This Can't Be-California Democratics Banned It

bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by oscardeuce http:///t/388457/this-cant-be-california-democratics-banned-it/140#post_3428800
Yup,
"Radicals" like Washington, Jefferson, Hancock, Adams, Franklin... Thank God from them all. I I believe as they do, then call me a radical. If I believe in the Constitution and Declaration of Independance, call me a radical. If I believe in following the law call me a radical ( or racist if referring to immigration LAW).
I too will protect my rights with whatever weapon at hand: the pen, the vote or the gun.
What NRA web site did you steal that from? Half those individuals used to own slaves, but I suppose they weren't racist. When those individuals were writing the 2nd, they based their ideolgies on what just happened to them and the country they just freed. They wanted to insure citizens in America had the opputunity to protect themselves from foreign invaders. I don't think they would've ever imagined that little amendement would end up causing the highest number of casualties of American citizens in the history of this country. I also don't think they envisined that people would have to subject themselves to protecting their property and lives against fellow Americans to the degree you people think.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/388457/this-cant-be-california-democratics-banned-it/140#post_3428791
only a racist feels the need to defend the actions or how the are perceived.someone content and comfortable with themselves would not go through the list.
darth (everyone knows someone on the internet) Tang
Then mantis is the biggest racist on this forum. He seems to try to vaildate his "love" for the Hispanics in Arizona.
Bionic (Darth's family probably owned slaves) Arm
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/388457/this-cant-be-california-democratics-banned-it/140#post_3428815
Give me liberty or give me a liberal politician to take my Constitutional rights because I'm a scaredy cat who's too afraid to live with fellow citizens being armed. Isn't that what Patrick Henry said?
The Constitution wasn't written yet when Patrick Henry made his somewhat famous statement. Historians today observe that Henry was known to have used fear of Indian and slave revolts in promoting military action against the British. If he'd lived today, he would've probably got his head blown off the first time he walked through Harlem, with or without a weapon. I'm sure you're not afraid of anything. You have a sidearm and an itchy trigger finger. If I confronted you face-to-face and badgered you about your gun beliefs, I'd probably find myself in your local morgue.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

Then mantis is the biggest racist on this forum.  He seems to try to vaildate his "love" for the Hispanics in Arizona.
 
Bionic (Darth's family probably owned slaves) Arm
you are correct. i am part cherokee...cherokee owned slaves. cherokee also took scalps. What exactly does this have to do with a gun rights discusion. i love how you have been unable to prove any of your claims with a shred of evidence other than hearsay. so inturn you continue with the race card. i do however commend your attempt to get this thread locked. it is after all your only way out of the discusion at this point.
darth (smokin peacepipe) Tang
 
bigarn

bigarn

Active Member
I would have locked this thread years ago. Wait .. did i say years? Where the hell am i and how did i get here?!!
big (????) arn
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

I would have locked this thread years ago. Wait .. did i say years? Where the hell am i and how did i get here?!!

big (????) arn
how do you keep getting out?
darth (damn orderlies) Tang
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/388457/this-cant-be-california-democratics-banned-it/140#post_3428790
Is that a bible? Noticed it doesn't show his head. Probably good thing. If it did, he'd look exactly like a Jihad over in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only a radical would resort to violence with a weapon to protect his/her freedoms. If it gets to that, let me know where to send the flowers. You wouldn't stand a chance against our military.
Good thing those who founded the country didn't have that cowardly attitude. I'm not too concerned about the military. Most I've ever met have the same attitude I do about the government taking away out rights.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/388457/this-cant-be-california-democratics-banned-it/160#post_3428845
you are correct. i am part cherokee...cherokee owned slaves. cherokee also took scalps. What exactly does this have to do with a gun rights discusion. i love how you have been unable to prove any of your claims with a shred of evidence other than hearsay. so inturn you continue with the race card. i do however commend your attempt to get this thread locked. it is after all your only way out of the discusion at this point.
darth (smokin peacepipe) Tang
I'm part Commanche. No wonder we clash. What claims haven't I proven? You saw the incident at the Academy store and the Hot Tin Roof restaurant. Sorry I couldn't find the story from the grocery store. Guess it was a slow news day.
I'm not the one keeping the race card going. You and mantis seem to be driving that bus. The reason it was even brought up was because I used that as an example of yet another ludicrous law that was enacted in Arizona. I stated that it was directly targeted against Hispanics, and somehow mantis created some backwards deduction that I hate Hispanics, which makes no sense due to the fact I think the law is wrong. If I was racist against that minority group, then it would stand to reason that I would support and applaud the law. You and mantis have a way of twisting things around when you have no argument, so it makes the other person looks like the bad guy. You've seemd to take the "pro" on the lax of gun control, yet you don't even own a gun. But you keep the comments coming because "I might want to own a gun again some day". Stick with the bow and arrow. Your ancestors would be proud.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/388457/this-cant-be-california-democratics-banned-it/160#post_3428860
Good thing those who founded the country didn't have that cowardly attitude. I'm not too concerned about the military. Most I've ever met have the same attitude I do about the government taking away out rights.
Ah, so our military is filled with traitors. Wonder if their superiors know of their attitudes. Desertion and not obeying the orders of the Commander In Chief is subject to execution.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/388457/this-cant-be-california-democratics-banned-it/160#post_3428828
What NRA web site did you steal that from? Half those individuals used to own slaves, but I suppose they weren't racist. When those individuals were writing the 2nd, they based their ideolgies on what just happened to them and the country they just freed. They wanted to insure citizens in America had the opputunity to protect themselves from foreign invaders. I don't think they would've ever imagined that little amendement would end up causing the highest number of casualties of American citizens in the history of this country. I also don't think they envisined that people would have to subject themselves to protecting their property and lives against fellow Americans to the degree you people think.
I see you played the racist card again.
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
"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.
"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 178
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/388457/this-cant-be-california-democratics-banned-it/160#post_3428876
Ah, so our military is filled with traitors. Wonder if their superiors know of their attitudes. Desertion and not obeying the orders of the Commander In Chief is subject to execution.
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

I'm part Commanche.  No wonder we clash.  What claims haven't I proven?  You saw the incident at the Academy store and the Hot Tin Roof restaurant.  Sorry I couldn't find the story from the grocery store.  Guess it was a slow news day. 
 
I'm not the one keeping the race card going.  You and mantis seem to be driving that bus.  The reason it was even brought up was because I used that as an example of yet another ludicrous law that was enacted in Arizona.  I stated that it was directly targeted against Hispanics, and somehow mantis created some backwards deduction that I hate Hispanics, which makes no sense due to the fact I think the law is wrong.  If I was racist against that minority group, then it would stand to reason that I would support and applaud the law.  You and mantis have a way of twisting things around when you have no argument, so it makes the other person looks like the bad guy.  You've seemd to take the "pro" on the lax of gun control, yet you don't even own a gun.  But you keep the comments coming because "I might want to own a gun again some day".  Stick with the bow and arrow.  Your ancestors would be proud. 
 
go back and read my comments and show me where i called you racist?
nice comment at the end....classy. is that a racially charged comment?
the law is no more racially charged than a law against crack cocaine. just because a specific group of people are the primary violators of the law, does not make it a racist law. in fact, up until 30 years ago, the illegal immigrant was primarily white...and and ilegal immigration was against the law then as well. ig wasn't until the demographic changed that people became sensitive to the race of illegal immigration.
darth (i killed custer) Tang
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/388457/this-cant-be-california-democratics-banned-it/160#post_3428880
I see you played the racist card again.
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
"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.
"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 178
Nice quotes from guys who died over 200 years ago. They just got over fighting the tyranny of England. A foreign aggressor. The last time Americans "protected themselves against tyranny in government" over 50,000 of them lost their lives. Do it today, and you can double that amount, if not more. All for the protection of a right. Welcome to the Medival Age.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/388457/this-cant-be-california-democratics-banned-it/160#post_3428884
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
What part of " and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice" don't you understand?
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/388457/this-cant-be-california-democratics-banned-it/160#post_3428828
What NRA web site did you steal that from? Half those individuals used to own slaves, but I suppose they weren't racist. When those individuals were writing the 2nd, they based their ideolgies on what just happened to them and the country they just freed. They wanted to insure citizens in America had the opputunity to protect themselves from foreign invaders. I don't think they would've ever imagined that little amendement would end up causing the highest number of casualties of American citizens in the history of this country. I also don't think they envisined that people would have to subject themselves to protecting their property and lives against fellow Americans to the degree you people think.
Bionic,
I wrote that. No web site, no politician, just my expression of Free Speech. Thanks for thinking it was so good I stole it. Have you read any of the founding fathers' thoughts on slavery? Even those who owned them? Please read their own words, then get back to me. Read about the arguments over slavery, and how the country was built not to abolish slavery at the time, but to bringabout that Change in time. If you read you might be surprised how the founders were more worried about the People defending against an out of control gov't rather than a foreign enemy. Was it not President Obama who stated that the biggest problems with the Constitution was not the rights granted to the People, but rather the limitations on the government?
I guess I should ask which liberal web site you stole the "they were old white slave owners" argument from. I never said they were perfect, or the society in which they lived was perfect. Yet they did what they thought had to be done, and ultimately we were able to abolish slavery. We even passed civil rights legislation over the democrats ( see Al Gore Sr.).
Liberty and private property rights ( ideas, land money) lead to some of the greatest leaps in tech over the last 150 years. Did Edison or Jobs work for the feds? Yeah I know next comes the "they want dirty air water and anarchy argument. No I want a small COnstitutional gov't and regulations which have to pass Congress rather than some appointed hack.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/388457/this-cant-be-california-democratics-banned-it/160#post_3428914
Nice quotes from guys who died over 200 years ago. They just got over fighting the tyranny of England. A foreign aggressor. The last time Americans "protected themselves against tyranny in government" over 50,000 of them lost their lives. Do it today, and you can double that amount, if not more. All for the protection of a right. Welcome to the Medival Age.
What foreign aggressor would that be? They were English subjects. They fought their own country for the right to form a new one.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/388457/this-cant-be-california-democratics-banned-it/160#post_3428914
Nice quotes from guys who died over 200 years ago. They just got over fighting the tyranny of England. A foreign aggressor. The last time Americans "protected themselves against tyranny in government" over 50,000 of them lost their lives. Do it today, and you can double that amount, if not more. All for the protection of a right. Welcome to the Medival Age.
England would not have been a foreign agressor. It was more of a civil war against their own gov't. The Colonies had to declare independance from and fight to win that independance from their own tyrannical gov't, not a "foreign" gov't.
As to dying to "protect a right", you better go to a Memorial Day ceremony, as hundreds of thousands of men and women have done just that.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/388457/this-cant-be-california-democratics-banned-it/160#post_3428915
What part of " and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice" don't you understand?
Their oath to uphold the constitution of the United states against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Do you seriously think officers would follow an order they knew to be in violation of the US constitution? Military code of justice requires soldiers to follow all L A W F U L L orders. Pretty simple concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top