Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/28/2006 1:18:10 PM EDT
....making it illegal to use free speech to influence Congress?

If we could make all firearms legal, or go to a flat tax that is reasonable, or privatize Social Security, or some HUGE restoration fo freedom....

WOuld you trade even ALL that for banning free speech influencing Congress?

Poll coming.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:26:26 PM EDT
Hookers and blow
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:27:18 PM EDT
I'll have to think on that one. Free speech is a big thing to give up.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:27:21 PM EDT
Would YOU trade it for domestic legal machine guns?
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:30:00 PM EDT
Why do we have to even talk about trading one constitutionally protected right in order to get the government to leave another constitutionally protected right alone?

Oh and by the way, the government IS limiting both free speech and gun ownership. Why would they make a compromise on either when they are getting their way on both?
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:33:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Would YOU trade it for domestic legal machine guns?



No way.

In the American / Arfcom tradition, I;d NEVER be satisfied until I .....

<­BR>



GOT BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:34:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Why do we have to even talk about trading one constitutionally protected right in order to get the government to leave another constitutionally protected right alone?




Because some are arguing loudly that is an acceptable manner of restoring / protecting gun freedoms.

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:35:11 PM EDT
Repealing the 1934 Machine Gun law. I want to buy full auto via US Mail!!!!!!
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:36:04 PM EDT
Heck no.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:36:19 PM EDT
Who are the 5 people that would go for Anna Nicole? You make me sick.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:36:23 PM EDT
I would trade my right to free political speech for [Dr.Evil]one hundred trillion billion dollars[/Dr. Evil]

Yeah that's enough......

PS. If I was that rich I wouldn't talk to anyone anyway. I'd be way too arrogant.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:36:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Why do we have to even talk about trading one constitutionally protected right in order to get the government to leave another constitutionally protected right alone?




Because some are arguing loudly that is an acceptable manner of restoring / protecting gun freedoms.




Anyone who adheres to that philosophy should be deported. They aren't Americans and they don't love their freedom.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:37:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 1:37:56 PM EDT by motown_steve]
oops
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:38:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 1:38:48 PM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Why do we have to even talk about trading one constitutionally protected right in order to get the government to leave another constitutionally protected right alone?




Because some are arguing loudly that is an acceptable manner of restoring / protecting gun freedoms.




Anyone who adheres to that philosophy should be deported. They aren't Americans and they don't love their freedom.



Ouch.

That may be a bit strong.

But we can deport their badly misinformed understanding of " essential liberty."

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:39:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Why do we have to even talk about trading one constitutionally protected right in order to get the government to leave another constitutionally protected right alone?




Because some are arguing loudly that is an acceptable manner of restoring / protecting gun freedoms.




Show an example......so I can ridicule them properly.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:41:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By krpind:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Why do we have to even talk about trading one constitutionally protected right in order to get the government to leave another constitutionally protected right alone?




Because some are arguing loudly that is an acceptable manner of restoring / protecting gun freedoms.




Show an example......so I can ridicule them properly.



FOPA '86

Traded away MG's to reverse some of GCA '68.



Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:43:03 PM EDT
No
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:43:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By krpind:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Why do we have to even talk about trading one constitutionally protected right in order to get the government to leave another constitutionally protected right alone?




Because some are arguing loudly that is an acceptable manner of restoring / protecting gun freedoms.




Show an example......so I can ridicule them properly.



FOPA '86

Traded away MG's to reverse some of GCA '68.






Thought you meant in this century......
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:44:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Why do we have to even talk about trading one constitutionally protected right in order to get the government to leave another constitutionally protected right alone?




Because some are arguing loudly that is an acceptable manner of restoring / protecting gun freedoms.




Anyone who adheres to that philosophy should be deported. They aren't Americans and they don't love their freedom.



Ouch.

That may be a bit strong.

But we can deport their badly misinformed understanding of " essential liberty."




"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:48:18 PM EDT
Yes, because then we wouldnt need the 1st Amendment. I can garauntee a guy out in the streets shouting will not get noticed, but a guy out in the streets shouting with an automatic weapon will be given the time of day he is requesting.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:49:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

FOPA '86

Traded away MG's to reverse some of GCA '68.




The 1986 MG ban was an atrocity and constitutionally invalid.

That said, the abuses that were taking place prior to the 1986 FOPA were worse and effected far more people.

The fact that we needed the 1986 FOPA and the fact that we have the 1986 MG ban are both evidence that the US constitution is nothing more than a meaningless old relic.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:49:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Would YOU trade it for domestic legal machine guns?



No way.

In the American / Arfcom tradition, I;d NEVER be satisfied until I .....

GOT BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!1



AHA. Got Ya.

By NOT doing the trade, you have (like Reagan) TRADED AWAY DOMESTIC MACHINE GUN RIGHTS.

All for a few other rights that may have been kept or restored.

Way to go.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:52:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Would YOU trade it for domestic legal machine guns?



No way.

In the American / Arfcom tradition, I;d NEVER be satisfied until I .....

GOT BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!1



AHA. Got Ya.

By NOT doing the trade, you have (like Reagan) TRADED AWAY DOMESTIC MACHINE GUN RIGHTS.

All for a few other rights that may have been kept or restored.

Way to go.



Its not possible to "trade away" that which you don't have. I can't trade away MG's as that's a right I'm NOT allowed to have

its ONLY possible to trade away that which you have.

Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.



Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:53:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Why do we have to even talk about trading one constitutionally protected right in order to get the government to leave another constitutionally protected right alone?




Because some are arguing loudly that is an acceptable manner of restoring / protecting gun freedoms.




Not correct. The thread was about FOPA 86.

The "trade" was "rights lost in the 68 GCA" vs. "Domestic MGs."

And the rights regained by FOPA 86 (restoration of rights lost in 68) were GREATER than the loss of "continued production of domestic machine guns for civilians."

More freedoms were restored to more citizens WITH FOPA 86 than lost.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:53:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By garandman:

FOPA '86

Traded away MG's to reverse some of GCA '68.




The 1986 MG ban was an atrocity and constitutionally invalid.

That said, the abuses that were taking place prior to the 1986 FOPA were worse and effected far more people.

The fact that we needed the 1986 FOPA and the fact that we have the 1986 MG ban are both evidence that the US constitution is nothing more than a meaningless old relic.



Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:53:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Would YOU trade it for domestic legal machine guns?



No way.

In the American / Arfcom tradition, I;d NEVER be satisfied until I .....

GOT BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!1



AHA. Got Ya.

By NOT doing the trade, you have (like Reagan) TRADED AWAY DOMESTIC MACHINE GUN RIGHTS.

All for a few other rights that may have been kept or restored.

Way to go.



But according to the US Constitution both free speech and the right to keep and bear arms are off the table. If the constitution has any meaning at all then how can either be up for trade?

If you owned your house and your car, would you trade your car to keep your house?
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:54:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

More freedoms were restored to more citizens WITH FOPA 86 than lost.



FOPA traded away the PRECISE arms protected by the Second Amendment.

Its was a Manhattan-esque trade.

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:55:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Would YOU trade it for domestic legal machine guns?



No way.

In the American / Arfcom tradition, I;d NEVER be satisfied until I .....

GOT BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!1



AHA. Got Ya.

By NOT doing the trade, you have (like Reagan) TRADED AWAY DOMESTIC MACHINE GUN RIGHTS.

All for a few other rights that may have been kept or restored.

Way to go.



Its not possible to "trade away" that which you don't have. I can't trade away MG's as that's a right I'm NOT allowed to have

its ONLY possible to trade away that which you have.

Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.







Ahhh but in the above scenario you had the opportunity to regain them.

And to be accurate you DO have the right to own a MG. I own several.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:55:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

. If the constitution has any meaning at all then how can either be up for trade?




Bingo.

That's called "essential liberty."

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:57:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Ahhh but in the above scenario you had the opportunity to regain them.

.



And in NOT trading away free speech rights, I STILL have the opportunity to regain them. I've traded away nothing, and I've lost nothing in a Pyrrhic victory, gaining one essential liberty while giving away another.



Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:57:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:


But according to the US Constitution both free speech and the right to keep and bear arms are off the table. If the constitution has any meaning at all then how can either be up for trade?

If you owned your house and your car, would you trade your car to keep your house?



And here you are 100 correct.

However the Consitution was violated in 1968 and the rules were changed.

Since NOBODY (or at least not enough people) challenged it, we got "stupid new rules."

And under the stupid new rules, I'd trade my car to keep my house.

I don't wanna live in my car and I can walk to the store.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:58:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

And to be accurate you DO have the right to own a MG. I own several.



You are being allowed to excercise the PRIVELAGE of owning a machine gun. If it was a right then there would be no tax, no background check, no registration and no limit on the machine guns that you can own.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:58:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

However the Consitution was violated in 1968 and the rules were changed.

Since NOBODY (or at least not enough people) challenged it, we got "stupid new rules."

And under the stupid new rules, I'd trade my car to keep my house.

I don't wanna live in my car and I can walk to the store.




WOW.

"...May their chains rest lightly upon you...."

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:59:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
oops



Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:59:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

More freedoms were restored to more citizens WITH FOPA 86 than lost.



FOPA traded away the PRECISE arms protected by the Second Amendment.

Its was a Manhattan-esque trade.




All firearms are protected my the second amendment. It does NOT specifically mention machine guns for obvious reasons.

Here again, the primary culprit is the "sporter clause" (which is your true enemy and NOT FOPA). The "sporter clause" is what lets government agencies determine the "suitability" of a firearms for civilians.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:59:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

And to be accurate you DO have the right to own a MG. I own several.



You are being allowed to excercise the PRIVELAGE of owning a machine gun. If it was a right then there would be no tax, no background check, no registration and no limit on the machine guns that you can own.



Bingo again.

The old ladies are startin to think this bingo game is rigged.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:02:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Ahhh but in the above scenario you had the opportunity to regain them.

.



And in NOT trading away free speech rights, I STILL have the opportunity to regain them. I've traded away nothing, and I've lost nothing in a Pyrrhic victory, gaining one essential liberty while giving away another.



Ahhh TRUE. Very Manhattan-esque trade.

Honestly I'd have jumped on you if you DID take the trade, just for the reasons you describe. It was "good strategy." And so was FOPA. A FOPA II could strike the "sporter clause" which would provide a basis to eliminate the 86 and 89 bans.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:04:11 PM EDT
I'd trade free speech when the .gov makes it mandatory that all people have machine guns.

I'm pretty sure if everyone had a machine gun then free speech would come back.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:04:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

However the Consitution was violated in 1968 and the rules were changed.

Since NOBODY (or at least not enough people) challenged it, we got "stupid new rules."

And under the stupid new rules, I'd trade my car to keep my house.

I don't wanna live in my car and I can walk to the store.




WOW.

"...May their chains rest lightly upon you...."





IF the rules were changed and NOBODY stood up (as in 68) wouldyou really lose it all? Family, house, car, everything?

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:05:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:


But according to the US Constitution both free speech and the right to keep and bear arms are off the table. If the constitution has any meaning at all then how can either be up for trade?

If you owned your house and your car, would you trade your car to keep your house?



And here you are 100 correct.

However the Consitution was violated in 1968 and the rules were changed.

Since NOBODY (or at least not enough people) challenged it, we got "stupid new rules."

And under the stupid new rules, I'd trade my car to keep my house.

I don't wanna live in my car and I can walk to the store.



You're right.

May our chains set lightly on us all.

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:08:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By blacklisted:
Who are the 5 people that would go for Anna Nicole? You make me sick.



No shit, thats more like a form of capital punishment

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:14:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

However the Consitution was violated in 1968 and the rules were changed.

Since NOBODY (or at least not enough people) challenged it, we got "stupid new rules."

And under the stupid new rules, I'd trade my car to keep my house.

I don't wanna live in my car and I can walk to the store.




WOW.

"...May their chains rest lightly upon you...."




Don't be too hard on SteyrAUG...we are all collaborators in our own oppression to some extent.

What did anyone do when they passed the 1934 NFA, or the 1968 GCA, or the 1986 MG ban, or the 1994 AWB, or McCain-Fiengold?
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 3:23:09 PM EDT
Remember, your rights are not granted by man....and none should be taken away or modified, or restricted, or taxed....that they are is to the shame of the sheep living in this country...I better stop....I can feel a real big rant coming on....
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:26:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
All firearms are protected my the second amendment. It does NOT specifically mention machine guns for obvious reasons.

.



See? That's just it. That's what youa re not getting. This is where you whole argument implodes.

Now lsiten to me and here what I am saying....

FOPA says NOT ALL firearms are protected by 2A. FOPA says SOME firearms are on a "check with me" basis - where the Fed gov't grants PERMISSION to own certain arms.

Not surprisingly, MORE "check with me" legislation altion soon passed - in 89 imports became "check with me." Then again in 94 domestic arms with certain features became "check with me" arms that the Fed gov't usurped our rights on.

FOPA gutted the Second Amendment, setting legal precedent AS WELL AS the perception that Republicans and the NRA was OK with the Fed gov't having the power to limit access to firearms.

Anyway you slice it FOPA was a disaster - a Pyrrhis victory, where we lost essential liberty in a Manhattan- esque trade. And teh gun owners ended up with the trinkets.



Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:34:24 PM EDT
without free political speach you don't have any other freedoms for long.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 5:02:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 5:03:49 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
All firearms are protected my the second amendment. It does NOT specifically mention machine guns for obvious reasons.

.



See? That's just it. That's what youa re not getting. This is where you whole argument implodes.

Now lsiten to me and here what I am saying....

FOPA says NOT ALL firearms are protected by 2A. FOPA says SOME firearms are on a "check with me" basis - where the Fed gov't grants PERMISSION to own certain arms.

Not surprisingly, MORE "check with me" legislation altion soon passed - in 89 imports became "check with me." Then again in 94 domestic arms with certain features became "check with me" arms that the Fed gov't usurped our rights on.

FOPA gutted the Second Amendment, setting legal precedent AS WELL AS the perception that Republicans and the NRA was OK with the Fed gov't having the power to limit access to firearms.

Anyway you slice it FOPA was a disaster - a Pyrrhis victory, where we lost essential liberty in a Manhattan- esque trade. And teh gun owners ended up with the trinkets.



And what YOU simply aren't getting is this did NOT START with FOPA.

It started with GCA 68 which ALSO INCLUUDED A MG Ban. Furthermore it laid the basis for the 86 Ban.

The 1968 Gun Control Act BANNED the importation of foreign machine guns (among other losses of freedom). But for some reason that one doesn't bother you as much as the continuation of the SAME BAN only applied to domestic machine guns.

FOPA 86 was the FIRST STEP to undermine the GCA 68 and it was the FIRST TIME that unconstitutional restrictions of "essential liberty" as they apply to the 2A were REVERSED.

You have to see the FOPA 86 as a FIRST STEP and the 1968 GCA as the main target.

Otherwise you are simply wasting your time. You can try and get the 86 MG ban struck down but as long as the "sporter clause" remains it can come back at any time.

It wasn't FOPA that said the things in RED, it was the GCA 68.

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 5:07:39 PM EDT
If they met ALL my demands like repeal NFA and import ban, seal our F'N borders from these freakin illegals, etc etc... then I really wouldnt need my freedom of speech to influence them anymore so YES
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 5:08:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 5:09:59 PM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

And what YOU simply aren't getting is this did NOT START with FOPA.

It started with GCA 68 which ALSO INCLUUDED A MG Ban. Furthermore it laid the basis for the 86 Ban.



You have to see the FOPA 86 as a FIRST STEP and the 1968 GCA as the main target.

Otherwise you are simply wasting your time. You can try and get the 86 MG ban struck down but as long as the "sporter clause" remains it can come back at any time.

It wasn't FOPA that said the things in RED, it was the GCA 68.




I get it - trust me I do. My efforts are tightly focused on the sporting clause.


GCA 68 was passed by Democrats, right? Well, I've always said "Democrats may run this country down to hell, but I'll be dammed if I'm gonna stand by and let Republicans I voted for do it." (pardon my French)

And as I've said, FOPA set a precedent that was QUICKLY followed up with making YET MORE firearms "check with me" gun, restricted access controlled by the Fed gov't.

YES GCA 68 did that too. I get it. And I hold GCA in ONLY SLIGHTLY LESS contempt than FOPA for the reason stated - I'll be dammed if I'm gonna watch people I voted for pizz away my gun rights.

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 5:11:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wraithtouch:
If they met ALL my demands like repeal NFA and import ban, seal our F'N borders from these freakin illegals, etc etc... then I really wouldnt need my freedom of speech to influence them anymore so YES



You don't REALLY beelive that do you?

What about next year when they undo everything they did with NFA and the borders and etc etc?





Link Posted: 2/28/2006 5:24:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Wraithtouch:
If they met ALL my demands like repeal NFA and import ban, seal our F'N borders from these freakin illegals, etc etc... then I really wouldnt need my freedom of speech to influence them anymore so YES



You don't REALLY beelive that do you?

What about next year when they undo everything they did with NFA and the borders and etc etc?







The under provision 31 section C article 32A of the Wraithtouch gets all demands met and gives up free speech bill I would automaticly get my freedom of speech back
And under article 32B I am also immune to prosecution for any events that may take place after said laws are repealed
Gotta read the fine print man
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 5:30:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wraithtouch:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Wraithtouch:
If they met ALL my demands like repeal NFA and import ban, seal our F'N borders from these freakin illegals, etc etc... then I really wouldnt need my freedom of speech to influence them anymore so YES



You don't REALLY beelive that do you?

What about next year when they undo everything they did with NFA and the borders and etc etc?







The under provision 31 section C article 32A of the Wraithtouch gets all demands met and gives up free speech bill I would automaticly get my freedom of speech back
And under article 32B I am also immune to prosecution for any events that may take place after said laws are repealed
Gotta read the fine print man



The pot smokers thread is

<------------THAT way.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top