quote:Originally posted by typh00n

quote: Typhoon argued that a President's policies do not have an immediate effect and I said that was Rush Limbaugh nonsense!

bull****, i never said anything of the sort
heh


Sorry Typhoon. It was Boss that said it. My bad.

quote:I have seen posters like Bone Collector duck and dodge questions and change the subject really quick. It tells me they are not able to answer the questions or do not want to answer them so they do what they can to avoid them. That would lose them points in a debate.


Please show me where. If you are going to make accusations like that please show me where i ducked and dodged and I will be more than happy to answer you. If I dont answer a question it is usually because a. It doesnt deserve me responding to it, or b. I am not knowledgeable in the subject, or c. I simply didnt see it. Point out what I dont want to answer please.

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Galactic Overlord
My personal freedoms have already been violated, but not to the degree as other Americans. What? So because it hasn't happened to me to that degree I shouldn't worry about it? That's how the Nazi's came to power. They came for the radicals, and no one said a word. They came for the Homosexuals and no one said anything, they came for the Communists, and a few said something, then they came for the few who said something, and after that one by one they came for everyone that wasn't a part of the "Aryan master plan." If someone had spoken up when they first started violating human rights, they might not have made it to the massacres of the Jews! But no one did, because "their" rights weren't being violated!


Gonna throw some logic at you. Liberals always say things EXACTLY like you said them just now. Liberals always compare the patriot act to nazis. Liberals champion the rights of a few over the rights of the many. You did all of those things in the quote above. Therefore using logic, SGO=Liberal. It is not really that difficult to understand and I hate having to resort to little kid tactics in order to get a point across to you, but there you have it.

The only people who have had their human rights violated are people who are of questionable conduct. If you can point out one instance where someone who was not acting in a way that drew su****ion had their rights violated please do so. Also, please dont quote communist/libby/homosexual/nytimes websites. They have no credibility. You guys were screaming for a 911 commission. Republicans werent clamoring for one. It was democrats. Why? To try to prove that Bush was somehow responsible for not doing enough to prevent it. We pass the patriot act and now you are screaming about him doing too much in order to prevent another one. You cant have it both ways. The patriot act is a good thing and one that will probably (if it already hasnt, see ohio mall plot) prevent many more terrorist attacks.




quote:
Marijuana is "mildy" harmful in a "few" ways, but nothing compared to the CURRENT LEGAL DRUGS being sold by the AMA and the big DRUG COMPANIES! You need to do YOUR research.

I will admit I dont know enough about marijuana because I dont need to escape from my life therefore I dont smoke it. My back hurts and has for everyday of the last 5 years. Some mornings it takes me 10 minutes to get out of bed. Guess I should try some marijuana? Nah, it is illegal. People who want marijuana to be legalized are usually already addicted to the drug and therefore their minds are clouded by bias. Let me give you a quote real quick.

"Effects on the Heart

One study has indicated that a user’s risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana(8). The researchers suggest that such an effect might occur from marijuana’s effects on blood pressure and heart rate and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.

Effects on the Lungs

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers(9). Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses."
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/marijuana.html

Granted that is a biased website but argue the science not the source please.

quote:
3. Liberal media. When did Bush say that the terrorists were just a nuisance? Hmmm...he never said that.

Again, this shows how much research YOU have done. In Dr. Rice's own testimony defending the President's actions prior to 911 she ADMITTED he said this. Here is a quote for the actual TRANSCRIPT!

quote:Taken From Dr. Rice Testimony Transcripts

President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was tired of swatting flies.


Hmmm...should I even repond to that? If you are gonna argue with an educated person you shouldnt try to put words in their mouth. It doesnt work that way. You must be used to arguing with you child or something. You said Bush said al-qaeda was just a nuisance. I said he never said that. You said yes he did and provided me with a quote that SHOWS that he knew al-qaeda was more than a nuisance. Weird, but thanks for proving my point.

quote:I heard her say this with my own ears, of course you'll blame the "liberal media" but heh, I guess they did a "voice over" on that statement?

No, the liberal media didnt report highly on this aspect of Dr. Rice. They simply tried to reinterpret what she said to be damaging to Bush. But they, like you, only solidify the educated conservatives arguments when they try to do this. You guys confuse easily so I realize this isnt really a fair fight. Perhaps I should slow down?

quote:
However, later on in your rant you make the claim that the TV is BAD. Perhaps you have listened a bit too much to the libbys on the evening news. Stop taking what they say as fact and really look into it. I mean, these are the same people who said "9-11 commission finds no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda". With a little research you will find that is nowhere NEAR what they found, nor what they said. The liberal media has an agenda and it looks like they have you fooled as well. Sigh...

I think you need to go back and read my post, it appears you didn't understand a word I said. What I believe and what I wrote can IN NO WAY be considered "liberal propoganda."

Actually lots of things you espouse are libby ideals. Why are you guys afraid of showing your true colors? Be proud that you are communist/homosexual/rights of the few over the rights of the many person. At least then you dont lose credibility trying to backtrack on your positions.

quote:
4. I sleep fine at night. My gun is resting close by so if someone breaks in my house you wont have to worry about them breaking in yours.

Hope you don't have kids in the house. You're just asking for tragedy.

Hmmm, another libby media myth. I grew up with guns all over our house. Responsible parents dont have problems with their guns. It is the lowlife, "i need marijuana to cloud my judgement because I hurt" kind of people who have trouble with their kids getting their guns. BTW, another liberal ideal is gun control. You have shown your true colors again. Dont be ashamed, most authors are libbys. According to your logic I shouldnt let my kid drive or even ride in a car either. Guns make people safer. If you are resonsible then accidents very seldom happen. There are so many things wrong with your thinking that I cannot even seem to come up with where to start. Let me try:
1. You say that Bush is trying to install a nazi state.
2. Guns provide us with our BEST and ONLY defense against something like this happening.
3. You hint that you are anti-gun.
That doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me.

Do me a favor. Get a gun and sit it on your living room table and call me when it goes off. In today's world there are too many excuses made for bad things that people do. Guns dont shoot people by themselves. Yes you are going to argue that Columbine, et al, wouldnt have been as bad without guns. However, I will point out a couple of things wrong with that. Bad people are going to do bad things no matter what. Rwanda is an example. Many of the 800,000 or so deaths were by machete, not guns. Also, imagine for a second if, like in Israel, teachers at Columbine had been armed. How many people would have died that day?

quote:
5. Are you arguing with the statement that policies dont have an immediate effect in many instances and especially when tax cuts are involved? If so, perhaps it is you who is lacking in research.

Again you didn't read my post, or understand it, I argued no such thing. Typhoon argued that a President's policies do not have an immediate effect and I said that was Rush Limbaugh nonsense!


Ok here we are again. Are you seriously so blinded by your need to argue that you cant see what you just did. I asked if you argued and you said NO. Then you called the point Boss made nonsense. SGO, that is arguing that someone is wrong. Sorry, but again you make this so easy. Here is my opinion on what you did. I presented to you a chance to prove a point that you knew couldnt be proven so you responded by trying to deflect attention away from the point. Sigh...

quote:
You say it won't happen, but we have only your word, and it's not very trustworthy considering you just read a statement I made concerning the medicinal benefits of Pot and said "AHA A POT SMOKER ARREST HIM!"


Actually, I never said arrest anyone. You dont have only my word, you have the word of the American spirit. It wont happen here as long as we have guns. When the dems take our guns away then you can start getting worried. Perhaps I should offer you a brief reminder of where the beliefs of libs leads...In the early 1900's the Soviet Union turned to a party that believed that the rich should give up their money and help the poor. Along came Uncle Joe and 20 million died. MORE than Hitler ever killed and the American democratic party held Stalin in the highest regard. Of course, why wouldnt they as the democratic party was overrun with communist spies. That is where the dems want to take us. THINK ABOUT IT!

quote: I will admit I dont know enough about marijuana because I dont need to escape from my life therefore I dont smoke it. My back hurts and has for everyday of the last 5 years. Some mornings it takes me 10 minutes to get out of bed. Guess I should try some marijuana? Nah, it is illegal. People who want marijuana to be legalized are usually already addicted to the drug and therefore their minds are clouded by bias. Let me give you a quote real quick.

The question that needs to be answered is not whether marijuana affects our hearts and lungs - but whether we as a society benefit from having it remain illegal.

yes, marijuana is unhealthy (the clips you posted look relatively accurate - marijuana contains ample amounts of carcinogens, and temporarily speeds up the heart rate to a point almost rivaling cocaine). But we don't illegalize everything that's unhealthy. Compared to alcohol and tobacco (or cars, exhaust, guns, pollutants, etc) , marijuana's in little-killer-league.

It's a simple cost-benefit ratio. We would be better off with legal and taxable marijuana, than with illegal marijuana and a costly prohibitional campaign, that enriches those who smuggle and profit from its illegality.

If you plan to call me an addict, whose mind is clouded by bias, please don't bother, and respond to the logic.

Well, where do I begin? First of all, we've really strayed off the subject, but I don't mind, if no one else does. Secondly, I am a MEMBER of the NRA, and I am categorically against Gun Control, in fact, I believe the banning of automatic weapons was a violation of the Constitution, and banning of certain categories of weapons calling them the vague term "assault weapons" was a slap in the face, because ANY weapon can be used to assault! That's just common sense. The evil men who argued "these weapons were created for one person and that is to assault and kill," issued a massive slap in the face to every American Soldier who has ever fought and died, for it turns them all into murderers. These weapons were created for "defense." Defense of our Country, defense of our ideals, defense of our way of life, and the soldier's personal defense when sent on a dangerous mission.

Yet, your concluding that I am for "gun control" simply because I cautioned you to be careful with your guns with kids around the house, well, again, it proves my point, as usual you open mouth and insert foot with sweeping generalities.

Also, if your parents left guns lying around the house with kids in the house they were irresponsible. Sorry, but that is my opinion and it's NOT liberal, get some of the NRA material, you will find this sentiment reflected there as well. It's called "responsible" ownership my friend!


quote:Originally posted by Bone Collector

Liberals always say things EXACTLY like you said them just now. Liberals always compare the patriot act to nazis.

Well, even a liberal can get some things right! Let me give you some history though. 100 years ago the Republican Party were the Liberals.

quote:
Liberals champion the rights of a few over the rights of the many.


Something we can agree on!

quote:
You did all of those things in the quote above.
I highly disagree. In my statements I have championed the rights of all free Americans, not just a few!

quote:
The only people who have had their human rights violated are people who are of questionable conduct.

Again, you haven't done your research. One of the first people arrested and detained was a College professor who had, earlier in his career written books that criticized American Foreign Policy. Some of the radical terrorist liked what he said (that does not make him a terrorist any more than me liking some of the things that a Liberal says makes me a Liberal) but see, this is how your mind works, no wonder you think the Patriot act is such a good thing.

Anyway, the Professor's name and a quote appeared in one of the letters of the 911 bombers. They arrested the professor, detained him without lawyers, without any defense, and proceeded to destroy his career. He committed "suicide" in prison. In the initial phases of SS tyrany, do you know how many detanees "committed suicide?" Almost all of them!

quote:
If you can point out one instance where someone who was not acting in a way that drew su****ion had their rights violated please do so.
See above.
quote:
Also, please dont quote communist/libby/homosexual/nytimes websites.
Huh? I haven't quoted a single web site. I did quote the direct TRANSCRIPT of the hearings!

quote:
You guys were screaming for a 911 commission. Republicans werent clamoring for one.
Duh! Of course not, it's a Republican President! When has the Republican party EVER clamored for a hearing to impune their own President, not in the history of this great nation, not even when "tricky ****y" was completely caught with his pants down!

quote:
It was democrats. Why? To try to prove that Bush was somehow responsible for not doing enough to prevent it.

Actually, a hearing does not attempt to establish "evidence" of anything, a hearing is just that, a "hearing" of testimony to decide what should be done, if anything, and oh, by the way, these hearings were not established by "Liberals" they were established by the founding fathers. It's called "system of checks and balances." If you want to blame anyone, blame them!

quote:
We pass the patriot act and now you are screaming about him doing too much in order to prevent another one.

When you say "we" to whom do you refer? You forget that most of the men who voted for that law are those you call "Liberals."

quote:
You cant have it both ways. The patriot act is a good thing and one that will probably (if it already hasnt, see ohio mall plot) prevent many more terrorist attacks.

Benjamin Franklin and the other Patriarchs disagreed with you. You CAN protect this country, and secure it without trampling on American Freedoms! If you actually believe the above statement you are more LIBERAL than you let on. In fact, it is YOU who are starting to sound like the communist for if you research the Communist Manifesto it criticizes American Democracy and individual rights for the VERY SAME REASON, saying that you cannot have BOTH individual rights, and a SECURE STATE! Go to the Library dude!

quote:
Guess I should try some marijuana? Nah, it is illegal.

So, basically, your argument is that "Marijuana should never be legalized because it's illegal." Man you are messed up!

It's not illegal everywhere, and there is more than ample evidence to show that the drug is FAR safer than the current LEGAL drugs used for pain. What you are clearly arguing is that a patient dying of Cancer and in excruciating pain should not be allowed to use Marijuana because it might have long lasting affects on his heart? Heh! I just wish you would use your brain before you say things. So, a dying cancer patient should not be allowed Marijuana because there's a small risk of a heart attack, (when he'll be dead in 6 months anyway) so instead, lets give him Opiats, that destroy the brain, the liver, the heart, the kidneys, the pancreas, and the central nervous system in a very short time.

quote:
People who want marijuana to be legalized are usually already addicted to the drug and therefore their minds are clouded by bias.
The Government's own medical commission reported that Marijuana is NOT ADDICTIVE. You really haven't done your research have you?

quote:

Hmmm...should I even repond to that? If you are gonna argue with an educated person you shouldnt try to put words in their mouth.
I didn't put words in her mouth, I added NOTHING to her statement I quoted it as is!


quote:
You said Bush said al-qaeda was just a nuisance.

Never said that, what I said was that Bush considered the small pockets of extremests slipping into the country on false Visa's a "nuisance." Dr. Rice's own testimony bears this out. Rice was asked why the President didn't do more to stop these extremeists from coming into the country with false Visa's. She answered by saying "he was tired of swatting at flies." Hence, he clearly considered them a nuisance only, and wanted a more "large scale war against the entire network." At the very least, Rice's testimony proves that Bush is an absolute Moron, not understanding the threat at home because he's off staring at Bin Ladin in Afghaniston. It also demonstrates that Bush wanted a "reason" to go to war with someone on a large scale, and that is where his attention was focused.

What you have failed to understand or even acknowledge is that the Patriot Act does nothing to stop terrorists from slipping into the country. It also does nothing to stop them from forming cell groups and plotting while in here. The Patriot Act hurts only one person, the law abiding citizen. This law is JUST LIKE gun control. Take away legal guns and the only people who will have guns is outlaws. Take away the privacy of the American Citizen, and now you have turned this country into a mirror image of the totalitarian regimes that the terrorists love so much. The Patriot Act has set the stage for the destruction of the American way of life, and guess what, that's what the terrorists wanted to begin with!

quote:
No, the liberal media didnt report highly on this aspect of Dr. Rice. They simply tried to reinterpret what she said to be damaging to Bush.
No reinterpetation was necessary, she said what she said, and if you take it into the context of the question she was answering, there's no other way to take her comments.

quote:
Actually lots of things you espouse are libby ideals.
No in all actuality most of the things YOU espouse are "liberalism" and "communistic." Every time you defend the Patriot Act you expose what a liberal and a communists you really are!

quote:Originaly Posted By you

4. I sleep fine at night. My gun is resting close by so if someone breaks in my house you wont have to worry about them breaking in yours.
quote:My Response

Hope you don't have kids in the house. You're just asking for tragedy.

Hmmm, another libby media myth.


Not so, it's a statistical fact, and even the IRA encourages you to keep your guns under lock and key if you have children, it's not a liberal ideal, it's just good parenting and plain common sense.

quote:
I grew up with guns all over our house.
Maybe your parents were ignorant? Would certainly explain your way of thinking. Just a suggestion.

quote:
Responsible parents dont have problems with their guns.


You're absolutely right, because responsible parents keep their guns under lock and key, not under their pillow!

quote:
There are so many things wrong with your thinking that I cannot even seem to come up with where to start. Let me try:
1. You say that Bush is trying to install a nazi state.
2. Guns provide us with our BEST and ONLY defense against something like this happening.

