7
   

INTERESTING TV: WHAT IF IT GOES FRANKENSTEIN?

 
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 07:41 am
@George,
Quote:
The concept is that thay are those who usurp power n take over the country,
overthrowing the Constitution, and those who support them.

The victims of this political oppression are "us".


The funny thing is, the majority of "us" voted for Obama, and the majority of "us" approve of the job he is doing so far.

It seems like to me that the people with guns or more interested in overthrowing the Constitution then those of use who are happy to affect our government by voting.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 10:07 am
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
Kent State is where you had a mob of young people arm with rocks attacking
another group of young National Guard members who was not train in crowd control and who panic.
unfit for military service and carrying loaded weapons?

I think that it takes a special kind of stupidity
to throw rocks at men armed with guns. Maybe thay trusted
their victims to be too stupid to defend themselves, or to be forgiving enuf.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 10:13 am
@George,
George wrote:

Quote:
The concept is that thay are those who usurp power n take over the country,
overthrowing the Constitution, and those who support them.

The victims of this political oppression are "us".

I guess I wasn't clear enough. I was looking for your definition of "they"
("thay"). I realize that you are talking about those who usurp power.
But I want to define who that would be. Otherwise, the definition is kind of
circular, if you know what I mean. Obviously "us" would be the victims.
But who, exactly, is "us"?

We can't talk rationally about what should be done unless we have these
terms clearly defined.

I will therefore define "they" ("thay") as Obama and his cabinet.
I will define "us" as the rest of America.

What should be done if Obama attempts to end elections?
He should be impeached by "us" through our representatives.
It's quite simple.

Taking over the country requires brute force, or at least the threat thereof.
Hence, it is presumable that Obama woud not do it before he worked something out
with the Armed Forces, and maybe with the party in control of both houses of Congress,
all of whose members woud remain in office permanently.





`
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 10:14 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I think that it takes a special kind of stupidity
to throw rocks at men armed with guns. Maybe thay trusted
their victims to be too stupid to defend themselves, or to be forgiving enuf

We recently had a similar example in IRAN, post "election". You think the students at Kent State had a grievance that they felt strongly about?

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 11:03 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I think that it takes a special kind of stupidity
to throw rocks at men armed with guns. Maybe thay trusted
their victims to be too stupid to defend themselves, or to be forgiving enuf

We recently had a similar example in IRAN, post "election".
You think the students at Kent State had a grievance that they felt strongly about?



Thay disfavored personal exposure to the possibile inconveniences
and dangers of military service against the communists.
I am certain that thay experienced their respective passions
with varying degrees of intensity among the different students.
It may very well be the case that some of them ideologically favored the communists.

If people choose to rise in violent rebellion, as did the Founders of this Republic,
thay shoud be aware of the fact that thay r putting their lives
and their somatic well-being into jeopardy.

I am pretty sure that the rebellious Iranians knew that and willingly accepted it.

Theocratic brutality is not a big secret in Iran.


0 Replies
 
George
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 11:39 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Taking over the country requires brute force, or at least the threat thereof.
Hence, it is presumable that Obama woud not do it before he worked something out
with the Armed Forces, and maybe with the party in control of both houses of Congress,
all of whose members woud remain in office permanently

Aaah. Now we're getting somewhere. Thank you.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 11:40 am
@ebrown p,
David wrote:
Quote:
The concept is that thay are those who usurp power n take over the country,
overthrowing the Constitution, and those who support them.

The victims of this political oppression are "us".



ebrown p wrote:
Quote:

The funny thing is, the majority of "us" voted for Obama,
and the majority of "us" approve of the job he is doing so far.

I believe that u r in error, factually.
I 've seen very recent polls on TV news (ABC Network News)
showing that (if I remember acccurately) approval has dropped
so that those who "approve of the job he is doing so far" is less than a majority.




ebrown p wrote:
Quote:

It seems like to me that the people with guns or more interested
in overthrowing the Constitution then those of use who are happy
to affect our government by voting.

I must contradict u based upon my own knowledge of those of us
who favor freedom of possessing defensive emergency equipment.

The idea of overthrowing the Constitution, if proposed at an NRA meeting, woud be held in abhorence
and shock. The response woud be as tho it had been suggested that we all get leprosy.
Some of our meetings of smaller local gun freedom clubs always begin with
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and to the Republic for which it stands.

Your declaration of how it seems to u, is more indicative of your mental operations
than it is of objective fact in America.





David


ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 11:57 am
@OmSigDAVID,
This is my impression of most NRA members.

They say they love the Constitution, but they hate what is in it (except for the second amendment).

They hate that Obama was elected president (even though he was elected using a process outlined in the Constitution). They hate when people express free speech. They hate people who have divergent religious views (even though both of these are protected by the Constitution). They hate due process. They hate birthright citizenship. They hate the role of the Supreme court. They hate the income tax.

Sure, NRA members would jump up and down wailing and gnashing their teeth if you said "let's get rid of the Constitution"

But if you clamped down on free speech, deported immigrant children born in the US, did away with equal protection for minorities, outlawed certain religions, mandated prayer in schools and told Obama he couldn't be president even though he was elected... most NRA members would be perfectly happy.

The organization for people who truly love and defend the Constitution is the ACLU.

Question: What does the pledge of Allegiance have to do with the Constitution.



OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 01:47 pm
@ebrown p,
U appear to be a man of reason (which I admire)
hence, I will address your points seriatim:

ebrown p wrote:
Quote:
This is my impression of most NRA members.

Your impression is inconsistent with known fact
(known by me), as consistenty found to be the fact at meetings.
However, there r millions of people in the NRA;
I cannot speak for everyone. I have not met all of them.




ebrown p wrote:
Quote:

They say they love the Constitution, but they hate what is in it
(except for the second amendment).

That is false; not even remotely accurate.
I consider myself to be representative of NRA members,
in addition to friends of mine, to whom this thought is very alien.





ebrown p wrote:
Quote:
They hate that Obama was elected president
(even though he was elected using a process outlined in the Constitution).

We do find his election repugnant; yes.





ebrown p wrote:
Quote:
They hate when people express free speech.

I suppose that if someone said something horrible,
we might possibly hate that. I remember dating some chicks
who, over dinner at fine restaurants, expressed regret over the fall of communism.
I was a little taken aback, but said nothing and did not begin to "hate".


ebrown p wrote:
Quote:
They hate people who have divergent religious views
(even though both of these are protected by the Constitution).

The topic of religion has NEVER arisen at any gun freedom meeting
that I have ever attended nor even heard about.
We have enuf to discuss concerning freedom of gun possession and self defense.



ebrown p wrote:
Quote:
They hate due process.

WHAT ??




ebrown p wrote:
Quote:
They hate birthright citizenship.

This is something else that has never come up in any discussion
at any of our meetings that I know of; we have OUR OWN issues
that we actually CARE about. We have no need nor wish
to waste time discussing these irrelevancies.



ebrown p wrote:
Quote:
They hate the role of the Supreme court.

We hated its failure to enforce the Bill of Rights before last summer.
Since then, the USSC has been very popular with us.





ebrown p wrote:
Quote:
They hate the income tax.

We don't discuss taxation at our meetings
(that woud take forever)
neither the big ones nor the small, local ones.
I regard the income tax as loathsome,
especially its discriminatory application against those of us
who are financially successful. There is nothing in the 16th amendment
authorizing discriminatory taxation. Everyone shoud pay the same.





ebrown p wrote:
Quote:
Sure, NRA members would jump up and down wailing and gnashing
their teeth if you said "let's get rid of the Constitution"

We don' t wail nor gnash,
but anyone who suggested overthrow of the Constitution
woud very likely be physically thrown out of the meeting.



ebrown p wrote:
Quote:
But if you clamped down on free speech,
deported immigrant children born in the US,
did away with equal protection for minorities,
outlawed certain religions, mandated prayer in schools and told
Obama he couldn't be president even though he was elected...
most NRA members would be perfectly happy.

1. No; we favor free speech and we said so loudly against McCain
and his 4-way rape of the Constitution.

2. As to the indicated deportation: its OK with me.
I am extremely skeptical that the authors of the Constitution
intended that the progeny of illegal aliens who snuck in here
be entitled to citizenship. I strongly suspect that thay never thought of it
and for that reason, thay did not address it.
However, candor moves me to admit that this might be open
to differences of opinion. Reasonable minds might disagree.
As a group, supporters of freedom of gun possession have no position on this.

3. We have no position qua "equal protection for minorities".
I see no reason against it.

4. We have no position qua religion in any way whatsoever.
We are very aware that government has no more jurisdiction
to outlaw religions than it has to outlaw nor to influence gun possession by the citizens.
I am very aware that mandating prayer in schools, or ANYWHERE,
woud be an ineffable OUTRAGE in flagrant violation of the Constitution.





ebrown p wrote:
Quote:
The organization for people who truly love and defend the Constitution is the ACLU.

I have no opinion about that.
U have a right to yours.




ebrown p wrote:
Quote:

Question: What does the pledge of Allegiance have to do with the Constitution.

