PDA

View Full Version : Dislike of protests



avatar4321
04-18-2007, 05:17 PM
I finally figured out why I dont like protesting. I thought it was just because i didnt see much getting done through it, but there is more to it. I dont like protesting because its not uplifting. its not edifying. There is nothing inspiring about it. Its just an angry mob getting together and trying to intimidate someone.

Gaffer
04-18-2007, 08:12 PM
Your dead on with that statement.

Samantha
04-18-2007, 08:22 PM
What if the government decides to take away your gun rights? Will you like the protest against that?

LiberalNation
04-18-2007, 08:29 PM
I've never been in a protest but I'm sure they'd be okay. Looks like fun especially the rowdy ones. A riot would be fun too I’d think unless you got hurt, all that human energy in one place. The mob, it’s own thing and acting on it's own will now not just the individual people.

Samantha
04-18-2007, 08:34 PM
Dissent is patriotic.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/dissent2.jpg

Hobbit
04-18-2007, 08:35 PM
What if the government decides to take away your gun rights? Will you like the protest against that?

What would result from the government revoking gun rights would not be a protest. It would be what some people would call a rebellion and what other people would call a war.

Gaffer
04-18-2007, 09:08 PM
yep, because taking away the guns would be the first step to tyrany. It wouldn't be a street full of people with signs and cussing on loud speakers. It would be armed rebellion.

Hobbit
04-19-2007, 12:04 AM
See, when gun nuts take up a cause, it gets interesting a LOT faster than some lousy protest. :P

Samantha
04-19-2007, 01:26 AM
OK, would you like protests if the government raised taxes?

How about if they called a draft and your son or your brother was called up?

What if the government decided your neighborhood is an eminant domain target?

Would you join a protest if your pet dog was being killed by the police to stop some disease from spreading? This happened in China recently. 50,000 pet dogs killed because 3 people died of rabies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14139027/

Would you protest against any of these things?

Roomy
04-19-2007, 01:30 AM
Seriously.............you would take to the streets with your guns and kill other Americans rather than give up your weapons?

Hobbit
04-19-2007, 01:33 AM
Seriously.............you would take to the streets with your guns and kill other Americans rather than give up your weapons?

Yes

Samantha
04-19-2007, 01:33 AM
Seriously.............you would take to the streets with your guns and kill other Americans rather than give up your weapons?

Good question.

Hobbit
04-19-2007, 01:33 AM
OK, would you like protests if the government raised taxes?

How about if they called a draft and your son or your brother was called up?

What if the government decided your neighborhood is an eminant domain target?

Would you join a protest if your pet dog was being killed by the police to stop some disease from spreading? This happened in China recently. 50,000 pet dogs killed because 3 people died of rabies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14139027/

Would you protest against any of these things?

I'd more likely petition and vote. A protest isn't out of the question, but there are usually more effective things to do. They just don't get as much news coverage.

Samantha
04-19-2007, 01:34 AM
YesYou'd be killed or facing federal prison then.

Hobbit
04-19-2007, 01:35 AM
You'd be killed or facing federal prison then.

I'd rather die free than live in tyranny.

Roomy
04-19-2007, 01:36 AM
Yes


If you 'are' serious I think the relevant authorities need to be made aware of you.

Hobbit
04-19-2007, 01:44 AM
If you 'are' serious I think the relevant authorities need to be made aware of you.

Why? Because I would stand up in the face of a tyrannical government that wishes to take away from me my last line of defense against them? Because I would protect my God-given, Constitution right to keep and bear arms with deadly force if it became necessary? My ancestor signed a document that ended up costing him nearly everything he had, and he did it knowing that it could full well lead to his execution, but he signed it anyway. He signed it because he believed that his life was less important than the liberty of his people. He signed it because he felt that tyranny was worth fighting against. He signed it because he believed that every man born on this Earth is entitled to certain inalienable rights, and that his government had forgotten those rights and was not likely to remember through a few kind words, or even harsh ones. He gave up his fortune, his land, and his happiness so that I could live free, and I will not hand the birthright he fought and bled for because some bureaucrat would rather have an unarmed populace. I would glady die a slow and painful death to protect the liberties of the citizens of this country, and pray that I will never have to.

Trust me, the thought does not make me happy, but if the government plunges towards tyranny, I will do whatever is required of me to overthrow that government.

Roomy
04-19-2007, 01:55 AM
Why? Because I would stand up in the face of a tyrannical government that wishes to take away from me my last line of defense against them? Because I would protect my God-given, Constitution right to keep and bear arms with deadly force if it became necessary? My ancestor signed a document that ended up costing him nearly everything he had, and he did it knowing that it could full well lead to his execution, but he signed it anyway. He signed it because he believed that his life was less important than the liberty of his people. He signed it because he felt that tyranny was worth fighting against. He signed it because he believed that every man born on this Earth is entitled to certain inalienable rights, and that his government had forgotten those rights and was not likely to remember through a few kind words, or even harsh ones. He gave up his fortune, his land, and his happiness so that I could live free, and I will not hand the birthright he fought and bled for because some bureaucrat would rather have an unarmed populace. I would glady die a slow and painful death to protect the liberties of the citizens of this country, and pray that I will never have to.

Trust me, the thought does not make me happy, but if the government plunges towards tyranny, I will do whatever is required of me to overthrow that government.

You do realise that your government is and will be a democratically elected government with a mandate? I assume any new laws have to go through a rather long and drawn out convoluted process before they can be passed and written into the statute? If and when any such new laws are passed, you as an American citizen have to abide by them.Treason still carries the death penalty does it not? Conspiracy is punishable with hefty jail time too methinks.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and tell myself yours is a kneejerk reaction to a subject you feel most strongly about, the alternative doesn't bear thinking about..

Hobbit
04-19-2007, 02:27 AM
You do realise that your government is and will be a democratically elected government with a mandate? I assume any new laws have to go through a rather long and drawn out convoluted process before they can be passed and written into the statute? If and when any such new laws are passed, you as an American citizen have to abide by them.Treason still carries the death penalty does it not? Conspiracy is punishable with hefty jail time too methinks.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and tell myself yours is a kneejerk reaction to a subject you feel most strongly about, the alternative doesn't bear thinking about..

Passing a law that directly violates the Constitution is treason. Is failure to comply with a treasonous order treason? I call it patriotism.

avatar4321
04-19-2007, 03:09 AM
What if the government decides to take away your gun rights? Will you like the protest against that?

No... ill just take out my knives.

stephanie
04-19-2007, 03:12 AM
No... ill just take out my knives.

I'll just take out my cars, that will be filled with baseball bats....:coffee:

avatar4321
04-19-2007, 03:13 AM
OK, would you like protests if the government raised taxes?

How about if they called a draft and your son or your brother was called up?

What if the government decided your neighborhood is an eminant domain target?

Would you join a protest if your pet dog was being killed by the police to stop some disease from spreading? This happened in China recently. 50,000 pet dogs killed because 3 people died of rabies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14139027/

Would you protest against any of these things?

They raise taxes all the time, we don't go out in the streets and protest. we just vote them out of office.

Why would I protest a family member doing his duty?

The government has a right to use eminent domain in the Constitution. Protesting isnt going to change that, but a good lawyer can probably find some good holes in the governments attempt, especially if they plan to give the land to another private entity.

Why protest when you can sue?

There are far more productive actions that can take place then creating a mob.

avatar4321
04-19-2007, 03:14 AM
You'd be killed or facing federal prison then.

Give me liberty, or give me death.

stephanie
04-19-2007, 03:16 AM
Give me liberty, or give me death.

Amen..:salute:

avatar4321
04-19-2007, 03:20 AM
You do realise that your government is and will be a democratically elected government with a mandate? I assume any new laws have to go through a rather long and drawn out convoluted process before they can be passed and written into the statute? If and when any such new laws are passed, you as an American citizen have to abide by them.Treason still carries the death penalty does it not? Conspiracy is punishable with hefty jail time too methinks.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and tell myself yours is a kneejerk reaction to a subject you feel most strongly about, the alternative doesn't bear thinking about..


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It was true 200 years ago, and its true today.

Nuc
04-19-2007, 06:51 AM
I finally figured out why I dont like protesting. I thought it was just because i didnt see much getting done through it, but there is more to it. I dont like protesting because its not uplifting. its not edifying. There is nothing inspiring about it. Its just an angry mob getting together and trying to intimidate someone.

Yeah you're right, protest is stupid. Take for example the Boston Tea Party. We would have been much better without that. Tiananmen Square? Waste of energy. Should have just let the Chinese government continue as it was. Jesus attacking the money changers in the temple? Just a troublemaker causing problems. He should have minded his own business.

Yep, protest is stupid. The status quo is always better.

glockmail
04-19-2007, 07:26 AM
If you 'are' serious I think the relevant authorities need to be made aware of you. While you're at it, make them aware of me, and millions of others as well.

LiberalNation
04-19-2007, 07:46 AM
That would be a stupid thing to do atleast in the begining. It's always better to go through the legal processes first. Keep your guns inside and vote out those who banned them or fight in the SC to repeal the law. Anarchy wont solve anything and might just lead to worse things then a democratic government banning guns.

Roomy
04-19-2007, 09:36 AM
While you're at it, make them aware of me, and millions of others as well.

So anyone with a grievance and a gun eh? I wonder if one or two dead presidents see it that way.This argument is absurd.

Gunny
04-19-2007, 09:59 AM
What if the government decides to take away your gun rights? Will you like the protest against that?

Sure I would. But I wouldn't hang out in the street, obstructing traffic, waving my fist in the air and shouting at a building.

Every member in Congress would receive an e-mail from me. I would sign each and every petition being sent to Congress on the behalf of gun ownership rights, and maybe even create one of my own. I would ensure every local and state representative who wished to have my continued support knew where I expected them to stand on the issue.

There's a right way and a wrong way to do everything.

SassyLady
04-19-2007, 10:14 AM
I dislike the word "protest". I would rather attend a rally that supports my belief than a protest.

Mother Teresa was asked if she would attend an anti-war protest once and her answer was "no, but I will attend a pro-peace rally".

So, instead of a protest against gun control, I would attend a rally for the freedom to bear arms.

I think most conservatives would rather fight for what they believe in and most liberals want to fight against what others believe.

Huge difference in basic attitude.

Liberals think dissention is patriotic.....it's not, it's just disruptive because they are just protesting and bitching. They aren't presenting alternative solutions and having huge rallys to further their solutions. All they do is have huge mobs getting together to see how much disruption they can cause to get attention.

Ugh.

avatar4321
04-19-2007, 10:25 AM
Yeah you're right, protest is stupid. Take for example the Boston Tea Party. We would have been much better without that. Tiananmen Square? Waste of energy. Should have just let the Chinese government continue as it was. Jesus attacking the money changers in the temple? Just a troublemaker causing problems. He should have minded his own business.

Yep, protest is stupid. The status quo is always better.

I cant help but notice none of the political events you mentioned did anything. Christ removing the money changers wasnt a protest as far as im concerned. it was an enforcement issue. But what did the Boston Tea Party accomplish? are the Chinese free now because of protestors?

avatar4321
04-19-2007, 10:25 AM
I dislike the word "protest". I would rather attend a rally that supports my belief than a protest.

Mother Teresa was asked if she would attend an anti-war protest once and her answer was "no, but I will attend a pro-peace rally".

So, instead of a protest against gun control, I would attend a rally for the freedom to bear arms.

I think most conservatives would rather fight for what they believe in and most liberals want to fight against what others believe.

Huge difference in basic attitude.

Liberals think dissention is patriotic.....it's not, it's just disruptive because they are just protesting and bitching. They aren't presenting alternative solutions and having huge rallys to further their solutions. All they do is have huge mobs getting together to see how much disruption they can cause to get attention.

Ugh.

I agree. Protest is all about ripping thing down. rallying... that can be different.

Samantha
04-19-2007, 10:39 AM
Rally, protest....just semantics. Peace rallies and war protests all merge together. Some name them one thing, others name them the other. They are the same group of patriotic citizens outside, with signs, listening to speeches, calling for the war to end.

manu1959
04-19-2007, 10:43 AM
Rally, protest....just semantics. Peace rallies and war protests all merge together. Some name them one thing, others name them the other. They are the same group of patriotic citizens outside, with signs, listening to speeches, calling for the war to end.

you should go to the ones in sf where they vandalize the city

Birdzeye
04-19-2007, 10:47 AM
Dissent is patriotic.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/dissent2.jpg

:clap:

manu1959
04-19-2007, 10:50 AM
:clap:

how come it isn't when the right does it?

avatar4321
04-19-2007, 10:52 AM
how come it isn't when the right does it?

Because what they really mean is marxist is patriotic.

Samantha
04-19-2007, 11:13 AM
you should go to the ones in sf where they vandalize the city
I've been to protest rallies in SF and all around the bay area and I've never seen any damage done.

manu1959
04-19-2007, 11:15 AM
I've been to protest rallies in SF and all around the bay area and I've never seen any damage done.

so when they trashed market street you missed that one?

Samantha
04-19-2007, 11:18 AM
so when they trashed market street you missed that one?
I don't know what you are talking about. Got a link?

I googled market street damage war protest

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=market+street+damage+war+protest

Nothing about trashing Market Street.

Hobbit
04-19-2007, 11:23 AM
A peaceful assembly over gun rights seems more like something to do when a bill banning guns is before congress or immediately after it has passed. Once it reaches the enforcement stage, we have a war.

manu1959
04-19-2007, 11:24 AM
I don't know what you are talking about. Got a link?

I googled market street damage war protest

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=market+street+damage+war+protest

Nothing about trashing Market Street.

did you miss the g8 protest?

glockmail
04-19-2007, 01:00 PM
So anyone with a grievance and a gun eh? I wonder if one or two dead presidents see it that way.This argument is absurd. What's absurd is you insisting law abiding gun owners are assasins.

It's real simple:

1. The Constitution restricts the powers of the government; it does not "grant rights" to US citizens. Those rights are "self evident"; granted to man by God.
2. The Bill of Rights merely affirms certain rights.
3. The 2nd Ammendment isn't about hunting or target shooting or collecting. It is about self-defense, and the ability of the citizenry to raise up against a tyranical government.
4. If the government comes to take my God-given rights away, they will do so at their own peril. I can assure you that there are several million of us that think this way.

Abbey Marie
04-19-2007, 01:44 PM
did you miss the g8 protest?

What do you know about it, Manu? You just live there.

:rolleyes:

Pale Rider
04-19-2007, 02:01 PM
Why? Because I would stand up in the face of a tyrannical government that wishes to take away from me my last line of defense against them? Because I would protect my God-given, Constitution right to keep and bear arms with deadly force if it became necessary? My ancestor signed a document that ended up costing him nearly everything he had, and he did it knowing that it could full well lead to his execution, but he signed it anyway. He signed it because he believed that his life was less important than the liberty of his people. He signed it because he felt that tyranny was worth fighting against. He signed it because he believed that every man born on this Earth is entitled to certain inalienable rights, and that his government had forgotten those rights and was not likely to remember through a few kind words, or even harsh ones. He gave up his fortune, his land, and his happiness so that I could live free, and I will not hand the birthright he fought and bled for because some bureaucrat would rather have an unarmed populace. I would glady die a slow and painful death to protect the liberties of the citizens of this country, and pray that I will never have to.

Trust me, the thought does not make me happy, but if the government plunges towards tyranny, I will do whatever is required of me to overthrow that government.


Well said brother. Almost brought tears to my eyes. And I'd be with you, to the dying day.

But don't think that it would be just you and I. The MAJORITY of America would be with us, and we'd either kill or cast out those who seek to disarm America. Believe it.

Roomy
04-19-2007, 02:26 PM
What's absurd is you insisting law abiding gun owners are assasins.

It's real simple:

1. The Constitution restricts the powers of the government; it does not "grant rights" to US citizens. Those rights are "self evident"; granted to man by God.
2. The Bill of Rights merely affirms certain rights.
3. The 2nd Ammendment isn't about hunting or target shooting or collecting. It is about self-defense, and the ability of the citizenry to raise up against a tyranical government.
4. If the government comes to take my God-given rights away, they will do so at their own peril. I can assure you that there are several million of us that think this way.

Hobbit said he would kill to keep his guns, he would fight to bring down the government that would pass such a bill, you agreed with him, that is what is absurd.

Edited to add:-Who believes it is a "God given right" ?That belief borders on the ridiculous in this day and age.

Abbey Marie
04-19-2007, 02:41 PM
Hobbit said he would kill to keep his guns, he would fight to bring down the government that would pass such a bill, you agreed with him, that is what is absurd.

Edited to add:-Who believes it is a "God given right" ?That belief borders on the ridiculous in this day and age.

I don't know how far I personally would take this, but a Congress that would so flagrantly violate a fundamental right expressly given to each American by our Constitution may deserve being "replaced". And that is essentially what the 2nd amendment was about. The writers knew all too well the dangers of being powerless in the face of tyranny.

Hobbit
04-19-2007, 02:41 PM
Hobbit said he would kill to keep his guns, he would fight to bring down the government that would pass such a bill, you agreed with him, that is what is absurd.

Edited to add:-Who believes it is a "God given right" ?That belief borders on the ridiculous in this day and age.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how tyranny is formed. There are no God-given rights, only whatever the state gives you. There is no justificiation for the overthrow of the state, even when what they have just done is attempt to confiscate your only practical means of overthrowing them. It's not about the guns themselves. It's about a government attempting to remove all reason to fear the people. If we had no guns and the government could ensure the loyalty of the majority of law enforcement and military, do you think they'd even hesitate for a second to redraw the laws of this country is such a way that it gives them unlimited power? That's the purpose of the Second Ammendment, to allow for the violent overthrow of a tyrannical government, and any government that would attempt to remove that contingency is, by definition, tyrannical.

avatar4321
04-19-2007, 02:54 PM
Hobbit said he would kill to keep his guns, he would fight to bring down the government that would pass such a bill, you agreed with him, that is what is absurd.

Edited to add:-Who believes it is a "God given right" ?That belief borders on the ridiculous in this day and age.

People who understand that rights can only come from God, because rights that come from government can be taken from government

Roomy
04-19-2007, 02:56 PM
I am sure I have asked this question before but I will ask it again.

Can congress pass such a law without having been given a mandate by the people?

Roomy
04-19-2007, 02:59 PM
People who understand that rights can only come from God, because rights that come from government can be taken from government


Then it is only Christians that god wrote the constitution for then? Do me a favour...that's plain silly.

Abbey Marie
04-19-2007, 03:03 PM
I am sure I have asked this question before but I will ask it again.

Can congress pass such a law without having been given a mandate by the people?

Roomy, once they are voted in, they can do almost anything they want. There are no guarantees they will behave in accordance with the Constitution, or that magical "mandate". And waiting to vote them out may not be a viable option, depending on how screwed up they are.

LiberalNation
04-19-2007, 03:06 PM
My question is would you wait for the legal process to work it's way out before jumping the gun.

It's something I might join a rebellion on but not before other options of changing it are explored and tried. Besides even citizens with guns would be no match for the police forces and US military which would be called to put down any tried revolt. The troops would do their duty to the government.

LiberalNation
04-19-2007, 03:07 PM
Roomy, once they are voted in, they can do almost anything they want. There are no guarantees they will behave in accordance with the Constitution, or that magical "mandate". And waiting to vote them out may not be a viable option, depending on how screwed up they are.
That's why we have the SC to cut it down if it's unconstitutional.

avatar4321
04-19-2007, 03:12 PM
Then it is only Christians that god wrote the constitution for then? Do me a favour...that's plain silly.

that doesnt even make sense...

typomaniac
04-19-2007, 03:16 PM
People who understand that rights can only come from God, because rights that come from government can be taken from governmentAnd God said unto Adam, "Be fruitful and trigger happy." :lmao:

Roomy
04-19-2007, 03:58 PM
that doesnt even make sense...

Yes it does, it just takes a little thinking about.

glockmail
04-19-2007, 04:10 PM
Hobbit said he would kill to keep his guns, he would fight to bring down the government that would pass such a bill, you agreed with him, that is what is absurd.

Edited to add:-Who believes it is a "God given right" ?That belief borders on the ridiculous in this day and age.

1. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." ~Thomas Jefferson
2. God is just as alive today as He was during The Revolution.

glockmail
04-19-2007, 04:11 PM
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how tyranny is formed. There are no God-given rights, only whatever the state gives you. There is no justificiation for the overthrow of the state, even when what they have just done is attempt to confiscate your only practical means of overthrowing them. It's not about the guns themselves. It's about a government attempting to remove all reason to fear the people. If we had no guns and the government could ensure the loyalty of the majority of law enforcement and military, do you think they'd even hesitate for a second to redraw the laws of this country is such a way that it gives them unlimited power? That's the purpose of the Second Ammendment, to allow for the violent overthrow of a tyrannical government, and any government that would attempt to remove that contingency is, by definition, tyrannical.


Here, here! :salute:

glockmail
04-19-2007, 04:12 PM
I am sure I have asked this question before but I will ask it again.

Can congress pass such a law without having been given a mandate by the people? Congress may do so at its own peril.

stephanie
04-19-2007, 04:14 PM
Here, here! :salute:

I'm right there with ya all...:salute:

Excellent posts Hobbit....:clap:

glockmail
04-19-2007, 04:19 PM
Then it is only Christians that god wrote the constitution for then? Do me a favour...that's plain silly.

No, but Christians wrote the Constitution.


PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, in just punishment of our manifold transgressions, it hath pleased the Supreme Disposer of all Events to visit these United States with a calamitous War, through which his Divine Providence hath hitherto in a wonderful Manner conducted us, so that we might acknowledge that the race is not to the Swift , nor the Battle to the Strong:

AND WHEREAS, notwithstanding the Chastisements received and Benefits bestowed , to few have been sufficiently awakened to a Sense of their Guilt , or warmed with Gratitude, or taught to amend their Lives and turn from their from their Sins, so that he might turn his Wrath; AND WHEREAS, from a Consciousness of what we have merited at his hands, and an Apprehension that the Malevolence of our disappointed Enemies, like the Incredulity of Pharaoh, may be used as a Scourge of Omnipotence to vindicate his slighted Majesty, there is Reason to fear that he might permit much of our Land to become the pray of the spoiler, our Borders to be be ravaged, and our habitations destroyed:

RESOLVED,

THAT it be recommended to the several States to appoint the First Thursday in May next to be a Day of Fasting, Humiliation,[and Prayer].

Done in CONGRESS,this Twentieth day of march, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Nine , and in the Third Year of our Independence.

JOHN JAY,President.
attest.CHARLES THOMPSON, Secretary

Abbey Marie
04-19-2007, 04:26 PM
That's why we have the SC to cut it down if it's unconstitutional.

Yes, composed of political appointees.

glockmail
04-19-2007, 04:29 PM
My question is would you wait for the legal process to work it's way out before jumping the gun.

It's something I might join a rebellion on but not before other options of changing it are explored and tried. Besides even citizens with guns would be no match for the police forces and US military which would be called to put down any tried revolt. The troops would do their duty to the government.

Nice pun!

If Congress voted to flush the 2nd Amendment I would not wait, and neither would millions of others, including many who are now in the active military. If there are 20 million gun owners fighting what remains of the military, shooting from random windows, around corners, and through bushes, the government would cease to exist. The winner of a war is the side who is willing to commit more atrocities and except more death than the other side. The Democrat Party would be the side trying to take our guns away, and they are obviously not willing to sustain the punishment that they would receive.

LiberalNation
04-19-2007, 04:31 PM
So you think disolving our democratic government and having gun strongmen would be a good thing if a law was passed you didn't like.

LiberalNation
04-19-2007, 04:32 PM
Yes, composed of political appointees.
bitch to the founding fathers, they created the system your so ready to defend when it gives you the right to arms and free speech.

Roomy
04-19-2007, 04:41 PM
Nice pun!

If Congress voted to flush the 2nd Amendment I would not wait, and neither would millions of others, including many who are now in the active military. If there are 20 million gun owners fighting what remains of the military, shooting from random windows, around corners, and through bushes, the government would cease to exist. The winner of a war is the side who is willing to commit more atrocities and except more death than the other side. The Democrat Party would be the side trying to take our guns away, and they are obviously not willing to sustain the punishment that they would receive.

Your patriotism seems to be hanging by the most tenuous of threads and dependant upon you having your cake and eating it.

Abbey Marie
04-19-2007, 04:42 PM
bitch to the founding fathers, they created the system your so ready to defend when it gives you the right to arms and free speech.

Well, actually, they got it right. It's later bastardization of the Constitution, including the SC usurping its powers by acting legislatively, that's the problem.

LiberalNation
04-19-2007, 04:45 PM
They're ruling or not ruling a gun ban passed by congress unconstitutional wouldn't be doing that though.

glockmail
04-19-2007, 04:46 PM
So you think disolving our democratic government and having gun strongmen would be a good thing if a law was passed you didn't like. Depends on what the law is. Take away our guns, and you'll have more guns pointed your way then you could imagine.

glockmail
04-19-2007, 04:47 PM
Your patriotism seems to be hanging by the most tenuous of threads and dependant upon you having your cake and eating it.
You must be really smart because I don't have a clue what you said. :laugh2:

glockmail
04-19-2007, 04:49 PM
Well, actually, they got it right. It's later bastardization of the Constitution, including the SC usurping its powers by acting legislatively, that's the problem. That's why we have guns: when the government thinks its more powerful than the people who gave it power to begin with.

Roomy
04-19-2007, 04:52 PM
That's why we have guns: when the government thinks its more powerful than the people who gave it power to begin with.



Hahahahahahahh........you almost had me hooked, close, but no cigar my friend:laugh2:

glockmail
04-19-2007, 08:16 PM
Hahahahahahahh........you almost had me hooked, close, but no cigar my friend:laugh2: Don't need to hook you, as we revolted against English tyranny already.

Samantha
04-19-2007, 08:45 PM
No, but Christians wrote the Constitution.And some Deists and Unitarians and atheists. It's a secular Constitution.

glockmail
04-19-2007, 08:53 PM
And some Deists and Unitarians and atheists. It's a secular Constitution.
Perhaps you could point out where their signatures are on that sacred document. :poke:

Hobbit
04-19-2007, 10:41 PM
My question is would you wait for the legal process to work it's way out before jumping the gun.

It's something I might join a rebellion on but not before other options of changing it are explored and tried. Besides even citizens with guns would be no match for the police forces and US military which would be called to put down any tried revolt. The troops would do their duty to the government.

I would see a rebellion as a last resort, yes, but when it came down to handing over my guns or violence, it's violence. If I gave up my guns because all the appeals hadn't been exhausted, and the appeals later failed, it would be too late, since I would have already given up my means of rebellion.

As for police and military, they do not pledge themselves to the government. Police swear to 'protect and serve' the citizens, not the government. The military oath of service is to uphold and defend the Constitution, and anybody who takes that oath seriously would likely side against the government if they decided to ban guns, since it's directly against the Constitution.

glockmail
04-19-2007, 10:47 PM
Well said.

Abbey Marie
04-19-2007, 10:55 PM
I would see a rebellion as a last resort, yes, but when it came down to handing over my guns or violence, it's violence. If I gave up my guns because all the appeals hadn't been exhausted, and the appeals later failed, it would be too late, since I would have already given up my means of rebellion.

As for police and military, they do not pledge themselves to the government. Police swear to 'protect and serve' the citizens, not the government. The military oath of service is to uphold and defend the Constitution, and anybody who takes that oath seriously would likely side against the government if they decided to ban guns, since it's directly against the Constitution.

Logical, Hobbit.

Hobbit
04-19-2007, 11:01 PM
Logical, Hobbit.

Remember, "I swear to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic." This is exactly what they're talking about.

LiberalNation
04-20-2007, 06:56 AM
I would see a rebellion as a last resort, yes, but when it came down to handing over my guns or violence, it's violence. If I gave up my guns because all the appeals hadn't been exhausted, and the appeals later failed, it would be too late, since I would have already given up my means of rebellion.

They couldn't take your guns. They could ban the sell of guns and tell people to turn them in but if you didn't they'd never know. You just wouldn't be able to take them out.

Gunny
04-20-2007, 07:16 AM
My question is would you wait for the legal process to work it's way out before jumping the gun.

It's something I might join a rebellion on but not before other options of changing it are explored and tried. Besides even citizens with guns would be no match for the police forces and US military which would be called to put down any tried revolt. The troops would do their duty to the government.

I guess you've missed Iraq, Vietnam, the American Revolution? Conventional armies are ill-equipped to handle insurgencies.

Gunny
04-20-2007, 07:17 AM
And some Deists and Unitarians and atheists. It's a secular Constitution.

:rolleyes:

LiberalNation
04-20-2007, 07:47 AM
I guess you've missed Iraq, Vietnam, the American Revolution? Conventional armies are ill-equipped to handle insurgencies.

True but then we'd both be on home turf. American military/police against American rebels.

glockmail
04-20-2007, 07:51 AM
True but then we'd both be on home turf. American military/police against American rebels. What would be left of the military would be easily defeated by 20 million or so patriotic gun owners. The military relies on civilians to keep it running. Millions more would not be paying taxes, working strictly on a cash basis. The guv'mint would be royally screwed.

Gunny
04-20-2007, 08:11 AM
True but then we'd both be on home turf. American military/police against American rebels.

The military would lose for the simple reason that they have to abide by the current PC rules of engagement as government policy, while insurgents do not. That's the biggest problem in Iraq -- political consideration overriding military fundamentals of warfare.

Gaffer
04-20-2007, 10:17 PM
Seriously.............you would take to the streets with your guns and kill other Americans rather than give up your weapons?

YES

Hobbit
04-20-2007, 10:25 PM
The military would lose for the simple reason that they have to abide by the current PC rules of engagement as government policy, while insurgents do not. That's the biggest problem in Iraq -- political consideration overriding military fundamentals of warfare.

Not to mention the fact that the police have pledged their loyalty to the citizens, not the government, and the military has pledged its loyalty to the Constitution. I'd say we'd see a crapload of police and military siding with the insurgency.

gabosaurus
04-21-2007, 11:24 AM
I finally figured out why I dont like protesting. I thought it was just because i didnt see much getting done through it, but there is more to it. I dont like protesting because its not uplifting. its not edifying. There is nothing inspiring about it. Its just an angry mob getting together and trying to intimidate someone.

Then obviously you are against the anti-abortion mobs gathering at clinics to advocate violence and intimidate those who exercise their rights.

Roomy
04-21-2007, 11:37 AM
Guns rob reasonable men of all reason.Reason enough to question their legalty in the hands of the citizenry if you ask me.:cool:

Kathianne
04-21-2007, 11:38 AM
Then obviously you are against the anti-abortion mobs gathering at clinics to advocate violence and intimidate those who exercise their rights.

Yep, I don't like those either. Yes, I'm pro-life.

Sitarro
04-21-2007, 01:40 PM
Dissent is patriotic.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/dissent2.jpg

Hey Samantha,
Where did you get this illustration, do you know who did it?

Roomy
04-21-2007, 01:46 PM
Hey Samantha,
Where did you get this illustration, do you know who did it?

pretentious:laugh2:

Abbey Marie
04-21-2007, 01:48 PM
Hey Samantha,
Where did you get this illustration, do you know who did it?

It sure looks like a Rockwell, sans the text.

Sitarro
04-21-2007, 02:01 PM
It sure looks like a Rockwell, sans the text.

Yes Abbey it is a Norman Rockwell that someone used as their own, I was curious who felt they had the right to use copywritten material by one of our greatests painters and put their slogan on it, a slogan that I doubt Mr. Rockwell would agree with or allow his image to be a part of. This is the original..... it is called "Freedom of Speech" and was one of his favorites. Quite a different meaning don't you think?

Abbey Marie
04-21-2007, 02:06 PM
Yes Abbey it is a Norman Rockwell that someone used as their own, I was curious who felt they had the right to use copywritten material by one of our greatests painters and put their slogan on it, a slogan that I doubt Mr. Rockwell would agree with or allow his image to be a part of. This is the original..... it is called "Freedom of Speech" and was one of his favorites. Quite a different meaning don't you think?

Judging by what I've seen of Rockwell's love of the good and simple qualities of American life, yes. And quite ironic in light of the war support it espouses

Sitarro
04-21-2007, 03:14 PM
Here is a more fitting poster for all of you anti-war/Anti-America clowns. I think it is much more representative of your "movement".

Feel free to use this one, I won't copywrite it.

avatar4321
04-21-2007, 06:10 PM
Then obviously you are against the anti-abortion mobs gathering at clinics to advocate violence and intimidate those who exercise their rights.

Im against any mobs that advocate violence. Or is that too difficult to understand?

Roomy
04-21-2007, 06:12 PM
Im against any mobs that advocate violence. Or is that too difficult to understand?

:clap: :clap: :clap: Well blow me down with a feather.:clap: :clap: :clap:

avatar4321
04-21-2007, 06:18 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap: Well blow me down with a feather.:clap: :clap: :clap:

Dont know why that should surprise you considering that was a major point of my original post.