Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & World News' started by stinkyboy, Sep 26, 2005.
Please register to disable this ad.
So what, N8 jr.?
This should add a million or so to her book deal I am sure.
it is so sad that this woman who started out so right, has been used and abused.
Yea, it's great that an American mother who lost her son in a bullsh*t war was arrested for protesting the war.
Nice to know that the 1st ammendment is alive and well in our nations capital...
They sat down knowing that is what would get them arrested. If they would of just kept marching they would have been fine.
But just marching wasnt getting enough press, so getting arrested became the goal. Like I said before, it is so sad that such a good person that was being very effective with her message is now listening to people with their own agenda.
Right up there with the 2nd Amendment...
dood you actually think she has/had a legitimate message and isn't a complete wack job?
Hey, it's a pissing-on-amendment party. Two down, why stop now? Let's just toss them all. Yay Patriot Act!!!
(Are you suggesting, that because the 2nd amendment is "under attack" that it's OKAY that the 1st is also?)
are you actually admitting that there is an agenda to weaken or completely destroy the 2nd amendment? cough, cough, hand gun inc. etc...
That would be terrible. How else would I defend my home from the redcoats coming into my house and stealing my tea?
be sarcastic and laugh now...some day you will regret it
The only thing funny is all the rednecks I grew up around thinking the 2nd amendment is threatened when people get concerned about the large number of unlicensed hand guns and ak47s and try to do something about it.
Where the hell do you *think* you live? You a gangsta?
Of all the problems you will be faced with in your life, the gubbamint trying to take your firearms will certainly not be one of the greatest you face.
Meet my friends
Your 'you just wait hippy' internet toughness bs crap will be welcomed with open arms.
did i call you out?
did i say i want to take you on?
i am merely stating my perspective of where are benevolent gvt is taking us, and yes i already know about, and frequent that site, thanks just the same.
why exactly should YOU trust at GVT that doesnt trust YOU to arm yourself?
history is replete with gvts that INSISTED their populace be without arms...
In all fairness maybe I read a little too much into "you will regret it".
You get so angry sometimes, maybe this isn't one of those times though.
So explain to me why one day I'll regret it if for some reason, it's illegal for me to own a firearm.......which I honestly beleive will never happen........and I even live in the people's republic of california mind you.
I fear a gubbamint that wants to know what I'm checking out of the library much more so than one that wants gun control.........which this one obviously doesn't with the repeal of the assault weapons ban....which threatened my ownership of an ak 47.........which I need soooo badly.........to protect my tea.
When it comes down to it, the 2nd amendment is the one that insures the rest will stay in place.
Got an example of this? I know it's on a lot of t-shirts and bumper stickers so it must be true but can you give me an example......say........since 1900?
Quite the contrary in my mind. Lots of folks still have the right to bear arms yet the patriot act still passed. Should I go shoot all the folks in congress who voted for the bill that this thing was piggybacked onto? Cuz I'd really like to do that.
David Koresh, Randy Weaver....
Ok, maybe those are bad examples
Well sure, but the fact that I can curl up with my AK at night makes me feel better about the fact that the Feds can now videotape me doing it without my knowledge...
Look up the Indian Arms Act of 1878
All I could find was the indian arms act of 1959.......which was a licensing thing.
Are you talking about this?
A treaty of 26 December 1878 between Great Britain and Portugal had laid down that the armed forces of the two Governments should not enter the Indian dominions of the other
The relevence to our modern american world and personal gun ownership is astounding.
So you can't come up with anything since radio and television have existed?
The premise of the act in 1878 was to remove all arms from the Indian population, specifically so that they could not rebel against the British. Do you think Hitler allowed the Polish or the French citizenship to have weapons?
The point being is that they had a need to rise up against their government, and the government did it's best to prevent this. Out founding fathers just insured that if(when) the time arises for us to rise up again, that we will have the means to do so.
If you want something more relevant to our current society, think about all the recent maniacs shooting up schools and offices. Schools and office buildings have one thing in common, guns are not allowed. As such, that is where the manicacs go to kill lots of people. I mean when is the last time you heard of an NRA convention or gun show massacre?
If you want to know the reason the 2nd amendment was added just read some quotes on the subject by our founding fathers.
In this day and age, do you really think an armed citizenry could stand up to the combined Federal, State, and Local military and police forces in the US?
It's actually kind of a shame what has happend to Cindy Sheehan. I think if she had simply stated her case and not allowed herself to be courted by the wack-job faction she would not be coming across as the shrill moronic harpie that she has turned herself into.
.....and yes, you do have the right to free speech. You do not however have a right to break laws.
Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests. One man climbed over the White House fence and was quickly subdued by Secret Service agents.
About 50 people were arrested in the first hour, with dozens of others waiting to be taken away. All cooperated with police.
Sgt. Scott Fear, spokesman for the U.S. Park Police, said they would be charged with demonstrating without a permit, which is a misdemeanor.
Park Police Sgt. L.J. McNally said Sheehan and the others would be taken to a processing center where they would be fingerprinted and photographed, then given a ticket and released. The process would take several hours, he said.
......Kind of like arresting peaceful war protesters. They should have shot at the cops?
But don't you see the argument for gun control in that statement? The fewer there are around in general available to the "maniacs", the less likely this scenario. I see your point but it's kind of weak....those in charge of security should be the ONLY ones even considered legal to carry the things.....or so the argument goes. Personally, I've been around guns for a lot of my life. But not ONCE have I ever seen them used to defend the constitution by common, non-governmental folk.....which is what you said that started this. I personally would rather see a ban on stupidity because I think it would go a lot further than gun control.
There was a guy who owns a convenience store here who shot a 16 year old in the back for stealing a 6-pack. It made national news, I'll find it for you if you want. Then there's silver's koresh-types. So yes I think guns should be hard to come by because they are misused far more than they are used to defend you constitution by you or your neighbors.
There was a guy who shot his buddy's leg at a gun show in Jacksonville, Florida when I was in high school there.
I wasn't kidding about defending my tea from the redcoats.
In my mind you still haven't presented me with a relevant argument. Whatever goes on this country does so under a scrutiny of media, international and otherwise that hasn't existed until fairly recently.
I've got nothing against ownership of guns but there is a fine balance between interpretation of "the right to bear arms" and letting any jackass in montana or texas get his hands on assault weapons.....which have yet to provide any defense of civil liberties on a domestic scale.
What it really boils down to in my mind is just some macho image of one's right to have a very powerful weapon in their possession and justifying it by whatever means you can. People use a powerful icon like the constitution to do it, just like people readily grab hitler's name whenever they want to make a point.
Well I don't think it would be divided in such a manner, but I do think that one day (hopefully not anytime soon) that it will happen.
Say for example it came down to Local + State vs. Federal.... do you think the arms provided by citizenry would constitute a significant fraction of that state and local force? Manpower yes, I agree... arms, well I'd like to see some stats.
Now that is a WAY different situation.
The only thing a ban on guns would do is keep them out of the hands of honest citizens. Criminals would still seek them out. It's not like the ban on drugs did anything but drive up prices, because it certainly isn't hard to get them if you want them.
You could say the same thing about cars. They can be just as dangerous. In fact I bet if you look up the murders involving cars, vs those involving guns I bet automobiles would come out WAY ahead.
My point being that not only have we had to before, but eventually we will have to again. That is why this protection is afforded in the basic tenents of our government. While we may live in a totally different world now, it doesn't change anything. Injustice will always be present, and when people have had enough they will rise up, no matter if theere are cameras around or not.
Maybe so, but that isn't a good enough reson to disallow honest citizens the protections afforded them byt the founders of our country.
While I agree that Godwin's law is imposed all too readily in internet debates, in this situation Hitler's views on gun control are wholly apporpriate to this discussion.
While a head to head conflict between citizen militias and local law enforcement could do very little against the whole of our military. Look at what has been happening in Iraq, the insurgency there is a valuable lesson in geurilla warfare.
Let me know when that happens. Until then, I'll still get a little squirmy from most of the people I see defending gun rights. I don't personally think you're one of the wacko contingents but your stance helps put them in the position to get firearms. I'm not advocating banning guns, but I do think they're way too easy to come by these days......that's all. Oh, and I don't think a bunch of non-trained militia folk could hold off the federal gubbamint if they made up their mind to enforce something.....like stealing my tea while I tried to defend it with my musket.
Your analogy with cars is a little whacked though.....their existence wasn't born out of a need to hurt people....guns were. Cars are for transportation, guns are either for killing people or for threatening such.
Although you might find this funny......I did. I've got a friend in Alaska who was giving me some advice on stuff to check out for a bike tour I'm thinking about doing. I mentioned to her I'd like to get a pistol while I was up there and wondered what that entailed. She said, no biggie fill out an application.....then she stopped and said.."oh wait, you're a california resident right?.....you can't buy a gun here." Apparently that's a problem up there.