From my cold, dead, fingers

[Jorge_Banner]

“From my cold, dead, fingers”. I’m as much of an enthusiast for the whole concept as anybody else. I remember seeing Charlton Heston in a documentary on the subject; raise a muzzle loader over his head when saying these words and the NRA crowd applauding rather approvingly. I wonder if he meant those words literally. I wonder how many of us mean them literally. Are we really going to barricade ourselves with our families in our homes and start shooting at the SWAT teams that will come to collect our guns? If it ever came to that, would we do it? How many of us? Would we recommend others to do this? Are we going to call our friends and say “good bye, man, they’re coming for me, they’re outside just now!”.

I don’t remember where I found the following phrase, but it so caught my attention that I put it in my collection of important stuff. Now, don’t anyone try to pick up a fight with me, remember, I’m a fan of the American 2nd Amendment to the Constitution as the best of them. I only wish the arggie Constitution had a similar one. It doesn’t. But I wonder how much of this phrase is true: “I sometimes wonder whether the socialists will issue an edict requiring all firearms to have a pink ribbon tied to the barrel, just to get a belly laugh as the panicked descendants of once-proud American patriots scurry to comply”.

Now, the reaction to this can, of course, be “oh, let them come for mine and I’ll show them what’s what!”. Sure. But that’s just talk. I’ll tell you, if it happened here, I would not kill nor get killed over this. Nothing to gain. I would, probably, try and move to another, better country, if my situation allowed for this. But most if not all arggies would comply and it is my modest opinion that most Americans would, too.

What you guys think? Would you comply or would you say “enough. Up to here and no more” and start shooting and I mean shooting, not talking.

[Jorge_Banner]

Too hard core, uh? I have to remind myself that you guys are civilized Americans that have never had an interruption of constitutional order. Us, here, well, I remember not too long ago things got so hectic we had a week with five (yes, five) Presidents. We are used to having to ask ourselves these questions. And Law and Order is just a TV series for us. For you, it's a way of life. I envy you.

Let's forget it. Let's hope it never comes to that.

[Rich Z]

Actually I have a LOT of money invested in guns, ammo, and related equipment. FAR too much to just allow anyone to come in here and take it away from me.

So yes, personally, I would fight ANYONE for ANY REASON who tries to come here and take away my hard earned personal property. Theft is theft, regardless of some jackass in Washington D.C., or anywhere for that matter, saying that there is a law on the books that permits that theft to take place.

And anyone tasked with enforcing such a law that might be passed, regardless of being blatantly unconstitutional, who accepts that job, is no better than the looters on the streets breaking into houses and shops to steal merchandise they have no rightful claim to. And they should be treated in the same manner by anyone capable of putting a stop to their criminal activity.

[Jorge_Banner]

Actually I have a LOT of money invested in guns, ammo, and related equipment. FAR too much to just allow anyone to come in here and take it away from me.

So yes, personally, I would fight ANYONE for ANY REASON who tries to come here and take away my hard earned personal property. Theft is theft, regardless of some jackass in Washington D.C., or anywhere for that matter, saying that there is a law on the books that permits that theft to take place.

And anyone tasked with enforcing such a law that might be passed, regardless of being blatantly unconstitutional, who accepts that job, is no better than the looters on the streets breaking into houses and shops to steal merchandise they have no rightful claim to. And they should be treated in the same manner by anyone capable of putting a stop to their criminal activity.

You couldn't be more morally right. And your attitude is that of those that either make countries or put them back together.

I suspect it might come to a matter of critical mass. If enough people would take that stand an attempt on gun rights (that to me is like saying Life Rights) might be reversed. If, on the other hand, as it so many times has happened, things work piecemeal and they start taking people one by one, state by state, it might work. Take New York, for instance. Could you go there WITH your guns? The process HAS begun.

[DblTap]

You couldn't be more morally right. And your attitude is that of those that either make countries or put them back together.

I suspect it might come to a matter of critical mass. If enough people would take that stand an attempt on gun rights (that to me is like saying Life Rights) might be reversed. If, on the other hand, as it so many times has happened, things work piecemeal and they start taking people one by one, state by state, it might work. Take New York, for instance. Could you go there WITH your guns? The process HAS begun.

One big question you have to ask yourself during a gun confiscation is, why are they being taken away? Most of the genocide that has occurred during the 20th century has been right after taking the guns from the people. It seems to me you only have 2 real choices. You can get in line and walk willingly to the slaughter, or you can maybe take a couple of the confiscators with you. Pretty soon if enough people take out just one confiscator they will run out of them and have to stop. Unfortunately those of us who stood up won't be around to see it.

[Jorge_Banner]

One big question you have to ask yourself during a gun confiscation is, why are they being taken away? Most of the genocide that has occurred during the 20th century has been right after taking the guns from the people. It seems to me you only have 2 real choices. You can get in line and walk willingly to the slaughter, or you can maybe take a couple of the confiscators with you. Pretty soon if enough people take out just one confiscator they will run out of them and have to stop. Unfortunately those of us who stood up won't be around to see it.


I agree with you, basically, DblTap. But I've been thinking for a long time that the true problem lovers of freedom face is that not ALL freedoms are taken away and not for ALL people at the same time. It's the slippery slope, in very slow motion and very piecemeal.

Put yourself in the situation of a gun grabber. You don't go one day and say "ALL Americans have to surrender ALL their guns within the next thirty days". No way. If you are just a little clever you'll start with a little piece of what you want and from a little group of people. Say you ban .50 caliber rifles in California. How many people have them? Is somebody in Georgia going to rebel against the government to protect the right of a Californian to own a .50 BMG rifle? Well, it hasn't happened. You see my point? It's seldom "all or nothing". Collectivists are stupid but not that much. The trend is clear.

Of course, my situation is different from yours, like two different countries like we have. And in a way, Argentinean laws are more "free" than American ones. In others, it's the other way around. But in a not too distant past, we were able to buy a semi-auto rifle as easy as a .22 LR pistol. Then, they came up with the trick that you needed to apply for a special permit to get one. That was all. Just apply for the permit and you're done. Why would you care? Just fill up a simple form, gee! what's the fuss? It was easy. Nobody cared that much. Nobody was denied the permit. Then, one day, permits started to get "delayed". They would take weeks, then months. And this took a lot of time. Some permits would come through. Others, not. And nobody knew what was happening. “Oh . . . you know . . . bureaucracy . . . be patient”. And then, one day, they dried up. No more permits. And today, you can't get yourself a Garand, let's say, or anything of the kind. It was so neat and it would make for a good textbook example. Like a rape that took two years. Can you really call it “rape”? One "gun right" was taken away, just like that. The Prince changed its mind and the commons can't have it anymore.

"All or nothing"s are easy. Reality is not like that. Just some thoughts that dance between my two neurons. :unhappy:

[Rich Z]

Oh, without a doubt it has started in the USA.....

The problem is that the timeframe involved for the eventual disarmament of the American people is so long that nearly everyone can't comprehend the purpose. We are so used to thinking in terms of 5 to 20 years that when an agenda is being pursued that is on a time scale measured in decades that people just cannot grasp the intent as being diabolical. They make excuses such that it's just the way society is evolving or people are changing, not really willing to face the fact that yes, there IS a plan being followed that was started before you were born and might not be completed until after you are gone. And it IS very smooth. And VERY difficult, if not impossible, to stop.

Children grow up under the current status quo and think that's the way it has always been, so what's the big deal? They don't feel that they lost anything, so there is no cause for alarm. Hell, I am STILL pissed about all the things I missed out because of the Gun Control Law of 1968, which took away a LOT of neat things I could have bought had I been old enough before that date. THIS generation is seeing a lot of the changes taking place during our lifetimes. But most of us weren't around before 1934 when machine guns became regulated, so it was never really that much of a concern. But whereas machineguns merely had a tax stamp to control them, the laws now are MUCH more restrictive and pretty much evident of the government's disregard and disrespect for the Constitutional safeguards that were put into place EXACTLY to keep the government in check.

