NC Constitutional Carry moves forward

SPM said:
lol. Jesus Lord, you love those fetters of yours, don't you!

I guess those first Americans should have just bought that damned tea, right?

Accepted those stamps?

Sat idly by as warrantless searches and seizures by corrupt agents of the State?

Thanked King and Country when their sons were pressed into service against their wills, used against their own families?

As their powder and ball was being seized, they should have just contacted Parliament to change the laws and respect their Rights as Englishmen?

Kissed the ring as their own representative governments were dissolved by bureaucrats appointed by the crown?

The State has always used violence or the threat of violence to cow a populace into subservience. It's what government is - force. And it always stands opposed to the People and the Public Liberty.

The difference between the Free Man and the Slave is that Free Men live how they will despite the threats of the State; the Slave is ruled by those same threats.

You explain the punishment the State will exact against any Citizen that exercises his or her Rights without the permission of the State and paying for the privilege, as though anyone here who dares preach such threats as immoral is ignorant of the law.

Most of us ar far more versed in the law, as both written and applied than you think. It's original intent, and how it's been perverted in a systematic design to reduce We, the People into slavery.

If the government can't scare people into behaving a certain way that violates Our Rights, what makes you think your post about the big scary boogeyman and what he'll do if we don't behave is going to accomplish?

And drop that whole "what will the Leftists think" crap. There's no amount of niceness or law-abiding behavior that gun owners could perform that will win them over and stop their unrelenting assault on our Rights. There's nothing we can do that will quench their thirst for control and to have their irrational fears and juvenile feelings accommodated enough to satisfy them.

I will not live my life in a diminished way, as a less Free Man on account of their opinions.

When I think of what it will take to hold what shred of Liberty we have left to us, and realize it may depend on those who are only willing to be as free as the government allows, I tremble for my Country.
Click to expand...


SPM...I truly believe you were born 240 years too late or...right on time.
 
trcubed said:
SPM...I truly believe you were born 240 years too late or...right on time.
Click to expand...

I find myself in good company, as I know others here, including yourself, to be men who know very much what they are about.

I believe that we are approaching a time in the history of our Republic that will determine whether those of us who keep the embers of Liberty alive will find out whether we're just centuries late to the party or at the forefront of fanning those embers alight once again - setting fires in the hearts of men who had always governed themselves - and always mean to.
 
Last edited:
Dadawada said:
Well alrighty then. So the government has no bearing over you...I get it. You pay taxes or do you see that as "slavery" also...LOL.
Click to expand...

Our government was never meant to have any bearing over anyone, quite the opposite, it was intended to be representative of the will of People, and to govern by their consent.
 
trcubed said:
...and you, too. Times are coming that will require men to harden their hearts and develop a willingness to do unpalatable things. Some will shed chains, some will continue to lick boots.
Click to expand...

I ain't a dog and won't be licking any boots!
 
Last edited:
Matt.Cross said:
Our government was never meant to have any bearing over anyone, quite the opposite, it was intended to be representative of the will of People, and to govern by their consent.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to sound like I'm picking nits, but I believe that what I am about to say is an important concept that is imperative for free people to understand: there is no such thing as "consent of the governed"; it is an impossibility. The two terms, consent and governing, are mutually exclusive. When there is consent, it isn't governing and when it is governing there is no consent.
consent:
permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
Click to expand...
govern:
to rule over by right of authority. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over, to hold in check or control.
Click to expand...
These are two very distinct and opposite conditions. Let's reflect for a moment on the "supreme law of the land" and what it was supposed to be and what it deals with. The US Constitution, and the BOR in particular, place restrictions on the Federal system called Government. In short the Fed was given limited authority in a few certain areas where it made and makes sense, such as interstate commerce, international treaties, a nationwide postal system (interstate), and a few other things. It also sets forth parameters saying things like citizens can not be made to quarter troops, and sets up the framework for the "legal" system based upon a presumption of innocence (which is routinely violated these days). The point I am driving at here is that very LITTLE of the supposed "supreme law of the land" has to do with governing or ruling and controlling The People. To the extent that, this could occur, it was a power and function of the States where The People would have more influence and could also better tailor the policies towards their own wishes while still being bound by the "supreme law of the land", e.g. a State can not violate the 4th-A and conduct illegal searches.

