Another WAVE "poll"

They unfriended me and deleted my post also...guess the facts hurt...

bnhcomputing said:

WE must make the argument for when a fence sitter happens by he/she will see both side, not just the anti argument.

Click to expand...

Except that they've been deleting a lot of our rational, fact-supported, pro-self-defense posts.
Guess they only like the 1A for themselves, eh?

It has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Non-government entities are free to censor as they will.

And the First Amendment's 'Establishment Clause' has nothing to do with "the separation of church and state."

Doug Huffman said:

It has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Non-government entities are free to censor as they will.

And the First Amendment's 'Establishment Clause' has nothing to do with "the separation of church and state."

Click to expand...

You are RIGHT on the money here Doug! WAVE is PRO Censorship!

I have not been banned, yet! and I have been having a very in depth discussion with a guy named Patrick over at the WAVE discussion page.
F-B is currently down, so I will finish up with him when it is available again.
BTW, Jeri B. Apologized for deleting the posts (She says her helpers did it, not her and either way it was a mistake on their part)
She also states she hopes to meet common ground with us freedom loving folk. (My words, not hers)

So I will continue to spread truth there and hopefully be able to turn a few fence-sitters the way of freedom.
I'll keep you updated

I believe this is where "separation" came from

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. Thomas Jefferson

Click to expand...

Although it doesn't use the exact words in the constitution, it is what some of the founders for sure believed in.

I think that you are correct about the author/origin - but it ain't constitution, law or originalist jurisprudence. The United States of America is a Judeo-Christian nation. Read Angelo Codevilla's The Character of Nations.

Dictatorship Model?

bnhcomputing said:

....

The WAVE people have ENDED the debate and are removing any pro-rights comments from the posts. Apparently, WAVE stands against the free exchange of ideas as well. ....

Click to expand...

They must be following a do-it-yourself manual from one of the dictatorships; "Only allow the masses to read the party line through propaganda and strict censorship of independent thought."

Doug Huffman said:

I think that you are correct about the author/origin - but it ain't constitution, law or originalist jurisprudence. The United States of America is a Judeo-Christian nation. Read Angelo Codevilla's The Character of Nations.

Click to expand...

With respect, I believe it carries weight, if only because of lack of writing on the subject at the time. Not as much weight; as say, the federalist papers of course.

Jefferson is often quoted on this forum and by many constitutional scholars, and is indeed one of my favorites. I can dig up some more but I believe he was intensely against the government having anything to do with a mans religion.

I suppose I should get back OT though. Sorry for the detour.

Or OCDO Rule (12) as expanded to protect approved gun 'bloggers.

I agree, government should have nothing to do with religion, including building extra-legal "walls" and education.

Nutczak said:

I have not been banned, yet! and I have been having a very in depth discussion with a guy named Patrick over at the WAVE discussion page.
.......
Jeri B. Apologized for deleting the posts (She says her helpers did it, not her and either way it was a mistake on their part)
She also states she hopes to meet common ground with us freedom loving folk. (My words, not hers)

So I will continue to spread truth there and hopefully be able to turn a few fence-sitters the way of freedom.
I'll keep you updated

Click to expand...

Keep with the missionary work. That ol' Jer B. Quite the name dropper. Saying a PPK-32 is better than a Davis. You won't find a "Davis" for sale at Bud's. Guess she was recollecting one of the great victories over the evil gun manufacturers.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_history_of_Davis_Industries_Firearms

I just love how they disable the comments on their FB page and in any articles they print.

hey guys, I have not been banned from WAVE's discussion (yet), And I hope to keep it that way too.
I am sure we all agree that we need to disarm the criminals, and keep firearms out of their hands in the first place.
But I am making it very clear that the law-abiding citizen who takes responsibility for the safety of themselves and their loved ones are not the people that they need to be concerned about or be in fear from.

I have kept my end of the discussion very civil and to the point. I am not throwing insults around, I am not trying to belittle anyone, I am using simple logic. Basically doing everything opposite of our own sword-wielding OCDO member.

Nutczak said:

hey guys, I have not been banned from WAVE's discussion (yet), And I hope to keep it that way too.
I am sure we all agree that we need to disarm the criminals, and keep firearms out of their hands in the first place.
But I am making it very clear that the law-abiding citizen who takes responsibility for the safety of themselves and their loved ones are not the people that they need to be concerned about or be in fear from.

I have kept my end of the discussion very civil and to the point. I am not throwing insults around, I am not trying to belittle anyone, I am using simple logic. Basically doing everything opposite of our own sword-wielding OCDO member.

Click to expand...

Nice job, Nutczak. Keep up the good work!

Nutczak said:

hey guys, I have not been banned from WAVE's discussion (yet), And I hope to keep it that way too.
I am sure we all agree that we need to disarm the criminals, and keep firearms out of their hands in the first place.
But I am making it very clear that the law-abiding citizen who takes responsibility for the safety of themselves and their loved ones are not the people that they need to be concerned about or be in fear from.

I have kept my end of the discussion very civil and to the point. I am not throwing insults around, I am not trying to belittle anyone, I am using simple logic. Basically doing everything opposite of our own sword-wielding OCDO member.

Click to expand...

I do not own, nor do I know how to wield, a sword. I also don't recollect and do not believe I was throwing insults around. Either way, enjoy talking to the wall and let us know if you ever get anywhere cause for some reason they don't want to talk to most of us.

I just tried posting there, but it seems FB times out your posts.

bnhcomputing said:

I do not own, nor do I know how to wield, a sword. I also don't recollect and do not believe I was throwing insults around. Either way, enjoy talking to the wall and let us know if you ever get anywhere cause for some reason they don't want to talk to most of us.

Click to expand...

(I don't think he meant you.)

The Don said:

(I don't think he meant you.)

Click to expand...

Exactly, I was not speaking of Hubert.

These people very simply seem to be misinformed. they have gotten the idea that we are out looking for trouble or that we wanna play cops and bad guys. I can understand their thought process if all they ever heard about guns and people who choose to own guns was from the VPC and their offspring groups like WAVE.
They just need to be told the truth from the other side (Meaning Us) not what Jeri and the Joyce foundation has filled their heads with.

One of the people in the discussion put forward a scenario where he asked what I would do if I walked into a store with several people "Waving Guns About" but only one of them was the "perp" and asked which one would I know to shoot.

I replied that I would not shoot, I would leave if possible, and call the police, If I was unable to leave I would try everything available to me to deescalate the situation. I then explained that the last thing any of us ever wants to do is be forced to draw our firearm to defend ourselves. That we do not look for trouble, but instead try at all costs to avoid it.

They keep using the term "Need a gun" and I reply with I hope I never do "Need" to use it in defense of myself or loved ones. It is the same way with seat belts, car insurance, and fire extinguishers, we never want to "Need" them, but instead to just have them available to us.

Flipper said:

Keep with the missionary work. That ol' Jer B. Quite the name dropper. Saying a PPK-32 is better than a Davis. You won't find a "Davis" for sale at Bud's. Guess she was recollecting one of the great victories over the evil gun manufacturers.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_history_of_Davis_Industries_Firearms

Click to expand...

Weird that JB names Hiltler's suicide gun (PPK 7.65 Browning aka .32 ACP) even though it is generally considered barely adequate as a defense caliber. Maybe she is a James Bond fan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_PP

Defensive caliber discussion:

http://www.shoot-n-iron.com/calibers-for-defense.asp