![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
 Posted - September 25 2003 : 11:34:56 AM
|
Bill,
As to the 2004 Grand Encampment, I'll have to dig out the pamphlet that George Reilly (Maryland Provincials) gave me at Ft. Meigs in August. As soon as I locate it, I'll post the information in "The Muster" portion of the board. As to the beverages, I'll have traditional army-issued porter beer (cold, of course), Pusser's Rum, madiera and port wine (in case Cousin Seamus stops by).
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
report to moderator  |
|
|
Hawkeye_Joe
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 31 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 25 2003 : 12:03:06 PM
|
| Sgt. Have you any intention of going to The Eastern Primitive in Ohio this week? I'd have a bottle (or three) of Goslings Black rum there and some Porter if you have a mind to drop in. |
HAWK
"The scum of every nation gravitates to the frontier."
Benjamin Franklin 1750
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for
lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin 1759
The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, "I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it."
"Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Seamus
Guardian of Heaven's Gate
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 19 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 25 2003 : 12:20:48 PM
|
Bill, and Duncan, me lad!! Here is what you seek. There is a link to the park site near the bottom. I will not know if we will be attending or not. It is a tremendous haul for us and many of my lads have vacation time to use judiciously. I expect that it will not be high on our priority list come our Annual Meeting where events are voted upon. Frankly, I, personally, do not get excited about Michigan as an F&I War theater. Yeah, that territory was involved somewhat because of the French fur trade, etc., and all that, but by the time stuff happened there, it was about over. The GE should take place where it REALLY happened, IMHO. BUT......Those sites are difficult to find with enough room for everything, though. Be that as it may, the hobbyists in the mid-west should have a chance to play without having to come here, too, so it does serve a purpose.
IF I do get there, however, you can bet I will toss a few with you both! Bill is good folks, Duncan. I made his acquaintance at a Gathering a few years ago with Malcolm and Davey Gunn. Eat your heart out, laddie......Adele was there, too, and I will vouch that she truly is a fox! ( Yes, you are, Huggy!!)
Anyway, read on:
THE French and Indian War Grand Encampment
GE#2 * July 9-11, 2004
Stony Creek Park, Shelby Township, Michigan
GE#2: The Encore Event
The French and Indian War Grand Encampment Council (GEC) has the great
honor to invite F&I units from North America and Europe to attend its
second event in 2004. Tapping into the success and momentum of GE#1,
July 2002, at Daniel Boone Homestead in eastern Pennsylvania, our hope
is to make GE#2 even larger and more innovative. We hope you will
attend.
French and Woodland Indian Connection
Historically there were many WI villages (Ottawa and Mascoutin) plus
French trade centers/settlements at Forts Michilimackinac, St. Joseph
(Niles) and Pontchartrain (Detroit), the 3rd. largest French city.
“Water roads” connected
territories from west to east. One “water road” traveled Lake Erie into
the St. Clair River stopping at Detroit, then into Lake Huron to Fort
Michilimackinac. Trade then went into Lake Michigan to Fort La Baye
(Green Bay, WI) or further south to Fort St. Joseph then south along the
Wabash River to Fort Ouiatenon in northwest IN and into IL to Fort de
Chartres (IL) or Fort La Jonquiere (WI/MN). French colonists, soldiers
and Woodland Indian allies from MI, IN, OH, IL and WI traveled east
supporting their interests in The Great War For Empire.
British Connection
In 1760 a force of regulars and rangers sent from the east via Niagara
and Lake Erie took possession of the western French forts and trade
centers. This force succeeded in accepting the surrender of all but
Michilimackinac that year. The latter surrendered in 1761. The British
garrisoned the west including MI, WI and IL through Pontiac's
Rebellion and afterwards.
INNOVATIONS (What's New?)
Waterborne Activities!
There is a large lake in two sections. We ask that every historically
looking canoe, bateau, whaleboat, flat bottomed boat and radeau be
brought in order to:
Recreate lake expeditions as were conducted on Lakes Champlain, George
and Ontario. Send waterborne forces to rendezvous with each other and
overland columns to attack the enemy. Adjacent forests hide everything
from view until landings occur. Take part and relive actual events as
they occurred in the real war!
Semi-Isolated Camps!
French, Woodland Indian, British and Sutler camps will be separated for
advantages and sensations of separation and cultural integrity. However,
they will not be so far away as to prohibit visiting friends or to
satisfy curiosities about other camps. Sutlers will be centered between
all camps.
Demonstration Battalion!
At the end of Grand Tacticals, all French/British will combine into one
formation to demonstrate what an historically-sized battalion looks like
for maneuver and fire. {For us and the public}
|
Life's journey is not to
arrive at the grave safely
in a well preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways,
totally worn out, shouting
'...holy sh*t ...what a ride!'
~~Mavis Leyrer, Seattle
Seamus
~~Aim small, hit the b*****d right between the eyes!~~ |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 25 2003 : 1:27:40 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seamus
Adele was there, too, and I will vouch that she truly is a fox! ( Yes, you are, Huggy!!)
Ok, enough already! I would just like to point out that when Seamus and I met, vast quantities of ping were in the immediate vicinity...need I say more!
You are all making me laugh - as the photographic evidence on this very site will testify, I spent both Gatherings, cosmetic-less, sweaty, in most unflattering (but highly practical!) sloppy clothes and walking boots! - and at G2K was labouring under the weight of an additional 50lbs!
However, thank you for making this a high self-esteem day!! :))
HM  |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Seamus
Guardian of Heaven's Gate
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 19 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 25 2003 : 1:45:49 PM
|
My dear Huggy-----
Ping or no ping, cosmetics or no, sweaty or not, 50 lbs extra or 5, sloppy clothes or none (ooops! I meant NOT!!), boots and all, I rest my case! |
Life's journey is not to
arrive at the grave safely
in a well preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways,
totally worn out, shouting
'...holy sh*t ...what a ride!'
~~Mavis Leyrer, Seattle
Seamus
~~Aim small, hit the b*****d right between the eyes!~~ |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 25 2003 : 1:56:06 PM
|
| Crap. Click on her link and check out her pic! If that ain't a British fox, then I'm mickey mouse. No wonder fox hunting was an English national sport! And fie upon those who would take away that sport with foxes in England looking like THAT! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Seamus
Guardian of Heaven's Gate
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 19 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 25 2003 : 2:59:19 PM
|
| Talley ho!! |
Life's journey is not to
arrive at the grave safely
in a well preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways,
totally worn out, shouting
'...holy sh*t ...what a ride!'
~~Mavis Leyrer, Seattle
Seamus
~~Aim small, hit the b*****d right between the eyes!~~ |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Gadget Girl
Gatherer of Gathering Gadgets
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - September 25 2003 : 3:32:25 PM
|
OK GUYS
SPLASH!!!
(Ice Cold bucket full there!  )
 To throw a fillip into the thread...NOW - you can all continue either the fox discussion or the right to bear arms dialogue at the Grandanimous, Greaterrific Gathering next summer - as Adele is a slated attendee. That way even SHE can raise a glass and join the "round table" , cause Michigan ain't no where close to halfway for her! Just think what a little gesticulation could add to this discussion (OR any Lion's Den discussion for that matter  )
GG  |
| report to moderator |
|
|
English Trader
Pioneer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
June 25 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 25 2003 : 10:25:38 PM
|
Well, now that the fire has dwindled, I'm going to throw on some more petrol and say, Well Done Adele! I agree with your stance whole-heartedly.
I have a few comments to add, if I may. But before I go on, I'm going to apologize for not quoting EXACTLY who said what, after all the exchanges to date. And I hope I don't mis-quote anyone too much.
First, I might point out that Bill and Sgt. Monro can pat each other on the back for stating well their OWN side -- I have to object that just because they agree, their comments are RIGHT. They are not necessarily right, except to those on that side of the fence.
Second, I have to say something about the comment "Also, having a firearm does offer protection against the more common acts of terrorist, that being suicide-bombers and gun-toting fighting cells (Just ask the Israelis)." Would I would expect the Israelis to say that having a gun doesn't do them any good against suicide bombers. If that were the case, we would hear report after report of armed Israeli Joe Bloggses preventing suicide bombers from blowing up a bus by shooting them. We DON'T hear that. We don't even hear that the armed guards shoot suicide bombers. The vast majority of the time, they don't know who the suicide bombers are until the bomb goes off.
About the aspect of culture (as in "our culture" or "your culture"). Culture is culture, but that doesn't mean it is right. Some cultures used to believe in cannibalism (still do). Should they not have the legal right to participate in cannibalism if that is their culture? How hypocritical are we? Also, regarding the comment that England was founded on the war lord idea (I'm really mis-quoting), you've actually supported Adele's arguement that guns are not necessary. That country may have been founded on personal right to protect family and property by any violent means possible, but it has equally certainly moved away from that stance. I don't recall sing Earl Spencer whip out a semi-automatic and take his revenge on the paparazzi when he thought they were responsible for Diana's death. I didn't sea Camilla's cuckolded husband shoot Prince Charles for cuckolding him. England has clearly changed its culture over time (Victorian influence?) and for the better. Sadly, American culture is one of many making negative changes on its current modus operandi.
Finally, let me say that I believe the intractable stance of both sides is in fact a huge problem. Pro-gun people are afraid of the slippery slope -- "we give an inch and they'll take a mile". Anti-gun people don't understand that some folks really are responsible about their weapons. I'm anti-gun, but I do fear that the hard and fast stance of BOTH SIDES might cause me to lose my flintlocks, which I use solely for shooting blanks and man-made targets.
I do not believe for a moment that this country founded on XYZ means that we must always hug XYZ to our collective bosom, that we cannot move beyond XYZ into a better place. This clinging to the past is not fruitful.
YHOS,
English Trader
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 25 2003 : 11:03:35 PM
|
Respect to you ET, but the 2nd Ammendment is not about opinion, law, culture, or whether or not it is necessary today, tomorrow, or ever. It is THERE, by LAW, unchangeable. And it is THERE, so hopefully it will NEVER be needed. Remove it tomorrow, and I guarantee you in your lifetime, or my kid's lifetime, it WILL be needed. But the bottom line is, it is THERE, in the Bill of Rights, which cannot be changed like it or not. Change it, abolish it, and I guarantee you that some will be using their flintlocks to water that liberty tree again - and you shall have to decide on which side you want to place yourself. These aren't threats or rants but simple statements of fact about the world we live in that no wishing it away will ever change. There IS NO COMPROMISE ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS. What is it some people can't get in their heads about that, I wonder. AND WHY would ANYBODY WANT to compromise on that important document on whit?
Times change, be people don't my dear. And sadly, history repeats itself all to frequently because some refuse to learn the lessons written there.
I just read something intersting tonight. Do any of you realize that Mein Kampf is the 6th most read and owned book in the Arab world and it is a best seller among the Palestinians?
Do you really want to tell us mankind has learned anything or gotten more tolerant and trustworthy that you would not only give up YOUR right to self-determination (which you are free to do) but give up MY right to self determination? Some things are NOT up for vote, compromise, or bartering away. The Bill of Rights is one of them. THAT is why there is such polarity between the antis and the pros on this issue. There will NEVER be compromise on this issue any more than there is compromise on the issue of freedom or slavery.
However, your beliefs are your own to possess. I would not attack you for them. Fortunately, in this case, majority will never rule.
It's not up for vote. It's there (the Bill of Rights) and you will just have to live with it. I guarantee you dont WANT to live without it. You may not like the 2nd, but what's not to understand that IF you allow ANYBODY to abolish or remove ONE part of the BOR YOU don't agree with, you have opened the door for abolition of them ALL? They are inseparable and were meant to be.
Good to see you sticking your oar in the water. May you ever be free to do so. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - September 26 2003 : 08:03:55 AM
|
quote:
Sgt. Have you any intention of going to The Eastern Primitive in Ohio this week? I'd have a bottle (or three) of Goslings Black rum there and some Porter if you have a mind to drop in.
Hi 'Hawk, sorry I won't be able to indulge in a wee bit-o-the Goslings with you, because I'll still be at Penn's Colony for the second weekend of the event. But, I will take a rain check...
quote:
First, I might point out that Bill and Sgt. Monro can pat each other on the back for stating well their OWN side -- I have to object that just because they agree, their comments are RIGHT.
Yeah, what do we know anyways? I guess Bill and I are as wrong as the "bunch of dead white guys" who fought to free and form this country. Men like Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Adams and Franklin. Yeah, I guess all of us have been completely wrong for the last 227+ years.
quote:
I'm anti-gun, but I do fear that the hard and fast stance of BOTH SIDES might cause me to lose my flintlocks,
Anti-gun, MY flintlocks?????? The second amendment is not about your personal hobbies and/or entertainment.
Oh well, time for me pull the "D" Ring on this. Bill, 'Hawk, Seamus, it is always a pleasure. Adele, I do enjoy debating with you, and I hope to meet you in person some day, if Bill and I can take time away from "patting each other's backs".
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
English Trader
Pioneer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
June 25 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 26 2003 : 8:30:47 PM
|
Your comment about MYT flintlock is exactly what I am talking about, and believe it or not, I'm sort of supporting YOUR side. Because NEITHER side will yield an inch, MY weapon (yes, people still die from muskets) might become illegal. But neither side will LISTEN to each other. And if "pulling the D ring" means you're backing out, you've proven my point.
YHOS,
English Trader
quote:
Originally posted by SgtMunro
quote:
I'm anti-gun, but I do fear that the hard and fast stance of BOTH SIDES might cause me to lose my flintlocks,
Anti-gun, MY flintlocks?????? The second amendment is not about your personal hobbies and/or entertainment.
Oh well, time for me pull the "D" Ring on this. Bill, 'Hawk, Seamus, it is always a pleasure. Adele, I do enjoy debating with you, and I hope to meet you in person some day, if Bill and I can take time away from "patting each other's backs".
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 26 2003 : 9:33:22 PM
|
ET, we understand your side of it. But you can't have what you want.
There is no changing the 2nd Ammendment. So there is no compromise possible with the likes of Brady Bunch, Handgun Control, etc. They want all guns - ALL guns of any kind - abolished. It's not a question of "if we let them have our AK-47's and handguns" that will be and end of it. Even if compromise was willing on our part (1) it's not on their part and (2) it's not possible to compromise on this. The Bill of Rights is written in stone and cannot be changed.
Period. We will NOT give it up for "compromise" or understanding.
Your musket is at risk NOT because WE pros are intractible....it is at risk because THEY don't want you to have it.....but are forced to try to take it one step at a time due to the Bill of Rights.....and have bigger fish to fry right now than your musket...otherwise they'd have them all right now.
Moreover, compromise at times is just a very slow way to commit suicide. Chamberlain compromised and we had WWII. The Jews compromised - along with genuine disbelief as to portended outcomes similar to your own self - and we know what happened there. How many times have we tried to compromise with the Palestinians and Arafat? Has it worked?
Some folks, and some issues, do NOT warrant compromise, and compromising is dangerous to your health.
I will say it again. Compromise with the antis means adulterating or abolishing the 2nd Ammendment and the Bill of Rights. Before we as citizens do THAT, I would hope we would rise up in anger and shout with one voice HELL NO. OVER MY DEAD BODY. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 27 2003 : 04:29:49 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill R
ET, we understand your side of it. But you can't have what you want.
There is no changing the 2nd Ammendment. So there is no compromise possible with the likes of Brady Bunch, Handgun Control, etc. They want all guns - ALL guns of any kind - abolished. It's not a question of "if we let them have our AK-47's and handguns" that will be and end of it. Even if compromise was willing on our part (1) it's not on their part and (2) it's not possible to compromise on this. The Bill of Rights is written in stone and cannot be changed.
Period. We will NOT give it up for "compromise" or understanding.
Your musket is at risk NOT because WE pros are intractible....it is at risk because THEY don't want you to have it.....but are forced to try to take it one step at a time due to the Bill of Rights.....and have bigger fish to fry right now than your musket...otherwise they'd have them all right now.
Moreover, compromise at times is just a very slow way to commit suicide. Chamberlain compromised and we had WWII. The Jews compromised - along with genuine disbelief as to portended outcomes similar to your own self - and we know what happened there. How many times have we tried to compromise with the Palestinians and Arafat? Has it worked?
Some folks, and some issues, do NOT warrant compromise, and compromising is dangerous to your health.
I will say it again. Compromise with the antis means adulterating or abolishing the 2nd Ammendment and the Bill of Rights. Before we as citizens do THAT, I would hope we would rise up in anger and shout with one voice HELL NO. OVER MY DEAD BODY.
I do understand your feelings about the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights - and you are right to protect that which your country was founded upon. It is exactly the same principle about defending the right to free speech, even when the 'speech' goes against everything you believe. The part I have trouble understanding is that the 2nd Amendment refers to a 'well-regulated militia', and I understand that the Militia Act didn't come along until later, so the 'militia' could be interpreted as referring to all men of age, but, I still have not been able to get to the bottom of the 'well-regulated' part - well-regulated by whom?
HM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 27 2003 : 10:34:25 AM
|
Regulated by themselves. Meaning, each man and boy of age was supposed to unite and form some sort of body of people able to muster in case of need - indian attack etc. They regulated themselves. Generally, each town formed their own militia and trained them themselves. It was the informal militia as opposed to that which was formed during the Revolution wherein the States raised levies of militia companies......which usually were again raised around a central figure in a town or district but with the authority of the State who was supposed to pay them and who gave them the authority to raise. It wasnt like today. It was essentially every man and boy of age was required to be available in time of emergency and it was up to them to decide if an emergency required their raising. The well regulated part pertains to the purpose - as opposed to a mob which is an unregulated rising.
The antis and other cynical politicians try to use that one phrase as a loophole, when the founding fathers have written exhaustively about exactly what they meant and the intent and purposes of the 2nd Ammendment. In short - they were terribly AFRAID of a standing army. They wanted instead to rely upon citizens being formed in time of need and then dismissed. They didnt want standing armies beholden to the State or Government in their midst. That later we have decided we need standing armies and national guards does NOT nullify the original intent of the 2nd Ammendment. It was never about how you raised armies. It was about maintaining freedom from the government you established. The founding fathers have stated so very clearly in their writings. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
English Trader
Pioneer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
June 25 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 27 2003 : 8:07:44 PM
|
Bill,
Why is 2nd Amendment carved in stone?
Also, quote:
But you can't have what you want.
What does that mean? That certainly sounds intractable.
Sarah
quote:
Originally posted by Bill R
ET, we understand your side of it. But you can't have what you want.
There is no changing the 2nd Ammendment. So there is no compromise possible with the likes of Brady Bunch, Handgun Control, etc. They want all guns - ALL guns of any kind - abolished. It's not a question of "if we let them have our AK-47's and handguns" that will be and end of it. Even if compromise was willing on our part (1) it's not on their part and (2) it's not possible to compromise on this. The Bill of Rights is written in stone and cannot be changed.
Period. We will NOT give it up for "compromise" or understanding.
Your musket is at risk NOT because WE pros are intractible....it is at risk because THEY don't want you to have it.....but are forced to try to take it one step at a time due to the Bill of Rights.....and have bigger fish to fry right now than your musket...otherwise they'd have them all right now.
Moreover, compromise at times is just a very slow way to commit suicide. Chamberlain compromised and we had WWII. The Jews compromised - along with genuine disbelief as to portended outcomes similar to your own self - and we know what happened there. How many times have we tried to compromise with the Palestinians and Arafat? Has it worked?
Some folks, and some issues, do NOT warrant compromise, and compromising is dangerous to your health.
I will say it again. Compromise with the antis means adulterating or abolishing the 2nd Ammendment and the Bill of Rights. Before we as citizens do THAT, I would hope we would rise up in anger and shout with one voice HELL NO. OVER MY DEAD BODY.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 27 2003 : 9:22:28 PM
|
It's carved in stone by the founding fathers. Read the history of the Bill of Rights and the papers the founding fathers have written as to the need for them, their intent, and the basis upon which they were written. In a nutshell, after the Constitution itself was written, may of the key founding father's feared it (The Constitution) had not gone far enough in protecting the people from their own government. Certain rights were not explicitly spelled out as forever protected. Hence, the Bill of Rights was written, voted on, and adopted as our first 10 Ammendments. These Ammendments, including the 2nd, are what is necessary to ensure we are never oppressed by our own government, nor that our own government can take upon itself too much power. As many have said, the 2nd is the linchpin for all the rest. It's the reset button. It's the tripwire. It's the last recourse to protect the rest of the Ammendments and by doing so, protect the people from their government. Which is why so many who HAVE read the basis, reasoning, and intent for the document are so incensed when talk is made of compromise, or disingenious rationales are given for altering or outright abolishing portions of it are bandyed about.
It is intractible. I didn't make it so. The founding fathers did.
For the reasons specified above. What is horrifying to me is that not only are the left wing socialist of the Democratic party championing changing it or altering it or as in Hillary's words -they are outmoded written by dead white people 200 years ago and times have changed- .......but the neo-cons in the Republican party are in play in dismantling it now also. We are in a period of dangers to our basic liberties and we are buying the lies of those who threaten them.
Remember the "Campaign Finance Reform Bill" which was SUPPOSED to be about restructuring campaign finances to keep corruption out of the system? Tacked onto that was the 1st Ammendment Gag Order keeping free speech from occuring about candidates 90 days prior to a federal election. The ACLU and others took it to the Supreme Court, right? Because the gag order was against freedom of speech. Did you note the outcome? The restrictions on certain of the way campaign finances are obtained was removed....BUT THE GAG ORDER STANDS.
Now, you may feel guns are evil and the root of the problems in violence in our society.....or at least if we had no guns we'd have less violence. Many have tried to tell you that the statistics just don't support that contention, but it IS the cry the antis make in trying to abolish all guns. I am not talking about "cooked" statistic like Brady lies to us about....I am talking about cold hard unbiased stats any police officer - or WE - can find by going to the FBI stats for crimes. They know those statistics are out there and they ignore them. They know the politically appointed chief of police are going along with their lies, but never bother to tell you the municipal cops and beat cops are strongly in favor of the 2nd Ammendment and right to carry.
Let's take ONE leader in this anti cause. Sarah Brady. A Liberal from the get-go married to a Republican and they often had disagreements. Mr Brady suffers an unfortunate line-of-fire injury.
An attempt was made to assassinate a president. He took one of the bullets. He is now a drooling, unresponsive, lobotomized sad case.
Sarah Brady rolls him out cynically implying everything HE stood for is forgotten and he is now strongly in HER liberal camp. The guy doesnt have a CLUE what is going on anymore. He's like the retard who cheers and laughs when every body else does, but really has no understanding why. She takes a horrible incident and cynically uses her injured husband in that cause of hers. And she has stated publicly and MANY times that she wants ALL guns GONE. Yet, she peforms a "straw purchase" illegally to buy her SON a rifle. It is law that you must be buying the firearm for yoursel |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - September 27 2003 : 11:51:03 PM
|
quote:
Your comment about MYT flintlock is exactly what I am talking about, and believe it or not, I'm sort of supporting YOUR side. Because NEITHER side will yield an inch, MY weapon (yes, people still die from muskets) might become illegal. But neither side will LISTEN to each other. And if "pulling the D ring" means you're backing out, you've proven my point.
YHOS,
English Trader
My point was proven, and you have failed to disprove it, long before you stepped into this debate. Unless you can produce facts and figures, you have no point. That is why, until concrete and logical facts are presented, I will not debate this issue with you, because it will be an excercise in futility on my part.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - September 28 2003 : 03:08:56 AM
|
P.S. - Good points again, Bill, especially the 'Hate Crime'(under redundant, see redundant) Bill and 'Campaign Finance Reform' Act both being breeches of our First Amendment Rights.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 28 2003 : 06:56:30 AM
|
I think you are arguing your case extremely well Bill, and I am in agreement with you on a basic level, it is just the detail I am having trouble with (same as most people I think!)....
I have ploughed through some of the history of the Bill of Rights as you suggested, and came across this quote which I thought particularly interesting...
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
In other words....John Adams recognizes the fundamental right of citizens, as individuals, to defend themselves with arms, however he states militias must be controlled by government and the rule of law. To have otherwise is to invite anarchy.
Your thoughts?
HM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kurt
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 27 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 28 2003 : 08:08:19 AM
|
| Yes, there was spirited debate back when the Bill of Rights was being written. The Federalists believed in central government and were not as concerned about the people being in control. (Note that when John Adams as president felt slighted by the French government, he had no compunctions about starting an undeclared war.) Mr. Adams, in the quote supplied, admits the need for what Bill is saying when he inserts "..., except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, ...". Mr. Adams was outvoted by the states that ratified the Bill of Rights and as president, with the Aliens and Sedition Act, attempted to chip away at it. |
Yr. obt. svt.
Kurt |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kurt
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 27 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 28 2003 : 08:26:16 AM
|
What's wrong with taking away guns?
I was trying to come up with a satire about papercuts and defective manufacturing processes and how outlawing paper would save gallons of blood every day but humor (especially when deeply-held beliefs are in question) seldom sparks productive thought.
I believe gun control can not work because removing a tool does not change any minds.
|
Yr. obt. svt.
Kurt |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 28 2003 : 10:19:42 AM
|
Good point Kurt! The man (Adams) who quoted that qualification about the militia was the same man who tried to enact and employ the Sedition Act. Nearly started another Revolution.
Also note, he is not implying that only government can HAVE the guns, he is saying that the calling OUT of the militia should be at the behest of government at some level - and he does not dispute the necessity for the unorganized militia. He just wanted control over it. I guess one might say he was the first to attempt adulterating the 2nd Ammendment from it's purpose. The debate about that would give good reading for anybody wanting to KNOW what the 2nd is all about....and see that there will always be those who wish it wasnt there.......those who want far more power than they should have, and we are willing to give. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 28 2003 : 4:00:43 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kurt
What's wrong with taking away guns?
I was trying to come up with a satire about papercuts and defective manufacturing processes and how outlawing paper would save gallons of blood every day but humor (especially when deeply-held beliefs are in question) seldom sparks productive thought.
I believe gun control can not work because removing a tool does not change any minds.
Nothing wrong with humour Kurt! Especially in the form of a good analogy! Sometimes it is a much needed tension breaker!
I think your point about 'removing a tool' is accurate too, which brings me back to my first response about a change in culture and improvements in all the areas which lead to the belief of the people that they NEED a gun. (And Bill, don't START!! I am not referring to a change to the 2nd Amendment, I am talking choice!! hehehehe)
The other issue to bear in mind, is that (depending on who you are speaking to, of course) gun control, does not necessarily mean the removal of guns, or the removal of the right to bear arms.
HM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 28 2003 : 6:05:29 PM
|
Another humorous sign i have seen along the road along the lines of Kurt's attempt......with truth in it.
"If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson"
There is NO benevolent interpretation of "gun control" that I am aware of beyond "breathing, trigger squeeze, good sight picture".
We have laws prohibiting those convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors, drug use or history, and mental illness from possessing firearms. What more is needed?
We are back to the agenda of those seeking more "gun control". It isnt about reducing crime at all. They know that themselves. You think Sarah Brady gives a crap about reducing crime? She rakes in a BUNDLE in donations. Don't see her going into the ghetto spreading any of it around in the form of jobs. Nor do I see the billionaire funding all the gun control groups creating jobs where they are needed. Spends his money funding all the groups working against the 2nd ammendment instead. Hmmmm. Tell anybody anything? |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.61 seconds |
 |
|
2nd Ammendment and Killdeer
