[2dogs]

Killing unborn children= Saving the children

Disarming innocent people so that only criminals have guns= Protecting the children

No War, even against tyrants like Hitler, the Butcher of Baghdad or Kim Jong Il= Making the world safe for the children

No death penalty for the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Charles Manson etc= Justice for the children

Banning finger guns, stick guns, french fry guns, water guns, the word "guns", playing army and cops and robbers and cowboys and indians= A safe environment for the children

Yes, I've seen the light and the error of my ways- I'm giving up my guns.

For the children.

Won't you join me?

Now let's all hold hands...............................

Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya.
Kumbaya........................................................................................





:scrutiny:

[standingbear]

can we also add the barney song with that...for the chilren of course.woops,i ate my french fry gun.

[4v50 Gary]

Gun Freeeeee!
Rob me and goooo!

[standingbear]

guess ill drop a few stink bombs and run.

[Airwolf]

Didn't all this really get going with the "it takes a village to raise an idiot, er, child" crap awhile back?

Yeah, right. Try correcting anyone else’s child and the kids will tell you to FO and the parents (if anywhere to be found) will do the same.

Try disciplining your own kid in public and run the risk of someone calling the cops screaming "child abuse". Do it at home and run the risk of a teacher finding out and getting CPS involved.

Yeah, "raise"... a euphemism for "let the little bastards get away with anything they want" and control the adults behavior instead. Oh, and give us all your money in taxes for our social (ie: handout) programs.

The do it for The Children™ type need to go away:

http://flymeaway.net/images/darwin.gif

[Wildalaska]

Typical, typical...

The only rights the right want are the rights they think are right...

They are the true enemies of freedom.

[Porter Rockwell]

Hello again, would you mind elaborating on your statement?
What exactly is the "right" in your context?
Personally I believe there are many similiarities (SP?) between both parties and the system of donations for favors (BRIBERY) is clearly corrupt in both (are they really that different?) parties.
I once believed that the words liberal and communist were interchangeable but upon closer examination many of the communist party planks are seen in both the dem(ons)and repugs.
Our public indoctination centers (schools) are a prime example, mass media also adds to the Big Brother effect (hasn't anyone read and understood Orwells book??) so no real change is possible.
IMHO, the repugs, and even the citizen action groups (NRA etc) do little more than attempt small efforts at the symptoms and not the disease.
McCarthy was right but THEY won.

[cordex]

:scrutiny:

Is there something in the forum water fountains?

[Wildalaska]

Hello again, would you mind elaborating on your statement?

I would if I could figure out what you are trying to say in response..:D

[Tamara]

They are the true enemies of freedom.

It would be more accurate to say that they merely offer a different flavor of statism than the left. Both are repugnant to freedom.

The Mommy Party and the Daddy Party; I'm sick of them both. Couldn't we just round up all the folks who want to tell each other what to do and let them do it someplace else?

[Wildalaska]

It would be more accurate to say that they merely offer a different flavor of statism than the left. Both are repugnant to freedom.

I have to disagree with you there, the left (in this country) is far less likely to put you up against the wall and shoot you...

[Tamara]

Up against a wall? No. But after they take away all my money to spend on stupid social programs (as opposed to the GOP, who wants to take slightly less money, and give it to defense contractors for gold-plated boondoggles), they may shoot me while confiscating my outlawed guns.

Besides, the same generation that was throwing rocks at cops when they were in college proved mighty fast to deploy the new, militarized federal LE agencies once they got the reins of power in their hands.

Which right-wing president did the Reno Justice Department serve under?

Left or Right, it's all about the power...

[Wildalaska]

they may shoot me while confiscating my outlawed guns.

Well now thats an interesting scenario...lets take it to this...the Supreme Court of the US rules that the 2nd amendment is not an individual right. Congree passes a gun turn in bill..like in Australia....the Supreme Court says OK...they start searching for guns..all under color of law...

If you shoot at them arent they justified in shooting back...???

new, militarized federal LE agencies once they got the reins of power in their hands.