Still, even at the State level, at the core, the concept of "law" and "morality" go hand in hand and are limited to the handling of situations where an individual or individuals violate another: e.g. codifying the response to acts such as murder, theft, rape, arson, and other types of offenses that directly harm another individual. Note that these things are considered inherently 'wrong' in a manner that transcends the concept of 'law' and codifying 'punishment' for committing them is still not what can consider 'governing'.

As I, and others, have said on multiple occasions, we've gotten so far removed from this basic principle of being a "Free" People and have become "governed". What we are seeing, what we are witnessing, what we are feeling, at least some of us, is THAT THERE IS NO CONSENT GIVEN FOR THIS! It is not implied. It is not assumed. It is not given. It HAS BEEN subsumed by the political class, who consider themselves "rulers", but they are mistaken.

What we are seeing now, is a certain percentage of the populace who has grown tired of this condition, which is nothing but a modern form of feudalistic slavery and are saying NO. The majority is kept in check by the threat of force, but others have come to the realization how idle that threat is. The fact is that the "enforcers" are outnumbered thousands to one and I seriously doubt that many of them are in that position because they believe in it, but rather because it is a paycheck and they are driven by a desire for power.
 
Last edited:
noway2 said:
I don't mean to sound like I'm picking nits, but I believe that what I am about to say is an important concept that is imperative for free people to understand: there is no such thing as "consent of the governed"; it is an impossibility. The two terms, consent and governing, are mutually exclusive. When there is consent, it isn't governing and when it is governing there is no consent.
consent:
govern:
These are two very distinct and opposite conditions. Let's reflect for a moment on the "supreme law of the land" and what it was supposed to be and what it deals with. The US Constitution, and the BOR in particular, place restrictions on the Federal system called Government. In short the Fed was given limited authority in a few certain areas where it made and makes sense, such as interstate commerce, international treaties, a nationwide postal system (interstate), and a few other things. It also sets forth parameters saying things like citizens can not be made to quarter troops, and sets up the framework for the "legal" system based upon a presumption of innocence (which is routinely violated these days). The point I am driving at here is that very LITTLE of the supposed "supreme law of the land" has to do with governing or ruling and controlling The People. To the extent that, this could occur, it was a power and function of the States where The People would have more influence and could also better tailor the policies towards their own wishes while still being bound by the "supreme law of the land", e.g. a State can not violate the 4th-A and conduct illegal searches.

Still, even at the State level, at the core, the concept of "law" and "morality" go hand in hand and are limited to the handling of situations where an individual or individuals violate another: e.g. codifying the response to acts such as murder, theft, rape, arson, and other types of offenses that directly harm another individual. Note that these things are considered inherently 'wrong' in a manner that transcends the concept of 'law' and codifying 'punishment' for committing them is still not what can consider 'governing'.

As I, and others, have said on multiple occasions, we've gotten so far removed from this basic principle of being a "Free" People and have become "governed". What we are seeing, what we are witnessing, what we are feeling, at least some of us, is THAT THERE IS NO CONSENT GIVEN FOR THIS! It is not implied. It is not assumed. It is not given. It HAS BEEN subsumed by the political class, who consider themselves "rulers", but they are mistaken.

What we are seeing now, is a certain percentage of the populace who has grown tired of this condition, which is nothing but a modern form of feudalistic slavery and are saying NO. The majority is kept in check by the threat of force, but others have come to the realization how idle that threat is. The fact is that the "enforcers" are outnumbered thousands to one and I seriously doubt that many of them are in that position because they believe in it, but rather because it is a paycheck and they are driven by a desire for power.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you at all. I sacrificed a fair bit of rhetorical suggestion for the sake of brevity. :)
 
When new users I've never heard of start liking some of my posts, I feel like I can probably predict the future.... lol :eek:

tumblr_mot96f8qWS1rk1vn7o1_500%255B1%255D.gif


Wouldn't be the first time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom