Compromise - background checks in exchange for . . .

[calsdad]

Beyond gun rights, forgiveness in our penal code is overdue. Convictions should be removed from people's records after a period of time.

Lack of hope for a better life probably drives a lot of recidivism, whereas a shot at a clean record might turn some people around.

As an added benefit, unless the Douches who run the various governments in the country ruin it, gun rights would (should) be restored.

It seems as if the entirety of the criminal justice is just corrupt to the core.

First we take crimes where there are actual victims - throw the perpetrators in jail - and when they get out we say they "paid their debt to society".

When somebody stole my car a number of years ago - I never received a call from the police saying if they ever caught the guy, and I know if anybody had been convicted and sent to jail - it's not like I got a form in the mail saying they served their time - nor did I ever receive and compensation for the damage to my property or all the time I lost because of that.

But - if there was a person who did get sent to jail for it - when they got out - they were told " you served your debt to society". What the **** does society have to do with it? Society didn't do shit. Society didn't buy the car. The car wasn't hauling society's ass to work every day. Society didn't have to fix the busted out windows or replace the missing steering wheel and tires when I got the car back. Society didn't pay the bills - etc.

And the person who committed the crime - likely got out of jail all pissed off at "society" - and then went out and did it again.

If there was a guy in jail for this - not only did he pork me when stole my car - but he porked me again because as a taxpayer I had to pay for his upkeep for a few years. And given the current prison industrial system he may have gotten to pork me yet one more time by basically being extremely cheap labor for some corporation - which meant he undercut somebody else out in the labor market for a job.

Lawyers constantly put prices on life when they sue the crap out of companies and people for car accidents, faulty products - etc. Why the hell don't criminals have to PERSONALLY pay for the damage they leave behind?

Go to a "justice" system based more on that - and you could truly say that somebody "paid their debt". Sticking with the current system is a good part of the reason why people basically lose their rights permanently once they commit a crime.

So this stuff has a direct effect on the right to own a firearm.

 

[calsdad]

I certainly don't trust the government, wherever did you get that idea?

What exactly is a "natural" right. Unless you're referring to some God given right, which is a little outside this discussion, the only natural right I can think of is our right to die. It happens to everyone sooner or later. "Rights" were created along with government to define what should be. My government, the USA, defined certain rights and we need to defend those rights, and the USA. I want to fix my government, not overthrow it, thus insuring a better future for my children.

I encourage anyone who wants to peacefully overthrow the government of the United States to go ahead and try. As for those who wish for civil war, I oppose you. Wishing for or supporting civil war is just as un-American as our revolt against British rule was un-British.

Okayy.

You seriously need to go do some research. Because you have no idea what you're talking about. I'd suggest a good starting place is the philosophy of the founders of THIS country ( you know the country you are living in right now) - and not the stuff you appear to have been reading which was apparently from the founders of Communist Russia and/or Nazi Germany.

- - - Updated - - -

The Government's unlawful recourse is suspending habeas corpus and generally becoming tyrannical. Which is why we have the Second Amendment.

I should note that suspension of habeas corpus is unlawful (Section 9, Article I of the Constitution) "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

So, the Constitution passes some judgement on who is on the right side of a rebellion, which was tested in the Civil War.

The Civil War was not a Constitutional test - it was a test of whether tyranny and power can win.

It did.

We've been suffering from the consequences of that ever since.

 

[calsdad]

Agree or disagree, eloquently expressed.

It's pretty simple to shoot your position on natural rights full of holes.

If I walk over to the neighbors dog - and start kicking the shit out of him - and he turns around and attacks me and bites the shit out of me - who is going to tell him he doesn't have the "right" to do that?

Of course he does. Every living thing on this planet INHERENTLY has the right to self defense. It does not matter much whether there is a God or not.

Arguing that somehow human beings only have the right of self defense if it is given to them by a government - is arguing that humans have less inherent rights - than dogs.

It also points out the ignorance of somebody who is on the verge of chanting USA! USA! - in his posts - by completely ignoring what the founders of that country ACTUALLY SAID. And what a number of them said was that they didn't see the point in elaborating upon commonly accepted logic (inherent natural rights) - by having to put them down into a "Bill of Rights".

You need to go read the actual history of that country you claim to love so much.

