Second Amendment Question

[Toad82]

The last few days I have been reading about The Second Amendment. People keep bringing up that “the people” have the right to have guns in order to protect themselves from the government.

My question is wouldn’t that make you a terrorist?

If you use a gun on the president or members of congress, etc., or even just threaten, you can be arrested. How are you suppose to keep the government in check with guns, but without it turning into another Ruby Ridge?

Short of a nation coming together I don’t see this argument working.


PS Don't get pissed, I'm just curious.

[_Joe_]

http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/9/95/FMJ-M14-2.jpg/400px-FMJ-M14-2.jpg

:D if you get the reference....

[allbimyself]

Toad, what you describe is not what is intended. The idea is that the final guardians of constitutional rights are the people themselves (how could it be otherwise?). Assassination is a violent attempt at political change which is different.

BTW, you might want to educate yourself on what happened at Ruby Ridge. What happened there has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about either. That whole affair was handled badly, not to mention illegally, by the feds.

[Toad82]

Toad, what you describe is not what is intended. The idea is that the final guardians of constitutional rights are the people themselves (how could it be otherwise?). Assassination is a violent attempt at political change which is different.

BTW, you might want to educate yourself on what happened at Ruby Ridge. What happened there has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about either. That whole affair was handled badly, not to mention illegally, by the feds.

Okay so how do you use the guns. Are you just suppose to say I have a gun, please do it this way now? Is it a symbolic thing? You didn't answer the question, you just put it down.

Also I do know what happened at Ruby Ridge. Toward the beginning the Secret Service thought they wanted to kill the president and may have been members of a group that wanted to over come the government. I never said it matched the scenario one hundred percent.

BTW You may try not being condescending

[Toad82]

http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/9/95/FMJ-M14-2.jpg/400px-FMJ-M14-2.jpg

:D if you get the reference....

I have to ask, did you already have that pic or did you have to go looking for it?


RJ:lokai:

[_Joe_]

images.google, found it in 5 seconds :D

[Toad82]

images.google, found it in 5 seconds :D

What term did you use?

[allbimyself]

Okay so how do you use the guns. Are you just suppose to say I have a gun, please do it this way now? You didn't answer the question, you just put it down.

Also I do know what happened at Ruby Ridge. Toward the beginning the Secret Service thought they wanted to kill the president and may have been members of a group that wanted to over come the government. I never said it matched the scenario one hundred percent.

BTW You may try not being condescending

The people defend themselves from tyranny. That simple. I'm not going to take time to conceive a scenario for you. That would just get us off on a tangent debating what would or wouldn't be a just cause. However, an armed populace could take over institutions as need be to restore freedoms and install a new government.

To paraphrase, the government rules with the consent of the governed. When the government ignores the rights of the citizens, it is the right and responsibility of citizens to change that.

As far as Ruby Ridge goes you must be confusing it with another incident. The Secret Service was not involved, there was no suspicion that there would be an assassination attempt on Clinton.

The investigation (by the FBI, not the SS) started because the patron of the family (and yes, it was a TRUE family, not some religious or cult "family") was a bigot, a separatist and lived "off the grid."

When they could find no evidence of him being anything other than a racist jerk, they enlisted the help of the BATF to entrap him. That, BTW, is illegal.

When they went to arrest him, they approached his property using stealth. A family dog sensed them and raised the alarm. An agent shot the dog. Now, it's important to note that at this time, the feds had NOT identified themselves as law enforcement.

The man's young son, having heard the dog raise an alarm had grabbed his rifle and went to investigate, perhaps thinking it nothing more than a coyote bothering their livestock. We'll never know what he thought as he didn't survive. The boy arrived in time to witness the dog being shot by an agent in a "ninja" suit. The boy shot at the agent, not knowing that it was a federal agent (how could he? they didn't identify themselves.) Several agents shot and killed the boy. Obviously that's when all hell broke lose. The man was not far behind his son and seeing him gunned down returned fire while attempting to retreat from an obviously superior force. His wife, carrying nothing more threatening than a baby ran to their house but was gunned down just outside the door. The screaming baby still in her arms as she bled to death.

The man made it to the house, snatching the baby inside with him.

This is where the story begins for the majority of us as this is when the media began coverage. A bigot, armed to the teeth (he had nothing more serious than a couple of handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles), was holed up in his "fortified" (no idea where they got that) "compound." His "compound" was a small cabin in the woods of Idaho. He had shot federal agents (no mention that they fired first without identifying themselves as federal agents).

Why weren't the facts of this incident widely publicized? Because it was a NON story by the time the truth came out. The man WAS a nasty, ignorant bigot. Who cares if his rights got trampled?

Fortunately, there are people that recognize that we can not allow what happened at Ruby Ridge to go unchallenged. The man's lawyer for one. A prominent Jewish lawyer that defended this anti-semite pro bono because he knows that the rights of all must be defended even if that includes scum.

[Toad82]

The people defend themselves from tyranny. That simple. I'm not going to take time to conceive a scenario for you. That would just get us off on a tangent debating what would or wouldn't be a just cause. However, an armed populace could take over institutions as need be to restore freedoms and install a new government.

To paraphrase, the government rules with the consent of the governed. When the government ignores the rights of the citizens, it is the right and responsibility of citizens to change that.

As far as Ruby Ridge goes you must be confusing it with another incident. The Secret Service was not involved, there was no suspicion that there would be an assassination attempt on Clinton.

The investigation (by the FBI, not the SS) started because the patron of the family (and yes, it was a TRUE family, not some religious or cult "family") was a bigot, a separatist and lived "off the grid."

When they could find no evidence of him being anything other than a racist jerk, they enlisted the help of the BATF to entrap him. That, BTW, is illegal.

When they went to arrest him, they approached his property using stealth. A family dog sensed them and raised the alarm. An agent shot the dog. Now, it's important to note that at this time, the feds had NOT identified themselves as law enforcement.

The man's young son, having heard the dog raise an alarm had grabbed his rifle and went to investigate, perhaps thinking it nothing more than a coyote bothering their livestock. We'll never know what he thought as he didn't survive. The boy arrived in time to witness the dog being shot by an agent in a "ninja" suit. The boy shot at the agent, not knowing that it was a federal agent (how could he? they didn't identify themselves.) Several agents shot and killed the boy. Obviously that's when all hell broke lose. The man was not far behind his son and seeing him gunned down returned fire while attempting to retreat from an obviously superior force. His wife, carrying nothing more threatening than a baby ran to their house but was gunned down just outside the door. The screaming baby still in her arms as she bled to death.

The man made it to the house, snatching the baby inside with him.

This is where the story begins for the majority of us as this is when the media began coverage. A bigot, armed to the teeth (he had nothing more serious than a couple of handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles), was holed up in his "fortified" (no idea where they got that) "compound." His "compound" was a small cabin in the woods of Idaho. He had shot federal agents (no mention that they fired first without identifying themselves as federal agents).

Why weren't the facts of this incident widely publicized? Because it was a NON story by the time the truth came out. The man WAS a nasty, ignorant bigot. Who cares if his rights got trampled?

Fortunately, there are people that recognize that we can not allow what happened at Ruby Ridge to go unchallenged. The man's lawyer for one. A prominent Jewish lawyer that defended this anti-semite pro bono because he knows that the rights of all must be defended even if that includes scum.

I am not debating anything, I am just curious. If we take over institutions how is that not terrorism? If anyone took over anything that is what it would be considered. Is this one of those things if I do it, it is okay, but if it is someone else it is not? As for “the government rules with the consent of the governed”, is that not what elections are for.


As for Ruby Ridge, I just read a lot of stuff on it. The USSS knew of him before the other events. Also it is very clear the government fucked up.

[allbimyself]

I am not debating anything, I am just curious. If we take over institutions how is that not terrorism? If anyone took over anything that is what it would be considered. Is this one of those things if I do it, it is okay, but if it is someone else it is not? As for “the government rules with the consent of the governed”, is that not what elections are for.


As for Ruby Ridge, I just read a lot of stuff on it. The USSS knew of him before the other events. Also it is very clear the government fucked up.
Terrorism is a tool for political change by instilling terror in your adversary, hence the name, usually involving senseless violence, designed ONLY to cause maximum destruction. The violence has no goal in and of itself other than to terrorize. Taking over institutions by force or the threat of force is NOT terrorism. The violence has a set goal to achieve. It isn't violence for the sake of violence.

