By the way, couldn't the thread title be changed? After all, she hasn't actually been killed. Seems a bit unsuitable.
Printable View
By the way, couldn't the thread title be changed? After all, she hasn't actually been killed. Seems a bit unsuitable.
That is absolute BS. Have you ever read anything about the Founders, the Constitution, and the debates surrounding it's writing and ratifying, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalists Papers, correspondence between the founders, etc? I seriously doubt that you have because if you had you would not have said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
If the Founders were here today, they would be disgusted with the rights and freedoms we have allowed our government to take from us. They would be wondering why the people hadn't risen up to overthrow this oppressive government yet. To quote an original "right-wing nutter": "the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
Please note that I am NOT advocating any sort of violent revolution, just giving you my opinion on potential views of Founders based on what I have read of them.
I don't doubt they'd have issues with the freedoms that have been taken away especially in the name of freedom. But I very much doubt that the USA would cease to function tomorrow if all civilians had their guns taken away and the founding fathers would be intelligent enough to realise that.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
The fact that you've been ****ed out of so many of your freedoms even though people still have the right to bear arms show that guns themselves have little if nothing to do with keeping the government in check.
Would you, in the light of this, say that the founding fathers were right-wing?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
True, but the opposite may also be true. If the citzenry did not have guns, then it would have been much easier for governments to take freedoms. And the fact that we have not used the 2nd Amendment to check the government, does not mean that that is not the express reason it was placed in the Bill of Rights. It IS there, so if you want to take away responsible people's right to own a gun, then you need to start a movement to repeal it. Good luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
At any rate, isn't some common sense needed here? I'm sure that we can all agree that the majority of gun owners are responsible, right? We can also agree that criminals who want guns will get them, reguardless of any laws? And we all know that there are millions of guns out there, right? So what is outlawing all guns, or even making it "harder"to own a gun really going to do at this point? Maybe reduce the number of accidental deaths, but that may be easilly offset by the number of crimes that have been stopped by "good" guns? So honestly, what will "tougher" gun control laws going to REALISTICLY do?
Especially in this case, it sounds like this guy was unstable enough that he would have gotten a gun with or without a complete ban.
Whenever someone espouses the views of the Founders, thay are almost always called some sort of right wing nut job. Is that your question?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Ah come on Chuck, take a look at Australia or the UK. Two places where people don't commonly own guns aside from hunting weapons and they're no less free than you are. If what you were saying were true then the UK would be like the UK was in "V for Vendetta" and if you've been here you'll know it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
The topic of gun control in the US is a thorny issue though, if guns were to be outlawed tomorrow you know various nuts would travel out to their bunkers and would probably require Iwo Jima style flushing out..... It's not a simple issue but I think people need to be encouraged to hand in their guns and I think the types of new weapons which can be sold to people should be limited to bolt action rifles.
No. Quite clearly, my question is exactly as it was written.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Then you are asking, were they considered right wing in their time? Well right versus left is a fluid definition. They were classic liberals, so I suppose you could consider them left wing? But, as I said left/right are fluid so it's hard to pin down. That being said, my first use of "right-wing nutters" is using todays terms to describe them. So using that sort of definition, they were right wing as I said in my last response.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
You are not advocating violence, but you are accepting it! The philosophy that we are losing freedoms is what cause nut jobs like Jared to shoot up people. You control the government by voting. Its your fault for not being more active in your government democratically. Our founding fathers would be looking at Obama and wondering why he is not a slave. Face it, our country has evolved. Some say good, some say bad. But I always ask what freedoms have we lost to conservatives, they never can answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I believe in the rule of law until in infringes on my rights or the rights of others. Once that occurs the law is null and void.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
For example if the state was to create a law denying me the right to defend myself or others then that state has abdicated it's role as a legal entity.
In a democratic society the laws are at the whim of a mob. As long as it respects the rights of others then it is good. once it stops respecting that right then it is to be feared.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
All one has to do is look at Germany. It evolved from the Weinmar Republic(A parliamentary republic with free elections) into a Fascist State in 14 years.
