What makes Vermont so unique?

Shhhhhh...(whisper) don't let the legislature hear you. Most of the imported liberals making policy here simply can't believe we can carry without a permit.
 
Speak for yourself before you say 'our values' or embrace this or that.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should speak for yourself when you want to promote homosexuality. As I said, my region has other values.

If you like guns, you must be a social conservative with a specific religious point of view, view on social policies, etc.

That is just not true.
Click to expand...

But that is what you are saying ... you are saying that if we like guns then we must embrace homosexuality, and I am saying that is not our values in this region where I live. We like guns, we do not like homosexuality. I think it has something to do with values, culture, society, Christianity ... of course, libertarianism precludes all such things.
 
Missed the point didn't you? If you think not being concerned with the private lives of adults means 'embrace', that's your fantasy - not mine. I understand the language. If you think not being concerned with the private lives of adults is promoting something - again that is your projection.

I will spell it out again - I think you have the right to practice Christianity or Zarathustraism - it is not my business if you do. However, I do not embrace or promote Christianity or Zarathustraism by not being concerned with your private religious observances.

If you want to speak in cliches and your region - I suggest many in your region may differ with your views also.

I live in TX - one might suggest that is a region that has a surface appearance of being in accord with your 'region's' seeming homogeneity of beliefs. I went a very large carbine match.

At the match - the match director - a father of a new child - happens to wear an earring. A mental giant, whom we hadn't seen before, amused a group of heavily armed folks by asking in an unpleasant tone - who's the homosexual as the director had an earring. IIRC, said person had to leave. Then a bunch of heavily armed men, veterans, committed shooters, etc. - opined that the guy was nuts, a bigot and we didn't care about private lives.

We didn't embrace each other, either.

Maybe you will get it now. :D
 
But that is what you are saying ... you are saying that if we like guns then we must embrace homosexuality, and I am saying that is not our values in this region where I live. We like guns, we do not like homosexuality. I think it has something to do with values, culture, society, Christianity ... of course, libertarianism precludes all such things.
Click to expand...
Some of us like guns and homosexuality.

http://pinkpistols.org/

As long as you're free to promote Christianity the rest of us are free to promote homosexuality. You can dislike it just like I dislike Christianity but I'm not going to stop you from practicing what you wish just like you're not going to stop me from practicing what I wish. Your values, culture, society can remain strong without telling me what am I or am not allowed to do with my own body in my own bedroom.

The point remains that if you're preaching about freedom and liberty - which is the primary reason for private firearms ownership - then it's sheer hypocrisy to claim that one group has the authority to dictate how another group interacts with one another.
 
It's sad that y'all would take the Second Amendment, reduce it to some personal right, and compare it to the right to commit homosexual acts.

In my reality, the Second Amendment regards a people being armed to ensure majority rule. That is what a free State is - not a State that must accept homosexuality because of some libertarian dictate, but a State that is free to decide for themselves what is and isn't sodomy.

I didn't start this. Somebody was saying that it was inconsistent to be against gun laws and for sodomy laws. I think that is completely absurd. The South is the pro RKBA region, and the South accepts homosexuality the least. There is no correlation.
 
It's sad that y'all would take the Second Amendment, reduce it to some personal right, and compare it to the right to commit homosexual acts.

In my reality, the Second Amendment regards a people being armed to ensure majority rule. That is what a free State is - not a State that must accept homosexuality because of some libertarian dictate, but a State that is free to decide for themselves what is and isn't sodomy.

I didn't start this. Somebody was saying that it was inconsistent to be against gun laws and for sodomy laws. I think that is completely absurd. The South is the pro RKBA region, and the South accepts homosexuality the least. There is no correlation.
Click to expand...
It is a personal right. o_O And I do have the right to commit whatever homosexual or heterosexual act I damn well please with any other consenting adult.

Why on earth do you believe sodomy laws are any of your business? What authority do you or anyone else have in my bedroom? None. Not you, not the government, not your good book. No one has the authority to dictate anything regarding the sex life of consenting adults.

Atlanta is one of the largest centers of gay culture in the nation. I don't care what the rest of the south does or does not accept, the rest of the south has no business in my sex life. Period.

For some reason people think that if it's not listed in the BoR, it's not a right. Bull. Utter, complete bull. Even if the Constitution had never been written, a human being's right to defend itself in the most effective way possible would still exist. A human being's right to speak its mind and not be confined without reason would still exist. My right to love whoever I please exists whether or not it's written in the Constitution.

In my reality, the Second Amendment regards a people being armed to ensure majority rule.
Click to expand...
I really hope there was an error somewhere in that sentence. In the reality that the rest of us live in the Second Amendment regards a people being armed to PREVENT majority rule. It makes sure that if 80% of the population wants guns banned completely it doesn't happen. It makes sure that if 80% of the population wants to ban christianity that it doesn't happen. It makes sure that if 80% of the population wants to throw people in jail for driving pickup trucks that it doesn't happen.

The RKBA is designed to prevent fascism, not cause it. The gall that some people have in thinking they have a right to decide what I do with my own body with another consenting adult is the exact brand of fascism the second amendment exists to prevent.
 
In my reality, the Second Amendment regards a people being armed to ensure majority rule. ---

Do you really realize what you said? One of the basic tenets of the armed populace is to prevent tyranny and the rule of the majority mob?

Why do some armed jews say Never Again and have guns? It is to protect themselves from the laws passed by a majority. The laws of Nazi Germany sentenced them to death. In the USA, blacks were enslaved and then legally maltreated by majority laws - esp. in the gun loving South. So gun loving there, made the region profreedom? Blacks with gun started many gun laws.

The BOR exist to protect us from majority rule that violates basic rights. The Constitution is not easily ammended to prevent a majority from voting in laws that would take away rights.

The state should not intervene in the private life of adults unless the act is a danger to the populace. One's aesthetic view of a sex act or a religion is not grounds for the majority to control those activities.

I'm sorry - Hugh or whatever your real name is - you are a prime example of the fatal law of some of the gun world. No appreciation of liberty and freedom - just prejudices that sometimes correlate with gun ownership. You then view that your prejudices are correct (without logical thought of the issue) and that your view of gun freedom is to enforce majority prejudices.

As I recall, laws were passed by majority rule to take guns away from blacks and their civil rights. Your definition of the 2nd is that it existed to let the armed populace support such actions.

Your view of the South has no logical or moral force. That some in the South liked gun ownership but felt free to discriminate is not a coherent or acceptable moral position.

This kind of view weakens the fight for the RKBA. In general, perceiving a correlation of gun ownership with racism or bigotry tarnishes the whole cause. I'm sometimes views as a right wing nut bag as I like guns - it takes a bit to dissuade people.

You offer nothing logical or moral in your of the 2nd.
 
44 AMP said:
I grew up in northern New York, very near the Vermont border. You could look out the window and see the Green Mtns. North of Saratoga, and south of Ticonderoga. We would go to the Rutland fair. And my grandfather was as Yankee as a Nantuckteer. Ayah.

They are fading now, fewer and fewer are left. Stubborn, independent, thrifty, and often frugal, they are the direct spiritual decendants of the people in the northern colonies who threw off English rule.

They know what really is, and isn't, and no amount of liberal rehetoric will change their minds. They are the country people.

Sadly, wealthy urban folks (with different values) have been buying out the old breed, offering irresistable amounts of money for old country farms.

Like in the west, where people are moving to Washington and Oregon to get away from California, and then they try to turn their new homes into what they left, the same is happening to Vermont and New Hampshire. For now they are decent places for gun owners, but there are people actively working to change that every day.
Click to expand...

Excellent post 44 AMP... I agree...

Vermont is very rapidly changing....When Governor Dick Snelling and old school conservatism gave way to Howard Dean progressivism, the Green Mountains were doomed....

Already portions of Vermont are very much anti-gun and more and more of the state's southern towns are passing ordinances against this and that... The state's former celebration of outdoor sports events (opening day of Deer Season and Squirrel Season) has shiften over to Ben & Jerry ice cream socials and Gay Rights parades...Sadly, lost in this progressive rush is the real Vermonter rather than the Flatlander migrant....

Vermont's long-held gun rights are very much on the chopping block due to the influx of the progressive leftist... What is left is the very northern part of the state (north and west of Burlington) where the poor live and agricultural dominates. Lately the state's leftist judges have come under the microscope as they should; letting child molesters free is absurd and a danger to the public.

Lest some might judge these words as vindictive, they are not; merely observational... I grew up in the state and attended college there... The Vermont of my youth is gone.

There is hope that locals will again realize the value of freedom; gun rights and otherwise... wealthy southerners from Massachusetts and Connecticut who have been busy through the 1980s and 1990s buying up real estate as an investment will realize their error in that few can tolerate northern Vermont's cold winters and they will cash out and leave, and take their progressivism with them....

I know a few guys still there that I still class as real Vermonters... they're the ones that drive two-wheel drive pickups with gun racks and "Bush in 2004" bumper stickers; they use to work at IBM in Essex and now work at the University in Burlington... they tolerate the progressivism yet are able to ignore it... they attend Town Meetings every year and sight their rifles in their back yards each fall...

They still value their freedom with the 2nd Amendment. And they still celebrate Opening Day of Deer Season with a pancake breakfast in Cambridge!

I know. I was there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top