Mary Lou Sapone, 2nd A heroine.

[mwm1331]

Lets go with the former. If what you say is true does the NRA need to pay a spy and maybe other spys 80K and more to find out what they are doing?

Bcuase much like Stalins original "useful idiots" they are still capable of causing great damage to this nation.

You are very important IMHO. I didn't serve for the pay or the vacation time. I did it for citizens like you. You and others like you were why I had a purpose as a soldier. I married a citizen too

Then why are you so offended by the fact that this woman exercised the freedom you fought for, as well as her right to profit from her efforts, and that so many of us consider what she did just as important to defending freedom as what you did?

Look I have nothing but respect for soldiers (unless/untill they start pulling that "if you never served you cant talk BS) but Soldiers and cops arent the only ones who get paid to defend this nation. And personally, I feel that unless our Second Amendment rights are safe, then none fo your efforts are worth a dman, since you'll just be defending a totalitarian regime. To put it bluntly, the second Amendment ensures this nation is worth defending in the first place.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Because much like Stalins original "useful idiots" they are still capable of causing great damage to this nation.

More like Lenin but the USA is nothing remotely similar to late 1920s Soviet Union. Stalin didn't need useful idiots as the entire country was already under tyranny's thumb.

Then why are you so offended by the fact that this woman exercised the freedom you fought for, as well as her right to profit from her efforts, and that so many of us consider what she did just as important to defending freedom as what you did?

A. You don't know and neither do the naboobs on this thread know if she is even progun!
B. She did it for a lot of money. She has done similiar things to environmental groups. Methinks she is doing it for (drum roll) THE MONEY!
C. Heroes sacrifice for others (soldiers LEOS civilians who rush into buring buildings etc) without regard to reward. From what has been posted she doesn't seem to meet that criteria.

Therefore it offends me to call here a hero.

And personally, I feel that unless our Second Amendment rights are safe, then none fo your efforts are worth a dman, since you'll just be defending a totalitarian regime. To put it bluntly, the second Amendment ensures this nation is worth defending in the first place.

Not just the 2A friend, we are dead without them all!

 

[mwm1331]

More like Lenin but the USA is nothing remotely similar to late 1920s Soviet Union. Stalin didn't need useful idiots as the entire country was already under tyranny's thumb.

Good catch on the lennin/stalin, and your right. We dont have anywhere near the level of freedom Americans did in the 20's. Because of people like the gun control crowd.

A. You don't know and neither do the naboobs on this thread know if she is even progun!

Irrelevant. The effects of her actions most certainly were. As to being a naboob, I think you qualify for that term far better than most on this thread.

B. She did it for a lot of money. She has done similiar things to environmental groups. Methinks she is doing it for (drum roll) THE MONEY!

As does everyone who works. Again, show me one soldier, one cop, who works for free.

C. Heroes sacrifice for others (soldiers LEOS civilians who rush into buring buildings etc) without regard to reward. From what has been posted she doesn't seem to meet that criteria.

Yes, "without regard to reward." Is that why cops and firefighters soometimes strike? Because they do thier job "without regard to reward"
I dont know what your problem is with people making money, but it sounds vaguely socialist. In order to be a hero one must be low paid? Making money disqualifies one from herois? Sounds like the ravings of a jealous man to me.

Therefore it offends me to call here a hero.

Welcome to America where free speech guarantees you will be offended.

Not just the 2A friend, we are dead without them all!

But the second is the only one that gurantees we can defend the rest of them. Lose the second, lose them all. Thats what you dont seem to get, and that offends me.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

We dont have anywhere near the level of freedom Americans did in the 20's.

Tell that to an African American who lived in America in the 1920s. Gun freedom isn't the only freedom nor the most important. They all matter.

As does everyone who works. Again, show me one soldier, one cop, who works for free.

That's not why most of them serve. If it were for pay they would be spies like this lady (who the NRa alleged paid 80K) or insurance salesmen. Much more money to be made there.

I dont know what your problem is with people making money

I have no problem with that, just highlighting her possible personal motivations when some naboobs on here call her a hero.

BTW, if she later on hired out to the Brady Campaign OR it was found out she gave them NRA intell, would she still be a such a great hero to you? I bet not.

See, that is the problem when you do stuff just for money rather than what you truly believe like the cops and firefighters and soldiers.

But the second is the only one that gurantees we can defend the rest of them.