The longer the government waits, the less resistance they will have when they decide to take our guns away. They know it, and WE know it. The only question I have is WHY do they want to take away our guns in the first place? What is it that they want to tell us to do that they do not want us having the capability of saying a forcefull NO to?

[Jorge_Banner]

Oh, without a doubt it has started in the USA.....

The problem is that the timeframe involved for the eventual disarmament of the American people is so long that nearly everyone can't comprehend the purpose. We are so used to thinking in terms of 5 to 20 years that when an agenda is being pursued that is on a time scale measured in decades that people just cannot grasp the intent as being diabolical. They make excuses such that it's just the way society is evolving or people are changing, not really willing to face the fact that yes, there IS a plan being followed that was started before you were born and might not be completed until after you are gone. And it IS very smooth. And VERY difficult, if not impossible, to stop.

Children grow up under the current status quo and think that's the way it has always been, so what's the big deal? They don't feel that they lost anything, so there is no cause for alarm. Hell, I am STILL pissed about all the things I missed out because of the Gun Control Law of 1968, which took away a LOT of neat things I could have bought had I been old enough before that date. THIS generation is seeing a lot of the changes taking place during our lifetimes. But most of us weren't around before 1934 when machine guns became regulated, so it was never really that much of a concern. But whereas machineguns merely had a tax stamp to control them, the laws now are MUCH more restrictive and pretty much evident of the government's disregard and disrespect for the Constitutional safeguards that were put into place EXACTLY to keep the government in check.

The longer the government waits, the less resistance they will have when they decide to take our guns away. They know it, and WE know it. The only question I have is WHY do they want to take away our guns in the first place? What is it that they want to tell us to do that they do not want us having the capability of saying a forcefull NO to?

Well, let's take the nazis as an example. Anti-Semitism started in Germany even before Luter, that was as good a nazi as anyone. And this was 384 years BEFORE Hitler. The german nazis from the 30's and 40's merely capitalized on the "good" work of those that had preceded them.

You are SO right.

As to the modern gun grabbers I see it as a sense of life matter. You don't have rights, only permits. "Society" is the only one that can grant you your permits. So, how could you have a right to a gun if you don't have a right to your life in the first place? What do you want your gun for? Your life is not yours to defend. Society will defend you if it wants to. Or not. And then you will die. How and when you are told. You life belongs to society. It's not yours. And so it's not yours to defend. And so you don't need the means. Ayn Rand, the great American philosopher described it very well in her short work "Anthem" (and in her other works, too). If you want to understand the state of mind of an American liberal, read Anthem. Anthem occurs in a future after the liberals have had their way.

[Rich Z]

Yep. And the simple evidence of this is that murder is considered a crime against the state. Murder is brought before the court as a case of "the STATE versus so-and-so"..... Not the family, spouse, nor relatives of the deceased, but the STATE. In effect, your life is considered as the property of the state and the crime was committed against IT.

I wonder how long it will be before anything you do to damage your body, either purposely or negligently, will also be considered as a state crime? A natural continuation of this line of thinking leads you to the realization that (supposedly) unhealthy behavior, as determined BY the state, can be outlawed because of the potential damage to state property. Including the keeping and use of firearms. :eek:

[Jorge_Banner]

Yep. And the simple evidence of this is that murder is considered a crime against the state. Murder is brought before the court as a case of "the STATE versus so-and-so"..... Not the family, spouse, nor relatives of the deceased, but the STATE. In effect, your life is considered as the property of the state and the crime was committed against IT.

I wonder how long it will be before anything you do to damage your body, either purposely or negligently, will also be considered as a state crime? A natural continuation of this line of thinking leads you to the realization that (supposedly) unhealthy behavior, as determined BY the state, can be outlawed because of the potential damage to state property. Including the keeping and use of firearms. :eek:

I agree with you 100%. Man! you and I should write a book. Or perhaps we should go out to hunt liberals. :dgrin:

We are being taken in the same direction. Who will get there first? I try to get my ideas in order so I can have whatever influence I can manage. The following is something I put together to try to explain to so many confused people around here what is what. Because people have no idea whatsoever of what a right is. You guys might recognize some of the quotes. This is part of a bigger thing, of course, and I always attribute the quotes properly.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Right is the recognition that the life of the individual human needs to be free from violence from others individual humans in order to have a chance to be enjoyed. Rights are not given. They are a necessity of the individual human life that needs to be recognized and then respected by others. The first Rights are “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. All others are derivatives of these. Rights are not given. (1) They are to be recognized and respected. And those that violate them, punished. Rights are not given. Permits are given. Rights are inalienable. This means they cannot be taken away by anyone nor can they be renounced by the individual. Permits can be given and taken away. Rights can not. Neither given, that makes no sense, nor taken away. Rights are inalienable. Rights precede political organization. Political organization has to be implemented around the rights of the individual in order to protect them by punishing those that would violate them. It comes from the nature of rights and the nature of political organization that political organization can not violate rights. That would be a contradiction. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS. For nothing else. And “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”. Government is there to SECURE the RIGHTS otherwise said Government is to be ALTERED OR ABOLISHED. Add to this “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” and you are done. That’s all.


(1) a man doesn’t meet another and goes “oh! I see you are a man like me so I grant you the Right to Life”. No. A man meets another and goes “I am a man. I see you are a man, too. So, as I need my Life to enjoy, I recognize your right to your own Life to enjoy and so I will not attempt to deprive you of your Life in honor to both my Life and yours and our nature as individuals of the Human Species”. Recognition, not granting. Right, not permit. Not given, recognized.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Old Snort]

Jorge, Rich & DblTap---You are all right and I am impressed by the high level of discourse in this thread. However it is a little like saying milk is white and beer tastes good on a hot Summer day.
The botom line is that all the firepower and all the "warriors" on this forum and all the forums like it would not be a match for a platoon of Marines fresh out of Boot Camp--and they work for the government.
Our only hope in retaining what gun rights we have is to support the NRA, vote for conservative politicians, and, perhaps most important, encourage young people to enjoy guns, hunting, and shooting.
Now I'll just hunker down and take the incoming.
Old Snort

[Jorge_Banner]

Jorge, Rich & DblTap---You are all right and I am impressed by the high level of discourse in this thread. However it is a little like saying milk is white and beer tastes good on a hot Summer day.
The botom line is that all the firepower and all the "warriors" on this forum and all the forums like it would not be a match for a platoon of Marines fresh out of Boot Camp--and they work for the government.
Our only hope in retaining what gun rights we have is to support the NRA, vote for conservative politicians, and, perhaps most important, encourage young people to enjoy guns, hunting, and shooting.
Now I'll just hunker down and take the incoming.
Old Snort

The incoming? Not from me, Sir. I agree with you. That was kind of my point at the beginning. If there's something I would like less than shooting at the arggie Marines is to have THEM shoot at me.

But your conservative might not be enough to stem the liberal tsunami. Is McCain pro gun rights? Didn't he support the "Assault Weapons Ban"?

And me? I don't even have conservatives.

BTW, beer does taste good on a hot Summer day.

[Old Snort]

The incoming? Not from me, Sir. I agree with you. That was kind of my point at the beginning. If there's something I would like less than shooting at the arggie Marines is to have THEM shoot at me.

But your conservative might not be enough to stem the liberal tsunami. Is McCain pro gun rights? Didn't he support the "Assault Weapons Ban"?

And me? I don't even have conservatives.

BTW, beer does taste good on a hot Summer day.
No one would say Senator McCain is conservative. He is, however, a good and honest man and a true American hero. And, compared to the alternative(s)--- well need I say more?

[Jorge_Banner]

No one would say Senator McCain is conservative. He is, however, a good and honest man and a true American hero. And, compared to the alternative(s)--- well need I say more?

No, you don't. The alternatives barely deserve to be called humans in my book. They're cannibals.

[cutter]

Why do the Polish pour oil on their gardens? So their guns won't rust.

This is an old joke refering to the Polish citizens' practice of burying their arms to avoid confiscation by the Nazis at the beginning of WWII. I think this might be the more common practice in the US if guns were suddenly banned. Variations on this plan are already in use in parts of the US that ban various kinds of guns.

I have heard it said that the wholesale confiscation of arms in the US would spark a civil war. I think this is half right. I suspect there would be much hiding of weapons. I think the owners of these weapons would retreive them from hiding as necessary to wage a guerilla war against the agents of the Government. I suspect there would be a great deal of sniping and assaination involved. The Government would rightly call this terrorist activity. Just because the cause is just and the actions are the right ones to take to advance that just cause does not mean that those actions are not terrorism. The original "shock and awe" attack on Iraq in Gulf War '91 was meant to inspire terror in the enemy. It did.

If these attacks do not inspire the Citizenry to choose sides and escalate hostilities, they will amount to nothing and all will be lost. If they do, these guerilla tactics will do what they are supposed to do and ignite a second war for American Independence or forcefully drag the Government to the negotiating table. I just don't know if the American Citizenry is capable of achieving "critical mass" to fight for our freedom. That is among my greatest fears.

[DblTap]

Hey Cutter, This is a little off topic but I have to ask a question. Kentucky is the home of Jack Daniels and I would be willing to bet lots of illegal moonshine operations during prohibition. Does Kentucky still have that rebel attitude? Do the other southern states still have that attitude too?

The reason I have to ask is because I grew up and spent most of my life in California. They are a bunch of socialists there that want government to take care of all aspects of their life. Not all of them of course but I think I would say a majority. I hope Kentucky and the southern states haven't become this way. I can tell you that the state I moved to two years ago has that rebel attitude, Even the governor.

[cutter]

Jack Daniels is Tennessee Whiskey made in Lynchburg, TN. Kentucky is the only place on Earth where Bourbon Whiskey is made. I happen to like both. Oh yes, bootleg hooch was and is still made in great quantities in various places in KY.

The rebel attitude exists more strongly the father away you get from the big cities and the farther south you go in the state. Louisville and Lexington are mostly bastions of Liberalism, though there is some grumbling in favor of the old rebel attitude and ways. I live in Louisville and am WAY out of place. There are places in extreme southeastern and southwestern KY where I would not be suprised to find folks who still think Jefferson Davis was the first President and the CSA is still their Federal Government. There are still many folks who know what a lynchin' is and think it is an appropriate way to deal with criminals (I am among these folks). You must have moved to Montana. Good for you!

[Old Snort]

Jack Daniels is Tennessee Whiskey made in Lynchburg, TN. Kentucky is the only place on Earth where Bourbon Whiskey is made. I happen to like both. Oh yes, bootleg hooch was and is still made in great quantities in various places in KY.

The rebel attitude exists more strongly the father away you get from the big cities and the farther south you go in the state. Louisville and Lexington are mostly bastions of Liberalism, though there is some grumbling in favor of the old rebel attitude and ways. I live in Louisville and am WAY out of place. There are places in extreme southeastern and southwestern KY where I would not be suprised to find folks who still think Jefferson Davis was the first President and the CSA is still their Federal Government. There are still many folks who know what a lynchin' is and think it is an appropriate way to deal with criminals (I am among these folks). You must have moved to Montana. Good for you!

Cut---There may be "many" but not enough on our side to make a difference. sic transit gloriam---OS

[BigEd63]

Is this a joke?

The NRA won't do diddly crap when it counts.

I'm tired of paying what amounts to bribe money to politicians so they won't take away my rights.

Which they have no right to take away.

To hell with lobbyists.

To with all with politicians.

To me they are all worms.


I'm still not convinced I should evewn vote in this comng election.

And McCain is a turn coat worm like the rest.

Him and old Teddy boy want to sell this country out to the illegals well F'em both.

In fact after that business I think most conservatives decided to heck with the Republican Party. Anyone with a brain could see that in the primary elections.

Looks like we will all be living in interesting times real soon.

[DblTap]

Jack Daniels is Tennessee Whiskey made in Lynchburg, TN.

Whoops. I guess you can tell I don't drink the hard stuff. I thought all whiskey in the US came from Kentucky.

[Old Snort]

Is this a joke?

The NRA won't do diddly crap when it counts.

I'm tired of paying what amounts to bribe money to politicians so they won't take away my rights.

Which they have no right to take away.

To hell with lobbyists.

To with all with politicians.

To me they are all worms.


I'm still not convinced I should evewn vote in this comng election.

And McCain is a turn coat worm like the rest.

Him and old Teddy boy want to sell this country out to the illegals well F'em both.

In fact after that business I think most conservatives decided to heck with the Republican Party. Anyone with a brain could see that in the primary elections.

Looks like we will all be living in interesting times real soon.


Big Ed---I must respectfully (and I do mean respectfully, because we are all on the same side) but not voting for Sen.McCain garners exactly the result as voting for Mrs. Clinton, or Hussein. I hope you will change your mind before November. Sen. McCain is an honorable man, a true American hero.

As to the NRA, they control millions of dollars and have thousands of members.These two assets are much more powerful than all the firepower and empty threats on this site and all others like it.

Until and unless I can find another organization or individual with a following of millions and millions of dollars willing to take up the cudgel in support of the Second I will continue to support The NRA with my money and time.---OS Benefactor Member, NRA

[BigEd63]

If you want to go along with the NRA's propaganda machine that's fine.

I'm not wasting my money or my vote on compromiser's.

Several of use here on this board are spending our money and time on other things. Like palnning for the future well being of our families.


You know I find it disgusting that the NRA loves to point at both Britian and Australia as what will happen if you don't send them money to supposedly fight for your rights.

Yep sticking to the so called political process worked wonders in both of those nations.

And we will follow that same path and pretty soon by the looks of it.

And no I won't vote for a modern Benedict Arnold either. That somes from being a co-sponser of that damnable Amnesty Bill with Ted Kennedy.

If you want these you can have mine I've only used them 5 times, IIRC. But I've grown tired of wearing them. The 1984 election was the only time I never needed them.

Or they do sell some made just for this election.

[Old Snort]

If you want to go along with the NRA's propaganda machine that's fine.

I'm not wasting my money or my vote on compromiser's.

Several of use here on this board are spending our money and time on other things. Like palnning for the future well being of our families.


You know I find it disgusting that the NRA loves to point at both Britian and Australia as what will happen if you don't send them money to supposedly fight for your rights.

Yep sticking to the so called political process worked wonders in both of those nations.

And we will follow that same path and pretty soon by the looks of it.

And no I won't vote for a modern Benedict Arnold either. That somes from being a co-sponser of that damnable Amnesty Bill with Ted Kennedy.

If you want these you can have mine I've only used them 5 times, IIRC. But I've grown tired of wearing them. The 1984 election was the only time I never needed them.

Or they do sell some made just for this election.

Big Ed---Unfortunately we are right now on that path. I fear that your tactics will not reverse, will not delay, but will only hasten our arrival at the end of that odious journey.

The NRA is not perfect, no organization is, however it does command considerable assets both monetary and political. It is feared by more politicians than fear you or me. Why not support an organization that supports our cause? What alternative do you present? Do you have any other in mind?

Again I will repeat: Not voting for Sen. McCain is exactly the same as voting for MRS. BILL CLINTON or HUSSEIN. Respectfully.---OS

[BigEd63]

If I do decide to vote I will be writing in Ron Paul.

[cutter]

I believe that if one complains about a person or group in public, one should issue specific grievences. Here are mine with the NRA.

The NRA backed legislation that would release mental health records into the NICS database.The net result is that many more people with absolutely no criminal record will be denied their right to own a firearm. This includes US combat veterans who served their country by carrying arms. When they leave the service, they suddenly cannot be trusted with arms? This is a poor repayment for service. Many civilians will fall prey to this as well. Case in point, wellbutrin is used with some success as a stop smoking aid. It is classified as a mild antidepressant. Unfortunately, insurance companies will not pay for a prescription to stop smoking, so doctors do an end run around the system by prescribing it for mild depression. By law, the doctor would be forced to report this person as being under treatment for depression, all because they wanted to quit smoking.

NRA supports CCW legislation. This is good in theory, but in reality supports registration of gun owners and infringement on their rights. CCW allows holders to generally carry without fear of arrest. The problem is that someone who does not own or is unlikely to ever own guns will not obtain a CCW. The Government knows this. Therefore, if the Government wants to harass gunowners or confiscate guns, the CCW rolls of the States are a good place to start.

NRA lobbies to reform ATF. ATF's mission is, in fact, contrary to the Second Ammendment. Even if ATF did not abuse their authority (which they do), the very nature of their mission is to enforce laws that are an infringement of the rights of the People. The proper course of action for NRA is to lobby for the total abolition of ATF or at least the removal of firearms regulation from its mission.

I believe that NRA has great potential. Their performance to date has been something less than what they are capable of. NRA was not originally formed as a political lobby. They got into that later. If they want to make politics a part of their mission, great! They should do it right or not at all.

[Longstep]

Is this a joke?

The NRA won't do diddly crap when it counts.

I'm tired of paying what amounts to bribe money to politicians so they won't take away my rights.

Which they have no right to take away.

To hell with lobbyists.

To with all with politicians.

To me they are all worms.


I'm still not convinced I should evewn vote in this comng election.

And McCain is a turn coat worm like the rest.

Him and old Teddy boy want to sell this country out to the illegals well F'em both.

In fact after that business I think most conservatives decided to heck with the Republican Party. Anyone with a brain could see that in the primary elections.

Looks like we will all be living in interesting times real soon.



Hey im new here and I figure ill post my 2 cents. There was a politician who was a true conservative but he was shut out of the process. None of the politicians are liberal or conservative they are all middle of the road minus 1 or 2 on either side. As far as the op is concerned, if big brother is sending the swat team from door to door collecting all firearms from the people then the **** has already hit the fan and no way in hell would I want to live in a facist place like that. Of course I believe the next revolution in this country will be when they try and force firearms from the citezens. Firearms are here to prevent tyranny.

[Old Snort]

If I do decide to vote I will be writing in Ron Paul.
You can write in Ron Paul, whom I greatly respect, or you can write in Santa Clause, the result will be exactly the same; a vote for MRS. BILL CLINTON or HUSSEIN. I admire your tenacity but regret your seeming inability to grasp the meaning of your position. Perhaps you might reconsider your position before November? I hope you will. Respectfully.---OS

[Rich Z]

I've been a life member of the NRA for a long time, but do wish they were more hard line like GOA. The NRA is just too prone to compromise our rights away.

To give you an example, the other day I thought of a good analogy as to what an NRA backed compromise is like. I'm coming into the house with muddy boots on and the wife wants me to take them off so I don't ruin the carpet. I don't want to. She wants me to.... So in order to compromise we called in a third party mediator (the NRA), who suggested that I take off ONE of my boots and leave the other one on......... :rofl: Well, I wouldn't have ruined as much of the carpet then, now would I?

THAT is the equivalent of the compromises that the NRA has made with our gun rights......

[BigEd63]

You can write in Ron Paul, whom I greatly respect, or you can write in Santa Clause, the result will be exactly the same; a vote for MRS. BILL CLINTON or HUSSEIN. I admire your tenacity but regret your seeming inability to grasp the meaning of your position. Perhaps you might reconsider your position before November? I hope you will. Respectfully.---OS

No you need to wake up an understand that a Socialist whether they have an (R) or a (D) by their name is still a Socialist.

I do not vote for Socialists, at least not knowningly, I did vote for The Huckster once for governor of Arkansas but that was the first and last time.


Right now I'd be more inclined to vote for whoever is running as a Communist because at least they are honest about what they are.

[Old Snort]

No you need to wake up an understand that a Socialist whether they have an (R) or a (D) by their name is still a Socialist.

I do not vote for Socialists, at least not knowningly, I did vote for The Huckster once for governor of Arkansas but that was the first and last time.


Right now I'd be more inclined to vote for whoever is running as a Communist because at least they are honest about what they are.

Maybe you don't vote for socialists, but unless you vote for Sen.McClain you will be.---OS

[DblTap]

Maybe you don't vote for socialists, but unless you vote for Sen.McClain you will be.---OS

Does it really matter, out of the three apparent choices, who becomes president?? Not to us the citizens. The middle and lower classes will continue to get screwed just as they have for many years. If you happen to own a hospital or an oil company then it would matter very much to you who becomes president. Otherwise big brother has to protect his interests.

[Old Snort]

Does it really matter, out of the three apparent choices, who becomes president?? Not to us the citizens. The middle and lower classes will continue to get screwed just as they have for many years. If you happen to own a hospital or an oil company then it would matter very much to you who becomes president. Otherwise big brother has to protect his interests.

Might I suggest that if you are a "middle or lower class citizen" you strive to improve your station instead of complaining thereof and expecting your Government to provide for you?

Most people who own hospitals and oil companies did not happen upon such but instead earned them by dint of hard work and diligent study. Respectfully.---OS

[DblTap]

Might I suggest that if you are a "middle or lower class citizen" you strive to improve your station instead of complaining thereof and expecting your Government to provide for you?

Hey good idea! Maybe if the govt. stopped stealing my money it would be a little easier. BTW when have you ever heard me say I wanted any govt. to provide for me?? That is the problem. I don't want the fed govt. to provide for anyone. Not banks, not oil companies, no one.

[cutter]

The middle and lower classes would be so much improved that they would be unrecognizable if the Government would quit trying to "help" and leave charity in private hands where it belongs.

[Old Snort]

The middle and lower classes would be so much improved that they would be unrecognizable if the Government would quit trying to "help" and leave charity in private hands where it belongs.

Cut---I agree 100%. Did you see where two and a half years after Katrina some of the human detritus is STILL living in Gov't trailers and bitching about them. Don't be surprised if the Gov't provides them with new homes to trash. Makes me sick. Respectfully.---OS

[cutter]

It may not be true and I cannot attribute it, but I once heard a story about one of our earliest Congresses. The story goes that as Congress was climbing the steps to go into session, they saw a nearby town on fire. Once in session, a motion was made to appropriate Federal money to assist the town in rebuilding. One man, I believe the strory said it was Jefferson, stood and said "The purpose of Government is to govern, charity is, and has always been, the purview of the Church." It may not be a true story, but it certainly is right.

There is nothing we can do right that Government can't screw up. Without Government meddeling and without the mentality of dependancy that this self same Government has bred for decades, New Orleans would have been long since rebuilt by the private sector. For proof, I point to Florida after Hurricane Andrew. The Government was there too, but in far less force. There was massive damage and it took time to repair, but there were not the fields of trailer cities as there were (and are) in N.O.