This seems a worthwhile subject.
1 posted on
08/13/2013 5:19:36 PM PDT by
marktwain
To: marktwain
Something about selling your cloak....
2 posted on
08/13/2013 5:20:33 PM PDT by
BenLurkin
(This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
To: marktwain
3 posted on
08/13/2013 5:22:31 PM PDT by
Springfield Reformer
(Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
To: reed13
4 posted on
08/13/2013 5:23:58 PM PDT by
reed13k
(For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.)
To: marktwain
protecting the innocent from criminals - govt or otherwise - is a good and godly duty. protecting people from all unjust persecution, especially when govt’s’doing it - is good and godly to do.
5 posted on
08/13/2013 5:24:25 PM PDT by
Secret Agent Man
(Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
To: marktwain
The United States Citizens KNOW that they're going to have to fight TYRANTS in their own government.
You cannot protect life, without the ability to take life.
While you are WAITING for the police to respond, someone could be losing their life.
All people of a responsible age should be armed.
As
EternalVigilance reminded us:
The Second Amendment IS Pro-Life.
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life;
Secondly, to liberty;
Thirdly, to property;together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.
These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation,commonly called the first law of nature...In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society,
to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution,
is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights;
the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property.
If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right,
the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation.
The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty,it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift
and voluntarily become a slave."
![](http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/1zh4m37neoqm2ad/images/1-0d8103c870.jpg)
Click here to read the 12 page pamphlet.
Let us NEVER FORGET THAT !
![](http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/235075/661153.jpg)
Let's subjugate them to OUR end game, DUST!
"COMPROMISE" is
a DIRTY word!
People who study the Bible know that
COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
It's time to mock the "Gun Control" Zombies!
"Gun Control" is
a firm grip, steady breathing, accurate aim (developed by lots of practice), and a slow trigger pull.
The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
We need to learn
from the Swiss and implement their
"gun control measures" here in the United States right now, today!
These laws are the ones we should shove into the
"2nd Amendment Haters" faces.
" Today, military service for Swiss males is universal. At about age 20, every Swiss male goes through 118 consecutive days of recruit training in the Rekrutenschule. ...
Even before required training begins, young men and women may take optional courses with the Swiss army's M57 assault rifle.
They keep that gun at home for three months and receive six half-day training sessions.
From age 21 to 32, a Swiss man serves as a "frontline" troop in the Auszug, and devotes three weeks a year (in eight of the 12 years) to continued training.
From age 33 to 42, he serves in the Landwehr (like America's National Guard); every few years, he reports for two-week training periods.
Finally, from ages 43, to 50, he serves in the Landsturm; in this period, he only spends 13 days total in "home guard courses."
Over a soldier's career he also spends scattered days on mandatory equipment inspections and required target practice.
Thus, in a 30-year mandatory military career, a Swiss man only spends about one year in direct military service.
Following discharge from the regular army, men serve on reserve status until age 50 (55 for officers).
By the Federal Constitution of 1874, military servicemen are given their first equipment, clothing and arms.
After the first training period, conscripts must keep gun, ammunition and equipment an ihrem Wohnort ("in their homes") until the end of their term of service.
Today, enlisted men are issued M57 AUTOMATIC assault rifles and officers are given pistol.
Each reservist is issued 24 rounds of ammunition in sealed packs for emergency use.(Contrary to Handgun Control's claim that "all ammunition must be accounted for," the emergency ammunition is the only ammo that requires accounting.)
After discharge from service, the man is given a bolt rifle free from registration or obligation.
Starting in the 1994, the government will GIVE ex-reservists assault rifles. Officers carry pistols rather than rifles and are given their pistols the end of their service.
When the government adopts a new infantry rifle, it sells the old ones to the public.
Reservists are encouraged to buy MILITARY ammunition(7.5 and 5.6mm-5.56 mm in other countries-for rifles and 9 and 7.65 mm Luger for pistols)
which is sold AT COST by the government, for target practice .
Non-military ammunition for long-gun hunting and .22 Long Rifle (LR) ammo are not subsidised, but are subiect to NO sales controls.
Non-military non-hunting ammunition more powerful than .22 LR (such as .38 Spl.) is registered at the time of sale.
Swiss military ammo must be registered IF bought at a private store, BUT NEED NOT BE REGISTERED IF bought at a range.
The nation's 3,000 shooting ranges sell the overwhelming majority of ammunition.
Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed.
The army SELLS a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons.
Purchasers of these weapons require an EASILY OBTAINED cantonal license, and the weapons are registered.
In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,000 FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns.
Virtually every home has a gun.
Besides SUBSIDIZED military surplus, the Swiss can buy other firearms easily too.
While long guns require NO special purchase procedures, handguns are sold only to those with a Waffenerwerbsschien (purchase certificate) issued by a cantonal authority.
A certificate is issued to every applicant over 18 who is not a criminal or mentally infirm.
There are NO restrictions on the carrying of long guns.
About half the cantons have strict permit procedures for carrying handguns, and the other half have NO rules at all.
There is NO discernible difference in the crime rate between the cantons as a result of the different policies.
Thanks to a lawsuit brought by the Swiss gun lobby, semi-automatic rifles require NO PURCHASE PERMIT and are NOT registered by the government.
Thus, the ONLY long guns registered by the government are FULL AUTOMATICS."
The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
Let's adopt THEIR LAWS !
Remember:
The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they TRY to take it.
Read
Second Amendment: Its Not About Hunting, IT'S ABOUT TYRANNY .
6 posted on
08/13/2013 5:26:47 PM PDT by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: marktwain
‘THOSE WHO BEAT THEIR SWORDS into plowshears will soon be the SLAVES of those who DID NOT beat their swords into plowshears...’simple as that folk...you’d think even the most dead headed lib would get that...
10 posted on
08/13/2013 5:44:34 PM PDT by
jimsin
To: marktwain
“...and discipline of the Militia of our said Province [NH]; and for the arraying and mustering the inhabitants thereof; and instructing them on how to bear and use their arms.”
“The Military history of the State of New Hampshire”, p8
“...towns should provide a stock of powder, bullets and flints and arms for its poor,...”
“The Military history of the State of New Hampshire”, p39
“Anticipating attacks, the people went to their labors, in field and wood, not only armed, but with guards, “ 1744 “The Military history of the State of New Hampshire”, p58
“History of Ipswich”, Mass.
1637 march 9-”...no person is allowed to travel alone, above one mile from his house, except where houses are near together, without arms.”
‘History of Ipswich, Essex, and Hamilton’ By Joseph Barlow Felt, p143
“1644 Besides the country alarum [sic] there shall be one for each town; a musket shall be discharged on alaram, to all centinals [sic], who shall answer by going to all the houses and crying Arm! arm!”
‘History of Ipswich, Essex, and Hamilton’ By Joseph Barlow Felt, p143
“1645 -Youth from ten to sixteen years are to be
exercised with small guns, half-pikes, bows and arrows.”
‘History of Ipswich, Essex, and Hamilton’ By Joseph Barlow Felt, p141
1648 -”In every company some under-officer shall be
appointed by the captain “to exercise such children...”
‘History of Ipswich, Essex, and Hamilton’ By Joseph Barlow Felt, p141
11 posted on
08/13/2013 5:45:39 PM PDT by
bunkerhill7
(("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.))
To: marktwain
Because it’s suicide and suicide is a grave sin.
12 posted on
08/13/2013 5:50:40 PM PDT by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
To: marktwain
13 posted on
08/13/2013 5:53:11 PM PDT by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
To: marktwain
Sort of confused.... Why is the question even being asked....to keep or not to keep arms is like asking to breath or not to breath ...
15 posted on
08/13/2013 6:00:20 PM PDT by
JZoback
To: marktwain
I pray God gives me the wisdom to know when to fight. But can someone lead me to the scripture on this?
3. Do Not Resist Evil. The authors refute this particular argument, saying that during his mortal ministry, Jesus taught when killing is without cause, it is unlawful, but when killing is with just cause, it is lawful.
18 posted on
08/13/2013 6:38:59 PM PDT by
stevio
(God, guns, guts.)
To: marktwain
The New Testament offers many examples of Jesus helping those in need, but as far as I know, it has no examples of Jesus encountering an aggressor who is in the act of physically harming an innocent victim.
It brings up the question that was popular not too long ago: What Would Jesus Do?
I wish there was such an example, because it would clear up a lot of confusion.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson