If they come for your guns, do you have a responsibility to fight?

cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
fb360 said:
Damn media and their effective use of semantics...
Click to expand...
That is how the battles for the hearts and minds of the readers and viewers are won. We live in the age of the sound bite. If "gun rights" can be pinned to phrases like "assault weapon" and "school massacre", the media are succeeding in a program to make "gun" a four-letter word. Jmo. cn
 
fb360

fb360

Active Member
cannabineer said:
That is how the battles for the hearts and minds of the readers and viewers are won. We live in the age of the sound bite. If "gun rights" can be pinned to phrases like "assault weapon" and "school massacre", the media are succeeding in a program to make "gun" a four-letter word. Jmo. cn
Click to expand...
I agree with everything except for the implication that this is the only age of the sound bite. IMO, sound bites and semantics have been used as an effective means to gain power or control, for as long as we have existed. Well maybe not caveman status, but anytime after the development of settled civilizations.

Hitler and many others who gained absolute power throughout history, were masters of speech and semantics.
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
See, the Agenda wants to constantly conceal with a BIG LIE, (monkey bars) to cover and codify the little lie. Overthrowing the govt, (or about hunting or home protection.) That is not it!

Those are twisted minds just taking all the other real reasons, to be sure, and taking a dump on them. Why is that?

Because they can't shit on the main point. The 2nd has, is and will be about protecting the Constitution from all dangers foreign and domestic. To enable the Constitutional requirements to create well formed militia means you cannot abridge the right for civilians to possess within immediate use, modern BATTLE weapons.

Now, you sissies, you have no idea because you are afraid of guns. If this slippery slope continues, at some point, the folks will know they are Constitutional threatened with the Ratchet.

At that point, we will decide that you are the Insurrection. Then, no matter what you think, the Military and the well formed militia will have to decide if the President and Congress will be allowed to scrape the 2nd A ,UN-Constituionally. That is, without Amendment, but regulation.

That is why only this long term incrementation attempt, is possible. So, I think people are falling for the ruse, the chase.

We have to get ahead of it. We can't get drawn into nattering about magazine size. Whatever the Newz-joke says. That slope leads to civil war, I think. At some point the sillies, will go too far. Conflict will break out. The Constitutionality Driven rise up against this internally, State manufactured, procedurally denial of this Right. That's my fear. States against States.

When the State colludes with the Feds on this....big trouble. Or the system will work, the dumb asses will be voted out, shot or whatever and a new more level headed pack gets into office.

You realized that over 1/2 of the Democrats get an A rating from the NRA.

Only a few are into this power Agenda. It won't go far, has been tried, so what?

Just pay attention to when a City tries to take up guns. That will be the trip wire.
Click to expand...
Am I a sissy because I don't own guns, or because I believe there should be some limitations on the people that do?

Is that any different than me calling you a sissy because you DO own guns, and can't defend yourself without one?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
fb360 said:
I agree with everything except for the implication that this is the only age of the sound bite. IMO, sound bites and semantics have been used as an effective means to gain power or control, for as long as we have existed. Well maybe not caveman status, but anytime after the development of settled civilizations.

Hitler and many others who gained absolute power throughout history, were masters of speech and semantics.
Click to expand...
Yes, but in the time before TV the sound bite stood as the marker or condensed epigram for a longer speech or more elaborated philosophy. That is no longer a requirement. cn
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
st0wandgrow said:
Am I a sissy because I don't own guns, or because I believe there should be some limitations on the people that do?

Is that any different than me calling you a sissy because you DO own guns, and can't defend yourself without one?
Click to expand...
My opinion? No on your two questions. Not owning a gun is just as much a right as owning one, and I know many folks who do not wish to own guns, and they have excellent personal reasons that i find fully OK. However wanting restrictions on guns is not imo the mark of a sissy but of a prig: knowing what is right for others, and wishing it to be policy.

Not touching the "can't defend yourself without one" crack, except perhaps to ask what similarly positive standoff defense mode you'd countenance my having in/under my jacket. cn
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
My opinion? No on your two questions. Not owning a gun is just as much a right as owning one, and I know many folks who do not wish to own guns, and they have excellent personal reasons that i find fully OK. However wanting restrictions on guns is not imo the mark of a sissy but of a prig: knowing what is right for others, and wishing it to be policy.

Not touching the "can't defend yourself without one" crack, except perhaps to ask what similarly positive standoff defense mode you'd countenance my having in/under my jacket. cn
Click to expand...
My desire for restrictions on gun ownership doesn't stem from me knowing what is right for others. It has more to do with my own selfish interests, and a belief that *some* restrictions would be best for the general welfare of all.
 
Winter Woman

Winter Woman

Well-Known Member
As a survivor of a brutal sexual assault in my 20's I will always have a gun. Period.

A gun would have evened things up between me at 5'2" and a 6'4" stranger. What happened to me could happen to your mother, your sister, your daughter and your wife. If I had a gun back then he would dead and I would be a whole person inside.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
My desire for restrictions on gun ownership doesn't stem from me knowing what is right for others. It has more to do with my own selfish interests, and a belief that *some* restrictions would be best for the general welfare of all.
Click to expand...
In a perfect world where criminals followed laws, your idea might have merit...

But it is far from a perfect world...

The federal government believes that *some* restrictions on growing, selling and smoking of marijuana is best for the general welfare of all...
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
st0wandgrow said:
My desire for restrictions on gun ownership doesn't stem from me knowing what is right for others. It has more to do with my own selfish interests, and a belief that *some* restrictions would be best for the general welfare of all.
Click to expand...
But how do we find that balance point? Imo we are on the restrictive side of it, with the places that are in greatest need of opening up , like NY State, just making it worse.

Britain and Australia are salient examples of a nation gone too far. Violent crimes are up 4x and 3x respectively after sweeping but not quite complete gun confiscations. My selfish interests come into play when the State suddenly says that I can no longer do something to protect myself that it previously countenanced.

Finally i say that if the nation is serious about gun control, a moral hard line I recommend to all of us is to demands that the police not be armed above and beyond what their charges are allowed to carry. In my state, the police have AR-4s, fer grief's sake! Why do they get the goodies but the populace, not? (And make no mistake: they see them as goodies. Perqs.) It's a nasty double standard, and imo a bigger injustice than is perpetrated by the occasional spree shooter. But guess who gets all the press. cn
 
tekdc911

tekdc911

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
As a Texan I will tell you it can never happen. 120,000 people is nothing for this petition. Here is our latest population figures. We have settled law about what the President will do about secessionists.

So, even if the petition had 25M signatures, it still will never happen. And even with Texas aligned with Mexico for military support in some bizarre future, they are not a devil to easily deal with. We would have to make a deal with Montezuma but the Marines have already been there.

25,674,681 - Jul 2011
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Click to expand...
its a contract and just that texas is the 15th largest economy in the world the U.N. has stepped in for less as much as a pipe dream as it may be the idea of texas is what it is there is a reason that a succession "clause" was put in this "contract" its not america that will be the root of texas not becoming a country but it will be as simple as texans saying " ohh that will never happen . let me go back to handing over my fire arms .... hurry hurry justin bieber is on in 5 mins" and yes 120,000 is nothing but its 6 times the amount needed to present formally for a review by the governor
 
tekdc911

tekdc911

Well-Known Member
the problem is we are not talking about taking guns from bad guys , crooks , robbers , rapists , or anything i may have left out we are talking about taking them from the general public the police on average have a 11 min response time and have no legal obligation to "save" you but just to uphold the law we're also talking about about a police force that for the risk they take get paid nothing teacher salary if that and lets all remember bad guys dont care if guns are legal all this does is set us up for a police state where are safety is dependent on the gov go back to sleep little sheep big brother is here
 
zambonic

zambonic

Well-Known Member
If you choose to not own a firearm that is your right... as it is mine to own one. The second amendment was not put in place for hunting and fishing. It was to protect from tyrants both foreign and domestic. It does not state anything about magazine restrictions, or types of firearms. You start off by saying "doesn't stem from me knowing what is right for others" and finish off with "would be best for the general welfare of all." LOL double talk much?

st0wandgrow said:
My desire for restrictions on gun ownership doesn't stem from me knowing what is right for others. It has more to do with my own selfish interests, and a belief that *some* restrictions would be best for the general welfare of all.
Click to expand...
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
Am I a sissy because I don't own guns, or because I believe there should be some limitations on the people that do?

Is that any different than me calling you a sissy because you DO own guns, and can't defend yourself without one?
Click to expand...
I don't know if you are afraid of guns or anything else. I'm responding to your post. I don't know you. So, how can it be that personal? Do you see where I called you anything?

IAC, I'm quite sure I can make a good account of myself without a gun, given the chance. I train. I keep fit. I think thru the action puzzles. I prepare to defend myself with whatever, lately hanbo.

Yet, there is no better club than arms, considering the other uses. Very heavy, handy. It's intimidating. It protects family, treasure and the privacy of castle without killing. So, someone is a pussy only if they blindly fall for the Agenda to erode this unfettered Right. It is mis-guided, dangerous and full of lies and ignoring the facts. The stats of protection far outweigh the deaths. The total deaths are less than seat belts save, about 40K/yr. Don't be fooled into the New World pussification. This has been tried before. It can get ugly.

And, btw, the most violent place in the civilized world, where records are keep, is Australia. Leading with rape. They forced the return of almost all guns, in the mid-90s.

Why is it so hard? Why are we so hypnotized to believe these black and white choices?

Are you a pussy not to have a gun? No. Learn how to not fear them. Run some rounds at the range. Or not. It isn't the point. I would not fail to attempt to protect you, a perfect stranger. And I know how to do it and I have jumped in, more than once.

It isn't no guns or all have guns or force this or that. Just read the 2ond A. The pussies are the ones in fear.

Are you? Serious question. I was. Not kidding. Fear is the mind killer. I took a series of martial arts training until I realized my problem was simple fear. This is about militia. And we will need everyone, fear or not.

It is possible to be drafted, you know. And a State Militia will not just let the able bodied, just stand there. The ways of forced conscription are well known, since ancient times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top