Hmm are we referring to Randy Weaver here, a two bit white supremacist murdering thug who shares equal responsibility with fascist agents for the fiasco at Ruby Ridge..???

My point is..there is a distinct alliance between Hayden lake and various right wing groups who unfortunately for normal gun owners support the RKBA..if we lose our gun freedoms, it is because of them...because the great mass of moderate citizens of this country are afraid of these lunatic fringers..these are the citizens we have to win over...

Look how many times on the Board we see rascist comments, or the code words such as "traitor"..

Read some of the signatures....

[Tamara]

Hmm are we referring to Randy Weaver here, a two bit white supremacist murdering thug who shares equal responsibility with fascist agents for the fiasco at Ruby Ridge..???

Impassioned, but wildly inaccurate.

Was Randy Weaver a white separatist? Yeah. Did he want to live by himself out in the woods? Yup. Did he have some off-kilter religious beliefs? Yes, again.

Show me where any of that is illegal. Believe it or not, it's not against the law to be a jerk in this country.

Also, you refer to him as a "murdering thug". I'd be interested in who you think he murdered? Marshal Degan was shot by Kevin Harris...


Actually, I was referring more to Waco, since Ruby Ridge happened on Bush Sr.'s watch. You can see the different modus operandi between the right and left right there. One deploys federal thugs against innocents for victimless malum prohibitum offenses, while the other deploys federal thugs against innocents for victimless malum prohibitum offenses. See?

[Selfdfenz]

"I have to disagree with you there, the left (in this country) is far less likely to put you up against the wall and shoot you..."

Incorrect. Both have a history of misadventure in this arena.

S-

[whoami]

My point is..there is a distinct alliance between Hayden lake and various right wing groups who unfortunately for normal gun owners support the RKBA..if we lose our gun freedoms, it is because of them...because the great mass of moderate citizens of this country are afraid of these lunatic fringers..these are the citizens we have to win over...

Look how many times on the Board we see rascist comments, or the code words such as "traitor"..

It should be noted that politically such a position would be akin to suicide. It should also be noted that most 'moderate citizens' would label each and every member of this board as 'lunatic fringers' based solely on what we propose with regards to gun rights. Blaming the 'various right wing groups' (it would seem you are not considering that most moderate citizens would label the NRA as a right wing group on the lunatic fringe) would not only be a hit towards the existing support for RKBA (political infighting, destruction from within), but it would utterly fail to address the major cause of our lack of support from the moderate citizens. Just for the record....care to address specifically WHICH 'right wing groups' and 'lunatic fringers' you feel will be the downfall of RKBA among the 'moderate citizens'?

With regards to gun rights, we can in many cases ill afford to turn away support, simply because there exists certain ideological differences. To paraphrase something I heard a preacher say 'I will greet anyone who believes as I do as a brother or sister in Our Lord Jesus Christ. To those who don't, I will greet them as a brother or sister in the toils of life'. I would have to note it interesting that while there are, for example, many here on this board who utterly disagree with, say, homosexuality, I've yet to hear them rail at organizations like the Pink Pistols. Consequently there are those who are more enamored of the traditional 'old-world' organization of the sexes....I've yet to hear them assault organizations like Armed Females of America, or the Second Amendment Sisters. There are many here who disagree with the Libertarian party, but it's rare to see them decry the support given by Libertarians for RKBA. Seems these dangerous 'right wing'ers, and 'lunatic fringers' have a better understanding of tolerance and diversity.....

Is there a problem with labelling someone a traitor? Last I checked, there was a legal definition for treason, and there is at least some evidence that members of our government are at the least suspect (whether intentional or not) of having committed said act. Then I guess we ought to distance ourselves from the founding fathers....as I recall one of them shot a man dead on the White House lawn for 'treason'.

Racism....people will think as they will, whether fortunate or unfortunate. I prefer to judge people more on their actions than their words. Oh, and once you've purged the ranks of support for RKBA of people with 'right thought', and for 'political expediency' (purges which should be noted would more than likely remove many of the members of this board, as well as just about every major gun rights organization), what do you expect to have left? A group that will be acceptable to the 'moderates'....people who believe the Constitution doesn't mean what it said back then, isn't all that relative, and only covers the militia (as the National Guard). Good show, ole chap....

[Wildalaska]

Was Randy Weaver a white separatist? Yeah. Did he want to live by
himself out in the woods? Yup. Did he have some off-kilter religious
beliefs? Yes, again.

Off kilter religious beleifs? Like Jews are the spawn of Satan, blacks,
Latinos, asians are "mud people", Jews should be exterminated, Hitler was a
great man, the US gov't is controlled by Jews (ZOG)..yep sounds real off
kilter to me...although perhaps the word should be paranoid loony...

Show me where any of that is illegal. Believe it or not, it's not
against the law to be a jerk in this country.

Of course its not against the law to be a jerk. Bill Clinton proves that. It
is against the law however to posses a sawed off shotguns and then fail to
appear in Court. By the way, REAL activists fight for their beliefs in
Court, not run like cowards. Thats what the rule of law is all about...ON
the other hand with bozos of his ilk its "O wait though, the little birdies
in my brain tell me that Adolf was right and the ZOG is gonna get me if I
show up so Ill just break another law,,,"


Also, you refer to him as a "murdering thug". I'd be interested in
who you think he murdered? Marshal Degan was shot by Kevin Harris...

Just because he got off without being charged doesnt make him any less
responsible for the death of a Law Enforcement officer...Lon Horuichi got
off too and he is a murdering thug, right.?
Keep in mind the felony murder doctirne...

Actually, I was referring more to Waco, since Ruby Ridge happened on
Bush Sr.'s watch. You can see the different modus operandi between the right
and left right there. One deploys federal thugs against innocents for
victimless malum prohibitum offenses, while the other deploys federal thugs
against innocents for victimless malum prohibitum offenses. See?

Innocents? Thats a whole other debate right? Suffice it to say that legally
you have no right to resist ANY arrest...or are we forgetting that? Becasue if we are, there is no rule of law...

[Chris Rhines]

Please, people, for the sake of all that is good in the world, please try to rid yourselves of this perverted love affair with The Law. I know that sometimes it requires individual thought and analysis of one's actions, and that may hurt a little, but it'll be good for everyone in the end.

Just because something is illegal, does not make it wrong. Why would you let the State determine your morality? Think for yourself!

- Chris

[Wildalaska]

It should also be noted that most 'moderate citizens' would label each and every member of this board as 'lunatic fringers' based solely on what we propose with regards to gun rights.

O really? And what does each and every member of this Board propose for gun rights? Do well all support no rules at all???I submit that the members of this Board who support reasonable restrctions on guns are the ones who are not the lunatic fringers....

care to address specifically WHICH 'right wing groups' and 'lunatic fringers' you feel will be the downfall of RKBA among the 'moderate citizens'?

Well lets start off with Larry Pratt...anyone forget his little attendace up at Hayden Lake..how about the MOM? Is that something we need on our side..the Liberty Lobby, the John Birch Society....

we can in many cases ill afford to turn away support, simply because there exists certain ideological differences.

And when the Aryan Nations and the WAR and their ideological allies join your march against a gun control measure you are gonna support them as an expedient...??? You and every other decent human being do not find their basic philosphy abhorrent?

I would have to note it interesting that while there are, for example, many here on this board who utterly disagree with, say, homosexuality, I've yet to hear them rail at organizations like the Pink Pistols. Consequently there are those who are more enamored of the traditional 'old-world' organization of the sexes....I've yet to hear them assault organizations like Armed Females of America, or the Second Amendment Sisters. There are many here who disagree with the Libertarian party, but it's rare to see them decry the support given by Libertarians for RKBA. Seems these dangerous 'right wing'ers, and 'lunatic fringers' have a better understanding of tolerance and diversity.....

Sorry I dont equate a harmless organization like the Pink Pistols with right wing murderous fanatics. And the rest of your thought quoted above is logically nonesensical IMHO.

