View Full Version : What the 2ND AMENDMENT is for...
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/20/2009, 03:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmDIhBrFERg&eurl=DELBY%20FILSECLAB%20FIREWALL%20WWW.FILSECLAB. COM
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/20/2009, 08:40 PM
Great looking girl, bone-chilling message, check it out.
SoonerBorn68
2/20/2009, 08:41 PM
Amen lady. It's exactly what it's for.
AlbqSooner
2/20/2009, 09:05 PM
The contemptuous looks from Schumer and company speak as loudly as their actions did in passing the largest spending bill in history without reading it before voting.
The lady is correct in her assessment of the purpose of the Second Amendment, despite what some courts have ruled in the past. The NEED for the Second Amendment is becoming more clear with each passing year.
The contemptuous looks from Schumer and company speak as loudly as their actions did in passing the largest spending bill in history without reading it before voting.
http://ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon021809.gif
I'm glad that vid is making the rounds... Great stuff...
captain_surly
2/21/2009, 08:47 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmDIhBrFERg&eurl=DELBY%20FILSECLAB%20FIREWALL%20WWW.FILSECLAB. COM
That's good stuff. I wish she would have skipped the part about " I abhor hunting". I still give it a 9.9.
That's good stuff. I wish she would have skipped the part about " I abhor hunting". I still give it a 9.9.
Actually, it helps make the point that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or other such "sporting" things.
I ain't worried about ducks breaking through my door at 2:00AM
And a covey of quail won't be the ones who strip me of liberties for the "collective good."
Flagstaffsooner
2/21/2009, 01:59 PM
Her last sentence was BRAVO!
yermom
2/21/2009, 02:56 PM
i like the part about Brady too
it just seems like people know that they have a captive helpless group in a case like that. they know that they are the only one that is going to have a gun and will eventually commit suicide by cop, but will take out as many people as they can before that happens
i think once you are 18, if you can get through the background check and training you should be able to carry a gun
there may be problems with that but, it's the way i'm leaning
olevetonahill
2/21/2009, 03:14 PM
If there a way to remove ALL weapons from Every Hand.
Gov. Individual etc. I might consider it .
On second Thot. Naw
The Girl was right on .
That is exactly what those in power want to do! Unfortunately, the Kool-Ade drinkers will find some excuse to justify their Democrats actions.
I am sure the news media would not let this happen.
jkjsooner
2/21/2009, 03:21 PM
I don't disagree with much of what she said except her last sentence. I hear it over and over that the second ammendment is to protect us from a tryannical government.
My question is, who is to decide that our government has crossed the line to such a degree that it is our right to fight back with deadly force? Is it really sane for each individual to make their own decision on this matter? I guarantee you, some will come to that conclusion much earlier than you will.
I find it interesting that when a SWAT team storms an inner city house in the middle of the night with their "ninja" outfits (as Liddy calls them), if the homeowner fights back he's nothing but a "cop killer." If the government storms a rural white person's house he's "protecting his liberties."
One word of caution, just because you believe you are protecting your liberties doesn't mean society will agree.
I find it interesting that when a SWAT team storms an inner city house in the middle of the night with their "ninja" outfits (as Liddy calls them), if the homeowner fights back he's nothing but a "cop killer." If the government storms a rural white person's house he's "protecting his liberties."
I don't understand you point. You make a statement about an "inner city house", then "a rural white person's house" - just what kind of racist statement are you trying to make? White folk don't live in the inner city or non-white folk don't live in rural areas? Don't you think this is somewhat racist of you?
Vaevictis
2/21/2009, 03:35 PM
Actually, it helps make the point that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or other such "sporting" things.
No ****. Either you're cool with people having tools for killing other people or you're not.
Don't ****ing muddy the waters by looking for a "legitimate hunting purpose." If it can kill a deer, it can kill a person.
olevetonahill
2/21/2009, 03:48 PM
I know Lots of Folk who Own weapons that have never fired a round at any thing but targets. whats yer point ?
Vaevictis
2/21/2009, 03:59 PM
A saw is a tool for cutting things. A hammer is a tool for hitting things. A firearm is a tool for killing things.
Can a saw be used for something else? Sure. Can a hammer? Sure. Can a firearm? Yup.
But that doesn't change their fundamental purpose.
Again: A firearm is a tool for killing things. Pretending otherwise is just plain dishonest.
Vaevictis
2/21/2009, 04:01 PM
And for what it's worth, I'm not a pro-firearm ban kind of guy. I don't think you need a weapon that can knock out a building, but some folks in some situations just need killing, and some folks are responsible enough to be allowed to do it.
