Good shooting of one bad man, good arrest of another

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

And how is it an "insurance policy", by being an implied threat of violence if they mess up, right? Why do you always have to be condencending ass? What part of explain yourself did you not understand? Jeez Dave what click counts down?

Yes the modern congress doesn'tseem threatened byit, but that does not change what it was written for now does it? HMMMMM? Again explain how it is an insurance policy if not an implied threat of violence?

Click to expand...

Now who's being condescending and an "arrogant ass?"

I gave a simple answer "No."

Poosharker answered "yes" and you didn't try baiting him into a debate, you verbally patted him on the head for agreeing with you. Simply because I gave the answer you don't agree with, I'm an "arrogant ass" and condescending.

Gee, what happened to:

Don't be afraidto take a stand Dave all opinions are welcomed here.

Click to expand...

If that's so, why the personal attacks?

Call Patty Murray's office and leave a voice message that the Second Amendment is an implied threat of violence against politicians. Probably not a good idea to sprinkle it with "F" bombs like that guy in Selah.

Let us know what happens.


:uhoh:

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

Poosharker wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

But on a side note? Isn't the 2A already an implied threat of violence against politicians?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Click to expand...

No.... not against individual politicians. Against tyranny....yes. Against a tryrant...yes.

Click to expand...

I'm going to be careful with what I say here, as I don't have too much experience with this.

I did not see that as "individuals", I saw that as politician"S".

Second, all this talk about "insurance" and "implied violence" is just politics. All names. All names just to adjust accordingly per person. In the end, it means the same. Should a "New Orleans" event happen, I am sure you won't just happily wear your gun and the police will just roll over and not try to disarm you.

From "http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=violence"

violence, force (an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists)) "he may accomplish by craft in the long run what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one"

Click to expand...

Those police disarming those folks there, according to princeton dictionary, were using "violence". Although some might not use "violence", they might use words like "unconstitutional", which goes back to it being all politics. Just names for the same thing.

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

And how is it an "insurance policy", by being an implied threat of violence if they mess up, right? Why do you always have to be condencending ass? What part of explain yourself did you not understand? Jeez Dave what click counts down?

Yes the modern congress doesn'tseem threatened byit, but that does not change what it was written for now does it? HMMMMM? Again explain how it is an insurance policy if not an implied threat of violence?

Click to expand...

Now who's being condescending and an "arrogant ass?"

I gave a simple answer "No."

Poosharker answered "yes" and you didn't try baiting him into a debate, you verbally patted him on the head for agreeing with you. Simply because I gave the answer you don't agree with, I'm an "arrogant ass" and condescending.

Gee, what happened to:

Don't be afraidto take a stand Dave all opinions are welcomed here.

Click to expand...

If that's so, why the personal attacks?

Call Patty Murray's office and leave a voice message that the Second Amendment is an implied threat of violence against politicians. Probably not a good idea to sprinkle it with "F" bombs like that guy in Selah.

Let us know what happens.


:uhoh:

Click to expand...

I notice how you left out the "What part of no did you not understand" in your reply that was the condenscending ass part I was reffering too. If you dish it out expect it back Dave.

And you didn't offer an opinion or an argument backing up your statement, look at the timeline who replied first you or Poo, obvioulyPoo answered the same way I feel so I understand why he answered yes, I still don't understand why you would answer"no".If you don't want to give one fine. But you seem to be the only one getting "baited". But this is an open forum for open debate and stories. Gogo gave an opinion on the subject with out a "personal attack" or being arrogant, figured you could do the same, my bad.

But then you try a good political move of misdirecting and suggesting somehow that I have something in common with this A hole who threatened Patty McMurray. Real nice guy.

GogoDawgs wrote:

No.... not against individual politicians. Against tyranny....yes. Against a tryrant...yes.

Click to expand...

As Dave pointed out it is an "insurance" policy, against all politicians. It is the darker side of the 2A maybe a touchy subject but we can't forget what it was written for. And it wasn't written for self defense or hunting. And as Dave points out our politicians seemed to have forgotten what it was written for.

Other than Poo here is some others who would have answered yes.

Susanna Haptia Grup talking toTexas legislature(paraphrasing) " ....second ammendment is about protecting us from you ...."

-- Robert Dornan
US Congressman (CA-R)
Source: January 25, 1994, responding to Bill Clinton's "State of the Union" speech

"..and by the way, Mr.Speaker, the Second Amendment is not for killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle. It's for hunting politicians, like in Grozny, and in the colonies in 1776, or when they take your independence away."

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
-- John F. Kennedy

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

Poosharker wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

But on a side note? Isn't the 2A already an implied threat of violence against politicians?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Click to expand...

No.... not against individual politicians. Against tyranny....yes. Against a tryrant...yes.

Click to expand...

After reading a couple of more posts, I am going to explain it to one more level.

The 2A is an insurance policy against tyranny and a tyrant, which we have neither at this time. Never against individual politicians.

When do individual politicians become tyrants? When all of them have banded together and usurped the very freedoms we enjoy. At this point only they are on that path, but are very far from usurping the rights of men. The political spectrum has swings back and forth, right now we are in a quickly swinging pendulum moving away from the rights of men. It must be met with the force of the ballot this year, if not then how close we move away from individual rights will determine how close we move towards the next revolution.

imported post

I totally agree with what you are saying GogoDawgs, so it still remains as a threat of violence even if it is the last resort. The same way Open Carry is a detterant against criminals. It is an implied threat of violence. May not be the politically correct way of putting it and might rub folks the wrong way but it is the truth of the matter. I hope to God to never have to use my weapon against someone the same way I never would want to have to engage in the activity the 2A was written for.

I agree with your scenario and reasoning, but think this is a more "evolved" way of thinking than originally intended. My belief is that the founders intended to keep politicians/gov. in check by putting the right to bear arms against them into the constitution. And if you look at many on the 2A from them it bears out that that was their intention also. Samual Adams and George Washington had some great ones. Along with the obvious famous Thomas Jefferson ones.

My statement/question really wasn't questioning when it gets used but what the 2A was intended for. I am always open to veiwpoints and think we are on the same page, and am glad that you are open for discussion. Openly discussing things is how we learn, from each other. And I better state loud and clearly I do not endorse this Yakima's actions and do feel he deserves his jailtime. Although that won't dettertrolls who already have their mind made up.

Hey on side note I have been working a lot in South sound area Puyallup/Tacoma would love to get together for coffee sometime with you "Southerners". Since I haven't been able to keep up with our weekly informal meets up here.

imported post

Poosharker wrote:

I did not see that as "individuals", I saw that as politician"S".

Click to expand...

You are exactly right and are very discerning on what I was saying. That is why you got the "pat on the head" LOL.

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

Hey on side note I have been working a lot in South sound area Puyallup/Tacoma would love to get together for coffee sometime with you "Southerners". Since I haven't been able to keep up with our weekly informal meets up here.

Click to expand...

We are meeting for coffee tomorrow morning at Starbucks in Federal Way on 348th and Hwy 99 at 8am.

I am up for coffee this morning as well. PM me if interested.

I will be shooting today at Champion Arms at 4:30pm.