Howdy from a gun owning lefty

[CavVet]

I suggest you don't assume that being left wing means that I will roll over and play dead if attacked. It is, however, possible that I might decide the enemy to fight is not the same enemy you think is out there.

The only thing I assume left wing means is one votes for those who support gun control.



I clearly notice you didnt answer any of my 3 clear questions, which in turn answer your question.

 

[stanaxe]

The only thing I assume left wing means is one votes for those who support gun control.

Bad assumption

I clearly notice you didnt answer any of my 3 clear questions, which in turn answer your question.

OK, they're easy to answer with a few questions of my own:

After one gets past that part properly, and moves to the above question of importance, I would ask three questions....

1) How many of the amendments in the BOR were givent the clear specific caveat of "shall not be infringed"?
a) Just the 2nd uses those exact words that I remember. However, the first says
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Why is a prohibition on ANY law-making somehow so different in meaning?
b) What does your attempting to defend the 2nd when I never attacked it in any way (or proposed that it be limited or abolished) have to do with anything than your mistaken assumption that lefty=pacifist? (see above)

2) Which of the BOR would be the biggest direct threat to the government they are specifically designed to contain?
a) I'd argue the 1st. In recent history (civil rights movement, peaceful Vietnam& Iraq war protests, etc.), the most effective means of changing government policy (and administrations) has been peaceful assembly and redress of grievances...even in the face of government driven violence. Violent threats (Oklahoma City comes to mind), have been counterproductive.
b) Same seems to be holding, even around the world, in today's news.

3) At 0300 when the bubblegum is hitting the fan, which right would you prefer to have the ability to exercise?
a)Once SHTF, legal rights are non-functional and irrelevant. What's important is the foresight to prepare, co-ordinate with my neighbors, plan strategy and and tactics for such an unfortunate event (including the availability of firearms, rusty pitchforks, food, water, shelter, alternate energy sources, and means of transportation) would all be part of that planning.
But again, since I didn't argue against the 2nd, what have your questions got to do with the discussion?:huh:

I need to make a clarification on who and why I would or wouldn't vote for someone.
If someone wanted my vote to completely abolish the 1st, or even demand a religion establishment, for example, requiring "intelligent design" be included in science education, I would vote against them without question.
If someone wanted my vote to completely abolish the second, I would also vote against them, no questions asked.
If someone wanted to codify that homicidal maniacs who are released, "reformed", and off probation should be able to by any weapon they wanted, any time they wanted, without a background check, I would probably vote against them. However, I would first want to understand their rational. It would have to be a lot better than the 2nd "shall not be infringed"
If someone with an agenda between those extremes wanted my vote, I would balance the dangers of their exact plans for the 2nd, and the rest of their platform. Proposing changes to the 2nd, would raise big red flag against their hope to win my vote.

 

[CavVet]

1) How many of the amendments in the BOR were givent the clear specific caveat of "shall not be infringed"?

a) Just the 2nd uses those exact words that I remember. However, the first says
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Why is a prohibition on ANY law-making somehow so different in meaning?

******************

1st- Congress shall not....The state or locality is not Congress, therefore the only government body limited is fed.

2nd- Shall not be infringed....Nobody is supposed to bubblegum with that one.

See that difference?

*******************

b) What does your attempting to defend the 2nd when I never attacked it in any way (or proposed that it be limited or abolished) have to do with anything than your mistaken assumption that lefty=pacifist? (see above)

***************


That was no defense of anything, I was answering the alleged "NRA poll" in your opening post. I should have just said, "I consider that junk mail and dont open it, and if I do I sure dont whine on the internet about it, nor would I go to a gunboard and tell why the 1st is more important than the 2nd."


As for your "mistaken assumption" comment, you are the one assuming. The last three national shooters, as are most, were moonbats. WU, PLA, ELF,, et al, all left leaning has never been nor meant pacifist, nor law obiding (See also WTO, Whale Wars, pancake girl, etc). Their open mindedness usually allows for destruction of public property, complete disregard for laws and violence at all turns. You made a very broad very wrong leap on that one.

***************

2) Which of the BOR would be the biggest direct threat to the government they are specifically designed to contain?

a) I'd argue the 1st. In recent history (civil rights movement, peaceful Vietnam& Iraq war protests, etc.), the most effective means of changing government policy (and administrations) has been peaceful assembly and redress of grievances...even in the face of government driven violence. Violent threats (Oklahoma City comes to mind), have been counterproductive.

**************
Im sure you would "argue" it. The USA exists from the gun turned on England. And let me remind you of the words of an idol to the left, "Political power grws out of the barrel of a gun., Mao".

Talking bubblegum only works when the others have no will to continue their behavior. If they wish to continue their behavior, they will simply kill you.

****************

3) At 0300 when the bubblegum is hitting the fan, which right would you prefer to have the ability to exercise?

a)Once SHTF, legal rights are non-functional and irrelevant. What's important is the foresight to prepare, co-ordinate with my neighbors, plan strategy and and tactics for such an unfortunate event (including the availability of firearms, rusty pitchforks, food, water, shelter, alternate energy sources, and means of transportation) would all be part of that planning.

****************

Legal rights are non functional, and so is kumbaya talking. If the 2nd is already undermined and given away, talking will be all you will be able to do. If your Master lets you speak.

************

 

[elsullo]

Greetings, Stanaxe, from another "leftie". Already, you have learned how it is here. As they say in Japan, a land of wooden floors, "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down!" There are lots of "rightie" ranters here who have not had a new thought since the 1950's, and actively oppose higher education becuase it can make you "liberal."

But there are lots of other leftie gun fan patriots here, keeping a low profile until we just can't stand it anymore and have to speak out. You do need to keep up a sense of humor when the John Birch Society ranters try to run us out. They LOVE Reagan, ignoring the fact that he secretly sold advanced missiles to IRAN, which had already kidnapped our embassy staff and was at war with our Official great friend and ally Sadaam Hussain. They insist that if you are not 100% with them then you must be 100% against them---Uncle Sam or Stalin, no middle ground. They actually voted for baby bomber JOHN McCAIN too, egads!

But this is a well run forum in spite of a very subtle purely racist anti-Obama undercurrent. It's a good place for a leftie patriot to lurk and enjoy occasionally poking needles of truth into senile conservative gasbags. Don't let the bahstads get you down......................elsullo

 

[CavVet]

But this is a well run forum in spite of a very subtle purely racist anti-Obama undercurrent.

So even if one despises the community organizer strictly on merit its "purely racist"?


How about we compromise at half racist since he is half White, was raised White and had a complete White world until post secondary?


A young Barry with Gradma and Grandpa...

 

[stanaxe]

Greetings, Stanaxe, from another "leftie". Already, you have learned how it is here. As they say in Japan, a land of wooden floors, "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down!" There are lots of "rightie" ranters here who have not had a new thought since the 1950's, and actively oppose higher education becuase it can make you "liberal."

But there are lots of other leftie gun fan patriots here, keeping a low profile until we just can't stand it anymore and have to speak out. You do need to keep up a sense of humor when the John Birch Society ranters try to run us out. They LOVE Reagan, ignoring the fact that he secretly sold advanced missiles to IRAN, which had already kidnapped our embassy staff and was at war with our Official great friend and ally Sadaam Hussain. They insist that if you are not 100% with them then you must be 100% against them---Uncle Sam or Stalin, no middle ground. They actually voted for baby bomber JOHN McCAIN too, egads!

But this is a well run forum in spite of a very subtle purely racist anti-Obama undercurrent. It's a good place for a leftie patriot to lurk and enjoy occasionally poking needles of truth into senile conservative gasbags. Don't let the bahstads get you down......................elsullo

 

[1bigfoot]

Watch it boys,, This ain't no lefty,, he's a closet conservative for sure, either way,, Hi!

 

[stanaxe]

1) How many of the amendments in the BOR were givent the clear specific caveat of "shall not be infringed"?

a) Just the 2nd uses those exact words that I remember. However, the first says
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Why is a prohibition on ANY law-making somehow so different in meaning?

******************

1st- Congress shall not....The state or locality is not Congress, therefore the only government body limited is fed.

2nd- Shall not be infringed....Nobody is supposed to bubblegum with that one.

See that difference?

*******************

b) What does your attempting to defend the 2nd when I never attacked it in any way (or proposed that it be limited or abolished) have to do with anything than your mistaken assumption that lefty=pacifist? (see above)

***************


That was no defense of anything, I was answering the alleged "NRA poll" in your opening post. I should have just said, "I consider that junk mail and dont open it, and if I do I sure dont whine on the internet about it, nor would I go to a gunboard and tell why the 1st is more important than the 2nd."


As for your "mistaken assumption" comment, you are the one assuming. The last three national shooters, as are most, were moonbats. WU, PLA, ELF,, et al, all left leaning has never been nor meant pacifist, nor law obiding (See also WTO, Whale Wars, pancake girl, etc). Their open mindedness usually allows for destruction of public property, complete disregard for laws and violence at all turns. You made a very broad very wrong leap on that one.

***************

2) Which of the BOR would be the biggest direct threat to the government they are specifically designed to contain?

a) I'd argue the 1st. In recent history (civil rights movement, peaceful Vietnam& Iraq war protests, etc.), the most effective means of changing government policy (and administrations) has been peaceful assembly and redress of grievances...even in the face of government driven violence. Violent threats (Oklahoma City comes to mind), have been counterproductive.

**************
Im sure you would "argue" it. The USA exists from the gun turned on England. And let me remind you of the words of an idol to the left, "Political power grws out of the barrel of a gun., Mao".

Talking bubblegum only works when the others have no will to continue their behavior. If they wish to continue their behavior, they will simply kill you.

****************

3) At 0300 when the bubblegum is hitting the fan, which right would you prefer to have the ability to exercise?

a)Once SHTF, legal rights are non-functional and irrelevant. What's important is the foresight to prepare, co-ordinate with my neighbors, plan strategy and and tactics for such an unfortunate event (including the availability of firearms, rusty pitchforks, food, water, shelter, alternate energy sources, and means of transportation) would all be part of that planning.

****************

Legal rights are non functional, and so is kumbaya talking. If the 2nd is already undermined and given away, talking will be all you will be able to do. If your Master lets you speak.

************

Sorry for the delay answering, I needed to chop some wood.

Wow, a lot to respond to...I just tried within your quoted remarks and the software said it all got too long. Sorry, but you'll need to refer to the original for good context.

CavVet:
1st- Congress shall not....The state or locality is not Congress, therefore the only government body limited is fed.
2nd- Shall not be infringed....Nobody is supposed to bubblegum with that one.
See that difference?
Stan: The difference I see is that NO state abridges the free speech right. Right or wrong, lots of states restrict gun ownership rights
*******************
CavVet:
That was no defense of anything, I was answering the alleged "NRA poll" in your opening post. I should have just said, "I consider that junk mail and dont open it, and if I do I sure dont whine on the internet about it, nor would I go to a gunboard and tell why the 1st is more important than the 2nd."
Stan: Well, that's a difference between us. If I find junk mail objectionable, I'll point it out. If you claim I'm only alleging the poll, it's very impressive that you've got the bravado to say that on a web forum. Makes for such a civilized conversation, don't ya think? Good for you!

CavVet: Mistaken assumption stuff. I think you are mistaken about what my "mistaken assumption" comment referred to. Nothing to do with left or right-wing terrorists. It only pertains to:
CavVet:The only thing I assume left wing means is one votes for those who support gun control.
Stan: Bad assumption

Which of the BOR would be the biggest direct threat to the government they are specifically designed to contain?
Stan: a) I'd argue the 1st. ....

CavVet:
Im sure you would "argue" it. The USA exists from the gun turned on England. And let me remind you of the words of an idol to the left, "Political power grws out of the barrel of a gun., Mao".
Stan: The reason we won the revolution isn't that we had more firepower than the Redcoats. Nor did we have the 2nd to protect us. In fact, the Brits had long tried to restrict our access to arms. We were just clever enough to make do effectively. Yes, we used arms, but we also used the fact that their power base was across the ocean. We just wore 'em out to the point we were no longer a profit center. Sort of like the situation reversed in the middle-east, (or back in Vietnam). Just how many Taliban worry about a legal right to bear arms? How well do they do in a straight-up firefight? Right, they get squashed. So how are they still fighting? Because of their legally acquired AKs?
If it really comes to revolution here, the 2nd, (and what folks have stashed) won't mean squat compared to what the military can bring to the table.

CavVet:Talking bubblegum only works when the others have no will to continue their behavior. If they wish to continue their behavior, they will simply kill you.
Stan: Which is why I repeat again, the 2nd is important! But shooting is not the first tool to use, and rarely the exclusive best.


SHTF stuff:
Stan: When SHTF, 2nd is irrelevant
CavVet:
Legal rights are non functional, and so is kumbaya talking. If the 2nd is already undermined and given away, talking will be all you will be able to do. If your Master lets you speak.
Stan: Why do you keep harping on the 2nd getting given away? I'm not arguing with you about that!
Kumbaya be damned. If a repressive government tries to suppress the US population, they won't start by collecting our shotguns and pistols. They will start by restricting speech and the press, the right to organize, the ability to communicate, the right to practice an unpopular religion (or lack thereof). All of which means trashing the 1st as their first stroke. Waving guns at rallies, while it is and should be your right, is lousy politics. It does nothing except stroke your macho ego, and turn off uncommitted, possibly sympathetic folks.
Collecting guns will only come once they've gotten away with keeping an opposition from getting coordinated. Just look how the repressive regime in Egypt handled things. First kill the net, gather up reporters, and only at the end resort to force. And at this point, that last resort appears to have backfired.

 

[MikeE]

Because of our political trench war system, where both major parties use single hot button issues as fund-raising/GOTV tools we have these absurd 'choices' - for example: voting for a 'liberal' who is good on the 4th A and bad on the 2A, or voting for a 'conservative' who is good on the 2A and bad on the 4th A.

 

[stanaxe]

Watch it boys,, This ain't no lefty,, he's a closet conservative for sure, either way,, Hi!

Hi back at ya!
Nope, truly very left. Definitely post Marxist. (He was as almost as badly wrong as Ayn Rand...at least his heart was in the right place...he didn't try to make a virtue out of self centered greed) It's way too off topic to get into economic theory...including speculation driven economies, complex feedback/feedforward systems, wealth creation and distribution mechanisms, property rights issues, militarism, environment issues, rights of the commons, and the reasons folks form societies.

But, I'm probably just as P.O.d as most of you with the current state of thing. Difference is, I think the things the TeaParty folks call cures play directly into the hands of the real evildoers

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I'm not a big gun collector, I only have what I think is/will be adequate for home defense, hunting, and realistic (not zombie end-of-the world) disaster situations.

I can forgive being a lefty, but not this.

 

[eriknemily]

Oh, we lefties think the zombies are already here.
Think of Heston's "from my cold dead hands" as a dare from someone who was already secretly mostly dead for 8 months .

 

[stanaxe]

How about we compromise at half racist since he is half White, was raised White and had a complete White world until post secondary?

So let me get this straight. You're saying that he's a Libyan/Indonesian, black Muslim/Communist/Nazi/Socialist, cigarette smoking alien with no birth certificate brought up as a middle class American white by his white grandma, who hates America and whites because his white American mother couldn't get her cancer covered by an insurance company?

Uh-Huh....:huh:

(An example of Stan's thought process after a couple or four Bushmills)

 

[Joe Link]

Enough of the non-firearm related political stuff here guys

 

[salmonriverjohn]

Joey's right,, rules are rules. stanaxe doesn't know any better yet, so we should cut him a little slack, but the rest of us should know better. Its sort of like when someone says "lets take it outside" only here you say "lets take it to the legal and political forum" but only if you want to talk about gun stuff dude!

Welcome to the site