Jump to content

Sick of isp and waiting


Recommended Posts

Of course, when speaking of one's rights, it's never correct to let that devolve into a requirement to prove the usefulness of the right to someone on their terms.

The right exists. It is given to each of us by the Creator, with a capital "C", the Founders referred to in the Constitution. That is sufficient to insist upon our continued ability to exercise it individually, even in the face of those who see no value in it.

In this sense the analogy to the First Amendment still holds in that many people see faith as anachronistic, yet never question that the expression of faith found in religion is a protected right.

 

 

Oh, and Papa's use of $'s to enclose his post is meant to signify sarcasm.

Listen it should be quite clear that I won't be moved on my beliefs the same as you won't be moved that the "Founders had it all right" I've shown you that the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES agrees with my position not yours. You claim to be freedom loving but when that very freedom is exhibited through the form a vote within the highest Court in our land. A decision was reached and concluded that LAWMAKERS can ban not all but CERTAIN WEAPONS but you are still arguing that you should be able to Own whatever weapon your money can buy you. It just doesn't fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cordell, like it's already been stated, go read the Federalist Papers and other resources to learn what the founders truly intended.

 

Also, some leftists in black robes sitting on some high court redefining what the 2nd amendment is doesn't miraculously change its true meaning. Again, read what the founders intended.

 

The people should have whatever weapons they need to defend against a tyrannical government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an excellent idea. Cordell, please read the Federalist Papers and another great resource is "The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights 1787-1792. by David Young. I believe it is the most exhaustive compilation of historical facts concerning the Second Amendment.

 

So, please read the Federalist Papers- if you haven't already - before commenting further.

 

p.s. The folks here are not trying to change your opinion, they are merely challenging your opinion and asking you to back it up with historical fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In this day and age the civilian population would have no chance against the US Military and hellfire missiles and Smartbombs. Again the argument is nonsensical in 2018.

It's troubling that the possibility even exists that our government would use that kind of firepower against it's citizens.

 

Their having tanks, missles, and bombs is not enough reason to convince anyone that they should give up their rifles. In fact, they should get more.

 

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not the killing efficacy of civilian arms, but rather the totality of civilian arms possession, that keeps tyranny at bay.

Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

Let us not forget that when the dems had control of all branches of govt after Sandy Hook, Harry Reid REFUSED to call gun control for a vote.

Many have opined that it was a political move. I'll offer an alternative opinion. Harry Reid knew that the American people would not bow to another Clinton style gun ban.

What's Connecticut's compliance rate up to, 4%?

Yes, AR15s and the like are NEEDED.

I saw a statistic the other day. The .gov bureaus' now have more armed agents than the US Marine Corps. Think about that.

 

So please enlighten me! If there was ever an attempt of tyrannical takeover in this Country. What use will you have for any of your small arms if there's an Abrams tank outside your door Sir? Go ask the Palestinians how their firearms have held up against Israel. That argument stinks.

There will not be an Abrams tank outside my door. That is the point you're missing about widespread civilian ownership. It will never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, when speaking of one's rights, it's never correct to let that devolve into a requirement to prove the usefulness of the right to someone on their terms.

The right exists. It is given to each of us by the Creator, with a capital "C", the Founders referred to in the Constitution. That is sufficient to insist upon our continued ability to exercise it individually, even in the face of those who see no value in it.

In this sense the analogy to the First Amendment still holds in that many people see faith as anachronistic, yet never question that the expression of faith found in religion is a protected right.

 

 

Oh, and Papa's use of $'s to enclose his post is meant to signify sarcasm.

 

Listen it should be quite clear that I won't be moved on my beliefs the same as you won't be moved that the "Founders had it all right" I've shown you that the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES agrees with my position not yours. You claim to be freedom loving but when that very freedom is exhibited through the form a vote within the highest Court in our land. A decision was reached and concluded that LAWMAKERS can ban not all but CERTAIN WEAPONS but you are still arguing that you should be able to Own whatever weapon your money can buy you. It just doesn't fly.

You need to read that decision again. Nowhere does it say that weapons in common use can be banned. When you read "certain weapons," think of a shotgun that fires anthrax coated razor blades, not a rifle that uses technology perfected in the 1800's that fires conventional metallic cartridges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

An AR15 is not a high powered rifle. It isn't used for deer hunting in this state because it isn't considered powerful enough for a clean kill. That is the states determination by the way.
You can't use any rifle for deer hunting in this state, except for a muzzle loader.

 

 

You are correct . I should have said in other states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, when speaking of one's rights, it's never correct to let that devolve into a requirement to prove the usefulness of the right to someone on their terms.

 

The right exists. It is given to each of us by the Creator, with a capital "C", the Founders referred to in the Constitution. That is sufficient to insist upon our continued ability to exercise it individually, even in the face of those who see no value in it.

