A friendly reminder in dark times....

[readyeddy]

It's not black and white. There are sheeple and then there are herders. Politicians tell lies when campaigning for a reason... they need to trick people into voting for them. Nothing is ever simple. Our enemies are at every level, just like our friends.

 

[RaceM]

Cain't fix stupid.

 

[silicosys4]

All of the antis I know are sheeple, the swallow the current administration's lies and propaganda hook, line and sinker. The sheeple are the ones that re-relected Dear Leader, if you get right down to it, the sheeple are the problem, not the leaders. The leaders are like wind up toys, the electorate wind them up and they totter along, spewing their rhetoric, as one would expect. But it's the sheeple that had the choice, it is the sheeple that elected them. The sheeple are the problem, not the leaders.

After seeing Romney true behavior post election, and how he imploded into a petulant child immediately after being defeated, while also knowing how he had voted previously considering new firearm legislation, I would guess we wouldn't be in much of a different spot at this point in time if he had been elected. Leaders, or lack of leadership, is very much a problem for both sides, and you are one of the "sheeple".
You are looking at a crystal ball through rose colored glasses.

Ever hear the phrase "between a ******bag, and a turd sandwich"?....When you have the current style of elections, people don't vote based on what they truly believe, many people vote for the least repugnant choice. Some people can more easily stand the ******bag, some can better tolerate the sandwich.
Until the Republican party starts putting up electable candidates, your statements don't fly.

 

[Manco]

Most people are simply ignorant about the subject of firearms, and that is totally understandable because it is complex, they have been indoctrinated in falsehoods by the media over their entire lives (and public education), and they have no particular interest in firearms and shooting to motivate them to overcome these handicaps (yes, they are handicapped as citizens of a free country). The vast majority of antis and on-the-fencers are NOT our enemies (this includes a number of lawmakers), and it is up to us to engage and educate them respectfully.

 

[taliv]

Wait...so the conservatives gave us the Patriot Act,....The liberals are marching us towards socialism....Can you define who the "enemy" is again, please, Taliv?
Yup, we'd just better pick up our guns and just start shooting each other, since we are all each others enemy.
I'd expect more from a High Road mod.

"They" are voted in by the people riding a carpet of support for issues that they know are "important"...then go about voting for their own agenda, on the basis that their opinion "represents" that of the majority of their constituents....and are many times voted out by that same group of people who voted them in, for that reason. You forget in 1994 they voted too blatently on their personal opinion, instead of their constituents, and were ousted. Don't paint the entirety of the people who voted in a particular official as entirely agreeing with that official and supporting their agendas throughout their political career.
Voting for someone based on their record and what they say they represent, then finding out they don't represent what they portrayed, is hardly an indictment in this day and age. Its the norm.
I was as surprised to see Obama go for guns at the first opportunity, as I was to see hard-line governor Christie give him a wet sloppy one when he wanted more funding from him.

i'm afraid you have completely missed the point of this conversation. the OP stated that our enemy was the politicians, and that your neighbors and coworkers, whom he stated were actively trying to strip you of your rights, were in fact, not the enemy.

simply put, that line of thinking is treating the symptom, not the disease.

the "enemy" are the individuals who are trying to take your rights. when a restaurant manager tries to strip your rights by posting a no-ccw sign on the door, they become your enemy and your response should be commensurate. talk to them, but stop patronizing them until they stop acting against you. when an actor publicly supports banning guns and gives their money to anti-gun politicians, stop putting money in their pocket. stop supporting them. stop enabling them.

nobody said anything about shooting them.

the point is the mindset of how you treat people who are working against you. are you going to ignore it? that will only ensure their success. or are you going to fight it?

don't make the mistake of mixing up issues. bringing the patriot act in only confuses the conversation. but it does show the advantage of my position over that of the OP's: a stereotype such as you suggest ("conservatives" and "liberals") is so broad as to be useless as you point out. it is impractical because it prevents action, as you implied. the fact is it is only at precisely the individual level that any reasonable action can be taken.

 

[mcdonl]

silicosys4 - If the war is defined as maintaining (regaining) our second amendment rights as written the enemy are those who are trying to strip them.

The politicians are just the implements that our enemy are using.

 

[Ryanxia]

As a non liberal, I take offense at that statement. While you may believe that, The truth is you are in the small minority with that extreme and dismissive opinion, any valid points you might have gets lost in the noise of your paranoia and anger. You readily demonize one party while admitting both parties are making the same mistakes, which makes you look incredibly biased, and is sadly, a common theme among the hard right. It makes me and many others look bad by association, destroys any credibility your post might have had, and serves to foster an "us vs them" mentality, create division and animosity rather than to educate.

By the way, did you forget the Patriot Act, that gem of freedom foisted on the people by CONSERVATIVES? The extreme corruption and cronyism's of that great F'up, the Iraq war?
There is rot throughout.

P.S.
I know a liberal or two. So far I have not overheard their personal plans to have overwhelming power over me, but I'll let you know if I do....maybe they just haven't gotten their marching orders from Fearless Leader yet...

While I respect your opinion some of us do not wish to educate those that are taking away our freedoms, we chose to resist in other ways and speak out for ourselves when we see others attempting to circumvent the Constitution.

 

[dogrunner]

Any whichaway you look at it, the friend of your enemy IS your enemy..........now, it's true he may not bear you the rabid malice that a Feinstein or a Schumer exudes..........BUT. he/she supports their philosophy and therefore is directly aligned against you!

Remember, those Torys during the period of our revolution were 'fellow' Americans too..........they quickly became Canadians............much to our benefit!


Just remember, there is no such thing as a 'second place' winner............Bill Jordan said it better than I can. Compromise: We lose..........'Second place': We lose...............I would rather lose it all than give one damned inch, THEN and only THEN do I truly know I gave it my all!

 

[mgmorden]

I think part of the problem here is a definition of anti-gun.

Once upon a time if someone was "anti-gun" it meant that they didn't agree with them. They wouldn't carry one, and didn't want to have one in their home.

I think those people are erroneous in their ways, but I respect their decision. I can live with THAT type of "anti-gun" person.

The problem is that the modern "anti-gun" person doesn't typically behave that way. Rather than simply agreeing to disagree, they're attempting to pass legislation to FORCE their viewpoint onto the people that DO believe that firearms serve a useful (necessary even) purpose in the lives of everyday citizens.

Disagreeing with me I can tolerate. Trying to legally force me to conform to your viewpoints I cannot.

 

[silicosys4]

i'm afraid you have completely missed the point of this conversation. the OP stated that our enemy was the politicians, and that your neighbors and coworkers, whom he stated were actively trying to strip you of your rights, were in fact, not the enemy.

simply put, that line of thinking is treating the symptom, not the disease.

the "enemy" are the individuals who are trying to take your rights. when a restaurant manager tries to strip your rights by posting a no-ccw sign on the door, they become your enemy and your response should be commensurate. talk to them, but stop patronizing them until they stop acting against you. when an actor publicly supports banning guns and gives their money to anti-gun politicians, stop putting money in their pocket. stop supporting them. stop enabling them.

nobody said anything about shooting them.

the point is the mindset of how you treat people who are working against you. are you going to ignore it? that will only ensure their success. or are you going to fight it?

don't make the mistake of mixing up issues. bringing the patriot act in only confuses the conversation. but it does show the advantage of my position over that of the OP's: a stereotype such as you suggest ("conservatives" and "liberals") is so broad as to be useless as you point out. it is impractical because it prevents action, as you implied. the fact is it is only at precisely the individual level that any reasonable action can be taken.

Except the restaraunt owner is not "stripping you of your rights". You have the right to not give him patronage. You have the right not to enter his store. You have the right to tell him his actions are costing him your business. It is the same situation as someone who hates guns, being at a gunshow. You don't like it, don't go in, don't give them your money, but don't try and take away their right to conduct themselves legally under the laws of this country. Every citizen of this country has a legal right not to like your guns, you, or your carrying them, and they have the right to request you not carry one on their property....just as you have the right to object, and the no legal obligation to comply in most situations.

I object heartily to your labeling of people who share opposing opinions and exercise their rights in accordance with the law as the "enemy".
An "enemy" is someone who is trying to do you or your family harm directly. Not someone who is well intentioned but misguided. (unless you are one of those whacko "all libs are evil nazi's!!" idiots... In that case, there is indeed no cure for stupid").
Label them ignorant and an opposition to what you stand for, but until one of them takes direct action to harm you or yours, leave the "line in the sand" "black and white" "anyone not for us is against us" rhetoric at home where it won't harm our cause and make it difficult for us to come to the table with our neighbors who share different viewpoints and opinions.

I know you would never listen to anything the enemy would say, and would certainly never consider doing things their way....why would the "enemy" do the same for you?
Having enemies where you could have disagreements and conversation that leads to agreements instead... is stupid.
You'll fend them off for a while, but not forever....especially in this day and age of changing demographics

"don't bring up the patriot act...it confuses the issue".....
If you are going to demonize people who vote for a specific person as being your enemy because of issues supported by the person they voted for, and your perception of how they endanger your freedom, it goes both ways.

"If you voted for Obama, you voted against RKBA"

If you voted for Bush and the party that supports him, and I know many of you did, you endangered more than that.

 

[Ryanxia]

Except the restaraunt owner is not "stripping you of your rights". You have the right to not give him patronage. You have the right not to enter his store. You have the right to tell him his actions are costing him your business. It is the same situation as someone who hates guns, being at a gunshow. You don't like it, don't go in, don't give them your money, but don't try and take away their right to conduct themselves legally under the laws of this country. Every citizen of this country has a legal right not to like your guns, you, or your carrying them, and they have the right to request you not carry one on their property....just as you have the right to object, and the no legal obligation to comply in most situations.

I object heartily to your labeling of people who share opposing opinions and exercise their rights in accordance with the law as the "enemy".
An "enemy" is someone who is trying to do you or your family harm directly. Not someone who is well intentioned but misguided. (unless you are one of those whacko "all libs are evil nazi's!!" idiots... In that case, there is indeed no cure for stupid").
Label them ignorant and an opposition to what you stand for, but until one of them takes direct action to harm you or yours, leave the "line in the sand" "black and white" "anyone not for us is against us" rhetoric at home where it won't harm our cause and make it difficult for us to come to the table with our neighbors who share different viewpoints and opinions.

I know you would never listen to anything the enemy would say, and would certainly never consider doing things their way....why would the "enemy" do the same for you?
Having enemies where you could have disagreements and conversation that leads to agreements instead... is stupid.
You'll fend them off for a while, but not forever....especially in this day and age of changing demographics

"don't bring up the patriot act...it confuses the issue".....
If you are going to demonize people who vote for a specific person as being your enemy because of issues supported by the person they voted for, and your perception of how they endanger your freedom, it goes both ways.

"If you voted for Obama, you voted against RKBA"

If you voted for Bush and the party that supports him, and I know many of you did, you endangered more than that.

If every private land said no guns then where could you actually go in life and hold on to your Constitutional Right? That's why I say it should be a law that at least for stores/retailers/etc. no guns policies should be illegal.

 

[CoyoteSix]

Some very good points brought up in the replies, I enjoy seeing such a passionate thread.

To clarify, I would never appease Gun Grabbers. Nigh would I let my guard down. That's not the message of of my original post.


The message is that we don't demonize our fellow Americans for exercising their beliefs.

Think of the civil right's movement. Who was the more successful of the two big civil rights activists? Malcom X? Or Dr. Martin Luther King?

Malcom X and his militant ways didn't get a damned thing done. He started up the Black Panthers and pushed us closer to a race war. He viewed that the only way to fix things was through arms. Through armed conflict.

Of course it was Dr. King who was able to rally the people and push equality.

Guess what? Dr.King did it without harming any "White Man". Having read some of his work, most notably his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" one can see that he didn't address white's as the enemy.

See what I'm getting at here? If we take the Malcom X route, vilifying our fellow countrymen who disagree and preparing for a second civil war of sorts we're gonna get nowhere. Lives may be lost, and we'll be worse off than we started.

