LugerForum Discussion Forums - Taking a swipe at the "anti's"

LugerForum Discussion Forums (https://forum.lugerforum.com/index.php)

- General Discussions (https://forum.lugerforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=128)

- - Taking a swipe at the "anti's" (https://forum.lugerforum.com/showthread.php?t=7024)

Jack, IMO the second amendment is the only constituional insurance that the citizens of this country have to guarantee that we can keep the rest of the bill of rights from being taken away from us. It is indispensable...

The sunset of the 1994 weapons ban is hopefully an indicator that the American people are waking up... it is unfortunate that it was necessary that they experience a horrible act of terrorism as their wakeup call...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by John Sabato:
Jack, IMO the second amendment is the only constituional insurance that the citizens of this country have to guarantee that we can keep the rest of the bill of rights from being taken away from us. It is indispensable...<hr /></blockquote>This is the point I am trying to make. Sorry I didn't make myself more clear. Believing "that the second ammendment has outlived its usefelness, the U.S. government is incapable of tyranny, and that all self-evident rights have become self-preserving as well" is all part of the mindset of the urban masses I made reference to in my first post post on this thread.

People are free to believe it if they so choose (this is America), no matter how nonsensical the notion may be. If you oppose the second ammendment, you must oppose it in its entirity, stand against its original intent, and act to have it repealed. If the Congress can ever muster enough votes for the repeal, the battle will have long been over.

Have I totally confused everyone yet? All I know is that it makes sense to me :confused: <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ...sort of <img border="0" alt="[soapbox]" title="" src="graemlins/soapbox.gif" />

Jack

Post deleted. Thanks for letting me rant. Happy Hour lasted way tooooo long last night. G. W. Gill

Hi folks, below is reproduced from the Australian Firearms Discussion Forum how the anti-gun mind-set is engineered in the masses.
--------------------------------------------------
Attn all Firearm Owners....incl SSAA management !

Be Alert be ALARMED ! We are now being targetted as terrorists. FACT.

I advise one and all to get a hold of the Sydney Daily Telegraph page 26. It
may be in each state rags too. The FULL PAGE ad is titled "HELP PROTECT
AUSTRALIA FROM TERRORISM". If SSAA management can get onto it, all well and
good.

In this new ad for phone number 1800 123 400, there is a montage map of
Australia, with things to be alert and alarmed about.

Look at the map around Adelaide.

The is a torso, wearing jeans, a shirt or jacket, and carrying a SPORTING
FIREARM or SHOTTIE. Cant tell for sure what firearm it is.

The torso, IS NOT carrying an AK47, an RPG, a decapitated head, or dressed
like Osama Bin Loader. He or she is carrying a SPORTING FIREARM.

I think we should all get on board and either
(a) get the SSAA to change or PULL the ad
(b) do (a) and get a full page apology in the same paper.
(c) let the AFP know that they have just slandered the SSAA membership, and
we p*ssed off.

-----------------------------------------------
According to the Australian Federal Police, people concerned about terrorists in this country should be on the look-out for people wearing jeans and carrying sporting firearms!

Note the mental link being suggested - gun=bad
guy

Apparently the Sporting Shooter's Association of Australia are aware of this ad and are jumping up and down about it.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by John -Melb:

The is a torso, wearing jeans, a shirt or jacket, and carrying a SPORTING FIREARM or SHOTTIE. Cant tell for sure what firearm it is.

The torso, IS NOT carrying an AK47, an RPG, a decapitated head, or dressed like Osama Bin Loader. He or she is carrying a SPORTING FIREARM.<hr /></blockquote>At the risk of becoming an annoyance (and PLEASE let me know if this is how I am being perceived), this comment strikes at the heart of MY argument. SPORTING ARMS have very little to do with the second ammendment. The ORIGINAL INTENT of the second ammendment is NOT to ensure the legality of sporting firearms and the enjoyment of hunting for future generations. The ORIGINAL INTENT is to ensure an equality between the citizens and their government.

Trust me, you would not want to face today's modern SWAT teams with an over/under and a Remington Model 700. If you are defending the second ammendment, you cause as much harm as good by differentiating between SPORTING and PERSONAL DEFENSE firearms. PERSONAL DEFENSE firearms are the ones most connected to and protected by our second ammendment. Like I stated on a previous post on this thread, "self-evident truths of the second ammendment kind are a little scary for some, really scary for most." A classic "anti" tactic is to espouse affection for SPORTING FIREARMS. You play into their hands by bolstering this distinction. It then becomes easier to "ban" the "bad ones", the ones which stand ready to resist tyranny.

Problem with my argument is that it becomes SO EASY for the antis to paint you as one who wishes to overthrow the government. In my case, this couldn't be further from the truth. I wish Americans remain faithful to the second ammendment so that I DON'T EVER have to work to overthow the government.

Jack

P.S. John-Melb,
I am aware that Australia does not operate under the auspices of the U.S. Constitution (in particular our Bill of Rights). I am using your post to illustrate what I believe is an attitude indicative of a losing long-term strategy often employed by well intentioned defenders of our second ammendment.

Bravo Jack Lawman... very eloquently said...