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....