Now if we go the Dr. MLK route we may actually get something done. The Rallies at the state capitals were a great start. We gotta keep our heads down and our hopes high and do this without hurting anybody.

 

[silicosys4]

If every private land said no guns then where could you actually go in life and hold on to your Constitutional Right? That's why I say it should be a law that at least for stores/retailers/etc. no guns policies should be illegal.

Your own land.
I was raised to believe that a mans land is his own. If I don't like what a landowner wants me to do or not do on his land, its his land...and I don't want to be there.That is why people work hard to buy property, so they can do what they want on it.
The importance of your right to shoot whatever guns you want on your own land,
is just as important to me as your neighbors right to not have guns on his own land, and to not allow them there. His land. Don't go there if you don't like it.
That said, most people don't have a problem with your guns, because most people aren't your "enemy" regardless of who they vote or don't vote for.
A select minority has big problems with guns and has a big voice in the media, just like Sandy Hook had a big voice in the media for just one incident.
How do I know its the minority? We still have our guns. As soon as WE are the minority, we will lose them. Unfortunately, our constitution does not offer the same inarguable protections it once did.
How do we become the minority? by labeling people who are on the fence or not as sensitive to the importance of gun ownership as the "enemy".
What will bring them over the fence onto our side? Reasonable discussion, and repetition of facts.

As for signs disallowing firearms in businesses on private property...Do your research. For the most part, most of them are not binding by law. They are simply an expression of opinion and desire, and you are just as free to ignore them in most states in most cases, as you are to not patronize or trespass on private property.
Check your state and area for legality though.

 

[Ryanxia]

Your own land.
I was raised to believe that a mans land is his own. If I don't like what a landowner wants me to do or not do on his land, its his land...and I don't want to be there.That is why people work hard to buy property, so they can do what they want on it.
The importance of your right to shoot whatever guns you want on your own land,
is just as important to me as your neighbors right to not have guns on his own land, and to not allow them there. His land. Don't go there if you don't like it.
That said, most people don't have a problem with your guns, because most people aren't your "enemy" regardless of who they vote or don't vote for.
A select minority has big problems with guns and has a big voice in the media, just like Sandy Hook had a big voice in the media for just one incident.
How do I know its the minority? We still have our guns. As soon as WE are the minority, we will lose them. Unfortunately, our constitution does not offer the same inarguable protections it once did.
How do we become the minority? by labeling people who are on the fence or not as sensitive to the importance of gun ownership as the "enemy".
What will bring them over the fence onto our side? Reasonable discussion, and repetition of facts.

As for signs disallowing firearms on private property...Do your research. For the most part, most of them are not binding by law. They are simply an expression of opinion and desire, and you are just as free to ignore them in most states in most cases, as you are to not patronize or trespass on private property.
Check your state and area for legality though.

I should have clarified that I'm focusing on commercial property. A man's land is one thing but when every place you go to purchase goods tramples on your Constitutional Rights that's wrong.

And in my state a no guns sign does carry the weight of law.

 

[LNK]

After seeing Romney true behavior post election, and how he imploded into a petulant child immediately after being defeated, while also knowing how he had voted previously considering new firearm legislation, I would guess we wouldn't be in much of a different spot at this point in time if he had been elected. Leaders, or lack of leadership, is very much a problem for both sides, and you are one of the "sheeple".

"don't bring up the patriot act...it confuses the issue".....
If you are going to demonize people who vote for a specific person as being your enemy because of issues supported by the person they voted for, and your perception of how they endanger your freedom, it goes both ways.

"If you voted for Obama, you voted against RKBA"

If you voted for Bush and the party that supports him, and I know many of you did, you endangered more than that.

The fact is you are trying to make it seem as though a vote for GWB is the same as a vote for BHO. I am sure you remember the "petulant child", Al Gore, after his first election?

You are right about the Patriot Act, that was a non starter for me. But not much different from the NDAA is it? Perhaps Mr. Kerry would have been a better choice? Not. Turned against his own U.S. soldiers for political gain.

The difference Between the "R's" and the "D's", has more to do with the trying to change the United States into something else. Bush may have had the Patriot Act, but I believe he really Loves this country. Can you say the same for BHO? Honestly?

Stop trying to justify your vote. Romney wasn't my first choice either, nor was McCain. But you can bet that I will not vote for anyone that goes against the Constitution before I vote for them. Nor will I ever vote for them again if they do. Can you say the same?

LNK

 

[ljnowell]

Except the restaraunt owner is not "stripping you of your rights". You have the right to not give him patronage. You have the right not to enter his store. You have the right to tell him his actions are costing him your business. It is the same situation as someone who hates guns, being at a gunshow. You don't like it, don't go in, don't give them your money, but don't try and take away their right to conduct themselves legally under the laws of this country. Every citizen of this country has a legal right not to like your guns, you, or your carrying them, and they have the right to request you not carry one on their property....just as you have the right to object, and the no legal obligation to comply in most situations.

I object heartily to your labeling of people who share opposing opinions and exercise their rights in accordance with the law as the "enemy".
An "enemy" is someone who is trying to do you or your family harm directly. Not someone who is well intentioned but misguided. (unless you are one of those whacko "all libs are evil nazi's!!" idiots... In that case, there is indeed no cure for stupid").
Label them ignorant and an opposition to what you stand for, but until one of them takes direct action to harm you or yours, leave the "line in the sand" "black and white" "anyone not for us is against us" rhetoric at home where it won't harm our cause and make it difficult for us to come to the table with our neighbors who share different viewpoints and opinions.

I know you would never listen to anything the enemy would say, and would certainly never consider doing things their way....why would the "enemy" do the same for you?
Having enemies where you could have disagreements and conversation that leads to agreements instead... is stupid.
You'll fend them off for a while, but not forever....especially in this day and age of changing demographics

"don't bring up the patriot act...it confuses the issue".....
If you are going to demonize people who vote for a specific person as being your enemy because of issues supported by the person they voted for, and your perception of how they endanger your freedom, it goes both ways.

"If you voted for Obama, you voted against RKBA"

If you voted for Bush and the party that supports him, and I know many of you did, you endangered more than that.

You really are acting like a child. If you are upset that you voted for a gun grabbing turd, then don't do it again. No matter how you slice it though, if they are trying to take away our gun rights they are the enemy. This is THR.org, we only do guns. Not any other policy. Not the patriot act, roe vs wade, nothing else. Anyone that opposes our freedom is the enemy. Its not that hard to figure out.

 

[silicosys4]

The fact is you are trying to make it seem as though a vote for GWB is the same as a vote for BHO. I am sure you remember the "petulant child", Al Gore, after his first election?

You are right about the Patriot Act, that was a non starter for me. But not much different from the NDAA is it? Perhaps Mr. Kerry would have been a better choice? Not. Turned against his own U.S. soldiers for political gain.

The difference Between the "R's" and the "D's", has more to do with the trying to change the United States into something else. Bush may have had the Patriot Act, but I believe he really Loves this country. Can you say the same for BHO? Honestly?

Stop trying to justify your vote. Romney wasn't my first choice either, nor was McCain. But you can bet that I will not vote for anyone that goes against the Constitution before I vote for them. Nor will I ever vote for them again if they do. Can you say the same?

LNK

1. you have no idea who I voted for, but I can tell you think you do.
I'll give you a hint. It starts with "lib" but doesn't end in "eral".
This is why political discussions have no place in The High Road.

I'm not interested in a discussion of which potus "loves" this country more. Both have screwed us over royally.
Bush sure did love awarding his friends big juicy contracts, after starting a B.S. war that the public DIDN'T want, that cost a lot of money, over lies peddled to the public.
B.O....well, I hardly need to explain what he's done, in here.

And yes, I do believe a vote for one is pretty much just as harmful at this point, as a vote for the other.
Neither D's nor R's are good for this country any more.

 

[Texan Scott]

JonnyGringo: tolerance does not mean acceptance

This precisely. If I may comment on the fancy "coexist" bumper stickers, we do not peacefully coexist because we agree, but only to the extent we agree to DISAGREE. We tolerate the differences of those whose differences do us no harm because, being harmless, we've no valid cause to complain of them.
Read more of Thomas Jefferson on this point:

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

The problem is that we cannot coexist peacefully with those who REFUSE to leave us in peace. We may mean them no harm, but if they mean us harm, we cannot tolerate them either, and I refuse to feel that this is my fault when they're the ones pushing an agenda.

 

[silicosys4]

This precisely. If I may comment on the fancy "coexist" bumper stickers, we do not peacefully coexist because we agree, but only to the extent we agree to DISAGREE. We tolerate the differences of those whose differences do us no harm because, being harmless, we've no valid cause to complain of them.
Read more of Thomas Jefferson on this point:


The problem is that we cannot coexist peacefully with those who REFUSE to leave us in peace. We may mean them no harm, but if they mean us harm, we cannot tolerate them either, and I refuse to feel that this is my fault when they're the ones pushing an agenda.

The ones pushing an agenda aren't the people, regardless of who they vote for. Either way, the people just want to be safe, eat well, and live comfortably. They are the politicians and the media, and judging by this thread, they are very successfully turning us against each other.

 

[mbt2001]

I hear people that say that things are so partisan now... that people are divided...

America HAS ALWAYS been a war of ideas. Born in literal blood, and drawing metaphoric blood daily. Jefferson called his victor in 1800 the bloodless revolution! Why? Because for the first time, a ruling party handed over power to a party that had a different IDEA / BELIEF / DIRECTION for the country. It was in fact monumental in it's compass.

So... here we are. Fighting it out. Day in and day out, we are fighting, arguing, and trying to create a better country, preserve the best of what we have had, and so on. I do not want a "civil" political process. Obama is trying to take over and that is how I feel. He wants our guns and I do not want to give them up. We continue to engage in the world of ideas and we argue and protest and deluge our reps with our letters and feelings OR WE LOSE THE WAR.

Welcome to the United States... Check your self control at the door or you will end up as someone else's monkey.

 

[LNK]

You are correct, I don't know who you voted for, nor do you know who I voted for. But you do seem to want to defend on side more than the other. I also believe Ron Paul was the only candidate that deserved my vote, alas, he was not on the ballot. Sometimes it comes down to the lesser of two evils. Unless you have a better idea, if you do I would love to hear it.

We are now way off topic.

LNK

 

[xXxplosive]

Hmmmm...........and the Tories all boarded ships and sailed back to England after their cause was lost.

 

[Constrictor]

The OP is wrong. As a matter of fact id be very surprised if he/she even owned any firearms. There are a lot of frauds around, not saying the Op is one but...............

 

[silicosys4]

The OP is wrong. As a matter of fact id be very surprised if he/she even owned any firearms. There are a lot of frauds around, not saying the Op is one but...............

Allright, so then your neighbor is your enemy...
What are you going to do about it? Enemies must be eliminated.
If I had an enemy, I'd eliminate them. Enemies want to hurt me, my family, and cause misery.
Gonna kill your neighbor? Shoot them with your gun if he doesn't own one and doesn't personally agree that you should own yours, so that you are safe from harm? Do you see the irony? Do you realize how stupid that sounds, and how labeling your neighbor as the enemy over his opinion pretty much justifies and concretes his idea that you shouldn't have one, and smacks of fascism to boot?

Or are you just waxing drama?
Death to America! or at least that 52% that didn't vote like me

 

[mcdonl]

Allright, so then your neighbor is your enemy...
What are you going to do about it? Enemies must be eliminated.
If I had an enemy, I'd eliminate them. Enemies want to hurt me, my family, and cause misery.
Gonna kill your neighbor? Shoot them with your gun if he doesn't own one and doesn't personally agree that you should own yours, so that you are safe from harm? Do you realize how stupid that sounds, and how it plays right into their camp?

Or are you just waxing drama?
Death to America! or at least that 52% that didn't vote like me

silicosys... read my post a few up... once you define the battle the tools to fight it are not all the same. Heart Disease is my enemy, I do not "kill" my heart, I fight the enemy using diet and exercise.

When the battle is one of politics, you fight the enemy with political actions.