Posted on 01/27/2007 1:36:11 PM PST by tpaine
This is from your own post here.
Public policy "is to be found in the state's constitution and statutes and, when they are silent, in its judicial decisions."
If I'm wrong here, then according to your own post, you should be able to find something in a State Constitution, State statutes, or in its judicial decisions supporting your claim that private citizens exercising their rights as property owners over their own property are limited by the constrictions placed on government by the Second Amendment.
We've gone over a month debating this subject, and you've yet to provide substantiation for your own posts.
Why?
Because you're obviously wrong.
P.S. I see that you've taken to responding to posts directed at other people...is it because of the embarrassment you feel over helping the NRA legally disarm employees in Georgia?
You're right t...you're not funny.
You're a dangerous useful idiot who may have just helped provide for the legal, forceful disarmament of employees in Georgia.
Learn your lesson...when you run to the government for "help", people get screwed.
Luis claims:
We've gone over a month debating this subject, and you've yet to provide substantiation for your own posts. Why? Because you're obviously wrong.
Luis, you're advocating parking lot gun bans & gun free zones, -- which somehow make's my opposition "obviously wrong"?
Dream on.
>>I wasn't aware that anyone but Hick's father actually was killed in "Huckleberry Finn" though.<<
I think it was some "further adventures of" made for TV tripe actually. I didn't watch all of it.
HA! That is exactly what I saw in that show!
Putting this back into context, that part of the country experienced the "Compromise of 1850", "The Kansas Nebraska Act" the "Missouri Red Legs" raiders, John Brown's Bleeding Kansas, etc. Huck's journey occurred in a time just before that sort of thing became the norm.
Twain was a journalist before he was a novelist.
Thank you for expanding my mind this week!
Are you a Scotsman or just a fan of the movie?
I'm Welsh. I'm a fan of the movie - and my wife and I are both fans of the relationship between his wife and him (in the movie).
My family was probably from Cheshire, just north of Wales about ten generations ago. We can't prove it past eight though.
My grandmothers last name is Alden. She traced her ancestry back to John and Priscilla. Meanwhile, without getting into specifics, my last name is VERY english.
You are kidding right? Advocating the execution of innocent American workers?
I believe he was referring back to the Founding Fathers advocating killing oppressive government workers. Cleanse freedom with the "Blood of Tyrants and Patriots" and all that you know?
A town worker with a hoe working on a ditch deserves killing? Seriously. I am all for resisting the tax man, but this is too much. The people on this board who believe this 1) play into the hands of liberals who say they are kooks, and 2) Probably are being monitored by the FBI or such for advocating the killing of innocent Americans. There is nothing patriotic about advocating this; its no better than a leftist hoping Americans get killed and the US loses in Iraq.
The spin won't work t, I advocate the right of a property owner to exclude whomever he wants from his property, for whatever reason he wants.
You support using the force of government to violate property rights.
I don't have to like the way others exercise their rights, I just have to make sure that we HAVE rights to exercise,
Luis claims:
We've gone over a month debating this subject, and you've yet to provide substantiation for your own posts. Why? Because you're obviously wrong.
Luis, you're advocating parking lot gun bans & "- gun free zones -", -- which somehow make's my opposition "obviously wrong"?
Dream on.
I advocate the right of a property owner to exclude whomever he wants from his property, for whatever reason he wants.
Luis, you advocate parking lot gun bans & gun free zones, for "-- whatever reason --" and to hell with our right to carry arms in vehicles.
You support using the force of government to violate property rights.
You want the cops to kick gun owners out of your parking lot. -- I want our Constitutional RTKBA's to be honored. -- Big difference luis.
I understood CCguy as not being specific to this but only preemptively speaking for the 2nd Amendment in contrast all those that will use this case to advocate more gun control. That is how I responded. In this situation the nut-case Watson clearly jumped the gun, if you will pardon the pun.
This does remind me of Claire Wolfe's words years ago.
In 1996 I scrawled a pair of sentences that resonated with a lot of freedom activists.
Morally, of course it’s time to shoot the bastards.
Obviously, I voiced something a lot of people have been thinking about. Four years have passed since I flippantly said it’s too early. Is it time yet to shoot the bastards? At least it seems time to take keyboard in hand and give a straight answer -- yes, no, maybe and whatever turns your crank.
It was time the first day the first court upheld the first blatantly unconstitutional law for the sake of political expediency. It was time the first day the fedgov got the notion to use regulations or executive orders to control We the People, rather than merely the internal workings of agencies. All the abuses since - ninja raids, confiscatory taxation, rules too obscure to comprehend, bullying bureaucrats, millions imprisoned for victimless crimes, burgeoning nanny state, ever-increasing centralized control - are government gravy. The truth is, morally it’s been “time” since at least Lincoln’s day. And it’s time now.
It’s past time, since all those earlier Americans failed to get out the tar, the feathers or the M1 Garands because they were too quiescent, or too persuaded that justice would prevail. Or because -- like us -- they valued due process and knew the chaos that disregard for it could bring. Or because -- like us -- they feared the personal consequences. Or because -- like us -- they weren’t ever sure whether that moment was the right moment.
Whenever it becomes impossible to get justice or have freedom “within the system” of course it’s morally right to fight back. Even Gandhi recognized that, saying:
“He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”
Maybe it was even “time” on the day federal inspectors tried to close down a little, family-owned sausage plant whose product had been safely used by consumers for eight decades. I don’t know. Stuart Alexander thought it was.
But is it practical? Sensible? In that sense, no. And no surprise. It’s not time to shoot.
And for all the individual injustices or perceptions of injustice that always exist in the world, have things gotten any worse in the last four years?
There is more in her column but I'll let whoever is interested look for it himself.
I agree with that. But, as you implied, I was trying to remind people why we have the Second Amendment:
The Second Amendment is not about hunting for squirrels.
The Second Amendment, really, is not about self-defense from hoodlums.
The Second Amendment is about the fact that sometimes people who are paid by an official government body will approach you and boldly act in violation of your rights, as set out in the Constitution and in the Bill of Rights.
In such cases, we need to calmly ask the question, as you did: "Is it time to shoot?"
In the case cited, it probably was not time to shoot. However, no one on this board should voice shock and dismay that anyone dare ask the question: "Is it time for us to start shooting at our own government?" This, really, is an essential, and always reasonable question for any American to ask. Hopefully, the answer will always be "No, it's not time to shoot." But the question should always be on our lips.
We have the Second Amendment so that, when we ask that question, it is not an futile exercise in rhetoric but is, instead, a viable option for us as Free Men. It's good to have the ability. And it's good for Government to know that we have both the ability and the Will.
We have the Second Amendment so that, when we ask that question, it is not an futile exercise in rhetoric but is, instead, a viable option for us as Free Men. It's good to have the ability. And it's good for Government to know that we have both the ability and the Will.
Well put! I like the way you think!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.