If we ever let liberals disarm us, we will lose the last bits of freedom we have left...

[forkup]

Really?
Really, prove it? Prove the lefts affiliation with the NRA. Show me an actual push by the GOP to put up more restrictions on guns? Black lives matter is a movement defended by Obama. This is more then any member of the GOP can say so again, what are you talking about.
As to what seems to be putting religion in this conversation. Not for nothing, if you have to refer to faith to substanciate your point, I don't think you have much in the way of actual arguments.

There are two people on this thread and I don't give a rip what you think. You've proven nothing and I have given factual information. Even if I bothered to document it beyond what I already have in this thread, you would deny.

"Faith" has little to do with the issue. So your reading skills are not quite up to par. You need some remedial classes in reading if you want to participate in a grown up discussion.

I will say it again and again: The United States is the only country on this planet that acknowledged the supremacy of inherent, God given, natural, unalienable, absolute Rights. A piece of paper did not grant you your Rights and those Rights are in no way dependent on the Constitution for their existence... so said our own United States Supreme Court.

Why would I deny? Not for nothing I CAN substantiate to have changed my opinion on a topic on this board when I was proven wrong. I CAN substantiate that I've admitted to be wrong on MULTIPLE occasions on certain issues on this board.
I think that's more than 90 percent of people here can say. I just request that when making a point that is challenged by the other person that you can substantiate. And using debating techniques like strawmans, appeals to emotion, deflecting or what not, will be called out. I want the strength of the argument do the talking. The fact that you seem to see it as arrogance is telling all in itself.

If you want to have ANY credibility you have to separate from the left wing canard of "strawmans, appeals to emotion, deflecting" especially when I do no such thing.

Additionally, I come here and post my opinions. There is no requirement that I substantiate anything. This is not a debate forum, and if it were, you would have been disqualified a long time ago. I don't appeal to anyone's emotion for anything; there are no strawmans and no deflecting. Avoiding people that go off the reservation in an attempt to hijack threads is not a deflection. If you want to discuss something, you are free to start a thread, invite others, and if you challenge someone, they can show up and humor you there.

I don't care whether or not this changes your mind. It's like everything else on this board; it is an opinion. If others feel the same way, we will end up on the same team. These are my words to you:

The United States was founded and became the greatest nation in the annals of history. Not too many years ago, more missionaries came from the United States than all the other countries on this planet combined. We fought more wars, lost more soldiers and spent more money in wars on foreign soil for the cause of Liberty than any country in history. We've not asked those people to repay any of it. I could extol the virtues of this country, but you would deny it.

The earliest court decisions relative to firearms ruled that they are absolute, above the power of the government and not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence.

Now, my education consists of being taught that there are three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. That being the case, if the SCOTUS is charged with INTERPRETING THE LAW, that is their only function. When the SCOTUS goes back and revisits their own interpretations, it means that they are legislating from the bench as it is wholly impossible to read the law, the current decisions and interpretations and abide by the law only to have a court come along, negate what they've already ruled and make you a criminal after the fact (which itself is unconstitutional BTW. There is a ban on ex post facto laws in the Constitution.)

Today, the legislatures and mainly the SCOTUS have illegally changed the laws. They didn't amend the Constitution; no new law was passed giving the SCOTUS any new authority. The SCOTUS just unilaterally decided they were the final arbiters of what the law is. Then they began reversing their own decisions. So, you can do a perfectly lawful thing today and act within the law, yet be arrested the very next day because the SCOTUS changed their mind OR, in some instances (bump stocks come to mind) they allow regulatory agencies to legislate new laws and deny you your constitutional Rights.

My basic Rights are inherent, absolute, natural, God given, unalienable, and irrevocable. Government had the POWER to change the law, but they did not have the AUTHORITY. The Second Amendment is the ONLY thing standing between Freedom and Slavery at this juncture. So excuse the Hell out of me when I say not one more inch.

So now you're calling the people that write the manuals that taught our military of a fifth grade level of understanding???

This is an appeal to emotion. Specifically you are trying to use guilt.Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia You are trying to imply that me disagreeing with your source equals disrespecting the military.
Every time you refuse to answer the premise of what I say in favor of what you want to talk about, you are deflecting. I don't care if you find me credible. Cause the way I see it, I don't use these tactics. You do. I answer your posts. I don't allow myself the luxury of refusing to answer those thing I get called out on. First you substantiate your claims, answer my questions and then I will give you the courtesy of doing what I've done all through this OP. Namely trying to engage you in an honest conversation. The way it is now. We are just playing a game were you feel free to break the rules when they become inconvenient. It makes it boring.

Are you disrespecting the military when you question what is being taught? How do contend that appeals to guilt?

Either a training manual is accurate or it is not. Either words mean something or they do not.

I'm on this thread discussing gun control and tactics liberals are using to disarm us. What rules are you claiming that I'm breaking? You asked me substantiate a claim; I gave you the military's view on the subject and you want to challenge it. There is not much of a discussion to follow for either of us given that.

-I'm challenging the knowledge or the motivation of the person who wrote that particular training manual on the subject. Not the same as disrespecting the military or even him. Unless you feel that being in the military makes someone infallible?
-It's an appeal to guilt because you hope, by appealing to the person position in the military I'd feel guilty for challenging it.
-So the training manual was incorrect. It was written in 1929. A time were for instance blacks weren't allowed the same pay, roles or respect then there brothers in arms. Saying that was wrong is a statement of fact and in no way disrespecting anybody. It was just as codified as your training manual on equally wrong bases.
-You are breaking a very simple rule. Back up what you claim. I do when challenged. You have now asserted on several occasions you aren't under any obligation to do so. It means that you can spout whatever comes in your head without having to take the same responsibility for it that I do for my statements.

 

[sparky]

What Happens When
Citizens Guns
Are Taken Away
From Ed Chenel
Australian Police Officer
12-9-5

Hi Yanks and Canadians - I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.

Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not! (And criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. You won't see this on the American /Canadian evening news or hear your government or members of the State Assembly amd Ottawa parliament disseminating this information.

The Australian experience proves it.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding public.

Take note Americans and Canadians before it's too late!

I'm a minister and have had quite a number of inquiries regarding the issue of Liberty and gun ownership from your fellow Aussies lately. The fact is, since I did a sermon on the subject a couple of months ago and now I'm getting more e-mail from Australia than all other places (including America combined.) It's great to see that you are taking the subject seriously.

America was founded on this principle that every person is born with unalienable Rights. What that means is that your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) bestows upon you, at birth, Rights that transcends any law man can make.

You know the value of your Life and Liberty. You cannot expect the government to know what value you place on your life. Neither can a free people fully trust government. In America, as I've said, the government can lie to you and it's okay. Furthermore, just before I sat down, I just watched the evening news.

On tonight's news there was a case where the wife of a policeman was shot on the night she was moving out after having filed for a divorce. She was shot by the officer's service weapon while he was there. The police ruled that it was an attempted suicide. The policeman's wife denies she tried to kill herself and her surgeon says that the shooting was not the result of an attempted suicide. But the cop goes free and the case is closed.

Those kinds of stories are common. The more of our Liberties that are taken, the bolder the tyrants are willing to become. When criminals know you're unarmed - if I said it, I'd be preaching to the choir. My point is, people all over the world are going to have to start considering where their Rights come from. Ours is a unique principle. We have natural, inherent God given, unalienable, absolute, irrevocable Rights that are above the reach of government. Of course, that means when the government crosses the line, it is up to the people to hold the government accountable. We haven't. Now the United States is at the point of no return. It's either reclaim those Rights of kiss them good-bye. Thank you for some insight as to the costs for not standing firm on this issue.

