|
Post by dbd870 on Apr 18, 2007 6:36:27 GMT -5
This is why I would never consider joining that organization, at least until the leadership is changed and a new direction is taken. He really is ignorant isn't he.
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Apr 18, 2007 10:02:16 GMT -5
quote:Originally posted by delaney: You are correct Iron, I guess I don't believe the Second Amendment provides me the protection and the RIGHT to own whatever weapon I wish to own. I realize that can be a slippery slope and I don't ever want my hunting weapons taken from me, but yes, as much as you and others don't like to hear this, I don't feel the need to be able to own or have the RIGHT to own, or allow others to own (including you and others on here), any weapons we wish.
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Apr 19, 2007 23:26:41 GMT -5
And here is another not-to-be-named senior ranking official's latest:
Think about the remarks in bold. . . Neither of these men represent MY views on much of anything it seems. I expect this from politicians and the unimformed public but . . Them being in the position they are concerns me greatly.
My RIGHT to bear arms comes in SECOND to my passionate DESIRE to hunt. As it should to ANY PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. It is wonderful to be able to hunt, but it is PARAMOUNT for a Free People to be able to defy a corrupted gverning force if need be. These two just don't get it.
I love to hunt, and realize that with a growing human population, and lessening habitat, hunting is destined to be a past time ONLY of the rich at some point. No one is making any more land, and most people have less available every year. But the Freedom this nation was built on is NON negotiable, and if you feel the 2nd Amendmant is due to be revised, you are most certainly with 'them', not with 'us'. A line was drawn in the sand well over 200 years ago. That line is still as vividly clear today as it was then, and you are standing one the OTHER side of it.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Apr 20, 2007 13:11:04 GMT -5
"A line was drawn in the sand well over 200 years ago. That line is still as vividly clear today as it was then, and you are standing one the OTHER side of it."
Well said, John. I agree completely.
Those who compromise on our basic liberties to seem "reasonable" to the other side always remind me of a quote I heard many years ago regarding (then) modern Republicans. It was said that if the Democrats proposed that all Republicans jumped off a ten-story building, that the modern conciliatory wing of the party would jump off a five-story one, happy that they had been able to reach a reasonable compromise.
In actual, practical fact: restrictions on the weapons we can legally carry only restrict those who wish to remain legal. How can they possibly affect anyone else?
Do the supporters of restrictions actually BELIEVE that there are no sawed-off shotguns in existence because they've been illegal to possess since 1935? That there are no Uzi's or Mac Ten's out there in the hands of unlicensed users? Maybe they also believe there's no cocaine or crystal meth since those substances are illegal as well. Fantastic!
I don't even own a centerfire rifle, nor do I anticipate buying one. Some of those PCR's sure are cute, but I doubt that I'll ever part with the money for one while my ML and bow adequately meet my needs and wishes for hunting. That's MY decision, as it should be, not YOURS to make for me, nor is it a decision I should make for you, or one that Hillary or Nancy or Sarah or Diane should make for any of us. I do support the right of others who wish to own them to do so. And I support their right to own assault rifles, whether real or cosmetic, macine pistols, cannons, or scary black guns like the ones that frightened Zumbo.
Compromising to limit the choices of a free people in their self-defense armament, to suit what the other side deems "reasonable", is taking that leap from the fifth floor ledge.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Apr 20, 2007 13:42:46 GMT -5
Well put Russ,
There is no compromising with these people.
"Compromise" to them is that we give up something while they don't.
That is not compromise.
|
|