1
   

FREEDOM MARCHES ON !!!

 
 
Corvette Summer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 07:05 am
Arrow
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 07:06 am
Not having a gun makes me a victim? What odd logic is that?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 07:18 am
It appears that the only one getting postal here is Wilso.
Im just laying out my options for self protection. im not asking for your blessing, continue your life and i only wish peace and safety unto you.
please dont criticize our imperfect society by whatever you read in tabloids. there are almost 270 million people in this country who go around each day NOT getting shot. they walk unmolested in big cities. a recent pole asked , if you had to live in any city in the uS where would it be. ?
Overwhelming answer -New York City. Now what blank headed reatrd would choose NYC? its just loaded with murder and mayhem? Isnt it? Snake Pliskin is our keeper.

We have a vibrant culture that runs all over the map and renews itself every few years , so pardon me if I dont buy your stereotype.

ive spent many a time in Australia and I, of course do not subscribe to Bill Brysons observation that everything in Australia , that moves, can kill ya. I know thats not entirely true, but you do shake your boots out before you put them on, just to make sure

theres no spiders in them?


neoGuin, whats a 2nd amendment absolutionist? is that something to do with mortal or venial sins


Lowan-youre much smarter than that. Being a victim can only be celebrated in retrospective fashion. NOT being a victim requires planning, do we get the not so subtle diffrence
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 07:37 am
Postal? Gun threads always seem to go that way - sigh.

farmerman - I was not speaking of celebrating anything. I was asking you to justify your odd comment about not having a gun makes one a victim.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 08:26 am
I will not carry a gun even if I discover somebody's out to get me. This fear of one another and the glorifying of shooting at any and everything is one more sickness we've got to overcome.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 08:26 am
and I explained. ONCE More for the intl date line

victim is past tense.'
"I got shot, therefore, Ive been a victim"

NOT being a victim assumes contingency planning

"I am in a dangerous situation, I should be protected, so Ill not become a victim"
Maybe, for some degree of verbal continuity, I should have included "Potential" in front of the word victims but I really didnt think I had to get into a debate about what the meaning of "is" is.

as far as your reflection on the use of "postal". I was merely reflecting on the few threads Ive been a member where people would become rude, and almost violent in their language. I must say, Om sig David has always kept an extreme cool with people, while all around him he gathered all kinds of expletives and mean spirited titles from the anti gunnites. Hes been a very capable spokesman for the position and , to my knowledge, has yet to be bested in pure logic.
Course thats just me talkin and Im a gun-crazed small willied psycho liberal from the dark side.

I realize that this position (pro weapons of self defense) is unpopular among liberals but there are a number of us out there . I make no mea culpas and dont feel like Im a crazed psychopath. Quite the contrary, Im a rational responsible citizen who wishes no harm on anyone, most of all , my family .

My feelings are that most strict anti-gun folks , are convinced that no one is capable of responsibly handling weapons. Everyone, to them, is a potential threat to kill their families and neighbors.
Not So.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 10:26 am
dlowan wrote:
Not having a gun makes me a victim? What odd logic is that?



The philosophy of "gun control" is that in an armed confrontation,
ONLY the violent felon shud have any power, and

HE shud have the discretion as to whether the citizen,
his victim,
will live, or die, or be defiled in such manner as is satisfying to the criminal abuser.

The philosophy of "gun control " can be accurately characterized
as the VICTIM DISARMAMENT movement, or the VICTIM HELPLESSNESS movement;
or maybe the VIOLENT CRIMINAL SUPREMACY movement.

Perverted; the good citizen shud prepare himself
so that in such a predatory situation, HE or his family,
will have greater power than the predatory criminal or animal.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 10:34 am
edgarblythe wrote:
I will not carry a gun even if I discover somebody's out to get me. This fear of one another and the glorifying of shooting at any and everything is one more sickness we've got to overcome.



I will respect your right to commit suicide, if such be your decision.

I hope u will respect MY right to decline to do so (and to take effective measures against it, LIKE ARMING MYSELF),
even in the face of a criminal antagonist who wishes me dead or injured.