Racism....people will think as they will, whether fortunate or unfortunate. I prefer to judge people more on their actions than their words. Oh, and once you've purged the ranks of support for RKBA of people with 'right thought', and for 'political expediency' (purges which should be noted would more than likely remove many of the members of this board, as well as just about every major gun rights organization), what do you expect to have left? A group that will be acceptable to the 'moderates'....people who believe the Constitution doesn't mean what it said back then, isn't all that relative, and only covers the militia (as the National Guard). Good show, ole chap....

OK so what you are saying is that guns owners per se are rascist fanatics? That if we "purge" rascists or right wing looneys (interesting choice of words) most of the membership of this Board will be gone? Sorry I dont think so, I think the majority of gun owners are normal, decent people...

And by the way, keep in mind that when the Supreme Court says what the 2nd amendment means, thats what it means...whether you personally agree with it or not..because thats what this country was based on...the rule of law...

Is there a problem with labelling someone a traitor? Last I checked, there was a legal definition for treason, and there is at least some evidence that members of our government are at the least suspect (whether intentional or not) of having committed said act.

I call you on that...define treason and tell me who in our government is arguably guilty of that..the entire treason mumbo jumbo is a fiction of the lunatic right...

[4570Rick]

You are exactly right.:D

Rule #1
The only differance between Dems and Reps is the subtrifuge used to take what's yours. :fire: :cuss:

Rule #2
There are only two types of politicians. Those that are corrupt, and those who are being corrupted. :banghead: :banghead:

[Chris Rhines]

I think I'm going to be ill.

I really hope that Wildalaska's philosophy is not the prevalent one among those in the freedom movement. If it is, then there's no point in fighting anymore.

- Chris

[rock jock]

The only rights the right want are the rights they think are right...
As opposed to you, who thinks murder should be legal?

[Tamara]

Off kilter religious beleifs? Like Jews are the spawn of Satan, blacks, Latinos, asians are "mud people", Jews should be exterminated, Hitler was a great man, the US gov't is controlled by Jews (ZOG)..yep sounds real off kilter to me...

Hate to break the news to you, but that shameful ol' "First Amendment" gives you the right to believe all of that, as long as you don't try to act out your beliefs on your fellow man.

I thought you Lefties were all about Freedom of Thought? :confused:

[Wildalaska]

As opposed to you, who thinks murder should be legal?

Where did I say that?

[rock jock]

So you are against the idea that some people have the right to commit murder, correct?

[Wildalaska]

Hate to break the news to you, but that shameful ol' "First Amendment" gives you the right to believe all of that, as long as you don't try to act out your beliefs on your fellow man.

Never said that hes not entitled to his sick and twisted beliefs..Id be the first one to defend his right to espouse nonsense...

But that does not mean I would seek him as a political ally when I am trying to convince the mass of normal people that my view of an issue is correct...

Nor does it make him any less that a murderous thug who has been made a hero by people who bear a grudge against either the government, society or those different from them......

thought you Lefties were all about Freedom of Thought?

And on what basis do you characterize me as a lefty? Indeed, how do you characterize a lefty?

[Wildalaska]

Please, people, for the sake of all that is good in the world, please try to rid yourselves of this perverted love affair with The Law. I know that sometimes it requires individual thought and analysis of one's actions, and that may hurt a little, but it'll be good for everyone in the end.

I rest my case...

[Tamara]

But that does not mean I would seek him as a political ally when I am trying to convince the mass of normal people that my view of an issue is correct...

Oh, I'm sorry, I must've missed the part where I said he was my ally in anything. :confused:

Nor does it make him any less that a murderous thug...

You still haven't told me who he murdered...

[Tamara]

I rest my case...

Generally, one is supposed to make a case before resting it... ;)

[Wildalaska]

Oh, I'm sorry, I must've missed the part where I said he was my ally in anything.

Then why defend him? Do you perhaps see him as a victim....???


You still haven't told me who he murdered...

And tell me how the marshall died?

[Chris Rhines]

What, the idea of thinking for yourself rather than letting the State determine your morals is uncomfortable to you? Well, okay. That's fine. Takes all kinds, I guess.

You don't need to try and piegonhole me as some kind of political radical, though; I cheerfully do it to myself. Why bother holding political beliefs if they aren't radical? How can one be too moral?

And tell me how the marshall died? Oh man, you're too easy. Marshall Dugan was shot and killed in self-defense, by one of the men who lived on the property he was tresspassing on at the time. He was not murdered. Kevin Harris was tried for the murder of Dugan, and he was acquitted. Imagine that! :D

- Chris

[Tamara]

Then why defend him?

You're the one who brought him up in this thread, man, you tell me...


Do you perhaps see him as a victim....???

Of an unconstitutional law? Yes. You point out to me where Congress has the right to mandate shotgun lengths in the Constitution...

And tell me how the marshall died?

Uh, Kevin Harris shot him after he shot Sammy Weaver. Randy wasn't even there, so I'd be interesed in finding out how he was culpable for that one. A jury sure didn't think he was...

[Wildalaska]

So you are against the idea that some people have the right to commit murder, correct?

No one has the right to unlawfully take another person life.

[rock jock]

No one has the right to unlawfully take another person life.
Thank you. So the real issue is, we disagree on who constitues a person. You see, us right-wing whackos aren't trying to take anybody's rights away, we are jusr trying to protect the life of the innocent. The fact that you may not share our point of view does not invalidate it.

[Tamara]

A suggestion?

You should steer the converation away from the direction you're about to take it or the thread will be closed.

You know the policy on abortion discussions around here.

[Wildalaska]

You point out to me where Congress has the right to mandate shotgun lengths in the Constitution...

Hasnt that already been decided in Miller vs US?? And isnt the NFA still the law of this land?

Uh, Kevin Harris shot him after he shot Sammy Weaver. Randy wasn't even there, so I'd be interesed in finding out how he was culpable for that one. A jury sure didn't think he was...

Randy wasnt even there? You sure about that...???

Heres a quote from him:

"The dogs started barking like they always do when strangers walk up the driveway. Randy, Kevin, and Sam ran out to the rock with their weapons. Randy was carrying a double barrel 12-gauge shotgun. Kevin was carrying a 30-06 bolt-action rifle. Sam was carrying a 223 mini 14. When they got to the rock, our yellow dog Striker was down at the pump house barking up into the woods. Randy, Kevin and Sam went down to investigate. Sam said he heard something, or someone running west, so they followed. Sam and Kevin followed Striker. Randy dropped down on the old logging road headed west. “I (Randy Weaver) didn't have any idea what they were chasing, but I was hoping it was a deer.”

“When I reached the first fork in the logging road, a very well camouflaged person yelled 'freeze RANDY,' and I immediately said 'f--k you,' and retreated toward home 80-100 feet. I realized [sic] immediately [sic] that we had run smack into a ZOG/NEW WORLD ORDER ambush. I stopped to see if I was being followed.

“About that time I heard a gun shot and Striker [the dog] yelped. Then I heard two more shots and Striker stopped yelping. I started yelling for Sam and Kevin to return home, and that they had shot Striker. I also fired my shotgun once into the air to draw attention to myself praying that would help. I replaced the empty shell with a new one, jamming the shotgun. I drew my .9mm handgun and fired 3-4 rounds up into the air and I yelled again for Sam to return home. Sam responded 'I'm coming dad!' I then walked backwards up the hill toward home yelling to Sam and Kevin to come home. All the while I heard many shots ringing out from the direction of the ambush. "

Study up on felony murder..and aquittals by an Idaho jury mean as little as Lon Horuichi being vindicated...isnt he guilty too?

The very fact that a ZOG believer is viewed as a hero sickens me. I wonder how many members of this Board are gonna come out of the closet and confess that they too believe in ZOG...are these the people you want carrying the torch for freedom?

[Tamara]

Hasnt that already been decided in Miller vs US?? And isnt the NFA still the law of this land?

So was the Fugitive Slave Act. Would a past Wildalaska have been narcing on escaped slaves?

Randy wasnt even there? You sure about that...???

As positive as I can be. Of all the testimonies on that day (Randy's, Kevin's, the marshals), Randy's is the only one that puts him within 75 yards of the shootout.

