Well actually the 1st paragraph read: "Mere possession of a 15 round capacity magazine for sporting purposes and/or home defense should not be a crime.", and had the argument already been lost, it wouldn't be due to the content of the letter... only in the manner it was presented.
If Gov. Christie is in fact laughing at them and ignores their statement, it will be to his eventual detriment. That's how this works. A magazine ban or assault weapon ban is the wrong idea, not because it because it hinders my ability to engage in sporting activities, rather because the Constitution (and don't even get me started on the HUMAN rights end of this argument!) forbids it. To be honest, the fact that the Constitution forbids it isn't even the greater share of why I believe this idea is sheer stupidity. I believe it is sheer stupidity because the idea that a legislator, Governor, or anyone else for that matter, has the wherewithal to tell me what I can and cannot own is a notion that reality will never suffer. Anyone in this world can in fact say these things to me, but should be prepared in the next breath to hear me telling them to go pound salt, which is exactly what will happen. This is how the progression looks to me:
Legislator tells me it is now illegal to own a particular firearm/magazine unless I register it.
I write a letter telling him to stuff it.
I become a de-facto criminal.
They come for my firearm.
They lock me up.
I escape.
I disappear.
I go hunting.
That's the way this eventually goes folks. There is no human on the face of this earth strong enough or smart enough to compel me to surrender willingly my inclination toward self defense, through the adequate application of firepower. It's not about political posturing. It's not about legislative manipulation. In the end it's about death. It always has been.
While I'm at it, let me explain why this is so, because there is a disconnect out there as to what these politicians believe and what reality dictates... at least for me. The fact that gun control will never work is due to the erroneous supposition that once a thing is banned, the people will desire to rid themselves of said thing. Politicians believe this because all of their faith is in the law itself. They believe the law is the highest power known to mankind. That's a load of crap! The law merely gives voice to, reaffirms, the notions declared by God. If that unsettles you, go away. Progressing further along this line, if the law deviates from the path of true righteousness, I deviate from the law. Sorry. Yeah, not really. In the end, the only way to make me choose the law over God would be to subjugate me, and no mere man will subjugate me while I yet live. Ever.
Have I been clear enough?
So, Longbow, to say that the argument is lost is long on supposition, short on fact. The argument is not yet finished, and won't be until the last shot rings out to beckon a resurgence of liberty in this land. God willing, this won't occur for a long, long time, but if it does happen, I intend to argue with my last breath.
Oh and two more things: Give up? Never. Go home? I AM home. ~Shawn
The letter won't do crap. The entire state of NJ is culturally like a city. Cities are shitholes because they are populated largely by people who gravitate towards the collective ... sheeple who have no sense of independence or self-reliance live there in hopes that those motivated by their lust for power over others will grace them with a few crumbs and "protection" from the savages amongst them, in exchange for their obedience and servitude.
I used to live in the PRNJ. I was a non - charged criminal by virtue of owning some plastic and metal boxes with springs that that a group of out of control sociopaths decided were "too big." How many? Well, as we passed the "Welcome to Delaware" sign 13 years ago I informed my wife that she wouldn't have to be concerned about bailing me out of jail. She asked why, (after picking her jaw up off the floor) and I told her about the magazine ban. She asked how many I had and I told her that 18 inches behind my ass was about 200 years in Rahway (a NJ prison) worth. She turned white. I did explain to her that there were no such laws in Texas.
I, too, don't give a furry rat's ass what some politician says that I am "allowed" to own...If I had everything I have confiscated, I would learn to operate a CNC machine and make my own if I couldn't buy one. I will NOT be disarmed.
Shawn said, quote: "So, Longbow, to say that the argument is lost is long on supposition, short on fact."
Shawn, understand what I was saying. I was not advocating surrender. I was trying to show that when one uses the enemy's lexicon, and that is exactly what was done in the letter, one has already lost the argument. If the enemy sets the terms for the battle, one has lost before he engages.
Gun Grabbers say they want to reduce crime with gun control laws. You and I both know that gun control laws do not reduce crime. We then try to argue logically against that position. When we do that we are playing into the enemy's hand. He knows gun control laws don't reduce crime, they even have the opposite effect. He knows full well. He doesn't care. He just wants control. The argument about crime and crime rates is a CHARADE to spin us up and keep YOU and ME busy while he controls us.
When the enemy has set the terms for the debate, by saying or implying the only valid reason to own weapons is "sporting purposes", and we allow the false starting premise, we have already lost the argument. See above.
If New Jersey citizens will not start with the premise "Free Men have the right to arms! Period! I am a Free Man! I am armed! Don't FUCK with me!", they will not win the debate and will not live as free people. IF they will not engage on that premise, they have already lost. They might as well go home and not engage at all.
6 comments:
In the first paragraph, they mention "Sporting purposes" and in the second, they start talking about crime.
They have already lost the argument. Give up and go home. Christie is laughing at them.
"Christie is laughing at them."
There's a Second Amendment Society of New Jersey"? I have to admit I had to supress a chuckle upon reading that. What exactly have they been doing?
Well actually the 1st paragraph read: "Mere possession of a 15 round capacity magazine for sporting purposes and/or home defense should not be a crime.", and had the argument already been lost, it wouldn't be due to the content of the letter... only in the manner it was presented.
If Gov. Christie is in fact laughing at them and ignores their statement, it will be to his eventual detriment. That's how this works. A magazine ban or assault weapon ban is the wrong idea, not because it because it hinders my ability to engage in sporting activities, rather because the Constitution (and don't even get me started on the HUMAN rights end of this argument!) forbids it. To be honest, the fact that the Constitution forbids it isn't even the greater share of why I believe this idea is sheer stupidity. I believe it is sheer stupidity because the idea that a legislator, Governor, or anyone else for that matter, has the wherewithal to tell me what I can and cannot own is a notion that reality will never suffer. Anyone in this world can in fact say these things to me, but should be prepared in the next breath to hear me telling them to go pound salt, which is exactly what will happen. This is how the progression looks to me:
Legislator tells me it is now illegal to own a particular firearm/magazine unless I register it.
I write a letter telling him to stuff it.
I become a de-facto criminal.
They come for my firearm.
They lock me up.
I escape.
I disappear.
I go hunting.
That's the way this eventually goes folks. There is no human on the face of this earth strong enough or smart enough to compel me to surrender willingly my inclination toward self defense, through the adequate application of firepower. It's not about political posturing. It's not about legislative manipulation. In the end it's about death. It always has been.
While I'm at it, let me explain why this is so, because there is a disconnect out there as to what these politicians believe and what reality dictates... at least for me. The fact that gun control will never work is due to the erroneous supposition that once a thing is banned, the people will desire to rid themselves of said thing. Politicians believe this because all of their faith is in the law itself. They believe the law is the highest power known to mankind. That's a load of crap! The law merely gives voice to, reaffirms, the notions declared by God. If that unsettles you, go away. Progressing further along this line, if the law deviates from the path of true righteousness, I deviate from the law. Sorry. Yeah, not really. In the end, the only way to make me choose the law over God would be to subjugate me, and no mere man will subjugate me while I yet live. Ever.
Have I been clear enough?
So, Longbow, to say that the argument is lost is long on supposition, short on fact. The argument is not yet finished, and won't be until the last shot rings out to beckon a resurgence of liberty in this land. God willing, this won't occur for a long, long time, but if it does happen, I intend to argue with my last breath.
Oh and two more things:
Give up? Never.
Go home? I AM home.
~Shawn
The letter won't do crap.
The entire state of NJ is culturally like a city.
Cities are shitholes because they are populated largely by people who gravitate towards the collective ... sheeple who have no sense of independence or self-reliance live there in hopes that those motivated by their lust for power over others will grace them with a few crumbs and "protection" from the savages amongst them, in exchange for their obedience and servitude.
I used to live in the PRNJ. I was a non - charged criminal by virtue of owning some plastic and metal boxes with springs that that a group of out of control sociopaths decided were "too big." How many? Well, as we passed the "Welcome to Delaware" sign 13 years ago I informed my wife that she wouldn't have to be concerned about bailing me out of jail. She asked why, (after picking her jaw up off the floor) and I told her about the magazine ban. She asked how many I had and I told her that 18 inches behind my ass was about 200 years in Rahway (a NJ prison) worth. She turned white. I did explain to her that there were no such laws in Texas.
I, too, don't give a furry rat's ass what some politician says that I am "allowed" to own...If I had everything I have confiscated, I would learn to operate a CNC machine and make my own if I couldn't buy one. I will NOT be disarmed.
Shawn said, quote: "So, Longbow, to say that the argument is lost is long on supposition, short on fact."
Shawn, understand what I was saying. I was not advocating surrender. I was trying to show that when one uses the enemy's lexicon, and that is exactly what was done in the letter, one has already lost the argument. If the enemy sets the terms for the battle, one has lost before he engages.
Gun Grabbers say they want to reduce crime with gun control laws. You and I both know that gun control laws do not reduce crime. We then try to argue logically against that position. When we do that we are playing into the enemy's hand. He knows gun control laws don't reduce crime, they even have the opposite effect. He knows full well. He doesn't care. He just wants control. The argument about crime and crime rates is a CHARADE to spin us up and keep YOU and ME busy while he controls us.
When the enemy has set the terms for the debate, by saying or implying the only valid reason to own weapons is "sporting purposes", and we allow the false starting premise, we have already lost the argument. See above.
If New Jersey citizens will not start with the premise "Free Men have the right to arms! Period! I am a Free Man! I am armed! Don't FUCK with me!", they will not win the debate and will not live as free people. IF they will not engage on that premise, they have already lost. They might as well go home and not engage at all.
Regards,
LB
Post a Comment