snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2006 11:27 am
Slimy, terorist-appeasing frogs.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2006 11:47 am
http://www.drudgereport.com/npw.jpg

Who needs guns when we have whips?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2006 11:54 am
What do you think is going to happen when (oops) IF Pelosi becomes speaker, cjhsa?

I mean, what is it that is so distressing about the prospect?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2006 12:13 pm
"With anti-gun extremists Nancy Pelosi poised to become Speaker of the House, and John Conyers chairman of the important House Judiciary Committee, the threat to gun owners' rights could not be more real in this congressional election..."

This is an NRA-ILA quote, but they took the words out of my mouth.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2006 12:15 pm
cjhsa wrote:
"With anti-gun extremists Nancy Pelosi poised to become Speaker of the House, and John Conyers chairman of the important House Judiciary Committee, the threat to gun owners' rights could not be more real in this congressional election..."

This is an NRA-ILA quote, but they took the words out of my mouth.


This is highly unlikely--designed to scare the likes of you into coughing up more $$$ to the NRA--but how nice if true!
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2006 12:17 pm
Another of Pelosi's anti-gun cronies. A guy who obviously got punched in the nose as a kid for being a dufass, and he still is a dufass.

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/henry_waxman.jpg
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2006 12:20 pm
When I left California a year ago, exactly 12 San Franciscans had concealed carry permits. Twelve.

One of them is Diane Feinstein.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2006 12:21 pm
Ok, what's your point?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2006 12:22 pm
cjhsa, with all due respect, you're a one-man argument for voting Democrat next month!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2006 12:45 pm
oralloy wrote:
blatham wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Quote:
but an armed populace is one essential component without which freedom is impossible.


This isn't an empirical claim. It is a philosophical view or, more accurately, a definitional statement - if a population cannot own firearms then it is not free, period, by definition. No arguing with that.

But only a fool, or a species of American NRA member, would go on to claim that Britain or Australia or the numerous jurisdictions where gun ownership is more controlled and less pervasive than is the case in the US are all therefore less free than America.


Well then label me as a species of NRA member, because I am appalled by the lack of freedom in those two countries.



blatham wrote:
It's really difficult to understand how this old equation makes any sense in the modern world. Citzenry can not hope to even approach a balance of firepower with the state, the presumed danger. Ought you not to demand the right to carry/own cluster bombs and pocket nukes?


It isn't about fighting off the government. The Framers of the Constitution wanted the militia to prevent tyranny by fighting FOR the government.

The Framers felt that, by fighting for the government, the militia would eliminate the need for a standing army. And they felt that without a standing army, tyranny would be impossible.


For most of those who acquire firearms to fight danger today, the presumed danger is the common criminal and/or wild animals.

Many don't acquire guns with danger in mind at all. For instance, I hope to one day get a submachinegun solely for the purpose of shooting tin cans and other inanimate targets.


You'd better inform the folks of Britain and Australia. Apparently, they consider themselves to be quite free. Of course, we all may misperceive such matters. Which brings us to the notion of what might appall them about America and the ways in which Americans are not free which they have no inkling of. Are you prepared to direct your thoughts down that path?

Thank you for the correction re standing army/militia (I knew that once). But you have a standing army and a military industrial complex that will not allow any other eventuality than active militarization. So how does the original idea apply?

I can understand the attraction of weapons. But necessary in the senses you suggest? That is a uniquely American notion. And it ain't all Americans who believe it so.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2006 01:15 pm
Yes, necessary. If you don't believe me read this:

Football Dad Pulls Gun

How else are you gonna get junior some playing time?
0 Replies
 
Madison32
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2006 11:03 pm
October 03, 2003
Friday


There should be a law against it
David Carr (London) Self defence & security • UK affairs
(0)
The time has come for the government to take firm action.

Yesterday:


A shopkeeper who was shot dead in a robbery stepped in front of her killers to save her daughter, said her husband.

Thieves killed Marion Bates, 64, in front of her daughter Xanthe in an attack at their family-run jewellery store in Arnold, Nottingham, on Tuesday.


Today:


A man has died and another has been injured after a drive-by shooting in Hertfordshire.

Police say the two men came under fire - possibly from an automatic weapon - outside the Physical Limit Health and Fitness Club in Brewery Road gym in Hoddesdon.


This must never be allowed to happen again. How many more lives are going to be sacrificed to the cowboy, wild-west gun culture that has gripped this country? How many more families are going to be destroyed? When is this government going to do something to make our streets safe again?

We must get guns out of private hands. All handguns and automatic weapons must be banned completely. We must have strict laws against possessing these kind of deadly weapons backed up by draconian sentences. If it saves even one life its worth it.

Enough is enough. Britain needs gun control now!

Update: I have just been advised by my eagle-eyed team of researchers that, in fact, Britain has the strictest anti-gun laws in the developed world and that handguns and automatic weapons were banned years ago! I told them that this cannot possibly be true but they assure me that it is. Well, back to the drawing-board to find a new campaign. Any suggestions?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Oct, 2006 11:16 pm
I believe in keeping significant firepower around, but that's not how I'd suggest preparing for Nancy Piglosi as speaker of the house.

What I'd suggest for that or for another de-moKKKer-rat presidency any time soon would be:

  • A 90 day supply of Cipro for every family member and/or pet.
  • A bomb shelter.
  • A flock of chickens for food.
  • A collection of sticks to rub together to make fire.
  • A tube of lipstick (with which to kiss your hiney goodbye).
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 03:53 am
oralloy said:
Quote:
Well then label me as a species of NRA member, because I am appalled by the lack of freedom in those two countries.


To the point in question...
Quote:
U.S. Rank on Press Freedom Slides Lower

By Nora Boustany
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, October 24, 2006; Page A15

Northern European countries top the index, with no reported censorship, threats, intimidation or physical reprisals, either by officials or the public, in Finland, Ireland, Iceland and the Netherlands. All of those countries were ranked in first place....

Although it ranked 17th on the first list, published in 2002, the United States now stands at 53, having fallen nine places since last year.

"Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism,' " the group said.

"The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 U.S. states, refuse to recognize the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism," the group said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301148.html
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 05:12 am
blatham wrote:


To the point in question...
Quote:
U.S. Rank on Press Freedom Slides Lower....



You're kidding; lower than what???

What other country besides the US would let a renegade press commit treason on a daily basis unmolested the way our government does?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 05:39 am
Don't read. Avoid thinking. Shoot guns.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 05:42 am
Dartagnan wrote:
cjhsa, with all due respect, you're a one-man argument for voting Democrat next month!


Really? If you're a law abiding citizen, which I hope you are, the Patriot Act has done nothing to squelch your freedoms. Now, as a law abiding citizen who owns guns, a priviledge protected by the second amendment, and I hear the Democrats constantly telling me how guns must be removed from private ownership... well, I don't follow your logic at all.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 06:00 am
blacksmithn wrote:
Maybe they're content not having 30,000 needless deaths a year, those freedom-hating bastards.


Being content with "not having a lot of deaths" has nothing to do with the question of whether they desire freedom.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 06:01 am
snood wrote:
What do you think is going to happen when (oops) IF Pelosi becomes speaker, cjhsa?

I mean, what is it that is so distressing about the prospect?



I can tell you what I think will happen: another unconstitutional ban on semi-automatic versions of military weapons.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 06:01 am
Dartagnan wrote:
cjhsa, with all due respect, you're a one-man argument for voting Democrat next month!



All he is doing is supporting our Second Amendment. How is that an argument for voting for the party that likes to violate our Second Amendment?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/03/2024 at 09:20:43