Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

RexRed wrote:

Don't put the second amendment before the first...

The 2nd Amendment protects and perpetuates the 1st Amendment.





David

Nonsense, David!

The theory is that we, the citizens,
are supposed to keep our employee, government, in line.
The Constitution was ratified upon the basis of that argument.
Sovereignty is in us, not in our employee,
as of the time that we thru out the minions of the King of England.
A boss must always be ABLE to discharge his employee.
The Authors of the Constitution knew that.

David

Thank you for that information, David, but as I noted earlier,
the suggestion that the 2nd Amendment protects and perpetuates
the 1st Amendment...is abject nonsense.

By the way...WE are the government.
WE employ US. WE are both boss and employee...even if you want
to think otherwise in order to assert that the 2nd Amendment protects and perpetuates the 1st.

No muzzles, just try and tone down the rhetoric so peace can prevail...

So future generations can evolve toward intellect over aggression.

Don't put the second amendment before the first...

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

RexRed wrote:

Don't put the second amendment before the first...

The 2nd Amendment protects and perpetuates the 1st Amendment.





David

Nonsense, David!

The theory is that we, the citizens,
are supposed to keep our employee, government, in line.
The Constitution was ratified upon the basis of that argument.
Sovereignty is in us, not in our employee,
as of the time that we thru out the minions of the King of England.
A boss must always be ABLE to discharge his employee.
The Authors of the Constitution knew that.

David

Thank you for that information, David, but as I noted earlier,
the suggestion that the 2nd Amendment protects and perpetuates
the 1st Amendment...is abject nonsense.

I give u credit for sincerity, Frank,
but I find no merit at all in the substance of your post.

Frank Apisa wrote:

By the way...WE are the government.
WE employ US. WE are both boss and employee...even if you want
to think otherwise in order to assert that the 2nd Amendment protects and perpetuates the 1st.

The next time that u have a disagreement
with an officer of the law, will u INFORM HIM of those facts??
Please let us know how that turns out. OK?





David

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

RexRed wrote:

Don't put the second amendment before the first...

The 2nd Amendment protects and perpetuates the 1st Amendment.





David

Nonsense, David!

The theory is that we, the citizens,
are supposed to keep our employee, government, in line.
The Constitution was ratified upon the basis of that argument.
Sovereignty is in us, not in our employee,
as of the time that we thru out the minions of the King of England.
A boss must always be ABLE to discharge his employee.
The Authors of the Constitution knew that.

David

Thank you for that information, David, but as I noted earlier,
the suggestion that the 2nd Amendment protects and perpetuates
the 1st Amendment...is abject nonsense.

I give u credit for sincerity, Frank,
but I find no merit at all in the substance of your post.

Frank Apisa wrote:

By the way...WE are the government.
WE employ US. WE are both boss and employee...even if you want
to think otherwise in order to assert that the 2nd Amendment protects and perpetuates the 1st.

The next time that u have a disagreement
with an officer of the law, will u INFORM HIM of those facts??
Please let us know how that turns out. OK?
David

As I said...I am from a family with lots of cops in it.

Their advise, which I think proper, is never to have a disagreement with an officer of the law.

And I don't.

If a cop tell me emphatically to sit down, I don't even bother to look for a chair;
if he tells me to be quiet...I shut up; if he tells me to stay in my vehicle...I stay in my vehicle.

If I disagree with him...we can work that out later, before a judge if necessary.

Frank Apisa wrote:

As I said...I am from a family with lots of cops in it.

Their advise, which I think proper, is never to have a disagreement with an officer of the law.

And I don't.

If a cop tell me emphatically to sit down, I don't even bother to look for a chair;
if he tells me to be quiet...I shut up; if he tells me to stay in my vehicle...I stay in my vehicle.

If I disagree with him...we can work that out later, before a judge if necessary.

It sounds like u wrote that deep in the spirit of abject FEAR, Frank.

Says Frank (I predict): u mistake PRUDENCE for fear, David.

Yeah, maybe it IS prudence, but that smacks of a deep seated state of chronic, abiding terror of authority.

We, the citizens, CREATED government; is THAT what we actually WANT??

Shud we regard our creation, our baby: government, in a state of dread (not to say semi-panic) ???

Shud we be moven to boast of our swift and docile acquiescence ??

That does not sound very American to me,
(addressing the conduct, not the man, Frank).

It seems more desirable to me that government (police)
shud be shaking and quaking in its boots in the presence of a CITIZEN, rather than the other way around.

The government is our property.

The citizens are not the property of damned government.

The tail shud not wag the dog.

We, the citizens, CREATED government; is THAT what we actually WANT??

We citizens ARE the government. And yes, that is what I want to be.

Shud we regard our creation, our baby: government, in a state of dread (not to say semi-panic) ???

Shud we be moven to boast of our swift and docile acquiescence ??

Please, David...if you want to be Shakespeare...do it with someone else.
If you want to ask questions...make them practical questions and I will answer them...
perhaps with just a hint of sarcasm where I feel it is warranted.

DAVID wrote:

We, the citizens, CREATED government; is THAT what we actually WANT??

Frank Apisa wrote:

We citizens ARE the government. And yes, that is what I want to be.

DAVID wrote:

Shud we regard our creation, our baby: government, in a state of dread (not to say semi-panic) ???

Shud we be moven to boast of our swift and docile acquiescence ??

Frank Apisa wrote:

Please, David...if you want to be Shakespeare...do it with someone else.
If you want to ask questions...make them practical questions and I will answer them...
perhaps with just a hint of sarcasm where I feel it is warranted.

NOTE: Frank Apisa rejects Shakespeare,
holding him in abhorrence, turning from him with loathing, odium
and the mental violence of anathema, up with which Frank shall not put.

We know.

Ideally I agree with Frank about the people being the government but the egregious decision of people being corporations throws a monkey wrench into the machinery.

Money from a greedy American capitalistic corporate oligarchy altering the will of "we the people" makes armed insurrection one more step closer to being necessary... (Example: cutting down a rain-forest so a company can make a buck.)

Though corporations are made up of people contrarily by using our currency to buy off elected officials our democracy is now broken.

This is why it is vital to in these next election to vote out ALL REPUBLICANS AND TEA PARTY MEMBERS; so the courts can be stacked with judges that vow to uphold the true intent of the constitution and not be blood suckers for the oligarchy....

We, the citizens, CREATED government; is THAT what we actually WANT??

We citizens ARE the government. And yes, that is what I want to be.

Shud we regard our creation, our baby: government, in a state of dread (not to say semi-panic) ???

Shud we be moven to boast of our swift and docile acquiescence ??

Please, David...if you want to be Shakespeare...do it with someone else.
If you want to ask questions...make them practical questions and I will answer them...
perhaps with just a hint of sarcasm where I feel it is warranted.

NOTE: Frank Apisa rejects Shakespeare,
holding him in abhorrence, turning from him with loathing, odium
and the mental violence of anathema, up with which Frank shall not put.

We know.

Bad day, huh, David?

DAVID wrote:

We, the citizens, CREATED government; is THAT what we actually WANT??

Frank Apisa wrote:

We citizens ARE the government. And yes, that is what I want to be.

DAVID wrote:

Shud we regard our creation, our baby: government, in a state of dread (not to say semi-panic) ???

Shud we be moven to boast of our swift and docile acquiescence ??

Frank Apisa wrote:

Please, David...if you want to be Shakespeare...do it with someone else.
If you want to ask questions...make them practical questions and I will answer them...
perhaps with just a hint of sarcasm where I feel it is warranted.

DAVID wrote:

NOTE: Frank Apisa rejects Shakespeare,
holding him in abhorrence, turning from him with loathing, odium
and the mental violence of anathema, up with which Frank shall not put.

We know.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Bad day, huh, David?

Not for ME, Frank. I have EVERYTHING I wanted: perfect!
Things have gone right!

David

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

RexRed wrote:

Don't put the second amendment before the first...

The 2nd Amendment protects and perpetuates the 1st Amendment.





David

Nonsense, David!

The theory is that we, the citizens,
are supposed to keep our employee, government, in line.
The Constitution was ratified upon the basis of that argument.
Sovereignty is in us, not in our employee,
as of the time that we thru out the minions of the King of England.
A boss must always be ABLE to discharge his employee.
The Authors of the Constitution knew that.

David

Thank you for that information, David, but as I noted earlier,
the suggestion that the 2nd Amendment protects and perpetuates
the 1st Amendment...is abject nonsense.

I give u credit for sincerity, Frank,
but I find no merit at all in the substance of your post.

Frank Apisa wrote:

By the way...WE are the government.
WE employ US. WE are both boss and employee...even if you want
to think otherwise in order to assert that the 2nd Amendment protects and perpetuates the 1st.

The next time that u have a disagreement
with an officer of the law, will u INFORM HIM of those facts??
Please let us know how that turns out. OK?





David

I agree with Frank.

We have seen military turn on their governments that no longer value the voice of its people. Ask Julius Caesar about that...
We don't need large militias because the US military is made up of American people who vote too, not dictators.

These militias you speak of aim to ALSO subvert the will of the general
populace who overwhelmingly voted a liberal black man into office.

The vote is greater than any military weapon ever made.
This is why the second amendment is second not first.

Anyone voting Republican is asking for more Scalia's or Thomas'.

I will never vote for a Republican for any chief executive position primarily for that reason.

The people touting Chris Christie for president ought to consider
what he is doing to our state’s court system. He is doing what
the most right-wing conservative would do…subverting it to a right-wing ideology.

The worst thing that could happen to this country
in the next presidential election is the election of a Republican president.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Anyone voting Republican is asking for more Scalia's or Thomas'.

Yes, of course; thay give historically accurate applications of the Constitution,
with no liberal distortions.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I will never vote for a Republican for any chief executive position primarily for that reason.

U disfavor accuracy.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The people touting Chris Christie for president ought to consider
what he is doing to our state’s court system. He is doing what
the most right-wing conservative would do…subverting it to a right-wing ideology.

That means that he favors good fidelity
to the Original Intendment of the Constitution.
I see no point in voting for a compromise against freedom, in a RINO.
Those who favor authoritarianism shud vote Democrat
and those who prefer personal freedom shud vote Republican or Libertarian.
U can 't compromise accuracy.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The worst thing that could happen to this country
in the next presidential election is the election of a Republican president.

A Republican will undermine authoritarianism.