REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Media Greasing the Wheels for Gun Ban

POSTED BY: KIRKULES
UPDATED: Thursday, April 21, 2016 10:54
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4889
PAGE 1 of 2

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:11 PM

KIRKULES


The Democrats have tried to keep the media from bringing up guns before the election, but the media's enthusiasm for baning guns just won't let them remain silent. Bill Clinton blamed the NRA and gun issues for him losing the Congress in 1994 and Dem's were hoping to avoid having this issue lose votes for them this time around. Looks like the media has decided that they need to start greasing the wheels now, so the Dem's can make a gun ban one of their first orders of business if they take the White House.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iofRjmy0-AYAwghvA5oQpVki9OMwD8VL9U8
00

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 1:56 PM

FLETCH2


Explain why you need a military assault weapon for anything other than starting a war?Not as easily concealed as a handgun for personal defence and not as usefull as a shotgun for home defence.

This in a nutshell is the weakness of the NRA position. They feel the need to defend all guns even the types which have few legal uses.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:48 PM

THUNDAR


But gee... aren't automatic weapons already banned? How could they have possibly gotten one with a LAW in place to prevent it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:43 PM

KIRKULES


I didn't post this thread because I wanted to defend my right to own a semi-automatic rifle. I just wanted to let Democrats that support the Second Amendment know what they can expect if one of their candidates gets elected. Some see defending gun rights as a Republican issue, but I know there's almost as many Democrats out there that don't want their guns banned. There is only one candidate in this election cycle that has a good record of supporting gun rights and it happens to be the Republican. If Obama and Clinton don't support your Second Amendment rights, can you really trust them to defend your other constitutional rights.

If you anti-gunners out there want to ban guns, at least do it constitutionally by repealing the Second Amendment. If you do it any other way the outcome won't be pretty.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:56 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
The Democrats have tried to keep the media from bringing up guns before the election, but the media's enthusiasm for baning guns just won't let them remain silent. Bill Clinton blamed the NRA and gun issues for him losing the Congress in 1994 and Dem's were hoping to avoid having this issue lose votes for them this time around. Looks like the media has decided that they need to start greasing the wheels now, so the Dem's can make a gun ban one of their first orders of business if they take the White House.

I suspect that the Supreme Court will soon hand down a ruling that will finally assert what is obvious in any reasonable reading of the Second Amendment, that individual ownership of guns is a Constitutional Right.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:24 PM

THUNDAR


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
The Democrats have tried to keep the media from bringing up guns before the election, but the media's enthusiasm for baning guns just won't let them remain silent. Bill Clinton blamed the NRA and gun issues for him losing the Congress in 1994 and Dem's were hoping to avoid having this issue lose votes for them this time around. Looks like the media has decided that they need to start greasing the wheels now, so the Dem's can make a gun ban one of their first orders of business if they take the White House.

I suspect that the Supreme Court will soon hand down a ruling that will finally assert what is obvious in any reasonable reading of the Second Amendment, that individual ownership of guns is a Constitutional Right.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero



I certainly hope so. I feel safer in a gymnasium full of people legally carrying concealed firearms than I do on any given roadway when the bars close at night.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:57 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by Thundar:
But gee... aren't automatic weapons already banned? How could they have possibly gotten one with a LAW in place to prevent it.




No you're right, I mean robbing banks is illegal but it still happens anyway so robbery laws are obviously not working. Guess we should make robbery legal then?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:56 AM

JONGSSTRAW


I stongly believe in the right to own guns, but the line must be drawn somewhere. Automatic weapons and super-sized clips are the causes of a lot of law enforcement officers' deaths. Often times, the police with their 9mm's are no match for the raw firepower these weapons can unleash. There is absolutely no reason that a "sportsman" or even a "home defender" needs these things. A handgun or a shot gun is great for home defense, but these military-style weapons should all be destroyed before they're used to rob another bank, or terrorize another fast food joint.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:30 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Know what, I am tired of being polite about this...

"Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tench Coxe
Pennsylvania Gazette
Feb. 20, 1788

Coxe was one of Madison's buddies, and for the record, Madison thought it so obvious that this right existed, it needed neither explaination nor protection in the Constitution, and argued such in the Federalist Papers.

He also thought it didn't really need defending, because it was utterly inconcievable to him that anyone would DARE even TRY to violate it.

And if they did, the Citizenry, which would, BY INTENT, outgun them...
Would kick their ass.

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops"
-Madison


"What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression."
-Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley, 1898


Learn some history, folks.

Look, that Right was considered utterly, absolutely sovereign before the Constitution was even written in it's protection, it wasn't GIVEN to us, it's considered a natural right right up there with the freedom to say what you will and worship as you will.

Do you need a permit to practice your religion ?
A license to speak your mind ?

Fuck no.

That right MEANS Assault Rifles, and RPGs, and TANKS, if we want em.

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" ain't gettin across here ?

The FedGov can NOT legally restrict, in any way, shape or form, the possession of any weapon what so ever unless that restriction is part of the sentence of a convicted criminal under due process of law.

To change that REQUIRES a Constitutional Amendment, as Prohibition did, period.

The State you live in, due to this protection is also unable to infringe upon or restrict that right in any way, shape or form.

The fact that they DO it, and do so under threat of force, violence and incarceration, does NOT make it legal, it just makes the fiction that the Constitution means anything to our established order not hold water, is all.

By itself, the document is just a piece of paper, the arms of the citizenry, you, me, everyone else, are the iron supposed to back it up.

Those of you who support any other position have no respect for the document entire, in my opinion.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:37 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Particularly interesting was Hamiltons assertion that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to create a standing army loyal to the FedGov in this country, according to him it just could not, would not, happen.

http://federalistpapers.com/federalist8.html
http://federalistpapers.com/federalist29.html

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:46 AM

FREMDFIRMA


http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa26.htm

"The legislature of the United States will be obliged, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not at liberty to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence. As the spirit of party, in different degrees, must be expected to infect all political bodies, there will be, no doubt, persons in the national legislature willing enough to arraign the measures and criminate the views of the majority. The provision for the support of a military force will always be a favorable topic for declamation. As often as the question comes forward, the public attention will be roused and attracted to the subject, by the party in opposition; and if the majority should be really disposed to exceed the proper limits, the community will be warned of the danger, and will have an opportunity of taking measures to guard against it. Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.

Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community require time to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.

If such suppositions could even be reasonably made, still the concealment of the design, for any duration, would be impracticable. It would be announced, by the very circumstance of augmenting the army to so great an extent in time of profound peace. What colorable reason could be assigned, in a country so situated, for such vast augmentations of the military force? It is impossible that the people could be long deceived; and the destruction of the project, and of the projectors, would quickly follow the discovery.

It has been said that the provision which limits the appropriation of money for the support of an army to the period of two years would be unavailing, because the Executive, when once possessed of a force large enough to awe the people into submission, would find resources in that very force sufficient to enable him to dispense with supplies from the acts of the legislature. But the question again recurs, upon what pretense could he be put in possession of a force of that magnitude in time of peace? If we suppose it to have been created in consequence of some domestic insurrection or foreign war, then it becomes a case not within the principles of the objection; for this is levelled against the power of keeping up troops in time of peace. Few persons will be so visionary as seriously to contend that military forces ought not to be raised to quell a rebellion or resist an invasion; and if the defense of the community under such circumstances should make it necessary to have an army so numerous as to hazard its liberty, this is one of those calamaties for which there is neither preventative nor cure. It cannot be provided against by any possible form of government; it might even result from a simple league offensive and defensive, if it should ever be necessary for the confederates or allies to form an army for common defense.

