your freedom-hating lie
Where does this "freedom hating" jargon
come from from David & his ilk here? The NRA?
My words ofen come from ME
I am capable of being original
; it comes easily.
I 'm no plagiarist.
When next I see Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA,
I hope to remember to tell him to tune up nomenclature
and descriptive parlance for greater accuracy.
"Freedom-loving" or "freedom-hating" is not neologistic,
whereas the Repressionists are those folks who strive
to repress and subvert and violate our Natural Rights and our
Constitutional Rights to self defense, bearing lethal weapons.
And does anyone (apart from gun lobbyists) actually buy it?
Well, in the exercise of my democratic rights,
contact my political representatives and demand
of them that thay be active in ripping out any vestige of gun control,
however slight, exalting
"equal protection of the laws"
and the 2nd Amendment filosofy of defensive freedom.
As a citizen, I am
the Gun Freedom Lobby (part of it).
Everyone values the freedoms they have.
Thay don't value the freedom that OTHER
To be more specific,
the Repressionists don't value each citizen's rights of self defense
and the rights to keep and bear arms.
But tell me, weren't those people at the cinema
on Friday night also "freedom lovers",
Thay did not love their freedom enuf
to EXERCISE IT
by being properly armed in their own defense in public.
It is a fact that thay paid a high price for their negligence.
just out for an innocent evening's enjoyment?
Why should some disturbed person who legally bought arms & caused
12 deaths & such trauma impinge on them excercising their freedoms?
Because he is CRAZY
and malicious, a bad combination;
your question is like asking Y
a rabid dog shud bite u
a jellyfish shud sting u when u swim in the ocean.
What version of "freedom" is being argued for here by the gun lobbyists?
Apart from their own rights?
In America, government was created and given permission to exist,
on a few certain conditions, among them that a citizen 's possession
of guns will exist beyond the reach of government jurisdiction
the same way that government has no authority
to make u go to Church, if u don 't wanna go.
Get the idea ?
The American Revolution was begun by the Sons of Liberty n prosecuted at their behest.
The Founders knew that PERSONAL FREEDOM
and government jurisdiction are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL
What about the rights & freedoms those 12 students
and their teacher who were murdered at Columbine High School?
Freedom is not always cheap.
Thay failed to fight for it,
instead acquiescing to liberalism in going around un
When the time came to defend those "rights and freedoms"
of which u inquire from the predators, thay were un
We have testimony that the murderers went around blasting
some of the victims in the face, as the victims watched, helpless
because thay were un
-armed, in co-operation with liberalism.
The victims needed to manifest the spirit of the 4th of July,
When I was a kid in school, I was never un
I woud not have allowed someone to put the muzzle of a gun in my
( Admittedly, before age 8, I had only knives, no guns.)
What about Gabrielle Giffords's rights to talk to her
constituents & not be shot through the brain while doing so?
She and her people shud have been better armed
; u never know when u 'll need it.
When someone shot at me,
I certainly was not expecting it.
There are so many other examples of complete disregard
for other peoples' rights & freedoms which don't appear to register with the gun lobby at all.
Tell me: like what ?
Today, to try and get my head around this "freedom hating" thing I Googled
freedom haters & gun control
. This is one of the threads that I found.
It is called "Ammoland".
You can win give-aways like this on the site:
Sounds good; generous.
I don't mind paying
for my own guns, tho. I get what I want,
the same as when I go to a good restaurant.
This was the response to the Colorado killings from Ammoland:
Colorado -–(Ammoland.com)- My prayers, and the prayers of our staff and members,
go out to the families of the victims and those wounded in this attack.
Living in Colorado, this attack strikes close to home for me. I was sad this morning, but now I’m angry.
I’m angry that the theater bans law-abiding citizens from arming themselves for self-defense.
I’m angry that this deranged lunatic murdered men, women and children in a senseless act of violence.
And I’m outraged that already, not even twelve hours after the shooting, the gun control vultures are circling the victims.
This morning, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has taken to the airwaves to exploit the blood of innocents
to advance his radical anti-gun agenda.
Never one to let a “crisis go to waste,” Bloomberg is demanding both President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney publicly come out in favor of expanding gun control. While Colorado and the nation remain in a state of shock and grief, the Bloomberg political machine is callously exploiting this tragedy to churn out their anti-gun lies and rhetoric. ...
That is a very good letter, Olga.
Thank u for sharing it with us; very nice of u.
It is a very AMERICAN
letter. It is freedom-loving.
Freedom Haters Exploiting the Blood of Innocents:
What sort of response is that?
It is a very good, freedom-loving AMERICAN
its sentiments, with American pride
Prayers for the families of the victims.
Well, I thought that is a PRIVATE
matter between God and the author.
Anger at theatre bans that stopped "law abiding citizens from arming themselves".
If the theater did THAT
then it is exposed to litigation for negligence and wrongful death,
with the survivors as Plaintiffs and also the estates of decedents.
I hope that thay will do
Anger at the "deranged lunatic" who was able to perfectly legally acquire his weapons (& use them).
And mostly, anger at the "gun control vultures" who are trying to respond to this latest tragedy.
Yes; trying to rape
everyone out of his or her rights of self defense,
the vultures are in de facto
partnership with future violent predators
to render their victims easier and safer prey. That is a good
Gun control is O.S.H.A. for violent criminals,
protecting them on-the-job from the defenses of their victims.
Is it just me, or do folk of this ilk seem weirdly & alarmingly out of touch with reality?
Well, it is just u and the other supporters
of victim disarmament.
Why aren't they advocating responsible acquisition & use of guns?
I advocate that, Olga. I have for years, decades and centuries.
The victims shud have been sufficiently responsible to aquire defensive guns
and to USE
them in time of emergency.
I bet that thay coud have and woud have defeated his body armor.
His hands, feet and throat were exposed and even without
penetration of his armor, ammunition of sufficient power woud
knock him over backward, whereupon, thay coud all jump on him.
(Given that an all out ban on guns appears to be unrealistic at this point in time ... if at all. Who knows?)
Their "prayers" will not restore the lives of the victims, nor will they bring any comfort to those who
knew & loved them ... say nothing of removing the trauma experienced by those living in that community.
What is their contribution to making the US a safer place?
Well, it is the same as wearing seatbelts in cars:
u have the right to use your seatbelt, but u need to actually
engage the lock, and regarding such situations as THIS
u need to EXERCISE
your rights to self defense,
being properly armed with guns of sufficient power
feeble little 9mm automatics) with good
bullet configurations (like hollowpointed slugs).
advice is our contribution to making America a safer place.
To work toward fewer innocents losing their lives in this way?
Yes. We do that by promoting more pervasive defensive armament.
Olga, I just LOVE
how the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia expressed the idea, in 1846.
In 2008, the US Supreme Court approved
in D.C. v. HELLER
554 US 290; 128 S.Ct. 2783
and adopted its reasoning:
From Nunn v. State
, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846)
“The right of the whole people,
old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only,
to keep and bear arms of every description
and not such merely as are used by the militia,
shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon,
in the smallest degree
and all this for the important end to be attained:
the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia,
so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.
Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant
to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right
originally belonging to our forefathers,
trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked
sons and successors, re-established by the revolution
of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists,
and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”
[All emphasis has been lovingly added by David.]