President Obama and friend (courtesy AP)

Commentator Paul William Lander saw our Facebook post quoting President Obama [above]: “Most members of Congress — and to some degree this is bipartisan — are terrified of the NRA.” He penned the following screed.

I’m seeing a lot of hate against the NRA, and they put EVERYTHING to a vote and actually count the ballots. I know because I receive ballots for the things they put to a vote at least once every two months. There is no gerrymandering or any nonsense like that. No electoral votes, no bullshit. Just a straight count of the votes. That is what you call the truest representation of what the majority wants. Yet the national government quite clearly has all of these representation-skewing processes in place that I mentioned earlier . . .

In the computerized age, everything is instant. If you can track with pinpoint accuracy, figure out where people are and exactly that they’re doing from outer space and be able to tell if they shaved or not, and pile through everyone’s personal information from within government buildings – you can accurately tell whether or not someone voted democrat, republican, or independent. This is not a complicated issue.

Second, many people have stated throughout history that a small government that is minimally involved in people’s everyday lives as possible. With that, any national government should have fear of the people it governs. Despite the picture that Obama likes to paint, a government that has complete knowledge and control over who gets what is under no circumstances anything other than a recipe for disaster. What it comes down to is the question of whether you would rather be free or safe. And the right to bear arms – without limiting what type, quantity, or capacity, is the best representation of that freedom that our country currently has.

Sadly, our country has mostly lost it’s backbone and we find ourselves more often than not at the mercy of the few cowards that run this circus. I’ve heard people make the argument that military forces would storm the country and drones would take out the gun owners, and they’d take over if they really wanted to. But let’s be honest here, there are far more armed American citizens than there will ever be military personnel.

Furthermore, many of those forces are out and about overseas – same with the drones. And even if they weren’t, there aren’t enough drones in the world to take out all the gun owners at the same time if ever there were a revolt and we’d all finally had enough. If you check the math, absolutely nothing supports the idea that the government could do a hostile takeover in the state they’re in.

And if you disarm a population, you take away their ability to contest anything you say. That’s why the Second Amendment is so important. It’s the great equilizer in the governmental system. And ultimately is what gives people the power to fight back. I’m the son of a history teacher and I know my way around every war that has ever taken place – and one of the first steps in the downfall of a great and free nation is to disarm it’s populace and instill fear.

People scoff at the phrase “big brother is watching”, but let’s have a look at all the NSA, FBI, CIA, and all the other government organizations have done to monitor everyday lives of people who are not a threat. It should come as no surprise that we are not far from losing those rights. Hence why people like myself fight so hard against these supposed “gun sense laws” – as if there ever were any sense to them.

Call me crazy if you like, but I’m a libertarian and proud of it. And I’d rather live in a world where people are allowed to do what they want (without harming anyone unless they are forced to obviously) and are not 100% safe than a world where we are 100% safe but live under complete scrutiny. If that’s such a terrible mentality and makes no sense to you, you’re part of the problem.

This has been a rant by one honest and loyal to a fault NRA member, gun owner, and proudly independent American that lives within his means and asks nothing from anyone. I don’t harm people I don’t absolutely have to, I don’t disrespect anyone unless they have done so to me first, and above all else I mind my own business unless I think someone’s life is in danger. And I’m seriously getting tired of being called all sorts of unmentionable names for being a gun owner. Enough is enough. Rant over.

Recommended For You

108 Responses to Facebook Commentator Paul William Lander: I Don’t Get No Respect

  1. I sincerely hope that politicians are terrified of the NRA. That’s music to my ears. And I sincerely hope that the pols will be scared totally sh1tless of the NRA after the November elections.

    • Remember Remember The Elections in November I know of reason why 2nd Amendment Treason should ever be Forget.

      Like it? Use it in post every where you ..

        • Henry Bowman was trying to use the poem about Guy Fawkes to make a catchy slogan about remembering to vote. He tried and mostly failed. The effort is appreciated. Here is one version of the Poem. Maybe someone else can do better?

          The Fifth of November

          Remember, remember!
          The fifth of November,
          The Gunpowder treason and plot;
          I know of no reason
          Why the Gunpowder treason
          Should ever be forgot!
          Guy Fawkes and his companions
          Did the scheme contrive,
          To blow the King and Parliament
          All up alive.
          Threescore barrels, laid below,
          To prove old England’s overthrow.
          But, by God’s providence, him they catch,
          With a dark lantern, lighting a match!
          A stick and a stake
          For King James’s sake!
          If you won’t give me one,
          I’ll take two,
          The better for me,
          And the worse for you.
          A rope, a rope, to hang the Pope,
          A penn’orth of cheese to choke him,
          A pint of beer to wash it down,
          And a jolly good fire to burn him.
          Holloa, boys! holloa, boys! make the bells ring!
          Holloa, boys! holloa boys! God save the King!
          Hip, hip, hooor-r-r-ray!

    • Terrified equals we, The NRA has enough money to buy politicians and their vote! Trust none of them!

      I often laugh during proceedings as they address others with ‘Kind sir’ and such when behind the lines they have many tax payer funded people trying to find personal or political fodder in order to smear another.

      Our Representative Republic is in jeopardy!

  2. Very well said. The Second Amendment is about preventing and (if necessary) resisting tyranny.

    What often worries me, however, is that many pro-gun rights people themselves have a strong tyrannical bent. Talk to a lot of fellow gun owners for more than few minutes and you’ll hear their anti-freedom agenda, railing against so-called liberalism:

    America is a Christian nation (which means, we don’t care about the rights of atheists or Muslims or other religious minorities).
    Americans should speak English (which means, we don’t like immigrants).
    Protect family values (which means, we don’t like gay people).

    I wonder where that live-and-let-live spirit goes whenever they’re not speaking about gun ownership. Are freedom and fairness really important to them, or just when they’re talking about their right to own guns?

    • Shane,

      The reason why a lot of people think/say that America is a Christian nation is because a) most of the Founding Fathers were Christians and b) most of America was influenced by Christian values. It isn’t saying that Christianity is the American Religion or that other Religions are lesser; it’s just a claim that this country has Christian roots. To say that means that no one cares about other Religious or non Religious people’s rights is greatly incorrect.

      American’s should be able to speak English because it has been the agreed upon language since before our Country was born. Yes everyone should be able to speak whatever language they want but to expect others to pamper them because they are too lazy or indignant to learn English is not acceptable.

      Protect family values doesn’t have one meaning; it can mean anything such as parents staying together; raising their kids to be good Americans etc.. It doesn’t always mean anti-gay.

      You are making generalizations and judgements based on your skewed opinion; exactly like anti-gun people do to us. Just because there are some pro gun people that do show those beliefs (the ones you mentioned) doesn’t mean that those (like me) who think similarly are the same..

      • Points taken.

        I agree that calling America, “a Christian nation,” could be interpreted as saying, “the dominant religion in America is Christianity.” But I think we both know that when people use that phrase they are saying that the founders intended for the USA to be a nation based on the Bible, which certainly is not true. There is not a single mention of the Bible or of Jesus in the Constitution, and there are plenty of examples of founders and early patriots, such as Jefferson, stating that the government was established to be a secular government, not a Christian government.

        On language, I do not think that anyone ever formally agreed that English would be the language of the United States. It just happened that way because most of the early immigrants were English speaking. Nothing in the Constitution calls for an official language.

        Regarding “family values,” yes, I suppose it is possible to use that phrase to mean nice things, but I have only ever heard it used to condemn homosexuality and single-parent families.

        • It’s entirely plausible that the Framers (not exactly the same people as the Founders, and of whom Jefferson was not one), who produced the Constitution, left God and the Bible out of it because they considered them irrelevant in the context of the federal Constitution. After all, the Constitution envisioned a fairly weak federal government, serving as a loose union of sovereign states, with a mandate focused on a very narrow catalog of common interests.

          Let’s not forget also that most of the colonies already had official state religions of their own. By 1702, all thirteen colonies had some degree of state support for religion. This could include tax benefits or religious requirements for voting or serving in the state legislatures or, again, a full official state religion. For some states, thus arrangement endured well into the 19th century (VA, NY, MA, RI), some even beyond the Civil War (NC, SC), and some in the North (MD, NH).

          The lack of role or mention of God, Bible, etc. in the U.S. Constitution more likely reflects the Framers’ stance that State-supported, -sponsored, -sanctioned religion was the proper province of the States, as opposed to the federal government, and not a wholesale rejection of the intermingling of public and religious affairs.

          How that fundamental blend of religion and government, dating back to the founding and centuries before that, informs and influences people’s views today is a separate and debatable topic. That the federation was founded as a Christian country, however, is just a matter of historical fact.

        • That was a thoughtful, well-argued response, but nothing you said proves your final statement: “That the federation was founded as a Christian country, however, is just a matter of historical fact.”

          The words of the founders, framers, intellectuals and key patriots of the time make it pretty clear that the United States was founded as a religiously-neutral country with a secular government. Below are just a few examples of what early American leaders of the day thought about the subject of religion.

          “…the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
          – Thomas Jefferson

          “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
          – James Madison

          “Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery…are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
          – John Adams

          “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”
          – John Adams

          “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.”
          – Thomas Jefferson in Religious Freedom Act of Virginia

          “I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature.
          – Thomas Jefferson

          “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, ’tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” – Ben Franklin discussing the notion of government support of a religion.

          “All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
          – Thomas Paine

        • “Family values” is about as vague as Jimmy Hoffa’s current whereabouts. Gay marriage is a fringe minority issue at best, used as a smokescreen to distract the public. I do believe they should just legalize it, even though I’m a Mormon (ask me why later). While on the topic of religion, saying that American is a Christian nation, or any variation of such, does not infringe on the rights of other faiths, Atheists included. Separation of church and state is to prevent persecutions of those who do not adhere to the faith of the official state religion should one exist, nor does it allow government material sponsorship to one faith over another. Additionally, wanting to lead a morning prayer or similar before the start of the work day is not in violation of one’s right to be atheist/irreligious. You are free to not participate, but at least be respectful since they are essentially praying for you too, despite you’re lack of belief in their faith.

          As for the language, it’s not about the language. It’s about an increasing segment of the population who aren’t willing to integrate into the current system, but essentially demand that the system conform to them instead by refusing to learn the language of the majority. If I was going to become a German citizen, I’d learn how to speak German. If I was going to become a Mexican citizen, I’d learn how to speak Spanish, so on and so forth.

        • It’s about an increasing segment of the population who aren’t willing to integrate into the current system

          As a Mormon, you should know that integrating is not consistent with freedom when people don’t wish to integrate. The 19th Century Mormons in the Midwest didn’t wish to integrate either, but members of the majority religion took issue with the differences, and later became violent over those differences. So the Mormons were forced to flee to the deserts of Utah.

          In regard to school prayer, I’ll ask you the same question I asked another guy who didn’t answer.

          Say you live in a community where the majority of people are Muslim. Everyone – the Muslims, you and your wife (the only Mormon family in town), the Jew down the street, a few Wiccan – all of you pay your taxes to support the public schools. So you send your kid to the school that you helped pay for, to be taught by teachers whose salaries you helped pay for, to be managed by a principal whose salary you helped pay for. The principal happens to be Muslim like the other 95% of the community and decides to lead a school prayer to Allah and Mohammed, peace be upon him.

          That’s OK, though, say other members of the community. The Mormon kids don’t have to face Mecca and pray to Allah. They just have to sit quietly, respectfully, and wait until classes start.

          ¿No hay problema?

        • Nothing supports it….um….except the fact that the U.S. as originally legally constructed consisted of thirteen sovereign states each with state sponsored Christian religions? Now, if you just ignore that, then of course, you’re right. Then again, setting aside the pesky fact that water is wet, then of course it’s dry.

          Don’t think I haven’t noticed you’re getting cute with words, too. The subject is the official framework of the of the country and whether that includes Christianity. Now you’re slyly trying to stretch the scope and slip in contemporaries who weren’t even at the Constitutional Convention; men who neither wrote nor signed the Constitution. John Adams was Minister to G.B. at the time. Jefferson was Minister to France. Thomas Paine, private citizen never elected to anything represent anyone at anything, too, was in England and France during the Convention; this time rabble rousing for the French Revolution. So these men’s stray quotes really mean nothing, since they weren’t part of the Convention and the construction of the country’s official legal framework. That’s all that matters, as everything else is just chit chat and letter writing.

          You can cherry pick quotes all day, especially from people like Jefferson, Adams and Paine, who WEREN’T EVEN AT the Constitutional Convention, but that doesn’t refute the fact that the Constitution provided for a very limited federal government comprised of thirteen sovereign states, each with their own state sponsorship of a Christian religion. That’s the trump card and you cannot negate it. Moreover, such isolated quotes not only do not carry the force of law, but they sometimes conflict with positions the same people have taken which DO carry the force of law.

          For example, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were all for the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, when they each took the oath of office as President. Likewise they were all for unilaterally calling for revolution when they signed the Declaration of Independence. Yet, somehow their fervor had flamed out when Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law and Jefferson allowed them to persist despite winning election by having opposed them!

          These facts alone, in addition to further demolishing you argument, should also give you pause next time you you’re tempted to take a politician’s remarks as genuinely representative of his views, let alone as the Almighty Gospel.

          Thank you for the compliment regarding my argument. I only wish I could return it regarding yours.

        • One problem with your argument is that this “fact” simply is not true:

          the U.S. as originally legally constructed consisted of thirteen sovereign states each with state sponsored Christian religions?

          Virginia very clearly prohibited the state from sponsoring religion in “The Act for Establishing Religious Freedom even before the U.S. Congress drafted the Bill of Rights. In fact, that state act help to inspire the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

          So unless you are trying to bolster your argument by pointing to British colonial governments (or to governments under the Articles of Confederation), then you are just plain wrong. If you are trying to bolster your arguments by referencing pre-U.S. Constitution governments, then I think you’re just grasping at straws.

          The Constitution defines the United States (the country) and the Constitution lacks any mention of Christianity. The fact that a few states abandoned the principle of separation of government and religion does not mean that the country, as a whole, was founded as a “Christian nation.” It was not.

        • The only one grasping at straws is you, enough to build a straw man argument. The issue is whether, as you argued, that the U.S. was not a Christian nation because the Constitution doesn’t mention Jesus or the Bible. So there’s no need for you to bring in Colonial sponsorship of religion vis-a-via the Federal government, as that is irrelevant to the federal government which did not exist at that time. Colonial sponsorship is relevant only insofar as to demonstrate a lengthy history of the tradition in the Colonies-cum-Sovereign-States, and the States’ distinction from the Federal government, as I correctly mentioned.

          Nevertheless, it isn’t incumbent upon me to prove some alternate argument, only to disprove YOUR assertion, which is the resolved point of debate, n’est-ce pas? Now, I’ve already discredited that argument, for the federal government being a separate entity from the sovereign states. It would make no sense for the federal government even to address God or the Bible or religion at all, outside of excluding itself from any dominion over religion, because those matters rightly belonged to the States. That’s not just me talking. It’s the Federal Judiciary. After all, the text of the 1A reads in part “CONGRESS shall make no law………[emphasis added]. Nothing in there about the States.

          In the first century of the nation’s existence, the Supreme Court accepted for review fewer than one dozen First Amendment cases covering ALL 1A issues, let alone the Establishment Clause. This is because federal judges in the first half or so of our history regarded the Constitution as binding the Federal government by enumerating its powers and citizens’ rights with regard to the Federal government. By the 10th amendment, if it wasn’t Federal, it was reserved to the States and the People. It took the 14th amendment to bind the States to the rest of the Constitution; a point of law STILL in question today and necessitated follow-up “incorporation” of some SCOTUS rulings to bind the States, as with the Heller and McDonald cases). This includes state sponsorship of religions. So Constitution’s silence, which was YOUR argument, on the matters of Jesus and the Bible is as relevant as the Houston City Municipal Code’s silence on the matter of the price of tea in China. Sooo….

          So you may not employ the Constitution’s silence on Jesus or the Bible as evidence that the country was not established on Christian religion. Neither may you argue that just because one state, Virginia, passed a law that that makes moot the issue for the country as a whole, or even for Virginia, for that matter. You mentioned Virginia’s Statue for Religious Freedom. This is important and is a teachable moment, as you’ve by far over-concluded its immediate significance. Regardless of Virginia’s situation, it’s disingenuous to argue that America was not a Christian nation because a state or two had nominally ended taxpayer funding for a state religion. You might as well argue that America was birthed as a slavery nation, because a few states didn’t have them (but sure has Hell, recognized the slavery property rights of those states that did have them).

          First, Jefferson and Adams supported the Statute on principle of freedom of religion, but the greater issue was simply political stability and personal expedience. Remove religion from the equation, and there’s one less variable to fight over in the new republic and the new State. Remove religion from the equation, and that’s one less major sphere of power for Adams and Jefferson to compete with for power in the new country. How is that the same thing as declaring that religion had no bearing on public affairs. It’s precisely because it DID, that this needed to be set aside for the nonce. How long is a nonce? I’m glad you asked. Apparently it’s about four decades or so. Interestingly, just long enough for the Founders and Framers’ lives to be over. Curious, that.

          Secondly, you see, it took until 1830, for Virginia to codify freedom of religion in their state constitution. I ask again, why wait so long, or why bother at all, if religion were a nonissue? The answer is because religion, specifically Christianity, was a major issue and, in fact, despite the Statute’s demands, state sponsorship of religion persisted well beyond its enactment. While the Statute ended outright tax payments for religion, there continued to be de facto religious requirements for holding office and other advantages, such as property tax exemption. There’s more to state sponsorship of religion than just cutting a check, as the innumerable court modern court cases over the Pledge, the 10 Commandments, moments of silence, etc. demonstrate.

          Jefferson’s goal was to free the state from religion, and he believed that most people once freed from a religious establishment would embrace deism. For ordinary Virginians, the statute enabled them to choose their own religious affiliations, and many decided to become evangelicals. Jefferson’s statute, then, did not accomplish his goals. In a final irony, rather than diluting the role of religion in public life, the statute allowed ordinary people to become more active in their own religious destinies, and thus to strengthen the place of religion in the public sphere! So even in Virginia, never mind the overwhelming evidence in the other States, religion, specifically Christianity, was the cornerstone of the new nation. Completely the opposite of what you claimed. Ouch! That’s gotta hurt!

        • You have a damned impressive writing style, I grant you that! But you also read a lot into my words, making assumptions about things I never said, and your arguments seem convoluted and your logic dubious.

          So there’s no need for you to bring in Colonial sponsorship of religion vis-a-via the Federal government, as that is irrelevant to the federal government which did not exist at that time.

          I believe it was you who argued that the sponsorship of religion by the colonies (or at least by some of the states prior to the adoption of the Constitution) was evidence that the founders intended for America to be designed as a “Christian nation.”

          It might be the case that the founders intended for the nation to be Christian but decided not to say so because they assumed each state would codify Christianity as their official religion within their state constitutions.

          I very much doubt that though. If the founders wanted America to be a Christian nation, then it certainly would “make sense” to say so in the federal constitution. Doing so would have made their intention clearer and would have carried greater authority (Supreme Law of the Land). They would not have needed to specify a particular flavor of Christianity, but they certainly could have proscribed that country would be rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ while giving the states leeway to determine the details, such as which Christian sect it preferred to emphasize.

          You dismiss the quotes I shared from key patriots, intellectuals, and leaders as being irrelevant, but the federal courts have considered unofficial correspondence from people like Thomas Jefferson in their attempts to determine the intentions of the founding fathers.

          The quotations I shared are evidence that the founding fathers and leading intellectuals of the day did not put much stock in Christianity. Many felt it was nothing more than a body of obsolete doctrine and mythology. Yet I believe you are asserting that there was a conscious, concerted intention to establish this country according to that doctrine and mythology.

          So as evidence of your assertion, can you please provide similar verifiable quotations from the founders as evidence that they did wish to make their new country into a “Christian nation?”

          You say, nevertheless, it isn’t incumbent upon me to prove some alternate argument…, , but given that the federal courts have been apt to agree with my interpretation of the separation of church and state, I think it is incumbent upon you to prove your argument, which I feel you have failed to do, not due to lack of effort, but from having to argue against a preponderance of evidence. It is akin to the Creationists who also build upon false premises.

          Now, I’ve already discredited that argument…

          You’ve discredited nothing, but you have providing your interpretation, an interpretation that has not held up in the federal courts over the test of time.

          Again, I offer Mr. Jefferson’s own words.

          …the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…

          So I am to believe that you speak with greater authority on the matter than does Thomas Jefferson?

          I’m glad I don’t have to be the one to reconcile a quote like that from arguably the most important founding father with your assertion that the founders sought to found just another “Christian nation,” such as those in Europe they found so distasteful.

          Anyway, I guess I should probably spend more time working and less time arguing about such things. As Bill O’Reilly likes to say, “I’ll give you the last word” (if you want it).

          Regards from a fellow gun-rights supporter and American.

        • Sorry for the double post, and I meant to say, “they certainly could have prescribed [not proscribed] that the country would be rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ.” Serves me right for trying to use them fancy words.

      • The founding fathers were FAR less christian than you think friend.
        Whatever christian values they occasionally spoke of were simply enough to get by.

        People in power, for the most part, aren’t interested in religion, outside of what it can do for them.
        It’s a great “club” to be in if you will, but believe me they were more worried about freedom FROM religion than freedom OF religion.

    • Well said! What made this country great was precisely because we were a melting pot of cultures, traditions and beliefs. That allowed us to grow and advance incredibly quickly compared to other civilizations and also allowed us to eventually try and right some of the wrongs in the past, something which we are still doing. There was a time in our political history that the two parties could disagree ideologically but still get along and work together; that time seems to be gone as politicians have made their office a lifelong career and quest for power instead of serving because of civic duty. We are doomed as a country as long as we keep fighting amongst ourselves. We can’t fight against people trying to take our rights away if all we want to do is take their rights away in return.

      • You say it much better:

        “We can’t fight against people trying to take our rights away if all we want to do is take their rights away in return.”

      • It’s less important to have a multitude of philosophies, per se, than it is to reject the outright wrong ideas. The piddling procedural, liturgical differences between most religions, especially those under the Christianity umbrella, are ridiculous and inconsequential. It’s only when any of the religions, or secular political ideologies, for that matter, seek to compel adherence among members or extend their dominion over others and command subservience, that there’s a problem.

        The primary idea that needs to be rejected is the elevation of institutions over individuals. Disavow the wrongheaded notion that men and women belong the State, their Spouse, their Master, the Church or any other human or human institution, as a matter of course, and the rest becomes just so much interesting dinner party conversation.

    • I will help you fight against these other tyrannies! Where in America are they criminalizing atheists, Muslims, and gays? Where are these political prisoners being held so we can storm the gulag? Yeah…
      Try walking around with a gun in New York or Washington, D.C. See what happens.

      • Forgive Shane, he is a recent graduate from Soros Inc. and doesn’t quite have his slander style worked out yet.

      • I live in Middle Tennessee. A few years ago a group of Muslims, most of them born in the USA, decided to build a community center on the land that they owned. These citizens had been here for many years, living their lives, paying their taxes, but when word got out about a Muslim community center, there was a virulent, hateful reaction from certain other citizens who called themselves “Christians.” They said that this was a Christian nation and that the Muslims didn’t belong here.

        Shots were fired late at night into the construction site. Federal authorities were brought in to investigate and protect the religious freedom of those Muslims.

        How many of those Middle Tennessee bigots were also pro-gun? I don’t know. I do know that a local gun dealer put a sign on his door with an anti-Muslim message. I have not returned to that store even though I am not a Muslim.

        I much more frequently hear people at gun shows, shooting ranges, etc., making anti-Muslim comments than I do at grocery stores or libraries or at the gym. That concerns me. I worry that there is a disproportionate number of bigots in the pro-gun community. If most of us aren’t that way, then I think we should speak up clearly to let the others know that we do not agree.

        So, yes, CLarsen, tyranny against minorities does exist, and I hope that you really will fight it wherever you see it. Tyranny can take many forms. A bigoted majority can oppress a minority.

        • Some “inconvenient facts” for you.

          There is no other country that is more welcoming to immigrants and religions as is the U.S.
          Your Leftist professor doesn’t agree but he’s a fool.

          A tree is judged by the fruit it bears.
          Americans look at the fruit of Islam and rightfully want to go buy a gallon of Roundup and a chainsaw.

          The entire planet is in an existential battle with the politically dominant and most dynamic portion of Islam.
          There is no good evidence at this time to believe that Islam is going to bend to the culture of America like every other religion has.

          Lastly, I consider Islam a cult (primarily due to the fact that if you publicly separate from Islam your life is put in danger). In my view, Islam is not afforded the rights of a religion. Just saying.

        • @doesky2, the funny thing about Shane and his ilk, they would be the first ones the musloids would behead under Sharia. Pathetic Shane. Truly.

        • So the full force of the law was brought to bear on the side of a lawful property owner? Americans in America following the rule of law on behalf of Americans? Scandal! If anything these property owners received special treatment. When in the middle of the night some idiot shot out half a dozen windows in the building where I worked there wasn’t a federal investigation. Do you think it’s too late to tell the police it was probably militant pro-gun activists revved up after a gun show? We can crack this case wide open!

    • “I wonder where that live-and-let-live spirit goes …

      I wonder why the atheists didn’t just let the schools live-and-let-live and let schools continue to have prayer in the schools like the previous 200 years.

      I wonder why the gay-mafia didn’t just let the world live-and-let-live and have marriage continue to mean a normal male/female institution like the world lived-and-let-lived for the previous 3,000+ years.

      • Christians have the right to pray at home, at school, whenever they want.

        The problem arises when people who are government employees decide to lead a religious function at work. So if a school principal (government employee) decides to lead a school prayer at school, then he is being unfair to the minority.

        Imagine if you lived in a community where most people were Muslims. The Muslims pay taxes to support the public schools, and you pay taxes to support the public schools. You send your kid to public school and the principal leads a prayer to Allah in Mohammed’s name (or however it works). Would you think that’s fair?

        The best policy is for government employees to go about their jobs without mixing in their religion. If they want to become ministers, they have that right, but not in a public school.

        • Christians have the right to pray at home, at school, whenever they want.

          Hey where’s that “live-and-let-live” attitude you were talking about? Why did you force me to follow your religion of secularism?

          The problem arises when people who are government employees decide to lead a religious function at work.

          How does your thinking align with the fact the one of the first acts of the initial congress was to hire a preacher to open the sessions?

          You send your kid to public school and the principal leads a prayer to Allah in Mohammed’s name (or however it works). Would you think that’s fair?

          So in most Islamic countries I’d be dead if I was a declared Christian so I don’t think you have a very good argument there.

          Lastly, does your mother know you are taking to adults on public boards?

        • doesky2, I think you don’t know what secular means. It’s not the same thing as atheist, if that’s what you meant. It’s not a religion. It’s not a refutation of religion. Secularism is just a concept of having religion simply not come up in the first place. If you value your religious beliefs and want a smaller government influence on the lives of the people, then you would support a secular state that doesn’t respect nor insult any religious/unreligious views of any kind. Hence: 1st Amendment.

          Also, you essentially dodged his question by saying you’d be executed for being Christian in a Muslim country (not a common thing, BTW. I’ve met Christians who lived decently in Fallujah and told me they got along with their neighbors quite well.) He wasn’t talking about a Muslim country, he was referring to if you lived in the US but your community was largely Muslim. Don’t dodge questions and throw back a ad hominem. It does you no favors.

        • @Shane, not doesky2, but I’ll say it outright: I wouldn’t send my kids to a musloid school if it was the last school on earth.

        • Secularism is just a concept of having religion simply not come up in the first place.

          If religion is a regular part of a community’s daily life why should it “not come up” in the coarse of a day at school? Having it “come up” for the first 200 years of our history seemed to work fine and helped form this country. Do you think the school system has improved since school prayer was eliminated in the 60’s?

          BTW here is the famous prayer that triggered all of the court rulings…..
          “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.”

          Banning the above is the secularists idea of tolerance.

          He wasn’t talking about a Muslim country, he was referring to if you lived in the US but your community was largely Muslim.

          I wouldn’t send my kid to a predominate Muslim school. Koranic beliefs are incompatible with the US constitution.

          Here are my beliefs on secularism…………..

          Secularism: Great for government, destructive to everything else

          http://www.jewishjournal.com/dennis_prager/article/secularism_great_for_government_destructive_to_everything_else

        • @ElMac

          And of coarse its the “live-and-let-live” leftists who want to make it impossible for you to home school your kids.

        • @doesky2, exactly. It’s also the radical “live and let livers” that think its just fine to commit literally millions of cases of infanticide every year – all sacrificed on the altar of “convenience”.

        • This – I wouldn’t send my kid to a predominate Muslim school – misses the point entirely, but I suspect that you are purposely ignoring the point. And the point is about fairness.

          If you lived in that Muslim majority community, then you would still have to support the public schools with your taxes (whether or not you sent your kids there). If a principal at the public school then leads a Muslim prayer, your tax dollars are being used to promote a religion that you do not believe in.

          That would not be fair to you, would it? I bet you would object vehemently to the injustice.

          But here you are apparently saying that it is just fine to impose that same injustice on a Muslim or Hindu or Atheist or any non-Christian minority.

          How can you justify that? How can you support the ideals of freedom, fairness, and justice while taking that position?

        • @Shane, you are boringly predictable. Using the old Goebbels method of changing the hypothetical rules to fit your hypothetical scenario. Yawn,,,,

      • Yeah… prayer was never really all that dominate outside of religious slanted schools.

        Out of curiosity, do you know that the original pledge did not contain “under god”?
        Did you know that it wasn’t added in until the mid 50’s?

        • @Robert, prayer wasn’t meant to be dominate, just optional out of respect for the Creator.

    • America was the envy of the world when it was a Christian nation, family values were protected and people learned to speak English. Now, not so much.

    • Shane; there is a reason why I rail against liberalism; what you wrote is a very nice nut shell as to why.

      Liberalism is about statist power and the “Monopoly of Force” and the demand that individual liberty and responsibility for personal protection should be surrendered to some amorphous “collective good”, determined, of course, by some self-elected elite’.

      The rest of what you wrote is some of the mechanisms to bring this about.

      Most of liberalism; Shane, is about increasing government power at the expense of personal liberty, and they do this by attacking traditional cultural norms that support a strong, united, vibrant and free culture that would hinder the growth and power of the State. So liberals attack the traditional family-leading to a shrinking population with dysfunctional single parent families; they push multiculturalism which breeds factionalism, balkanization and intertribal rivalry. They push the idea that a unifying idea like a common language; which makes all people one people is “racist”

      The end game of the Liberal/progressive agenda is the absolute subjugation of the individual into the body of the collective. There will be no room for individual liberty or the idea of personal responsibility and the right of self-determination from government tyranny.

      • So what is the guiding principle of liberalism Shane? Divide and Conquer. It has worked for millennia and it is being used against the American people. If we allow it.

        • ThomasR, to answer your question about the guiding principle of liberalism, I guess we first have be sure we’re talking about the same thing. Are we talking about Chuck Schumer liberalism or are we talking about Thomas Jefferson liberalism? A Jeffersonian liberal would be more true to the name (a liberal supports liberty). The guiding principle of this sort of “classical liberalism” or “libertarianism” is that we each have a right to live however we wish so long as our actions don’t infringe upon someone else’s rights. I can buy a Tavor (wish I had the money), I can keep and bear a Tavor, but I cannot shoot out the windows of your car with my Tavor. I should be allowed to marry any other adult, but I cannot force someone to marry me who doesn’t want to marry me. It’s really that easy! I don’t understand why all the confusion.

        • Oh please Shane; You know as well as I that Classical Liberalism is not the liberalism practiced today. You obviously are very well educated and you know the difference.

          So knowing the difference; knowing that current Liberalism is a statist/ socialist /communist ideology focused on the centralization of state power and the subjugation of the individual to that power; you would have initially clarified which liberalism you were speaking of; but you didn’t.

          So you didn’t refute my interpretation of current liberalism; so do you agree with that interpretation?

        • @ThomasR, “So what is the game you are playing Shane?”

          Well, it’s a game called “trolling”. Very popular sport played by the Goebbel’s School of the Left.

        • I didn’t define “liberalism” in my original post because I didn’t think it was important to do so. The ideas that I mentioned – equal rights to gay people; respect for cultural differences including differences in language, and stuff like like that – those are ideas that are often dismissed offhand as being “liberalism” by some people. That’s the only reason I used that word.

          As for your characterization of the contemporary liberal, I don’t really want to critique it except to say that I see all of those nasty things which you describe in both contemporary liberals and contemporary conservatives, and in both democrats and in republicans. Both groups have led our country into unjustified wars and have acted against our rights as they are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I won’t play the liberal vs. conservative game / democrat vs republican game because it is largely irrelevant today.

    • Shane,

      Like it or not, some “values” are quite simply destructive to society. That is why many people advocate for one language or “family values”.

      Take one language for instance. The cost to our nation, if we cannot speak the same language, is astronomical. Official government media and currency has to be communicated in multiple languages. Obtaining healthcare — especially emergency healthcare — is almost impossible when patients and caregivers do not speak the same language. Etc. etc. etc. If a migrant family wants to speak some other language at home or amongst friends, that is fantastic. But when it comes to interacting with society, it is imperative that migrant families speak English. My mom’s family did it when they immigrated to the U.S. Other families can do it too.

      Now let’s look at homosexuality. In a vacuum I could care less about homosexual relationships. However, those relationships occur in society, not a vacuum. What is the cost to society? The largest cost: homosexual relationships do not produce children — you know the people who end up producing all the goods and services, pay taxes, and staff the police and military when they grow up. Families with children also engage in much less crime and risky behavior because people with families want to be a part of their childrens’ lives.

      I am fully aware that legislating anything because of the “cost to society” is a slippery slope of epic proportions. That is why I am incredibly reluctant to legislate much if anything. That said, I believe a single language is so simple and imperative that we must legislate it. And the idea of marriage and family, which has been unchanged for thousands of years, is so simple and imperative that we must legislate for it as well. And to show you that I am consistent, self-defense has been imperative for thousands of years and is still imperative today. That is why I also believe we must legislate for self-defense.

      • Guns…I would argue that the idea of common people owning weapons is a radical, liberal idea that came about relatively recently when common people no longer wished to submit to absolute monarchy. In conservative societies, the elite maintained their monopoly on arms – the common person was not permitted military weapons because it would threaten the power structure. The founders were behaving radically when they recognized and enshrined a universal right to keep and bear arms.

        Language…In America, we have never had an official language. In other words, we have never needed to legislate as you propose. People learned English because it was the dominant language. That is still the case. Most Latinos do learn English. Sadly, like many in other immigrant groups, the children of those first-generation immigrants never learn to speak their parents’ first language. Texas is full of kids who can’t speak Spanish to their Mexican-immigrant parents.

        Sexuality…If the USA recognizes the right of gay people to get married, I don’t think straight people will suddenly turn gay and stop reproducing. If they do, well, we can just open our southern border for a population injection.

        • Shane,

          Self defense always has been and always will be an integral part of nature and man’s experience. What is life other than the fight to survive? Our bodies have numerous built-in self-defense mechanisms. We have immune systems that fight viruses, bacteria, and amoeba. We have our adrenal system that enables us to fight or run (flight) harder, faster, and longer than normal. Even when we are sleeping, our brain is processing sounds in our environment for danger. How we employ self-defense is up to the individual. Most importantly, self-defense is not dependent on the whims of the ruling class whose overarching interest is exploiting the peasant/working class. That is why self-defense must be “untouchable” when legislatures enact laws.

          English has been the dominant language in our nation since the 1600s. It must remain so. All business and social transactions require the same language. Our government, whose core purpose is to secure our rights, requires the same language to carry out its purpose. That is why moving away from English for all domestic business, social, and government transactions must be “untouchable”.

          Marriage has always been the public commitment of a man and women to an exclusive relationship to each other to have a family. By its very definition and purpose, a person cannot “marry” a tree or a horse. Men and women are designed for each other. If two men or two women want to engage in sexual activity together or commit to a relationship to each other, that is their business. But they cannot be “married” and force the public to embrace and engage their commitment. If you truly stand for free will and choice, then you will not force, by rule of law, businesses, schools, and other institutions to recognize a homosexual couple as a “marriage”.

        • @uncommon_sense, a wise man once said not to argue with a fool… or worse, a paid Leftist troll like Shane.

      • “What is the cost to society? The largest cost: homosexual relationships do not produce children…”

        That is one of the silliest things I’ve yet seen here at TTAG. So should we also disallow marriages between heterosexual couples where one person is sterile? Not allow anyone over 50 to get married? Perhaps we should automatically dissolve any marriage that hasn’t produced a child within five years of the wedding? That argument also ignores all of the gay couples who actually are raising children, either through adoption, surrogacy, or any of a number of other means.

        “For the children!” is a piss-poor argument for gun control, and it’s equally weak as an argument against gay marriage.

        • Stinkeye,

          As I mentioned to Shane above, marriage is the public commitment of a man and woman to each other for the purpose of making a family. By its very definition and purpose, a person cannot marry a tree or a cat. Neither can two women or two men “marry” each other.

          If you like evolution, homosexual relationships are a dead end and you don’t see them in nature. If you like major religions, homosexual relationships are improper. Either way you slice it, it is wrong to force the public to accept and recognize gay “marriage”. What two people do behind closed doors is their business and it doesn’t have to be public business.

        • “What two people do behind closed doors is their business and it doesn’t have to be public business.”

          I couldn’t agree more, though I don’t see any reason not to take it further, and get the state out of the marriage business entirely. What business is it of the state what sorts of contracts and agreements two consenting adults enter into, so long as both do so freely? It shouldn’t be a matter of public business at all, but the state, with its “licenses” and benefits given only to married couples, has made it so.

          Marriage is the only contract two people can enter into where the rules of the game change when you move to another state, or can be changed right out from under you by legislators who decide to modify the marriage laws where you live, whether you like it or not. By simply being married, you’re involved in a contract whose terms are dictated by a third party that you have no influence over. That’s lunacy.

        • Stinkeye,

          You make some good points. As far as I can tell, politicians, bureaucrats, and constituents have historically viewed marriage (between a man and a woman) as highly beneficial to society and thus they passed laws to encourage marriage.

      • “The largest cost: homosexual relationships do not produce children”

        Are people like you even remotely aware that we are fast approaching a population crisis?
        I don’t think you quite get it. You really can’t and espouse nonsense like what I quoted.

        Fewer children is not a “cost” it’s a benefit.
        I dare say you are wholly ignorant of the exponential growth of populations.

        Unless you like the idea of not having enough food, water, and electricity to go around, you might want to reconsider your stance on the “cost” as you put it, of not having children.

        Of course we can support more people than we are right now, optimistic estimates put the number around 11 billion. Even though those estimates rely on technology and methods not yet brought to bear.
        Though, at 11 billion you’re going to be eating a lot more bugs than you are beef and chicken.

        • @Robert, so your solution is to eat more hot dogs and less tuna. Interesting… I don’t think that is the answer sir.

    • Shane makes blanket generalization. Posters heartily disagree but then move to try to prove Shane right by making bigoted posts. Hysterical antics ensue.

      • J Star, I never once made a blanket generalization. I voiced concern that the pro-gun camp seems to have more hypocritical bigots than the general population does. I base that on my personal observations of 35+ years at shooting ranges, gun shows, gun shops, etc. I never said that all pro-gun people are like that. I never said that most pro-gun people are like that. I was saying that those kinds of bigots and hypocrites seem (to me) to be over-represented in the pro-gun community. And, yes, we are seeing that kind of bigotry exposed right here in this forum.

        • What you did, according to the dictionary definition, was make a generalization. You can rationalize it however you like.

          However, I am not picking on you for making the statement so much as pointing out that the very people claiming you are wrong are, in fact, making you appear right.

          For the record, I do not disagree with you.

  3. “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.”

    • “When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty”

      • When people fear their government there is tyranny. When government fears the people there are cops with MRAPs.

        • My favorite line of them all from the Constitutional era. Well, the original version of it. Your version is also very, very nice.

        • This – and your “certain tree at Augusta National Golf Club” line – good stuff!

    • If you’re really thinking like he does, then you think that using the same tactic of blanket generalizations about a very large group of people with absolutely zero empirical evidence and no moral ground to stand on is perfectly A-OK, then you quite haven’t been looking at the situation at all and you’re no better than them.

      In fact, you might even be something worse, if such a thing were possible, while you pretend to espouse the same lofty ideals as we typically do.

      • What are your lofty ideals, Excedrine?

        My ideals are based on the Golden Rule: Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

        I respect the right of a gay person to get married because I would have them respect my right to marry a woman. I respect the right of a Mexican to speak Spanish in the USA because I would have them respect my right to speak English when I’m in Mexico. It’s really just about fairness, that’s all.

        • And just who is keeping two or more homosexuals from marrying? Last time I checked this was America and not Iran.

        • You can marry a woman. The queer can marry a woman. No one has been “discriminated” against.

          You want to “marry” your coonhound, your neighbor’s sheep, a 10yr old, a forced bride (see Islam), a potted palm, or another same individual of the same gender as you and most normal people, at least in the US, correctly categorize you as a degenerate.

        • Shane there is no law in America that says two or more people can’t consider themselves married, nor should there be. If you want to marry another male, or be married to three women at the same time, you certainly are free to do so, but don’t expect the rest of society to condone it.

        • What do any of these social wedge issues really have to do with gun rights? Why don’t you ask the people on this site if gay/Athiests/Muslim/Spanish-speaking/Libertarians/ “other random people Shane brings up” Americans should be allowed to own guns. Or are you afraid the answer will mess with the troglodyte gun owner strawman you have constructed in your head?

        • I am a gun owner, CLarson. I’m an NRA life member. I’ve been a shooting sports instructor. So I’m an ally of yours on that one issue.

          I’m just stating my opinion that many gun-rights people throw around words like “freedom,” “liberty,” and “rights” when talking about guns, but then take stances contrary to other people’s rights on issues which don’t personally affect them.

          If a guy tells me that he has a right to own a gun, I’ll agree wholeheartedly, but if he tells me that Adam shouldn’t be allowed to marry Steve because it’s “unnatural,” then I will point out the hypocrisy. It’s not natural to throw projectiles at 3,000 fps, but if that’s what you want to do, and if you don’t hurt anyone in the process, then you should be allowed to do so.

          Please note also that I say “many” gun owners can be hypocrites. I don’t say all or even the majority. You can see by the diverse range of opinions on this forum that gun owners don’t all think alike.

        • @ Peter. “There is no law in America that says two or more people can’t consider themselves married, nor should there be.”

          Nor is there any law in New York City that says you can’t consider yourself an armed citizen who carries an AR-15. You can consider yourself that all you want, just don’t actually be that because the city officials will become very cross with you.

          Gay people having the right to consider themselves married is not enough. They need the right to be married, legally, and it should be fully recognized just like for a heterosexual couple. That in no way infringes upon anyone else’s rights.

        • And do we accept when the anti-gun people tell us, “Muzzle-loaders, ok. Repeaters, nah?”

        • @ Shane Although I don’t give an opinion about gay marriage one way or another, I don’t think that analogy holds water. If you are caught with a non compliant AR15 in NY, it will be confiscated and you will face fines and/or prison, regardless of purpose. If a homosexual couple declared themselves married in a none same-sex marriage sanctioned state (SSMSS?) than at worst they would face civil ostracization, but in most cases can still pursue other legal avenues to protect their relationship. I doubt any state will arrest or fine a LGBT couple outright. The only thing they may really miss out is right now maybe tax breaks, but personally, I don’t think there should be progressive taxes with any breaks, it should just be a flat or fair tax.

  4. “and to some degree this is bipartisan ”

    Did the Gun Controller in Chief mean some of the Democrat Whores and most of the Republican Whores are terrified or, some of the Republican Whores and most of the Democrat Whores are terrified? Either way, that is a heap o’ whores terrified of the National Rifle Association, and that is a good thing. In November, let us all vote to validate their fear.

  5. They are not representation skewing in all cases. A republican form of government protects Iowa from Californians. In a straight-vote, majority rules democracy all manner of minorities get crushed by a tyrannical majority and it doesn’t matter by how small a margin. The two big dead weights of California and New York (and their various slave state counterparts) would be able to force the laws THEY want on the entire nation. In this way, the people of Pennsylvania can have the laws and taxes THEY want, as opposed to the drivel New Yorkers would arrogantly thrust upon them if given half a chance.

    • +1, I appreciate the author’s zeal and agree with him for the most part, but I hope he goes back and studies why our founders settled on a republic rather than a straight democracy.

  6. “If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking… is freedom.” Dwight D. Eisenhower

    • Nice.

      Ike’s also the guy who warned us about the military industrial complex. If only his policy had mirrored his quotes.

      • You are correct. The speech in which he issued that warning was his farewell address. In the original draft, his warning was against the “military industrial congressional complex” . He deleted the reference to the whores in the final speech because he did not want to offend his friends.

        • Well, okay, but he was much better than Obama when it came to playing golf. In fact, Ike warned us about the military industrial complex and a certain tree at Augusta National Golf Club.

          Doesn’t that count for something?

      • So a typical politician then… only gives you the truth when he’s no longer in a position to be held accountable to it.

  7. We have to start busting the illusion of “security”. For example many people suggest that the most secure place in the nation is in prison. Allow me to bust that illusion. First of all, you are 100% vulnerable to other inmates. Second, you are vulnerable to bribed, coerced, or corrupt staff. Third, you are vulnerable to the state which could decide to quite literally leave you to rot (e.g. starve) in your cell.

    Other people claim that police or armed guards provide security. If that is the case, why did law enforcement agencies report over 1 million violent crime victims in the U.S. in 2012? Clearly police and armed guards do NOT provide personal security. Even your own body guard is no guarantee of security because someone could bribe or coerce them or your body guard could simply be incompetent or apathetic.

    The more freedom we have, the more security we have. In its most basic form freedom means the ability to run or drive away from a threat — something that a prison inmate cannot do. In its most complex form freedom means the ability to secure and implement training, tools, products, services, facilities, and alliances to handle any catastrophe. Catastrophes could be anything such as a violent criminal attack, a hurricane, a wildfire, or a health disaster such as contracting pneumonia or cancer.

    That is why “security” is a looser and freedom is the winner.

    • Well to be fair, it’s no better when people think that the Government protect such and such benefits. I always answer that “Life is always full of promises, but can only provide two guarantees”.

  8. Seriously, every time I see someone throw out the, “If the people rebelled against the government, all the stealth bombers and tanks would wipe them out instantly!”

    All I ever feel like saying to them is this: have you ever heard of the goddamn Taliban?!

    • Exactly. The Taliban. The Libyan rebels. The Syrians rebels. The Iraqi insurgents. There are plenty of recent and ongoing examples of civilians taking on well-equipped government-sponsored armies.

    • First… you and your range buddies aren’t the Taliban. I hope. The Taliban have lived that way for hundreds of years. Fighting interlopers is not only something they experience, it is their world, and they need no weekend tactical classes. Second… is the current state of Afghanistan and Taliban something we REALLY want to point to as en example of anything?

      Pointing to a bunch of nutty, extremist little-girl shooting guys who know how to shoot helicopters as an exemplar is not a win for any argument. A much more salient point would be questioning who amongst the US military would carry out such orders. Perhaps a look at the Moscow Coup in 91 instead, where the military refused to move against civil disobedience.

  9. Hear, Hear! I am in total agreement. It is high time for the politians to be afraid of the citizens. After all, I think it was Jefferson who said; “When the people are afraid of their government, it is tyranny, when the government is afraid of the people, that is liberty.” It is time for this “I’m afraid of the NRA”, to be answered with “good!”
    One little nitpick, the phrase “What it comes down to is the question of whether you would rather be free or safe”, should have read; “whether you would rather be free or FEEL safe.”
    After all, I think we all know that the more power they sieze, the LESS safe we all actually become. It is all about the ILLUSION of safety, not the reality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *