[quote]pushharder wrote:
Here you go, Hector. Bone up on your Second Amendment curriculum. To do otherwise makes you an unarmed man.
I don’t know, pushharder, I think us serfs may be better off learning from this.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
We have a law in California that gun control advocates have been asking for, but the government failed to enact it.
“SACRAMENTO ? California authorities are empowered to seize weapons owned by convicted felons and people with mental illness, but staff shortages and funding cuts have left a backlog of more than 19,700 people to disarm, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.”
So yet again, a law is only as good as it’s enforcement. You have gun control advocates demanding laws like this one above, but even when they get them passed, they aren’t even enforced, and gun’s rights people get the blame. [/quote]
My worry is the definition of ‘mentally ill’. I think we automatically get a picture in our heads of somebody who is really demented, but if they extend that definition (which is a mental illness’ to like depression and mild shit like that then it worries me that they will extend that definition as far as it goes.
The bottom line is that most control advocates are not for ‘limits’ in as much as anti-abortion advocates are not for limits. Like me with abortion, anti-gun nuts want to make them illegal completely. Control is just an incremental step towards that. Like for me, abortion laws and limits are incremental steps to outlawing it. But I am not going to bullshit you and say “I just think we need to limit and control it.” I am flat-out telling you, I want that shit outlawed and stopped completely. The ‘gun-control’ advocates have the same mindset I do about abortion, have no illusions. The difference is the end game, I want abortion outlawed because I think murdering innocent people no matter how small is just plain murder. They want unarmed citizens so the citizens can be more easily controlled and bullied.
The other difference is the honesty. They will lie about taking your guns, I won’t lie about stopping the murder of innocents.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
We have a law in California that gun control advocates have been asking for, but the government failed to enact it.
“SACRAMENTO ? California authorities are empowered to seize weapons owned by convicted felons and people with mental illness, but staff shortages and funding cuts have left a backlog of more than 19,700 people to disarm, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.”
So yet again, a law is only as good as it’s enforcement. You have gun control advocates demanding laws like this one above, but even when they get them passed, they aren’t even enforced, and gun’s rights people get the blame. [/quote]
My worry is the definition of ‘mentally ill’. I think we automatically get a picture in our heads of somebody who is really demented, but if they extend that definition (which is a mental illness’ to like depression and mild shit like that then it worries me that they will extend that definition as far as it goes.
The bottom line is that most control advocates are not for ‘limits’ in as much as anti-abortion advocates are not for limits. Like me with abortion, anti-gun nuts want to make them illegal completely. Control is just an incremental step towards that. Like for me, abortion laws and limits are incremental steps to outlawing it. But I am not going to bullshit you and say “I just think we need to limit and control it.” I am flat-out telling you, I want that shit outlawed and stopped completely. The ‘gun-control’ advocates have the same mindset I do about abortion, have no illusions. The difference is the end game, I want abortion outlawed because I think murdering innocent people no matter how small is just plain murder. They want unarmed citizens so the citizens can be more easily controlled and bullied.
The other difference is the honesty. They will lie about taking your guns, I won’t lie about stopping the murder of innocents. [/quote]
There is no honesty in government.
We are seeing the “I am Bert, you can trust me” train coming to a halt.
Credibility is a limited commodity, especially in government. The moment you show shades of shadiness, you’re no better than the guy Bert replaced.
This whole notion of limited gun control is nothing more than getting their foot in the door. The moment they pass any law on it, it will be expanded little by little.
Government’s best way to fuck a people over is by nickel-and-diming them, not in one broad swoop, but a little at a time.
[quote]Villalobos wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Villalobos wrote:
…I think you can read this in a number of ways, first a well regulated militia is similar to a states National Guard…
[/quote]
Oh for cryin’ out loud, this…this…this tired cliche is so boringly inaccurate it barely deserves a response.
[/quote]
Mr. Push,
How is it a tired cliche? It seems reasonable enough considering the definition of “militia”.
“Militia :a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service”
Nowhere in that does it say “Earl, Jim Bob and Kenny in camo shooting up the border”. The Militia Acts of 1792 also give a fair description of the purpose of a well organized militia., I am not anti-gun, but I think the issue isn’t as cut and dried as you would like.
Hector [/quote]
Militias are citizen ‘armies’, the National Guard is an official standing army.
The calling up of militia is still very much possible, you cannot call up a militia of unarmed people.
Whether a militia is called upon or not, or needed or not, the bottom line is that the rights of the citizens to bear arms cannot be infringed upon according to the BOR. That’s the more important part of that language.
The founders weren’t stupid, they were well aware that a militia was called upon to fight against the ruling government at the time when a self-governed set of colonies was just a movement.
[quote]pat wrote:
Militias are citizen ‘armies’, the National Guard is an official standing army.
The calling up of militia is still very much possible, you cannot call up a militia of unarmed people.
Whether a militia is called upon or not, or needed or not, the bottom line is that the rights of the citizens to bear arms cannot be infringed upon according to the BOR. That’s the more important part of that language.
The founders weren’t stupid, they were well aware that a militia was called upon to fight against the ruling government at the time when a self-governed set of colonies was just a movement.[/quote]
Good post. Luckily, the Second Amendment specifically protects the right of the people. Otherwise all this debate about the definitions of militia and well-regulated would be needed and justifiable.
Good thing those definitions do not really matter since the text of the Second Amendment protects the right of the people, not just a militia-however you define it, to keep and bear arms.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Militias are citizen ‘armies’, the National Guard is an official standing army.
The calling up of militia is still very much possible, you cannot call up a militia of unarmed people.
Whether a militia is called upon or not, or needed or not, the bottom line is that the rights of the citizens to bear arms cannot be infringed upon according to the BOR. That’s the more important part of that language.
The founders weren’t stupid, they were well aware that a militia was called upon to fight against the ruling government at the time when a self-governed set of colonies was just a movement.[/quote]
Good post. Luckily, the Second Amendment specifically protects the right of the people. Otherwise all this debate about the definitions of militia and well-regulated would be needed and justifiable.
Good thing those definitions do not really matter since the text of the Second Amendment protects the right of the people, not just a militia-however you define it, to keep and bear arms.[/quote]
I agree. A lot of people have misconceptions about this country’s early days. As if there was cohesion and everybody agreed. There was massive blow back against the constitution. During Washington’s presidency the government was often referred to as ‘The Experiment’. It’s interesting to see the role both the Federalists and the Republicans played in early government. Had either side totally gotten their way, this ‘experiment’ would have likely failed. Washington, for all his flaws of character and judgement, was the right guy for the job for his main goal was to firmly establish the government as the law of the land. The republicans, for their part, made damn sure that didn’t infringe on states and individual rights.
Aside from the history lesson, the idea of armed citizens were both for the protection of the newly established country and to fight the government should it become to tyrannical. Certainly the Republicans were much more interested in the latter. It’s not a cliche statement, it’s not a slogan, it’s reality. When the government seeks to disarm the people, freedom will disappear. The first job of tyranny is to disarm, then take wealth. Without guns or money in the way, the government can do what ever the fuck they want to. Every tyranny begins that way, disarm, make poor, then nobody can stop you.
The left think that’s paranoia, that the hemp the constitution is written on can stop tyranny. It’s bullshit. For this type of government to work, both sides, the people and the government need to have a healthy fear of one another. It won’t work unless that tension exists. If one tilts to much to the other, then we either risk tyranny or chaos. The second amendment preserves that balance. The will of the people has to be backed with fire power. It doesn’t have to be eminent, they just have to know it’s there.
Colorado Democrat faces recall vote for supporting gun control bill…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Gun Shop Allegedly Banned From Participating in Popular Store?s Contest: ?Entry Contains Content That Promotes?Firearms?
[/quote]
Well, they are a private company and can choose to support or not support who they want to. To lump gun shops in with criminal activity is pretty wrong though. Gun owners tend to be the most law abiding citizens. I wonder how many head shops were able to participate?
That being said, I can choose not to shop at Staples and will. I don’t really anyway because they tend to be more expensive then everybody else and I don’t buy specialty office supplies so it’s all good for me. Since they choose to be anti-gun, I will choose to be anti-Staples.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Colorado Democrat faces recall vote for supporting gun control bill…
Hope it works…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Colorado Democrat faces recall vote for supporting gun control bill…
Hope it works…[/quote]
If they are successful in recalling him, it will send a huge message, and show the power of the NRA.
People don’t understand, that politicians are beholden to their constituents, not nanny Bloomberg-types.
Loved that piece. A couple damning quotes in there, and yours was a good one.
And this is exactly why we own guns…