 

In this sense the analogy to the First Amendment still holds in that many people see faith as anachronistic, yet never question that the expression of faith found in religion is a protected right.

 

 

Oh, and Papa's use of $'s to enclose his post is meant to signify sarcasm.

 

Yes , I admit , I was having a little fun. Most on here know but for those who don't , or have forgotten , the " sock bomb " idea came from the movie " Saving Private Ryan " .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an excellent idea. Cordell, please read the Federalist Papers and another great resource is "The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights 1787-1792. by David Young. I believe it is the most exhaustive compilation of historical facts concerning the Second Amendment.

 

So, please read the Federalist Papers- if you haven't already - before commenting further.

 

p.s. The folks here are not trying to change your opinion, they are merely challenging your opinion and asking you to back it up with historical fact.

 

Molly I have read the federalist Papers and I do realize the Second Amendment originally was meant for defense through form of civilian militia. With you personally Molly I could never go back and fourth Because I would be totally biased, close my mouth and agree with whatever you say..............But as for Others my Beliefs specifically on 2nd amendment will forever be from a Progressive Perspective because when the framers formed it people such as myself were slaves and not citizens and the only law that I would've been protected under would have been the right for a Slave Owner to claim me as his property. So until the civil rights act of 1964 (when the civil rights act of 1875 was actually enforced under the law) I did not have equal rights. So my views might always differ from the Original interpretation of second amendment that many here may appreciate. And my view may be unpopular here but I'm a voter just like everyone else and We all can exercise our voices at the ballot box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an excellent idea. Cordell, please read the Federalist Papers and another great resource is "The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights 1787-1792. by David Young. I believe it is the most exhaustive compilation of historical facts concerning the Second Amendment.

 

So, please read the Federalist Papers- if you haven't already - before commenting further.

 

p.s. The folks here are not trying to change your opinion, they are merely challenging your opinion and asking you to back it up with historical fact.

 

Molly I have read the federalist Papers and I do realize the Second Amendment originally was meant for defense through form of civilian militia. With you personally Molly I could never go back and fourth Because I would be totally biased, close my mouth and agree with whatever you say..............But as for Others my Beliefs specifically on 2nd amendment will forever be from a Progressive Perspective because when the framers formed it people such as myself were slaves and not citizens and the only law that I would've been protected under would have been the right for a Slave Owner to claim me as his property. So until the civil rights act of 1964 (when the civil rights act of 1875 was actually enforced under the law) I did not have equal rights. So my views might always differ from the Original interpretation of second amendment that many here may appreciate. And my view may be unpopular here but I'm a voter just like everyone else and We all can exercise our voices at the ballot box.

/thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you get equal rights and then you want to give them up. Makes sense, totally.

No Sir. I would however give up a Certain Weapon if it was agreed upon by the majority of members of my community that it is the best interest of us all to not have that particular weapon in our district. It wouldn't stop me from arming myself nor protecting my family and property. If I didn't agree I would either store the weapon in a district where it was legal or I would move to a district where it would be legal. But thats just me Sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So you get equal rights and then you want to give them up. Makes sense, totally.

No Sir. I would however give up a Certain Weapon if it was agreed upon by the majority of members of my community that it is the best interest of us all to not have that particular weapon in our district. It wouldn't stop me from arming myself nor protecting my family and property. If I didn't agree I would either store the weapon in a district where it was legal or I would move to a district where it would be legal. But thats just me Sir.

 

One of the beauties of freedom is that the members of your community may, on their own, choose to not purchase a certain firearm. If they agree with your sentiments that may happen. Forcing your desires on a community against it's will and against it's enumerated right is, however, the opposite of freedom.

 

Choose freedom. It's a wonderful place to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter how law abiding any citizens is none of us can carry a weapon into a Bank, or on a Plane, or into a Courthouse. It's for the safety of the General Public that we all collectively surrender our rights and in those instances we rely on a Security Guard or a U.S. Marshals agent or a County Sheriff to protect us should violence erupt. As soon as we leave those places we can Arm ourselves. I shall never believe that giving up any Particular Weapon in a Particular District in anyway takes away the right for me to bear arms. I have offered up my OPINION on this issue for days now and that's all it is my OPINION. God bless you all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So you get equal rights and then you want to give them up. Makes sense, totally.

No Sir. I would however give up a Certain Weapon if it was agreed upon by the majority of members of my community that it is the best interest of us all to not have that particular weapon in our district. It wouldn't stop me from arming myself nor protecting my family and property. If I didn't agree I would either store the weapon in a district where it was legal or I would move to a district where it would be legal. But thats just me Sir.
One of the beauties of freedom is that the members of your community may, on their own, choose to not purchase a certain firearm. If they agree with your sentiments that may happen. Forcing your desires on a community against it's will and against it's enumerated right is, however, the opposite of freedom.Choose freedom. It's a wonderful place to be.

 

 

I will certainly give this Comment my final reply to any on this thread. There was a Man who became President in our great land of freedom and liberty. His position was you must Give up your Property as it is wrong and you cannot and shall not possess it any further. Over half of the Country disagreed with this President and the Country went to War over it. Hundreds of thousands died because they felt it was their inalienable right to own their property....Hundreds of thousands died in opposition of those beliefs....That President was Abraham Lincoln war was the Civil war and that property was Slaves...Freedom Sir has always been paid for in blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you get equal rights and then you want to give them up. Makes sense, totally.No Sir. I would however give up a Certain Weapon if it was agreed upon by the majority of members of my community that it is the best interest of us all to not have that particular weapon in our district. It wouldn't stop me from arming myself nor protecting my family and property. If I didn't agree I would either store the weapon in a district where it was legal or I would move to a district where it would be legal. But thats just me Sir.One of the beauties of freedom is that the members of your community may, on their own, choose to not purchase a certain firearm. If they agree with your sentiments that may happen. Forcing your desires on a community against it's will and against it's enumerated right is, however, the opposite of freedom.Choose freedom. It's a wonderful place to be.

 

I will certainly give this Comment my final reply to any on this thread. There was a Man who became President in our great land of freedom and liberty. His position was you must Give up your Property as it is wrong and you cannot and shall not possess it any further. Over half of the Country disagreed with this President and the Country went to War over it. Hundreds of thousands died because they felt it was their inalienable right to own their property....Hundreds of thousands died in opposition of those beliefs....That President was Abraham Lincoln war was the Civil war and that property was Slaves...Freedom Sir has always been paid for in blood.

I'd bet that Abe Lincoln would have little to fight for had slaves been afforded the Constitutional freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.

 

And while evil men did say it was their "right to own property," that doesn't make it so. The same way that evil men today deny others the basic dignity that comes with the ability to defend themselves, and call that "progress."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one problem I have with relying on the Supreme Court as the arbiter is that judges change over the years depending on who is making the appointment and how honest the appointee is during hearings. If you were a minority, Plessy v. Ferguson was a horrible decision by the Supreme Court that ultimately changed with Brown v. Board of Education. Who knows, if Obama had gotten a few more appointments, where would gun laws be now? On the free speech side, Citizens United in 2010 overruled a prior Supreme Court decision in 2000. Most supreme court decisions are not 5-4 and there is significant consensus on many issues. However, when it comes strictly to pure constitutional issues, that is always the risk and all it takes is a democratic president with a couple of deaths on the conservative side of the Court and those 5-4 decisions we might like turn into 6-3 decisions that we will hate. I would prefer that the real decisions be made at the ballot box and if people that believe in the 2nd amendment don't get out the vote, we may all end up with laws like California, New Jersey and New York.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

..."none of us can carry a weapon into a Bank"...

We can't??? (unless they are posted)

 

If my bank posted "No Berettas" signs, I'd be finding a new bank.

Oh, I did just that at a west suburban bank. I was looking for the OP to explain why. Some seem to believe banks are on the prohibited places list.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While still living in the peoples republic of Illinois, I opted to change my financial institution due to the no guns sign on the door of the at the time Oswego Community Bank and the Fox Valley Credit Union. But before I closed out the accounts, I checked with the customer service rep at the Old Second Natl Bank on Douglas Rd. She contacted the VP in charge of the security and she informed me that I was completely legal and welcome to carry on O2 property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An AR15 is not a high powered rifle. It isn't used for deer hunting in this state because it isn't considered powerful enough for a clean kill. That is the states determination by the way.
You can't use any rifle for deer hunting in this state, except for a muzzle loader.

 

Illinois is the same way - shotgun slugs only, not even buckshot. :pinch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

An AR15 is not a high powered rifle. It isn't used for deer hunting in this state because it isn't considered powerful enough for a clean kill. That is the states determination by the way.
You can't use any rifle for deer hunting in this state, except for a muzzle loader.

 

Illinois is the same way - shotgun slugs only, not even buckshot. :pinch:

 

 

We were talking about Illinois. I had a brain fart , it was late , and I am old. :unsure: Read post 97 and you see I changed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't use any rifle for deer hunting in this state, except for a muzzle loader.

Illinois is the same way - shotgun slugs only, not even buckshot. :pinch:

 

We were talking about Illinois. I had a brain fart , it was late , and I am old. :unsure: Read post 97 and you see I changed it.

 

Don't feel bad Papa. Most of us get there sooner or later. I'm on SoSec. now too. :beer1: :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...