Jump to content

The difference between Liberals, Conservatives, and Southerners...


Recommended Posts

You're a wonderful person Mark, but you're scaring me. Man, I thought I was cynical.

"As best I can tell, you may as well get ALL the guns out there as soon as humanly possible. TODAY! Let's get the big shootout over with."

The irony here is that it wouldn't work that way. An armed civilized society is relatively peaceful. There is mutual respect. Someone once said "an armed society is a polite society", and for the most part this is true -- IF the society in question is indeed "civilized".

Some children go to the park to play. When they get there, there is a Bully with a stick. The children just want to play together, but can't, because the bully chases them, smacking them with his stick. Every day they show up, and The Bully is there waiting. Finally, the children all show up with sticks of their own, not because they like to beat each other with sticks, but because they know it is the only way to deal with The Bully. The Bully leaves, the sticks are laid down, and the children play.

This is the way of the world as I see it. Good people with guns deter evil people from using theirs. Good people with empty hands are asking for it.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 493
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

"Doesn't matter which people, which reason, which country, which excuse, which weapon, which 'extremely grave danger." If we get to kill some folk, we are happy, secure, righteous, brave, heroic, patriotic, saved, doing God's work, headed for heaven and all the rest. You can't be immersed in violence your entire life and not develop a certain taste for blood.

It's what we do. And we do it pretty up 'n' walkin' good!"

How else to justify and perpetuate a vast military budget which keeps certain rich and powerful investors more rich and powerful. They count on the fact that all these kids like to shoot guns. That is why we do not (yet) see all those "military" forces out there planting trees, fixing the highways, cleaning up toxic waste sites, feeding the poor, and generally doing a militarily organized job with the many peaceful (and ultimately war deferring) projects that could actually improve civilization. Your point is that we thrive on having enemies that we can kill as opposed to all the other real enemies that are actually degrading our civilization and environment. It is all manipulations of the very greedy rich and powerful to just amass more personal wealth and power for its own sake.

Basically there is only one sound investment in America: Weapons and War industries. I do not see why all mutual funds and retirement plans are not invested exclusively in this sector. They have been misleading us. No point in investing in anything else. Selling "peace" is a hoax designed to keep up their own profits in the war industries and to keep those young soldiers "inspired" to do their bidding. If everyone would just invest in war, we could end this whole thing in one big boom and we would all end up rich and powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Regulate: To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.

Militia: An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

Necessary: Absolutely essential.

Security: Freedom from risk or danger; safety.

Arms: A weapon, especially a firearm.

Infringed: To defeat; invalidate. (Meaning in place in late 1700's.)

To paraphrase, in order for a State to secure it's safety and ensure freedom from risk or danger, it is absolutely essential that the right of law abiding ordinary citizens to own weapons, especially firearms, must not be invalidated.

At least, that's what George Washington, John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, George Read, Gunning Bedford junior, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jacob Broom, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King, James MCHenry, Danial Carroll , William Samual Johnson, Roger Sherman, John Blair, James Madison Jr., Will Livingston, David Brearley, Williamm Paterson, Jonathon Dayton, William Blount, Richard Spaight, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Thomas FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler, William Few, Abr Baldwin and William Jackson thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus said "turn the other cheek". A disarmed population of a religous minority did just that in the thirties. Their motto now is "never again" and the descendants of that holocost are now the most heavily armed (per capita) peoples in the world. Pacifism is great if you have someone to defend your pacifism. Otherwise you must be prepared to be trod on.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Yadda, Yadda, Yadda...gun control is needed...yadda, yadda yadda"

The best gun control available is the ability to hit one's target with that first round fired! Pretty simple!

Ray Garrison pretty much said it all above! That is why we have guns legally available to our law-abiding public...but the underlying reason of this is two-fold.

One: In order to get a loose confederation of states to adopt the Constitution, the first ten amendments to the Constitiution were added before the ratification process began. The right to keep and bear arms was one of these amendments!

Two: Why do we need an armed citizenry? Well, the reason was given by Ghandhi, above...the British had taken advantage of the colonists and had deprived them of self-defense capabilities so that they could enter homes as they wished and commandeer them for billeting of troops, among other things....which goes back against the old English common-law belief that a "man's home is his castle"...IOW he has a right to defend his home, family and property against incursions....again, pretty simple...but there is one MAJOR underlying reason the states would not ratify the Constitution without the inclusion of these rights: Because they had just overthrown an "oppressive" government that was not responsive to the needs of its citizenry. There was no guarantee in the 1780's that the new federal government under the new constitution would not become just as oppressive, therefore, the "right to keep and bear arms"...for a "militia" made up of CITIZENS, as opposed to a standing army, was needed so that those same citizens could overthrow the new government if it ever became oppressive towards them and was not responsive to their needs...pretty simple! It had nothing to do with hunting, target shooting or any of the other stuff everybody has been preaching here! AND...it is just as valid a reason to let the people have the right to keep and bear arms today as it was then!!

"Politicians love unarmed peasants"...that is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Constitution, nothing more, nothing less!! It is STILL the reason, no matter how you WANT to look at it!

As for the comments about our military not being there for planting trees, building highways, drilling new fresh-water wells and building schoolhouses or whatever, providing food to the hungry, and providing medical needs to the poor, etc...apparently this individual has NO IDEA what the vast majority of our people in Iraq are doing right now!!...and getting shot at while trying to do it!

If one is NOT from the USA, then it is undestandable that person would not know our history or politics. I keep seeing Canada, England, and Japan being used as examples...why not Switzerland? Every home in Switzerland has new-issue military weapons in it! The people of that country keep their issued military firearms AT HOME, WITH a good supply of ammunition! If they are ever invaded, they are ready to defend themselves IMMEDIATELY, as soon as they load the rifles they keep at HOME! What about THEIR crime statistics? After all...every home has at least ONE fully-automatic rifle in it!!! Why did every country around Switzerland get conquered in WWII, BUT Switzerland???? I hate to see folks use the same old BS examples to try and get their "lost in space" point across...be real or don't make any comments at all!

The fact is, in modern free countries very few crimes get committed with LEGALLY-OWNED firearms, here or anywhere else. When the law-abiding citizens are left unarmed and have only the police to trust to protect them, they are gonna be taken advantage of by criminals who have ILLEGALLY-owned firearms...this has ALWAYS been the case...and always shall be!

ME??? Well, I have managed to finish sharpening my chainsaw while reading all of this crap, and am now ready for some unsuspecting fool with his knife to challenge "Poulan Andy" some dark night...God help him!! 9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you know that if you translate the 2nd amendment into chinese and then back to english, it sound like it was written by prodj?!!

"Is very good the militiaman which regulates, is necessary to a free state, people's right safe retention and has the weapon, cannot violate."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "Constitutional Argument" never ceases to fully amaze me in it's obfuscating power. HELLO! It's a hunk of paper representing doctrine as appropos the time in which it was written!

As it is just a hunk of paper lets dump it, but lets not do it piecemeal.

The first will be what else, the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

MLK would still be alive as he would have been forbidden by law to assemble and SPEAK!

But a Judge can make laws or prohibiting the free exercise thereof!!

You have already beaten up the second so we shall move on to the 3rd: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Good idea, the hell with separate barracks for our military personnel save us some money. I mean having the military staying at YOUR house and all.

Let see, the 4th states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Screw that, we dont need no stinking search warrant.

Now the 5th: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Hang the bastard!

I will move on to the 8th: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

See 5 above!

How about the 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

A big one, in case some of you dont know what this means-'The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that THERE ARE ADDITIONAL FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, PROTECTED FROM GOVERNMENTAL INFRINGEMENT, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment (I borrowed this as it was well written)

No it is the greatest instrument ever written allowing human beings to govern and protect themselves as individuals from the GOVERNMENT.

You do not think that it fits your life(style), fine-dont care, no really, I dont care what you think. But I have seen the eyes of the oppressed and I doubt that you see them in the mirror every morning when you shave!!

Not to mention they well understood the shortcomings of it and provide a MEANS TO CHANGE IT. And we did - 27 TIMES this far and counting.

Yes we have, but we have not deleted the original 10 as they are basic to a FREE PEOPLE!

I am not religious at all I will not say what I really think as I would undoubtedly offend some that are deeply religious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


On 1/6/2004 11:47:08 AM TBrennan wrote

I don't think many people are stuck-up or attacked from 100 yards away, how would you demand the victim's money, with an Aldis lamp? " Ahoy there! Stand and deliver" clack-clack----clack-cla-clack----clack-clack


TB: Semaphore code!6.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, the idea is now ludicrous. The "Militia" would be toast. OTOH, the whole idea of EVERYONE in the U.S. Armed Forces obeying orders to fire on U.S. Citizens is nuts. Uh...yeah.

I always thought it interesting that out of all the things they could have used as a 2nd Amendment, they came up with that one -- almost like it's holding up the first one. Talk about a paranoid bunch.

Some funny posts Mark. I was rolling.

I can't go into the Politics involved with Christ unless I write up a whole Bible Study. You're kind of way off on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good posts by gunman and clipped as well. Really, all the posts are great. I always come away with plenty to think about. We may not all agree, but I think we all can learn from each other, and walk away with some respect for one another. I wish I had time to respond to everything I wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true, Dean, regarding the military. I'm laughing to myself about the mental image of a bunch of different militias trying to decide which beret to wear, and whether they should let the dirty (fill in the blank)s live or die as they take down the oppresive oligarchs.

"I ain't never et no oligarch befour. I reckon we could jest mek sum jerky from it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought it interesting that out of all the things they could have used as a 2nd Amendment, they came up with that one -- almost like it's holding up the first one. Talk about a paranoid bunch.

Not really, if you look at early English law the ruling class was scared to death of the idea of armed peasants. If you read the Federalist Papers and other documents leading to the ratification of the Constitution it would actually be a toss up between freedom of speech and the right of the people to possess arms.

Note: If you were hunting on lands owned by the ruling class and you were caught poaching for food to feed your family you were typically hung on site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...