But it is an evil infinitely less likely to attend us in a united than in a disunited state; nay, it may be safely asserted that it is an evil altogether unlikely to attend us in the latter situation. It is not easy to conceive a possibility that dangers so formidable can assail the whole Union, as to demand a force considerable enough to place our liberties in the least jeopardy, especially if we take into our view the aid to be derived from the militia, which ought always to be counted upon as a valuable and powerful auxiliary. But in a state of disunion (as has been fully shown in another place), the contrary of this supposition would become not only probable, but almost unavoidable."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:49 AM

FREMDFIRMA


So if you wanna blame someone for the situation, lay it at the feet of Hamilton and Madison and not properly setting protections because...

"No one would dare!"
and
"That would never happen!"

And if you look up the Anti-Federalists counter arguments, you'll see they were indeed right.

But it was the INTENT of all of our Founders, that we citizens were as well or better armed than our military, and fully capable of whooping their ass.

Is THAT clear enough ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:54 AM

JONGSSTRAW


"That right MEANS Assault Rifles, and RPGs, and TANKS, if we want em.

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" ain't gettin across here?"
-------------------------------------------------

Well I hardly think that back in 1788 they could have possibly imagined the type of weapons we have today. They had their flintlocks and muskets...fired one bullet at a time, and took a spell to reload. No one can offer one sane reason why any American today needs to own an AK47 or something similar. Even the sacred Freedom of Speech has limits...ie...yelling Fire in a movie theater, making threats against the President, saying Hi Jack at the airport, commiting slander against another, and many other examples where certain speech is prohibited....Just like certain weapons need to be evaluated in relationship to the second amendment.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:19 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I stongly believe in the right to own guns, but the line must be drawn somewhere. Automatic weapons and super-sized clips are the causes of a lot of law enforcement officers' deaths. Often times, the police with their 9mm's are no match for the raw firepower these weapons can unleash. There is absolutely no reason that a "sportsman" or even a "home defender" needs these things. A handgun or a shot gun is great for home defense, but these military-style weapons should all be destroyed before they're used to rob another bank, or terrorize another fast food joint.



I fail to see any logic in your argument. The idea that the fast food joint would be less terrorized by handguns and shotguns just baffles me. Handguns and Shotguns are used much more often in crimes than semi-automatic rifles. Do you see them as having some super-protected status, while rifles don't. The number of law enforcement officers killed with semi-automatic rifles in infinitesimal when compared with handguns. The truth is you have fallen for the propaganda of the gun banners. They say they want to protect police officers, but what they really want is to ban semi-automatic rifles now because they know fewer Americans own them, making it easier to get a ban past the American people. After they ban rifles they'll say what I said previously, that rifles only account for a minute portion of gun violence, so handguns should be next. I draw the line at semi-automatic rifles because I believe in the slippery slope argument.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:06 PM

MACBAKER


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Explain why you need a military assault weapon for anything other than starting a war?Not as easily concealed as a handgun for personal defence and not as usefull as a shotgun for home defence.

This in a nutshell is the weakness of the NRA position. They feel the need to defend all guns even the types which have few legal uses.




Oh give me a frackin' break! What is an assault weapon? Do you even know?

The big difference between a Remmington automatic hunting rifle and a civilian AR-15 is the "furniture"! The Remminton has "pretty" wood stocks, and the AR has "scary" black plastic stocks. Civilian AR-15s and AK-47s DON'T shoot full auto, and neither comes in calibers as powerful as those in most hunting rifles! They are also NOT easily converted to full auto, despite the myths to the contrary. The media tries to spin this crap to fools who don't know better.

Personally, I'd rather have the non-assault looking Remminton Auto. You can find high capacity mags for them too, and with that fancy wood stock, it looks so innocent in a gun cabinet!

Disarming the public, is the first act of a tyrant! Banning types of guns, and registering others, is always the first step towards a full scale ban. One year they ban those Assault "looking" weapons that scare you so much, and then they go for the handguns you say you want to protect your house. Then they go for that Shotgun you also like.

Funny how the extreme left liberals paint the Second Amendment as a state militia issue. While all the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights are considered "Individual Rights". Strange how that second one is the only one that isn't! 9 out of 10? Who are they trying to fool?

Thomas Jefferson might be able to tell you why there's a need for military type weapons like this, and if our politicians keep crapping on the Constitution the way they've been doing, you'll see why some of us will never hand over our Second Amendment rights! The ideas and ideals this country was founded on, aren't going down without a fight. Jefferson believed the people should always have the right and ability to overthrow a tyrant. Some say we have one in the oval office right now, but frankly, GW has never tried to take way our guns. A real tyrant would have!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:26 PM

PIRATECAT


Ban cops I'll go with that. Just look at England how safe is it there. Just go into a public restroom. How many times do you get robbed. A lady recently called 911 they killed her while she was on the phone.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 12:19 AM

FREMDFIRMA


We don't HAVE to "have a reason" - that never, ever comes into this.

Do you need a "reason" to speak your mind ?
Do you need a "reason" to practice your religion ?

No one has to JUSTIFY a Natural Right to anyone else, ever.

And if you actually read the stuff I posted, firstly, we're not supposed to have a standing army at all, unless we're at war with someone, this is part of why politicos always wanna justify one, and another, and another, and a police action here, and intervention there, etc..

Anyhow, a codified, standing army of a permanent nature is anethma to the Constitution and it's ideals, seen as probably THE greatest threat to liberty possible by our founders, and if you doubt that detail go watch what happened to Waco or some videos of Katrina Gun Confiscations again.

THAT was why our founding fathers wanted us to outgun the military, in their opinion, the citizens should have gunned those bastards down and lynched the survivors from the nearest lightpole, curse your eyes...

But when the chips came down, the disparity of firepower lead to, what ?

Come on, say it with me now T-Y-R-A-N-N-Y.

Because most folks throw in the towel when completely outgunned instead of enforcing their rights with violence when needs be.

We are supposed to outgun any raised or standing army for EXACTLY THAT REASON - so that they cannot strip us of our rights, which they did, quite successfully, during Katrina, didn't they ?

The essence of tyranny is pointing a gun at someone and making demands - the essence of freedom is being able to stand on equal terms and refuse to comply.

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.h
tml


Upset that balance, and you're just asking for it, and frankly, you DESERVE it, cause you just sold your fellow citizens out for a pat on the head from the smiling man in a dirty trenchcoat handing out candy...

The whole POINT of it is, that if someone else is equally or better armed than the State, then the State can not, can never, FORCE them to do it's bidding, it must be voluntary and at the consent of the governed.

And it was damned well intended to BE exactly that way.

Till idiot milquetoasts and collaborators started selling us down the river over imagined boogeymen less scary, and less LIKELY, than drowning in your own bathtub by accident.

*hisssss*


-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 12:25 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Oh, and if you want it put maybe more politely...
Cause I got NO intention of being so...

You could try HERE.
http://www.a-human-right.com/

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 1:06 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Whenever I hear the anti-gun loonies I feel like I'm talking to brainless pod people.

Drink the Kool-Aid! Vote Obama! We can do it!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 1:33 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Oh you'd looooove what an associate of mine pulled, although it got him bounced from the class.

One of his college teachers was rather rabidly anti, which struck us as odd cause she's pretty smart as a general rule, right ?

So she brings a box of gun locks in, to make a point, but it goes missing, much to her annoyance, before she got to discussing it.

So she has the students look for it, only to find in short order that someone took them out and put them on the fire extinguishers.

And she blows a gasket...
"Who did this!, it's dangerous, irresponsible, what if there was a fire and you needed...."

And she just kind of tapered off, right there, and total silence reigned for a couple seconds as the truth began to sink into minds unaccustomed to it...

And then she called the administrator and had the guy pitched from her class on the spot.

Guess that wasn't the point she was intending to make, was it, eh ?


I'm buying THAT dude a case of beer this weekend.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 2:01 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
I fail to see any logic in your argument. The idea that the fast food joint would be less terrorized by handguns and shotguns just baffles me. Handguns and Shotguns are used much more often in crimes than semi-automatic rifles. Do you see them as having some super-protected status, while rifles don't. The number of law enforcement officers killed with semi-automatic rifles in infinitesimal when compared with handguns. The truth is you have fallen for the propaganda of the gun banners.


Let me help you understand my logic......true that lunatics will still go into MacDonalds and kill people with handguns and rifles, but they won't be able to kill as many. Also, the police will be able to deal with a person armed with less powerful weapons much greater than if they're facing an endless stream of bullets fired from military-style assault weapons. The greater good of the public's safety should come before the personal desires of gun collectors. I don't advocate a gun ban as you infer that I do, just a rational and fair plan to eliminate the most offensive of these lethal weapons. There is no slippery slope here....it's just common sense, and as I said above...all our "rights" as citizens come with some strings attached. Better to give up these ridiculous weapons of mayhem now, and keep all your other guns, than at some point in the future have a mandate in America to confiscate all your guns. It's called compromise, and in this case I think it's fair and reasonable. The NRA's postitions on this are totally un-reasonable.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 5:39 AM

MACBAKER


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
I fail to see any logic in your argument. The idea that the fast food joint would be less terrorized by handguns and shotguns just baffles me. Handguns and Shotguns are used much more often in crimes than semi-automatic rifles. Do you see them as having some super-protected status, while rifles don't. The number of law enforcement officers killed with semi-automatic rifles in infinitesimal when compared with handguns. The truth is you have fallen for the propaganda of the gun banners.


Let me help you understand my logic......true that lunatics will still go into MacDonalds and kill people with handguns and rifles, but they won't be able to kill as many. Also, the police will be able to deal with a person armed with less powerful weapons much greater than if they're facing an endless stream of bullets fired from military-style assault weapons. The greater good of the public's safety should come before the personal desires of gun collectors. I don't advocate a gun ban as you infer that I do, just a rational and fair plan to eliminate the most offensive of these lethal weapons. There is no slippery slope here....it's just common sense, and as I said above...all our "rights" as citizens come with some strings attached. Better to give up these ridiculous weapons of mayhem now, and keep all your other guns, than at some point in the future have a mandate in America to confiscate all your guns. It's called compromise, and in this case I think it's fair and reasonable. The NRA's postitions on this are totally un-reasonable.



I'm getting from your rant, that you believe that FULL-AUTO rifles are what should be banned, and when the media says "Assault Rifle", that is what they are talking about. They aren't. It's is almost impossible for a civilian to purchase a full-auto rifle. They are heavily restricted. You have to have a class 3 firearms license to own one legally, and the cost is extensive and the back ground check is exhausting. Here's a fact, no legally owned class 3 weapon, has EVER been used in a crime. Almost all class three weapons owners, are collectors, or civilian operated military history museums.

The weapons you talk about, that are used in crimes, are illegally owned (stolen) weapons that are smuggled into this country. No ban would fix that. It would just make it even more impossible for honest collectors to own them. The media tries to mislead everyone into thinking any nut can walk into a gun store and buy themselves a full-auto AK-47. That's just not true!!!

I see many gun owners at the local range, with semi-auto versions of AR-15s, Ak-47s, etc. Those are legal semi-auto versions and not restricted, but their rate of fire is the same as any semi-auto pistol. And no, they CANNOT be easily converted to full-auto. That's another media myth!

Hell, I've seen a few riflemen who can fire an old lever action rifle as fast and as accurately as a semi-auto rifle. Frankly, I'd be far more scared of some nut job robbing a store with a pump shotgun, than I would be if he had a semi-auto rifle. He has to aim with the rifle, which gives me time to escape and or disarm him. With a shotgun, he just has to point and shoot, and if loaded right, is much more deadly.


I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 6:08 AM

FREMDFIRMA


King george thought us pretty unreasonable too, don't ya know...

And WHAT, tell me, willya, was his first action in response, to clear the way for the jackboot to come down, hmmmmm ?

What was it now ?

"A conflict over gunpowder stored in the Provincial Powder House (still standing near Tufts University in Somerville) heightened tensions. The province and its towns were to share the powder, but the towns had removed their allotments. When William Brattle, a Cambridge loyalist, so informed the British commander, General Thomas Gage, the British became concerned that patriot elements might seize the provincial powder as well. On 1 September 1774, British soldiers removed 250 half barrels of powder from the Powder House. One detachment marched to Cambridge and carried off two small cannons."

"On the night of April 18, 1775, General Gage sent 700 men to seize munitions stored by the colonial militia at Concord, Massachusetts. Riders including Paul Revere alerted the countryside, and when British troops entered Lexington on the morning of April 19, they found 77 minutemen formed up on the village green. Shots were exchanged, killing several minutemen. The British moved on to Concord, where a detachment of three companies was engaged and routed at the North Bridge by a force of 500 minutemen. As the British retreated back to Boston, thousands of militiamen attacked them along the roads, inflicting great damage before timely British reinforcements prevented a total disaster. With the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the war had begun."

Of course, like all Tyrants, he tried to strip the people of their defenses so his soldiers could put them in their place.

But armed men are not peons, armed men and women can NOT be forced, only persuaded.

And King George learned this lesson, and learned it well, to his chagrin, especially since in years since, via common culture, we have become great friends and staunch allies with Britain, friends and equals, rather than servant and master.

And that is DIRECTLY due to the american habit of being generally armed to the teeth and actively resistant to any attempt to change that fact, because we learned that if the ordinary citizen can stand toe-to-toe against any member of someones army, no one, externally, or internally, can conquer us and make us less than free ever again.

THAT, folks, is the root of the Second Amendment and it's purpose, to esnure that we ARE armed to the teeth, and with military hardware.

A *very* good example of this, and why it matters, is the Over-The-Mountain Men and the Battle of Kings Mountain.

The OTM were kind of proto-anarchists, they were frontiersman and mountain men, not overly fond of any government, and especially pissed off at the british - and they did not fight in ordered lines in open field, they weren't trying to "win battles", they were tryin to KILL YOU, and rather good at it, might I add.

"Cornwallis invaded North Carolina on September 9, 1780, and reached Charlotte on September 26. Ferguson followed and established a base camp at Gilbertown and issued a challenge to the Patriot leaders to lay down their arms or he would, "Lay waste to their country with fire and sword." But the tough-talking words only outraged the Appalachian frontiersmen, who decided to bring the battle to Ferguson rather than wait for him to come to them."

And having been annoyed and threatened by this little pissant, who first and foremost wanted..
WHAT?

Hmm, what did he WANT ?

Their arms!

So they came on over the mountain and decided to give him some of their musketballs, since he wanted them so badly, and completely *DECIMATED* the British Regulars.

"On the Loyalist side, 225 were killed and 163 wounded, and 716 were taken prisoners. The frontier militia casualties were 28 killed and 62 wounded. Loyalist prisoners well enough to walk were herded to camps several miles from the battlefield. The dead and wounded were left on the field. The frontiersmen hung as many as nine Loyalists who had changed sides. Other accounts say that the Tories were tried before North Carolina judges for violation of the state's criminal laws. Those who were hanged were convicted of crimes such as pillaging. With the defeat as evidence of a ferocious colonial resistance, Cornwallis abandoned his plan to try to take North Carolina, and retreated to the south."

Those men were not part of the Continental Army, or anyones army, just merely ordinary citizens who decided they were not gonna take any shit from some puffed up British aristocrat and the local collaborators (you know, kind of like the people who wanna piss on the Second Amendment) and due to being armed equally or better than the military forces threatening them, were effectively able to obliterate the unit offering threat to them.

Technically, these guys were "militia" in the same way that every adult, able bodied person in the US of A is part of the "milita" - and that is WHY the Second Amendment is written in such a fashion.

The Founders were WELL aware of the contributions of us ordinary folk, like the OTM boys, and in fact thought quite highly of them, since they assumed that such well armed, cussed-natured folk would not long tolerate any abuses or usurpations by this new Government under the Constitution, and specifically protected their weaponry as a bulwark against exactly that.

Once you have any understanding at all of the history at all, the meaning of that Amendment and it's purpose are abundantly clear - military grade weapons, without limit or restriction, in the hands of any american who pleases to have them.

The first thing any Tyrant wants is your weapons, because without them, you have no means of defending yourself against his forces and their oppression, THAT goes all the way back in history over and over...

You know, like Thermopylae.

Tell me now, what was it that Xerxes WANTED, eh?

Their weapons.

And like all sensible men prior and since, what did Leonidas say to that ?

"MOLON LABE!"
(Come and TAKE them!)

Even Ghandi was well aware of the fact that disarmed people cannot be free.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

The Second Amendment has jack diddly shit to do with gun collecting, hunting, or sports....

It was written to ever-codify the superior armament of the average american so that they would NEVER fall under an oppressive all consuming bureaucracy which treated them as peons instead of sovereign individuals.

Why do you think that bureaucracy despises it so very much ?

You cannot pick and choose, if you respect any ONE of those Natural Rights, you MUST respect them all, because they are all interconnected, and unless you actively support a Constitutional Amendment to restrict or limit weapons...

Then you are spitting on that document, proposing it be ignored and distorted instead of obeyed.

And you know, I don't look kindly to that, not at all.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 6:31 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by MacBaker:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
I fail to see any logic in your argument. The idea that the fast food joint would be less terrorized by handguns and shotguns just baffles me. Handguns and Shotguns are used much more often in crimes than semi-automatic rifles. Do you see them as having some super-protected status, while rifles don't. The number of law enforcement officers killed with semi-automatic rifles in infinitesimal when compared with handguns. The truth is you have fallen for the propaganda of the gun banners.


Let me help you understand my logic......true that lunatics will still go into MacDonalds and kill people with handguns and rifles, but they won't be able to kill as many. Also, the police will be able to deal with a person armed with less powerful weapons much greater than if they're facing an endless stream of bullets fired from military-style assault weapons. The greater good of the public's safety should come before the personal desires of gun collectors. I don't advocate a gun ban as you infer that I do, just a rational and fair plan to eliminate the most offensive of these lethal weapons. There is no slippery slope here....it's just common sense, and as I said above...all our "rights" as citizens come with some strings attached. Better to give up these ridiculous weapons of mayhem now, and keep all your other guns, than at some point in the future have a mandate in America to confiscate all your guns. It's called compromise, and in this case I think it's fair and reasonable. The NRA's postitions on this are totally un-reasonable.



I'm getting from your rant, that you believe that FULL-AUTO rifles are what should be banned, and when the media says "Assault Rifle", that is what they are talking about. They aren't. It's is almost impossible for a civilian to purchase a full-auto rifle. They are heavily restricted. You have to have a class 3 firearms license to own one legally, and the cost is extensive and the back ground check is exhausting. Here's a fact, no legally owned class 3 weapon, has EVER been used in a crime. Almost all class three weapons owners, are collectors, or civilian operated military history museums.

The weapons you talk about, that are used in crimes, are illegally owned (stolen) weapons that are smuggled into this country. No ban would fix that. It would just make it even more impossible for honest collectors to own them. The media tries to mislead everyone into thinking any nut can walk into a gun store and buy themselves a full-auto AK-47. That's just not true!!!

I see many gun owners at the local range, with semi-auto versions of AR-15s, Ak-47s, etc. Those are legal semi-auto versions and not restricted, but their rate of fire is the same as any semi-auto pistol. And no, they CANNOT be easily converted to full-auto. That's another media myth!

Hell, I've seen a few riflemen who can fire an old lever action rifle as fast and as accurately as a semi-auto rifle. Frankly, I'd be far more scared of some nut job robbing a store with a pump shotgun, than I would be if he had a semi-auto rifle. He has to aim with the rifle, which gives me time to escape and or disarm him. With a shotgun, he just has to point and shoot, and if loaded right, is much more deadly.


I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.


Thanks for calling my one paragraph response to another poster a "rant". Frankly, I don't buy your hair-splitting of the issue. Fair-minded people know what I'm talking about in reference to being able to compromise on the issue.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 6:35 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
King george thought us pretty unreasonable too, don't ya know...

And WHAT, tell me, willya, was his first action in response, to clear the way for the jackboot to come down, hmmmmm ?

What was it now ?

"A conflict over gunpowder stored in the Provincial Powder House (still standing near Tufts University in Somerville) heightened tensions. The province and its towns were to share the powder, but the towns had removed their allotments. When William Brattle, a Cambridge loyalist, so informed the British commander, General Thomas Gage, the British became concerned that patriot elements might seize the provincial powder as well. On 1 September 1774, British soldiers removed 250 half barrels of powder from the Powder House. One detachment marched to Cambridge and carried off two small cannons."

"On the night of April 18, 1775, General Gage sent 700 men to seize munitions stored by the colonial militia at Concord, Massachusetts. Riders including Paul Revere alerted the countryside, and when British troops entered Lexington on the morning of April 19, they found 77 minutemen formed up on the village green. Shots were exchanged, killing several minutemen. The British moved on to Concord, where a detachment of three companies was engaged and routed at the North Bridge by a force of 500 minutemen. As the British retreated back to Boston, thousands of militiamen attacked them along the roads, inflicting great damage before timely British reinforcements prevented a total disaster. With the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the war had begun."

Of course, like all Tyrants, he tried to strip the people of their defenses so his soldiers could put them in their place.

But armed men are not peons, armed men and women can NOT be forced, only persuaded.

And King George learned this lesson, and learned it well, to his chagrin, especially since in years since, via common culture, we have become great friends and staunch allies with Britain, friends and equals, rather than servant and master.

And that is DIRECTLY due to the american habit of being generally armed to the teeth and actively resistant to any attempt to change that fact, because we learned that if the ordinary citizen can stand toe-to-toe against any member of someones army, no one, externally, or internally, can conquer us and make us less than free ever again.

THAT, folks, is the root of the Second Amendment and it's purpose, to esnure that we ARE armed to the teeth, and with military hardware.

A *very* good example of this, and why it matters, is the Over-The-Mountain Men and the Battle of Kings Mountain.

The OTM were kind of proto-anarchists, they were frontiersman and mountain men, not overly fond of any government, and especially pissed off at the british - and they did not fight in ordered lines in open field, they weren't trying to "win battles", they were tryin to KILL YOU, and rather good at it, might I add.

"Cornwallis invaded North Carolina on September 9, 1780, and reached Charlotte on September 26. Ferguson followed and established a base camp at Gilbertown and issued a challenge to the Patriot leaders to lay down their arms or he would, "Lay waste to their country with fire and sword." But the tough-talking words only outraged the Appalachian frontiersmen, who decided to bring the battle to Ferguson rather than wait for him to come to them."

And having been annoyed and threatened by this little pissant, who first and foremost wanted..
WHAT?

Hmm, what did he WANT ?

Their arms!

So they came on over the mountain and decided to give him some of their musketballs, since he wanted them so badly, and completely *DECIMATED* the British Regulars.

"On the Loyalist side, 225 were killed and 163 wounded, and 716 were taken prisoners. The frontier militia casualties were 28 killed and 62 wounded. Loyalist prisoners well enough to walk were herded to camps several miles from the battlefield. The dead and wounded were left on the field. The frontiersmen hung as many as nine Loyalists who had changed sides. Other accounts say that the Tories were tried before North Carolina judges for violation of the state's criminal laws. Those who were hanged were convicted of crimes such as pillaging. With the defeat as evidence of a ferocious colonial resistance, Cornwallis abandoned his plan to try to take North Carolina, and retreated to the south."

Those men were not part of the Continental Army, or anyones army, just merely ordinary citizens who decided they were not gonna take any shit from some puffed up British aristocrat and the local collaborators (you know, kind of like the people who wanna piss on the Second Amendment) and due to being armed equally or better than the military forces threatening them, were effectively able to obliterate the unit offering threat to them.

Technically, these guys were "militia" in the same way that every adult, able bodied person in the US of A is part of the "milita" - and that is WHY the Second Amendment is written in such a fashion.

The Founders were WELL aware of the contributions of us ordinary folk, like the OTM boys, and in fact thought quite highly of them, since they assumed that such well armed, cussed-natured folk would not long tolerate any abuses or usurpations by this new Government under the Constitution, and specifically protected their weaponry as a bulwark against exactly that.

Once you have any understanding at all of the history at all, the meaning of that Amendment and it's purpose are abundantly clear - military grade weapons, without limit or restriction, in the hands of any american who pleases to have them.

The first thing any Tyrant wants is your weapons, because without them, you have no means of defending yourself against his forces and their oppression, THAT goes all the way back in history over and over...

You know, like Thermopylae.

Tell me now, what was it that Xerxes WANTED, eh?

Their weapons.

And like all sensible men prior and since, what did Leonidas say to that ?

"MOLON LABE!"
(Come and TAKE them!)

Even Ghandi was well aware of the fact that disarmed people cannot be free.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

The Second Amendment has jack diddly shit to do with gun collecting, hunting, or sports....

It was written to ever-codify the superior armament of the average american so that they would NEVER fall under an oppressive all consuming bureaucracy which treated them as peons instead of sovereign individuals.

Why do you think that bureaucracy despises it so very much ?

You cannot pick and choose, if you respect any ONE of those Natural Rights, you MUST respect them all, because they are all interconnected, and unless you actively support a Constitutional Amendment to restrict or limit weapons...

Then you are spitting on that document, proposing it be ignored and distorted instead of obeyed.

And you know, I don't look kindly to that, not at all.


Thanks for the mini history lesson. I can understand why a committed anarchist would feel the need to be armed to the teeth, but it doesn't change the central theme of my point. We have a National Guard...they can have the military-style weapons of war. Individual citizens must be willing to compromise on the issue, or else one day they'll see all their weapons being threatened with confiscation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 7:51 AM

AVENGINGWATCHER


Hey this seems like a good topic to jump in on...
Okay so here goes, Personally I don't feel the Second Amendment give everyone the right to have guns, rifles, etc from my reading of it because it has the line that no one reads "in a well regulated militia" i.e. National Guard. However, I don't think that any guns should be specifically banned from public ownership. It's the same idea as making a hazmat drivers license harder to get. Are the bad guys going to wait in line to get approval for the license? Hell no, that would be going with the system they aim to destroy...I do feel that some oversight on full automatic weapons and explosives should be in place to provide some level of protection against the guy who gets fired on Friday and comes in shooting on Monday, i.e. is the guy/girl has shot and killed someone in anger before, they lose the legal right...but that's protecting the right to life with a proven violator of the responsibilities of gun ownership. Personally as a veteran, I don't understand how I can be given an automatic weapon one day and then be told I have no right to use it the next...all that is changing is that in the Army someone is telling you who to shoot and on your own you have to make that choice by yourself. This opinion from a liberal lefty...

When there are no heroes where will we turn?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 7:53 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Explain why you need a military assault weapon for anything other than starting a war?



Explain why you need a car and a bottle of single-malt scotch for anything other than drunk driving.

The "need" question is pretty bogus. Why do you "need" anything but a bowl of gruel and a shed to sleep in? Why do you "need" the freedom of speech? Why do you "need" freedom at all? Your basic needs could easily be met by any competent dictator or slaveholder.

The fair question would be, why do you "want" something? You want the scotch because you like the taste. The car takes you where you want to go when you want to go there. Freedom of speech lets you express yourself on chat boards. etc.

Why would one "want" a military-style rifle? probably as many reasons as there are people who want them. The AK-style rifles are lower-priced than most hunting rifles and capable of killing game at short ranges, so folks on budgets buy them for that. The ammo is cheap so if you like shooting tin cans out on the south forty they're a good fit. The M-16 clones can be quite accurate and are used for target competition or long-range varmint hunting. In rural areas, they can all be useful for self-defense.

I wouldn't mind having an M-16 clone myself, just for general paper-punching, but am gonna be building a 1000-yard F-class target rifle first.

Besides, as Fremd notes, it's your natural right to be able to defend yourself. If you wish to forfiet that right, well, that's your right too.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 2:19 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Individual citizens must be willing to compromise on the issue, or else one day they'll see all their weapons being threatened with confiscation.

Paying Danegeld results in paying Danegeld.

You are proposing a lose-lose situation that is at it's root utterly untenable.

Were we to compromise even one single bit, as many complete, historically ignorant idiots already have, whos number I thankfully do not count myself within, the end result of allowing one restriction has been that it begets another, and another, and another...

It's like Taxes, you allow them one single bite, and they'll be back for more over and over again until you have a feeding frenzy on your hands.

Paying Danegeld results in paying Danegeld.

And IF they wish to threaten confiscation in return for not just meekly handing them over, then the game is up, all the lies exposed, and the true face of this Corpo-Fascist Oligarchy we like to pretend is a Democratic Republic will be finally and forevermore exposed for exactly what it is.

And then we can either accept it, or if you can find anyone with a fuckin spine left in this country, maybe do something about it.

And better that it happen when those folks, if there even are any left, have the ABILITY to do something about it.

You're saying fork over our Constitutional Rights piecemeal now, deprive ourselves of the ability to defend them - in order to prevent them from being TAKEN from us later ?

Do you in ANY way comprehend just how IDIOTIC that position is ?

That's like handing over your pistol to a mugger in hopes of him accepting that instead of your wallet, and then presuming he'd just take it and go away!

It's just plain fuckin stupid.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 6:13 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

A lady recently called 911 they killed her while she was on the phone.

Not surprising, generally when you hand over your personal safety and security to the State, they do a piss-poor job of it.


Tell me folks, why don't you now...

The difference between THIS case ?
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110//03-20-2008/20080320105002_06.ht
ml


And THIS case ?
http://www.nbc5.com/news/15024352/detail.html

Until you can find a way to justify the top case as the preferable result...

You might just wanna contemplate for a while about exactly what it is you are proposing, if you cannot justify the folks who your suggestions, if taken, will leave dead on the floor, unarmed and unprotected.

Anyone who supports ignoring or distorting the Second Amendment is every bit as much a victimizer of those people as the fucker who killed em - and make no mistake, that is indeed where you rate as a person in my eyes.

Cause you'd rather have me dead on the floor with a burglar looting my stuff, rather than me standing over a dead burglar with a couple well deserved holes in his ass.

That makes you the accomplice, willfully aiding and abetting criminals by stripping citizens of the means to hold out successfully till the cavalry arrives, or in lieu of that, handle matters themself if they must.

That's not intended as rhetoric, either - fact is, when people cannot get weapons, when the bullshit, red tape and other issues wall them off from effective self defense, and they run up against criminals who ARE armed...

THEY DIE.

And in my opinion, those of you without respect for the Second Amendment ?
You helped pull the trigger on them.

And for them that might like a more erm...
Southern flavor, to the above rant, see also LAWDOG.
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/
Good guy, don't always agree with him, but he's an ok dude.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 6:49 PM

MACBAKER


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Thanks for calling my one paragraph response to another poster a "rant". Frankly, I don't buy your hair-splitting of the issue. Fair-minded people know what I'm talking about in reference to being able to compromise on the issue.



It's not hair splitting at all. Nice attempt to deflect your own ignorance, and call for allies, but fair minded people know better and do their research. Get real kid!

It's becoming more and more obvious that you really don't know what you are talking about. Sorry, but there is NO compromise when were talking about the Constitution. When we allow that, we weaken the Constitution!

Fact: You clearly didn't know the difference between a semi-auto rifle, and a full-auto rifle. The media has brainwashed you. If it looks like a full-auto military weapon, it must be one! That's a lie, and you're a fool for not doing some research before talking on an issue you clearly don't understand.

The media points at a semi-auto rifle, that looks just like the rifle G.I. Joe carries in Iraq, and his gun shoots lots of bullets really really fast, and they call the civilian version an "Assault Rifle" The lemmings believe it without checking the facts for themselves, buy into the BS, and scream for a ban!

The media pulled the same crap in the 70's, calling short barreled revolvers (popular with off duty and undercover cops of the era) "Saturday Night Specials", and tried to ban them. They tried again in the 80's, calling Glocks "Plastic Guns", and making false claims about them being undetectable by airport x-rays (A complete lie), and tried to ban importation of them. Oh, wait, isn't that the same fine weapon almost every cop in America now carries in their duty belt, and relies on to protect them? Thats odd!! Could the media be wrong? YES!

So, before reacting from ignorance again, why don't you instead take the time to learn a few facts, and thank the people in this thread who are attempting to educate you in a few simple truths and some common sense. I'm not sure if your ego will allow you to admit when you're wrong, but one can always hope! Check your facts before spouting media bias! It makes you look foolish!

Now that's a RANT! At least I got may facts right!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 7:21 PM

MACBAKER


Quote:

Originally posted by avengingwatcher:
from my reading of it because it has the line that no one reads "in a well regulated militia" i.e. National Guard.



I must point out, that when our founding father's wrote that, there was no National Guard. Everyone DOES read that line, and that's where the confusion comes from.

To understand their intent, you must understand, that "a well regulated militia" at that time, was all able bodied men (to be PC, all able bodied people) between the ages of 16 and 60.

You also have to understand, that the first Ten Amendments (The Bill Of Rights) are "Individual Rights". The 2nd Amendment, is an individual right, and the militia is all able bodied citizens! i.e. not the National Guard, but all men!


I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 29, 2008 3:52 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Not surprising, generally when you hand over your personal safety and security to the State, they do a piss-poor job of it.



Not surprising at all, as it's not their job to insure your personal safety.

Quote:

(It is a) fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.

—Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)







"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 29, 2008 4:07 AM

RIVERLOVE


Quote:

Originally posted by MacBaker:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Thanks for calling my one paragraph response to another poster a "rant". Frankly, I don't buy your hair-splitting of the issue. Fair-minded people know what I'm talking about in reference to being able to compromise on the issue.



It's not hair splitting at all. Nice attempt to deflect your own ignorance, and call for allies, but fair minded people know better and do their research. Get real kid!

It's becoming more and more obvious that you really don't know what you are talking about. Sorry, but there is NO compromise when were talking about the Constitution. When we allow that, we weaken the Constitution!

Fact: You clearly didn't know the difference between a semi-auto rifle, and a full-auto rifle. The media has brainwashed you. If it looks like a full-auto military weapon, it must be one! That's a lie, and you're a fool for not doing some research before talking on an issue you clearly don't understand.

The media points at a semi-auto rifle, that looks just like the rifle G.I. Joe carries in Iraq, and his gun shoots lots of bullets really really fast, and they call the civilian version an "Assault Rifle" The lemmings believe it without checking the facts for themselves, buy into the BS, and scream for a ban!

The media pulled the same crap in the 70's, calling short barreled revolvers (popular with off duty and undercover cops of the era) "Saturday Night Specials", and tried to ban them. They tried again in the 80's, calling Glocks "Plastic Guns", and making false claims about them being undetectable by airport x-rays (A complete lie), and tried to ban importation of them. Oh, wait, isn't that the same fine weapon almost every cop in America now carries in their duty belt, and relies on to protect them? Thats odd!! Could the media be wrong? YES!

So, before reacting from ignorance again, why don't you instead take the time to learn a few facts, and thank the people in this thread who are attempting to educate you in a few simple truths and some common sense. I'm not sure if your ego will allow you to admit when you're wrong, but one can always hope! Check your facts before spouting media bias! It makes you look foolish!

Now that's a RANT! At least I got may facts right!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.


You gun-loving nuts are a bunch of psychotic bullies. I just have one question. Do you enjoy stroking your guns as much as your peckers?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 29, 2008 4:55 AM

PIRATECAT


Its bad enough you insulted my nuts but my pecker too. I only have one by the way. Ok I'll let you apologize just give them some lip hugs and we'll make nicee nice. cum by yah.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 29, 2008 5:18 AM

MACBAKER


Quote:

Originally posted by Riverlove:
You gun-loving nuts are a bunch of psychotic bullies. I just have one question. Do you enjoy stroking your guns as much as your peckers?



Wow, that was a pathetic and stereotypical generalization! The old guns as phallic symbol argument. Sorry, I never stroke my guns. Like any tool, they are kept clean and functional, and stored properly, until they are needed. I don't love my guns, but I do see the need for self defense, and for those of us who won't just lay down and die, it's a practical responsibility to have such tools handy.

Nice try with the psychotic bully statement too, but when I entered Police Academy, I passed my psych evaluation. I wonder how you would do?

The only thing I stroke, is my wife. She's a gun owner and a crack shot too, so from your message, you must assume my wife and women like her have some sort of penis envy? LMAO!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:33 PM

RIVERLOVE


Quote:

Originally posted by MacBaker:
The only thing I stroke, is my wife. She's a gun owner and a crack shot too


Nothing better than the smell of gunpowder to turn some folks on. I guess you and crack-shot Annie come together whenever you shoot your guns off and make lots of noise.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:58 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Just ask the German Jews what a good idea it is to give up your right to bear, Riverlove. It's real easy to make fun of people who defend the right when most folk think it a trivial and quaint notion that isn't necessary in a civilized world.

I have a feeling that a lot of folks would change their tune if things ever turn though. This party may not last forever. Might not be living in a world much longer where soccer moms can take their kids to games where they don't keep score because everyone's a winner. Every other country in the world today is teaching their kids to be competitive and how important it is to win and be successful. We here are fat, lazy and incompetant and we're rewarded for that. If we do break from the mold and raise our head too high above the blob trying to pull us back down, we're likely to get our head chopped off.

China's buying up our seaports and airports. Since they'll have free and unfettered access here, forgive me if I want to be able to rely on myself for protection rather than a police force run by another government I dont' trust.

Keep telling yourself I'm crazy too. I've been telling everybody there was a housing bubble ready to burst long before anybody in the media coined the term. Everyone back then said I was crazy and that real estate is always the best investment. Funny what 10 years of good returns will make people forget. Most importantly, that the real average appreciation of home values has only risen .04% more than inflation since we've been keeping score. Untill the asshats at the Fed took our taxpayer dollars and bailed out the banks in the last few months, I was making 2% interest above the supposed Government figures for inflation. I think I'll stick to my plan.

When it comes to guns, well.... somebody is going to have to take them from us, and if the would be takers escelate it to that level, somebody is not going home that night to their family.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 30, 2008 12:02 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


So 'they' come not for you but your neighbor. Are you going to do anything about it ? Or 'they' come for you instead. Is your neighbor going to do anything about it ?

Just b/c a nut with a gun ends up in a stand-off with police doesn't mean everyone's going to rise up and throw off the evil government - even if it makes the news. That's the biggest issue I have with people who think that having a gun is going to change anything. Without the political will and smarts to get organized with other like-minded folk you got nada. Well, if you have enough bullets for you and your family you can at least guarantee 'they' won't take you alive.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 30, 2008 12:05 AM

PIRATECAT


Six you don't have to go back to the German Jews, or the civil rights movement, just look at the Katrina survivors for why you need the second amendment. My sister was even packin. I have an interesting dvd on the gun issue. Its called "In Search Of The Second Amendment". You can order it and burn copies free from the producer. They want you to do that for libraries and such. Here is the link http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com/

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 30, 2008 12:27 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
So 'they' come not for you but your neighbor. Are you going to do anything about it ? Or 'they' come for you instead. Is your neighbor going to do anything about it ?