ROFL, do you really believe this? Do you believe that your guns are any match for the weaponry of the United States Military, the National Guard, and the Reserves? You are living in a dream world. Besides, the government is BANKING on people like you, who sit back while their freedoms are robbed away, one by one saying "well, that guy must be su****ious, that's why they arrested him," until, by the time they get around to you, there aren't enough of you left to mount any real threat of opposition! Totalitarianism occurs in increments. You don't think the German citizen's had guns? If you think not you are very sadly mistaken.

quote:
3. You hint that you are anti-gun.

Well, then the NRA is "anti-gun" because they recommend you don't leave your gun under "your pillow or mattress" with kids in the house.

quote:
Do me a favor. Get a gun and sit it on your living room table and call me when it goes off.

I have a three year old who grabs everything laying around and he's smart enough to pull a trigger. I feel sorry for your children, their father is not very responsible.



quote:
Ok here we are again. Are you seriously so blinded by your need to argue that you cant see what you just did. I asked if you argued and you said NO. Then you called the point Boss made nonsense. SGO, that is arguing that someone is wrong.

I didn't say I didn't argue, I said I didn't argue the point of which you accused me of. There's a big difference. You accused me of saying that a President's actions don't have immediate effect, when in reality I argued quite the opposite, that they DO have an immediate effect, and to say otherwise is pure nonsense. Are you SURE you don't smoke Marijuana?

quote:
Actually, I never said arrest anyone.
You most certainly did!

1. You say that anyone who defends the legalization of Marijuana is a Pot Smoker.
2. Marijuana is illegal.
3. Logic dictates you believe anyone who defends the legalization of Marijuana is a "pot smoker" you agree with it being illegal, therefore, you think those who defend legalization should be arrested. It's the logical conclusion to your argument.

quote:
You dont have only my word, you have the word of the American spirit.
Oh you mean the "Spirit" that has allowed and defended the eroding of the second Amendment for almost 50 years? Again you are living in a dream world.

quote:
It wont happen here as long as we have guns.
You don't have a single gun that can defend against the Military Might of this Nation, because all of those types of guns are just as illegal as Marijuana.

quote:
When the dems take our guns away then you can start getting worried.
They already TOOK your guns away. You think your deer rifle or shotgun is going to save you. Again.... Dream World.

quote:
(Stalin killed) MORE than Hitler ever killed and the American democratic party held Stalin in the highest regard. [/quote][/qoute]

You have forgotten China. Ever see how chummy Nixon was with them? Wait, Nixon was a Republican!!!!

The inherent dilemma of a democracy:
Early 19th century Professor Alexander Tytler described the dilemma of democracy in the following comments about ancient Athens:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilization has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
from bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness; <-------Id say about here
from selfishness to complacency; <-------or maybee here
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependency;
from dependency back into bondage."

Where are we now?

So we are doing better than the average democracy as described by Professor Alexander Tytler. In any case I hope he was wrong. Its a horrible idea that my childrens children may live in bondage.

What I find comical is that some people think it can never happen because they own a deer rifle it's kind of funny, but mostly it's tragic, and scary.

Oh, by the way, under the Patriot Act all they have to do is "say" you are "under suspision" of terrorist affiliation, and they can take your deer rifle from you. You lose ALL your Amendment rights, plus your basic rights as well. They don't have to PROVE you have terrorist ties, just say you are under suspision. In fact under that act I could be imprisoned right now for criticizing the Patriot Act in this forum. We are in serious trouble people. (suspision intentionally mispelled).

i wouldnt loose any sleep over this quote in and of itself
firstly because although this quote seems to have made its way across countless webpages - i couldnt actually ascertain that these words were ever uttered or written by mr. Tytler

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=38971

the author claims to have contacted the university of edinburgh to check the quotes accuracy - but doesn't actually mention what the university librarian said in response - other than verifying the spelling of Tytler

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp

here the author debunks some of the common myths that apparently surround this quote - namely the work it is often cited as appearing in. But doesnt actually disprove its existence (although it does make it look somewahat unlikely).

those are just the results from a quick google search, take it with a grain of salt

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Galactic Overlord

What I find comical is that some people think it can never happen because they own a deer rifle it's kind of funny, but mostly it's tragic, and scary.