Good one Porter

as well as your Q, jmho but morality is not exclusively some celestial monopoly , that my dog has a better sense of justice than most humans should be relevant

terms like natural, inherent God given, unalienable, absolute, irrevocable don't rate, sorry but humans are no more privelged OR entitled than any other spirit in God's creation

yeah i know, us recovering catholics are such a b*tch....good luck trying to bottle/sell the celestial in the terrestrial existence though......tough biz my man....

that said , yes we're a gun culture, go ahead and point out more 'idiots w/guns' examples if you'd like, we're lousy w/'em.

No , onwing guns don't make us any more free than owing a collection of toasters, it's part of our American persona so many misinterpret

Think of it like linus's blanket .......

~S~

 

[Porter Rockwell]

There are two people on this thread and I don't give a rip what you think. You've proven nothing and I have given factual information. Even if I bothered to document it beyond what I already have in this thread, you would deny.

"Faith" has little to do with the issue. So your reading skills are not quite up to par. You need some remedial classes in reading if you want to participate in a grown up discussion.

I will say it again and again: The United States is the only country on this planet that acknowledged the supremacy of inherent, God given, natural, unalienable, absolute Rights. A piece of paper did not grant you your Rights and those Rights are in no way dependent on the Constitution for their existence... so said our own United States Supreme Court.

Why would I deny? Not for nothing I CAN substantiate to have changed my opinion on a topic on this board when I was proven wrong. I CAN substantiate that I've admitted to be wrong on MULTIPLE occasions on certain issues on this board.
I think that's more than 90 percent of people here can say. I just request that when making a point that is challenged by the other person that you can substantiate. And using debating techniques like strawmans, appeals to emotion, deflecting or what not, will be called out. I want the strength of the argument do the talking. The fact that you seem to see it as arrogance is telling all in itself.

If you want to have ANY credibility you have to separate from the left wing canard of "strawmans, appeals to emotion, deflecting" especially when I do no such thing.

Additionally, I come here and post my opinions. There is no requirement that I substantiate anything. This is not a debate forum, and if it were, you would have been disqualified a long time ago. I don't appeal to anyone's emotion for anything; there are no strawmans and no deflecting. Avoiding people that go off the reservation in an attempt to hijack threads is not a deflection. If you want to discuss something, you are free to start a thread, invite others, and if you challenge someone, they can show up and humor you there.

I don't care whether or not this changes your mind. It's like everything else on this board; it is an opinion. If others feel the same way, we will end up on the same team. These are my words to you:

The United States was founded and became the greatest nation in the annals of history. Not too many years ago, more missionaries came from the United States than all the other countries on this planet combined. We fought more wars, lost more soldiers and spent more money in wars on foreign soil for the cause of Liberty than any country in history. We've not asked those people to repay any of it. I could extol the virtues of this country, but you would deny it.

The earliest court decisions relative to firearms ruled that they are absolute, above the power of the government and not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence.

Now, my education consists of being taught that there are three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. That being the case, if the SCOTUS is charged with INTERPRETING THE LAW, that is their only function. When the SCOTUS goes back and revisits their own interpretations, it means that they are legislating from the bench as it is wholly impossible to read the law, the current decisions and interpretations and abide by the law only to have a court come along, negate what they've already ruled and make you a criminal after the fact (which itself is unconstitutional BTW. There is a ban on ex post facto laws in the Constitution.)

Today, the legislatures and mainly the SCOTUS have illegally changed the laws. They didn't amend the Constitution; no new law was passed giving the SCOTUS any new authority. The SCOTUS just unilaterally decided they were the final arbiters of what the law is. Then they began reversing their own decisions. So, you can do a perfectly lawful thing today and act within the law, yet be arrested the very next day because the SCOTUS changed their mind OR, in some instances (bump stocks come to mind) they allow regulatory agencies to legislate new laws and deny you your constitutional Rights.

My basic Rights are inherent, absolute, natural, God given, unalienable, and irrevocable. Government had the POWER to change the law, but they did not have the AUTHORITY. The Second Amendment is the ONLY thing standing between Freedom and Slavery at this juncture. So excuse the Hell out of me when I say not one more inch.

So now you're calling the people that write the manuals that taught our military of a fifth grade level of understanding???

This is an appeal to emotion. Specifically you are trying to use guilt.Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia You are trying to imply that me disagreeing with your source equals disrespecting the military.
Every time you refuse to answer the premise of what I say in favor of what you want to talk about, you are deflecting. I don't care if you find me credible. Cause the way I see it, I don't use these tactics. You do. I answer your posts. I don't allow myself the luxury of refusing to answer those thing I get called out on. First you substantiate your claims, answer my questions and then I will give you the courtesy of doing what I've done all through this OP. Namely trying to engage you in an honest conversation. The way it is now. We are just playing a game were you feel free to break the rules when they become inconvenient. It makes it boring.

Are you disrespecting the military when you question what is being taught? How do contend that appeals to guilt?

Either a training manual is accurate or it is not. Either words mean something or they do not.

I'm on this thread discussing gun control and tactics liberals are using to disarm us. What rules are you claiming that I'm breaking? You asked me substantiate a claim; I gave you the military's view on the subject and you want to challenge it. There is not much of a discussion to follow for either of us given that.

-I'm challenging the knowledge or the motivation of the person who wrote that particular training manual on the subject. Not the same as disrespecting the military or even him. Unless you feel that being in the military makes someone infallible?
-It's an appeal to guilt because you hope, by appealing to the person position in the military I'd feel guilty for challenging it.
-So the training manual was incorrect. It was written in 1929. A time were for instance blacks weren't allowed the same pay, roles or respect then there brothers in arms. Saying that was wrong is a statement of fact and in no way disrespecting anybody. It was just as codified as your training manual on equally wrong bases.
-You are breaking a very simple rule. Back up what you claim. I do when challenged. You have now asserted on several occasions you aren't under any obligation to do so. It means that you can spout whatever comes in your head without having to take the same responsibility for it that I do for my statements.

You just don't get it do you? Blacks weren't allowed the same pay is a specious argument at best. The honest counter to that is simple. It's going to do exactly what you intend, but unless the OP complains, let us look at YOUR argument.

The United States Constitution was a document that was written for the advancement, preservation and protection of the white race. Within the six months of the ratification of the Constitution, Congress passed the FIRST Naturalization Act and only whites were eligible to become citizens. As you know, that was confirmed in the 1857 Dred Scot decision. So Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment and attempted to make the blacks and whites equal.

Since you cannot repeal the original intent of the United States Constitution, the non-whites will always continue to hate, loathe, and despise the founding race of this country. They will always be loyal to the party that is trying to subvert the Constitution because, at the end of the day, they want all the whites gone and every vestige of their existence wiped out.

Since you cannot legislate equality (it either exists or it don't), you essentially created two classes of citizens:

Supreme Law Library : Resources : Two Classes

http://dcnewsman.blogspot.com/2014/12/two-classes-of-citizens-
supreme-court.html

Today, on one side of the fence are a collection of neo-nazis, white supremacists, and people of REALLY low intelligence thinking we can make America white again - and they have developed a religion around this ideology. In their world, the only people who have Rights are "legal" citizens as they call them. You can agree with these people on what the problems are in America, if you challenge their solutions, you have committed a sin and are a heretic - a liberal, a troll, and someone they want to kill.

In the other corner you have the Democrats. Like the extremes on the right, this group thinks your Rights are subject to a popularity contest. If we want it, we'll vote for it. So, both sides are equally delusional with their might makes right philosophy. The winners of this melodramatic Hegelian nightmare are the globalists. The globalists are the multinational corporations that are profiting off both sides of the fight AND conning both sides into turning America into a One World Government. That's no conspiracy theory; it's a situation that is painfully obvious to anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size.

What BOTH sides fail to realize is that government does not grant Rights. They do not create Right:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted."

BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

It's a bit difficult to disagree with the United States Supreme Court in their earliest decisions. I disagree in those instances wherein they over-turn their own rulings.

Many people cannot wrap their heads around he concept of Rights. Despite the FACT that only whites could become citizens, people from every corner of the world came to the United States to engage in business. Thomas Jefferson must have believed in the words he penned regarding unalienable Rights... he had offspring with a black woman! The Make America White Again crowd is dead wrong, even adopting socialist views. Your citizenship does not determine your eligibility for unalienable Rights. ALL of us have them. It's just that our Constitution does not mandate that we guarantee them for others, but common sense ought to dictate (though sadly in politics common sense is not to be found) that while we may not be mandated to guarantee unalienable Rights, we absolutely (legally and morally) are prohibited from infringing on any other human being's unalienable Rights - which is why so many guest workers came to America knowing that they would never become a citizen.

Democracy, from the time of the colonists, to the present day has been the tool of choice for tyrants. So, the 1929 Army manual was spot on. Most people cannot understand it because the neo nazis, white supremacists, agnostics, etc. have the whites thinking Rights are a by product of citizenship and government doles out your Rights on a whim. We've basically become a one party nation due to the hard efforts by organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations (which factually exists and has an agenda that is as clear as the KKK, which exists, and has an agenda.)

It is obvious to me that you have an affinity for democracy, but between the fact that they were the representative party for the first white supremacists AND they now represent socialists, communists and any other group that wants to dismantle the Constitution, I can't find much good to say about them... except that even when they are numerically smaller than the Republicans, they end up outsmarting them on most major legislation.

The Republicans, bless their hearts, are the dumbest of either party. They are the ones who let them enact the income tax (a graduated tax comparable to the Communist Manifesto.) That silly ass rule requiring the 60 percent majority to get Trump's wall... yep, put into place by the Republicans. In the instant case with gun control, virtually all the major gun control legislation was put into place by - REPUBLICANS. And Donald Trump will scale down his wall promise and the only Mexicans that will pay toward it are those Mexicans working in the United States with their USDA approved National ID Cards. In exchange he WILL sign the Universal Background Check, end gun shows and the private sales of firearms in America - which will need National Registration in order to work.

Our Freedom and Liberty will be gone and the Army Manual got the definitions right the first time.

 

[Skylar]

...it's not about self-defense against criminals (though that's important), or hunting (though that's important too) the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from liberal elites who are conspiring to destroy our freedoms. Look at what they've accomplished on university campuses, where First Amendment no longer exists, and a man accused of rape is denied due process. Look at what they're doing with Google, Facebook and Twitter, censoring speech and banning conservatives from speaking. Look at the California one-party state, secured with illegal votes of illegal aliens. This is the liberal elite's goal for all of us, a total loss of the freedom to speak and vote.

The purpose of the second amendment.....is liberals? Odd, they're never mentoned once in the 2nd amendment.

A mlitia is.

Now, if you're gonna give me this slack jawed, shit kicking, gun rack fantasy about using your hand gun to take on an Abrams Tank, an aircraft carrier and the US military........let me get settled into my giggling couch first.

 

[Blackrook]

...it's not about self-defense against criminals (though that's important), or hunting (though that's important too) the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from liberal elites who are conspiring to destroy our freedoms. Look at what they've accomplished on university campuses, where First Amendment no longer exists, and a man accused of rape is denied due process. Look at what they're doing with Google, Facebook and Twitter, censoring speech and banning conservatives from speaking. Look at the California one-party state, secured with illegal votes of illegal aliens. This is the liberal elite's goal for all of us, a total loss of the freedom to speak and vote.

The purpose of the second amendment.....is liberals? Odd, they're never mentoned once in the 2nd amendment.

A mlitia is.

Now, if you're gonna give me this slack jawed, shit kicking, gun rack fantasy about using your hand gun to take on an Abrams Tank, an aircraft carrier and the US military........let me get settled into my giggling couch first.

The U.S. military would not fight the American people. The government would use special armed goon squads, like Obama wanted to create.

 

[Skylar]

...it's not about self-defense against criminals (though that's important), or hunting (though that's important too) the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from liberal elites who are conspiring to destroy our freedoms. Look at what they've accomplished on university campuses, where First Amendment no longer exists, and a man accused of rape is denied due process. Look at what they're doing with Google, Facebook and Twitter, censoring speech and banning conservatives from speaking. Look at the California one-party state, secured with illegal votes of illegal aliens. This is the liberal elite's goal for all of us, a total loss of the freedom to speak and vote.

The purpose of the second amendment.....is liberals? Odd, they're never mentoned once in the 2nd amendment.

A mlitia is.

Now, if you're gonna give me this slack jawed, shit kicking, gun rack fantasy about using your hand gun to take on an Abrams Tank, an aircraft carrier and the US military........let me get settled into my giggling couch first.

The U.S. military would not fight the American people. The government would use special armed goon squads, like Obama wanted to create.

And in your fantasy, what 'special armed goon squads' did Obama want to create?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

...it's not about self-defense against criminals (though that's important), or hunting (though that's important too) the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from liberal elites who are conspiring to destroy our freedoms. Look at what they've accomplished on university campuses, where First Amendment no longer exists, and a man accused of rape is denied due process. Look at what they're doing with Google, Facebook and Twitter, censoring speech and banning conservatives from speaking. Look at the California one-party state, secured with illegal votes of illegal aliens. This is the liberal elite's goal for all of us, a total loss of the freedom to speak and vote.

The purpose of the second amendment.....is liberals? Odd, they're never mentoned once in the 2nd amendment.

A mlitia is.

Now, if you're gonna give me this slack jawed, shit kicking, gun rack fantasy about using your hand gun to take on an Abrams Tank, an aircraft carrier and the US military........let me get settled into my giggling couch first.

The U.S. military would not fight the American people. The government would use special armed goon squads, like Obama wanted to create.

What changed? The military has attacked the citizenry on U.S. soil a number of times in the course of this nation's history.

 

[forkup]

Why would I deny? Not for nothing I CAN substantiate to have changed my opinion on a topic on this board when I was proven wrong. I CAN substantiate that I've admitted to be wrong on MULTIPLE occasions on certain issues on this board.
I think that's more than 90 percent of people here can say. I just request that when making a point that is challenged by the other person that you can substantiate. And using debating techniques like strawmans, appeals to emotion, deflecting or what not, will be called out. I want the strength of the argument do the talking. The fact that you seem to see it as arrogance is telling all in itself.

If you want to have ANY credibility you have to separate from the left wing canard of "strawmans, appeals to emotion, deflecting" especially when I do no such thing.

Additionally, I come here and post my opinions. There is no requirement that I substantiate anything. This is not a debate forum, and if it were, you would have been disqualified a long time ago. I don't appeal to anyone's emotion for anything; there are no strawmans and no deflecting. Avoiding people that go off the reservation in an attempt to hijack threads is not a deflection. If you want to discuss something, you are free to start a thread, invite others, and if you challenge someone, they can show up and humor you there.

I don't care whether or not this changes your mind. It's like everything else on this board; it is an opinion. If others feel the same way, we will end up on the same team. These are my words to you:

The United States was founded and became the greatest nation in the annals of history. Not too many years ago, more missionaries came from the United States than all the other countries on this planet combined. We fought more wars, lost more soldiers and spent more money in wars on foreign soil for the cause of Liberty than any country in history. We've not asked those people to repay any of it. I could extol the virtues of this country, but you would deny it.

The earliest court decisions relative to firearms ruled that they are absolute, above the power of the government and not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence.

Now, my education consists of being taught that there are three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. That being the case, if the SCOTUS is charged with INTERPRETING THE LAW, that is their only function. When the SCOTUS goes back and revisits their own interpretations, it means that they are legislating from the bench as it is wholly impossible to read the law, the current decisions and interpretations and abide by the law only to have a court come along, negate what they've already ruled and make you a criminal after the fact (which itself is unconstitutional BTW. There is a ban on ex post facto laws in the Constitution.)

Today, the legislatures and mainly the SCOTUS have illegally changed the laws. They didn't amend the Constitution; no new law was passed giving the SCOTUS any new authority. The SCOTUS just unilaterally decided they were the final arbiters of what the law is. Then they began reversing their own decisions. So, you can do a perfectly lawful thing today and act within the law, yet be arrested the very next day because the SCOTUS changed their mind OR, in some instances (bump stocks come to mind) they allow regulatory agencies to legislate new laws and deny you your constitutional Rights.

My basic Rights are inherent, absolute, natural, God given, unalienable, and irrevocable. Government had the POWER to change the law, but they did not have the AUTHORITY. The Second Amendment is the ONLY thing standing between Freedom and Slavery at this juncture. So excuse the Hell out of me when I say not one more inch.

So now you're calling the people that write the manuals that taught our military of a fifth grade level of understanding???

This is an appeal to emotion. Specifically you are trying to use guilt.Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia You are trying to imply that me disagreeing with your source equals disrespecting the military.
Every time you refuse to answer the premise of what I say in favor of what you want to talk about, you are deflecting. I don't care if you find me credible. Cause the way I see it, I don't use these tactics. You do. I answer your posts. I don't allow myself the luxury of refusing to answer those thing I get called out on. First you substantiate your claims, answer my questions and then I will give you the courtesy of doing what I've done all through this OP. Namely trying to engage you in an honest conversation. The way it is now. We are just playing a game were you feel free to break the rules when they become inconvenient. It makes it boring.

Are you disrespecting the military when you question what is being taught? How do contend that appeals to guilt?

Either a training manual is accurate or it is not. Either words mean something or they do not.

I'm on this thread discussing gun control and tactics liberals are using to disarm us. What rules are you claiming that I'm breaking? You asked me substantiate a claim; I gave you the military's view on the subject and you want to challenge it. There is not much of a discussion to follow for either of us given that.

-I'm challenging the knowledge or the motivation of the person who wrote that particular training manual on the subject. Not the same as disrespecting the military or even him. Unless you feel that being in the military makes someone infallible?
-It's an appeal to guilt because you hope, by appealing to the person position in the military I'd feel guilty for challenging it.
-So the training manual was incorrect. It was written in 1929. A time were for instance blacks weren't allowed the same pay, roles or respect then there brothers in arms. Saying that was wrong is a statement of fact and in no way disrespecting anybody. It was just as codified as your training manual on equally wrong bases.
-You are breaking a very simple rule. Back up what you claim. I do when challenged. You have now asserted on several occasions you aren't under any obligation to do so. It means that you can spout whatever comes in your head without having to take the same responsibility for it that I do for my statements.

You just don't get it do you? Blacks weren't allowed the same pay is a specious argument at best. The honest counter to that is simple. It's going to do exactly what you intend, but unless the OP complains, let us look at YOUR argument.

The United States Constitution was a document that was written for the advancement, preservation and protection of the white race. Within the six months of the ratification of the Constitution, Congress passed the FIRST Naturalization Act and only whites were eligible to become citizens. As you know, that was confirmed in the 1857 Dred Scot decision. So Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment and attempted to make the blacks and whites equal.

Since you cannot repeal the original intent of the United States Constitution, the non-whites will always continue to hate, loathe, and despise the founding race of this country. They will always be loyal to the party that is trying to subvert the Constitution because, at the end of the day, they want all the whites gone and every vestige of their existence wiped out.

Since you cannot legislate equality (it either exists or it don't), you essentially created two classes of citizens:

Supreme Law Library : Resources : Two Classes

http://dcnewsman.blogspot.com/2014/12/two-classes-of-citizens-
supreme-court.html

Today, on one side of the fence are a collection of neo-nazis, white supremacists, and people of REALLY low intelligence thinking we can make America white again - and they have developed a religion around this ideology. In their world, the only people who have Rights are "legal" citizens as they call them. You can agree with these people on what the problems are in America, if you challenge their solutions, you have committed a sin and are a heretic - a liberal, a troll, and someone they want to kill.

In the other corner you have the Democrats. Like the extremes on the right, this group thinks your Rights are subject to a popularity contest. If we want it, we'll vote for it. So, both sides are equally delusional with their might makes right philosophy. The winners of this melodramatic Hegelian nightmare are the globalists. The globalists are the multinational corporations that are profiting off both sides of the fight AND conning both sides into turning America into a One World Government. That's no conspiracy theory; it's a situation that is painfully obvious to anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size.

What BOTH sides fail to realize is that government does not grant Rights. They do not create Right:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted."

BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

It's a bit difficult to disagree with the United States Supreme Court in their earliest decisions. I disagree in those instances wherein they over-turn their own rulings.

Many people cannot wrap their heads around he concept of Rights. Despite the FACT that only whites could become citizens, people from every corner of the world came to the United States to engage in business. Thomas Jefferson must have believed in the words he penned regarding unalienable Rights... he had offspring with a black woman! The Make America White Again crowd is dead wrong, even adopting socialist views. Your citizenship does not determine your eligibility for unalienable Rights. ALL of us have them. It's just that our Constitution does not mandate that we guarantee them for others, but common sense ought to dictate (though sadly in politics common sense is not to be found) that while we may not be mandated to guarantee unalienable Rights, we absolutely (legally and morally) are prohibited from infringing on any other human being's unalienable Rights - which is why so many guest workers came to America knowing that they would never become a citizen.

Democracy, from the time of the colonists, to the present day has been the tool of choice for tyrants. So, the 1929 Army manual was spot on. Most people cannot understand it because the neo nazis, white supremacists, agnostics, etc. have the whites thinking Rights are a by product of citizenship and government doles out your Rights on a whim. We've basically become a one party nation due to the hard efforts by organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations (which factually exists and has an agenda that is as clear as the KKK, which exists, and has an agenda.)

It is obvious to me that you have an affinity for democracy, but between the fact that they were the representative party for the first white supremacists AND they now represent socialists, communists and any other group that wants to dismantle the Constitution, I can't find much good to say about them... except that even when they are numerically smaller than the Republicans, they end up outsmarting them on most major legislation.

The Republicans, bless their hearts, are the dumbest of either party. They are the ones who let them enact the income tax (a graduated tax comparable to the Communist Manifesto.) That silly ass rule requiring the 60 percent majority to get Trump's wall... yep, put into place by the Republicans. In the instant case with gun control, virtually all the major gun control legislation was put into place by - REPUBLICANS. And Donald Trump will scale down his wall promise and the only Mexicans that will pay toward it are those Mexicans working in the United States with their USDA approved National ID Cards. In exchange he WILL sign the Universal Background Check, end gun shows and the private sales of firearms in America - which will need National Registration in order to work.

Our Freedom and Liberty will be gone and the Army Manual got the definitions right the first time.

Thanks for the history lesson again. Designed to NOT talk about the premise of what I say. I'm sure it's the answer to an argument, just not to the one I was making. I mentioned blacks in the military because it's another example of the military being demonstrably wrong on a subject in a modern context. Just like your manual is wrong in ANY context.
This is what they call deflection.

 

[sparky]

Since you cannot repeal the original intent of the United States Constitution, the non-whites will always continue to hate, loathe, and despise the founding race of this country. They will always be loyal to the party that is trying to subvert the Constitution because, at the end of the day, they want all the whites gone and every vestige of their existence wiped out.

And they'd be free to do so, given our consititution is a living doc, which has been amended 27 times, and quite frankly i'd welcome that 28th that keeps popping up

Many people cannot wrap their heads around he concept of Rights.

Only in that many think it applies to them, when in reality any right is a common denominator juxtaposed to it's use/abuse among us all

A mlitia is.

Now, if you're gonna give me this slack jawed, shit kicking, gun rack fantasy about using your hand gun to take on an Abrams Tank, an aircraft carrier and the US military........let me get settled into my giggling couch first.

The U.S. military would not fight the American people.

What changed? The military has attacked the citizenry on U.S. soil a number of times in the course of this nation's history.

I've lost count how many times this militia fantasy has been eviserated here.

Of note would be we've assumed our own gestapo after 9/11 , which further coordinates all federal agencies alongside state and municipals ,intergrating all resources down to dog cacther....during a 'national emergency'

Of further distress would be only the exec branch is required to pull the trigger on this.

think about it....

~S~

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If you want to have ANY credibility you have to separate from the left wing canard of "strawmans, appeals to emotion, deflecting" especially when I do no such thing.

Additionally, I come here and post my opinions. There is no requirement that I substantiate anything. This is not a debate forum, and if it were, you would have been disqualified a long time ago. I don't appeal to anyone's emotion for anything; there are no strawmans and no deflecting. Avoiding people that go off the reservation in an attempt to hijack threads is not a deflection. If you want to discuss something, you are free to start a thread, invite others, and if you challenge someone, they can show up and humor you there.

I don't care whether or not this changes your mind. It's like everything else on this board; it is an opinion. If others feel the same way, we will end up on the same team. These are my words to you:

The United States was founded and became the greatest nation in the annals of history. Not too many years ago, more missionaries came from the United States than all the other countries on this planet combined. We fought more wars, lost more soldiers and spent more money in wars on foreign soil for the cause of Liberty than any country in history. We've not asked those people to repay any of it. I could extol the virtues of this country, but you would deny it.

The earliest court decisions relative to firearms ruled that they are absolute, above the power of the government and not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence.

Now, my education consists of being taught that there are three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. That being the case, if the SCOTUS is charged with INTERPRETING THE LAW, that is their only function. When the SCOTUS goes back and revisits their own interpretations, it means that they are legislating from the bench as it is wholly impossible to read the law, the current decisions and interpretations and abide by the law only to have a court come along, negate what they've already ruled and make you a criminal after the fact (which itself is unconstitutional BTW. There is a ban on ex post facto laws in the Constitution.)

Today, the legislatures and mainly the SCOTUS have illegally changed the laws. They didn't amend the Constitution; no new law was passed giving the SCOTUS any new authority. The SCOTUS just unilaterally decided they were the final arbiters of what the law is. Then they began reversing their own decisions. So, you can do a perfectly lawful thing today and act within the law, yet be arrested the very next day because the SCOTUS changed their mind OR, in some instances (bump stocks come to mind) they allow regulatory agencies to legislate new laws and deny you your constitutional Rights.

My basic Rights are inherent, absolute, natural, God given, unalienable, and irrevocable. Government had the POWER to change the law, but they did not have the AUTHORITY. The Second Amendment is the ONLY thing standing between Freedom and Slavery at this juncture. So excuse the Hell out of me when I say not one more inch.

So now you're calling the people that write the manuals that taught our military of a fifth grade level of understanding???

This is an appeal to emotion. Specifically you are trying to use guilt.Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia You are trying to imply that me disagreeing with your source equals disrespecting the military.
Every time you refuse to answer the premise of what I say in favor of what you want to talk about, you are deflecting. I don't care if you find me credible. Cause the way I see it, I don't use these tactics. You do. I answer your posts. I don't allow myself the luxury of refusing to answer those thing I get called out on. First you substantiate your claims, answer my questions and then I will give you the courtesy of doing what I've done all through this OP. Namely trying to engage you in an honest conversation. The way it is now. We are just playing a game were you feel free to break the rules when they become inconvenient. It makes it boring.

Are you disrespecting the military when you question what is being taught? How do contend that appeals to guilt?

Either a training manual is accurate or it is not. Either words mean something or they do not.

I'm on this thread discussing gun control and tactics liberals are using to disarm us. What rules are you claiming that I'm breaking? You asked me substantiate a claim; I gave you the military's view on the subject and you want to challenge it. There is not much of a discussion to follow for either of us given that.

-I'm challenging the knowledge or the motivation of the person who wrote that particular training manual on the subject. Not the same as disrespecting the military or even him. Unless you feel that being in the military makes someone infallible?
-It's an appeal to guilt because you hope, by appealing to the person position in the military I'd feel guilty for challenging it.
-So the training manual was incorrect. It was written in 1929. A time were for instance blacks weren't allowed the same pay, roles or respect then there brothers in arms. Saying that was wrong is a statement of fact and in no way disrespecting anybody. It was just as codified as your training manual on equally wrong bases.
-You are breaking a very simple rule. Back up what you claim. I do when challenged. You have now asserted on several occasions you aren't under any obligation to do so. It means that you can spout whatever comes in your head without having to take the same responsibility for it that I do for my statements.

You just don't get it do you? Blacks weren't allowed the same pay is a specious argument at best. The honest counter to that is simple. It's going to do exactly what you intend, but unless the OP complains, let us look at YOUR argument.

The United States Constitution was a document that was written for the advancement, preservation and protection of the white race. Within the six months of the ratification of the Constitution, Congress passed the FIRST Naturalization Act and only whites were eligible to become citizens. As you know, that was confirmed in the 1857 Dred Scot decision. So Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment and attempted to make the blacks and whites equal.

Since you cannot repeal the original intent of the United States Constitution, the non-whites will always continue to hate, loathe, and despise the founding race of this country. They will always be loyal to the party that is trying to subvert the Constitution because, at the end of the day, they want all the whites gone and every vestige of their existence wiped out.

Since you cannot legislate equality (it either exists or it don't), you essentially created two classes of citizens:

Supreme Law Library : Resources : Two Classes

http://dcnewsman.blogspot.com/2014/12/two-classes-of-citizens-
supreme-court.html

Today, on one side of the fence are a collection of neo-nazis, white supremacists, and people of REALLY low intelligence thinking we can make America white again - and they have developed a religion around this ideology. In their world, the only people who have Rights are "legal" citizens as they call them. You can agree with these people on what the problems are in America, if you challenge their solutions, you have committed a sin and are a heretic - a liberal, a troll, and someone they want to kill.

In the other corner you have the Democrats. Like the extremes on the right, this group thinks your Rights are subject to a popularity contest. If we want it, we'll vote for it. So, both sides are equally delusional with their might makes right philosophy. The winners of this melodramatic Hegelian nightmare are the globalists. The globalists are the multinational corporations that are profiting off both sides of the fight AND conning both sides into turning America into a One World Government. That's no conspiracy theory; it's a situation that is painfully obvious to anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size.

What BOTH sides fail to realize is that government does not grant Rights. They do not create Right:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted."

BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

It's a bit difficult to disagree with the United States Supreme Court in their earliest decisions. I disagree in those instances wherein they over-turn their own rulings.

Many people cannot wrap their heads around he concept of Rights. Despite the FACT that only whites could become citizens, people from every corner of the world came to the United States to engage in business. Thomas Jefferson must have believed in the words he penned regarding unalienable Rights... he had offspring with a black woman! The Make America White Again crowd is dead wrong, even adopting socialist views. Your citizenship does not determine your eligibility for unalienable Rights. ALL of us have them. It's just that our Constitution does not mandate that we guarantee them for others, but common sense ought to dictate (though sadly in politics common sense is not to be found) that while we may not be mandated to guarantee unalienable Rights, we absolutely (legally and morally) are prohibited from infringing on any other human being's unalienable Rights - which is why so many guest workers came to America knowing that they would never become a citizen.

Democracy, from the time of the colonists, to the present day has been the tool of choice for tyrants. So, the 1929 Army manual was spot on. Most people cannot understand it because the neo nazis, white supremacists, agnostics, etc. have the whites thinking Rights are a by product of citizenship and government doles out your Rights on a whim. We've basically become a one party nation due to the hard efforts by organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations (which factually exists and has an agenda that is as clear as the KKK, which exists, and has an agenda.)

