Let's pretend... - Page 2

Let's pretend...

This is a discussion on Let's pretend... within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by bones The 2nd Amendment is about freedom. All other amendments to the constitution are ultimately protected by a citizen who understands and ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 56
  1. #16
    Senior Member Array older gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    724
    Quote Originally Posted by bones View Post
    The 2nd Amendment is about freedom.
    All other amendments to the constitution are ultimately protected by a citizen who understands and who is willing to act upon the premise of the 2nd. The 2nd is not about hunting or providing food for the table or about shooting tin cans off a fence post. Is is in reality about protecting the citizens right to a free and elected representative government. When the government pays no attention to the constitution, then, the 2nd is in effect the restart button for the constitution.
    Why should I trust a government with guns, when the government doesn't trust me with a gun?
    Bones: You got it right. The 2nd protects me from OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT, first and foremost. Criminals and slimeballs come second.


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array Cupcake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Redneck Repairs View Post
    No LBrombach no beating up , I had my say on the matter , I am not interested in argueing the issue . I merely present my views and attempt to explain my thought processes behind them . and if you read my post and honestly feel different then we can agree to disagree as gentlemen .
    The following is not intended to be argumentative, I Just realized that I left some holes in my statement. :

    It would be very unfortunate if it cost qualifying folks $100. And I'd not suggest adding disqualifying criteria. It sounds simple to my simple mind: if you're a convicted felon or a certified loony then no gun.

    Redneck, I'm glad we can still be friends.
    Spend few minutes learning about my journey from Zero to Athlete in this mini documentary!
    Then check out my blog! www.BodyByMcDonalds.com

    Cupcake - 100 pound loser, adventurer, Ironman Triathlete.

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array Redneck Repairs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,134
    he coverage of mental health information in databases is less common and at the end of 1996 only sixteen states were using them for background checks including: California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
    did a lot of good here didnt it ?

    Oh and source link for the quote is http://www.saf.org/JFPP10ch4.htm
    Make sure you get full value out of today , Do something worthwhile, because what you do today will cost you one day off the rest of your life .
    We only begin to understand folks after we stop and think .

    Criminals are looking for victims, not opponents.

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array wht06rado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    786
    Absolutly! Shall not be infringed means, Shall not be infringed!!!! NO MEANS NO!
    “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” Benjamin Franklin
    I'm not pro gun, I'm pro rights. What are you?

    NRA
    Member
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  5. #20
    Senior Member Array Geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    519
    P85 / OKShooter + 1 here

    Enforce the laws - no pleas, absolutely no parole, and do away with deferred adjudication. It won't happen because the ACLU and the democraps won't allow true justice.

  6. #21
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    When you choose to chip away at one part of the Bill of Rights, you open the door to chip away at all of them. Wiretaps without warrants, no problem. It'll make us safer. Limit to 10-round magazines, no problem. It'll make us safer. Make it illegal to say bad words in public, no problem. We'll be less concerned. Make it illegal to have evil black rifles, no problem. We'll be less concerned. Ditch separation of church and state, no problem. That's not what the language really means, anyway. Ditch the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, no problem. That's not what the language really means, anyway. If you can justify one, you can justify another.

    History shows, when you start giving away freedoms, it gets harder and harder to stop.
    Last edited by rodc13; April 21st, 2007 at 07:38 AM. Reason: typo
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  7. #22
    Distinguished Member Array BIG E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    1,443
    Well I think it's all been said
    Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft!

    -- Theodore Roosevelt --

  8. #23
    Member Array Mainspring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Mid-Michigan
    Posts
    169
    Re: Assault Weapon bans - Let's not forget that one of the few (the only??) times that the Supreme Court has ruled on the 2nd Ammendment was in Miller v. US, wherein a moonshiner got popped with a shotgun cut down to 14". The court ruled that possession of the weapon by a civilian was illegal because there was no military use for such a weapon...meaning that the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to ensure that the people are armed with the same weapons that the military uses.

    The commie libs forget about that little ruling.
    The keys to winning a gunfight are first to bring a gun and secondly to take your time, quickly.

    Always remember that if your opponent is within range, so are you.

    POWER TO THE MEPEOPLE!!!

  9. #24
    Senior Member Array mark555's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Center of the World Ma! Center of the World!
    Posts
    680
    The Brady Bunch is dangerous. Their ultimate goal is to disarm the population. To reason with them is to loose, you can’t reason with a fanatic.
    "Hell of a thing, killin' a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."
    - William Munny (Clint Eastwood in the Unfrogivin)

    “The graveyards are full of indispensable men.” – Napoleon Bonaparte

    “My Idea of a fair fight is beating baby seals with a club”

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,003
    Quote Originally Posted by HOLYROLLER View Post
    1. Brady Background Checks at Gun Shows (to include private sales)
    2. Strengthening the National Instant Criminal Background Check system (NICS)
    3. Child Proof Handguns
    4. Assault weapons ban
    1. Background checks -- If such checks were to be a simple thumbs up/down approval or denial without any record-keeping, I'd have far less problem with it. The concept is sound: keep criminals from obtaining firearms. The reality, though, is somewhat different: most criminals, certainly the adept and truly dangerous ones, will get guns anyway. The downside is keeping track of everyone who has firearms, which can be (and often has been, historically) a precursor to forcible disarmament of citizens by their government officials. And THAT is something worth fighting.

    2. Strengthening the NICS system of background checks -- Again, if it can be configured to functionally disallow abuse, I'm tentatively for it. That's a big "if".

    3. Child-proofing -- In an age of lack of personal responsibility, it's no wonder that parents abdicate their responsibility to danger-proof their children. Without that, window-dressing salves such as gun locks and other things won't guard against reality and probability. With a child that hasn't been danger-proofed, no amount of protections will keep that child safe. If children prove anything, they prove that barriers aren't.

    4. Assault weapons ban -- It's a solution to a non-existent problem. Fully-automatic machine guns aren't prohobited or banned in this country; they're merely made grossly expensive to non-police types, by virtue of the 1934, 1968 and most-importantly 1986 weapons laws. Criminals acquire them anyway. Murder, kidnapping, rape, violent assault ... each of these is already illegal, with stiff penalties (even though such pentalties are routinely knocked down to some chicken-dung shadow of the penalty). Branding as "evil" a few dozen models of firearms and limiting capacity on ammunition won't stop crime. It won't even limit it, nor mitigate the effects. As the murderer at VT this week showed, in spades, a criminal with any weapon can wreak havoc.


    The bottom line? This is an ineffectual piece of window-dressing that does little but disarm victims, making it more difficult for people to defend themselves. You should ask yourself one thing, when considering such legislation: who are our elected officials actually going to disarm, by such laws? The answer should guide your thinking as to the suitability (let alone legality or constitutionality) of such laws.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  11. #26
    Senior Member Array my2cents's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Apex, NC
    Posts
    583
    I don't want any more restrictions on law abiding citizens. The criminals will not adhere to any new rules enacted. How about this? How about stronger prison sentences for gun related crimes?
    Walk steathly - and carry a big Springfield.

  12. #27
    Senior Member Array briansmech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    688
    holyroller, how would you feel about freedom of religion being subjected to similar criteria?

    i mean, more people die based on religion than any crime, anyway. why not start having people register their beliefs and have leaders of religious denominations, including individual parrish's and churches, undergo registration and place laws mandating what must be reported, and of course, we should tax churches to help pay for this. its a small thing....i could live with it.

  13. #28
    VIP Member
    Array Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    5,050
    Quote Originally Posted by HOLYROLLER View Post
    I went to the Brady campaign site and read about the legislation they would currently like to pass;

    1. Brady Background Checks at Gun Shows (to include private sales)
    2. Strengthening the National Instant Criminal Background Check system (NICS)
    3. Child Proof Handguns
    4. Assault weapons ban
    Let's put a different twist on it and see how it works.

    1. Background checks at all book stores, libraries et. al. to include any private transfers of any reading material.
    2. Strengthing the background check system to include all your medical records, anything your neighbors care to say about you or your employer.
    3. Child proof all reading materials.
    4. Ban all books and reading material not approved of by your government.

    We have to stop hate speech in America. Hate speech kills more people every year than anything else. If it saves just one life we should do it. Do it for the children.

    Sound familiar?

    Most of the biggest mass murderers in history did no or very little killing themselves. They used hate speech to get others to do it. Since they were in power they had the force of government behind them. So who gets to determine what hate speech is?
    Procrastinators are the leaders of tomorrow.

  14. #29
    Senior Member Array PaulG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    1,126
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter View Post
    I have one huge problem with it all.

    And that would be their hidden ultimate goal of never stopping until there are no guns and no gun rights left.

    EXAMPLE:

    Do you remember when television was free? AKA it didn't cost you anything to watch TV except for buying the TV?

    But, damn you had to sit through all those commercials.

    Then along came Cable TV and the big initial selling point of Cable TV was that we just pay a small monthly fee and then we can watch TV without any commercials at all. WOW! Great!

    Gee Whiz! TV without any commercials!

    So everybody "bit" on it and then they started slipping in the commercials.

    A few here and there and then a few more....slowly.

    And slowly.....slowly...the price started creeping up from $9.00 a month.

    Now...here we are TODAY - Everybody pays AT LEAST $40.00 per month to be absolutely bombarded with 15 commercials in a row.

    Now we pay BIG money to watch what we originally couldn't stand for free.

    That's the Brady Bunch for you.

    They are doing the exact same thing.

    Incrementalism....is the name of their game.

    Do Not Bite On It!

    That's it in a nut shell.

    I remember when ATM's first came out. I hated the idea.

    Everyone around talked about what a great thing they would be.

    My prediction was that the ATM was a cost cutting measure for the banks and that we would see them replacing people. Not only that, we would end up paying through the nose just to use the damn things.

    Back then everyone said I was crazy. Why would the banks need to charge us to use ATM's when they are already saving money by hiring fewer tellers?

    AM I GOOD OR WHAT??????

    The problem with human beings is that they will accept ANY AND ALL atrocities if done to them incrementally over a long period of time.

    The real goal of the anti's is not sensible laws at all. They will continue to chip away at our rights until we don't even notice that we don't have them anymore.

    OPPOSE ALL RESTRICTIONS. Anything else is just creaping towards confiscation.
    fortiter in re, suaviter in modo (resolutely in action, gently in manner).

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulG View Post
    I remember when ATM's first came out. I hated the idea.

    Everyone around talked about what a great thing they would be.

    My prediction was that the ATM was a cost cutting measure for the banks and that we would see them replacing people. Not only that, we would end up paying through the nose just to use the damn things.

    Back then everyone said I was crazy. Why would the banks need to charge us to use ATM's when they are already saving money by hiring fewer tellers?

    AM I GOOD OR WHAT??????
    Uh, no. I don't think I'd use ATMs as an argument against gun control. They're more an example of the success of decreased restrictions. Besides, banks don't charge their own customers to use their own ATMs. If your bank does, change banks immediately.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Pretend I Am Your College Buddy & Help Me Choose My First Holster
    By McPatrickClan in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: March 10th, 2008, 08:17 PM

Search tags for this page

brady campaign bernhard goetz

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors