One man's extreme is one man's starting point.
If some folks and groups can have firearms , but others can't , just who gets to decide who does and who doesn't...?
The Bill of Rights applies to all legal US Citizens ...regardless of who they vote for...which is ironic ...but that is a subject for a different thread.

And yes I do understand the cause for concern , when extremists of any stripe , not only have firearms but encourage dangerous or criminal actions...
But to curtail one group , leaves the door open to curtail us all.
Andy
 

WoodsPlinker

Messages
1,038
Reactions
2,921
Yeah it's interesting this individual decided to classify themselves in a group villified by the chaos that history represents them as. And if they have anything to learn from history it should be that violence hurts their particular cause.

At one point in time anarchists performed acts of terrorism around the world even killing President William McKinley. Their cause relegated to the dustbin of history because, violence tends to turn people off to your cause. I know crazy right, that acting like an animal tends to make people not like you.

Anyway, an armed citizen is a right of all Americans and this would only concern me if they returned to their past ways. Today there are all shapes and flavors of anarchists from the peaceful non violent voluntaryist to the punk rock anarchist. Which is he?

In any case to quote Reid Henrichs "the lessons we learn are written on the tombstones of others". Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
 
For the record...
Having served on two "Peace Keeping" tours while in the Army , I have seen first hand , just what happens when one group gets to say : "You can't have , do or say this...but we can".
So I do admit a bit of bias to go along with my first post in this thread.

Also somewhat related ...
Anarchist : "A person who believes in or tries to bring about anarchy"
Anarchy : "A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority"
Now I wonder just how someone can also be a "wing" either Left or Right , yet also be a Anarchist , which by definition is someone who does not recognize authority ...?
Andy
 
Messages
6,985
Reactions
21,491
Founding Fathers by definition were both right and left wing, Anarchist, Rebels, Terrorist, and Extremist.

If I was on the lefts side, I would be armed knowing my opposition is, nothing new but for a few years
even those loosely trained are trained non-the-less in Anifta. A few years ago they were idiots with masks
and sticks. Now they are armed, and trained( Idiots with masks). And engage even in these firearms sites for gun sales.

Just remember Hitlers Sturmabteilung, ( Brown shirts) started out less armed then Anifta is now.
People once laughed at these groups, they are now better organized then any armed group currently operating
including those on the right site. Interesting, all the organized right wing Not On My Watch guys are noticeably absent.
 
Messages
16,541
Reactions
61,931
One man's extreme is one man's starting point.
If some folks and groups can have firearms , but others can't , just who gets to decide who does and who doesn't...?
The Bill of Rights applies to all legal US Citizens ...regardless of who they vote for...which is ironic ...but that is a subject for a different thread.

And yes I do understand the cause for concern , when extremists of any stripe , not only have firearms but encourage dangerous or criminal actions...
But to curtail one group , leaves the door open to curtail us all.
Andy

I have said many times on this site over the years that the 2nd is for all Americans. I support all lawful Americans keeping and bearing arms, regardless of political affiliation.

What got me with this article is the charged language that would seem to imply something more sinister than self-defense. I feel the same when folks on the right talk like that too.
 
Messages
31,224
Reactions
78,696
As we have often said, it isn't the possession or the firearm itself, it is the action of the person pulling the trigger.

As long as they use it ethically, then they are fine.

Notice I didn't say 'lawfully' instead of 'ethically'. I originally typed 'lawfully' then thought better of it since there are many unconstitutional laws out there regarding firearms. Also, the basis of anarchist's belief system seems to be one of no laws, so that probably would have been inconsistent.
 
The author is totally missing the point while at the same time, stating the obvious. Who said that his kind can't own guns? He admits that prohibited persons shouldn't be able to own them and that no other groups(ie- Republicans, etc) should be be the only ones to own guns. So basically he's endorsing the Constitution? o_O
 
Messages
31,224
Reactions
78,696
The author is totally missing the point while at the same time, stating the obvious. Who said that his kind can't own guns? He admits that prohibited persons shouldn't be able to own them and that no other groups(ie- Republicans, etc) should be be the only ones to own guns. So basically he's endorsing the Constitution? o_O

Your post prompted me to actually read the article. I got as far as this:

"Republicans, racist libertarians, and other generally Constitution-obsessed weirdos. "

Ooookaaaay. no bias showing here. no stereotyping either. :rolleyes:

I've never met a 'racist libertarian' - but I will allow that some racists may try to identify as 'libertarian'.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors August 2-Day Show
Hillsboro, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA
Rimfire Challenge
Canby, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top