Snipers Hide Bans Politics

[bow shot]

Thanks kindly folks. I have the same affection for the brethren here because of the excellent debate skills and unusual and pleasent lack of malice. We're a great bunch, aren't we? LOL!!!

My son is ok. 'Had a bad night jump and is suffering all kinds of bad effects as well as that which is induced by Army medical. 'But he's a great guy, with an endurance level and lack of self pity for which I have great respect. I wish he'd run for office...

[bwaites]

I spend more time moderating the 2A forum than all the others put together. I basically have to read every post in every thread to make sure it stays within reasonable bounds.

This IS a technical forum, but when you have a firearms forum and then forbid people to talk about the 2nd Amendment it seems like you may be on the wrong side. Reasonable discourse is possible, and generally you guys do a great job.

My one piece of advice is this: Attack the post, do not attack the poster! This is and should always remain a family friendly forum, and if it isn't we'll shut it down. The people here are drawn by their attraction to the Grendel, and as such we should all enjoy each others viewpoints. Please keep it that way!

[bwaites]

To the Democrats I know, and to anyone else who may be listening.

I don’t want to destroy your party, in fact, I don’t like the Republican party much either. The simple truth is that both parties have strayed so far from their founding principles that no one on the outside recognizes either one!

We have allowed our government to stray far from what was intended. It has grown and bloated itself upon the greatness and success of its people. While we prospered, we ignored that bloat, looking at our government as some benign Uncle, our Uncle Sam, which led to those elected officials believing one of two things; either we didn’t care what they did, or we wouldn’t do anything about it if we did care. So far, they have been right!

You see, we handed power to people through elections, and we thought we had chosen wisely, and we didn’t pay attention. But governments are never benign, because they are made up of people. Governments aren’t some THING, they are PEOPLE. And then the people that we elected did what people ALWAYS do when they are handed power, they abused that power. A little bit at first, but then more and more. And now we have come to a crossroads, and we are not sure we are up to the task of fixing it.

This isn’t a Democrat thing, it’s not a Republican thing, it’s a people thing. Republicans are no more immune to power and its use than are Democrats. History is replete with men from both parties who behaved badly.

Conservatives are beginning to realize, although slowly, that the major parties are beyond fixing, and that something else must take place to put the train back on its tracks.

And so we are starting to understand that the solution does not lie in fixing government, it lies in LIMITING it. We must return to the government envisioned by our Founding Fathers; a small, streamlined government whose first priority is not MORE, but less. We must create a government willing to return greatness to the people, who created that greatness. We must limit the money they have, the power they employ. We must return the government to the people.

I am asking you to reassess what has happened, examine and re-examine your views. In light of the lies about the IRS, the AP information seizure, the lies told about Benghazi, and so many others. I don’t think that electing Romney would have changed much, the lies are too big, the government too vast. But this administration has proven that the government no longer cares about its people. We are, as I posted earlier and read in a discussion elsewhere, “No longer a country with a government, but a government with a country.”

The lesson is that our governing class is no better than us, and in fact may be MORE susceptible to the temptation of misuse of power than we are. Our Founding Fathers designed our government to thwart those who would try to take over all power, but we have allowed that design to be corrupted, and the Democrat Party, in particular, has tried all in its power to do so. Thus, it must be stopped. BUT…so must the Republicans, and anyone else who would attempt to do so.

It is human nature to desire power and control, and our Founding Fathers understood that much better than we apparently do. Benjamin Franklin foresaw that issue, when he said, in answer to a question about what kind of government they had accomplished, “A Republic, ma’am, if you can keep it!” Not a democracy, not a democratic republic, A REPUBLIC.

But my great fear is in another Benjamin Franklin quote, and it is this: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. ” I fear that is where our nation has now arrived.

We need to return to the plans of our Founding Fathers, who set in motion the greatest nation to ever exist.

We can be great again, but not without virtue and liberty, and they go hand in hand.

[Deer Hunter]

DAMN SKIPPY! Right on the money bwaites. When reading quotes from our Forefathers its obvious they KNEW exactly what a monster WE would become as a Country as well as the GODZILLA that our Govt would become. We are at a crossroads in history and I dont mind telling you that for the first time in my life I fear for America.

[montana]

bwaites, that was exactly my thoughts, WELL DONE :}

[COTNTOP]

Could not be put better(bwaites). I am a Repub and working hard as hell to make a change. Check out our NC governor and his progress and the resistance from the Dems. Will not give up on our great country. Not proud of the Repubs and their track records, but they are the only crowd that are batting for us. Being PROUD seems to be all that is left for a traditional type of man.

[Variable]

Nailed it Bill!!!

[Nukes]

"...you would not have the separation of church and state here...

I'd argue that separation accounts for much of what is wrong in this nation. This nation would do better to have 10 Commandments and dump the nearly 3 million man-made malum prohibitum and pilpul.

...their income, ...best business model, and is their right.

At the same time, their "don't step on 'for sale' posts" policy finds no shortage of used gear being offered (sold?) for too close to (and occasionally exceeding) retail prices. What some call "best business model" is not always a moral business model.

[bwaites]

I'd argue that separation accounts for much of what is wrong in this nation. This nation would do better to have 10 Commandments and dump the nearly 3 million man-made malum prohibitum and pilpul.

There is a misunderstanding of the First Amendment that has been propagated for decades. It simply states that Congress should make no law establishing a religion or abridge the rights of free practice of religion. That is by no means the same as banning any religious impact upon laws, although it has been interpreted that way. I find it very disingenuous that people quote Jefferson on the "wall of separation between church and state" and then ignore his writings on the 2nd Amendment.

I'll certainly agree with Nukes on the 10 Commandments, and then add only two; Love thy neighbor as thyself. And, do unto others as you would have done unto you.

[BjornF16]

There is a misunderstanding of the First Amendment that has been propagated for decades. It simply states that Congress should make no law establishing a religion or abridge the rights of free practice of religion. That is by no means the same as banning any religious impact upon laws, although it has been interpreted that way. I find it very disingenuous that people quote Jefferson on the "wall of separation between church and state" and then ignore his writings on the 2nd Amendment.

I'll certainly agree with Nukes on the 10 Commandments, and then add only two; Love thy neighbor as thyself. And, do unto others as you would have done unto you.

I'll agree with Nukes and you both on this one…I was schooled by my in-law on the 1st Amendment back in '85…and I've studied the origins of the first two amendments quite a bit since. I have a copy of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (in response to their letter to him) which features the first known usage of the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in context of the 1A (and used as the basis of the SCOTUS ruling in 1947 in Everson v Board of Education).

Historically, several of the individual states practiced "establishment" of religions; and several states discriminated against certain denominations within their state (even after the Republic was formed). What was "verboten" was the Federal government establishing and discriminating…

As Bwaites said, there has been a lot of mis-interpreting of the 1A…unfortunately, this was propagated by Justice Black in the 1947 case which is where the non-sense started placing restrictions on prayer in school, etc.

The clear intent of the establishment clause was to keep the federal government (i.e. Congress) from passing a law that would establish a "Church of America" (similar to the Church of England which is what concerned the Danbury Baptists, since Thomas Jefferson was an Episcopalian) to the detriment of other denominations.

- Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association:
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.

However much I like Jefferson, particularly his quotes on the 1A and 2A, I like to remind folks that he did not directly participate in the Constitutional Convention as he was busy in France. That is not to say he wasn't influential, particularly his hand in the State of Virginia's constitution which was referenced by the Constitutional Conventioneers...

[cory]

There is a misunderstanding of the First Amendment that has been propagated for decades. It simply states that Congress should make no law establishing a religion or abridge the rights of free practice of religion. That is by no means the same as banning any religious impact upon laws, although it has been interpreted that way. I find it very disingenuous that people quote Jefferson on the "wall of separation between church and state" and then ignore his writings on the 2nd Amendment.

My thoughts exactly!

[cory]

I'll agree with Nukes and you both on this one…I was schooled by my in-law on the 1st Amendment back in '85…and I've studied the origins of the first two amendments quite a bit since. I have a copy of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (in response to their letter to him) which features the first known usage of the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in context of the 1A (and used as the basis of the SCOTUS ruling in 1947 in Everson v Board of Education).

Historically, several of the individual states practiced "establishment" of religions; and several states discriminated against certain denominations within their state (even after the Republic was formed). What was "verboten" was the Federal government establishing and discriminating…

As Bwaites said, there has been a lot of mis-interpreting of the 1A…unfortunately, this was propagated by Justice Black in the 1947 case which is where the non-sense started placing restrictions on prayer in school, etc.

The clear intent of the establishment clause was to keep the federal government (i.e. Congress) from passing a law that would establish a "Church of America" (similar to the Church of England which is what concerned the Danbury Baptists, since Thomas Jefferson was an Episcopalian) to the detriment of other denominations.



However much I like Jefferson, particularly his quotes on the 1A and 2A, I like to remind folks that he did not directly participate in the Constitutional Convention as he was busy in France. That is not to say he wasn't influential, particularly his hand in the State of Virginia's constitution which was referenced at the Constitutional Conventioneers...

Well said, but you did leave out the part where Freedom of Religion was in large part about preventing a religion from gaining a strong arm on the American government like the Pope did to Europe for several centuries.

[bwaites]

Well said, but you did leave out the part where Freedom of Religion was in large part about preventing a religion from gaining a strong arm on the American government like the Pope did to Europe for several centuries.

Actually, although the Roman Catholic Church dominated Europe and European politics for 1000+ years, the colonists were more worried about a Church of England situation, since the vast majority had association with the Church of England, and Bjorn does point that out.

Remember, books and information re: history was much less disseminated at the time, because books cost so much to print. They had direct experience with the Church of England, and much less with the Pope and Catholicism, since most of them were Northern Europeans and predominantly Protestant English/Scotch/Irish.

[cory]

Actually, although the Roman Catholic Church dominated Europe and European politics for 1000+ years, the colonists were more worried about a Church of England situation, since the vast majority had association with the Church of England, and Bjorn does point that out.

Remember, books and information re: history was much less disseminated at the time, because books cost so much to print. They had direct experience with the Church of England, and much less with the Pope and Catholicism, since most of them were Northern Europeans and predominantly Protestant English/Scotch/Irish.

I agree the population as a whole was ignorant of World History. However, it becomes clear, at least it did to me, when you read the constitution that our Fore Fathers who wrote it had an exceptional understanding of History and Human Psychology.

[BjornF16]

Well said, but you did leave out the part where Freedom of Religion was in large part about preventing a religion from gaining a strong arm on the American government like the Pope did to Europe for several centuries.

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree (because I'm not exactly sure what you mean)…

I would answer by saying the Founding Fathers never intended to keep religion out of government (or the public square), but rather the federal government out of religion.

[bow shot]

Agree, Nukes.. and all!

Great thread!

Yes, Danbury.. not Andover... oops!! My apologies to our Fathers.

[LRRPF52]

Interesting that you cited Justice Black's input on the 1947 SCOTUS decision. I think we need to re-visit and expunge any decisions that Justice Hugo Black ruled on where he was part of the majority, simply for the fact that he was a proud and open member of the KKK before and after he became a Senator from Alabama.

He was also a virulent anti-Catholic, and helped get a murderer out of the consequences of killing a Catholic priest when he was just a lowly scumbag defense attorney.

[Nukes]

...He was also a virulent anti-Catholic, and helped get a murderer out of the consequences of killing a Catholic priest when he was just a lowly scumbag defense attorney.

The priest had converted Stephenson the murderer's daughter to Catholicism. His argument to the jury boiled down to, "Wouldn't you do the same if a priest converted your daughter?"

[customcutter]

The other problem is that many gun owners tend towards the libertarian side. And many libertarians tend to not have learned how to play well with others. They act like a bunch of hardshell baptists (they know the truth and the rest of us are "sinners").

I am a conservative baptist. No offense taken. However, you should know by now that we are all "sinners". You can only know the "truth" by studying the "truth".

CC