2nd Amendment

DannyinJapan said:
I have lived in countries where people were "unified." Take my word for it, the only true evil in the world is a UNIFIED PEOPLE.
Without the dynamic, flexible, tolerant nature of a people who DO NOT share the same beliefs about everything, we become true monsters.
We are supposed to disagree. We are supposed to take turns in the White House.
I know it might sound hard to believe, but even our weak form of racism is a good thing.
We do not consider ourselves as Americans to be "one tribe" with "one opinion."
The sins of Germany and Japan were really only possible because of their "unified" natures.
Click to expand...

Very true, very true!

:thumbup:

Andy
 
OK, what I am getting at is the divisive polarization of the nation to where common courtesy is trumped by political us/them affiliation. I'm not talking about Nazis. I'm not talking about the polite hateful racism of Japan. I'm talking about the fact that because I live in a red state (Indiana), i am automatically a God-fearing neo-con slack jaw firing my firearms wildly into the air, and that anyone from a blue state is an overly sophisticated snob too busy getting the "big picture" that my fragile little fly-over country mind cannot comprehend while enjoying their triple soy low foam no fat 9 dollar cup of coffee.

When we, the people, get to that point. The political system for us and by us no longer functions in a way that benefits us. When we throw ourselves behind one party, or one candidate, or one issue we miss the point, IMHO. We can disagree with one another. We can choose whom we vote for on whatever grounds we like. What we cannot do is lose sight that whoever sits in the white house or in the hallowed halls of congress has been put there by us and should behave in such a way.

My beef with not with Mr. Red voter or Mr. Blue voter. My beef is with pretty much everyone in office right now, both republican and democrat, as neither party is behaving to the ideals that they have set forth. IMHO, it's not an us/them situation as politically minded citizens. It's an us/them situation where the people we have trusted with our vote have failed both affiliations to a miserable degree.
 
Steely_Gunz said:
OK, what I am getting at is the divisive polarization of the nation to where common courtesy is trumped by political us/them affiliation. I'm not talking about Nazis. I'm not talking about the polite hateful racism of Japan. I'm talking about the fact that because I live in a red state (Indiana), i am automatically a God-fearing neo-con slack jaw firing my firearms wildly into the air, and that anyone from a blue state is an overly sophisticated snob too busy getting the "big picture" that my fragile little fly-over country mind cannot comprehend while enjoying their triple soy low foam no fat 9 dollar cup of coffee.

When we, the people, get to that point. The political system for us and by us no longer functions in a way that benefits us. When we throw ourselves behind one party, or one candidate, or one issue we miss the point, IMHO. We can disagree with one another. We can choose whom we vote for on whatever grounds we like. What we cannot do is lose sight that whoever sits in the white house or in the hallowed halls of congress has been put there by us and should behave in such a way.

My beef with not with Mr. Red voter or Mr. Blue voter. My beef is with pretty much everyone in office right now, both republican and democrat, as neither party is behaving to the ideals that they have set forth. IMHO, it's not an us/them situation as politically minded citizens. It's an us/them situation where the people we have trusted with our vote have failed both affiliations to a miserable degree.
Click to expand...

Jake, I understand your concern. But really the political climate isn't so bad currently. I mean, consider the conditions existing just prior to the Civil War!

Andy
 
That's just it, Andy:) I know it's not that bad...it's annoying. I know hindsight is 20/20, but the political misgivings between those that agree or disagree with whether a person is capable of being literally owned by another person have vastly more crucial ramifications than nearly coming to fisticuffs because you "hate" Bush/Kerry/McCain/Obama. Not to mention the tension of a united country fracturing with secession compared with an unpopular war (but quite bloodless by the grizzly standards of war).

My point is that these are not the times that try mens souls. These are the times where people are blindly following a party/candidate out of instilled fear or political correctness or promises of puppies and rainbows for all the little children of the world (hyperbole to the nth degree. I'm sorry).