It is a pledge of allegiance to that which was created by the Constitution,
i.e. to the Republic that resulted from it.
The Constitution constitutes that republic
the way that water constitutes ice.




ebrown p
 
  3  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 04:16 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David, I have some homework for you...

When you go to your next NRA meeting, tell your NRA friends that you don't think that prayer belongs in school because the USA was never meant to be a Christian country.

Let's see how much they respect freedom of speech.

((please make sure you are well-armed when you try this experiment))
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 05:43 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
The Barret 107 has a neat muzzle break and a nifty recoil system that is tres cool. It has "day optics" with a nikor 10X 20 and several reticles for distance estimation (quarter and half stadia for checking distance). The muzz velocity is reportedly 1600M/sec(Thats about 4500 ft /sec). I was able to empty a clip into a standard 250 m target in less than a minute (a good sniper could do this in under 10 seconds), and I was mostly in the "eye of the bull" with a nice pattern for a first timer. The gun has a good spring back bipod and is very comfortable firing.
Its a bit pricey for the civilian model (what with all the googaws and checkering).

That sounds pretty good, for military purposes.
I 'm not a hunter; I guess u coud hunt very big game with that.







farmerman wrote:
Quote:

You make my point by concentrating on the Federalist papers.
Everything subsequent to our constitution and the Federalist Papers
has been "Improvised" not of a stricvt constructionist viewpoint.
Consequently, an un modified view of the second amendment is
really not what we should be embracing.

The Bill of Rights was added to clarify the antecedent body of the Constitution.




farmerman wrote:
Quote:

I like guns and use them as tools for hunting and protection.
I DO NOT endorse the universal availability of all kinds of weapons.

I 'm sorry to hear that, but whoever is sufficiently motivated
will equip himself with whatever ordnance he desires, legal or not, if he is sufficiently motivated.









farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Just because other kids were able to not kill themselves while
firing a MAC, doesnt , IMO, resolve the issue to openly provide
kids with opportunities to fore these things.

There are 1000s of ways for people of all ages to get accidentally killed.
Is there a particular reason
to make it the law that its OK to get accidentally killed by many 1000s of causes,
EXCEPT ONE: kids may not get killed from automatic weapons ??
If u dwell in such fear for their well-being, shoud u have it enacted into law
that thay may not ride in cars
(surely many multiples of kids have been killed by cars than by guns)
or indeed that thay must remain indoors until age 21, to protect them from getting killed by lightning ?







farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Ive always looked at auto weapons as a demonstration of lack of abilities in eye-hand coordination.

That is the engineering philosophy of shotguns also.
We have as much right to our beloved SMGs as we do to our shotguns and to our Bibles and our newspapers.
The 2nd Amendment simply deprives government of jurisdiction
to legislate concerning the portable armament of individual citizens.
Government has a better right to legislate as to what will be
your favorite color, than it does as to your weaponry,
because there is nothing explicitly in the Supreme Law of the Land
depriving it of jurisdiction to force u to have its designated favorite color.






farmerman wrote:
Quote:
You only need one well placed bullet at your target,
you dont need to engage in wreaking all sorts of collateral damage.

Not every American citizen is an Olympic class sharpshooter.
All sharpshooters were not created =,
but u do have the right to defend yourself and your property
with your portable weaponry of choice, be it shotgun, pistol,
revolver, or submachinegun.

If all homes in America were defended by 1 or more submachineguns or shotguns,
thay 'd thereby become deathtraps for burglars,
making severe inroads into that way of life and way of death.

The Founders woud have LOVED THAT; its very ROBUSTLY AMERICAN.





farmerman wrote:
Quote:
In Philly, and BAltimore, they had 5 murders each on one evening last weekend.

Most violence is recidivistic.
I wish I coud have requested the Founders to provide concurrent jurisdiction
to BANISH violent recidivists from the North American Continent.
In any case, thay can be permanently ISOLATED from the decent citizens. Thay shoud be.
Crime 'd be reduced to next to nothing (especially if u repeal the anti-drug laws).




farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Most of those hit were kids and civilians (not the cowardly gang members).
The shootings in Baltimore were accomplished by auto weapons.

Which automatic weapons?
Anyway, woud it have been significantly nicer if thay 'd thrown Molotov Coctails instead ??

Remember, people can MAKE fully automatic weapons, if thay wanna.
Thay have even done it in PRISON.
(Is that a testament to the human spirit ??)


David wrote:
Quote:
Its a choice between fundamentally different cultural mindsets:
one is Individualism, replete with freedom and very stingy
in granting authority to the collective or to its henchman, government.

farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Once again we part ways in our individual worldviews.

That can happen.


farmerman wrote:
Quote:
You see everyone as basically able to handle weapons,

With a little bit of training and some practice: YES,
unless there is something basicly rong with him.
Most individual weapons are ez to operate.
I have found submachineguns and automatic rifles to be user friendly.





farmerman wrote:
Quote:
or else you care not because you feel that, if confronted,
you can overcome them with your own skill with handguns.

Well, at least I can try; at least I have the equipment to TRY.
The 2nd Amendment does not warrant that u will win every gunfight.






farmerman wrote:
Quote:
I see a need for universal law and order as a compact between us
and our governments (state and fed and local)as enforced by their agents.

See if u can convince Reginal Denny of that compact.
I watched him being stomped in L.A. for almost an hour
on all 3 networks nationwide with no assistance forthcoming from their agents.
U can trust their agents if u wanna.




farmerman wrote:
Quote:
(Right now we have a terrible track record at accomplishing this
but I dont see the answer being greater gun availability to everyone)

Those of us who disagree with u have a constitutional right
to attend to our self preservation as we see fit,
within our guaranty of non-jurisdiction of government afforded by the Bill of Rights.
Its a matter of personal choice.





farmerman wrote:
Quote:
The four freedoms include a freedom from fear and I dont see a universally armed public
guaranteeing that . We start on the slope to chaos with your worldview.

A well armed populace was the extant state of affairs
everywhere in America mostly thru the first third of the 20th Century.
It did not include "chaos."
Note that there have never been any gun laws in Vermont.
It remains a haven of tranquility.
Several years ago, Alaska repealed all of its gun laws.
Serenity abounds in all directions.
When I was a kid in Arizona, just about everyone had guns: no trouble. NO "chaos".
Q.E.D.: a well armed populace can be a peacefully quiet polity.

Fears to the contrary are only imaginary.





David
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 05:50 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
The peace of the "scared of each other" standoff is not real peace.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 06:04 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
Quote:
David, I have some homework for you...

When you go to your next NRA meeting,
tell your NRA friends that you don't think that prayer belongs in school
because the USA was never meant to be a Christian country.

Let's see how much they respect freedom of speech.

((please make sure you are well-armed when you try this experiment))

Thay 'd tell me, CORRECTLY, that such discussions are not what
we are doing here, the same as if I were prosletizing for the Hare Krishna.
If I were a distraction, thay 'd just say "take that somewhere else."

Since u wish to discuss this, I will add that I remember being a kid in NY high schools
wherein I thought it was arrogant and presumptuous for someone at school assemblies
to read from the Bible, as a PRAYER representing US,
without consulting us to find out what we wish to pray for.

I publicly objected to other things, but I did not trouble myself with that.
I was fairly confident that God woud not pay much attention to them.

Judging from the results: I was right.



David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 06:05 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

The peace of the "scared of each other" standoff is not real peace.

The HELL its not.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 06:46 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
spendius wrote:


The peace of the "scared of each other" standoff is not real peace.

OmSigDavid wrote:

The HELL its not.


Have you ever been married?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 07:28 pm

No.
I 've let some chicks live with me.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 07:38 pm

I knew that if things ever got a little too tense,
I coud raise a finger and point toward the door.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 08:25 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I sense in you a disregard for the lives of others. AM I right Dave?
Besides guns and gluttony your pony doesnt seem to know many tricks.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 10:25 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
I sense in you a disregard for the lives of others. AM I right Dave?

For the most part: yes;
not entirely. I empathize once in a while.
I like it when people hit a big lottery shown on TV.
I have given my friends lavish presents when thay did not expect them.
I support hedonism. Sometimes I give a waitress $100.oo tips
for each glass of wine that she brings me, if she is pretty enuf.
About 20 years ago, I stood in the street in Midtown Manhattan
around lunchtime and distributed $100.oo bills to pretty chicks,
as thay walked by.



farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Besides guns and gluttony your pony doesnt seem to know many tricks.

For the most part, that is true; insightful.
I have travelled a lot, mostly to conventions.
There r some other interests most of which r listed in my profile,
artfully concealed behind "My Tags".





David
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 04:44 am
@OmSigDAVID,
You are trying too hard Dave to make yourself sound like the new Marquis de Sade. You are only succeeding in making yourself sound foolish.

Check out Frank Harris and see how it's done in style. Your's is the comic cuts version.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
CO gun-grabbers go down in flames in recall - Discussion by gungasnake
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2020 at 02:59:21