If we ever let liberals disarm us, we will lose the last bits of freedom we have left...

[Daryl Hunt]

...it's not about self-defense against criminals (though that's important), or hunting (though that's important too) the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from liberal elites who are conspiring to destroy our freedoms. Look at what they've accomplished on university campuses, where First Amendment no longer exists, and a man accused of rape is denied due process. Look at what they're doing with Google, Facebook and Twitter, censoring speech and banning conservatives from speaking. Look at the California one-party state, secured with illegal votes of illegal aliens. This is the liberal elite's goal for all of us, a total loss of the freedom to speak and vote.

I doubt most people would listen even if the leftists did manage to pass a law disarming American's. As you can see in New Jersey even facing a FELONY charge NO ONE has turned into their "high capacity magazines" and I don't think anyone will!

In Colorado, in 2013, the Mags were limited to 15. Immediately, the sale of over that was banned. It was grandfathered in. Give it another 10 years and there will be almost no high capacity mags left. That was how they got rid of the full auto Thompsons with the 1934 Firearms Act. They didn't go looking for them but when they found them, they seized them and destroyed them. In 10 years, the Thompsons were only in the hands of the Military, Police and collectors with very few exceptions or were disabled into wall hangars. Pretty much, Grandfathering in works as long as it is accompanied with some teeth when they destroy those that crop up.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Are you claiming that the words democracy and republic have changed since 1928? Cite your source.

Cite for us a country that was founded with the recognition that men have Rights that are above the law and cannot be changed?

What country entrusts its citizenry with weapons so that the people can repel tyranny in government?

What country has a Bill of Rights that guarantees absolute Rights?

Under the illegal/ de facto government we have today, the judicial branch has unconstitutionally legislated from the bench and turned our laws 180 degrees opposite of what they were intended to say.

No I'm saying that your report gives a definition of Democracy, neither me, nor any dictionary has ever heard about.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." Find me a single example of this being backed up in real life? I don't know who wrote this piece of crap, but any person with fifth grade level civics behind him should recognize is at simply false.
You are also getting tiresome.
As for this weapons thing. Most countries allow possession of firearms withing certain restrictions. You for instance don't have the right to own an armed Abrams tank. So what are you talking about?

So now you're calling the people that write the manuals that taught our military of a fifth grade level of understanding??? WTH are you?

I think the Army got it right. It's EXACTLY the way Democrats and Republicrats operate. Hell, you're even implying that you believe it.

Yes when they wrote it in 1929. Give me ANY definition of Democracy besides that army manual that has a paragraph similar to this.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." I'll wait for it.
Oh and by the way, waving the flag to prevent me from calling bullshit when I see it, just makes you look more a fool.

OMG. You are not only arrogant, but that halo is a bit more than I can stand.

Unfortunately, this thread is about liberals disarming gun owners. I've noticed that when the left begins to lose an argument, they try to hijack threads and go into places that are irrelevant to the OP. I could start with the founders and work my up to he mid 1800s and it would be insufficient.

But, to those who want to know where liberalism leads, I have two words: Bernie Sanders.

Ronald Reagan ushered in neoliberal economics didn't he.

Ronald Reagan supported gun control and after that he sounded like the voices on Charley Brown cartoons... blah, blah, blah.

 

[forkup]

Load of crock. In most, if not all democracies the judicial branch pushes back on the government if they rule they are violating the constitution. In a lot of those countries that is even done more vigorously then in the US because unlike in the US the judicial branch has no clear party affiliation. Oh and the report was written in 1928 and you are using it to prove your point? Seems a bit ridiculous.

Are you claiming that the words democracy and republic have changed since 1928? Cite your source.

Cite for us a country that was founded with the recognition that men have Rights that are above the law and cannot be changed?

What country entrusts its citizenry with weapons so that the people can repel tyranny in government?

What country has a Bill of Rights that guarantees absolute Rights?

Under the illegal/ de facto government we have today, the judicial branch has unconstitutionally legislated from the bench and turned our laws 180 degrees opposite of what they were intended to say.

No I'm saying that your report gives a definition of Democracy, neither me, nor any dictionary has ever heard about.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." Find me a single example of this being backed up in real life? I don't know who wrote this piece of crap, but any person with fifth grade level civics behind him should recognize is at simply false.
You are also getting tiresome. Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia
As for this weapons thing. Most countries allow possession of firearms withing certain restrictions. You for instance don't have the right to own an armed Abrams tank. So what are you talking about?

So now you're calling the people that write the manuals that taught our military of a fifth grade level of understanding??? WTH are you?

I think the Army got it right. It's EXACTLY the way Democrats and Republicrats operate. Hell, you're even implying that you believe it.

Yes when they wrote it in 1929. Give me ANY definition of Democracy besides that army manual that has a paragraph similar to this.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." I'll wait for it.
Oh and by the way, waving the flag to prevent me from calling bullshit when I see it, just makes you look more a fool.

OMG. You are not only arrogant, but that halo is a bit more than I can stand.

Unfortunately, this thread is about liberals disarming gun owners. I've noticed that when the left begins to lose an argument, they try to hijack threads and go into places that are irrelevant to the OP. I could start with the founders and work my up to he mid 1800s and it would be insufficient.

But, to those who want to know where liberalism leads, I have two words: Bernie Sanders.

What argument am I losing? Firstly there is no political pressure from the liberal side to disarm anybody. At the very most there is talk to put more restrictions on it. As I pointed out there are already restrictions on it.
Secondly, I replied to your assertions made about American exceptionalism, maybe of topic but you brought it up. And then when you could argue on merit, you tried the classic "appeal to emotion" logical fallacy. Namely trying to say that disagreeing with your assertion equals not supporting the military. I caught and called you on it, is all.

 

[Blackrook]

It's not the liberals we need to worry about:

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read, but Democrats are stupid enough to believe it I guess.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Are you claiming that the words democracy and republic have changed since 1928? Cite your source.

Cite for us a country that was founded with the recognition that men have Rights that are above the law and cannot be changed?

What country entrusts its citizenry with weapons so that the people can repel tyranny in government?

What country has a Bill of Rights that guarantees absolute Rights?

Under the illegal/ de facto government we have today, the judicial branch has unconstitutionally legislated from the bench and turned our laws 180 degrees opposite of what they were intended to say.

No I'm saying that your report gives a definition of Democracy, neither me, nor any dictionary has ever heard about.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." Find me a single example of this being backed up in real life? I don't know who wrote this piece of crap, but any person with fifth grade level civics behind him should recognize is at simply false.
You are also getting tiresome. Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia
As for this weapons thing. Most countries allow possession of firearms withing certain restrictions. You for instance don't have the right to own an armed Abrams tank. So what are you talking about?

So now you're calling the people that write the manuals that taught our military of a fifth grade level of understanding??? WTH are you?

I think the Army got it right. It's EXACTLY the way Democrats and Republicrats operate. Hell, you're even implying that you believe it.

Yes when they wrote it in 1929. Give me ANY definition of Democracy besides that army manual that has a paragraph similar to this.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." I'll wait for it.
Oh and by the way, waving the flag to prevent me from calling bullshit when I see it, just makes you look more a fool.

OMG. You are not only arrogant, but that halo is a bit more than I can stand.

Unfortunately, this thread is about liberals disarming gun owners. I've noticed that when the left begins to lose an argument, they try to hijack threads and go into places that are irrelevant to the OP. I could start with the founders and work my up to he mid 1800s and it would be insufficient.

But, to those who want to know where liberalism leads, I have two words: Bernie Sanders.

What argument am I losing? Firstly there is no political pressure from the liberal side to disarm anybody. At the very most there is talk to put more restrictions on it. As I pointed out there are already restrictions on it.
Secondly, I replied to your assertions made about American exceptionalism, maybe of topic but you brought it up. And then when you could argue on merit, you tried the classic "appeal to emotion" logical fallacy. Namely trying to say that disagreeing with your assertion equals not supporting the military. I caught and called you on it, is all.

My my that head has gotten so big, the halo has gotten too tight. Let's straighten you out yet again:

Our military is in good shape, thank you very much. As a matter of FACT, the only reason America plays ANY PART in world politics is due to our military. Other than that we are a third world cesspool. One former friend broke off our friendship because I would not go as far as he did in believing America is Mystery Babylon.

Next, America WAS founded as the greatest nation in the annals of history. Today, we lead the world in the numbers of people incarcerated in prisons and jails; Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; we lead the world in drug overdose deaths per year (70,000 plus which is MORE THAN TWICE the number of deaths compared to firearms) and we're allowing socialists and communists from the right and the left to run our country. Everything that made us great is being destroyed.

Currently Nancy Pelosi is floating all kinds of legislation and proposals for other legislation to prevent hobbyists from building their own weapons; restrictions on the purchase of parts; outlawing private sales; Universal Background checks (which cannot be enforced without National Gun Registration), and outlawing so - called "assault weapons."

What is really happening in politics is a rerun of EVERY Republican presidential administration in my voting lifetime. Both the Democrats and Republicans want gun control. So, they created the nutty wall around the southern border idea as a diversionary tactic. Now, in order to break the stalemate, the Dems will offer something called funds for "border security." In exchange, Trump will allow the House to offer up a bill for a Universal Background Check and ending gun shows.

It will be an entertaining fight - one Vince McMahon at the World Wrestling Entertainment organization would be proud of since he taught Trump how to make those "fights" look real. In reality, Trump's attitude was summed up in his 2000 book The America we Deserve when he wrote:

"...I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."

The fakes, phonies, frauds and poseurs in the NRA (gun control leftists that control that organization) feign shock and surprise at Trump's stance:

Donald Trump stuns allies by signalling backing for tighter gun control

You mean the NRA didn't vet Trump BEFORE endorsing his presidential bid? Are they REALLY that freaking stupid?

The dim wits that support the nutty wall idea will settle for a scaled down version of the wall; most of the laws aimed against the foreigners will be over-turned in the SCOTUS (as we're already seeing) which means all that hullabaloo will have been over nothing. Gun control will be implemented and another part of our Constitution will fade into the pages of history.

The left is being run around like puppets on a string. They sit back and watch cops chase unarmed black men down, shooting them in the back as the man runs. Lefties know that is perfectly acceptable for your law enforcement (or anyone else in government) to lie to you, but it's a crime if you lie to them. We are in the position that our forefathers were in when, in the Declaration of Independence, it was written:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

...He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation"

We are reliving the nightmare, but this time government has gotten Hegelian Dialectics down to a science and has the sheeple willing to waste their ever waking moment arguing to defend the assaults on Liberty. The majority have become useful idiots for wannabe slave-masters. Without that ability to resist unconstitutional and tyrannical powers, we are screwed.

Now, see how you can twist that.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no express wall building or border security clause. The right wing is dumb enough to whine about our general welfare clause.

 

[deanrd]

Funny how the GOP base thinks they’re “free“ when they are slaves to the plantation masters of the Aryan nation confederate white nationalist Republican Party.

They want healthcare, their masters say no.

They want tax cuts, their masters say only for the rich.

Their women say we want equal pay for equal work, their masters say no.

Their women say we want control over our own bodies, their masters say your bodies must be legislated.

Slaves doing what their masters say and not allowed to do anything else.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Funny how the GOP base thinks they’re “free“ when they are slaves to the plantation masters of the Aryan nation confederate white nationalist Republican Party.

They want healthcare, their masters say no.

They want tax cuts, their masters say only for the rich.

Their women say we want equal pay for equal work, their masters say no.

Their women say we want control over our own bodies, their masters say your bodies must be legislated.

Slaves doing what their masters say and not allowed to do anything else.

I voted for Donald Trump as the lesser of two evils. I can see your point to a degree. HOWEVER, the Democrats have become the non-white, non-Christian, and anti-constitutionalist alternative to the Republicans.

I did notice that you avoided the subject of the OP which validates my theory: if you get on one of these threads and cannot prevail with an argument about the OP, start arguing an irrelevant and off point topic. Hijack the thread and lose people's interest in the subject at hand.

 

[forkup]

No I'm saying that your report gives a definition of Democracy, neither me, nor any dictionary has ever heard about.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." Find me a single example of this being backed up in real life? I don't know who wrote this piece of crap, but any person with fifth grade level civics behind him should recognize is at simply false.
You are also getting tiresome. Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia
As for this weapons thing. Most countries allow possession of firearms withing certain restrictions. You for instance don't have the right to own an armed Abrams tank. So what are you talking about?

So now you're calling the people that write the manuals that taught our military of a fifth grade level of understanding??? WTH are you?

I think the Army got it right. It's EXACTLY the way Democrats and Republicrats operate. Hell, you're even implying that you believe it.

Yes when they wrote it in 1929. Give me ANY definition of Democracy besides that army manual that has a paragraph similar to this.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." I'll wait for it.
Oh and by the way, waving the flag to prevent me from calling bullshit when I see it, just makes you look more a fool.

OMG. You are not only arrogant, but that halo is a bit more than I can stand.

Unfortunately, this thread is about liberals disarming gun owners. I've noticed that when the left begins to lose an argument, they try to hijack threads and go into places that are irrelevant to the OP. I could start with the founders and work my up to he mid 1800s and it would be insufficient.

But, to those who want to know where liberalism leads, I have two words: Bernie Sanders.

What argument am I losing? Firstly there is no political pressure from the liberal side to disarm anybody. At the very most there is talk to put more restrictions on it. As I pointed out there are already restrictions on it.
Secondly, I replied to your assertions made about American exceptionalism, maybe of topic but you brought it up. And then when you could argue on merit, you tried the classic "appeal to emotion" logical fallacy. Namely trying to say that disagreeing with your assertion equals not supporting the military. I caught and called you on it, is all.

My my that head has gotten so big, the halo has gotten too tight. Let's straighten you out yet again:

Our military is in good shape, thank you very much. As a matter of FACT, the only reason America plays ANY PART in world politics is due to our military. Other than that we are a third world cesspool. One former friend broke off our friendship because I would not go as far as he did in believing America is Mystery Babylon.

Next, America WAS founded as the greatest nation in the annals of history. Today, we lead the world in the numbers of people incarcerated in prisons and jails; Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; we lead the world in drug overdose deaths per year (70,000 plus which is MORE THAN TWICE the number of deaths compared to firearms) and we're allowing socialists and communists from the right and the left to run our country. Everything that made us great is being destroyed.

Currently Nancy Pelosi is floating all kinds of legislation and proposals for other legislation to prevent hobbyists from building their own weapons; restrictions on the purchase of parts; outlawing private sales; Universal Background checks (which cannot be enforced without National Gun Registration), and outlawing so - called "assault weapons."

What is really happening in politics is a rerun of EVERY Republican presidential administration in my voting lifetime. Both the Democrats and Republicans want gun control. So, they created the nutty wall around the southern border idea as a diversionary tactic. Now, in order to break the stalemate, the Dems will offer something called funds for "border security." In exchange, Trump will allow the House to offer up a bill for a Universal Background Check and ending gun shows.

It will be an entertaining fight - one Vince McMahon at the World Wrestling Entertainment organization would be proud of since he taught Trump how to make those "fights" look real. In reality, Trump's attitude was summed up in his 2000 book The America we Deserve when he wrote:

"...I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."

The fakes, phonies, frauds and poseurs in the NRA (gun control leftists that control that organization) feign shock and surprise at Trump's stance:

Donald Trump stuns allies by signalling backing for tighter gun control

You mean the NRA didn't vet Trump BEFORE endorsing his presidential bid? Are they REALLY that freaking stupid?

The dim wits that support the nutty wall idea will settle for a scaled down version of the wall; most of the laws aimed against the foreigners will be over-turned in the SCOTUS (as we're already seeing) which means all that hullabaloo will have been over nothing. Gun control will be implemented and another part of our Constitution will fade into the pages of history.

The left is being run around like puppets on a string. They sit back and watch cops chase unarmed black men down, shooting them in the back as the man runs. Lefties know that is perfectly acceptable for your law enforcement (or anyone else in government) to lie to you, but it's a crime if you lie to them. We are in the position that our forefathers were in when, in the Declaration of Independence, it was written:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

...He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation"

We are reliving the nightmare, but this time government has gotten Hegelian Dialectics down to a science and has the sheeple willing to waste their ever waking moment arguing to defend the assaults on Liberty. The majority have become useful idiots for wannabe slave-masters. Without that ability to resist unconstitutional and tyrannical powers, we are screwed.

Now, see how you can twist that.

-More words don't equal better points. Just saying. As me twisting anything. What have I twisted? You asserted that the American constitution has provisions in it that other constitutions lack. Namely in limiting the power of the government. I gave examples to show that to be untrue. Next you tried to redefine Democracy and when I disagreed with it and invited you to prove me wrong, you choose to try to make an appeal to emotion. If I see any of this wrong, you are welcome to show how those assertions are wrong?
- As to the rest. NRA a leftist organisation? Repubs wanting gun control? The left sitting by when the police shoots blacks?
That section belongs in the conspiracies section.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So now you're calling the people that write the manuals that taught our military of a fifth grade level of understanding??? WTH are you?

I think the Army got it right. It's EXACTLY the way Democrats and Republicrats operate. Hell, you're even implying that you believe it.

Yes when they wrote it in 1929. Give me ANY definition of Democracy besides that army manual that has a paragraph similar to this.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." I'll wait for it.
Oh and by the way, waving the flag to prevent me from calling bullshit when I see it, just makes you look more a fool.

OMG. You are not only arrogant, but that halo is a bit more than I can stand.

Unfortunately, this thread is about liberals disarming gun owners. I've noticed that when the left begins to lose an argument, they try to hijack threads and go into places that are irrelevant to the OP. I could start with the founders and work my up to he mid 1800s and it would be insufficient.

But, to those who want to know where liberalism leads, I have two words: Bernie Sanders.

What argument am I losing? Firstly there is no political pressure from the liberal side to disarm anybody. At the very most there is talk to put more restrictions on it. As I pointed out there are already restrictions on it.
Secondly, I replied to your assertions made about American exceptionalism, maybe of topic but you brought it up. And then when you could argue on merit, you tried the classic "appeal to emotion" logical fallacy. Namely trying to say that disagreeing with your assertion equals not supporting the military. I caught and called you on it, is all.

My my that head has gotten so big, the halo has gotten too tight. Let's straighten you out yet again:

Our military is in good shape, thank you very much. As a matter of FACT, the only reason America plays ANY PART in world politics is due to our military. Other than that we are a third world cesspool. One former friend broke off our friendship because I would not go as far as he did in believing America is Mystery Babylon.

Next, America WAS founded as the greatest nation in the annals of history. Today, we lead the world in the numbers of people incarcerated in prisons and jails; Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; we lead the world in drug overdose deaths per year (70,000 plus which is MORE THAN TWICE the number of deaths compared to firearms) and we're allowing socialists and communists from the right and the left to run our country. Everything that made us great is being destroyed.

Currently Nancy Pelosi is floating all kinds of legislation and proposals for other legislation to prevent hobbyists from building their own weapons; restrictions on the purchase of parts; outlawing private sales; Universal Background checks (which cannot be enforced without National Gun Registration), and outlawing so - called "assault weapons."

What is really happening in politics is a rerun of EVERY Republican presidential administration in my voting lifetime. Both the Democrats and Republicans want gun control. So, they created the nutty wall around the southern border idea as a diversionary tactic. Now, in order to break the stalemate, the Dems will offer something called funds for "border security." In exchange, Trump will allow the House to offer up a bill for a Universal Background Check and ending gun shows.

It will be an entertaining fight - one Vince McMahon at the World Wrestling Entertainment organization would be proud of since he taught Trump how to make those "fights" look real. In reality, Trump's attitude was summed up in his 2000 book The America we Deserve when he wrote:

"...I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."

The fakes, phonies, frauds and poseurs in the NRA (gun control leftists that control that organization) feign shock and surprise at Trump's stance:

Donald Trump stuns allies by signalling backing for tighter gun control

You mean the NRA didn't vet Trump BEFORE endorsing his presidential bid? Are they REALLY that freaking stupid?

The dim wits that support the nutty wall idea will settle for a scaled down version of the wall; most of the laws aimed against the foreigners will be over-turned in the SCOTUS (as we're already seeing) which means all that hullabaloo will have been over nothing. Gun control will be implemented and another part of our Constitution will fade into the pages of history.

The left is being run around like puppets on a string. They sit back and watch cops chase unarmed black men down, shooting them in the back as the man runs. Lefties know that is perfectly acceptable for your law enforcement (or anyone else in government) to lie to you, but it's a crime if you lie to them. We are in the position that our forefathers were in when, in the Declaration of Independence, it was written:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

...He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation"

We are reliving the nightmare, but this time government has gotten Hegelian Dialectics down to a science and has the sheeple willing to waste their ever waking moment arguing to defend the assaults on Liberty. The majority have become useful idiots for wannabe slave-masters. Without that ability to resist unconstitutional and tyrannical powers, we are screwed.

Now, see how you can twist that.

-More words don't equal better points. Just saying. As me twisting anything. What have I twisted? You asserted that the American constitution has provisions in it that other constitutions lack. Namely in limiting the power of the government. I gave examples to show that to be untrue. Next you tried to redefine Democracy and when I disagreed with it and invited you to prove me wrong, you choose to try to make an appeal to emotion. If I see any of this wrong, you are welcome to show how those assertions are wrong?
- As to the rest. NRA a leftist organisation? Repubs wanting gun control? The left sitting by when the police shoots blacks?
That section belongs in the conspiracies section.

Yeah, brother. You have proven the world wrong. You're a legend in your own mind. You've done NOTHING that you've claimed.

You want FACTS posted in the conspiracy section? No assertion I've made is wrong. You are just self absorbed, falsely believing that just because you deny something that disproves it.

You sound like danielpalos on an acid trip.

I almost forgot: Your tactic of putting up statements of belief versus an acknowledgment that some Rights are not given by man, but bestowed upon you by your Creator are WORLDS apart.

 

[forkup]

Yes when they wrote it in 1929. Give me ANY definition of Democracy besides that army manual that has a paragraph similar to this.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." I'll wait for it.
Oh and by the way, waving the flag to prevent me from calling bullshit when I see it, just makes you look more a fool.

OMG. You are not only arrogant, but that halo is a bit more than I can stand.

Unfortunately, this thread is about liberals disarming gun owners. I've noticed that when the left begins to lose an argument, they try to hijack threads and go into places that are irrelevant to the OP. I could start with the founders and work my up to he mid 1800s and it would be insufficient.

But, to those who want to know where liberalism leads, I have two words: Bernie Sanders.

What argument am I losing? Firstly there is no political pressure from the liberal side to disarm anybody. At the very most there is talk to put more restrictions on it. As I pointed out there are already restrictions on it.
Secondly, I replied to your assertions made about American exceptionalism, maybe of topic but you brought it up. And then when you could argue on merit, you tried the classic "appeal to emotion" logical fallacy. Namely trying to say that disagreeing with your assertion equals not supporting the military. I caught and called you on it, is all.

My my that head has gotten so big, the halo has gotten too tight. Let's straighten you out yet again:

Our military is in good shape, thank you very much. As a matter of FACT, the only reason America plays ANY PART in world politics is due to our military. Other than that we are a third world cesspool. One former friend broke off our friendship because I would not go as far as he did in believing America is Mystery Babylon.

Next, America WAS founded as the greatest nation in the annals of history. Today, we lead the world in the numbers of people incarcerated in prisons and jails; Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; we lead the world in drug overdose deaths per year (70,000 plus which is MORE THAN TWICE the number of deaths compared to firearms) and we're allowing socialists and communists from the right and the left to run our country. Everything that made us great is being destroyed.

Currently Nancy Pelosi is floating all kinds of legislation and proposals for other legislation to prevent hobbyists from building their own weapons; restrictions on the purchase of parts; outlawing private sales; Universal Background checks (which cannot be enforced without National Gun Registration), and outlawing so - called "assault weapons."

What is really happening in politics is a rerun of EVERY Republican presidential administration in my voting lifetime. Both the Democrats and Republicans want gun control. So, they created the nutty wall around the southern border idea as a diversionary tactic. Now, in order to break the stalemate, the Dems will offer something called funds for "border security." In exchange, Trump will allow the House to offer up a bill for a Universal Background Check and ending gun shows.

It will be an entertaining fight - one Vince McMahon at the World Wrestling Entertainment organization would be proud of since he taught Trump how to make those "fights" look real. In reality, Trump's attitude was summed up in his 2000 book The America we Deserve when he wrote:

"...I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."

The fakes, phonies, frauds and poseurs in the NRA (gun control leftists that control that organization) feign shock and surprise at Trump's stance:

Donald Trump stuns allies by signalling backing for tighter gun control

You mean the NRA didn't vet Trump BEFORE endorsing his presidential bid? Are they REALLY that freaking stupid?

The dim wits that support the nutty wall idea will settle for a scaled down version of the wall; most of the laws aimed against the foreigners will be over-turned in the SCOTUS (as we're already seeing) which means all that hullabaloo will have been over nothing. Gun control will be implemented and another part of our Constitution will fade into the pages of history.

The left is being run around like puppets on a string. They sit back and watch cops chase unarmed black men down, shooting them in the back as the man runs. Lefties know that is perfectly acceptable for your law enforcement (or anyone else in government) to lie to you, but it's a crime if you lie to them. We are in the position that our forefathers were in when, in the Declaration of Independence, it was written:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

...He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation"

We are reliving the nightmare, but this time government has gotten Hegelian Dialectics down to a science and has the sheeple willing to waste their ever waking moment arguing to defend the assaults on Liberty. The majority have become useful idiots for wannabe slave-masters. Without that ability to resist unconstitutional and tyrannical powers, we are screwed.

Now, see how you can twist that.

-More words don't equal better points. Just saying. As me twisting anything. What have I twisted? You asserted that the American constitution has provisions in it that other constitutions lack. Namely in limiting the power of the government. I gave examples to show that to be untrue. Next you tried to redefine Democracy and when I disagreed with it and invited you to prove me wrong, you choose to try to make an appeal to emotion. If I see any of this wrong, you are welcome to show how those assertions are wrong?
- As to the rest. NRA a leftist organisation? Repubs wanting gun control? The left sitting by when the police shoots blacks?
That section belongs in the conspiracies section.

Yeah, brother. You have proven the world wrong. You're a legend in your own mind. You've done NOTHING that you've claimed.

You want FACTS posted in the conspiracy section? No assertion I've made is wrong. You are just self absorbed, falsely believing that just because you deny something that disproves it.

You sound like danielpalos on an acid trip.

I almost forgot: Your tactic of putting up statements of belief versus an acknowledgment that some Rights are not given by man, but bestowed upon you by your Creator are WORLDS apart.

Really?

You've done NOTHING that you've claimed.

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/France_2008.pdf?lang=en
Constitution of Belgium - Wikipedia
Human rights in the Netherlands

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia

Find me a single example of this being backed up in real life?

No assertion I've made is wrong.

Really, prove it? Prove the lefts affiliation with the NRA. Show me an actual push by the GOP to put up more restrictions on guns? Black lives matter is a movement defended by Obama. This is more then any member of the GOP can say so again, what are you talking about.
As to what seems to be putting religion in this conversation. Not for nothing, if you have to refer to faith to substanciate your point, I don't think you have much in the way of actual arguments.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

OMG. You are not only arrogant, but that halo is a bit more than I can stand.

Unfortunately, this thread is about liberals disarming gun owners. I've noticed that when the left begins to lose an argument, they try to hijack threads and go into places that are irrelevant to the OP. I could start with the founders and work my up to he mid 1800s and it would be insufficient.

But, to those who want to know where liberalism leads, I have two words: Bernie Sanders.

What argument am I losing? Firstly there is no political pressure from the liberal side to disarm anybody. At the very most there is talk to put more restrictions on it. As I pointed out there are already restrictions on it.
Secondly, I replied to your assertions made about American exceptionalism, maybe of topic but you brought it up. And then when you could argue on merit, you tried the classic "appeal to emotion" logical fallacy. Namely trying to say that disagreeing with your assertion equals not supporting the military. I caught and called you on it, is all.

My my that head has gotten so big, the halo has gotten too tight. Let's straighten you out yet again:

Our military is in good shape, thank you very much. As a matter of FACT, the only reason America plays ANY PART in world politics is due to our military. Other than that we are a third world cesspool. One former friend broke off our friendship because I would not go as far as he did in believing America is Mystery Babylon.

Next, America WAS founded as the greatest nation in the annals of history. Today, we lead the world in the numbers of people incarcerated in prisons and jails; Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; we lead the world in drug overdose deaths per year (70,000 plus which is MORE THAN TWICE the number of deaths compared to firearms) and we're allowing socialists and communists from the right and the left to run our country. Everything that made us great is being destroyed.

Currently Nancy Pelosi is floating all kinds of legislation and proposals for other legislation to prevent hobbyists from building their own weapons; restrictions on the purchase of parts; outlawing private sales; Universal Background checks (which cannot be enforced without National Gun Registration), and outlawing so - called "assault weapons."

What is really happening in politics is a rerun of EVERY Republican presidential administration in my voting lifetime. Both the Democrats and Republicans want gun control. So, they created the nutty wall around the southern border idea as a diversionary tactic. Now, in order to break the stalemate, the Dems will offer something called funds for "border security." In exchange, Trump will allow the House to offer up a bill for a Universal Background Check and ending gun shows.

It will be an entertaining fight - one Vince McMahon at the World Wrestling Entertainment organization would be proud of since he taught Trump how to make those "fights" look real. In reality, Trump's attitude was summed up in his 2000 book The America we Deserve when he wrote:

"...I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."

The fakes, phonies, frauds and poseurs in the NRA (gun control leftists that control that organization) feign shock and surprise at Trump's stance:

Donald Trump stuns allies by signalling backing for tighter gun control

You mean the NRA didn't vet Trump BEFORE endorsing his presidential bid? Are they REALLY that freaking stupid?

The dim wits that support the nutty wall idea will settle for a scaled down version of the wall; most of the laws aimed against the foreigners will be over-turned in the SCOTUS (as we're already seeing) which means all that hullabaloo will have been over nothing. Gun control will be implemented and another part of our Constitution will fade into the pages of history.

The left is being run around like puppets on a string. They sit back and watch cops chase unarmed black men down, shooting them in the back as the man runs. Lefties know that is perfectly acceptable for your law enforcement (or anyone else in government) to lie to you, but it's a crime if you lie to them. We are in the position that our forefathers were in when, in the Declaration of Independence, it was written:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

...He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation"

We are reliving the nightmare, but this time government has gotten Hegelian Dialectics down to a science and has the sheeple willing to waste their ever waking moment arguing to defend the assaults on Liberty. The majority have become useful idiots for wannabe slave-masters. Without that ability to resist unconstitutional and tyrannical powers, we are screwed.

Now, see how you can twist that.

-More words don't equal better points. Just saying. As me twisting anything. What have I twisted? You asserted that the American constitution has provisions in it that other constitutions lack. Namely in limiting the power of the government. I gave examples to show that to be untrue. Next you tried to redefine Democracy and when I disagreed with it and invited you to prove me wrong, you choose to try to make an appeal to emotion. If I see any of this wrong, you are welcome to show how those assertions are wrong?
- As to the rest. NRA a leftist organisation? Repubs wanting gun control? The left sitting by when the police shoots blacks?
That section belongs in the conspiracies section.

Yeah, brother. You have proven the world wrong. You're a legend in your own mind. You've done NOTHING that you've claimed.

You want FACTS posted in the conspiracy section? No assertion I've made is wrong. You are just self absorbed, falsely believing that just because you deny something that disproves it.

You sound like danielpalos on an acid trip.

I almost forgot: Your tactic of putting up statements of belief versus an acknowledgment that some Rights are not given by man, but bestowed upon you by your Creator are WORLDS apart.

Really?

You've done NOTHING that you've claimed.

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/France_2008.pdf?lang=en
Constitution of Belgium - Wikipedia
Human rights in the Netherlands

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia

Find me a single example of this being backed up in real life?

No assertion I've made is wrong.

Really, prove it? Prove the lefts affiliation with the NRA. Show me an actual push by the GOP to put up more restrictions on guns? Black lives matter is a movement defended by Obama. This is more then any member of the GOP can say so again, what are you talking about.
As to what seems to be putting religion in this conversation. Not for nothing, if you have to refer to faith to substanciate your point, I don't think you have much in the way of actual arguments.

There are two people on this thread and I don't give a rip what you think. You've proven nothing and I have given factual information. Even if I bothered to document it beyond what I already have in this thread, you would deny.

"Faith" has little to do with the issue. So your reading skills are not quite up to par. You need some remedial classes in reading if you want to participate in a grown up discussion.

I will say it again and again: The United States is the only country on this planet that acknowledged the supremacy of inherent, God given, natural, unalienable, absolute Rights. A piece of paper did not grant you your Rights and those Rights are in no way dependent on the Constitution for their existence... so said our own United States Supreme Court.

 

[forkup]

What argument am I losing? Firstly there is no political pressure from the liberal side to disarm anybody. At the very most there is talk to put more restrictions on it. As I pointed out there are already restrictions on it.
Secondly, I replied to your assertions made about American exceptionalism, maybe of topic but you brought it up. And then when you could argue on merit, you tried the classic "appeal to emotion" logical fallacy. Namely trying to say that disagreeing with your assertion equals not supporting the military. I caught and called you on it, is all.

My my that head has gotten so big, the halo has gotten too tight. Let's straighten you out yet again:

Our military is in good shape, thank you very much. As a matter of FACT, the only reason America plays ANY PART in world politics is due to our military. Other than that we are a third world cesspool. One former friend broke off our friendship because I would not go as far as he did in believing America is Mystery Babylon.

Next, America WAS founded as the greatest nation in the annals of history. Today, we lead the world in the numbers of people incarcerated in prisons and jails; Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; we lead the world in drug overdose deaths per year (70,000 plus which is MORE THAN TWICE the number of deaths compared to firearms) and we're allowing socialists and communists from the right and the left to run our country. Everything that made us great is being destroyed.

Currently Nancy Pelosi is floating all kinds of legislation and proposals for other legislation to prevent hobbyists from building their own weapons; restrictions on the purchase of parts; outlawing private sales; Universal Background checks (which cannot be enforced without National Gun Registration), and outlawing so - called "assault weapons."

What is really happening in politics is a rerun of EVERY Republican presidential administration in my voting lifetime. Both the Democrats and Republicans want gun control. So, they created the nutty wall around the southern border idea as a diversionary tactic. Now, in order to break the stalemate, the Dems will offer something called funds for "border security." In exchange, Trump will allow the House to offer up a bill for a Universal Background Check and ending gun shows.

It will be an entertaining fight - one Vince McMahon at the World Wrestling Entertainment organization would be proud of since he taught Trump how to make those "fights" look real. In reality, Trump's attitude was summed up in his 2000 book The America we Deserve when he wrote:

"...I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."

The fakes, phonies, frauds and poseurs in the NRA (gun control leftists that control that organization) feign shock and surprise at Trump's stance:

Donald Trump stuns allies by signalling backing for tighter gun control

You mean the NRA didn't vet Trump BEFORE endorsing his presidential bid? Are they REALLY that freaking stupid?

The dim wits that support the nutty wall idea will settle for a scaled down version of the wall; most of the laws aimed against the foreigners will be over-turned in the SCOTUS (as we're already seeing) which means all that hullabaloo will have been over nothing. Gun control will be implemented and another part of our Constitution will fade into the pages of history.

The left is being run around like puppets on a string. They sit back and watch cops chase unarmed black men down, shooting them in the back as the man runs. Lefties know that is perfectly acceptable for your law enforcement (or anyone else in government) to lie to you, but it's a crime if you lie to them. We are in the position that our forefathers were in when, in the Declaration of Independence, it was written:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

...He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation"

We are reliving the nightmare, but this time government has gotten Hegelian Dialectics down to a science and has the sheeple willing to waste their ever waking moment arguing to defend the assaults on Liberty. The majority have become useful idiots for wannabe slave-masters. Without that ability to resist unconstitutional and tyrannical powers, we are screwed.

Now, see how you can twist that.

-More words don't equal better points. Just saying. As me twisting anything. What have I twisted? You asserted that the American constitution has provisions in it that other constitutions lack. Namely in limiting the power of the government. I gave examples to show that to be untrue. Next you tried to redefine Democracy and when I disagreed with it and invited you to prove me wrong, you choose to try to make an appeal to emotion. If I see any of this wrong, you are welcome to show how those assertions are wrong?
- As to the rest. NRA a leftist organisation? Repubs wanting gun control? The left sitting by when the police shoots blacks?
That section belongs in the conspiracies section.

Yeah, brother. You have proven the world wrong. You're a legend in your own mind. You've done NOTHING that you've claimed.

You want FACTS posted in the conspiracy section? No assertion I've made is wrong. You are just self absorbed, falsely believing that just because you deny something that disproves it.

You sound like danielpalos on an acid trip.

I almost forgot: Your tactic of putting up statements of belief versus an acknowledgment that some Rights are not given by man, but bestowed upon you by your Creator are WORLDS apart.

Really?

You've done NOTHING that you've claimed.

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/France_2008.pdf?lang=en
Constitution of Belgium - Wikipedia
Human rights in the Netherlands

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia

Find me a single example of this being backed up in real life?

No assertion I've made is wrong.

Really, prove it? Prove the lefts affiliation with the NRA. Show me an actual push by the GOP to put up more restrictions on guns? Black lives matter is a movement defended by Obama. This is more then any member of the GOP can say so again, what are you talking about.
As to what seems to be putting religion in this conversation. Not for nothing, if you have to refer to faith to substanciate your point, I don't think you have much in the way of actual arguments.

There are two people on this thread and I don't give a rip what you think. You've proven nothing and I have given factual information. Even if I bothered to document it beyond what I already have in this thread, you would deny.

"Faith" has little to do with the issue. So your reading skills are not quite up to par. You need some remedial classes in reading if you want to participate in a grown up discussion.

I will say it again and again: The United States is the only country on this planet that acknowledged the supremacy of inherent, God given, natural, unalienable, absolute Rights. A piece of paper did not grant you your Rights and those Rights are in no way dependent on the Constitution for their existence... so said our own United States Supreme Court.

Why would I deny? Not for nothing I CAN substantiate to have changed my opinion on a topic on this board when I was proven wrong. I CAN substantiate that I've admitted to be wrong on MULTIPLE occasions on certain issues on this board.
I think that's more than 99 percent of people here can say. I just request that when making a point that is challenged by the other person that you can substantiate. And using debating techniques like strawmans, appeals to emotion, deflecting or what not, will be called out. I want the strength of the argument do the talking. The fact that you seem to see it as arrogance is telling all in itself.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

My my that head has gotten so big, the halo has gotten too tight. Let's straighten you out yet again:

Our military is in good shape, thank you very much. As a matter of FACT, the only reason America plays ANY PART in world politics is due to our military. Other than that we are a third world cesspool. One former friend broke off our friendship because I would not go as far as he did in believing America is Mystery Babylon.

Next, America WAS founded as the greatest nation in the annals of history. Today, we lead the world in the numbers of people incarcerated in prisons and jails; Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; we lead the world in drug overdose deaths per year (70,000 plus which is MORE THAN TWICE the number of deaths compared to firearms) and we're allowing socialists and communists from the right and the left to run our country. Everything that made us great is being destroyed.

Currently Nancy Pelosi is floating all kinds of legislation and proposals for other legislation to prevent hobbyists from building their own weapons; restrictions on the purchase of parts; outlawing private sales; Universal Background checks (which cannot be enforced without National Gun Registration), and outlawing so - called "assault weapons."

What is really happening in politics is a rerun of EVERY Republican presidential administration in my voting lifetime. Both the Democrats and Republicans want gun control. So, they created the nutty wall around the southern border idea as a diversionary tactic. Now, in order to break the stalemate, the Dems will offer something called funds for "border security." In exchange, Trump will allow the House to offer up a bill for a Universal Background Check and ending gun shows.

It will be an entertaining fight - one Vince McMahon at the World Wrestling Entertainment organization would be proud of since he taught Trump how to make those "fights" look real. In reality, Trump's attitude was summed up in his 2000 book The America we Deserve when he wrote:

"...I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."

The fakes, phonies, frauds and poseurs in the NRA (gun control leftists that control that organization) feign shock and surprise at Trump's stance:

Donald Trump stuns allies by signalling backing for tighter gun control

You mean the NRA didn't vet Trump BEFORE endorsing his presidential bid? Are they REALLY that freaking stupid?

The dim wits that support the nutty wall idea will settle for a scaled down version of the wall; most of the laws aimed against the foreigners will be over-turned in the SCOTUS (as we're already seeing) which means all that hullabaloo will have been over nothing. Gun control will be implemented and another part of our Constitution will fade into the pages of history.

The left is being run around like puppets on a string. They sit back and watch cops chase unarmed black men down, shooting them in the back as the man runs. Lefties know that is perfectly acceptable for your law enforcement (or anyone else in government) to lie to you, but it's a crime if you lie to them. We are in the position that our forefathers were in when, in the Declaration of Independence, it was written:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

...He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation"

We are reliving the nightmare, but this time government has gotten Hegelian Dialectics down to a science and has the sheeple willing to waste their ever waking moment arguing to defend the assaults on Liberty. The majority have become useful idiots for wannabe slave-masters. Without that ability to resist unconstitutional and tyrannical powers, we are screwed.

Now, see how you can twist that.

-More words don't equal better points. Just saying. As me twisting anything. What have I twisted? You asserted that the American constitution has provisions in it that other constitutions lack. Namely in limiting the power of the government. I gave examples to show that to be untrue. Next you tried to redefine Democracy and when I disagreed with it and invited you to prove me wrong, you choose to try to make an appeal to emotion. If I see any of this wrong, you are welcome to show how those assertions are wrong?
- As to the rest. NRA a leftist organisation? Repubs wanting gun control? The left sitting by when the police shoots blacks?
That section belongs in the conspiracies section.

Yeah, brother. You have proven the world wrong. You're a legend in your own mind. You've done NOTHING that you've claimed.

You want FACTS posted in the conspiracy section? No assertion I've made is wrong. You are just self absorbed, falsely believing that just because you deny something that disproves it.

You sound like danielpalos on an acid trip.

I almost forgot: Your tactic of putting up statements of belief versus an acknowledgment that some Rights are not given by man, but bestowed upon you by your Creator are WORLDS apart.

Really?

You've done NOTHING that you've claimed.

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/France_2008.pdf?lang=en
Constitution of Belgium - Wikipedia
Human rights in the Netherlands

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia

Find me a single example of this being backed up in real life?

No assertion I've made is wrong.

Really, prove it? Prove the lefts affiliation with the NRA. Show me an actual push by the GOP to put up more restrictions on guns? Black lives matter is a movement defended by Obama. This is more then any member of the GOP can say so again, what are you talking about.
As to what seems to be putting religion in this conversation. Not for nothing, if you have to refer to faith to substanciate your point, I don't think you have much in the way of actual arguments.

There are two people on this thread and I don't give a rip what you think. You've proven nothing and I have given factual information. Even if I bothered to document it beyond what I already have in this thread, you would deny.

"Faith" has little to do with the issue. So your reading skills are not quite up to par. You need some remedial classes in reading if you want to participate in a grown up discussion.

I will say it again and again: The United States is the only country on this planet that acknowledged the supremacy of inherent, God given, natural, unalienable, absolute Rights. A piece of paper did not grant you your Rights and those Rights are in no way dependent on the Constitution for their existence... so said our own United States Supreme Court.

Why would I deny? Not for nothing I CAN substantiate to have changed my opinion on a topic on this board when I was proven wrong. I CAN substantiate that I've admitted to be wrong on MULTIPLE occasions on certain issues on this board.
I think that's more than 90 percent of people here can say. I just request that when making a point that is challenged by the other person that you can substantiate. And using debating techniques like strawmans, appeals to emotion, deflecting or what not, will be called out. I want the strength of the argument do the talking. The fact that you seem to see it as arrogance is telling all in itself.

If you want to have ANY credibility you have to separate from the left wing canard of "strawmans, appeals to emotion, deflecting" especially when I do no such thing.

Additionally, I come here and post my opinions. There is no requirement that I substantiate anything. This is not a debate forum, and if it were, you would have been disqualified a long time ago. I don't appeal to anyone's emotion for anything; there are no strawmans and no deflecting. Avoiding people that go off the reservation in an attempt to hijack threads is not a deflection. If you want to discuss something, you are free to start a thread, invite others, and if you challenge someone, they can show up and humor you there.

I don't care whether or not this changes your mind. It's like everything else on this board; it is an opinion. If others feel the same way, we will end up on the same team. These are my words to you:

The United States was founded and became the greatest nation in the annals of history. Not too many years ago, more missionaries came from the United States than all the other countries on this planet combined. We fought more wars, lost more soldiers and spent more money in wars on foreign soil for the cause of Liberty than any country in history. We've not asked those people to repay any of it. I could extol the virtues of this country, but you would deny it.