In which case, you do not believe in the rule of law at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Weimar, not 'Weinmar'.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
As long as people are largely happy with their lives and are not having to deal with shortages of food and massive inflation then this sort of thing is unlikely to ever happen again.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
No...I believe in the rule of Law but that the rights of man supersedes themQuote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
All hail the SFB who has never committed a Typo ever!
How is the weather up their on the pedestal you imagine yourself on?
Good luck if you ever have to try and get any of this past a court as your defence.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
SFB? Do, pray, enlighten me.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
And 'up there' in this case.
WOW!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
You really don't get it do you?
Your soooooooooooo smart.....I am sure you can figure it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
No, please let me know. I'm literally dying to find out.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
You? No, I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
How do you not know that I am not "active in my government"? Quite the opposite is trrue as a matter of fact. Are you involved?Quote:
Originally Posted by OWFan19
You haven't lost freedoms to conservatives because they are trying to CONSERVE your freedoms.
Who says history has to repeat itself EXACTLY? And who says that food shortage and/or massive inflation will never happen again? I bet if you asked a German in, oh I don't know 1890 or so, they would have said that those thing would never happen there either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Which freedom have you lost?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Not wanting to start a whole nother thread, but how about the freedom to buy healh insurance or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by OWFan19
A point that is being overlooked in the history of the US is that through the 1800's and early 1900's just about every one west of the Mississippi had guns. The settlers hunted as the west was being settled as well as protection against often hostile Indians. Law enforcement was spotty to say the least and mostly confined to the towns.
Cowhands carried revolvers as much for killing injured livestock as any other reason.
So the history of guns in the US is deep rooted and not restricted to the founding of the nation.
Cdn. settlers and cowhands were also armed but tended to carry rifles rather than pistols.
Yet you kill the freedoms of gays having a legal union, as well as what people smoke. You have the freedom of not buying health insurance, you just might pay a 200 dollar a year tax for doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
All Germans having guns wouldn't have stopped it. May even had made it worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
BTW, all Iraqis under Saddam had a right to own guns (a custom the Americans allowed to continue in a restricted form after the invasion). Did they use them to protect or get democracy? No.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...ds-valdez.htmlQuote:
Republicans and Democrats - political friends and foes - came together to express compassion after Saturday's tragedy. If those involved could hold that level of civility, we'd all be better off.
When have I "killed the freedoms of gays to have a legal union"? When have I "killed the freedoms for people to smoke what they want"? Be careful with saying things like that. Some people don't necessarily fit stereotypes.Quote:
Originally Posted by OWFan19
Do you honestly think that paying $200 really means you are free? If you think that's freedom, I'm afraid you are sorely misguided.
Can you point to a single piece of such legislation over the course of the human history and the moment when it was abolished by conservatives/bigots/aliens/elfs or whoever else?Quote:
Originally Posted by OWFan19
It's interesting to note that:HoweverQuote:
House records indicate only a few assassination attempts against members of Congress: A duel between two House members in 1838, a brutal fistfight over slavery between two House members and a senator in 1856, an attack by Puerto Rican nationalists on Congress in 1954 and the ambush of a California congressman in 1978 while he was on an investigative trip to Guyana.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...rhetoric_N.htmQuote:
The FBI reports that death threats to members of Congress tripled in the second half of 2010, mostly tied to the issue of health care.
You may not personally have done so, but such freedoms were long denied, or are denied still. Clearly, one person's freedom is another person's criminal offence.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
There is no law in the US that denies a gay couple from entering into a union.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
There are rules that prevent them from obtaining certain specific, government issued, licenses just like there are a myriad of restrictions concerning licensing and permits.
yea one thing I like about it is the fact now two guys can say they are gay and join the country club as a family. This makes the cost half - good value for avid golfers.
Is that how you obtained your membership? :D
On a slightly different note;
I find this groups use of their 1st Amendment right rather disgusting!
Kind of old news, but did you read about this?
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/val...rch_to_pro.php
make sure you click on the link that I have listed below. (you may have to access it from the first link)
http://www.godhatesfags.com.
What a bunch of Freak-o's :confused:
That group deserves its own thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz
Do not corrupt this one with that topic, although-- news last night reported as an addendum during the shooting coverage that a new Arizona law will not allow protesters within three hundred feet of a funeral.
I have little doubt that there is probably an extra nasty part of hell for that congregation.