- Thread starter BPaulk
- Start date
Well, they could, if they could only understand that the shiny penny in their pocket can only buy one piece of candy, not two. Unfortunately, in attempting to prosecute a multi-front war and cure all of the perceived social injustices existing in America, it's been like wifey and her new charge plate at the end of the first thirty days: "What? I have to pay for all of that NOW!?" Unfortunately, wifey isn't going to pay. Hubby is, and that's us.
Now I can get pilloried by the five women here for sexism ...
Your invite to HardRock is still on the table, just let me know when you want to show up. Or if you don't want to do it during a match, I know a guy that will set us some targets for just a one on one if you prefer that.
I tried to find any articles online, but it may have been too long ago. Way back when the idiotic Clinton gun/mag ban went into Law there was the question posed "Would Law Enforcement enforce this", here in Montana. Many agencies were asked what they would do if asked to enforce the law...the VAST majority stated they would not. The general reply was that we had all sworn to uphold the Constitution and that the 2nd Amendment trumped the Clinton law. IIRC my old Agency the State Patrol came out and Officially stated they wouldn't enforce it. I know the brass felt it was against the Oath we took when we were sworn in.
I know CT is hardly MT and the LE mindset there is I'm sure quite different.
FN in MT
I agree with that statement totally. If you are familiar with the battles at Concord that is exactly what the militia did. Had they stood and fought without the retreat to discuss what the better options were and wait for further enforcements, things could have ended much differently and our fate would have been drastically different that what it has been.
It is a little impossible to have a plan or timeline of action for a situation based on pure speculation. Without the act you simply can not devise an appropriate reactionary plan. An event is required that invokes the emotions of those that witness it and gives them a justifiable cause to react.
If it was not for Revere's intelligence and his ability to reach Lexington and inform the Colonials the British were dispatched to confiscate/destroy their supplies (gunpowder) the chain of events that followed would never have happened. It was that single act Revere is responsible for that "lit the fuse."
Fast forward to today, if the jack boots show up on your doorstep to confiscate your supplies, I don't see surrender as the best outcome. If that law abiding gun owner gives them his supplies bullets first, that will be the flashpoint. That will ignite an overwhelming emotional response among like-minded individuals. Then you will see a consolidation of those like-minded individuals and a quorum able come up with a plan to act and when to act.
You already see the formation of small 2A groups in different states that do discuss what their plan will be if confiscation happens in CT. Some of these groups are so bold, they publish their show of support on the Internet. I recently saw a video published by some 2A organization in Texas. These guys are basically ready to travel from Texas to CT in support of gun owners if things get out of control.
The history of what led to the events of April 19th, 1775, and what is being discussed today share a lot of similarities. There is a lot of truth to the statement that history has a tendency of repeating itself.
The war for our Independence ultimately began with the British wanting to disarm the Colonials. They were our government at the time. The Colonials rejected the laws and rules being enforced on them by the British the same way many of us are rejecting the exact same laws our government today is trying to enforce on us.
I bet you money the conversations the Colonials were having exactly this month and exactly this day 239 years ago are very similar to the ones we are having today as well. In 43 days we will have the 240th anniversary of the events that lead to our war for independence.
Wouldn't it be ironic if come the week of April 13th the government of Connecticut decided to begin a forced confiscation plan. By Saturday, April 19th, you would have more Militia converged on Connecticut in protest than that state's government could deal with. We no longer need to rely on an individual traveling on horseback and by row boat to give us information. Within hours of an event every 2A group around the country will know what is going on and can respond within days.
It will certainly be interesting to see how the coming events in Connecticut play out. I personally do not think the government of Connecticut has the balls to do anything and those laws will ultimately get invalidated by a constitutional challenge in court.
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
As far as I am concerned, those who are already advocating violent domestic resistance are the enemy. They are not, of course, my enemy, but the enemy of democracy.
If we refuse to admit that to ourselves, and instead are too quick to jump on the 'cold dead fingers' bandwagon, then we are abandoning the values that we claim to stand for because we are not really committed to what democracy means.
In which case we have revealed ourselves as nothing more than selfish actors, like children trying to sway their parents by claiming to occupy the moral high ground.
The danger on both sides of this argument is to assume the ultimate value of the thing you claim to defend, at the exclusion and denunciation of the other. The result will be either impasse or absurdity.
I am not saying that we should give up our guns. But I am saying that the fight has progressed beyond repeating a bumper sticker mantra. I am also saying that, as in all fights, the ignorant and the foolish are guaranteed to be its first victims.
As far as I am concerned, those who are already advocating violent domestic resistance are the enemy. They are not, of course, my enemy, but the enemy of democracy.
If we refuse to admit that to ourselves, and instead are too quick to jump on the 'cold dead fingers' bandwagon, then we are abandoning the values that we claim to stand for because we are not really committed to what democracy means.
In which case we have revealed ourselves as nothing more than selfish actors, like children trying to sway their parents by claiming to occupy the moral high ground.
The danger on both sides of this argument is to assume the ultimate value of the thing you claim to defend, at the exclusion and denunciation of the other. The result will be either impasse or absurdity.
I am not saying that we should give up our guns. But I am saying that the fight has progressed beyond repeating a bumper sticker mantra. I am also saying that, as in all fights, the ignorant and the foolish are guaranteed to be its first victims.
I bet you are right on perfect take on what is happing now.
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
Tolerance only for what benefits you isn't tolerance at all.
Everyone is so fond of invoking the memory of our forefathers and the blood of our soldiers. Did they fight and die for a democratic ideal, or didn't they?!
I am not saying capitulate, but I am saying to put your money where your mouth is and be consistent with your arguments.
Democracy requires tolerance, especially at first.Go along to get along is NOT my philosophy.
Tolerance only for what benefits you isn't tolerance at all.
Everyone is so fond of invoking the memory of our forefathers and the blood of our soldiers. Did they fight and die for a democratic ideal, or didn't they?!
I am not saying capitulate, but I am saying to put your money where your mouth is and be consistent with your arguments.
Graham, you do realize we are not a democracy here, right?
Problem is Graham, our democracy is failing. It is not functioning the way it was intended. The representatives are not representing the people. It has become a democracy of what is in the best interest of a political party and those in control of it, not the people. You are smart enough to see that.
Crony capitalism is not a democracy. Using government agencies to silence free political speech is not a democracy. Abuse of executive powers is not a democracy. How many other examples can be cited of the failures in our democracy!?!
If our democracy was healthy and functioning as the founders intended then I would agree with you. If being the enemy is being a person that wants to see the reset button hit, then so be it.
Graham,
America is a Constitutional Republic. The oath we took was to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic.
The Constitution is the bedrock upon which our freedoms stand.
It's not about what politicians say the "majority" want. Who is counting these votes anyway ? Diebold electronic voting machines, Gallup Polls ? , the New York Times.?
America is a Constitutional Republic. The oath we took was to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic.
The Constitution is the bedrock upon which our freedoms stand.
It's not about what politicians say the "majority" want. Who is counting these votes anyway ? Diebold electronic voting machines, Gallup Polls ? , the New York Times.?
You know, Graham, the way I see it, it is a numbers game. There are only two ways major change comes about in a civilization, one by voting in new members to a "representative democracy" and one by force. Force is always a bad solution. We have a memorial in our downtown area that represents the mindset of an individual who felt the government pushed too far. The problem we face now, in my opinion, is we are simply outnumbered at the polls when it comes to change. If there are two of them for every one of us, we will always lose at the polls.
I'm curious, what say you, is the answer for change of an unconstitutional law without either one?
I'm curious, what say you, is the answer for change of an unconstitutional law without either one?
This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. This is a constitutional one. The 2A is there for all people regardless of their political persuasion. I know plenty from the "other side" that are gun owners.
Our legislators are not legislating gun laws for the good of the people, that is the excuse. As long as the people are armed, they will never be able to completely control us.
This has nothing to do with Red or Blue, it is all about control of the people and control of the wealth in this country.
Wealth is never lost, it is transferred. When you kill the middle class that wealth goes to the rich and a fraction goes to the poor. If our current democratically elected representatives really cared about the people, not only would our 2A rights be secure, we would be focusing on jobs and the economy and making decisions that are best for the country as a whole.
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
All interesting points.
The AFL-CIO, the largest labor union in the country, has already split over a similar issue: Lobbying, versus organizing for action.
Everyone's comments here about the uniqueness of American culture is a reminder about the instability that has always been at its root.
I see that what looks like a tension between two very different versions of the American dream might in fact be two different, contradictory dreams.
I am concerned that the American dream may be sickening at the margins, this new happening in CT being an example, which creates new opportunity for self-destruction, not through dialogue and acceptance of the other person but through total self-belief and self-righteousness on both sides.
All interesting points.
The AFL-CIO, the largest labor union in the country, has already split over a similar issue: Lobbying, versus organizing for action.
Everyone's comments here about the uniqueness of American culture is a reminder about the instability that has always been at its root.
I see that what looks like a tension between two very different versions of the American dream might in fact be two different, contradictory dreams.
I am concerned that the American dream may be sickening at the margins, this new happening in CT being an example, which creates new opportunity for self-destruction, not through dialogue and acceptance of the other person but through total self-belief and self-righteousness on both sides.
Last edited:
Whos promoting that? - "The nuclear option", "elections have consequences", "deem and pass", "the race card", the failure of the media to fulfill its role, the refusal to enforce law in a fair and impartial manner, IRS scandal, last but not least "you will have to pass it to know whats in it".
I passed something this morning it was apparent what was in it and what it was all about.
Last edited:
Yes, but unlike congress, you can fix that with one good flush.
Yes it is, and is about to go over the cliff, all because good men stood by and did nothing.
Do you actually believe this is about personal property?
That is the heart of the failure of the democracy. Our representatives are not capable of agreeing on a balance. These sides existed since even before the constitution was created, the problem now is, no one can compromise and the legislative goals have changed from prosperity of the country to the control of it.
I believe in insurance for the people with pre-existing conditions, I do not believe the purchase of insurance should be rammed down my throat. I believe in needing a tax stamp for a full auto, it helps to keep them out of the hands of the most violent. I don't believe semi autos or magazine size should be regulated. I believe in a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, I don't believe that right should exist past the first trimester.
With our elected officials it is one way or another, there is no middle ground because their goal is the wealth, not the prosperity of all.
Our founders saw this day coming and I am pretty sure why the 2A says exactly this: 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.
For those of you who don't know, at the time it was written, the understood meaning of "well regulated" was well trained.
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
We've probably lost a shared sense of justice. To recover it we each need to rediscover empathy for the position of the other side.
As Adam Smith wrote (worth a re-read: Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759), until each side approaches the democratic process with presumption that the other side is worth listening to, no amount of laws or prohibitions will fix the problem - whatever it is.
And, no, I don't believe in dying for the sake of property. For people, yes, but to keep things, no.
Of course it's easier to talk tough than to act tough. I've heard the 'my cold dead fingers' refrain from people whom I later saw surrendering their weapons. Embarrassing, to say the least.
But if you actually do get yourself killed to avoid giving up possession of a tool, then you're either misled or you're a fool. Because either way, not only does your enemy win outright, he also gets your stuff.
Compare what I say to the opposite: To the extremist tendencies we see in the Middle East, where it has become acceptable to kill each other over such stupid shit, and at such a rate, that entire countries remain under de facto dictatorships.
I can't understand some of you making such an anti-democratic argument, and wrapping it in our flag, without even realizing it.
We've probably lost a shared sense of justice. To recover it we each need to rediscover empathy for the position of the other side.
As Adam Smith wrote (worth a re-read: Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759), until each side approaches the democratic process with presumption that the other side is worth listening to, no amount of laws or prohibitions will fix the problem - whatever it is.
And, no, I don't believe in dying for the sake of property. For people, yes, but to keep things, no.
Of course it's easier to talk tough than to act tough. I've heard the 'my cold dead fingers' refrain from people whom I later saw surrendering their weapons. Embarrassing, to say the least.
But if you actually do get yourself killed to avoid giving up possession of a tool, then you're either misled or you're a fool. Because either way, not only does your enemy win outright, he also gets your stuff.
Compare what I say to the opposite: To the extremist tendencies we see in the Middle East, where it has become acceptable to kill each other over such stupid shit, and at such a rate, that entire countries remain under de facto dictatorships.
I can't understand some of you making such an anti-democratic argument, and wrapping it in our flag, without even realizing it.
Last edited:
Part of the core of the American Experiment" is the fact the individual has a right to personal property sans that you have....Communism?
Well Said!
I lack empathy for a philosophy that thinks having 40 million people existing on public funds is success and positive existence for those that are living it. It is evil.
The vilification of success while not recognizining ones own privlidged position is hypocritical.
We are not dealing with JFKs party. A contagion entered that party from the counter culture of the 60's and we are experiencing the fever in full fury. How will it break?
Last edited:
I feel bad for the LEO's in CT. for having to act on this. Hopefully most of them will not. Being the spouse of an active LEO (Thankfully not in CT) My wife has said on numerous occasions about this very thing that if a law like that was ever passed here nobody in her department would enforce it. From the chief on down. It does nothing but put them in further danger as there are many, including myself who would not conform to them. As many others have said, I've shed my own blood on far away mud to protect these rights and freedoms that we are entitled to. I'll be damned if I turn my back on it now, not on my watch.
Graham,
Ive followed your posts. I think Im disagreeing with an intellect greater than my own. This post is a great give and take. Neither you or I as far as I know will have impact on the events that seem to be swirling about us. We are acting like adults yet have little impact.
Compare/contrast with the Cummings/Issa exchange on the floor of Congress. How can one not be discouraged. I salute your optimism.
Edit - Regards the contentious debate and intractibility I guess things have been worse, Congress still bans sticks on its floor since a Congressman/Senator from Massachusetts had his ass whooped by a fellow servant from the South in the run up to the Civil War. Ominously they settled that debate without finding civility.
Ive followed your posts. I think Im disagreeing with an intellect greater than my own. This post is a great give and take. Neither you or I as far as I know will have impact on the events that seem to be swirling about us. We are acting like adults yet have little impact.
Compare/contrast with the Cummings/Issa exchange on the floor of Congress. How can one not be discouraged. I salute your optimism.
Edit - Regards the contentious debate and intractibility I guess things have been worse, Congress still bans sticks on its floor since a Congressman/Senator from Massachusetts had his ass whooped by a fellow servant from the South in the run up to the Civil War. Ominously they settled that debate without finding civility.
Last edited:
Am I going to be the only one to point out that the article is complete BS?
There are no names, locations, dates or times in that "article". That is an anecdote, and not likely based on fact.
Does anyone have actual evidence of a plan by Connecticut lawmakers to round up guns?
There are no names, locations, dates or times in that "article". That is an anecdote, and not likely based on fact.
Does anyone have actual evidence of a plan by Connecticut lawmakers to round up guns?
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
Darkside,
Fair enough, but do we get to decide, as individuals, for which rights we have shed blood and for which rights we happened not to have been fighting at the time?
[A question; not an attack].
Darkside,
Fair enough, but do we get to decide, as individuals, for which rights we have shed blood and for which rights we happened not to have been fighting at the time?
[A question; not an attack].
Which history are you reading? The critical conclusion I get from history is that, for better or worse, "most people" never turn the tide of history. Determined and principled minorities do. They certainly did in the 1770s, and may again.
They certainly did not fight for democracy! They fought for the rule of law, and for the establishment of their natural rights.
For me it is not about the property. On the surface you are right, a gun is a tool. Where I am willing to make the ultimate sacrifice if for the preservation of that right TO own that tool.
Because I firmly believe that if we loose the right to own that tool, we are going to loose all of our other rights extremely quickly. The end result is not a country that I want to live in. I have had a good life up to now, if it is cut shot because of a choice I made and that choice preserved that right for my kids and their kids.. Then it was worth it.
I don't relish the idea of living till I am 90 and the highlight of my day is taking a piss on my own.. so what am I really loosing? 20, 30 years of misery? Prostate cancer? A limp dick? Watching everyone close to me die of old age? Living in a country where I dream about the days we were free?
I'd rather die young having made a difference that people will be thankful for than live to be 90 and have no legacy.
Paul Revere crossed a river in a row boat and rode a horse to Lexington. That was the highlight of his life. Big deal right? But what he did and what he put into motion keeps him alive in the mind of every educated person in this country 240 years later. I owe my freedom to what he did and that he was successful doing it. That's a legacy. Those are the acts we all should hope we have in our lives.
All the more reason to preserve what we were given in our Constitution than to give any of it up for the sake of living to the ripe old age of misery.
personally, I don't think we do. You have to fight for every right we posses or none at all. You can't just choose to fight for whichever right you feel you like and not fight for the ones you don't agree with.
I'm not personally fond of the 1st amendment and certain parts of freedom of speech, but that is part of the bill of rights so when I chose to defend them, I chose to defend them all.
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
In that case you are doomed to hope that the determined minority to which you refer sees things your way.
Two different scenarios... A member of a professional army representing his countries interest.
VS. a person who has to decide what is worth living or dieing for.
Remember our rights as citizens are not granted by the government and subject to revocation.
The idea is that they are given to us by god as the birthright of free men.
Is that not how this entire country started... A determined minority.
You think this is about "stuff" or "tools"?
Are you kidding?
What is it that our soldiers died for over the years? Land...stuff....tools?
This fight is about preserving our God-given and Constitutional-guaranteed right.
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
You know, reading this I can't help but wonder aloud how many of you who express an opinion on this thread have a) experienced gun confiscation, and b) have surrendered a piece property under penalty of death.
That's the theory, but make no mistake: If you're dead, your rights have been revoked.
The fight might be, but dying surely isn't.
You know, reading this I can't help but wonder aloud how many of you who express an opinion on this thread have a) experienced gun confiscation, and b) have surrendered a piece property under penalty of death.
Don't put down your intellect, pm. Graham is a bright guy, but his strong point is argumentation rather than wisdom. Please don't take that as an insult, Graham, and Im not calling you name when I use smoke and mirrors. Its more a reflection on your method of argumentation as an end in itself rather than for getting to the core truth. That's exactly why I chose not to pursue a law degree after finishing philosophy at The University. A buddy who had gone through the program made the remark, "the first thing they teach you is how to lie." Ive seen too often in courts (and politics) that the goal is to put forth the winning argument rather than get to the truth. To get "my way" rather than the way which is really best for all. That I could not abide by. Consider my original statement..."Knowledge may be power but power without wisdom is folly."
On a separate note, Graham, I enjoyed your references to Ranciere. I have not read his works as I was more attracted to the ancient Greeks as they were further away in time and culture and I enjoyed the different culture they were coming from. And that they were the first to make these deep examinations. Unfortunately, after taking 3 upper level philosophy classes, a seminar open only to 4th year phil. majors, and a graduate course, in my last year I just cant read philosophy anymore.
All that said, I think the answer is unequivocally no. Violence is not necessary to assert authority. Think Rosa Parks. She asserted authority by just refusing to be trampled. Generally throughout the civil rights movement non violence was shown to gain far more than violence, and 'most' of the violence was on the side of the white oppressors.
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
I concede: Maggot's dick must be bigger than mine. Don't take that as an insult to Maggott, because a big dick is - so I am told- good to have, it's just that I can't help myself talking about his dick.
Well, that, and I can't help talking in other people's threads about my favorite topic: Me.
pm,
I concede: Maggot's dick must be bigger than mine. Don't take that as an insult to Maggott, because a big dick is - so I am told- good to have, it's just that I can't help myself talking about his dick.
Well, that, and I can't help talking in other people's threads about my favorite topic: Me.
Last edited:
FWIW George Orwell:
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Read more at George Orwell Quotes - BrainyQuote
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
Read more at George Orwell Quotes - BrainyQuote
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Read more at George Orwell Quotes - BrainyQuote
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
Read more at George Orwell Quotes - BrainyQuote
And now we've come full circle. There are people who make the choice everyday that there are things worth more in this world than their own well being.
If you choose to acquiesce to or even support a government that would kill you or your neighbors....
That's something only you can justify to yourself.
Now whos being overtly insulting.
But I do appreciate the fact that you love my big dick.
BTW, there is only one t in Maggot.
Maggot out.
Do you think they will go house to house in Connecticut?
Maggot with one 't', only you have the gumption to agree with me while at the same time expounding on and degrading a degree that you never earned.
Hello pot, this is kettle, over....
Maggot with one 't', only you have the gumption to agree with me while at the same time expounding on and degrading a degree that you never earned.
Hello pot, this is kettle, over....
I don't think admitting you have a small dick is gonna help your pro cowardice argument.
While men of such conscience that they would sacrifice their well-being for the common good are rare, they still exist, and so serve as a balance to those in the majority whose base nature allows them no significant concern for others. Look no further than the signatures at the foot of our Declaration of Independence if you lack ready examples.
UVA, class of 95, philosophy, and at 45 years of age. I have the paperwork to prove it, Mr. dick lover.
I believe it reads...."We pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
My problem is this,
This country's leaders ask and I like others stood up and stepped forward, then they demanded others thru the draft to do the bidding of this nations will. Like many others they put weapons in our hands and taught us how to use radios and other objects to unleash Hell, upon the enemy. Now they are telling those same folks, they have no right is own a weapon or evil items there of. You can pussy foot around all the fancy words you want, but the bottom line is control. We as a nation have ate at the lie table so long, we gave the voting booth to those who won't work or never have, following the educated mouth pieces who always knew what was better for us than we did. That fucked up logic is how we got into this whole in the first place. The time is coming very soon when gray won't exist. Lines are being drawn and that is pure fact.
This country's leaders ask and I like others stood up and stepped forward, then they demanded others thru the draft to do the bidding of this nations will. Like many others they put weapons in our hands and taught us how to use radios and other objects to unleash Hell, upon the enemy. Now they are telling those same folks, they have no right is own a weapon or evil items there of. You can pussy foot around all the fancy words you want, but the bottom line is control. We as a nation have ate at the lie table so long, we gave the voting booth to those who won't work or never have, following the educated mouth pieces who always knew what was better for us than we did. That fucked up logic is how we got into this whole in the first place. The time is coming very soon when gray won't exist. Lines are being drawn and that is pure fact.
Similar threads
