Author Topic: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores  (Read 5325 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Redhawk1

  • Life time NRA Supporter.
  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (78)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10748
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2011, 03:32:04 PM »
A Militia is, private individuals who are providing a venue in support of the entire unorganized militia ("...all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45" and anyone else who avails themselves to the defense of the Republic)
If  you're going to make a hole, make it a big one.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom

Endowment Life Member of the NRA
Life Member NA

Offline mrussel

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #31 on: January 18, 2011, 04:53:14 PM »
You are an example of what is wrong with this county. You want to intrepid the Constitution, and make it fit what you think it should say..


 But you do the same thing,you just dont realize/admit that you do.

Offline mrussel

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2011, 05:09:34 PM »
 If it's such an important issue, you'd check the policies BEFORE becoming a customer not after.  

   I find it funny how many make it such a huge issue yet they themselves cannot carry where they work.  Happy to take the $ from a place that doesn't allow the guns but WHOA if another place has policies against it.  

Wow, I guess why should we pay, (with our hard earned money) to have someone strip us of our constitutional rights when we walk in the door, Crazy talk. Work is different because we voluntarily go to earn money.


 I'm sorry,but you don't have the right to bear arms on my property,nor do you have the right to free speech. If you don't like the way I lay out MY rules on MY property,then you can leave. What about my freedom on my property. Now,personally,I don't have any friends that I would worry about having guns in my house and if I were a business owner I would not have a problem with people carrying weapons in my business. However,its not MY place to tell someone other business owner what they should or should not do. In many states of course its a non issue because it has no legal force,and that's fine,but as a general rule I feel that a business owner has the right to set the rules. I feel its more reasonable that they ask you to leave rather than having it be ILLEGAL ,but different states have different takes on it. Overall though,for example,if you stand on a public corner with a sign that I find offensive,I have no right to tell you not to be there,and the government does not either. If you try that on my front lawn though,Ill tell you to leave and if you don't,Ill have you arrested.

 Similarly,if I decide that bring a gun into a restaurant and the owner knows about it and does not like it,then he is PERFECTLY justified in telling me to leave. I have no more right to force my views about guns on him,than he has to force his on me. (No,hes not "forcing" his on me,its his resteraunt,he can do as he pleases there) If you dont like his rules,dont go in his store. If enough people dont,he will go broke or change his rules. If most don't care,your stuck and you have to live with it. Instead though,you want to make everyone live by YOUR rules,because YOU know whats best for everyone else. Sounds familiar doesn't it,in fact,I bet you have complained about just that. Thats unfortunately how it works. Everyone wants to enforce their rules. Its why the people came to America to escape religious intolerance and created one of the most intolerant societies around at the time.

I guess it all hangs on what the founding fathers mean by the word MILITIA, it seems the definition has changed since then, and the true definition still applies outside the USA, (ex, iraq, iran, afganistan, ect.ect, they are never seen in a good light on the news, not like our national guard)

 That is certainly a good point. I know that some have tried to define the millitia as every able bodied man. Was that in fact the definition? All the credible definitions that I have seen (In other words,not one that some guy on the internet defines to prove his point by circularly referencing his own argument) have defined it as some sort of volunteer force. My understanding is that back in the day,militias were organized at the local level and under authority of the states. Its not surprising that they are mentioned in the constitution considering the role they had in the nations founding. I imagine at the time that the states would have felt that having the ability to raise their own armies was essential to their continuted existence as separate entities. One thing I think IS rather clear is that the framers of the constitution NEVER expected this level of federal control and I'm of the opinion that things such as the commerce clause are taken farther than they were intended. As an example,the commerce clause states they me regulate interstate commerce but as an example most goods are traded both interstate and intrastate. The courts have held that such goods may be regulated becuase the intrastate commerce affects the demand for goods in interstate commerce,which is true,but an absurd use the power,because almost any commerce can be regulated under that defintion,yet they clearly qualified it by stating that only interstate commerce was to be regulated by the federal government.

 Back to the issue of guns,if we are really going to talk about a personal right to keep and bear arms,I suspect that the framers would not have expected that the federal government could do anything with that at all,except NOT pass laws. Before the 14th amendment it was pretty well established that the bill of rights was simply a prohibition on the federal government pre-empting the states rights to regulate those things. In other words,if in 1810,Delaware had decided to ban all private ownership of handguns or Virgina had decided to ban free speech,that would have been perfectly constitutional. Actually,exactly these things WERE done to certain groups and it took amendments to the constitution to change that.

Offline Redhawk1

  • Life time NRA Supporter.
  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (78)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10748
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #33 on: January 18, 2011, 05:13:54 PM »
You are an example of what is wrong with this county. You want to intrepid the Constitution, and make it fit what you think it should say..


 But you do the same thing,you just dont realize/admit that you do.

I read it as the founding father intended it. Maybe you need to understand how they used terms back them, and don't try to make it fit your personal agenda..   I think once you find the intent of the founding fathers you would better understand what they were saying.. Try reading the writings of the founding fathers, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington etc.. Read some of there quotes that so many people quote today.. They were men smarter than the people trying to interpret and change the intent of the Constitution today..

So try being informed, and not opinionated!
If  you're going to make a hole, make it a big one.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom

Endowment Life Member of the NRA
Life Member NA

Offline mrussel

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #34 on: January 18, 2011, 05:29:41 PM »
You are an example of what is wrong with this county. You want to intrepid the Constitution, and make it fit what you think it should say..


 But you do the same thing,you just dont realize/admit that you do.

I read it as the founding father intended it. Maybe you need to understand how they used terms back them, and don't try to make it fit your personal agenda..   I think once you find the intent of the founding fathers you would better understand what they were saying.. Try reading the writings of the founding fathers, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington etc.. Read some of there quotes that so many people quote today.. They were men smarter than the people trying to interpret and change the intent of the Constitution today..

So try being informed, and not opinionated!

 I think you read into it what you want it to say,as evidenced by you reading HALF of the second amendment,deciding the other half is irrelevent and then pronouncing you know what it means "End of story!"

Offline Redhawk1

  • Life time NRA Supporter.
  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (78)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10748
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #35 on: January 18, 2011, 05:46:46 PM »
I did not read half of the second amendment, I high lighted the second half to make the point that you fail to understand.. I don't think you are worth any more of my time.. I get the same results when I talk to the Liberals in legislative hall, they don't have a clue either!  ::) :o
If  you're going to make a hole, make it a big one.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom

Endowment Life Member of the NRA
Life Member NA

Offline turk762

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 192
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #36 on: January 19, 2011, 03:44:05 AM »
Mrussel, you seem to be amused by keeping us chasing our tails like dogs, this dog doesnt care to play this game.

I agree that it is the bus. owner or manager has the right to not allow ccw in their shops, I dont disagree and if anyone else did I must have missed that post. On the same token, we have the right to not shop the stores (many stores sell paint, its not a monopoly) and this is the right we are exercising(our choice), not forcing the shops to allow us to carry(their choice).

Your arguement seems to hang on who is a militia, and who has the right to choose (you, me the shop owner, ect./ who you allow in your home and prop., where we chose to go, who the shopowner allows in his business)

If you care to do so, (your choose) I pointed out your sticking points on this topic, you can research it further, I am not here to convince you what my rights are.

Its been fun, (no not really, more disturbing). Good bye.

Offline mrussel

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #37 on: January 19, 2011, 05:06:11 PM »
Mrussel, you seem to be amused by keeping us chasing our tails like dogs, this dog doesnt care to play this game.

I agree that it is the bus. owner or manager has the right to not allow ccw in their shops, I dont disagree and if anyone else did I must have missed that post. On the same token, we have the right to not shop the stores (many stores sell paint, its not a monopoly) and this is the right we are exercising(our choice), not forcing the shops to allow us to carry(their choice).

Your arguement seems to hang on who is a militia, and who has the right to choose (you, me the shop owner, ect./ who you allow in your home and prop., where we chose to go, who the shopowner allows in his business)

If you care to do so, (your choose) I pointed out your sticking points on this topic, you can research it further, I am not here to convince you what my rights are.

Its been fun, (no not really, more disturbing). Good bye.

 You certainly have a right not to give your money to anyone you don't want to. If you don't like the shop owners policies,then I 100% agree,don't shop there. If enough people don't,he will have to reconsider or go out of business. I just take exception to the idea that the shop keeper is someone "taking away your rights" by exercising his. I would prefer that all shops be open to allowing us to carry. There is ONE other thing you can do. If enough people agree with you,you can limit the shop keepers rights and change your states laws so that his sign carries no legal weight. Thats the way it is here,its none of the shopkeepers business. Here,he has no right to tell me that I can or cannot carry on his property. Im sort of split on this. I tend toward thinking its a good idea because the patchwork of places you can and cannot carry in for instance Ohio is very problematic, on the other hand,there are many people that feel very strongly negative about guns. I may not agree with them,but I have a hard time telling them that on their own property,they have to accept armed people in their establishments. On the flip side, there are many other things that are regulated by laws,such as pornography,drugs, and even tobacco and alcohol. So long as I'm not drinking,smoking,or sitting reading a porno mag in front of everyone,I dont see how its anyones business what I have in my pockets. In short,its not just about might rights but a balancing act between my rights and someone elses.

 If its determined that we DO have a right to concealed carry. (In other words,if one day the supreme court decides that ALL states must be "shall issue" because our personal right to own guns for self defense is something that is not just present in our homes but ALWAYS present, then a good argument can be made that those signs should NOT carry any legal weight as they make it very inconvenient to carry. (Laws that have the affect of making something protected by the constitution difficult or impossible (think of the Jim Crowe laws for instance) come under great scrutiny. For instance,I suspect the Chicago ordinances that require training for handgun permits,but then make it illegal to open a firing to range to provide that very training in the city, will end up being struck down) The argument against that of course is,do we really allow anyone with a permit (or maybe even not even require a permit) to carry a gun on an jetliner? Are there times and places where we MUST relinquish part of our rights to have handguns for self defense? If there are,where is the line drawn. Its ESTABLISHED we have the right to defend ourselves in our homes. (This when you think about it may have interesting implications in any place that does not allow you to stand your ground in defense of your own home when fleeing is reasonably possible. They HAVE said that the government may regulate what guns you can have and where you can have them, but what are the limits of that power. Another question is,if you have a right to defend yourself with a gun,is the right guaranteed by the constitution ONLY after you have availed yourself of any opportunity to flee. (That is completely compatible with Castle Doctrine states that allow you to defend your home,its just a question of whether the Constitution provides this. The truly conservative jurist I would expect to say ,the Constitution does not discuss that,therefore its 100% up to the states. Other jurists might disagree,saying that a right to defend your self in your home IMPLIES the right to defend your home itself.)

 Its not nearly so black and white as is made out in this thread. The supreme court has said that the second amendment provides a right to keep and bear arms for personal self defense. Some say that it should be any arm. I am of the opinion that the supreme court was correct in saying that some regulations of what you may have are appropriate but again,where do you draw the limit. They came out and said handguns are appropriate. Rifles and shotguns should be as well in my opinion. Machine guns? Im ok with that ,even under the current laws,with two small changes. First a repeal of the law forbidding the manufacture of new machine guns for civilian ownership and second ,extending the shall issue policy for concealed carry permits to the ATF forms.
  What about the totally insane things. Where do we draw the line. What do we do when Muhammed Al Akbar Muhajadeen,who is an American citizen,with no criminal history,orders 60 tons of ammonium nitrate and 5 55 gallon drums of nitromethane racing fuel. The ATF comes knocking at his door,and says "We are concerned your building an explosive device. Mr Muhajadeen replies,damn strait I am,its out there in that semi truck. I filed form 3 with the ATF right here,the sheriff signed off on it (as he was legally required to,because if the constitution requires people to be able to have any sort of weapon,he cant refuse a law abiding citizens request). The agents respond "We know,the sheriff was the one who called us. He was concerned about your "If God wont smite the infadels,the we should give Him a helping hand!" bumper sticker. Your not planning on smiting any of us infidels are you?" Mr Muhajadeen of course replies "Of course not sir,Im just exercising my 2nd amendment rights,just I was exercising my first amendment rights with that bumper sticker,but if you ask me about it again,Ill call the ACLU" The agents of course then tell Mr Muhajadeen to have a nice day and apologize for taking him away from his constitutionally protected bomb making. That sounds absurd of course and it is,but no where in the constitution does it discuss what weapons we have have a right to. The LIMITS of the second amendment and what weapons we may have,just as the limits of the first amendment and what exactly are the limits of our free speech is something that requires interpretation. (that bumper sticker is something that MIGHT be covered under the first amendment. The courts would have to decide whether it was a religious or political statement or an incitement to violence. They must also decide if they can use it against him at his trial for making a weapon which the government will try to prove (Not with absolute certainty,but beyond a reasonable doubt) he intended to kill people with)

Offline Squib

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Gender: Male
  • G- S- T- and I ain't got time to bleed!
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #38 on: January 19, 2011, 11:26:15 PM »
mrrussell, the "quantification" of the 2A militia reference wasn't (how I read it) meant to specify that citizens can own guns to be empowered as militia but nothing more or less, but specified that WITHOUT the ability of localities to organize a fighting force the government could become too centralized and totalitarian- and back then a mob would go burn down someone's house, shoot, hang or mutilate someone in government if an abuse of power got citizens rallied in anger.

it makes no argument of the legality of killing in retroactive self-defense, pre-emptive assassination, mobilization or terms and preconditions TO mobilization of a militia, just that citizens need to be able to do so, and that citizens' weapons and martial prowess are to be prized. 

Offline turk762

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 192
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #39 on: January 20, 2011, 03:51:26 AM »
Mrussel, now you changed arms (stated in the constitution) to weapon (stated in your post).
Im not going to look it up, but I believe the definition of arms would be guns.

Where does it state protection in your home only???

As for using the bomb as a example, if you were to admit to planning to commit a illegal act with your arms, as with the bomb, law enforcement would have to step in for the protection of the community (this is their job). There will be some restrictions to every right. You have the rights as long as you are not trampling over the rights of other citizens. (should be common sense, but not so much)

As for debating this issue, 48 of the 50 states believe citizens have the constitutional right to carry concealed (soon to be 49, WI soon I hope). WI has open carry, so at least 49 believe we have the right to carry. ( I dont know where ILL stands). Your argument does not stand.

Why do we have the freedom of speech in the work place, (saw it in the news, lawsuits because employees was fired for bad mouthing boss, emp. won) as well as place such as sherwin-williams, but not the right to bear arms, I believe someday this may change. Both were written on the same document. I believe the amendments were added ranked by importants  to the country and low and behold, it ranks second, if it was not important why would it be at the top of their minds.


Offline mrussel

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #40 on: January 20, 2011, 05:15:15 PM »
mrrussell, the "quantification" of the 2A militia reference wasn't (how I read it) meant to specify that citizens can own guns to be empowered as militia but nothing more or less, but specified that WITHOUT the ability of localities to organize a fighting force the government could become too centralized and totalitarian- and back then a mob would go burn down someone's house, shoot, hang or mutilate someone in government if an abuse of power got citizens rallied in anger.

it makes no argument of the legality of killing in retroactive self-defense, pre-emptive assassination, mobilization or terms and preconditions TO mobilization of a militia, just that citizens need to be able to do so, and that citizens' weapons and martial prowess are to be prized. 

 That is how I allways read it,but the supreme court has ruled that it is a personal right to self defense using guns. My opinion does not count for much,as Im not on the Court. LOL

Offline mrussel

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #41 on: January 20, 2011, 06:03:04 PM »
Mrussel, now you changed arms (stated in the constitution) to weapon (stated in your post).
Im not going to look it up, but I believe the definition of arms would be guns.

Where does it state protection in your home only???

As for using the bomb as a example, if you were to admit to planning to commit a illegal act with your arms, as with the bomb, law enforcement would have to step in for the protection of the community (this is their job). There will be some restrictions to every right. You have the rights as long as you are not trampling over the rights of other citizens. (should be common sense, but not so much)

As for debating this issue, 48 of the 50 states believe citizens have the constitutional right to carry concealed (soon to be 49, WI soon I hope). WI has open carry, so at least 49 believe we have the right to carry. ( I dont know where ILL stands). Your argument does not stand.

Why do we have the freedom of speech in the work place, (saw it in the news, lawsuits because employees was fired for bad mouthing boss, emp. won) as well as place such as sherwin-williams, but not the right to bear arms, I believe someday this may change. Both were written on the same document. I believe the amendments were added ranked by importants  to the country and low and behold, it ranks second, if it was not important why would it be at the top of their minds.

I does not state protection at all,therefore if you are to read only the literal words there,the entire issue of protection is left to the states,OR perhaps its something left to the people themselves. (if the state is silent on it?)  You have a point that I have expanded arms to mean all weapons but I think its rather reasonable. If in the future for instance,advances in personal protection render firearms obsolete (body armor as thin as a t-shirt that can stop a 50 cal or personal force fields or whatever) and the weapon of choice,when a weapon is needed,is a startrek style phaser,I think that qualifies as an "arm". Similarly ,if the weapon of choice for self defense,or military and police work or what not because swarms of tiny robots or something I have not even conceived of,those are arms. I think arms must be interpreted broadly,just as speech is interpreted broadly. For instance, my right to stand there and burn an American flag,silently,in protest of some wrong I feel our government committed IS protected under my right to free speech. While I doubt I would choose to exercise it in that way,Im in 100% agreement that what is really meant by speech is expression and communication and for instance,burning a flag is very obviously a political statement. (if it was not,the very people who oppose it would not be concerned,THEIR whole point of their argument IS that the message offends them). I would certainly think that a Welsh longbow would be an arm,or a samurai sword. If you confine it only to guns,why not confine it only to black powder guns,or flintlock guns. Perhaps confining it to "small arms" might be reasonable,although there WERE private citizens who had cannons and artillery that were a critical part of the revolutionary war,so perhaps not.

That IS a good point,freedom of speech in certain private places IS upheld,so that certainly DOES set a precedent. However,there IS a point regarding how intrusive the speech is on others rights. We have to right to for instance stand on the street corner and distribute racist literature. However,at a university I attended they fired a professor for having white power and nazi literature plastered all over the walls of his office (and not in a historical context),because it offended students. They debated it at length and considered two questions. One,CAN they revoke his tenure and fire him from a legal standpoint. The lawyers said absolutely. Once that was settled they debated at length,SHOULD they fire him,as they were not concerned over the legalities as much as the moral and ethical issues of free speech. They decided and I think rightly so,that his right to his speech was out weighted by the students rights not to have to go to Gestapo headquarters to get help with their math homework,and that he would either have to remove the materials or be fired. He chose to be fired. Free speech in the work place then is not nearly as strong as it is for instance on public property. Its a balancing act,and of course carry laws must be too. As I said though,Im not so much against the laws we have here where we can carry anywhere,its just Im very cautious about telling people they HAVE to allow guns in their establishments. I guess the answer is,I cautiously support it,except perhaps in certain places. Churches here are a special case. Guns can be banned in churches with written warning and notice. While I dont like the idea of special rules for churches in general,I do see the point that they are a special case. It could be argued that some churches may take the position that carrying weapons IN the church may be incompatible with their religion. Thinking about it,forcing people to have guns in their establishments may be appropriate in most cases,and may be inappropriate in others where the nature of the establishment is such that other rights such as freedom of speech or religion are directly tied to them,and those in charge of those establishments feel that allowing guns inside would severely infringe on their freedoms. I see the point of for instance someone saying "My religion teaches extreme pacifism,even in the event of an attack and therefore guns should not come into our holy places" on the other hand,thinking about it,I cant say that the argument could apply to a sandwich shop,as there is little connection between serving sandwiches and guns.

 I agree,the issue of common sense though IS in the eye of the beholder. I have 6 Mosin Nagant rifles in my closet. I will probably get more. I would assume,because you hang out on a gun forum you understand that they are in fact part of a collection. My mother asks me,"what do I need all of those for." I explained to her their history and how each was different and some used to be snipers rifles,and how some were made at one arsenal or another and how each had unusual features which was why I bought it. She said "Oh,they are historic." She understands now. On the other hand there are plenty of people that will see those and say that what I have is unreasonable. They will say Im "stockpiling an arsenal" When I tell them that I collect them,they wont beleive me. What they perceive is that I have 6 (or maybe 12 if I happen to be lucky and find some more good ones) identical guns for no good reason. They will say that common sense says that guy who buys 12 identical guns and puts them in his closet is dangerous. All of their friends will agree with them. They might even bring up cases where someone was caught buying 30 identical Beretta handguns in places with no restrictions to smuggle them into places like DC. Their point will be that common sense says that I have no "legitimate" reason for buying that many "identical" guns,that my "excuse" that I collect them does not hold water. I do have to say,if I bought 30 identical High Point 45 pistols ,and claimed that I was collecting them,it might be suspicious. Then again,maybe I think that there might be a national "saturday night special" ban and Im hoping old stock might remain saleable someday as collectors items when they are rare. (It may not be a good plan,but if really do intend that,then there is nothing wrong with it) The issue with common sense is,where do you draw the line,I can come up with a halfway plausible excuse to anything.

Offline Redhawk1

  • Life time NRA Supporter.
  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (78)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10748
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #42 on: January 21, 2011, 02:09:59 AM »
Don't reply to this guy, all he wants to do is bloviate and pontificate.. Guys like mrussel  are not worth the time or effort.. Hopeless cases of Headiest erectus!  ;)
If  you're going to make a hole, make it a big one.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom

Endowment Life Member of the NRA
Life Member NA

Offline BlkHawk73

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1501
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #43 on: January 21, 2011, 02:44:48 PM »
You are an example of what is wrong with this county. You want to intrepid the Constitution, and make it fit what you think it should say..




   I agree!   

   By reading into it as you want to, you'd believe that I have no right to dis-allow carrying on my property.   Wrong answer there! 
"Never Surrender, Just Carry On."  - G.S.

Offline Mohawk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1958
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #44 on: January 30, 2011, 05:13:18 PM »
Every citizen is the militia. Keep(own) and bear (wear) arms.  Pretty simple. Every citizen should be able to own and wear there firearms if it were a true interpretation. Militia has NOTHING to do with the military. Redhawk is exactly right. It has been twisted to satisfy agendas. Same reason a person can't cuss out a person in public without possibly being arrested in some jurisdictions. I think it is excercising free speech. Someone else's agenda said it isn't. Same thing. And the Supreme Court is only to rule on the constitutionality of a case, not dissect and interpret the constitution itself. Fine line, but it is a definate line. 

Offline rodeo kid

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #45 on: March 22, 2011, 09:01:31 AM »
mrussel, you really should move to Russia, you would like it there. At the time the 2d amendment was written, all able bodied men were considered to be the militia. And even if the National Guard is the present day militia what do you think would happen if we were invaded tomorrow and the enemy was not repelled right away? With all our forces overseas, this is plausable. We would active the national guard-if that did not work the govt would ask all able bodied armed citizens  to respond-most of us would-would you? May God bless you as I really feel you need it.

Offline ratdog

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #46 on: May 14, 2011, 08:45:50 PM »
if and when the government try  to take are guns they will wake the silent militia.and i know there are a lot of us out there.i haven't seen any no gun signs on stores banks any where  in utah are they also spelled out in mexican and muslim.

Offline jimster

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #47 on: May 15, 2011, 07:32:06 AM »
Quote
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

First thing is to learn to read...there is a comma after A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, COMMA...then it mentions the right of the people...

Comma...used to indicate a separation of ideas or of elements within the structure of a sentence.  The second amendment addresses more than one thing. 

If your wondering if the founding father wanted private citizens to be armed...you just look their writings on the matter..they did.  They also did not care too much for standing armies..and wanted to be able to fight them as well, including your own government and the armies they employ if need be.

If your wondering who grants you these rights...it must be God, you were born with them.

The second amendment does not grant you any rights...it only points out you already had these rights.

Even the most educated constitutional scholar will not notice a simple comma if he wishes not to...nor will he be interested in the founding fathers writings and explanations if it does not fit his needs.

You were born with the right to defend your gift of life from anyone or anything that would take it or harm it.

added on.....

Our constitution in Michigan is even more clear for those who have trouble reading...

Michigan Constitution Article I, Section 6

Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
 

 




Offline The Hermit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Gender: Male
  • Security is the ability to take care of yourself.
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #48 on: May 15, 2011, 01:25:28 PM »
Sherwin Williams paint is over priced anyway. Thankfully, I don't ever need paint at my cabin.

There are so many laws on the books, a lot of which are unconstitutional, that I have resorted to just using common sense, (mine- right or wrong). If I approach a place that I do not own, that either has a sign or asks me not to carry in their place, I respect that and turn and walk away. I respect your property and you had damn well better respect mine.
Laws are made to generate revenue, seek revenge for wrong doings, or to be able to exercise control on others.
Do you have the resources to challenge the constitutionality of any law you feel is wrong? Most folks don't. Does your congressman/woman, senator, etc. return your call or acknowledge your concerns, or do they ignor you?
Tis better to just walk on by and shop else where...

The Hermit


Offline jimster

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dont buy from Sherwin Williams Paint Stores
« Reply #49 on: May 15, 2011, 02:29:00 PM »
Quote
Tis better to just walk on by and shop else where...

I agree. 

Anyone of us who owns property has the right to outlaw anything we want there, it's ours.  I could say no guns at my place, cept for me if I want to.  So if there is a sign in a window of a business that says no guns...either take it off or walk on.  That's the way it should be.

As far as being able to read the second amendment...everyone knows what it says and what it means...just some don't agree with it so they twist it around some.  The second amendment is an individual right you already have when your born, but it does not mean you can step on someone elses individual rights at their place/home either. 

The reason we know the second amendment is an individual right (heck they all are), is the phrase, "the right of the people"....this is also used in the first and fourth amendments and points specifically to individual rights.  If they were to say that this phrase does not mean the same thing in the second amendment as in the first and fourth...you have a huge problem...you would lose the first and fourth amendments right after you lose the second amendment.  They could use the very same tactic to take away the rest...only now you are unarmed.

In the end...it all boils down to powder and bullets, the Brits did not want people armed either, but they were. Our government does not like us armed either...but we are.