When u post:
"...glorifying of shooting at any and everything " u hit us below the belt,
misrepresenting what we advocate, to make us look bad.

not fair
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 12:04 pm
OK: I need to remember NOT to link to my site.

Farmer:
These people who seem opposed to ANY steps to control or regulate firearms.

OmSig is an excellent example! As are many of Heston's minions.

The fact that so many of these absolutionists also seem to have strong anarchist leanings wories me as well.

As for my choice of Icon, I can distinguish fantasy from reality.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 12:15 pm
Thank u, Neo. I endeavor to excel.


When America got started, sovereignty was torn from the hands
of government (the King was "the Sovereign") n by the 2nd Amendment,
put into the hands of the citizens, by the successful Revolutionaries,
who KNEW that occasions can arise such as to justify revolution.
In such cases,
they desired the citizens to WIN over their hireling, government.

Some things (e.g., control of religions or control of guns)
were put BEYOND THE REACH of the hireling government,
so that the owner wud always be supreme.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 12:43 pm
There was great turbulance in the land,
against discrimination e.g. in seating on a bus
for a few minutes.
Liberals deemed this discrimination horrific,
but if the same victim of seating discrimination
dismounted from the bus and fell victim to
grievous bloody personal injuries from the
depredations of animals or of criminals
(having HELPLESSNESS thust upon her by
unconstitutional government discriminatory
licensure [permission] to defend her LIFE or property)
that latter discrimination has liberals' hearty approval.


Is it more important to get a good seat
on a bus, OR TO REMAIN ALIVE, in the face of an attack ?


odd liberal thinking


I wonder how it wud work out, if someone were victim:

1. to seating discrimination,

and also

2. to government discrimination
in denying her legal access to the means of competent self-defense.


Imagine that she survived a violent depredation, after leaving the bus.
She is interviewed in her hospital bed.
WHICH DISCRIMINATION will she say was WORSE ?

the bad seat ?
or prevention of legal access to the means of salvation
in a life or death emergency ??


The liberals will not give me a straight answer.
They'll pretend they did not read this,
or maybe just lash out ad hominem at me.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 12:49 pm
OSD, the problem with the arguements made by so many of the Charles Bornson Wannabes like you (aside for the obvious lack of regard for human life) is that a half skilled street criminal is likely to kill you six ways to sunday in the time it would take you to get your gun out. You only option then, becomes shooting at the first inkling of danger, which would likely lead to killing an innocent person. This is the arguement my police friends expross most frequently when they decry the availability of carry permits in Colorado. I tend to agree with them. The other frequent occurrance when folks get cary eprmits is they decide they are invincible and try to "hunt" for trouble. Again, not a good idea. Your cellmates will not be swayed by the arguement that you thought you were shooting a bad guy, and the afterlife probably won't care that you were reaching for your gun when your throat was cut.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 01:33 pm
hobitbob wrote:
OSD, the problem with the arguements made by so many of the Charles Bornson Wannabes like you (aside for the obvious lack of regard for human life) is that a half skilled street criminal is likely to kill you six ways to sunday in the time it would take you to get your gun out. You only option then, becomes shooting at the first inkling of danger, which would likely lead to killing an innocent person. This is the arguement my police friends expross most frequently when they decry the availability of carry permits in Colorado. I tend to agree with them. The other frequent occurrance when folks get cary eprmits is they decide they are invincible and try to "hunt" for trouble. Again, not a good idea. Your cellmates will not be swayed by the arguement that you thought you were shooting a bad guy, and the afterlife probably won't care that you were reaching for your gun when your throat was cut.


Doctor, this is false on its face; an untenable argument.

Firstly, I am not a "Charles Bornson Wannabe"
any more than a man with a jack n a spare tire in his trunk wants to get a flat.

2ndly, it wud be a terrible error, deplorable judgment,
to have "...regard for human life" of a criminal who is attacking u.
Sound reasoning requires u to address the emergency
as soon as his attack presents itself, on pain of death (meaning YOURS).

3rdly, I am sure that those police officers will henceforth
go about their business unarmed, upon the basis of their analysis
as set forth above.

4thly, we need not speculate qua whether u r correct as to what
"is likely" because we can look to history and know that your fears
have not been justified by your fellow citizens' experience.
U say that: "You only option then, becomes shooting at the first inkling of danger,..."
simply not true. U r just not thinking; u r emoting.
Your notion that "they are invincible and try to "hunt" for trouble" is a
product of your semi-hysterical pro-helplessness fantasys.
That's the job of the police.
I have NEVER heard of ANY civilian doing that.
I am aware of NO PRECEDENT for that in human history
(except the vigilantes who went out to string up criminals in the 18OOs).

The time to engage, is when one is actively attacked.

5thly, in the afterlife, I'd be MUCH happier knowing that I
did the best I cud to kill the predator, rather than passively
allow HIM discretion qua whether I will live or die, or be defiled by him.

If my defense is successful, I'll still be in the BEFORELIFE,
with my property n a big smile ( but still, not a "Charles Bornson Wannabe" )
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 01:47 pm
Okay, hobitbob, life is back to normal. I disagree with you again. Carrying a gun does not encourage trouble hunting as a strong general rule, though there just have to be exceptions. If you have a carry permit, and more so if you don't), brandishing or flourishing a fire arm carries it's own penalties, the least of which is loss of permit. And what does that mean? Waving it in the air? Threatening someone? Yeah, all that, and perhaps, leaning forward in such a way the gun is visible to the person you are talking to. Beyond this, when you carry, you are not the one to hop out of your car and slap the snot of the idiot driver making the old obscene gesture in your direction. Physical violence invites official attention, which is not what you want when you are carrying. There is also the distinct possibility that 'ol Betsy becomes dislodged and hits the ground with an annoying clatter - becoming equally accessible to you and the one you have succeeded in finding trouble with.

NeoGuin's assertation notwithstanding, I am not an anarchist by any means.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 01:49 pm
I don't respect omsigdavid's so called "right" to own any sort of gun, even to shoot mosquitoes with. As the saying goes, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." And guns are absolute power.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 01:56 pm
No problem, Edgar. We still respect your rights.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 03:11 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
I don't respect omsigdavid's so called "right" to own any sort of gun,
even to shoot mosquitoes with. As the saying goes, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." And guns are absolute power.



The USSC has held
in the case of US v. VERDUGO (199O) 11O S.Ct. 1O56
(at P. 1O61) that:

"The Second Amendment protects
'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' ".

THE SUPREME COURT THEN PROCEEDS TO DEFINE "THE PEOPLE" AS BEING
THE SAME PEOPLE WHO CAN VOTE TO ELECT THE US HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES EVERY SECOND YEAR. (Notably, one need not join
the National Guard in order to vote for his congressman.)
The Court further defined "the people" to mean those people who
have a right peaceably to assemble [1st Amendment] and those who
have the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures
[4th Amendment] in their persons houses, papers and effects
(personal rights, not rights of states, as the
authoritarian-collectivists allege of the 2nd Amendment).
THE COURT HELD THAT THE TERM "THE PEOPLE" MEANS THE SAME THING
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787, AND
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

In VERDUGO (supra), the Court indicated that THE SAME PEOPLE are
protected by the First, SECOND, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth
Amendments; i.e., THE PEOPLE who can speak and worship
freely are THE PEOPLE who can keep and bear arms.

It is most noteworthy that the Court RELIED upon its
definition of "the people". Its conclusion in the VERDUGO case
is founded upon that definition, so that stare decisis attaches,
thus creating binding judicial precedent, explaining WHO THE
PEOPLE ARE who have the said rights. That law SHOULD control
the courts, thus disabling all governments in America from
violating our personal rights to weaponry and self-defense.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 03:26 pm
David
My question is, what are you going on about? Is your right to carry a gun being threatened in any way? Since our right to have guns in intact, then what's the fuss all about?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 03:35 pm
David just likes to argue about it. He's been doing this for years. I usually ignore it, but once in a while I step in to let him know he's not forgotten.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 04:03 pm
I seem to recal years back that he was different. Oh well, On my way to the lighter subjects where I try to keep myself.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 09:03:35