Study up on felony murder..

Quite familiar with the concept, thanks. That's the law that means all the other LEOs there were also partly responsible for Kevin and Vicky's deaths, right?

The very fact that a ZOG believer is viewed as a hero sickens me.

Again, (and I'll type this very slowly for you this time) "Who ... said ... he ... was ... anybody's ... hero?"

Railroaded and set up? Yes. Hero? Not on your life.

Don't put words in my mouth, Wildalaska. You may have forgotten, but this little discussion started because you said that statists of only one flavor were evil; I don't particularly like either kind...

[Tamara]

You've caught us, buddy... This board is a hive of anti-ZOG activity.





Have You Not Even Glanced At Who's Running The Place?



Jeez... :rolleyes:

[Chris Rhines]

Reconcile the ideas expressed in the following two quotes:

..and aquittals by an Idaho jury mean as little as Lon Horuichi being vindicated...
...thats what this country was based on...the rule of law...

- Chris

[Wildalaska]

So was the Fugitive Slave Act. Would a past Wildalaska have been narcing on escaped slaves?

Thats sort of a tu quoque argument that really has no bearing..but I will answer it this way..in the past in this country there have been errors committed by the Courts..ie laws/actions that were allowed to stand despite being morally wrong (Japanese internment, slavery)..of course our constitution is a flexible document that is interpreted by men...todays right may be tommorrows wrong..and vice versa...one must separate that which immorally directly affects people from that which does not...slavery is entirely a different moral issue than an inchoate right to bear arms...if confronted by an issue in which I disagree, on a moral or legal basis, I as a human have a choice, that is to disobey and TAKE the consequences..before a Court.

So, in terms of a morality that does not permit me to view any person as lesser than another (except criminals and haters) I would not have "narced" on a slave.

I dont view possessing a sawed off shotgun as a moral issue...

Of all the testimonies on that day (Randy's, Kevin's, the marshals), Randy's is the only one that puts him within 75 yards of the shootout.

Is he lying then? Or is Kevin lying? Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus


That's the law that means all the other LEOs there were also partly responsible for Kevin and Vicky's deaths, right?

IMHO all participants should have suffered criminal liability for that fiasco...

You may have forgotten, but this little discussion started because you said that statists of only one flavor were evil; I don't particularly like either kind...

Ah but you you raised him as an example didnt you?

[Wildalaska]

You've caught us, buddy... This board is a hive of anti-ZOG activity.

Thats awfully un called for sarcasm isnt it.."buddy"???

[Wildalaska]

Reconcile the ideas expressed in the following two quotes:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..and aquittals by an Idaho jury mean as little as Lon Horuichi being vindicated...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...thats what this country was based on...the rule of law...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Simple..I accept it..I dont have to like it..but I have to accept it

[Tamara]

I dont view possessing a sawed off shotgun as a moral issue...

In and of itself, no. So, uh, then why is it against the law? That is the moral issue. ;)

Is he lying then? Or is Kevin lying?

Well, since Kevin's account matches those of the marshals and the physical evidence, which do you think? Perhaps a grieving father would like to think he was a lot closer and more involved when his son got backshot? I hear that, despite being throrough earthly representations of evil, those white supremacists don't eat their young.

Ah but you you raised him as an example didnt you?

Well, no, actually; you brought him up. I made an allusion to militarized federal law enforcement, and you said "Hm, are we referring to Randy Weaver here?".

Thats awfully un called for sarcasm isnt it.."buddy"???

Yes, it is. My apologies.

[Delmar]

From where I sit, most of the people on this board demand the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and their God (or Supremely Significant Other:cool: ), and not to be reinterpreted by lawyers when they take a fancy to pervert it.
I have heard lawyers state from their own mouths that it isn't about right or wrong-its about the law. Not all lawyers take this stand, but I have heard enough of them state this position to be wary.
The courts are not the do all and end all to this country in deciding what is right or wrong, and so long as there are people on the "left" or the "right" who do not uphold, support, and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic", they will have me and others with similar thoughts to deal with.
I may choose not to deal with them in their courts if the situation is such that a particuar court is nothing more than their mouthpiece, and may well suffer the consequence. The courts are being used in many instances to "legally" make an individual insignificant economically, if not in fact. Something which certainly needs to be watched.
We must be careful of one thing in this country, and that is the right of the individual. It is none of our business what goes through the mind of an individual, regardless of how repugnant we might think of it, until, or if said individual makes action on the thought. Kind of like RKBA, don't you think?