 

[calsdad]

I agree, and when I say "revolution" I mean of any type- it doesn't necessarily even have to be violent. People are too lazy for that, even.

I think a big part of the problem is these days people simply don't assign the level value to freedoms that they should. It is too easy for people to get complacent, and distracted, and too easy for people to be in a position where they rarely if ever use (or value) their freedoms. People are too busy getting wrapped up in stupid shit like whether gays get married or not, whether we blow up brown people 3000 miles away or not, or how much money they want to get the government to steal from the producers on their behalf. Things like "Civil Rights" are only marginally important in the minds of most.

-Mike

I think a large part of the problem is that people THINK they are free. We've got societal Stockhold Syndrome.


http://www.amazon.com/They-Thought-Were-Free-Germans/dp/0226511928

 

[browncoat]

Overthrowing the American government is by definition un-American.

Just as overthrowing the British government is un-British.

The DOI was definitely un-British.

The colonists argued first their rights as British subjects. Our law is based still on English common law.

 

[browncoat]

Admittedly - that is a problem. But nothing is perfect - and neither was the US back when there was a militia. There were state sponsored churches - and if you didn't go - you were likely a pariah in your community - and while you likely could easily own a firearm - you might not have served in the militia and had access to the best of weaponry.

I think my point with the militia suggestion is this: We're dealing with two things here. There's personal self defense - and then there's defense against the government. Over the many years since the Constitution was written - things have changed. A good example of this is the term "well regulated" - which the antis constantly use as an excuse to pass laws and take away firearms - which meant "well trained" at the time it was written.

Imagine trying to make the argument to somebody in colonial America that they should not be able to personally defend themselves - because that was the job of the police......

The Police - LARGELY DIDN'T EXIST.

So that whole leftie argument about personal self defense is a new one - which entirely rests on the existence of an entity not conjured up at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Their argument also rests on completely ignoring the actual court rulings that say the Police are NOT responsible to protect you from crime.

The other side of the second amendment - is the right to self organize into militias - and NOT be prohibited to do that by the FEDERAL government. I think that is the part that has been lost - and it's the MAJOR part. It's also the root of the contention between 2nd amendment supporters and the antis. Because while they DO bitch about pistols - what they really bitch about is machine guns and semi autos and "assault weapons" and so forth. They typically justify their bitching by saying - "if you want to own these then join the military". But the current day military we have - is in direct opposition to the intent of the founding fathers who were VERY against a "standing military".

So what I'm saying is : undercut their arguments by saying "fine - you want restrictions on semi-autos and machine guns and so forth - well we want the militia back. THE REAL MILITIA. Once that is back in effect - then anybody who wants to own that stuff can join up and be free to own it. Everybody else will be able to freely buy firearms that are directly applicable for personal self defense.

Let them twist in the wind on that one for a while.

This is a great idea. Sadly I feel certain it will only ever be a beautiful fantasy

 

[PaulD]

I agree, and when I say "revolution" I mean of any type- it doesn't necessarily even have to be violent. People are too lazy for that, even.

I think a big part of the problem is these days people simply don't assign the level value to freedoms that they should. It is too easy for people to get complacent, and distracted, and too easy for people to be in a position where they rarely if ever use (or value) their freedoms. People are too busy getting wrapped up in stupid shit like whether gays get married or not, whether we blow up brown people 3000 miles away or not, or how much money they want to get the government to steal from the producers on their behalf. Things like "Civil Rights" are only marginally important in the minds of most.

-Mike

Agree. Further, most people aren't able to see the unintended consequences of giving up their rights a little. They have the idea that "I haven't done anything wrong, therefore I have nothing to hide".

 

[xcom]

We made all the concessions from Natural Law that were necessary when we entered into the social compact in 1787-1791. Everything else is renegotiation of the contract without consent of all parties. I would posit to those asking to give up freedom, how many times in world history have we ever seen it given back willingly without bloodshed and how many times does it end?

 

[xtry51]

We made all the concessions from Natural Law that were necessary when we entered into the social compact in 1787-1791. Everything else is renegotiation of the contract without consent of all parties. I would posit to those asking to give up freedom, how many times in world history have we ever seen it given back willingly without bloodshed and how many times does it end?

The answer to that is of course never. Which apparently people like 42! Are unaware of because they don't read history, they just regurgitate what they were programmed to in public school.

 

[xcom]

I think a large part of the problem is that people THINK they are free. We've got societal Stockhold Syndrome.


http://www.amazon.com/They-Thought-Were-Free-Germans/dp/0226511928

This. We have been convinced during 2 world wars, a cold war and a war on terror that we are a "democracy" and "free" and they are trying to take it away from us. The propaganda has bee vastly effective in its aims. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

 

[JohnZ]

The reason the anti's have such a hard on for background checks is because it has a built in backdoor in the definition of a pp. They know that UBC doesn't have an impact on criminals because they steal guns or buy guns from people who stole them. Their goal is to control the pool of guns and think that by having fewer guns overall somehow makes it harder for the criminals. Once UBC is in place, it wouldn't be hard to achieve "only the police and military should have guns" by just changing the pp definition - at least for legal purchasers. I bet if you asked, the option for locking the definition is not on the table. Another question to ask would be what happens to existing guns if you suddenly start to fail a background check. I bet the answer isn't so benevolent.

Absolutely no UBC. I don't care what they "give up."

 

[dcmdon]

I think I'll pass. It just seems un-American.

But at least you had the balls to come out and say it.

42. Some have bashed you for your comment. However misguided I feel that it is. You need to understand that our country was founded by people who overthrew the existing government and started a new country.

(initially, it was more like 13 different countries, hence the term "state" in our vernacular, whereas the term state in every other context refers to a sovereign nation. Our orignial founding document, the articles of confederation effectively formed an alliance among the states for common defense, and little more.)

I'd suggest that you read some. A great, interesting, and easy read is Paul Revere's ride.

If you want something a bit stiffer, take a look at the federalist papers, these were anonymous writings by the drafters of the constitution around the issue that mattered to the people of the day. Many of whom wereafraid that the constitution would create a too powerful central government.

In Federalist 46, James Madison stresses that the combined strength of the State's militias (which included most able bodied adult men) should be strong enought to defeat the Federal Army, and thus "repel the danger".

Federalist 29 is another necessary read. This, written by Alexander Hamilton discusses how Militias should be run. One interesting item in this paper is his use of the word "regulated" as a synonym for "disciplined" or "trained". He worried that a millitia that is too well regulated will take too much time from its members businesses and will hurt the economy.

I hope this helps.

Don

 

[42!]

The answer to that is of course never. Which apparently people like 42! Are unaware of because they don't read history, they just regurgitate what they were programmed to in public school.

You know, I'm careful to be respectful of others opinions. I can disagree without making it personal. I'll even compliment their style when they disagree. You may have noticed I don't swear at others and try not to personally demean them.

You on the other hand make everything a personal attack, and you're not the only one.

Go ahead and live in your gloom and doom fantasy world going on and on about how things should be the way you want them but they never will. Its just irrelevant noise in the background. What have you done to change things???? Have you spoken directly with any elected official, I have. Admittedly I was telling him he was a jerk, but I spoke up for what was right. Have you been an elected official? I have. Have you ever engage hard core liberals in conversation and actual changed opinions on gun ownership? I have.

Speaking out on NES is nothing. What have you personally done?

Now go ahead and attack me. Here, I'll help you. You can call me stupid and brainwashed and whatever other derogatory name you want. Attack my ethnic background or maybe my belief that our dysfunctional POS government can be fixed.

 

[42!]

42. Some have bashed you for your comment. However misguided I feel that it is. You need to understand that our country was founded by people who overthrew the existing government and started a new country.

(initially, it was more like 13 different countries, hence the term "state" in our vernacular, whereas the term state in every other context refers to a sovereign nation. Our orignial founding document, the articles of confederation effectively formed an alliance among the states for common defense, and little more.)

I'd suggest that you read some. A great, interesting, and easy read is Paul Revere's ride.

Don

A perfect example of disagreeing without personally insulting. I think I'll take a look. I'm always looking for a good read.

 

[xtry51]

You know, I'm careful to be respectful of others opinions. I can disagree without making it personal. I'll even compliment their style when they disagree. You may have noticed I don't swear at others and try not to personally demean them.

You on the other hand make everything a personal attack, and you're not the only one.

