3rdnlng Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Men of your irk beat the nazis...men of mine let them run rampant...I'm really not fit to discuss things with you SOB, you have completely missed the point regarding constitutional rights and people who believe that they can create laws that usurp those constitutional rights. At some point in time things are worth fighting over. The people discussing this with you here are saying that they take constitutional rights seriously and they draw the line at losing them. You are leaving the impression that not much is important to you, or at least not worth fighting over. I think you meant to say "ilk" not "irk". Irk is what you have been doing to people here tonight.
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Ya know, this is the very first time I've ever enjoyed your contributions. I've always enjoyed Marley as a poet, and you've added depth to my understanding, and given me an even deeper appreciation. I sincerely thank you for that. It's certainly not clever, and is easily dismissed both philosophically and economically. But the genes and JT6P of this world think it's clever. They have, just in my memory, been using it for 40 years.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) But the genes and JT6P of this world think it's clever. They have, just in my memory, been using it for 40 years. Our arguments aren't for them. Ayn Rand had something brilliant to say on this topic, which I believe a poster here has as his/her quote line, though I can't remember who. "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone." Edited January 16, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) Ya know, this is the very first time I've ever enjoyed your contributions. I've always enjoyed Marley as a poet, and you've added depth to my understanding, and given me an even deeper appreciation. I sincerely thank you for that. That is all one can hope for. You are welcome. Quite a poet. He is an interesting take on trying to "pigeon hole" what Marley may "have been." I sorta agree: "Of course Bob Marley wasn’t anything close to a Maoist, even Peter Tosh wasn‘t anything close to a Maoist, but obviously he was more politically aware than Bob Marley. Bob Marley was a Rastaman. Rastapeople are good in that they know that Babylon exists, but their belief in a Jah is their chains. They believe Jah and prayer will take care of everything so no need to study any “ism schism” and generally a disdain for intellectualism and studying things in a scientific manner. So I’d say they’re slightly to the left while being blinded by right-wing thought. They mean well, but they’re in mental shackles that leads them to serve the interests of the capitalist class in that they serve to channel people‘s righteous outrage into ideology that stands no chance whatsoever for our liberation." Edited January 16, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Marley was an unusually perceptive and bright man, generationally so, with a beautiful gift of communication, speaking to the conditions and experience of his life in a way that made other men care. He was nothing more, and he was most certainly nothing less.
tomato can Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 This argument is entirely reliant on the hope that the electorate will never delve past this assumption. It requires that a large number of Americans be so unbearably ignorant and aloof that they fail to recognize that a firearm's recreational use has absolutely nothing to do with its usefulness in the context of the most obvious enumeration of our rights as Americans -- the Bill of Rights. I think people forget the battle to approve the Constitution required the Bill of rights be attached, because the whole point was to create a government to protect existing individual and god given rights of man … NOT to create a government to takeover “giving” us the right to things. Guns were a pre-existing right that the constitution was approved to protect.
Ralonzo Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 The raison d'etre of 2nd Amendment is the notary it confers on the fundamental rights endowed by The Creator and recognized in the Declaration (and related writings): the Rights to Life, Liberty and Property. In pursuance, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, as guarantor of these former fundamental rights.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 The raison d'etre of 2nd Amendment is the notary it confers on the fundamental rights endowed by The Creator and recognized in the Declaration (and related writings): the Rights to Life, Liberty and Property. In pursuance, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, as guarantor of these former fundamental rights. "raison d'etre"... Jesus, you're milfy. I'd crush you like grapes at a vineyard.
dayman Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 SOB, you have completely missed the point regarding constitutional rights and people who believe that they can create laws that usurp those constitutional rights. At some point in time things are worth fighting over. The people discussing this with you here are saying that they take constitutional rights seriously and they draw the line at losing them. You are leaving the impression that not much is important to you, or at least not worth fighting over. I think you meant to say "ilk" not "irk". Irk is what you have been doing to people here tonight. Just a little reminder to take a deep breath when it comes to deranged rhetoric over the issue of certain regulations that haven't even come down yet. And I meant irk.
3rdnlng Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Just a little reminder to take a deep breath when it comes to deranged rhetoric over the issue of certain regulations that haven't even come down yet. And I meant irk. The whole thing was hypothetical anyway, so falling back on your statement doesn't make sense. Neither does "irk" in the way you used it.
Alaska Darin Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Why is it nonsense? If this was common popular sentiment in 1775 we would be pledging allegiance to a different red white and blue flag. Why are people so quick and willing to give up their rights which have been passed to them paid for in blood Public education (indoctrination).
swede316 Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 haven't read any comments...But...Let's recall Coumo...Might wake up the population.
fansince88 Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Wow! I cannot believe that they are banning any magazine over 7 rounds. Virtually every single pistol has at least a 10 round magazine. I read in another article that there is a provision that states any "high capacity" magazines will need to be sold out of state within a year. So I actually have to sell all the magazines that I spent a lot of $ on to someone outside NY or I become a criminal? They don't even make a magazine that holds less than ten rounds for the pistols I own. Hell, the 22cal revolver that I own holds ten rounds! this is infuriating! Simple. burry your clips like I plan on doing. They aint getting mine!
B-Man Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) haven't read any comments...But...Let's recall Coumo...Might wake up the population. Cuomo is untouchable in New York. His father was governor. He is now. His son will be. We have a ruling class................many people just don't want to acknowledge it. . Edited January 16, 2013 by B-Man
Nanker Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Man am I glad I got out of that state. Any of you New Yorkers going to offer To sell me your now illegal guns? Paying 10 cents on the dollar. How Rahm Emanuel of you Jim... letting no crisis go wasted. However, I doubt you'll be getting many takes. After all, I'm offering 11 cents on the dollar.
section122 Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Stop being an idiot and using the most hyperbolic and loaded language possible. No one, and I mean not one single person, myself first and foremost, has mentioned a war on police officers. I, and some others, have simply stated that when a man with a gun comes to my door seeking to separate me from my justly owned property with threats of violence as the penalty for non-compliance with his unjust demands, then he has become the aggressor initiating violence on me in my home. At this point he is no longer a police officer, but rather simply a man seeking to do unjust harm to me, and he will be treated as such. As a rights abiding citizen, living peacefully in his home, I reserve the right to protect myself from any and all aggressors. If you wish to argue that he is simply a man doing his job, I counter that a man willfully employed in a job whose purpose is to infringe on the rights of other men has sacrificed his own rights in the process, as one who breaks a code of rights cannot logically seek protection by claiming those same rights he so easily and willfully treads on. In his actions he has chosen a fatherless life for his children. As for the bolded section: OP:Perhaps it is time to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of those who deny us our 2nd amendment rights? You: I promise to make a few of your children fatherless as a reward for your reckless tyranny. Sodbuster: it gives the public the teeth to ensure that their leaders keep their end of the bargain. when they fail to keep their end of the bargain... Fingon: If they come door to door taking guns then people will do it. Have you ever heard the expression "from my cold dead hands"? Tim: (who likened this to the wars on Afghanistan) you don't have to win an all out head to head rebellion, you just need to make a point, scramble a few eggs and you'll be eating your omlet in no time. You again: All of these rights we hold dear, every last solitary one of them, are defended by guns and the men and women willing to use them in that defense, who value the concept of freedom for their children more than they value their own lives. You again: when you come knocking on it to take away their guns, they'll give you all of their bullets first. It sure sounds like you are mentioning a war on police officers. Owning a gun is your right, when it becomes illegal it is no longer your right. At times in this country cocaine and lsd were legal. They aren't anymore. The sad part of this whole exchange is I support gun ownership. I don't support gun ownership to the point that I am willing to MURDER other people. If the government comes for your weapons and you respond by getting into a shootout with them you are a lunatic. Plain and simple. Good for you that you were able to take a few with you, now your children and their children are fatherless, that is an okay outcome for you? The thing is - they aren't coming for your weapons. Yes now certain things are illegal, that doesn't mean they are going to go door to door doing ammunition checks.
Jauronimo Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) As for the bolded section: OP:Perhaps it is time to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of those who deny us our 2nd amendment rights? You: I promise to make a few of your children fatherless as a reward for your reckless tyranny. Sodbuster: it gives the public the teeth to ensure that their leaders keep their end of the bargain. when they fail to keep their end of the bargain... Fingon: If they come door to door taking guns then people will do it. Have you ever heard the expression "from my cold dead hands"? Tim: (who likened this to the wars on Afghanistan) you don't have to win an all out head to head rebellion, you just need to make a point, scramble a few eggs and you'll be eating your omlet in no time. You again: All of these rights we hold dear, every last solitary one of them, are defended by guns and the men and women willing to use them in that defense, who value the concept of freedom for their children more than they value their own lives. You again: when you come knocking on it to take away their guns, they'll give you all of their bullets first. It sure sounds like you are mentioning a war on police officers. Owning a gun is your right, when it becomes illegal it is no longer your right. At times in this country cocaine and lsd were legal. They aren't anymore. The sad part of this whole exchange is I support gun ownership. I don't support gun ownership to the point that I am willing to MURDER other people. If the government comes for your weapons and you respond by getting into a shootout with them you are a lunatic. Plain and simple. Good for you that you were able to take a few with you, now your children and their children are fatherless, that is an okay outcome for you? The thing is - they aren't coming for your weapons. Yes now certain things are illegal, that doesn't mean they are going to go door to door doing ammunition checks. You still don't know the difference between a right and a privilege. Doing copious amounts of blow was never mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Simply because something has not been outlawed does not mean that its my right to use/engage in such activity. Its not my inalienable right to borrow books from a public library. Its not your inalienable right to sniff glue. You and I as citizens of this country have been guaranteed 10 basic rights which are irrevocable. Freedoms guaranteed by these rights cannot legally be taken away or infringed upon. Edited January 16, 2013 by Jauronimo
section122 Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 You still don't know the difference between a right and a privilege. Doing copious amounts of blow was never mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Simply because something has not been outlawed does not mean that its my right to use/engage in such activity. Its not my inalienable right to borrow books from a public library. Its not your inalienable right to sniff glue. You and I as citizens of this country have been guaranteed 10 basic rights which are irrevocable. Freedoms guaranteed by these rights cannot legally be taken away or infringed upon. That's the thing thought - they aren't revoking them. You can still own guns in NYS. They have just made modifications to what guns, ammo, attachments are allowed. When this right was given people owned muskets not ak's.
B-Man Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Today......the President does take action............. Hiding Behind the Children During the last press conference of his first term in office, President Obama pledged to take “executive action” to reduce gun violence in response to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut last month. The President told reporters, “If there is a step we can take that will save even one child from what happened in Newtown, we should take that step.” When Obama unveils his gun control proposals today at the White House, he will be surrounded by children. It’s something straight out of South Park. In one episode, the locals organized a proposition against the opening of a Starbucks (called Harbucks in the episode for legal purposes) in South Park. A campaign ad featuring Stan, Kyle, Cartman, and Kenny is produced in support of the proposition. The ad’s narrator says at the end of the message, “Vote for Prop 10 or else you hate children. You don’t hate children, do you?” Well, the same principle applies here. The substance of Obama’s proposals will not matter. This is strictly about emotion, not reason. All that will matter will be the powerful visual image of Obama being surrounded by beautiful, young children of all backgrounds. His underlying message will be, “Support my gun control proposals or else you hate children. You don’t hate children, do you?” President Obama, have you no decency? President Obama, have you no shame? Well, of course he doesn’t. This is after all a President who never lets a crisis go to waste and if being surrounded by a roomful of beautiful, young children of all backgrounds is what it takes to fulfill his political objectives then so be it. And yet once President Obama is done using these children as political props and sends them on their way home to their parents, none of them will leave the White House any safer than when they walked into it. {snip} President Obama, of course, knows all of this to be true. There is nothing he can do to prevent another massacre of children by a crazed man with a gun and nothing he proposes today will save the life of a single child including those chosen to stand by his side for this announcement. But it is important to remember that Obama, like most politicians, must give the appearance of doing something in order to justify his existence and thus his legacy. This is especially true in Obama’s case. After all, it is Obama’s ambition not only to transform this nation, but to calm the world’s oceans. But when the mere force of Obama’s personality isn’t sufficient to calm the deficit much less calm the oceans, never mind offer a coherent argument in favor of gun control, he does what politicians have done for generations. He kisses our babies and tells us to look at those young faces and not to listen to what he is actually saying. He does this in the hope it will remind us of our sons and daughters. This is why Obama is surrounding himself with the children, exploiting them for all it’s worth. .
Jauronimo Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 That's the thing thought - they aren't revoking them. You can still own guns in NYS. They have just made modifications to what guns, ammo, attachments are allowed. When this right was given people owned muskets not ak's. Thing is, you just wrote the passage below, demonstrating unequivocally that you do not know or care about what constitutes a right and in the same sentence basically declared that you are willing to give up your rights at the whims of our federal government. It sure sounds like you are mentioning a war on police officers. Owning a gun is your right, when it becomes illegal it is no longer your right. At times in this country cocaine and lsd were legal. They aren't anymore. Now that you know what a right is, why don't you familiarize yourself with the language in the second amendment. Can limiting this right be considered an infringement? When the second amendment was written, citizens had muskets, our standing army was armed with muskets as well, and our government was small existing only to protect our basic rights. At present, the federal government is the most powerful in the history of mankind, growing ever bigger, and increasingly involved in our day to day lives. It can easily be argued that the case for gun ownership as counter measure for tyranny has never been stronger. I don't own any firearms and I'm all but certain that I won't be taking up arms against my government in my lifetime, but I'm still alarmed when our government wants to flirt with the bill of rights and our populace is ready and willing to give up their rights.
Recommended Posts