the public schools . Don't think one voice won't be heard.
 
If police dogs are trained to smell drugs and also can be trained to detect bomb related chemicals, can they not also be trained to smell firearm related chemicals?
 
"Some of us have alot of money invested in our arms,for them to be taken is steeling our investment. I think many years of litagation would take place first."
There will be no litigation. It will take place under a declaration of emergency and the Constitution will be "suspended" (i.e revoked), temporarily of course to be restored at the end of the crisis.
FEMA already has its gulag camps ready to go. They will be coming for a lot more than your guns. Come along quietly and board the busses. You are being resettled in the East. First you will all get showers, and don't mind that it smells like peaches- remember the number on the peg where you hang your clothes. Fit men take the line on the left; women, children, old, and infirm on the right. Macht schnell!!
(From Rense.com)
What did Solzhenitsyn say about the gulag? "At what exact point, then, should one resist? When one's belt is taken away. When one is ordered to face into a corner? When one crosses the threshold of one's home? . . . ." The same questions that are bothering you now. Solzhenitsyn bitterly laments the Russian failure to resist:

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . ." After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you,d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur"what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"

Apparently, they had no guns. Solzhenitsyn does not mention them. But he believes that axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else they had, could have done the job.

"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." _Amdt 2 to the Constitution of the united States of America
 
Last edited:
I do not think that there would be a total ban on private firearm ownership. The NRA and gun manufacturing businesses are powerful lobbyist in D.C. and would never allow this. The politicians get too much under the table money from these guys to allow this either Democrat or Republican.
 
I do not think that there would be a total ban on private firearm ownership. The NRA and gun manufacturing businesses are powerful lobbyist in D.C. and would never allow this. The politicians get too much under the table money from these guys to allow this either Democrat or Republican.

And I'm sure you have irrefutable evidence to back this accusation up with. Or maybe you have some ax to grind with the NRA. They must've really done something egregious to you to assert this crime on a site where the vast majority of its participants have benefited in one way or another from the NRA's efforts to protect our rights. I'm not a blind follower of the NRA, I do realize they have made some decisions of late that have PO'ed a lot of their members and supporters, but I gotta say, I find it highly irresponsible to accuse them of paying bribes to politicians in order for them to uphold our rights, which by the way, they are already sworn to do.

If you've got anything other than your own cynical opinion, you know, like maybe evidence of some sort, I'm sure we'd all be very interested in it. But if you're just blowin' smoke up our collective a$$ and don't have a clue if what you say is accurate, then leave that post up exactly as it is and without any follow-up. That will be all the evidence I will need to decide whether or not to take anything you say from here on out seriously.

Blues
 
I think you mistook my post. I have nothing against the NRA, I just realize that for the same reasons Pharmaceutical companies get so much play in DC is that there is so much money to be made. Unfortuntely, no one reads ( not everyone just a large majority ) the Constitution for which they swear to uphold. They seem to go from amendment 1 to 3 without reading #2. If they did, gun ownership wouldn't even be an issue and portected for so long as there is a US. It is about money and who has it and who wants it is a shame that people lose sight of why out forefathers placed the 2nd amendment in the constitution. Because in my opinion, and yes I know its just my opinion, people seem to revolt against governments not when they are oppressed, but when freedoms previously held are taken away. I would hate for that to happen in this country and I believe that so would most people. Restriction may be imposed on gun ownership, but it will never entirely go away, God willing. Unless of course, Hillary is elected, but that's just my opinion.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,258
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1
Back
Top