and while i have no issues w/ bearing arms (within reason) the veiled threats and intimidation of this combo are pretty classless and in the end won't do anything to help his argument.
anyway, we already voted. maybe this guy should be told the same thing progessives had to hear ad infinitu the last 8 years:
"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;
that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom
of the press." Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson
BTW, not everyone in our architectural world believes that Obama is the Second Coming.
1. are you saying that this is not intimidation meant to stifle opposing viewpoints?
cos it's a direct threat: if you keep up what you are doing, i have no problem shooting people over it. which might be more acceptable, if obama was actually a tyrant. the guy is saying he'a a patriot, when he's the farthest thing from it. the problem is these morons wouldn't know a tyrant if it made them remove their shoes to board a f*cking airplane. as obama was elected by an overwhelming majority in a free election, he is hardly a tyrant. bush, who's grab for power via the supreme court was acting tyrannical.
2. do you think these a**hats and dbags are whiny hypocrites for not voicing similar conserns over the actions of the previous administration? or are they just sore losers? i think yes, on both counts.
3. who said obama was the second coming?!? good god, man stop watching faux noise! i'm just glad he's not batsh*t crazy like mccain (for picking a friggin nutball veep candidate that quit every job when it got too hard) or bush, who actually did behave like a tyrant.
if anything, obama's not doing enough for the base that got him in office. he's getting it from the left and right. i guess that makes him a moderate.
it would be interesting to see if TJ's views on weapons would be the same if he knew that any old geek off the streets in 2009 could fire one of these:
smith & wesson 9mm(pictured above)
weight: 1.5 pounds
length: 7.5"
rate of fire: 50+ rounds per minute
effective range: 50-75 yards
capacity: 18 bullet
v.
springfield model 1795 musket (muzzle loaded)
weight: 10 pounds
length: 42-45 inches
rate of fire: 2-3 rounds per minute
effective range: 50-75 yards
capacity: 1 bullet
I am not a right wing nut job, and I do not watch 'faux news'.
I am a libertarian which means I abhor Bush's civil liberty grabs (growth of government, loss of personal liberties) and Obama's overt intentions of socialization (growth of government, loss of personal liberties).
All administrations have used heavy intimidation of common citizens by the Justice Department.
Do I think that bringing a firearm in plain view to a protest is a 'smart' method of getting your point across, especially with the leaning of mainstream media? Hell no.
But my point is that the 2nd ammendment is not about hunting, and not always about stopping a criminal from harming you.
It was written as a fundamental reminder to a large centralized government that the citizens could push back, so to speak, in the face of a large power grab.
Trouble is ALL administrations have grown their own power incrementally, usually "for jobs, the economy, terrorism, and the children". Bush did it, Clinton did it, and we are now witnessing it again, from someone who is 20x slicker than Bush, perhaps even Clinton. And we all sit fat dumb and happy as each administration does a bait-and-switch of 'goodies' for 'liberties'. Therefore, there is never an obvious, defining moment for citizens to 'push back'.
I quote Thomas Jefferson, seeing how revered he is among historians and across the political spectrum, and to to demonstrate that citizens arming themselves is not new, crazy, or unfounded. Not some sort of NRA hype stunt, or only the behavior of backwood militias.
When Jefferson spoke of a citizen back then arming themselves to fight against, say a soldier back then, it would have been musket vs musket.
Any 'old geek' nowadays cannot on the other hand purchase say, a full auto M16 or M60, or a fighter jet, or tank, or rocket launcher.
A 9mm is a pathetic load pretty much only good for one on one defense.
Current citizens have ZERO firepower that matches modern military power.
Our own national guards, in place to quell uprisings within our own borders is armed with fully automatic weaponry and heavy artillery including tanks.
Do you think Jefferson, or any back then would have smiled upon local governments arming themselves, mightier than many small countries, to quell their own citizens??
The left also needs to get past the lie of 'anyone off the street can buy a firearm'. Everyone that legally purchases a firearm is subject to a federal background check. Yes, even at gun shows, contrary to media hype. Any many states have a lengthy waiting period and local check too.
The trouble is any criminal off the street can buy a rust illegal weapon for $10 in 10 minutes, while the legal buyer is still waiting, being fingerprinted, searched, questioned and generally rubber-gloved. This premise holds true for most laws and regulations across our government. Those that follow the rules are penalized with excruciating taxes, regulations and bureaucracy, and those that do not are rewarded with quick profits and small penalties. Just check the construction industry.
nowhere in the second amendment does it say the right to bear arms is to attack the goverment. nor does it guarantee the right to the same armaments as the goverment. nor to intimidate or coerce the population. it says to keep and bear arms, which doesn't necessarily mean for morons to carry them in open view as a show of force and intimidation.
btw, the guy in the photo is a ron paul-loving distopian fetishist as well. most of the wingnuts i know claim to be libertarians until you come to separation of church/state and rights of gays/minorities.
what civil liberties have you lost under obama?
who needs to be 'slick' (dog whistle) to grab power, when you can just use tom ridge and false "terror alerts" to do the same thing?
and you completely contradict yourself when you say not anyone can purchase a gun, and then any one (even criminals) can get them illegally.
Ron Paul has some semblance of intelligence and coherency. It's the Lyndon LaRouche supporters you have to watch out for that are completely off their rocker. They're the ones who are carrying the 'Obama as Hitler' posters and claiming that expanded medical insurance is equal to Nazi medical practices.
The dishonest claim that the health care reforms create 'Death Panels' to rule from on-high about whether granny Smith gets her treatment or not is false and what makes it worse is that uninformed and low-information citizens are going to these town hall meetings believing a falsehood as fact further demonstrates that their capacity for open and honest debate based on facts and not hearsay is impossible. The key point to understand is that these people aren't thinking their "feeling" or "believing." Neither of which can be countered by facts or reality.
How do you have a reasoned argument with someone, like a LaRoucheite, who is convinced that no matter what you say, the Government is passing policies that are anti-American and anti-Liberty. That every answer you give is proof that the government is lying or covering up their tracks. It's like having an arguments with alien conspiracy people or creationists.
My biggest complaint about many of these people claiming to save us from the tyranny that is liberalism (oh the irony of that thought process) is that holding contradictory thoughts in their head at the same times causes such levels of cognitive dissonance that they're heads would explode if they actually started thinking instead of believing.
I should probably just leave this thread alone, it is a bit easy, but hey, it's fun enraging the politically sensitive:
"nowhere in the second amendment does it say the right to bear arms is to attack the goverment. nor does it guarantee the right to the same armaments as the goverment. nor to intimidate or coerce the population. it says to keep and bear arms, which doesn't necessarily mean for morons to carry them in open view as a show of force and intimidation. "
You are confusing the concepts of "rights" and "purposes". If you want to understand the true purpose of the second amendment, as it was established, there are thousands of pages written about this. I suggest you start with the Federalist papers.
BTW, nobody has said the 2nd ammendment is for intimidation or coercion, those would be your interpretations of this situation, and certainly is not the intention of the amendment. Also, what is your definition of 'bear arms' then? at home in a safe? concealed? only by police?
"btw, the guy in the photo is a ron paul-loving distopian fetishist as well. most of the wingnuts i know claim to be libertarians until you come to separation of church/state and rights of gays/minorities. "
Wow, nice internet hatred of Ron Paul, one of the only honest, and decent politicians of our day. He opposes almost all the same of what you hate of the Evil George Bush, and yes, opposes the insane growth of the government that is now under away in different venues.
I also suggest you read the Libertarian platform. I personally am not quite as extreme as all of them hold to, but I certainly support the separation of church & state, and have no issues with gays (I'm actually an outspoken supporter) and minorities having the exact same rights as any other class of people. Well, until some groups start having more rights that others so to speak. Read Animal House, it'll give you a good start with that.
"what civil liberties have you lost under obama?"
He's only been in office 8 months. Wait till mid-term elections. Even your buddy Bush needed some time. I would also guess that the right to keep my own paycheck is not a something you consider a liberty. But just wait, the fun will start to trickle in after the Dems keep congress in 2010.
"who needs to be 'slick' (dog whistle) to grab power, when you can just use tom ridge and false "terror alerts" to do the same thing?"
Umm, see above. both parties do it. Some with 'terrorism', some with 'health care', some with 'minority rights'. You name it, they have a slick marketing spin for it. But it's all financial and power grabs.
"and you completely contradict yourself when you say not anyone can purchase a gun, and then any one (even criminals) can get them illegally."
Wow, should I even respond to this?
Here is my statement from above:
"Everyone that legally purchases a firearm is subject to a federal background check. Yes, even at gun shows, contrary to media hype. Any many states have a lengthy waiting period and local check too.
The trouble is any criminal off the street can buy a rust illegal weapon for $10 in 10 minutes, while the legal buyer is still waiting, being fingerprinted, searched, questioned and generally rubber-gloved."
Please point out my contradiction. And then if you're correct, that means I can go and buy any weapon I want tonight? Sweet.
I'm curious who can get the more vehement hatred of the far left: Palin or the Health Care Protesters. I'll just sit back and watch, it is kind of fun.
Aug 28, 09 12:52 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
13 Comments
ironically, the previous administration did a pretty damn good job at watering down rights and blowing out spending to new heights.
unfortunately, those on the right are so blinded they fail to see this.
and while i have no issues w/ bearing arms (within reason) the veiled threats and intimidation of this combo are pretty classless and in the end won't do anything to help his argument.
anyway, we already voted. maybe this guy should be told the same thing progessives had to hear ad infinitu the last 8 years:
if you don't like it here, you can always leave!
elections have consequences
a**hats.
Some quotes from 'a**hat' Thomas Jefferson:
"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;
that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom
of the press." Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson
BTW, not everyone in our architectural world believes that Obama is the Second Coming.
Geoff,
1. are you saying that this is not intimidation meant to stifle opposing viewpoints?
cos it's a direct threat: if you keep up what you are doing, i have no problem shooting people over it. which might be more acceptable, if obama was actually a tyrant. the guy is saying he'a a patriot, when he's the farthest thing from it. the problem is these morons wouldn't know a tyrant if it made them remove their shoes to board a f*cking airplane. as obama was elected by an overwhelming majority in a free election, he is hardly a tyrant. bush, who's grab for power via the supreme court was acting tyrannical.
2. do you think these a**hats and dbags are whiny hypocrites for not voicing similar conserns over the actions of the previous administration? or are they just sore losers? i think yes, on both counts.
3. who said obama was the second coming?!? good god, man stop watching faux noise! i'm just glad he's not batsh*t crazy like mccain (for picking a friggin nutball veep candidate that quit every job when it got too hard) or bush, who actually did behave like a tyrant.
if anything, obama's not doing enough for the base that got him in office. he's getting it from the left and right. i guess that makes him a moderate.
it would be interesting to see if TJ's views on weapons would be the same if he knew that any old geek off the streets in 2009 could fire one of these:
smith & wesson 9mm(pictured above)
weight: 1.5 pounds
length: 7.5"
rate of fire: 50+ rounds per minute
effective range: 50-75 yards
capacity: 18 bullet
v.
springfield model 1795 musket (muzzle loaded)
weight: 10 pounds
length: 42-45 inches
rate of fire: 2-3 rounds per minute
effective range: 50-75 yards
capacity: 1 bullet
I am not a right wing nut job, and I do not watch 'faux news'.
I am a libertarian which means I abhor Bush's civil liberty grabs (growth of government, loss of personal liberties) and Obama's overt intentions of socialization (growth of government, loss of personal liberties).
All administrations have used heavy intimidation of common citizens by the Justice Department.
Do I think that bringing a firearm in plain view to a protest is a 'smart' method of getting your point across, especially with the leaning of mainstream media? Hell no.
But my point is that the 2nd ammendment is not about hunting, and not always about stopping a criminal from harming you.
It was written as a fundamental reminder to a large centralized government that the citizens could push back, so to speak, in the face of a large power grab.
Trouble is ALL administrations have grown their own power incrementally, usually "for jobs, the economy, terrorism, and the children". Bush did it, Clinton did it, and we are now witnessing it again, from someone who is 20x slicker than Bush, perhaps even Clinton. And we all sit fat dumb and happy as each administration does a bait-and-switch of 'goodies' for 'liberties'. Therefore, there is never an obvious, defining moment for citizens to 'push back'.
I quote Thomas Jefferson, seeing how revered he is among historians and across the political spectrum, and to to demonstrate that citizens arming themselves is not new, crazy, or unfounded. Not some sort of NRA hype stunt, or only the behavior of backwood militias.
BTW, in response to your comparisons of firearms:
When Jefferson spoke of a citizen back then arming themselves to fight against, say a soldier back then, it would have been musket vs musket.
Any 'old geek' nowadays cannot on the other hand purchase say, a full auto M16 or M60, or a fighter jet, or tank, or rocket launcher.
A 9mm is a pathetic load pretty much only good for one on one defense.
Current citizens have ZERO firepower that matches modern military power.
Our own national guards, in place to quell uprisings within our own borders is armed with fully automatic weaponry and heavy artillery including tanks.
Do you think Jefferson, or any back then would have smiled upon local governments arming themselves, mightier than many small countries, to quell their own citizens??
The left also needs to get past the lie of 'anyone off the street can buy a firearm'. Everyone that legally purchases a firearm is subject to a federal background check. Yes, even at gun shows, contrary to media hype. Any many states have a lengthy waiting period and local check too.
The trouble is any criminal off the street can buy a rust illegal weapon for $10 in 10 minutes, while the legal buyer is still waiting, being fingerprinted, searched, questioned and generally rubber-gloved. This premise holds true for most laws and regulations across our government. Those that follow the rules are penalized with excruciating taxes, regulations and bureaucracy, and those that do not are rewarded with quick profits and small penalties. Just check the construction industry.
geoff,
nowhere in the second amendment does it say the right to bear arms is to attack the goverment. nor does it guarantee the right to the same armaments as the goverment. nor to intimidate or coerce the population. it says to keep and bear arms, which doesn't necessarily mean for morons to carry them in open view as a show of force and intimidation.
btw, the guy in the photo is a ron paul-loving distopian fetishist as well. most of the wingnuts i know claim to be libertarians until you come to separation of church/state and rights of gays/minorities.
what civil liberties have you lost under obama?
who needs to be 'slick' (dog whistle) to grab power, when you can just use tom ridge and false "terror alerts" to do the same thing?
and you completely contradict yourself when you say not anyone can purchase a gun, and then any one (even criminals) can get them illegally.
"Any 'old geek' nowadays cannot on the other hand purchase say, a full auto M16 or M60, or a fighter jet, or tank, or rocket launcher."
With the exception of the fighter jet, the other three are relatively easy to get your hands on!
I would place a wager that it is probably a hell of a lot easier to get a tank than it is 1000 kilos of cocaine.
Ron Paul has some semblance of intelligence and coherency. It's the Lyndon LaRouche supporters you have to watch out for that are completely off their rocker. They're the ones who are carrying the 'Obama as Hitler' posters and claiming that expanded medical insurance is equal to Nazi medical practices.
The dishonest claim that the health care reforms create 'Death Panels' to rule from on-high about whether granny Smith gets her treatment or not is false and what makes it worse is that uninformed and low-information citizens are going to these town hall meetings believing a falsehood as fact further demonstrates that their capacity for open and honest debate based on facts and not hearsay is impossible. The key point to understand is that these people aren't thinking their "feeling" or "believing." Neither of which can be countered by facts or reality.
How do you have a reasoned argument with someone, like a LaRoucheite, who is convinced that no matter what you say, the Government is passing policies that are anti-American and anti-Liberty. That every answer you give is proof that the government is lying or covering up their tracks. It's like having an arguments with alien conspiracy people or creationists.
My biggest complaint about many of these people claiming to save us from the tyranny that is liberalism (oh the irony of that thought process) is that holding contradictory thoughts in their head at the same times causes such levels of cognitive dissonance that they're heads would explode if they actually started thinking instead of believing.
Please change/edit the title for this thread. It promotes a biased point-of-view and it a horrible example of journalism.
I should probably just leave this thread alone, it is a bit easy, but hey, it's fun enraging the politically sensitive:
"nowhere in the second amendment does it say the right to bear arms is to attack the goverment. nor does it guarantee the right to the same armaments as the goverment. nor to intimidate or coerce the population. it says to keep and bear arms, which doesn't necessarily mean for morons to carry them in open view as a show of force and intimidation. "
You are confusing the concepts of "rights" and "purposes". If you want to understand the true purpose of the second amendment, as it was established, there are thousands of pages written about this. I suggest you start with the Federalist papers.
BTW, nobody has said the 2nd ammendment is for intimidation or coercion, those would be your interpretations of this situation, and certainly is not the intention of the amendment. Also, what is your definition of 'bear arms' then? at home in a safe? concealed? only by police?
"btw, the guy in the photo is a ron paul-loving distopian fetishist as well. most of the wingnuts i know claim to be libertarians until you come to separation of church/state and rights of gays/minorities. "
Wow, nice internet hatred of Ron Paul, one of the only honest, and decent politicians of our day. He opposes almost all the same of what you hate of the Evil George Bush, and yes, opposes the insane growth of the government that is now under away in different venues.
I also suggest you read the Libertarian platform. I personally am not quite as extreme as all of them hold to, but I certainly support the separation of church & state, and have no issues with gays (I'm actually an outspoken supporter) and minorities having the exact same rights as any other class of people. Well, until some groups start having more rights that others so to speak. Read Animal House, it'll give you a good start with that.
"what civil liberties have you lost under obama?"
He's only been in office 8 months. Wait till mid-term elections. Even your buddy Bush needed some time. I would also guess that the right to keep my own paycheck is not a something you consider a liberty. But just wait, the fun will start to trickle in after the Dems keep congress in 2010.
"who needs to be 'slick' (dog whistle) to grab power, when you can just use tom ridge and false "terror alerts" to do the same thing?"
Umm, see above. both parties do it. Some with 'terrorism', some with 'health care', some with 'minority rights'. You name it, they have a slick marketing spin for it. But it's all financial and power grabs.
"and you completely contradict yourself when you say not anyone can purchase a gun, and then any one (even criminals) can get them illegally."
Wow, should I even respond to this?
Here is my statement from above:
"Everyone that legally purchases a firearm is subject to a federal background check. Yes, even at gun shows, contrary to media hype. Any many states have a lengthy waiting period and local check too.
The trouble is any criminal off the street can buy a rust illegal weapon for $10 in 10 minutes, while the legal buyer is still waiting, being fingerprinted, searched, questioned and generally rubber-gloved."
Please point out my contradiction. And then if you're correct, that means I can go and buy any weapon I want tonight? Sweet.
I'm curious who can get the more vehement hatred of the far left: Palin or the Health Care Protesters. I'll just sit back and watch, it is kind of fun.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.