OT: Please send this link to everyone one your mailing list

Page 3 of 12  
The Second Amendment to the Constitution was written by a Congress, that was composed to a man of those who had successfully revolted through force of arms, against a government they thought unjust.
The Second Amendment, and all of the Bill of Rights for that matter, was written in reaction to things that had happened since their revolution. Several of the States had tried to impress unjust taxes, and collect them from members of the Continental Army who had been unable to farm or work and earn enough money to pay taxes since they were in the field with the army. They had successfully organized, and fought off the agents of the state through the force of arms.
The British, in response to our armed insurgency had passed the Gun Powder Act, and the Weapons Act, and enforced them in their territories to prevent any further revolutions. Both acts, carried a death penalty, and in the case of the Weapons Act, the definition of weapon was left to the discretion of the ranking British officer on the scene. Those found guilty by a military tribunal, could be executed on the scene.
The intent of the Second Amendment is clear if you look at it in historical perspective: It was written by a group of men who had successfully revolted against an unjust government, and felt that it was not only a right of the populace, but a duty, to over throw an unjust government. They decided that since the States, and the Federal government, were going to have armed forces, (police and "militias"), that the citizenry should also be armed, to a level that they could successfully revolt if the need should ever arise.
The licensing of gun owners would be counter to that goal. Because, an unjust, or corrupt government would then know exactly the information it would require to disarm the populace, and control it by force of arms.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@notreally.com wrote:

If you saw the movie RED DAWN, which is about a Soviet invasion of the USA in Montana, there is a scene in the early part of the movie where the Cuban adviser to the Soviet commander instructs someone to go to the sporting goods store and get the firearms permit applications. This was so they could confiscate all the firearms in town.
Dave N
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David G. Nagel wrote:

When did sporting goods stores in Montana start stocking firearms permit applications? Around here if you need a permit for something you go to the police station or town hall.
The bound book is more likely to be useful.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Hay it's a movie. Since when has Hollywood gotten anything right. The point I was trying to make is that where there is paperwork for firearms there is the easy source of who has what and where do they live.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

The people you don't want to have them DO have them, or the rest of us wouldn't need them... licensure isn't necessary, just morality and cool headedness. Tom
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom wrote:

Well, lots of ya'll voted for the party that wants to abrogate the second amendment and now you are surprised that they might actually do what they said.
Anybody who believed that bilge from the candidate exhorting his disciples to get in peoples' faces and tell them that He believed in the second amendment should really ask themselves what the @#$% they were thinking.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

The recent unpleasentness between England and America was over the fact that we Americans wanted to keep our guns. You all remember it, it was in all the papers.
Dave N
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:30:22 +0000, David G. Nagel wrote

Remind me? How recently? (seriously don't get the reference.)
Thanks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bored Borg wrote:

To some people the Punic War is "the recent unpleasantness".
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think is was around 1775 or 1776. I'd have to dig out the old newspapers to see exactly when it was, but they may be in the recycle bin by now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:43:51 +0000, Bored Borg

I'm pretty sure that the incident being referred to happened only about 234 years ago or so.... Somewhere around Concorde if memory serves...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snippage>

Amen to both the body and the signature!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Even a causal inspection of Obamessiah's voting record here in Illinois would have confirmed this. He was- and is, viruently anti-gun (and generally anti-freedom, pro-socialist).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just in case you have not already deduced this, I am not antigun, but would like there to be fewer around, and certainly not in the "wrong" hands.
I am pro freedom of expression and also for other freedoms, unless they adversely affect others' well-being and liberties. That means, I don't care if you play your radio loudly when you are alone and have your environs sound-proofed, but I object against woodpeckers driving around busy and quiet neighborhoods with their radios full blast and the windows down.
I have no idea why you would be against a state being organized to protect the whole community, not only via military defense but also in economic ways. That does not mean robbing Peter to pay lazy Paul, but to distribute opportunity equally.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

I can't think of any law abiding citizen who wants guns in the hands of criminals. However, taking guns away from law abiding citizens (or restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to obtain guns) does nothing to prevent people who are breaking the law from breaking another law. What those restrictions do is provide a criminal-friendly environment in which your typical lawbreaker has free reign to do pretty much what they please with society as long as they run away fast enough not to get caught when Johnny-Law shows up.
In the US, it is firmly established by law and court decision that the police do not have an obligation to protect *you*, only to protect society as a whole. That means that if you are robbed or a victim of any other violent crime, the police are obligated to investigate and attempt to catch the perpetrator in order to stop him from harming anyone else -- if they didn't get to you in time, it's tragic, but not an indication of failure on their part. For myself, I would like to at least have the option of being able to stop or keep the perps at bay before they can harm my family or myself. Waving a golf-club in the air doesn't do that for me.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You problem is that you make sense. Sense that doesn't fit the play- book of those who want to keep people scared and un-armed. All they want is your taxes so they can build big war machines so they can pillage other nations for their resources and yet another crop of peasants to take taxes from. Keep your eye on the ball...follow the money. The rest is window dressing and bullshit. The whole glorified advert of 'Freedom' has completely lost its meaning. We know we want it, but we don't know what it is anymore.
Who, in the western world is really free? All you have to do is take one step out-of-synch with the 'mantra-of-the-day' and you're immediately outcast. Nobody wants you to make a blend of what is right from either political party. They want to keep us apart. The division is what is important. It is what keeps us electing the opposite party at opposite times. It is what makes us feel we have actually accomplished something in the name of democracy, while in fact we have played into the hands of those who want to keep us divided. The only thing that Obama has to offer is that he is not Bush. And all Bush did, was soften up your nation, and squeezed whatever liquidity there was and handed it over to those who allowed him to play president for 8 years.
You've been had.
What I see, is that piece of black & white film footage of that nuclear bomb test. It shows a house getting pushed by a shockwave. a momentary moment of recovery, then the back-draft bends the whole mess back and blows it to smithereens before the heatwave hits it and completely disintegrates it. You have had 7 years of shockwave. Now a momentary breather/ a bit of artificial bliss.... brace yourself... the back-draft is coming. Be scared!!
Meanwhile, pay your taxes and hand in your guns.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

We all would. Gun control of any sort is not the mechanism to achieve this. Decriminalizing drugs (so as to empty the prisons of non violent offenders who did nothing more than sell "contraband") thereby leaving room for the violent and evil actors in society would be a step in the right direction. Similarly, we need to cease making excuses for evil action. We do not need to "understand" the criminal or have "empathy" for them, or even act "compassionately." We need to separate those who do evil from the rest of civil society. Doing so would markedly reduce the level of gun violence since people inclined to do this would end up in jail much sooner and for much longer than they do today. Unfortunately, one of the durable cultural norms we've had put upon us by the intellectual Left is a fundamental denial that evil even exists ... unless, of course, they're drooling on and on about those who do not share their idiotic worldview.

I am too - for *all* citizens, not just the putative poor, downtrodden, professional victims, and whiners (i.e. The base of the Democratic party).

Agreed. That's why I oppose wealth redistribution, most regulatory actitivty, and government involvement in the private sector.

Agreed. Try getting the politically correct bozos in your community to actually enforce the noise ordinances. These people think Kaye West is an "artist" ...

But therein lies the problem. The state organizing to protect "economic ways" *always* involves robbing Peter to pay Paul (lazy or otherwise). Government produces nothing. Its only weapon is that of legal and/or physical force. The state should exist only to preserve and expand liberty up to the boundaries you describe: Keeping people maximally free until/unless their actions or threat of action deprives their fellow citizen of _their_ liberties.
It is one thing to take a citizen's money to, say, defend the borders of the nation, run the courts, and otherwise generally defend everyone's liberty. This is a case of *common* benefit. But, for instance, taking money from one citizen and then funding the healthcare of another citizen with it is simply stealing. One citizen benefits *at the expense* of another. It's immoral and should be roundly condemned by all decent people. Nonetheless, you'll find all manner of selfish citizens that defend exactly this sort of thing. Notably, you'll find a few here on the 'Wreck that are just _outraged_ when their defense of stealing of this sort is aired publicly - They much prefer to tell themselves it is "noble" or even "charity" all the time while hiring the thugs of government to pay their own bills with Other People's Money.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

distribute
Tim has absolutely no interest in distributing opportunity equally. (something he calls collectivism). He is very much in support of people keeping whatever they can take and everybody else can go screw themselves.
He also feels that Medicare should be supported solely by donation and anybody receiving such health assistance should be living at the poverty line before they'd qualify for that health care.
In other words, Tim is an asshole who has one primary concern and that is himself. His frequent statement "Why should I have to pay?" is his mantra and is all one needs to know about Tim to know who and what he is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Even if his rants sounded remotely well thought out, he only comes to the bait on non-woodworking issues that he feels somehow threatens his hip pocket. Let me summarize his woodworking contributions with a list of links:
That's why he's on my banned list. I know how to get him to post more drivel and vitriol, but I never bother reading them so he blathers in vain. I've gotten so I can pretty much guarantee he will hit the reply button just by who responds and how much they yank his chain.
But frankly, folks, just as I counseled around election time; if you want him to go away, ignore him. He posted a query on 19 December that went utterly unanswered by anyone for a month. No replies means no spew.
I freely acknowledge my own transgression in posting the response earlier and I apologize (but it was just too good a shot to pass up). Now I am in ignore mode: 100% for him, around 85% for a couple of other kool-aid drinking limboob losers who nevertheless occasionally have something wood to say. I still don't read or respond to them, though.
I encourage all to join in.
(PS don't bother to tell me what he says in his response to this, which is almost guaranteed to appear soon--it's mind over matter; I don't mind because he doesn't matter).
--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LRod wrote:

I can only hope that the fruits of the collectivism you espouse land on your doorstep first.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.