No it's not. See some of the posts in another thread about whether the militia protects us against tyranny.

Our democratic institutions protect us and in every case of government abuse that the tin foil hat boys post here, not one was stopped or rectified by armed citizens. They were dealt with by our courts and other democratic systems.

 

[nate45]

I have no problem with that, just highlighting her possible personal motivations when some naboobs call her a hero.

Could you define 'naboob,' I know what a nabob is and I'm familiar with the expression "Nattering nabobs of negativism". Now everyone makes spelling mistakes, but thats twice you've used 'naboob'. Just what does that mean?

 

[Al Norris]

And personally, I feel that unless our Second Amendment rights are safe, then none fo your efforts are worth a dman, since you'll just be defending a totalitarian regime. To put it bluntly, the second Amendment ensures this nation is worth defending in the first place.

Not just the 2A friend, we are dead without them all!

But the second is the only one that gurantees we can defend the rest of them. Lose the second, lose them all. Thats what you dont seem to get, and that offends me.

The purpose for which the L&P forum was instituted, was to tie together the many threads that threaten our daily Liberties and Freedoms. Guns are only a part of those things threatened. To some of you, they may be a huge thing in your lives, to others, they are less important. Regardless, there are other things that would endanger the RKBA, that on the surface have nothing whatsoever to do with the RKBA. And that, my friends is why we have L&P.

If all you see is guns, then what will you do when speech is banned? How will you protect your guns when you cannot discuss them?

If your forth amendment rights are curtailed, how will you stop the confiscations that might ensue?

Our rights (privileges and immunities) are intertwined. No single right "protects" the others. They are all important. They stand together as one, or we fall. Life is not a two-toned creature, neither are our rights.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Our rights (privileges and immunities) are intertwined. No single right "protects" the others. They are all important. They stand together as one, or we fall. Life is not a two-toned creature, neither are our rights.

Amen Brother! Well said!

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Could you define 'naboob,' I know what a nabob is and I'm familiar with the expression "Nattering nabobs of negativism". Now everyone makes spelling mistakes, but thats twice you've used 'naboob'. Just what does that mean?

Here is one:

na·bob (nbb)
n.
1. A governor in India under the Mogul Empire. Also called nawab.
2. A person of wealth and prominence.

Followed by:

na·boob (nbb)
n.
1. One who wears tin foil hats and has an irrational fear of any government or authority.
2. A narrow-minded and paranoid personality who has Walter Mitty-like dreams of mall ninja glory.
3. A person who demonizes those who disagree with the above states of being and tells them so.

 

[nate45]

Tennessee Gentleman always the last one to make the first mistake?

In reviewing this thread I see that you stand alone. Ever other post in this thread disagrees with your opinion and in light of that your response is to call all those who disagree with you 'naboobs'. The fact is you are constantly at odds with the majority opinion of the members of this forum. Perhaps you should consider the possibility, that it is your opinions and world views that are the odd ones.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Actually Tennessee Gentleman only appears to be opposed by the same handful who always oppose him, me and anyone else who espouses basic common sense and doesn't believe that the sky is falling. (I'd have been here sooner but I only just noticed this thread.)

If you're right on the issues, you don't need to cheat or act dishonorably. I also see no indication that this woman did what she did for anything other than money, so let's not call er any sort of selfless heroine yet. However she definitely took away some of the moral high ground that our side has always had. Let the other side sneak and creep and steal our garbage looking for secrets. It doesn't change the fact that we're right and have the facts on our side.

Oh--and to the poster who said that we had so many more freedoms in the 1920's than we do today, I would suggest that you ask any American who is a minority or gay about that. You white guys here couldn't marry a black woman by law and segregation was the law of the land. If Monsterman and Nate45 decided that they wanted to get married to each other in the 1920's, they couldn't. Whenever the military needed people, there was a draft. A lot of the people here right now who cry that they have no freedom might well be involuntarily serving in Iraq right now if we only had a 1920's level of freedom. Speech was considerably more restricted, as many of the landmark First Amendment cases didn't come along until the 50's through the 70's.

So let's not pine for long-lost days just because there was no NFA back then. Freedom isn't measured solely by what kind of guns you can or can't buy, and the people that saw massive gains in the recognition of their rights over the last century didn't win them by squirreling away guns and telling each other how they were all ready for "when the time comes". No, they stood up, they organized, they went to court, and they won greater freedoms for themselves and the rest of us in the exact manner that our founding fathers had arranged.

 

[Al Norris]

Sometimes leaving an offending post, as is, serves as an example for everyone else. This is one of those times:

I have no problem with that, just highlighting her possible personal motivations when some naboobs on here call her a hero.

The portion I highlighted is the personal attack. Why?

na·boob (nbb)
n.
1. One who wears tin foil hats and has an irrational fear of any government or authority.
2. A narrow-minded and paranoid personality who has Walter Mitty-like dreams of mall ninja glory.
3. A person who demonizes those who disagree with the above states of being and tells them so.

While none of my dictionaries contain such a word, based solely upon the definition supplied by Tennessee Gentleman (even if made up), renders the highlighted phrase above an ad hominem.

Tennessee, do not continue in that vein. From the general rules:

3) No spamming, trolling, flaming or other personal attacks, be they acrimonious or veiled in humor. If you take issue with a Member's position, by all means speak your mind. If you have a problem with a Member's religion, creed, national origin, sex, politics, associations or personal hygiene, take it to email.

To Everyone: Simply because someone comes to this board and espouses political views that are not in conformance with the general membership of this forum does not necessarily mean that their views are wrong. Just as it doesn't mean that the majority views are correct.

If you cannot discuss the issues, without attacking the messenger, then this board is not for you. Full Stop.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Simply because someone comes to this board and espouses political views that are not in conformance with the general membership of this forum does not necessarily mean that their views are wrong. Just as it doesn't mean that the majority views are correct. If you cannot discuss the issues, without attacking the messenger, then this board is not for you. Full Stop.

Al,

Since you have decided to apply the rule fairly to everybody I will comply fully and remain and respect your decision.

Needless to say I have endured multiple personal attacks questioning my patriotism, calling me anti-gun, wishing that my family would be a victim of violent crime etc. All because I have a different opinion of many here.

Isn't it ironic how zealotry can make you just like the enemy you are fighting and blind to even your friends if they aren't 100% behind you? Silencing those who disagree won't make you right.

You will see no more posts from me that are even remotely personal but the next attack that comes my way (nate45, monsterman et al) I will send it to you. I have been ignoring them so far, I won't any more.

 

[nate45]

Needless to say I have endured multiple personal attacks questioning my patriotism, calling me anti-gun, wishing that my family would be a victim of violent crime , etc. All because I have a different opinion of many here.

Why do you think that is? Is it because you like Glocks and they like 1911s, because you prefer the 9 mm over the .40? Or is it because some of your posts look like they belong on the Gun Control Inc. forum?

You are correct that personal attacks are wrong and lower the tone and distract from the debate.

If I personally and deeply offended you, I now publicaly apoligize.

You are entitled to voice your opinion, you are entitled to the same respect as the other forum members, but did you honestly believe that you could come here and voice opinions, that are more in line with Sarah Brady's and Al Gore's, than most gun owners. Then paint your opponents as 'mall ninjas' and wannabe 'militia' and not take some heat?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Nate,
You have made this personal from early on. Go look at your last post in the Joe Horn thread. However, mature adults can disagree and I accept your apology.

Why do you think that is? Is it because you like Glocks and they like 1911s, because you prefer the 9 mm over the .40? Or is it because some of your posts look like they belong on the Gun Control Inc. forum?

This is the L&P forum I thought. We don't discuss calibers and types of handguns here do we? I post on those other forums and that's what we talk about. Do I expect heat? No, disagreement maybe but that's not heat. I have ignored the personal stuff but now a mod has called the play so all I want at this point is fairness. If I can't say it then neither should you.

I am not in league with Sarah Brady or Al Gore and do not share their opinions. I think you might want to dialougue a little more with me before you just throw out something inflamatory like that comparison.

I am a gunowner and a CCW but I am not in a "militia" nor do I believe in any gun anywhere anyplace either.

You have essentially called me an enemy because I am not 100% in line with what you and a few others believe politically. That is a mistake. An old mentor of mine once told me not to shoot my friends, I might need them when the really bad guys come along.

 

[mwm1331]

If all you see is guns, then what will you do when speech is banned? How will you protect your guns when you cannot discuss them?

Our rights (privileges and immunities) are intertwined. No single right "protects" the others. They are all important. They stand together as one, or we fall. Life is not a two-toned creature, neither are our rights.

If speech is banned, then the citizenry revolts with thier guns. On the other hand if TRKBA is banned, then we have no way of stopping the other rights from being taken.

No it's not. See some of the posts in another thread about whether the militia protects us against tyranny.

Our democratic institutions protect us and in every case of government abuse that the tin foil hat boys post here, not one was stopped or rectified by armed citizens. They were dealt with by our courts and other democratic systems.

Bull****. Our democratic institutions are the most easily subverted. Lest you forget Hitler was elected democratically, and siezed absolute power through those very same democratic instuitutions. Its also no coincidence that in those countries in which Gun Control is most advanced, the personal freedoms of the citizens are least respected. There are now 112 possible legal reasons (all non-criminal) a UK gov official can enter a citizens home without permission. Same with canada and france. The Second A goes, thery all go. Unless the governmet is scared of its citizens the opression is the natural outcome of government.

Isn't it ironic how zealotry can make you just like the enemy you are fighting and blind to even your friends if they aren't 100% behind you? Silencing those who disagree won't make you right.

Its funny how you like to play the Martyr, when you spend most of your time accusing others of being zealous idiots, arguing against strawmen no-one has brought up, and generally mischaracterising the views of anyone who disagrees with you.

The fact is, from what I can see, the only one making wild acusations, or mischaracterisng others arguments is you.
Maybe if you treated the other posters with the same respect and maturity you claim to demand, you might be better treated.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Bull****. Our democratic institutions are the most easily subverted. Lest you forget Hitler was elected democratically, and siezed absolute power through those very same democratic instuitutions. Its also no coincidence that in those countries in which Gun Control is most advanced, the personal freedoms of the citizens are least respected. There are now 112 possible legal reasons (all non-criminal) a UK gov official can enter a citizens home without permission. Same with canada and france. The Second A goes, thery all go. Unless the governmet is scared of its citizens the opression is the natural outcome of government.

You are a day late and a dollar short here pal. Also, you are off topic. We discussed this in a now closed thread. I suggest you check it out. http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=301648

The fact is, from what I can see, the only one making wild acusations, or mischaracterisng others arguments is you.
Maybe if you treated the other posters with the same respect and maturity you claim to demand, you might be better treated.

No one is forcing you to read or correspond with me or anybody else. If you don't like what I am saying feel free to ignore it. You may have me confused with others please feel free to point out specific posts backing up your claims. I have given the same respect that I have received, you included.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If speech is banned, then the citizenry revolts with thier guns.

Your guns will be long gone by the time they ban speech and press and if you have a gun then you will be dead.

 

[mwm1331]

No one is forcing you to read or correspond with me or anybody else. If you don't like what I am saying feel free to ignore it. You may have me confused with others please feel free to point out specific posts backing up your claims. I have given the same respect that I have received, you included.

You are the only one caling people names, you are the only one calling people zealots, you are the only one who is twisting others arguments. Noone else, just you. And then you have the gall to complain like a child because "people are ganging up on you"?
Very Mature.

 

[S832]

The right to guns exists, but I don't think any sane person seriously believes that they are going to be wagging a war against the government - not to mention its a good way to turn people off to fire-arms.

They are fun, and they can be used for self protection, these are the best two arguments for the 2nd amendment. Not "the peoples militia will be wagging a war against a tyrannical government....blah blah blah".

Most of the people I met I wouldn't want owning fire-arms(but they do have the right to, I would just prefer to not be around them when they start playing with the slide), let alone having the responsibility to get into a war with the government and rebuilding all the infrastructure assuming they won.

I believe all small arms should be legal given the correct paperwork, but for hobby/self protection purposes, not as a "I need this to kill Nancy Pelosi and her army of pink soldiers coming to take my guns and force feed me tofu" purpose.

I believe the people who take that stance think they are doing the right thing, but haven't honestly thought it through.

 

[mwm1331]

The right to guns exists, but I don't think any sane person seriously believes that they are going to be wagging a war against the government - not to mention its a good way to turn people off to fire-arms.

They are fun, and they can be used for self protection, these are the best two arguments for the 2nd amendment. Not "the peoples militia will be wagging a war against a tyrannical government....blah blah blah".

George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ben Frankin. Like it or not, the constitutional reason for the second is, by the FF own words, to ensure we can revolt if necessary. Self defense, and hunting are nothing more than auxiliary benefits. The reason we have TRKBA is specifically so that we have the tools necessary to revolt. If understanding that makes me "insane" then so are the FF.