I just think it's absurd to confuse the issue by bringing hunting into it.
Firearms are for killing things, people included. Period.
The only question is: Do you think that people are responsible enough to have such a tool?
olevetonahill
2/21/2009, 04:34 PM
And for what it's worth, I'm not a pro-firearm ban kind of guy. I don't think you need a weapon that can knock out a building, but some folks in some situations just need killing, and some folks are responsible enough to be allowed to do it.
I just think it's absurd to confuse the issue by bringing hunting into it.
Firearms are for killing things, people included. Period.
The only question is: Do you think that people are responsible enough to have such a tool?
I beg to differ, Firearms Are NOT only fer killin
I worked a Homicide where the Hammer was a weapon.
so you sayin they can be used for other purposes is accurate. Sayin a Firearm is ONLY used fer killin is Not .
Vaevictis
2/21/2009, 04:44 PM
Sayin a Firearm is ONLY used fer killin is Not .
Of course, this isn't at all what I'm saying.
If you didn't want a tool for killing things, I'm sure that there are tools out there that can serve for these alternate uses. And if not, I'm sure that a smart engineer could come up with something that would... if there was actually any market demand for it.
The fact of the matter is, these things are designed to put lumps of metal into flesh from a distance in a way that causes death by organ failure or blood loss. Their purpose is to kill things.
That you can use them for other things doesn't change this fact.
Vaevictis
2/21/2009, 04:52 PM
Really, when a politician says, "I don't like that firearm because it has no sporting or self-defense purpose", what they're really saying is, "I don't like that firearm because I think it's too effective at killing things."
I just think it would be nice, for once, if they'd own up to it. Maybe then we could have a real debate at where we draw the line -- just how effective of a killing tool is too effective for civilian possession?
Vaevictis
2/21/2009, 05:23 PM
And, for what it's worth, the argument that civilians need to keep firearms in order to resist the government is crap.
If you want to make sure you can resist the government, it's much better to know where the local police and national guard armories are than it is to keep a couple of rifles or handguns in your home. Any government corrupt and oppressive enough to warrant resistance is going to have these places well stocked. If you need weapons for that purpose, take them. It's not like you're going to be worried about breaking the law or killing government officials at that point, are you?
The classical example, in my mind, would be the storming of the Bastille at the start of the French Revolution. The French will try to white-wash the event and claim that it was stormed because it was used to imprison political prisoners.
That's a load of crap. The fact is that the Bastille was an armory and the mob wanted guns.
--------------------------------
No, the reason a civilian would need to keep a firearm is for those times and places where law and order breaks down, whether that's in the moment of a robbery or in a riot, and you just can't count on the authorities to keep you safe.
So again, are civilians responsible enough to keep firearms for that purpose? How effective of a killing tool is too effective for civilians to keep?
Those are the questions we should be asking. The rest is just distraction.
olevetonahill
2/21/2009, 05:48 PM
I kinda sorta agree with you .
I have 4 weapons within My reach as I type. Am i skeered that some ones gonna bust in my Home and hurt me? Nope.
To many folks Know ill blow their **** away if they try it .
So in this case Its a great deterrent. :D
85Sooner
2/21/2009, 05:54 PM
She is an aquintance of ours here in Austin andshe is very nice and smart. She has been a state representative and a part time radio host here in Austin.
It is really sad what happened to her family. I remember her on night line on time and she kicked the living **** out of the pro gun control advocate.
Luv Ya Suzanna
85Sooner
2/21/2009, 05:58 PM
And for what it's worth, I'm not a pro-firearm ban kind of guy. I don't think you need a weapon that can knock out a building, but some folks in some situations just need killing, and some folks are responsible enough to be allowed to do it.
I just think it's absurd to confuse the issue by bringing hunting into it.
Firearms are for killing things, people included. Period.
The only question is: Do you think that people are responsible enough to have such a tool?
Yes and it doesn't matter what I think, its our God given right.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/21/2009, 06:03 PM
1)And, for what it's worth, the argument that civilians need to keep firearms in order to resist the government is crap.
2)So again, are civilians responsible enough to keep firearms for that purpose? How effective of a killing tool is too effective for civilians to keep?
Those are the questions we should be asking. The rest is just distraction.1) I wondered why it took you so long to say the lady was wrong. She pointed out she thought that state law against concealed carry, at least in some instances, was in place, causing her to leave her gun at home. Government, in her case cited, prevented her from taking out the loony shooter guy, and caused the loss of her parents, and many other people that day. She rightfully noted that the second amendment is in place to protect us from government.
2)The debate happened a long time ago, and the good guys won. We have the second amendment.
olevetonahill
2/21/2009, 06:04 PM
Yes and it doesn't matter what I think, its our God given right.
God Made Guns ? whoda thunk it
I agree that its a right , But so is Procreatin , But I think there are some folks who should be snipped
jes sayin
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/21/2009, 06:48 PM
She is an aquintance of ours here in Austin andshe is very nice and smart. She has been a state representative and a part time radio host here in Austin.
It is really sad what happened to her family. I remember her on night line on time and she kicked the living **** out of the pro gun control advocate.
Luv Ya SuzannaTell her she has a secret admirer!
SoonerBorn68
2/21/2009, 06:50 PM
1)And, for what it's worth, the argument that civilians need to keep firearms in order to resist the government is crap.
Baaaaa. That sentence is pure ignorant crap.
And, for what it's worth, the argument that civilians need to keep firearms in order to resist the government is crap.
Well, that's one of the bigger reasons it's there. Look, it may seem far-fetched or fantasy, whose to say won't ever be needed?
Peaceful protests, petitions, and fair elections only work against a civilized government. Imagine if Ghandi tried to do what he did against Hitler's Waffen SS instead of the British. If a governor has no problems bombing and machine gunning down his own people, then any non-violent forms of resistance aren't going to work.
Now, you might not think that armed revolt would work, anyway, but try not to imagine large battlefields between lightly armed civilians and mechanized infantry with air support, because that's not the way it would go down.
KC//CRIMSON
2/21/2009, 07:55 PM
Well, that's one of the bigger reasons it's there. Look, it may seem far-fetched or fantasy, whose to say won't ever be needed?
Peaceful protests, petitions, and fair elections only work against a civilized government. Imagine if Ghandi tried to do what he did against Hitler's Waffen SS instead of the British. If a governor has no problems bombing and machine gunning down his own people, then any non-violent forms of resistance aren't going to work.
Now, you might not think that armed revolt would work, anyway, but try not to imagine large battlefields between lightly armed civilians and mechanized infantry with air support, because that's not the way it would go down.
Heh, the armed coup would be slaughtered like spring lambs in Greece.
Curly Bill
2/21/2009, 08:13 PM
Heh, the armed coup would be slaughtered like spring lambs in Greece.
Which would be better then laying back and taking it like a panzy.
Heh, the armed coup would be slaughtered like spring lambs in Greece.
No one is talking about an armed coup.
The more likely response to a tyrant in Washington would be for several states or localities to declare autonomy.
The fight will be at your doorstep.
KC//CRIMSON
2/21/2009, 08:54 PM
Which would be better then laying back and taking it like a panzy.
Yay death!
KC//CRIMSON
2/21/2009, 08:56 PM
No one is talking about an armed coup.
The more likely response to a tyrant in Washington would be for several states or localities to declare autonomy.
The fight will be at your doorstep.
Well, it's never going to happen. So you'll just have to sit back on your couch and take it.
Well, it's never going to happen. So you'll just have to sit back on your couch and take it.
Take what?
Vaevictis
2/21/2009, 11:01 PM
Now, you might not think that armed revolt would work, anyway, but try not to imagine large battlefields between lightly armed civilians and mechanized infantry with air support, because that's not the way it would go down.
That's actually my point. No such armed revolt is going to be won with the weapons the vast majority of civilians keep in their home.
If you want to win, you're going to have to take weapons from the government, probably with the help of defectors or corrupt officials within the military.
Paranoia. I can't believe there are actually people out there who think the way some of you think. That scares me more than anything a stimulus package or a black president or gun control or anything like that could.
That's actually my point. No such armed revolt is going to be won with the weapons the vast majority of civilians keep in their home.
If you want to win, you're going to have to take weapons from the government, probably with the help of defectors or corrupt officials within the military.
An armed revolt does not need to be an event. It can also be a period of prolonged resistance. People often say that fighting the government, which has F-22's, with rifles is useless. That may be true, but 200 million armed civilians is a pretty impressive force on its own. An armed populace is also one of the most effective deterrents against a totalitarian government. Winning a battle with your army is one thing, stripping opponents out of every house across this fruited plain is a little more complicated.
I am not saying that allowing "Jim" to have a gun will keep our way of life safe. I am just trying to say that having an armed populace isn't exactly irrelevant.
Here is what the liberal DEMOCRATS in Illinois has introduced in the State Legislature, in an attempt to keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens and ensure the criminals and gangbangers (their constituents) are fully armed. You would think these Chicago DEMOCRATS would be more concerned about the illegal gun use in their wards and the gangbanger violence. Twenty percent of the murders in Chicago are caused by knives. Will knive bans be next?
1. Require gun owners to have $1million liability insurance policy.
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Effective January 1, 2010.
2. Ban private gun sales.
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Requires a person who is not a federally licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer and who desires to sell or transfer a firearm of a size that may be concealed upon the person to another person, who is not a federally licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer, to do so only at the place of business of a federally licensed firearm dealer. Provides that the federally licensed firearm dealer shall conduct a background check on the prospective recipient of the firearm and follow all other applicable federal, State, and local laws as if he were the seller of the firearm. Provides that the purchaser or transferee may be required by the federally licensed firearm dealer to pay a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm, plus any applicable fees. Makes exceptions for (i) the transfer of a firearm between spouses, a parent and child, or a grandparent and grandchild, (ii) transfers by persons acting pursuant to operation of law or a court order, or (iii) transfers on the grounds of a gun show. Imposes conditions on any rulemaking authority.3. Ban semi-auto guns, magazines, and .50 caliber guns.
Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed a semi-automatic assault weapon, an assault weapon attachment, any .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge. Provides that beginning 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act, it is unlawful for any person within this State to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase, or possess or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, purchased, or possessed a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Provides that these provisions do not apply to a person who possessed a prohibited weapon, device, or attachment before the effective date of this amendatory Act if the person has provided proof of ownership to the Department of State Police within 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act. Provides that on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act, such person may transfer such device only to an heir, an individual residing in another state maintaining that device in another state, or a dealer licensed as a federal firearms dealer. Specifies penalties for violations. Provides exemptions. Provides that the provisions of the Act are severable. Effective immediately.
Yes, this is what the DEMOCRATS want! Disarm its law abiding citizens! Maybe they are concerned about the citizens rising up against their corrupt political machines. It is truly amazing the ONLY clean politician to come out of Chicago is Barack Obama - just amazing!!
Vaevictis
2/21/2009, 11:52 PM
I am not saying that allowing "Jim" to have a gun will keep our way of life safe. I am just trying to say that having an armed populace isn't exactly irrelevant.
And I'm just saying it's not necessary. The big issue is actually deciding you're willing to fight the government -- to kill your own countrymen and be willing to risk getting killed in turn.
Getting armed is pretty easy. Weapons are always readily available to people willing to break the law -- and at this point, you've already decided you're going to commit treason. They're already going to kill you if they catch you, so what's another crime matter?
And I'm just saying it's not necessary. The big issue is actually deciding you're willing to fight the government -- to kill your own countrymen and be willing to risk getting killed in turn.
Getting armed is pretty easy. Weapons are always readily available to people willing to break the law -- and at this point, you've already decided you're going to commit treason. They're already going to kill you if they catch you, so what's another crime matter?
I had family that participated in the fight for Irish independence. They set pieces of their roofs on fire to assault police stations in order to obtain guns. Sure it is possible. It is a different story when the civilians are already armed though. Also, convincing others to join the cause, and risk life and limb, is harder to do with a piece of flaming pitch than it is with a Kimber 1911.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/22/2009, 12:10 AM
And I'm just saying it's not necessary. The big issue is actually deciding you're willing to fight the government -- to kill your own countrymen and be willing to risk getting killed in turn.Funny how the protection of freedom has inspired extreme behaviour among some people in North America in the past, and could do so again in the future, ala Patrick Henry.
Scott D
2/22/2009, 12:20 AM
I think the thought of 200 million armed civilians is amusing. Half of them would try to kill the other half. Meanwhile the other 125 million can just wait for the smoke to clear.
I think the thought of 200 million armed civilians is amusing. Half of them would try to kill the other half. Meanwhile the other 125 million can just wait for the smoke to clear.
Perhaps, if they were all in Chicago ;)
Harry Beanbag
2/22/2009, 02:35 AM
Some of you have forgotten how this country was founded and the values that is was founded under.
olevetonahill
2/22/2009, 03:49 AM
No ****. Either you're cool with people having tools for killing other people or you're not.
Don't ****ing muddy the waters by looking for a "legitimate hunting purpose." If it can kill a deer, it can kill a person.
t.
Firearms are for killing things, people included. Period.
[QUOTE=Vaevictis;2581947]Of course, this isn't at all what I'm saying.
If you didn't want a tool for killing things, I'm sure that there are tools out there that can serve for these alternate uses. And if not, I'm sure that a smart engineer could come up with something that would... if there was actually any market demand for it.
The fact of the matter is, these things are designed to put lumps of metal into flesh from a distance in a way that causes death by organ failure or blood loss. Their purpose is to kill things.
That you can use them for other things doesn't change this fact.
Of course thats what you said :rolleyes:
olevetonahill
2/22/2009, 03:59 AM
Yay death!
Yay Ben
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Nuff said
olevetonahill
2/22/2009, 04:04 AM
And I'm just saying it's not necessary. The big issue is actually deciding you're willing to fight the government -- to kill your own countrymen and be willing to risk getting killed in turn.
Getting armed is pretty easy. Weapons are always readily available to people willing to break the law -- and at this point, you've already decided you're going to commit treason. They're already going to kill you if they catch you, so what's another crime matter?
So then you think our founding fathers were crooks ???
Vaevictis
2/22/2009, 11:31 AM
Of course thats what you said :rolleyes:
Read it again, this time more carefully.
Firearms are for killing things, period.
Killing things is what they're for. The purpose of their design. Again, like a saw cutting things or a hammer hitting things. That doesn't mean they can't be put to other uses.
There's a reason why they're called firearms.
Vaevictis
2/22/2009, 11:40 AM
So then you think our founding fathers were crooks ???
Crooks, no.
Criminals, absolutely. The vast majority of them were sworn subjects of the British Crown. They rose up in open rebellion against their sovereign. That's treason, and committing treason is a crime.
If the Founding Fathers had been caught, the Declaration of Independence would have been introduced as evidence in court, and by itself would have been enough to secure the execution of all its signatories.
(You should note that I'm not saying that they were wrong or bad people. Just because an act is a crime, that doesn't inherently make it immoral or unethical. It is sometimes completely appropriate to break the law. Example: If the woman in the video had been carrying the handgun after all, I wouldn't find that unethical or immoral. If the state had tried to prosecute in such a situation, and I was a juror, I would have nullified.)
Curly Bill
2/22/2009, 12:45 PM
Yay death!
Yay being a panzy!
Curly Bill
2/22/2009, 12:49 PM
Paranoia. I can't believe there are actually people out there who think the way some of you think. That scares me more than anything a stimulus package or a black president or gun control or anything like that could.
Yeah, because there's no historical precedent for a populace finding it necessary to defend itself against an oppressive government. :rolleyes:
Scott D
2/22/2009, 01:06 PM
Yeah, because there's no historical precedent for a populace finding it necessary to defend itself against an oppressive government. :rolleyes:
you do realize that by it's most basic definition, all government is oppressive in one way or another.
Scott D
2/22/2009, 01:06 PM
Perhaps, if they were all in Chicago ;)
Then there'd just be a lot of knife fights...West Side Story style. Without all the gay singing.
Curly Bill
2/22/2009, 01:10 PM
you do realize that by it's most basic definition, all government is oppressive in one way or another.
Yup, it's all a matter of degree.
Vaevictis
2/22/2009, 01:11 PM
Then there'd just be a lot of knife fights...West Side Story style. Without all the gay singing.
Are you sure about this part?
Curly Bill
2/22/2009, 01:16 PM
Are you sure about this part?
No one said we wouldn't let any libs join our little armed revolt. ;)
SoonerBorn68
2/22/2009, 01:19 PM
No one said we wouldn't let any libs join our little armed revolt. ;)
They get the bolt actions & get in the front of the line. ;)
Curly Bill
2/22/2009, 01:21 PM
They get the bolt actions & get in the front of the line. ;)
...but then we'd be hearing: I don't know how to work this, guns are icky!
:D
KC//CRIMSON
2/22/2009, 01:32 PM
Yay being a panzy!
Yay for gun totting coup de tat rednecks!
Curly Bill
2/22/2009, 01:38 PM
Yay for gun totting coup de tat rednecks!
Because in your ivory tower world anyone who has a gun and might actually use it to defend their liberties must be a redneck right? ;)
KC//CRIMSON
2/22/2009, 01:39 PM
Because in your ivory tower world anyone who has a gun and might actually use it to defend their liberties must be a redneck right? ;)
Why Curly Bill, you look like someone just walked all over your grave.
Curly Bill
2/22/2009, 01:43 PM
Why Curly Bill, you look like someone just walked all over your grave.
You probably find graveyards icky too huh?
KC sure sounds bitter, doesn't he? You'd think he'd be all giddy since his communist co** sucking pals own the White House, Senate and House. But why all the angst?
Are you worried that things are fixing to go to complete sh*t and there will be no Republicans to blame this time?
Your boy just announced higher taxes for businesses...in the midst of a deep recession. Is he really that big of an idiot?
You know what, dude? F*** you. It won't matter what your communist c*** sucking pals do, we will still be armed.
SoonerBorn68
2/22/2009, 05:12 PM
Gun totting (sic) rednecks rule! Yee Haa!
KC//CRIMSON
2/22/2009, 05:27 PM
KC sure sounds bitter, doesn't he? You'd think he'd be all giddy since his communist co** sucking pals own the White House, Senate and House. But why all the angst?
Are you worried that things are fixing to go to complete sh*t and there will be no Republicans to blame this time?
Your boy just announced higher taxes for businesses...in the midst of a deep recession. Is he really that big of an idiot?
You know what, dude? F*** you. It won't matter what your communist c*** sucking pals do, we will still be armed.
Settle down, Jim Bob. Relax, drink your Schlitz, fire your big manly gun, and drive your big eighteen wheel truck. USA! USA! USA!
Oh, and F*** you too!:D
jkjsooner
2/22/2009, 07:25 PM
I don't understand you point. You make a statement about an "inner city house", then "a rural white person's house" - just what kind of racist statement are you trying to make? White folk don't live in the inner city or non-white folk don't live in rural areas? Don't you think this is somewhat racist of you?
No, I'm painting two a completely opposite pictures to make a point. No where did I say or even imply any of what you said. Geez!
jkjsooner
2/22/2009, 07:41 PM
Yay Ben
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Nuff said
So now that Bush is out of office that saying is back in vogue?
Before this gets locked, I'm one lib who is armed. Well armed. For hunting, for sport, for collecting, and for defending myself if needed. As Vaevictis says, to kill if it becomes necessary. What I like about the current state of affairs is that I don't have to explain why I own a gun or which critter it works best on.
The lady in the video is exactly right, the purpose of the 2nd is for the populace to overthrow the gubmint if necessary. And, to deter the same gubmint from acting in a way that will warrant overthrowin'.
All that said, I intend to act in every other way, ie: voting, influencing, and informing my elected reps so that I can go on peacefully plinking targets and polishing guns for their aesthetic and collectible aspects. Because killin' sucks and should be the last resort. In the meantime, it remains on the table as an option.
I wish y'all (2 of my favorite posters btw) hadn't gotten personal and probably got this otherwise decent dialogue thread locked. I was enjoyin' it.
Boarder
2/22/2009, 10:42 PM
Locked? Doesn't look locked to me. I was going to, but Right America:Feeling Wronged is on and I'm busy watching that.
olevetonahill
2/22/2009, 10:43 PM
So now that Bush is out of office that saying is back in vogue?
Always has been "In Vogue" with me .
I dont agree with the Patriot act either .
jes sayin
yermom
2/22/2009, 10:45 PM
i'm still not that sure what we are arguing about?
Vaevictis
2/22/2009, 10:49 PM
i'm still not that sure what we are arguing about?
RLIMC started with the premise that Texas doesn't suck, so of course the conversation turned to firearms, because anyone who says such a thing deserves to be shot.
yermom
2/22/2009, 10:52 PM
well, i am certainly against that stance
Vaevictis
2/22/2009, 10:53 PM
well, i am certainly against that stance
I hope you're referring to the "Texas doesn't suck" stance and not the part where we shoot anyone advancing the notion.
yermom
2/22/2009, 11:04 PM
ok, i meant the premise
shoot away :D
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/22/2009, 11:14 PM
RLIMC started with the premise that Texas doesn't suck, so of course the conversation turned to firearms, because anyone who says such a thing deserves to be shot.Well, at least one of your posts made sense. The above, not so much.
Scott D
2/22/2009, 11:48 PM
Are you sure about this part?
the only gayness attached to Chicago at this point is anything coming out of Kanye West's mouth. And I'm quite sure that he wouldn't get involved in a knife fight.
yermom
2/22/2009, 11:54 PM
tell that to Queen Latifah ;)
Vaevictis
2/23/2009, 12:49 AM
Well, at least one of your posts made sense. The above, not so much.
Woosh.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.