Just b/c a nut with a gun ends up in a stand-off with police doesn't mean everyone's going to rise up and throw off the evil government - even if it makes the news. That's the biggest issue I have with people who think that having a gun is going to change anything. Without the political will and smarts to get organized with other like-minded folk you got nada. Well, if you have enough bullets for you and your family you can at least guarantee 'they' won't take you alive.



I don't entirely disagree with you Rue. Although I don't appreciate the "nut with a gun" sentiment. Most people who have guns aren't "nuts". Otherwise the question about are you going to do anything about it is a very valid one. To Fletch's chagrin I feel I must use the example of the "me" attitude everyone takes with the smoking issue. They're happy or don't care that smokers are being taxed into the poor house so long as their property taxes don't go up that year to afford the bloated Government Education and medical expenses. You're probably right. Most folk don't band together if it's not somehow benefiting #1.

Whereas you view this possibly as a reason we should be disarmed, I think it speaks even stronger for the reason that we should retain and protect the right. Should things ever change and our Government start taking an active role in entering our houses whenever they feel like it, they would be much less inclined to walk into a house or apartment with an NRA membership sticker on the door.

Basically, what I'm saying, is the likelyhood of that scenario is very slim in a country where the citizens are known to arm themselves.

At this point Rue, nobody is going to rise up and destroy the "evil Government" which controls us. Most folk still have it too good. Even with recession looming, there is still plenty of cake and circus to go around for the majority. Sure, you have your tax protesters that always lose because they are one of a very small minority (if a much larger minority like smokers can't win, how could the tax protestors, right?). If things ever got bad though, that's when people put down the American Idol, pizza and porn and start scheeming ways to band together and do what's right. It's cyclical in nature, and I know you're smart enough and have read enough history to know exactly what I'm saying here.

Let me ask you Rue, because I know this is one of the things that I beleive we agree strongly upon, given our mutual distaste for the way things have gone the last 8 years regarding civil rights violations and the dismantling of the Constitution in general. Do you really believe that there is zero possibility that we or our grandchildren someday may find themselves in a very similar situation that any citizenry who has been disarmed in the past inevitably found themselves in?

Why would you think that? I don't think you do. I think you realize as much as me that all the people at top care about is money and power, and the never-ending quest of obtaining more of both.

A nation of slaves we will be if we give this one thing up. No matter how much Lifetime would have you believe otherwise.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 30, 2008 12:40 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Yes PirateCat, I know that I don't have to go back to the German Jews or the civil rights movement. I'm also aware that I picked the most trite example too, but if Jewish Hollywood can come out with a holocaust movie every few years, I hope you all can forgive me for bringing it up here (at least I didn't mention Nazis, right?)

Katrina is a wonderful example of what I'm talking about and I know that you're aware that you could view any part of written history anywhere in the world and see many prime examples of this.

I will check out the link. I'm sometimes not as eloquent as I'd like to be and perhaps this is a document which can help people understand the importance of this issue. Being a gun owner or enthusiast does not make you a nut or a bad guy by default. I hate that many people have that misconcieved notion, but I do understand where they're coming from. What they don't get in their heads is that Columbine and Northern University are anomolies. The biggest culprit about it is the mass media exposure to it and the infamous celebrity status these d-bags get with 24 hour coverage days afterwards on the cable news networks. It just begs copycats, and there are crazy people who will copycat. As a bonus, it also scares the shit out of soccermom America, hence the reason we have to have conversations like this all in the first place when this basic human right seems so simple to those of us on this side that we don't understand much of the time why it even needs defending in the first place.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 30, 2008 12:53 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hey 6-ix

The reason I used the phrase 'nut with a gun ... in a stand-off with police' is b/c if it did make the news, that's how it would be played. The most one could hope for (as the helicopter camera high above zoomed in on the black-bagged bodies being trundled off to the ambulance) would be some kind of explanation - family problems, financial problems, emotional problems ...

I think most US people are too optimistic about too many US things. Look at Argentina for example - a well educated apparently prosperous country with a large middle class that dissolved - like cotton candy in the rain - into nothingness, literally overnight. And they don't see that freedom had been tunneled under and hollowed out until it's mostly an empty shell.

The scenario of them coming to take you would go like this - you are sleeping and they launch a fast-moving swat operation. Or you are at work and your boss calls you to his office where men in suits wait with cops at the ready. Or you are walking down the street and a car pulls up, you are punched, tasered, hustled into the car and the car drives off less than 5 seconds later. Or you are simply shot on the street. Or your family, should you have one, is kidnapped like they did in Iraq, to entice you to turn yourself in.

My answer would be to either organize politically or go elsewhere.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:22 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Wow Rue....

I don't disagree that getting involved politically is a very good course of action. But I disagree very strongly with your underestimation of a populace with gun ownership.

And whoo boy... as dark as that post was, Imma beginning to wonder if you're even more paranoid than me... though I won't disagree that that is definatly how it might go down, has gone down for people in the past and will continue to be how it will go down in the future.

But if we're going to agree that we've already entered 1984 culture, then I'm afraid that neither guns or politics are going to do us any good at this point.

The only hope for any of us is the off chance that the Rapture isn't just a fable in a book of tall tales.



"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:26 AM

PIRATECAT


Gun nut is one of many code words used by the far left. With the help of the media and anti-gun agenda by liberals its putting that in peoples brain. Other examples by neo libs Bush is hitler that is insulting because what hitler did by attacking everthing civilized, to bad we didn't have Bush back in the thirties. Neo cons are Nazis, homeless people really more like meth heads, unnaturalized citizens or just mexicans, you get it. Libs of the sixties new how important having the right to bear arms is. Real bullies nobody will stand up to but if you stand up today to defend yourself your the problem. I have always said this 90 percent sheep, 8 percent wolves, and only 2 percent sheep dogs. I wonder how many people don't want to have others think that they are bigoted. They then let their common sense leave them and become another victim. Good thread pc

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:29 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Organize ? HA!

And how would you propose that be done, eh ?

Since to do it, publicly, would result in conspiracy charges, not to mention endless surveillance, harrassment, and being flooded with agents provokateur - don't shine me, you KNOW this is a fuckin fact.

It's like I mentioned about the taser-proof windbreakers, the SMART thing is to make damn sure it never comes to that point if you can, and handing the crown jewels to a rabidly authoritarian surveillence-happy government, aided and abetted by corporations that sell you out without even a goddamn warrant or even a halfway decent reason just for a pat on the head while a puddle forms between their knocking knees at the mere asking from the Jackbooted goons...

And YES, call em fuckin Nazis, dammit, or better, the KGB..

Go on, translate Komityet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti you pissants.

What does it MEAN ?

Department of Homeland Security.

Isn't that NICE ?
And with the same powers, structure, and mission statement too, oh golly gee isn't that fucking FAMILIAR ?

AND run by the asshole who co-authored the "temporary" (ha, ha, ha, you stupid fucking suckers, I told you so!) USA PATRIOT Act well in advance of the events that proceeded it's acceptance...

Had it in hand and ready to go, in fact, with a personal history that connects him also to folks who almost without a doubt DID know in advance, and didn't bother to warn us, just sent film crews to record it happen, oh how very nice of them.

And of *course* those SWAT goons aren't afraid, thanks to collaborators, cowards and pissants, they've more or less won - you dickheads who wanna cower in fear of the fake boogeymen and hand over all of our rights outnumber folk with any sense or knowledge of history, and due to this fact it is only by pure damn rabidity that we merry few "nuts" have any hope in hell of hanging on to even the pretense of what is supposed to be a natural birthright.

And when time comes and you fucking sheep bleat and whine about how loyal you are as they drag you off to Grayling, or any of those fine, new facilities Haliburton and KBR just built, I am going to fucking laugh at you... cause you know, it's really the only comfort I have, watching you dicks sink first, since you've tied that boat anchors chain to MY ankles too.

Don't even for a split second forget how much I hate you for that, like sandpaper and salt in an open wound every time one of you ignorant, historically blind, pissant little cowards afraid of phoney boogeymen opens your mouth to whinge about how dangerous actually having rights and freedoms is.

I told you I had no intention to be nice, and I ain't gonna be - the ONLY way anything at all could even.. "theoretically" be organized in our CURRENT environment, thanks to dickheads who handed over our personal privacy FIRST, would be in secret and via means I plain won't discuss with collaborator scum, or where they are likely to hear about it, and go running like the whiny little tattletales they are to Big Daddy Gov.

Well, when Big Daddy Gov decides to extract the perverts price for that candy and pat on the head, don't expect any sympathy from this quarter.

IF those jackboots had actual reason to fear, if any officer of the law KNEW that he would be risking his life to make an arrest...

Do you really think they would waste time and effort enforcing nitpicks, or maybe, just maybe, they would actually make those arrests when the "crimes" in question are actually worth the fucking risk and trouble ?

Sooner or later, like other things mentioned, ordinary folk are going to start killing cops, people - ambush, poison, doesn't really matter how, public perception as a general rule, regardless of what comes out of folks mouths as the expected politically correct challenge and response, the fact is that the population has begun to see them as an active THREAT.

I won't go into details since the case is currently pending, but there's already been one outright attempt that left an officer wounded.

And the cops, once it becomes clear that this IS the case, and it's not isolated incidents anymore, are gonna get rabid about it and go begging for permission to get more brutal, and you all know damn well they'll get it, too.

And that cycle will spin faster.

Argentina ain't a half bad example at all, so who's gonna rescue US, eh ?

Nobody, by demonising, shunning and casting out the only folks amongst you with the historical knowledge and defiant will to possess weapons for the exact reason the Constitution protects their possession, you have already surrended both yourself and your countrymen.

To make it simple ?

IT'S TOO LATE.

Ain't a matter of if, you assholes, it's a matter of when, at this point, you got the knife in your fellow citizens backs nice and deep and bled em out before they really saw it coming.

Hope you're proud of that, cause some day it'll be all you got left.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:48 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


6-ix

"Imma beginning to wonder if you're even more paranoid than me... though I won't disagree that that is definitely how it might go down, has gone down for people in the past and will continue to be how it will go down in the future."

Well, that's how it went down in Chile, Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador ... and so on. They go for the editors and newspaper owners, priests and nuns, labor leaders, stewards (that's me) and members. At first they say they're corrupt, or seditious. Later they don't explain. These people just disappear without comment, and the neighbors - pretend to not notice. You have to also consider that many of these countries have high gun ownership rates. And. It. Didn't. Help.



FremD

"And how would you propose that (organize) be done, eh ?

Since to do it, publicly, would result in conspiracy charges, not to mention endless surveillance, harassment, and being flooded with agents provocateur - don't shine me, you KNOW this is a fuckin fact."

Well, I don't propose organizing with the intent of overthrowing the government b/c that would be sedition.

Yeah, it actually does take a lot of courage to go and protest or write a letter to the editor or your congressman(woman), knowing that you WILL end up on a list somewhere. If they can (and have) illegally traced the calls of 10% of ALL AMERICANS you know they are capable of and interested in doing everything.

***************************************************************
Anyone got any rapture juice ?

***************************************************************

I've been harping on this for quite a while and yet I can never seem to get it across. The US government - with the illegal help of most telecoms (there's a law specifically against telecoms doing this) - TRACED 10% OF ALL CALLS IN THE US.

"USA Today reported that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting call record information on millions of Americans. A person who declined to be identified by name or affiliation described it as the largest database ever made and went on to say that the agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's border."



I keep hoping people will stop and consider the magnitude of this.

This isn't the government 'sneaking and peeking' into a few homes. This is 2 TRILLION phone calls traced and put into a database. Not international calls, as Bush said. These were set up specifically to trace calls to and from citizens within the US starting in 2001 7 months BEFORE September 11, 2001 and extending through at least 2006. This massive program was developed, implemented and hidden by the administration without FISA and without congressional knowledge or approval.

"Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 30, 2008 3:34 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Just b/c a nut with a gun ends up in a stand-off with police doesn't mean everyone's going to rise up and throw off the evil government - even if it makes the news.



I think many of you give our Government way to much credit. There may come a day when the Homeland Security swat teams beak down your door in the night and arrest you, but that time is far in the future. Our Government is way to arrogant and incompetent to do that now. Long before they adopt this type of strategy you will see it coming because Waco type incidents will become much more common first. Our Government doesn't want to arrest you in the night, they want to make an example out of you in the media for all to see. I think once we start seeing more public displays of force by the Government there will be plenty of time to organize to stop it. I think abut 60% of the cops and 90% of the military would be on our side and turn against the Government if it comes to this. Never underestimate the incompetence of the Government, it leads to unwarranted paranoia and fear. I'm not saying it will never happen, but our Government's arrogance will make it obvious when it does.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 30, 2008 3:45 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


reposted from above

I've been harping on this for quite a while and yet I can never seem to get it across. The US government - with the illegal help of most telecoms (there's a law specifically against telecoms doing this) - TRACED 10% OF ALL CALLS IN THE US.

"USA Today reported that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting call record information on millions of Americans. A person who declined to be identified by name or affiliation described it as the largest database ever made and went on to say that the agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's border."



I keep hoping people will stop and consider the magnitude of this.

This isn't the government 'sneaking and peeking' into a few homes. This is 2 TRILLION phone calls traced and put into a database. Not international calls, as Bush said. These were set up specifically to trace calls to and from citizens within the US starting in 2001 7 months BEFORE September 11, 2001 and extending through at least 2006. This massive program was developed, implemented and hidden by the administration without FISA and without congressional knowledge or approval.

"Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered."


***************************************************************

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 30, 2008 6:14 AM

MACBAKER


Quote:

Nothing better than the smell of gunpowder to turn some folks on. I guess you and crack-shot Annie come together whenever you shoot your guns off and make lots of noise.


Wow, more knee jerk generalizations. Not sure where your fascination with guns and sex comes from, but it says more about you, than it does about me.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 30, 2008 6:21 AM

MACBAKER


Quote:

Originally posted by PirateCat:
Six you don't have to go back to the German Jews, or the civil rights movement, just look at the Katrina survivors for why you need the second amendment. My sister was even packin. I have an interesting dvd on the gun issue. Its called "In Search Of The Second Amendment". You can order it and burn copies free from the producer. They want you to do that for libraries and such. Here is the link http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com/

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".



Lets not forget the Watts riots in L.A., or similar riots and looting after the Rodney King verdict. A lot of liberal business owners learned a hard lesson. They expected the police to protect them and their businesses. The cops stayed away. Many of those very same business men, now own guns or employ armed private security, to insure it never happens again.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Biden Close To Dropping Out Due To Mental Incompetence
Tue, September 29, 2020 11:58 - 18 posts
Voter Fraud in Ilhan Omar’s District new Video Exposes Ballot Harvesting
Tue, September 29, 2020 11:55 - 18 posts
Some Covid-19 thoughts
Tue, September 29, 2020 11:04 - 1367 posts
"A psychopath": Psychologists call Trump the "most psychiatrically disordered president in history"
Tue, September 29, 2020 10:46 - 95 posts
Elections 2020
Tue, September 29, 2020 10:43 - 1242 posts
FACTS
Tue, September 29, 2020 10:40 - 258 posts
Where Did All Of The Voting Fraud Threads Go?
Tue, September 29, 2020 10:32 - 10 posts
A remarkable and nightmarish scene playing out in Portland should terrify anyone who cares about the US constitution
Tue, September 29, 2020 10:27 - 842 posts
Countdown Clock, Trumps Removal 'Starts'
Tue, September 29, 2020 09:54 - 442 posts
What happened to 'America first '
Tue, September 29, 2020 09:50 - 150 posts
Trumps thread of lies
Tue, September 29, 2020 09:38 - 97 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Tue, September 29, 2020 09:25 - 4089 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL