America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by Abrignac. 117 replies replies.
3 Pages123>
Thoughts from our founding fathers.
Speyside Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.
Benjamin Franklin

We have all one common cause; let it, therefore, be our only contest, who shall most contribute to the security of the liberties of America.
John Hancock

The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.
James Madison

A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
George Washington

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.
Samuel Adams

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
John Adams

There is a certain enthusiasm in liberty that makes human nature rise above itself in acts of bravery and heroism.
Alexander Hamilton

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Patrick Henry

Seems to me many have forgotten that freedom/liberty must be protected no matter what the cost. Our founding fathers intentions were very clear. Thought a little reminder of their thoughts was appropriate.
Gene363 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,815
Exactly.
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
But, but, they where all a bunch of old white men, which makes their statements hateful, irrelevant, sexist, racist and homophobic. Just ask your typical prog.


Sarcasm


David (dpnewell)
HuckFinn Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
Great post Speyside
Great insights.

Hard to reconcile what's acceptable today with what our founding fathers warned us about.
dstieger Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
We could save soooo much money doing away with laws.... regulations and, while we're at it the entire judicial system



Every quote is outstanding when we apply it to those people pure of heart and attuned to our own values and goals....as to the rest of the population...wgaf, I guess


Hey....I'm probably 85% libertarian....but even I can see/acknowledge that there's a portion of the population, that IMO can't handle freedom and liberty very well...maybe a large portion....so, turn those cool quotes into actionable ideas for today, please
Gene363 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,815
dstieger wrote:
We could save soooo much money doing away with laws.... regulations and, while we're at it the entire judicial system



Every quote is outstanding when we apply it to those people pure of heart and attuned to our own values and goals....as to the rest of the population...wgaf, I guess


Hey....I'm probably 85% libertarian....but even I can see/acknowledge that there's a portion of the population, that IMO can't handle freedom and liberty very well...maybe a large portion....so, turn those cool quotes into actionable ideas for today, please


If they visited the US today and saw how intrusive the Federal Government has become they might be asking what happened to The Second Amendment.
HuckFinn Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
Gene363 wrote:
If they visited the US today and saw how intrusive the Federal Government has become they might be asking what happened to The Second Amendment.

More likely they'd be troubled by how deadly modern weapons are.
tailgater Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
HuckFinn wrote:
More likely they'd be troubled by how deadly modern weapons are.



If they were to walk today and visit America 2018, I doubt that weaponry would be a top 10 item that offended them.

Abrignac Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
HuckFinn wrote:
More likely they'd be troubled by how deadly modern weapons are.


You mean the propensity of people to kill their fellow citizens?

Huck, you're made it clear that you support control legislation. But, you haven't offered any proof that such legislation would accomplish what you wish it to accomplish. What would you say to compel anyone to change their belief's and support your position?
rfenst Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,323
tailgater wrote:
If they were to walk today and visit America 2018, I doubt that weaponry would be a top 10 item that offended them.



True, true.
teedubbya Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
If Bruce Jenner can keep his d[i]ck and be considered a woman, I can keep my guns and be considered disarmed - Patrick Henry
Abrignac Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
teedubbya wrote:
If Bruce Jenner can keep his d[i]ck and be considered a woman, I can keep my guns and be considered disarmed - Patrick Henry


All in favor say aye, opposed say no. The vote is 10-1. The dicks win.
victor809 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Anthony... that's disingenuous.
Again... I don't support any legislation against gun ownership by anyone. But to claim that there is no proof that legislation will reduce fun violence is simply not correct. We have laws in place currently which many seem to like. I'm gonna bet you like restrictions against felons owning guns... I'm gonna bet you like restrictions against your average citizen owning surface to air missiles...

People like to pretend there is no possible way legislation could have an impact... but the reality is that it does. The question should be ... do we really care. I dont... that's why I don't support the legislation. But I don't lie to myself and say it wouldn't do anything...
victor809 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Anthony... that's disingenuous.
Again... I don't support any legislation against gun ownership by anyone. But to claim that there is no proof that legislation will reduce fun violence is simply not correct. We have laws in place currently which many seem to like. I'm gonna bet you like restrictions against felons owning guns... I'm gonna bet you like restrictions against your average citizen owning surface to air missiles...

People like to pretend there is no possible way legislation could have an impact... but the reality is that it does. The question should be ... do we really care. I dont... that's why I don't support the legislation. But I don't lie to myself and say it wouldn't do anything...
Speyside Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
It strikes me that our freedom/ liberty and our constitution are under attack from all sides. In 2016 2,712,630 people died in the USA. There were about 11,000 gun related homicides in the USA in 2016. Do we really need to take away our rights for this?
Phil222 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
Speyside wrote:
In 2016 2,712,630 people died in the USA.

"All manner of things kill white people, but you know what kills more black people...more than anything, more than police and terrorism? Salt...regular azz table salt...." -Dave Chappelle
frankj1 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
not a religious guy, but I'm praying Kosher salt is not blamed.
DrafterX Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
Pray
MACS Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,776
teedubbya wrote:
If Bruce Jenner can keep his d[i]ck and be considered a woman, I can keep my guns and be considered disarmed - Patrick Henry


Okay, that was frickin funny!!
Abrignac Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
victor809 wrote:
Anthony... that's disingenuous.
Again... I don't support any legislation against gun ownership by anyone. But to claim that there is no proof that legislation will reduce fun violence is simply not correct. We have laws in place currently which many seem to like. I'm gonna bet you like restrictions against felons owning guns... I'm gonna bet you like restrictions against your average citizen owning surface to air missiles...

People like to pretend there is no possible way legislation could have an impact... but the reality is that it does. The question should be ... do we really care. I dont... that's why I don't support the legislation. But I don't lie to myself and say it wouldn't do anything...



If legislation was put forth that I though would actually have an overall meaningful net effect I would support it. Having had plenty of hands on experience with the subject matter I know that none of the so-called common sense legislation being proposed will have any measurable effect on gun related deaths.

There are more than 300,000,000 privately owned firearms in the US. As long as those firearms are dispersed amongst the population, anyone determined to commit gun violence will have the means. I’m able to back that statement up with the knowledge that a vast majority of gun deaths are attributable to stolen firearms.

With that said, I find it disengenous that someone who say that those proposals are nothing more than another road on the route to complete disarmament.
HuckFinn Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
Abrignac wrote:
You mean the propensity of people to kill their fellow citizens?

Huck, you're made it clear that you support control legislation. But, you haven't offered any proof that such legislation would accomplish what you wish it to accomplish. What would you say to compel anyone to change their belief's and support your position?

Abrignac, smarter, stringently enforced gun laws are JUST A SMALL PART of what I've been advocating in my posts. Is it coincidence that world-wide we have the most guns per capita and the most gun violence?

Does the tremendous amount of guns and their easy accessibilty in America have NOTHING to do with the amount of gun violence we experience in our country? Nothing?

Seems you're selectively reading/understanding opposing points of view.

Hopefully Florida's new gun legislation will show results one way or the other.

And when was the last time anyone had their opinion changed on cbid?



DrafterX Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
That would be gay... Mellow
Abrignac Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
HuckFinn wrote:
Abrignac, smarter, stringently enforced gun laws are JUST A SMALL PART of what I've been advocating in my posts. Is it coincidence that world-wide we have the most guns per capita and the most gun violence?

Does the tremendous amount of guns and their easy accessibilty in America have NOTHING to do with the amount of gun violence we experience in our country? Nothing?

Seems you're selectively reading/understanding opposing points of view.

Hopefully Florida's new gun legislation will show results one way or the other.

And when was the last time anyone had their opinion changed on cbid?





Seems reading comprehension isn’t a strong point of yours.
HuckFinn Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
Abrignac wrote:
Seems reading comprehension isn’t a strong point of yours.

Not worth a real reply.
Abrignac Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
HuckFinn wrote:
Not worth a real reply.


Not surprised. You’re unable to comprehend anything I posted so it’s no surprise you’re unable to formulate any reply.
HuckFinn Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
Abrignac wrote:
Not surprised. You’re unable to comprehend anything I posted so it’s no surprise you’re unable to formulate any reply.

Hard for me at this point to want to remain civil with you.
I've answered multiple questions of yours and you've dodged each of mine.
And then you try to insult me.
Good thing I really don't give a chit.

I'm done wasting my time talking to you.
Hope you feel the same.

Speyside Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
I don't know Frank, didn't your salt kill a sea?
Abrignac Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
HuckFinn wrote:
Hard for me at this point to want to remain civil with you.
I've answered multiple questions of yours and you've dodged each of mine.
And then you try to insult me.
Good thing I really don't give a chit.

I'm done wasting my time talking to you.
Hope you feel the same.



No one tried to insult anyone. I simply pointed out that you haven't understood what I posted. You got butt-hurt.
Ewok126 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,356
Honestly my humble 0.02 here. If I seriously wanted to kill a person or people and could not get my hands on a firearm of choice, Yes I would find another way of doing it. If it be a tire iron, a car, a large syringe filled with bleach, a bomb, slip some dried oleander, hemlock, foxglove or larkspur in the family meal, Shove a blade in to the magnum foramen so as the person can not scream or make any noise... Heck the list goes on and on.

As an adult I will have to admit, I do not like having a group of people (Gubment) not just tell me what I can and can not do but to take away the option all together. Just because some other nut does stupid chit then to punish me for it is wrong.Tommy didn't do his homework so lets paddle every child in the class. I mean standard every day laws yes but the reason those are there is just to keep honest people honest. Yes, I view most laws as like a padlock but, to make laws where I can not have access to an AK because some other dumb ass broke the law. To me that just seems like I am being punished for some other goobers mistake. Hundreds of people drive drunk and kill people on a regular basis, So a law should be passed to where everyone has to have a breathalyzer installed on every car or better yet can't own a car? I mean think about this, For every bad thing that happens to where people kill other people because of some bunch of dumb arse's, We should pass a law that will not only make things harder for you to acquire but to take away your total access to all together. Take away your pocket knife because it is used here and there to kill or to cut and mame. Then you get to feel as if you are the one being punished for some retards mistake, you get to feel as if you are not in control of your life but those that think they know better than you or what is better for you, will control it for you. You get to become the one that is treated as if you are to dumb or stupid. See then it becomes where your life is no longer "YOUR LIFE"

Do I use an AR to hunt no.... Do I like shooting them, yes.....Can I live without it, yes.... Would I feel like my gubment punished me and was treating me as if I was a retard... ABSOLUTELY! Would it be my first go to item to kill no, and that is the thing most law abiding citizens would not do such to start with. We are talking about taking away the freedom of acess from people that have not done nothing wrong for convenience just to ease other people's opinions and minds when in fact it would not easy my mind not one single bit. It makes me feel as if I am being chit on, as if I am too damn dumb to own a high capacity mag much less the firearm that its used in because of other people.

I just get so dang frustrated with this. Hell next thing you know all the dudes across this nation will get a letter from the White House saying we got to turn in our balls because some idiots are just too stupid to have em because they ruin the lives of so many women and produce bastid children. Should one night stands be against the law? Should a person's choice be taken away to have a one night stands? I do not agree with one night stands. They are dangerous, they can spread deadly diseases, it goes against my morals, it ruins lives of children, women and men. Do I feel the gubment should take away your freedom or rights to have one NO!

Now that I done got myself bent time to go smoke a Cigar. I feel a Johnny-O is in order. Peace Brothers!
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
^Nice rant, Chris. I completely agree.

David (dpnewell)
jjanecka Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Yeah Ewok, you're a well constituted man.
Speyside Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Well stated Ewok. I agree.
Gene363 Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,815
Mrs. dpnewell wrote:
^Nice rant, Chris. I completely agree.

David (dpnewell)


+1
victor809 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Here's the problem with your rant ewok...

Yeah... you can kill people lots of ways. But the easier you make it, the more likely someone is to do it ... both overall and on impulse. Especially when you're talking random killings. No one is talking about stopping all murder. But when you look at someone on the margins... Someone who may just wake up having the 100th really bad day and they're just done... if they don't have access to a gun that day... maybe they start planning a way to kill everyone tomorrow... but by the time they figure out their plan they've gotten over it.

Or you reduce efficiency... their multi home murder may be less effective because they're only using a knife... or only running people down with cars....

At the margins you would see a reduction in death.

Again... I am not advocating a reduction in death. We have too many people as it is, and I'm not that fond of humanity... I say arm everyone with fully automatic weapons and make protective vests illegal. That'll make life wayyy more interesting.
DrafterX Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
2 kill rule... Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
DrafterX wrote:
2 kill rule... Mellow

max or min?
HuckFinn Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
DrafterX wrote:
2 kill rule... Mellow

.....birds with one stone?
robo60 Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 07-28-2016
Posts: 112
"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms" Thomas Jefferson
DrafterX Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
Ya, but he owned slaves and stuff.. Mellow
Ewok126 Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,356
victor809 wrote:
Here's the problem with your rant ewok...

Yeah... you can kill people lots of ways. But the easier you make it, the more likely someone is to do it ... both overall and on impulse. Especially when you're talking random killings. No one is talking about stopping all murder. But when you look at someone on the margins... Someone who may just wake up having the 100th really bad day and they're just done... if they don't have access to a gun that day... maybe they start planning a way to kill everyone tomorrow... but by the time they figure out their plan they've gotten over it.

Or you reduce efficiency... their multi home murder may be less effective because they're only using a knife... or only running people down with cars....

At the margins you would see a reduction in death.

Again... I am not advocating a reduction in death. We have too many people as it is, and I'm not that fond of humanity... I say arm everyone with fully automatic weapons and make protective vests illegal. That'll make life wayyy more interesting.


I agree with what you are saying but that is like saying if we take away the option to buy cars then we reduce the number of people driving and the drunk drivers have less a chances of killing someone. I can not deny these facts. But, to infringe on my freedom to have a car because of others stupidity is wrong. To treat me as a drunk driver is wrong even more so when our government wants to treat everyone as such and pass laws to do it.

Now we are saying that EVERYONE should be treated as if they have snapped, treat everyone as if they will snap. I have had over 508 days straight of bad days now. Could I snap tomorrow yes, so could you or anyone for that matter. To take away what we have just to appease others or for convenience or to solve a problem is wrong. Isn't that how slavery came about because a bunch of people thought it was best,It solved their problems, for their convenience of a problem? That's just how I see things. I can't say it is right for everyone or even say it is right in general but I can say its right for me.
HuckFinn Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
Seems to me we're talking in circles as it regards guns.

We haven't seen any gun legislation except for Florida really, right?

Illinois is trying to change the age eligibility to 21 and eliminate bump stocks.

Washington wants to get rid of bump stocks, raise age limits and prevent further sales of semi-automatic weapons.

Pennsylvania wants to eliminate assault weapons

South Dakota and Oklahoma want to loosen gun laws so...

Just wondering if all this gun conversation isn't just circular and useless?

Info from
https://reason.com/blog/2018/03/05/these-3-states-want-to-make-gun-ownershi
frankj1 Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
there was a Federal ban on "assault" weapons, No expert here, but something like that? Enacted mid 90's
and it expired 2004 or 2005 or so.

Today's Boston Globe referenced that in a front page article about a Federal Judge upholding Massachusetts' extension of that original Federal ban...apparently supported by a 2008 Supreme Court decision that "weapons that are most useful in military service-M16s and the like are not protected under the 2nd Amendment and may be banned"...BUT are therefore a State by State decision.

I never knew this precedent had been established.
victor809 Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Ewok...
I'm again not suggesting we ban any guns. I'm just pointing out that people saying a ban won't have any impact are lying.

The true statement is "I don't feel the ban will reduce killings enough to justify my loss of rights to own specific guns"

People make this decision all the time. Even pro gun people will decide some weaponry should be restricted.. or some people should have their rights infringed. There is nothing wrong with making this decision either way.

But it tires me out to constantly hear the pro gun side simply lie...and say "it won't make any impact" because they are afraid of being honest and saying "a few deaths are an acceptable loss"

Phil222 Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
victor809 wrote:
Ewok...
I'm again not suggesting we ban any guns. I'm just pointing out that people saying a ban won't have any impact are lying.

The true statement is "I don't feel the ban will reduce killings enough to justify my loss of rights to own specific guns"

People make this decision all the time. Even pro gun people will decide some weaponry should be restricted.. or some people should have their rights infringed. There is nothing wrong with making this decision either way.

But it tires me out to constantly hear the pro gun side simply lie...and say "it won't make any impact" because they are afraid of being honest and saying "a few deaths are an acceptable loss"



I find it hard to believe that by banning guns it will not bring down the murder rates. That being said, I have seen no studies that claim this to be the case. I have only seen studies that claim it will bring down the "gun homicide" rates. Have you seen something different?
victor809 Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
No studies... honestly... you could apply basic economic theory to this...
Make it harder to do something and some percentage fewer people will do it. All you really do when "banning" guns is raise the barrier to entry to do this task.
DrafterX Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
Banning guns will turn good law abiding citizens into criminals... Could set some people off and cause more violence.. Mellow
HuckFinn Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
Phil222 wrote:
I find it hard to believe that by banning guns it will not bring down the murder rates. That being said, I have seen no studies that claim this to be the case. I have only seen studies that claim it will bring down the "gun homicide" rates. Have you seen something different?

I looked too. Couldn't find anything either.

It seems like common sense that removing a substantial amount of guns 'should' have that effect.
Here's a link that talks about how that worked out in other countries

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-deaths-nearly-eliminated-in-countries-what-us-can-learn-2017-11
DrafterX Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
Comparing us to other countries won't work... Everybody else are wussies... Mellow
Phil222 Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
Abstract
The 1996-1997 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996, where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we reanalyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates in Australia.
http://ro.uow.edu.au/buspapers/594/

Homicide rates in England and Wales pre/post handgun ban.
https://i2.wp.com/mygunculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/UK_Homicide_rates_gun_ban3.png

"Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms. Education and poverty are directly linked. In short, we don’t have a gun problem in the United States, we have a cultural problem..."
https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/

My mind is not set on ANY issue. I would be willing to change my beliefs if there was evidence of a significant impact on homicide rates. The baby step legislation that has been happening around the country will do little to nothing. Sad truth.
DrafterX Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5991055/london-stabbing-news-game-scores-knife-attack-points/

Think
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages123>