The NRA Continues To Compromise On The Second Amendment - Page 2
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 53

Thread: The NRA Continues To Compromise On The Second Amendment

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    If Liberals can't compromise in their favor the issue generally becomes unconstitutional and time to head to the courts.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  2.   
  3. #12
    Actually, I find it ironic that while our Constitutional Republic is under ever-increasing attack, our "gun rights" are getting stronger. Good thing, too, for obvious reasons...

    I'm a pragmatist like Boomer and a purist like Bohemian. So, I think we should keep up the fight, knowing that we're not going to see the complete restoration of "...shall not be infringed" anytime real soon. But, we should give no quarter at all to the socialists, for the reason that Wolfhunter stated.

    So, yeah, if someone asks me if we should have military grade hardware, my answer is "yup" (a la Bohemian). And when they follow up by asking if I think that is realistic and going to happen anytime soon, I say "nope" (as per Boomer). But, that doesn't change the Constitution or my opinion.

    My two cents.
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

  4. #13
    I've never given the NRA my money and I never will.

    Cased closed on my part. There are other Gun Rights orgs out there that do not comprimise their efforts.
    "When a government robs Peter to pay Paul it will alway's have the support of Paul" George Bernard Shaw

  5. #14
    Hope this isnt "divide and conquer"
    -Austin

  6. #15
    Boomer brought up a good point about owning Claymores, etc. They are arms too, and I don't think many here would agree that they are something they ordinary citizen needs for self-defense. It doesn't pass the "reasonable" test in the gun world, and law, lingo. So he proved his compromise point.

    Even I don't understand what you want, and I'm a gun owner and carrier. The first thing, from a political stance, in a fight that you have to do is STATE what you are fighting for/about. You have not done that. Please state to me and the rest of the Forum what you want to see done about the Second Amendment rights.

    So far all you have done is rave and rant. If you sound like a "gun nut" to me, just think what you sound like to an ANTI-Gun person. Trying to be a Ted Nugent clone is not helpful, as his rants in the public eye have hurt our cause more than any other single person against our fight for our rights. I wish he would just shut up!

    If we "compromise" about assault weapons, or hand grenades, or Claymores, what have we lost? In negotiations, that's called a "throw away". It's something that you compromised on that didn't mean anything to you anyway. You just had it in the bag of giveaways for negotiating tools and tactics.

    You need to understand the fight a little better, and how to do it....and know, and state, exactly what the fight is about. Specifically, what you think the 2nd A means as it pertains to the right to own and carry weapons of personal defense. There is no way we can own weapons that would stand up to our Military waging a fight against us citizens. By the way, do you think it's OK for a citizen to also own an F 16? That's a defense weapon too.

    Hey Marine, you are an expert in combat and killing people. That doesn't make you a genius at all things. Consider the fact that you MIGHT NOT be right, or see all the angles of a particular issue, and that somebody else MIGHT. You post some good info on here, but your delivery needs a little polishing. And I know Marines don't like ANTHING that is tarnished!

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by GOV5 View Post
    Boomer brought up a good point about owning Claymores, etc. They are arms too, and I don't think many here would agree that they are something they ordinary citizen needs for self-defense. It doesn't pass the "reasonable" test in the gun world, and law, lingo. So he proved his compromise point.

    Even I don't understand what you want, and I'm a gun owner and carrier. The first thing, from a political stance, in a fight that you have to do is STATE what you are fighting for/about. You have not done that. Please state to me and the rest of the Forum what you want to see done about the Second Amendment rights.

    So far all you have done is rave and rant. If you sound like a "gun nut" to me, just think what you sound like to an ANTI-Gun person. Trying to be a Ted Nugent clone is not helpful, as his rants in the public eye have hurt our cause more than any other single person against our fight for our rights. I wish he would just shut up!

    If we "compromise" about assault weapons, or hand grenades, or Claymores, what have we lost? In negotiations, that's called a "throw away". It's something that you compromised on that didn't mean anything to you anyway. You just had it in the bag of giveaways for negotiating tools and tactics.

    You need to understand the fight a little better, and how to do it....and know, and state, exactly what the fight is about. Specifically, what you think the 2nd A means as it pertains to the right to own and carry weapons of personal defense. There is no way we can own weapons that would stand up to our Military waging a fight against us citizens. By the way, do you think it's OK for a citizen to also own an F 16? That's a defense weapon too.

    Hey Marine, you are an expert in combat and killing people. That doesn't make you a genius at all things. Consider the fact that you MIGHT NOT be right, or see all the angles of a particular issue, and that somebody else MIGHT. You post some good info on here, but your delivery needs a little polishing. And I know Marines don't like ANTHING that is tarnished!
    Perhaps with a better grasp of the framers founding documents, their writings and what the first 56 of them put on the line when they signed the Declaration of Independence; you & others herein and elsewhere would understand the difference between a rant and integrity, honor and veracity and the content of ones character...
    The Declaration of Independence
    Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death
    Constitution of the United States
    Articles of Confederation
    Bill of Rights and Later Amendments
    The Federalist Papers...
    University of Oklahoma College of Law: A Chronology of US Historical Documents

    Further, perhaps reading up on the Battles of Lexington & Concord and the Alamo, you will have a more clear understanding of why Government (Fed, State or other Municipality) cannot be permitted to limit the type or class of weapon(s) WE THE PEOPLE CAN KEEP & BEAR...
    Does "Come And Take It" ring any bells?

    “Important principles may and must be inflexible.” Abraham Lincoln

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." - Patrick Henry

    Please show me where in the Constitution, Second Amendment or any of the founding documents that says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Except ...
    IF it does not pass what current day society (mob rule democracy vs. Constitutional Republic) deems reasonable...

    Explain how without a Unabridged Second Amendment "WE THE PEOPLE" could ever be able to remove and replace a tyrannical government?

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/firea...-criteria.html

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/firea...1986-fopa.html

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/firea...fiscation.html

    Do we really want to follow in the foot steps of modern day England, Australia, Canada etc., where the people gradually compromised & conceded their rights away, to their current sad state of disarmament? This is what is happening folks...
    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/firea...pen-watch.html

    The Unabridged Second Amendment...
    The Unabridged Second Amendment

    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government...
    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    "Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe 1789

    WTFU SHEEPLE !!!

    TAKE BACK THE REPUBLIC

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    1,225
    I have pulled the plug on the NRA... My money will go to the GOA and the CCRKBA!!

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Boomer View Post
    If you are going to quote my text at least do me the courtesy of reading all of it.



    Assuming you just read that you will see we are on the same side but lets get on with it.



    While it is all well & good to stand on principle of "Shall not be infringed" lets get real shall we? It is a very different world today then when our forefathers had the genius to put pen to paper & craft this nation. A arm in those days was a decidedly different animal then it is today. Hell a field piece of those days, the terror of the battlefield is of little consequence today.
    Today automatic rifles are commonplace (I support there private ownership BTW) but what about Claymore mines, Recoilless rifles & Vulcan cannons, are they not also arms? Should they likewise "Not be infringed"? If you say yes you are either naive or a fool. If you say no then you are a hypocrite & we are back to square one.
    So where does that leave us? That compromise is a necessary evil & GOA beating their collective chests is nothing but a recruiting ploy.

    Lets get super real here. You want to say "Shall not be infringed" & back down on nothing eh? What is better to be altruistic & have all of nothing or be realistic a little of everything because if we thump our chests & keep quoting the 2nd amendment we will lose the hearts of the rest of the nation & I assure you when that happens we will indeed have all of nothing.
    Well said. Saying no compromise on any right to keep and bear arms puts us in the "nut-case" category and endangers all of our rights. Should I be allowed to have a surface to air missle or a weapon of mass destruction? Our constitutional rights have to be balanced with common sense and sanity. I do not believe there should be restrictions on handguns and long guns of any type, including machine guns, but beyond that, one may be getting into the area of the rediculous.

  10. #19
    Boomer, Montana, Gov5...

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

    “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” - C.S. Lewis

    First & foremost, don't take my Commitment, Courage and Honor instilled in me by being a 4th Generation Marine with a career spanning nearly 3 decades to imply a somehow more patriot or holier then thou implication, because that is not where I am coming from...

    I adamantly believe compromise on the Second Amendment is a fundamentally flawed view, that as history has taught us, always ends badly...

    Compromise by definition essentially means agreeing to the lowest common denominator...
    Since we as Conservatives, Libertarians etc., have literally nothing in common with the gun-grabbing liberals...
    As wolfhunter pointed out... we are doing the compromising, while the liberals are giving up nothing; and the liberals are gaining ground at break neck speed on their Marxist Utopia and subsequent dictatorship...

    “The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy” - Charles de Montesquieu

    I truly believe "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is not subject to interpretation, which is consistent with framers view...
    Not the following view ... "Just Because You Have A Right, Does Not Mean The Government Cannot Constrain That Right" - Barack H. Obama Jr.

    At the most basic level I am trying to drive home the point that through our own ignorance and neglect of the tenets the framers put in place to prevent our current sad state of a clearly infringed Second Amendment to say the least... DOES NOT MAKE IT CONSTITUTIONAL, NOR DOES IT MEAN THAT WE KEEP HAVING TO COMPROMISE NOR KEEP TRYING TO RESTORE THE FRAMERS UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT...

    The Framers clearly intended for the Second Amendment to be timeless as is consistent with the Constitutional Republic we were founded as... not the mob rule Democracy we have been led to believe was founded...

    “The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience” - Albert Camus

    The three of you are putting forth the same arguments of the anti's... what if?, but?... do you think our generation is the first in history to have to deal with terrorism & nut-cases?
    http://hnn.us/articles/19085.html
    http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2.../terrorism.htm

    Are we so A.D.D. on the History of the World that we have forgotten; that the very compromises you advocate has always ended in total confiscation, disarmament, anarchy and dictatorship...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic

    The Mother of All Stats

    The Human Cost of "Gun Control" Ideas
    The Genocide Chart
    Government Dates Targets Civilians Killed "Gun Control" Laws Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme
    http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

    Once again, apparently it needs repeating...

    Under this (your self-proclaimed) view, which flips the Declaration of Independence on its head, on what grounds can you ever rebel? Since your rights are “gifts” from government, and merely whatever the government courts say, with no higher power or law, it is never legitimate for a people to rebel, no matter how ridiculous the government’s “interpretation” of its own powers or how arbitrary and murderous it becomes once its servants in black robes “make it legal” by interpreting your so-called rights out of existence. Without natural rights there is no right to revolt, which is precisely why these elites think it totally illegitimate for you to have effective means of resistance...
    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government - Stewart Rhodes, U.S. Army Ranger, Yale Educated Attorney and Noted Constitutional Authority and Founder of OathKeepers...
    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    IF they can ban one type or class of weapon they can ban them all...

    Without our Liberties, we have NOTHING...

    WE SIMPLY CANNOT, NO MUST NOT ALLOW ANY MORE TO BE READ INTO "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"...



    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/worldcitizen.htm











    “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy” - James Madison

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  11. Quote Originally Posted by MONTANA View Post
    Well said. Saying no compromise on any right to keep and bear arms puts us in the "nut-case" category and endangers all of our rights. Should I be allowed to have a surface to air missle or a weapon of mass destruction? Our constitutional rights have to be balanced with common sense and sanity. I do not believe there should be restrictions on handguns and long guns of any type, including machine guns, but beyond that, one may be getting into the area of the rediculous.
    Lol, most people wouldn't be able to afford WMD's. And the ones who would are enjoying their lives so much that wouldn't dream of doing anything that would take that away from them.

    But that's decide the point. You've made the conscious decision to appease. I recommend you go back and read the 2nd Amendment a few dozen times before you respond to this thread anymore. Tell us what you read.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast