DaVinci 0 #101 August 2, 2012 QuoteYou say; "Ignore", I say; "Compromise". is it the ideal situation? No. But is it better than having NO 2nd Amendment? Yes. Your link does not support your goal. You took an oath to defend the Constitution.... Not to 'compromise' when it looks easier. QuoteBut is it better than having NO 2nd Amendment? Yes. You are supporting giving anti-gunners something they want while Pro-gunners lose a right. You should be smart enough to know that they do not stop trying to take away rights.... You will give up one right at a time till you have nothing. At one time, England had a right to bear arms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #102 August 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteYou say; "Ignore", I say; "Compromise". is it the ideal situation? No. But is it better than having NO 2nd Amendment? Yes. Your link does not support your goal. You took an oath to defend the Constitution.... Not to 'compromise' when it looks easier. QuoteBut is it better than having NO 2nd Amendment? Yes. You are supporting giving anti-gunners something they want while Pro-gunners lose a right. You should be smart enough to know that they do not stop trying to take away rights.... You will give up one right at a time till you have nothing. At one time, England had a right to bear arms. Oh, I did not know you had it all figured out and the rest of us are just babbling away. It is enlightening to see that you defend some limits of some rights and in other right want no limits. Have you taken this same oath? Do you do, as you say I do not? MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #103 August 2, 2012 Quote Oh, I did not know you had it all figured out and the rest of us are just babbling away All I have said is you are going against the Founding Fathers intentions and against your own personal oath of enlistment. I have backed that up with data. QuoteIt is enlightening to see that you defend some limits of some rights and in other right want no limits. Go ahead, since you know me so well, list which rights I do not defend. QuoteHave you taken this same oath? Do you do, as you say I do not? I have taken the same oath. Do you see me putting limits on rights and being willing to give up rights to appease people who will never stop trying to take your rights? YOU, not me are the one saying that we should just give up our rights because it is 'easier'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #104 August 2, 2012 QuoteQuote Oh, I did not know you had it all figured out and the rest of us are just babbling away All I have said is you are going against the Founding Fathers intentions and against your own personal oath of enlistment. I have backed that up with data. QuoteIt is enlightening to see that you defend some limits of some rights and in other right want no limits. Go ahead, since you know me so well, list which rights I do not defend. QuoteHave you taken this same oath? Do you do, as you say I do not? I have taken the same oath. Do you see me putting limits on rights and being willing to give up rights to appease people who will never stop trying to take your rights? YOU, not me are the one saying that we should just give up our rights because it is 'easier'. Not true. And if you read history as you say you do, the statement of intentions is not entirely true. They understood and accepted certain limits. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #105 August 2, 2012 QuoteNot true Are you not saying that you think we should give ground to try and keep the whole? Because you said exactly that earlier. QuoteAnd if you read history as you say you do, the statement of intentions is not entirely true. They understood and accepted certain limits Please show me where the Founding Fathers expressed limits on the right to keep and bear arms that would have anything to do with the OBJECT, not INTENT. BTW, bonus points if you can find one on the very website you provided http://www.largo.org/meaning2.html QuoteQuotes from the Founding Fathers: "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, quoting Cesare Beccaria. "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." -Thomas Paine. "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8. "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." -Patrick Henry. "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788). "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87. "Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788). "...the people have a right to keep and bear arms." -Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426. "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169. "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950). "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989 at col. 1. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States...Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." -Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789. "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson. "They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785). "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778). "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison. "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, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888) Yet, you are willing to surrender my rights because it will make your life easier.... How is that not against your oath? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #106 August 2, 2012 I am not surrendering any rights, that is your fear coming out. The Intent was for us to have arms. The word Arms was used to allow for evolution, but even in the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights they had limits. And yes they said "Militia", those tend to be manned by Citizens with small arms, standing army's have heavier weapons. But I am not telling you any thing new. Why cant common sense prevail? Why must it be a double standard and argued over? I concede, you have the bigger dick. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #107 August 2, 2012 QuoteI am not surrendering any rights, that is your fear coming out. The Intent was for us to have arms. The word Arms was used to allow for evolution, but even in the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights they had limits. No. You're confusing America with other former British colonies living under The English Bill of Rights of 1689 which states "that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." with limits to avoid issues with the riff-raff rising up against a divinely ordained leader and his state religion or merely poaching the King's deer. Note Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution: The Congress shall have Power ... 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; A "letter of marque and reprisal" gives a private citizen permission to cross international boundaries and take action on behalf of the issuing country. These were granted to privateers who owned war ships with cannon so they could do battle with enemy ships including those owned and operated by opposing navies, with privateers playing roles in both the Revolutionary war and War of 1812. That would not have been possible with limits on private armament. Quote And yes they said "Militia", those tend to be manned by Citizens with small arms, standing army's have heavier weapons. But I am not telling you any thing new. Wealthy militia members owned warships and cannon. To deny that is spinning history. Quote Why cant common sense prevail? I agree. Common sense dictates that an armed populace is less vulnerable to predation by private and government sponsored actors. Reading the Constitution's plain English unveils no limits on our right to keep and bear arms. In modern times that means those of us who are less fortunate shouldn't be denied our M16s (under $1000) and guys like Bill Gates are entitled to float carrier groups if they want. It's unfortunate that "common sense" is so uncommon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #108 August 2, 2012 QuoteI am not surrendering any rights, that is your fear coming out No, it is me reading what you wrote in post 71 of this thread: "Seems fair enough. 31 rds plus for LEO and Mil, 30 and below are plenty for Comps and weekend fun. Matt" Right now you have the RIGHT to 100 round mags. The military and police can use them, but you are willing to give up that RIGHT. Sorry, but if we can have it today and you support giving that up.... It is you surrendering rights. Not a difficult concept really. QuoteThe Intent was for us to have arms. The word Arms was used to allow for evolution, but even in the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights they had limits. 2nd time I am asking..... Show me a quote from a founding father that limits an item, not an action.... If you do not, I assume it is because you CANNOT. QuoteAnd yes they said "Militia", those tend to be manned by Citizens with small arms, standing army's have heavier weapons. But I am not telling you any thing new. Please show me where a Founding Father said that a citizen could not have a cannon? QuoteWhy cant common sense prevail? Why must it be a double standard and argued over? Your idea of "common sense" is why England has been disarmed. QuoteI concede, you have the bigger dick. This just shows how pathetic your arguments and intellectual ability is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #109 August 2, 2012 Both of you cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #110 August 2, 2012 QuoteBoth of you cut it out. Sorry Bill, I tried to stay on topic and use common sense and avoid emotional outbursts. If it makes him feel better, he can be 'right", I will step out and let it go now. Gonna go clean my Rem 700, and AR, for a trip out to the range tomorrow, for a bit of a reunion with a few of the guys . MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #111 August 3, 2012 3rd time I am asking..... Show me a quote from a founding father that limits an item, not an action.... Please show me where a Founding Father said that a citizen could not have a cannon? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
