I have three silhouette of an ar15 on my car.
Two on the rear side windows and one right over where the third stop light in the rear window is.  It looks good when I step on the brake. (It does not cover the entire light)  The only time I have ever been questioned about them was when I pulled into the Jack in the Box as I was headed to a Houston area shoot.  I got stopped for speeding a couple of years ago and I expected to get the car searched.  The nice police man never said a word.

No.  Too many PETA, ALF, ELF liberals around.

I have an American Flag on my vehicle...That says it all.

My point EXACTLY quietshoez. Like those *No Fear* stickers, ya think if I lowcrawled up to the drivers door and stuffed my Glock 19 in their face they would have "no fear"? I have no intention of doing so. But, no fear? Indeed!

No stickers for me. I'm the last word in low profile carry.

Sometimes the best camoflage, is not to be wearing camoflage.

But the impression that it was yours was there. And why wouldn't you admit that? Too scared to speak your mind?


That's me! So what? Instead of attacking my arguments you attack how I look. Shows your intelligence.




I'm quite proud of my website. What do you have a problem with? Oh yeah- I am pro-liberty. Can't have that now.

Well, Matt, I believe the less said the better- on my car and on the internet.

You're "proud" of these statements?

Your views on "Current Events" (from your website):



So now you've turned your razor-sharp intellect to the world situation, and decided WE ARE RESPONSIBLE, that it's our "terrible foreign policy" that caused these terrorist attacks?  



Your views on "Constitutional Violations":



If you really find this offensive, refuse to participate!  You certainly have no problem using all the benefits this "terrible" government has provided.  

Have you ever:
Gone to a state sponsored (and funded) school?  Had a job, and earned minimum wage or better?
Been forced to work without compensation?
Had to eat food tainted by toxic poisons or chemicals?
Worn clothes made in this country?
Driven on any public road or highway?
Turned on the lights in your home?
Bought and used your computer AND the internet?
Eaten food provided by farmers who've received subsidies?


How do you think all these things came to be available for you to use and take advantage of, and then bitch about on the internet?

I challenge you to live one day without any of those things you seem to feel are derived from "unconstitutional" activities of our government.  Try it!  Then maybe you'll understand why you appear to be so simple-minded.

You are a cherokee guy, too?

NRA on my '00 chevy truck rear window.

The minute I put the NRA sticker on my car I knew it was the wrong thing to do.  Too many negatives, even if you consider the free speech value.  

OTOH how many people know what "Molon Labe" means?  You're feeling good but not communicating except to other gun lovers.

Maybe we should get "disinformation" stickers like "Reno/Condit for President"  

Other than Brigade of the American Revolution and British Brigade stickers [url]http://www.brigade.org[/url] and [url]http://www.britishbrigade.org[/url] which are variations of historic British and colonial flags signifying these Revolutionary War reenactment organisations, and a US flag sticker, all I have on the back of my car is a nationality type white oval sticker that reads: 'RKBA'...

"RKBA- what does that mean?"

"Uh...Rochester Kennel and Boarding Association...officer."[:D]






...................

You keep talking about teddy bears and saying that they have more safety
regulations than guns... but teddy bears are made for babies and guns are
made for adults.
- --ANONYMOUS TEN-YEAR-OLD CHALLENGING MARY LEIGH BLEK (MMM), 11/28/01

Yes, I have pro-gun stickers. No, I'm not afraid that anyone would cause me any trouble because I have them. I had pro-gun stickers on my vehicles for years, just like millions of other vehicles that have them, and never had one thing done or said to me about them. I never heard of anyone being harassed because they had pro-gun stickers. Maybe anti-gunners figure they don't want to mess with someone or  something belonging to someone who might have a gun....hmmm, go figure.
Now if you try to stick one on Al Gore's or Sarah Brady's car.....

[b]ArmaLiter[/b]

Anyone know any places that sell gun related logos?  I know ebay has some selections, but I am looking for others.  Maybe some that just say: Bushmaster, Colt, HK, Beretta, Ruger, etc....

No I don't.....Although I am a gun owner....I don't advertise.

Well,
I don't have any stickers on my car.  It's new, and I can't do the anonymous thing... not with my car.  It's a 2002 Honda Insight.  Only about half a dozen in the city I live in, so it's a little unique.  I'd like to put an AR15.com License plate frame, and my NRA sticker on it.  The car generally gives the impression that I'm some sort of tree hugger, or, as one of my gunny buddies here said, it's my eco-terrorist car... lol  Kinda thinks it's a contradiction for a gun nut to be driving such a car, but more than an environmentalist, I'm a techie, and the car is cool as far as the technical side.  

M@

We wil just have to agree to disagree. I believe the more said the better. I believe it improves the ability to argue.


Absolutely.


Yes, more or less. The part you quoted says it all. Doesn't take away from the evil of the acts, or the condemnation of those who perpetrated them, though



It is not a matter or participating. It is matter of right and wrong, and the supremacy of the Constitution.


Two things:

-The Question is NOT whether these laws are DESIRABLE, but whether they are CONSTITUTIONAL. Major difference. If you want those laws, either have your state make them, or amend the Constitution. But do NOT "bend" the Constitution to get them, because every single one of those things I listed is not delegated to the Federal Government to have authority over.

-If you DID want to argue their desirability, then you still are wrong. Everything that I listed, plus many many others, would be more efficiently and better acted upon in the market. Everything that the government gets its hands into goes wrong. Examples:

Through Education Funding, the government has indoctrinated the students toward a pro big government(and anti-2nd amendment) view, and has dumbed them done. Private schools produce much brighter, knowledgable, and smarter students who can think for themselves, all at a much cheaper price.

Minimum wage laws have increased unemployment, distorted the job market, and  increased the cost of doing business and hence the price of products, among many other things. It is better to make $2.00 an hour than $0.00 an hour.

Environmental laws have violated private property, destroyed property values, distorted the real estate market, and haven't improved the environment, among many other things. EVERY SINGLE improvement came not as a result of governmental action or regulation, but from the market and individual ingenuity.

Transportation Laws have increased the price of cars(that's one reason why cars cost almost 10X what i cost to manufacturer them), decreased their safety, and distorted the car market, among many other things.

Energy Laws have increased the price of energy, distorted the energy market, and lowered innovation in energy creation, among many other things.

Agriculture laws have raise the price of bread, milk, other dairy products, and other agriculture products, distorted the agriculture market, increased the cost of being in the agriculture business, reduced innovation in the agriculture business, and put small agriculture farms out of business, among many other things.

I could go on and on and on. I could write volumes of books on the last 100 years of US government alone! Some have written just books on one subject: The Fed, banking, the environment, etc. The evidence is overwhelming!

My Ford F-150 4x4 has:

'Have Gun...Won't Hesitate...'

NRA Sticker

and

'Support Freedom - Lock and Load'

Is the Eagle, Globe and Anchor considered a pro-gun sticker?

All of that is nice in theory, but let's take a simple example and look at it conceptually.  Education is, and should be, a national issue.  You can't have each state deciding what consitutes an appropriate education... there has to be minimum standards.  What if one state decides 6 years is enough?  Sure, all sorts of "free market" concepts could apply, and anybody interested in more than six years education could move, etc., but is that really what you want?  It'd be like 50 different fiefdoms or small countries in your view.  

I'm no constitutional scholar (far from it!), but it makes no sense to me that we can't interpret and refine the application of the constitution's contents to reflect reality in this country, on this planet, at this point in time.  

Example: Did our founding fathers have anything specific to say about railroads, for example?  How then do we regulate interstate rail traffic?

Oh, and your example of the environmental laws is wrong in at least one case: federal air quality standards have led to improved air quality in the L.A. basin, as shown here:

[url]http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/histsmog.html[/url]


That's a Good Thing (tm).

First, this is back up by mounds of evidence.
Second, It is emphatically NOT a national issue, as there is no grant of power authorizing the Feds to be involved in education.
As for the 50 fiefdoms view, that is how it should be run. That is how the Founders WANTED it to be run.



That is exactly the point Al Gore made. Just FYI.
Anyway, I explain why he and you are wrong.
What would be the purpose of a written constitution if the meaning could be changed. Why have one at all if the purpose was to enact whatever laws the government wanted?
Because, the Founders recognized that ALL governments tend toward tyranny, and they wrote down on paper limits on the government they were created. The meaning of the words and the Constitution must always be made in the context in which it was written. The Founders meant one thing when they wrote it, and that meaning DOES NOT change. There are some words that do lend themselves to intrepration, such as unreasonable in the Fourth Amendment, but the burden of proven should always lie with the government, and the liberty of the people should always grow at the expense of government power.
Now, if you want to change the Constitution, and what it means, they is a procedure for doing that. Look at Article V, which states how to amend the Constitution.

Here is an example:
The Second Amendment. The words are clear, if you go and look at the definition at the time there were written down. Militia means all able-bodied people, the people means what it says, but then there is the question of arms. But was the definition of arms at the time of adoption "muskets"? No, the definition was an instrument design to inflict harm on another person(paraphrasing here). While muskets DO fall under that category, so do modern rifles. You must ALWAYS use the text first with the definition of the words coming from the time of adoption, and the historical surrounds giving more meaning if the words are unclear.
Interpreting the Constitution like you suggest is how we got to where we are today: the Constitution having no meaning at all because it means whatever the judge says it means.
Under your proposal of Constitutional Interpretation, the Supreme Court could say that today we no longer need a militia, that arms are only muskets, and that guns can be banned. It takes away the separation of powers by placing all powers with the judiciary, and it puts liberty at the mercy of a Judge.

No, they did not say anything about Railroads. How do we regulate interstate rail traffic? Simple, we don't. The Congress can regulate interstate commerce, but what that means is that they can ONLY make regulations ensure that interstate commerce flows freely to any state that wants. It doesn't mean that the Feds can ban what they feel like or make regulations about train safety. Congress grated on a SMALL and LIMITED amount of power, and they can only exercise that which they were EXPLICITLY granted(see the 10th Amendment.) Any questions regarding whether Congress can do something should start on the side of they don't have that power, unless it is granted explicitly in the Federal Constitution.


The site you provided is a government site. What do you think they are going to say? We didn't do anything to help the environment? If you find a more reputable place that the government I'll be more likely to believe it.

Easy one first- who else but a gov. agency is going to care about measuring and maintaining clean air?  The numbers are clear, and your suspicion of anything from gov.org clearly shows your bias against anything they do...

Gotta go... maybe more later.

I do now:

"RKBA", black letters on white oval.

To me that sums it up:  I support the right to keep and bear arms.  It's not about any one organization or company.  

Low profile, but serves as a "nod" to the good guys.