The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

@Walter Hinteler,

Good research, Walter.

And even if he said it...who says it is correct.

It does sound nice, I'll give you that.

@BillRM,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5258658)
When you wittiness the majority of the owners and the controllers of the mass media in the US coming together to campaign to disarm the American people with all kinds of emotional propagandas it raised justifiable concerns and is more the enough reason to counter such nonsense on the one media that is not control by a few people.

As for guns nuts I give your President Jefferson.

Quote:
Quote:
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html#VMo3Lj8fegCRB2wJ.99

I understand where you are coming from, Bill. I hope you understand why I no longer disagree with the people who used to describe you folk as "unreasonable nut cases."

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Not under the constitution where it take a super majority to take any constitutional rights away and second by the very nature of the argument you do not have the majority of the arms citizens on your side if it come down to the government not obeying the constitution.

You aren't proposing using the Constitution. You are proposing armed rebellion against a government that you feel has wronged you but the majority doesn't feel that way.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html#VMo3Lj8fegCRB2wJ.99

Earliest known appearance in print: 1914 (in: John Basil Barnhill, Barnhill-Tichenor Debate on Socialism, As It Appeared in the National Rip-Saw. Saint Louis, Mo.: The National Rip-Saw Pub. Co., 1914, 34.)

Earliest known appearance in print, attributed to Thomas Jefferson: 1994 (Gyeorgos Ceres Hatonn, It's All in the Game: Butterflies, Mind Control--The Razor's Edge (Phoenix Source Distributors, 1994), 214.)

Read more at: Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia

Anyway, words are cheap.

Quote:

Although Jefferson was one of the wealthiest slave owners in Virginia on paper during 1788-1789, owning more than 200 slaves, his Monticello estate value was considerably weighted by his debts and liabilities. Jefferson formally freed only two slaves during his lifetime, older brothers of Sally Hemings, in 1793 and in 1794. His friend Tadeusz Kościuszko entrusted Jefferson with his American estate and will in 1798, by which Kościuszko intended slaves to be purchased and freed, as he strongly supported abolitionism. Kościuszko died in 1817, but Jefferson never executed his will, although he could have freed all his own slaves with the money, at no cost to himself. After a few years, he passed on the executorship to a friend, who also refrained from acting. Finally, in 1852, the US Supreme Court ruled that the estate should go to heirs in Poland.

Jefferson allowed two of his "natural" Hemings children to "escape" rather than freeing them; the other two were freed through his will after his death. The Sally Hemings children were the only family to gain freedom from Monticello. In his will, he freed three other male slaves, all older men who had worked for him for decades. After his death, his daughter Martha Randolph gave Sally Hemings and Wormley Hughes "their time," an informal freedom. In 1827 the remaining 130 slaves at Monticello were sold to pay the debts of Jefferson's estate. Groundbreaking exhibits ran in 2012 on Jefferson and his slaves: Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: The Paradox of Liberty at the National Museum of American History in Washington, DC, and Landscape of Slavery: Mulberry Row at Monticello, an outdoor installation at Monticello.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I understand where you are coming from, Bill. I hope you understand why I no longer disagree with the people who used to describe you folk as "unreasonable nut cases."

Funny as being unreasonable seems to be the mark of the anti gun nuts not the pro gun nuts.......LOL

Trying to make a case for banning one type of rifle that is no more deadly then the majority of all rifles and where out of a population of 300 millions all rifles together only are involved in 300 hundreds or so deaths a year.

Sound damn unreasonable to me my friend even if it sound reasonable to you.

Then we have this drive to disarmed the American people at the same time as the US murder rate is at a fifty year low that sound damn unreasonable to me.

Then the position that by the anti gun nuts that schools and such should not have added security if that security involved arms guards sound unreasonable to me.

Let look up the word unreasonable.

Quote:

Definition of UNREASONABLE

1
a : not governed by or acting according to reason <unreasonable people>
b : not conformable to reason : absurd <unreasonable beliefs>
2
: exceeding the bounds of reason or moderation <working under unreasonable pressure>
— un·rea·son·able·ness noun
— un·rea·son·ably adverb

Seems off hand I am the heart of being reasonable and those who wish to wave a magic wand and by doing so disarmed the American people are the unreasonable ones.

Or actions short of that as banning one type of rifle that is no more deadly then most other types of rifles.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

So this is where the proclivity to double talk/hypocrisy that is so commonplace in US society came from. It's been passed down from the Founding Fathers. Smile

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

You aren't proposing using the Constitution. You are proposing armed rebellion against a government that you feel has wronged you but the majority doesn't feel that way.

LOL there was no polls in 1776 however the odds are that the majority was not in complete favor of breaking away from England either and in fact in the Southern states the fighting resemble a civil war more then a rebellion.

Once more the constitution offer protections to the minorities and that protections is worth fighting for even if 51 percent or so disagree and try to override the constitution by unconstitutional means to removed those protections.

You need a super majority to change the constitution, the very constitution that all who hold positions of power under it from the president on down had sworn to uphold.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

the very constitution that all who hold positions of power under it from the president on down had sworn to uphold.

Yeah, Bill, I'm still trying to find the part of this noble document that describes how it's lawful and just to murder millions of innocents and steal their wealth. Could you point me to that section?

0 Replies

'Democrat'

Our founding fathers - to a man - lothed and abhorred direct democracy. Hey, that's why we have a "Republic" in the United States today. A Republic designed by men - apparently smarter than we - as a 'firebreak' to protect us all - from the tyranny of the majority.

In fact "... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses." (Joseph Ellis - "Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation").

Not only was the word "democrat" a pejorative - it was "fighting words". Inferring that someone might be a democrat could just as likely result in a duel as mere scornful invective.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Hey, squirt, study some Greek history. You "might" learn some thing about democracies.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicegirl, study the word 'democrat' and how it pertains to American history.
You just might learn something about what's going on in Washington today.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Not only was the word "democrat" a pejorative - it was "fighting words". Inferring that someone might be a democrat could just as likely result in a duel as mere scornful invective.

A good example of the typical rule of law to be found in the US, Peeman.

Where did you plagiarize this text from?

1 Reply

@JTT,

cumboy, are you unable to do your own research?
Do you require federal assistance?

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Why, you're just like Frank Apisa, Peeman.

Once more.

Where did you plagiarize that info from?

Maybe [deep sarcasm] you don't understand the meaning.

MW:
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

It does sound nice, I'll give you that.

You've been bathed your entire existence in warm and fuzzy propaganda, Frank.

So much so that you have a very tenuous grasp on reality.

1 Reply

@JTT,

cumboy, you and FrankA are peas in a pod

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Even if H2O doesn't like equality and freedom (which are the main characteristics of democracy), the USA still is considered as a "Full democratic country":

Source:EIU’s ‘Democracy Index 2011: Democracy under stress’ Report
The next level is "Flawed democracies", then "Hybrid regimes", and "Authoritarian regimes".

3 Replies

Wow...JTT INSULTS me by suggesting I am like H2O...

...and then H2O INSULTS me by suggesting I am like JTT.

What's up with that?

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5258684)
Quote:
It does sound nice, I'll give you that.

You've been bathed your entire existence in warm and fuzzy propaganda, Frank.

So much so that you have a very tenuous grasp on reality.

You are allowing your obsession with me to make you irrational.

Try to get yourself under control.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

From Wiki,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

0 Replies

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know