Go ahead and live in your gloom and doom fantasy world going on and on about how things should be the way you want them but they never will. Its just irrelevant noise in the background. What have you done to change things???? Have you spoken directly with any elected official, I have. Admittedly I was telling him he was a jerk, but I spoke up for what was right. Have you been an elected official? I have. Have you ever engage hard core liberals in conversation and actual changed opinions on gun ownership? I have.

Speaking out on NES is nothing. What have you personally done?

Now go ahead and attack me. Here, I'll help you. You can call me stupid and brainwashed and whatever other derogatory name you want. Attack my ethnic background or maybe my belief that our dysfunctional POS government can be fixed.

I don't see how pointing out you have limited knowledge of history is a "personal attack" unless you take some sort of weird pride in being ignorant, which frankly your post about natural rights did.

And I've done more than my fair share of visits, letter writing, taking first timers to the range, etc. none of that changes the fact that this country is not going to reverse itself and fix things. It's not "gloom and doom" to address the readily apparent truth about the situation this country is in. ignoring that reality is however, like sticking your head in the sand and then claiming you're going to solve your vision problem by removing one grain of sand from your eyes at a time. The only solution to that situation is to pull your head out of the sand and then go from there.

Let me know when you're ready to admit your head is in the sand and you're ready to do something about it.

 

[dcmdon]

42

Xtry51 is a good solid member of this community.

So he should be cut some slack. If his posts seem personal. Its passion. Nothing more.

But, I would bet that you are fairly young and public school educated. I say this because when I was in my 20s, I was very conservative and very pro government, if it was the right government (republican)

When timothy mcVeigh blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, I was astonished that he was an "anti-government" person. His methods were horribe, evil, and wrong.

But many of his grievances were right on the money. I didn't realize this until my enlightenment in my mid 30s and I saw the excesses of George Bush's reaction to 9/11.

Unless you receive money from or work for Government, Government is not your friend. And even then its debatable.

Would you care to share your age?? Seriously.

 

[xcom]

42

Xtry51 is a good solid member of this community.

So he should be cut some slack. If his posts seem personal. Its passion. Nothing more.

But, I would bet that you are fairly young and public school educated. I say this because when I was in my 20s, I was very conservative and very pro government, if it was the right government (republican)

When timothy mcVeigh blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, I was astonished that he was an "anti-government" person. His methods were horribe, evil, and wrong.

But many of his grievances were right on the money. I didn't realize this until my enlightenment in my mid 30s and I saw the excesses of George Bush's reaction to 9/11.

Unless you receive money from or work for Government, Government is not your friend. And even then its debatable.

Would you care to share your age?? Seriously.

I may be in the same boat. it took 9/11 for me to realize what was going on and I considered myself very literate in history and the classics. I grew up with a Soviet empire opposing us. And us as "The City on the Hill" against the evil empire. Our government had to be the most free every. In the background we have the drug war eroding freedom and a myriad of "national security" measure that meant nothing as we needed to protect our freedom by ironically destroying it. However, it was not until 9/11 that I could connect the dots from the modern to antiquity and see the same patterns of usurping. I also accepted the often used claim that "the American system is based on compromise" without understanding that the compromise was already done and no more should be given.

The founders have expressed this quite eloquently: "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness... and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

 

[dcmdon]

To continue, look at Waco.

The justification for the assault on the compound was that he had illegal weapons.

Lets assume they were illegal weapons. Why were they illegal? If we accept that the Branch Dividians (BDs) had sawed off shotguns like the ATF says,
then we can only come to the conclusion that the entire siege was conducted because the BDs failed to pay a $200 tax.

you see, you can have machine guns, sawed off shotguns ( called Short Barreled shotguns in ATF regs) and other fun items, if you comply with the terms of the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA), and simply pay a $200 tax when you either buy or make one. (You can make legally make silencers, SBSs and all other NFA items, other than machine guns, as long as you pay the $200 tax per item)

When I was in my 20s, I believed all the pablum I was fed by the news media. But as I got older I started to question where this informaiton came form. All of it came from the ATF and other federal agencies. Which caused me to circle back to my first political science professor's admonishment that you judge all information from the perspect of how it helps the person who is releasing the info. In the case of Waco, by making the BDs look like a bunch of lawless, crazed, child molesters, the Feds tried to justify their raid on the compound.

This post will probably guarantee my name is added to yet another watch list. But the last time I checked, we stillhad the first amendment.

Don

p.s. 1245 - remember that number. Those are the most important of the Bill of Rights Amendments. Know them, understand their implications, and always be on the lookout for any attempt by the Government to chip away at the natural rights that they are supposed to ensure.

p.p.s. Think about this. The greatest enemies to the rights protected by the 4th and 5th Amendments have been the "law and order" Republicans. Like I said above, same 5h1t, different flavor.

 

[NHAtHeart]

This law is already in place for FFL transfers and is shit. I haven't met an FFL that has been in business for any period of time that will release a firearm after the 3 days of non-response from the feds. By law, the feds have 3 days to respond to NICS, if they don't the firearm can be transferred. If they then respond with a denial it's a huge PITA for the FFL.

Trying to do this on a FTF level would be horrendous, I firmly oppose. CCW should be a nationally recognized right but this would not be the way to get it.

 

[42!]

42

Xtry51 is a good solid member of this community.

So he should be cut some slack. If his posts seem personal. Its passion. Nothing more.

But, I would bet that you are fairly young and public school educated. I say this because when I was in my 20s, I was very conservative and very pro government, if it was the right government (republican)

When timothy mcVeigh blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, I was astonished that he was an "anti-government" person. His methods were horribe, evil, and wrong.

But many of his grievances were right on the money. I didn't realize this until my enlightenment in my mid 30s and I saw the excesses of George Bush's reaction to 9/11.

Unless you receive money from or work for Government, Government is not your friend. And even then its debatable.

Would you care to share your age?? Seriously.

I'm 48 and I've been involved in shooting since I was 13. I've held FFLs in both NH and MA, LTC in MA, CC in NH, Was a Special PO (full powers) in one town, Aux (limited powers) in another, and Part time PO (full powers) at Boston College. All 20 years in my past. Despite being conservative in a super liberal town I was elected and attended every session with my CCW. I've heard more candid liberal BS than I care to think about. Just as I've heard from the radicals of the other side. Neither taking away all gun, or Civil War is the solution.

I'm neither a republican or democrat, I'm adamantly non-allied.

I believe watching, listening to, and learning about people is the best, maybe the only way to find what will and won't work to change their minds. Staying closed to others, and staying only with those that agree with you will never result in positive change.

The only way to defeated the anti-gun agenda is to use the same small-step tactics to undo what they have done. If you can't rein in you passion enough to do this then at least don't attack those that are willing to.

 

[mikem317]

No deal.

Progressives want "background checks" for internet buyers. Because obviously they don't exist already. [/sarc]

I went to one of the counter-protests in Nashua last year. There were a few women with a "background checks for internet gun buyers NOW" sign or something to that effect. It just so happens I was going to take delivery of a transfer from Davidsons at JR's in Londonderry later that day.

I personally invited each of them to follow me after the protest to watch how the process worked. One politely said no. The other basically told me I was full of shit. They're either paid Bloomberg shills or they willfully want to remain ignorant, etc. Who knows?

No more compromises.

 

[calsdad]

We made all the concessions from Natural Law that were necessary when we entered into the social compact in 1787-1791. Everything else is renegotiation of the contract without consent of all parties. I would posit to those asking to give up freedom, how many times in world history have we ever seen it given back willingly without bloodshed and how many times does it end?

Since you mentioned that "social compact" term - I feel like I have to post this, because there are number of historians out there - who point out that the Constitution - was basically a coup against the Articles of Confederation - and there were plenty of people at the time who not very happy about it.

Boston T. Party wrote a book called "Hologram of Liberty" - which is worth reading for a differing perspective on the Constitution.

There's also this one:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/08/gary-north/conspiracy-in-philadelphia/

The book’s thesis is, even for me, controversial. I provide 400+ pages of evidence that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was in fact an illegal coup d’tat. The participants knew this. This is why they took a lifetime oath of secrecy, walked upstairs to the second floor of the State House (so that eavesdroppers could not report what was going on), closed the doors, and hammered out the design for a replacement government. Newspaper reporters were excluded.

These men had been authorized by Congress and by several state legislatures only to revise the Articles of Confederation (1781), but not replace them. Knowing full well that they planned to replace the Articles with a new form of government, the leaders of the Convention nevertheless agreed to the terms laid down by the state legislatures, and then went off to Philadelphia to begin the first stage of a political revolution.

The story of this second American revolution is not told in the public school textbooks or in the "Christian America" seminars that are dear to the hearts of Christian home schoolers.

But what about Verna Hall’s book, A Christian History of the Constitution? Its documentation ends in 1774. It is also worth noting that the book was edited by her colleague, Joseph Montgomery, who was a Christian Scientist. Why did he edit it? Because Miss Hall was a Christian Scientist at the time she began compiling her book. I discuss this little-known background in my book.

In 1787, the states, with one exception (Rhode Island), were explicitly based on faith in God. In most cases, elected state representatives were required to swear their belief in the Trinity. The new Constitution made all such oaths illegal for Federal office (Article VI, Clause III). By means of the 14th Amendment (1868), the U.S. Supreme Court has applied this prohibition to state governments, completing the transformation in the case of Torcasso v. Watkins (1961).

I told this story 15 years ago. In response, the silence has been deafening. The "Christian America" promoters have steadfastly avoided any reference to my 1989 book. So, I decided to create a stand-alone volume, add more documentation, put a title on it that might break through this wall of silence, and give it away.

You can download your copy here: http://www.garynorth.com/philadelphia.pdf

The point is this: if the Constitution itself was established thru an illegal coup - then there is no "social compact". There was a social compact with the Articles of Confederation - but the premise being posted here is that - that was overthrown. And not legally.

This is something that should be of interest to anybody who TRULY believes in natural rights and our liberty - because it's an example of how deep the rabbit hole potentially goes.

 

[calsdad]

As a quick way to get started on the premise that the Constitution was a coup - go to page 181 on the PDF (numbered as page 149 in the document) - and start doing some reading there:

http://www.garynorth.com/philadelphia.pdf

It's a good place to start to understand the "why" of what makes some of these historians classify the the Constitution as a coup. And the invite list for the convention is a telling sign of what was really going on - because of some of the people who were specifically left out - or refused to go:

McDonald’s description of the opening day of the Convention is far closer to the truth: some of the best men stayed away

Neither Sam Adams nor John Hancock of Massachusetts nor Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry of Virginia chose to come (Henry did not because, he said ,“I smelt a rat”; the others offered no excuses)

 

[dcmdon]

This law is already in place for FFL transfers and is shit. I haven't met an FFL that has been in business for any period of time that will release a firearm after the 3 days of non-response from the feds. By law, the feds have 3 days to respond to NICS, if they don't the firearm can be transferred. If they then respond with a denial it's a huge PITA for the FFL.

Trying to do this on a FTF level would be horrendous, I firmly oppose. CCW should be a nationally recognized right but this would not be the way to get it.

When I was doing retail in CT, I would release after 3 days. But I knew most of the people I sold to.

 

[NHAtHeart]

I'm 48 and I've been involved in shooting since I was 13. I've held FFLs in both NH and MA, LTC in MA, CC in NH, Was a Special PO (full powers) in one town, Aux (limited powers) in another, and Part time PO (full powers) at Boston College. All 20 years in my past. Despite being conservative in a super liberal town I was elected and attended every session with my CCW. I've heard more candid liberal BS than I care to think about. Just as I've heard from the radicals of the other side. Neither taking away all gun, or Civil War is the solution.

I'm neither a republican or democrat, I'm adamantly non-allied.

I believe watching, listening to, and learning about people is the best, maybe the only way to find what will and won't work to change their minds. Staying closed to others, and staying only with those that agree with you will never result in positive change.

The only way to defeated the anti-gun agenda is to use the same small-step tactics to undo what they have done. If you can't rein in you passion enough to do this then at least don't attack those that are willing to.

You sound like a politician here, "Slow down folks, we don't want to jump to extreme's! Why do you always have to jump to extremes? Can't we just work together on this?"

If you haven't watched the video earlier in this thread about the cake you should do so. That's what many people on this forum are fighting against. Most here could theoretically agree to some terms, BUT because this method has been thrown in our faces for decades nobody is willing to give another inch.

And while you are "non-allied" you are also wishy-washy, you are like Scott the turd, willing to trade favors to try and win over people that have no interest in what you're selling.

 

[dcmdon]

I'm 48 and I've been involved in shooting since I was 13. I've held FFLs in both NH and MA, LTC in MA, CC in NH, Was a Special PO (full powers) in one town,..........

Ha. Wow. Was I wrong. No offense was intended in any way. I started as a conservative. I've just found that as I've gotten older, I've become more and more libertarian, maybe bordering on an anarchist. (More misery, pain, suffering, and death has been done by and in the name of governments than in the name of any other organization. Even organized religion, although for much of human history religion and government could not be separated.

The thing that originally started this discussion was your comment (I'm paraphrasing) that rebelling would be UnAmerican. Read the stuff I suggested.

In fact, read as many of the federalist papers as you can stand. Each one is not long. Just a few pages. I downloaded a free copy (it might have been $1) of all the papers and kept it on my kindle, which I keep in the bathroom. I found that one paper could be read in about the length of time it took for my morning constitutional. Just a suggestion.

Some are very very dry, but they give you an understanding into the debate and worry that went into drafting this country's defining document. One read of Federalist 46 and you will see how absurd it is that the antis think the words "well regulated militia" somehow mean a militia under strict government control.

Don

 

[xcom]

As a quick way to get started on the premise that the Constitution was a coup - go to page 181 on the PDF (numbered as page 149 in the document) - and start doing some reading there:

http://www.garynorth.com/philadelphia.pdf

It's a good place to start to understand the "why" of what makes some of these historians classify the the Constitution as a coup. And the invite list for the convention is a telling sign of what was really going on - because of some of the people who were specifically left out - or refused to go:

I have read this material as well. It is quit interesting and does lead to some interesting discussion. I vacillate on it. However, as I recall, Henry attended the ratification debates in VA and voted for ratification so long as the bill of rights was included. Some of these analysis ends at the convention and do not go into the ratification debates on the state level. I think it was also Adams and Hancock who came up with the Massachusetts Compromise in the ratification debates.

 

[calsdad]

Ha. Wow. Was I wrong. No offense was intended in any way. I started as a conservative. I've just found that as I've gotten older, I've become more and more libertarian, maybe bordering on an anarchist. (More misery, pain, suffering, and death has been done by and in the name of governments than in the name of any other organization. Even organized religion, although for much of human history religion and government could not be separated.

The thing that originally started this discussion was your comment (I'm paraphrasing) that rebelling would be UnAmerican. Read the stuff I suggested.

In fact, read as many of the federalist papers as you can stand. Each one is not long. Just a few pages. I downloaded a free copy (it might have been $1) of all the papers and kept it on my kindle, which I keep in the bathroom. I found that one paper could be read in about the length of time it took for my morning constitutional. Just a suggestion.

Some are very very dry, but they give you an understanding into the debate and worry that went into drafting this country's defining document. One read of Federalist 46 and you will see how absurd it is that the antis think the words "well regulated militia" somehow mean a militia under strict government control.

Don

Federalist 46 seems to explain perfectly why 'progressives' in the early part of the 20th century - basically subsumed the REAL militia - into the National Guard.

They managed to get rid of that pesky counterforce to the 'regular army'.

Yet one more way the Republic, and liberty - were sabotaged thru governmental sleight of hand.

 

[dcmdon]

One other thought. My resistance to compromise is because these deals are seen as a "first step" by the Antis.

If a compromise would guarantee that there would be no further attempts to abridge my rights, then I'd be more flexible. i.e. if the Anti's were negotiating in good faith, I'd be willing to negotiate. But they arent', so I'm not inclined to do so.

For years, most anti's said things like "common sense" "gun safety". Then after Newtown we saw the true colors of many of CT's politicians, with several getting on board a proposal to limit the citizens of CT to single shot muskets.

My own rep Phil Miller (D) came to the range with me. Agreed with the absurdity of banning assault weapons as I took my walnut stocked Mini-14 with a flush fitting mag and converted it into an AW by dropping it into a black plastic folding stock and inserting a 30 round mag.

But the idiot voted for PA 13-3 without a second thought. Mr. Phillip Miller is either a spineless weakling, willing to give up his principles to further his party, or he's a scum sucking liar. Or both.

Don

 

[Admin]

I won't compromise with liars whos ultimate goal is to disarm the population. If they tell you otherwise they are lying.