Interesting history of the NRA

[wyliec]

Give it time grasshopper, give it time...........

Holly/Randy,

I think I was giving you too much credit; I now found where you copied from:

https://albany.craigslist.org/rnr/d/...507240486.html

I know that you can be original. Give it another shot.

[Holly]

Holly/Randy,

I think I was giving you too much credit; I now found where you copied from:

https://albany.craigslist.org/rnr/d/...507240486.html

I know that you can be original. Give it another shot.

What, you think I only post here ?????

[wyliec]

What, you think I only post here ?????

Now that is funny.

[UtahPete]

For over 1000 years, since Rome established the feudal system, the majority of the people in Europe were serfs. As serfs they could not own property/land because they belonged to the property. It took a thousand years to get freedoms and rights from aristocrats and the royals. This is the reason the second amendment is in the Bill of Rights. Hell, it was John Locke in 1689, who finally destroyed the myth of the divine right of kings.

The largest mass murders committed are: 70 MILLION murdered by Mao in the China purges, 25 MILLION murdered by Stalin in the Soviet purges, 6 MILLION Jews murdered by Hitler, 2 MILLION murdered by Pol Pot in his purges, tens of thousands murdered in Bosnian genocide, 1 to 2 MILLION murdered in Rwandan genocides, and 500,000 murdered in Aleppo genocide.

What is the common factor? These are all the result of some existing government taking lethal action against a disarmed society.

Facts are facts and those 100+ MILLION unarmed dead at the hands of the various benevolent governments must be remembered for what they were. They were unarmed sheep to be slaughtered. Never be a sheep and do not trust anyone who says that this cannot happen. It has happened for all of human history.

The pot is stirred, your turn................

In the 21st century it would be a well-armed but unorganized populace going against the most powerful military the world has ever seen. When the White House becomes a dictatorship and turns the military's weapons against its own people, we can take another look at this argument. Until then, it is moot.

[Bob Denman]

In the 21st century it would be a well-armed but unorganized populace going against the most powerful military the world has ever seen. When the White House becomes a dictatorship and turns the military's weapons against its own people, we can take another look at this argument. Until then, it is moot.

Soo what do you do?
Do you throw in the towel; whenever you figure that you can't win?
That's worse than sad: it's sad AND it's pitiful!

Without getting into a discussion of tactics: Do you honestly think that every Officer is going to obey an order that has them firing upon American Citizens?
What about the forward troops?

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

Soo what do you do?
Do you throw in the towel; whenever you figure that you can't win?
That's worse than sad: it's sad AND it's pitiful!

Without getting into a discussion of tactics: Do you honestly think that every Officer is going to obey an order that has them firing upon American Citizens?
What about the forward troops?

bob you are right, i can't see all soldiers or police shooting at the public but i also don't think the weapons you legally
own will truly be able to fight our military or police tactical units?

[Bob Denman]

Sometimes you just have to fight the fight that's been thrown at you...
I'll let the Pussies worry about the consequences.

[UtahPete]

Without getting into a discussion of tactics: Do you honestly think that every Officer is going to obey an order that has them firing upon American Citizens?
What about the forward troops?

Thanks Bob. You are reinforcing the point I was making about the irrelevance of the 2nd amendment in 21st century America.

[Bob Denman]

Weren't you originally a British Subject?
Over here: we're citizens!

[UtahPete]

I'll let the Pussies worry about the consequences.

https://www.facebook.com/10001266559...wODAwNDQxMDAx/

[UtahPete]

Weren't you originally a British Subject? Over here: we're citizens!

No Bob, I was and still am a British citizen.

[Holly]

In other news..................


It seems the beloved little Parkland students are not very happy about change anymore. A few weeks ago they were happy to be exploited and bused to Washington to protest demanding change, and now these little angels got just what they wanted.

You see, now they are required to carry clear backpacks and now are stating their rights are being taking away. Hey snowflake, you don't like rights being taken away when it effects you, do you ?????

This just made my day !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bob Denman]

No Bob, I was and still am a British citizen.

Since you're still a British Subject, and don't seem to want to assimilate: why are you here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject

[UtahPete]

Since you're still a British Subject, and don't seem to want to assimilate: why are you here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject

By your own reference, I am NOT a 'British Subject' but rather a British citizen, so why do you insist on using that label?
Currently the term 'British subject' refers, in British nationality law, to a limited class of different people defined by Part IV of the British Nationality Act 1981. Under that Act, two groups of people became "British subjects"; the first were people from the Republic of Ireland born before 1949 who already claimed subject status, and the second covered a number of people who had previously been considered "British subjects without citizenship", and were not considered citizens of any other country.

What makes you say I don't seem to want to assimilate? That's the more interesting assumption I'd like to challenge.

Thirdly, even if I were a British Subject, and if I didn't want to assimilate (whatever that means), what does that have to do with where I choose to live?

[Bob Denman]

From that same source:

"Formerly 'British subject' was used to denote de facto citizenship of the United Kingdom and the British Empire, and until 1949 was used to refer generally to any person born or naturalised in the United Kingdom or the British Empire, including the independent dominions such as Canada and Australia (but not including protectorates, e.g., the Princely states, who had their own separate citizenship status). The term had a more complex interpretation between 1949 and 1983 and the move to independence of many of the colonies, with subject status existing alongside citizenship of an individual country or colony.

The term 'subject' is used rather than 'citizen' because in a monarchy the monarch is the source of authority in whose name all legal power in civil and military law is exercised. The people of a monarchy in former times were regarded as the monarch's subjects who were under certain obligations such as owing allegiance to, and thereby entitled to the protection of, the Crown."

When you try to judge our American Society by your British standards, and impose them upon us: it smells like a very dismissive attitude concerning our values...

[johnsimion]

Soo what do you do?
Do you throw in the towel; whenever you figure that you can't win?
That's worse than sad: it's sad AND it's pitiful!

Without getting into a discussion of tactics: Do you honestly think that every Officer is going to obey an order that has them firing upon American Citizens?
What about the forward troops?

Personally I think you are right about officers (soldiers in general) not firing upon American citizens, but that fact also kind of undermines the idea of arming the populace to prevent a military coup (IMO the best defense against a military takeover would be staffing the military through a draft rather than as an all-volunteer army). However, I think the whole argument for gun control is moot; there are so many guns in circulation right now that gun control now would be like closing the barn door after the horse ran out. I'd rather see more police, judges and prisons than more gun laws that would inevitably be evaded. And it only takes one person to evade a gun law to wreak all kinds of havoc.

[UtahPete]

From that same source: "Formerly 'British subject' was used to denote de facto citizenship of the United Kingdom and the British Empire, and until 1949 was used to refer generally to any person born or naturalised in the United Kingdom or the British Empire. The term 'subject' is used rather than 'citizen' because in a monarchy the monarch is the source of authority in whose name all legal power in civil and military law is exercised. The people of a monarchy in former times were regarded as the monarch's subjects who were under certain obligations such as owing allegiance to, and thereby entitled to the protection of, the Crown."

When you try to judge our American Society by your British standards, and impose them upon us: it smells like a very dismissive attitude concerning our values...

Okay, thanks for that.

What is it that I say which leads you to believe I am judging your American Society by my British standards and seek to impose British standards (whatever they are) on you?

By the way, I'm using your words here re: you and us. I am every bit American as you are Bob. Maybe even more than you are since I chose to become American rather than just being born into it and chose to serve MY country (America) for 10 years in the military (American). Moreover, I came to America as a 12-year-old and have never been back to England, so I wouldn't any more speak for 'British' standards as I would 'American' standards, whatever they are.

[Bob Denman]

Another "Dreamer"...
My family came here in 1795... we're dug in deeper "than a Texas Chigger"!
But you clearly haven't assimilated.
You might have taken an oath; you might even have put on the uniform...

...But don't try to sell yourself as "more American": your heart is still in England.

[UtahPete]

Another "Dreamer"... My family came here in 1795... we're dug in deeper "than a Texas Chigger"!
But you clearly haven't assimilated. You might have taken an oath; you might even have put on the uniform......But don't try to sell yourself as "more American": your heart is still in England.

Bob, I would like you to explain why you think that way about me. What have I said to give you that idea?

What does it mean, in your mind, to be assimilated into American society and where, in your mind, have I fallen short of that ideal?

I'm beginning to get the idea that you believe you have more of a claim to define Americanism than I do because I wasn't born here. Is that right?

[johnsimion]

Another "Dreamer"...
My family came here in 1795... we're dug in deeper "than a Texas Chigger"!
But you clearly haven't assimilated.
You might have taken an oath; you might even have put on the uniform...

...But don't try to sell yourself as "more American": your heart is still in England.

I was born here and served 23 years in the military and I'm retired from it. I share most of Pete's political views. I get the feeling I'd have to join the Republican Party, vote for Trump and have a pickup truck full of guns to be fully assimilated under your definition, but that's not the America that I defended throughout my career. Rethink your comment, Bob. Anyone who has served in America's military and taken the oath is a fully assimilated American. To say otherwise is really, really offensive.

[newbert]

Another "Dreamer"...
My family came here in 1795... we're dug in deeper "than a Texas Chigger"!
But you clearly haven't assimilated.
You might have taken an oath; you might even have put on the uniform...

...But don't try to sell yourself as "more American": your heart is still in England.

Wow! Just when I thought that you couldn't go any lower...

1. Exactly when did UtahPete say that he was "more American" than you?

2. "My family came here in 1795" - SO WHAT??? - That STILL makes you a son/grandson/great-grandson of IMMIGRANTS - just like the rest of us (except if you're Native American?). I'd say that his taking an oath and putting on the uniform means a h_ll of a lot more than family lineage (which neither of you, or any of us, have any control over).

3. And what's this about "assimilating". Haven't you ever heard of the term "Melting Pot"?

Sheesh!

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

Personally I think you are right about officers (soldiers in general) not firing upon American citizens, but that fact also kind of undermines the idea of arming the populace to prevent a military coup (IMO the best defense against a military takeover would be staffing the military through a draft rather than as an all-volunteer army). However, I think the whole argument for gun control is moot; there are so many guns in circulation right now that gun control now would be like closing the barn door after the horse ran out. I'd rather see more police, judges and prisons than more gun laws that would inevitably be evaded. And it only takes one person to evade a gun law to wreak all kinds of havoc.

i would like to see more hookers & strippers then guns or police.

[UtahPete]

i would like to see more hookers & strippers then guns or police.

Nice try at redirection, Spiderman, but I think Bob is going to have this thread pulled anyway.

[MR. H1956]

i would like to see more hookers & strippers then guns or police.

Not much on the hookers and strippers. But how about some more spyder rallys so we can hang out and and act like a family. Maybe a nice cookout would help. I always like a good burger and hot dog with some baked beans. Thats probably just wishful thinking.

[Netminder]

Tick Tock! Very surprised this thread has gone on this long!