Hmmm..... Thinking aloud here

[Griff]

After reading a couple of posts on a thread or two.... may a password to get into the site is in order?

Maybe the "Shootists" have an good idea regarding exclusivity.

Maybe an adult beverage is in order?

[Blaine]

After reading a couple of posts on a thread or two.... may a password to get into the site is in order?

Maybe the "Shootists" have an good idea regarding exclusivity.

Maybe an adult beverage is in order?

That pesky old Bill of Rights

[Griff]

That pesky old Bill of Rights

Thanks, that cheered me up.

Hobie, just WHERE IS THAT IGNORE BUTTON?

[cas]

That pesky old Bill of Rights

Oh no sir, I must disagree. You have no rights here or on any internet site.
A common misconception. Your only freedom is the freedom not to come here.

[Ysabel Kid]

That pesky old Bill of Rights

Oh no sir, I must disagree. You have no rights here or on any internet site.
A common misconception. Your only freedom is the freedom not to come here.

+1 - Spot on!

[Pete44ru]

[Thinking aloud here]

My Grandson does that. Gets him in more trouble.....................

[J Miller]

"I don't understand this conversation at all!" - Glen Campbell; True Grit.

Oh, and neither do I.



J e

[Modoc ED]

Any specific gripes/threads you'd like to share Griff? Haven't seen anything lately that's particularly bad.

[Blaine]

That pesky old Bill of Rights

Oh no sir, I must disagree. You have no rights here or on any internet site.
A common misconception. Your only freedom is the freedom not to come here.

(Expletive Deleted ) Bet ya burn books, too.....

[Blaine]

Let me tell ya something.......When you advocate the truncation of a right that suits your fancy, you've opened the door for someone else to chop a right that will pee you off........Rights are either absolute (with sane exceptions......IE sexual content or XXX language) or you just lose the flavor of the USA.........

[Don McDowell]

Cas does make a good point. Nobody makes you come here and read everythread, and every post in that thread.

I also don't think the Shootist organization was started as an eletist highbooted bunch, and I'm not convinced that's what it is now. I see it as more a group of like minded folks, friends mostly ,doing a group gathering and support deal once in awhile. The purpose of keeping that group small was to keep it from suffering growing pains, and keep the closeknit family feeling.

[FWiedner]

I'm not the sort who would ever be invited to be a Shootist, so I figure that if'n I ever wanna eat any of that cake I'm gonna have to barge in and shove my fingers inta the darned thing.

What's the old saying? I wouldn't be a member of any organization that would lower it's standards enough to have me.

I have what rights I care to claim, and the guts to fight to keep..

[engravertom]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note that CONGRESS shall make no law abridging free speech. Leverguns.com may abridge it, within the realm that it has control over. There are many password protected forums on the internet. We all have the right to start our own, if we wish.

take care,

Tom

[Griff]

Don,
I totally agree. And any thoughts that I think Shootists are elitists should be bannished right now. I don't know who the membership is comprised of now, but do recognize a few names from the past, and have nothing BUT good to say. No, I just read a couple of things that saddened me.
I've probably failed at this myself, but "stumpin'" for an issue unrelated to guns, etc. can peg my tolerance meter. I set politics aside, for little in todays politics is unrelated to guns.
I'm better today. No meds, no adult beverages, just a good nites rest. Sorry for the disturbance.

[FWiedner]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Would this include arresting Christians spreading the Gospel at homo rallys?

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Would this include limiting how much Americans can contribute to the political candidate of their choice, or how vociferously they might endorse that candidate prior to an election?

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

Would this address Mr. Bush and his "Freedom of Speech" zones?

and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Would this be the basis for recent efforts to enact legislation to have people who write their congressmen or their lobbyists investigated for "harrassment"?

Contrary to popular belief, the 1st Amendment hasn't existed in the federal lexicon of important laws to enforce since Mr. Bush put his butt in the chair.

[engravertom]

[quote="FWiedner] Contrary to popular belief, the 1st Amendment hasn't existed in the federal lexicon of important laws to enforce since Mr. Bush put his butt in the chair.[/quote]

A very sad +1

Tom

[Terry Murbach]

