March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Who's Online Now
9 members (FlyChamps, ksauers1, Ken Nelson, Lloyd3, 3 invisible), 296 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics38,374
Posts543,995
Members14,389
Most Online1,131
Jan 21st, 2024
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,754
Likes: 29
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,754
Likes: 29
Originally Posted By: Geo. Newbern
[quote=Utah Shotgunner]
Of course when we do have the next round of riots, this round of black gun buying is going to make our world a lot more dangerous place. I GET the NRA position that we must all hang together, but it sure gives the anti's an advantage over us all when we take an extremist position.



George,
two comments.
1. What you are equating is what the anti gunners say; more guns makes for more crime or danger. So, in other words, you believe that lawfully and legally purchase firearms by law abiding citizens pose a threat to the common good. Do you believe that?

2. Would a an uncomprimising stand on censorship/defense of our 1st Amendmant rights be considered an extremist postion in your book also? Would all of us be willing to accept "reasonable controls" on our media, books, magazines, computer usage, internet access, etc??

I dont see how defending any of our constitutional rights is an extrmemist position. Why is it when we believe that the 2nd Amendment is not negotiable that it becomes extremist but if any of our other rights are threatened its okay to dig our heels in?


Last edited by Brian; 04/30/09 12:09 AM.

Brian
LTC, USA Ret.
NRA Patron Member
AHFGCA Life Member
USPSA Life Member


Brian #145942 04/30/09 12:16 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 99
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 99
Brian, #1. No #2. Yes, an uncompromising stand on censorship lacks reason/some speech is dangerous and must be limited...yelling FIRE in a crowded room is the usual example.

I am conflicted (this must be evident from my post) on the issue of black guns. What I think I believe in is what the Supreme Court ruled in the DC gun-ban case; that is that the Constitution is clear that the Right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed...but subject to the right of the government to reasonably regulate this Right. Just like Free Speech.

I said I was wrong a lot...Geo


By the way, I was once an infantry officer just like you...long ago. My best wishes to you while you are over there; and THANKS!

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,435
Likes: 1
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,435
Likes: 1
I really don't have any answers but I do have a rifle and a basic load. I have them just because I am a law abiding US citizen and I can......right now. I want my government to know that I am an armed citizen and there are many, many of us. I believe that just that knowledge makes for a little more honest government.

I think that its not that armed citizens could actually make any credible, long term threat to a fully committed and cooperating government force. It is that such a confrontation would be so unpredictable and so, so messy politically that it actively repels even committed politicians from ever considering such a course in pursuit of radical extreme ideas. Its just the thought of the stuff hitting the fan that helps keep the ship of state on an even keel. It is as the founders intended it to be.

For you literary types, I believe that the questions and scenarios posed above in this thread would make for the plot of a major fiction best seller right now. Write it, sell bunches and buy a double rifle or a pair of McKay Browns......or even your own custom battery of AR's!

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,754
Likes: 29
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,754
Likes: 29
Originally Posted By: Geo. Newbern
Brian, #1. No #2. Yes, an uncompromising stand on censorship lacks reason/some speech is dangerous and must be limited...yelling FIRE in a crowded room is the usual example.

I am conflicted (this must be evident from my post) on the issue of black guns. What I think I believe in is what the Supreme Court ruled in the DC gun-ban case; that is that the Constitution is clear that the Right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed...but subject to the right of the government to reasonably regulate this Right. Just like Free Speech.

I said I was wrong a lot...Geo


By the way, I was once an infantry officer just like you...long ago. My best wishes to you while you are over there; and THANKS!


George, thanks.
A few more observations:

1. should we restrict internet and go after people who digitally yell fire in a movie house with all of their outright lies and fabrications (left and right) that cause panic, confusion and hate???We already have what i consider 'reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership; felons and minors cant legally buy them. what more do we need?

The "reasonable proposals that we hear about pertain and apply to lawful users only. Why must my lawful use be restricted. Shouldn’t it be for those who plan to cause harm or who have given up their rights through felony conviction be restricted??
3. Black rifles: what’s the big deal. Just the reference to "black Rifles" conjures up all kinds of negative images. That’s why the antis use that term so much in a negative way. Same as the "extremists use the phrase "Black Helicopters".

Anyway, we can agree to disagree. However i do not feel its extremist to refuse to compromise on rules that punish me as a law abiding citizen, control, restrict and prohibit my lawful and legal use, yet do not stop illegal activities.

On top of that, I have to prove that i am innocent which flies in the face of our legal system , when it comes to being able to purchase a firearm. Unlike many other far more deadly devices and items that require no restrictions.

I wonder if people would raise hell if “reasonable restrictions” similar to those for firearms ownership were placed on cell phones and computers, considering the amount of illegal activity they facilitate. After all, they would be reasonable restrictions.


Brian
LTC, USA Ret.
NRA Patron Member
AHFGCA Life Member
USPSA Life Member


Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Geo

it's the Zombies with Black Guns that caused most of these issues with "Gun Control".

Most of you guys sound patriotic but truthfully how long do you think you would last against the military with your black guns ?






Not as long as a fart in a whirl wind.

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954
Likes: 12
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954
Likes: 12
Suppose we fix your voice box so you can't yell fire (can't own a gun). That way you will never yell fire in a crowded theater (use your gun irresponsibly). Sounds reasonable to me. If you spot a real fire (see a crime happening), you are to call 911 and report it in a normal voice. After all, it is not your job to try to help in an emergency. That is the government's job.

Do not confuse the right with the responsibility for outcomes when exercising that right. Free speech must have limits as to use; just as you can't say any thing you wish any where and any time just as the press can't publish anything it wishes and citizens can't assembler any where at any time, gun owners can't shoot any where at any time. The restrictions are on use of the right, not on the right itself. Big difference.

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 99
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 99
The 'reasonable restrictions' part of the gun control issue is the devil in the details. With free speech, we can agree that some speech is out of bounds...pornography, sedition or libel come to mind. Proponents of free speech would not want HUSTLER publisher Larry Flynnt as their spokesperson because his view of free speech is too extreme.

By default of any other organized sportsman's voice, the NRA is our only voice on gun control, and they have taken the 'we must all hang together' position that any restraint on gun rights is unacceptable. I simply question that strategy and fear that it might end up our common downfall.

I heard The Prez say in one of his campaign speeches that 'no one could tell him that America couldn't find a way to both protect the rights of the pheasant hunter in Pennsylvania and put an end to gun related gang crime in Chicago'. Much as I dislike the guy's politics, that sentiment resonated with me and I'll bet with a lot of other folks too.

You buy whatever gun you want so long as it is still legal to do it, I will to. Make mine a sxs...Geo




If the zombies show up I'll just have to shoot'em with my .43 Mauser hammer cape-gun cause its the hottest firepower I own.

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,169
Likes: 35
Sidelock
**
Online Content
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,169
Likes: 35
Quote:
I think that its not that armed citizens could actually make any credible, long term threat to a fully committed and cooperating government force. It is that such a confrontation would be so unpredictable and so, so messy politically that it actively repels even committed politicians from ever considering such a course in pursuit of radical extreme ideas. Its just the thought of the stuff hitting the fan that helps keep the ship of state on an even keel. It is as the founders intended it to be.


Well put Bob.
It may come a time when each must decide if the road of defiance is the correct path.....regardless of the odds.
If we don't have the wherewithal to do that the battle is already over.


Dodging lions and wasting time.....
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954
Likes: 12
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954
Likes: 12
Originally Posted By: Ken Nelson
Quote:
I think that its not that armed citizens could actually make any credible, long term threat to a fully committed and cooperating government force. It is that such a confrontation would be so unpredictable and so, so messy politically that it actively repels even committed politicians from ever considering such a course in pursuit of radical extreme ideas. Its just the thought of the stuff hitting the fan that helps keep the ship of state on an even keel. It is as the founders intended it to be.




Well put Bob.
It may come a time when each must decide if the road of defiance is the correct path.....regardless of the odds.
If we don't have the wherewithal to do that the battle is already over.


Agree, Ken.

A small force will handle a riot. In the event of a rising, it would take all the military and, most likely, a lot more. "--- a fully committed and cooperating government force." Probably true, but our military is made up mostly of citizens and is mostly geographically mixed. The "fully committed" and "cooperating" parts would be hard, hard, hard to keep in place. I'd expect that the first foreign troops, troops that might be expected to be fully committed, would immediately provoke a rising. I'd bet that fully committed citizens would quickly trump questionably committed citizen troops.

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 277
Likes: 4
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 277
Likes: 4
Let’s just say that the Government put the same restrictions on the 1st Amendment as it does the 2nd.
Would you have a waiting period before you could join a church of your choosing?
Your Church Leader would have to be licensed by the Government
Your Church would have to be licensed by the government; license can be revoked at anytime
Church books open to inspection by the government (they want to know who goes to your church).
Would you have to have a background check before joining this church or practicing you beliefs, and in some jurisdictions you would be required to be fingerprinted.
The Government would determine which religions are appropriate for you to practice, some religions are considered too extreme for the citizens. Military & some government officials may join these religions.
How about “justifying “your need to practice a certain religion?
How about the Government determining which books you can read, some books are inappropriate for the average citizen to read, reserved for select government personnel only.
You have to have a background check before you can buy a book, you book dealer must, be licensed, and must keep records of who bought what book.
Want to have a waiting period to buy a book or newspaper.
Some folks get upset when they have to log on to view a news forum sight, what if you were required to have a background check & fingerprinted, and then only allowed to visit 3 sites per month.
You would need a special license to write or post an opend, or post to a forum.
Sounds pretty extreme doesn’t it? Yet if our Founding Fathers saw all the restrictions placed on what they considered a “Basic Right” for all Americans, they would consider that extreme.

On more than one occasion I have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, at no time do I consider any of the Rights of the People to be negotiable.

Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2024 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 0.072s Queries: 35 (0.050s) Memory: 0.8606 MB (Peak: 1.8987 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-28 14:44:40 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS