0
Sneakerz

Hypocrisy at its best, GUNS and Liberals

Recommended Posts

Quote

> What a load of rubbish. If your government comes after you with the resources at its disposal, you won't stand a chance regardless of how many Glocks you own. It isn't 1776 any more, they have really serious stuff that you simply can't get.

Well, I would just add that the guys driving the M1A tank have to get out once and awhile. When they do, you can reach out and touch them with a .308 and you now have a M1A tank. Do you think they keep the Owners Manual in the glove compartment?



Nah, but hey - how tough can it be to drive.

Seriously, tho - I agree with you. A well armed populace IS critical IMO. I think that reasonable checks should be made before allowing the purchase of most weapons, but beyond that we should be able to buy and shoot whatever we want.

Hell, having a few privately held rocket propelled grenades might be a good thing.

But to the title of this thread, I think that for hypocrisy at it's best, you need a Southern Baptist and a hooker.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/6572488/detail.html?subid=10101101
illegible usually

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, fortunately our government is not yet totally tyrannical. SO instead of using us in Iraq as your example, what if it were Hitler's Wermacht and SS in Iraq.

The Afghani mujahadeen didn't make the Soviets pull out by using their rifles, they did it with Stingers, TOWs and other more serious arms that were supplied by the US Government.

I'd really like to see you and your hunting rifle take on an Apache gunship.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate to break it to ya tink, but Clinton did not obtain a warrant everytime he tapped either. If that is what you truly think, then you yourself have fallen into the ignorance hoped for by the liberal media.

ANOTHER CAN OF WORMS-

Yes I am saying the media is also biased. Some to the right, but the overwhelming majority is to the left. You cannot say that you dont agree with that especially since they all choose to "endorse" candidates during elections. The liberal part especially and the liberals themselves are in a real panic right now. They are begining to realize that they are losing their support in the general population because they are showing their true colors now. Well, theyt have been since the elections a couple years ago but especially in recent past.

Pretty much their only message right now is that they have no message. All they say right now is that what the reps are doing is wrong. You never truly hear any solutions to these "problems" that they point out.
---------------
"Once you find a job that you like, you never have to work another day in your life"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I hate to break it to ya tink, but Clinton did not obtain a warrant everytime he tapped either. If that is what you truly think, then you yourself have fallen into the ignorance hoped for by the liberal media.



If you refer to the Aldrich Ames case, it is a textbook example of how the FBI was able to uncover a foreign agent without the use of extra-legal authority from the President.

The FBI followed proper protocol for searches of Ames's home and office through the Attorney Generals (AG) office. Also, as required by FISA, all electronic surveillance of Ames was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. According to Aldrich Ames's Criminal Complaint form:


"Paragraph 11: As a result of information obtained through electronic surveillance authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, searches authorized by the Attorney General pursuant to section 2.5 of Executive Order 12333, trash covers, and other investigation which is detailed herein, I believe AMES has traveled abroad to meet surreptitiously with KGB/SVRR."

The text of section 2.5 of Executive Order 12333 reads:


"The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order."

In other words, if the feds wanted to tap a suspect's phone because they thought he was dealing in child porn, they'd be forced to acquire a warrant first. However, the AG can authorize a warrantless search if they have probable cause that an American is an agent of a foreign power.

It's important to note that even in such a case, the executive order specifically states that the government may not ignore FISA.

The order reads "in each case." Therefore, unless and until someone releases the names of people Bush tasked the NSA to spy on, he can't say that he thought all the Americans they wiretapped were agents of a foreign power in the first place!
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, fortunately our government is not totally YET(bordering) tyrannical. SO instead of using us in Iraq as your example, what if it were Hitler's Wermacht and SS in Iraq.

The Afghani mujahadeen didn't make the Soviets pull out by using their rifles, they did it with Stingers, TOWs and other more serious arms that were supplied by the US Government.

I'd really like to see you and your hunting rifle take on an Apache gunship.

One good (lucky) shot baby;). Just need to hide from all that infrared and nitevision shit______________________________________________
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

i always thought that liberals were hypocrites because they don't believe that the first amendment applies to christians.



Good one.

And somehow they can find an absolute right to an abortion in the Constitution, yet can't find the right to keep and bear arms...

Go figure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

i always thought that liberals were hypocrites because they don't believe that the first amendment applies to christians.



Good one.

And somehow they can find an absolute right to an abortion in the Constitution, yet can't find the right to keep and bear arms...

Go figure!



Which "they" is that. Many liberals are also gun enthusiasts as you well know. (Many are also anti-abortion). They just aren't as paranoid as the unliberal gun enthusiasts.

Most around here consider me a "liberal" and I don't disagree in any significant way with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. In fact, I think another Constitutional amendment making it clear that it is an individual right would be in order, for reasons that I would be happy to explain.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Which "they" is that. Many liberals are also gun enthusiasts as you well know.



"They" is "most".

Quote

Most around here consider me a "liberal" and I don't disagree in any significant way with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.



Yes, you've said that a few times before on rare occasions. Yet the overwhelming majority of your gun-topic messages are slanted toward the liberal gun-control view of things. So I never really know whether to believe you. ;)

Quote

In fact, I think another Constitutional amendment making it clear that it is an individual right would be in order, for reasons that I would be happy to explain.



I would love to see that made clear. Not necessarily with another amendment, but by modifying the original 2nd Amendment.

I'd love to hear your explanation. I'm guessing it would be so that the debate could get beyond the "rights" arguments and concentrate on what controls are appropriate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I would love to see that made clear. Not necessarily with another amendment, but by modifying the original 2nd Amendment.

I'd love to hear your explanation. I'm guessing it would be so that the debate could get beyond the "rights" arguments and concentrate on what controls are appropriate



Wouldn't that be judicial activism???;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Well, fortunately our government is not yet totally tyrannical. SO instead of using us in Iraq as your example, what if it were Hitler's Wermacht and SS in Iraq.

The Afghani mujahadeen didn't make the Soviets pull out by using their rifles, they did it with Stingers, TOWs and other more serious arms that were supplied by the US Government.

I'd really like to see you and your hunting rifle take on an Apache gunship.



In a guerrilla type war many of our high tech weapons may not work as well as you think. Just as in Iraq or Vietnam it's really hard to find where the enemy is, because they blend in with the general populace, and then they pull clandestine missions secretly when the opportunity arises. Of course they aren't just going to fight conventually on a battlefield somewhere where they'd quickly be wiped out by Apache gun ships etc. This principal has been proven highly effective throughout history. In 1776 it was used, and now it's being used by the Iraqis in their country. A relatively small force with low tech weapons and explosives can keep a much larger one at bay for months or even years....Steve1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

After all, it is only logical that the one who most vehemently opposes your ability to employ force is the one most like to attempt in the future to oppress you. He doesn't want you to be able to fight back!

-



What a load of rubbish. If your government comes after you with the resources at its disposal, you won't stand a chance regardless of how many Glocks you own. It isn't 1776 any more, they have really serious stuff that you simply can't get.

Of all the arguments in favor of gun ownership, that is the most absurd by far.



You just have not considered, or probably even read treatments of, the reasons why the government would have a hard-as-hell time actually waging a guerrilla war against its 80,000,000+ armed citizens.

For one thing, not all military personnel would be willing to fire on and kill fellow American citizens. Many would desert, and bring their military skills and knowledge (and probably materiel) with them to the other side.

For another, ANY guerrilla encounter with a spread-across-the-country U.S. military would probably yield materiel for the guerillas to use later.

Supply lines would be impossible for the military to maintain. They would not be able to guard every base as though it were under attack (which they would be) and would certainly not be able to guard every road and highway that would enable delivery of supplies. Areas surrounding bases would have guerrillas waiting to take potentially devastating shots at arriving aircraft, AND any ground personnel. Think about it: the public has high-powered rifles (like .50 cal.) and many are very experienced at using them.

How long would support for the government remain among fence-sitters and anti-gun people, if in order to get at cadres of guerrillas, it used its F-15s and B-1s against towns and cities and infrastructure within the country?

These are just a few of the considerations that would make prosecuting another domestic civil war to preserve the Union far more difficult than it was in the 1860s, and probably straight-out impossible.

Besides, without a force fighting under a specific flag, from whom would the government ever obtain a surrender?

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

so your saying that since we the people couldn't possibly match tyrannical governments resources we should be left with nothing and just roll over and take whatever comes? that is a load of rubbish.



Thank you! :)

Some think we're better with no ability to fight for ourselves than meager ability to fight for ourselves. As if that makes any sense.

I'd rather have slim hope than no hope. And I'd rather die fighting than live pleading.


-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Sure, that argument doesn't work when only a few people own guns. The argument is a lot stronger for places like Switzerland, where everyone owns a gun.



"... where everyone owns a gun..."

That's not correct. Every guy who ever was in the army has to keep his weapons. Just in case of, just to be prepared......Most of them really dislike it.

The majority of private persons is not interested in owning any guns. Swiss folks are peace-loving. :)


Please post a link to your poll of "most of them."

And what about the fact that Swiss communities organize sport shooting events all over the place?

I think you don't know what you're talking about.

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote




I'd really like to see you and your hunting rifle take on an Apache gunship.




Don't ever think that a well trained soldier with a deer rifle is something to sneeze at. They make up an important part of our military even today. Some sniper teams today may use a 50 cal. shoulder fired weapon, but not all. Many still pack your standard bolt action deer rifle that has been accurized and fitted with an expensive scope. In the hands of the right rifleman it's possible to inflict a lot of damage to an enemy force with one.

Sgt. Hathcock had nearly a hundred confirmed kills while serving with the USMC in Vietnam. These are the kind of odds that win wars. He used a Winchester Model 70 and a Remington Model 700 for most of his sniping. These are two of the same rifles I hunt deer and elk with back home...Steve1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Sure, that argument doesn't work when only a few people own guns. The argument is a lot stronger for places like Switzerland, where everyone owns a gun.



"... where everyone owns a gun..."

That's not correct. Every guy who ever was in the army has to keep his weapons. Just in case of, just to be prepared......Most of them really dislike it.

The majority of private persons is not interested in owning any guns. Swiss folks are peace-loving. :)


Please post a link to your poll of "most of them."

And what about the fact that Swiss communities organize sport shooting events all over the place?

I think you don't know what you're talking about.

-



Hey PJ!

How about that idea: You just disarm yourself, leave your weapons behind and take a trip over to Switzerland! You may be surprised to find happy people over there - with no hand gun under their belt!

I know that so well, PJ, as I'm in this country regularly, have many friends there and it's just like my own mother country to me.

Leave your little corner of the world, you'll see there is much more to discover than just following a link to something......

BTW: There is some difference between private gun ownership in the US and sport shooting events in Switzerland, hahahaha, love your fine humor, dear!
:P
:D:D

dudeist skydiver # 3105

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

BTW: There is some difference between private gun ownership in the US and sport shooting events in Switzerland, hahahaha, love your fine humor, dear!
:P
:D:D



Laugh if you want; you're admitting that they have the sport shooting events, even as you deny there is a gun culture, or people who like guns, in Switzerland. :|

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Dude you crack me up.



I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the comment I made about my Dad "explains a lot".

Do you crack yourself up?



You should have PMed me I can gladly explain it to you. I don’t come back and read every post on every thread. You can save your self-a lot of time and not have to wait by doing that.


You mentioned your father was angry with you for voting for a democrat. Even if the Democrat was a good guy. That tells me 1. your father was a guy who did belong to a political party most likely the republicans and 2. that he felt strongly about it. Maybe he voiced his opinion around you and the hatred for the damn liberals. Growing up in that environment can effect the way you think.

It is just like racism only instead of hearing bad things about blacks you might have heard them about democrats. Of course this works both ways. Just like racism people will deny facts so their precious beliefs that they hold so dear don’t get crushed by the truth.

And as per your question if I crack my self up? I actually do I am a funny guy and I don’t just mean funny looking and I enjoy life so yes I guess I crack my self up as well.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

by modifying the original 2nd Amendment.

Wouldn't that be judicial activism???;)



Congress isn't the judicial branch, silly :P

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The subject of your post is an excellent example of the ignorance and small-mindedness that pervades both sides of the political spectrum.

Rather than taking the time, energy, and brainpower to develop a well informed, educated position for yourself, or using the same effort to examine contrary arguments, you resort to name calling and generalizations. You lump yourself into one group, i.e. the righteous, and place everyone else against you.

I believe in the second amendment, smaller government, and private healthcare, less taxes and less spending policies. I also support abortion, privacy laws, less Executive power, and secular public education policies. What’s more I think GW is a neo-fascist tyrant. Furthermore, I can explain to you most of my opinions based on facts rather than merely name calling.

Please people learn to think for yourselves and don’t merely come down on the side of one ideology. Before you know it that ideology might have you strapping a bomb to your stomach, or gassing a bunch of Jews, or just slowly sacrificing your rights and freedoms in the name of security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The subject of your post is an excellent example of the ignorance and small-mindedness that pervades both sides of the political spectrum.



name calling and generalization

Quote

Rather than taking the time, energy, and brainpower to develop a well informed, educated position for yourself, or using the same effort to examine contrary arguments, you resort to name calling and generalizations. You lump yourself into one group, i.e. the righteous, and place everyone else against you.



self congratulatory name calling and generalization

Quote

I believe in the second amendment, smaller government, and private healthcare, less taxes and less spending policies. I also support abortion, privacy laws, less Executive power, and secular public education policies.



EXCELLENT

Quote

What’s more I think GW is a neo-fascist tyrant.



gratuitous name calling and generalization

Quote

Furthermore, I can explain to you most of my opinions based on facts rather than merely name calling.



EXCELLENT

Quote

Please people learn to think for yourselves and don’t merely come down on the side of one ideology. Before you know it that ideology might have you strapping a bomb to your stomach or gassing a bunch of Jews.



Odd emotional escalation delivered from a pulpit.

Seems we all mix up our good content with self satisfied condescension, stereotypes and unfair generalizations. Shit, look at this one. I'm unbearable.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

After all, it is only logical that the one who most vehemently opposes your ability to employ force is the one most like to attempt in the future to oppress you. He doesn't want you to be able to fight back!

-



What a load of rubbish. If your government comes after you with the resources at its disposal, you won't stand a chance regardless of how many Glocks you own. It isn't 1776 any more, they have really serious stuff that you simply can't get.

Of all the arguments in favor of gun ownership, that is the most absurd by far.



You just have not considered, or probably even read treatments of, the reasons why the government would have a hard-as-hell time actually waging a guerrilla war against its 80,000,000+ armed citizens.


-



Ah, but how many of those 80M are actually trained in the use of weapons, have any clue about tactics, and have appropriate guns? The folks at Ruby Ridge and Waco didn't fare so well.

If you want to have an armed insurrection I think you are better off using IEDs, like the Iraqis are doing very effectively.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote




I'd really like to see you and your hunting rifle take on an Apache gunship.




Don't ever think that a well trained soldier with a deer rifle is something to sneeze at.



But it's not well trained soldiers we're talking about. It's people like PJ who think they can take on the US Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force, and win.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The subject of your post is an excellent example of the ignorance and small-mindedness that pervades both sides of the political spectrum.



name calling and generalization

Quote

Rather than taking the time, energy, and brainpower to develop a well informed, educated position for yourself, or using the same effort to examine contrary arguments, you resort to name calling and generalizations. You lump yourself into one group, i.e. the righteous, and place everyone else against you.



self congratulatory name calling and generalization

Quote

I believe in the second amendment, smaller government, and private healthcare, less taxes and less spending policies. I also support abortion, privacy laws, less Executive power, and secular public education policies.



EXCELLENT

Quote

What’s more I think GW is a neo-fascist tyrant.



gratuitous name calling and generalization

Quote

Furthermore, I can explain to you most of my opinions based on facts rather than merely name calling.



EXCELLENT

Quote

Please people learn to think for yourselves and don’t merely come down on the side of one ideology. Before you know it that ideology might have you strapping a bomb to your stomach or gassing a bunch of Jews.



Odd emotional escalation delivered from a pulpit.

Seems we all mix up our good content with self satisfied condescension, stereotypes and unfair generalizations. Shit, look at this one. I'm unbearable.



Nice Analysis B|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0