Maybee im missing your point but most dear rifles are more than capable of home defense. If someone came in my house with dishonorable intent and all I had was my 308, that dude is gonna have a big ****in hole where his chest belongs. And I am all for freedom and liberty and god given rights, but why do I need fully automatic (assault) weapons in my home... that **** is for war not self defense. And being as U.S. Marine I don't understand this...

quote:The evil men who argued "these weapons were created for one person and that is to assault and kill," issued a massive slap in the face to every American Soldier who has ever fought and died, for it turns them all into murderers. These weapons were created for "defense." Defense of our Country, defense of our ideals, defense of our way of life, and the soldier's personal defense when sent on a dangerous mission.

"These weapons" WERE created for WAR and killing other human beings. Though I have never had to kill another man with one (by gods good grace or just good luck), I have handled and fired such weapons in the line of duty. I cannot think of a single good reason why I should be allowed to keep an M249 SAW in my home.

No, you don't understand the point do you? Bone has made the point that his freedoms can never be taken away because he's got "a pistol under his pillow" and has hinted of a few other guns in the house, and stated flatly that many Americans are like him, and as long as they've got these sport weapons and personal defense weapons, their freedom cannot be taken away.

Is this view realistic?

What would a totalitarian SS style Gestapo driven Government entity use to quell resistance? Let's look at Waco. What was used? Tanks and flame throwers, the likes of which a deer rifle or a pistol can never be a match.
quote:originally posted by PHX
"These weapons" WERE created for WAR and killing other human beings. Though I have never had to kill another man with one (by gods good grace or just good luck), I have handled and fired such weapons in the line of duty.
In saying this you fail to understand the Constitution of the United States, nor the role of the US Military in time of War. Under Constitutional law the US can NEVER START a war with her neighbors! Were you aware of that. The United States is forbidden to ever act agressively. A weapon designed and built for one purpose, "to kill other human beings" as you put it, has no business in the hands of a US Soldier. for a US Soldier has one purpose, to DEFEND himself and his Country.

In every war the US has ever fought, we did so out of necessity, to defend our way of life, every soldier who ever fought in those wars did so only because he was directed to for the sole purpose of national defense, and therefore, his actions cannot be defined as an "assault." If his actions WERE an assault, he would be in violation of the US Constitution for carrying out his orders, and in fact, would be justified legally in refusing to carry out those orders.

This was the issue in Vietnam. "Assaults" were made on villages, questions were raised as to whether they were defensive acts, there was scandal, there was loss of public support for the war.

That is why the National Rhetoric concerning a US Military person is always steeped in Nationalist slogans such as "I fought for your freedom," "I'm defending our way of life," even when the connection between what's going on in the war, and defense of our freedom isn't exactly clear, it is accepted automatically that if the President or Congress has ordered the war, it must be in defense of our Country! Until it is proved otherwise, it is assumed to be the case.

Now, to say that a US Soldier is being supplied a weapon simply to "kill other human beings" flies in the face of everything for which we stand, yet that is what is implied by the term "assault weapon," and by the Liberal propoganda that these weapons were created and distributed with only one purpose in mind... to kill human beings.

You also fail to understand the purpose of the right to bear arms. It was placed in the constitution with the direct intent of arming the citizenry as "Militia." Now, liberals have siezed on this term "militia" in modern times to make it sound like the Constitution was only granting the MILITARY (and police)the right to bear arms. What a ridiculous notion, because common sense dictates that an army with no weapons is not an army at all! No amendment was needed to secure the right of the Army to have weapons. The person who first proposed this was a complete moron!

The amendment basically acknowledges that the citizens of the united states have the right to arm themselves in an equal proportion to the military, so that, as a "militia" (citizen army), they are equipped with the ability to defend against government tyrany, using the might of the Army against citizens.

That right was taken away and eroded, starting with the banning of authomatic weapons. After this Amendment was effectively castrated it was only a matter of time before the others fell like dominoes, for, how can the citizens of the US protect their right to free speech, and their other rights if they do not possess the defensive weapons capable of defending these rights against an out of control Government and Military?

Modern Conservatives have instilled within their populace a "false sense of security" saying "well we still have our guns," but their guns are pea shooters compared to what the Military possesses in its arsenal.

The plain fact of the matter is, even if it were TRUE that the guns Americans now possess are enough to protect themselves from an out of control Government, they have now LOST the ability to organize themselves in a manner that would be necessary to protect those freedoms.

How? The Patriot Act.

Consider this scenario. What if the American Public suddenly realized that they had lost their freedom? What if people like Bone here all suddenly stood up and said "it's time to take our guns and fight." The minute they uttered this phrase, the Government would know because they are allowed to spy on anyone at any time. Before they could organize their fight, they would be labeled "terrorists" and rounded up en mass.

Far fetched? Just sit back and watch! It's coming.



I hope this sheds light on the subject. I could say more but I'm trying to keep my posts down to a minimum.

**** THE DEMOCRATES NUFF SAID

quote: Now, to say that a US Soldier is being supplied a weapon simply to "kill other human beings" flies in the face of everything for which we stand, yet that is what is implied by the term "assault weapon," and by the Liberal propoganda that these weapons were created and distributed with only one purpose in mind... to kill human beings.

ok 'assault weapon' is out - from now on we'll call em 'freedom defenders'

in all seriousness, however, i dont see the great evil in acknowledging that certain guns were designed solely to injure / kill other humans as effectively as possible - if that killing / maiming helps to preserve our freedom so be it, but it doesnt change the fact that that is what the GUNS were engineered to do.

whatever, lol

SGO, I suppose you think you should be able to have a tank sitting in your front yard and access to government spy satellites which you could override control of if the government got out of hand. If everyone had this ability....then the REAL terrorists would certainly have overrun us by now.

I should like to think that if the government did get out of hand as such, the soldiers themselves would recognize this and side with the populace. I know I would. They would have a helluva hard time labeling that many people as terrorsits. The Nazi's got away with it because they didn't have a democracy to begin with.

The U.S. Military does "assault" enemy forces. But it is always an OFFENSIVE measure to a DEFENSIVE end. To DEFEND our way of life we "assaulted" Normandy. Yes we do often DEFEND without "assaulting" in which case we still use the same weapons. We DEFENDED Kuwait when Iraq decided they wanted a piece.

quote:Originally posted by PHX

SGO, I suppose you think you should be able to have a tank sitting in your front yard and access to government spy satellites which you could override control of if the government got out of hand.

Keep in mind, I'm not the one making the argument that "I'm not worried about my rights being taken away because I have guns." Of course the whole idea in modern times of Americans "falling back on arms" should the government get out of hand is totally ridiculous, and yes, Americans would have to park tanks in their front yards to feel secure in their ability to overthrow by armed conflict a US Government who is taking away their rights.

That was my point entirely!

You got it.

We the People cannot make secret plans in our hearts that we don't have to worry about our rights being taken because we have guns. It's just silliness. Instead, we have to police the government through political means at our disposal. Yet, Bone says we don't, because if they ever try to take his rights, he's got a gun under his pillow.... see how ridiculous it all is?

quote:
I should like to think that if the government did get out of hand as such, the soldiers themselves would recognize this and side with the populace.

I'm sorry, but you have far too much faith in your brothers in arms. I spent 23 years in the Military (so far) and it is my assessment that such a thing might happen on a very small scale, but by and large the American Soldier will do what he is told, and he is so brainwashed by the political machine, he'll believe he's doing his Country a great service by turning his guns on his fellow citizens. The average soldier will believe, as Bone does, that these people are called "terrorists" for a very good reason, and deserve what they get.

quote:
The U.S. Military does "assault" enemy forces. But it is always an OFFENSIVE measure to a DEFENSIVE end.

That is certainly true, and it actually proves my original point. Most of these weapons were created with the intent of selling them to the United States Military and her allies, for the purpose of National Defense. How then do the liberals say they were created to "assault?" They are "Defensive Weapons" plain and simple.

Heh..."assault" weapons are used for killing human beings, whatever the reason (defense/offense). They serve no other purpose. Therefore they ARE "assault" weapons.