[gburner]

The Constitution states what it states.
It is not open to interpretation, thus manipulation, by the ever changing whims of whatever political hacks are in power. Any party that attempts to do so and thus infringe upon our God given rights does so at their own peril.

As for the currrent Repub/Dem circus that passes for electoral choice in this country...'meet the new boss, same as the old boss.':cuss:

[NewShooter78]

What a turn this thread has taken.

[whoami]

O really? And what does each and every member of this Board propose for gun rights? Do well all support no rules at all???I submit that the members of this Board who support reasonable restrctions on guns are the ones who are not the lunatic fringers....

Yes, there are members on this board, and others, who support the removal of ANY AND ALL gun control laws (as if the words 'do you know the meaning of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' have NEVER been uttered either here or on TFL). Ask the 'common man' how they would feel about that. There are many members here who feel that fully automatic weapons are protected under the 2nd amendment, and should be as easy to purchase as any other firearm. Ask the 'common man' how they feel about any person being able to walk into a gun shop and purchase a fully automatic firearm. The sad fact is, people are woefully uninformed at best, and deliberately misinformed at worst. The 'common man', after years of pap from HCI/BCPHGV, MMM, etc, would completely disagree at such moves as repealing the GCA, or the NFA...things which are for the most part accepted as proper here.

Are these members now a part of that 'lunatic fringe'? Be careful...by posting here you are associating yourself with them.

Well lets start off with Larry Pratt...anyone forget his little attendace up at Hayden Lake..how about the MOM? Is that something we need on our side..the Liberty Lobby, the John Birch Society....

No. I didn't forget it. I also remember why he was there. I guess this now means that the government and Lon Horiuchi were right to murder Vicki Weaver (regardless of what Randy Weaver may or may not have done), simply because Christian Identity said it was wrong. I'm sorry, but I do not buy into the whole 'guilt by association'

And what exact issues do you have with the militia movement? Something about their exercising free speech? Why would I not be surprised if you'd advocate the Boy Scouts razing the Rifle and Shotgun shooting merit badges, as we all know how 'racist' they are....

And when the Aryan Nations and the WAR and their ideological allies join your march against a gun control measure you are gonna support them as an expedient...??? You and every other decent human being do not find their basic philosphy abhorrent?

(please not I said 'in many cases, and not 'in all cases'. Nor did I say that I would 'support their cause').

Here's where the real crux comes in, and also where much of society needs an education. Do I find there basic philosophy abhorrent. For the most part yes, I do (I do agree with them on some 2nd Amendment issues, however). Unless and until they flagrantly violate the law, whether or 'every other decent human being' finds their philosophy abhorrent has NO BEARING ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN HAVE, OR REPRESENT, THAT PHILOSOPHY. I believe in the Constitution...all parts of it, not just some. As much as I disagree with the philosophy of the movie, the quote sums it up perfectly:

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

I would be nothing less than a hypocrite than to say I believe in freedom, but then disparage and deny the freedom of those in whom I disagree. Remember Voltaire?

So yes, while I may disagree with their philosophy, and speak out against it....I will not demean them when they speak of supporting the Second Amendment. I did NOT get in to this fight for the purpose of 'appealing to the common man', looking good, or any other reason. I got into this fight to secure the rights originally recognized by the Constitution of the United States...whether or not the 'common man' agrees with those rights or not. This is not a popularity contest, but an ideological war...I am not out to make myself more like the 'common man' so they can accept me, for in doing so I would need to abhor that which I wish upheld.

Sorry I dont equate a harmless organization like the Pink Pistols with right wing murderous fanatics. And the rest of your thought quoted above is logically nonesensical IMHO.

To some there would be no difference between the two. One is promoting an abhorrent act, a violation of the laws of man and God. Another is promoting an abhorrent act, a violation of the laws of man and God. Despite that, we don't hear them referring to the Pink Pistols as 'lunatic fringe of the left'.

OK so what you are saying is that guns owners per se are rascist fanatics? That if we "purge" rascists or right wing looneys (interesting choice of words) most of the membership of this Board will be gone? Sorry I dont think so, I think the majority of gun owners are normal, decent people...

(note: Nowhere did I use the phrase 'right wing looneys'. The term used was 'right thought).

No sir, please try to read what I wrote again. In no way did I call gun owners 'racist fanatics', per se or not. I think a best quote would be, regarding gun owners, comes from 1776...."We've spawned a new race here Mr. Dickinson. Rougher. More violent, more enterprising, less refined." Look at this board alone, and you will not find the type of ultra PC ideology you seem to clamor for. They are, for the most part simple folk. And many of the 'common man' you wish us so desperately to emulate would find them hopelessly unPC and even racist.

Let me ask you a question. I know there are some among this board who believe that homosexuality is a sin, probably some even that segregation is not wrong. Are they racist, if they make no move to promote their ideology beyond the bounds of law? Are they racist, if all they do is espouse these beliefs, and simply use their first amendment rights to give them a forum? Would you be happy in purging those who say, believe abortion should be a crime, or that this is a Judeo-Christian nation and should be legislated as such? I'd be willing to bet that close to half the membership here feels the same way. So, are they 'pure' enough for your RKBA party?

And by the way, keep in mind that when the Supreme Court says what the 2nd amendment means, thats what it means...whether you personally agree with it or not..because thats what this country was based on...the rule of law...

Incorrect. The 2nd Amendment means exactly what the Constitution says it means. The legislation may write laws, and the courts may uphold them, but that does not mean they are Constitutionally valid. An unconstitutional law becomes unconstitutional from the moment of it's passing, and not only when it is deemed by the court to be.

Of course then, I wonder what your position would be on such things as the concept of civil disobediance...was it not Martin Luther King Jr. who said something about civil disobediance, violating the law and accepting the punishments of the law in order to protest it, shows the highest respect for the law?

I call you on that...define treason and tell me who in our government is arguably guilty of that..the entire treason mumbo jumbo is a fiction of the lunatic right...

Mumbo jumbo....hrm....and what else in the Constitution would you call 'mumbo jumbo'?


Article III Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Who is arguably guilty? The first name that comes to mind is former president William Jefferson Clinton. Violations of 'adhering to Enemies of the States, and 'giving them Aid'.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have a list of legislators, and even the President and His Cabinet, with regards to the Department of Homeland Security, the PATRIOT Act, TIA, etc. Many do consider these the opening moves of what in effect is a war waged by the federal government against the states.

Each of those cases can be argued as guilty under the Constitutional definition of treason. Mumbo jumbo of the lunatic fringe indeed....just like those crazy nutcase who thing the Second Amendment gives THEM the right to own a gun....

[Ledbetter]

"I disagree with every word that you have said, but I would defend to my death your right to say it."

--A great man, whose like it is improbable that we will see again.

That doesn't make you an ally.

As to why obey the laws, well, where's Lawdog when you need him.

[Drjones]

Am I the only one who finds it horrifically frightening whenever an individual blindly follows the law, disregarding right or wrong, and refusing to think for himself?:uhoh:

[Airwolf]

No, you're not.

The "I was just following (orders, the rules, the law)" excuse has caused untold suffering, oppression and death in this world.

Much like the Zero Tolerance crap, many use this to escape personal and moral responsibility for their actions and of those around them.

[spacemanspiff]

this thread makes me think that TROUT is the only answer to all our problems.


check that, DRUNK TROUT is the cause of, and solution to, all of our problems.
really, what the heck is this thread about? anti zog statist new world order sim salabim bamba salado saladim?! UND KEINE EIER!!

[Wildalaska]

this thread makes me think that TROUT is the only answer to all our problems.

Salmon:D