Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 262

Thread: Should we consider other's opinions?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post


    Having been involved in a number of contentious threads here, the question occurred to me whether we should be listening to opposing views or not? I say ‘we’ because I am[/i] a member here and because I have expressed opposing views, some of which I have had to relinquish or modify as a result of these discussions.

    Following are some famous and not so famous quotations regarding the keeping and bearing of arms. Some are interesting for the people who said them, others for what they said, and some for the context or historical period in which they were said. They express a wide range of points of view, some of which not everyone here will agree with, but aught to at least consider, lest we become blinded by our own convictions.

    Please feel free to add your own favorites to the list.



    • An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. - Robert A. Heinlein
    • We are twice armed if we fight with faith. – Plato
    • People should be defended not by arms, but by ethical behavior. - Vinoba Bhave
    • First and foremost arms are tools in the service of rivals, pointing at the possibility of a future conflict. - Alva Myrdal
    • Disarmament or limitation of arms, which depends on the progress made on our security, also contributes to the maintenance of peace. - Ludwig Quidde
    • Every success in limiting armaments is a sign that the will to achieve mutual understanding exists, and every such success thus supports the fight for law and order. - Ludwig Quidde
    • A system is in equilibrium when the forces constituting it are arranged in such a way as to compensate each other, like the two weights pulling at the arms of a pair of scales. - Rudolf Arnheim
    • Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. – Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi
    • Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? - Patrick Henry
    • Be careful: they have arms, and no alternatives. - Ryszard Kapuscinski
    • Farewell to Arms. – Ernest Hemingway
    • Free men have arms; slaves do not. - William Blackstone
    • Who Rebels? Who rises in arms? Rarely the slave, but almost always the oppressor turned slave. - Emile M. Cioran
    • I don't need arms, and neither does anyone else... At the very least, a ban would prevent fights from turning deadly. - Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva
    • If you wish to be brothers, let the arms fall from your hands. One cannot love while holding offensive arms. - Gerald Brenan
    • Insurrection of thought always precedes insurrection of arms. - Wendell Phillips
    • It is not the cause for which men took up arms that makes a victory more just or less, it is the order that is established when arms have been laid down. - Simone Weil
    • It seems to me we have been in a rhetorical arms race in this country, with each side unwilling to lay down its weapons for fear - usually justified - the other side would beat them to a pulp. - Pat Sajak
    • Life is a gamble. You can get hurt, but people die in plane crashes, in car accidents; people die every day. Same with fighters: some die, some get hurt, some go on. You just don't let yourself believe it will happen to you. - Muhammad Ali
    • The thing about a gun is that number one it just scares people! – Gina Davis
    • One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. - Thomas Jefferson
    • One man excels in eloquence, another in arms. - Virgil
    • Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear. - Douglas MacArthur
    • Our goal is not to crush the enemy at any price, but to make it realize that it is illegal to take up arms to overthrow a democratically elected government. - Jose Eduardo Dos Santos
    • Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. - Ron Paul (father of Rand Paul)
    • Terrorists also want to use simple and reliable arms. - Mikhail Kalashnikov
    • The main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones, are good laws and good arms. You cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow. - Niccolo Machiavelli
    • The right wing always mobilizes around constitutional amendments: the right to bear arms, school prayer. - Al Sharpton
    • The Second Amendment says we have the right to bear arms, not to bear artillery. - Robin Williams
    • The true and solid peace of nations consists not in equality of arms, but in mutual trust alone. - Pope John XXIII
    • The war is coming to the streets of America and if you are not keeping and bearing and practicing with your arms then you will be helpless and you will be the victim of evil. - Ted Nugent
    • The word ‘knight’, which originally meant boy or servant, was particularly applied to a young man after he was admitted to the privilege of bearing arms. - Thomas Bulfinch
    • There are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage. - Joel Barlow
    • There is nothing we can do about the lynching now, as we are out-numbered and without arms. - Ida B. Wells
    • These people are very unskilled in arms... with 50 men they could all be subjected and made to do all that one wished. - Christopher Columbus
    • Those entrusted with arms... should be persons of some substance and stake in the country. - William Windham
    • To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. - Richard Henry Lee
    • Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
    • Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of men. - Pope John Paul II
    • War is just when it is necessary; arms are permissible when there is no hope except in arms. – Niccolo Machiavelli
    • We are the nation most powerful, most armed, and we are supplying arms and money to the rest of the world where we are not ourselves fighting. We are eating while there is famine in the world. - Dorothy Day
    • We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without arms. One cannot shoot with butter, but with guns. - Joseph Goebbels
    • When I slept it was literally in the midst of an arsenal. If I heard dogs bark more fiercely than usual, or the feet of horses in a greater volume of sound than usual, I stood to arms. - Frank James
    • When the Constitution gave us the right to bear arms it also made us responsible for using them properly. It is not fair of us as citizens to lean more heavily on one side of that equation than on the other. - Jesse Ventura
    • Where do these arms come from, these Saturday night specials that constitute the instrument of threats in bank robberies, or the hand grenades used by terrorists? How can their sales and their import be permitted? - Alva Myrdal
    • With this realization, came a growing need for men and women willing to take up arms in an effort to protect our American way of life and the freedoms so many of our ancestors died to entrench. - Jim Walsh

  2. #2
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    The quotes about arms that carry the most weight with me, are the ones that were coined by men who have experience in using arms in life and death battles. I'm much more inclined to put faith in the words of our Revolutionaries than I am Robin Williams.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    pahrump nv, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    swine



  4. #4
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    arms [ɑːmz]pl n1. (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) weapons collectively

    The Second Amendment does not distinguish between different types of weapons... and unless we fight to remove those barriers, the government will continue to strip our rights until their very narrow definition of arms remains. Basically, we'll be left with the right to have a plastic butter knife in our homes, but no more.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    251

    Post imported post

    I don't believe in the extreme right-wing arrogance as it can be just as bad as a blinded liberal's point of view. There are certain things I think we can take from both camps but generally refuse to make such comments since each side is so hell-bent on making things their way that they otherwise refuse to pull their own blinders off and see the full picture.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    "Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."


    --Aristotle



  7. #7
    Newbie crisisweasel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pima County, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    At this point, any debate with a person foolish enough to think that it is a good idea to leave the state, military, police, and by extension the corporations each crawls into the bed with, armed to the exclusion of independent citizens, is something I do at my pleasure and mainly for my amusement and convenience.

    So lacking in any kind of credibility is this argument, that I generally preface it by saying that this is not the kind of discussion or debate in which the "victor" (by whatever standard) thereby gets to implement political policy to which I must conform. I may well choose to conform to laws by weighing the consequences of violating them, but this is a pragmatic concern on my part; not a moral one. (In practice, I obey gun laws to the letter, but I am fortunate enough to live in Arizona, where this is an inconvenience at worst.)

    Gun control advocates who engage in this debate are often under this impression -- that either the statistics they bring to the table, or the politicians they elect, will ultimately determine not only the objective outcome (whether people will have guns or not) of this debate, and further that I will be somehow morally beholden to whatever scheme the majority (or minority in influence) determines is "appropriate" for me, because we've somehow all agreed or consented to the "majority rules" concept. They are wrong, because I have not, and will not.

    People tend to be shocked - SHOCKED, I TELL YOU - that I reject these groundrules as nothing more but prelude to a kind of tyranny they themselves would probably not even recognize ("If the majority voted for it, how can it be tyranny?").

    States, institutions, mobs, individual criminals: none of these by divine decree or otherwise, have any authority beyond that to which we as individuals consent. Or at least this is what I (and many others) maintain, fairly uninterested in the fact that others disagree. Most are familiar with this sentiment, but few truly understand it. Inherent with in it is that there is a frontier across which law cannot cross, at least in terms of having any kind of moral force.

    Accordingly, when the debate winds down from exhaustion, in a very friendly way I inform them that no matter who they elect, and no matter what political scheme they succeed in implementing, I will, if I so choose, own guns, and will never feel any moral obligation whatsoever to surrender them.

    I have a cache of non-firearms-related items buried in a sagebrash-strewn plain in the Great Basin in Esmeralda County, Nevada. Because it is in a very large valley of sorts, the plain floods regularly.

    The contents of the cache consist of papers, CDs, coins, and suchlike. The cache itself consists of a large used ammunition canister purchased from a surplus store here in Tucson.

    I can report for anyone who is interested, that an ammunition can buried in soil will last approximately nine years (and will adequately protect contents from the elements) before corrosion sets in. I know because I just dug it up after nine years to discover that corrision had, in fact, set in, but not enough to damage the contents, even slightly. There was a lot of paper inside, and even after nine years, I detected no water stains, no fading, and no decomposition.

    People on the Left, in particular, as well as those who obsess on law as if it is handed down from God himself, tend to be horrified at the prospect that when a politician or judge says "jump!" I may not immediately ask, "how high?" as if judges and politicians and government itself are the subject of actual Divine Providence, something in which I do not believe.

    Government is an aggregation of flawed individuals acting collectively (often in terms of "collectivism," in fact), which contains all of the indiscretions, immoralities, iniquities, and moral and psychological failings of those who constitute it. It is nothing more. We write constitutions specifically to limit the scope of the human element of government, in recognition of these flaws. Even radical constitutions such as our own tend to fail to contain them, unfortunately. This is why I am only mildly a Constitutionalist, as I maintain the US Constitution has failed to constrain government to its legitimate functions.

    That is, in fact, its primary reason for existence. The rights which the US Constitution protects are the important thing. The Constitution is merely the armor which wraps around them. The armor must withstand the assault of unsavory interests, or it must be improved, patched, or replaced. This is a controversial sentiment among gun owners especially, but it is also misunderstood. I am not saying the Constitution goes too far, but that it does not go far enough in leashing the worst impulses of the state and its fans. Were it adequate, guns would not be a political issue at all. But I disgress.

    Alcoholic bureaucrats, authoritarian congressmen, hapless or warlike (sometimes both) presidents, sanctimonious judges: all of these things, people tell me, ought to be ignored in favor of the alleged civilization which can only exist by the grace of (majoritarian) government: I ought simply to obey because government is government, and its authority is absolute and legitimate because...well there are a thousand mostly tautological arguments in favor of why.

    I don't think so.

    Much has been made of the moral propriety of breaking the law, from civil disobedience to illicit medical marijuana use. And I certainly do believe there are few things more reasonable than breaking an immoral law (and only immoral laws), provided you can get away with it, or if the potential criminal consequences do not outweigh the benefits of doing so.

    And I do believe that laws which severely tip the balance of power in favor of the state, are immoral. I do not make any suggestion as to what others should do or think, but this is the principle I live by: to obey laws to the degree that they are reasonable and moral, and no further.

    To do otherwise invites tyranny. And I do not have nearly the faith in the democratic mechanisms of our constitutional republic that my opponents do. Democracy is just mob rule all gussied up for a formal state dinner (it is easy to conceal-carry torches and pitchforks in the kinds of suits politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists wear.)

    As to debate, I listen to the opposition because it affords me insight as to how they think and exposes possible vectors of logical attack I hadn't considered. Because gun control is inconvenient. It is a headache (try carrying across several states on a long trip and remaining within the law at all times). It is an illicit imposition on individuals.

    But the debate we have is not really a debate on whether any of us have the right to own, possess, carry, and use weapons for the purpose of self-defense in any of its permutations.

    The debate is coffee chatter. I hope to convince people to reject politicians who would make my life more dangerous or inconvenient.

    But the right, itself, is not on the table for consideration.

    And ultimately, it is we who have the guns. I wonder if they ever think about that.

    Selah.

    "When the talking is over, it's time to get a gun..." - Fred Eaglesmith

  8. #8
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227

    Post imported post

    Swine, the length of your post defends it well against the risk of its being read.

    A murderer, is a man who tries to kill you and if he fails,he asks you not to kill him.
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Caf, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Haz. wrote:
    Swine, the length of your post defends it well against the risk of its being read.
    Well, since it's just a series of quotes, just read a few at random. Attention span is not what anyone expects from this crowd anyway.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    swine wrote:
    Haz. wrote:
    Swine, the length of your post defends it well against the risk of its being read.
    Well, since it's just a series of quotes, just read a few at random. Attention span is not what anyone expects from this crowd anyway.
    And no one expects humility from your crowd either.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    swine wrote:
    Haz. wrote:
    Swine, the length of your post defends it well against the risk of its being read.
    Well, since it's just a series of quotes, just read a few at random. Attention span is not what anyone expects from this crowd anyway.
    And no one expects humility from your crowd either.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    .to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

    "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888

    "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788,

    "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry,

    "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787.

    "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787.

    Any Questions?
    Any other view is just incorrect in my opinion. The tyranny we are being softly subject to this very moment is such that if it is not overtook in November by the elections of right-minded people there will be another revolution, again my humble opinion. I Pray God that it doesn't happen in a blood letting. But the Progressives that are in control of the Congress are off on a tangent that the majority of "The People" DO NOT want.
    Had to add one from the "Father of Our Country"

    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    swine wrote:
    Haz. wrote:
    Swine, the length of your post defends it well against the risk of its being read.
    Well, since it's just a series of quotes, just read a few at random. Attention span is not what anyone expects from this crowd anyway.
    And no one expects humility from your crowd either.
    No, I suppose not, but allow me nevertheless to humbly apologize. Haz and I have had 'words' in other threads and I reacted instictively (something I do all too often, I'm afraid), to his post as an insult, so I 'projected' his 'attitude' (as I perceived it) onto everyone else. I'm not proud of that. Sorry.


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    KansasMustang wrote:
    .to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

    "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888

    "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788,

    "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry,

    "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787.

    "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787.

    Any Questions?
    Any other view is just incorrect in my opinion. The tyranny we are being softly subject to this very moment is such that if it is not overtook in November by the elections of right-minded people there will be another revolution, again my humble opinion. I Pray God that it doesn't happen in a blood letting. But the Progressives that are in control of the Congress are off on a tangent that the majority of "The People" DO NOT want. If the majority of the people do not want (this tangent), then how on earth did the 'progressives' get control of the Congress in the first place?
    Had to add one from the "Father of Our Country"
    Two questions: (1) Why areALL your quotes over 200 years old? Is there nothing that has happened in the world since then that is relevant to the discussion? I would think, at the very least, that the developments in the technology, sophistication, and power of guns since then would have some bearing, notto mention the shift in social order from largley rural to largelyurban would have some bearing as well. Do you really think the parties that you quoted had the current social order in mind when they spoke their words, or was their thinking done in the context of the rural, sparsely populated world they knew and lived in?

    (2) See above in blue font.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Two questions: (1) Why are ALL your quotes over 200 years old? Is there nothing that has happened in the world since then that is relevant to the discussion? I would think, at the very least, that the developments in the technology, sophistication, and power of guns since then would have some bearing, not to mention the shift in social order from largley rural to largely urban would have some bearing as well. Do you really think the parties that you quoted had the current social order in mind when they spoke their words, or was their thinking done in the context of the rural, sparsely populated world they knew and lived in?
    My favorite quotes are 200 years old or better too. in fact some go back to the 1100's. If it was relevant then it was relevant now and it takes away some of the liberal argument when they try to rewrite the meaning of the second amendment and back up their argument with "We;ll we can't go back and ask the founding fathers can we." Don't need to go back and ask them personally, they were pretty clear in their letters, their articles in journals and in the Federalist Papers.

    Maybe learning history before the flag and prayer was removed from the classroom and the history books were rewritten may color my opinion...............nope, no maybe about it, it definitely colors my opinion. Call me a dinosaur but don't call me wrong or I'll bite you and eat you.
    Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Old Grump wrote:
    Two questions: (1) Why are ALL your quotes over 200 years old? Is there nothing that has happened in the world since then that is relevant to the discussion? I would think, at the very least, that the developments in the technology, sophistication, and power of guns since then would have some bearing, not to mention the shift in social order from largley rural to largely urban would have some bearing as well. Do you really think the parties that you quoted had the current social order in mind when they spoke their words, or was their thinking done in the context of the rural, sparsely populated world they knew and lived in?
    My favorite quotes are 200 years old or better too. in fact some go back to the 1100's. If it was relevant then it was relevant now and it takes away some of the liberal argument when they try to rewrite the meaning of the second amendment and back up their argument with "We;ll we can't go back and ask the founding fathers can we." Don't need to go back and ask them personally, they were pretty clear in their letters, their articles in journals and in the Federalist Papers.

    Maybe learning history before the flag and prayer was removed from the classroom and the history books were rewritten may color my opinion...............nope, no maybe about it, it definitely colors my opinion. Call me a dinosaur but don't call me wrong or I'll bite you and eat you.
    They were very clear, no doubt about that, but the Pope (the infallable Pope) of the time was also very clear when he told Gallileo that the Earth most certainly did not orbit the Sun; thatit was the other way around. Butthe Popeturned out to bewrong and Gallileo turned out to beright.


  17. #17
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227

    Post imported post

    Old Grump wrote:
    Two questions: (1) Why are ALL your quotes over 200 years old? Is there nothing that has happened in the world since then that is relevant to the discussion? I would think, at the very least, that the developments in the technology, sophistication, and power of guns since then would have some bearing, not to mention the shift in social order from largley rural to largely urban would have some bearing as well. Do you really think the parties that you quoted had the current social order in mind when they spoke their words, or was their thinking done in the context of the rural, sparsely populated world they knew and lived in?
    My favorite quotes are 200 years old or better too. in fact some go back to the 1100's. If it was relevant then it was relevant now and it takes away some of the liberal argument when they try to rewrite the meaning of the second amendment and back up their argument with "We;ll we can't go back and ask the founding fathers can we." Don't need to go back and ask them personally, they were pretty clear in their letters, their articles in journals and in the Federalist Papers.

    Maybe learning history before the flag and prayer was removed from the classroom and the history books were rewritten may color my opinion...............nope, no maybe about it, it definitely colors my opinion. Call me a dinosaur but don't call me wrong or I'll bite you and eat you.
    The old quotes where made at a time when the majority of people knew right from wrong and had the guts to stand up and fight for what was right.

    "The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see." Winston Churchill.
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Caf, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    Something not 200 yrs old, something not 200 yrs...
    Oh,I got it!

    "From my cold dead hands!" Charleston Heston

  19. #19
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227

    Post imported post

    This is how short this generation of peoples memories are, or they know no history at all. For example, in Aus., The Eureka Stockade in Ballarat Victoria on 3 December 1854 was prompted by grievances over heavily priced mining items, the expense of a Miners licence, taxation (via the licence) without representation and the actions of the government and its agents (the police and military). The miners' demands included the right to vote and purchase land, and the reduction of license fees.

    Peter Lalor was the leader of the miners who fought at the Eureka Stockade, and the author of the oath of allegiance used by the miners at the Eureka Stockade which he swore to their affirmation.

    After the battle, Lalor wrote in a statement to the colonists of Victoria, "There are two things connected with the late outbreak (Eureka) which I deeply regret. The first is, that we should have been forced to take up arms at all; and the second is, that when we were compelled to take the field in our own defence, we were unable (through want of arms, ammunition and a little organisation) to inflict on the real authors of the outbreak the punishment they so richly deserved."

    It was a revolution — small in size; but great politically; it was a strike for liberty, a struggle for principle, a stand against injustice and oppression. The events that had taken place at the Eureka Stockade, in the minds ofmost Australiansis now nothing more than a dwindled memory.

    156 years on, we meekly handed over our firearms whichwere destroyed by our governmentand we are now defenceless yet we regurlarly hear statements like this from the general public, even the anties come out with it on occasion. Just shows how stupid they are.

    For Example, Something doesn't suite someoneso they ring talkback radio, waffel on about their grievence, and end their rant with:

    "WE SHOULD BE UP IN ARMS OVER THIS."

    Yeh, like we will gather in protest waving our empty arms in the air! A lot of good that will do. Standing on your own or in a group with your empty arm's in the air means nothing more than:

    "WE SURRENDER."

    Haz.
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Caf, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    Love the posts on here, very eloquent and beautiful. Especiallycrisisweasels' the "Selah" just topped it off for me. That's what folks need to do.

    Talk about old quotes this one is enough for me, Luke 22:36

    "and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"

    - LORD Jesus Christ


  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    pahrump nv, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    Haz. wrote:
    This is how short this generation of peoples memories are, or they know no history at all. For example, in Aus., The Eureka Stockade in Ballarat Victoria on 3 December 1854 was prompted by grievances over heavily priced mining items, the expense of a Miners licence, taxation (via the licence) without representation and the actions of the government and its agents (the police and military). The miners' demands included the right to vote and purchase land, and the reduction of license fees.

    Peter Lalor was the leader of the miners who fought at the Eureka Stockade, and the author of the oath of allegiance used by the miners at the Eureka Stockade which he swore to their affirmation.

    After the battle, Lalor wrote in a statement to the colonists of Victoria, "There are two things connected with the late outbreak (Eureka) which I deeply regret. The first is, that we should have been forced to take up arms at all; and the second is, that when we were compelled to take the field in our own defence, we were unable (through want of arms, ammunition and a little organisation) to inflict on the real authors of the outbreak the punishment they so richly deserved."

    It was a revolution — small in size; but great politically; it was a strike for liberty, a struggle for principle, a stand against injustice and oppression. The events that had taken place at the Eureka Stockade, in the minds ofmost Australiansis now nothing more than a dwindled memory.

    156 years on, we meekly handed over our firearms whichwere destroyed by our governmentand we are now defenceless yet we regurlarly hear statements like this from the general public, even the anties come out with it on occasion. Just shows how stupid they are.

    For Example, Something doesn't suite someoneso they ring talkback radio, waffel on about their grievence, and end their rant with:

    "WE SHOULD BE UP IN ARMS OVER THIS."

    Yeh, like we will gather in protest waving our empty arms in the air! A lot of good that will do. Standing on your own or in a group with your empty arm's in the air means nothing more than:

    "WE SURRENDER."

    Haz.
    did you give your guns up

  22. #22
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    Why is it the young, with their young ideas, seem to think that the old, with their time tested truths, are irrelevant?

    The concept that the founding fathers and their ideas are just old fogey stuff not relevant to the new and cool today neglects to address the truth that there are concepts that have proven throughout History to be timeless.

    Such as....

    -There will always be people who wish to rule and those people will always relentlessly seek to rule.

    -Those who wish to rule will always seek to disarm the populace.

    -An unarmed population always becomes subservient to an elitist ruling class.

    -And there will always be those misguided folks who, thinking they are being "hip", or "cool", or "intellectual" will help those who wish to rule to take over.

    But in the end it is the same old story that has played out all over the world since the beginning of time when the only "arms" were rocks and sharp sticks... and will continue to play out until the end of time when "arms" are ray guns or whatever whiz bang technological thing they have....

    But the time tested and Historically proven TRUTH is .... only the well armed are able to resist being ruled by those who consider themselves the elite... and those who consider themselves to be the elite will stop at nothing to disarm anyone and everyone who could stand in their way of ruling.

    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227

    Post imported post

    steveman01 wrote:
    Love the posts on here, very eloquent and beautiful. Especiallycrisisweasels' the "Selah" just topped it off for me. That's what folks need to do.

    Talk about old quotes this one is enough for me, Luke 22:36

    "and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"

    - LORD Jesus Christ
    G-day Steveman01.

    I love that quote, (Luke 22:36) and use it all the time where ever possible especially when the anties put up "Thou shalt not kill" as their argument against self defence.

    The wording of the American Constitution is consistent and in alignment with the teachings of the Bible. Weapons of defense should be dispersed throughout the nation, not concentrated in the hands of a central government. A government honoring the Lord and His laws has no cause to want a monopoly of force and when it does it threatens the lives, liberty and property of its citizens and is operating in opposition to the Most High God.
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Caf, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227

    Post imported post

    ericfrompahrump wrote:
    Haz. wrote:
    This is how short this generation of peoples memories are, or they know no history at all. For example, in Aus., The Eureka Stockade in Ballarat Victoria on 3 December 1854 was prompted by grievances over heavily priced mining items, the expense of a Miners licence, taxation (via the licence) without representation and the actions of the government and its agents (the police and military). The miners' demands included the right to vote and purchase land, and the reduction of license fees.

    Peter Lalor was the leader of the miners who fought at the Eureka Stockade, and the author of the oath of allegiance used by the miners at the Eureka Stockade which he swore to their affirmation.

    After the battle, Lalor wrote in a statement to the colonists of Victoria, "There are two things connected with the late outbreak (Eureka) which I deeply regret. The first is, that we should have been forced to take up arms at all; and the second is, that when we were compelled to take the field in our own defence, we were unable (through want of arms, ammunition and a little organisation) to inflict on the real authors of the outbreak the punishment they so richly deserved."

    It was a revolution — small in size; but great politically; it was a strike for liberty, a struggle for principle, a stand against injustice and oppression. The events that had taken place at the Eureka Stockade, in the minds ofmost Australiansis now nothing more than a dwindled memory.

    156 years on, we meekly handed over our firearms whichwere destroyed by our governmentand we are now defenceless yet we regurlarly hear statements like this from the general public, even the anties come out with it on occasion. Just shows how stupid they are.

    For Example, Something doesn't suite someoneso they ring talkback radio, waffel on about their grievence, and end their rant with:

    "WE SHOULD BE UP IN ARMS OVER THIS."

    Yeh, like we will gather in protest waving our empty arms in the air! A lot of good that will do. Standing on your own or in a group with your empty arm's in the air means nothing more than:

    "WE SURRENDER."

    Haz.
    did you give your guns up
    Hi Ericfrompahrump.

    No. Sporting shooters who were liscenced at the time of the gun ban and buy back, who had registered firearms that were not declared illegal by the government, ( for example pump action shotguns), and had a genuine reason to keep their firearms and were prepared to go through the insane paperwork and government requirements and inspections did keep them. The government never made it easy and many many thousands of law abiding citizens with their heads bowed in submission just gave up and handed them in. It was a sad thing to witness.

    Haz.
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Caf, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    Haz. wrote:
    I love that quote, (Luke 22:36) and use it all the time where ever possible especially when the anties put up "Thou shalt not kill" as their argument against self defence.

    Somehow they confuse murder with bearing arms. It would do them good to take the bible in it's entirety, and Selah. I'm having a brain fart, help me with this one:

    "If someone comes to kill you, rise quickly and kill him first"

    I know Exodus speaks alot about this but can't seem to pin it down.


Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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