IL Sen Durbin: 10 Rounds "Generous"

[Woods Walker]

WHOA PEOPLE! Let's keep this where it was when I first started it......a proclamation by IL Sen Durbin about what HE dictates what we the people "need". Nothing more, nothing less, because this applies to ALL Americans regardless of race.

And my first question still stands......If we give them this today, then what will we give them tomorrow? What happens when what is today considered "reasonable and sane", because "unreasonable and a pubilc hazard next year? What do we give them then?

Where is YOUR limit? Mine was reached a LONG time ago.

[kellory]

...As to property. They were. Right or wrong, all feeling aside, they were property, chattel, bought and paid for just as your horse or cow, By the law of the land, they were property. Property that was killing people, and had to be stopped, by any means possible. Just as in a stampede, it is acceptable to shoot the cattle before they can kill you, or to turn them aside, or to pile up the bodies so the rest go around. Property that had to be controlled.

I will not debate this garbage. I won't even participate in a forum that allows it to remain on the site. I'm out until it has been removed.

Run from History, and stick your head in the sand, if that appeals to you. Facts are funny things. Weather or not you like a fact does not matter to the fact. Or as Lincoln said" How many legs, does a dog have, if you count the tail as a leg? Four, because calling a tail a leg does not make it so."

They were slaves because slavery was legal. Fact. As a slave, they were property. fact. because they were property, they could be dealt with as property. fact. In any fashion their owner saw fit. fact. Up to , and including to completely destroy them.. fact. no different than your horse or cow. fact. This is the reality of our past. fact. deal with it , and move on.

[JPH]

The logic in this discussion is making my brain hurt.

The ownership of high-cap mags is defended because it is a God given right. The ownership of slaves is defended because it was the law of the land. We need high-cap mags to defend against tyranny. If a slave stikes out against the people who hold them, it is murder.

Wow! If this is really who we are, I really do not want to be a part of it.

[Woods Walker]

Okay.......THE SLAVE TALK ENDS NOW!!!!!!!!

Focus people...let's focus.....

[kellory]

The logic in this discussion is making my brain hurt.

The ownership of high-cap mags is defended because it is a God given right. The ownership of slaves is defended because it was the law of the land. We need high-cap mags to defend against tyranny. If a slave stikes out against the people who hold them, it is murder.

Wow! If this is really who we are, I really do not want to be a part of it.

Restricting my God given Right to defense is the issue, not how I do it. (and no one else's business.)
the ownership of slaves was a fact, and how they handled a threat is history, (it is not being defended, just explained)
High caps to defend anything I need to defend, and no one has the right to handicap that, no matter how small a handicap.
And a slave striking down an owner, is by the nature of the law that allows a slave to exist IS MURDER. A slave by it's very nature has no rights, the owner does. I do not defend the system. merely state the facts. Law made it murder. History is not there to amuse you, it is a fact, learn from it, improve upon the mistakes others have made, and move on.

[JPH]

Restricting my God given Right to defense is the issue, not how I do it. (and no one else's business.)
the ownership of slaves was a fact, and how they handled a threat is history, (it is not being defended, just explained)
High caps to defend anything I need to defend, and no one has the right to handicap that, no matter how small a handicap.
And a slave striking down an owner, is by the nature of the law that allows a slave to exist IS MURDER. A slave by it's very nature has no rights, the owner does. I do not defend the system. merely state the facts. Law made it murder. History is not there to amuse you, it is a fact, learn from it, improve upon the mistakes others have made, and move on.

So God gives rights to you but not slaves? That's an issue of law right?

What if a law passes so that you only have 10 rounds on hand to go play militia? What if we pass a law that says you are a subject? Then will it be a legal matter or a moral one? If you kill in defense of your rights, rights that are denied by the law, will it be murder?

Kellory, do rights come from God or from the law? If you say from God then you clearly don't think God's laws apply to all human beings. Or maybe you just don't think God lists freedom as a right. Just high-capacity mags? On the other hand, if you say they come from the law then I DO have the right, as a participant in this Republic to help determine how and with what you can defend yourself.

I tend to think that rights come from God and are intended for all people. I also think that we have the right and duty to constantly regulate how those rights are exercised under the law.

[kellory]

What if a law passes so that you only have 10 rounds on hand to go play militia? What if we pass a law that says you are a subject? Then will it be a legal matter or a moral one? If you kill in defense of your rights, rights that are denied by the law, will it be murder? If a Law is passed , making me a subject, then it will have to wait for judgement until after the full scale revolt that follows. A man with a weapon is a Citizen, and a man without one is a subject. What to call it, will be determined by History.

Kellory, do rights come from God or from the law? If you say from God then you clearly don't think God's laws apply to all human beings. Or maybe you just don't think God lists freedom as a right. Just high-capacity mags? On the other hand, if you say they come from the law then I DO have the right, as a participant in this Republic to help determine how and with what you can defend yourself. The question is not where do Rights come from, but weither or not a meddling bureaucrat can interfere with them. You have the Right to determine how you will defend yourself, but your Rights stop when they interfere with mine. You do NOT have the Right to regulate MY defense, only your own.

I tend to think that rights come from God and are intended for all people. I also think that we have the right and duty to constantly regulate how those rights are exercised under the law.[/quote] "Intended" rights do not exist. No more than you can be half pregnant. it is a fact or it is a fiction. It can not be both.
"Exercised" NO. A Right is not something that can be twisted to fit the ideal of the day. It either IS, or IS NOT. If it is Right, it can not be changed, only infringed. A legal law will conform it self to the Rights of the Citizens, An illegal law will be challenged and struck down. When there is no justice to Law, there will be revolt. that is why the Founding Fathers required a militia, to balance and defeat an unjust Government.
:
"As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]" Our forefather feared government, as do many now. We (Militia) were built into the framework of the Bill of Rights, as a safeguard for everything else.

[JPH]

Well, with that in mind your remarks about chattle and property are rather chilling.

[kellory]

Well, with that in mind your remarks about chattle and property are rather chilling.

I hope you find them chilling. They were enough to divide a Nation, and cause a war. one that pitted brother against brother, and father against son. pray God, it is never repeated.

[JPH]

No. I mean it is chilling because you see rights as coming from God but you think was perfectly reasonable for the militia to have killed human beings, fighting for freedom, as though they were cattle!!!!!!!!!!! I'm afraid to ask how you think God hands out rights, and to whom.

This is the problem with too many on the pro-gun side. They are so wrapped up in the 2A that they lose sight of all human consideration. These are the same people who hate mass shootings because they might result in the loss of GUNS, not the loss of LIFE!

I get it Kellory, you are the militia. You are ready to go to war with the bad guys who are coming to take your rights, or kill escaped "cattle", or shoot down drones, or whatever. I get that. But the history of the militia is more than Lexington and Concord. Sometimes the militia has been in pretty severe need of "regulation". Militia is the Sand Creek massacre, Mississippi burning, Watts, and Oaklahoma City. If the militia is all of us, might it also be Aurora and Sandy Hook too? Maybe?