Refusing to help out... from another state.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe in state's rights. If you don't like the politics of one state, you can move to another.

The Bill of Rights is NOT a state issue. It's fundamental liberties that apply across the board to protect us from our government. It isn't up for interpretation of the states. Illinois thought that they could ban handguns and a Federal Appeals Court ruled that they could not do so.
I believe in state's rights as well, but states don't have the right to suspend liberties.

And CoRoMo, no offense brother, but your relative is a tool.
 
How come I don't see people rising up to help NJ? Or California? Or Mass?

Any time a thread is started about the situation in NJ, which is getting worse by the day, we're flooded with "you get what you deserve" and "you should move to a free state."

We're already hanging separately. I see it right here on this forum every day. It's time we all stopped trying to blame other people and took a good look at ourselves.
 
LevelHead said:
We're already hanging separately. I see it right here on this forum every day. It's time we all stopped trying to blame other people and took a good look at ourselves.
You're absolutely right.

I think the problem you're running into here is that folks in "flyover country" see the assaults as coming from places like NY (and NJ by association), Massachusetts, and California. We're prone to say they want to disarm the populace, and they can be nebulously defined as "those East Coast Elites" or something similar.

Which can result in a response something like "well, NY is already lost, and it's now a base used for the civilian disarmament movement."

It's not fair, but that seems to be the thinking.
 
How come I don't see people rising up to help NJ?
I've offered to help in any way that I can: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=8762066#post8762066

Start a thread like the many that I have started and direct us on who to contact and what to say. I do this all the time on THR with regards to Colorado. There are many of us ready to help out, we are just not as intimately familiar with the issues there as you are.
And CoRoMo, no offense brother, but your relative is a tool.
No offense taken. But be careful, he may be watching. :evil:
 
Last edited:
There is also, however, a benefit in reinforcing your own state's laws. WY and AZ are now Constitutional Carry, UT will be as soon as we scrap our current governor, and this will help put pressure on CO in the long-term. The more contrast we show between them and surrounding states, the more pointed the opposition to their new laws becomes.
 
I don't care who you liberfairyN family member is he sounds like HE'S a 'it's my way or the highway' DELETED....

Some time ago I read a story or a poem some thing about or to the effect that:

------>I really don't remember the wording to be even close to being exact and so I am hoping some one here will recall the idea and thus be able to find what I can not <----

First they came to our neighbors looking for books
and they left my house alone..

Then they came to neighbors and looked for any jews...
and they left my house alone...

The idea progresses thru out "then they came..."

In the end it was some what powerful because

Then they came to my house looking for me.....


-------------------

it seemed to me the moral of the reading was: they came for everyone else, and WE let them do it THEN THEY CAME FOR ME...AND THERE WAS NO ONE TO HELP


Wish I had cut it out and saved it I would post it here and you could send it to that MORON!
 
Last edited:
CoROMo....thank you...:



First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

--------------------------
Another longer version is:[citation needed]
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

-----------------------------

In the United States, the quotation is more commonly known as:
First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

----------------------------

Yet another version is:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social Democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social Democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
 
Last edited:
I figured it was good enough to send to my family member, thanks for thinking of it. Here's our version...

First they came for the guns in New York,
I remained silent; I was not a New Yorker.

Then they came for the guns in Colorado,
I remained silent; I was not a Coloradoan.

Then they came for the guns in Connecticut,
I remained silent; I was not a Connecticuter.

Then they came for mine,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
 
He has lumped you and I in with Bloomberg. I'm sorry guys, but I'm going to have to ask you all to explain his following remarks to me. Mind you, he's heavily sarcastic throughout but he does believe that one citizen who pressures the legislature of another state is as much of a statist/collectivist as Bloomberg himself.
Oh no, I was so stupid for believing that an individual is capable and responsible enough to live their own lives as they see fit.

I have come around to yours and Mayor Michael Bloomberg's point of view that no one knows what's best for me like other people do. In fact you and Mayor Bloomberg are so correct, why don't we take ya'll's theory of government by popular opinion to its natural conclusion?

Let's dissolve state borders so we all get to live under the same rules and no one gets anymore or less freedom than anyone else.

Since we're dissolving state borders, like our founding father Alexander Hamilton wanted, we may as well dissolve the federal senate and house of representatives because they no longer represent exclusive states or constituents. As you, Mayor Bloomberg, and Hamilton want we will instead have a great and powerful ruler to preside over our government and our lives. Gone are the days of electing presidents on a state by state basis and we'll have a perpetual ruler, like you, Bloomberg and our founding father Hamilton so desirously want.

First thing I'm going to do is to beseech our dear ruler to tax the people in the area that used to be Colorado. I used to be a Coloradoan and I know how beneficial it is to have the mountains to look at. Here in Michigan we don't have that luxury so the people of the formerly sovereign state of Colorado should be taxed according to the benefit they receive from living so close to mountains. Since we're all in agreement that EVERYONE in this nation should have a say in the lives of others, we can have a democratic election to institute this law. IF 100% of former Coloradoans turned out to the polls, surely they could mount a decent defense against this law despite the 5 to 310 disadvantage they are currently under. SEE? 310million other Americans know better how you in Colorado should live your lives.

Your form of government is much better than mine where government is small and unobtrusive. I was such an idiot. I see now that the 10 amendments that make up the bill or rights is like the 10 commandments, you just ignore the ones that don't fit your current argument.


How is it that we, as involved and actively participating citizens, violate the Bill of Rights when we choose to speak into the legislature of a state we are not resident of? I supposed more specifically, which of the first 10 Amendments are we not adhering to?
 
:scrutiny: Dad always used tomato juice to try to sober up after a bender, maybe get someone to pour some down his throat and ask him to try again when he's making more sense? :confused:

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be Bloombergs running around trying to buy their nanny-state utopia one City/State at a time, so we wouldn't really need to be countering that. Sadly, we DON'T LIVE in that ideal world.

I hope his feelings of self-righteousness and moral superiority are enough to keep him happy, should we fail and lose even more of the BoR he allegedly holds dear. Should we fail, because people could not be bothered to act, even ones like him who saw the risks and chose to spit in the eye of those asking for his aid.

You sir are a better man than I. If I were in your shoes, I think at some point back my only further communication to him would have been a Homer Simpson-esque "WHY YOU LITTLE....!!!!"
 
I can see where he is coming from - as a Libertarian, I understand it and will applaud him for sticking to his hard-core beliefs - even if I do not agree with his view. Where the fault in his logic lies, is in the belief that the states are still as independent as when they were first created and that the Federal Government was as small with no power from that time. Throughout our history, the central government has grown to the point that the only way it can be defeated is by a complete overthrow - and compared to 1776, the states just do not have the power, funds, manpower, or equipment.
Look at how states bend over and cede what are their protected rights in the Constitution in order to get some "Federal funding" .......
Remember 1973? Want highway money, lower your speed limit to a standard that was great and made sense for the congested Northeast but no sense to wide open West.

In short, your relative needs to rethink his battle plans for the 21 century, not the late 18th
 
Honestly, I don't think he is intelligent enough to carry on a serious conversation. He makes no logical arguments. In fact, his logic kind of reminds me of my son's when he was three.
 
He makes no logical arguments. In fact, his logic kind of reminds me of my son's when he was three.
Interesting. When you tell a child that he cannot run out into the street, he might respond with, "So you just hate me then!".

I have to agree with your post. At the current point in this "discussion" with him, you can see just one example of him jumping over the hyperbole cliff. Other emails that I haven't posted are very similar. He will say something like, "You're right! I'm going to call Texas Governor Rick Perry and demand that he veto the new Connecticut gun control legislation". :confused: That remark is obviously nothing that could have been drawn from a statement I ever made, but what he's trying to do is frame my position upon a slippery slope and distort it into something that it simply is not. He's trying to insinuate that by me asking him to email the Colorado legislature, I'm of the belief that the governor of one state should be able to rule the proceedings in another. It's a distortion of the topic that you often receive from children, or in my professional experience, from someone whose actions/words have painted them into a corner because they've refused to acknowledge that those actions/words were erroneous.

In arguments over firing an employee of mine, I've heard them say something like, "You're firing me because I work harder than anyone else and because I show up on time!". Obviously not, but when they've painted themselves into a corner with the position they've chosen to take to the bitter end, they have nothing else in their arsenal except for hyperbolic distortions of the situation.

You can see this when he says, "I have come around to yours and Mayor Michael Bloomberg's point of view...". Between him and I, I am the one with the longer and purer individualist/Libertarian record. I'm also the ONLY one that has a record of active resistance to a Bloomberg effort. He used to be so confused about constitutional topics that he was simply lost. He's come a long way, due in large part to the education I've given him, but now he's lost again out in this odd wilderness of ultimate libertarianism.

So my honest assessment of his current "ideology" is that he has simply adopted this position and can't bring himself to admit how stupid it is. I handed his butt to him in front of his family and destroyed his argument, but the only result of that was this staunch, reinforced adherence to this position that he can no longer articulate without the hyperbole, attempted insults, and gross distortion of my beliefs.

When you handily lose an argument point by point, but then make it your intent to die on that hill, you will have no other points to make and will ultimately resort to hyperbole and personal attacks. Just look at his statements I quoted in posts 23 and 37. In one email he referred to me as a big-government statist and illiterate troglodyte. It's transparent. It was the only way left for him to continue the argument.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top