It is obvious to me that you have an affinity for democracy, but between the fact that they were the representative party for the first white supremacists AND they now represent socialists, communists and any other group that wants to dismantle the Constitution, I can't find much good to say about them... except that even when they are numerically smaller than the Republicans, they end up outsmarting them on most major legislation.

The Republicans, bless their hearts, are the dumbest of either party. They are the ones who let them enact the income tax (a graduated tax comparable to the Communist Manifesto.) That silly ass rule requiring the 60 percent majority to get Trump's wall... yep, put into place by the Republicans. In the instant case with gun control, virtually all the major gun control legislation was put into place by - REPUBLICANS. And Donald Trump will scale down his wall promise and the only Mexicans that will pay toward it are those Mexicans working in the United States with their USDA approved National ID Cards. In exchange he WILL sign the Universal Background Check, end gun shows and the private sales of firearms in America - which will need National Registration in order to work.

Our Freedom and Liberty will be gone and the Army Manual got the definitions right the first time.

Thanks for the history lesson again. Designed to NOT talk about the premise of what I say. I'm sure it's the answer to an argument, just not to the one I was making. I mentioned blacks in the military because it's another example of the military being demonstrably wrong on a subject in a modern context. Just like your manual is wrong in ANY context.
This is what they call deflection.

Between the lies you tell and the fact that you got answered, just not the way you wanted, you are desperately looking for some relevance now. We talked about EXACTLY what you asked.

When you set up a trap and people don't walk into it, but give you a complete response as I did, you can't jump up and down and scream, I told you so. You obviously have a hair up your ass and hate the military. That is your problem. You're still stuck with the fact that you cannot change the meaning of words just because you don't like them.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Since you cannot repeal the original intent of the United States Constitution, the non-whites will always continue to hate, loathe, and despise the founding race of this country. They will always be loyal to the party that is trying to subvert the Constitution because, at the end of the day, they want all the whites gone and every vestige of their existence wiped out.

And they'd be free to do so, given our consititution is a living doc, which has been amended 27 times, and quite frankly i'd welcome that 28th that keeps popping up

Many people cannot wrap their heads around he concept of Rights.

Only in that many think it applies to them, when in reality any right is a common denominator juxtaposed to it's use/abuse among us all

A mlitia is.

Now, if you're gonna give me this slack jawed, shit kicking, gun rack fantasy about using your hand gun to take on an Abrams Tank, an aircraft carrier and the US military........let me get settled into my giggling couch first.

The U.S. military would not fight the American people.

What changed? The military has attacked the citizenry on U.S. soil a number of times in the course of this nation's history.

I've lost count how many times this militia fantasy has been eviserated here.

Of note would be we've assumed our own gestapo after 9/11 , which further coordinates all federal agencies alongside state and municipals ,intergrating all resources down to dog cacther....during a 'national emergency'

Of further distress would be only the exec branch is required to pull the trigger on this.

think about it....

~S~

Dude, for real? Did anyone ever tell you that smoking pot kills your brain cells?

The Constitution is NOT a "living document" as you call it.

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

George Washington, Farewell Address, Sep. 19, 1796


"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Thomas Jefferson (1829). “Memoirs, Correspondence, and Private Papers of Thomas Jefferson: Late President of the United States”, p.382

You're saying the military never attacked the citizenry and you call it a "militia fantasy?"

Are you going to tell me that the Virginia Coal Wars never happened? You're telling me that the Battle of Blair Mountain never happened?

The ONLY thing you're eviscerating is your own credibility. Your "living document" theory was put to the test in my long rant and found to be woefully inadequate to the principles of a Republican Form of Government.

 

[forkup]

This is an appeal to emotion. Specifically you are trying to use guilt.Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia You are trying to imply that me disagreeing with your source equals disrespecting the military.
Every time you refuse to answer the premise of what I say in favor of what you want to talk about, you are deflecting. I don't care if you find me credible. Cause the way I see it, I don't use these tactics. You do. I answer your posts. I don't allow myself the luxury of refusing to answer those thing I get called out on. First you substantiate your claims, answer my questions and then I will give you the courtesy of doing what I've done all through this OP. Namely trying to engage you in an honest conversation. The way it is now. We are just playing a game were you feel free to break the rules when they become inconvenient. It makes it boring.

Are you disrespecting the military when you question what is being taught? How do contend that appeals to guilt?

Either a training manual is accurate or it is not. Either words mean something or they do not.

I'm on this thread discussing gun control and tactics liberals are using to disarm us. What rules are you claiming that I'm breaking? You asked me substantiate a claim; I gave you the military's view on the subject and you want to challenge it. There is not much of a discussion to follow for either of us given that.

-I'm challenging the knowledge or the motivation of the person who wrote that particular training manual on the subject. Not the same as disrespecting the military or even him. Unless you feel that being in the military makes someone infallible?
-It's an appeal to guilt because you hope, by appealing to the person position in the military I'd feel guilty for challenging it.
-So the training manual was incorrect. It was written in 1929. A time were for instance blacks weren't allowed the same pay, roles or respect then there brothers in arms. Saying that was wrong is a statement of fact and in no way disrespecting anybody. It was just as codified as your training manual on equally wrong bases.
-You are breaking a very simple rule. Back up what you claim. I do when challenged. You have now asserted on several occasions you aren't under any obligation to do so. It means that you can spout whatever comes in your head without having to take the same responsibility for it that I do for my statements.

You just don't get it do you? Blacks weren't allowed the same pay is a specious argument at best. The honest counter to that is simple. It's going to do exactly what you intend, but unless the OP complains, let us look at YOUR argument.

The United States Constitution was a document that was written for the advancement, preservation and protection of the white race. Within the six months of the ratification of the Constitution, Congress passed the FIRST Naturalization Act and only whites were eligible to become citizens. As you know, that was confirmed in the 1857 Dred Scot decision. So Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment and attempted to make the blacks and whites equal.

Since you cannot repeal the original intent of the United States Constitution, the non-whites will always continue to hate, loathe, and despise the founding race of this country. They will always be loyal to the party that is trying to subvert the Constitution because, at the end of the day, they want all the whites gone and every vestige of their existence wiped out.

Since you cannot legislate equality (it either exists or it don't), you essentially created two classes of citizens:

Supreme Law Library : Resources : Two Classes

http://dcnewsman.blogspot.com/2014/12/two-classes-of-citizens-
supreme-court.html

Today, on one side of the fence are a collection of neo-nazis, white supremacists, and people of REALLY low intelligence thinking we can make America white again - and they have developed a religion around this ideology. In their world, the only people who have Rights are "legal" citizens as they call them. You can agree with these people on what the problems are in America, if you challenge their solutions, you have committed a sin and are a heretic - a liberal, a troll, and someone they want to kill.

In the other corner you have the Democrats. Like the extremes on the right, this group thinks your Rights are subject to a popularity contest. If we want it, we'll vote for it. So, both sides are equally delusional with their might makes right philosophy. The winners of this melodramatic Hegelian nightmare are the globalists. The globalists are the multinational corporations that are profiting off both sides of the fight AND conning both sides into turning America into a One World Government. That's no conspiracy theory; it's a situation that is painfully obvious to anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size.

What BOTH sides fail to realize is that government does not grant Rights. They do not create Right:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted."

BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

It's a bit difficult to disagree with the United States Supreme Court in their earliest decisions. I disagree in those instances wherein they over-turn their own rulings.

Many people cannot wrap their heads around he concept of Rights. Despite the FACT that only whites could become citizens, people from every corner of the world came to the United States to engage in business. Thomas Jefferson must have believed in the words he penned regarding unalienable Rights... he had offspring with a black woman! The Make America White Again crowd is dead wrong, even adopting socialist views. Your citizenship does not determine your eligibility for unalienable Rights. ALL of us have them. It's just that our Constitution does not mandate that we guarantee them for others, but common sense ought to dictate (though sadly in politics common sense is not to be found) that while we may not be mandated to guarantee unalienable Rights, we absolutely (legally and morally) are prohibited from infringing on any other human being's unalienable Rights - which is why so many guest workers came to America knowing that they would never become a citizen.

Democracy, from the time of the colonists, to the present day has been the tool of choice for tyrants. So, the 1929 Army manual was spot on. Most people cannot understand it because the neo nazis, white supremacists, agnostics, etc. have the whites thinking Rights are a by product of citizenship and government doles out your Rights on a whim. We've basically become a one party nation due to the hard efforts by organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations (which factually exists and has an agenda that is as clear as the KKK, which exists, and has an agenda.)

It is obvious to me that you have an affinity for democracy, but between the fact that they were the representative party for the first white supremacists AND they now represent socialists, communists and any other group that wants to dismantle the Constitution, I can't find much good to say about them... except that even when they are numerically smaller than the Republicans, they end up outsmarting them on most major legislation.

The Republicans, bless their hearts, are the dumbest of either party. They are the ones who let them enact the income tax (a graduated tax comparable to the Communist Manifesto.) That silly ass rule requiring the 60 percent majority to get Trump's wall... yep, put into place by the Republicans. In the instant case with gun control, virtually all the major gun control legislation was put into place by - REPUBLICANS. And Donald Trump will scale down his wall promise and the only Mexicans that will pay toward it are those Mexicans working in the United States with their USDA approved National ID Cards. In exchange he WILL sign the Universal Background Check, end gun shows and the private sales of firearms in America - which will need National Registration in order to work.

Our Freedom and Liberty will be gone and the Army Manual got the definitions right the first time.

Thanks for the history lesson again. Designed to NOT talk about the premise of what I say. I'm sure it's the answer to an argument, just not to the one I was making. I mentioned blacks in the military because it's another example of the military being demonstrably wrong on a subject in a modern context. Just like your manual is wrong in ANY context.
This is what they call deflection.

Between the lies you tell and the fact that you got answered, just not the way you wanted, you are desperately looking for some relevance now. We talked about EXACTLY what you asked.

When you set up a trap and people don't walk into it, but give you a complete response as I did, you can't jump up and down and scream, I told you so. You obviously have a hair up your ass and hate the military. That is your problem. You're still stuck with the fact that you cannot change the meaning of words just because you don't like them.

And we are done.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Are you disrespecting the military when you question what is being taught? How do contend that appeals to guilt?

Either a training manual is accurate or it is not. Either words mean something or they do not.

I'm on this thread discussing gun control and tactics liberals are using to disarm us. What rules are you claiming that I'm breaking? You asked me substantiate a claim; I gave you the military's view on the subject and you want to challenge it. There is not much of a discussion to follow for either of us given that.

-I'm challenging the knowledge or the motivation of the person who wrote that particular training manual on the subject. Not the same as disrespecting the military or even him. Unless you feel that being in the military makes someone infallible?
-It's an appeal to guilt because you hope, by appealing to the person position in the military I'd feel guilty for challenging it.
-So the training manual was incorrect. It was written in 1929. A time were for instance blacks weren't allowed the same pay, roles or respect then there brothers in arms. Saying that was wrong is a statement of fact and in no way disrespecting anybody. It was just as codified as your training manual on equally wrong bases.
-You are breaking a very simple rule. Back up what you claim. I do when challenged. You have now asserted on several occasions you aren't under any obligation to do so. It means that you can spout whatever comes in your head without having to take the same responsibility for it that I do for my statements.

You just don't get it do you? Blacks weren't allowed the same pay is a specious argument at best. The honest counter to that is simple. It's going to do exactly what you intend, but unless the OP complains, let us look at YOUR argument.

The United States Constitution was a document that was written for the advancement, preservation and protection of the white race. Within the six months of the ratification of the Constitution, Congress passed the FIRST Naturalization Act and only whites were eligible to become citizens. As you know, that was confirmed in the 1857 Dred Scot decision. So Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment and attempted to make the blacks and whites equal.

Since you cannot repeal the original intent of the United States Constitution, the non-whites will always continue to hate, loathe, and despise the founding race of this country. They will always be loyal to the party that is trying to subvert the Constitution because, at the end of the day, they want all the whites gone and every vestige of their existence wiped out.

Since you cannot legislate equality (it either exists or it don't), you essentially created two classes of citizens:

Supreme Law Library : Resources : Two Classes

http://dcnewsman.blogspot.com/2014/12/two-classes-of-citizens-
supreme-court.html

Today, on one side of the fence are a collection of neo-nazis, white supremacists, and people of REALLY low intelligence thinking we can make America white again - and they have developed a religion around this ideology. In their world, the only people who have Rights are "legal" citizens as they call them. You can agree with these people on what the problems are in America, if you challenge their solutions, you have committed a sin and are a heretic - a liberal, a troll, and someone they want to kill.

In the other corner you have the Democrats. Like the extremes on the right, this group thinks your Rights are subject to a popularity contest. If we want it, we'll vote for it. So, both sides are equally delusional with their might makes right philosophy. The winners of this melodramatic Hegelian nightmare are the globalists. The globalists are the multinational corporations that are profiting off both sides of the fight AND conning both sides into turning America into a One World Government. That's no conspiracy theory; it's a situation that is painfully obvious to anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size.

What BOTH sides fail to realize is that government does not grant Rights. They do not create Right:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted."

BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

It's a bit difficult to disagree with the United States Supreme Court in their earliest decisions. I disagree in those instances wherein they over-turn their own rulings.

Many people cannot wrap their heads around he concept of Rights. Despite the FACT that only whites could become citizens, people from every corner of the world came to the United States to engage in business. Thomas Jefferson must have believed in the words he penned regarding unalienable Rights... he had offspring with a black woman! The Make America White Again crowd is dead wrong, even adopting socialist views. Your citizenship does not determine your eligibility for unalienable Rights. ALL of us have them. It's just that our Constitution does not mandate that we guarantee them for others, but common sense ought to dictate (though sadly in politics common sense is not to be found) that while we may not be mandated to guarantee unalienable Rights, we absolutely (legally and morally) are prohibited from infringing on any other human being's unalienable Rights - which is why so many guest workers came to America knowing that they would never become a citizen.

Democracy, from the time of the colonists, to the present day has been the tool of choice for tyrants. So, the 1929 Army manual was spot on. Most people cannot understand it because the neo nazis, white supremacists, agnostics, etc. have the whites thinking Rights are a by product of citizenship and government doles out your Rights on a whim. We've basically become a one party nation due to the hard efforts by organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations (which factually exists and has an agenda that is as clear as the KKK, which exists, and has an agenda.)

It is obvious to me that you have an affinity for democracy, but between the fact that they were the representative party for the first white supremacists AND they now represent socialists, communists and any other group that wants to dismantle the Constitution, I can't find much good to say about them... except that even when they are numerically smaller than the Republicans, they end up outsmarting them on most major legislation.

The Republicans, bless their hearts, are the dumbest of either party. They are the ones who let them enact the income tax (a graduated tax comparable to the Communist Manifesto.) That silly ass rule requiring the 60 percent majority to get Trump's wall... yep, put into place by the Republicans. In the instant case with gun control, virtually all the major gun control legislation was put into place by - REPUBLICANS. And Donald Trump will scale down his wall promise and the only Mexicans that will pay toward it are those Mexicans working in the United States with their USDA approved National ID Cards. In exchange he WILL sign the Universal Background Check, end gun shows and the private sales of firearms in America - which will need National Registration in order to work.

Our Freedom and Liberty will be gone and the Army Manual got the definitions right the first time.

Thanks for the history lesson again. Designed to NOT talk about the premise of what I say. I'm sure it's the answer to an argument, just not to the one I was making. I mentioned blacks in the military because it's another example of the military being demonstrably wrong on a subject in a modern context. Just like your manual is wrong in ANY context.
This is what they call deflection.

Between the lies you tell and the fact that you got answered, just not the way you wanted, you are desperately looking for some relevance now. We talked about EXACTLY what you asked.

When you set up a trap and people don't walk into it, but give you a complete response as I did, you can't jump up and down and scream, I told you so. You obviously have a hair up your ass and hate the military. That is your problem. You're still stuck with the fact that you cannot change the meaning of words just because you don't like them.

And we are done.

Let God always be your guide.

 

[Conservative65]

Perhaps you should take Daryl Hunt form the forum with you so he can educate himself on guns.

I’m sure he’s got the education he needs.

Not based on what he claims.

He also like make claims about what others said and when asked to provide a link to the quote he said was made, runs like the typical left wing pussy.

Sounds like you two might need marriage counseling.

Sounds like you're the same type pussy as he is.

^ trying.....too....hard.....and.....it....shows.....

You're still a faggot and it shows.

 

[Conservative65]

Change the channel.

Sometimes I watch Pauxsnews just to get annoyed. It's like watching a football game where the refs are calling the fouls against your home team. It's good for the soul. Too bad the other side doesn't spend time on MSNBC or CNN for the same reason. Maybe when we come get their guns and send them to the interment camps their sentence will be that they have to watch MSNBC and CNN 24 hours a day. Now, that's justice.

We? You'll be tucked away behind your computer running your mouth about something for which you have zero knowledge.

Got more time breaking down a M-16 than you have on the chowline. You seem to think you Sillyvillians are the experts. Guess again. Most of us have turned down positions on Police Forces for various reasons. But one thing we know is, the AR-15 is as deadly as the M-16 and M-4 and are handled exactly the same way since they are, essentially, the same weapon. Go enlist and do a couple or three tours and earn that experience. Until then, you are just a freeloader with a bunch of toys.

They are not the same weapon. Someone that claims what you've claimed to have done would know that.

Prove, with verifiable evidence, you've done what you say or get back to playing soldier to try and impress your sister/girlfriend.

Just go to Military.com, login and search for me. You'll find me listed there. Oh, that's right, only the real deal can do that search, fakeboy.

I did and you weren't their GI Joe.

 

[Conservative65]

When I was a kid there used to be an advertisement in Mechanics Illustrated where you could buy a Mercedes Benz kit to put over a Volkswagen and make the VW look like a miniature Mercedes.

Do you think if Daryl saw one of those, he'd bet you $100 it was a Mercedes?

Ah, the bully brigade shows up. What's the matter, your grand wizard can't win so he calls in reinforcements? If you haven't noticed, I don't bully so easy. Yes, it's a flaw. One that many Warriors have and we are proud we have it. Here is a statement you will never understand. Bring it, baby because I wrote off my Ass decades ago.

Internet tough guys don't scare me, coward. I already won and chalked it up in the win column. However, if you feel like such a man from behind your computer, keep pretending if it make you feel better.

Yah, standard Strumpite method of winning. Declare a victory, run away and then go into a whole series of, "I won, I won and You Lost" over and over.

No one is running but you, coward. Remember your tough guy talk then claiming it was a joke?

We are coming for your pink four four. I doubt you would fit in a tutu. And have those crayons handy, you are going to need to reload after this.

You don't have the guts to show, BOY. If you did, you'd already been here.

 

[Conservative65]

Still twisting yourself to call the AR-15 and assault rifle, huh? FYI, I have four of them. Next question is what the fuck are you going to do about it? Whine and cry.

I noticed you don't have the guts to answer it or provide a link to anything you claim I said. That's what a fucking pussy left wing coward does. Runs when he's expected to back up his claims. Did the question trigger you, BOY?

When I was a kid there used to be an advertisement in Mechanics Illustrated where you could buy a Mercedes Benz kit to put over a Volkswagen and make the VW look like a miniature Mercedes.

Do you think if Daryl saw one of those, he'd bet you $100 it was a Mercedes?

He's posted things pretending to be a tough guy and saying "we" when it comes to taking guns. I doubt he's man enough to be involved in the effort.

What's the matter, does a little humor scare you that much? Does it make you want to hide under your bed first thing in the morning? Hide your crayons and coloring books, we are coming for those as well.

What's the matter, when you Rambo posturing is called out for what it is you revert to the typical left wing excuses? No one's hiding except you, boy, and it's behind your computer making demands you and both know you never could back up. Get back to playing GI Joe.

I guess you are jealous that I have a GI Joe. You dressing up your barbie in Cammos just isn't the same is it.

When I dress up your wife in camo and get in her "foxhole", it's usually the same. Pink and juicy. You keep playing with your dolls and let real mean take care of the women.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Sometimes I watch Pauxsnews just to get annoyed. It's like watching a football game where the refs are calling the fouls against your home team. It's good for the soul. Too bad the other side doesn't spend time on MSNBC or CNN for the same reason. Maybe when we come get their guns and send them to the interment camps their sentence will be that they have to watch MSNBC and CNN 24 hours a day. Now, that's justice.

We? You'll be tucked away behind your computer running your mouth about something for which you have zero knowledge.

Got more time breaking down a M-16 than you have on the chowline. You seem to think you Sillyvillians are the experts. Guess again. Most of us have turned down positions on Police Forces for various reasons. But one thing we know is, the AR-15 is as deadly as the M-16 and M-4 and are handled exactly the same way since they are, essentially, the same weapon. Go enlist and do a couple or three tours and earn that experience. Until then, you are just a freeloader with a bunch of toys.

They are not the same weapon. Someone that claims what you've claimed to have done would know that.

Prove, with verifiable evidence, you've done what you say or get back to playing soldier to try and impress your sister/girlfriend.

Just go to Military.com, login and search for me. You'll find me listed there. Oh, that's right, only the real deal can do that search, fakeboy.

I did and you weren't their GI Joe.

If you did then you would easily find me. But first,, you would have to have served yourself. Doesn't sound like that is the case. You ain't part of the Club because you haven't paid the entrance free.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When I was a kid there used to be an advertisement in Mechanics Illustrated where you could buy a Mercedes Benz kit to put over a Volkswagen and make the VW look like a miniature Mercedes.

Do you think if Daryl saw one of those, he'd bet you $100 it was a Mercedes?

He's posted things pretending to be a tough guy and saying "we" when it comes to taking guns. I doubt he's man enough to be involved in the effort.

What's the matter, does a little humor scare you that much? Does it make you want to hide under your bed first thing in the morning? Hide your crayons and coloring books, we are coming for those as well.

What's the matter, when you Rambo posturing is called out for what it is you revert to the typical left wing excuses? No one's hiding except you, boy, and it's behind your computer making demands you and both know you never could back up. Get back to playing GI Joe.

I guess you are jealous that I have a GI Joe. You dressing up your barbie in Cammos just isn't the same is it.

When I dress up your wife in camo and get in her "foxhole", it's usually the same. Pink and juicy. You keep playing with your dolls and let real mean take care of the women.

You want to crawl into a foxhole with my Ex-wife? Man, they'll never find your body.

 

[Conservative65]

He's posted things pretending to be a tough guy and saying "we" when it comes to taking guns. I doubt he's man enough to be involved in the effort.

What's the matter, does a little humor scare you that much? Does it make you want to hide under your bed first thing in the morning? Hide your crayons and coloring books, we are coming for those as well.

What's the matter, when you Rambo posturing is called out for what it is you revert to the typical left wing excuses? No one's hiding except you, boy, and it's behind your computer making demands you and both know you never could back up. Get back to playing GI Joe.

I guess you are jealous that I have a GI Joe. You dressing up your barbie in Cammos just isn't the same is it.

When I dress up your wife in camo and get in her "foxhole", it's usually the same. Pink and juicy. You keep playing with your dolls and let real mean take care of the women.

You want to crawl into a foxhole with my Ex-wife? Man, they'll never find your body.

Work on your reading comprehension.