Do you boycott certain businesses?

If it's irrelevant, then you know nothing of US history.

United States Declaration of Independence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Declaration of Independence

1823 facsimile of the engrossed copy
Created June–July 1776
Ratified July 4, 1776
Location Engrossed copy: National Archives
Rough draft: Library of Congress
Author(s) Thomas Jefferson et al. (Engrosser: Probably Timothy Matlack)
Signatories 56 delegates to the Continental Congress
Purpose To announce and explain separation from Great Britain[1]

The Declaration of Independence was a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies, then at war with Great Britain, regarded themselves as independent states, and no longer a part of the British Empire. John Adams had put forth a resolution earlier in the year, making a subsequent formal declaration inevitable. A committee was assembled to draft the formal declaration, to be ready when congress voted on independence. Adams persuaded the committee to select Thomas Jefferson to compose the original draft of the document,[2] which congress would edit to produce the final version. The Declaration was ultimately a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The Independence Day of the United States of America is celebrated on July 4, the day Congress approved the wording of the Declaration.
After ratifying the text on July 4, Congress issued the Declaration of Independence in several forms. It was initially published as a printed broadside that was widely distributed and read to the public. The most famous version of the Declaration, a signed copy that is usually regarded as the Declaration of Independence, is displayed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Although the wording of the Declaration was approved on July 4, the date of its signing was August 2.[3] The original July 4 United States Declaration of Independence manuscript was lost while all other copies have been derived from this original document.[4]
The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry. The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III, and by asserting certain natural and legal rights, including a right of revolution. Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, the text of the Declaration was initially ignored after the American Revolution. Since then, it has come to be considered a major statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language",[5] containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history."[6] The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.[7] It has inspired work for the rights of marginalized people throughout the world.

Here, you can argue with Abe Lincoln.

It will appear to be unamerican to those brainwashed mainstream right wings...their brains have not been tapped with facts and education...its almost like saying its unamerican for a black group to boycott a restaurant owned and operated by the KKK on the principals of the KKK...one day it will look the same to the mainstream...but it will take decades for to relearn behaviors when it comes to minority rights...and there will be those who never will through extensive layers of indoctrination and brainwashing of hate in the name of christian jihad..its all they know.

I was once a "right wing guy" too,

but they no longer represent their primary thesis;

they're now on discrimination of gays and women,

don't tax the rich,

control women's vagina,

and require government picture ID's to vote.

I don't know where your heads at, but it certainly isn't as a true conservative.

David, I didn't read your last post; it's full of bull ****!@

OmSigDAVID wrote:

MontereyJack wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Yeah. Maybe 15 or 2O years ago, I heard that the firm
that sells Sara Lee cake had donated $$ to propagate anti-freedom
efforts, to curtail, or to end by law, my right to personal defense
from predatory violence; i.e., if I bawt their cake (as I was doing),
I 'd thereby contribute to the subversion of the 2nd Amendment
and thereby subversion of my own right to exist.
I had a choice to make. I never got into boycotting.
( I DID get into financing pro-freedom efforts.)
In 2008, the USSC supported the pro-freedom side of the argument, anyway.

Thank you for telling me about SaraLee, David. I like their frozen cakes, and now I think I'll have to buy them more often because of their freedom-from-gun-violence position.

Bon appetite; we freedom-lovers have the USSC on our side.

WE WON.

U suppressionists lost in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Multiple be the chuckles!!!!!

When Obama wins and Scalia bursts a blood vessel in mid-rant, those who favor original intent will have the chance to reconsider the defective Heller and restore the 2nd Amendment to its true original intent, which was clearly talking solely about arms in relation to militias, not any neo-revisionist individual right. You, sir, are engaging in revisionist activism of the worst sort.

SCALIA: We'll see. I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/07/29/justice-antonin-scalia-issues-facing-scotus-and-country/print

OmSigDAVID wrote:

That is really foolish.
I don't wanna get involved in the stupidity of ad hominem rancor with u,
but your post grossly distorts history.
In the HELLER case, the USSC sets forth the evolutionary history of the 2nd Amendment.
We know what the filosofy of the Founders was. Thay were not shy nor bashful
about telling us. Their freedom-loving writings survive in abundance.
( I cud easily re-produce them here n now, if I were less lazy.)
Thay dreaded and opposed what we now call "police forces"
(which did not exist in the USA at the time, nor in colonial times),
preferring that everyone defend himself, individually, as thay had been doing.

For defense from bears, cougars, street criminals, packs of dogs and Indians, each citizen was left to his gun,
the same as his clothes protect him from the cold of winter. James Butler Hickok began to hunt at age 9.
Annie Oakley 's mother sent her out to hunt at age 8.
She became an expert shot. Yes ?

Your posted ideas r Looney Tune fantasy.
James Madison ran many marksmanship competitions, giving prizes.
Thomas Jefferson wrote to his 12 year old nephew cautioning him
to always take his gun with him, when he goes out for a walk; nothing about licensure.
1OO% FREEDOM, not licensure; "equal protection of the laws"
as it was expressed later, in the Constitution. Gunnery licensure was unheard of.

On the Aristotelian square of logical opposition, the 2nd Amendment
is an E proposition: a UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE proposition.
"A well regulated militia [i.e., a private militia] being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." NO exceptions; no apologies
[All emfasis has been added by David.]

If a man were too dangerous, take care of the man.
Forget his tools.

No, sorry, you're the reinterpretationist. Pre-US English Common Law, which is the law we were under, and formed the foundation for US law, is rife with examples of gun control law, as is post-Constitution 18th and 19th century America, since the 2nd Amend. ONLY applied to militia. The 2nd Amendment, AS IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY, is about the militia, which was NOT private but was always under the authority of the civil government, both Colonial and Republic. It was the enforcement arm of civil authority and was directed by that authority.

It's function was in lieu of a standing army, and as such had organizational and euqipment needs, and a need to avoid cooptation by any faction, which had happened in England, and which the 2A was designed to prevent.

It had NO relation to individual rights.

It's only the NRA and similar revisionists in the 20th century who redefined it to fit their own agenda. And you.

And, I might add, we do NOW have police, and they are constitutional, and they are the legal arm of enforcement.

I've decided oralboy is correct.

first I'm going to start driving by my m-1 abrams tank anywhere I wish.

then I will look into a slip over to the lake for the nuclear submarine that I intend to purchase.

we so need a sarcasm smiley...