Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Why do I still bother?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    I've been on claycord.com reading the comments and adding in my own knowledge to open carry. These readers are so close minded that I feel as claycord is in a loss with itself. One of these people started taking qoutes out of guninformation.org....and she started calling it facts. Even after the D.C. vs heller case, we still have these Brady tards force feeding propaganda into the publics mind.

    How do you guys deal with these keyboard cowards?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Sometimes it is not worth it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    This is the problem we face today...constant bombardment from the progressive and radical left / anti-liberty crowds. I don't think we can accept "its not worth it" anymore. I think more than ever today we need to put forth a voice of reason and rationale argument. And more than ever today (at least in recent history) people are awake and looking for those reasonable voices. I'm not saying its worth it to get into some lengthy web debate with some anti, but I think its important to find those sites local to you and present the normal, non-radical, constitution, liberty argument.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    yellowneck86 wrote:

    How do you guys deal with these keyboard cowards?
    Stand your ground and stick to the facts. If you can address an anti-gunner's claim with factual information or a direct challenge for them to prove it outside of some random website they've quoted, then do it.

    I have a liberal co-worker that has tried to throw statistics out at me and I asked him to prove it. Silence, next part of the subject or move on to something else.

    To a degree it is not worth it, but if you can respectfully push, poke, and prod the truth will come out. Some people are afraid of guns and some people downright hate them and they'll do and say anything to get them banned. Those people you can not help but when/if they post or say something questionable or wrong, you should call them out on it because their schlock will be read by someone else and taken in as correct information when in fact it may not be.

    DO NOT LET THEM HAVE ANY GROUND! We may not be able to stop private businesses from banning guns from their premises or we may not be able to stop some laws from being passed due to overwhelming opposition, but we can stand our ground and prevent lies from being spread.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    612

    Post imported post

    I went over and took a peek.. not worth arguing, they will not be swayed..

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    Liberal: favoring reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, and protect the personal freedom of the individual.

    Are we misusing this term?

    Conservative: 1.reluctant to accept change:in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change,

    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    Liberal: favoring reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, and protect the personal freedom of the individual.

    Are we misusing this term?

    Conservative: 1.reluctant to accept change:in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change,
    Until the Civil War, these definitions were correct. However, the Liberal has been corrupted by "Progressive", better known as socialism in the Marxist vein.

    Recall, our Founding Fathers certainly favored reform of the current government. Not only creating the worlds next Democracy, but modifying it to be representative of the People, and establishing by law, the precepts of rights afforded to us by God.

    "Progressives" know that individual freedoms are poison to a collective government, and have spent the last 100 years legislating our rights into government sanctioned permissions.

    Not as long as I breathe and can still pull a trigger.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    Army wrote:
    Gundude wrote:
    Liberal: favoring reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, and protect the personal freedom of the individual.

    Are we misusing this term?

    Conservative: 1.reluctant to accept change:in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change,
    Until the Civil War, these definitions were correct. However, the Liberal has been corrupted by "Progressive", better known as socialism in the Marxist vein.

    Recall, our Founding Fathers certainly favored reform of the current government. Not only creating the worlds next Democracy, but modifying it to be representative of the People, and establishing by law, the precepts of rights afforded to us by God.

    "Progressives" know that individual freedoms are poison to a collective government, and have spent the last 100 years legislating our rights into government sanctioned permissions.

    Not as long as I breathe and can still pull a trigger.
    I'm very glad we have some socialism. If it weren't for medicare, I would be dead. I was diagnosed with kidney cancer and I didn't have $100k for the surgery. If it weren't for social security, I would be living under a bridge. I guess that makes me a liberal.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    Army wrote:
    Gundude wrote:
    Liberal: favoring reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, and protect the personal freedom of the individual.

    Are we misusing this term?

    Conservative: 1.reluctant to accept change:in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change,
    Until the Civil War, these definitions were correct. However, the Liberal has been corrupted by "Progressive", better known as socialism in the Marxist vein.

    Recall, our Founding Fathers certainly favored reform of the current government. Not only creating the worlds next Democracy, but modifying it to be representative of the People, and establishing by law, the precepts of rights afforded to us by God.

    "Progressives" know that individual freedoms are poison to a collective government, and have spent the last 100 years legislating our rights into government sanctioned permissions.

    Not as long as I breathe and can still pull a trigger.
    I'm very glad we have some socialism. If it weren't for medicare, I would be dead. I was diagnosed with kidney cancer and I didn't have $100k for the surgery. If it weren't for social security, I would be living under a bridge. I guess that makes me a liberal.
    No. That makes you smart. I don't think you can make a distinction between liberal or conservative based on medicare and social security since both sides want some form of those programs to exist (the debate is more along the "how"of those issues, not the "if").



  10. #10
    Regular Member Ranchero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NORCO, California, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    Don't waste your time, I know people who agree with propaganda. Even when you have proof and evidence.
    FREEDOM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Salem, Oregon
    Posts
    94

    Post imported post

    I've tried commenting on several boards and new organizations comments. I no longer get involved there as the general traffic is a constant bombardment of innuendo, ridicule, personal attacks and other arguments one would expect of a third grade child.

    Point is, there is no one present with whom to carry on intelligent debate, no one interested or competent to use rational thought rather than childish hysteria, no one able to learn.

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    I'm very glad we have some socialism. If it weren't for medicare, I would be dead. I was diagnosed with kidney cancer and I didn't have $100k for the surgery. If it weren't for social security, I would be living under a bridge. I guess that makes me a liberal.
    I do not wish ill upon any supporters of the 2A here on the boards...but you make a big assumption.That assumption is that there would not be medical care on those who could not afford it if it were not for the government. Be careful! That assumption was not true before this government had such an institution as medicare! In addition, you should realize that all federal taxation in excess of that which is allowed by the constitution comes at a cost levied against our liberty.

    Toassent to such government burdensupon the citizenryinstead of free society, free market alternatives is to assent to a link of slavery in the shackles of government oppression.

    Remember the words of Samuel Adams:

    "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    Liberal: favoring reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, and protect the personal freedom of the individual.

    Are we misusing this term?

    Conservative: 1.reluctant to accept change:in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change,
    Yes.

    This is why I refer to myself as a 'Classical 18th Century Liberal.' The founders were radicals with very liberal ideals, crazy ideals that men could govern themselves with all the liberty afforded the aristocracy.

    To most of the world it still is a crazy idea!
    Live Free or Die!

  14. #14
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    Gundude wrote:
    I'm very glad we have some socialism. If it weren't for medicare, I would be dead. I was diagnosed with kidney cancer and I didn't have $100k for the surgery. If it weren't for social security, I would be living under a bridge. I guess that makes me a liberal.
    I do not wish ill upon any supporters of the 2A here on the boards...but you make a big assumption.That assumption is that there would not be medical care on those who could not afford it if it were not for the government. Be careful! That assumption was not true before this government had such an institution as medicare! In addition, you should realize that all federal taxation in excess of that which is allowed by the constitution comes at a cost levied against our liberty.

    Toassent to such government burdensupon the citizenryinstead of free society, free market alternatives is to assent to a link of slavery in the shackles of government oppression.

    Remember the words of Samuel Adams:

    "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
    +1. Gundude, I'm glad you received the care you needed. I just don't agree that medicare, social security, or any other government run programs are the best solution.


    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  15. #15
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    If you had asked Thomas Jefferson to describe himself in one word, he may have used liberal. Back then it meant something much different than it does today. The original liberals were guys like John Locke, Adam Smith, and Voltaire. Jefferson was a protege of these men. It is a crime that people whose ideals are the polar opposite of true liberalism have taken that name as their own. Maybe that was their plan all along; to make "liberal", and by extension, liberty, a dirty word.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  16. #16
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    wewd wrote:
    If you had asked Thomas Jefferson to describe himself in one word, he may have used liberal. Back then it meant something much different than it does today. The original liberals were guys like John Locke, Adam Smith, and Voltaire. Jefferson was a protege of these men. It is a crime that people whose ideals are the polar opposite of true liberalism have taken that name as their own. Maybe that was their plan all along; to make "liberal", and by extension, liberty, a dirty word.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
    As does the word "regulate".
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South end of the state, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    314

    Post imported post

    gundude ,

    I also am on disability ( for the rest of my life ) butI am no liberal and I bet you aren't either. The way I look at itis like this... they made me pay into this system without asking if I wanted to . It isn't my fault the theives ( politicians )couldn't keep their money grabbing hands out of the till and made it go broke.

    To the original poster , some people you can convince with the truth and make them see the gun grabbers for what they are. Then there are some that won't see the facts if you hit them over the head. We have to keep trying though because if we don't , we will loose the fence sitters as well as the ones who are completely against guns.

    It's a tough , tireing fight , but well worth it in the end. Besides, after what our forefathers went through to win our freedoms , how can we do anything less??

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •