User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:17:41 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: Could it be that group 1 people are older and have seen the changes that have taken place concerning firearms over the years. I can remember when guns were no big deal. We always walked down the street with our guns shouldered. I must admit it pisses me off to see the changes that have taken place, especially since I didn't do anything to cause the present situation. I'm definately in group 1 [img]www.dredgeearthfirst.com/aviator.gif[/img] <-----Group [b]One[/b] Only recently though. I am only 33 but I have moved around enough to see a lot of bad things happening. When I lived only in Iowa, I thought things were peachy. Since living other places, I have seen a lot of scary things, Most on the West Coast. Aviator [img]www.dredgeearthfirst.com/aviator.gif[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:20:08 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Quoted: For example, I believe all firearm sales should include a background check, PROVIDED THE BACKGROUND INFO ISN'T KEPT. I just think we need to control access for some people. This is exactly how we got to the point we are today: we allowed "exceptions" to basic human rights, until, today, almost everyone became an exception. "Only police should have guns." Here's my questions, and I'd really be interested in your answers: What would you hope the background check would accomplish? Who decides who is worthy? If you aren't deemed worthy, what recourse do you have? Rights are Rights, or they are merely privilages that can be revolked on a whim. -Troy I think that convicted VIOLENT felons and those with documented mental problems should not be allowed to legally own guns and busted hard if they are caught with them. They themselves decided they were not worthy by their actions. Other than that anyone, not just someone like me (as CavVet put it), should be allowed to own and even carry. As for those that claim to be strict Constitutionalists (group 1) but are pro-life, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution garauntees women that choice. For that reason, I say that many who claim to be group 1 are really group 2, because they want to deny the rights of those (pro-choice) who are different or don't agree with them. I don't really understand that. I respect the fact that they feel it is wrong, but the Constitution doesn't forbid it. It seems that they want their rights, but want to deny others their own. I don't feel that I am in group 1 or group 2, but somewhere in between. I am an NRA member, a GOA member, and an SAS member, and I vote against anyone who is anti-gun. That issue will override the choice issue even though I am pro-choice as I feel that the gun rights issue is more important than any other issue. I served 4 years in our military to defend those rights for everyone and I am tired of those that never served trying to take them away. Unfortunately, it seems that recently some that did serve have turned their backs on us as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:20:33 PM EDT
[#3]
I'm with Eric. I am also a life member of the NRA (but I did vote in the elections). Although I don't always agree with them they are the biggest lobby in Washington. I always write/e-mail them to stop compromising, that my rights aren't Senators or thiers to legislate away. I believe that Charlton Heston is a good president but should put more emphasis on modern weapons. Remember this the constitution says 'arms' not guns, that means bazooka's and flame throwers and everything else. Guess I am firmly in group 1.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:23:51 PM EDT
[#4]
Originally Posted By Slave 1: Quoted: Could it be that group 1 people are older and have seen the changes that have taken place concerning firearms over the years. I can remember when guns were no big deal. We always walked down the street with our guns shouldered. I must admit it pisses me off to see the changes that have taken place especially since I didn't do anything to cause the present situation. I'm definitely in group 1 Hey I'm in group 1 and I'm not old (27), I just value my rights and don't want to see them legislated away. I am generally speaking Slave 1, I am not saying I am right, just a thought. I know there are young people ready to fight for their gun rights, in group 1&2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:24:22 PM EDT
[#5]
I believe the beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed to suit the times. But don't fuck with the "Bill Of Rights" It is the main reason it was ratified. What group do I belong to?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:27:20 PM EDT
[#6]
Originally Posted By LARRY G: Quoted: Quoted: For example, I believe all firearm sales should include a background check, PROVIDED THE BACKGROUND INFO ISN'T KEPT. I just think we need to control access for some people. This is exactly how we got to the point we are today: we allowed "exceptions" to basic human rights, until, today, almost everyone became an exception. "Only police should have guns." Here's my questions, and I'd really be interested in your answers: What would you hope the background check would accomplish? Who decides who is worthy? If you aren't deemed worthy, what recourse do you have? Rights are Rights, or they are merely privilages that can be revolked on a whim. -Troy I think that convicted VIOLENT felons and those with documented mental problems should not be allowed to legally own guns and busted hard if they are caught with them. They themselves decided they were not worthy by their actions. Other than that anyone, not just someone like me (as CavVet put it), should be allowed to own and even carry. So, if the government claims that you're mentally ill because you have these "radical fantasies of government plots to deny you your freedom" or whatever, that's ok? Note that this is a FREQENT happening in many countries today. But, even if I were to agree that felons and mentally ill weren't allowed to possess guns, that doesn't answer any of the questions above. How is a background check going to prevent that from happening? And another point: there are lots of non-violent people with felony convictions. And, don't you agree that if someone isn't fit to own a gun, they aren't fit to be out on the streets? -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:30:14 PM EDT
[#7]
Troy, I can't wait to meet you. I didn't know there were still guys like you in CA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:32:29 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Originally Posted By LARRY G: Quoted: Quoted: For example, I believe all firearm sales should include a background check, PROVIDED THE BACKGROUND INFO ISN'T KEPT. I just think we need to control access for some people. This is exactly how we got to the point we are today: we allowed "exceptions" to basic human rights, until, today, almost everyone became an exception. "Only police should have guns." Here's my questions, and I'd really be interested in your answers: What would you hope the background check would accomplish? Who decides who is worthy? If you aren't deemed worthy, what recourse do you have? Rights are Rights, or they are merely privilages that can be revolked on a whim. -Troy I think that convicted VIOLENT felons and those with documented mental problems should not be allowed to legally own guns and busted hard if they are caught with them. They themselves decided they were not worthy by their actions. Other than that anyone, not just someone like me (as CavVet put it), should be allowed to own and even carry. So, if the government claims that you're mentally ill because you have these "radical fantasies of government plots to deny you your freedom" or whatever, that's ok? Note that this is a FREQENT happening in many countries today. But, even if I were to agree that felons and mentally ill weren't allowed to possess guns, that doesn't answer any of the questions above. How is a background check going to prevent that from happening? And another point: there are lots of non-violent people with felony convictions. And, don't you agree that if someone isn't fit to own a gun, they aren't fit to be out on the streets? -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:33:40 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Quoted: For example, I believe all firearm sales should include a background check, PROVIDED THE BACKGROUND INFO ISN'T KEPT. I just think we need to control access for some people. This is exactly how we got to the point we are today: we allowed "exceptions" to basic human rights, until, today, almost everyone became an exception. "Only police should have guns." Here's my questions, and I'd really be interested in your answers: What would you hope the background check would accomplish? Who decides who is worthy? If you aren't deemed worthy, what recourse do you have? Rights are Rights, or they are merely privilages that can be revolked on a whim. -Troy Being convicted of a felony is not "on a whim". In many states felons can not vote or hold public office. Felons can't serve in the military. The felony conviction removes certain rights. If you can't follow society's rules yuo should have your rights restricted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:34:55 PM EDT
[#10]
Then you fit squarely in group II. That doesn't make you "bad"--it just means the rest of us (sigh) will have to do your fighting for you while you sit home and convince yourself there is not a culture war being waged. Is it a cutural war, constitutional war, or a conspiracy by the NWO? What fighting are you actually doing in case I want to help? I think the war is liberals who want to tell us what is safe and good, basically interfering in our lives. If that puts me in group II so be it. I won't waste any of my time worrying about Y2K, end of the world, etc stuff beyond being prepared for an emergency. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:37:39 PM EDT
[#11]
Your rights should be restricted if you can't obey the laws of the land, and you should be in jail. If they decide that you can be let out of jail because your no longer a threat, or paid your debt to society or whatever, then they should release you as a regular citizen with your rights intact and not a some second class citizen. If you can't trust them don't release them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:37:55 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Put me down for Strict Constitutionalist. The Constitution like the Bible is the WORD. First, Last, and Foremost. Amen, brother HANGFIRE! Testify, my brotha! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:46:25 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: I believe all firearm sales should include a background check, PROVIDED THE BACKGROUND INFO ISN'T KEPT. I just think we need to control access for some people. No offense, but WHO is going to make that determination, and do you trust your government NOT to keep information about you, ANY information, but ESPECIALLY whether you bought a "tool of freedom". No flame, and I understand how and why you feel like this, but just think about HOW your own version of gun control would be implemented for a minute. Urban ("The Tyranny Slayer") Rifleman [sniper] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:46:59 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Is it a cutural war, constitutional war, or a conspiracy by the NWO? What fighting are you actually doing in case I want to help? I think the war is liberals who want to tell us what is safe and good, basically interfering in our lives. If that puts me in group II so be it. I won't waste any of my time worrying about Y2K, end of the world, etc stuff beyond being prepared for an emergency. The implementation of a one world government, as prophesied (and to think I scoffed as a teen) in the Bible, is openly published these days. If you keep up with world events, things are pretty scary. Personally, I give what $$ I can to the RKBA outfits, am politically involved, practice (some) civil disobedience, and diligently practice for the awful events that may come our way. Many talk of "from my cold dead fingers," and may or may not mean it. Some of us DO mean it. Many lurk on this forum board. I really believe it is a cultural war rapidly leading to a NWO-type thing, which necessitates an attack on the Constitution. You are correct on all three fronts. If one looks for conspiracies it is easy to find them, BUT today's conspiracies cannot readily be ignored. One example--after the 1994 election/takeover of House and Senate by the Republicans, Sarah Brady (I hope you know who she is!) spoke at a girl's college in the NE and said, "The movement of the United States to socialism will continue, regardless of the recent election results." Scary words from the head of an outfit called Handgun Control, Inc. Please join the fight in whatever way your life/situation allows. We are losing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:47:24 PM EDT
[#15]
29 and Group 1. 'Documented Mental Illness'--problem with that is political/financial/other pressure can always be brought to bear on a mental health institution to "document" literally ANYTHING. Violent felonies--same thing, there are so many folks who have been convicted of violent felonies they did not commit. Problem with either idea is the corruptness of our legal and mental health systems, just to name a few.
No restrictions of gun rights, period. Anyone who murders someone (not self-defense or defense of another's life) with a gun should be shot in return, end of problem. Quit looking to any other authority for societal responsibility/punishment. Why can folks not see that relinquishing ANY responsibility for their actions/morals/whatever to outside sources IS THE PROBLEM? Who are you Larry G to decide who is worthy of owning guns? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:50:23 PM EDT
[#16]
Originally Posted By Slave 1: Your rights should be restricted if you can't obey the laws of the land, and you should be in jail. If they decide that you can be let out of jail because your no longer a threat, or paid your debt to society or whatever, then they should release you as a regular citizen with your rights intact and not a some second class citizen. If you can't trust them don't release them. Do you ever really "pay your debt" for murder or rape? Should serial burglars be allowed to own guns? What about persons convicted of armed robbery?, I guess once the get out they should shoot right over to the gun store and continue their career. That little prison sentence was just a risk of the job. Usually you have to do something pretty signifigant to get convicted of a felony. Not to mention most places will plea bargain down to misdemeanor convictions, and there are "diversion" programs that keep "first offenders" from getting criminal convictions if they complete a program. Anyone who gets a felony conviction probably did something pretty serious or got caught doing stuff a bunch of times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:53:19 PM EDT
[#17]
OK, question for us in group 1:
Where is "The line in the Sand" and when is it going to happen? Also, when or if "IT" happens, what will all the Group 2'ers be doing out there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:58:31 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: OK, question for us in group 1: Where is "The line in the Sand" and when is it going to happen? Also, when or if "IT" happens, what will all the Group 2'ers be doing out there? I frankly do not have an answer to your first question, but, as to the second, they will be watching events unfold on TV, after they dutifully turn their guns in. [:(] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 7:58:38 PM EDT
[#19]
COUNT ME IN GROUP ONE!
as to the line in the sand, thats a careful one. while the internet has provided us with a wonderful open forum, it is just that. i would hate to think some of the people that troll these boards checking out potential "militia" people to start to watch and black flag. i would rather be thought of and act as a "minuteman"- ready for what may come at a minutes notice. but then- i may have just had my tinfoil hat on for too long! [}:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:00:30 PM EDT
[#20]
Both very hard questions to answer.
I do not think the people that are causing this split are dumb enough to do one single thing that will make enough people so angry that they "revolt". The problem is that it is going to be small incremental things that will not get the support of enough pissed people to cause real concern. Not sure I can say when it would be for me. Aviator [img]www.dredgeearthfirst.com/aviator.gif[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:00:54 PM EDT
[#21]
and furthermore- it has only taken my 23 years on this planet to realize what is sacred and what is threatened. i figure ive got some years left to fight if i must, so everyone be rest assured that the younger generation has picked up the torch, and i intend to keep it lit!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:07:57 PM EDT
[#22]
Don't get me (or us "Group 1" folks) wrong, I *FULLY* support personal responsibility, and suffering the consequences of one's actions. Under a Constitutional system, it's unlikely that there would be many repeat murderers, as most would be put to death the first time. Plus, given that anyone could be armed anywhere, the likelyhood of someone being able to sustain a criminal career would be GREATLY diminished.
Don't fall into the trap of dismissing one component of the Consititution because it wouldn't work well in today's world (with everything else the same). That's exactly what the Government is trying to teach you, and you have to rise above it. The answer is not to restrict one right because of problems resulting in the restriction of others. The answer is to observe ALL Rights of ALL people. Would that make our country 100% crime free? No, nothing will do that, even the most severe Totalitarianism. But it would diminish it to the point that a criminal act would be major news because of it's rarity, and the likelyhood of being a victim (of crime, or of the resulting treatment of the "system") would be next to nothing. Of course, under that system, we'd have to fire 1/4th of the population (i.e., most government employees), and people would have to be responsible for themselves. And it would be far more difficult for people to gain power over others. Which is why those in power fight against government observance Constitutional and Human Rights. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:08:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Who are you Larry G to decide who is worthy of owning guns? I am one who has gone through life without trying to harm anyone else, or rob them, or rape them, that's who I am. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:08:43 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: No restrictions of gun rights, period. Anyone who murders someone (not self-defense or defense of another's life) with a gun should be shot in return, end of problem. Quit looking to any other authority for societal responsibility/punishment. Why can folks not see that relinquishing ANY responsibility for their actions/morals/whatever to outside sources IS THE PROBLEM? THIS IS A group one personality.... DJ, you sir, use your grey matter and analyze things carefully. YOU ARE a good American, and the forefathers wrote the documents to INSURE your rights are understood by the government. Quoted:( Anyone who gets a felony conviction probably did something pretty serious or got caught doing stuff a bunch of times. THIS IS A group two personality..... ANYONE who gets a felony can be one of a million things....Ever watch the movie Hurricane? THE TRUE story of police corruption involving a VICTIM FELON and a crooked cop? Exception? maybe! But there goes your 'all felons did serious, or STUFF a few times' theory.... NO, You are the weakest link in this republic. However all is not lost. The forefathers even wrote the same documents for the government to protect YOU as well. BUT, IF you are NOT prepared to defend the GOD GIVEN rights of others, IF you are not prepared to INSURE your childrens rights go unobstructed by a government out of control, just relax. Have a seat. For should we fail in maintaining the glorious freedoms cherished in this land, we shall all be slaves together. The socialists may well win, but only at the TRUE patriots end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:16:41 PM EDT
[#25]
Yes I did see the Huricane, it was a great movie, yes you are correct that all bets are off when a wrongful conviction is thrown in, not to mention child sexual assault or racism.
I don't think 'tho that killing someone and thereby taking ALL their Rights is better than what I suggested. I think removing Rights is acceptable as long as Due Process is used and the restrictions do something to lessen future harm. That' why 1st, 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendment Rights aren't restricted as a result of a conviction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:17:03 PM EDT
[#26]
Originally Posted By LARRY G: Maybe background checks won't make a difference... If that's the case, why have them? If background checks aren't going to keep weapons out of the hands of undesirables, then what do they accomplish? I can tell you what they're accomplishing today: de facto registration by the federal and (some) state governments. There are no documented cases that show that background checks have ever prevented a crime, despite existing for years. I'll grant you that they might have prevented a few along the way, but at what expense to our freedoms? And isn't the problem really that criminals have weapons and the law abiding usually don't? Isn't much of violent crime a symptom of this problem? -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:18:06 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: For should we fail in maintaining the glorious freedoms cherished in this land, we shall all be slaves together. The socialists may well win, but only at the TRUE patriots end. This is why I am a fan of yours. [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:18:39 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: I notice two distinct groups developing here, and wondered if anyone else noticed the same... One group appears to believe STRICTLY in the Constitution, with NO variations. Believes there is a conspiracy to take America into a socialist regime, as a part of the NWO. This group seems to believe that ANY penetration of their rights is TOTALLY unacceptable. This group appears to be VERY steadfast in their beliefs. This group strongly limits NRA support believing them 'soft'. The other group uses two sets of rules/standards. This group appears to resemble the socialists in the fact that they want no freedoms for those they differ with, but still want their freedoms the way they want them. This group calls for banning this, or limiting that, and at the same time seems willing to neogotiate their own freedoms. This group seems to support the NRA, and would possibly not mind 'common sense' gun control deep inside, but would NEVER admit it.... Am I the ONLY one who sees two different groups here????? Am I seeing things? the first group is what you call [b]Hardliner's[/b] the second is group is called "I don't really care!" alot of gun owners are brought fourth to think guns is not a right but a privlage there really afraid to stand up and say screw you! these guys make excusess (if they ban my gun then well i just bow hunt!) that's not fair! yep! huh! what the Fudge ever! i talk to just about every gun owner i come accross some just turn a deaf ear some just don't really care. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:27:11 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Originally Posted By LARRY G: Maybe background checks won't make a difference... If that's the case, why have them? If background checks aren't going to keep weapons out of the hands of undesirables, then what do they accomplish? I can tell you what they're accomplishing today: de facto registration by the federal and (some) state governments. There are no documented cases that show that background checks have ever prevented a crime, despite existing for years. I'll grant you that they might have prevented a few along the way, but at what expense to our freedoms? And isn't the problem really that criminals have weapons and the law abiding usually don't? Isn't much of violent crime a symptom of this problem? -Troy I agree with you i sold a few guns today and i felt i was treated like a criminal. whip out my driver's id. then was looked at like i was some damn criminal i also went into another gun shop was treated like this the same way! screw this! i passed these ncsic(what ever the F there called)ill just start building my own guns and let it go! then i got ripped on selling back! ive had it with the whole stinking business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:29:46 PM EDT
[#30]
MG_ME,
Good point. I didn't even mention all the false denials, lost sales, and other inconveniences... So, again, why do we have background checks? -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:30:39 PM EDT
[#31]
Originally Posted By LARRY G: Quoted: Quoted: As for those that claim to be strict Constitutionalists (group 1) but are pro-life, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution garauntees women that choice. For that reason, I say that many who claim to be group 1 are really group 2, because they want to deny the rights of those (pro-choice) who are different or don't agree with them. I don't really understand that. I respect the fact that they feel it is wrong, but the Constitution doesn't forbid it. It seems that they want their rights, but want to deny others their own. The SCOTUS was wrong on the issue of "choice." There is no "right to choose" in the Constitution. "Pro choice" is an ABOMINATION. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:32:49 PM EDT
[#32]
[b][blue]"GROUP 1"[/blue][/b]
[b][red]DON'T TREAD ON ME...[/red][/b] It's like, "what part of 'to the Republic for which it stands', don't you understand, man?!!!" This is America. Either you is or you ain't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:35:59 PM EDT
[#33]
Troy, Troy, Troy........
I cant believe you would ask a question like that........ WE have background checks......FOR THE CHILDREN !!! You are indeed 110% correct...background checks are indeed defacto registration. PERIOD. Nothing more and nothing less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:43:34 PM EDT
[#34]
I know. You're right. I'm enrolling myself into a government retraining program as we speak. I've obviously forgotten the importance of the government in the lives of Americans. What was I thinking?
-Troy <-- Hanging head in shame. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:50:06 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: The SCOTUS was wrong on the issue of "choice." There is no "right to choose" in the Constitution. "Pro choice" is an ABOMINATION. AMEN! #1 = GOOD |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:56:33 PM EDT
[#36]
I just asked my eight year old; "where does meat come from?" He didn't answer "from the store". He answered "from animals". I feel a sense of pride that he answered that way. I've never asked him that question before. I think he'll be okay if we last that long. Group 1. Oh yah baby. The Constitution isn't in Ancient Hebrew either eh?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 8:58:41 PM EDT
[#37]
I love the antiesqu attitude in this thread - "are you a sensible and brave american in group 1" or "are you an socialist-like wimpy unpatriotic idiot in group2"?
The way you phrased the whole thing is to deliberately belittle and invalidate anyone that doesn't hold the same view as you - and to suggest there are only two ways to slice this. It's the kind of tactic and narrowmindedness I would expect from the very people you oppose. I'm also amused by the fact that when someone asked all the self-proclaimed "group 1" members where the line in the sand is - the only responses were humming and hawing and waffling. If people in group 1 truly stand for what you say, then the "line in the sand" should be perfectly OBVIOUS. And anyone not willing to admit it and act on it right now, is, by your own definition, a group 1 wannabe, who's really just in group 2, but won't admit it. Flame away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 9:05:31 PM EDT
[#38]
We are still a long way from the line in the sand, despite what some of the well meaning tinfoil hat crowd say.
My line in the sand is when I have no other choice. Unlike some here I'm not in a hurry to shoot and kill any one. I have nothing to prove, to anyone. sgb |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 9:11:53 PM EDT
[#39]
Hard core Group 1!
An armed society is a safe society in more ways than one.......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 9:19:39 PM EDT
[#40]
I'm fully prepared to talk about "line in the sand", except that, to me, it's more of a "line in concrete."
That "line" is any of the following: - Forced/extorted confiscation of arms (including ammo/mags/necessary supplies) - Martial Law (i.e., "suspension" of the Constitution) - Removal of the Constitution - House-to-house "sweeps" on any pretense - Widespread false imprisonment - Widespread declarations of "mental illness/re-education" - Invasion by a foreign entity/power, including UN troops (though I see this as unlikely) Up until one of these occurs, we have a moral obligation to work within the system for change. Once any of these occurs, the system is beyond internal repair. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 9:24:14 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: I'm neither group. I'd be a libertarian, except the current party leadership wants a very small military. That'd be sucide for our country, even without the F'd up foreign policy we've had in recent years, we are still the wealthiest country in the world which makes us the number one target for every other nation on the planet(even our current allies). So I stick to republican, because I sure as hell don't want to waste my vote on libertarian and help another democratic president and congress get in office. Those years were horrible for us. But a lot of the group one libertarians are hardcore pro-life Christians. I am a pro-choice Atheist, and thus some of my ideas and values differ from the majority of group one people. Most group one people push biblical views into the constitution which do not exist. Also, I don't want to be the constitution police, but a lot of messages people post refering to rights and constitutional law, are incorrect. They are actually referring to US code, not the constitution. I believe there is an obvios active effort to make firearms illegal by the democrats, but there is no conspiracy. You can't conspire through public speeches like them. I am a firm believer in RKBA! But, above all, I beleive we should legalize secession, and Califorina should be the first state to go! I'm for a military that is strong enought to fight a war on two fronts and win. pro-life christians are libertarians? who have you been talking to? anti-abortionist do not care that much for the libertarians. me i'm neutral on the topic because i'm not pregnate. i'm a pro-choice agnostic. the democrats banning of firearms is a conspiracy because the do not want pro-gun statistics to be made public on national television. anyone who has something to say that does not conform to their ideas is to either be silenced or ignored. to conspire against a people takes an act of choice to fool other people. you can not involuntarily hush your opposition. i dont want to live in the PRK lib |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 9:37:37 PM EDT
[#42]
Anybody who can divide over 11,000 people into only two distinct groups bears watching.
Who is the strongest lobbying group in the United States? Must I agree with every single issue the NRA addresses before I can support them? Why all the worry about your firearm purchases being logged into a permanent record anyway? Do you care when information about you is recorded when you buy ammo, scopes, gun parts, targets, books, movies, magazines about guns, gun club memberships, auto registration, medical visits, hospitalization, military service, employment, or any of the other of hundreds of seemingly insignificant bits of data about you that exist about you even on the internet? If you buy an Aimpoint, or some .223 ammo, or .223 bullets and then an AR-15 part can I not deduce that you must own one? If you go to a shooting range and use any kind of I.D. and take some ammo you bought, can I not deduce that you must own a firearm? Do you really think that the world has not changed in the last 200 years? Must everyone of legal age be allowed to own a gun as would be the case without background checks? How about the thief who stole your guns? Should he have that right? If you say no, then how do you propose we keep that thief from just walking in and buying a gun because he is of legal age? Maybe we should brand all criminals on the face so they are easily identified by anyone who can see. Do you think that the Constitution was ratified by some miraculous, unanimous "Vote of the People" a long time ago? There are obviously those among us who do not know, or have not read for themselves the process by which the Constitution was "ratified". And why just cry about registration and whine about what the NRA didn't do today? Everyone's RKBA has been "infringed" upon already in a big way starting in 1936. These are people who cannot see the forest for the tree in front of them. Just for the record, I own lots of guns and I believe the the Constitution 100%. But I am also living in the present, not the past. The Constitution did not address many issues that confront us today. If the RKBA is truly interpreted there would be no limits on the personal ownership of armaments of ANY kind. But the truth is there are already limits and rules. I don't like speed limits and yet cars are not even mentioned in the Constitution. If cars are not mentioned in the "great document" how can the Federal Government regulate them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 9:55:35 PM EDT
[#43]
Originally Posted By Big B: Must I agree with every single issue the NRA addresses before I can support them? If their position on an issue is opposite of their stated overall position, I think you have to wonder why you're supporting them. Why all the worry about your firearm purchases being logged into a permanent record anyway? Registration ALWAYS, ALWAYS leads to confiscation. Any history book can prove this to you. Do you care when information about you is recorded when you buy ammo, scopes, gun parts, targets, books, movies, magazines about guns, gun club memberships, auto registration, medical visits, hospitalization, military service, employment, or any of the other of hundreds of seemingly insignificant bits of data about you that exist about you even on the internet? Of COURSE we care. The government has no business collecting any of this information. If you buy an Aimpoint, or some .223 ammo, or .223 bullets and then an AR-15 part can I not deduce that you must own one? If you go to a shooting range and use any kind of I.D. and take some ammo you bought, can I not deduce that you must own a firearm? You can assume a great many things, but that doesn't mean you'd be correct. That's one of several reasons why anti's want registration so badly. Do you really think that the world has not changed in the last 200 years? Human Rights have not changed. Must everyone of legal age be allowed to own a gun as would be the case without background checks? Yes. Even age should not be a factor (to the government; that's a decision for PARENTS). How about the thief who stole your guns? Should he have that right? When this theif is caught, he should be held fully responsible for his actions. And that "action" in this case is [b]theft.[/b] Possession of arms (method) is irrelevent! If you say no, then how do you propose we keep that thief from just walking in and buying a gun because he is of legal age? By keeping him in prison, instead of people who are involved with drugs. The primary reason that violent criminals are set free so quickly is because of manditory drug sentencing. Drugs should not be illegal. Crime should be illegal, and punished. Maybe we should brand all criminals on the face so they are easily identified by anyone who can see. Not necessary if they are in prison, or (oh MY) in a REAL rehabilitation program, if appropriate. Convicts should not be released until they can be trusted with ALL of their rights. Do you think that the Constitution was ratified by some miraculous, unanimous "Vote of the People" a long time ago? It was ratified by representative government of each state. What's your point? There are obviously those among us who do not know, or have not read for themselves the process by which the Constitution was "ratified". That wouldn't surprise me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 9:59:24 PM EDT
[#44]
And why just cry about registration and whine about what the NRA didn't do today? Everyone's RKBA has been "infringed" upon already in a big way starting in 1936. Why are you assuming that we don't support the repeal of ALL gun laws? We (Group 1's) do, and we know the NRA doesn't, which is why we have a problem with them. These are people who cannot see the forest for the tree in front of them. That's for sure. Just for the record, I own lots of guns and I believe the the Constitution 100%. But I am also living in the present, not the past. The Constitution did not address many issues that confront us today. If the RKBA is truly interpreted there would be no limits on the personal ownership of armaments of ANY kind. Exactly our point. But the truth is there are already limits and rules. Correct; our Rights are currently being infringed in many, many areas, including the keeping and bearing of arms. We are against these infringements, and are tired of supporting an organization that claims to be against them, but works for them when they think we aren't looking. I don't like speed limits and yet cars are not even mentioned in the Constitution. If cars are not mentioned in the "great document" how can the Federal Government regulate them? The federal government shouldn't regulate speed limits either. That's clearly the domain of the states. Federal speed limits are unConstitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 10:00:16 PM EDT
[#45]
Please don't assume that this is the only issue that is important to us. It was merely the issue being discussed.
-Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 10:03:17 PM EDT
[#46]
Why all the worry about your firearm purchases being logged into a permanent record anyway? Makes it much easier for them to be taken away. Do you care when information about you is recorded when you buy ammo, scopes, gun parts, targets, books, movies, magazines about guns, gun club memberships, auto registration, medical visits, hospitalization, military service, employment, or any of the other of hundreds of seemingly insignificant bits of data about you that exist about you even on the internet? Yes, I am. If you buy an Aimpoint, or some .223 ammo, or .223 bullets and then an AR-15 part can I not deduce that you must own one? If you go to a shooting range and use any kind of I.D. and take some ammo you bought, can I not deduce that you must own a firearm? Yes, but how many do I own? Do you really think that the world has not changed in the last 200 years? Please, not the "living document" shit Do you think that the Constitution was ratified by some miraculous, unanimous "Vote of the People" a long time ago? It was put together by some very sharp people, who gave it much thought. And why just cry about registration and whine about what the NRA didn't do today? Everyone's RKBA has been "infringed" upon already in a big way starting in 1936. That does not make it right. The Constitution did not address many issues that confront us today. If the RKBA is truly interpreted there would be no limits on the personal ownership of armaments of ANY kind. But the truth is there are already limits and rules. I don't like speed limits and yet cars are not even mentioned in the Constitution. If cars are not mentioned in the "great document" how can the Federal Government regulate them? No cars are not mentioned, that is why I do not complain about speed limits, but it DOES contain information on our rights to own guns. Aviator [img]www.dredgeearthfirst.com/aviator.gif[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 10:44:52 PM EDT
[#47]
From the responses I have read here and from the messages posted on this forum over the past few years, there are FEW group 1 types. Most are in the middle and only think they are group 1. There are several group 2 types.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 10:48:47 PM EDT
[#48]
Regarding "undesirables having guns".
Felons: Have any of you seen what kinds of pathetic crimes are now felonies? As punishments get racheted up, you might find one day that a speeding ticket will disqualify you from owning firearms. Mental defectives: Any of you remember the Soviet Union? Do you know how the state dealt with subversives and disidents? Labelled them and stuck them in "mental institutions". Here is a prophecy: one day soon you will be considered crazy for liking guns. Ergo, you will lose your right to have them. I live in San Francisco, and have learned to be discrete about my fondness for black guns. The sheeple are already conditioned to believe that gun owners are one insult away from shooting up a busload of schoolkids, and just know that no-one needs an "assault weapon". It is a mockery to say that some people are not worthy to own guns because they committed a crime or have had psychological problems, while we have laws preventing employers from firing people with disabilities that can't do their jobs. As for the pro-life/abortion rights deal- the problem is that abortion is definitely not an enumerated right. It is one reserved to the states or the people. So SCOTUS had no business hearing Roe v Wade, and less business ruling as it did. Abortion should not be a legal matter, only a medical one. Damn federalism is killing any pretense of freedom in this country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 11:25:39 PM EDT
[#49]
"LINE IN THE SAND"
I'll know it when I see it. "THE WORLD HAS NOT CHANGED IN THE LAST 200 YEARS" Human nature has not changed in the past 5000 years. People that think the genius that drives the technology of today can create a better improved Constitution are fools. "For everything there is a season." The Constitution was created in its time for all time. Advances in technology cannot improve the Constitution. There is not a group of people today that can be assembled that could create anything close to what the Founders gave us. Take the 200+ year old Constitution and set it next to any document created since, especially the U.N. Constitution, and compare the genius of yesterday with the genius of today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2001 11:50:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Make no mistake; the Constitution isn't perfect. It's just the best example of its kind that's ever been ratified by any country.
-Troy |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
