close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

2nd Amendment isn't about hunting

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by Logansdad, Jun 23, 2002.

  1. Logansdad

    Logansdad Guest

    It's about being able to fight tyranny. In the 1770's the vast majority of people weren't unhappy enough with the King to raise arms against his troops. It was treason to openly suggest it..a hanging offense. The Revolution was not popular with society at that time...nobody wanted to raise a fuss or call attention to themselves.:eek: Do you read your paycheck stubs ? Are you happy with the government you are paying heavily for ? :mad: They didn't pay taxes like ours back then and they took up arms :fuss: That's what that tea party was all about :nod: A relatively small but very vocal group
    of people pass laws about the environment, or make school policy but we just sit and complain about it to each other....Preaching at the choir as my father the Reverend would say...We need to write letters (not e-mail or phone calls) because they get the idea that we really mean it :mad: because we sat down and took the time to put it in writing and send it through the mail :nod:
     
  2. Armorer

    Armorer Guest

    If you were to get dressed up, board a ship, and throw its cargo overboard.

    You would be hunted down for being a terrorist.

    And a litter bug!
     

  3. NRAJOE

    NRAJOE YOU TALKIN' TO ME!? Forum Contributor

    Right on! I still write snail mail.
     
  4. BenP

    BenP G&G Newbie

    The difference between us and the colonials is we elect people to represent us at the law-making level who then decide on the taxes or not, or they appoint other people to make those decisions. If you did not vote for the person that won the election, then you are in the minority, and you're stuck with the outcome because majority rules,(both in the voting booth and on the battlefield). Our constitution was written so that our government would enforce the will of the majority while respecting the rights of the minority. That means there are certain things (like taxes, conscription, commerce) where the majority dictate what will be, but other things (like access to government services, gun ownership, publications, religion), where the minority get their way, regardless of majority consent.

    The colonials faced a dicatatorship, where whatever the king, and consequently, the governors desired, the colonists were enjoined to provide or were denied.

    The problem is the promulgation of so many laws that it is impossible to hold a politician accountable any longer. How do the majority know who to elect? If we elect someone who espouses a conservative platform in their campaign, how do we then control them if they should adopt a liberal policy after innauguration? They cannot be impeached because they changed their political views, yet the majority is not served as was intended by the vote. We are stuck with them and their turncoat ways for at least four years. However, if the winning party cannot put up a suitable conservative to defeat the incumbent, then we are stuck for another four years to follow.
     
  5. Logansdad

    Logansdad Guest

    I am definitely not a fan of party switchers... there was a slimey little liberal democrat up in Georgia who waited until the Republican party decided to back him... then he switched to Democrat so he could run unopposed in his district...
     
  6. Logansdad

    Logansdad Guest

    Sic Semper Tyrannis
     
  7. Rave

    Rave G&G Evangelist

    IMHO the constitution is just a piece of paper with good intentions with out the second ammendment and good armed men to back it up.
    God,guns and guts is what will get us through this current mess we are in.Without all three.......well I really don't want to go there!
    Keep the faith!:nod: :nod: :nod: :cool: