Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Arkie Lee

Attended a Gun Owner's rights rally in Olympia

Recommended Posts

I took the day off from work Friday to attend a Gun Owner's rights rally at our State Capital in Olympia Friday.  It was a fairly good turnout, even with the snow and sleet.  Did have a few NW SASS Pards present.  I will try to attach a link to some photo's of the event.  2nd. photo has a good shot of Cedar County Sherriff.  I was standing to his left, but I guess I wasn't photogenic enough.      https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/photos-hundreds/N4IIWQTQP5ED5ENI6CORKYUL3Q/ 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting question:  how many of those attending the rallies are registered to vote, and vote in every election?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bgavin said:

An interesting question:  how many of those attending the rallies are registered to vote, and vote in every election?

 

A good question, and one hopes that those who go to the trouble to attend  do vote.

 

Alan Gottlieb, president of the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, noted in a recent Guns magazine interview that their statistics show that gun owners vote at a rate slightly less than the general population. Pretty sad. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hate to burst your Bubble there Muleshoe but Nobody's "God" gave anyone "rights."  Notably, to bare "arms" only comes from the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Founders consider all basic rights to be God given, and the Bill of Rights necessary NOT to "give" rights but to clearly delineate what natural rights were not effected by the Constitution?

 

LL

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Constitution simply recognized basic human rights.

 

The Bill of Rights delineated those most likely to be abridged.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nope.  Ya be wrong Loophole.  The founding fathers specifically separated church and state.  Anyone, today, trying to "read" meaning other than that as written will only find meaning to support a preconceived ideal or notion.  Not necessarily related to what was actually written down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Constitution and Bill of Rights does not give anything. It protects inalienable rights from the government. It outlines our Republic and defines us above any democracy. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The right…..shall not be infringed" does imply a pre-existing right.

 

The specific right as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned comes directly from the English Bill of Rights, providing a right to keep and bear arms, on the part of Protestants, that is.

 

But I don't think it's a religious question....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

Nope.  Ya be wrong Loophole.  The founding fathers specifically separated church and state.  Anyone, today, trying to "read" meaning other than that as written will only find meaning to support a preconceived ideal or notion.  Not necessarily related to what was actually written down.

With all due respect, Sir, your sights are a touch off. The separation of church and state is not the same as the morals and ethics that founded this country.

The references to the separation of church and state are to protect religious freedom and not about the ideology that guides our Republic. If you wish, I can find the appropriate Federalist Papers to point you to.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hadn't intended my report on exercising my right to freely assemble and address our government to create such a Donnybrook in the Saloon.  I have been know to throw a punch or two.  I'm reminded of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence which clearly states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that might wish to refer to the Supreme Court case that sets limits on the separation of Church and state, I will include a link to the Library of Congress showing a letter to the Danbury Baptists, written by Thomas Jefferson.   The decision pretty much came down to part of a sentence "make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"  Many forget to mention "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"  https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

 

A good question, and one hopes that those who go to the trouble to attend  do vote.

 

Alan Gottlieb, president of the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, noted in a recent Guns magazine interview that their statistics show that gun owners vote at a rate slightly less than the general population. Pretty sad. 

Would also like to see them fire off an email or phone call to their elected officials.   I did see Dave Workman at the event.  Would have like to see some NRA representatives but I guess they are busy in Virginia.  http://www.thegunmag.com/hundreds-gather-at-wa-capitol-to-defend-second-amendment-rights/

Edited by Arkie Lee
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

Nope.  Ya be wrong Loophole.  The founding fathers specifically separated church and state.  Anyone, today, trying to "read" meaning other than that as written will only find meaning to support a preconceived ideal or notion.  Not necessarily related to what was actually written down.

 

Ah ... no.  They prohibited the establishment of a State religion.   Read the letter from the Danbury Baptists to President Thomas Jefferson and his reply,  a reply that gives us the phrase about a "wall of separation between church and State."   Amazing how many people think that phrase is in the Constitution. 

 

Re the Bill of Rights, from WV Board of Education v Barnett,  "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

 

Everything is off the political table. 

Edited by Subdeacon Joe
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

Hate to burst your Bubble there Muleshoe but Nobody's "God" gave anyone "rights."  Notably, to bare "arms" only comes from the Constitution.

Well Bless your little heart.

 Oh and  "bare arms" means to expose the flesh of the arm. "Bear arms" comes from the Constitution.

Edited by Muleshoe Bill SASS #67022
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Arkie Lee said:

For those that might wish to refer to the Supreme Court case that sets limits on the separation of Church and state, I will include a link to the Library of Congress showing a letter to the Danbury Baptists, written by Thomas Jefferson.   The decision pretty much came down to part of a sentence "make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"  Many forget to mention "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"  https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

 

Thanks.  I like that as I was composing (on my phone) a response referencing the Danbury letters you had posted it.  Their concern was, since they were being treated as 2nd class citizens by the majority religion of CT, that something similar might happen on the national level.  There is no hint in Jefferson's response that, as many seem to claim, that religious belief was to be kept out of the public forum (government), rather, he assured them that the government would not meddle in their free exercise of their religion.  It is not the ban on all religious thought in government.  I'll note that the Constitution in Art. 6 prohibits any religious tests, the implication being that your beliefs may follow you into public service.  A clause that both of my US Senators seem to have never read.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The separation of Church and State also equally protect the State from Religion.  Regardless, there is no religious mandate granting the right to bare arms.  The right to bare arms was directly tied to the ability to field a well ordered militia.  The issue isn't the right to be armed.  The issue, here, is whom or what gave us that right.

 

PS:  ALWAYS get Bare and Bear confused.  Ain't this some fun :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

The separation of Church and State also equally protect the State from Religion

 

Only in that it buttresses the "no religious test" clause.  Not the modern OHMYGAWD  THAT PERSON SAID GOD BLESS YOU WHEN SOMEONE SNEEZED!!!  Yes, I have seen people come unglued like that when a member of the city council said God bless you  when someone sneezed.   Kept ranting about SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!! until an apology was issued. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Ah ... no.  They prohibited the establishment of a State religion.   Read the letter from the Danbury Baptists to President Thomas Jefferson and his reply,  a reply that gives us the phrase about a "wall of separation between church and State."   Amazing how many people think that phrase is in the Constitution. 

 

Re the Bill of Rights, from WV Board of Education v Barnett,  "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

 

Everything is off the political table. 

 

Like_Thank_Agree_Daisy_Duke.jpg

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Founders consider all basic rights to be God given, and the Bill of Rights necessary NOT to "give" rights but to clearly delineate what natural rights were not effected by the Constitution?

 

LL

That's always been my understanding.  Thanks for reminding us.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Only in that it buttresses the "no religious test" clause.  Not the modern OHMYGAWD  THAT PERSON SAID GOD BLESS YOU WHEN SOMEONE SNEEZED!!!  Yes, I have seen people come unglued like that when a member of the city council said God bless you  when someone sneezed.   Kept ranting about SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!! until an apology was issued. 

I have yet to be shown where there is "a separation of church and state" in the Constitution.  It simply states in the First Amendment that the government is not allowed to declare for any religion nor to prevent anyone from believing what they choose to believe.

 

And if there is, in fact a separation of church and state, why do the religions universally feel free to interfere with and challenge the Constitution anf the variious governments of this country.  Can't have it both ways people.  We need to ensure that that particular sword cuts both ways. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

Hate to burst your Bubble there Muleshoe but Nobody's "God" gave anyone "rights."  Notably, to bare "arms" only comes from the Constitution.

 

I gather that this is your own personal view, since there are no specific references made to any existing government document.

 

 The very fact that our currency bears the “ In God We Trust” slogan plainly illustrates that the Government recognizes a higher power!!  The “separation of church and state” is a misnomer.  The Constitution only prevents the government from establishing a state or national religion.  It DOES NOT preclude religion or recognition of religious rights or guidelines in government!

 

The “ God given” adjective added to those rights delineated in the Bill of Rights in our daily discourse merely notes that these rights are sacrosanct and are protected by the Constitution.

 

The Constitution RECOGNIZES these rights and protects them. It prevents government, at all levels, from infringing on them and acknowledges that they are NATURAL rights that are NOT to be tampered with! The Constitution DOES NOT grant these rights!!  It protects them!!!

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick fun fact.

"In God we trust" doesn't appear on our paper currency until 1957, the year after having been made our official motto by Congress. Before that, we had the "unofficial" motto, "E pluribus unum".

 

Just sayin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can balk at the idea that GOD gave us certain rights if you want.  That's fine, and it's not worth quibbling over.  But you can't reasonably argue that there aren't certain rights that the constitution recognizes as pre-existing rather than granting.  The right to keep and bear arms is one of those.  I call it a God given right.  You're free to attribute it to whatever pre-constitutional authority you wish.  I bet my version rolls off the tongue easier and has fewer letters. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm still waiting for the imperical and irrefutable evidence there is "God?"   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll get it right after we get the empirical and irrefutable evidence that there is man-made global warming. 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

The separation of Church and State also equally protect the State from Religion.  Regardless, there is no religious mandate granting the right to bare arms.  The right to bare arms was directly tied to the ability to field a well ordered militia.  The issue isn't the right to be armed.  The issue, here, is whom or what gave us that right.

 

PS:  ALWAYS get Bare and Bear confused.  Ain't this some fun :D

 

Understandable confusion.

 

 

Bear Arms

bear arms.jpg

 

  Bare Arms.

Bare arms.jpeg

 

 

 

Bear Arms

BearAerms.jpg

Edited by Utah Bob #35998
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

I'm still waiting for the imperical and irrefutable evidence there is "God?"   

Let us know the answer after you die.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Atz a two way street there Muleshoe  :D  Could be we'll all get a surprise  :wacko:

 

I/We have probably whipped  this Expired Equine about as far as we can drive it.  Let us all be happy we have plenty of folks ready and willing to get up and state the obvious.  The Anti(s) don't really have a clue and cannot achieve what they want.  Namely to disarm us all which ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes.  If Ever.

 

It's been fun winding you guys up.  I probably shouldn't have lit this thread off but the Devil Made Me Do It.  Regardless of politics, regardless of

Religion, we all must link arms to prevent the insidious erosion of our freedom.  Burma Shave.

 

J. MARK:  Amen  :rolleyes: 

Edited by Colorado Coffinmaker
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you've done it.....brought up the Devil. Just foolin with ya'll.

 

If a bunch of gun guys can't even congratulate Arkie on his participation in a Gun Rights rally without getting off track into a religion and semantics spat.....just how the hell are we supposed to "band together" to fight the onslaught of anti-gunners that come out of the woodwork like cockroaches? Think about it.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Cypress Sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E pluribus unum

 

That doesn't stand for "diversity!!!! Its meaning is similar to "melting pot".

 

I guess that I am a lunatic fringe, right wing zealot clinging to my bible and my guns while supporting our outdated Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

Heaven help me!!!!   :o

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Cypress Sun said:

Now you've done it.....brought up the Devil. Just foolin with ya'll.

 

If a bunch of gun guys can't even congratulate Arkie on his participation in a Gun Rights rally without getting off track into a religion and semantics spat.....just how the hell are we supposed to "band together" to fight the onslaught of anti-gunners that come out of the woodwork like cockroaches? Think about it.

 

Yeah... while you guys were busy arguing they were having public hearings in Olympia today on a crap load of anti-gun bills. Just more of the same "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!" BS from the antis in attendance. :angry:

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Babylon Bee did some excellent reporting on the rally in VA today:

 

Reporters expressed their grief and condolences as the violence they hyped has so far failed to materialize.

"Nobody has so much as fired a shot. This is an unbelievable tragedy," said one teary-eyed MSNBC reporter, clearly caught up in the anguish of the moment. "It's tragic that we live in a country where reporters who are just minding their own business trying to push a narrative can have everything ripped away from them in an instant when protesters refuse to shoot at people."

 

 

And, yes, I know it is satire.
Satire with a lot of truth behind it.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.