Since I have been voting (1999), I have not seen the American people of the history books besides the fleeting cooperative time after 9/11. For 3 election cycles now I have heard that "it's just an election year" and that somehow, somewhere, people are going to just pull their head's out of their rears and start acting civil to one another again and work together. Call me jaded, but I'm predicting more of the same behavior even a year from this date regardless who wins. Republicans in congress are going to spend spend spend and that will be OK as long as they act as prudishly as possible for the social conservative base. Democrats are going spend, spend, spend as well as use the former administration as a whipping boy for anything that they royally screw up.

What a cheery post, eh:) I really need to leave this sort of thing up to the experts.
 
Steely_Gunz said:
OK, what I am getting at is the divisive polarization of the nation to where common courtesy is trumped by political us/them affiliation. I'm not talking about Nazis. I'm not talking about the polite hateful racism of Japan. I'm talking about the fact that because I live in a red state (Indiana), i am automatically a God-fearing neo-con slack jaw firing my firearms wildly into the air, and that anyone from a blue state is an overly sophisticated snob too busy getting the "big picture" that my fragile little fly-over country mind cannot comprehend while enjoying their triple soy low foam no fat 9 dollar cup of coffee.

When we, the people, get to that point. The political system for us and by us no longer functions in a way that benefits us. When we throw ourselves behind one party, or one candidate, or one issue we miss the point, IMHO. We can disagree with one another. We can choose whom we vote for on whatever grounds we like. What we cannot do is lose sight that whoever sits in the white house or in the hallowed halls of congress has been put there by us and should behave in such a way.

My beef with not with Mr. Red voter or Mr. Blue voter. My beef is with pretty much everyone in office right now, both republican and democrat, as neither party is behaving to the ideals that they have set forth. IMHO, it's not an us/them situation as politically minded citizens. It's an us/them situation where the people we have trusted with our vote have failed both affiliations to a miserable degree.
Click to expand...

Jake,
That is the best post I have read relating to the current issues:thumbup:
I have read from many forums, including much from the BF one. I am unwilling to argue with people that are my friends, family or close acquaintances,( even when they really would love to), precisely because I have seen some of those relationships permanently damaged recently.

"common courtesy":thumbup:When I experience it I feel wonderful, when it is absent I am saddened.

But I'm telling you Brother, that neo-con slack jaw...9 dollar cup of coffee stuff is priceless! I realize the seriousness of the words and it is not my intention to diminish the ideas behind the words in any way when I say you had me pissing my pants when I read it.
 
Runs With Scissors said:
No one is ever truly EVIL though. Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Hussein...They've all meant well and had good intentions. Just like Obama has good intentions....
Click to expand...
Can we agree that the intention to murder millions of people --men and women, young and old -- merely because of their enthnicity, culture, or religious affiliation is not a "good intention" but is evil? And what about carrying out those intentions? Is that not evil?
 
Take my word for it, the only true evil in the world is a UNIFIED PEOPLE.
Without the dynamic, flexible, tolerant nature of a people who DO NOT share the same beliefs about everything, we become true monsters.
Click to expand...
The USA is geographically large enough to allow for what you like.
Already a world-leader in surveillance of the public, overcrowded England simply does not have such space (despite which, establishment-party politicians try to impose both concepts imported from America and literally millions of additional immigrants) -- on top of which the EU, an alleged trading bloc that's now far into the process of turning itself into a politically centralised State, is dedicated to trans-continental standardisation....
Way things are going, there could end up being one or more civil wars -- either in this country, or throughout the EU over States Rights* and the right to secession.... afaics, it may come down to a choice of either that, or the passive acceptance of a Stazi State.

* for instance, the British Constitution and Law is inherently incompatible with that of the EU, which is based on an entirely different set of premises.
 
Murder everyone who is "different," and you have no "different" people. Does evil truly begin only at that point? "First they came for the Communists . . . . ."
 
Andrew Colglazier said:
Jake, I understand your concern. But really the political climate isn't so bad currently. I mean, consider the conditions existing just prior to the Civil War!

Andy
Click to expand...

I agree. I was listening to some historians on the radio a few weeks ago and I'd say politics is tame now.

Go back and read some about Andrew Jackson. Makes today seem tame.

Shortly after Jackson first arrived in Nashville in 1788, he took up residence as a boarder with Rachel Stockley Donelson, the widow of John Donelson. Here Jackson became acquainted with their daughter, Rachel Donelson Robards. At the time, Rachel Robards was in an unhappy marriage with Captain Lewis Robards, a man subject to irrational fits of jealous rage. Due to Lewis Robards' temperament, the two were separated in 1790. Shortly after their separation, Robards sent word that he had obtained a divorce. Trusting that the divorce was complete, Jackson and Rachel were married in 1791. Two years later they learned that the divorce had never actually been finalized, making Rachel's marriage to Jackson illegitimate. After the divorce was officially completed, Rachel and Jackson re-married in 1794.[39]

The controversy surrounding their marriage remained a sore point for Jackson, who deeply resented attacks on his wife's honor. Jackson fought 13 duels, many nominally over his wife's honor. Charles Dickinson, the only man Jackson ever killed in a duel, had been goaded into angering Jackson by Jackson's political opponents. In the duel, fought over a horse-racing debt and an insult to his wife on May 30, 1806, Dickinson shot Jackson in the ribs before Jackson returned the fatal shot; Jackson actually allowed Dickinson to shoot first, knowing him to be an excellent shot, and as his opponent reloaded, Jackson shot, even as the bullet lodged itself in his chest. The bullet that struck Jackson was so close to his heart that it could never be safely removed. Jackson had been wounded so frequently in duels that it was said he "rattled like a bag of marbles."[40] At times he would cough up blood, and he experienced considerable pain from his wounds for the rest of his life.

Rachel died of a heart attack on December 22, 1828, two weeks after her husband's victory in the election and two months prior to Jackson taking office as President. Jackson blamed John Quincy Adams for Rachel's death because the marital scandal was brought up in the election of 1828. He felt that this had hastened her death and never forgave Adams
Click to expand...
 
Thomas Linton said:
Can we agree that the intention to murder millions of people --men and women, young and old -- merely because of their enthnicity, culture, or religious affiliation is not a "good intention" but is evil? And what about carrying out those intentions? Is that not evil?
Click to expand...

Of course it's not evil....in their minds. There's still American citizens who don't believe Hitler was evil, and believe it's a shame he was ever stopped. Infact, they would love to see the day it all started back again. But they aren't evil either. Just ask them.

I guess I'm just a believer that the road to hell really is paved with good intentions, often times from not very good people, and sometimes from good people.

to answer your question....of course! they're all a buncha evil $#$*(&@!!
whaddya think I am? some moral relativist?;)
 
Esav Benyamin said:
Chain emails, carefully constructed to sound logical but short of historical accuracy, will convince those prepared to believe.
Can't we do better?
Read the Urban Legends Reference Pages on Australia:
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
Does that mean lying in the defense of truth is OK, too?
Click to expand...

Esav, I agree in principal to what you are saying. However, you have fallen victim to the same illness as the one you encourage to do better. The Snopes story is flawed in numerous ways. Notice that they speak of handgun ownership, which is never mentioned in the email they work to discredit. Also, look at the increased rate of attacks on the elderly, which they state as hardly being "dramatic". The increase is above 20%, and appears that it might stay above previous levels. Not enough time has passed to say for sure. Folks at Snopes are biased just like the rest of us; reader beware. Everyone has an agenda.
 
Last edited:
Guys,

First of all...I did not want to make this a "Who ya gonna vote for thread".

In point of fact, there is more than enough documented information to infrom those who do not wish to be caught up in the hype of the current Presidential debacle.

Having said that, if anybody who chimes in on this thread does not feel a bit ill/concerned/worried/afraid of the changes in our government,with respect to gun control, then I suggest they pour themselves a tall shot and decide where your heart is.

Honestly whichever side of the fence you are on, GOP or DNC...or RSVP or ASAP should not matter when it comes to protecting each and every one of our shared freedoms.

To those who follow the old, "cold dead fingers" doctirne. I would ask...do you rmember what happened to the amn from Ruby Ridge? Or the Freemen? or even in NO when Katrina hit? Our Government knows how to deal with this sort of thing. They will make a few very public, very messy shows of force, and the reality of the situation will cause the majority of us to lie down our arms. Then all that is left its to sweep up the last remaining "radicals".

I promise you this, if nothing has been learned in this election year, believe that the main stream media can and will control public opinion.

I neeed to go now...but here's one from our first president:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress) ~ GEORGE WASHINGTON

Chew on that for a bit.

Shane
 
Here are the supposed words from Washington's address to Congress:

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prarie wagon, and citizen’s firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place with all that’s good. When firearms, go all goes; we need them every hour.
Click to expand...

I say "supposed," because:

1. The supposed quotation is a very recent invention. It did not appear in the literature of the Second Amendment when I began studying it in the 1960.

2. I have never been able to find the words in any record of Washington's public speeches or private correspondence. The sentiment's" Absolutely! Not these sentences.

3. The words do not sound like the flowerly, rather wordy style of Washington. "Liberty teeth" is not even literate speech.

4. What "prarie"? 1790 is before the Louisiana Purchase. We had no prarie. There were not 10,000 citizens in the deep forests over the mountains.

5. In 1790, why would Washington have given any time in a speech to Congress to an issue that did not exist? The reaction would have been that the old boy had lost it. This is obviously an argument to meet the conditions of late 20th century U.S. - or today -- when our rights are under attack, not 1790 when no one questioned the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
 
hollowdweller said:
Even in the early 20th century when the people did form their own militia of sorts they were outgunned.

The "Baldwin Felts" were the forerunners of Blackwater Security (who patrolled the streets of New Orleans and disarmed people)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
Click to expand...
"The people" HD? As in "Power to the People"?

It came as a great shock to the left-leaning students who were tricked into rioting on the Ohio State campus in 1970, that 90%+ of the population in Franklin County were not "the People," "the people" being those who agree with whoever invokes "the people."

The Felts were way behind the "Pinks" as muscle for employers.
 
Last edited:
Gentleman,

I believe amongst us, we are representative of our nation. In each of us we see the good and bad of the issue.

If the subject could be decided here, I am sure it could be done so that all would benefit, and none be shouted down.

However, it is not the way things are done anymore.

Is it six more days now? We will see soon enough.

FOr those who trust...I salute you.

For those who fear I salute you as well.

We will all prosper or suffer by the same hand.

Shane
 
Last edited:
Here's another one...

I apologize if I am not learned enough to know if these quotes are correctly attributed.

I chose them for their intent and spirit to convey what I feel are expressions of true thought and meaning.

Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, who are not only prepared to take arms,
but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily lives, and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.
--- John Fitzgerald Kennedy

If that does not move you...nothing can or will.

Shane
 
I expect this thread may well get closed too.

I apologize to everybody. I thought the Cantina was a place to kickj around any ideas or conjecture...

Sorry if I caused any sore feelings by bringing this topic in.

I took the oath of office when when I went to work for the DOD. I never felt so strongly about our freedoms until that moment.

I have honored that oath ever since.

Shane
 
shane justice said:
"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are safe." (Matthew 11:21)
Shane
Click to expand...

Great post Shane, with a minor correction (I skimmed the previous 4 pages and didn't see this--sorry if it's been caught): for those frantically searching their Bible for your quote, it's in LUKE 11:21.:thumbup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top