The Storm Gathers

Originally posted by Spookycolt
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Your assuming that the second amendment prevents regulation of firearms.

It does not, just that they cannot all be taken away.

"The right to bear arms" is quite different then "The right to bear any and all arms."

The second amendment does prohibit the regulation of fire arms.

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.

Infringe:intrude on, compromise, undermine, limit, weaken, diminish, disrupt, curb,

Originally posted by Spookycolt
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Your assuming that the second amendment prevents regulation of firearms.

It does not, just that they cannot all be taken away.

"The right to bear arms" is quite different then "The right to bear any and all arms."

first off, its YOU'RE, not "your"................................. ignorance denied.
secondly, lets define the word INFRINGE: Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

Now, I know its hard for you, but try to think with your brain. Regulating ANYTHING BUT ANY AND ALL ARMS is INFRINGEMENT of what? the second amendment.

kindly delete your account and never post on this board again.


p.s. its like that meme! "ignorant posts.. ignorant posts everywhere"

Deut 28:15+ says America is in a heap of trouble for turning its face from the true, living God of the bible (this is not the "god" of Beyonce and the other wicked doers).

If it was mean to be a subset of arms it would state that fact. There was no qualifier placed on arms.

What I find so very interesting with this whole subject is in one specific aspect, and it correlates with the civil war.

We essentially have two sides. One side is saying "you cant do that, it is against the constitution." The other is saying "we will do as we please." Oversimplification, obviously, but so very interesting.

Can you guess which side is which in each case? Beyond that, notice how the MSM portrays it in this "modern" case..

Pretty incredible, really.

reply to post by nenothtu

I really think the only real change that can, will and has ever happened has to start in our heads

reply to post by bottleslingguy


Discontent is and has always been endemic, but you are correct, everything really starts with an idea. Action is always preceded by a thought.

Originally posted by Serdgiam


Can you guess which side is which in each case? Beyond that, notice how the MSM portrays it in this "modern" case..

notice how they're dragging out any story even remotely gun related and highlights "gun-totin right wing lone wolves"? Remember a few years ago with Clinton when it was "militias"?

reply to post by bottleslingguy


It's wasn't "militias" under just Clinton. I recall a big perception problem with militias under Reagan, too. In late 1982, I was retained to infiltrate one of the militias to see what they were up to. People were scared silly of them. As it turned out, the bunch I investigated were entirely harmless. Oh, they THOUGHT they were real bears, and they had a pretty good defensive setup, but they were harmless. My recommendation was to leave them alone, because they weren't harming or planning to harm anyone else, but they DID have that problematic defensive setup.

My recommendation was followed. They were left alone to do their thing on their own place, and they eventually faded into oblivion - just fell apart, a little at a time, and disappeared. Had they been attacked, however, it would have been a headline-making bloodbath that made Waco look like a picnic.

That was under Reagan. Perhaps because those bloodbaths never occurred then, no one now recalls the militia scare. It passed into obscure history. Under Clinton, however, they DID attack at Waco and Ruby Ridge, with disastrous results, and that's why everyone recalls that now.

The Clinton attacks were also unnecessary. They were also mostly harmless, and could have been dealt with far more effectively, but effective is not always a headline maker, and there are people in this world who just have to have their day in the limelight, even if the limelight is generated from the burning bodies of the harmless and the innocent. I blame those more on Reno than I do Clinton, but it WAS Clinton's turn at the watch.

Of all the places to tell people they may not provide protection for themselves.

The city that is the most targeted place on the planet.

The gangs- the illegals-the criminals-the druggies- the cops- the dealers-the pimps-
-the desperate-the politicians- all those ex girlfriends- the drunks.
(the terrorists-a.k.a the politicians)- the rapists-the murderers-the taxi cab drivers.

As much as 'they' like to try and scare the American people on television daily about the so called -boogeymen- they sure are sending mixed signals.

If you want people scared, you give them reason to fight, Not reason to bend over. Government always reminds us that there is nobody out there who can protect anyone all the time. That is up to us, not them.

Too much confusion eventhough they showed you and told you what they wanted to do.

Sad part is- those who are always defending these terrorist politicians would die defending their parties/messiahs interests.before they would ever think to stand up to oppose them. They have invested too much of their soul
to turn back now- they would rather fight their own countrymen before admitting they were wrong.

These are the same people who were always screaming "inside job" on a daily basis. (very well could have been).
But they do not seem so vocal now do they?
Not even as the world is on fire. Not a peep.

Lets just give them another term so they can come back in a few years acting like they really give a damn when we all know its really all about 'the game' to these fools.

The only people who seem to truly care about the incomming storm, are those who rightfully refuse to give up their rights so willingly.to some overpaid beurocrat; who doesnt even live on the same wasteland planet as the rest of us.

Question is- how far and how hard will you allow yourself to be pushed around and bullied by political terrorists?

There is only so much a man can take- before he takes some more- eventually losing all his self respect.

The reason we are an armed nation is because occassionally we have to step up and take out the trash by force if neccessary. That is our duty. We are supposed to be a self preserved nation. Not a nation on suicide watch.

In all actuality- We are way overdue for some political house cleansing. If we stand by for too long- then what good does it do us to have these rights; Espcially when we dont maintain them while under attack from within?

When was the last time the govt actually served the people instead of attacking them? What good are they?
They spend all our money- on stuff they need. They send us to war to die for them. They steal from us while smiling and lying. Government has fell far from the tree of liberty. It is them and those like them that are the ones who need to be disarmed and silenced. We would all be a lot better off if they just ceased all operations and threw in the towel.

They wont though- Cause they love that power they hold over the passive masses, it keeps them warm at night.

........ "when the S*&T goes down-you better be ready"-Cyprus Hill

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

It's wasn't "militias" under just Clinton. I recall a big perception problem with militias under Reagan, too. In late 1982, I was retained to infiltrate one of the militias to see what they were up to. People were scared silly of them. As it turned out, the bunch I investigated were entirely harmless. Oh, they THOUGHT they were real bears, and they had a pretty good defensive setup, but they were harmless. My recommendation was to leave them alone, because they weren't harming or planning to harm anyone else, but they DID have that problematic defensive setup.

My recommendation was followed. They were left alone to do their thing on their own place, and they eventually faded into oblivion - just fell apart, a little at a time, and disappeared. Had they been attacked, however, it would have been a headline-making bloodbath that made Waco look like a picnic.

That was under Reagan. Perhaps because those bloodbaths never occurred then, no one now recalls the militia scare. It passed into obscure history. Under Clinton, however, they DID attack at Waco and Ruby Ridge, with disastrous results, and that's why everyone recalls that now.

The Clinton attacks were also unnecessary. They were also mostly harmless, and could have been dealt with far more effectively, but effective is not always a headline maker, and there are people in this world who just have to have their day in the limelight, even if the limelight is generated from the burning bodies of the harmless and the innocent. I blame those more on Reno than I do Clinton, but it WAS Clinton's turn at the watch.

edit on 2013/2/6 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

yes absolutely. sometimes the best reaction is inaction and the buck stops here.

ruby ridge+waco=McVeigh thusly two rights* make a wrong

* Reno/Clinton thought they were "right" to use superior violence and it lead to Oklahoma City

Common Good's post was excellent. Starred. I don't necessarily agree one hundred percent, but there is wisdom in it.
We should definitely be wary of those that place party loyalty above even their own proclaimed principals. I' ve seen Democrats rage against Guantanamo, secret trials, targeted killings, and other issues while the other guys were in office and then defend them for doing the same now, and the opposite with the GOP.

reply to post by jefwane


Thanks

Yea- its sick. People act as if their party represents their very livelihood when all it really means is that they
have the inablility to think for themselves.

Party pride is party pride regardless of which yahoo is in charge. To sit by- and let those who are supposed to represent you; spit on everything you ever stood for(cause of party pimpin), should be an embarrassment to not only to you- but to all those other fools as well who are being tricked out by thier party talkbox.

Guarantee you if Obama bombed Canada tommorow- There would be people out in masses trying to do everything they could to make Canada into a virtual Afghanistan to protect their 'mightier than thou" image..

Those who run the show can give a damn about right and wrong anyways- as long as their wallets stay fat they will be whatever they have to be- loyalty only works out
if you are the one recieving it.....Unfortunately, theres only a few of those people, and the chances are they already got their 'faithfuls' on a tight leash.

Im not stupid enough to fall for it- and I feel for anyone who is because it will be them who pays in the end.

The people need to get off the b/s already and Man/Woman the hell up .
Im sure many folk are tired of being used as the butchers blade, always bloody and for the most part
tired of doing all the butchers wetwork.

Really- what do the people get from their parties besides broken promises and the dinner check?

-Only person(s) worth that kind of unwaivering love is our Moms.

reply to post by nenothtu


I agree with your response to my initial post. It would take a lot of work to implement here, and we don't want to force anyone. But I doubt Switzerland really forces everyone...or maybe they really do all want guns. I'm not sure but I feel like after a decade or two, everyone would be so used to the idea, it wouldn't bother all but the most conscientious objectors. There are always some people who are against any change their entire lives. We can't cater to everyone, and it wouldn't be hard to have an alternative option here. "Take this gun and the 2 weeks of training or sign this paper saying you opt out." Bam, almost everyone's happy.

I mostly just wanted to see if people thought adopting the Swiss policy would be a better idea than our current policy or Obama's proposed policies, or if anyone could offer an even better solution.

Originally posted by paradox4
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I agree with your response to my initial post. It would take a lot of work to implement here, and we don't want to force anyone. But I doubt Switzerland really forces everyone...or maybe they really do all want guns. I'm not sure but I feel like after a decade or two, everyone would be so used to the idea, it wouldn't bother all but the most conscientious objectors. There are always some people who are against any change their entire lives. We can't cater to everyone, and it wouldn't be hard to have an alternative option here. "Take this gun and the 2 weeks of training or sign this paper saying you opt out." Bam, almost everyone's happy.

I mostly just wanted to see if people thought adopting the Swiss policy would be a better idea than our current policy or Obama's proposed policies, or if anyone could offer an even better solution.

the swiss model is great, but i have a far better idea...rather than instituting a new policy regarding arms, how about we simply go with the system the founders intended?...the federal and state governments respect, and obey the constitution, which states quite plainly that the right to keep(own), and bear(carry on one's person), arms shall not be infringed(encroached upon, limited, restricted, regulated)

it is supposed to be the choice of every citizen whether or not they wish to keep and/or bear arms....but regardless of the choice, the right is supposed to be there....

We don't need a new law, we already have a fine one on the books....the only caveat i could think of would be mandatory 2 weeks of courses on shooting, handling, safety, and maintenance, on the weapon they're purchasing