The earliest court decisions relative to firearms ruled that they are absolute, above the power of the government and not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence.

Now, my education consists of being taught that there are three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. That being the case, if the SCOTUS is charged with INTERPRETING THE LAW, that is their only function. When the SCOTUS goes back and revisits their own interpretations, it means that they are legislating from the bench as it is wholly impossible to read the law, the current decisions and interpretations and abide by the law only to have a court come along, negate what they've already ruled and make you a criminal after the fact (which itself is unconstitutional BTW. There is a ban on ex post facto laws in the Constitution.)

Today, the legislatures and mainly the SCOTUS have illegally changed the laws. They didn't amend the Constitution; no new law was passed giving the SCOTUS any new authority. The SCOTUS just unilaterally decided they were the final arbiters of what the law is. Then they began reversing their own decisions. So, you can do a perfectly lawful thing today and act within the law, yet be arrested the very next day because the SCOTUS changed their mind OR, in some instances (bump stocks come to mind) they allow regulatory agencies to legislate new laws and deny you your constitutional Rights.

My basic Rights are inherent, absolute, natural, God given, unalienable, and irrevocable. Government had the POWER to change the law, but they did not have the AUTHORITY. The Second Amendment is the ONLY thing standing between Freedom and Slavery at this juncture. So excuse the Hell out of me when I say not one more inch.

 

[old_guy]

What Happens When
Citizens Guns
Are Taken Away
From Ed Chenel
Australian Police Officer
12-9-5

Hi Yanks and Canadians - I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.

Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not! (And criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. You won't see this on the American /Canadian evening news or hear your government or members of the State Assembly amd Ottawa parliament disseminating this information.

The Australian experience proves it.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding public.

Take note Americans and Canadians before it's too late!

 

[forkup]

-More words don't equal better points. Just saying. As me twisting anything. What have I twisted? You asserted that the American constitution has provisions in it that other constitutions lack. Namely in limiting the power of the government. I gave examples to show that to be untrue. Next you tried to redefine Democracy and when I disagreed with it and invited you to prove me wrong, you choose to try to make an appeal to emotion. If I see any of this wrong, you are welcome to show how those assertions are wrong?
- As to the rest. NRA a leftist organisation? Repubs wanting gun control? The left sitting by when the police shoots blacks?
That section belongs in the conspiracies section.

Yeah, brother. You have proven the world wrong. You're a legend in your own mind. You've done NOTHING that you've claimed.

You want FACTS posted in the conspiracy section? No assertion I've made is wrong. You are just self absorbed, falsely believing that just because you deny something that disproves it.

You sound like danielpalos on an acid trip.

I almost forgot: Your tactic of putting up statements of belief versus an acknowledgment that some Rights are not given by man, but bestowed upon you by your Creator are WORLDS apart.

Really?

You've done NOTHING that you've claimed.

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/France_2008.pdf?lang=en
Constitution of Belgium - Wikipedia
Human rights in the Netherlands

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia

Find me a single example of this being backed up in real life?

No assertion I've made is wrong.

Really, prove it? Prove the lefts affiliation with the NRA. Show me an actual push by the GOP to put up more restrictions on guns? Black lives matter is a movement defended by Obama. This is more then any member of the GOP can say so again, what are you talking about.
As to what seems to be putting religion in this conversation. Not for nothing, if you have to refer to faith to substanciate your point, I don't think you have much in the way of actual arguments.

There are two people on this thread and I don't give a rip what you think. You've proven nothing and I have given factual information. Even if I bothered to document it beyond what I already have in this thread, you would deny.

"Faith" has little to do with the issue. So your reading skills are not quite up to par. You need some remedial classes in reading if you want to participate in a grown up discussion.

I will say it again and again: The United States is the only country on this planet that acknowledged the supremacy of inherent, God given, natural, unalienable, absolute Rights. A piece of paper did not grant you your Rights and those Rights are in no way dependent on the Constitution for their existence... so said our own United States Supreme Court.

Why would I deny? Not for nothing I CAN substantiate to have changed my opinion on a topic on this board when I was proven wrong. I CAN substantiate that I've admitted to be wrong on MULTIPLE occasions on certain issues on this board.
I think that's more than 90 percent of people here can say. I just request that when making a point that is challenged by the other person that you can substantiate. And using debating techniques like strawmans, appeals to emotion, deflecting or what not, will be called out. I want the strength of the argument do the talking. The fact that you seem to see it as arrogance is telling all in itself.

If you want to have ANY credibility you have to separate from the left wing canard of "strawmans, appeals to emotion, deflecting" especially when I do no such thing.

Additionally, I come here and post my opinions. There is no requirement that I substantiate anything. This is not a debate forum, and if it were, you would have been disqualified a long time ago. I don't appeal to anyone's emotion for anything; there are no strawmans and no deflecting. Avoiding people that go off the reservation in an attempt to hijack threads is not a deflection. If you want to discuss something, you are free to start a thread, invite others, and if you challenge someone, they can show up and humor you there.

I don't care whether or not this changes your mind. It's like everything else on this board; it is an opinion. If others feel the same way, we will end up on the same team. These are my words to you:

The United States was founded and became the greatest nation in the annals of history. Not too many years ago, more missionaries came from the United States than all the other countries on this planet combined. We fought more wars, lost more soldiers and spent more money in wars on foreign soil for the cause of Liberty than any country in history. We've not asked those people to repay any of it. I could extol the virtues of this country, but you would deny it.

The earliest court decisions relative to firearms ruled that they are absolute, above the power of the government and not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence.

Now, my education consists of being taught that there are three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. That being the case, if the SCOTUS is charged with INTERPRETING THE LAW, that is their only function. When the SCOTUS goes back and revisits their own interpretations, it means that they are legislating from the bench as it is wholly impossible to read the law, the current decisions and interpretations and abide by the law only to have a court come along, negate what they've already ruled and make you a criminal after the fact (which itself is unconstitutional BTW. There is a ban on ex post facto laws in the Constitution.)

Today, the legislatures and mainly the SCOTUS have illegally changed the laws. They didn't amend the Constitution; no new law was passed giving the SCOTUS any new authority. The SCOTUS just unilaterally decided they were the final arbiters of what the law is. Then they began reversing their own decisions. So, you can do a perfectly lawful thing today and act within the law, yet be arrested the very next day because the SCOTUS changed their mind OR, in some instances (bump stocks come to mind) they allow regulatory agencies to legislate new laws and deny you your constitutional Rights.

My basic Rights are inherent, absolute, natural, God given, unalienable, and irrevocable. Government had the POWER to change the law, but they did not have the AUTHORITY. The Second Amendment is the ONLY thing standing between Freedom and Slavery at this juncture. So excuse the Hell out of me when I say not one more inch.

So now you're calling the people that write the manuals that taught our military of a fifth grade level of understanding???

This is an appeal to emotion. Specifically you are trying to use guilt.Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia You are trying to imply that me disagreeing with your source equals disrespecting the military.
Every time you refuse to answer the premise of what I say in favor of what you want to talk about, you are deflecting. I don't care if you find me credible. Cause the way I see it, I don't use these tactics. You do. I answer your posts. I don't allow myself the luxury of refusing to answer those thing I get called out on. First you substantiate your claims, answer my questions and then I will give you the courtesy of doing what I've done all through this OP. Namely trying to engage you in an honest conversation. The way it is now. We are just playing a game were you feel free to break the rules when they become inconvenient. It makes it boring.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Yeah, brother. You have proven the world wrong. You're a legend in your own mind. You've done NOTHING that you've claimed.

You want FACTS posted in the conspiracy section? No assertion I've made is wrong. You are just self absorbed, falsely believing that just because you deny something that disproves it.

You sound like danielpalos on an acid trip.

I almost forgot: Your tactic of putting up statements of belief versus an acknowledgment that some Rights are not given by man, but bestowed upon you by your Creator are WORLDS apart.

Really?

You've done NOTHING that you've claimed.

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/France_2008.pdf?lang=en
Constitution of Belgium - Wikipedia
Human rights in the Netherlands

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia

Find me a single example of this being backed up in real life?

No assertion I've made is wrong.

Really, prove it? Prove the lefts affiliation with the NRA. Show me an actual push by the GOP to put up more restrictions on guns? Black lives matter is a movement defended by Obama. This is more then any member of the GOP can say so again, what are you talking about.
As to what seems to be putting religion in this conversation. Not for nothing, if you have to refer to faith to substanciate your point, I don't think you have much in the way of actual arguments.

There are two people on this thread and I don't give a rip what you think. You've proven nothing and I have given factual information. Even if I bothered to document it beyond what I already have in this thread, you would deny.

"Faith" has little to do with the issue. So your reading skills are not quite up to par. You need some remedial classes in reading if you want to participate in a grown up discussion.

I will say it again and again: The United States is the only country on this planet that acknowledged the supremacy of inherent, God given, natural, unalienable, absolute Rights. A piece of paper did not grant you your Rights and those Rights are in no way dependent on the Constitution for their existence... so said our own United States Supreme Court.

Why would I deny? Not for nothing I CAN substantiate to have changed my opinion on a topic on this board when I was proven wrong. I CAN substantiate that I've admitted to be wrong on MULTIPLE occasions on certain issues on this board.
I think that's more than 90 percent of people here can say. I just request that when making a point that is challenged by the other person that you can substantiate. And using debating techniques like strawmans, appeals to emotion, deflecting or what not, will be called out. I want the strength of the argument do the talking. The fact that you seem to see it as arrogance is telling all in itself.

If you want to have ANY credibility you have to separate from the left wing canard of "strawmans, appeals to emotion, deflecting" especially when I do no such thing.

Additionally, I come here and post my opinions. There is no requirement that I substantiate anything. This is not a debate forum, and if it were, you would have been disqualified a long time ago. I don't appeal to anyone's emotion for anything; there are no strawmans and no deflecting. Avoiding people that go off the reservation in an attempt to hijack threads is not a deflection. If you want to discuss something, you are free to start a thread, invite others, and if you challenge someone, they can show up and humor you there.

I don't care whether or not this changes your mind. It's like everything else on this board; it is an opinion. If others feel the same way, we will end up on the same team. These are my words to you:

The United States was founded and became the greatest nation in the annals of history. Not too many years ago, more missionaries came from the United States than all the other countries on this planet combined. We fought more wars, lost more soldiers and spent more money in wars on foreign soil for the cause of Liberty than any country in history. We've not asked those people to repay any of it. I could extol the virtues of this country, but you would deny it.

The earliest court decisions relative to firearms ruled that they are absolute, above the power of the government and not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence.

Now, my education consists of being taught that there are three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. That being the case, if the SCOTUS is charged with INTERPRETING THE LAW, that is their only function. When the SCOTUS goes back and revisits their own interpretations, it means that they are legislating from the bench as it is wholly impossible to read the law, the current decisions and interpretations and abide by the law only to have a court come along, negate what they've already ruled and make you a criminal after the fact (which itself is unconstitutional BTW. There is a ban on ex post facto laws in the Constitution.)

Today, the legislatures and mainly the SCOTUS have illegally changed the laws. They didn't amend the Constitution; no new law was passed giving the SCOTUS any new authority. The SCOTUS just unilaterally decided they were the final arbiters of what the law is. Then they began reversing their own decisions. So, you can do a perfectly lawful thing today and act within the law, yet be arrested the very next day because the SCOTUS changed their mind OR, in some instances (bump stocks come to mind) they allow regulatory agencies to legislate new laws and deny you your constitutional Rights.

My basic Rights are inherent, absolute, natural, God given, unalienable, and irrevocable. Government had the POWER to change the law, but they did not have the AUTHORITY. The Second Amendment is the ONLY thing standing between Freedom and Slavery at this juncture. So excuse the Hell out of me when I say not one more inch.

So now you're calling the people that write the manuals that taught our military of a fifth grade level of understanding???

This is an appeal to emotion. Specifically you are trying to use guilt.Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia You are trying to imply that me disagreeing with your source equals disrespecting the military.
Every time you refuse to answer the premise of what I say in favor of what you want to talk about, you are deflecting. I don't care if you find me credible. Cause the way I see it, I don't use these tactics. You do. I answer your posts. I don't allow myself the luxury of refusing to answer those thing I get called out on. First you substantiate your claims, answer my questions and then I will give you the courtesy of doing what I've done all through this OP. Namely trying to engage you in an honest conversation. The way it is now. We are just playing a game were you feel free to break the rules when they become inconvenient. It makes it boring.

Are you disrespecting the military when you question what is being taught? How do contend that appeals to guilt?

Either a training manual is accurate or it is not. Either words mean something or they do not.

I'm on this thread discussing gun control and tactics liberals are using to disarm us. What rules are you claiming that I'm breaking? You asked me substantiate a claim; I gave you the military's view on the subject and you want to challenge it. There is not much of a discussion to follow for either of us given that.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

What Happens When
Citizens Guns
Are Taken Away
From Ed Chenel
Australian Police Officer
12-9-5

Hi Yanks and Canadians - I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.

Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not! (And criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. You won't see this on the American /Canadian evening news or hear your government or members of the State Assembly amd Ottawa parliament disseminating this information.

The Australian experience proves it.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding public.

Take note Americans and Canadians before it's too late!

I'm a minister and have had quite a number of inquiries regarding the issue of Liberty and gun ownership from your fellow Aussies lately. The fact is, since I did a sermon on the subject a couple of months ago and now I'm getting more e-mail from Australia than all other places (including America combined.) It's great to see that you are taking the subject seriously.

America was founded on this principle that every person is born with unalienable Rights. What that means is that your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) bestows upon you, at birth, Rights that transcends any law man can make.

You know the value of your Life and Liberty. You cannot expect the government to know what value you place on your life. Neither can a free people fully trust government. In America, as I've said, the government can lie to you and it's okay. Furthermore, just before I sat down, I just watched the evening news.

On tonight's news there was a case where the wife of a policeman was shot on the night she was moving out after having filed for a divorce. She was shot by the officer's service weapon while he was there. The police ruled that it was an attempted suicide. The policeman's wife denies she tried to kill herself and her surgeon says that the shooting was not the result of an attempted suicide. But the cop goes free and the case is closed.

Those kinds of stories are common. The more of our Liberties that are taken, the bolder the tyrants are willing to become. When criminals know you're unarmed - if I said it, I'd be preaching to the choir. My point is, people all over the world are going to have to start considering where their Rights come from. Ours is a unique principle. We have natural, inherent God given, unalienable, absolute, irrevocable Rights that are above the reach of government. Of course, that means when the government crosses the line, it is up to the people to hold the government accountable. We haven't. Now the United States is at the point of no return. It's either reclaim those Rights of kiss them good-bye. Thank you for some insight as to the costs for not standing firm on this issue.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I certainly don't think we should "disarm everyone". I would just like two things: a shift in our culture away from glorifying guns and toward stigmatizing them , and strict regulation, along the lines of what we do with cars.

 

[sparky]

Valhalla, I am coming