"Law Abiders" - What is the threshold?

Status
Not open for further replies.

NAKing

New member
I don't mean to beat everybody over the head with the obvious, but firearms will always be accessible to criminals to some extent. Ever since the "gun" was invented people with malicious intent have been able to acquire one. I don't think that will ever change.

How do you like your frog cooked? If you like it rare come to the table and get it - it's ready. :(
 

copenhagen

New member
Two sides to each coin . . .

Stagger Lee.....

I know that some people work very hard to convince themselves otherwise on order to justify their anti-government, anti-American and straight-out unpatriotic hatred of the people that we've chosen to lead this country, but it's really, honestly just not there.

work very hard to convince themselves = independent thought

anti-government = wary of big government

anti-American = not for elitist only rulership

straight-out unpatriotic hatred of leaders = excercising freedom of speech to question actions which may seem corrupt or designed to create a monopoly of power by taking this power away from the masses.

honestly just not there = H.R. 6257
 
hmmm...some thoughts

I know that some people work very hard to convince themselves otherwise on order to justify their anti-government, anti-American and straight-out unpatriotic hatred of the people that we've chosen to lead this country, but it's really, honestly just not there.

First, it isn't "anti-government" to be pro-Constitution. I know some people try very hard to paint all men who love the country and its Constitutional traditions as radicals and extremists...

Yes, some in office mistakenly think that eliminating guns will somehow reduce crime, but even they aren't part of any plot to disarm us all and turn us into slaves.

You are wrong. Even an imbecile can see that disarming all the good guys doesn't do a thing to change the motivations of the bad guys. Those in office who seek to disarm the citizenry know full well what the imbecile knows. Disarming the law abiding leaves them helpless. That is what they want. They want you disarmed so that you will be disarmed and thereby, unable to resist the imposition of Socialism upon you, nothing more. To the control freak, arbitrary power is its own reward.

That's just whacky-talk suitable for the tin-foil hat wearer conventions and militia meetings.

Uhmmm...sure bud, go back to sleep now and dream of being a good little sheep.
 

A/C Guy

New member
If you look closely enough at our Constitution and the other documents of our Founding Fathers you will find that it is not morally wrong to disobey unconstitutional laws. Unconstitutional laws are invalid.
More importantly, if you read the DC vs Heller decision very carefully, you will see that the court hinted that it is our duty to openly revolt against any administration that attempts to override our 2nd amendment right.
 

MedicineBow

New member
Quote:

If you look closely enough at our Constitution and the other documents of our Founding Fathers you will find that it is not morally wrong to disobey unconstitutional laws. Unconstitutional laws are invalid.

More importantly, if you read the DC vs Heller decision very carefully, you will see that the court hinted that it is our duty to openly revolt against any administration that attempts to override our 2nd amendment right.

Most importantly, if you read Marvel Comics very closely, you will see that it helps to put on skin tight suit with a cape and high boots as you head out into your town park to get going on these little items.
 

Darren007

New member
Most importantly, if you read Marvel Comics very closely, you will see that it helps to put on skin tight suit with a cape and high boots as you head out into your town park to get going on these little items.
:D:D:D:D

Thanks MedicineBow now I need to clean the Dr. Pepper off of my computer screen.
 

A/C Guy

New member
Quote from the Supreme Court decision

26 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Opinion of the Court
Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed.,
2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of
Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of
America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the
Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in
id., at 556. It was understood across the political spec-
trum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen
militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.
It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amend-
ment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which
the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the mili-
tia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving
the militia was the only reason Americans valued the
ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more
important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat
that the new Federal Government would destroy the
citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason
that right—unlike some other English rights—was codi-
fied in a written Constitution.
 

black

New member
most of our country have no clue who our founding fathers are. It's hard to motivate a people who are clueless by design to American history.
 

AK103K

New member
If you want to get the attention of the masses, cut off the beer supply and knock out the TV, especially during a major sports game or event.

Get it back for them and you will be god.
 

littlmak

New member
To me it sounds like all the more reason to join and support the NRA and like, to represent our cause and ideals. Let them roam the halls of Gov. with a solid block of 50 to 60 million pledged votes and see how many will commit political suicide.
 

44 AMP

Staff
You are in good company....

At least from a literary standpoint.;)
If you want to get the attention of the masses, ........ knock out the TV, especially during a major sports game or event.

Tom Clancy used this idea in his book The Sum of All Fears. Muslim terrorists explode a nuclear bomb at Mile High Stadium during the Superbowl (the President is supposed to be at the game). They get help smuggling it across the US and into the stadium parking lot, disguised as TV equipment, from an Indian (Native American), who is ticked at the govt for a number of things, the latest the killing of his brother during a hostage situation. He thinks it is just a bomb and that they are going to bring attention to their cause by knocking out the TV during the Superbowl. And, of course, they murder him after the bomb is planted. There is a lot more to the book, it, like many of Clancy's novels, is a good read.

As to a line in the sand? Well, I hope to be able to recognize the handcuffs, but I draw the line at voluntarily putting them on. We discuss this often, and more often around election time, or when new gun control legislation looms in the halls of Congress. Most of us are too involved with our lives to drop everything and march in DC, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing for us to do.

It is a fact, but a little publicised one today, that not all the colonists were in favor of the Revolution. Today we seem to believe that everyone was against the Crown, except for a handful of Tories. The reality was that only about a third of the colonists were for revolution, and about a third were fro the Crown (Tories), and the remaining third just wanted to live their lives and be left alone. Support for independence remained perilously thin until the revolutionary forces had won a few victories, then, as people will, more and more supported the cause.

The Founding Fathers and those who joined with them risked all, and some lost all for a cause and an ideal. Some denigrate these men (and women) because they were only human, and were not able to achieve all the liberty and equality for all that was the ideal at the time of the Revolution. It took many years afterward to make further steps in this direction, and indeed, we are not fully there even today, but we are closer than ever before in man's history.

The path still lies before us, unless we falter and allow ourselves to become complacent serfs in all but name, led and ruled by an elitist class. Hereditary or not, it matters but little to those on the bottom. And a ruling elite is something we nearly have today. The only real differences between the ruling elite today and the old nobility system is that today, the elite are less blatant in their uses of personal power, constantly mouth platitudes about how they care for the lesser folk, and that they allow newcomers to join them, if they are successfull enough to garner the wealth and influence that is needed.

Against rule by a "nobility" (whether determined by blood, schooling, political belief or any other criteria) our Founding Fathers and those who stood with them pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. When the time comes, and you recognize it as such, are you going to do less?

I pray it does not happen in my lifetime, but if it comes to pass, I will do what I can, as I can, so my children and grandchildren will be as well prepared to face the future as I can make them.
 

FireMax

New member
In the event of a gun bans, etc. will "law abiders" abide by the laws and lay down their arms? If a "law abider" doesn't, they would be considered a criminal or an enemy of the state, right? Is this the case EVEN if the laws passed are unconstitutional?

In the case of "will law abiders" lay down their arms? Yes, most of them would. Just look at Britain and Australia. They will do it out of fear, mostly, of going to jail. They will not fight (most of them anyway), even though they understand their rights and even though they know the reason why the government is taking their guns (last step toward full tyranny).

That is my opinion of the average American man these days, I am sorry to say. They value their lives more than their God given rights, and are willing to live in servitude, as long as they can still "live".
 

S832

New member
There must be order, there must be laws and one must respect those laws. Shooting at government officials isn't going to gain you any sympathy with the general population, "fighting" the way many here want to will do more harm then good.
 

Leif

New member
I thought "line in the sand" threads were viewed dimly here ... they used to get shut down pretty fast, as well they should.
 

FireMax

New member
S832
There must be order, there must be laws and one must respect those laws

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. So, if our own government disobeys the law of the land, then the people should obey the law breakers?

Sounds weak to me, in many respects.
 

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
Leif, you're correct. "Line-in-the-Sand" threads do get locked down. For a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is that everyones line will be different.

As to why this one has endured for 36 posts? Could it be that none of the mods have seen it, during this Labor Day weekend?

That's now rectified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top