By claiming that it would be terrorism is to claim any sort of violence is terrorism. Maybe it is, but that would make every cop a terrorist.

As far as what the USSS may have suspected, it has no bearing on the events that happened at Ruby Ridge. You brought them up as if that was related to the events that left several innocents dead as though that was the reason for the feds actions. It wasn't.

[BiRustler]

Prior to the incident at Ruby Ridge, the BATF entrapped him by asking him to alter a firearm, a shotgun, by cutting off the barrel 1/4 inch shorter that the law allows and tried to blackmail him into infiltrating a White Supremacy group and spying for them. He refused and thereby earned their anger.
When it all came to court, he beat the panhts off the FBI and the BATF without even testifying and only using their testimony. He did spend a minimum time in prison for resisting asrrest. The government did have to pay him a pretty big monetary settlement.

[_Joe_]

What term did you use?

This is my rifle this is my gun.

[altbinary]

Let's put revolutions and uprisings to the side and consider home invasions. Everybody has a right to defend their self and nobody is obliged to retreat from their home. Those who are armed have the best chance of surviving a home invasion; those who are unarmed have the best chance of the opposite outcome. Think about it.

[ben_butterman]

"I am committed to building our civilian national security capacity so that the burden is not continually pushed on to our military"

Obama speech 2/27/09 today

any one want to explain what civilian national security force is ? ,
and why would it need equal funding as the military ?

there once was a leader of a country that needed his military and a secondary force to deal with the civilian population ,


funny name for it ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, SS

[ben_butterman]

Obama's Civilian National Security Force
The Obama Truth File ^ | February 17, 2009

Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2009 10:37:32 PM by 2ndDivisionVet

A little-publicized Department of Defense Directive (Number 1404.10) establishes a "DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce" and rescinds a prior directive dealing with the emergency use of civilian personnel.

The new 1404.10, dated January 23, 2009 -- just three days after the inauguration -- is effective immediately, and cancels the prior directive of the same designation ("Emergency-Essential (E-E) DoD U.S. Citizen Civilian Employees"), that was issued in 1992 under President Clinton. The 1992 directive specifically deals with overseas deployments of civilian personnel, and mentions the term "overseas" no fewer than 33 times.

The new directive does not mention the term "overseas" in the body of the directive even once. The word "overseas" appears in the new Directive 4 times: once as as a reference; once to describe a database "code"; once to describe the code values; and once in the Glossary. In other words, the new Directive doesn't apply to the overseas deployment of civilians at all, but applies to their deployment in the United States mainland.

The previous Directive does not mention "restoration of order" or "stability operations." These operations are prominently featured in the new directive. In fact, these functions are central to the mission of Obama's new DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce:

Members of the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce shall be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations of the Department of Defense in accordance with DoDD 3000.05...

While the directive suggest that the DoD will seek volunteers, Section 4 (d), subsection {e} paragraph 2 states: Management retains the authority to direct and assign civilians either voluntarily, involuntarily, or on an unexpected basis to accomplish the DoD mission.

This new directive is odd, coming as it does after campaign promises by Obama to establish a paramilitary "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military (video).

Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel wrote the following in his 2006 book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America":

"It’s time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

Here's a video of Rahmbo describing his mandatory civil service plan to NY Daily News reporter Ben Smith in 2006. This notion was detailed in Emanuel's book, co-authored by Bruce Reed.

This bunch has been thinking about this "force" for a long time. As previously documented in these pages, Obama has been actively organizing and training the cadre for his "Civilian National Security Force" since 1993. Here are the frightening details.

I worked around the federal government a lot and this Directive is all about funding. The language and the mission can be changed in a heartbeat.

[darkeyes]

Terrorism is a tool for political change by instilling terror in your adversary, hence the name, usually involving senseless violence, designed ONLY to cause maximum destruction. The violence has no goal in and of itself other than to terrorize. Taking over institutions by force or the threat of force is NOT terrorism. The violence has a set goal to achieve. It isn't violence for the sake of violence.

By claiming that it would be terrorism is to claim any sort of violence is terrorism. Maybe it is, but that would make every cop a terrorist.

As far as what the USSS may have suspected, it has no bearing on the events that happened at Ruby Ridge. You brought them up as if that was related to the events that left several innocents dead as though that was the reason for the feds actions. It wasn't.Allbi hun, you say that.."Terrorism is a tool for political change by instilling terror in your adversary, hence the name, usually involving senseless violence, designed ONLY to cause maximum destruction. The violence has no goal in and of itself other than to terrorize". Sorry hun, I take issue with that.. the violence nrmally does have a goal.. sometimes a very limited goal but in the case of the more influential terror groups of the last half century very definite goals. The IRA in pursuance of a united Ireland, ETA for the freedom of the basque regions of France and Spain, The PLO for a Palestinian state. Hamas for the same and the destruction of Israel..Al Quaeda for ever changing reasons as much to do with its sense of itself and political goals which change to suit the egomania of its leader.. They do not use violence for its own sake but in pursuance of their objectives.. a set goal or goals... If it is a tool for political change, then it must by definition have an aim..and often a set aim.

"Taking over institutions by force or the threat of force is NOT terrorism. The violence has a set goal to achieve. It isn't violence for the sake of violence." This is insurrection, rebellion and/or revolution dependant on the reasoning and political idealogy of the perpetrators.. and no.. I do agree that whatever the reasoning there are set aims and objectives.

Also when you say "By claiming that it would be terrorism is to claim any sort of violence is terrorism. Maybe it is, but that would make every cop a terrorist." I actually do believe any violence is a form of terrorism but am not sure I would agree that every cop however is a terrorist for however much I personally dislike and mistrust the police as an institution, many go out of their way not to be violent as far as they are able, yet many also are a right bunch of power mad egotists who are almost as bad as the criminals they are trying to catch. And I am not talking about those who are "bent"!

You also said.."As far as what the USSS may have suspected, it has no bearing on the events that happened at Ruby Ridge. You brought them up as if that was related to the events that left several innocents dead as though that was the reason for the feds actions. It wasn't." I found your postings on this extremely illuminating and I think serve to show that there is at least a case to be made for the police and various state anti-crime forces to answer the charge of being state enrolled terrorist organisations or at the very least anti-citizen. Far too often on both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere they have shown themselves to be laws unto themselves. but then protecting and defending the citizen isnt why they are there is it, but to defend the maintenance of the existing order...

[FalconAngel]

Here's the scenario that most closely describes what the 2nd amendment protects and justifies:

The Civil War. That war was not about slavery, as we are told in school. The Emancipation Proclamation was signed two years into the war and the slave states already knew, before the war, that economically, slavery was in it's final days anyway.
It was about states' rights. The rights of the people to be free from excessive government intrusion, which is also covered in other Constitutional amendments in one way or another.

All of us, here in the US have read the Constitution and it's amendments during the course of our education. Most of us should take another look at it for a refresher. I know that I do from time to time, as a reminder.

http://www.usconstitution.net/

To truly understand the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment in particular, we must look at it in the context of what was happening and what had just happened when the Constitution was first written and what had been happening during and immediately before each amendment was written.

All of the amendments to the Constitution were written to close loopholes that needed closing to prevent government intrusion and prevent certain groups from usurping the intention of the Constitution.

[Diana_TS]

Couldn't have said it better Falcon. This is not a put down, but I see the individual that started this thread is 26. It is a sad thing WHAT our institutions of learning (especially higher learning) are teaching our kids, or probably a better way of putting it "not teaching our kids". The situation we are in right now, with the economy and the hacks we have running the country, "that we put into office", is, in my opinion, a direct result of our allowing the education system of this country to become so screwed up. Well we reap what we sow.:2cents:

[Toad82]

Couldn't have said it better Falcon. This is not a put down, but I see the individual that started this thread is 26. It is a sad thing WHAT our institutions of learning (especially higher learning) are teaching our kids, or probably a better way of putting it "not teaching our kids". The situation we are in right now, with the economy and the hacks we have running the country, "that we put into office", is, in my opinion, a direct result of our allowing the education system of this country to become so screwed up. Well we reap what we sow.:2cents:

1) I am 27 now.

2) I probably have a better education than you.

3) This is all circular. If I would have said something you agreed with, would you still have brought up my age? You are trying to take away from everything I said by pointing out I am younger than you, does that automatically make you right? This is as bad as the Asian thread. “I am not racist ok but…”, “this is not a put down, but…” You can see how that thread is going.

[allbimyself]

Allbi hun, you say that.."Terrorism is a tool for political change by instilling terror in your adversary, hence the name, usually involving senseless violence, designed ONLY to cause maximum destruction. The violence has no goal in and of itself other than to terrorize". Sorry hun, I take issue with that.. the violence nrmally does have a goal.. sometimes a very limited goal but in the case of the more influential terror groups of the last half century very definite goals. The IRA in pursuance of a united Ireland, ETA for the freedom of the basque regions of France and Spain, The PLO for a Palestinian state. Hamas for the same and the destruction of Israel..Al Quaeda for ever changing reasons as much to do with its sense of itself and political goals which change to suit the egomania of its leader.. They do not use violence for its own sake but in pursuance of their objectives.. a set goal or goals... If it is a tool for political change, then it must by definition have an aim..and often a set aim.You misunderstand me, Fran. The violence of terrorism is not tactical, but strategic. One instance of a terrorist act has no tactical goal, rather it merely seeks to create fear in hopes of achieving a tactical goal. Taken in context of what toad and I were discussing, I meant that a series of tactical strikes to seize control of governmental institutions would result in a strategic victory. This is not terrorism as the goal is not to create fear but to realize tactical goals to give advantage that can be exploited towards achieving a strategic victory.[/quote]


"Taking over institutions by force or the threat of force is NOT terrorism. The violence has a set goal to achieve. It isn't violence for the sake of violence." This is insurrection, rebellion and/or revolution dependant on the reasoning and political idealogy of the perpetrators.. and no.. I do agree that whatever the reasoning there are set aims and objectives.Fran, dear, your hatred of war is coloring your response. You seek to equate all use of force to terrorism by elevating terrorists to the level of soldier.


Also when you say "By claiming that it would be terrorism is to claim any sort of violence is terrorism. Maybe it is, but that would make every cop a terrorist." I actually do believe any violence is a form of terrorism but am not sure I would agree that every cop however is a terrorist for however much I personally dislike and mistrust the police as an institution, many go out of their way not to be violent as far as they are able, yet many also are a right bunch of power mad egotists who are almost as bad as the criminals they are trying to catch. And I am not talking about those who are "bent"!Fran, you again misunderstand. A policeman can only do his job through force or the threat of force. The policeman's presence itself is a threat of force because everyone is aware that he has the ability to use force.


You also said.."As far as what the USSS may have suspected, it has no bearing on the events that happened at Ruby Ridge. You brought them up as if that was related to the events that left several innocents dead as though that was the reason for the feds actions. It wasn't." I found your postings on this extremely illuminating and I think serve to show that there is at least a case to be made for the police and various state anti-crime forces to answer the charge of being state enrolled terrorist organisations or at the very least anti-citizen. Far too often on both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere they have shown themselves to be laws unto themselves. but then protecting and defending the citizen isnt why they are there is it, but to defend the maintenance of the existing order...EXACTLY! Seeking to disarm the citizenry would allow those in power to be the only ones with the ability to exercise the use of force. IOW, we the people are left to hope and pray they do not abuse their power since that is all that will be left us.

[allbimyself]

1) I am 27 now.

2) I probably have a better education than you.Maybe, maybe not, but one thing is for certain. She has a lot more experience in life than you do. BTW, educators are human, the make mistakes and they color their lessons with their own prejudices. That's one thing your education did not teach you.


3) This is all circular. If I would have said something you agreed with, would you still have brought up my age? You are trying to take away from everything I said by pointing out I am younger than you, does that automatically make you right? This is as bad as the Asian thread. “I am not racist ok but…”, “this is not a put down, but…” You can see how that thread is going.This is quite cowardly. You ceased debating long before Diane mentioned your age. Now you seek to soothe your ego by taking offense to her comment. Guess what, there is always truth in that age brings experience and wisdom. Some are so benefited less so than others but all gain from it. Besides, your comments and arguments have proven that your age is a factor.

[Toad82]

Here's the scenario that most closely describes what the 2nd amendment protects and justifies:

The Civil War. That war was not about slavery, as we are told in school. The Emancipation Proclamation was signed two years into the war and the slave states already knew, before the war, that economically, slavery was in it's final days anyway.
It was about states' rights. The rights of the people to be free from excessive government intrusion, which is also covered in other Constitutional amendments in one way or another.

All of us, here in the US have read the Constitution and it's amendments during the course of our education. Most of us should take another look at it for a refresher. I know that I do from time to time, as a reminder.

http://www.usconstitution.net/

To truly understand the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment in particular, we must look at it in the context of what was happening and what had just happened when the Constitution was first written and what had been happening during and immediately before each amendment was written.

All of the amendments to the Constitution were written to close loopholes that needed closing to prevent government intrusion and prevent certain groups from usurping the intention of the Constitution.


Excellent point on The Civil War.

Going by today’s standards though wouldn’t The South been seen as terrorists to Northerners and The Northerners to The Southerners.

As for what I made bold in your quote, do you really think we should live by societies ideas from 222 years ago without taking in to account life is not like that any more? The Founders didn’t seem to think so, that’s why we have The Supreme Court. We are a child of a nation, but we are also the oldest nation with a living constitution. Don’t you think there is a reason for that?

[Toad82]

Maybe, maybe not, but one thing is for certain. She has a lot more experience in life than you do. BTW, educators are human, the make mistakes and they color their lessons with their own prejudices. That's one thing your education did not teach you.

This is quite cowardly. You ceased debating long before Diane mentioned your age. Now you seek to soothe your ego by taking offense to her comment. Guess what, there is always truth in that age brings experience and wisdom. Some are so benefited less so than others but all gain from it. Besides, your comments and arguments have proven that your age is a factor.

My ego is just fine and I didn‘t take offense. This is my style of writing. I just find it funny that you think I am automatically wrong because I am younger than you. What if I would have lied about my age and said I was 82, then what would be your argument? You talk about prejudices, what about yours? You obviously think I am beneath you because I am younger than you. We’re not even talking about what the thread is about any more, but my age. Without knowing anything about me you already think someone has more experience and wisdom than I do. That takes a special kind of arrogance.

To Fran you wrote
Fran, you again misunderstand. Why is that she misunderstands you? Why is it not that you just disagree? Why is it she is wrong and you are right?

I can not cease anything, I was not debating. I was just talking. As for cowardly I don’t see how it is, she is the one that brought up my age and you are the one that seems to think everyone younger than you knows nothing. As for my comments and arguments, my comments our 100% my own, but I am not the only one with those arguments, some of which I am sure are older than you. You say I am cowardly, I say you are condescending. You can’t even stay on topic, you have to attack my age. Your prejudice is showing through.



This thread is not about what it has become. I didn’t want a pissing match. I just wanted to ask questions and get answers from others that don’t think like me. I have wrote before about my AS and how I don’t have emotions like most people. I take on what is around me. I spend a lot of time around lawyers, but I also take on the persons attitude I am talking too. So if my writing seems argumentative that would be why.

For me this has always been lighthearted. If someone that knows me really well and knows my humor were to read what I have wrote in this thread, they would get a laugh. Case in point, when I said, “I am 27 now”. I only wrote that because I was being talked to like I was a child. That was me making a joke about myself. I have a very subtle humor that most don’t get. I originally was going to write “I am 27 and three weeks”, but I thought that was too much.

Anyways this thread was only about me being curious and being a nerd, nothing more. Funny thing about this is you would never find me at a gathering to take away guns, but you would find me at a gun show. I think people are reading too much into what they think I think. Please forgive that incredibly awkward sentence.


RJ:lokai:

[Doggiestyle]

:bigrin: Ahhhhhhh yes that picture that Joe posted. Reminds me of the days I was in the Army (drafted--11/71--11/73)
IF YOU EVER got caught calling your weapon (rifle or pistol) a gun, it would be bad. You would learn a new song and after singing that song (and it's associated actions that went with the song) so could you picture this?? In basic training you get caught calling your weapon a gun by a drill sergent and he would make you raise your weapon over your head with one hand and you would pull out your dick with your other hand and sing THIS IS MY WEAPON while raising your rifle up & down AND THIS IS MY GUN while shakeing your dick. Then you would start raising your rifle up & down singing THIS IS FOR FIGHTING then you would start pulling on your dick again and sing THIS IS FOR FUN.
I can remember it well they would make you parade around singing THIS IS MY WEAPON, THIS IS MY GUN, THIS IS FOR FIGHTING, THIS IS FOR FUN. while doin the associated actions

Or this is what the Army drill sergents did to us while in basic training at Fort Knox Kentucky. AHHHHHHH yes it does bring back some memories of basic training. SAY JOE this didn't happen to you did it? I could tell from the picture that, thats what is going on. The drill sargent a making them sing the song. I see somebody got caught calling their weapon a gun and the drill sarge is correcting them.

Yep, got me too, thats how I remember it so well........Doggie.......:doggie:

Thats my :2cents: And because of inflation & recession :2cents::2cents::2cents::2cents::2cents::2cents::2 cents::2cents::2cents::2cents::2cents::2cents::2ce nts::2cents::2cents::2cents::2cents::2cents: Aw U know what I mean

[void()]

Quick definitions (terrorism (http://www.onelook.com/?w=terrorism&ls=a&loc=osdf))

▸ noun: the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

ter·ror·ism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism)
Pronunciation:
\ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1795

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion


Apologies, but is the government not a system? Can they not imply fear or coercion amongst their populace? If you use such a system to do so, what does that say about you?

Aren't the United States Armed Service Members, soldiers? Do they not protect 'The American Way of Life'? In protecting this ideal, do they not seek to instill fear in enemies?

I have always understood the second amendment to mean that civilians have a right to keep a militia on hand if they so choose. That militia can and ought to be armed. For a prime example think about the 'Minute Men'. And that further grants each civilian a right to keep arms, in case of such a need. Recently, I've given much thought to the issue and am glad of being American simply for this right freely granted.

If the Iraqi folks would have had such a right, perhaps we may not have needed to invade to get Saddam out. Of course, he did brutalize his own people openly, incurring fear. Excuse me, I'm now going to look for Poor Jack's guide to useful household chemicals. <chuckles> "Yeah, right."

[allbimyself]

My ego is just fine and I didn‘t take offense. This is my style of writing. I just find it funny that you think I am automatically wrong because I am younger than you. What if I would have lied about my age and said I was 82, then what would be your argument? You talk about prejudices, what about yours? You obviously think I am beneath you because I am younger than you. We’re not even talking about what the thread is about any more, but my age. Without knowing anything about me you already think someone has more experience and wisdom than I do. That takes a special kind of arrogance.No where did I say that you were "automatically wrong because" of your age. I do not think you are beneath me. As far as experience goes, yes, someone that has been around longer generally has more experience with few exceptions. Wisdom not so much, but that's still the way to bet. As far as what I know about you, I can gather much about your experience and wisdom from what you write.


To Fran you wrote Why is that she misunderstands you? Why is it not that you just disagree? Why is it she is wrong and you are right?Now this is an excellent example of nonsense. She misunderstood because she argued a point unrelated to anything I suggested.


I can not cease anything, I was not debating. I was just talking. As for cowardly I don’t see how it is, she is the one that brought up my age and you are the one that seems to think everyone younger than you knows nothing. As for my comments and arguments, my comments our 100% my own, but I am not the only one with those arguments, some of which I am sure are older than you. You say I am cowardly, I say you are condescending. You can’t even stay on topic, you have to attack my age. Your prejudice is showing through.*sigh*I did NOT bring up your age. I merely tried to point out to you how it is relevant after you claimed it wasn't.




This thread is not about what it has become. I didn’t want a pissing match. I just wanted to ask questions and get answers from others that don’t think like me. I have wrote before about my AS and how I don’t have emotions like most people. I take on what is around me. I spend a lot of time around lawyers, but I also take on the persons attitude I am talking too. So if my writing seems argumentative that would be why.Good for you. But when you do so and receive those answers and when you then criticize those responses you better be prepared for them to be defended.


For me this has always been lighthearted. If someone that knows me really well and knows my humor were to read what I have wrote in this thread, they would get a laugh. Case in point, when I said, “I am 27 now”. I only wrote that because I was being talked to like I was a child. That was me making a joke about myself. I have a very subtle humor that most don’t get. I originally was going to write “I am 27 and three weeks”, but I thought that was too much. Oh, I didn't realize that you think the rights of people aren't serious. That explains much.


Anyways this thread was only about me being curious and being a nerd, nothing more. Funny thing about this is you would never find me at a gathering to take away guns, but you would find me at a gun show. I think people are reading too much into what they think I think. Please forgive that incredibly awkward sentence.


RJ:lokai::rolleyes:

[Toad82]

No where did I say that you were "automatically wrong because" of your age. I do not think you are beneath me. As far as experience goes, yes, someone that has been around longer generally has more experience with few exceptions. Wisdom not so much, but that's still the way to bet. As far as what I know about you, I can gather much about your experience and wisdom from what you write.

It was implied.

Maybe, maybe not, but one thing is for certain. She has a lot more experience in life than you do. That's one thing your education did not teach you.
As for what you gather about me, I bet you would be wrong.


Now this is an excellent example of nonsense. She misunderstood because she argued a point unrelated to anything I suggested.

She seemed on topic to me.


*sigh*I did NOT bring up your age. I merely tried to point out to you how it is relevant after you claimed it wasn't.

Diana_BiMale_CD brought up my age, then you wrote;


Maybe, maybe not, but one thing is for certain. She has a lot more experience in life than you do. That's one thing your education did not teach you.
When you defended her you brought up my age, life experience or whatever you want to call it. Further more you answered the post that was for her, not you. My age is irrelevant. The only way it is not is when someone brings it up and even then… I didn’t bring the posting to a personal level, she did.


Good for you. But when you do so and receive those answers and when you then criticize those responses you better be prepared for them to be defended.
I wasn’t criticizing responses, I was asking follow up questions. There is a difference.


Oh, I didn't realize that you think the rights of people aren't serious. That explains much.
:rolleyes:

I am writing on a forum for bisexuals, not standing before The Justices of The Supreme Court. Falcon was able to make his point and answer the questions without talking about my age. In fact I thought his post was great. That was the kind of post I was looking for. This is on a forum where people talk about cum. I didn’t realize I had to be 100&#37; serious. I was under the impression this forum was suppose to be fun.

Someone can be lighthearted and serious at the same time. If you can't see that, that explains much.

RJ:lokai:

[nudeorphic]

Toad, you're quoting the extreme fringe. The Second Amendment does not say that. It just states the right to bear arms.
Owning firearms is a serious responsibility. To have a permit to carry increases that responsibility immensely including its priviledge to carry a concealed weapon.
Sometimes groups quote information that is not correct. It's very unfortunate, and sometimes I wonder how such persons actually got a permit to own firearms. Mostly, though, gun owners are like me-responsible, steady, law abiding citizens.

[Toad82]

Toad, you're quoting the extreme fringe. The Second Amendment does not say that. It just states the right to bear arms.
Owning firearms is a serious responsibility. To have a permit to carry increases that responsibility immensely including its priviledge to carry a concealed weapon.
Sometimes groups quote information that is not correct. It's very unfortunate, and sometimes I wonder how such persons actually got a permit to own firearms. Mostly, though, gun owners are like me-responsible, steady, law abiding citizens.

What quotes?

[darkeyes]

You misunderstand me, Fran. The violence of terrorism is not tactical, but strategic. One instance of a terrorist act has no tactical goal, rather it merely seeks to create fear in hopes of achieving a tactical goal. Taken in context of what toad and I were discussing, I meant that a series of tactical strikes to seize control of governmental institutions would result in a strategic victory. This is not terrorism as the goal is not to create fear but to realize tactical goals to give advantage that can be exploited towards achieving a strategic victory.

Fran, dear, your hatred of war is coloring your response. You seek to equate all use of force to terrorism by elevating terrorists to the level of soldier.

Fran, you again misunderstand. A policeman can only do his job through force or the threat of force. The policeman's presence itself is a threat of force because everyone is aware that he has the ability to use force.

EXACTLY! Seeking to disarm the citizenry would allow those in power to be the only ones with the ability to exercise the use of force. IOW, we the people are left to hope and pray they do not abuse their power since that is all that will be left us.[/QUOTE]

Soz allbi.. jus used ur words hun an put ova me own slant based on that.. don think me misundastood.. jus think we hav a dif viewpoint.. am yea.. me loathin a war dus cola me response..mite not like how they go bout things.. but terrorist who do awful things in furtherance of a cause in wich they believe r soldiers every bit as much as the revolutionaries wer in your revolution..

[darkeyes]

oops..bolloxed that post up..nev mind..an 2 the arsehole who thinks me shud join me terrorist chums.. sod off.. loathe them as much as me dus the military.. think fore ya rattles out tosh..

[csrakate]

Diana_BiMale_CD brought up my age, then you wrote;


Maybe, maybe not, but one thing is for certain. She has a lot more experience in life than you do. BTW, educators are human, the make mistakes and they color their lessons with their own prejudices. That's one thing your education did not teach you.


When you defended her you brought up my age, life experience or whatever you want to call it. Further more you answered the post that was for her, not you. My age is irrelevant. The only way it is not is when someone brings it up and even then… I didn’t bring the posting to a personal level, she did.


Toad, you seriously need to develop a few skills in debating...you simply cannot use insults to defend your stance. Diana brought up your age merely to criticize an educational system and to perhaps suggest that life experience may afford her insights that your age may not....you immediately counter back with implying that you are better educated than she is. Allbimyself was merely pointing out that education may not always be unbiased and better than life experience.

I am sorry, Toad, but you bring this stuff on yourself by becoming so defensive.....Debate should be a lively exchange of ideas and not a way to put down another.

Kate

[Toad82]

Toad, you seriously need to develop a few skills in debating...you simply cannot use insults to defend your stance. Diana brought up your age merely to suggest that life experience may afford her insights that your age may not....you immediately counter back with implying that you are better educated than she is. Allbimyself was merely pointing out that education may not always be unbiased and better than life experience.

I am sorry, Toad, but you bring this stuff on yourself by becoming so defensive.....Debate should be a lively exchange of ideas and not a way to put down another.

Kate

Point out one instance where I was insulting.

She implied because I am in my 20’s that I don’t know as much as her. I pointed put I am probably more educated than her. She is the one that said I don’t know as much as her, I was just pointing out I do. As for Allbi he was pointing out that at times people have prejudices. I agree. It is there in education, his posts, Diana’s, and now yours. Though yours may be more about you coming to the defense of a friend. That doesn’t mean my entire education is void because they are both older than me.

As for me being defensive, he is the one that wont get off my age. I am still just wanting answers to my questions. As for debating, I have already said I am not debating. I am asking questions. There is a difference. I started out asking a question then following it up when I got a viable answer. That is not debating. That is asking questions.

As for;

Debate should be a lively exchange of ideas and not a way to put down another.

I agree, but once again this is not a debate. Also if it was, if you read everything in this thread, you will find I never once brought up something personal about either of them. Although they did me. I never put them down. I never made it personal. I was never even rude, but they can’t say the same. Nor can you.

[MetaSexual2]

I'm ambivalent on modern interpretations of the second amendment, I do have to say though that the interpretations of the US Civil War put forward by Falcon and Diana are utterly opposed what is in the historical record. The attempt to use state's rights as the reason behind Confederate states secession was an act of historical revisionism by the leaders of Confederacy after the war. The primary cause, and this can be shown in a number of different ways, was without a doubt the economic and racially motivated fear of the power centers in slave states. The election of Lincoln, an outspoken abolitionist, was the final straw that caused the crisis. Secessionist leadership also committed acts of treason against the constitution and conspired with enemies of the US prior to Union forces being committed to battle.

The facts are very clear if you read the documents from the time with an open mind. This was a period in which both personal and government communications are very well documented. Attempts to reframe the Confederate leadership's actions as somehow noble are akin to holocaust denial. There is absolutely no support for the state's rights argument, and I challenge Falcon or Diana to present any.

[ghytifrdnr]

It seems trite, but true to say that one man's terrorist is the next man's freedom fighter. For a different viewpoint than you'll see in the MSM, go here: http://www.earthfrisk.com:80/blog/?p=142

[Doggie_Wood]

What quotes?

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd155/Dogwoods_place/Humorous/8.gif

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd155/Dogwoods_place/Humorous/funny-animals-01-laughing-horse.jpg

[Doggie_Wood]

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd155/Dogwoods_place/Humorous/obama.gif

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd155/Dogwoods_place/Humorous/ROFL.gif

[Doggie_Wood]

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd155/Dogwoods_place/Humorous/LOL-BabysButt-Laughing-MyCheeksHurt.gif

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd155/Dogwoods_place/Humorous/lmaodog2.gif

[Doggie_Wood]

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd155/Dogwoods_place/Humorous/dognolaughingmatter-mark.jpg

Doggie :doggie

[Toad82]

...One man's terrorist is the next man's freedom fighter.

That was the point of my original question.



As for the link, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Once again it is I am right (or my side) and you are wrong (or your side). I like how it is 100% the democrats fault and no one else’s. Even better I like how we, the readers don’t get to know who wrote it. I don’t put much stalk in people that hide their name when they write a piece like that.

[Toad82]

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd155/Dogwoods_place/Humorous/8.gif

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd155/Dogwoods_place/Humorous/funny-animals-01-laughing-horse.jpg

Yes, what quotes? He wrote;


Toad, you're quoting the extreme fringe. The Second Amendment does not say that. It just states the right to bear arms.


First off it does say more than that. Secondly I only people I had quoted up to that point had been Diana_BiMale_CD, and allbimyself from what I remember. Was he calling them extreme fringe? It wouldn’t really help his case much would it.

Why is it that I am the one being told I am insulting and need to learn how to debate, when you are the one arguing with pictures. At least this time when allbi gets mad it will be on you. Afterall he said,


Oh, I didn't realize that you think the rights of people aren't serious. That explains much.

I will say though the pictures were very witty. Best arguments on here. I am sure you are proud.

[Doggie_Wood]

And I Quote:

I will say though the pictures were very witty. Best arguments on here. I am sure you are proud.

To Quote or Not To Quote - is never the answer nor the question - when one makes jest of a downward never ending nonsensicle "conversation" (if you can call it that.
This has ceased being a debate or a conversation but more so an arguement of who is right and who is wrong.

Everyone who interperets the 2nd Amendment will interperete it in there own way.
Simply stated:
The goverment (be it Federal, State, or local) shall not infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizen to keep and bears arms (to own and have in one's abode) for the protection of themselves, their family, their homes, their country and the US consitution aginst tyranny and oppression - be it forien or domestic.

Rest assured Toad, I and many others in this forum will never give up the rights provided us by the 2nd.

Ohhh!! Yes, I am proud - I thought they were great pictures - but to obtain the full measure of the jist, you have to take all into context as one (paying close attention to the finalle)

Doggie :doggie:

[tg Shannon]

I just got this in my email, thought it might be relevant.

The only gun control I believe in is hitting what you are aiming at!

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of
gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law
to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government,
a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first
year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

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 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. The Australian experience and
the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.

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

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this
history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most
Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of
your friends.


The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The
sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than
either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS
EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME
RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN
AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!

[usedbear1950]

This is another issue where people are entrenched on either side and won't budge an inch. The issue for me is not whether a person has firearms for hunting or protection but how do we keep them out of the hands of criminals. I live less than a mile from North Newark, NJ. The guns, mostly handguns, are purchased from states that have few or no background checks. Buying a firearm at a show from a private seller does not require background checks. The other problem is if we establish a registry of names of firearm owners who controls it. We have learned in the past 8 years that even our phone conversations have been monitored in the name of security.
I don't have answers but I think that a dialog is necessary so that we can address the concerns of both sides and finally have a viable solution.
I suggest that 'walking a mile' in another's moccasins might be tried. If you are against gun control put yourself in the place of a mother whose child was killed on an urban street. If you are for gun control consider the woman whose home is violated and is protecting her family.
I submit that there could be other and better analogies but I wish we can have a meaningful dialog and we might find a solution.
Chris Rock has an interesting solution, sell guns to whomever cheaply but charge $10,000 per bullet. Instead of 'bustin' a cap' you would be an expensive financial statement.
ur ever luvin
usedbear

[FalconAngel]

Excellent point on The Civil War.

Going by today’s standards though wouldn’t The South been seen as terrorists to Northerners and The Northerners to The Southerners.

As for what I made bold in your quote, do you really think we should live by societies ideas from 222 years ago without taking in to account life is not like that any more? The Founders didn’t seem to think so, that’s why we have The Supreme Court. We are a child of a nation, but we are also the oldest nation with a living constitution. Don’t you think there is a reason for that?

Categorically not. You have to understand what a terrorist is. A terrorist is not a soldier. He has no discipline to keep him within the acceptable "rules of war" that a soldier follows.

A terrorist behaves without regrd to the tactical or strategic importance of a target, instead attacking "soft" targets, like shopping malls, airports, baseball stadiums, courts, etc.

The north had more cases of "terrorist" behavior during the civil war than the South did. Not that there wasn't plenty of it on both sides, but the Southern troops just took what they needed, and Lee's troops paid for what they took.
A lot of Northern Generals were pillaging the South and sending their ill-gotten gains back home to be sold or collected.


You have to give credit where credit is due.

Our founding fathers were men who saw the world for the good and the bad. They had lived it, so they knew. That is where the declaration of Independence starts the process.

The understanding that the rules that govern our nation could be misused was foremost in the minds of the men who wrote the Constitution, but the process was clouded by prejudices and issues of the times.
This is why the Amendments to the Constitution were added piece by piece as the issues that each amendment covers came up. Starting with freedom of speech, the press, religion, etc.

Take a look at the dates of each amendment and look at what was happening around the dates of each amendment and you will see that each was added to fix a problem that needed clarification, and sometimes, correction.

Sadly, BimaleCD has a point; most of us suffer from an education system that is more interested in pumping out diplomas rather than insuring that those diplomas are worth the paper that they are written on.
Worse than that, we all suffer from a HUGE whitewashing of history, which is designed to promote nationalism, white-Anglo superiority and completely ignores the facts in some cases and re-writes them altogether in others.

This started shortly after the Civil War, with the federal government instituting various rules designed to reprogram, in a way, the people of the southern states.

Most people are completely unaware that Columbus didn't "discover the Americas because he, in fact, had maps showing him the way. That is indicated in his journal entries from his first voyage to the "New World".

Most people have never heard of the massacre of Native Americans at Wounded Knee, by the US 7th Calvary, and the events that spurred that massacre. These are things that we all need to know about so that we do not repeat them.

We have an obligation to learn from the mistakes of our fore-bearers, because, if we do not, then we will end up with a nation no longer of free people, but of laws and those who enforce them on serfs.

This nation was never meant to become that, which is why the Constitution was written for.

And, to be honest, had it not been for the industrial power of the North, during the Civil War, the south would have won and this nation may have been a much freer place than it has become.

Remember that the north represented more government intrusion into the rights of the states and the people. And ever since, our rights have been slowly infringed upon by that same government that is supposed to be prohibited from doing so.

Few, who have never fought for freedom, can ever understand the price to maintain that freedom.

No offense, Toad, but there are quite a few folks on this site that can fully understand what I mean because, like me, they are also vets. Some have fought in various wars for this country and some have given more than just their time in it's defense. The ones who have served in times of war have friends who never came back.

These men understand the price for freedom; and it isn't complacency over the Government. It is vigilance and, sometimes blood. That is the real price that has been paid to keep our freedoms as intact as possible.

Like I said before, you have to understand these documents in the context of when they were written and the events of the day.

But as important as that understanding is, you also need to understand that those men also understood the price, and what freedom means, because they were risking, not only their own lives, but the lives of their families to attain the freedoms that we enjoy under the Constitution.

The answers to your questions about why these rights are so important, and I cannot stress this enough, is in our nation's history. Even that is being whitewashed over by revisionist historians that want to help take our rights slowly away because the past is inconvenient or uncomfortable to some.

[FalconAngel]

:bigrin: Ahhhhhhh yes that picture that Joe posted. Reminds me of the days I was in the Army (drafted--11/71--11/73)
IF YOU EVER got caught calling your weapon (rifle or pistol) a gun, it would be bad. You would learn a new song and after singing that song (and it's associated actions that went with the song) so could you picture this?? In basic training you get caught calling your weapon a gun by a drill sergent and he would make you raise your weapon over your head with one hand and you would pull out your dick with your other hand and sing THIS IS MY WEAPON while raising your rifle up & down AND THIS IS MY GUN while shakeing your dick. Then you would start raising your rifle up & down singing THIS IS FOR FIGHTING then you would start pulling on your dick again and sing THIS IS FOR FUN.
I can remember it well they would make you parade around singing THIS IS MY WEAPON, THIS IS MY GUN, THIS IS FOR FIGHTING, THIS IS FOR FUN. while doin the associated actions

Or this is what the Army drill sergents did to us while in basic training at Fort Knox Kentucky. AHHHHHHH yes it does bring back some memories of basic training. SAY JOE this didn't happen to you did it? I could tell from the picture that, thats what is going on. The drill sargent a making them sing the song. I see somebody got caught calling their weapon a gun and the drill sarge is correcting them.

Yep, got me too, thats how I remember it so well........Doggie.......:doggie:

Thats my :2cents: And because of inflation & recession :2cents::2cents::2cents::2cents::2cents::2cents::2 cents::2cents::2cents::2cents::2cents::2cents::2ce nts::2cents::2cents::2cents::2cents::2cents: Aw U know what I mean

You were at Ft. Knox too?

I went to Basic there in the Summer of 78.

In the movie Stripes, the parade scene, there is a silver building on the left rear and my barracks building is right behind it across the street.

D-18-4

[FalconAngel]

I'm ambivalent on modern interpretations of the second amendment, I do have to say though that the interpretations of the US Civil War put forward by Falcon and Diana are utterly opposed what is in the historical record. The attempt to use state's rights as the reason behind Confederate states secession was an act of historical revisionism by the leaders of Confederacy after the war. The primary cause, and this can be shown in a number of different ways, was without a doubt the economic and racially motivated fear of the power centers in slave states. The election of Lincoln, an outspoken abolitionist, was the final straw that caused the crisis. Secessionist leadership also committed acts of treason against the constitution and conspired with enemies of the US prior to Union forces being committed to battle.

The facts are very clear if you read the documents from the time with an open mind. This was a period in which both personal and government communications are very well documented. Attempts to reframe the Confederate leadership's actions as somehow noble are akin to holocaust denial. There is absolutely no support for the state's rights argument, and I challenge Falcon or Diana to present any.

Well, actually, my wife, who has a masters in history, is the real expert on the Civil war and a former Civil War re-enactor with the 1st Maryland Confederate (Maryland had units on both sides of the war, as did a few of the other border states).
There is plenty of proof that slavery was not the reason, starting with the fact that the War of the Rebellion was started in 1861, yet the emancipation proclamation was not created and signed into law until 2 years later. Lincoln actually had no real interest in freeing slaves. To be honest, his own memoires point to that fact. If anything, he was pretty ambivalent about it, until he realized that he needed the abolishonists on his side to produce the manpower and support to win the war. The Emancipation Proclamation was a political move on his part. Not that it was not the right move, but it was completely political.

Again, much of what you, and most Americans, know about American history, like almost everyone else, has been heavily whitewashed for political and nationalist reasons, not to insure accurate understanding of our history and it's events.

I would start with the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me". It has some good resources from incidents where our history has been "revised". The look up Lincolns memoires, Jefferson Davis' memoires and the writings of the leading military officers of the day (Lee, Grant, Scott, etc.) to get a broader look at the war and it's causes; particularly look to what Robert E. Lee wrote.

[MetaSexual2]

Well, actually, my wife, who has a masters in history, is the real expert on the Civil war and a former Civil War re-enactor with the 1st Maryland Confederate (Maryland had units on both sides of the war, as did a few of the other border states).
There is plenty of proof that slavery was not the reason, starting with the fact that the War of the Rebellion was started in 1861, yet the emancipation proclamation was not created and signed into law until 2 years later. Lincoln actually had no real interest in freeing slaves. To be honest, his own memoires point to that fact. If anything, he was pretty ambivalent about it, until he realized that he needed the abolishonists on his side to produce the manpower and support to win the war. The Emancipation Proclamation was a political move on his part. Not that it was not the right move, but it was completely political.

Again, much of what you, and most Americans, know about American history, like almost everyone else, has been heavily whitewashed for political and nationalist reasons, not to insure accurate understanding of our history and it's events.

I would start with the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me". It has some good resources from incidents where our history has been "revised". The look up Lincolns memoires, Jefferson Davis' memoires and the writings of the leading military officers of the day (Lee, Grant, Scott, etc.) to get a broader look at the war and it's causes; particularly look to what Robert E. Lee wrote.

Falcon, most of what you have said above is simply not true. I would suggest you go read the original statements of secession by the confederate states, and the statements of resigning congressmen and senators from confederate states, and the statements of the VP of the CSA in 1861. Don't rely on secondary interpretation, go to the primary sources. Confederate politicians were very clear about what was up at the time - this was about the right to maintain slavery and expand it to new states. Also, if you read some of Lincoln's speeches in the run up to the 1860 campaign (particularly the Cooper Union Address and his debates with Douglas) he is unequivocal about his position on slavery. This is also why the seceding states so hated him.

The view you are presenting of the civil war is simply a fairy tale initially created by confederate politicians following the war to justify their very questionable actions, and its just not supported by the evidence. There were certainly abuses by Union forces during the war, but the primary motivations behind the decisions to secede/go to war are very clear by all parties involved. You can read it in their own words.

Falcon you are deeply passionate about defending individual rights. Why would you want defend people who were so deeply committed to maintaining one of the worst systems of government enforced human rights abuses of the 19th century?

[darkeyes]

Categorically not. You have to understand what a terrorist is. A terrorist is not a soldier. He has no discipline to keep him within the acceptable "rules of war" that a soldier follows.

A terrorist behaves without regrd to the tactical or strategic importance of a target, instead attacking "soft" targets, like shopping malls, airports, baseball stadiums, courts, etc.

U mean like an air force crew who bomb a weddin or a mall or a mosque or a market or a school, Falcon hun?? Or a UN enclave??

[Toad82]

Categorically not. You have to understand what a terrorist is. A terrorist is not a soldier. He has no discipline to keep him within the acceptable "rules of war" that a soldier follows.

A terrorist behaves without regrd to the tactical or strategic importance of a target, instead attacking "soft" targets, like shopping malls, airports, baseball stadiums, courts, etc.

The north had more cases of "terrorist" behavior during the civil war than the South did. Not that there wasn't plenty of it on both sides, but the Southern troops just took what they needed, and Lee's troops paid for what they took.
A lot of Northern Generals were pillaging the South and sending their ill-gotten gains back home to be sold or collected.


You have to give credit where credit is due.

Our founding fathers were men who saw the world for the good and the bad. They had lived it, so they knew. That is where the declaration of Independence starts the process.

The understanding that the rules that govern our nation could be misused was foremost in the minds of the men who wrote the Constitution, but the process was clouded by prejudices and issues of the times.
This is why the Amendments to the Constitution were added piece by piece as the issues that each amendment covers came up. Starting with freedom of speech, the press, religion, etc.

Take a look at the dates of each amendment and look at what was happening around the dates of each amendment and you will see that each was added to fix a problem that needed clarification, and sometimes, correction.

Sadly, BimaleCD has a point; most of us suffer from an education system that is more interested in pumping out diplomas rather than insuring that those diplomas are worth the paper that they are written on.
Worse than that, we all suffer from a HUGE whitewashing of history, which is designed to promote nationalism, white-Anglo superiority and completely ignores the facts in some cases and re-writes them altogether in others.

This started shortly after the Civil War, with the federal government instituting various rules designed to reprogram, in a way, the people of the southern states.

Most people are completely unaware that Columbus didn't "discover the Americas because he, in fact, had maps showing him the way. That is indicated in his journal entries from his first voyage to the "New World".

Most people have never heard of the massacre of Native Americans at Wounded Knee, by the US 7th Calvary, and the events that spurred that massacre. These are things that we all need to know about so that we do not repeat them.

We have an obligation to learn from the mistakes of our fore-bearers, because, if we do not, then we will end up with a nation no longer of free people, but of laws and those who enforce them on serfs.

This nation was never meant to become that, which is why the Constitution was written for.

And, to be honest, had it not been for the industrial power of the North, during the Civil War, the south would have won and this nation may have been a much freer place than it has become.

Remember that the north represented more government intrusion into the rights of the states and the people. And ever since, our rights have been slowly infringed upon by that same government that is supposed to be prohibited from doing so.

Few, who have never fought for freedom, can ever understand the price to maintain that freedom.

No offense, Toad, but there are quite a few folks on this site that can fully understand what I mean because, like me, they are also vets. Some have fought in various wars for this country and some have given more than just their time in it's defense. The ones who have served in times of war have friends who never came back.

These men understand the price for freedom; and it isn't complacency over the Government. It is vigilance and, sometimes blood. That is the real price that has been paid to keep our freedoms as intact as possible.

Like I said before, you have to understand these documents in the context of when they were written and the events of the day.

But as important as that understanding is, you also need to understand that those men also understood the price, and what freedom means, because they were risking, not only their own lives, but the lives of their families to attain the freedoms that we enjoy under the Constitution.

The answers to your questions about why these rights are so important, and I cannot stress this enough, is in our nation's history. Even that is being whitewashed over by revisionist historians that want to help take our rights slowly away because the past is inconvenient or uncomfortable to some.

This was the type of response I wanted in the first place. Everyone assumed I wanted to take their guns. I don’t. I just see it as a liberal interpretation that it is not “A Right”. In fact I have owned guns, so why would I want to take yours? As for the rest of what you said, why is my education worse than yours ? It has been brought up that teachers lie, but you keep forgetting you had teachers as well. I had public and private schooling, how do you know I didn’t have conservative teachers. I did. They were also my favorite teachers so I listened to what they had to say.

As for another statement you made you talk about being a vet. Since I have been on this site you have done this many times. You make it sound as if only vets know the truth and no one else can. That only vets can comprehend the things you “know”. That is fine, maybe it is true, but in my life I have met many vets that don’t agree with you. Then who gets to be right? No offense, but then does it get to go by rank?

Good answer by the way. I obviously don’t buy it all, but it is still well written.

RJ:lokai:

[MaybeSayMaybe]

Lots of heavy vibes here. Face it - mankind has a semi-self-destructive instinct as well as a value-added instinct. It may be impossible to disconnect the two forces.

But we can all do several thing - we can conquer the ugly forces within ourselves before we do anything else. We can learn not to hate, because what we hate defines us as much as what we love. We can learn to be humble, and that humbleness is in no way connected to weakness. We can all learn to not become part of a problem by trying to force our views upon others.

And we can all learn how to HAVE A GOOD TIME.

[FalconAngel]

U mean like an air force crew who bomb a weddin or a mall or a mosque or a market or a school, Falcon hun?? Or a UN enclave??

Were the targets that you mention incorrectly identified targets or specific, designated targets. A soldier does not get to pick his target. That is what the generals are for.

Soldiers follow their orders and, under the UCMJ, if they know those orders to be illegal (against the rules of engagement, such as non-combatants, established by the DOD when it was still called the War Department), they are legally allowed to not follow those orders.

In addition, if an aircrew sees something inconsistent with the intell that they were given about a target, they may question that command before firing upon a target.

Plus, what we read in the papers and see in the news is often peppered with dialogue that is designed to be sympathetic to the enemy.

This happened a lot during Vietnam. Ask a few of the Vietnam vets who lost friends to 15 year old (sometimes much younger) suicide bombers who were looking like "shoe shine" boys.

When we start making accusations about the actions of our military personnel (no matter what country), we need to be certain that it is truth or the left wing or right wing press trying to garner more publication sales or better ratings.

Remember that newspapers and TV news all make their money on circulation/viewership, not the integrity of their reports. More sensation, better ratings and circulation.
A prime example of that is one of our local stations (WSVN - channel 7), who's motto is "If it bleeds, it leads" (first on the news). Their ratings are the highest in our area for news.

If our troops did violate the rules of engagement, and did so knowingly, then they need to be held accountable, but war is an inaccurate thing in which the situation can change faster than you can blink. What started out as a rightious target may not have been one by the time the mission scrambled.

This is why I have always said that the way we fight this supposed "war on terror" is all wrong. It needs a team of surgeons, not a bunch of construction workers with sledgehammer.

People like SAS, GSG-9, Mosaad, "Delta" and other specialized counter terror units need to be fighting it, not regular combat troops. That would insure that good targets are good targets and civilian casualties are minimized, even negated.

[FalconAngel]

This was the type of response I wanted in the first place. Everyone assumed I wanted to take their guns. I don’t. I just see it as a liberal interpretation that it is not “A Right”. In fact I have owned guns, so why would I want to take yours? As for the rest of what you said, why is my education worse than yours ? It has been brought up that teachers lie, but you keep forgetting you had teachers as well. I had public and private schooling, how do you know I didn’t have conservative teachers. I did. They were also my favorite teachers so I listened to what they had to say.

As for another statement you made you talk about being a vet. Since I have been on this site you have done this many times. You make it sound as if only vets know the truth and no one else can. That only vets can comprehend the things you “know”. That is fine, maybe it is true, but in my life I have met many vets that don’t agree with you. Then who gets to be right? No offense, but then does it get to go by rank?

Good answer by the way. I obviously don’t buy it all, but it is still well written.

RJ:lokai:


I appreciate the cander with which you ask these questions. I see it as a thirst for knowledge and a greater understanding of others. Therefore, I will be equally honest and respectful with you as to my position. That is, after all, how we learn about each other, which many people don't seem to get.

I never said that you were opposed to the 2nd Amendment, which I am sure that you know, But I am fortunate that I did a lot of study on my own. Got failed more than once on a test or report because what I wrote was based on higher level research than the school had ( My folks used to say that I practically lived in the library, when I was a kid). But because what I wrote or knew was not correct and in keeping with what the history books said, I got failed. I even showed the references and the teachers would tell me that it is not what the books in the school said, so I was failed.

Yes, I suffered from the same failed school system, but I was also fortunate enough to have gotten the majority of my education in the (at the time 60's-early 70's) number 1 rated school system in the nation. Sadly, I moved to the number 48 rated system when I was in High School.

Yes, Vets do understand better than the average citizen because they have given some, if not most to protect those rights.

Anyone can say that they understand the rights that we have, but how many really know. How do they know? Have they made the sacrifices of long tours in lonely places? No. Have they suffered in some godforsaken jungle, desert or tundra? No. Not in defense of the rights of other, and consequently themselves.

When we swear the oath of enlistment we are no longr a citizen, but property of the United States; in a very real sense, a slave, of sorts, with a time limit on our servitude.

All of the rights that we are entitled to, as civilians, become very limited. None but military personnel have those limitations that we have had. Not even law enforcement has the limitations of personal freedoms that military personnel have.

This is why we Vets have that knowledge, because we had many of those rights removed or infringed, even if it was for a limited time.

As I have said before, those who have served in defense of freedom understand it's price better than those who have never had to struggle for that freedom.

I hope that has clarified my position for you.

[treemutt]

OK here is my 2 cents worth.I don't own a gun to go out and kill the pres. or senators or anybody for the matter,but you better dam well bet if you harm one of mine or attempt to rob me.I will use my weapon.To me thats what the 2nd amend. is about.It is my right to protect myself by deadly force if necessary.
The thinking that no law abiding citizen should be allowed to own a weapon is ridiculous to me.Then you would only have criminals w/ guns.
Now since I'm from the south you may want to label me as a redneck and thats OK w/ me it's just a word,but the majority of us here in the south do own weapons & are taught how to use them at an early age.

[nudeorphic]

Ok...well, Toad, I will correct my statement that...I did not quote you-sometimes my typing fingers type too fast:and, I never commented on your pictures (at all). So please...take a LARGE chill pill with a dash of lime and a shot of vodka on the side.

So...having gotten that out of the way-yes, the 2nd amendment is very very important to anyone who is a gun owner. And any movement to ban guns will die at the Supreme Court. It has in the past it will in the future.

[lv69cpl69]

I am not debating anything, I am just curious. If we take over institutions how is that not terrorism? If anyone took over anything that is what it would be considered. Is this one of those things if I do it, it is okay, but if it is someone else it is not? As for “the government rules with the consent of the governed”, is that not what elections are for.


As for Ruby Ridge, I just read a lot of stuff on it. The USSS knew of him before the other events. Also it is very clear the government fucked up.


No it is not just a right but a job to defend the country if the government fails to do as the "people" want. like a tea party. but yes they will call you a criminal at least. the civil war could have never happened with out armed citizens!!! just my opinion :2cents:

"REMEMBER THE ALAMO"..."REMEMBER RUBY RIDGE, IDAHO"... REMEMBER WACO, TEXAS!"

[BareHunter45]

That's why I have this sign on my front lawn....

[TwylaTwobits]

Sighs.... yes there are challenges to the Second Amendment and yes I'm a card carrying member of the NRA.

Do I believe we have the right to own fully automatic machine guns? No, that would make a mess of the squirrel. Do I believe we have the right to have pistols and long rifles for home defense and hunting. Yes.

The bottom line as has been said of ANY LAW that is being discussed, you can make it illegal but you can't change it. All that would happen is you would have a lot of unregistered guns in the hands of civilians because they would definitely find their way into the hands of criminals.

And sorry citing Ruby Ridge....that was one hell of a fiasco. And I'm sure there are many more we will never hear about that were quietly covered up. But in the FBI's defence there are lot of supremicist groups that do fully arm themselves with automatic weapons and think they are the last line of defence for the "common man".

Now if the US was ever targeted by another country that actually landed on our shores and spread out. They would have one hell of a fight on their hands, not just the local military but the citizens would rise up and fight. That is what was counted on in the Second Amendment back when America was a newborn country, why in our doddering old age should we not have that same right?

Steps off soapbox and checks my 9mm...

[Long Duck Dong]

I just got this in my email, thought it might be relevant.

The only gun control I believe in is hitting what you are aiming at!

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of
gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law
to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government,
a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first
year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

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 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. The Australian experience and
the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.

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

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this
history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most
Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of
your friends.


The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The
sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than
either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS
EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME
RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN
AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!



just out of curiosity.... are you supporting the right to bear arms... the right to self defence or protection..... or the right to open fire on the cops if they are doing their job

I say that, cos in nz we have 4 people shot, one dead, 3 were police officers doing their job.....

the right to bear arms, doesn't mean that people have the brains to know when to use them and when not to use them......but it can mean that somebody is not coming home tonight, cos somebody had a gun...

[etncple]

This has been a really interesting thread to read. As has been pointed out by many, life has changed dramatically since the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. As a transplanted yankee( from NY, now in Tn), I have always believed people should have the right to defend themselves and home. This doesn't mean that I think people should own an automatic rifle with a 35 round clip. It also doesnt mean anyone should be able to buy a gun at a show without any type of check at all. I have been to a large number of shows and have seen people buying guns in the parking lot every time which is scary to me.

The idea of a "well regulated militia" is a bit out of touch right now but back then the newly formed country really had no army and relied on the states to raise troops. Even up through the Civil War many regiments were formed by the states themselves, with officers elected by vote. This was true on both sides, which helps account for some of the colorful uniforms on both sides early in the war. The north did institute a draft later on which helped change that.

As far as the reasons for the Civil War, states rights were part of the reason but slavery was a huge economic black cloud which never would have been solved otherwise in my opinion. If the south wasn't determined to keep slavery they would have abolished it, if just to get England to openly side with them and give them a chance to win the war. One thing that hasn't changed since then is the people with the money/power made the decision to keep slavery. The average Confederate soldier owned no slaves but fought to protect his home/state.

As far as terrorism, the policeman/ soldier is not a terrorist ( i am not talking about the exception to the rule here, those who should never have been permitted to serve for mental/ psych reasons), they doing a thankless job most of us pass up. The person who blows up a commuter train, a marketplace, church or mosque, a school is. As much as I disagree with their "religious", social and political views, I find it hard to call the Afghan fighters in the hills terrorists, they are fighting to get us to leave their country, and many are the same people we supplied, and supported, during their fight against the USSR occupation.