GEEZ, I MUSTA MISSED SOMETHING ALONG THE WAY HUH !!??
THE LAST TIME I ARGUED MY RIGHT TO SAY AS I PLEASE--THE TOPIC WAS RACISM-- ON A SITE LIKE THIS, THE S&W FORUM TO BE EXACT, I WAS TOLD I AM A " GUEST ' AT THE GUYS SITE, A FELLOW NAMED MIKE PACKWOOD IN ATLANTA, AND HE WILL TELL EVERYONE WHAT THEY'RE GONNA SAY. SOME OF THOSE NINNIES COMPARED IT TO BEING A GUEST IN HIS HOUSE NO LESS !!! WHAT STUPID POPPYCOCK !!! I SAID AS MUCH AND WAS TOSSED OFF LIKE RIGHT NOW AND BEFORE HE ANSWERED MY THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER SO I COULD NOT ANSWER HIS IGNORENT DIATRIBE. THE MOST INTERESTING THING TO ME WAS ALL THE FOLKS WHO EMULED ME IN SUPPORT NOT ONE OF WHICH HAD THE GUTS TO CROSS SWORDS WITH HIS HIGH EMINENT BLOWHARD, DER PACKWOOD.
THE MOST INTERESTING THING OF ALL IS I DO BELIEVE THERE ARE MORE STUPID THINGS SAID ON THAT SITE THAN ANY OTHER GUN SITE ON THE INTERNET. I AM JUST AMAZED AT THE THINGS STATED AS FACT THERE THAT FLAT OUT UNTRUED. IT IS A PITTY TO SEE.

SO WHAT DID I MISS HERE ??????

[Blaine]

GEEZ, I MUSTA MISSED SOMETHING ALONG THE WAY HUH !!??
THE LAST TIME I ARGUED MY RIGHT TO SAY AS I PLEASE--THE TOPIC WAS RACISM-- ON A SITE LIKE THIS, THE S&W FORUM TO BE EXACT, I WAS TOLD I AM A " GUEST ' AT THE GUYS SITE, A FELLOW NAMED MIKE PACKWOOD IN ATLANTA, AND HE WILL TELL EVERYONE WHAT THEY'RE GONNA SAY. SOME OF THOSE NINNIES COMPARED IT TO BEING A GUEST IN HIS HOUSE NO LESS !!! WHAT STUPID POPPYCOCK !!! I SAID AS MUCH AND WAS TOSSED OFF LIKE RIGHT NOW AND BEFORE HE ANSWERED MY THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER SO I COULD NOT ANSWER HIS IGNORENT DIATRIBE. THE MOST INTERESTING THING TO ME WAS ALL THE FOLKS WHO EMULED ME IN SUPPORT NOT ONE OF WHICH HAD THE GUTS TO CROSS SWORDS WITH HIS HIGH EMINENT BLOWHARD, DER PACKWOOD.
THE MOST INTERESTING THING OF ALL IS I DO BELIEVE THERE ARE MORE STUPID THINGS SAID ON THAT SITE THAN ANY OTHER GUN SITE ON THE INTERNET. I AM JUST AMAZED AT THE THINGS STATED AS FACT THERE THAT FLAT OUT UNTRUED. IT IS A PITTY TO SEE.

SO WHAT DID I MISS HERE ??????

Same old, same old, TERRY.......Some want to say what they want, but want to exclude those that don't agree with them.....

[RSY]

Same old, same old, TERRY.......Some want to say what they want, but want to exclude those that don't agree with them.....

Hey, watch it! You can't say that.

scott

[Griff]

GEEZ, I MUSTA MISSED SOMETHING ALONG THE WAY HUH !!??
THE LAST TIME I ARGUED MY RIGHT TO SAY AS I PLEASE--THE TOPIC WAS RACISM-- ON A SITE LIKE THIS, THE S&W FORUM TO BE EXACT, I WAS TOLD I AM A " GUEST ' AT THE GUYS SITE, A FELLOW NAMED MIKE PACKWOOD IN ATLANTA, AND HE WILL TELL EVERYONE WHAT THEY'RE GONNA SAY. SOME OF THOSE NINNIES COMPARED IT TO BEING A GUEST IN HIS HOUSE NO LESS !!! WHAT STUPID POPPYCOCK !!! I SAID AS MUCH AND WAS TOSSED OFF LIKE RIGHT NOW AND BEFORE HE ANSWERED MY THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER SO I COULD NOT ANSWER HIS IGNORENT DIATRIBE. THE MOST INTERESTING THING TO ME WAS ALL THE FOLKS WHO EMULED ME IN SUPPORT NOT ONE OF WHICH HAD THE GUTS TO CROSS SWORDS WITH HIS HIGH EMINENT BLOWHARD, DER PACKWOOD.
THE MOST INTERESTING THING OF ALL IS I DO BELIEVE THERE ARE MORE STUPID THINGS SAID ON THAT SITE THAN ANY OTHER GUN SITE ON THE INTERNET. I AM JUST AMAZED AT THE THINGS STATED AS FACT THERE THAT FLAT OUT UNTRUED. IT IS A PITTY TO SEE.

SO WHAT DID I MISS HERE ??????

Same old, same old, TERRY.......Some want to say what they want, but want to exclude those that don't agree with them.....

No, for I would that folks who do disagree, and discuss those differences, for otherwise, how do we alter our own perceptions and beliefs? I was dismayed and possibly annoyed, but last nite did not possess the gentlemanliness to address the issue head on without sounding like a lecturer; and this morning, after quiet reflection, do not feel the same level of annoyance, and have come to the realization that the matter is beyond my capacity to mount an opposing opinion that wouldn't sound as strident as that which set me off last nite.

Maybe lightning will strike and I'll see an inspiration!

[Don McDowell]

Don,
I totally agree. And any thoughts that I think Shootists are elitists should be bannished right now. I don't know who the membership is comprised of now, but do recognize a few names from the past, and have nothing BUT good to say. No, I just read a couple of things that saddened me.
I've probably failed at this myself, but "stumpin'" for an issue unrelated to guns, etc. can peg my tolerance meter. I set politics aside, for little in todays politics is unrelated to guns.
I'm better today. No meds, no adult beverages, just a good nites rest. Sorry for the disturbance.

Oh I got ya now.

Do what I did long ago, if its ot politics , don't even bother to look, way to many simple minded doltz with computers, in this world. No point in tryin to keep a goat from stinkin.
Been grumpin about the amount of Ot stuff for so long, I guess it's kinda like they wore me down, and I look in any way.

[mod71alaska]

Let me tell ya something.......When you advocate the truncation of a right that suits your fancy, you've opened the door for someone else to chop a right that will pee you off........Rights are either absolute (with sane exceptions......IE sexual content or XXX language) or you just lose the flavor of the USA.........

Blaine, you had it exactly right right up to the point where you made your own exceptions to the First Amendment! When you say it's OK to ban "Playboy" type content from magazines, film and books, (sexual content and xxx language) you only open the door for those in power with different "sane" values than yours to ban Time, Newsweek or The Weekly Standard.

[claybob86]

Blaine, you had it exactly right right up to the point where you made your own exceptions to the First Amendment! When you say it's OK to ban "Playboy" type content from magazines, film and books, (sexual content and xxx language) you only open the door for those in power with different "sane" values than yours to ban Time, Newsweek or The Weekly Standard.

Kind of like those "common sense gun laws" the antis like to push?

[Blaine]

Let me tell ya something.......When you advocate the truncation of a right that suits your fancy, you've opened the door for someone else to chop a right that will pee you off........Rights are either absolute (with sane exceptions......IE sexual content or XXX language) or you just lose the flavor of the USA.........

Blaine, you had it exactly right right up to the point where you made your own exceptions to the First Amendment! When you say it's OK to ban "Playboy" type content from magazines, film and books, (sexual content and xxx language) you only open the door for those in power with different "sane" values than yours to ban Time, Newsweek or The Weekly Standard.

What would be a good way to exclude only the XXX content? You're right, though Sir......open the door and we are forced to accept everything, or face the prospect of having unwanted rules in place someday....Which, I guess, leads us back to the personal responsibility to protect ourself from this by staying away from it......Did I just talk myself into a corner?

[FWiedner]

Let me tell ya something.......When you advocate the truncation of a right that suits your fancy, you've opened the door for someone else to chop a right that will pee you off........Rights are either absolute (with sane exceptions......IE sexual content or XXX language) or you just lose the flavor of the USA.........

Blaine, you had it exactly right right up to the point where you made your own exceptions to the First Amendment! When you say it's OK to ban "Playboy" type content from magazines, film and books, (sexual content and xxx language) you only open the door for those in power with different "sane" values than yours to ban Time, Newsweek or The Weekly Standard.

What would be a good way to exclude only the XXX content? You're right, though Sir......open the door and we are forced to accept everything, or face the prospect of having unwanted rules in place someday....Which, I guess, leads us back to the personal responsibility to protect ourself from this by staying away from it......Did I just talk myself into a corner?

I've always thought that "shunning" might be an effective social lever...

I'd consider that anyone of average intelligence is aware of the rudimentary conventions of "decent" society and expect them to confine their personal demeanor to conduct exercised between those lines.

That being understood, the fact remains that some things need to be said, if for no other reason than to get them out in the open. That is not to say that certain distasteful articles or conversations need to be entertained or continued when the constructive worth portion has been expended.

JMO on the freee speech subject.

[Pete44ru]

[mod71alaska]

Let me tell ya something.......When you advocate the truncation of a right that suits your fancy, you've opened the door for someone else to chop a right that will pee you off........Rights are either absolute (with sane exceptions......IE sexual content or XXX language) or you just lose the flavor of the USA.........

Blaine, you had it exactly right right up to the point where you made your own exceptions to the First Amendment! When you say it's OK to ban "Playboy" type content from magazines, film and books, (sexual content and xxx language) you only open the door for those in power with different "sane" values than yours to ban Time, Newsweek or The Weekly Standard.

What would be a good way to exclude only the XXX content? You're right, though Sir......open the door and we are forced to accept everything, or face the prospect of having unwanted rules in place someday....Which, I guess, leads us back to the personal responsibility to protect ourself from this by staying away from it......Did I just talk myself into a corner?

Blaine, you're back on track. The way we destroy the protections of the First Amendment is in effect to allow everyone "one exception." What that really amounts to is whoever is in power gets to decide what among our "rights" are protected and which ones are not. The essence of the First Amendment...The Constitution and all the Amendments...is not to enable those in power but to protect those NOT in power. No, you can't exclude xxx from First Amendment protection if you want and expect what YOU value in free speach, press and religion to be protected. Either everyone gets "their one exception" to the First Amendment, or no one does. The Framers said no one does. The responsibility of our exceptional US citizenship is to make choices regarding our own life, how to live it well amid all the choices available thru a free press, free religious expression, and free speech, and to teach values to enable the next generation of Americans to make good choices (for themselves, not others) too.

[Griff]

Well, all I can say is that my fellow levergunners put me back on track also. Pete44ru, what you said and more! Mod71alaska, your last sentence is one of wisest I've read in a good long while. Thanks, guys.

[mod71alaska]

I'd like to suggest that the same constitutional reasoning and interpretation applies just as well to the Second Amendment as it does the First. Either we as US Citizens have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or we don't. If we do, then we can own .50 cal. firearms if that is what we choose to own. If we don't, then Congress can deny us the right to own .50 calibers (and in their wisdom allow us to own smaller caliber firearms.) That is...and here's the central point to understand...UNTIL the next Congress, or the Congress in power 10 or 20 years from now, decides to deny US Citizens the right to own not only 50 caliber firearms, but everything 30-06 and larger, in which case the US Citizen has no RIGHT at all to keep and bear arms. In fact, like the First Amendment, the Second Amendment does not empower Congress. It limits Congress and empowers the Citizen with rights (and responsibilities) as long as the United States of America endures in history.

We must never succumb to the temptation to say, "Yes, but..." The "yes, but" is merely the exception you want because you disagree with someone else's expressions, values, and choices. If you say, "Yes, but..." for an exception or limitation to the rights granted under the First or Second Amendments then, of course, I want "my exception," and the liberals want their exception, and the conservatives want another exception. I steadfastly defend with my life another person's right...your right...under the First Amendment tp buy and own xxx, worship any religion you want, and promote political ideas radically different from my own, and the right to buy and own a 50 caliber firearm under the Second Amendment, because in doing so I defend MY own First and Second Amendment Rights to have values and make choices which are individual to me and different than yours.

I'm not a protester or a marcher, but I would be honored to be in the front line of any protest march which defended your guaranteed Right to freely worship, express yourself through xxx, or to own a firearm. I might adamantly disagree with your values and choices, but you can count on me to be there to defend your God given and Constitutionally guaranteed rights to be an individual and to express yourself and live your life as you choose under the protection of the First and Second Amendments.

[cas]

Terry... I will say this about Mike Packwood.. though I often don't agree with him, he's above board and open with what he does. He has my respect for that. IMO, as long as he does it that way it's fine. He has every right run his forums how he likes.

There are other much beloved forums out there who's owners aren't open about their dealings. Their ego has grown beyond belief and they control every little detail of what's allowed to be posted, and who's allowed to stay. Banning scores of members over petty issues, or daring to question their self imposed expert status. Deleting posts and banning people for even mentioning a "verboten" person in the industry. Banning people for personal things written in private messages. Basically being a sniveling tyrant all while playing saint.

He too can run his forum as he likes. It's the deception that he operates under that I can't abide. The bullying and the big lie to hide it.

[cas]

(Expletive Deleted ) Bet ya burn books, too.....

You must have missed my post on the Ruger Forum.

[Bogie35]

Well, all I can say is that my fellow levergunners put me back on track also. Pete44ru, what you said and more! Mod71alaska, your last sentence is one of wisest I've read in a good long while. Thanks, guys.

+1!

Humbly,
bogie

[Nath]

Well said Griff, sometimes we have to back peddle some and it certainly takes a man to admit it.
Nath.
( I have not the foggiest idea what ya talking about but hey thats never stopped me )