Skip to main content

View Diary: Who's really for gun safety? (227 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Please post a link to that diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CenPhx, i saw an old tree today

    If it was a genuine effort to educate and you're proud of it, why wouldn't you?

    I'd like to take a look and perhaps republish it to Firearms Law and Policy. If it's a good diary, I'd like to support you. If it is loaded with gratuitous sniping, as your diaries often are, it will be easy to guess why "the gun grabbers" (not my term) might have mocked you.

    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

    by LilithGardener on Sun May 18, 2014 at 09:54:55 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I took it down, too many rude negative comments (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kasoru

      I don't trust you or your motivations. You only seem to look to make arguments and toss hrs. I can't think of one member of your cabal that is well intentioned.

      “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

      by ban nock on Sun May 18, 2014 at 10:52:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps you should write another one, a better one (3+ / 0-)

        The problem here is that you somehow think you should get credit for writing such a diary that is totally unavailable now because you deleted it.

        I know you're a good writer and from reading some of your comments in hunting diaries I'm sure you're qualified to write an educational diary on gun safety. You've had many diaries picked up by Community Spotlight, so I'm sure you can write a diary that dKos readers would value and validate.

        What's stopping you?

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Sun May 18, 2014 at 02:07:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  when you stop hring for disagreement I'll write on (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kasoru

          gun safety.

          “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

          by ban nock on Sun May 18, 2014 at 02:11:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What does impugning my character get you? (4+ / 0-)

            In your other comments in this thread you've accused me of being untrustworthy and have bad intentions. Now you've changed the subject, again, and accused me of HR abuse, without offering a shred of evidence.

            Links? Prove it or it didn't happen.

            How is this different than accusing me of being a troll?

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by LilithGardener on Sun May 18, 2014 at 02:26:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My appologies (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kasoru

              I've been looking back over hr's, an extremely distasteful exercise, and I can't find any, very few hr's actually. When a gang of RASAs descend on a comments section I've a hard time distinguishing one -1 from another.

              In any case I still do not like discussing with most extreme anti gun folks and avoid it. When Frank Rose can get a fair shake here I'll know things have improved enough for me to participate. He loves arguing with antis, and he gets hr'd all the time for simply disagreeing. He is polite and uses links.

              “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

              by ban nock on Sun May 18, 2014 at 03:09:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Apology accepted (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                i saw an old tree today
                I've been looking back over hr's, an extremely distasteful exercise, and I can't find any, very few hr's actually.
                If you don't bother reading my diaries because they are too long or because they bore you or because ...{you fill in the blank}... how do you have any way of knowing what I stand up for, and what I push back against?

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Sun May 18, 2014 at 04:08:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Even "FrankRose" knows that what he posts (3+ / 0-)

                is false.

                Do you really want to associate yourself with him?

                This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                by JJustin on Mon May 19, 2014 at 11:36:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Being completely wrong seems to be something (0+ / 0-)

                  you enjoy being consistent about.

                  •  This is the law in the US -- (2+ / 0-)

                    Art. I., S. 8., C. 16.  The Congress shall have Power To provide for . . . ARMING . . . the Militia.

                    The Congress.  Not the Executive, not the SC, not the NRA, not the gun industry, not domestic terrorists, not bullying and bullshitting law-illiterate gun-nuts.  The Congress.

                    And this is how the Congress does so:

                    Chap. LXV.--An Act providing Arms for the Militia throughout the United States.

                      Section 1.  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be provided, at the charge and expense of the government of the United States, thirty thousand stand of arms, which shall be deposited by order of the President of the United States, at suitable places, for the purpose of being sold to the governments of the respective States, or the militia thereof, under such regulations, and at such prices as the President of the United States shall prescribe.
                      Sec. 2.  And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to cause all or any part of the arms herein directed to be provided and deposited for sale, which shall, at any time, remain unsold, to be delivered to the militia, when called into the service of the United States, proper receipts and security being given for the return of the same.
                      Sec. 3.  And be it further enacted, That the monies arising from such sales shall be paid into the treasury of the United States, and the amount received shall be annually reported to Congress.
                      Sec. 4.  And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of carrying this act into effect, the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized to draw from the treasury of the United States, a [577] sum not exceeding four hundred thousand dollars, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
                      Approved, July 6, 1798.

                    The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 3, 1845, Vol I. (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850), By Authority of Congress, Edited by Richard Peters, at 576.

                    Again, being consistent:

                    Chap. XLII.--An Act authorizing the sale of public Arms.

                      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to cause to be sold to individual states, which may wish to purchase, any arms now owned by the United States, and which may be parted with without injury to the public: Accounts of such sales shall be laid before Congress, and the money arising therefrom be, and the same is hereby appropriated, under the direction of the President of the United States, to the purchase or manufacture of other arms for the use of the United States: Provided, that such arms be not delivered to any state or their agents until the payment of the purchase money be first made into the treasury of the United States, in money or in the stock of the United States, at its value, as established by an act, intituled, "An act to repeal so much of any act or acts as authorize the receipt of evidences of the public debt, in payment for the lands of the United States, and for other purposes relative to the public debt."  Provided also, that this provision shall not extend to any purchase, not exceeding five thousand stand of arms, which shall be made by a state to which the United States by existing engagements are bound to pay a sum of money, equal to the amount of such purchase.
                      Approved, April 2, 1808.

                    The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, From the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 3, 1845, Vol. II. (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1845), By Authority of Congress, Edited by Richard Peters, at 481.

                    And consistent with prior existing state law on exactly the same point, from which that Constitutional provision evolved:

                    At a General Assembly begun and held at the Public Buildings in the City of Richmond, on Monday the 21st day of October, in the Year of our Lord 1782.

                    Chap. XII.  

                    An act for the recovery of arms and accoutrements belonging to the state.

                    I.  Whereas sundry arms and accoutrements belonging to the public in the hands of individuals, who have neglected to return them to the proper officers; and it is necessary that such arms and accoutrements should be recovered as speedily as possible: Be it enacted, that the Governor do, on the passing of this act, issue his proclamation, enjoining all persons having in their possession any arms or accoutrements whatsoever, belonging to the state, to deliver them without delay to the Lieutenant or commanding officer of the county for the time being; and the sheriff of each county within this commonwealth, shall cause copies of the said proclamations, which shall be transmitted to him by the Executive, to be fixed up in the most public places in his county, and if after one month from such public notice having been given, any person possessing any such public arms or accoutrements, shall be convicted of having failed to deliver them up as aforesaid, such person shall, upon every such conviction, be liable to the penalty of twenty pounds, to be recovered by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any court of record within this commonwealth, one half of which penalty shall go to the informer, on conviction of the offender, and the other half shall be applied in aid of the county levy where such offender shall reside.  And the Lieutenant, or commanding officer of each county, shall make returns from time to time, to the Executive, of all arms and accoutrements so delivered to him, and also deliver them to the order of the Executive, under the penalty, if he fail in all or any part of his duty, of fifty pounds, to be recovered as aforesaid, and applied in diminution of the county levy.  Provided always, that where muskets and bayonets have been by order of government placed in any county on eastern or western frontier for defence against incursions of the enemy, it shall be lawful for the Lieutenant or commanding officer to return such muskets and bayonets to the militia, taking a receipt from each person for what shall be so returned.

                    A Collection of All Such Public Acts of the General Assembly, and Ordinances of the Conventions of Virginia, Passed since the year 1768, as are now in force; With a Table of the Principal Matters (Richmond: Thomas Nicolson and William Prentis, 1785); The First Laws of the State of Virginia (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., "The First Laws of the Original Thirteen States," 1982), Compiled by John D. Cushing, at 176.

                    This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                    by JJustin on Tue May 20, 2014 at 11:57:18 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I suggest you show this wall of text to (0+ / 0-)

                      the Supreme Court & President Obama who said in the 2008 primaries "There is an individual right to bear arms.".

                      I'm certain they will be every bit as impressed as I am.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Tue May 20, 2014 at 12:07:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Even you know your assertions are false. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        i saw an old tree today

                        Art. I., S. 8., C. 16.  The Congress shall have Power To provide for . . . ARMING . . . the Militia.

                        The Congress.  Not the Executive, not the SC, not the NRA, not the gun industry, not domestic terrorists, not bullying and bullshitting law-illiterate gun-nuts.  The Congress.

                        This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                        by JJustin on Tue May 20, 2014 at 01:28:31 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That's correct. (0+ / 0-)

                          And both the court & the President's interpretations are significantly more credible than your own.

                          But do continue with the JJustin court.
                          It never ceases to amuse.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Tue May 20, 2014 at 02:43:41 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  The SC is neither the equal of nor superior to (5+ / 0-)

                            the Constitution.

                            This is the Constitution:

                            Art. I., S. 8., C. 16.  The Congress shall have Power To provide for . . . ARMING . . . the Militia.

                            Your fidelity to the rule of law is your effort to circumvent it be resorting to irrelevant English law.

                            And, of course, you embrace Dred Scott, Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.

                            But reject the half of Heller that correctly holds that gun control is Constitutional -- contrary to the fact that the Founders/Framers engaged in every degree of gun control, including "gun-grabbing":

                            An Ordinance Respecting the Arms of Non-Associators.

                              Whereas the non-associators in this state have either refused or neglected to deliver up their arms according to the resolves of the honorable Continental Congress and the assembly of Pennsylvania, and effectual measures have not been taken to carry the said resolves into execution:
                              [Section I.]  Be it therefore ordained by the authority of this Convention, That the colonel or next officer in command of every band of militia in this state is hereby authorized, empowered and required to collect, receive and take all the arms in his district or township nearest to such officer which are in the hands of non-associators in the most expeditious and effectual manner in his power, and shall give to the owners receipts for such arms, specifying the amount of the appraisement; and such as can be repaired shall with all possible dispatch be rendered fit for service, and the value according to the appraisement of all such arms, together with the repairs and transportation, shall be paid to the officers by the treasurer on the order of the council of safety for the use of the owners and defraying the charges.
                              [Section II.]  And be it further ordained, That the same arms shall be appraised by any three reputable freeholders appointed by the commanding officer; but if the owner of any arms shall neglect or refuse to apply for such money within six months the same shall be applied towards the repairs of the arms; and the colonels are hereby authorized to draw for the necessary sums of money for the purposes aforesaid on the council of safety.
                              [Section III.]  And it is further ordained, That the colonels aforesaid shall arm the associators with the said arms and keep an account to whom they are delivered and return the same to the council of safety; and every associator shall be answerable for such ares of the value unless lost or destroyed by some unavoidable accident or in actual service.
                              [Section IV.]  And be it further ordained, That in case any arms so collected shall not be worth repairing, the same shall be laid by until such time as may be thought proper by the committee of the county to return them to the owners.  

                            Passed July 19, 1776.

                             

                            Statutes at Large of the State of Pennsylvania, Vol. IX.

                            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                            by JJustin on Tue May 20, 2014 at 04:44:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks for your patience in these threads (3+ / 0-)

                            I am learning from what you have to say, I am just coming to understand how rare an exercise that is here.

                            Thanks again.

                          •  Another diary, please. nt (3+ / 0-)

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Tue May 20, 2014 at 05:56:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  This is very interesting history (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      i saw an old tree today

                      Thank you.

                      A diary or three would be nice.

                      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                      by LilithGardener on Tue May 20, 2014 at 05:56:11 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  I'm suprised that you keep writing (1+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            ban nock
            Hidden by:
            i understand

            giving the shits that are taken in them by her groupies- shits that if done in hers she would delete and whine about. Guess as long as it's her yard not used as a chamber pot it's ok?

             I for one appreciate them and look forward to them regardless.

            Thank you.

            •  I want my kids to have the same hunting (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kasoru, Laughing Vergil

              opportunities I've had.

              To do that they need to be able to become proficient at using a rifle and have game to hunt. Both of these needs are threatened by the anti hunting/shooting portion of my party. I like to write and I figure it's doing my part. Others give money or donate land.

              “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

              by ban nock on Mon May 19, 2014 at 05:01:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  My personal problem is that... (0+ / 0-)

                ... too many people seem to conflate reasonable gun control and anti hunting, both on the pro and anti sides.  These are really separate issues, and should be addressed separately.

                I have no problem with hunting per se.  I have a problem with trophy hunting, where all too frequently the trophy is taken and the rest of the animal is left to rot. I have a problem with "medicine hunters" (my phrase), who hunt bears for their gall bladders and leave the rest.  But if you ar e a responsible, respectful hunter, I do not have any problems with the hunters.

                A lot of people still hunt for subsistence in this country.  The supplemental food they get from deer, elk, or whatever is what allows these families to eat meat.  These folks also tend to use as much of the animal as they can - hide, hooves, bones and sinew.  I absolutely have nothing against this type of hunting.

                -------------------------
                "[T]his is playing the long game, but it's about time we start playing the long game."
                kos
                ^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

                by Laughing Vergil on Mon May 19, 2014 at 11:54:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Kind of like telling a woman you are pro choice (0+ / 0-)

                  in cases of rape or incest, but not if she got pregnant for other reasons, but you are pro choice.

                  First what you describe as trophy hunting is against the law, at the least usable meat must be donated. Not only against the law but a felony.

                  Almost everyone hunting has meat as one of their primary motivations, many supplement their grocery bill at least part of the year by hunting. Most humans have more than one motivation for any activity. Hunting for meat, trophy, conservation, socializing, is no different.

                  “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

                  by ban nock on Tue May 20, 2014 at 02:57:47 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Do you have any objective voice in your world (4+ / 0-)

        who can buy you a clue about how this sounds?

        I don't trust you or your motivations.
        Why would you trust me? Why should anyone?

        I'll be the first to point out that no one should trust me. No one should just take my word on things. I want people to think for themselves.

        You said this few days ago, in your drug dealer/police informant shooting his desperate addict/intruder after listening to him pound on the door for 15 minutes,

        “no one reads your stuff, too long and boring,”
        http://www.dailykos.com/...
        So which is it? My posts are boring and no one should bother, or my posts are something to be feared because I'm essentially untrustworthy?

        That's BS, ban nock. No one should take my word for it. I put my best ideas up to scrutiny so people can check my sources and make up their own minds.

        Why do you find that so threatening?

         

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Sun May 18, 2014 at 02:15:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't participate on your posts (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kasoru

          you invite people to participate and then when they do they are hr'd to hell and back. When you or Old Tree Whatever, or other disrupters appear I just try to ignore and hope you don't disrupt the comments section of a diary too badly.

          I don't appreciate how you folks interact. I don't like it at all. I do all I can to avoid.

          “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

          by ban nock on Sun May 18, 2014 at 02:30:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again, you are falsely accusing people (4+ / 0-)

            without offering any evidence.

            you invite people to participate and then when they do they are hr'd to hell and back.
            That is false.

            If you read or review my diaries you'll find there are extremely few HRs in them. And if I do HR, I explain my reasoning. The only person I recall being Hrd to high heaven was bbb, for a disgusting comment and I was among those who HRd him.

            You can have your reasons but you can't fob off your fear and loathing and mistrust and complaints about daily Kos meta off onto me.

            I don't deserve this sustained personal attack on my character and integrity.

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by LilithGardener on Sun May 18, 2014 at 03:54:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you ask me questions, I answer, you demand links (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kasoru

              Look back at your last two comments. That's exactly what I don't like. I only interact with people who I feel are doing so in good faith.

              “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

              by ban nock on Mon May 19, 2014 at 05:04:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your accusations against LilithGardener (4+ / 0-)

                don't hold a molecule of water.

                And everyone here can see that for themselves.

                Even you know that.

                This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                by JJustin on Mon May 19, 2014 at 11:41:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Look what she did to those who ventured on to (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Kasoru

                  her rec listed diary with an opinion (backed up by solid facts) any different than her own. I'm clued in to what she does.

                  “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

                  by ban nock on Tue May 20, 2014 at 02:59:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  More vague unsupported accusations (4+ / 0-)

                    If I ask you to post proof, you accuse me of being too demanding. (see above) And yes, that is a sexist intimidation tactic to get a woman to back off.

                    Your statements aren't gospel.

                    So put up or shut up.

                    There is nothing you can write on the internet to intimidate me. I know your whole bag of tricks. I learned during 8 months in the trenches of the RKBA diaries.

                    Rolling up windows now, just like you advised your buddy. Woof, woof!

                    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                    by LilithGardener on Tue May 20, 2014 at 10:47:53 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Let's examine your FOXified misuse of the word (4+ / 0-)

                    "opinion":

                    1.  An opinion has a chance of being true.

                    2.  A falsehood, because false, has no chance of being true.

                    3.  A falsehood, because it has no chance of being true, cannot be an opinion.

                    "Look what she did"! -- whine, whine whine.

                    What you aren't clued into is that of substantiating your wild accusations with "solid facts" in place of yet another round of pseudo-victim finger-pointing and pot-shotting.

                    This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                    by JJustin on Tue May 20, 2014 at 12:25:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I know what you did. (4+ / 0-)

                  Isn't that used by people making threats?

                  A friend was describing a conversation she was trying to have growing up in Missouri among the rednecks once

                  You know what you did.
                  What'd I do?
                  You know what you did.
                  Yeah, but what'd I do?
                  You know what you did...

                  I've been there, on the receiving end of threats. Those are flagged words for me.

      •  In view of the fact that gun-nuts claim to be (0+ / 0-)

        for rule of law and responsibility, they should welcome the actual law on the issue, and accept it as not merely "well intentioned" -- the law is the law, not a person -- but as the law.  Instead they repeat throughly and repeatedly refuted lies.

        As example, the actual legal authority refutes the lie -- we know it's a lie because the honestly well intentioned do not insist on repeating refuted lies -- substantiates that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to establish National Defense based upon well regulated militia.

        And the implementation of the FOUR Militia Clauses in the Constitution by means of Militia Acts substantiates that the Militia Acts regulate the subject of the Amendment:

        well regulated militia.  

        And that the Constitution itself stipulates --

        The Congress shall have Power To provide for . . . ARMING . . . the Militia.

        Neither the Executive nor the Judiciary are given that authority.  The Second Amendment has never had anything whatever to do with "individual" anything.  Nor is it -- obviously -- a bar to regulation, as substantiated by the long list of Militia Acts enacted by Congress to regulated the well regulated militia of the Second Amendment.

        That is, the Second Amendment does not protect FROM regulation anything one wants to claim is "protected" by the Second Amendment.

        Nor do the "well intended" falsely insist that regulation in its several forms is "banning".  Being required to register and license and insure, etc., one's motor vehicle is not "banning".  

        The really big lie is that the NRA and its dupes are aligned with the Founders.  These are the Founders on the point:

        An Ordinance Respecting the Arms of Non-Associators.

          Whereas the non-associators in this state have either refused or neglected to deliver up their arms according to the resolves of the honorable Continental Congress and the assembly of Pennsylvania, and effectual measures have not been taken to carry the said resolves into execution:
          [Section I.]  Be it therefore ordained by the authority of this Convention, That the colonel or next officer in command of every band of militia in this state is hereby authorized, empowered and required to collect, receive and take all the arms in his district or township nearest to such officer which are in the hands of non-associators in the most expeditious and effectual manner in his power, and shall give to the owners receipts for such arms, specifying the amount of the appraisement; and such as can be repaired shall with all possible dispatch be rendered fit for service, and the value according to the appraisement of all such arms, together with the repairs and transportation, shall be paid to the officers by the treasurer on the order of the council of safety for the use of the owners and defraying the charges.
          [Section II.]  And be it further ordained, That the same arms shall be appraised by any three reputable freeholders appointed by the commanding officer; but if the owner of any arms shall neglect or refuse to apply for such money within six months the same shall be applied towards the repairs of the arms; and the colonels are hereby authorized to draw for the necessary sums of money for the purposes aforesaid on the council of safety.
          [Section III.]  And it is further ordained, That the colonels aforesaid shall arm the associators with the said arms and keep an account to whom they are delivered and return the same to the council of safety; and every associator shall be answerable for such ares of the value unless lost or destroyed by some unavoidable accident or in actual service.
          [Section IV.]  And be it further ordained, That in case any arms so collected shall not be worth repairing, the same shall be laid by until such time as may be thought proper by the committee of the county to return them to the owners.  

        Passed July 19, 1776.

         

        Statutes at Large of the State of Pennsylvania, Vol. IX.

        The "Non-Associators" were those who refused or failed to sign the Founders' "oath of loyalty to the Cause" of independence from Britain.

        This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

        by JJustin on Mon May 19, 2014 at 11:33:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Also it had personal information in it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kasoru

      I can't overstate the amount of distrust you people generate.

      “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

      by ban nock on Sun May 18, 2014 at 10:53:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fear and loathing at Daily Kos? (3+ / 0-)

        WTF does this even mean?

        I can't overstate the amount of distrust you people generate.
        Maybe some of your cherished memes just suck.

        Maybe you just need to broaden your perspective and develop better ideas so you don't have to go nasty and personal when you're losing an argument.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Sun May 18, 2014 at 02:28:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I want to respond to show support for you (3+ / 0-)

          ... to mention the breadth of support for you, witness for example OregonOak's tribute to you.

          I know one person who said you changed his life.

          I see he began an apology to you, but couldn't leave it alone. The grapes are sour.

          Thanks for what you do. It's a lot.

        •  no the distrust is to respond to any comment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kasoru

          any of the posse makes. Any comment can be taken out of context or hr'd.

          It's not that I don't want to get nasty and personal it's that I don't want to argue at all. You all can argue amongst yourselves.

          “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

          by ban nock on Mon May 19, 2014 at 04:47:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're a gifted writer. (0+ / 0-)

            You have valuable experience and perspective on gun culture that is larger than just American gun culture. Community response to your comments is not random. Surely you have enough feedback from the universe to know the difference between a sincere exposition and posts laden with flame bait.

            The question is why are you still writing posts laden with flame bait. If you don't want to bicker are you willing to use that feedback with what you already know to become a more effective advocate?

            You know that we need better arguments for gun rights. If people like you can't or won't develop them, it will be a loss for everyone and you'll have no one but yourself to blame.

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by LilithGardener on Mon May 19, 2014 at 05:07:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not a chance -- (0+ / 0-)
              You know that we need better arguments for gun rights. If people like you can't or won't develop them, it will be a loss for everyone and you'll have no one but yourself to blame.
              As long as all gun-nuts have as "arguments" for gun "rights" are flat out lies -- which have been consistently, thoroughly, and repeatedly shown to be lies, and refuted -- they won't have any legitimate arguments.

              This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

              by JJustin on Mon May 19, 2014 at 11:50:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  "It's not that I don't want to get nasty and (0+ / 0-)

            personal".

            There's your admission -- after trying to blame "Lilith" -- or some imagined "posse" -- for your behavior.

            You do know, don't you, that blaming others for your behavior is irresponsible -- correct?

            So we should trust your lectures about being a "responsible gun owner"?

            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

            by JJustin on Mon May 19, 2014 at 11:45:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Your alleged distrust is your responsibility, (0+ / 0-)

        in view of the fact that it's your subjective experience.

        This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

        by JJustin on Mon May 19, 2014 at 11:42:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site